Use of cameras at Notting Hill carnival could have ‘chilling effect’ on people’s rights, says equality regulator
Scotland Yard’s plan to widen the use of live facial recognition technology is unlawful because it is incompatible with European laws, the equalities regulator has claimed.
As the UK’s biggest force prepares to use instant face-matching cameras at this weekend’s Notting Hill carnival, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said its use was intrusive and could have a “chilling effect” on individuals’ rights.
The court ruling on the Bell hotel does not just legitimise anti-immigrant sentiment; it also risks erasing a whole category of people
When the high court ruled this week that the Bell hotel in Epping could no longer be used to house asylum seekers, the triumph of anti-migrant zealots looked a little unwarranted, or at least premature. Nigel Farage hoped loudly that the ruling would provide “inspiration to others across the country”. Tabloids and GB News called it an all-caps VICTORY, while Epping locals popped champagne on the hotel’s doorstep.
Meanwhile, the ruling itself felt impermanent and technical more than principled. The judge ruled that Somani, the company that owns the Bell, had not notified the council of its intended use; it was hardly an endorsement of the general proposition, memorably spelled out by Robert Jenrick recently, that “men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally” pose an active threat to his daughters. And while the victory calls were resounding, there was no answering message of defeat from those who support asylum seekers – nobody thinks hotels are a sound and humane way to accommodate refugees. Liminal, often squalid, eye-wateringly expensive for the Home Office, they hardly scream “welcome”.
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Radio Azattyq director Torokul Doorov says it is “very difficult” for journalists not to become activists in the face of “unfairness and injustice” in Kazakhstan.
“You just want to start screaming,” says Doorov, who joined the Kazakh arm of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2015, and the outlet grew to be one of Kazakhstan’s most influential sources of independent news. But a recent government crackdown—spurred by the outlet’s critical reporting on the 2022 anti-government protests—threatens its survival.
In January 2024, 36 of Azattyq’s journalists were denied accreditation following a court ruling that fined the outlet for allegedly spreading “false information”—a charge the newsroom disputes. Although RFE/RL later reached an agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the accreditation process resumed in the spring, reprieve was short. A few months later, Kazakhstan enacted new laws broadening authorities’ powers to deny or revoke accreditation and banning foreign media from operating without accreditation, which press freedom advocates believed were aimed primarily at Azattyq. In July 2025, after CPJ spoke to Doorov, Azattyq again faced mass denial, as the Ministry rejected accreditation for its 16 journalists.
This comes as the outlet, which has a 2024 web audience of nearly 20 million, has been plunged further into jeopardy due to the Trump administration’s funding cuts and the risk of RFE/RL’s closure.
In an interview with CPJ, Doorov—speaking from RFE/RL’s headquarters in Prague—talked about Azattyq’s influence, how clashes with authorities increased as the outlet became more popular, persisting under pressure, and the fate of independent journalism in Kazakhstan. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Demonstrators on February 13, 2022 hold photos in remembrance of those killed during the country-wide Bloody January protests in Almaty, Kazakhstan. (Photo: Reuters/Pavel Mikheyev)
How has Radio Azattyq evolved over the years?
When I joined in 2015, Azattyq had already shifted from shortwave broadcasts to digital journalism, experimenting with video content and live streams to reach younger audiences.
By the early 2020s, our website had about nine million visits per month. But as our popularity grew, so did government control. We started feeling that the authorities were creating barriers for us.
The culmination of our (work) OK was seen during the Bloody January protests in 2022. For about 10 days, Kazakhstan was cut off from the internet. It was extremely difficult to operate as we almost lost connection with our reporters. I remember sitting in the office [in Prague], trying to call each one for updates and typing news manually to inform the public. That month alone, our website and YouTube channel reached 100 million views. This event showed how important Radio Azattyq had become in Kazakhstan.
We began collecting the names of victims after the protests, while officials withheld this information until September 2022, six months afterward. In June, we launched the special project “Qandy Qantar Qurbandary”(Victims of Bloody January) and published a book sharing the stories of citizens killed after President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s order to “shoot without warning.” That year, [major] problems with authorities began.
How have authorities responded to Azattyq’s growing influence?
In fall 2022, we reported on a Swiss NGO investigation revealing that President Tokayev bought expensive artwork for the U.N. office in Geneva from his son’s mother-in-law. After that, users in Kazakhstan began experiencing difficulty accessing our website. Investigations by our specialists in Prague and Washington, D.C. confirmed the website was being throttled.
