4 May 2011: International Call for Freedom for Arrested Turkish Journalists

May 25, 2022 • • disabled comments

International Call for Freedom for Arrested Turkish Journalists

4 May 2011 – Representatives of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the Association of European Journalists (AEJ), the World Association of Press Councils (WAPC), the World Editors Forum (WEF), the International Press Institue (IPI), Reporters without Borders(RSF), the South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) came together in Istanbul on the World Press Freedom Day on 3 March for the Congress on Freedom for Journalists.

The participants agreed that the struggle for journalists in Turkish prisons was an encouraging signal for other countries where press freedom was experiencing a pullback.

The congress was organized by the Turkish Freedom for Journalists Platform (GÖP). In respect to arrests of journalists like Ahmet Şık and Nedim Şener and also considering the effect of prosecutions based on news items and further oppressions against journalists, the participants defined the judicial practices as a problematic area and pointed to the government in this aspect.

Un-detained defendants and relatives or close friends of detained defendants had their say as well.

Philippe Leruth, Deputy Head of the EFJ, indicated that European countries like Hungary and France constituted examples for the tendency of a setback in press freedom for journalists.

“The press is the temperature gauge for a democracy. Yet, it does not help to break the temperature gauge because the democracy is not doing well”, Leruth said.

Javier Fernandez Arribas, Vice President of the AEJ, remarked that the government and the judiciary were used to suppress press freedom in Turkey. Arribas emphasized the need for an infrastructure that would enable the media to steer itself.

WAPC Secretary General Chris Conybeare called the more than 200 participants of the congress for a minute of silence to commemorate the journalists all over the world who lost their lives while practicing their profession. Conybeare reminded that in 1997, Turkey was the country with the highest number of arrested journalists. Targets set in 2004 fuelled great optimism for Turkey but in the present situation this optimism could not be preserved, he declared.

“The journalists should be released on bail or by other means. They have to be given the right to defence regarding the allegations brought up against them”, the WAPC representative claimed.

Chairman of the WEF board and the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), Erik Bjerager, said, “Journalists in Europe are not arrested for the work they do. Turkey has to improve its record”.

IPI press freedom advisor Steven Ellis underlined that arrested journalist Nedim Şener continued his efforts to gather and share information on the background of the killing of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink despite the threats Şener had received.

Johann Bihr, head of the RSF European Desk, mentioned that press freedom in France has been on the decline for some time but in Turkey “massive violations bound to paranoiac and authoritarian applications” were being encountered. Bihr said that the arrest of journalist Ahmet Şık created a big stir in Paris. He also expressed the expectation to have the Dink murder case solved.

Mirjana Tomic from SEEMO conceded that she was not too familiar with the situation in Turkey in particular. Referring to the Balkan countries that are anticipating their accession to the European Union, Tomic highlighted the fact that the mafia is threatening press freedom regarding to labour and politics.

OSCE Media Freedom Representative Dunja Mijatovic pointed out that problems in Turkey stem from a lack of freedom to criticize the government, which is a problem encountered in other countries as well, and from the fear felt towards different opinions.

“I will continue my struggle at non-governmental organizations and before governments. Data bases on arrested journalists must be updated. There are positive indicators that the authorities are going to respond to our call. I am going to keep you informed about the developments”, Mijatovic said.

The OSCE representative announced to share the problems of press freedom in a meeting with the European Commission on Thursday (5 May). “You are not alone, we are with you”, she stressed.

Interview with SEEMO Member Meri Jordanovska

May 4, 2022 • • disabled comments

CAREER HISTORY

• Journalist, Daily newspaper “Utrinski vesnik” (2002)
• Reporter, National TV station “Sky net” (2003)
• Cooperative associate in the TV magazine “Nie” on Macedonian national television MTV (2004)
• Journalist in the political sector, daily newspaper “Vreme” (2004- 2008)
• Journalist, daily newspaper “Nova Makedonija” (2008-2010)
• Reporter, National A1 Television (2010-2011)
• Reporter in the TV magazine “Euro zoom” (2010-2012)
• Reporter in the weekly political magazine “Focus” (2011-2014)
• Journalist in the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) (2014 – 2018)
• Assistant Editor-In-Chief in Makfax News Agency and A1on web portal (2018-present)
• Cooperative associate and lecturer in the Institute for communication studies (2020-present)

AWARDS

• Annual award, “Journalist of the year” in the newspaper “Vreme” for 2005
• Nomination for the best investigative story by the Association of journalists of Macedonia, 2007
• Expression for gratitude for best investigative story for 2008, Macedonian institute for media
• First award “Jashar Ebara” for accomplishment in the field of investigative journalism in 2014, Association of the journalists in the Republic of Macedonia
• First award “Nikola Mladenov” for best investigative story in 2015 regarding the data-base on Skopje 2014, www.skopje2014.prizma.mk, Macedonian Institute for Media
• Second award of the European Union for investigative journalism in 2015 for the investigation and database, “Skopje 2014 Uncovered”
• Third award for professional reporting on the status of the refugees during the migration movements for 2016 in Macedonia
• Second award “Nikola Mladenov“ for investigative journalism in 2017 for the investigation and database, „Foreign Investments Uncovered“
• Second award „Nikola Mladenov“ for investigative journalism in 2019

