http://www.englishpen.org/news/_1664/
Robert Chandler speaks out against BBC World Service reductions in Russia
February 27, 2009Are the BBC's Russian Service feature programmes being axed out of ignorance, or political calculation, wonders translator Robert Chandler? Following the open letter addressed to him BBC Director General Mark Thompson answers the campaigners' charges, and Richard Hainsworth responds to the BBC chief from his Moscow home.The first stages of our 'campaign' - which at the beginning we did not even think of as a campaign - were astonishingly easy. Most British academics, journalists, diplomats and politicians with an interest in Russia have at one time or another contributed to the BBC Russian Service, and they are all concerned about the fate of Russian Features. Many of them travel regularly to Russia. Most have received feedback about programmes to which they have contributed, and the value of these programmes seemed entirely obvious to them. One signatory of our draft letter forwarded it to another, and before long we had 64 signatories, many of them eminent, and on 7 November our letter was published in the Times, together with a supportive editorial and an article by the Times Media correspondent. What seems obvious to us - and to the Times - has, however, been surprisingly hard to convey to the senior management of the World Service, which seems unable to grasp the nature of Putin's Russia. It seems likely that they are being poorly advised, either by the FCO or by senior editors in the Russian Service itself. The 2007 World Service 'Operational Agreement' divides countries into three categories: 'developed media markets, such as the United States and Western Europe'; 'developing markets, such as China and Russia', where the BBC should be targeting 'opinion formers and decision makers'; and the 'least developed markets, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, where BBC World Service news operations may serve as substitutes for national broadcasters, where relevant, for example in countries where there is an absence of free and independent media' (I quote verbatim). It is clear from these categories that the World Service management is under the delusion that both China and Russia - which has one of the highest death rates among journalists of any country in the world - are countries with 'free and independent media'. The 'Operational Agreement' then goes on to say that 'mass audiences' are to be targeted only in countries belonging to the third category, i.e. the 'least developed markets'. The World Service management evidently sees no need to address a mass audience in Russia, even though this audience is now constantly exposed to dangerously nationalist propaganda. Lord Reith saw the BBC's mission as being to inform, to educate and to entertain. Today's management sees it as the provision of 'rolling news coverage'. They do not seem to understand that what Russian listeners need - even more than reliable news - are fresh perspectives from which to view this news. The question of the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia provides a convenient example. Most Russians believe that the West has adopted one standard for Kosovo - and another for these two regions. This kind of issue - far too complex to be dealt with in a 3-minute 'package' slotted into a news programme - has for many years been the staple material of the pre-recorded 'features' that are about to be axed. The range and depth of its 'features' has long been a successful trademark formula of the BBC's broadcasting to the rest of the world. The format allows the setting up of a dialogue between people whom it might be impossible to bring together in any other way - because they do not share a common language, because they would refuse to speak to each other on principle, or simply because they live in different time zones. A 'feature' can achieve a depth, and a variety of viewpoint, that is impossible to achieve in a news programme. Once 'features' are gone, a tradition is lost and a significant audience worldwide (not only in Russia but also in the West and in other parts of the former Soviet Union) will turn elsewhere. It is hard to understand why, when other language services get additional funding for the development of their television, the Russian service should be told that in order to develop its web-site it has to get rid of its most unique (and far cheaper) product. It is also alarming that Nigel Chapman, in his responses to our 7 November letter in the Times, should have referred to 'light features with little analysis' and 'programmes that have ... little connection with cultural and political themes'. We have already mentioned (in our 12 November letter to the Times) the huge variety of serious topics covered by features: 'from the work of Doris Lessing to the closure of the British Council ... and the analysis of judgments made by the European Court of Human Rights'. Nigel Chapman's dismissal of these programmes is alarming, above all, because it indicates that he is being poorly advised not only about the situation in contemporary Russia but also with regard to the quality of the output of his own service. The proposed axing is still harder to understand in view of the fact that the English-language World Service still produces excellent 'features'; it is only foreign-language features that are to be axed. The most likely explanation for this divergence of policy is that the management looks on foreign-language 'features' and their producers as awkward and uncontrollable. The best 'features' are often the ones that address the most controversial topics, and the World Service management want, above all, to avoid controversy in their language services. Standardizing the output makes this easier. The Russian Service - and, probably, many other of the language services - has good reason to want to avoid controversy. By moving half of its staff and much of its production to Moscow, it has placed itself in a highly vulnerable position. Its staff are vulnerable both to direct pressure from the Russian authorities and to the influence of a Russian media environment in which self-censorship has become the norm. In Putin's Russia - as in the Soviet Union - everyone is vulnerable to pressure from the authorities. Any BBC employee with relatives in Russia is vulnerable. Anyone who has ever made even the very slightest compromise - even if only in the Soviet past - with the Russian security services is especially vulnerable. Even British employees may exercise self-censorship because they are afraid of being denied a visa. That the Russian Service is terrified of offending the Kremlin has become only too obvious. Their declared reason for refusing to publish on their website the Russian text of Anna Politkovskaya's Putin's Russia was that there was no available pro-Kremlin material with which to 'balance' the book. This is absurd. If the Russian Service in the 1970s had carried the idea of impartiality to such an amoral extreme, they would not have allowed Solzhenitsyn to broadcast The Gulag Archipelago - or they would have done so only if the Kremlin had supplied them with material of equal weight in praise of the Gulag. It is perhaps not surprising that pro-Kremlin bias is most evident in the handling of matters relating to the security services. We have already written several times about the one-sided coverage of the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko. Another example of Russian Service sensitivities with regard to the KGB is their one-sided coverage of the recent death of the Orthodox Patriarch. Western media outlets, including BBC English-language programmes, discussed his past as a KGB collaborator at length; the Russian Service barely mentioned it. The Russian Service has to deal with many questions. Some are technical: how best to deliver a signal; how best to balance resources between radio and the Internet. Here the only prudent course is to explore as many options as possible. Some are political: how best to deal with demands made by the Russian authorities. Most serious of all is the question of the Russian Service's purpose. This, at least, is easy to answer. The only possible purpose of any of the foreign-language services is to disseminate views that cannot easily be heard in the target country. The role of the World Service is to educate - and the BBC should not be ashamed to proclaim this. The political situation in Russia is deteriorating fast. The economic crisis has already led to popular protests. These are likely to increase, and the authorities will probably respond with violence. The need for an independent-minded BBC Russian Service may soon be greater than ever. At the end of this month Nigel Chapman will be stepping down as Head of the World Service. We very much hope that he will not wish to be remembered as the man who closed down the Russian Service's most valuable programmes just when there is a greater need for them than at any time in the last twenty years. (Robert Chandler is the translator of Vasily Grossman's novel Life and Fate and an intermittent contributor to the BBC Russian Service for 30 years) 5 January Letter from the BBC Director General, Mark Thompson to Robert Chandler Dear Mr Chandler Thank you for your letter of 4 December regarding your concerns about the Russian Service. I understand that you have been in direct correspondence with Nigel Chapman, Director World Service, about this issue (in addition of course to recent exchanges in the press) and that Nigel has outlined in some detail the reasons for the changes to the service. I believe he has also offered you a meeting to explain the thinking behind them, and I hope that if it is convenient for you to do so you will feel able to take him up on this offer. There are a number of new points in your letter, and I have therefore asked Nigel Chapman for his input into this response. I hope that you will feel it answers your concerns. I should say first that I am sorry to learn that you do not agree with the changes to the service. However I hope you will accept that it is the BBC's responsibility to make what changes it believes to be necessary for the benefit of its audiences. These changes were approved by the BBC Trust and fully discussed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who I understand firmly support them. Like the BBC, they believe that they offer the best means of serving our audiences. Your letter refers to the BBC's Royal Charter, which you believe specifies that the BBC must "offer thoughtful programmes that allow for genuine discussion of political and cultural matters from a number of points of view". We firmly believe that the World Service offers precisely the programmes which you describe. I think the most relevant part of the Charter on this point is in the Agreement (CM 6872). This says (para 1O.b) that the BBC Trust must ensure that the BBC "brings high quality international news coverage to international audiences", and (para 64.6.a) that the World Service objectives must include "the provision of an accurate, unbiased and independent news service, covering international and national developments". We believe that the changes will deliver a service that meets these and other objectives, and will continue to offer programmes of the kind your letter describes. I note that you are particularly concerned over the strengthening of our multimedia offer, in relation to our plans for radio. As you will know, the World Service aims to reach people on platforms appropriate to their needs. Radio of course remains important, and in recognition of this the Russian Service will retain 58 hours a week of radio programming - the second highest amount of all language services. However I hope you will appreciate why, in a media environment in which short wave listening overall is in decline, and in which the internet and other platforms (such as mobile delivery) are growing rapidly, the World Service must position itself for the future. I am told that independent research predicts that Russia will be the second largest internet market in Europe and the fifth largest in the world by the end of this year. Broadband penetration is expected to increase dramatically over the next five years and, by 2012, 21.2 million households in Russia are expected to have access. I appreciate that you do not agree with these plans but it is inarguably the case that for many people, listening online will indeed offer an alternative to radio. I am assured that the World Service will however continue to try to improve radio delivery where it can. Your letter refers to attempts to establish an FM prsence in Russian as "disastrous." You will appreciate that this is not a view which is shared by my colleagues in the World Service. Given that most people in Russia would prefer to listen via better-quality FM they felt that they owed it to their listeners to seek to go down this route. They are of course disappointed that they have been unable to maintain FM partnerships. You link this question to the BBC's editorial independence, and I would stress that at no time has the BBC compromised that fundamental principle. Nor would it do so in the future. Indeed, and as you will be aware, it was the BBC's robust, independent news programmes to which the authorities appeared to take exception when they were transmitted on partner FM stations. I appreciate that you believe that the most effective means of reaching our audiences would be further research into means of strengthening radio relays, and I can confirm that World Service does continue to consider all options for distribution within the frameworks of editorial independence and the need to provide value for money. However, I am sure you will understand why we have to be realistic about the difficulties and sensitivities of acquiring transmission facilities in countries adjacent to Russia. The authorities will not award such licences to the BBC as their spectrum is targeted for their own use. DRM has so far obtained a very limited take-up in Russia, or indeed anywhere. Your letter expresses your fear that moving language services closer to their audiences puts BBC journalists at risk, in particular to intimidation and other forms of pressure. I can assure you that this is a matter that the BBC takes extremely seriously. The safety of our staff is of the utmost importance to us. As you know, the BBC Russian Service has been operating in Moscow since the early 1990s and if at any point its staff should feel themselves to be at risk, immediate action would be taken. The World Service feels that once the changes have been made, the balance between staff in Moscow and London will be the right one. Nigel has stressed that financial imperatives were not the drivers for the changes. Like parts of the World Service (and many other publicly-funded bodies) the Russian Service has had to make efficiency savings. However the motivating forces for change were in fact the need to strengthen the BBC's position in a highly competitive market, through maximising its presence on all platforms, and to continue to provide high-quality programming at key times of day. I am sorry that you are not happy with these plans, and I appreciate that you are motivated out of concern for the quality and effectiveness of our output. I recognise too that many people have strong personal loyalty to the BBC, and to the Russian Service, and we are very proud of that unique relationship. I understand why, therefore, against that background, and the importance of the service to so many, change may not be particularly welcome. I can assure you however that these changes were made only after considerable thought and discussion. My colleagues in the World Service are confident that if you listen to the new output, you will be reassured that it will continue to cover areas about which you have concerns and will be marked by the same high standards that have always distinguished the output of the Russian Service. Lastly, I would urge you again to take up Nigel Chapman's offer of a briefing - Nigel is obviously in a position to go into much more detail. I would be grateful if you could share this letter with the other signatories to your own. 15 January Letter from Richard Hainsworth, President of Russia's Chartered Financial Analysts, to BBC Director General Mark Thompson: Dear Mr. Thompson, In response to points made in a letter you wrote to Mr. Chandler, who kindly shared its contents with me, I would respond as follows. My concern is this: at a time when the BBC's historic role - giving wide coverage to uncomfortable truths - is again badly needed, its voice is being muted. Explanations grounded in a welter of technical and financial issues lead to the unfortunate perception that the BBC's leadership is weak and caving in to political pressure. Either that, or the British state is no longer willing to fund the BBC to perform its historic role. Both of these perceptions - however false you may consider them to be - will increase the current Russian leadership's propensity to add pressure on any British interest here in order to stifle those views it dislikes. It is not in Britain's best interests for its citizens or diplomats to be subject to unwonted pressure, or to be perceived to be weak and so susceptible to pressure. It is especially distressing to see a decline in balanced BBC coverage of controversial topics when the tabloid British media takes a stridently irrational and anti-Russian stance. The tabloid media, for all its bad points, cannot be silenced. Yet, if the BBC is silenced, ordinary Russians will only see a "British" point of view that can be easily refuted. And that is to the advantage of those who wish to bend opinion in the way they perceive to be "correct". The BBC should not allow even the perception of being silenced, its editorial content removed, or the scope of its transmissions decreased. In defending some of its policy decisions, technical issues have been raised, such as a statistical decline in the use of short-wave, forecast increases in internet usage, and the relative merits of FM radio. The contradictions inherent in the arguments provided in your letter indicate that indeed the British state no longer wishes to fund the BBC to maintain its historic role. If the funding were present, then any new channel of communication (such as the internet) would be built up via investment. If an old channel (such as short-wave) was no longer reaching an important audience, it should be wound down because it does not serve a need. To present an investment in the new as justifying a cut in spending in the old demonstrates that funding not mission is highest in the minds of the BBC's leadership. Mr. Thompson, in your letter you discuss both the advantages of FM over short-wave, but also the problems being faced in getting FM redistribution. Taken together, namely, a policy to move from short-wave to FM, and the inability to make FM transmissions, it would appear that the BBC's radio transmissions have declined absolutely, even though this may not have been the policy intent. The perception is thereby fostered that the BBC is in retreat. Regarding marketing research that the internet will be an increasingly important communications channel in the medium-term, several responses spring to mind. First, marketing research almost by definition tends to be over-optimistic. It is also a prediction of what may be, not an assessment of what is. My 26 years of living in Russia has amply demonstrated to me that very rarely do predictions come true, whether in the predicted time-frame, or at the volume forecast. I trust that the BBC will not fall prey to a modern-day version of Churchill's taunt: using market research as a drunk uses a lamp post - for support rather than illumination. Secondly, the internet is a young technology. We do not yet know its limitations or controllability. Is the BBC aware that both the Estonian and the Georgian governments believe that the Russian state has deployed internet software to attack their networks? The Russian state has, moreover, instituted a wide-ranging set of laws and instructions covering the internet. In China, there are very significant controls over the internet - as reporters covering the Olympics discovered. Russian computer scientists are amongst the best in the world; indeed the BBC's 'click online' used an entire programme to consider the effect of Russian hackers on the internet. What about the ordinary person's desire to use the internet to obtain information frowned on by the State when every IP number and message packet can be traced? There is nothing like a passive receiver picking up invisible waves to engender confidence that the act of listening cannot be traced. It would seem unwise to put too heavy a reliance on the internet given these risks. Finally, there is the repeated mantra about the BBC in a competitive global market. If the world were comprised solely of nations and states that universally upheld the freedom of the press, the mantra would sustain belief. Yet in such a situation no government should be funding or running a major broadcasting network! Yet freedom of speech, truth, balance, reliable information are simply not products universally available today. The BBC's World Service does not exist in a competitive global market. As a beacon of truth and balanced opinion it would be unique, and demonstrate that the values of truthfulness and trustworthiness can be associated with Britain, thus enhancing its interests in the world. It behoves the British government to fund the BBC's World Service adequately, and the BBC's leadership to aspire to a moral mission that transcends financial constraints. The peoples of the world will thank them if they do. (Richard Hainsworth, a financial analyst, has lived in Moscow since 1982. In 2001 he founded Global Rating International. RusRating was set up later the same year. He is President of the CFA (Chartered Financial Analysts) in Russia. A leading expert in the field, he writes and lectures on the banking sector in Russia.)