In October that year, we experienced difficulty with getting accreditation for the first time. We are registered as the representative office of a foreign media outlet RFE/RL, and under Kazakh law, we should be accredited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan.
Radio Azattyq gained acclaim after sharing the stories of stories of citizens killed during 2022 anti-government protests after President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, pictured here, gave an order to “shoot without warning.” (Photo: Sputnik/Sergey Bobylev/Pool via Reuters)
Afterward, we were taken to court for “spreading false information” (after) one of our articles described the Collective Security Treaty Organization [a Eurasian military alliance of which Kazakhstan is a member] as a Russia-led organization, which is how foreign media usually portrays it.
In January 2024, we received a written explanation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially denying accreditation to all 36 of our journalists. We appealed that decision in court, arguing that all journalists should not be punished for one supposed mistake. Moreover, we did not accept that it was a mistake. Later it ended with a mutual agreement between the Ministry and RFE/RL leadership: they will issue accreditation, and we will revoke our lawsuit. And we did.
What was the reaction last summer when the Ministry of Information introduced its new media law concerning the accreditation of foreign journalists?
Some media experts in Kazakhstan called it the “Azattyq law” because it seemed designed against Azattyq, making it almost impossible to get accreditation for its journalists.
The new law issues accreditation only for one year and requires foreign journalists to submit all their articles from the past six months that mention Kazakhstan. Although we complied, recently the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said they will accredit only six to eight Azattyq journalists. For the rest, they need another two months to review after already taking two months. One journalist was denied accreditation for violating the law.
They referred to Article 30, Part 4 of the new media law, which prohibits foreign journalists from engaging in professional activities without appropriate accreditation. What are dozens of our journalists supposed to do during those two months?
There are traps everywhere—it has become extremely difficult for us. I think that other foreign media do not have this problem.
What role does Azattyq play in Kazakhstan’s media landscape?
This is an important question. We felt the answer last February when our accreditation issues became public. Many respected independent media in Kazakhstan issued editorials in support of us. I was shocked, especially considering the competition existing among us.
Now, as we face the possibility of closure—not just in Kazakhstan but RFE/RL in general following USAGM’s decision to terminate funding—Kazakh media are again showing their support. As Orda [local independent media] recently wrote, even Azattyq’s competitors want us to continue operating because from what I understand, we are a protection for the local media community.
For example, when we report on a major corruption scheme it becomes easier for others to continue the topic and dig more. And if authorities contact them, they can point to us and say, “Azattyq already reported on this.”
Our closure would almost mean the end of independent journalism in the country, unfortunately.
What motivates you to keep leading the newsroom despite prolonged uncertainty and pressure?
It is the young journalists on our team who keep me going. The way they view problems surprises me. Since our team consists of different age groups, we have very interesting conversations. Sometimes I see clashes of ideas. That is the part I enjoy most, every day. These young journalists are powerful in their reporting, and their ideas often uplift the entire team.
Do you foresee more restrictions for independent journalism in Kazakhstan?
Yes. It has already become difficult for journalists to work, and it is not just happening in Kazakhstan. This is a global trend. The new restrictive laws are adopted not only in one country, they are being copied. For example, Russia’s “foreign agents” law might soon appear in Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan has it, and Tajikistan is trying to implement it. Autocratic authorities are learning from each other on how to limit freedom for journalists.
CPJ’s emails to Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the new media law and the ongoing lack of accreditation for most Radio Azattyq’s reporters did not receive any response.
Radio Azattyq director Torokul Doorov says it is “very difficult” for journalists not to become activists in the face of “unfairness and injustice” in Kazakhstan.
“You just want to start screaming,” says Doorov, who joined the Kazakh arm of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2015, and the outlet grew to be one of Kazakhstan’s most influential sources of independent news. But a recent government crackdown—spurred by the outlet’s critical reporting on the 2022 anti-government protests—threatens its survival.
In January 2024, 36 of Azattyq’s journalists were denied accreditation following a court ruling that fined the outlet for allegedly spreading “false information”—a charge the newsroom disputes. Although RFE/RL later reached an agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the accreditation process resumed in the spring, reprieve was short. A few months later, Kazakhstan enacted new laws broadening authorities’ powers to deny or revoke accreditation and banning foreign media from operating without accreditation, which press freedom advocates believed were aimed primarily at Azattyq. In July 2025, after CPJ spoke to Doorov, Azattyq again faced mass denial, as the Ministry rejected accreditation for its 16 journalists.
