Press Freedom 2008 – A year of global decline

Ter gelegenheid van World Press Freedom Day 2008 sprak Hans Verploeg, voorzitter van het Nederlandse Free Voice, over de ontwikkeling van persvrijheid in de wereld. Onderstaand de Engelse tekst die hij op zaterdag 3 mei uitsprak tijdens de Dag van de Persvrijheid in Maastricht.

Last year, Press Freedom declined on a global scale with worrisome trends evident in the former Soviet Union, Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, reported Karin Deutsch Karlekar, the managing editor of Freedom of the Press 2007. In the spare time I have the floor I will give you some of the headlines of her Report www.freedomhouse.org, an observations of the Committee of Journalists on the Impunity Index (in Dutch: straffeloosheid) and the recent report of Reporters without Borders on the great cyber wall in China.

In relation to the location of Maastricht as traffic knot between Germany, Belgium and Holland I will also quote some remarks from these three Freedom House country reports.

Decline in press freedom continues
The decline in press freedom –which occurred in authoritarian countries and established democracies alike- continues a six year negative trend.
While Freedom House indicates that setbacks in press freedom outnumbered advances two to one globally, there is some improvement in the region with the least amount of press freedom: the Middle East. We have to attribute the gains in this region to a growing number of journalists who were willing to challenge government restraints, a pushback trend seen in other regions and in countries as Birma, Russia and China as well. The simple fact that the two Dutch media ngo’s Press Now and Free Voice have nowadays independent partners in Northern Iraq for PN and in some Arab countries for FV illustrates this fruitfull development.

Out of the 195 countries and territories in the world 37% (72 countries) were rated free in the Freedom Press Barometer (see the screen in the world by country and by population), 30 % (59 countries) partly free and 33% ( 64 countries) not free at all.

Scrolling on we see in the Asia-Pacific region the dominant influence in the population graphic by China in the ranking not free and India in the ranking partly free. Further we have here restriction on media coverage imposed in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Vietnam’s government cracked down on dissident writers.
Conditions in the world’s largest poor performer, China, did not lead to a change in ranking: increased media commercialization balanced tighter official control over content and a general crackdown on dissent, especially online, in the run-up to the 17th Party Congress . As Reporters Without Borders wrote this week on its site: the Chinese net is one of the most controlled in the World. More than 20 companies, also foreign firms were forced in 2007 to sign ‘a self discipline’ pact which forces them to censor the content of the blogs they host in China and too ask bloggers to provide their real identities. Highly sensitive firewalls have been put in place. At least 51 cyber -dissidents are currently in jail in China.
Three days ago the Foreign Correspondents Club of China issued a press release condemning the death threats received by at least 10 foreign correspondents based in China and the serious restrictions imposed on the work of media in Tibet. The International Federation of Journalists released this week a a report ‘Press Freedom in the Balance in South Asia’ www.ifj.org The world federation condemns also in strong words China’s refusal to uphold Olympic promises.

In the sub-Saharan Africa region Benin declined from free to partly free while the Central African Republic and Niger moved into the not free ranks.

In The Americas Guyana’s status shifted from free to partly free while Mexico’s score had a serious setback because of increased violence against journalists and impunity surrounding attacks on media. Although the United States continues to be one of the better performers in the survey, there were continuing problems in the legal sphere, particularly concerning cases in which the authorities tried to compel journalists to reveal confidential sources or provide access to research material in the course of criminal investigations. In 2007, the score for the United States worsened by one point, to 17, to reflect a slight increase in physical attacks on the press, including one murder and several cases of intimidation.

The Middle East and North Africa as I indicated before with the highest ranking not free, shows more unrestricted access to new media such as satellite television and the internet boosted press freedom. In Egypt journalists demonstrate an increased willingness to cross press freedom ‘red lines’, moving the country into the partly free category.

Russia, ranking as a ‘not free country’ we find in the graphic Eastern Europe /former Soviet Union. This region shows the largest region-wide setback in press freedom in Russia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. The same regards also several Central European countries as Latvia and Romania. There is growing concern over governments influence at public broadcasters in Slovenia, Slovakia and Poland.

To wind up this part of the picture show with a positive image: Western Europe continues to have the highest level of press freedom despite declines in Portugal, Malta and Turkey, the only country in the region ranked partly free.

All these findings result in a modest decline in the 2007 index, 72 free and in 2006 74 free ranking countries.

