“Which topics can you not talk about as an artist?” asks Kristie Lu Stout, host of the American tv-channel CNN’s programme ‘On China’, talking with guests in the studio about censorship of contemporary art in China.

In this 2-minute excerpt from the programme, Wang Chunchen, curator of China Pavilion in Venice Biennale 2013, replies with giving many examples of what a Chinese artist cannot paint, while Meg Maggio, founder of Pekin Fine Arts, talks about how the Chinese artists’ push for increased artistic freedom of expression.

Published on YouTube.com on 13 May 2013.

The anonymous writer of the article in The Guardian mentions that Iman Hojjat — one of five Tehran musicians who were arrested in January 2013 on charges of collaborating with USA-based Iranian musicians and satellite channels — has been tried in court and that he was fined for recording illegal music in his studio and released.

The other four, including well-known songwriter Roozbeh Bemani, are on bail and awaiting trial. They face fines of up to US$ 15,000 (£9,700) and possible bans on producing and even writing music. Read more…


Banned music is popular
“As far as the Iranian censors are concerned, there are only three genres of music acceptable in the Islamic republic: Iranian folk music; Iranian classical or “traditional” music; and Iranian pop music,” reported The Guardian:

“From rock to electronica to jazz, all other genres are officially prohibited, including the pop music produced by émigré musicians — very similar to the sanctioned domestic brand — many of whom live in and around Los Angeles.”

“In contrast to several neighbouring countries where the people are more religious than their governments, the Iranian people in general, and Tehranis in particular, cannot live without their tunes — an observation confirmed over a series of conversations around the capital.”


The Guardian – 7 May 2013:
Iranians pump up the volume for banned tunes

Published on YouTube.com on 8 May 2013.

On 2 May 2013, artists, writers, journalists, filmmakers, students, cultural activists and actors from theatre groups marched in protest from Sriram Centre to Maharashtra Sadan in Mumbai demanding that the Bombay High court immediately release the Kabir Kala Manch artists and drop all charges against them.

Deepak Dengle of the Kabir Kala Manch was arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Squad in 2011, accused of being Naxalite or Maoist operatives — militant communist groups operating in different parts of India. As the police began a witch-hunt, Kabir Kala Manch went underground. Poet Sachin Mali and singer Sheetal Sathe from the group later ‘surrendered’ on 2 April 2013 and were arrested.

The couple claimed that they did not have any links with Naxals and had been booked by the Anti Terrorism Squad for singing protest songs against the government.

Anand Patwardhan, who made the documentary film about the group, ‘Jai Bhim Comrade’ which won several awards, wrote in the Hindu on 4 May 2013:

“I see them as fiery idealists who are fighting to make our society just and equitable. Does that distinguish them from Naxalites? The Anti Terrorism Squad seems confused.

To me, the distinction lies in the fact that the only weapon Sachin and Sheetal fight with, is their poetry and song. Even if the worst were concluded — that Kabir Kala Manch made contact with a banned organisation — what bewilders me is what the State actually wants from them now. They gave themselves up. They expressed the desire to sing freely again within the bounds of democracy.

Other members from their group are still underground, waiting to see what develops. What is the message the State is sending? That it prefers to brand them forever as Naxalites and push them into the forest rather than allow them safe passage? Neither Sheetal nor Sachin is accused of any violence.”

Newsclick published the following article on 8 May 2013 under the headline:
March in Protest Against State-sponsored Censorship on Art and Activism

Kabir Kala Manch (KKM), a Pune-based cultural troupe, first came together in response to the communal carnage in Gujarat.
The group went on to make its voice heard on the rights of slum-dwellers and workers; on sustainable development; and most of all, the need to eliminate, once and for all, casteist practices in the Indian society. KKM has performed for and with working class movements as well as movements led by Medha Patkar, Bhai Vaidya and others.