This comes as the outlet, which has a 2024 web audience of nearly 20 million, has been plunged further into jeopardy due to the Trump administration’s funding cuts and the risk of RFE/RL’s closure.
In an interview with CPJ, Doorov—speaking from RFE/RL’s headquarters in Prague—talked about Azattyq’s influence, how clashes with authorities increased as the outlet became more popular, persisting under pressure, and the fate of independent journalism in Kazakhstan. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Demonstrators on February 13, 2022 hold photos in remembrance of those killed during the country-wide Bloody January protests in Almaty, Kazakhstan. (Photo: Reuters/Pavel Mikheyev)
How has Radio Azattyq evolved over the years?
When I joined in 2015, Azattyq had already shifted from shortwave broadcasts to digital journalism, experimenting with video content and live streams to reach younger audiences.
By the early 2020s, our website had about nine million visits per month. But as our popularity grew, so did government control. We started feeling that the authorities were creating barriers for us.
The culmination of our (work) OK was seen during the Bloody January protests in 2022. For about 10 days, Kazakhstan was cut off from the internet. It was extremely difficult to operate as we almost lost connection with our reporters. I remember sitting in the office [in Prague], trying to call each one for updates and typing news manually to inform the public. That month alone, our website and YouTube channel reached 100 million views. This event showed how important Radio Azattyq had become in Kazakhstan.
We began collecting the names of victims after the protests, while officials withheld this information until September 2022, six months afterward. In June, we launched the special project “Qandy Qantar Qurbandary”(Victims of Bloody January) and published a book sharing the stories of citizens killed after President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s order to “shoot without warning.” That year, [major] problems with authorities began.
How have authorities responded to Azattyq’s growing influence?
In fall 2022, we reported on a Swiss NGO investigation revealing that President Tokayev bought expensive artwork for the U.N. office in Geneva from his son’s mother-in-law. After that, users in Kazakhstan began experiencing difficulty accessing our website. Investigations by our specialists in Prague and Washington, D.C. confirmed the website was being throttled.
In October that year, we experienced difficulty with getting accreditation for the first time. We are registered as the representative office of a foreign media outlet RFE/RL, and under Kazakh law, we should be accredited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan.
Radio Azattyq gained acclaim after sharing the stories of stories of citizens killed during 2022 anti-government protests after President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, pictured here, gave an order to “shoot without warning.” (Photo: Sputnik/Sergey Bobylev/Pool via Reuters)
Afterward, we were taken to court for “spreading false information” (after) one of our articles described the Collective Security Treaty Organization [a Eurasian military alliance of which Kazakhstan is a member] as a Russia-led organization, which is how foreign media usually portrays it.
In January 2024, we received a written explanation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially denying accreditation to all 36 of our journalists. We appealed that decision in court, arguing that all journalists should not be punished for one supposed mistake. Moreover, we did not accept that it was a mistake. Later it ended with a mutual agreement between the Ministry and RFE/RL leadership: they will issue accreditation, and we will revoke our lawsuit. And we did.
What was the reaction last summer when the Ministry of Information introduced its new media law concerning the accreditation of foreign journalists?
Some media experts in Kazakhstan called it the “Azattyq law” because it seemed designed against Azattyq, making it almost impossible to get accreditation for its journalists.
The new law issues accreditation only for one year and requires foreign journalists to submit all their articles from the past six months that mention Kazakhstan. Although we complied, recently the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said they will accredit only six to eight Azattyq journalists. For the rest, they need another two months to review after already taking two months. One journalist was denied accreditation for violating the law.
They referred to Article 30, Part 4 of the new media law, which prohibits foreign journalists from engaging in professional activities without appropriate accreditation. What are dozens of our journalists supposed to do during those two months?
There are traps everywhere—it has become extremely difficult for us. I think that other foreign media do not have this problem.
What role does Azattyq play in Kazakhstan’s media landscape?
This is an important question. We felt the answer last February when our accreditation issues became public. Many respected independent media in Kazakhstan issued editorials in support of us. I was shocked, especially considering the competition existing among us.
Now, as we face the possibility of closure—not just in Kazakhstan but RFE/RL in general following USAGM’s decision to terminate funding—Kazakh media are again showing their support. As Orda [local independent media] recently wrote, even Azattyq’s competitors want us to continue operating because from what I understand, we are a protection for the local media community.
For example, when we report on a major corruption scheme it becomes easier for others to continue the topic and dig more. And if authorities contact them, they can point to us and say, “Azattyq already reported on this.”
