Ups and downs: World Press Freedom Index 2010

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) published its ninth annual World Press Freedom Index today, with a mixed bag of what secretary-general Jean François Julliard calls “welcome surprises” and “sombre realities”.

Six countries, all in Europe, share the top spot this year — Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland — described as the “engines of press freedom”. But over half of the European Union’s member states lie outside the top 20, with some significantly lower entries, such as Romania in 52nd place and Greece and Bulgaria tied at 70th. The report expresses grave concerns that the EU will lose its status as world leader on human rights issues if so many of its members continue to fall down the rankings.

The edges of Europe fared particularly badly this year; Ukraine (131st) and Turkey (138th) have fallen to “historically low” rankings, and despite a rise of 13 places, Russia remains in the worst 25 per cent of countries at 140th. It ranks lower than Zimbabwe, which continues to make steady — albeit fragile — progress, rising to 123rd.

At the very bottom of the table lie Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan, as they have done since the index first began in 2002. Along with Yemen, China, Sudan, Syria, Burma and Iran, they makes up the group of worst offenders, characterised by “persecution of the media” and a “complete lack of news and information”. RSF says it is getting harder and harder to distinguish between these lowest ten countries, who continue to deteriorate. There are particular fears about the situation for journalists in Burma ahead of next month’s parliamentary election.

Another country creating cause for concern in the run-up to elections is Azerbaijan, falling six places to 152nd. Index on Censorship recently joined other organisations in a visit to Baku to assess the health of the country’s media. You can read about their findings in a joint mission report, ‘Free Expression under Attack: Azerbaijan’s Deteriorating Media Environment’, launching this Thursday, 28 October, 6.30 pm, at the Free Word Centre. Belarus, another country on which Index is campaigning, languishes at 154th.

It is worth noting, though, that relative press freedom rankings can only tell so much. Cuba, for example, has risen out of the bottom 20 countries for the first time, partly thanks to its release of 14 journalists and 22 activists this summer, but journalists still face censorship and repression “on a daily basis”. Similarly, countries such as South Korea and Gabon have climbed more than 20 places, only to return to the position they held before a particularly bad 2009. It seems, then, that the struggle for press freedom across the world must continue to be a “battle of vigilance”.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Middle East: A bad month for media freedom

It’s not going well for maverick, boundary-pushing journalists this month.

In Morocco edgy magazine Nichane closed its doors, with the publisher claiming it was the victim of an advertising boycott ordered by the royal palace.

In Syria, a young female blogger who was mysteriously arrested 10 months ago, has officially been accused of being a spy for an unnamed foreign power. It remains unclear whether Tal al-Mallohi’s arrest or the espionage accusation has anything to do with her  blogging activity.

Several journalists are facing jail time in Turkey, and the murder of a prominent journalist three years ago remains unresolved with no convictions.

In Saudi Arabia, the religious police have ominously started training on how to monitor Facebook, Twitter and other digital forms of social media. The Saudis, along with fellow Gulf monarchy the United Arab Emirates, continue to block the Blackberry messaging service.

Finally in Egypt Al-Dostour newspaper publisher Ibrahim Eissa, Egypt’s best and most provocative political columnist,  was abruptly pushed out of his job and potentially blackballed.

There are two national Egyptian elections on the horizon — parliamentary next month and a crucial presidential vote next year. The authorities seem to be tightening the screws in preparation. The latest sign: new restrictions on SMS text messaging, which is frequently used as a mobilisation tool by activists. Independent newspaper Al Masry Al Youm (disclosure, I work for its English language edition) speculated that the new restrictions would,

hinder the logistical capabilities of Egypt’s political opposition, which has come to depend on SMS messaging to mobilise supporters for public protests and demonstrations.

A government spokesman’s priceless response? “We are not making life difficult. We are making life organized, that is all.

The very next day, the exact same telecommunications regulatory agency struck again. This time it moved to establish firmer control over all live television news broadcasts from Egypt.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Leading activists keep the pressure on the Chinese leadership

More than 100 Chinese professors, writers, lawyers and activists sign an open letter which calls on the government to release nobel prize winner Liu Xiaobo

关于刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的声明

On Liu Xiaobo and the Nobel Peace Prize

The awarding of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese citizen, has drawn strong reactions both inside and outside China. This is a major event in modern Chinese history. It offers the prospect of a significant new advance for Chinese society in its peaceful transition toward democracy and constitutional government. In a spirit of responsibility toward China’s history and the promise in its future, we the undersigned wish to make these points:

1. The decision of the Nobel Committee to award this year’s prize to Liu Xiaobo is in full conformity with the principles of the prize and the criteria for its bestowal. In today’s world, peace is closely connected with human rights. Deprivation and devastation of life happens not only on battlefields in wars between nations; it also happens within single nations when tyrannical governments employ violence and abuse law. The praise that we have seen from around the world for the decision to award this year’s prize to a representative of China’s human rights movement shows what a wise and timely decision it was.