Why did you choose journalism as a career?
I wanted to become a journalist when I was seven years old and I knew that I’ll become a journalist, even though back then I didn’t imagine like this the profession. I wanted to write, a had an analytic mind, I loved expressing myself in written and back then I imagined myself writing reportages from all over the world. Instead, I finished in writing about corruption and organized crime, but at least I still write.
And at least I still love this profession because even though there are many obstacles we are facing as journalists, I still believe in unrevealing the truth, the adrenalin this profession brings and in uncovering stories that has high social interest and social impact. Through journalism, I believe in better changes in society.
You worked in many media – Vreme daily, TV A1, Nova Makedonija, Fokus, Makfax news agency, Birn. What are the differences between media in the daily work of a journalist in North Macedonia.
I think the differences depends on who is financing the media. If a media is financed through projects, then one journalist has much more time to investigate, to focus on the issues related to the project and doesn’t rely on the daily news. But, if one media depends only on commercials, then the clicks are much more important so you have to do daily news, cover daily events as quickly as possible, before the others do, you count clicks and you seek for as clickable headlines as possible. Everyone has to find what suits them more, but for me, the clickbait journalism isn’t as satisfying as in-depth and investigative stories that take much more time to cover.
Where are you working today?
I work as an editor and journalist in Metamorphosis Foundation, specifically in Thruthmeter, which mostly deals with fact-checking on contents published in media as well as social networks.
You are active also in the Commission for Complaints in the Council of Media Ethics in North Macedonia. In the reality, do journalists and media companies respect the work of the Council?
The Council of Media Ethics in North Macedonia is a self-regulatory body for the media in our country and it was established with very pure intent for professionalism in the media, without any mixing from the Government or state institutions in it. I think that so far we have accomplished a lot, but there is a long way to go. The citizens, NGOs, journalists, even politicians file complaints on certain contents published in the media, and we decide whether the Codecs of Journalists is being violated. In 2021 we have received 109 complaints and in 48 we have decided that there is a violation in journalism standards. Most of the complaints were made on the web portals (online media).
However, there are many existing problem, because not every online media that violates the Codecs is a member of the Council and not every media is registered in N. Macedonia, so even though we have complaints on certain contents and decide on them, the media doesn’t respect the decision, doesn’t publish it and continues to publish articles that are totally against the Codecs of Journalists. This is why more effort is needed in terms of media literacy in the country, because people can easily “fall” on certain news that are against every possible journalistic standard and has nothing to do with the public interest.
Can you present us a little your investigative journalism work.
I am one of the first authors of data bases in the history of the country, along with a few colleagues. We were the first to introduce data journalism, along with investigative stories. First, about the media ownership in N.Macedonia, by publishing the data base “Media Pedia” which revealed a net of shady businessmen and politicians that hide behind certain mainstream media in the country, and many of them afterwards were accused for money laundering, criminal associations etc. Also, the data base on the most expensive luxury project in the country, on Skopje 2014, revealed all the contracts between the governmental institutions and certain private companies that cost millions and millions of euros. We have revealed how much this project actually costs and some of this costs were later brought to court with suspicions on money laundering. I have also worked on stories on the apartments and costs that the members of the Assembly get from the budget, proving that some of them get apartments from the state but don’t live in them (because they already have their own) and instead they give them to relatives. All of these stories were awarded, whether by the Association of journalists, European Commission or the Macedonian Institute for Media.
You received in the past also threats and threatening messages. Why?
I have received numerous threats, mostly online, during my work. The latest one was in January 2020, when I installed Telegram on my phone, early in the morning and the member of the now oppositional party VMRO-DPMNE and also a spokesperson of the Central Registry of North Macedonia, Emil Jakimovski, started sending me messages. He claimed that I am paid from the Americans to write against the political party, he sent me pictures with handcuffs, claiming I will finish in jail and saying my picture be soon seen in a newspaper where deceased people are being published. I reported this case in the police and revealed it publicly, when I found out that this person made the same threats to many other public people and journalists. But what hurt the most is that I was contacted by his ex wife, who documented that she is struggling for years to provide justice because she was a victim of violence. That’s when I decided to go through with this case, because this woman has suffered for years, being followed, physically assaulted and threatened and the institutions did nothing. When my case went viral, the Prosecution decided to unite my case and hers and Jakimovski was sentenced 20 months in jail. He has served his sentence and now he is free. I think this might be the only case for years someone to be sentenced with jail for threats towards a journalist.
What are the main problems of journalists in North Macedonia?
The conditions they are working under and law salaries. The survey made by the Syndicate of media workers showed that half of the journalists in N. Macedonia are willing to give up journalism and start working something else, because one third of them have salaries which are under the average salary in the country. Some of them have salaries less than 300 euros, and they also have to work during weekends and far past their worktime. Also, the pressures they are facing are high, many of them have short-term contracts, their job positions are not stable and they have a lack of motive in the profession. And when there is lack of motive, there can’t be a quality journalism.
Finally, do you believe that North Macedonia will be once EU member?
I was on optimist once, but with the latest events with Bulgaria, I honestly have a lack of optimism. The question on EU-membership has become like a never ending story, so I think that what’s most important now is North Macedonia to work and resolve the main issues in the country that truly concern the citizens, because we really have a long way to go to call ourselves a “democratic country free of corruption and crime”. Once we establish a reliable court system, once we have non political institutions, once we have people employed in state institutions according to competencies and not political determination, once we have salaries and pensions according to the standards, everything else will be much easier. That is why people are not even dealing with the question on EU now, as much as they did, because there are many, many other problems they have to face with in the meantime.

25 April 2022: Civil society organisations voice concern over Kyrgyzstan’s assault on free expression

May 2, 2022 • • disabled comments

25 April 2022

Civil society organisations voice concern over Kyrgyzstan’s assault on free expression

Dear President Sadyr Japarov,

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, who work to promote and defend freedom of expression and information as fundamental rights worldwide, are writing to express our concern with the rapidly deteriorating situation regarding the right to freedom of expression and access to information in Kyrgyzstan, as independent media broadcasters and journalists have come under attack.