Our closure would almost mean the end of independent journalism in the country, unfortunately.
What motivates you to keep leading the newsroom despite prolonged uncertainty and pressure?
It is the young journalists on our team who keep me going. The way they view problems surprises me. Since our team consists of different age groups, we have very interesting conversations. Sometimes I see clashes of ideas. That is the part I enjoy most, every day. These young journalists are powerful in their reporting, and their ideas often uplift the entire team.
Do you foresee more restrictions for independent journalism in Kazakhstan?
Yes. It has already become difficult for journalists to work, and it is not just happening in Kazakhstan. This is a global trend. The new restrictive laws are adopted not only in one country, they are being copied. For example, Russia’s “foreign agents” law might soon appear in Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan has it, and Tajikistan is trying to implement it. Autocratic authorities are learning from each other on how to limit freedom for journalists.
CPJ’s emails to Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the new media law and the ongoing lack of accreditation for most Radio Azattyq’s reporters did not receive any response.
Many of his supporters hoped the prime minister would restore the UK’s commitment to international law. Yet Labour’s record over the past year has been curiously mixed
From a retired British colonel to a Catholic priest, half of the 532 people arrested in Parliament Square were 60 or older. Many believe they had a greater share of responsibility to take in defending the right to free speech
In recent weeks, hundreds of people have been arrested for taking part in demonstrations organised by the campaign group Defend Our Juries. Their alleged crime is calling for an end to the ban against Palestine Action, which has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by Yvette Cooper, the home secretary.
One striking detail among those detained is their age. Half of those arrested at the largest protest yet, in Parliament Square in London on Saturday, were 60 or older. Some said they had taken part to give a voice to younger people who have more to lose by breaking the law, some simply felt they must challenge the government’s stance.
EHRC calls for clearer guidance for officers to avoid a ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression
The UK’s official human rights watchdog has written to ministers and police expressing concern at a potentially “heavy-handed” approach to protests about Gaza and urging clearer guidance for officers in enforcing the law.
In the letter to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, and Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan police, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the perception that peaceful protest could attract disproportionate police attention “undermines confidence in our human rights protections”.
Protesters arrested for supporting Palestine Action should not be prosecuted until a legal challenge to a ban on the group has been heard, organisations including Greenpeace and Human Rights Watch have told the attorney general for England and Wales.
In a letter to Richard Hermer KC, also signed by Friends of the Earth, Global Witness and the Quakers, they say proceeding with charges or trials before the judicial review, which is expected to be heard in November, would raise significant legal and moral questions.
US state department says Labour government ‘repeatedly intervened to chill speech’ online after Southport attack
The Trump administration has accused the UK of backsliding on human rights over the past year, citing antisemitic violence and “serious restrictions” on free speech.
The annual US state department assessment, which analyses human rights conditions worldwide, highlighted laws limiting speech around abortion clinics, as well as the way government officials “repeatedly intervened to chill speech” online after the 2024 Southport attack.
The phrase “Rule of Law” (ROL) is frequently referenced in the major media but seldom defined. Google calls it “a principle under which all persons, institutions and entities are accountable to laws that are: [P]publicly promulgated, [E]equally enforced [and] [I]independently adjudicated.” To me, the rule of law means the legal protection of democratic institutions and individual human rights. It puts legal guardrails on abuses of power against institutions and individuals.
Globally, the ROL is represented by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and by the Second and Fourth Hague Conventions of 1899, the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 and the Genocide Convention of 1948.
Domestically, we rely on the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations to express the Rule of Law. Enforcement relies on adherence to law by individuals and institutions that hold power and by the acceptance by ordinary citizens. In the present environment, the major ROL breaches have occurred in the mass deportations of immigrants, in the punishment of free speech, and in the breakdown of congressionally created government bodies.
Not surprisingly, such gaps in legal norms have facilitated dark money, flawed elections, kidnappings, the deportation of immigrants without due process, and open corruption.
Internationally, the demise of legal rules is most evident in the Israel/Gaza conflict. Up to now, there has been only limited legal accountability for the war crimes of Hamas in its brutal October 7, 2023 attacks on Israeli civilians and for Israel’s continuing genocidal retribution (a 22-month campaign that has taken more than 60,000 lives (mostly women and children). The failure of the ICJ to issue a final determination of “genocide,” the pledge of some members of the ICC not to enforce arrest warrants against top Israeli officials, and U.S. complicity by providing lethal arms and diplomatic cover to Israel reflect a blanket repudiation of the international legal order that the U.S. helped establish in the last century.