Freedom House Key Trends in 2007
□ Media have played a key role in countries racked by political unrest and upheaval. Coups, states of emergency, and electoral disputes have taken place in a growing number of settings. In many cases, the media have played a central role in covering political conflict and are a prime target when a crackdown sets in. Overt restrictions have included shutdowns of leading or pro-opposition news outlets and other forms of direct censorship. In the past year, this was a major factor in the Caucasus, Central and South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa. Meanwhile, somewhat less egregious instances of pressure and editorial interference occurred in a number of highly ranked countries in Central Europe and the Caribbean.

□ Violence against journalists and impunity regarding past cases of abuse are important factors in a country’s level of press freedom. See also the new Impunity Index the other American organization Committee to Protect Journalists released last Wednesday www.cpj.org/impunityindex/ The level of violence and physical harassment directed at the press continues to rise in many countries, contributing to a number of score declines. In conflict zones such as Iraq and Somalia, the press is in constant danger. Other regions of concern are Latin America (especially Mexico), the former Soviet Union (most notably Russia), and South and Southeast Asia (particularly the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan). Apart from the direct impact on individual journalists, these attacks have a chilling effect, adding to larger problems of self-censorship. Conversely, declines in violence and/or impunity, as occurred in Haiti in 2007, can lead to a wide-ranging numerical improvement.

□ Media freedom remains seriously constrained by a panoply of laws used to punish critical journalists and outlets. Both governments and private individuals continue to restrict media freedom through the use of laws that forbid “inciting hatred,” commenting on sensitive topics such as religion or ethnicity, or “endangering national security.” The abuse of libel laws has also increased in a number of countries, most notably in Africa.

□ Newer media forms—such as satellite television and internet-based newspapers, blogs, and social-networking sites—have emerged as an important force for openness in restricted media environments as well as a key area of contestation. In the battle between government control and media freedom, relatively unrestricted access to these sources has broadened the diversity of available news and opinion. It was a driving force behind small improvements in the Middle East and North Africa region in 2007, and it contributed to Egypt’s upgrade to Partly Free status. At the same time, an increasing number of governments—particularly in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa—are employing or expanding methods of control over these potentially disruptive media. While crude blocking or filtering of particular websites remains common, some authoritarian states have also produced or financed progovernment propaganda designed specifically for these new formats.

Topclusters
Closer home we find in the world ranking 2007 Finland and Iceland leading, each with a rating of 9 points closed followed by Denmark and Norway with 10, Belgium with 11 points, Luxembourg with 12 , The Netherlands with 13 and Germany in the eight cluster with 16 points.

With the same ranking as last year in the fifth cluster with Andorra and New Zealand we find The Netherlands with 13 points. Holland rated two years ago 11. Last year the rating was negative influenced by two criminal law suits regarding slandering the Queen and a hacking by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment into the computers of the Dutch Associated Press Services, the GPD press agency. This follows the 2006 case involving De Telegraaf which was at the center of debate over the legality of wiretapping when it was revealed that the Dutch Intelligence Service had been taping the phone conversations of two of De Telegraaf’s leading reporters. Regarding freedom of speech The Netherlands scored also negative when the Dutch government announced it would cut off funding for the security of Ayaan Hirsi Ali while she was living outside of Holland.

On Belgium Freedom House reports the story of the journalist Mehmet Koksal. After being physically attacked, threatened, insulted and having his family also threatened he shut down his blog in October 2007. His opinions on events in the Turkish community had angered local politicians and the extremist Turkish group Grey Wolves who attacked Koksal in front op the police who did little to protect him. Koksal had been filming a riot instigated by the Grey Wolves. No further action of the Belgium prosecutor has been reported.

Germany
The exception for hate speech, Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda in the German constitution – a constitution that guarantees in free speech and press freedom – provoked two incidents.
And in February 2007 the German constitutional court ruled that the police-raid on the Cicero office in 2005 had been illegal. As had been the case earlier in The Netherlands the German government approved a bill requiring telecommunications firms to store data for up to six months, including emails , text messages and cell phone conversations.
The law permits the bugging of lawyers, journalists and doctors under certain circumstances while providing a level of protection tot religious clerics, members of parliament and state prosecutors. In August 2007 the government launched a criminal investigation against 17 journalists of Der Spiegel,,die Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung and other media. They were accused of ‘divulging’ state secrets.

