Global Free Speech

Global Free Speech covers international stories and trends affecting the right to speak, publish, and share ideas across borders. From government crackdowns to grassroots movements, this category highlights the global fight for free expression in diverse political and cultural landscapes.

(An illustration by Semyon Skrepetsky) Semyon Skrepetsky/Telegram Russian artist Semyon Skrepetsky may have achieved exactly the wrong level of fame. He was prominent enough to be known to the Kremlin – and to annoy them – but not so renowned that his murder would trigger a major diplomatic outcry. That, at least, is what one Russian artist I spoke to this week believed about his killing on Monday. Skrepetsky, whose real name was Robert Kuzovkov, was known for his political caricatures. He drew satirical portraits of Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenka, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and even Alexei Navalny. He fled Russia in 2021, fearing arrest and moved to the small Polish town of Biała Podlaska near the border with Belarus. Contrarian by nature, Skrepetsky was initially seen as being pro-Ukrainian and publicly burnt his Russian passport following Russia’s full-scale invasion of  the country in 2022. Later he grew publicly critical of the Ukrainian leadership, which led to him being listed in Ukraine’s Myrotvorets database, a tracker of individuals accused of activities deemed harmful to Ukrainian national security. But it was Putin who was the focus of most of his criticism. Three days before he was shot dead, Skrepetsky travelled to Berlin to stage a one-man protest outside the Russian embassy, featuring a caricature of Joseph Stalin and Putin. As part of the protest, he filmed himself putting Russia’s flag in a rubbish bin. It remains unclear who killed him, although a couple of Belarusian men were detained and then released in connection with his murder. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the killing has the hallmarks of a political assassination. This, Tusk added, would be “an extremely serious matter internationally. It would constitute state terrorism.” Except Tusk also said justice can be hard in such cases, perhaps already suggesting there is little appetite for a bolder response. Is Skrepetsky’s murder a sign of an increasingly nervous Moscow? Russia assassinating overseas critics is hardly new. Still, this is the same week that an unmarked Russian warship fired warning shots towards a small British yacht in the English Channel. It also comes at a time of deepening repression in Russia itself. Internet shutdowns are becoming more common. Apps are being routinely blocked. All likely triggered by the war in Ukraine not going as well as planned and worries about public opinion on the home front. A quiet transfer of power within the Russian state has apparently been taking place. The FSB, successor to the Soviet-era KGB, is increasingly in charge. Their primary focus are threats to Putin, be it from external adversaries or internal dissenters. Whether Skrepetsky’s death was part of this pattern remains unproven, but what is certain is the Kremlin appears more reactive than ever and more willing to take risks. When regimes are worried about maintaining order, they hit out at the people who make fun of them – and satirists are (literally) in the firing line. READ MORE

0

Russian artist Semyon Skrepetsky may have achieved exactly the wrong level of fame. He was prominent enough to be known…

A tiny proportion of sexual violence cases in Tigray have led to prosecution This article is written in two voices: First, Birhan Gebrekirstos Mezgbo, a researcher and advocate who lived through the Tigray war, then Veronica Blecker, director of the upcoming documentary on sexual violence in Tigray, Not Ours to Carry. Birhan: The moment everything shut down, it felt like the world had disappeared around us. No phone. No internet. No transportation. No banking. No way to know who was alive and who was not. My mother and sister were only around 120 kilometres away from me, but suddenly they felt unreachable, like they were in another universe. I couldn’t call them, I couldn’t travel to see them, and I had no way to know if they were safe. That silence was one of the hardest things I have ever lived through. Honestly, I don’t think the word “blackout” is enough to describe it. What made it worse was knowing that this darkness was not just about communication being cut. The darkness itself became dangerous. Everywhere you turned there was fear. Soldiers, killers, rapists, all operating inside this silence from which nobody could call for help or even tell the world what was happening. The blackout became part of the violence. At the time, I was meeting with survivors of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence. I still remember walking for almost three hours to reach one survivor after being told where she was staying. When I arrived, she was gone. I walked that same route again and again, trying to find her. I never did. Veronica: The blackout was not simply the absence of communication. It was a weapon. The violence happened inside a closed circle, surrounded by guns and with no way in or out – not only from Tigray, but even within Tigray itself. Phone lines were cut, the internet was shut down, journalists were expelled, roads were blocked. The darkness was deliberate. It ensured that violence could happen unseen and unheard. Birhan: For survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, this darkness was devastating. Accessing medical care, reporting abuse, or seeking support became almost impossible. Ayder Hospital in Mekelle was one of the few facilities still functioning, sustained largely by the commitment of volunteer doctors and nurses. But reaching it could take weeks or even months. Along the way, survivors often faced even more violence. I still think about Abeba. She was raped three different times while trying to reach help in Mekelle. I often wonder whether her life would have been different if support had been available closer to where she lived. Instead, the journey to seek care exposed her to further harm. Eventually, she lost her life. For me, her story captures what the blackout did to so many survivors. The violence did not end with the assault. The darkness allowed it to continue. Veronica: Between 2020 and 2022, an estimated 600,000 people were killed in Tigray. The Commission of Inquiry on the Situation in the Tigray Region documented more than 280,000 cases of conflict-related sexual violence. A mere 25 military convictions have followed. Even if survivors could bring themselves to speak, to tell the world what was happening and what had happened to them, they are trapped inside a system of fear. In a system where armed men control every road and every community, speaking out can feel like a death sentence. I arrived after the blackout had already done its work. The violence had happened in the dark. There was physical evidence – detention sites, signs of torture, a landscape scarred by war. But there was little footage of the violence as it happened. The blackout had made sure of this. Every editorial decision – how to film testimony, how to protect identities, how to structure the narrative – was made in the knowledge that the official position was that there was nothing to document. These were the decisions that shaped Not Ours to Carry. The film captures what denial looks like in practice. One of the protagonists stands before the African Commission on Human Rights and reads survivor testimony into the official record. Later on, in the same session, the Ethiopian delegation responds on camera, rejecting in its totality what they call “baseless allegations”. The protagonist’s verdict: “Every time I go to these institutions, I feel like a clown in somebody’s circus. Going there and speaking is doing nothing but adding to their show.” Both governments were offered the right to reply. Ethiopia rejected the allegations in their totality. Eritrea did not respond. The denial is not historical. It is ongoing. What we documented is not only a record of violence. It is a record of censorship: the systematic suppression of evidence, testimony, and truth by governments that knew exactly what silence would allow. Survivors of conflict-related sexual violence carry two wounds. The first is what has been done to them. The second is being told that it didn’t happen – being told this by perpetrators, by institutions, by communities that impose shame rather than offer compassion and justice. The blackout prevented documentation. Then the world chose not to look. The silence did not end when the internet came back on. Birhan: I keep speaking because the difference between me and many of the women whose stories I carry is often nothing more than luck. I witnessed their pain and suffering, and I cannot simply move on with my life and ignore it. This is not only my voice; it carries the voices of hundreds of thousands of women and girls. From four-year-old children to grandmothers in their eighties. There can be no real accountability, and no meaningful future, if those voices continue to be ignored. That silence is not only theirs to break. It is ours too. Not Ours to Carry is premiering on 6 July at the Sevil International Women’s Documentary Film Festival, Azerbaijan’s only independent documentary film festival dedicated to women’s issues and gender equality If readers want to support survivors directly, donations go to One Stop Centres in Tigray here: https://www.notourstocarry.com/donate READ MORE