The IDF’s current campaign is causing mass starvation, beginning with the most vulnerable (infants, young children and the elderly). According to a July 29 article in The Guardian, “More people in Gaza died of starvation in just over 11 days than in the previous 21 months of conflict.” Once famine takes hold it leads to mass starvation, unless adequate food and water become available.
Moreover, Israel’s war crimes under the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 as amended and the Genocide Convention of 1948 have included the targeted killings of medical personnel and journalists, and the devastation of hospitals, universities, mosques, and churches.
Domestically, the rule of law has collapsed on several fronts. In some recent court cases (such as executive branch refusal to obey a court order to abort the deportation of immigrants to San Salvator’s torture prison), the White House has ignored federal court decisions. Such actions amount to an attack on the fundamental democratic principle of checks and balances. It has also led to the emergence of an all-powerful presidency.
The ongoing punishments of pro-Palestinian protesters are blatant attacks on the free speech protection of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The kidnappings and detentions of foreign-born university students and faculty who protest the Gaza genocide make a mockery of free speech and due process protections.
Efforts by the Texas legislature to redistribute voting districts (with an avowed aim of capturing five new Republican seats) are normalizing illegal gerrymandering prior to the upcoming mid-term elections. As such reordering threatens to disenfranchise large numbers of people of color, they erode public confidence in the electoral process.
Disregard of court judgments, thuggish kidnappings by masked ICE agents, military deployments to quell peaceful civilian protests, and the widespread absence of due process in deportation cases are the most egregious examples of an overall disregard of legal limits by the executive branch.
The march to authoritarianism is unconstrained by legal norms. The president’s almost daily tweets and executive orders have become the phony equivalent of “law.” They lack constitutional foundation and often change direction according to executive whim. Legal breaches are increasingly ignored.
So, what is the societal impact of the ROL’s demise? Most significantly, inequality: powerful people lord over the weak, the wealthy crush the poor and middle class with inflation, and the president repeatedly asserts the assumed superiority of white males. No wonder that our immigrant neighbors are in terror of ICE, that the LGBT community fears discrimination and that the rest of the country quakes over what may be coming next.
The populist right sees the European convention as a soft target in a longer campaign to degrade democratic checks and balances
Most British citizens have little contact with human rights law, which is as it should be in a mature democracy. Widespread anxiety about basic freedoms is a feature of more repressive regimes.
Many people will only have heard of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) in the context of the last Conservative government’s failed attempts to dispatch asylum seekers to Rwanda, or in a handful of incidents where convicted criminals or terrorist suspects have avoided deportation to jurisdictions where they might face inhumane treatment. Such cases are amplified by politicians who are hostile to the whole apparatus of human rights law. The Strasbourg court that adjudicates on breaches of the ECHR is denounced as an enemy of British sovereignty.
More than 200 have been arrested for alleged support of Palestine Action – and hundreds more are expected to protest on Saturday
At 81, Deborah Hinton, a former British magistrate who was honoured by the late Queen Elizabeth II for services to the community, seems an unlikely terrorist suspect. In the quiet town in south-west England where she lives, much of her retirement is spent walking along the cliffs, raising funds for the nearby cathedral choir, and supporting local charities.
But last month she was detained in a police cell for seven hours, fingerprinted and had a DNA swab taken from her mouth. It was the first time she had ever been arrested, and the experience left her “in a state of trauma” and “shaking uncontrollably”. She could face a jail sentence of six months under UK terrorism legislation.
Washington, D.C., August 8, 2025—Qatari authorities should reconsider the implications of an amendment to the country’s cybercrime law, which could be used to prosecute journalists, photojournalists, and bloggers for doing their jobs, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.
On August 4, Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani approved an amendment to a 2014 cybercrime law that adds a new provision that criminalizes publishing or circulating photos or videos of individuals in public places without their consent. Violations are punishable by up to one year in prison, a fine of up to 100,000 Qatari riyals (about USD$27,500), or both.
“While the amendments are being framed as a measure to protect individual privacy, the vague and overly broad language poses a serious threat to press freedom,” said Sara Qudah, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program director. “Criminalizing the publication of images taken in public spaces risks silencing journalists and undermining their ability to report on matters of public interest.”
Qatari authorities have previously used the cybercrime law to suppress critical reporting. In May 2021, blogger Malcolm Bidali was forcibly disappeared and later charged under the cybercrime law with spreading false news. He was eventually allowed to leave the country after paying a significant fine for his reporting on migrant rights.
