Galina Arapova - defending human rights in Russia

Here are some extracts from a speech given last week by Russian human rights lawyer Galina Arapova, who was in Washington DC accepting the 2016 Human Rights Award from the International Bar Association (IBA).

"Recognition in one’s profession means a great deal," said Arapova, addressing the IBA's annual conference. "Needless to say it carries even more weight when we are dealing with work that is of significant public interest and involves a heightened degree of danger. Defending human rights is exactly such work in many regions of the world, including Russia. But I implore you to keep on doing it. It is of paramount importance - it’s not just years of hard work, it’s both victories and disappointments, threats, solidarity, trust in the values we defend.

Arapova: "Keep on working, keep on hoping"

"How successful we are depends a great deal on the independence of the judiciary and necessitates respect for the rule of law among the relevant ruling bodies and authorities and society in general. To talk openly and to defend those voices brave enough to raise issues of public concern, to be critical about the current state of affairs in Russia, requires both courage and hope that things can change, can improve for the better.

"You probably expected me to talk about the repressive regime, about the negative role of propaganda and censorship, about the loss of our freedom, about 350 journalists killed in Russia in just the last 20 years for freely speaking their minds and whose deaths were not properly investigated, about Internet blocking, politically motivated cases, restoration of criminal defamation.

"I can talk about these issues for hours, with examples and arguments, but I won’t. I am not going to dramatize the situation, as we do our best in the current environment and are not going to quit. I believe that freedom of expression and media diversity and independence are values that are worth defending everywhere because they are at the very core of a democratic society. In some countries it just so happens that this defense is quite a bit more difficult than in others. And human right lawyers are just crazy enough to keep working, to keep hoping, despite the multitude of difficulties they face and the obstacles they must constantly overcome."

Congratulations to Arapova and her team on receiving due recognition for their courage and conviction. Her award was reported world wide by a single news organisation, the web site of Voronezh-based 36on.ru.

The next round of qualifying games for the upcoming state- and Fifa-led propaganda fest that will be Russia 2018 takes place early next month. Please avoid watching these games.

World Press Freedom Rankings 2016 - Qatar 117th, Russia 148th

The 2016 World Press Freedom Index makes for sober reading ahead of the next two World Cups. Russia is ranked 148th, while Qatar takes the coveted 117th. slot. In both countries it requires almighty amounts of courage for independent journalists or news organisations to report critically, truthfully and accurately on the activities of the ruling autocrats.

While Russia climbed four places from 152nd in 2015 (Yay!), its overall score on press freedom declined further. In other words, its ranking improvement only came about because press freedom in other countries became even more restricted. Like when a team loses 5-0 but jumps up a place in the league table because the team above it lost 7-0. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which compiled the index, assessed the situation in Russia as follows:

"What with draconian laws and website blocking, the pressure on independent media has grown steadily since Vladimir Putin’s return to the Kremlin in 2012. Leading independent news outlets have either been brought under control or throttled out of existence. While TV channels continue to inundate viewers with propaganda, the climate has become very oppressive for those who question the new patriotic and neo-conservative discourse or just try to maintain quality journalism. The leading human rights NGOs have been declared 'foreign agents'."

In Qatar, where freedom of speech enjoys as much tradition as daffodils in the desert, the RSF summation was just as cheery:

"Qatar’s outspoken TV channel, Al-Jazeera, has transformed the media landscape in the rest of the Arab world but ignores what happens in Qatar itself. Journalists in this small emirate are left little leeway by the oppressive legislative arsenal and the draconian system of censorship. The same subjects (the government, royal family and Islam) are off limits as in the rest of the Persian Gulf, and violators risk imprisonment. A cyber-crime law adopted in late 2014 imposed additional restrictions on journalists and criminalized posting 'false news' online."

It's little wonder Fifa ended up selecting these two countries as host nations for the World Cup. The attitude of the Russian and Qatari ruling elites towards freedom of speech mirrors the suspicion that football's governing body has always harboured to any writer asking awkward questions about its secretive ways, or uncovering uncomfortable truths about its inherent, rancid corruption. Fifa 'reforms' will aim to improve the body's image, but not its transparency.

Unfortunately for Fifa, even a muzzled media doesn't guarantee a passive host nation. Brazil's ranking of 104 in the Press Freedom Index is nothing to boast about either, but you can't hide the truth when exorbitant new stadiums pock the landscape where residents once lived, and a $12 billion price tag makes a mockery of widespread poverty and under-funded public services during a recession. Today, Brazilian police have been dispersing anti-Olympic protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas.

The protesters have been impeding the process of the Olympic Torch, that beacon of international peace, co-operation and solidarity that is currently requiring state-ordered violence to clear the way. It seems that the Brazilian women team's 3-0 win over China in their opening football match wasn't enough to assuage the population's anger. Let the Games begin!  

Quote of the Week - Nemtsov Calls For Sanctions Against Russian Leaders

London knows best, little man...

“I have an idea for you [the West] how to help democracy in Russia. Let you implement sanctions against people who break [the] Russian constitution [and]… agreements on human rights and democracy, like you did with [Belarussian President Alexander] Lukashenko.” Former Russian deputy prime minister Boris Nemtsov, a liberal opposition leader who last month spent two weeks in jail for participating in a political demonstration, talking to Stephen Sackur of BBC’s HARDTalk.

The programme should be re-christened RUDETalk judging by Sackur’s attitude in this interview. He has perfected the BBC’s plummy-voiced sneer that is apparently required nowadays to show what a tough, uncompromising journalist you are, although in reality he ends up just sounding like a supercilious prick when he asks Nemtsov, “And you think that’s a serious proposition?”

“I’m talking about sanctions not against the state, but against persons who break and who destroy peoples’ rights in this country,” Nemtsov clarifies for the hard-talking hack. He continues by asking, “What’s the difference between Putin and Lukashenko?” The snippet ends there, so we don’t get to hear Sackur’s doubtless erudite and cogent riposte. Remind us again why the BBC’s respected around the world for its high standards of journalism?

Meanwhile, The Guardian’s Moscow correspondent Luke Harding has been refused re-entry to Russia, and was told by a airport security, “For you, Russia is closed.” If you’re wondering why, one of Harding’s apparent offenses has been to report on the contents of the WikiLeaks US embassy cables. One of his pieces from late last year opened with the line:

“Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a “virtual mafia state”, according to leaked secret diplomatic cables that provide a damning American assessment of its erstwhile rival superpower.”

Apparently that kind of analysis doesn't go down very well with the Kremlin. And if it's diplomatically unfeasible to expel US embassy staff, target the messenger instead.