2. Liu Xiaobo is a splendid choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. He has consistently advocated non-violence in his quest to protect human rights and has confronted social injustice by arguing from reason. He has persevered in pursuing the goals of democracy and constitutional government and has set aside anger even toward those who persecute him. These virtues put his qualifications for the prize beyond doubt, and his actions and convictions can, in addition, serve as models for others in how to resolve political and social conflict.

3. In the days since the announcement of his prize, leaders in many nations, regions, and major world organisations have called upon the Chinese authorities to release Liu Xiaobo. We agree. At the same time we call upon the authorities to release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience who are in detention for reasons such as their speech, their political views, or their religious beliefs. We ask that legal procedures aimed at freeing Liu Xiaobo be undertaken without delay, and that Liu and his wife be permitted to travel to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

4. Upon hearing the news of Liu Xiaobo’s prize, citizens at several locations in China gathered at restaurants to share their excitement over food and wine, and to hold discussions, display banners, and distribute notices. Normal and healthy as these activities were, they met with harassment and repression from police. Some of the participants were interrogated, threatened, and escorted home; others were detained; still others, including Liu Xiaobo’s wife Liu Xia, have been placed under house arrest and held incommunicado. We call upon the police to cease these illegal actions forthwith and to immediately release the people who have been illegally detained.

5. We call upon the Chinese authorities to approach Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Prize with realism and reason. They should take note of the responses to the prize inside and outside China and see in these responses the currents in world thinking as well as the underlying preferences of our fellow citizens. China should join the mainstream of civilized humanity by embracing universal values. Such is the only route to becoming a “great nation” that is capable of playing a positive and responsible role on the world stage. We are convinced that any signs of improvement or goodwill from the government and its leaders will be met with understanding and support from the Chinese people and will be effective in moving Chinese society in a peaceful direction.

6. We call upon the Chinese authorities to make good on their oft-repeated promise to reform the political system. In a recent series of speeches, Premier Wen Jiabao has intimated a strong desire to promote political reform. We are ready to engage actively in such an effort. We expect our government to uphold the constitution of The People’s Republic of China as well as the Charter of the United Nations and other international agreements to which it has subscribed. This will require it to guarantee the rights of Chinese citizens as they work to bring about peaceful transition toward a society that will be, in fact and not just in name, a democracy and a nation of laws.

The signatories included two writers who have written for Index in recent years, Tibetan poet Woeser and journalist Li Datong

徐友渔(北京,学者)
郝建 (北京,学者)
崔卫平(北京,学者)
贾葭 (北京,专栏作家)
何方 (北京,学者)
张祖桦 (北京,宪政学者)
戴晴 (北京,学者)
资中筠(北京,学者)
沙叶新(上海,回族剧作家)
张博树(北京,学者)
周舵 (北京,学者)
夏业良(北京,学者)
于浩成(北京,学者)
王力雄(北京,作家 )
唯色 ( 西藏,作家)
滕彪 (北京,学者)
莫之许(北京,自由撰稿人)
蒋亶文(上海,作家)
马亚莲(上海,人权捍卫者)
温克坚(杭州,自由撰稿人)
钱跃君(工学博士,德国《欧华导报》主编)
浦志强(北京,律师 被限制人身自由中)
程益中(北京,出版人)
梁文道(香港,媒体人)
李大同(北京,学者)
梁晓燕(北京,编辑)
许医农(北京,编辑)
傅国涌(杭州,学者)
丁东 (北京,学者)
艾晓明(广州,学者)
邢小群(北京,学者)
宋以敏(北京,学者)
王东成(北京,学者)
徐岱 (杭州,学者)
丘延亮 (台北,副研究员 中央研究院民族学研究所)
王康 (重庆,学者)
徐贲 (北京,学者)
邓晓芒(武汉,学者)
叶匡正(北京,诗人)
朱日坤(北京,独立电影人)
张闳 (上海,学者)
老村 (北京,作家)
周枫 (北京,学者)
蔡甘铨(香港,媒体人)
林盈志(台湾,编辑)
雷永生 (北京,学者)
杨富芳(北京,教师)
徐敬亚(海南,诗人)
王小妮(海南,诗人)
吕频 (北京,妇女权利工作者)
郑海天(北京,离休编辑)
程迺欣(北京,离休编辑)
岳建一(北京,学者)
郭于华(北京,学者)
姚大力(上海,学者)
杨伟中(台湾,媒体人)
周保松(香港,学者)
徐晓 (北京,编辑)
朱正琳(北京,学者)
郑也夫(北京,学者)
石涛 (北京,企业管理者)
朴抱一(上海,媒体人)
郑褚 (成都,媒体人)
花落去(北京,媒体人)
姚博 (北京,作家)
杜婷 (香港,媒体人)
何杨 (北京,独立纪录片制作人)
华泽 (北京,纪录片导演)
张辉 (北京,德先生研究所负责人)
野渡 (广州,作家)
游精佑(福建,工程师)
吴华英(福建,人权捍卫者)
苏雨桐(德国,媒体人)
杨海 (西安,民间学者)
黎雄兵(北京,律师)
倪玉兰(北京,维权律师)
刘巍 (北京,维权律师)
李和平(北京,律师)
金光鸿(北京,律师)
李金星(北京,律师)
唐吉田(北京,律师)
陆以诺(上海,公民 基督徒)