Friday, February 27, 2009
Women writers under attack in Latin America
http://www.englishpen.org/writersinprison/bulletins/womenwritersunderattackinlatinamerica/
Women writers under attack in Latin America
Published: February 27, 2009
As part of its Freedom to write in the Americas campaign launched in February 2009, the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN (WiPC) is marking International Women's Day (8 March) by celebrating the work of four women writers under threat in the region. These are: Colombian playwright and activist Patricia Ariza, Peruvian student poet Melissa Patiño, and Mexican authors and journalists Lydia Cacho and Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor. While none of the women are currently detained, they are facing harassment by state and non state actors that reflect on one hand the political polarisation affecting Latin America, and on the other, resistance to coverage of a topic that remains decidedly taboo in the region: sexual abuse.
From January to December 2008, the WiPC recorded attacks against 37 women writers in 11 countries in the Americas. The countries where attacks were most prevalent were: Mexico (10 of the 37 cases), Peru (9), Venezuela (6) and Colombia (4). Most of the female writers in question are journalists. The most common form of attack were death threats, which eleven women suffered, while other types of threats and harassment were also reported, accounting for seven and eight of the cases respectively. In addition, three women were briefly detained, five suffered physical attack - all in Venezuela - two were on trial, both in Peru, and one Brazilian journalist was given a suspended sentence. For an overview of all attacks on writers in the Americas, click here.
While these patterns are broadly representative of attacks against writers in the Americas in general, when looking at women writers currently under threat two themes stand out. On one hand, the cases of Ariza and Patiño who have been accused of terrorist affiliations on the basis of their alleged collaboration with leftwing political groups. On the other, a number of cases in Mexico, including those of Cacho and Martínez, where female authors have been targeted for harassment as a direct result of their exposés of sexual exploitation and paedophilia.
International PEN's Writers in Prison Committee protests the harassment of Patricia Ariza, Melissa Patiño, Lydia Cacho and Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor and demands that they are allowed to live and work freely, in accordance with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José, Costa Rica), to which Colombia, Mexico and Peru are signatories.
COLOMBIA AND PERU: Poets accused of terrorist affiliations
Patricia Ariza is a renowned Colombian playwright, dramaturge, poet, actress and political and human rights activist. She has been subjected to a campaign of harassment since late 2008, including an alleged investigation seeking to link her to the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) guerrilla group.
Ariza was reportedly named in a document produced by the antiterrorism division of the Public Prosecutor (Fiscalía General) as a promoter of the Bolivarian Movement for a New Colombia (Movimiento Bolivariano por la Nueva Colombia) and the Clandestine Colombian Communist Party (Partido Comunista Colombiano Clandestino, PC3), which is allegedly linked to the FARC. The document, said to be based on police and army intelligence, lists Ariza's past affiliations including her membership of the Communist Youth (Juventud Comunista, JUCO) group and of the Nadaísta poetry movement and a stint as a 'hippy'. It goes on to allege that her current theatre activities and a project she runs with abandoned children, the elderly, young women and rappers could be related to 'mass work' for the PC3. Ariza has also reportedly received threatening letters.
Ariza acknowledges her past affiliations but has dismissed the allegations of collaborating with guerrilla groups. She suspects that her human rights work and leftwing views, including her activism for the opposition political party Democratic Pole (Polo Democrático), are behind the charges, and has stated: 'They cannot take away my right to have an opinion and to be creative.' Ariza's lawyer has reportedly not been allowed full access to her file. Following public protests, in January 2009 the Public Prosecutor reportedly denied that there was an investigation into Ariza.
Melissa Patiño, a 21-year-old Peruvian poet and university student, is on trial for terrorism for her alleged involvement with a leftwing political organization. Patiño, who is a member of the 'Círculo del sur' poetry group and runs a poetry programme on radio and cultural activities for young people, was arrested along with six other individuals on 29 February 2008 as they were returning from Quito, where they had attended the second congress of the Bolivarian Continental Coordinator (Coordinadora Continental Boliviariana - CCB). All seven were charged with 'affiliation and collaboration with terrorism', apparently on the basis of their attendance at the meeting of the CCB, which the authorities claim is linked to the Peruvian Marxist rebel group Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru (MRTA) and the FARC guerrilla group in Colombia, and were jailed. Two of the detained are said to be former MRTA members, however Patiño's presence in the bus appears to have been circumstantial. She denies any involvement in political groups and says her main motivation for attending was the opportunity to travel to Ecuador.
On 8 May 2008, after almost two and a half months' incarceration, Patiño was released on bail and allowed to return home pending trial. Peru's antiterrorist prosecutor appealed against the decision to release her but this was rejected in early October 2008, meaning that Patiño should remain free on bail for the duration of her trial. She potentially faces 20 years in prison if convicted. To date no concrete evidence has been produced to back up the charges.
MEXICO: Authors targeted for exposing sexual exploitation
Lydia Cacho is an author, journalist and women's rights activist, and winner of the 2008 Tucholsky prize from Swedish PEN and the 2007 Oxfam/Novib PEN Award for Free Expression. Following the publication of her book on child abuse and pornography rings in Cancún, Los Demonios del Edén: el poder detrás de la pornografía (The Demons of Eden: the power behind pornography) in 2005, Cacho was illegally arrested, detained, physically ill treated and threatened with rape and death. Her ordeal reportedly took place on the orders of Mario Marín, governor of the state of Puebla, in collusion with Kamel Nacif Borge, a Puebla businessman implicated in her book. Cacho was then subjected to a year-long criminal defamation lawsuit brought by Nacif Borge. She was cleared of all charges in 2007 but continues to be the target of threats for her writings.
On 29 November 2007, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice ruled that Cacho's 2005 arrest and detention had not constituted a serious violation of her constitutional rights. Following this ruling, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights advised Cacho to leave the country and offered her political asylum, legal assistance and access to international courts. In April 2008, the Attorney General's Office issued arrest warrants for five public servants from Puebla allegedly involved in Cacho's detention. These were said to include the former attorney general, a minister, a police commander and various criminal justice system officials, who allegedly falsified paperwork in order to facilitate her arrest. In June 2008, a court in Cacho's home state of Quintana Roo ruled that although there was evidence of arbitrary detention and torture it could not accept her case for jurisdictional reasons and recommended that she take the case to Puebla. Her appeal was rejected in January 2009. Cacho alleges that her file has been altered and key information removed by the Attorney General's office, weakening her case. She believes it impossible to get justice in Puebla given the role of the state authorities in her ordeal and is preparing to submit her case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. She received further threats on 24 February 2009.
Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor has reportedly suffered harassment, including death threats, since 2006 for writing about alleged links between child sexual abuse and the Catholic church in Mexico. The death threats, which began in September 2006, increased in December that year following the publication of her book El Manto Púrpura (Purple Cloak), which documents alleged abuses which had apparently been covered up by the Catholic Church authorities in Mexico and the United States. The threats continued in January 2007 while she was reporting on allegations of child sexual abuse by a Mexican Catholic priest. Martínez also reported being followed by cars without licence plates on several occasions. She says that she did not make an official complaint to the authorities because she did not trust them.
Harassment continues, albeit in more subtle ways. In March 2008, Martínez was fired from the Monterrey-based newspaper Milenio. Although the paper cited "restructuring", the move reportedly followed Martínez' publication of an article criticising the federal government's handling of the death of a 72-year-old indigenous woman who allegedly died after being gang raped by Mexican soldiers. In September 2008 Martínez claimed that Samborns, one of Mexico's most popular bookstore chains (owned by Carlos Slim, the world's second richest man), had attempted to block the sale of two of her books, including Prueba de Fe (Test of Faith), which documents allegations of a pederast network with links to Catholic cardinals and bishops. As a result other bookstores reportedly also restricted sales of the book, on the grounds they were Catholic-based businesses. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Please send letters of appeal:
COLOMBIA: Patricia Ariza
Protesting the harassment of Patricia Ariza, particularly the Colombian State's attempts to link her to terrorist groups, and calling on the authorities to allow her and other writers to pursue their legitimate writing and political activities in peace.
Señor Presidente Álvaro Uribe VélezPresidente de la República, Palacio de Nariño, Carrera 8 No.7-2, Bogotá, ColombiaFax: 57 1 337 5890/ 57 1 342 0592Salutation: Dear President Uribe/Excmo. Sr. Presidente Uribe
PERU: Melissa Patiño
Calling on the Peruvian authorities either to provide evidence to back up the charges of terrorism against Melissa Patiño, and to ensure she receives a free and fair trial; alternatively, to drop all charges against her.
Dr. Alan García PérezPresidente de la República del PerúJr. de la Unión S/N 1ra. Cuadra, Cercado de Lima, Lima, PeruFax: 51 1 311 3940Email: messages can be sent via the following link: http://www.presidencia.gob.pe/cartas_presidente.asp
Salutation: Su Excelencia/ Your Excellency
MEXICO: Lydia Cacho and Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor
Protesting the ongoing harassment of Lydia Cacho and Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor stemming from their writings on sexual exploitation; reminding the authorities of their obligation to protect them and other writers peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression and to investigate any attacks against them.