In 2011, the state of Maharashtra began to brand these cultural activists as “Naxalites”. With this excuse, the KKM and its activities have been targeted time and again. Members of KKM were arrested in May 2011 under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). They got bail recently, but almost immediately after, Sheetal Sathe and Sachin Mali were arrested on 2 April 2013 after the two staged a “satyagraha” outside the Vidhan Bhavan (Maharashtra State Legislature) protesting the police’s use of UAPA to accuse them of being Maoists and absconders.

On 2 May, following May Day, artists, litterateurs, journalists, filmmakers, students, cultural activists and theatre groups marched in protest from Sriram Centre, Mandi House, to Maharashtra Sadan, Copernicus Marg, demanding that the Bombay High court immediately release the ‘Kabir Kala Manch’ activists and drop all charges against them.

When the protest march reached Maharashtra Sadan, a mass meeting was held. Writer Noor Zahir, poet Neelabh, independent filmmaker Sanjay Kak and activist Kavita Krishnan were among those who spoke on this instance of state-sponsored censorship faced by artists and activists. They also insisted that consistent resistance of such censorship is the only possible response.

A five-member delegation comprising Sanjay Kak, Neelabh, painter Ashok Bhowmick, literary critic Ashutosh Kumar and Uma Gupta from Delhi University met the Resident Commissioner of Maharashtra Government and handed over a memorandum addressed to the state’s Chief Minister. The memorandum called for the unconditional and immediate release of Sheetal Sathe, Sachin Mali of Kabir Kala Manch and of Sudhir Dhawale, editor, Vidrohi, a bi-monthly Marathi journal.

The groups sharply criticized the practice of silencing intellectuals and cultural activists by the state government by dubbing them terrorists. The use of draconian laws and trumped up charges against those who dissent must stop at once, they said, and the livelihood and social security of their family members be ensured. The cultural activists and student protestors plan to submit a petition to the Chief Justice of India with signatures from all over the country asking the apex court to intervene in the matter of governments engaged in blatant violation of the fundamental right to expression.
 

Google News – continuously updated:
Search: Kabir Kala Manch (KKM)

 

The Hindu – 4 May 2013:
Democracy needs their song
They use poetry and song to fight for a just society but the state brands them Naxalites. Anand Patwardhan on the ongoing saga of the Kabir Kala Manch.

Judge Lidiya Yakovleva said in a district court in Zubova Polyana on 26 April 2013 that she agrred with the prison authorities’ assessment that releasing Tolokonnikova would be “premature.” She also added that the court found “the arguments of the defense unsound.”

The administration of the prison, Corrective Colony No 14, where the 23-year-old Tolokonnikova is jailed, had asked the court beforehand to reject the parole request.

Prison officials filed a statement saying she had been cited for prison rules violations and expressed no remorse.

Tolokonnikova, wearing a green prison garb, silently stood in her courtroom metal cage as the decision was read at the end of a daylong court session.

The judge announced her verdict after taking about an hour-and-a-half to deliberate and failing to give the defense a chance for a final argument.


“Shame!”
The decision was met with some cries of “Shame!” from the audience, which included her husband and father, as well as many journalists and supporters who came from Moscow.

Tolokonnikova earlier told the court that she has “spent enough time in the prison camp… six months is time enough.”

Her lawyer Irina Khrunova argued that her five-year-old daughter, Gera, needed her mother.

Khrunova said, “She has a family, a child. Her daughter misses her mother. The family must be reunited as soon as possible to allow the child to develop properly.”

One of the arguments against her parole was her lack of participation in prison activities, such as the Miss Charm Prison Camp 14 beauty contest.

A second Pussy Riot member, Maria Alyokhina, is serving her term in the Perm region.

Both members are serving two-year prison terms after being convicted in August for “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.”

The convictions followed the group’s performance of a “punk prayer” at a Moscow cathedral protesting Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s close links with the Russian Orthodox Church.

A third member of the group who was convicted over the performance, Yekaterina Samutsevich, received a suspended sentence.

Photo: Courtesy of the Free Pussy Riot group on Facebook.