CPJ emailed the Qatari Embassy in Washington, D.C., for on how Qatari authorities plan to mitigate the risks that the new cybercrime law amendments pose to press freedom but did not receive a response.
She was arrested after planning to run against Paul Kagame. It’s time democracies woke up to the true nature of his regime
Rémy Amahirwa is the oldest son of Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza
When I see the “Visit Rwanda” logo stitched on to the jerseys of famous football clubs like Arsenal or printed in glossy travel magazines, I feel a rush of pride for the natural beauty and warm hospitality of the country of my birth. Yet, I wonder whether the tourists being courted truly understand the darker side of Rwanda. This side has torn my family apart for nearly two decades; it is the reason my mother sits behind bars, once again, as a political prisoner.
My mother, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, is a political activist who first returned to Rwanda from exile in 2010. Our family had a stable and comfortable life in the Netherlands for many years, but my mother could not stop thinking about her native Rwanda and was deeply troubled by the events unfolding there. The president, Paul Kagame, heralded as the man who stopped the 1994 genocide, was quietly becoming yet another strongman on the African continent. My mother could not silently watch from the sidelines in Europe as Rwanda’s citizens lost their freedoms and suffered persecution.
Conflict monitoring group Action on Armed Violence says Israel is seeking to create a ‘pattern of impunity’
Nearly nine out of 10 Israeli military investigations into allegations of war crimes or abuses by its soldiers since the start of the war in Gaza have been closed without finding fault or left without resolution, according to a conflict monitor.
Many of his supporters hoped the Prime Minister would restore the UK’s commitment to international law. Yet Labour’s record over the past year has been curiously mixed
The international human rights system – the rules, principles and practices intended to ensure that states do not abuse people – is under greater threat now than at any other point since 1945. Fortunately, we in the UK couldn’t wish for a better-qualified prime minister to face this challenge. Keir Starmer is a distinguished former human rights lawyer and prosecutor, with a 30-year career behind him, who expresses a deep personal commitment to defending ordinary people against injustice. He knows human rights law inside out – in fact, he literally wrote the book on its European incarnation – and has acted as a lawyer at more or less every level of the system. (Starmer is the only British prime minister, and probably the only world leader, to have argued a case under the genocide convention – against Serbia on behalf of Croatia in 2014 – at the international court of justice.) He is also an experienced administrator, through his time as director of public prosecutions (DPP), which means he knows how to operate the machinery of state better than most politicians do.
Unfortunately, there’s someone standing in Starmer’s way: a powerful man who critics say is helping to weaken the international human rights system. He fawns over authoritarian demagogues abroad and is seeking to diminish the protections the UK offers to some vulnerable minorities. He conflates peaceful, if disruptive, protest with deadly terrorism and calls for musicians whose views and language he dislikes to be dropped from festival bills. At times, he uses his public platform to criticise courts, whose independence is vital to maintaining the human rights system. At others, he uses legal sophistry to avoid openly stating and defending his own political position, including on matters of life and death. He is, even some of his admirers admit, a ruthless careerist prepared to jettison his stated principles when politically expedient. That person is also called Keir Starmer.
Judges rule document invalid as former Syrian leader had immunity as head of state
France’s highest court has cancelled an arrest warrant for the former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity during the country’s civil war.
The Cour de cassation declared the warrant invalid under international law, which gives heads of state personal immunity from prosecution in foreign courts while they are in office.
Volker Türk says the Home Office proscription restricts right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly
The UK government’s ban on Palestine Action limits the rights and freedoms of people in the UK and is at odds with international law, the UN human rights chief has said.
Volker Türk, the UN human rights commissioner, said ministers’ decision to designate the group a terrorist organisation was “disproportionate and unnecessary” and called on them to rescind it.
The boss of Australia’s human rights commission has questioned Labor’s moves to make Asio’s powers for compulsory questioning permanent, warning a planned expansion of the 9/11-era laws must include robust safeguards for individuals.
The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, introduced two pieces of legislation this week designed to remove so-called sunset provisions on the domestic spy agencies’ powers to compel cooperation. The rules act as effective expiry dates on the powers and require parliament to reconsider their reach on a regular basis.
Condemnation is rightly growing. But until concrete action is taken, western allies will remain complicit with these horrifying crimes
July has been one of the deadliest months of the war in Gaza, with Israel killing one person every 12 minutes. The UN says more than 1,000 Palestinians have died trying to get food, mostly when they attempted to collect aid from hubs.