Lic. Felipe De Jesús Calderón HinojosaPresidente de los Estados Unidos MexicanosResidencia Oficial de los Pinos Casa Miguel Alemán, Col. San Miguel Chapultepec, C.P. 11850, DISTRITO FEDERAL, MéxicoFax: ( 52 55) 5093 4901/ 5277 2376 Email: felipe.calderon@presidencia.gob.mxSalutation: Señor Presidente/ Dear Mr President
Please copy appeals to the relevant diplomatic representative in your country.
Women writers under attack in Latin America
Published: February 27, 2009
As part of its Freedom to write in the Americas campaign launched in February 2009, the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN (WiPC) is marking International Women's Day (8 March) by celebrating the work of four women writers under threat in the region. These are: Colombian playwright and activist Patricia Ariza, Peruvian student poet Melissa Patiño, and Mexican authors and journalists Lydia Cacho and Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor. While none of the women are currently detained, they are facing harassment by state and non state actors that reflect on one hand the political polarisation affecting Latin America, and on the other, resistance to coverage of a topic that remains decidedly taboo in the region: sexual abuse.
From January to December 2008, the WiPC recorded attacks against 37 women writers in 11 countries in the Americas. The countries where attacks were most prevalent were: Mexico (10 of the 37 cases), Peru (9), Venezuela (6) and Colombia (4). Most of the female writers in question are journalists. The most common form of attack were death threats, which eleven women suffered, while other types of threats and harassment were also reported, accounting for seven and eight of the cases respectively. In addition, three women were briefly detained, five suffered physical attack - all in Venezuela - two were on trial, both in Peru, and one Brazilian journalist was given a suspended sentence. For an overview of all attacks on writers in the Americas, click here.
While these patterns are broadly representative of attacks against writers in the Americas in general, when looking at women writers currently under threat two themes stand out. On one hand, the cases of Ariza and Patiño who have been accused of terrorist affiliations on the basis of their alleged collaboration with leftwing political groups. On the other, a number of cases in Mexico, including those of Cacho and Martínez, where female authors have been targeted for harassment as a direct result of their exposés of sexual exploitation and paedophilia.
International PEN's Writers in Prison Committee protests the harassment of Patricia Ariza, Melissa Patiño, Lydia Cacho and Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor and demands that they are allowed to live and work freely, in accordance with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José, Costa Rica), to which Colombia, Mexico and Peru are signatories.
COLOMBIA AND PERU: Poets accused of terrorist affiliations
Patricia Ariza is a renowned Colombian playwright, dramaturge, poet, actress and political and human rights activist. She has been subjected to a campaign of harassment since late 2008, including an alleged investigation seeking to link her to the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) guerrilla group.
Ariza was reportedly named in a document produced by the antiterrorism division of the Public Prosecutor (Fiscalía General) as a promoter of the Bolivarian Movement for a New Colombia (Movimiento Bolivariano por la Nueva Colombia) and the Clandestine Colombian Communist Party (Partido Comunista Colombiano Clandestino, PC3), which is allegedly linked to the FARC. The document, said to be based on police and army intelligence, lists Ariza's past affiliations including her membership of the Communist Youth (Juventud Comunista, JUCO) group and of the Nadaísta poetry movement and a stint as a 'hippy'. It goes on to allege that her current theatre activities and a project she runs with abandoned children, the elderly, young women and rappers could be related to 'mass work' for the PC3. Ariza has also reportedly received threatening letters.
Ariza acknowledges her past affiliations but has dismissed the allegations of collaborating with guerrilla groups. She suspects that her human rights work and leftwing views, including her activism for the opposition political party Democratic Pole (Polo Democrático), are behind the charges, and has stated: 'They cannot take away my right to have an opinion and to be creative.' Ariza's lawyer has reportedly not been allowed full access to her file. Following public protests, in January 2009 the Public Prosecutor reportedly denied that there was an investigation into Ariza.
Melissa Patiño, a 21-year-old Peruvian poet and university student, is on trial for terrorism for her alleged involvement with a leftwing political organization. Patiño, who is a member of the 'Círculo del sur' poetry group and runs a poetry programme on radio and cultural activities for young people, was arrested along with six other individuals on 29 February 2008 as they were returning from Quito, where they had attended the second congress of the Bolivarian Continental Coordinator (Coordinadora Continental Boliviariana - CCB). All seven were charged with 'affiliation and collaboration with terrorism', apparently on the basis of their attendance at the meeting of the CCB, which the authorities claim is linked to the Peruvian Marxist rebel group Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru (MRTA) and the FARC guerrilla group in Colombia, and were jailed. Two of the detained are said to be former MRTA members, however Patiño's presence in the bus appears to have been circumstantial. She denies any involvement in political groups and says her main motivation for attending was the opportunity to travel to Ecuador.
On 8 May 2008, after almost two and a half months' incarceration, Patiño was released on bail and allowed to return home pending trial. Peru's antiterrorist prosecutor appealed against the decision to release her but this was rejected in early October 2008, meaning that Patiño should remain free on bail for the duration of her trial. She potentially faces 20 years in prison if convicted. To date no concrete evidence has been produced to back up the charges.
MEXICO: Authors targeted for exposing sexual exploitation
Lydia Cacho is an author, journalist and women's rights activist, and winner of the 2008 Tucholsky prize from Swedish PEN and the 2007 Oxfam/Novib PEN Award for Free Expression. Following the publication of her book on child abuse and pornography rings in Cancún, Los Demonios del Edén: el poder detrás de la pornografía (The Demons of Eden: the power behind pornography) in 2005, Cacho was illegally arrested, detained, physically ill treated and threatened with rape and death. Her ordeal reportedly took place on the orders of Mario Marín, governor of the state of Puebla, in collusion with Kamel Nacif Borge, a Puebla businessman implicated in her book. Cacho was then subjected to a year-long criminal defamation lawsuit brought by Nacif Borge. She was cleared of all charges in 2007 but continues to be the target of threats for her writings.
On 29 November 2007, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice ruled that Cacho's 2005 arrest and detention had not constituted a serious violation of her constitutional rights. Following this ruling, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights advised Cacho to leave the country and offered her political asylum, legal assistance and access to international courts. In April 2008, the Attorney General's Office issued arrest warrants for five public servants from Puebla allegedly involved in Cacho's detention. These were said to include the former attorney general, a minister, a police commander and various criminal justice system officials, who allegedly falsified paperwork in order to facilitate her arrest. In June 2008, a court in Cacho's home state of Quintana Roo ruled that although there was evidence of arbitrary detention and torture it could not accept her case for jurisdictional reasons and recommended that she take the case to Puebla. Her appeal was rejected in January 2009. Cacho alleges that her file has been altered and key information removed by the Attorney General's office, weakening her case. She believes it impossible to get justice in Puebla given the role of the state authorities in her ordeal and is preparing to submit her case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. She received further threats on 24 February 2009.
Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor has reportedly suffered harassment, including death threats, since 2006 for writing about alleged links between child sexual abuse and the Catholic church in Mexico. The death threats, which began in September 2006, increased in December that year following the publication of her book El Manto Púrpura (Purple Cloak), which documents alleged abuses which had apparently been covered up by the Catholic Church authorities in Mexico and the United States. The threats continued in January 2007 while she was reporting on allegations of child sexual abuse by a Mexican Catholic priest. Martínez also reported being followed by cars without licence plates on several occasions. She says that she did not make an official complaint to the authorities because she did not trust them.
Harassment continues, albeit in more subtle ways. In March 2008, Martínez was fired from the Monterrey-based newspaper Milenio. Although the paper cited "restructuring", the move reportedly followed Martínez' publication of an article criticising the federal government's handling of the death of a 72-year-old indigenous woman who allegedly died after being gang raped by Mexican soldiers. In September 2008 Martínez claimed that Samborns, one of Mexico's most popular bookstore chains (owned by Carlos Slim, the world's second richest man), had attempted to block the sale of two of her books, including Prueba de Fe (Test of Faith), which documents allegations of a pederast network with links to Catholic cardinals and bishops. As a result other bookstores reportedly also restricted sales of the book, on the grounds they were Catholic-based businesses. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Please send letters of appeal:
COLOMBIA: Patricia Ariza
Protesting the harassment of Patricia Ariza, particularly the Colombian State's attempts to link her to terrorist groups, and calling on the authorities to allow her and other writers to pursue their legitimate writing and political activities in peace.
Señor Presidente Álvaro Uribe VélezPresidente de la República, Palacio de Nariño, Carrera 8 No.7-2, Bogotá, ColombiaFax: 57 1 337 5890/ 57 1 342 0592Salutation: Dear President Uribe/Excmo. Sr. Presidente Uribe
PERU: Melissa Patiño
Calling on the Peruvian authorities either to provide evidence to back up the charges of terrorism against Melissa Patiño, and to ensure she receives a free and fair trial; alternatively, to drop all charges against her.
Dr. Alan García PérezPresidente de la República del PerúJr. de la Unión S/N 1ra. Cuadra, Cercado de Lima, Lima, PeruFax: 51 1 311 3940Email: messages can be sent via the following link: http://www.presidencia.gob.pe/cartas_presidente.asp
Salutation: Su Excelencia/ Your Excellency
MEXICO: Lydia Cacho and Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor
Protesting the ongoing harassment of Lydia Cacho and Sanjuana Martínez Montemayor stemming from their writings on sexual exploitation; reminding the authorities of their obligation to protect them and other writers peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression and to investigate any attacks against them.
Lic. Felipe De Jesús Calderón HinojosaPresidente de los Estados Unidos MexicanosResidencia Oficial de los Pinos Casa Miguel Alemán, Col. San Miguel Chapultepec, C.P. 11850, DISTRITO FEDERAL, MéxicoFax: ( 52 55) 5093 4901/ 5277 2376 Email: felipe.calderon@presidencia.gob.mxSalutation: Señor Presidente/ Dear Mr President
Please copy appeals to the relevant diplomatic representative in your country.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
imprisoned writer : Liu Xiaobo and other detained writers
PEN News: PEN American Center (info@pen.org)
http://www.englishpen.org/writersinprison/bulletins/eritreadawitisaachospitaliseddeniedvisits/
Eritrea: Dawit Isaac hospitalised, denied visits
Published: February 24, 2009
English PEN is deeply concerned at reports that the Eritrean-Swedish journalist and author Dawit Isaac, who has been detained incommunicado without charge for over seven years, was transferred to a military hospital on 11 January 2009. Isaac's whereabouts remain unknown.
Dawit Isaac (born 1964), owner of the now defunct weekly newspaper Setit, playwright and writer, was reportedly transferred from prison to a military hospital operated by the Eritrean Air Force on 11 January 2009, according to an unofficial source. Isaac, who has Swedish citizenship, was said to be receiving medical treatment for an unspecified condition but had no access to visits. It was not known where he was being held.
The report, dated 13 January, was published in the Tigrinya language on the Eritrean diaspora website Eritrea Watch for Human Rights and Democracy, based in Switzerland. It was not possible to verify the report but it was thought to be credible.
Eritrea Watch also indicated that on 13 December 2008 Isaac had been moved to a maximum-security prison in Embatkala, 35km northeast of Asmara, along with 112 other political prisoners, reportedly on the orders of President Issayas Afewerki. The prison is said to have one of the harshest regimes in the country.
In November 2005, Isaac was briefly released for a medical check-up and was allowed to call his family and friends in Sweden. This was due to pressure by groups in Sweden but did not lead to Isaac's release: he was returned to prison two days later with no explanation.
English PEN is calling on the Eritrean authorities to reveal details of his whereabouts and assurances that he is receiving all necessary medical treatment. It also calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Isaac and 15 other Eritreans imprisoned for their writings since 2001.
Background:
Isaac was arrested on 23 September 2001 during the crackdown on the private press that saw all eight independent newspapers closed down. He is one of nine print journalists who were arrested at the time and held incommunicado, apparently indefinitely, and without ever being charged or tried. The only accusations made against them have been uncorroborated allegations by the authorities that the journalists were "traitors".
Four of the journalists reportedly died in custody between 2005 and early 2007: Said Abdelkader (Admas), Medhanie Haile (Keste Debena), Yusuf Mohamed Ali (Tsigenay), Fesshaye Yohannes "Joshua" (co-owner of Setit, playwright and poet). Their deaths were attributed to harsh conditions and lack of medical attention. Some sources indicate that that Yohannes had been tortured prior to his death. Emanuel Asrat (Zemen), Temesken Ghebreyesus (Keste Debena), Mattewos Habteab (Meqaleh) and Dawit Habtemichael (Meqaleh) remain imprisoned along with Isaac.