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty – 30 April 2013:
Court Denies Parole To Pussy Riot Member

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova’s intended closing statement

Here is the argument which imprisoned 23-year-old Nadezhda Tolokonnikova from Pussy Riot wasn’t allowed to make at her parole hearing on 26 April 2013:

“ “Has the convict started down the road to rehabilitation?” This is the question asked when a request for parole is reviewed. I would also like us to ask the following question today: What is  this “road to rehabilitation”?
I am absolutely convinced that the only correct road is one on which a person is honest with others and with herself. I have stayed on this road and will not stray from it wherever life takes me. I insisted on this road while I was still on the outside, and I didn’t retreat from it in the Moscow pretrial detention facility. Nothing, not even the camps of Mordovia, where the Soviet-era authorities liked to send political prisoners, can teach me to betray the principle of honesty.
So I have not admitted and will not admit the guilt imputed to me by the Khamovniki district court’s verdict, which was illegal and rendered with an indecent number of procedural violations. At the moment, I am in the process of appealing this verdict in the higher courts. By coercing me into admitting guilt for the sake of parole, the correctional system is pushing me to incriminate myself, and, therefore, to lie. Is the ability to lie a sign that a person has started down the road to rehabilitation?
It states in my sentence that I am a feminist and, therefore, must feel hatred towards religion. Yes, after a year and two months in prison, I am still a feminist, and I am still opposed to the people in charge of the state, but then as now there is no hatred in me. The dozens of women prisoners with whom I attend the Orthodox church at Penal Colony No. 14 cannot see this hatred, either. (…)
Recently, I got a letter containing a parable that has become important to me. What happens to things different in nature when they are placed in boiling water? Brittle things, like eggs, become hard. Hard things, like carrots, become soft. Coffee dissolves and permeates everything. The point of the parable was this: be like coffee. In prison, I am like that coffee.
I want the people who have put me and dozens of other political activists behind bars to understand one simple thing: there are no insurmountable obstacles for a person whose values  consist, first, of her principles and, second, of work and creativity based on these principles. If you strongly believe in something, this faith will help you survive and remain a human being anywhere.
I will surely use my experience in Mordovia in my future work and, although this will not happen until completion of my sentence, I will implement it in projects that will be stronger and politically larger in scale than everything that has happened to me before.
Despite the fact that imprisonment is a quite daunting experience, as a result of having it we political prisoners only become stronger, braver, and more tenacious. And so I ask the last question for today: what, then, is the point of keeping us here?”

Translated from Russian by The Russian Reader

The Argument Nadezhda Tolokonnikova Wasn’t Allowed to Make at Her Parole Hearing

“I regret to inform you that the Interior Minister of Lebanon, Minister (Marwan) Charbel, has decided to punish us and the film by banning it… claiming that the reason for the rejection is that I, Ziad Doueiri, had spent time in Israel filming,” the Lebanese director Ziad Doueiri wrote in a statement on his Facebook page:

“To set things straight, I did shoot part of the film in Tel Aviv because this is where part of the story takes place. I used Israeli actors because also these were the artistic choices that I have made. And I have no regret and no apologies whatsoever.”

The film received three awards at the COLCOA French film festival in Hollywood — the audience award, the “Coming Soon” award and a special jury prize. It is due for release in May in France and in June in the United States. It was adapted from a novel by Algerian writer Yasmina Khadra and portrays the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the eyes of an Israeli doctor who discovers that his wife carried out a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.

Al Arabiya noted that “Censorship is enforced in Lebanon by the interior ministry if an artist’s work is considered to incite confessional dissent, attacks morals or the authority of the state or reflects Israeli propaganda. Filmmakers in Lebanon must also submit their scripts to the authorities for approval.”


Al Arabiya – 28 April 2013:
Beirut bans award-winning Lebanese film shot in Israel
An award-winning film “The Attack” by Lebanese director Ziad Doueiri has been banned from cinemas in his home country because it was partly shot in Tel Aviv using Israeli actors.


Doueiri Ziad’s official facebook page:
facebook.com/DoueiriZiad

Beygairat Brigade put out their new song, ‘Dhinak Dhinak’, on Vimeo on 20 April 2013. First Post wrote:

“The song, with its biting but hilarious lyrics, is all about the absolute power of the military in Pakistan.”

