Italy has finally joined the restricted club of states in the world that have chosen the constitutional path for regulating the Internet – or at least has taken a significant step in that direction – by adopting a Declaration of Internet Rights.

It is now looking to present the Declaration at the Internet Governance Forum scheduled for November in João Pessoa, Brazil.

The drafting process lasted more than one year, which is quick by normal Italian bureaucratic standards, and observers were surprised that it had seen the light of the day given what they says is the backwardness of the country’s digital infrastructures.Many questions related to access and use of the Internet go well beyond national borders because of the very nature of the Internet and therefore call for a coordinated effort at the international level

A number of progressive Italian media hailed the Declaration as of “historical significance” in view of the visibility and prestige that it will give Italy on internet governance issues within the global community.

Unlike other countries, where proposals for Internet Bills of Rights or Declarations have been promoted mainly by scholars, associations, dynamic coalitions, enterprises, or groups of stakeholders, the Declaration’s promoters have stressed that the drafting process was characterised by “peer-to-peer relations between institutions and citizens, so that the whole construction has become horizontal.”

In fact, the Declaration is the outcome of a complex and open multi-stakeholder process, which ended with the direct involvement of Italian citizens through a four-month public consultation on the Internet.

Nevertheless, momentum for the Declaration is closely associated with the figures of Laura Boldrini, President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and former spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and Stefano Rodotà, an Italian jurist and politician and long-time advocate of a “Magna Carta” for the networked society who headed the committee of experts which drafted the document.

Explaining the contents of the Declaration, Rodotà said that unlike almost other similar initiatives,  the Italian Declaration : “does not contain specific and detailed wording of the different principles and rights already stated by international documents and national constitutions” but attempts to “identify the specific principles and rights of the digital world, by underlining not only their peculiarities but also the way in which they generally contribute to redefining the entire sphere of rights.”

The Declaration covers a wide range of issues, from the “fundamental right to Internet access” and net neutrality to the notion of “informational self-determination”. It also includes provisions on the security, integrity and inviolability of IT systems and domains, mass surveillance, the right to anonymity and the development of digital identity. It also deals with the highly-debated idea of granting online citizens the “right to be forgotten”.

The Declaration is critical of the opacity of the terms of service devised by digital platform operators, who are “required to behave honestly and fairly” and, most of all, give “clear and simple information on how the platform operates.”

Rodotà pointed out that the set of rights recognised in the Declaration “does not guarantee general freedom on the Internet, but specifically aims at preventing the dependency of people from the outside” through, for example, “expropriation of the right to freely develop one’s personality and identity as may happen with the wide and increasing use of algorithms and probabilistic techniques.”

The importance of needs linked to security and the market are taken into consideration but, according to the promoters of the initiative, there cannot be a balance on equal terms between these interests and fundamental rights and freedoms. In particular, “security needs shall not determine the establishment of a society of surveillance, control and social sorting.”

Renata Avila of Guatemala, who heads the “Web We Want” campaign launched by the World Wide Web Foundation, expressed her satisfaction with the section of the Declaration dedicated to net neutrality and free software, but said that it should have had more explicit and stronger recognition of “the right of people to communicate in private and the right to anonymity.”

The next step for the Italian Declaration concerns it status. It is currently simply a political document with no legal value, although Boldrini has said that it will be the subject of a parliamentary “motion” in the coming months.

As the basis for a legally-binding document, it has much in common with national legislation concerning the Internet in Brazil and the Philippines. However, it promoters note that the Italian declaration was created with an international framework in mind.

Its rationale, they say, is that “the many questions related to access and use of the Internet go well beyond national borders because of the very nature of the Internet and therefore call for a coordinated effort at the international level.”

According to the promoters, the main aim of the Declaration is not limited to being a text for the creation of new national legislation, but aims at being a contribution to public debate that points to possible legislative developments at all levels, “from national legislation to international treaties.”

For his part, Rodotà hoped that the Italian Declaration of Internet Rights would serve as an instrument for the “consolidation of a common international debate and of a culture highlighting common dynamics in different legal systems”.

Edited by Phil Harris   

By Jan Oberg
LUND, Sweden, Aug 7 2015 (IPS)

It’s absolutely necessary to remember what happened 70 years ago in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, see the movies from then, listen to the survivors, the hibakusa. But it isn’t enough for us to rid the world of these crimes-against-humanity weapons. And that we must.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are history and are also the essence of the age you and I live in – the nuclear age. If the hypothesis is that by showing these films, we create opinion against nuclear weapons, 70 years of ever more nuclearism should be enough to conclude that that hypothesis is plain wrong.

Jan Oberg

There is a need for a frontal attack on not only the weapons but on nuclearism – the thinking/ideology on which they are based and made to look ‘necessary’ for security and peace.

Nuclear weapons – only for terrorists

At its core, terrorism is about harming or killing innocent people and not only combatants. Any country that possesses nukes is aware that nukes can’t be used without killing millions of innocent people – infinitely more lethal than Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and so.

Since 9/11 [attack on the Twin Towers in New York], governments and media have conveniently promoted the idea that terrorism is only about small non-governmental groups and thus tried to make us forget that the nuclear ‘haves’ themselves practise state terrorism and hold humanity hostage to potential civilisational genocide (omnicide).

Dictatorship

No nuclear state has ever dared to hold a referendum and ask its citizens: “Do you or do you not accept to be defended by a nuclear arsenal?” Nuclear weapons with the omnicidal ‘kill all and everything’ characteristics is pure dictatorship, incompatible with both parliamentary and direct democracy. And freedom.

Citizens generally have more, or better, morals than governments and do not wish to see themselves, their neighbours or fellow human beings around the world burn up in a process that would make the Holocaust look like a cosy afternoon tea party. In short, nuclear weapons states either arrange referendums or must accept the label dictatorship.“Citizens generally have more, or better, morals than governments and do not wish to see themselves, their neighbours or fellow human beings around the world burn up in a process that would make the Holocaust look like a cosy afternoon tea party”

The idea that a few hundred politicians and military people in the world’s nuclear states have a self-appointed right to play God and decide whether ‘project humankind’ shall continue or not belongs to the realm of the civilisational perverse or the Theatre of the Absurd. Such people must run on the assumption, deep down, that they are Chosen People with a higher mission. Gandhi rightly called Western civilisation diluted fascism.