In May 2007, the African Commission on Human and People's Rights of the African Union ruled that the detention of the journalists was arbitrary and unlawful and called on the Eritrean government to release and compensate the detainees. However all five remain detained incommunicado without charge or trial. There are ongoing concerns about severe ill treatment, possible torture, poor health and lack of access to medical care, as highlighted by the four reported deaths above.
At least 11 former government cabinet members have also been held incommunicado without charge or trial since September 2001 on similar charges. Their arrest apparently stemmed from their publication publishing an open letter critical of the government addressed to members of the ruling People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) party in May 2001.
Useful links:
• Committee to Protest Journalists report: http://cpj.org/2009/02/long-held-in-secret-eritrean-jail-dawit-isaac-repo.php • Free Dawit campaign report: http://freedawit.com/?158&lang=eng • International Federation of Journalists report: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/100546/ • Eritrea Watch for Human Rights and Democracy: http://www.ewhrd.org/index.html
Please send appeals:
• Protesting the treatment by the Eritrean authorities of Dawit Isaac, his fellow imprisoned journalists and the 11 former cabinet members, all detained since 2001 for their writing • Calling on the Eritrean authorities to release details of Isaac's health status, medical treatment and whereabouts, as well as that of the other detainees • Calling for the immediate and conditional release of Isaac and the other detained journalists, in line with the 2007 African Commission on Human and People's Rights ruling, as well as that of the 11 former cabinet members detained for their writing
Send your appeals to:
PresidentHis Excellency Issayas AfewerkiOffice of the PresidentP O Box 257, Asmara, EritreaFax: 2911 125123Salutation: Your Excellency
Diplomatic representative in the region:
You may also consider requesting the ambassador or other diplomatic representative of your own country based in Eritrea to raise our concerns about Isaac and the other detainees.
UPCOMING EVENT
Tuesday, February 24: Global Correspondences: A Benefit for the PEN Journal With: André Aciman, Edward Albee, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Ron Chernow, Lydia Davis, Deborah Eisenberg, Nathan Englander, Janet Malcolm, Francine Prose, and Sarah Ruhl7 p.m. at Cooper Union's Great Hall, NYC>> More
ONLINE NOW2009 Translation FeatureSpeaking across geographies, styles, and literary conventions, this month's Online Feature showcases some of the most interesting voices—old and new—in translation. >> More
PEN NEWSWriters Rally to Free Imprisoned Colleague Liu XiaoboNadine Gordimer, Wole Soyinka, J.M. Coetzee, and over one thousand supporters of free expression have called for the release of imprisoned writer Liu Xiaobo. But it's not enough. We need your help. >> Sign the petition nowTunyaz Released from Prison in ChinaWriter and historian Tohti Tunyaz was released last week after serving an 11-year sentence for “stealing state secrets” and “inciting national disunity.” >> MoreNational Book Critics Circle Honors PEN with Lifetime Achievement AwardThe Ivan Sandrof Life Acheivement award recognizes outstanding and longstanding dedication to book culture
Tuesday, February 24: Global Correspondences: A Benefit for the PEN Journal With: André Aciman, Edward Albee, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Ron Chernow, Lydia Davis, Deborah Eisenberg, Nathan Englander, Janet Malcolm, Francine Prose, and Sarah Ruhl7 p.m. at Cooper Union's Great Hall, NYC>> More
ONLINE NOW2009 Translation FeatureSpeaking across geographies, styles, and literary conventions, this month's Online Feature showcases some of the most interesting voices—old and new—in translation. >> More
PEN NEWSWriters Rally to Free Imprisoned Colleague Liu XiaoboNadine Gordimer, Wole Soyinka, J.M. Coetzee, and over one thousand supporters of free expression have called for the release of imprisoned writer Liu Xiaobo. But it's not enough. We need your help. >> Sign the petition nowTunyaz Released from Prison in ChinaWriter and historian Tohti Tunyaz was released last week after serving an 11-year sentence for “stealing state secrets” and “inciting national disunity.” >> MoreNational Book Critics Circle Honors PEN with Lifetime Achievement AwardThe Ivan Sandrof Life Acheivement award recognizes outstanding and longstanding dedication to book culture
February 17, 2009: Writer Tohti Tunyaz Released From Prison in China a Week Before Clinton Visit
Concerns remain for Liu Xiaobo, other detained writers
Concerns remain for Liu Xiaobo, other detained writers
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEFor more information contact:Larry Siems, (212) 334-1660 ext. 105
New York, February 17, 2009—PEN American Center expressed relief today at the news that imprisoned writer, historian, and winner of the 2002 PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award, Tohti Tunyaz, was released from prison in China last week after serving an 11-year sentence for “stealing state secrets” and “inciting national disunity.” However, concerns remain for the 45 writers still imprisoned in China, including prominent PEN member Liu Xiaobo.According to PEN’s information, Uighur writer Tohti Tunyaz was released from Xinjiang No. 3 Prison in Urumqi, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Prefecture in northwestern China, on expiry of his 11-year sentence. Tunyaz had been studying for his Ph.D in Uighur history and ethnic relations at Tokyo University’s School of Humanities in Japan and was arrested when he returned to his homeland on a research trip in February 1998. On November 10, 1998, Chinese authorities charged Tunyaz with “stealing state secrets for foreign persons” and “inciting national disunity,” and, following an appeal, China’s Supreme Court sentenced him on February 15, 2000 to 11 years in prison with an additional two years’ deprivation of political rights. It is believed that he was jailed in connection with his research on Uighur history. Throughout his imprisonment, Tunyaz was never permitted a visit from his wife, who is now a naturalized citizen in Japan.“Though Tohti Tunyaz was forced to complete a prison term solely for his peaceful academic work, we are greatly relieved to know that he has in fact been released,” said Larry Siems, Director of Freedom to Write and International Programs. “We call on Chinese authorities to lift all restrictions against him and allow him to rejoin his wife in Japan.”Tunyaz’s release came on the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first official visit to China, at a time when the Chinese government is cracking down on signatories of Charter 08, a manifesto calling for political forms and human rights inside China. PEN delivered a letter to Secretary Clinton last week urging her to bring up the case of prominent writer Liu Xiaobo, a board member of the Independent Chinese PEN Center who co-authored the charter and who has been detained on suspicion of “inciting subversion of state power” since December 8, 2008. If convicted, he could face at least three years in prison. Secretary Clinton will arrive in China on Friday.“Liu Xiaobo, a PEN colleague and one of China’s most forceful voices for freedom of expression, has been detained in clear violation of Chinese and international law in the lead-up to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown,” Siems said. “If the Chinese government is truly serious about improving its human rights record, as it promised to do before last year’s Olympic Games, it will release him immediately and unconditionally.” A petition calling for Liu’s release, signed by hundreds of PEN members around the world, including Salman Rushdie, Edward Albee, and Margaret Atwood, is currently circulating.PEN American Center is the largest of the 145 centers of International PEN, the world’s oldest human rights organization and the oldest international literary organization. The Freedom to Write Program of PEN American Center works to protect the freedom of the written word wherever it is imperiled. It defends writers and journalists from all over the world who are imprisoned, threatened, persecuted, or attacked in the course of carrying out their profession. For more information on PEN’s work to free all writers currently imprisoned in China, please visit www.pen.org/china.
New York, February 17, 2009—PEN American Center expressed relief today at the news that imprisoned writer, historian, and winner of the 2002 PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award, Tohti Tunyaz, was released from prison in China last week after serving an 11-year sentence for “stealing state secrets” and “inciting national disunity.” However, concerns remain for the 45 writers still imprisoned in China, including prominent PEN member Liu Xiaobo.According to PEN’s information, Uighur writer Tohti Tunyaz was released from Xinjiang No. 3 Prison in Urumqi, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Prefecture in northwestern China, on expiry of his 11-year sentence. Tunyaz had been studying for his Ph.D in Uighur history and ethnic relations at Tokyo University’s School of Humanities in Japan and was arrested when he returned to his homeland on a research trip in February 1998. On November 10, 1998, Chinese authorities charged Tunyaz with “stealing state secrets for foreign persons” and “inciting national disunity,” and, following an appeal, China’s Supreme Court sentenced him on February 15, 2000 to 11 years in prison with an additional two years’ deprivation of political rights. It is believed that he was jailed in connection with his research on Uighur history. Throughout his imprisonment, Tunyaz was never permitted a visit from his wife, who is now a naturalized citizen in Japan.“Though Tohti Tunyaz was forced to complete a prison term solely for his peaceful academic work, we are greatly relieved to know that he has in fact been released,” said Larry Siems, Director of Freedom to Write and International Programs. “We call on Chinese authorities to lift all restrictions against him and allow him to rejoin his wife in Japan.”Tunyaz’s release came on the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first official visit to China, at a time when the Chinese government is cracking down on signatories of Charter 08, a manifesto calling for political forms and human rights inside China. PEN delivered a letter to Secretary Clinton last week urging her to bring up the case of prominent writer Liu Xiaobo, a board member of the Independent Chinese PEN Center who co-authored the charter and who has been detained on suspicion of “inciting subversion of state power” since December 8, 2008. If convicted, he could face at least three years in prison. Secretary Clinton will arrive in China on Friday.“Liu Xiaobo, a PEN colleague and one of China’s most forceful voices for freedom of expression, has been detained in clear violation of Chinese and international law in the lead-up to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown,” Siems said. “If the Chinese government is truly serious about improving its human rights record, as it promised to do before last year’s Olympic Games, it will release him immediately and unconditionally.” A petition calling for Liu’s release, signed by hundreds of PEN members around the world, including Salman Rushdie, Edward Albee, and Margaret Atwood, is currently circulating.PEN American Center is the largest of the 145 centers of International PEN, the world’s oldest human rights organization and the oldest international literary organization. The Freedom to Write Program of PEN American Center works to protect the freedom of the written word wherever it is imperiled. It defends writers and journalists from all over the world who are imprisoned, threatened, persecuted, or attacked in the course of carrying out their profession. For more information on PEN’s work to free all writers currently imprisoned in China, please visit www.pen.org/china.
http://www.englishpen.org/writersinprison/bulletins/eritreadawitisaachospitaliseddeniedvisits/
Eritrea: Dawit Isaac hospitalised, denied visits
Published: February 24, 2009
English PEN is deeply concerned at reports that the Eritrean-Swedish journalist and author Dawit Isaac, who has been detained incommunicado without charge for over seven years, was transferred to a military hospital on 11 January 2009. Isaac's whereabouts remain unknown.
Dawit Isaac (born 1964), owner of the now defunct weekly newspaper Setit, playwright and writer, was reportedly transferred from prison to a military hospital operated by the Eritrean Air Force on 11 January 2009, according to an unofficial source. Isaac, who has Swedish citizenship, was said to be receiving medical treatment for an unspecified condition but had no access to visits. It was not known where he was being held.
The report, dated 13 January, was published in the Tigrinya language on the Eritrean diaspora website Eritrea Watch for Human Rights and Democracy, based in Switzerland. It was not possible to verify the report but it was thought to be credible.
Eritrea Watch also indicated that on 13 December 2008 Isaac had been moved to a maximum-security prison in Embatkala, 35km northeast of Asmara, along with 112 other political prisoners, reportedly on the orders of President Issayas Afewerki. The prison is said to have one of the harshest regimes in the country.
In November 2005, Isaac was briefly released for a medical check-up and was allowed to call his family and friends in Sweden. This was due to pressure by groups in Sweden but did not lead to Isaac's release: he was returned to prison two days later with no explanation.
English PEN is calling on the Eritrean authorities to reveal details of his whereabouts and assurances that he is receiving all necessary medical treatment. It also calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Isaac and 15 other Eritreans imprisoned for their writings since 2001.
Background:
Isaac was arrested on 23 September 2001 during the crackdown on the private press that saw all eight independent newspapers closed down. He is one of nine print journalists who were arrested at the time and held incommunicado, apparently indefinitely, and without ever being charged or tried. The only accusations made against them have been uncorroborated allegations by the authorities that the journalists were "traitors".
Four of the journalists reportedly died in custody between 2005 and early 2007: Said Abdelkader (Admas), Medhanie Haile (Keste Debena), Yusuf Mohamed Ali (Tsigenay), Fesshaye Yohannes "Joshua" (co-owner of Setit, playwright and poet). Their deaths were attributed to harsh conditions and lack of medical attention. Some sources indicate that that Yohannes had been tortured prior to his death. Emanuel Asrat (Zemen), Temesken Ghebreyesus (Keste Debena), Mattewos Habteab (Meqaleh) and Dawit Habtemichael (Meqaleh) remain imprisoned along with Isaac.