Behind these visible deaths lies the horror of systematic starvation: “minutely engineered, closely monitored, precisely designed”, in the words of Prof Alex de Waal, an expert on humanitarian crises. More than 100 aid groups warned that it is spreading fast. At least 10 people died of hunger and malnutrition on Tuesday alone, said Gaza’s health ministry. Parents watch their children wither. Adults collapse on the street.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Donald Trump has the “greatest chance of any political leader” to broker a ceasefire deal in Gaza, Penny Wong says, after Australia on Tuesday joined with 27 other countries to condemn Israel for the “drip feeding of aid” and the “inhumane killing” of Palestinians.
Wong acknowledged the key role the US – a strong supporter of Israel – plays in the peace process as domestic pressure on the Albanese government to play a more pivotal role in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza mounts.
Janine Jackson interviewed media scholar Victor Pickard about the Paramount settlement for the July 18, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: Faced with a groundless lawsuit claiming that an interview with Kamala Harris amounted to election interference in favor of Democrats, CBS News’ parent company, Paramount, could have struck a symbolic blow for press freedom by saying, “No,” pointing to any number of legal arguments, starting with the First (for a reason) Amendment.
But Paramount isn’t a journalistic institution. It’s a business with media holdings, and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone was in the middle of doing business, trying to sell the corporation to another Hollywood studio, a move that, perhaps quaintly, requires government approval. That now means approval of this government.
And yet here we are. The Paramount settlement, says Victor Pickard, is, yes, a stunning display of bribery, greed and cowardice. But we need to understand, it’s also a symptom of a deep structural rot in our media today, a system in which profit trumps democracy at every turn.
Victor Pickard is a professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, where he co-directs the Media Inequality and Change Center. He’s the author, most recently, of Democracy Without Journalism?: Confronting the Misinformation Society from Oxford University Press. He joins us now by phone. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Victor Pickard.
Victor Pickard: It’s great to be back on the show, Janine.
JJ: Well, I hear that Paramount‘s market value has dropped since Shari Redstone threw press independence on the fire to warm shareholders’ hands. It’s almost as if folks thought it wasn’t a valuable journalistic institution.
I want to launch you into the bigger picture of which this is emblematic, but I first want to insert: Shari Redstone inherited Paramount from her father, Sumner Redstone, who, while some of us were working to show there was a conflict, declared it openly.
In 2004, then-head of CBS and Viacom Sumner Redstone stated at a corporate leader confab that he didn’t want to denigrate then–Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, but
from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal, because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people, but from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company.
And, later, CBS head Les Moonves—CounterSpin listeners will have heard me say many times—declared laughingly, “Donald Trump is bad for America, but he’s good for CBS, so let’s do it.”
So the structural conflict you’re describing, it’s not a theory. It’s not the stuff of smoke-filled rooms. It’s out there for everyone to see, every day in every way. So the questions have to do with, once we diagnose this problem, what do we do about it?
VP: Thank you for opening up with that softball question. I mean, that is the main problem before us, and everything you just said leading up to this question really lays out that this is a systemic problem that we’re facing, and it requires a systemic fix. It’s not just a case of a few bad apples, or a handful of bad corporations and perhaps a bad journalist, even, but it really is a systemic structural problem. And so we really need to move our frame of analysis from just condemning the latest media malfeasance to really condemning the entire hypercommercialized media system in which we are all immersed, and so clearly serves only commercial values and not democratic values.
So the first step, of course, would be to decommercialize our media, much easier said than done, but that’s something we need to place on our horizon. And not only that, we also need to radically democratize our media, from root to branch, and that means bringing it back down to the local level, making sure that our media are owned and controlled by the public. Even our public media, our so-called public media, aren’t actually owned by the people.
So this is something that we need to work towards. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it’s something we need to start thinking about now.
JJ: I love the idea of a long-term and a short-term plan, and eyes on the prize. So let’s go back to that. It’s not that we’re going to change things legislatively or politically tomorrow, but there are things on the ground locally. There are models we can build on, yeah?
VP: That’s absolutely true. There’s a number of models that exist today, that have existed in our history and that exist around the world, and we really should be looking at some of those to expand our current imagination about what’s possible in the future. Obviously, we have some great independent local media, and those outlets, those institutions, we should be supporting in any way that we can, through donations, subscriptions, whatever we can, to help them. They’re all struggling, like all local media are right now.