On 23 November 2021, IFEX published a joint statement signed by 19 IFEX members calling on the government of Kyrgyzstan to withdraw draft legislation that would restrict independent media by converting the most-watched television network, the Kyrgyz Broadcasting Corporation (OTRK), into a state-owned body. The Broadcasting Bill has now passed its third reading in the Kyrgyz Parliament and is pending adoption into law by the President despite the threat it poses to media freedom, civic space, and democracy.

This legislation follows the “On Protection from Inaccurate (False) Information” law that was approved in August 2021 to allow authorities to extrajudicially remove information considered to be “false” or “inaccurate” from online platforms. Prior to that, constitutional amendments in April 2021 drew criticism for the risk they pose to violating the right to freedom of opinion and expression by unduly prohibiting the dissemination of information based on the broad and vague grounds of running contrary to the “moral values and the public consciousness of the people of Kyrgyzstan.”

For any country, press freedom and access to information are the lifeblood for a healthy civic space. These legislative changes in Kyrgyzstan therefore pose a serious threat to civic space. While peaceful protests have been held in response to the crackdown on media freedom, the threat is further underscored by the pattern of launching unfounded criminal sanctions against journalists and independent media, including:

On 22 January, Bolot Temirov, investigative journalist and founder of TemirovLive, was detained after exposing an alleged high-level fuel export corruption scheme tied to the head of Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security (SCNS). Temirov was charged with drug possession after drugs planted by law enforcement were found on him. On 19 April, he received additional charges for document forgery and illegally crossing the border. Authorities claimed they found Temirov falsified documents to secure a Kyrgyz passport that was then used to illegally enter and exit Kyrgyzstan.
On 1 February, a criminal investigation was opened into Kaktus.media after the outlet shared an article alleging Kyrgyz soldiers initiated an attack at the Kyrgyz-Tajik border. They were charged with disseminating war propaganda with the aim of “causing aggression of one country against another or unleashing a military conflict.”
On 3 March, a criminal investigation was launched into Next TV after the SCNS detained the director Taalai Duishenbiev, confiscated computer equipment, and shut down the offices. Duishenbiev was charged with inciting ethnic hatred after Next TV’s Facebook and Telegram accounts reported Kyrgyzstan’s willingness to provide Russia with military assistance in the invasion of Ukraine – a broadcast that was later ruled as “extremist”.

Such violations of freedom of opinion and expression and access to information contravene international human rights law and standards, including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Kyrgyzstan is a signatory and has a legal obligation to uphold. As a member of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Kyrgyzstan also has a commitment to implement and adhere to OSCE principles of respecting human rights and strengthening democratic institutions, including protecting and supporting media freedom. Furthermore, Kyrgyzstan has made public commitments to improve democracy in accordance with Council of Europe standards, including on the independence of public service broadcasters and on media pluralism and transparency of ownership. Yet the recent legislative changes, increase in the harassment of independent media outlets, and the series of attacks on journalists reveal an alarming trend of shrinking press freedoms and civic space in Kyrgyzstan. This is a symptom of a larger pattern of backsliding on the rule of law, respect for human rights, and protection of fundamental freedoms, including press freedom.

During its third Universal Periodic Review in 2020, Kyrgyzstan supported recommendations to strengthen the protection of journalists and create an enabling environment for press freedom. In October, the 136th session of the UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors the implementation of the ICCPR by its State parties, will consider Kyrgyzstan’s State report. Kyrgyzstan now has a narrow window of opportunity to change course in advance of this review and uphold its international obligations by protecting journalists, expanding civic space, and advancing a healthy democracy.

Thus, we urge the Government of Kyrgyzstan to:

Create an enabling environment conducive to media freedom and civic space by ensuring journalists are free to carry out their journalistic work independently without fear of intimidation, interference, reprisals, or prosecution;
Preserve the transparency and accountability of independent media by requesting the President reject the adopted OTRK Broadcasting Bill and to return the bill to parliament with objections; and
Ensure compliance with international human rights standards by implementing the recommendations from the third Universal Periodic Review to strengthen democratic institutions and protect freedom of expression ahead of the 136th Human Rights Committee session.
Signed
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)
Albanian Media Institute
Aliansi Jurnalis Independen/Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI)
ARTICLE 19
Cambodian Centre for Independent Media (CCIM)
Center for Independent Journalism – Hungary
Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI)
Free Media Movement
Global Voices Advox
Globe International Center
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
International Press Institute (IPI)
Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Policy Institute
Media Watch
OpenMedia
Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF)
PEN America
Public Association “Journalists”
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEENPM)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)

9 April 2022: Perugia Declaration for Ukraine – 9 April 2022

April 10, 2022 • • disabled comments

Members and partners of the Global Forum for Media Development are launching a declaration at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia in solidarity with media and journalists in Ukraine. The declaration has already been signed by over 80 organisations.
Add your organisation as a signature of the declaration or add your name to the declaration using this short form.
The Perugia Declaration for Ukraine will be launched at 1200 CET on 9 April 2022 at a panel discussion organised by the Thomson Foundation on “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: how local journalists are telling the story for their communities and the world” in Sala San Francesco, Arcivescovado, Perugia. The launch and the panel discussion will be available on the International Journalism Festival’s YouTube channel.
The declaration will be available in English, Ukrainian, Russian, and Italian.
#PerugiaDeclaration4Ukraine
9 April 2022