Worst of the Worst
The world’s worst-rated countries continue to include Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, and Turkmenistan. In 2007, Eritrea joined the ranks of these bad performers, while a crackdown in Burma worsened that country’s already repressive media environment, leaving its negative score second only to that of North Korea. In these states, which are scattered across the globe, independent media are either nonexistent or barely able to operate, the press acts as a mouthpiece for the ruling regime, and citizens’ access to unbiased information is severely limited. Nevertheless, the worse scores for Cuba and Libya did improve slightly in 2007 to reflect the marginal openings provided by new and transnational media forms, such as the internet and satellite television. Rounding out the 10 most repressive media environments are two countries in the former Soviet Union—Belarus and Uzbekistan—and two other countries in Africa—Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe—where media remain heavily restricted.

Source : www.Freedomhouse.org
See also:www.persvrijheid.nl

Administrator

Alle artikelen van Administrator op De Nieuwe Reporter.

  • Berend de Vries

    Freedom House receiving US government money “for clandestine activities inside Iran” Google dat maar.

  • Berend de Vries

    Of deze http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1125 over Reporters without borders. En hier een stukje hoe allerlei liefdadigheidsinstellingen als dekmantel voor geheime dinestne worden gebruikt. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8465
    Is de Nieuwe Reporter eigenlijk ook niet een dekmanteltje voor propaganda?

  • http://www.pmm.nl/contact/contact.htm Ron C. de Weijze

    Voorbeeldrapport 2007 Nederland Freedom House[1], [[met commentaar]], dat wel aangeeft hoe gekleurd journalisten zijn, zelfs al geven zijn hun analyse weer in een cijfer dat de journalistieke vrijheid aan moet geven. Niet zozeer de vrijheid van meningsuiting dus, maar die van de vrijheid van godsdienst van de eigen kerk.

    =====
    The center-right government resigned in June 2006 after an internal dispute involving the immigration minister and Somali-born Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a collaborator of slain filmmaker Theo van Gogh [[as a political set-up, for these people were and could have stayed friends and both were prime targets for the Leftists as was Theo, in an even more direct swordly way]]. Early elections were held in November, and talks on a new ruling coalition were ongoing at year’s end. Nine members of a radical Islamic terrorist cell known as the Hofstad group, which had been linked to Van Gogh’s death, were convicted in March. Also in November, the Netherlands signed an agreement that would break up the Netherlands Antilles in 2007, granting autonomy to the Caribbean islands of Curacao and St. Maarten and making three smaller islands Dutch municipalities.

    ——————————————————————————–

    After the Dutch won their independence from Spain in the sixteenth century, the princely House of Orange assumed the leadership of the United Provinces of the Netherlands. A constitutional monarchy with a representative government emerged in the nineteenth century. The Netherlands remained neutral in both world wars but was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1940. The occupation ended after five years of harsh rule, during which Dutch Jews were deported to concentration camps and Dutch civilians were forced to work in German factories. The Netherlands ended its neutrality when it joined NATO in 1949; it then became, in 1952, one of the founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community, a precursor to the European Union (EU).

    Following the shooting death of right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn in May 2002, his newly formed party, the Pim Fortuyn List (LPF), won second place on an anti-immigrant platform in national elections that month. The good fortunes of the LPF were short lived, however, as party infighting led to the collapse of the new government in October [[plus, even more so, mùch more, as the political set-up, for he was demonized by the Leftists and shortly before his death even so much so, that he became a prime target for extreme Leftist activists, not unfamiliar with murder, which led to his untimely demise]], and new elections were called for 2003. In November 2004, Dutch television viewers voted Fortuyn the greatest Dutchman of all time, ahead of William of Orange, the sixteenth-century founder of the modern Dutch state, and Anne Frank, the World War II diarist and Holocaust victim.

    During the January 2003 elections, 80 percent of registered voters turned out, and nine parties won seats in Parliament. The Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) received more than 28 percent of the vote and 44 seats, just ahead of the Labor Party (PvdA), which captured around 27 percent and 42 seats, and the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which secured 18 percent and 28 seats. The LPF dropped to fifth place with only about 6 percent of the vote and 8 seats. Following four months of talks and a failed attempt to form a broad, center-left coalition with the PvdA, the CDA brought the VVD and Democrats-66 (D66) into a center-right coalition with a slim majority of only 6 seats. Jan Peter Balkenende was named prime minister for a second term.