Unethical

Why? Because – simply – there can be no political or other goal that justifies the use of this doomsday weapon and the killing of millions of people, or making the earth uninhabitable.

Possession versus proliferation

The trick played on us all since 1945 is that there are some ‘responsible’ – predominantly Christian, Western – countries that can, should, or must have nuclear weapons and then there are some irresponsible governments/leaders elsewhere that must be prevented by all means from acquiring them. In other words, that proliferation rather than possession is the problem.

However, it is built into the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that those who don’t have nuclear weapons shall abstain from acquiring them as a quid pro quo for the nuclear-haves to disarm theirs completely.

That is, the whole world shall become a nuclear-weapons-free zone (NWFZ).

Those who have nuclear weapons provoke others to get them too. Possession leads to proliferation.

The recent negotiations with Iran is a good example of this bizarre world view: the five nuclear terrorist states, sitting on enough nukes to blow up the world several times over and who have systematically violated international law in general and the NPT in particular, tell Iran – which abides by the NPT and doesn’t want nuclear weapons – that it must never obtain nuclear weapons.

Simultaneously, they turn a blind eye to nuclear terrorist state, Israel’s 50+ years’ old nuclear arsenals.

And it is all actively assisted by mainstream media which seem to lack the knowledge and/or intellectual capacity to challenge this whole set-up – including the racist belief structure that “we have a God-given right and are more responsible than everybody else – particularly non-Christians…”

But what about deterrence?

You’ve heard the philosophical nonsense repeatedly over 70 years: nuclear weapons are good to deter everyone from starting the ‘Third World War’. That nukes are here to never be used. That no one would start that war because he/she would know that there would be a mass murder on one’s own population in a second strike, retaliation. But think! Two small, simple counterarguments:

• You cannot deter anyone from doing something unless you are willing to implement your threat, your deterrent. If A knows that B wouldnever use his nukes, A would not be afraid of the retaliation. Thus, every nuclear weapons state is ready to use nukes under some defined circumstance; if not there is no deterrence whatsoever

• The United States has long ago done two things (as the only one on earth): decided on a doctrine in which the use of small nukes in aconventional role is fundamental, thus blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons; and said that its missile defence (which it also wants in Europe) is about preventing a second strike back – shooting down retaliatory missiles – so it can start, fight and win a nuclear war without being harmed itself. Or so it can hope.

Hope

Let’s rid the world of this civilisational mistake. Nuclearism and nuclear deterrence are the world’s most dangerous ideologies comparable to slavery, absolute monarchy and cannibalism that we have decided – because we are humans and civilised and can think and feel – to put behind us.

There is no co-existence possible between nuclear weapons on the one hand and democracy, peace and civilisation on the other.

It’s time to regain hope by looking at all the – civilised – non-nuclear countries and follow their example. Thus, 99 percent of the southern hemisphere landmass is nuclear weapons-free with 60 percent of its 193 states, with 33 percent of the world’s population, included in this free zone.

The West, the United States in particular, which started the terrible Nuclear Age, should now follow the great majority of humanity, apologise for its nuclearism and move to zero.

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

“We stand for cooperation and partnership – rather than competition – in our relations with Africa and the world” – Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and chair of the African Union Peace and Security Council: Credit: Courtesy of Maite Nkoana-Mashabane

By Maite Nkoana-Mashabane
PRETORIA, Aug 3 2015 (IPS)

The Freedom Charter, which turned 60 this year, envisaged that a free and democratic South Africa would be guided in its relations with the rest of the African continent and the world by a desire to seek “peace and friendship”.

Twenty-one years after the attainment of our freedom and democracy, peace and friendship are still core objectives of our foreign policy.

The African continent remains central to our foreign policy, and this approach forms the basis for our friendship, cooperation and peace efforts all over the world. We stand for cooperation and partnership – rather than competition – in our relations with Africa and the world.

The African Union Summit, held in South Africa in June 2015,  set out measures for the rollout of Agenda 2063 as a continental vision for the “Africa We Want”, an Africa that is united, peaceful, prosperous, and which takes up its rightful place in world affairs.“It is vital that the continent identifies and addresses the root causes of conflicts, with the ultimate aim of achieving sustainable peace and development. Among these, democracy must be deepened to give our people a voice they deserve”

The Summit adopted a 10-year implementation plan for Agenda 2063, a sign that African leaders are committed to giving practical expression and commit their energies, talents and resources towards the realisation of the goals that are contained in Agenda 2063, working in partnership with various stakeholders, including business and other non-governmental sectors.

While there have been remarkable developments in some areas where the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region has experienced political and security challenges, the latest of which is the political and security situation in the Kingdom of Lesotho, there needs to be ongoing political and security engagement within the region.

South Africa will continue to forge closer political, economic and social relations through targeted high-level interactions in Africa.

The realisation of “The Africa We Want” requires peace, be it in the SADC, Great Lakes, the Horn of Africa or in North Africa.

Our continent, especially in East, West and North Africa, is also battling against a spate of dreadful and cowardly acts of terrorism, which we condemn and must be defeated.

We must silence the guns. To this end, the African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC), the precursor to the African Standby Force (ASF), has to be operationalised as one of our tools for African solutions to African problems. This is a Force that should evolve into a critical element that helps us stabilise and keep the peace on the continent.

South Africa, in conjunction with ACIRC, will be hosting the AMANI Africa II Field Training Exercise this year to operationalise the African Standby Force. We are pleased to be part of strengthening our continent’s military response mechanisms. This further illustrates the continent’s commitment towards self-reliance and interventions led by African nations.

Under South Africa’s leadership of the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) for the month of July 2015, we sought to put critical issues that are at the core of the continent’s efforts to ensure peace and stability at the forefront of the PSC’s agenda, including strengthening the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), which comprise the PSC itself, early warning capacity, peace-making and post-conflict reconstruction and development.

We also brought into the spotlight the issue of peace, justice and reconciliation, which remains a very crucial matter for our continent in promoting nation-building and reconciliation in order to enable societies, especially in post-conflict settings, to heal, reconstruct and develop.

