Abstract
Next year it will be 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, a seminal moment for free speech in Europe. For the collapse of Communism did not just mark the end of the Soviet Union’s brutal regimes in Europe, with their censorship boards, all-encompassing state surveillance and imprisonment of dissident voices (all captured and chronicled by Index on Censorship); it opened up an opportunity for Europe to reunite after 45 years of division.
Index on Censorship’s recently published report on freedom of expression in the European Union looked at how the EU and its member states are dealing with free speech, both domestically and in their foreign policies. It’s a complex picture. For central and Eastern Europe, there can be no doubt that enlargement has played a hugely positive role in improving respect for human rights, but this transition has been patchy. While the Baltic states are attempting to become beacons for internet freedom, Hungary has slipped backwards, with a clampdown on press freedom and new restrictions on whistleblowers. Freedom of expression also remains an issue in countries that joined the EU in its early days. Many of these still criminalise defamation, particularly that directed at politicians and heads of state. The report shows how important is to for the EU to do more to ensure that its member states remain true to the values that inspired the union.
The fall of the Berlin Wall left many behind. While the collapse of the Soviet Union freed a number of European states, others found that one repressive political system was replaced by another.
Azerbaijan is ruled by the corrupt Aliyev dynasty, a family feted by high society in London and Paris, but whose government blackmails and uses violence against journalists and activists. Index visited Baku in October to see the situation at first hand in the run-up to the country’s presidential election. Ilham Aliyev took office in 2003. Since then there has not been a single fair election. Our delegation was hassled by security officers as they attempted to take photos, and the journalists and human rights defenders they spoke to live in fear of violence, physical and psychological threats and the use of libel. The authorities fail to investigate the murder of and violence against journalists, which creates an atmosphere of impunity and encourages further attacks. NGOs that promote freedom of expression are shut down or their work is investigated by the authorities. Index’s report “Locking up free expression” details these violations and paints a grim picture of a country in which the conditions for free expression are deteriorating. Yet Azerbaijan has its vocal supporters – British MPs Mike Hancock and Robert Walter travelled there to monitor the election and said they did not witness electoral violations. But in a country where there is no free independent television, where the main opposition’s candidate was barred from standing for election at the last minute, and where youth activists are detained and beaten up, how free can these elections possibly be?
Index has also been closely involved in freedom of expression battles in the UK, where we have focused on follow-up to the Leveson Inquiry and on mass surveillance. Cross-party support in British politics is a rare thing indeed, but the political response to the Leveson Inquiry has seen politicians line up in favour of a regulatory body for press regulation that is backed by statute. This worrying unanimity in favour of press regulation has led to an unacceptable level of political interference in the workings of a free press. Index remains concerned that the waving through of the Royal Charter has destroyed any hopes of the tough independent self-regulation that will ensure the protection of free speech in the UK. In particular, significant concerns remain over what the Leveson requirements will mean for whistleblowers.
The EU is yet to develop a coherent digital strategy. With digital freedom now a major public concern, it is clearly time to do so
In August, British police arrested David Miranda, the partner of the jounalist behind many of the reports on Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency’s and the UK Government Communications Headquarters’s mass surveillance of the internet. British police detained Miranda under anti-terror legislation and destroyed computers owned by the Guardian newspaper, both troubling signs of how fragile press freedom is. Index’s petition calling for the EU heads of state and government to state their opposition to all systems of mass surveillance was signed by nearly 7,000 people from across Europe. Celebrities such as broadcaster Stephen Fry and artist Anish Kapoor spoke out in favour of our campaign alongside 40 NGOs from across the world. We wait to see if our call for this issue to take centre stage during the European Council Summit has been heeded. After initial prevarication, the issue is becoming increasingly politically charged, with France and Brazil speaking out against US surveillance of its own citizens and the Snowden revelations becoming the number two political issue during the recent German elections. Yet without concerted action, it seems that little will change. Building systems of mass surveillance undercover is perhaps easier than dismantling them once discovered. As Index has pointed out before, the EU is yet to develop a coherent digital strategy. With digital freedom now a major public concern, it is clearly time to do so.
Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a lot remains to be done across Europe and beyond to guarantee free speech. The values we hoped the EU and its member states would champion remain in flux. We must redouble our efforts.