Here’s a verse from ‘Dhinak Dhinak’:

Budget, policy and aid
They regulate
Without pawns they checkmate
News reports give them support
Toads vouch for Jack the goat
Dhinak dhinak dhin ta da
When a free car is the gift,
an analyst’s tone shifts

The band had spent the past year working on the song, which had taken longer than the band had anticipated because no studio was willing to record the song thanks to its satire-rich lyrics.

At the end of the video, the three band members of Beygairat Brigade are seen holding a sign that reads, “No need to like this video. We’ll be dead anyway!”

Six days later, the band members were (and continue to be) alive, but the video had been banned by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). Those who tried to access it got this message: “This video is not suitable for viewers inside Pakistan.” 

One blogger reported that the video came back online after a few hours, but it was blocked again and some ISPs reportedly continue to block the video.

Beygairat Brigade’s previous ‘Alu Andey’ and ‘Paisey ki Game’ established for the band a reputation of being both fun and sharply critical of the socio-political scene in Pakistan. This partial ban on ‘Dhinak Dhinak’ is only going to cement this, said the band’s lead singer Ali Aftab Saeed.”


First Post – 29 April 2013:
Pakistan bans music video attacking the military
By First Post Staff

Open or download the UN report in English language(Right-click to download)

Conclusion and recommendations of the report

85. All persons enjoy the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity, which includes the right to freely experience and contribute to artistic expressions and creations, through individual or joint practice, to have access to and enjoy the arts, and to disseminate their expressions and creations. (See submission from the Observatoire de la diversité et des droits culturels.)

86. The effects of art censorship or unjustified restrictions of the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity are devastating. They generate important cultural, social and economic losses, deprive artists of their means of expression and livelihood, create an unsafe environment for all those engaged in the arts and their audiences, sterilize debates on human, social and political issues, hamper the functioning of democracy and most often also impede debates on the legitimacy of censorship itself.

87. In many cases, censorship is counterproductive in that it gives wider publicity to controversial artworks. However, the fear censorship generates in artists and art institutions often leads to self-censorship, which stifles art expression and impoverishes the public sphere. (Svetlana Mintcheva, “Symbols into soldiers…”, p. 2.) Artistic creativity demands an environment free from fear and insecurity.

88. The Special Rapporteur calls upon States to review critically their legislation and practices imposing restrictions on the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity, taking into consideration relevant international human rights law provisions and in cooperation with representatives of independent associations of artists and human rights organizations. The full array of States obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right of every person to freedom of artistic expression and creativity should be considered for this exercise.


89. The Special Rapporteur recommends that:
(a) Artists and all those engaged in artistic activities should only be subject to general laws that apply to all people. Such laws shall be formulated with sufficient precision and in accordance with international human rights standards. They shall be made easily accessible to the public, and implemented with transparency, consistency and in a non-discriminatory manner. Decisions on restrictions should clearly indicate motives and be subject to appeal before a court of law;

(b) States should abolish prior-censorship bodies or systems where they exist and use subsequent imposition of liability only when necessary under article 19 (3) and 20 of ICCPR. Such liability should be imposed exclusively by a court of law. Prior censorship should be a highly exceptional measure, undertaken only to prevent the imminent threat of grave irreparable harm to human life or property. Avenues for the appeal before an independent entity of any decision to exercise prior restraint should be guaranteed;

(c) Classification bodies or procedures may be resorted to for the sole purpose of informing parents and regulating unsupervised access by children to particular content, and only in the areas of artistic creation where this is strictly necessary due in particular to easy access by children. States shall ensure that (a) classification bodies are independent; (b) their membership includes representatives of the arts field; (c) their terms of reference, rules of procedure and activities are made public; and (d) effective appeal mechanisms are established. Particular attention should be paid to ensuring that the regulation of access by children does not result in prohibiting or disproportionately restricting access for adults;