It is vital that the continent identifies and addresses the root causes of conflicts, with the ultimate aim of achieving sustainable peace and development. Among these, democracy must be deepened to give our people a voice they deserve. Our constitutions have to reign supreme to ensure accountability and political certainty.

Some of the fundamentals towards African unity are already in place. Our continental organisations are in existence and functional. What we need, however, is more effectiveness in programme delivery and in finding innovative sources of self-financing for budgetary self-reliance.

A united, peaceful and prosperous Africa is possible and within reach. And the prevailing environment is conducive for the realisation of the objectives of Agenda 2063.

Edited by Phil Harris    

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

Refugees in Berlin defied a municipal eviction order in June 2014 with a nine-day hunger strike on the rooftop of a vacant school building using the slogan “You Can’t Evict a Movement” which today has become the rallying cry of the refugees’ movement in Germany. Credit: Denise Garcia Bergt

By Francesca Dziadek
BERLIN, May 21 2015 (IPS)

In a move to take their message of solidarity to refugees across the country and calling for their voices to be heard in Europe’s ongoing debate on migration, Germany’s asylum seekers have taken their nationwide protest movement for change on the road under the slogan: “You Can’t Evict a Movement!”.

Earlier this month, in a twist to conventional protest movements, refugees organised a Refugee Bus Tour across Germany, turning action into networking through mobile solidarity.

“We wanted to go out and bring a message of solidarity to all corners of Germany, to meet other refugees and tell them not to be afraid, to take life into their own hands and above all that you are not a criminal,” Napuli Görlich told IPS, tired but relieved after a month of travelling."In dictatorships, young people suffer systematic oppression for a mere criticism of the regime. Faced with joblessness and lack of freedom of expression, they will seek legal or illegal emigration following the lure of the foreign media's often empty slogans of justice and freedom" – Adam Bahar, Sudanese blogger and campaigner for Germany’s refugee movement

On the morning of Apr. 1, Napuli had stood on this same spot, flanked by fellow campaigners Turgay Ulu,  Kokou Teophil and Gambian journalist Muhammed Lamin Jadama, staring at the burnt-out refugee Info Point in Berlin, victim of one of a number of disturbing arson attacks this year, including one on a refugee home in Tröglitz, in the eastern state of Saxony.

Until the day before, the Info Point had functioned as a social solidarity base in the heart of Berlin’s Oranienplatz square, known here as the O’Platz. The square holds a symbolic importance as the central stronghold of the nation-wide refugee movement.

“That was a very sad moment for us,” said Napuli. “Such brutal attacks hit us where it hurts most, in our sense of vulnerability, precariousness, and invisibility,” she continued, vowing that the Info Point, registered as an art installation in Berlin’s Kreuzberg district, will be rebuilt.

One of the most vocal and resilient personalities of the German refugee movement, Napuli was born in Sudan and studied at the universities of Ahfad and Cavendish in Kampala.  A human rights activist, she suffered torture and persecution for running an NGO and fled to Germany, where she has been with the refugee movement ever since.

From the start, she has also been associated with the O’Platz “protest camp”, which became her home and that of 40 other refugees in October 2012.  They had pitched their tents in the square after a 600 km march from what they termed a “lager” reception centre in Würzburg, Bavaria. The refugees stayed, on braving the elements, until the district council ordered bulldozers to tear it down in April last year.

“When they came to clear the camp I had nothing, absolutely nothing, only a blanket on my shoulders,” Napuli recalled. For the next three days, she took her blanket, her protest and her rage at the lack of an agreement with the Berlin authorities up a nearby tree, literally.

Germany’s refugee movement was sparked by the suicide of a young Iranian asylum-seeker Mohammad Rahsepar who hanged himself in his room at the Würzbug reception centre on Jan. 29, 2012.  En route to the German capital the marchers stopped by other “lagers”, starting to raise awareness about the inhumane conditions of isolation for asylum applicants, inviting them to leave their camps and join the march for freedom to Berlin.

Since then, the movement has been calling unequivocally for abolition of Germany’s enforced residence policy, or “Residenzpflicht”, a lager system which effectively denies asylum-seekers freedom of movement.

Other demands are an end to deportations, and rights to education, the possibility to work legally and access to emergency medical care, so far unavailable to asylum seekers.

After the O’Platz protest camp was razed to the ground, many of the prevalently African refugees occupied a vacant school building in Berlin, the Gerhardt-Hautmann-Schule in the Kreuzberg district’s Ohlauerstrasse, where they ran social and cultural activities until June 2014.

The local authorities attempted to enforce an eviction order, flanked by a 900-strong federal police force, and barring all access to visitors, press, voluntary organisations and even Church groups were denied access to the school or delivery of food.

Refusing to leave the building, some of the refugees took to the school’s rooftops for a nine-day hunger strike and standoff, waving a banner with the slogan “You can’t evict a movement”, which has now become the rallying cry of the refugees’ movement.

Some, like Alnour, Adam Bahar and Turgay Ulu, continue to live here, still hopeful that the district will agree to a proposal to set up an international refugee centre here and that they may be able to receive visitors.

Angela Davis, the iconic U.S. civil and human rights activist, was denied access when she tried to visit them on the premises recently.  “The refugee movement is the movement of the 21st century,” said Davis, referring to the plight of migrants worldwide.

During her May 2015 visit to Berlin, Angela Davis brought a message of support to members of the German refugee movement outside an occupied school building in Berlin’s Kreuzberg district. Credit: Francesca Dziadek/IPS

“The Polizei can come at any time of night and snatch us away; we are under constant threat of deportation. I am feeling very stressed, I cannot sleep very well,” Alnour told IPS, explaining how they have had to make do with one, cold, defective shower for 40 people.

Undeterred on his return from the Refugee Bus Tour, Turgay Ulu, a Turkish journalist who was tortured and imprisoned as a dissident for 15 years, published the refugee movement’s magazine and is an active network organizer, has a very busy “working” schedule.

“There is a lot to do, from organising sleeping places for the homeless, writing and producing video content, organising spontaneous demonstrations and occupations, musical events, theatre performances, and consciousness-raising on national and international refugee bus tours,” Ulu told IPS.

“We have two choices, we either sit in the lagers and eat, sleep and eat again and go crazy, or we protest.”