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has underlined once again the essential role of independent, ethical journalism in assisting citizens to make life-or-death decisions, informing the world, and holding the powerful to account.
As a powerful antidote to the disinformation and propaganda that characterise hybrid warfare, and as a pillar of democracy upon which other freedoms and rights depend, journalism in Ukraine is undergoing a terrible assault.
The targeting, torturing, and killing of journalists is abhorrent and must be stopped. Those responsible must be held accountable and brought to justice under national and international law. Vicious online attacks against news organisations and individual journalists must also cease. We condemn Russia’s attacks on press freedom and freedom of expression in Ukraine in the strongest possible terms.
The safety and security of all journalists to report freely are essential to ensure that the world understands the reality and facts of the ongoing war, including the humanitarian consequences.
We stand in solidarity with all journalists and independent media covering Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
The greater the threat to Ukrainian journalists’ lives, livelihoods, and ability to do their jobs, the greater will be our efforts to support them. Funding, protective gear, equipment, housing, training, office space in foreign cities, and psychosocial support – we will do everything we can to support our Ukrainian colleagues’ ability to continue reporting and serving the urgent needs of their audiences.

A window of opportunity for journalism and journalists everywhere

In countries with access to independent sources of news, an often sceptical public are recognising the bravery, commitment and professionalism of journalists and media outlets, both Ukrainian and international. Even governments with hostile dispositions to free, independent media are being forced to acknowledge the vital role journalism plays in ensuring that the world sees the invasion of Ukraine for what it is. Tech companies too are waking up to the fact that not all information is equal, and that there is a moral imperative to give due prominence to professional, independent, public interest journalism.
This nascent, new-found and rekindled recognition of journalism’s value among the public and policy makers is fragile. Ukrainian reporters and international journalists reporting from Ukraine have earned a window of opportunity. The greatest leaps of progress are often made in times of crisis. We, collectively, cannot afford to squander it.
For the sake of the immediate future and safety of our Ukrainian colleagues, and the long term viability of independent, public interest journalism everywhere, this is a moment that we all need to rise to.

For the benefit of media and journalists everywhere, we:

• Insist that states and armed groups must release all imprisoned and kidnapped journalists, including those detained or sentenced under the guise of prohibiting defamation or countering terrorism;
• Acknowledge that many conflicts and crises have at times not received the united, rapid and sustained response that our collective conscience demands;
• Affirm that field producers are journalists not “fixers” – their language skills, cultural and regional understanding and strong networks of contacts are crucial to international reporting and deserve the same rights, respect, support, social security and credit as all journalists covering conflicts.
• Commit to intensifying our efforts to support journalists in conflict zones, in exile, and facing hardship everywhere, including independent media/journalists from Belarus and Russia who have been forced to flee their countries;
• Russia’s crackdown on dissent; its attacks against press freedom; its intimidation of independent journalism – these actions are forcing journalists who remain committed to truth-telling and free speech into silence or exile. Russian people are being denied access to the truth.

To international media and journalists, we ask that you:

• Where legally permitted, provide surplus personal protective equipment to organisations able to transport this to Ukraine;
• Draw attention to the social insecurity of Ukrainian field producers and translators’ who help foreign media by providing them with proper pay, insurance and additional safety guarantees;
• Wherever possible make safety training available to Ukrainian journalists and to all journalists, including freelancers reporting from Ukraine, and “show the same concern for the welfare and safety of freelancers, local journalists and media workers as they do for their staff” including providing the same protective equipment to Ukrainian colleagues as to international reporters;
• Open your doors to displaced journalists and newsrooms. Give them somewhere to work from. Hire them if you can afford to;
• Listen to the calls of Ukrainian colleagues to use appropriate and accurate language when reporting on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, consistent with the ethical standards of independent journalism;

To private and public donors and funders of professional journalism, we ask that you

• Urgently increase and provide flexible financial support to media that produce independent, ethical journalism, enabling them to hire or keep paying reporters, editors, and producers who are reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine;
• When you fund journalism, remember, journalism is a public good. It is an end in itself, a pillar of democracy upon which many other freedoms and rights depend. Do not undermine its independence by seeking to instrumentalise it as a tool of strategic communication or as a means to achieve other development objectives. Treat it with the respect it deserves and follow the well-established best practices and guidance on effective support to journalism;
• Simplify the process of applying for funding in emergencies: Application forms must be in local languages and should not require large amounts of internet data by requiring numerous files to be uploaded;
• Ensure that media and journalism are included in all aid coordination mechanisms;
• Provide support not just for newsrooms, but individual journalists and freelancers from Ukraine, as well as via mechanisms of fellowships or content production projects;
• Consider providing not only financial support, but also methodological and technical support. This can be the transfer of equipment for affected editors, training or publication of methodological materials.

To the EU, EU member states, members of the Media Freedom Coalition and all states that care about the right to freedom of expression and access to information to

• Provide emergency visas and safe havens for Ukrainian journalists, as well as an independent journalists from Belarus and Russia, to re-establish their bases of operations and continue reporting;
• Condemn and push back against the trend of criminalising journalism, a hallmark of creeping authoritarianism in many parts of the world. Journalism is not a crime;
• Use all multilateral fora to defend the rights of journalists and advance their protection as civilians under international humanitarian law, particularly in the context of Russia’s war on Ukraine;
• Contribute to all efforts to investigate and bring to justice cases of journalists targeted in this war.