In May 2007, the African Commission on Human and People's Rights of the African Union ruled that the detention of the journalists was arbitrary and unlawful and called on the Eritrean government to release and compensate the detainees. However all five remain detained incommunicado without charge or trial. There are ongoing concerns about severe ill treatment, possible torture, poor health and lack of access to medical care, as highlighted by the four reported deaths above.
At least 11 former government cabinet members have also been held incommunicado without charge or trial since September 2001 on similar charges. Their arrest apparently stemmed from their publication publishing an open letter critical of the government addressed to members of the ruling People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) party in May 2001.
Useful links:
• Committee to Protest Journalists report: http://cpj.org/2009/02/long-held-in-secret-eritrean-jail-dawit-isaac-repo.php • Free Dawit campaign report: http://freedawit.com/?158&lang=eng • International Federation of Journalists report: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/100546/ • Eritrea Watch for Human Rights and Democracy: http://www.ewhrd.org/index.html
Please send appeals:
• Protesting the treatment by the Eritrean authorities of Dawit Isaac, his fellow imprisoned journalists and the 11 former cabinet members, all detained since 2001 for their writing • Calling on the Eritrean authorities to release details of Isaac's health status, medical treatment and whereabouts, as well as that of the other detainees • Calling for the immediate and conditional release of Isaac and the other detained journalists, in line with the 2007 African Commission on Human and People's Rights ruling, as well as that of the 11 former cabinet members detained for their writing
Send your appeals to:
PresidentHis Excellency Issayas AfewerkiOffice of the PresidentP O Box 257, Asmara, EritreaFax: 2911 125123Salutation: Your Excellency
Diplomatic representative in the region:
You may also consider requesting the ambassador or other diplomatic representative of your own country based in Eritrea to raise our concerns about Isaac and the other detainees.
Dubai Festival : "first true literary festival in the Middle East."
http://www.englishpen.org/writersinprison/bulletins/theinternationalfestivalofliteratureindubai/
Dubai Festival Update: The Gulf Between Us
Published: February 19, 2009
Dubai will shortly be the venue for the "first true literary festival in the Middle East." The inaugural Emirates Airline International Festival of Literature will take place between 26th February and 1st March 2009, with a host of writers from all over the world.
However, over the last week, the festival has been subject to widespread criticism as a result of their decision not to feature Geraldine Beddel's novel, The Gulf Between Us. Margaret Atwood, Vice President of International PEN, has subsequently decided to pull out in protest against this decision, whilst children's author Anthony Horowitz and others are said to be reviewing their positions.
As such, on 19 February, International PEN announced that they would be holding a partnership event with the inaugural Emirates Airlines International Festival of Literature in Dubai on the subject of Censorship:
Further to recent media reports regarding the reputed banning of Geraldine Bedell's novel from the inaugural Emirates Airlines International Festival of Literature in Dubai and the subsequent withdrawal of International PEN Vice President Margaret Atwood from the programme; International PEN will stage an event in partnership with the festival exploring the issue of censorship at the festival on Saturday 28th February.
Whilst International PEN greatly regrets the festival's decision not to include Geraldine Bedell on the basis of the content of her novel, it is important to clarify that Geraldine Bedell and her book have not been banned in the region as some reports have suggested and that, whilst the book was submitted for consideration, it was never included in the festival programme. Therefore it was never withdrawn. It could not have been present at the festival in published form, as its publication date is April 2nd.
The event will include a panel of international writers and will explore the issue of censorship and the cultural pre-conceptions which we hold regarding the acceptable limits of freedom of expression.
International Secretary, Eugene Schoulgin commented, "Literary festivals such as the International Festival of Literature in Dubai create an important opportunity for cultural exchange and understanding. The staging of this event exploring the issue of censorship will ensure that this takes place." Margaret Atwood will attempt to be at the panel via video link, if the equipment can be made available.
Director of International PEN, Caroline McCormick added, "It is the role of International PEN not only to highlight censorship wherever it exists but, where differences arise, to facilitate dialogue to enable understanding. This is the function which we will be undertaking at the festival."
About International PEN
Founded in 1921 to promote literature, today International PEN has 144 Centres in 102 countries across the globe. It recognises that literature is essential to understanding and engaging with other worlds; if you can't hear the voice of another culture how can you understand it?
Our primary goal is to engage with, and empower, societies and communities across cultures and languages, through reading and writing. We believe that writers can play a crucial role in changing and developing civil society. We do this through the promotion of literature, international campaigning on issues such as translation and freedom of expression and improving access to literature at international, regional and national levels.
Our membership is open to all published writers who subscribe to the PEN Charter regardless of nationality, language, race, colour or religion. International PEN is a non-political organisation and has special consultative status at UNESCO and the United Nations.
Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, has today made the following statement regarding English PEN's position on the festival:
"We now understand that Geraldine Beddel's novel, The Gulf Between Us, has not been banned from sale in the United Arab Emirates, and that the decision not to feature this novel at the first Emirates Airline International Festival of Literature in Dubai was solely that of the festival director, Isobel Abulhoul. As such, this is not a case of censorship per se. We are sad that the festival organisers are unwilling to include a novel on the basis of its gay or religious content and we are delighted that they are proposing to hold a debate in partnership with International PEN at the festival on the nature of free speech and censorship in the culture of the region. We continue to promote contemporary literature from the region through our World Atlas and would be delighted to work with the International Festival of Literature in Dubai in promoting literature as a means of cultural exchange in the future."
Rachel Billington, Vice-President of English PEN, has made the following statement about her position on the festival:
"The Air Emirates Dubai Literary Festival is the first literary festival ever held in an Arab country. It is a surprising breakthrough in an area better known for restrictions than openness. Probably for that reason, many distinguished writers agreed to attend. Like myself, they may have been encouraged by the Festival's aim to bring Arabic writers together with Western and to keep prices down so that the audience would be inclusive. I also agreed to be part of an educational programme which takes writers into Dubai schools; in my case I will be talking to 200 8-9 yr olds in primary schooling. When interviewed for a local paper, I wrote that I expected to learn as much as I expected to entertain or teach. To my mind, this is what Festivals should be about and not only a pleasurable form of self-promotion.
It was therefore with some shock that I learned (through the English press) about a novel that had been 'banned' from the Festival and from publication in the UAE. As an ex-President and current Vice-President of English PEN, and veteran of many protests over censorship, I felt it my duty to discover the truth of the matter before deciding whether to go ahead with my visit. Several points emerged: firstly, the book is not 'banned' in the UAE. Secondly, it was not 'banned' by the Festival because it had never actually been invited. The publishers put the novel forward but an e-mail was sent declining it last September. This e-mail from the Festival's director did cite one of the reasons for the turn-down as 'cultural sensitivities' which could be offended by some of the subject matter. Nothing more was heard from writer or publisher till the press took it up a week ago.
The question for those of us who believe in freedom of expression is whether turning down this, as yet unpublished novel (directors of festivals routinely turn down hundreds of proposed books) amounts to censorship and whether other writers should boycott the Festival. After my initial concerns, I eventually decided that staying away was to close the door on an important engagement with writers and readers not usually available to the West, and I determined to go.
My decision was helped by the news that the Festival is to stage an open East West Writers' Forum which will have censorship as its theme. International PEN will be co-sponsors for this event and Eugene Shoulgin, International PEN's General Secretary will attend. I believe that this kind of discussion in an Arab country is to be celebrated and I shall be there as a Vice-President of English PEN."
For more information, please see:
- The Emirates Airline International Festival of Literature website
- Alison Flood's article 'Authors condemn Dubai literary festival in censorship row' (The Guardian, 19 February 2009)
- A statement from EAIFL Director, Isobel Abulhoul, on Margaret Atwood's decision to withdraw from the festival
- Amol Rajan's article 'Atwood accuses Dubai festival of censorship' (The Independent, 19 February 2009)
- Jack Malvern's article 'Geraldine Bedell's novel banned in Dubai because of gay character' (The Times, 16 February 2009)
http://www.internationalpen.org.uk/go/news/announcement-of-partnership-event-with-the-inaugural-emirates-airlines-international-festival-of-literature-in-dubai-on-the-subject-of-censorship
Announcement of partnership event with the inaugural Emirates Airlines International Festival of Literature in Dubai on the subject of Censorship
19 February 2009
Further to recent media reports regarding the reputed banning of Geraldine Bedell's novel from the inaugural Emirates Airlines International Festival of Literature in Dubai and the subsequent withdrawal of International PEN Vice President Margaret Atwood from the programme; International PEN will stage an event in partnership with the festival exploring the issue of censorship at the festival on Saturday 28th February.
Whilst International PEN greatly regrets the festival's decision not to include Geraldine Bedell on the basis of the content of her novel, it is important to clarify that Geraldine Bedell and her book have not been banned in the region as some reports have suggested and that, whilst the book was submitted for consideration, it was never included in the festival programme. Therefore it was never withdrawn. It could not have been present at the festival in published form, as its publication date is April 2nd.
The event will include a panel of international writers and will explore the issue of censorship and the cultural pre-conceptions which we hold regarding the acceptable limits of freedom of expression.
International Secretary, Eugene Schoulgin commented, "Literary festivals such as the International Festival of Literature in Dubai create an important opportunity for cultural exchange and understanding. The staging of this event exploring the issue of censorship will ensure that this takes place." Margaret Atwood will attempt to be at the panel via video link, if the equipment can be made available.
Director of International PEN, Caroline McCormick added, "It is the role of International PEN not only to highlight censorship wherever it exists but, where differences arise, to facilitate dialogue to enable understanding. This is the function which we will be undertaking at the festival."
About International PEN Founded in 1921 to promote literature, today International PEN has 144 Centres in 102 countries across the globe. It recognises that literature is essential to understanding and engaging with other worlds; if you can't hear the voice of another culture how can you understand it?
Our primary goal is to engage with, and empower, societies and communities across cultures and languages, through reading and writing. We believe that writers can play a crucial role in changing and developing civil society. We do this through the promotion of literature, international campaigning on issues such as translation and freedom of expression and improving access to literature at international, regional and national levels.
Our membership is open to all published writers who subscribe to the PEN Charter regardless of nationality, language, race, colour or religion. International PEN is a non-political organisation and has special consultative status at UNESCO and the United Nations.
Dubai Festival Update: The Gulf Between Us
Published: February 19, 2009
Dubai will shortly be the venue for the "first true literary festival in the Middle East." The inaugural Emirates Airline International Festival of Literature will take place between 26th February and 1st March 2009, with a host of writers from all over the world.
However, over the last week, the festival has been subject to widespread criticism as a result of their decision not to feature Geraldine Beddel's novel, The Gulf Between Us. Margaret Atwood, Vice President of International PEN, has subsequently decided to pull out in protest against this decision, whilst children's author Anthony Horowitz and others are said to be reviewing their positions.
As such, on 19 February, International PEN announced that they would be holding a partnership event with the inaugural Emirates Airlines International Festival of Literature in Dubai on the subject of Censorship:
Further to recent media reports regarding the reputed banning of Geraldine Bedell's novel from the inaugural Emirates Airlines International Festival of Literature in Dubai and the subsequent withdrawal of International PEN Vice President Margaret Atwood from the programme; International PEN will stage an event in partnership with the festival exploring the issue of censorship at the festival on Saturday 28th February.
Whilst International PEN greatly regrets the festival's decision not to include Geraldine Bedell on the basis of the content of her novel, it is important to clarify that Geraldine Bedell and her book have not been banned in the region as some reports have suggested and that, whilst the book was submitted for consideration, it was never included in the festival programme. Therefore it was never withdrawn. It could not have been present at the festival in published form, as its publication date is April 2nd.
The event will include a panel of international writers and will explore the issue of censorship and the cultural pre-conceptions which we hold regarding the acceptable limits of freedom of expression.
International Secretary, Eugene Schoulgin commented, "Literary festivals such as the International Festival of Literature in Dubai create an important opportunity for cultural exchange and understanding. The staging of this event exploring the issue of censorship will ensure that this takes place." Margaret Atwood will attempt to be at the panel via video link, if the equipment can be made available.
Director of International PEN, Caroline McCormick added, "It is the role of International PEN not only to highlight censorship wherever it exists but, where differences arise, to facilitate dialogue to enable understanding. This is the function which we will be undertaking at the festival."