Germany’s problem has been the exceedingly long waiting times necessary for processing asylum applications.  The United Nations has reported that in 2014 the country had the highest number of asylum applications since the Bosnian War in 1992. There are reportedly 200,000 asylum applications still outstanding and it is being predicted that this will have risen to 300,000 this year.

Adam Bahar, a Sudanese blogger and one of the refugee movement’s campaigners, told IPS that his dream of a better life of freedom and wealth evaporated when he reached Europe, where he soon realised that freedom and human rights are not for everyone to enjoy.

“In dictatorships, young people suffer systematic oppression for a mere criticism of the regime,” he said. ”Faced with joblessness and lack of freedom of expression, they will seek legal or illegal emigration following the lure of the foreign media’s often empty slogans of justice and freedom.”

Today, continued Bahar, who is in demand as a speaker and gives seminars at Berlin’s Humboldt University, “colonialism, which was born in Berlin in 1884, is being implemented by starting wars and marketing weaponry.”

As politicians busy themselves with strategies and programmes and allocating resources to more programmes to hold back refugees, they should be naming and shaming the real culprits instead, he said. “Change begins by uprooting dictators who are clandestinely colluding to misuse their nation’s wealth and remain in power thanks to the support of the pseudo democracies of the first world.”

Meanwhile, the refugee movement’s unified front appears to be making some, albeit limited, headway. The forced residence system, for example, has been abolished in a number of federal states and the Berlin Senate has just announced plans to provide refugee shelter accommodation to be completed by 2017 in 36 locations for 7,200 asylum seekers spread out across Berlin’s local districts at an overall cost of 150 million euros.

Germany is currently walking a tightrope between honouring its international humanitarian responsibilities, pursuing its international economic interests, including its remunerative arms sales contracts, and handling dangerous right-leaning swings in public opinion against immigrants.

At the same time, Germany is pursuing a risky carrot-and-stick immigration policy agenda which is sending out contradictory signals – a 10-year-old immigration law which placed Germany on the map as a land of “immigration” for highly skilled foreigners, while tightening restrictions for those who are not deemed to be candidates for economic integration.

At issue is the divisive policy which places refugees in “asylum-worthy” categories. “In Germany there are three categories of refugees,” Asif Haji, a 30-year-old Pakistani asylum seeker, told IPS.

“The first are Syrians and other Middle East refugees who are awarded permits and education. Second come the Afghans and Pakistanis, who have to struggle a bit but are allowed language school and work permits. But then there are the Africans who are widely perceived as economic migrants leeching on the system and petty criminals dealing in drugs who are not particularly welcome anywhere.”

“This is unfair,” he said. “Human tragedy should not be classified.”

Edited by Phil Harris    

Jazz legend Herbie Hancock, the brains behind International Jazz Day, an event that aims to encourage and highlight the “power of jazz as a force for freedom and creativity”. Credit: A.D. McKenzie

By A. D. McKenzie
PARIS, May 2 2015 (IPS)

Against the backdrop of civil unrest in Baltimore, Maryland, the fourth annual International Jazz Day was celebrated with events around the world and appeals for peace, unity and dialogue.

“Each of us is equal. All of us inhabit this place we call home,” said American jazz legend Herbie Hancock. “We must move mountains to find solutions to our incredible challenges.”“Each of us is equal. All of us inhabit this place we call home. We must move mountains to find solutions to our incredible challenges" – American jazz legend Herbie Hancock

Although the organisers of the event held on Apr. 30 did not refer directly to the protests that have followed the funeral of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray, an African-American who died in police custody, Hancock told IPS in an exclusive interview that musicians were conscious of this and other cases.

“Every time those kinds of things happen, not just with African-Americans or people of African heritage – but with different groups, whether it’s women being slaughtered, children being abused, ethnic groups being oppressed – we have to work to change things. This gives the music value and meaning,” he said.

Cover of the programme for International Jazz day 2015. Credit: A.D.McKenzie

International Jazz Day is Hancock’s brainchild, and it is presented each year by the United Nations’ cultural agency UNESCO in partnership with the U.S.-based Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz. The organisers say the day is aimed at encouraging and highlighting the “power of jazz as a force for freedom and creativity”.

It is also meant to promote “intercultural dialogue through respect and understanding, uniting people from all corners of the globe,” says UNESCO.

In a sign of how significant the event has become since its launch in 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle will host the 2016 International Jazz Day and its signature event, the ‘All-Star Global Concert’, at the White House in Washington, D.C., Hancock announced.

“I spoke to Obama almost a year ago, at an event, and he said ‘let’s make it happen’. That wasn’t a promise because it was just in the moment, but he did make it happen, and the concert will be at the White House next year,” he told IPS.

After its beginnings in Paris three years ago, other cities which have played host to the global concert include Istanbul, Turkey, in 2013 and Osaka, Japan, last year.

The 2015 Global Host City was Paris once more, and jazz lovers were able to enjoy a day-long series of performances and educational programmes in different districts of the French capital. The presentations included workshops, master classes, discussions and jam sessions, in venues ranging from community centres to soup kitchens.

Coinciding with UNESCO’s on-going 70th anniversary celebration, the ‘All-Star Global Concert’ took place in a packed auditorium at the agency’s headquarters, with top United Nations and French officials among the audience, including U.N. Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon and France’s Justice Minister Christiane Taubira who has long fought discrimination.

“Jazz has taught me much,” said Ban. “When things become difficult, I’ve learned that you just have to improvise.”

He and the multi-cultural audience then settled back to enjoy the show, with its line-up of 30 renowned artists. The concert kicked off with vocalist Al Jarreau warming up the crowd and moved to a stirring tribute by South African musician Hugh Masekela to his country’s late icon Nelson Mandela.

As Ban had remarked, the concert was like a “mini-UN”, as American pianists such as Hancock and John Beasley (the show’s musical director) joined with Brazilian vocalist Eliane Elias,

Scottish-born Annie Lennox, more known for her rock singing, was one of the star performers at International Jazz Day’s ‘All-Star Global Concert’ 2015. Credit: A.D.McKenzie

Scottish singer Annie Lennox, Tunisian oud virtuoso Dhafer Youssef, French percussionist Mino Cinélu, Chinese teenage pianist A Bu, and a host of others to celebrate jazz and its influence.