To technology, telecoms, internet intermediaries and advertisers, we ask you to

• Work with the media and journalism community to identify, protect and uplift independent, ethical journalism, fact-checking, and media literacy efforts;
• Prevent automated takedowns of journalistic content documenting evidence of international crimes of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious human rights violations. These need to be available for journalists, fact-checkers, investigators and other stakeholders to effectively bring perpetrators to account and end impunity. Strengthen transparency and notice procedures, expedite appeal and remedy;
• Reverse commercial incentives – both through algorithms and content moderation policies – that discriminate against public-interest journalism’s ability to reach audiences and monetise high-quality content;
• Work with advertisers to stop the use of blacklist technology to block ads from appearing next to journalism and news media stories that mention conflicts like Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic and other critical health and social issues;
• Deliver internet accessibility to all: prioritise maintaining internet accessibility and connectivity, and promote the right to access information.
We continue to stand in solidarity with all journalists around the world who work in areas of conflict or where freedom of expression is limited, to deliver trusted information in the public interest.
Signatories (organisations):
1. ACOS Alliance
2. Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)
3. ARTICLE 19
4. Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo (Abraji)
5. BaleBengong (Indonesia)
6. BBC Media Action
7. BMTF
8. Border Center for Journalists and Bloggers
9. Canadian Journalism Forum on Violence and Trauma
10. Canadian Journalism Foundation (CJF)
11. CFI Medias
12. Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ)
13. Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD)
14. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
15. Community Media Solutions (CMS)
16. Daraj Media
17. Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma
18. Detector Media, Ukraine
19. Digital Content Next
20. DW Akademie
21. elDiario.es
22. Ethical Journalism Network (EJN)
23. European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
24. European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
25. European Journalism Centre (EJC)
26. Fathm
27. Finnish Foundation for Media and Development (Vikes)
28. Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
29. Fojo Media Institute
30. Fundación Gabo
31. Fondation Hirondelle
32. Foundation “Souspilnist”, Ukraine
33. Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD)
34. Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN)
35. IFEX
36. Independent Journalism Center, Moldova
37. Institute of Mass Information, Ukraine
38. Institute for Regional Media and Information (IRMI, Ukraine)
39. International Academy Serbia
40. International Center for Journalists
41. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
42. International Institute – International Media Center
43. International Media Support (IMS)
44. International Press Institute (IPI)
45. Internews
46. Internews Ukraine
47. International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)
48. Jnomics Media
49. Lviv Media Forum
50. Maharat Foundation
51. Magdalene
52. Media Association for Peace (MAP)
53. Media Development Investment Fund
54. Media Diversity Institute (MDI)
55. Media Impact Funders
56. Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
57. Mediastandard.ro
58. Namibia Media Trust (NMT)
59. National Union of Journalists of Ukraine (NUJU)
60. New Narratives
61. One World Media
62. Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
63. Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF)
64. Panos Institute Southern Africa (PSAf)
65. Paper Trail Media
66. Public Interest Journalism Lab
67. Public Interest News Foundation
68. Public Media Alliance (PMA)
69. Pulitzer Center
70. Radio Bullets
71. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
72. RIA Media Corporation (Ukraine)
73. Samir Kassir Foundation – SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom
74. South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
75. SyriaUntold
76. THE CITY
77. The Fix Media
78. The Frontline Club (The Frontline Club Charitable Trust)
79. The Ukrainians Media
80. The VII Foundation
81. The University of Georgia
82. Thomson Foundation
83. Transitions
84. Will Media
85. World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
86. World Editors Forum
87. The University of Georgia
88. Union of Journalists in Finland
89. Independent Media Council

Signatories (individuals: speakers, attendees and friends of the International Journalism Festival):
1. Ahmad Quraishi, Executive Director, Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)
2. Alessandro Tommasi, Co-founder and CEO, Will Media
3. Andrii Beliakov, Website Owner, Journalist, Bucha.city
4. Angelina Fusco, Chair Dart Centre Europe
5. Anna Masera, Vice Director, Giornale di Brescia
6. Antonina Cherevko, Head of the Independent Media Council, Ukraine
7. Anya Schiffrin, Senior Lecturer, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs
8. Artem Liss, Flying Fox Media Ltd.
9. Astrid Maier, Chief Editor, XING
10. Baybars Orsek, Director, International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)
11. Benedetta Tobagi, Writer and Researcher
12. Bruce Shapiro, Executive Director, Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma and Adjunct Professor of Journalism, Columbia Journalism School
13. Caroline Nursey OBE, Chief Executive Officer, BBC Media Action
14. Charlie Beckett, Director, Polis, LSE
15. Cherilyn Ireton, Executive Director, World Editors Forum, WAN-IFRA
16. Courtney Radsch, Tech and media policy expert
17. Daniela Pinheiro, Columnist, UOL
18. Dmytro Tuzov, host “Radio NV”
19. Fergus Bell, CEO, Fathm
20. Floriana Bulfon, Freelance Journalist
21. Francesca Milano,Chora Media
22. Francesco Filippi, Historian, Fondazione Museo Storico del Trentino
23. Francesco Zaffarano, Editor-in-chief, Will Media
24. François Nel, Reader in Media Innovation, University of Central Lancashire
25. Giulia Blasi, Freelance writer
26. Gypsy Guillén Kaiser, Advocacy and Communications Director, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
27. Ilie Pintea, War Correspondent, Radio România Actualități
28. India Bouquerel, Editor-in-chief, Live Magazine
29. Isabelle Roughol, Founder, Borderline
30. Jakub Parusinski, Editor, The Fix Media
31. Jeremy Druker, Executive Director and Editor in Chief, Transitions
32. Jorge Luis Sierra, President, Border Center for Journalists and Bloggers
33. Juleyka Lantigua, Founder/CEO, LWC Studios
34. Dr Julie Posetti, Global Director of Research, ICFJ
35. Lars Tallert, Head of Policy, Fojo Media Institute
36. Leli Bibilashvili, Associate Dean, The University of Georgia
37. Kathy English, Chair of Board, Canadian Journalism Foundation
38. Kristian Porter, CEO, Public Media Alliance (PMA)
39. Marina Walker Guevara, Pulitzer Center
40. Mary Myers, independent researcher and media consultant
41. Mae Azango, New Narratives and Front Page Africa
42. Marcelo Rech, Journalist, President, Brazilian Newspaper Association (ANJI)
43. Maria Toghina, Journalist, Radio Romania
44. Marius Dragomir, Director, Center for Media, Data & Society (CMDS)
45. Mattia Cursi, Cameraman, Vudio
46. Melanie Walker, Executive Director, Media Development, WAN-IFRA
47. Milica Pesic (MDI)
48. Mira Milosevic, Executive Director, Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD)
49. Natalia Antelava, Editor in Chief, Coda Media
50. Nataliya Gumenyuk, CEO, Public Interest Journalism Lab
51. Natia Kaladze, Dean, The University of Georgia
52. Olga Myrovych, Head, Lviv Media Forum
53. Owais Aslam Ali (Pakistan Press Foundation)
54. Paul Nemitz, Principal Advisor, EU Commission
55. Prue Clarke, Director, New Narratives
56. Rebecca Harms,Vice Chair, ECPMF
57. Sergio Caringi, Director, Meeting with the International Press in Brazil
58. Sophie Brown, Media consultant, Independent
59. Steve Buckley, Community Media Solutions (CMS)
60. Taras Prokopyshyn, CEO and Co-Founder, The Ukrainians Media
61. Tom Law, Head of Policy and Learning, GFMD
62. Tom Trewinnard, COO, Fathm
63. Victoria Bridges, Director, One World Media
64. Vincent Peyrègne, Chief Executive Officer, WAN-IFRA
65. Virginia Stagni, Head of Business Development, Financial Times
66. Vusumuzi Sifile, Executive Director, Panos Institute Southern Africa
67. Yazan Badran, Visiting professor, postdoctoral researcher, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
68. Zakhar Protsiuk, The Fix Media
69. Zoé Protsiuk, Director, The Fix Media
70. Zoe Titus, Director, Namibia Media Trust