黄燕明 (贵州,人权捍卫者)
郑创添(广东,公民)
刘强本(北京,公民)
董继勤(北京,人权捍卫者)
周洪玉(福建,公民)
吴玉堂(福建,公民)
魏英 (福建,人权捍卫者)
卓友桂(福建,人权捍卫者)
林碧仙(福建,人权捍卫者)
李华 (北京,自由职业)
任嘉祺(北京,诗人)
张永攀(北京,由撰稿人)
王德邦(广西,人权捍卫者)
张居正(河南,人权捍卫者)
韩颖 (北京,人权捍卫者)

杨树枝(北京,人权捍卫者)
杨树萍(北京,人权捍卫者)
王炜 (山东,公民)
游豫平(福州,大学生)
王立红(哈尔滨,自由职业)
门延文(北京,市民)
王我 (北京,纪录片导演)
刘沙沙(北京,人权活动人士)
胡杰 (南京,纪录片导演)
王超 (北京,电影导演)
徐娟 (德国,媒体工作者)
唐晓渡(北京,评论家)
魏海田(内蒙古,新闻记者)
张真 (纽约,学者)
安替(北京,媒体人)
萨冲 (意大利, 工程师)
郭小林(北京 , 诗人)
王晓鲁(北京,媒体人)

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Fundamental differences?

The ever-readable Salil Tripathi, in his column in India’s Mint, points us to a disturbing story in Mumbai. The university there has withdrawn a book by renowned author Rohinton Mistry after a member of the right-wing Hindu Shiv Sena group complained it was offensive to his party.

…Rajan Waulkar, vice-chancellor of Mumbai University became the poster child of acquiescence to bullying when he hastily withdrew Mistry’s acclaimed previous novel Such A Long Journeyusing his emergency powers, after an undergraduate student aspiring for political leadership of the Shiv Sena’s youth wing, the Bharatiya Vidyarthi Sena, complained that the book made disparaging remarks against his party and his people. His claim to lead the youth wing rests on what he considers his inherent birthright—he is born in the Thackeray family.

Such A Long Journey is a thoughtful narrative about the scarcity-prone India at the cusp of the Bangladesh war of 1971, when Gustad Noble, a bank clerk, gets enmeshed in a conspiracy to assist the Mukti Bahini, the India-backed armed group fighting for Bangladesh’s freedom. He is brought to the shadowy world by an old acquaintance who is an intelligence officer, loosely based on the life of Rustom Nagarwala, who allegedly imitated prime minister Indira Gandhi’s voice and got a State Bank of India officer to hand him Rs. 60 lakh after the phone call, ostensibly for Bangladesh’s liberation.

The junior-most Thackeray’s complaint is vague, and political analysts might see his grandstanding as part of his desire (and his father Uddhav’s desire) to regain political ground, ever since Uddhav’s bête noire, his cousin Raj Thackeray, began wolfing down the Shiv Sena’s jhunka bhakar through his party, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena.