Hancock said musicians and others were working for tolerance, mutual respect and global peace. “I’ve seen musicians from opposing sides unite to play the most beautiful music and tell the sweetest stories,” he said in his speech to the audience.

The ‘Who’s Who’ of jazz also included singer Dee Dee Bridgewater, who thanked France for opening doors and welcoming jazz musicians; saxophonist Wayne Shorter, who played alongside the young Washington, D.C.-born bassist Ben Williams and oud player Youssef for a world-premiere piece; and vocalists Dianne Reeves and Lennox (more known for rock), who drew cheers for their powerful renditions.

At the launch, UNESCO’s Director-General Irena Bokova said: “Jazz means dialogue, reaching out to others, bringing everyone on board. It means respecting the human rights and dignity of every woman and man, no matter their background. It means understanding others, letting them speak, listening in the spirit of respect.

“All this is why we join together to celebrate jazz; this music of freedom is a force for peace, and its messages have never been more vital than they are today, in times of turbulence,” she added.

Other countries that staged events to celebrate the day included South Africa, where organisers presented a series of workshops, seminars and performances with the theme of achieving change, and the United States, where award-winning artists gave concerts in New Orleans and other cities.

Edited by Phil Harris    

*   This article is published in association with Southern World Arts News (SWAN).

By Kerry Kennedy
WASHINGTON, Jul 9 2014 (IPS)

Visiting Bangladesh has been a lifelong dream of mine, but all that I had heard about a people who love freedom so much that they have withstood great armies, famine and intractable poverty could not prepare me for what I’ve seen in the last three days.   The Bengali patriots’ courage and endurance in the face of the Pakistani army forty years ago is the stuff of legend in our family. I remember your great uncle Teddy (Kennedy) telling us about his visit to the Calcutta refugee camps, where tens of thousands lived not in tents but in sewer pipes.

Kerry Kennedy

In a small wooden room packed with women in bright saris, we met a proud shareholder of the Grameen Bank – ­the transformative micro-lending institution founded by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammed Yunus ­– who borrowed 5,000 taka (about 80 dollars) and bought a rickshaw, and then 20,000 taka (240 dollars) and bought a cow, and then 30,000 taka (480 dollars) and bought land.

Thanks to her hard work and the Grameen Bank, she now has a house full of furniture, a field full of food, water, a working toilet and a television set. She saves 100 taka a month, and this year she will receive 100,000 taka (750 dollars) from her savings.

We met a store owner and her husband, who borrowed from Grameen to buy solar panels, which have allowed them to expand their storefront and provide light to the brick house they share with three siblings and their in-laws. “I hope we can take inspiration from the people of Bangladesh and rededicate ourselves to democracy and freedom, knowing that the price may be high, but the sacrifice is well worthwhile” – Kerry Kennedy, President of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights

We met a young woman on a Grameen scholarship who will be the first woman in her family to go to college. She is majoring in computer science and plans to start a business in the Information Technology sector that will transform her neighbourhood.

We met ten women who sit on the board of the Grameen Bank, all borrowers. They’re angry at the government and concerned for the future of the bank. The government recently ousted Muhammed Yunus from the board of his own bank on the pretence that he had overstayed the mandatory retirement age of sixty.

Then, finding no other legal way to do so, the government cajoled the rubber-stamp Parliament to change a banking law for the specific purpose of ousting the impoverished women from the Grameen board and replacing them with ruling party toadies, who, the women fear, will transform the multibillion-dollar bank that has helped so many escape poverty into just another slush fund for kleptocrats to draw upon.

We met a dozen women, many of them lawyers, all of them leaders of NGOs that address pressing issues like indigenous rights, due process of law, violence against women, dowry battles, rape and environmental justice. Many have been arrested, and many live under daily threat. One said her husband had been “disappeared” in apparent retaliation for her work. They are scared of the nation’s security forces, which are known for kidnappings, torture and extrajudicial executions.

And yet they wake up in the morning, kiss their children and their husbands, and return to work, a daily show of quiet courage.

We met a woman who worked at the collapsed Rana Plaza sweatshop who said she never wants to work in the clothing industry again. I met another who said the same thing but, he added, “we are poor, and we must work.”

They were among a crowd lining the hallway and sitting at intake tables at the offices of the Rana Plaza Claims Administration, the non-profit group charged with addressing reparations for the victims of the Rana Plaza disaster [which left more than 1,000 dead after its collapse in April 2013].

It is an impressive operation, manned by a team of dedicated professionals in labour, law and computer science, intent on making pay-outs to every single victim for physical and psychological injuries and to the scores of dependents who lost the family breadwinner in the tragedy. They have 17 million dollars to hand out, and calculate the need will be closer to 40 million dollars, but the fund is voluntary and no law compels the brands to pay their fair share. While some have been generous, too many others have refused to participate, because no law compels them to do so.

We met Adil Rahman Khan, who has organised a team of 400-plus human rights monitors and defenders across the country to investigate and report on violations of voting rights; on crackdowns on free speech and assembly; on torture, extrajudicial execution, disappearances; and, moreover, ­on holding the government accountable for its failures to protect the freedom that the Bangladeshi people won at such great cost 40 years ago.

Adil seeks accountability in a country where 197 anti-corruption officers are presently under investigation for corruption themselves. For his actions, Adil lives under constant threat of death. Last year, after issuing a report documenting a massacre by government forces of 61 protestors, he was taken away and held without trial for 62 days in a filthy cell, ridden with bedbugs and rotten food.

And, of course, we met with my dear friend  [Muhammed] Yunus. He invited us to come to Dhaka for Social Business Day, where people from scores of countries across the globe gathered to share their designs and experiences with creating businesses which seek not profits for shareholders but solutions to problems like housing or food access.

I have always been struck by the sense of peace and joy he conveys.  But I never appreciated how incredible that was until I saw him in Bangladesh.  He is under unremitting pressure from a government that seeks to destroy all he has given his life to build. And yet he endures, and invites us to somehow find peace amidst the chaos in our lives and find our joy through service.