(d) Decision makers, including judges, when resorting to possible limitations to artistic freedoms, should take into consideration the nature of artistic creativity (as opposed to its value or merit), as well as the right of artists to dissent, to use political, religious and economic symbols as a counter-discourse to dominant powers, and to express their own belief and world vision. The use of the imaginary and fiction must be understood and respected as a crucial element of the freedom indispensable for creative activities;

(e) States should abide by their obligation to protect artists and all persons participating in artistic activities or dissemination of artistic expressions and creations from violence by third parties. States should de-escalate tensions when these arise, maintain the rule of law and protect artistic freedoms. The police should not charge artists and cultural institutions for the costs of their protection;

(f) States should address issues regarding the use of public space for artistic performances or displays. Regulation of public art may be acceptable where it conflicts with other public uses of the space, but such regulation should not discriminate arbitrarily against specific artists or content. Cultural events deserve the same level of protection as political protests. States, private institutions and donors are encouraged to find creative solutions so as to enable artists to display or perform in public space, through, for example, offering open spaces to artists. Where relevant, in particular for permanent visual artworks, States should facilitate dialogue and understanding with the local communities;

(g) States should review their visa issuance system and adjust it to the specific difficulties encountered by touring artists, their host organizations and tour organizers;

(h) States should ensure the participation of representatives of independent associations of artists in decision-making related to art, and refrain from nominating or appointing cultural administrators or directors of cultural institutions on the basis of their political, religious or corporate affiliation.

90. The Special Rapporteur recommends that States and other stakeholders assess and address more comprehensively restrictions to artistic freedoms imposed by corporations, as well as the impact on artistic freedoms of aggressive market strategies and situations of monopolies or quasi-monopolies in the area of media and culture. The support provided to cultural industries should be revisited from the perspective of the right to artistic freedom. The Special Rapporteur recommends in particular that States:

(a) Enact and/or implement anti-trust legislation and legislation against monopolies in the area of media and culture;

(b) Support securing the survival of independent bookstores, music stores and cinemas threatened by megastores, multiplexes and global distributors;

(c) Ensure that measures established to support private sponsorship of the arts do not negatively impact on artistic freedoms;

(d) Establish a clear national legal framework prohibiting coercive contracts under which creators sign away their rights to their creation;

(e) Support the establishment of non-profit collective societies mandated to collect and distribute income from artistic creations and performances, with a majority of artists sitting on their board;

(f) Encourage initiatives to support free legal representation for artists or other forms of legal aid;

(g) Assess and address comprehensively the impact of current intellectual property rights regimes, especially of copyrights and authors’ rights, on artistic freedoms;

(h) Fully support artistic creativity and the establishment of cultural institutions accessible to all. Public agencies should function as a financial backup for programmes that do not attract corporate sponsors, based on the understanding that they cannot interfere with contents. Various systems of State support can be envisaged, including delegating decisions on funding to independent peer-review bodies, which should act in conformity with transparent terms of reference and rules of procedure. These bodies’ decisions should be motivated and subject to appeal;

(i) Fully implement the UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of the Artist;

(j) Develop and enhance arts education in schools and communities, instilling respect for, appreciation and understanding of artistic creativity, including evolving concepts of acceptability, awakening the ability to be artistically creative. Arts education should give students a historical perspective of the constant evolution of mentalities on what is acceptable and what is controversial.

91. The Special Rapporteur recommends that national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations:

(a) Document more systematically violations of the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity;

(b) Submit their findings to relevant national and international bodies, in particular the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee;

(c) Support artists who are threatened through in particular legal support.

• Read the full report here

First world conference and global network
Freemuse’s Programme Manager has been attached as a consultant for the world organisation’s upcoming study and report on conditions and right to artistic freedom of expression. The core work of Freemuse continues to focus on the defence of musicians’ rights to free expression, but Freemuse has in the past two years, though networking and experience, collected a vast knowledge of repression of other artistic expressions as well.

In October 2012, Freemuse initiated and co-organised the world conference ‘All that is Banned is Desired’ which gave voice to artists from all fields, who have experienced censorship, persecution, imprisonment, threats and even abduction.