Salil points out an uncomfortable truth for fundamentalists:

Hindu nationalists get riled when they are compared with Muslim leaders declaring fatwas. But the difference between those who want Such A Long Journey or Breathless in Bombay banned and the clerics who hate Rushdie—and the cartoonists of Jyllands-Posten—is marginal. Their threats chill free speech.

Read the full article here

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

BSkyB: Could Murdoch sack Andy Coulson?

Andy Coulson must be scared. Not of the Guardian, which to date has failed to root him out of his job in Downing Street. And not of David Cameron, who shows no inclination to sack him. No, Coulson must be scared that his old boss Rupert Murdoch will pull the rug out from underneath him.

Murdoch wants, very much, to buy the whole of BSkyB so that he can move a big step closer to monopoly control of the British media market, and Coulson, almost accidentally, is getting in the way.

Any day now, Murdoch could pick up the phone in New York and ask Cameron (instruct him?) to ditch his most senior media adviser. No doubt News Corp would offer the former News of the World editor a nice job in compensation, but it would be the end of Coulson’s promising career as the smarter, slicker version of Alastair Campbell.

He is an embarrassment to the old man because the never-ending scandal of phone hacking keeps reminding us just how depraved and sinister the Murdoch empire can be. And this is happening at a moment when Murdoch wants us all to think of him as an inspiring business genius, a victim of Establishment snobbery and the man who just gives viewers what they want.

Murdoch employees illegally hacked the voicemails of the future king of this country, as well as dozens or more likely hundreds of other people very prominent in our public life. Reported targets include Cabinet ministers, a celebrity agent, a top sports official, a supermodel and at least one senior police officer — not to mention, perhaps most chillingly, ordinary members of the public who are victims of crime.

And as the revelations tumble out and the lawsuits against Murdoch’s company stack up, something even more significant is happening. People are talking more and more about his extraordinary power, and the fear he can spread.

That was the most potent message to come out of Peter Oborne’s Dispatches programme on the scandal last week. There were complaints afterwards that the key new witness casting doubt on Coulson’s I-knew-nothing defence was anonymous, but they missed the point: as Oborne made clear, the systematic need for anonymity provided eloquent proof of how frightened people are. Grassing on the Murdoch empire looks uncomfortably similar to grassing on the IRA.

Tom Watson MP, in a remarkable speech about phone-hacking to the Commons last month, sent the same message: “The barons of the media, with their red-topped assassins, are the biggest beasts in the modern jungle. They have no predators; they are untouchable. They laugh at the law; they sneer at parliament. They have the power to hurt us, and they do, with gusto and precision, with joy and criminality. Prime ministers quail before them, and that is how they like it.”

And have a look at the story of Michael Wolff, who had the nerve to write a critical biography of Murdoch. We probably wouldn’t have read that if it were not for phone-hacking.

Right now, when Murdoch has all his other ducks in a row for the total takeover of BSkyB — the Tories owe him for his papers’ election support; Ofcom is being neutered; the BBC is being kicked from pillar to post — he emphatically does not want to be making headlines as the monstrous bogey man of British public life.

So one day soon he may decide that Coulson, in principle a terrific Murdoch asset at the heart of British government, is in fact a liability. He may calculate that if Coulson went, the heat would go out of the phone-hacking scandal and those nasty headlines about ruthless, bully-boy News International would fade away.

And if that day comes, does anyone doubt that one phone call to Number 10 would settle the matter?

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Key Blair aide’s Iraq evidence behind closed doors

If you wanted to know what really went on in the run-up to the Iraq war, Matthew Rycroft would be the person to ask. He was Tony Blair’s private secretary for foreign affairs from 2002-4 and saw just about everything that happened at first hand. No doubt that is why the Iraq inquiry has just seen him in secret.

The inquiry has just published an update on what it has been doing since public hearings ended in July. It visited Iraq, as promised, and has published the names of some of the people it spoke to, but not what they said. It has also revealed that it saw two witnesses in what it insists on calling “private hearings”. Of the two, Rycroft is undoubtedly the more significant.

What is intriguing about Rycroft’s secret session is that we are not told why. The inquiry coyly points to its protocol on witness evidence, which states that most witnesses will be seen in public but sets out reasons for secret hearings. These include the usual issues of “national security” and “vital national interests” but also “to protect any [junior official] who may wish to give evidence that runs counter to others”.

This is the Iraq inquiry in a nutshell. Are they trying to sit on sensitive information to protect the British state from embarrassment? Or trying to make it easier for people to blow the whistle? We won’t know until the report is published — early next year — and even then we won’t know what, if anything, we are not being told.