What an amazing place, what an amazing country.  As we in America celebrate our own Independence Day these days, I hope we can take inspiration from the people of Bangladesh and rededicate ourselves to democracy and freedom, knowing that the price may be high, but the sacrifice is well worthwhile. (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

* Kerry Kennedy is also a member of the IPS Board of Directors.

Excerpt:

Police use tear gas and water canons in Istanbul to disperse demonstrators protesting the new Internet bill. Credit: Emrah Gurel/IPS.

By Ezgi Akin
ANKARA, Feb 14 2014 (IPS)

Turkey is waiting to see if President Abdullah Gul will ratify the government’s controversial Internet bill, which opposition parties, civil society and the international community call a major restriction on freedom of expression.

Gul had said three years ago that “there shouldn’t be any restrictions over the Internet.” Freedom champions are waiting now for him to walk the talk.

Parliament has passed the bill which bypasses the judiciary by authorising Turkey’s telecommunication board, TIB, to take a decision on blocking a website or individual web content in case of complaints of violation of personal rights and right to privacy. The new bill also allows the authorities to track individual web records of Internet users."The Turkish public deserves more information and more transparency, not more restrictions."

The bill has caused serious concern within the European Union. Peter Stano, spokesperson for Stefan Fule, the Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, said the bill introduces several restrictions on the freedom of expression.

“This law is raising serious concerns here. The Turkish public deserves more information and more transparency, not more restrictions,” Stano said.

Turkey’s government, however, says the bill is aimed at protecting people’s privacy. Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that with the existing law it takes some five days to remove content from the web, and the new law will reduce this period.

“The Internet isn’t being removed, it is being brought under control,” Erdogan said in a televised speech. “Perceiving this [law] as censorship is cruelty. In fact, this law is making the Internet more liberal…By Internet regulation, Turkey will no longer be a country which is being blackmailed by tapes.”

Turkey’s main opposition party calls the bill a “politically motivated” step to increase governmental control over the Internet and stop leaks about a recent graft probe. Social media has become the public information channel of purported graft probe documents and recordings of wiretapped phone conversations, including those of Erdogan and other senior government officials.

The graft probe, which kicked off Dec. 17, has already led four ministers to lose their seats in the cabinet due to alleged involvement in corruption. Erdogan says the probe is a “conspiracy” against him and is aimed at toppling his government.

He accuses influential cleric Fethullah Gulen’s supporters of being members of a “parallel state” that is behind the probe. Gulen, who is in self-imposed exile in the United States, was once a close ally of Erdogan’s government and is believed to have many supporters in Turkey and in the Turkish bureaucracy, especially in the judiciary and police. The two are reportedly locked in a power struggle.

A legislator from Turkey’s main opposition said the bill was a “clear attempt to censor the recent bribe and corruption scandal” and “against basic human rights and freedoms.

“This is against the Copenhagen criteria and may put Turkey’s European Union aspirations at risk,” Aykan Erdemir told IPS, referring to standards that Turkey needs to achieve in order to join the 28-member group.

“Leaving a decision to a bureaucrat without a court order is unacceptable. This is a violation of the presumption of innocence.”

The new bill also calls for all Internet service providers to unite under an umbrella group called the Internet Service Providers Association. The association will have to block a website or content within four hours at TIB’s request. Web page owners would be able to appeal the decision in court.

The bill also allows the association to keep individual web records of Internet users for two years and share them with the authorities on request.

An Internet watchdog group, the Turkish Informatics Association, said the bill is “not constructive but destructive.”

“We are concerned that this will cause self-censorship as users’ records will be archived. People will be afraid of visiting some sites,” İlker Tabak, deputy head of the association, told IPS.

“The websites will be closed without even asking their owners to defend themselves. We have a state governed by laws, and decisions to block [sites] shouldn’t be left to personal initiative.”

The New York-based media freedom advocacy group, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has labeled the bill a “radical censorship measure.”

“If passed, the amendments to Turkey’s already restrictive Internet law would compound a dismal record on press freedom in the country…Internet freedom has been deteriorating steadily in Turkey for some time,” the group said.

Most recently, an Azerbaijani journalist who works for Turkey’s English language newspaper Today’s Zaman left the country. The “Turkish authorities added his name to a list of people who are barred from entering Turkey” after he posted critical Tweets about Erdogan, Today’s Zaman reported.

Meanwhile, civil rights groups and NGOs have urged Gul to veto the bill. Turkey’s largest business association, TUSIAD, sent a letter to Gul saying the bill “should be revised” in accordance with the definition of basic human rights, including freedom of expression.

The new bill has also prompted protests in major cities like Istanbul and Ankara. Hundreds of demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest the bill and mount pressure on Gul.

Gul’s stance on Internet freedom is starkly different from that of Erdogan who once defined social media as the “worst menace” for societies.

“I think there shouldn’t be any restrictions over the Internet. Everyone should be able to use the Internet freely,” Gul had tweeted in May 2011. But Gul rarely vetoes government bills as he is one of the founding members of the ruling AKP party.

Gul is one of the most active leaders on Twitter with some four million followers so far. Hasip Kaplan, a legislator from the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party, BDP, said Friday that he would lose one follower if Gul ratified the bill.

“We will see to what extent Mr. President is libertarian. I think the President should veto this. In case he doesn’t I will delete him from my Twitter, I will unfollow him.”

A solider trying to stop a protest by Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Cairo. Credit: Hisham Allam/IPS.

By Hisham Allam
CAIRO, Nov 7 2013 (IPS)

Demonstrations have been at the heart of historic upheavals in Egypt since January 2011. But a newly proposed law that seeks to regulate protests could imperil one of the biggest gains of the Arab Spring revolution here: freedom of expression.

The protest law, approved by the military-backed government Oct. 9 in the backdrop of violent protests, entails fines of up to 42,000 dollars plus imprisonment for offenders. It now awaits the assent of interim President Adly Mansour.

Its supporters say that passing a law to regulate demonstrations was necessary to prevent the country from sliding into daily chaos.“When the demonstrators are Sisi’s supporters, the protests are legal and when they are his opponents, they are a crime."

But human rights groups, Islamist parties and other opponents of the military-backed dispensation call it a huge setback for hard-won public freedoms.