About International PEN
Founded in 1921 to promote literature, today International PEN has 144 Centres in 102 countries across the globe. It recognises that literature is essential to understanding and engaging with other worlds; if you can't hear the voice of another culture how can you understand it?
Our primary goal is to engage with, and empower, societies and communities across cultures and languages, through reading and writing. We believe that writers can play a crucial role in changing and developing civil society. We do this through the promotion of literature, international campaigning on issues such as translation and freedom of expression and improving access to literature at international, regional and national levels.
Our membership is open to all published writers who subscribe to the PEN Charter regardless of nationality, language, race, colour or religion. International PEN is a non-political organisation and has special consultative status at UNESCO and the United Nations.
Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, has today made the following statement regarding English PEN's position on the festival:
"We now understand that Geraldine Beddel's novel, The Gulf Between Us, has not been banned from sale in the United Arab Emirates, and that the decision not to feature this novel at the first Emirates Airline International Festival of Literature in Dubai was solely that of the festival director, Isobel Abulhoul. As such, this is not a case of censorship per se. We are sad that the festival organisers are unwilling to include a novel on the basis of its gay or religious content and we are delighted that they are proposing to hold a debate in partnership with International PEN at the festival on the nature of free speech and censorship in the culture of the region. We continue to promote contemporary literature from the region through our World Atlas and would be delighted to work with the International Festival of Literature in Dubai in promoting literature as a means of cultural exchange in the future."
Rachel Billington, Vice-President of English PEN, has made the following statement about her position on the festival:
"The Air Emirates Dubai Literary Festival is the first literary festival ever held in an Arab country. It is a surprising breakthrough in an area better known for restrictions than openness. Probably for that reason, many distinguished writers agreed to attend. Like myself, they may have been encouraged by the Festival's aim to bring Arabic writers together with Western and to keep prices down so that the audience would be inclusive. I also agreed to be part of an educational programme which takes writers into Dubai schools; in my case I will be talking to 200 8-9 yr olds in primary schooling. When interviewed for a local paper, I wrote that I expected to learn as much as I expected to entertain or teach. To my mind, this is what Festivals should be about and not only a pleasurable form of self-promotion.
It was therefore with some shock that I learned (through the English press) about a novel that had been 'banned' from the Festival and from publication in the UAE. As an ex-President and current Vice-President of English PEN, and veteran of many protests over censorship, I felt it my duty to discover the truth of the matter before deciding whether to go ahead with my visit. Several points emerged: firstly, the book is not 'banned' in the UAE. Secondly, it was not 'banned' by the Festival because it had never actually been invited. The publishers put the novel forward but an e-mail was sent declining it last September. This e-mail from the Festival's director did cite one of the reasons for the turn-down as 'cultural sensitivities' which could be offended by some of the subject matter. Nothing more was heard from writer or publisher till the press took it up a week ago.
The question for those of us who believe in freedom of expression is whether turning down this, as yet unpublished novel (directors of festivals routinely turn down hundreds of proposed books) amounts to censorship and whether other writers should boycott the Festival. After my initial concerns, I eventually decided that staying away was to close the door on an important engagement with writers and readers not usually available to the West, and I determined to go.
My decision was helped by the news that the Festival is to stage an open East West Writers' Forum which will have censorship as its theme. International PEN will be co-sponsors for this event and Eugene Shoulgin, International PEN's General Secretary will attend. I believe that this kind of discussion in an Arab country is to be celebrated and I shall be there as a Vice-President of English PEN."
For more information, please see:
- The Emirates Airline International Festival of Literature website
- Alison Flood's article 'Authors condemn Dubai literary festival in censorship row' (The Guardian, 19 February 2009)
- A statement from EAIFL Director, Isobel Abulhoul, on Margaret Atwood's decision to withdraw from the festival
- Amol Rajan's article 'Atwood accuses Dubai festival of censorship' (The Independent, 19 February 2009)
- Jack Malvern's article 'Geraldine Bedell's novel banned in Dubai because of gay character' (The Times, 16 February 2009)
http://www.internationalpen.org.uk/go/news/announcement-of-partnership-event-with-the-inaugural-emirates-airlines-international-festival-of-literature-in-dubai-on-the-subject-of-censorship
Announcement of partnership event with the inaugural Emirates Airlines International Festival of Literature in Dubai on the subject of Censorship
19 February 2009
Further to recent media reports regarding the reputed banning of Geraldine Bedell's novel from the inaugural Emirates Airlines International Festival of Literature in Dubai and the subsequent withdrawal of International PEN Vice President Margaret Atwood from the programme; International PEN will stage an event in partnership with the festival exploring the issue of censorship at the festival on Saturday 28th February.
Whilst International PEN greatly regrets the festival's decision not to include Geraldine Bedell on the basis of the content of her novel, it is important to clarify that Geraldine Bedell and her book have not been banned in the region as some reports have suggested and that, whilst the book was submitted for consideration, it was never included in the festival programme. Therefore it was never withdrawn. It could not have been present at the festival in published form, as its publication date is April 2nd.
The event will include a panel of international writers and will explore the issue of censorship and the cultural pre-conceptions which we hold regarding the acceptable limits of freedom of expression.
International Secretary, Eugene Schoulgin commented, "Literary festivals such as the International Festival of Literature in Dubai create an important opportunity for cultural exchange and understanding. The staging of this event exploring the issue of censorship will ensure that this takes place." Margaret Atwood will attempt to be at the panel via video link, if the equipment can be made available.
Director of International PEN, Caroline McCormick added, "It is the role of International PEN not only to highlight censorship wherever it exists but, where differences arise, to facilitate dialogue to enable understanding. This is the function which we will be undertaking at the festival."
About International PEN Founded in 1921 to promote literature, today International PEN has 144 Centres in 102 countries across the globe. It recognises that literature is essential to understanding and engaging with other worlds; if you can't hear the voice of another culture how can you understand it?
Our primary goal is to engage with, and empower, societies and communities across cultures and languages, through reading and writing. We believe that writers can play a crucial role in changing and developing civil society. We do this through the promotion of literature, international campaigning on issues such as translation and freedom of expression and improving access to literature at international, regional and national levels.
Our membership is open to all published writers who subscribe to the PEN Charter regardless of nationality, language, race, colour or religion. International PEN is a non-political organisation and has special consultative status at UNESCO and the United Nations.
KENYA: PEN President and member assaulted by police
KENYA: PEN President and member assaulted by police
The Writers in Prison Committee (WiPC) of International PEN protests the arrest and alleged police assault of Philo Ikonya and Fwamba N C Fwamba, President and member of Kenyan PEN respectively, in Nairobi on 18 February 2009. The writers were reportedly arrested while taking part in a peaceful protest and severely beaten while in police custody. Ikonya and Fwamba, who both required hospital treatment following the attack, have been denied the right to lodge an official complaint against the police officer who assaulted them. The WiPC reminds the Kenyan authorities of its duty to protect its citizens, including their right to freedom of expression, assembly and peaceful protest, as well as freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It calls on the authorities to conduct a full and impartial investigation into the alleged police assault as a matter of urgency and to ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.
Philo Ikonya (f) is an author, human rights activist and the President of Kenyan PEN; Fwamba N C Fwamba is an internet writer and a member of Kenyan PEN. Both were arrested on 18 February 2009 for taking part in a peaceful protest against hyperinflation and the rising price of maize flour at a time of famine reportedly threatening 10 million Kenyans. They were arrested outside the Kenyan parliament along with activist Patrick Kamotho, a member of Bunge la Mwananchi (People's Parliament, a civil society forum purporting to offer an alternative to the official Kenyan National Assembly).
All three were reportedly severely assaulted while in police custody, in the case of Ikonya and Fwamba while being taken to the central police station in Nairobi. The attack on Ikonya included a police officer grabbing her near her breasts, ripping her clothes and threatening to kill her and Fwamba. According to Ikonya, the same police officer carried out a similar assault on another female activist, Ann Njogu, in 2008 but despite this has since been promoted.
Ikonya was released on bail late the same night (18 February) following intervention by lawyers and local campaigners and associated media coverage, while Fwamba and Kamotho were held overnight at separate police stations. All three appeared at the High Court on the morning of 19 February, where they were charged with "taking part in an unlawful assembly" and released on bail of 10,000 Kenyan Shillings (approx. US$125) each.
Both Ikonya and Fwamba were hospitalised following their release to receive treatment for injuries sustained during the assault. Ikonya was taken directly to Nairobi Women's Hospital with considerable bruising to the neck, chin and underarm area and her left hand. She was also suffering from anxiety related to her treatment in custody. She was discharged on 21 February and as of 23 February said she was making a good recovery from her physical injuries. Fwamba was admitted to the men's section of the same hospital later on 19 February with stomach pain, from which he was still suffering as of 23 February.
Ikonya and Fwamba have attempted to lodge a complaint against the police officer who assaulted them but this has been denied on three successive occasions. The first time, on the night of their arrest, the officers at the police station reportedly removed the complaints book, saying that they were not allowed to make a complaint against their ‘boss' and advising the writers that they would have to approach the Commissioner of Police directly. Ikonya and Fwamba are currently in the process of producing an affidavit to act as evidence against the police officer concerned.
Ikonya has been involved in a number of protests and political readings recently and believes that the arrest and assault are related to her outspokenness on political matters. "The thing [the authorities] are most angry about is my voice," she says.
BackgroundBoth Ikonya and Fwamba were previously arrested on 7 August 2007 for protesting against the arbitrary arrests of members of civil society, and were charged, along with nine others, with "taking part in an illegal demonstration". Ikonya had also been arrested a week earlier, on 31 July 2007, when she had paid a hospital visit to two fellow writers and three other activists who had been arrested after taking part in a demonstration and were subsequently injured when the police car they were travelling in was involved in a traffic accident. Ikonya was detained overnight and released on bail the following day. Both of these cases are ongoing. Activist Patrick Kamotho has been arrested four times in the past.
The latest arrest of Ikonya and Fwamba takes place against a backdrop of widespread arbitrary arrests of activists in Kenya. For example, on 21 February around 23 members of Bunge la Mwananchi were reportedly arrested after attending readings commemorating Kenyan freedom fighter Kimathi Wa Chiuri and parliamentarian Pio Gama Pinto, and charged with "being members of an illegal sect".
The incident comes less than a month after the murder of Weekly Citizen journalist Francis Nyaruri, who disappeared on 15 January 2009 and whose decapitated body was found on 29 January. Prior to his death Nyaruri was reportedly threatened by local police officers following publication of articles revealing police malpractice. For full details of the case, see RAN 08/09 of 11 February 2009: http://www.internationalpen.org.uk/go/news/kenya-journalist-murdered-following-police-threats
Useful links:
Firsthand blog accounts of the arrest and assault:
By Philo Ikonya: http://siasaduni.blogspot.com/2009/02/kenya-i-cannot-stand.html, http://kenyaimagine.blogspot.com/
By Fwamba N C Fwamba: http://fwambancfwamba.wordpress.com/
Another blog report: http://sukumakenya.blogspot.com/
Take Action
Please send appeals
Protesting the arrest of Philo Ikonya and Fwamba N C Fwamba, President and member of Kenyan PEN respectively, on 18 February 2009 while taking part in a peaceful protest, and the alleged assault on them while in police custody
Reminding the Kenyan authorities of their duty to protect their citizens and their right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful protest and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in line with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Kenya is party;
Calling on the authorities to conduct a full and impartial investigation into the alleged police assault on Ikonya and Fwamba as a matter of urgency, and to ensure that the police officer responsible is brought to justice.
Send your appeals to:
President Hon. Mwai Kibaki C.G.H. M.P President of Kenya PO Box 30510-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Fax: +254-20-313600 Email: pps@statehousekenya.go.ke Salutation: Your Excellency
Commissioner of Police Major General Mohamed Hussein Ali, M.G.H. Commissioner of Police PO Box 30083, Nairobi, Kenya Fax: +254-20-240955
Messages may also be sent via the Kenya police website: http://www.kenyapolice.go.ke/contactus.aspSalutation: Dear Commissioner
And/ or via Kenyan diplomatic representatives in your country.
***Please send appeals immediately. Check with International PEN if sending appeals after 23 April 2009.***
For further details please contact Tamsin Mitchell at the Writers in Prison Committee London Office: International PEN, Brownlow House, 50-51 High Holborn, London WC1V 6ER Tel: +44 (0) 207 405 0338 Fax +44 (0) 207 405 0339 email: tamsin.mitchell@internationalpen.org.uk
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
English PEN : Religious Defamation
LSE Literary Weekend/English PEN Panel Discussion Religious Defamation
Date: Sunday 1 March 2009, 2-3.30pm
Speakers: Professor Conor Gearty, Ivan Hare, Howard Jacobson, Kenan Malik
Chair: Lisa Appignanesi
A year after the repeal of blasphemy from English law, religious defamation laws are tightening their grip on the world, with the apparent support of the United Nations. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? On Sunday 1 March, English PEN will host a discussion of the nature of blasphemy in the twenty-first century.