What we do know is that Rycroft would be the perfect whistleblower. He wrote many of the documents that the inquiry has failed to publish and was at Blair’s side at virtually all of the key meetings. He was, for example, the author of the notorious Downing Street memo, which recorded a crucial meeting at No 10 in July 2002, and was present at the White House six months later when Blair told George Bush, that Britain was solidly behind the war, whatever the outcome of UN inspections. He saw the very unwelcome advice from attorney general Lord Goldsmith a day earlier — that war would be illegal without a new UN resolution — and apparently wrote on the memo: “specifically said we did not need further advice [on] this matter.”

But if Rycroft has spilled the beans, it is far from clear whether his evidence will see the light of day. The inquiry is still dithering about whether to call back key witnesses, like Blair, to go through any gaps and contradictions — which could now include what Rycroft has said. And in its press release today, it claims that its protocol “sets out the approach the Inquiry will take to considering how best to draw on and explain in public what was covered in private”. Except that all the protocol says is that the inquiry will “careful consideration” as to how best to do this.

If Rycroft’s evidence does not feature, we’ll have to draw our own conclusions.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Liu Xiaobo win prompts Chinese media blackout

One of China‘s best-known dissidents Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday night. Liu is currently serving an 11 year prison sentence for “inciting subversion of state power” after the former litarture professor circulated Charter 08, a petition calling for greater freedom in China. He has been in and out of prison since he took part in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests but on the mainland the Chinese language media have ignored the prize. Instead Xinhua, China’s official news agency, released an English-language statement later recycled by China Daily and the Global Times, detailing the Foreign Ministry’s angry response.

Those who have talked about the prize have come under sharp state scrutiny. The nobel laureate’s wife, Liu Xia, was placed under house arrest on Friday.

Last night she tweeted:

Brothers, I am back; I’ve been under house arrest since the 8th; I don’t know when I’ll be able to see everyone; my mobile phone has been ruined; I have no way of making or receiving calls. I saw Xiaobo; the prison told him on the 9th the news that he’s been awarded the prize. Later matters we’ll talk about in time. Please help me [re]tweet. Thank you.

Popular netizen Secretary Zhang was celebrating on Friday. Now he finds himself under house arrest with shifts of guards watching his home. Zhang is behind an invitation only internet forum for liberal leaning people, 1984bbs.com, which today put up a notice today warning users to backup their files as the website stops operating tomorrow due to official pressure. On his Twitter page, Secretary Zhang thanks those who have supported his forum, including artist Ai Weiwei, and records his day under surveillance.

Other intellectuals have also been harassed but this hasn’t deterred internet users from talking about the event by using abbreviations and circumlocutions for “Liu Xiaobo.” They know using the full name would trip internet filters, drawing the attention of the censors who patrol microblog and blog sites deleting suspect posts.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Playing fast and loose with justice in Tunisia

If more evidence was needed of the peculiar concept of justice now playing in Tunisia’s law courts, it was laid out for all to see this week, with one persecuted journalist’s lawyers walking out in protest at the judge’s handling of his case and another reporter – jailed on similarly trumped up charges – left seriously ill by lack of care in prison.

The authorities continue to use the courts as a means of repression against journalists, as the case of journalist Mouldi Zouabi, a journalist with independent Radio Kalima demonstrated this week.

After he was physically attacked in April, police decided not to charge the attacker.  Bizarrely, weeks later they chose to charge Zouabi, the victim, with “violent behavior and committing actual bodily harm” against his assailant.

The case was referred to a higher court on 6 October, and he now faces up to two years in jail. His lawyers walked out of the last hearing in protest at what they say are multiple breaches of due process. Tunisia’s politicised judiciary is being used to silence free speech by giving credence to often ludicrous charges and suspect evidence, with dire effects on both journalists and their families.

This week there were renewed concerns for another victim of Tunisia’s politicized judiciary, Fahem Boukaddous, jailed for reporting public demonstrations against unemployment and corruption in the mining town of Gafsa in 2008.

Boukaddous, whose health has sharply deteriorated in prison, is serving a four year jail term following his conviction in March for “forming a criminal association liable to attack persons”.

“We are very concerned about Boukaddous who needs urgent medical treatment unavailable to him in prison,” said Aidan White, International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) General Secretary. “Boukaddous has already been denied his freedom as punishment for his independent journalism. Without immediate action his long term health is under threat.”