    Nearly 62 percent of Dutch voters rejected the proposed European Constitution in a national referendum in June 2005, following a similar response by voters in France in May. The two votes effectively scuttled the EU charter for the foreseeable future. [[However the constitution was ‘freely accepted’ by the population after some cosmetic changes were made and no further election was allowed.]]

    In December 2005, 14 men went on trial for allegedly belonging to a radical Islamic terrorist cell known as the Hofstad group. The trial was seen as the first test of new antiterrorism legislation that created charges for “membership of a criminal organization with terrorist intent.” One of the accused was Mohammed Bouyeri, a radical Islamist who killed the controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 and was sentenced to life imprisonment in July 2005. The October 2005 decision by a Dutch court to make Bouyeri stand trial a second time on terrorism charges was criticized by some as a source of further ethnic tensions in the country. Nine of the defendants, including Bouyeri, were convicted in March 2006.

    The coalition government resigned in June 2006 over an internal dispute about the immigration and integration minister, Rita Verdonk. In May, the minister had moved to annul the citizenship of a fellow VVD member of Parliament, the Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, after it was discovered that she had lied in her 1992 asylum application. [[That was a public secret and no problem for replacing one passport for another. However the political Left, just before election day, released a documentary that had long been in the making, to set the stage favourably for itself. It was progress in a way, since it did not include a political killing. Just the break-up of a friendship of allied enemies, one of whom felt forced to leave the country while the other was forced out of her party. And it was all orchestrated by two, or really one, journalist, specialized in real-time demonizing when the time is ripe, who has/have their own daily leftwing political talk show now, adding to the three left-wing political talk shows already on TV each day, lacking anything on the right]] Ali has received death threats for being an outspoken critic of Islam and for her film, Submission , which she made in collaboration with Van Gogh. D-66, a minor party, quit the government over the handling of the incident, causing the coalition to fall apart. Although the government said in July that Ali could keep her Dutch citizenship, she had already announced plans to relocate to the United States and join a conservative think tank.

    In November, the country held elections for a new Parliament in the wake of the ruling coalition’s collapse in June. The CDA led the voting with 41 seats, followed by the PvdA with 32, the Socialist Party with 26, and the VVD with 22. Coalition talks were still under way at year’s end.

    A political party with a pro-pedophilia agenda registered in the Netherlands in June, causing outrage and pressure on the government to block it. The group advocates lowering the age of sexual consent to 12 from 16, as well as legalizing child pornography and sex with animals.

    The Netherlands signed an agreement in November granting autonomy to the Caribbean territories of Curacao and St. Maarten. The islands, which were part of the Netherlands Antilles at the time, would each be self-governing as of July 2007 except in the areas of defense, law enforcement, and foreign policy. Meanwhile, the smaller islands in the Netherlands Antilles—Bonaire, Saba, and St. Eustatius—were set to strengthen their Dutch ties by gaining the status of Netherlands municipalities.

    Political Rights and Civil Liberties

    The Netherlands is an electoral democracy. The 150-member lower house of Parliament, or Second Chamber, is elected every four years by proportional representation and passes bills on to the 75-member upper house, or First Chamber, which is elected for four-year terms by the country’s provincial councils. Foreigners resident in the country for five years or more are legally eligible to vote in local elections.

    The leader of the majority party or coalition is usually appointed prime minister by the monarch, currently Queen Beatrix. The vice prime ministers are also appointed by the monarch. Mayors are not elected in the Netherlands but appointed from a list of candidates submitted by the municipal councils. The monarch appoints the Council of Ministers (cabinet) and the governor of each province on the recommendation of the majority in Parliament.

    The country has few problems with political corruption. [[However multiculturalism and political correctness are an unforeseen Act of God, demonizing anybody tending to the right, especially those who are disgusted by their former left wing parties for shredding their country’s identity and anybody trying to reclaim it.]] The Netherlands was ranked 9 out of 163 countries surveyed in Transparency International’s 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index.

    The news media are free and independent. [[You wish.]] Restrictions on insulting the monarch and royal family exist but are rarely enforced. [[At least, not noticeably. However there are strong suspicions that those are positively discriminated who conform to the far-leftist view of the royal family and the sovereignty of abovementioned multiculturalism and its nepotistic halo.]] Despite a high concentration of newspaper ownership, a wide variety of opinion is expressed in the print media. Internet access is not restricted. [[Except for banning those from newspaper fora and official blogs such as the NOS Television News (CEO: “it’s my blog and nobody owns me”) who dare not to respect and only respect, not criticize, any other culture in the Netherlands than its own.]]