Professor Conor Gearty is Director of LSE's Centre for the Study of Human Rights. Ivan Hare is a barrister of Blackstone Chambers, editor of Extreme Speech and Democracy. Howard Jacobson is a critically acclaimed author, and regular columnist for The Independent. Kenan Malik is a writer, lecturer and broadcaster, his latest book From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy will be published in April. Lisa Appignanesi is President of English PEN and headed its Free Expression is No Offence Campaign.
This event is free and open to all, but a ticket is required. Tickets are now available to request via the LSE website. For event and ticket information please visit the LSE website, where tickets are now available.
-----------------------------------------
On Saturday 28 February English PEN is taking part in the Conference on Modern Liberty at the Institute of Education on Bedford Way and we're in need of 2-3 volunteers to come along for the whole day and help man our stall. You'll also get the chance to attend some of the seminars on offer. Ideally, we need people who don't mind doing a bit of reading off our website first as you will have to speak to the public/interested parties about what PEN does.
The full programme is available here: http://www.modernliberty.net/programme if anyone is interested then do let me know!
Date: Sunday 1 March 2009, 2-3.30pm
Speakers: Professor Conor Gearty, Ivan Hare, Howard Jacobson, Kenan Malik
Chair: Lisa Appignanesi
A year after the repeal of blasphemy from English law, religious defamation laws are tightening their grip on the world, with the apparent support of the United Nations. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? On Sunday 1 March, English PEN will host a discussion of the nature of blasphemy in the twenty-first century.
Professor Conor Gearty is Director of LSE's Centre for the Study of Human Rights. Ivan Hare is a barrister of Blackstone Chambers, editor of Extreme Speech and Democracy. Howard Jacobson is a critically acclaimed author, and regular columnist for The Independent. Kenan Malik is a writer, lecturer and broadcaster, his latest book From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy will be published in April. Lisa Appignanesi is President of English PEN and headed its Free Expression is No Offence Campaign.
This event is free and open to all, but a ticket is required. Tickets are now available to request via the LSE website. For event and ticket information please visit the LSE website, where tickets are now available.
-----------------------------------------
On Saturday 28 February English PEN is taking part in the Conference on Modern Liberty at the Institute of Education on Bedford Way and we're in need of 2-3 volunteers to come along for the whole day and help man our stall. You'll also get the chance to attend some of the seminars on offer. Ideally, we need people who don't mind doing a bit of reading off our website first as you will have to speak to the public/interested parties about what PEN does.
The full programme is available here: http://www.modernliberty.net/programme if anyone is interested then do let me know!
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Kazakhstan: Editor seized from hospital remains detained
Kazakhstan: Editor seized from hospital remains detained
Published: February 16, 2009
English PEN protests the detention of Ramazan Yesergepov, editor-in-chief of the weekly Alma-Ata Info, who was taken from his hospital bed on 6 January 2009 and remains held without charges.
According to our information, Ramazan Yesergepov, was being treated for hypertension at the Cardiology Institute in Almaty, when armed and masked security officers entered the hospital and took him away. The editor was taken to the Taraz regional office, in southern Kazakhstan, where he was interrogated by the Kazakh National Security Committee (KNB). According to a statement by the KNB from 13 January, Yesergepov was arrested because he repeatedly ignored subpoenas issued by the agency.
Since December 2008, Alma Ata Info, has been investigated for the disclosure of two leaked memos published alongside an article in its 21 November issue. The article in question 'Who rules the Country - The President or the KNB?' is said to deal with a tax fraud allegation involving a local prosecutor and a judge. KNB officers raided the weekly's newsroom, seizing the hard drives of seven computers.
There are recent reports that Yesergepov has not yet been charged, but he is threatened with charges of 'disclosure of state secrets' for which he faces up to eight years in prison, and a ban on professional activities of up to three years. There are also serious concerns that the editor has been denied adequate medical treatment.
The Institute for War and Peace Reporting quoted Miklos Haraszti, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, who, in a letter to the Kazakh Foreign Minister, referred to Yesergepov's detention, stating that: "Keeping him under arrest, just as threatening him with imprisonment, would be a violation of the OSCE commitment to facilitate a fearless atmosphere for journalism."
In the last month, two other assaults against the press have been reported in Kazakhstan, weakening further freedom of expression in the country. On 18 January 2009, Yermek Boltai, journalist and editor for the Kazakh service of the news site Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, was beaten by five men outside his home in Almaty. Boltai covers social issues. Also in Almaty, Bakhytzhan Nuerpeisov, journalist for the weekly Obshchestvennaya Pozitsiva, was attacked on 5 February while on his way home. The journalist had recently criticised a local authority for its spending on luxury properties, in contrast to the deteriorating economic situation on the residents.
Please send appeals:
• Protesting the detention without charge of editor-in-chief Ramazan Yesergepov, since 6 January 2009;
• Calling for his immediate and unconditional release if detained in contravention of his right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 19 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Kazakhstan is a signatory;
• Seeking assurances of Ramazan Yesergepov's well being, and urging he is given full access to all necessary medical assistance as a matter of urgency;
• Calling on the Kazakh authorities to unequivocally condemn all attacks on the independent press and to take urgent measures to ensure the safety of journalists.
Appeals to:
Mr Nursultan Abish-uly Nazarbayev
President of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Office of the President
11 Mira StreetAstana 473000
Kazakhstan
Mr Amanzhol Zhankuliyev
Representative of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva
16, Chemin du PrunierCase postale 61218 Grand-SaconnexGenevaSwitzerland
Tel: 41 22 7886600 Fax: 41 22 7886602 E-mail: mission.kazakstan@ties.itu.int
His Excellency Kairat Abusseitov
Consulate of Kazakhstan 33 Thurloe SquareLondonSW7 2SD
Published: February 16, 2009
English PEN protests the detention of Ramazan Yesergepov, editor-in-chief of the weekly Alma-Ata Info, who was taken from his hospital bed on 6 January 2009 and remains held without charges.
According to our information, Ramazan Yesergepov, was being treated for hypertension at the Cardiology Institute in Almaty, when armed and masked security officers entered the hospital and took him away. The editor was taken to the Taraz regional office, in southern Kazakhstan, where he was interrogated by the Kazakh National Security Committee (KNB). According to a statement by the KNB from 13 January, Yesergepov was arrested because he repeatedly ignored subpoenas issued by the agency.
Since December 2008, Alma Ata Info, has been investigated for the disclosure of two leaked memos published alongside an article in its 21 November issue. The article in question 'Who rules the Country - The President or the KNB?' is said to deal with a tax fraud allegation involving a local prosecutor and a judge. KNB officers raided the weekly's newsroom, seizing the hard drives of seven computers.
There are recent reports that Yesergepov has not yet been charged, but he is threatened with charges of 'disclosure of state secrets' for which he faces up to eight years in prison, and a ban on professional activities of up to three years. There are also serious concerns that the editor has been denied adequate medical treatment.
The Institute for War and Peace Reporting quoted Miklos Haraszti, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, who, in a letter to the Kazakh Foreign Minister, referred to Yesergepov's detention, stating that: "Keeping him under arrest, just as threatening him with imprisonment, would be a violation of the OSCE commitment to facilitate a fearless atmosphere for journalism."
In the last month, two other assaults against the press have been reported in Kazakhstan, weakening further freedom of expression in the country. On 18 January 2009, Yermek Boltai, journalist and editor for the Kazakh service of the news site Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, was beaten by five men outside his home in Almaty. Boltai covers social issues. Also in Almaty, Bakhytzhan Nuerpeisov, journalist for the weekly Obshchestvennaya Pozitsiva, was attacked on 5 February while on his way home. The journalist had recently criticised a local authority for its spending on luxury properties, in contrast to the deteriorating economic situation on the residents.
Please send appeals:
• Protesting the detention without charge of editor-in-chief Ramazan Yesergepov, since 6 January 2009;
• Calling for his immediate and unconditional release if detained in contravention of his right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 19 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Kazakhstan is a signatory;
• Seeking assurances of Ramazan Yesergepov's well being, and urging he is given full access to all necessary medical assistance as a matter of urgency;
• Calling on the Kazakh authorities to unequivocally condemn all attacks on the independent press and to take urgent measures to ensure the safety of journalists.
Appeals to:
Mr Nursultan Abish-uly Nazarbayev
President of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Office of the President
11 Mira StreetAstana 473000
Kazakhstan
Mr Amanzhol Zhankuliyev
Representative of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva
16, Chemin du PrunierCase postale 61218 Grand-SaconnexGenevaSwitzerland
Tel: 41 22 7886600 Fax: 41 22 7886602 E-mail: mission.kazakstan@ties.itu.int
His Excellency Kairat Abusseitov
Consulate of Kazakhstan 33 Thurloe SquareLondonSW7 2SD
Uzbekistan: 2009 Marks Tenth Year in Prison
Uzbekistan: 2009 Marks Tenth Year in Prison
Published: February 16, 2009
On 19 February 2009, Uzbek writer and activist, Mamadali Makhmudov, will have been imprisoned for ten years, making him one of the longest serving detained writers on PEN's records. Former journalist Muhammad Bekjanov who was arrested as part of the same case also remains detained. Both men have suffered dire prison conditions and ill health throughout. Mamadali Makhmudov, an award winning Uzbek writer and opposition activist, was arrested on 19 February 1999 after a series of explosions in Tashkent. Several others were arrested in connection with these events, one of whom, journalist Muhammad Bekjanov also remains in prison. They were charged under Article 158 Uzbek Criminal Code - Threatening the president; 2) Article 25-159 UCC - Threatening the constitutional order; 3) 216 organising banned public associations and religious organisations; and 4) 242.1 organising a criminal group. Makhmudov was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. Bekzhon was given a 15 year sentence, subsequently reduced to 12 years. Their arrests were linked to the leader of the banned Erk opposition party leader, Muhammed Salih, himself a writer, who now lives in exile in Norway. (Bekjanov is Salih's brother.) Both Makhmudov and Bekjanov are suffering poor health in detention. Bekjanov has been treated for tuberculosis, which is rife in Uzbek prisons. The convictions led to international condemnation. The trial was deeply flawed with credible reports that the defendants suffered severe torture. Makhmudov has issued a number of statements detailing maltreatment in prison. Prison conditions in Uzbekistan are appalling. Makhmudov has reportedly spent some time in the notorious Yaslik prison which, according to Amnesty International's 2001 annual report, is a former Soviet military barracks situated on contaminated ground where prisoners are known to suffer severe abuse.
In December 2008, Uzbekistan's human rights record was reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review, a process where UN member states scrutinise other UN member states' human rights records. Many countries recommended that Uzbekistan address, among other issues, torture, poor prison conditions and attacks on freedom of expression. These recommendations were accepted by the Uzbek representatives present, and now it remains to be seen whether this will lead to real improvements. Past activism
Throughout the 1990s, Makhmudov was a critic of the policies of the Uzbek presidency. Between 1994 and 1996 he was imprisoned for alleged embezzlement and abuse of office, charges which at the time were considered by PEN and Amnesty International to have been fabricated; his arrest was believed to be because of his association with Muhammad Salih. Writings
In the early 1980s Mamadali Makhmudov published a novel The Eternal Mountains, which is a historical fiction of the events that happened during the Russian occupation of central Asia in the late 1800s. It was met with acclaim in Uzbekistan, winning the prestigious Cholpan award in 1992. In 2008 the publishing house L'AUBRE, published Makhmudov's book in French, translated by Philipe Frison, under the title La Montagne eternelle. Mamadali Makhmudov and Muhammad Bejkanov are Honorary Members of the English, American, Netherlands, USA and Canadian PEN Centres. For more information on Uzbekistan, see:
BBC country profile on Uzbekistan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1238242.stm Keep abreast of the case and other Uzbekistan news through the Uznews site: http://www.uznews.net/index.php?lng=en Please send appeals:
• Protesting the tenth year of imprisonment of writer and opposition activist Mamadali Makhmudov and Muhammad Bekjanov, and calling for their immediate and unconditional release on humanitarian grounds and in accordance with Article 19 of the ICCPR, to which Uzbekistan is a state party.