0

This article is written in two voices: First, Birhan Gebrekirstos Mezgbo, a researcher and advocate who lived through the Tigray…

On Tuesday 16 June, Baroness Tina Stowell introduced her anti-SLAPP Bill in the House of Lords. Photo: Parliament TV The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which is co-chaired by Index on Censorship, had a significant campaign success this week when coordinated Bills were introduced in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. On Tuesday 16 June, Baroness Tina Stowell introduced her anti-SLAPP Bill in the House of Lords. The next day, Sir John Whittingdale MP introduced a parallel bill in the Commons. Remind me: what is a SLAPP? SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. The term describes legal threats and actions that are used to intimidate and harass journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, academics, and survivors of abuse (among others) by burdening them with time-consuming and costly litigation. Anyone who speaks out on an issue of public interest is at risk. Even if a defendant has every chance of succeeding at trial, the lengthy process of preparing a legal defence is so prohibitively expensive that they are forced to quietly submit to the claimant’s demands. This means they are silenced. SLAPPs threaten our right to freedom of expression and our democracy by preventing ordinary people from being able to hold power to account. They also remove information from the public domain, which means that SLAPPs have an impact on all of us. We have published case studies of a small number of the SLAPPs that have crossed our desks in the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. From cosmetic surgery patients to environmentalists, abuse survivors and campaigners, you can read them here. So, what would the new bills actually do? The proposal is simple: Anyone who believes that they are facing a SLAPP would be able to ask a judge to examine the case at an early stage. If the court concludes that the claim is being used to suppress public-interest speech, it could be dismissed before huge legal costs begin to accumulate. This “early dismissal” mechanism would shift the balance away from wealthy claimants who can use litigation as a pressure tactic, and towards defendants who currently face years of stress, uncertainty and expense. What these bills definitely won’t do is to protect public-interest speech across the UK. This is a devolved issue, and legislation passed in Westminster will only cover England and Wales. Separate anti-SLAPP bills will need to be passed in Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure that everyone in the UK is protected from SLAPPs. Why now? Successive governments have acknowledged the problem of SLAPPs, but have failed to bring forward comprehensive legislation. Anti-SLAPP measures were, yet again, left out of this year’s King’s Speech despite repeated and widespread calls for their inclusion. Even after the speech, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy confirmed that the government would bring forward legislation “as soon as time allows”. The introduction of parallel Private Members’ Bills is therefore as much a political signal as a legislative exercise: Parliament is being asked to show that the issue has not gone away. Will these Bills become law? The honest answer is that we don’t know. The second reading for Whittingdale’s bill is scheduled for late November, and no date has yet been set for Stowell’s bill. However, the impact is immediate as it keeps anti-SLAPP reform firmly on Parliament’s agenda, providing a ready-made legislative blueprint to show that legislation to stamp out SLAPPs can be done effectively and easily within the existing legal framework. In other words, the real question is not whether Stowell’s or Whittingdale’s bills become law exactly as drafted. It is whether the government will finally listen to mounting pressure to back these bills, and put their weight behind ensuring comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that will protect anyone who speaks out in the public interest. But I heard that anti-SLAPP legislation has already been enacted. Why then is the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition pushing for more legislation? Because the UK’s existing anti-SLAPP protections are very limited. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) introduced anti-SLAPP provisions in 2023, but they apply only to cases linked to economic crime. Many abusive cases fall outside that definition. It also depends on a subjective test, forcing the court to undertake a time-intensive process by which the intentions of the SLAPP filer have been identified. That’s why we need a broader law that can protect anyone facing a SLAPP, regardless of the subject matter. What can I do to support the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition as they continue to call on the government to enact comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation? You can support the work of the Coalition by writing to your MP, by posting your support for action on SLAPPs using the hashtag #StopSLAPPs, and by signing up to the newsletter of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition here. READ MORE

0

The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which is co-chaired by Index on Censorship, had a significant campaign success this week when coordinated…

Load More