30 March 2022: Bosnia and Herzegovina- Joint reaction EBU, EFJ and SEEMO

March 31, 2022 • • disabled comments

Bosnia-Herzegovina public service broadcaster threatened with closure

Over 800 journalists and staff working for the Bosnia-Herzegovina public service broadcaster, BHRT, could lose their jobs imminently if its financial crisis is not swiftly resolved.

The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and the South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO) called today on authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) to take immediate action to identify a sustainable solution for BHRT’s funding problems and prevent its closure.

BHRT has an outstanding debt of EUR 32 million owed to it by the public broadcaster in the Republika Srpska, RTRS, who, under law, should provide a percentage of revenues collected through the licence fee. This is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit.

The debt is preventing BHRT from meeting its obligations to the tax authorities and other institutions and from fulfilling its important role in society. The broadcaster has already laid off a large number of employees this month, mostly in programming, in order to save money.

Ricardo Gutierrez, EFJ General Secretary, said: “This development is absolutely scandalous. Sadly, journalists and the audience will be the ones paying a high price if BHRT closes.”

EBU Director General Noel Curran said: “The closure of such an important institution would have direct implications for the public at a time when access to trusted news is critical. According to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s legislation, the state has the responsibility to ensure the sustainable funding of public service media and its independent functioning.”

The Secretary General of SEEMO Oliver Vujovic said that: “the existence of BHRT is very important for the democratic system of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its closure would create conditions for political manipulation and give additional power to some politicians and businessmen. This would also seriously threaten the accession process of BiH to the European Union.”

Closing BHRT at a time when democracy in Europe is challenged and Europe needs well-functioning democratic institutions is unacceptable. Public service media plays an indispensable role in society to promote democratic debate, support social cohesion and boost public morale in difficult times.

According to the EFJ member, the Journalists’ Association of Bosnia-Herzegovina (BHN), 84 BHRT journalists have already lost their jobs, and some of them have already been informed that their contracts will not be extended after 1 April.

The EFJ, EBU and SEEMO called on the government and all relevant responsible bodies to:
• identify a sustainable solution for BHRT’s funding immediately
• resolve the debt caused by the failure of the public broadcaster in the Republika Srpska, RTRS, to pay BHRT the percentage of revenues from the licence fee collected in the country
• guarantee the sustainability of funding and independence of public service media.

1 February 2022: Turkey – Journalist Sedef Kabaş

March 31, 2022 • • disabled comments

27 international groups call on Turkey to release Sedef Kabaş

The International Press Institute and 26 undersigned human rights and journalists’ organizations call for the immediate release of journalist Sedef Kabaş following her late-night arrest on January 22 and for an end to the judicial harassment of independent media.

On January 22, Kabaş was detained during a midnight police raid in Istanbul following critical comments she made about Turkish President Erdoğan on a program aired on January 14 on TV broadcaster TELE1. In the programme, Kabaş quoted a Circassian proverb on air as follows: “An ox does not become a king as it ascends to a palace, but the palace becomes a barn.” Kabaş added, “There is a very famous proverb that says that a crowned head becomes wiser. But we see it is not true.” This remark was interpreted as an insult directed at Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and prosecutors opened an investigation shortly after Kabaş made the remarks. Article 299 of the Turkish Criminal Code makes it a crime to insult the president, and those found guilty of doing so face a prison sentence of between one and four years.

Following the programme, a number of governmental officials condemned Kabaş’s remarks on social media. Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gül said while Kabaş was being held for questioning that her words went “beyond the limit”, “stem from hatred”, and “shall find a response in front of justice”. Following Gül’s statement, Kabaş was arrested on a charge of “insulting the president”.