    The Dutch constitution guarantees freedom of religion [[including freedom of salafism, wahabism, and islamic extremism as long as it is spinned from mosks, that turn out to have been secretly given territory and being subsidized in addition to Saudi Arabian funding]], and religious organizations that provide educational facilities can receive subsidies from the government [[so that all-islamic schools are now an undisputable fact and gained right for those who explicitly show never ever willing to be Dutch unless Holland converts to islam first]]. Members of the country’s Muslim population have encountered an increase in racist incidents in the recent past, including vandalism, arson, defacing of mosques or other Islamic institutions, harassment, and verbal abuse [[so there you go. The Dutch are even worse than fascists. They should all convert. They are pigs and monkeys and should pay zakat as the holy koran prescribes]]. According to the U.S. State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report for 2006, the government launched a comprehensive outreach program to counter growing anti-Muslim sentiments in the wake of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali controversy. [[Forget what I said above, for this is obviously the cause and its explanation. The Left had nothing to do with it *cough*.]]In November, the Dutch cabinet backed a proposal by the immigration minister, Verdonk, to ban the burqa, the full face and body covering worn by some Muslim women, from public places. The government took no further action on the law during the rest of the year [[because by then the Left had banned Verdonk and made her leave her party, and replaced her by a minister of their own who wore a burqa at her inauguration]].

    In order to curb undesired foreign influence in the affairs of Dutch Muslim groups, the government has begun to require all imams and other spiritual leaders recruited from Muslim countries to take a one-year integration course before practicing in the Netherlands. An all-party parliamentary report issued in January 2004 concluded that the country had failed to create an integrated, multiethnic society. The report suggested a reversal of the country’s 30-year-old policy of multiculturalism, arguing that Muslims resident in the Netherlands should “become Dutch.” [[ which you might as well read as become Dutch without the quote and the unquote, for all the accommodation does allow for at least some assimilation after all]]. The government does not restrict academic freedom.

    People have the right to assemble, demonstrate, and generally express their opinions [[as long as they are leftist and in line with multiculturalist ideology promoted by the political elite]]. National and international human rights organizations operated freely without government intervention during the year. Workers have the right to organize, bargain collectively, and strike. In November, Parliament enacted legislation that outlaws organizations considered terrorist groups by the European Union (EU) and the United Nations.

    The judiciary is independent [[except for an overrepresentation of the elite]], and the rule of law prevails in civil and criminal matters. The police are under civilian control, and prison conditions meet international standards.

    The population is generally treated equally under the law, although human rights groups have criticized the country’s recent asylum policies for being unduly harsh and violating international standards. [[However, there is another side to this story, just hop in any of the millions of debates on this in Europe. For the logical astuteness of this account this will not be taken into consideration as you can understand.]] In September, amid growing criticism by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and refugee groups for not expediting the asylum requests for 32,000 people, the government [[read: the burqa minister put in place of demonized minister Verdonk]] finally [[rather: immediately]] granted resident permits to about half and ordered the rest to leave the country. The U.S. State Department reports that several thousand left the country voluntarily and another few thousand were involuntarily repatriated. In December, the country instituted a general moratorium on expelling any more people from the group of 32,000 asylum seekers. In October 2006, the Dutch government instituted a moratorium on repatriating failed asylum seekers from Iran who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. The government recognizes gay and lesbian Iranians as a “special group” who may face persecution at home and deserve protection in the Netherlands. The Dutch are known for their liberal values and laws; among these are tolerant attitudes toward so-called soft drugs, such as marijuana, and the legalization of euthanasia and same-sex marriage. The country passed a law in June 2004 that abolished anonymity in sperm donations so that the children of artificially inseminated women can identify their biological fathers.

    The country is a destination and transit point for trafficking in persons, particularly women and girls for sexual exploitation. New legislation came into effect in January 2005 that expanded the legal definition of trafficking to include forced labour and increased the maximum penalty for traffickers to 12 years in cases of serious physical injury and 15 years in cases of death. According to the U.S. State Department’s 2006 Trafficking in Persons report, the Dutch government that year continued its strict controls and licensing for legal brothels as a way to combat trafficking. The government also continued its support of NGOs assisting trafficking victims, and the Justice Ministry began its second assessment (since 2000) of the prostitution sector, in part to determine the number of women trafficked into the profession.
    =====

    [1] http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2007&country=7240