The International Freedom of Expression Exchange Tunisia Monitoring Group (IFEX-TMG), a coalition of 20 IFEX members, currently chaired by Index on Censorship, has raised repeated concerns about the lack of independence shown by Tunisia’s magistrates and the abuse of the system to target journalists like Mouldi and Boukaddous.

A recent mission by the IFEX-TMG to Tunisia concluded that for nearly a decade the Tunisian state has worked to prevent the establishment of an impartial and independent judiciary, “for the purposes of reinforcing its grip on public dialogue and limiting peaceful critical discourse”.

The state strategy came out in the open in July 2001, when Judge Mokhtar Yahyaoui called on the Tunisian president, in his capacity as Chair of the Superior Council of Magistrates, to recognise that obstructions to an independent judiciary were damaging freedom of expression and democracy in Tunisia.

The independent Tunisian Association of Magistrates (AMT) took a similar line, but when it called for a reform of the law to tackle the issue of judicial independence, its elected nine-member Board, including three women magistrates, were deposed and some reassigned against their will to new courts far away from their homes in Tunis.

The IFEX-TMG group has called on Tunis to cease political interference in the work of the Superior Council of Magistrates, supposed to impartially and independently run the country’s judicial system.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Alice Xin Liu: In China’s murky censorship machine detention is rarely legal

Last month, Xie Chaoping, author of The Great Migration, was detained for 30 days on the trumped up charge of operating an illegal business. The Great Migration is about the repairing of the Sanmen dam in Weinan, Shaanxi Province and the residents who were forced to move off their land. “Xie thinks he’s being persecuted because he’s disclosed embezzlement, local government wrongdoing, migrants’ suffering and land disputes,” reported the Guardian. After his release on 17 September, Xie was interviewed by various Chinese media such as the famous Southern Group magazines, where he discussed the events that led to his imprisonment and talked about the distress he felt behind bars. On the thirtieth day of his detention, when he was summoned to court, he scrawled a note just in case he was sentenced, whereupon he would hand the note to someone. It read:

“One day, history will pass judgment on the person who concocted this arrest warrant. Using the constitution, corrupt officials and their servants have created a literary inquisition. These people will definitely be nailed to history’s hall of shame. Long live true democratic rule of law.”

It turned out that he didn’t need the note, because he was released later that day.

In a similar case, a schoolteacher under the alias Yuan Ping was detained in late September and released after only a few days by the authorities in the manufacturing city of Dongguan, Guangdong province. He wrote about the sex industry there, which is underpinned by the migrant workers community, at a time when police are trying to eradicate the culture altogether.

The search engine Baidu’s Baike, which has the best gloss on recent events, describes the subject of the novel as “mainly describing a normal worker who arrives in Dongguan and tries to make a career, whilst criticising social realities”. The gist of the story is one person’s first-hand look at Dongguan’s sex industry. Local authorities objected to the depiction of their city and attempted to nail Yuan on pornography and obscenity charges, but in fact they had no legitimacy for arresting him – and it’s purported that they didn’t even read the book.

It’s a strange situation. The police are directly involved in local efforts to censor books, but the legal grounds for such censorship are unclear. What they didn’t anticipate, however, was that by detaining these authors, the authorities stirred up more interest in their books than was previously possible.

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Anna Politkovskaya: In the Russian media

Most Russian newspapers, liberal and conservative, covered the anniversary of Anna Politkovskaya’s murder today. Nezavisimaya Gazeta, a liberal independent newspaper, Rossiskaya Gazeta, the government’s mouthpiece, and the liberal Moscow News, along with other left and right-wing papers, gave the story the same amount of coverage and reflected similar viewpoints.

Only Kommersant, a liberal newspaper, and Politkovskaya’s own Novaya Gazeta stood out from the rest. Kommersant gave more column inches to the anniversary and published the sceptical comment of the senior editor of Novaya Gazeta, Sergei Sokolov: “I do not think that the investigators have found out anything new, and even if they did, it is in their interests to keep quiet.”

Sokolov’s cynicism contrasts with the reporting in the rest of the press. The investigation into Politkovskaya’s murder has now been extended to next February. While police agents in the rest of the media are reported to have made progress and found new evidence, Sokolov is one of the few critical voices. “The ones who we think have something to do with the case have been investigated already, years ago, before the release of the murder suspects.”

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Bad Behavior has blocked 2596 access attempts in the last 7 days.