• Expressing serious concern about reports that Mamadali Makhmudov and Muhammad Bekjanov are in poor health;
• Seeking guarantees of Mamadali Makhmudov and Muhammad Bekjanov's well-being and demanding that they are is given full access to all necessary medical treatment.
Appeals may be sent to:
Islam A. Karimov President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Rezidentysia prezidenta 700163 Uzbekistan Tashkent, U1. Uzbekistaniskaia 43Uzbekistan Fax: 998 71 139 5325 Email: presidents_office@press-service.uz
Akmal Saidov Head of the National Centre for Human Rights Natsionalny tsentr po pravam cheloveka 5/3 Mustakillik MaidoniTashkent 700029Uzbekistan Fax: 998 71 139 13 56
Please also send copies of your appeal letters to the representative of Uzbekistan in the UK:
His Excellency Mr Tukhtapulat Tursunovich Riskiev 41 Holland ParkLondon W11 3RP
President Islam Abduganievich KarimovOffice of the President of the Republic of UzbekistanResidentsia prezidenta/The Presidential PalaceTaskenth, Republic of UzbekistanFax: + 998 71 139 53 25 / e-mail: presidents_office@press-service.uz
Prosecutor General of the Republic of UzbekistanRashidjon Hamidovich KodirovProsecutor General's Office of the Republic of Uzbekistanul. Yahyo Gulomov 66Taskent, Republic of UzbekistanFax: +998 71 133 39 17/133 73 68E-mail: prokuratura@lawyer.com
Minster of International Affairs of the Republic of UzbekistanZakirjon Almatovich AlmatovMinistry of International Affairsul. Novruz 1Taskenth, Republic of Uzbekistan Fax: + 998 71 133 89 34
Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan in United States of AmericaHonorable Abdulaziz Komilov
1746 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20036,
USA
Embassy of the United States of America in the Republic of UzbekistanU.S. Ambassador to Uzbekistan Jon Purnell
82 Chilanzarskaya,
US Embassy Tashkent
Department of State
Washington, DC 20521-7110
http://muhammadsalih.info/englishms/stobras/action.htm
No surrender
No surrender
February 14, 2009
Lisa Appignanesi
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/12/religion-islam)
http://www.englishpen.org/news/_1661/
On Valentine's Day 1989, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini directed a poison arrow into the heart of western culture. By strategically declaring his fatwa against Salman Rushdie and his publishers, the ageing Ayatollah - whose star was fading after the disaster of the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war which had drained Iranian resources, resulted in 300,000 dead and 500,000 wounded, and diminished his "revolutionary" status - was also making a pre-emptive strike for his brand of Islam, which Rushdie had purportedly offended.
This was hardly the first time in human history that a clerical authority had found a complex literary work offensive. Savonarola, that purist Renaissance monk, burned Ovid's Art of Love on his bonfire of the vanities.
The Papal Index blacklisted the key books to shape the western canon and prohibited the reading of Rabelais, Voltaire, Diderot, Baudelaire, Flaubert and Simone de Beauvoir, amongst many others. Similarly, nineteenth-century preachers railed against escapist literature, anxious about the young women it would lead astray, and presumably away from the rule of fathers, husbands and preachers.
What became The Satanic Verses affair was different in several respects. Writers in the west, for the preceding two hundred years, had grown used to the sense that the greatest literature was that which imaginatively voiced a critique of everyday manners and often hypocritical morals.
To shed new light, to burrow into forgotten corners of society or the psyche, to upset an often unjust polity or a restrictive, narrow-minded society, to unleash the free play of ideas, was the accepted task of the writer. Only totalitarian regimes, intent on maintaining their power over a supine population, thought otherwise. Lenin knew the potency of free thought: "Ideas are much more fatal things than guns," he declared, before proceeding to repress free speech.
The late John Mortimer QC, who defended Lady Chatterley's Lover and The Little Red Schoolbook in the courts, spoke for most of his literary contemporaries (and against the smut-obsessed Mary Whitehouse brigades) when he said that that it was almost the duty of writers to offend. Without the mental and emotional shake-up, we would never think afresh. Nor, without the freedom to criticise, would parliament or any authority (which, after-all, is in the business of keeping it), ever be taken to task for its mistakes or misdemeanors.
It was against this background that the demonstrations against The Satanic Verses and the book burning in Bradford came as something of a culture shock. Here were the very same disaffected young people whose plight in a racist Britain Rushdie had so adamantly criticised, whose condition formed the meat of his satire on Thatcher's Britain - which was in part what the novel was - demanding the banning of his supposedly insulting book. They were undoubtedly provoked by communitarian Muslims in India and clerics financed by Saudi, but it was only with the declaration of the fatwa that the global dimensions and the nature of the new global era we were entering became clear.
Two other things became clear, as well. Throughout the 80s the targetting of speech, at first only on American campuses but gradually elsewhere, had enshrined "political correctness", a moral policing of speech. This had spilled over from direct and abusive racist and sexist insult to all areas of thought and language. More importantly, in retrospect, too few of us had noticed that religion had begun to grow into a new form of identity politics in the footsteps of race and sex. Offence was now not only felt by the embodied person but on behalf of a deity one would have thought was powerful enough not to worry.
Most writers, and many for whom it was dangerous to do so, given the repressive regimes under which they lived, spoke out in defence of Rushdie: Tahar Ben Jalloun, Naguib Mahfouz, Susan Sontag, Norman Mailer, Carlos Fuentes, Mario Vargas Llhosa, Günter Grass, and in Britain, Hanif Kureishi, Harold Pinter and many others. Some dissented, saying a book wasn't worth the lives subsequently lost in the mounting furore. But The Satanic Verses shot no one, nor did it condemn anyone to death. The tragic cost in lives was the result of religious leaders whipping up their followers into a fury over a book the majority of them had never read.
The softly-softly approach to free expression has rarely benefited anyone except those who want to maintain their exclusive power. If women or vulnerable minorities - including religious minorities - want to speak out about injustice, they are quickly silenced in regimes where expression is policed. In our current "no offence" climate, too many groups take it upon themselves to try and muffle their own, as was the case with Behzti or Brick Lane. When a small publisher takes it upon himself to publish a pot-boiler like The Jewel of Medina and has his offices firebombed, all publishers quiver and a chill goes through the sector. Our established and long-fought for liberties to read or not read what we like are eroded.
It is salutary to remember that even the most ardent protestors against The Satanic Verses, those who sought to bring blasphemy prosecutions against it, now feel they were wrong and free expression is a valuable right. Few of those who feel "offended" by a piece of writing in the west would actually freely choose to live under regimes where their protest would neither be permitted nor reported.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
English PEN : The Satanic Verses: 20 Years On and recent Programme
There was an event at the National Theatre, on Saturday 14 February, 12.30pm
Venue: National Theatre (Lyttelton), South Bank, London, SE1 9PX
to commemorate the 20 years that have elapsed since Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against the writer Salman Rushdie. In The Satanic Verses: 20 Years On, writers Nadeem Aslam and Hanif Kureishi joined by actors Alex Jennings (The Queen, Bridget Jones, The 39 Steps) and Toby Jones (Finding Neverland, W., Frost/Nixon) in a programme of readings from The Satanic Verses, after which Geoffrey Robertson QC spoke about the implications of the attempted blasphemy prosecution that followed.
Also on Saturday 14 February, at 7.45am on BBC Radio Wales Lisa Appignanesi was talking about the lasting impact of the fatwa. If you were ’re not an early bird you can listen again via the BBC iplayer. Whilst on Radio 3 next Wednesday 18 February you can hear the third in a series of programmes in memory of Harold Pinter. From 11:00pm - 11:15pm Lisa Appignanesi will be reflecting on Pinter's political activism and involvement in the struggles of other writers such as Orhan Pamuk and Hrant Dink in Turkey.
Finally, an appeal to all our full members: to Mrs Dawson Scott, who founded International PEN in 1921, PEN was 'an Idea! A Dining Club – men and women of repute'. To PEN's first President, John Galsworthy, it was an international movement for co-operation between writers, whilst his successor as President, HG Wells, saw PEN as a campaigning force to be reckoned with. What does PEN mean to you? Why did you join PEN, and what have been the highlights of your membership so far? We are compiling a special issue of our 'oPEN' magazine for Summer 2009, in which we'd like to include as many of your contributions as possible. We will have room for more contributions on the website. Please send your thoughts, with the subject line, 'What PEN means to me', to Amy Oliver - http://us.mc522.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=amy@englishpen.org - by Monday 23rd February. We look forward to hearing from you.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Freedom of Expression at stake before religion
Which right should have the priority? Freedom of Expression or religious feeling? which one should supersede in first place? Let India decide!
The editor and publisher of a top English-language Indian daily have been arrested on charges of "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims.
The Statesman's editor Ravindra Kumar and publisher Anand Sinha were detained in Calcutta after complaints.
Muslims said they were upset with the Statesman for reproducing an article from the UK's Independent daily in its 5 February edition.
The article was entitled: "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?"
It concerns the erosion of the right to criticise religions.
In it, the author, Johann Hari, writes: "I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'Prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him."
Mr Kumar and Mr Sinha appeared in court on Wednesday and were granted bail.
Apology
Angry Muslims have been demonstrating in front of the offices of the Statesman since its republication of the article.
Police have broken up the demonstrations using baton charges several times this week.
Some Muslims close to the Jamiat-e-Ulema e Hind (The Organisation of Indian Scholars, a leading Islamic group in India) later filed a complaint with police alleging that the publication had "outraged their religious feelings", which is an offence under Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr Kumar has said he has already issued a public apology for reproducing the article.
"I admit it was an editorial misjudgement but it was never intentional," Mr Kumar told the BBC in an interview.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7883612.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html
Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated".
The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent.
Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism.
The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
j.hari@independent.co.uk
Editor held, granted bail
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=1&theme=&usrsess=1&id=243646
KOLKATA, Feb. 11: Mr Ravindra Kumar, Editor, The Statesman, and Mr Anand Sinha, Printer & Publisher, were arrested today on a complaint by a resident of Eliot Lane, Kolkata, and charged under Sections 295A (deliberate act with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
They were produced before the chief metropolitan magistrate Mr SS Anand, who granted them bail. The arrests were in connection with the publication of an article by Johann Hari of The Independent of London by The Statesman in its issue of 5 February.Upon learning that a case had been registered by Kolkata Police, The Statesman contacted senior officers and offered to assist its investigation, and to aid efforts to defuse tensions in the city. Following this, the arrests were made early today. The city has been rocked by protests and violence since 7 February. The protesters had demanded the immediate arrest of the Editor. n SNS.
The editor and publisher of a top English-language Indian daily have been arrested on charges of "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims.
The Statesman's editor Ravindra Kumar and publisher Anand Sinha were detained in Calcutta after complaints.
Muslims said they were upset with the Statesman for reproducing an article from the UK's Independent daily in its 5 February edition.
The article was entitled: "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?"
It concerns the erosion of the right to criticise religions.
In it, the author, Johann Hari, writes: "I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'Prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him."
Mr Kumar and Mr Sinha appeared in court on Wednesday and were granted bail.
Apology
Angry Muslims have been demonstrating in front of the offices of the Statesman since its republication of the article.
Police have broken up the demonstrations using baton charges several times this week.
Some Muslims close to the Jamiat-e-Ulema e Hind (The Organisation of Indian Scholars, a leading Islamic group in India) later filed a complaint with police alleging that the publication had "outraged their religious feelings", which is an offence under Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr Kumar has said he has already issued a public apology for reproducing the article.
"I admit it was an editorial misjudgement but it was never intentional," Mr Kumar told the BBC in an interview.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7883612.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html
Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated".
The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent.
Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism.
The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
j.hari@independent.co.uk
Editor held, granted bail
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=1&theme=&usrsess=1&id=243646
KOLKATA, Feb. 11: Mr Ravindra Kumar, Editor, The Statesman, and Mr Anand Sinha, Printer & Publisher, were arrested today on a complaint by a resident of Eliot Lane, Kolkata, and charged under Sections 295A (deliberate act with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
They were produced before the chief metropolitan magistrate Mr SS Anand, who granted them bail. The arrests were in connection with the publication of an article by Johann Hari of The Independent of London by The Statesman in its issue of 5 February.Upon learning that a case had been registered by Kolkata Police, The Statesman contacted senior officers and offered to assist its investigation, and to aid efforts to defuse tensions in the city. Following this, the arrests were made early today. The city has been rocked by protests and violence since 7 February. The protesters had demanded the immediate arrest of the Editor. n SNS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)