This website, artsfreedom.org which was created for the world conference is already very substantial and includes highly informative feature articles and reports on violations of artistic freedom. At this point and time more than 300 articles. Furthermore, in the past year Freemuse has played an essential role in creating a new global network of organisations defending artistic freedom – artsfex.

Cheb Faiçal (real name: Faisal Bensalah), a well-known pop singer in western Algeria, was arrested on 21 April 2013 after a complaint filed by the General Directorate of National Security, Algeria’s internal security service, following his performance of a tongue-in-cheek song about the police and its top official, Abdelghani Hamel.

Separate sources had been saying that Faiçal wrote the words to the incriminating song and performed it in night clubs in the city of Oran. The song itself has not been formally recorded, although versions of it have spread on the Internet and is being sung in stadiums by large crowds. At the court hearing, Cheb Faiçal denied the allegations, saying “These words are not mine”.

In 2005, another raï singer, Cheb Azzedine, was imprisoned one year in the city of Chlef after he had released a song which mocked the governor of the province and the public prosecutor.

Sources:

Le Matin – 26 April 2013:
Six mois de prison requis contre cheb Fayçal

Morocco World News – 22 April 2013:
Algeria musician to be tried for song mocking police

Re-published by Maroc Press on 22 April 2013

Mamadali Makhmudov. Photo: courtesy of Pen International

In the late evening of 19 April 2013, Mamadali Makhmudov walked out of prison and met his five grand-children for the first time. His wife told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that her husband was tired and resting.

Mamadali Makhmudov had been held since February 1999, convicted on charges of involvement in a series of bombings in Tashkent, an apparent assassination attempt against President Karimov. There was little evidence to back this up and human rights groups in Uzbekistan and world wide rose to his defence. When he appeared in court in August 1999, Makhmudov testified about the beatings and threats he suffered in gaol, including electric shock treatment.

PEN International has been campaigning for the 72-year-old writer’s release from the outset, alongside that of other writers and journalists. Today there are at least ten other writers thought to still be detained.

While welcoming Makhumdov’s release, PEN International calls for the release of all those detained in violation of their right to freedom of expression and for an end to the widespread censorship in Uzbekistan.

RFE/RL’s Uzbek Service – 23 April 2013:
Uzbek Writer Freed After 14-Year Custody
Mamadali Mahmudov, a renowned Uzbek writer once seen as a potential rival to the country’s entrenched president, has been released after spending 14 years in penal custody.


PEN International:
Spotlight on the Universal Periodic Review – Uzbekistan

RELATED

Rapid Action Network – 9 March 2012:
Uzbekistan – Latest Amnesty Excludes Imprisoned Writers

On 16 April 2013, Julia Farrington published an entry on Index on Censorship’s blog about what she learned from a recent trip to Burma where she met with performers from banned troupes. She wrote the following about Burma’s increasing artistic freedom of expression:

“That Thangyat will be part of the celebrations again after 25 years is a sign of the times. It reveals the opening up of space for freedom of expression in Burma. But the fact that the comeback is being so closely scrutinised by both political and corporate interests illustrates the power of Thangyat to hit where it hurts.

As government pre-censorship is to some extent loosening its grip on arts and entertainment in Burma, as it appears to be, it is interesting to see corporate censorship stepping comfortably into its shoes. And as corporate censorship is a global phenomenon, it is something that artists all over the world, not just here in Burma, are increasingly concerned about,” wrote Julia Farrington.

The first ever all-woman Thangyat ensemble is currently waiting to hear back from the censors whether they will be allowed to perform at the Thingyan Water Festival. Their performance is a passionate litany of biting satire that highlights the threats to Burmese culture, traditional life-style, and environment from business interests, with Chinese influence particularly targeted. The contentious Letpadaung Copper Mine, deforestation and the suspended Myetsone damn project were all targets. They are determined to perform their show as it is, whatever the censors say.


Index on Censorship’s blog – 16 April 2013:
Burma: Traditional satirical performance returns, but so does censorship
By Julia Farrington