“This law will arouse the anger of many revolutionary and worker groups that make their voices heard through peaceful demonstrations,” said Dr. Khaled Alam El Din, former advisor to Mohammad Morsi, Egypt’s first democratically elected president who was ousted in a military coup Jul. 3.

Morsi’s supporters see the draft law as an attempt by the Commander of the Armed Forces, Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi, to silence all voices in Egypt that condemn the coup.

“Sisi wants to pass this law to restrict freedom of expression and suppress his opponents,” El Din told IPS. “The Egyptian political elite and private media are completely tight-lipped. No one dare criticise these dictatorial policies.

“Such an oppressive law will eventually explode in the face of all those involved in passing it. If this situation continues, it will be the final nail in the coffin for the 2011 revolution, one of the biggest gains of which was freedom of expression.”

Some point out the irony of such a law in Egypt.

“Have they (those in the government) forgotten that they too came to power through demonstrations?” asked Amr Bakly, a rights activist.

It was mass protests that led to the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak, who had been in power for nearly 30 years, in 2011. The coup against Morsi, a face of the Muslim Brotherhood that played a key role in the revolution, also came after widespread demonstrations.

“When the demonstrators are Sisi’s supporters, the protests are legal and when they are his opponents, they are a crime? This is a shame,” Bakly told IPS.

Calling it an “anti-protest law”, 17 national human rights NGOs, in a joint statement, said it is “a permission to kill” demonstrators and opponents of the military regime.

Comprising 21 articles, the proposed law requires Interior Ministry permission five days before any demonstration, and gives senior police officials the right to cancel, postpone or relocate demonstrations as well as to ban sit-ins.

According to it, demonstrators will be prohibited from gathering in certain areas, overshooting the permitted duration of the protest, exposing the public to danger, blocking roads, or causing any disturbance to traffic.

The draft law also makes it mandatory for demonstrators to maintain a minimum distance of 50 metres between the protest site and vital installations.

“(If this becomes law) people can be imprisoned and charged with treason if they take the matter to international courts,” Bakly said.

The draft law faces harsh criticism from some within the government, including Deputy Prime Minister Ziad Bahaa El Din.

Human rights activists see it as a revival of the law which Morsi’s government had tried to bring in unsuccessfully.

“Sisi’s law is worse than Morsi’s, and both were looking to empower themselves. The military seeks to set up a police state whereas the Brotherhood had been seeking a religious dictatorship,” Bakly told IPS.

Some politicians and writers, however, say the protest law will help regulate demonstrations and provide stability and security.

Since the Egyptian army deposed Morsi, thousands of his supporters have protested across the country. Many have been killed and injured. The latest flare-up occurred on Oct. 6 when 60 people were killed in clashes between supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and the security forces.

“Opponents of the law want the country to be lost in chaos,” said Soliman Gouda, a well-known columnist. “The state must control outlaws and criminals who are disturbing public life through demonstrations.

“The Brotherhood’s demonstrations have resulted in Egyptians being denied the grace of democracy, especially after pro-Morsi protestors resorted to riots, violence and attacks on public and private enterprise,” Gouda, former editor in chief of Al-Wafd newspaper told IPS.

“Establishing rules for organising demonstrations does not mean restricting freedoms; this interpretation is completely misleading.”

Esraa Abdel Fatah, a popular internet activist, said: “Passing a law to regulate demonstrations is necessary because supporters of the previous government started using weapons and knifes in clashes with peaceful citizens, leaving dozens of people dead.”

Fatah, who was arrested in 2008 for two weeks, told IPS: “The law will not affect public freedoms if it is formulated in accordance with international conventions and under the supervision of a specialised committee of elected parliament members.

“But if it shackles the hands of people and stops them from expressing their opinions, no doubt it will end the process of freedoms in Egypt forever.”

In an extraordinary move, a civilian has been sentenced to a year’s imprisonment for posting a picture on Facebook of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dressed in a Real Madrid soccer outfit and kicking a ball. The sentencing is among several instances of a targeting of media in Palestinian areas.

Anas Saad Awad, 26, from the northern West Bank village of Awarta near Nablus, was sentenced in the Nablus magistrate’s court, that convicted him of “criticising the government.”  Awad was unable to address the court as the conviction was carried out while he was elsewhere in the court building.

Awad’s lawyer Rima Al Sayed said her client has been accused of photo-shopping a picture of Abbas wearing a Real Madrid shirt with the caption: ‘A new striker’. According to Sayed, the Palestinian judiciary had applied Article 195 of Jordan’s penal code, which criminalises criticism of the Jordanian king.

The use of Jordanian law by Palestine’s judiciary is not unusual. In addition to the Basic Law established in 2002, Palestinian law is an amalgam of Egyptian and Jordanian law and the codes left over from the era of the British Mandate. But the application of Jordanian law can frequently be used against Palestinians in labour disputes and “honour” crimes and speech.

“My son only commented on Facebook,” said Awad’s distressed father. “You know how young people comment. He didn’t mean to insult the president. I ask the president to intervene personally to cancel the court’s decision.”

IPS was unable to speak to the family directly considering the likelihood of Palestinian intelligence agencies monitoring the family’s phones, and creating more trouble for them.

Awad had been in trouble with Palestinian intelligence previously for criticising the Palestinian Authority (PA), and he was arrested but then fined and released.

“This is unprecedented. This is the first time this kind of sentence has been imposed on an ordinary citizen merely for commenting on Abbas. The Facebook comment was not even rude or critical,” said Riham Abu Aita from the Palestinian Centre for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA).

“Last year 10 Palestinian journalists from Gaza and the West Bank were arrested and interrogated for criticising both Hamas and the PA. Media freedom in the Palestinian territories has got off to a bad start in 2013 already,” Abu Aita told IPS.

“Hamas has arrested dozens of journalists in Gaza, and the Israeli security forces are increasingly targeting both Palestinian and foreign media as they have tried to cover the growing protests in the West Bank.

“However, the PA has become overly sensitive in the last few months. This is related to its hyper sensitivity to international criticism following its upgrade at the UN to non-member observer status and the pressure being exerted on it by Palestinian and international human rights organisations,” said Abu Aita.