On January 26, Kabaş’s lawyer announced that their appeal against her arrest had been rejected by the criminal court. Kabaş’s lawyer also claimed that Minister Gül’s intervention had influenced the judiciary and thereby violated both the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with regards to Article 6 on the right to a fair trial.

Last October, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the offence of insulting the president under Turkish criminal law is incompatible with freedom of expression. The court also found no justification for the imposition of police custody or a criminal sanction in the case before the court, which involved an individual who posted critical content about Erdoğan on Facebook.

Prior to Kabaş’s arrest, Ebubekir Şahin, president of Turkey’s Radio and Television High Council (RTÜK), announced that RTÜK had initiated a probe into TELE1 regarding Kabaş’s remarks. On January 24, RTÜK issued a 5 percent revenue fine and a five-day programme broadcast ban against TELE1. After TELE1 journalist Uğur Dündar criticized RTÜK over the decision, the body issued another 3 percent revenue fine against the channel.

In addition, Alican Uludağ, a judicial reporter and Ankara chairperson of the Journalists Union of Turkey, received death threats on Twitter following his reports noting that the judge who ordered the arrest of Kabaş was the same judge who ordered the re-arrest of Osman Kavala in 2020.

Therefore we, the undersigned organizations, request:

· The immediate release of Sedef Kabaş and of all other detained or arrested journalists

· A full investigation into the death threats against Alican Uludağ, whose safety and protection must be guaranteed by the authorities

· The withdrawal of RTÜK’s broadcast fines and bans against TELE1 and an end to the discriminatory issuing of punitive measures against independent broadcasters by RTÜK

Signatories:

International Press Institute (IPI)
Association of European Journalists (AEJ)
Articolo 21
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Danish PEN
English PEN
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Freedom House
German PEN
Index on Censorship
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
PEN America
PEN Centre of Bosnia-Herzegovina
PEN International
PEN Iraq
PEN Melbourne
PEN Norway
PEN Turkey
PEN Québec
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
San Miguel PEN
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Swedish PEN
WAN-IFRA

*****

27 uluslararası grup Türkiye’ye Sedef Kabaş’ı serbest bırakın çağrısı yaptı

Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI) ve aşağıda imzası bulunan 26 insan hakları ve gazetecilik örgütü 22 Ocak’ta tutuklanan gazeteci Sedef Kabaş’ın derhal serbest bırakılması ve bağımsız medyaya yargı tacizine son verilmesi için Türkiye’ye çağrı yaptı.

TELE 1’de 14 Ocak’ta yayımlanan programda Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan’ı eleştiren sözlerinin ardından Kabaş, 22 Ocak Cumartesi gece yarısı polis baskını ile İstanbul’daki evinden gözaltına alındı. Tutuklanmasına sebep olan televizyon programında Kabaş bir Çerkez atasözünden alıntı yaparak “Büyükbaş hayvan saraya girdiği zaman kral olmaz, o saray ahır olur” ifadelerini kullanmış ve eklemişti: “Çok meşhur bir söz vardır; taçlanan baş akıllanır diye, ama görüyoruz ki gerçek değil.” Kabaş’ın sözlerinin yetkililer tarafından Cumhurbaşkanına hakaret olarak algılanmasının ardından hakkında soruşturma açıldı. Cumhurbaşkanına hakaret suçunu düzenleyen Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun 299. maddesi, suçlu bulunması halinde sanık için bir yıldan dört yıla kadar hapis cezası öngörüyor.

Programın yayımlanmasının ardından pek çok siyasetçi ve hükümet yetkilisi Kabaş’ın ifadelerini kınadı. Tepki gösterenler arasında yer alan Adalet Bakanı Abdülhamit Gül, Kabaş’ın ifade işlemleri sürerken, Kabaş’ın sözlerinin “haset ve nefretten doğan hadsiz ve hukuksuz ifadeler” olduğunu ve “adalet önünde hak ettiği karşılığı bulacağını” belirten bir açıklama yaptı. Gül’ün açıklamasının ardından aynı Kabaş “cumhurbaşkanına hakaret” suçlaması ile tutuklandı.

Kabaş’ın avukatı 26 Ocak’ta verdikleri tutukluluğa itiraz dilekçesinin mahkeme tarafından reddedildiğini açıkladı. Kabaş’ın avukatı ayrıca, Kabaş’ın sorgusu sırasında Gül’ün açıklamalarıyla yargıyı etkilemeye teşebbüs ettiğini öne sürerek Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin (AİHS) 6. maddesince garanti altına alınan “adil yargılanma hakkının” ihlal edildiğini söyledi.

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Ekim 2021’de açıklanan Vedat Şorli kararı, Türk Ceza Kanunu’nda yer alan cumhurbaşkanına hakaret suçunun ifade özgürlüğü ile uyumsuz olduğunu belirtti. Yüksek mahkeme, ayrıca Facebook’ta Erdoğan hakkından eleştirel içerik paylaşan bir kişinin gözaltına alınmasının veya ona hapis ceza verilmesinin hukuki bir dayanağı olamayacağına kanaat getirdi.

Kabaş’ın tutuklanması öncesi, Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu (RTÜK) Başkanı Ebubekir Şahin Kabaş’ın sözleri nedeniyle TELE 1’e soruşturma başlatıldığını açıkladı. 24 Ocak’ta yapılan üst kurul toplantısında TELE 1’e yıllık reklam gelirinin %5’i oranında idari para cezası ve beş kez program durdurma cezası verildi. RTÜK’ü TELE 1’e yapılan soruşturma sebebiyle eleştiren gazeteci Uğur Dündar’ın eleştirileri sebebiyle de kanala %3 daha idari para cezası verildi.

Gazeteci Alican Uludağ ise, Kabaş’ın tutukluluk kararını veren hâkimin 2020’de Osman Kavala’nın tutukluluk kararını veren aynı hâkim olduğunu ortaya çıkararak haberleştirmesinin ardından Twitter’da ölüm tehditleri aldı.

Bu gelişmeler ışığında, aşağıda imzası bulunan kuruluşlar olarak;

· Sedef Kabaş’ın ve tüm tutuklu gazetecilerin serbest bırakılmasını,

· Alican Uludağ’ın aldığı ölüm tehditleri hakkında tam kapsamlı bir soruşturma yürütülmesini ve gazetecinin güvenliğinin ve korunmasının yetkililerce sağlanmasını,

· RTÜK’ün TELE 1’e verdiği yayın yasağı ve para cezalarının geri çekilmesini ve kurumun bağımsız yayın kuruluşlarına yönelik taraflı ve ayrımcı tutumuna bir son vermesini talep ediyoruz.

İmzacılar:

31 January 2022 – Letter to Zimbabwean Speaker of Parliament

March 30, 2022 • • disabled comments

Dear Speaker, Honourable Advocate Jacob Mudenda,

We, the undersigned civil society organisations who work to promote and defend freedom of expression and information, freedom of association and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worldwide, are writing to express our concern with Zimbabwe’s gazetted Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Amendment Bill.

We note that the government ostensibly proposed the amendment to comply with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations to align the country’s laws with Recommendation 8. While the task force’s objective is to ensure that NGOs/PVOs are not misused by terrorist organisations – an analysis of the Bill shows that, rather than aligning with FATF recommendations, the government could be using this legislation as a pretext to clamp down on civil society in Zimbabwe and to infringe upon the rights to association, privacy and expression enshrined in the Constitution.

Among other things, the proposed law would have the effect of criminalising the work of civil society organisations (CSOs) in Zimbabwe by proposing harsh penalties, including jail time of up to one year for NGO Registration framework related perceived offences, a new requirement that the bill seeks to introduce.

The Bill also gives the government and the minister responsible for CSOs and Trusts excessive power, which will enable him/her to interfere with the operations of these bodies. It further gives the responsible minister power to make an application to the High Court to appoint one or more persons of his/her choice as trustees to run the affairs of an organization for a period not exceeding 60 days – an excessive interference in the administration of PVOs.

If the Bill is passed in its current form, trusts and common law university associations will also be required to register under the PVO Act, which will mean designated organisations will become unlawful entities unless they register under the new law. As the registrar of PVOs will be reporting to the Office of the President, the threat of deregistration could affect the ability of CSOs to speak out freely.

Through this excessive involvement of the Executive, it is feared that NGO and CSO funds may be expropriated by the government under the guise of complying with provisions of the FATF recommendations. There is a real risk that the expropriation of the funds can be done without due process of the law and without compensation.

Finally, the Bill further seeks to govern CSOs’ support for political parties, which flies in the face of the Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of association. The Bill prohibits PVOs from “political involvement”, which is an overly broad and vague term that has the potential of being misused to target and persecute CSO leaders, pro-democracy activists, human rights defenders and NGOs that may be involved in promoting and protecting civil and political rights guaranteed under the country’s Constitution and major international instruments that Zimbabwe has signed and ratified.

Zimbabwe is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which among others, guarantees the right and freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds under Article 19. The same Article protects political discourse, commentary on one’s own or public affairs, canvassing, discussion of human rights and journalism.

Further, The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders points out that States have a duty to protect, promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including every person’s right, individually, and in association with others, “at national and international levels … to form, join and participate in non-governmental organisations, associations or groups” and to “solicit, receive and utilize resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms through peaceful means.”

Freedom of expression is an enabling right from which other rights, such as freedom of association are derived from. It is for this reason that the contravention of Article 19 in the proposed PVO Amendment Bill is particularly worrying.

Honourable Speaker, while we accept that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, the PVO Amendment Bill does not serve a legitimate purpose and neither is it necessary. On the contrary, we are gravely concerned about the Bill’s potential to unduly restrict freedom of expression and civic space.

Thus, we urge the Parliament of Zimbabwe to:

1. Delay debate on the PVO Amendment Bill until it meets local, regional and international standards and best practices for the exercise of freedom of expression, free association and the right to privacy.
2. Embark on a wide-ranging consultative process on the regulation of CSOs, Trusts and NGOs. This process should be consultative and reflective of the views of a wide spectrum of Zimbabwean society.

Signed,

1. Africa Freedom of Expression Exchange (AFEX)

2. Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)

3. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)

4. Association of Caribbean Media Workers.

5. Free Media Movement Sri Lanka (FMM)

6. Freedom Forum.

7. Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI).

8. Global Voices.

9. Independent Journalism Center Moldova.

10. Initiative for Freedom of Expression- Turkey (IFox).

11. Institute for Media and Society (IMESO).

12. International Press Centre (IPC).

13. Palestinian Center For Development & Media Freedoms (MADA).

14. Media Rights Agenda (MRA).

15. Media Watch Bangladesh.

16. Media Institute for Southern Africa, Zimbabwe(MISA)

17. PEN America.

18. PEN International.

19. Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

20. South-East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO).

21. The Center for Media studies and Peacebuilding (CEMESP-Liberia).

22. The Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA).

23. Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State.

24. World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC

4 May 2011: International Call for Freedom for Arrested Turkish Journalists