One of the PA’s strategies towards implementing its goal of an independent Palestinian state is joining the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a way of bringing pressure to bear on Israel, which is in violation of a number of human rights issues under international law over its treatment of Palestinians.

The PA’s status at the UN is only that of a non-observer state, but it could ratify core human rights treaties including the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 19 of which guarantees freedom of expression.

The PA has pledged to uphold human rights and ratify various conventions, but has failed to do so in a number of areas. Human Rights Watch noted that “it’s commendable that the Palestinian leadership is studying the treaties; its delay in ratifying them inspires little faith in their commitment to upholding fundamental rights and freedoms.”

“Another issue is the fear of the PA of a popular uprising in the West Bank following the Arab Spring which has swept through the region, threatening dictatorships in its wake,” Abu Aita told IPS. “Abbas’s government would also like to appear to be taking the higher moral ground in regard to Hamas which has recently been slammed in the press for its crackdown on the media in Gaza.”

While Abbas’s security apparatus has been able to control journalists and media publications in the West Bank to a certain extent, social networks have proven far harder to control despite intensive monitoring.

Last year Palestinian security forces jailed at least three people accused in separate incidents of criticising the government on social networking websites. A Palestinian university lecturer was one of those detained for insulting Abbas on Facebook .

Ironically while the PA has encouraged Palestinians to report on corruption, in April last year blogger Jamal Abu Rihan was arrested for launching a Facebook campaign demanding an end to corruption.

Ma’an News agency has uncovered evidence of the blocking of eight websites critical of Abbas, while columnist Jihad Harb was imprisoned for two months on charges of libel and slander for raising questions about cronyism within Abbas’s office.

“However, the PA’s efforts to crush journalistic dissent is backfiring,” Abu Aita said. “What we are finding is that Palestinian journalists are becoming stronger supporters of media freedom and more determined to support it the more they are targeted and harassed.”

Newspapers on sale in Istanbul. But the freedom of Turkish journalists is seriously threatened. Credit: Jillian Kestler-D’Amours/IPS.

By Jillian Kestler-D'Amours
ISTANBUL, Feb 1 2013 (IPS)

As negotiations in Turkey’s efforts to join the European Union remain stalled, many worry that the Turkish government has little incentive to curb its ongoing crackdown on media freedoms and freedom of expression.

“Reviving Turkey’s accession process to the EU is crucially relevant to press freedom in the country for the simple reason that the process provides the government with a fundamental incentive to make progress,” wrote former European ambassador to Turkey Marc Pierini in a policy paper for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“The EU needs a prosperous, stable and democratic Turkey irrespective of whether it is a member, a strategic ally, or a neighbour. More importantly, it needs a Turkey that is at peace with itself and manages coexistence and tolerance between various strands of its society,” Pierini wrote.

In recent years, local and international human rights groups have condemned the Turkish government under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Justice and Development Party (AKP), for placing severe restrictions on media freedoms, and, in particular, for jailing large numbers of journalists.

According to a report from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) titled Turkey’s Press Freedom Crisis, Turkey imprisoned the largest number of journalists in the world in 2012, ahead of Iran, Eritrea and China.

In August alone, 76 Turkish reporters were in imprisoned; 70 percent of these were Kurdish citizens of the state. Many journalists were charged for their coverage of the banned Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, which Turkey deems a terrorist group.

“Authorities have imprisoned journalists on a mass scale on terrorism or anti-state charges, launched thousands of other criminal prosecutions on charges such as denigrating Turkishness or influencing court proceedings, and used pressure tactics to sow self-censorship,” CPJ stated.

In response, Turkish Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin called the allegations included in the CPJ report “exaggerated” and stated that criticism of press freedom in Turkey was being used as a political tool against the government.

“We, as the Government, would not want any single person, whether a journalist or not, to be victimised because of their thoughts or expressions,” Ergin wrote. “Turkey is making an effort to strike the right balance between preventing the praising of violence and terrorist propaganda, and the need to expand freedom of speech.”

Still, many have pointed to Turkey’s flawed penal code as a major factor in suppressing freedom of the press. The country’s vague anti-terror legislation – writing an article can lead journalists to be accused of belonging to, or aiding, a terrorist group, for example – has been especially condemned.

According to Hugh Pope, a researcher on Turkey at the International Crisis Group (ICG), the upcoming fourth judicial reform package which the Turkish government is expected to unveil shortly must address this problematic definition of terrorism.

“The definition of terrorism is completely out of sync with the European norm and it has to change,” Pope told IPS. “It’s absolutely essential to adjust the definition of terrorism to something that is more rational and thereby allow the release of several thousand people currently in jail on terrorist charges that wouldn’t be considered to be terrorists anywhere else in Europe.”

Turkey was declared eligible to join the European Union in 1997, and accession negotiations began in 2005. The process has been stalled since 2006, however, largely due to Turkey’s conflict with Cyprus over Turkish control of half the island territory.

“It doesn’t help that in Europe, Turkey is perceived as a gagger of the press, but I think that’s not the main problem. The main problem is the major European reservations about Turkey,” Pope added. “But if Turkey had a more defensible media scene, that would make Turkey seem more European.”

Last year, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) launched a solidarity campaign for imprisoned Turkish journalists, called “Set Turkish Journalists Free”. EFJ representatives also attended court hearings in Turkey in solidarity with the jailed reporters.

“It is very important (for Turkish journalists) to feel that they are not isolated, (that) they are not alone. The visits to the court hearings have shown enormous support,” EFJ director Renate Schroeder told IPS.

“All journalists know what it is to want to write the truth even though we all know how difficult it is. Just to be critical, that’s why you are a journalist. There is a real bond and solidarity,” Schroeder said.

In its last progress report on Turkey’s EU accession aspirations released in October, the European Commission said while space exists for debating sensitive issues, and opposition views are expressed in Turkey, the state’s reforms on freedom of expression fall short.

It stated that the arrests and imprisonment of journalists, the application of the state’s anti-terror legislation, and high-ranking government and army officials who have launched cases against journalists are the most pressing problems.

“All of this, combined with a high concentration of the media in industrial conglomerates with interests going far beyond the free circulation of information and ideas, has a chilling effect and limits freedom of expression in practice, while making self-censorship a common phenomenon in the Turkish media,” the Commission found. (END)