We also, even though I made a sort of snarky comment about our public media a moment ago, I think we do need to look to, as I say, save our public media so that we can change it. As we know, the meager funds that we allocate to public media are currently on the chopping block. It comes out to about a $1.58 per person per year in this country, which is literally off the chart compared to most democratic countries around the world. So we need to look at how we can salvage that, but also, again, expand on it, and build, restructure our public media, so that it’s not just public in name but actually publicly owned.
There are other things that we could be doing, but we just have to start with recognizing that the current commercial system is failing democracy, and will always fail democracy.
JJ: When you talk about public media, and this is a thing, of course, folks are being encouraged to think about it now as “ideological” institutions. First of all, and you’ve said it, but they don’t get a lot of government support to begin with.
Neiman Reports (1/24/22): The US is virtually off the chart when it comes to its ratio of GDP to spending on public media.
But at the same time, progressives, we’ve had plenty of complaints about public broadcasting as it exists in this country. It had a beautiful ideal. It had a beautiful beginning. It hasn’t fulfilled that role.
We have complaints about it, but the complaints that we’re now hearing don’t have anything to do with the complaints that we have about it. So the idea of saving public media might land weird to some CounterSpin listeners, but there’s a reason that we need to keep that venue open.
VP: Absolutely. I mean, it is an ideal, just like democracy itself is an ideal, something that we have yet to actually achieve, but it’s something we can’t give up on just because the current iteration of this model that we have in the US, which is a kind of strange one, again, compared to other public media models around the world, it’s actually a misnomer. It’s mostly supported by private capital.
But if we were to actually fund it in accordance with global norms, we could have a very robust public media system that was not dependent on corporate sponsorships, that was not catering to higher socioeconomic groups, that, again, could actually spend more time engaging with and devoting programming for local communities.
So this is something that’s not inevitable. Like our entire media system, there was nothing inevitable with how we designed it. We need to understand the political economic structures that produce the kind of media that we’re constantly critiquing in order to change it, to create an entirely different kind of media system that’s driven by a different and democratic logic.
JJ: Let me just draw you out on that. We spoke last year, and I would refer interested people to that conversation, about separating capitalism and journalism, and talking about different ways of financing media in the service of the public.
And we understand complaints about “state media.” We hear all of that, and any kind of funding structure should be transparent, and we should talk about it.
But I want to ask you, finally, there are creative policy responses going on, and it’s not about kicking the final answers down the field; it’s really just about making a road while we walk it, and making examples of things, so that we can see that, yeah, they work, and they can move us towards a bigger vision.
VP: Absolutely. And as you already suggested, state media and public media are not the same thing. That we publicly subsidize media doesn’t mean it immediately has to become a mouthpiece for the state or the government.
And, indeed, government is always involved in our media. It’s a question of how it should be involved, whether it’s to serve corporate interests or public interests.
I think we can look to what’s happening at the state level, for example, in New Jersey, they’ve long had an Information Consortium network that’s focused on subsidizing various local journalistic initiatives. And it’s a proof of concept of how the state can make these public investments towards publicly accountable media. And we’re starting to see that in many states across the country.
A lot of experiments, some will survive, some won’t. The important thing is that we need to create these non-market means of support for the media that we need. I think that ideal of separating journalism and capitalism, which was always a match made in Hell, we need to find a way to do that, again, to be on our political horizon for the future.
Victor Pickard: “Much of what we’re talking about is really trying to figure out the structures that would allow journalists to be journalists.”
JJ: Well, I said that was my last question, but I want to ask you another one, because I think a mistake that folks make about FAIR, and possibly about you, is that we’re anti-journalism per se. But we are emphatically pro–good journalism that’s not public relations for power. It’s because we believe in the power of journalism that we are so concerned about these structural constraints.
VP: Exactly. I couldn’t agree more with that statement. And I think much of what we’re talking about is really trying to figure out the structures that would allow journalists to be journalists. Most journalists don’t go into the profession, they don’t follow the craft, to become rich, or to become mouthpieces of the already powerful. I think it’s generally a noble calling, and we just need to create the institutions and the structures that can allow them to be the great journalist they want to be.
JJ: All right, then. Victor Pickard is professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. He co-directs the Media Inequality and Change Center, and his most recent book is called Democracy Without Journalism?. Victor Pickard, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
Clearer legal obligations on the British government to prevent genocides, and to determine if one is occurring rather than leaving such judgments to international courts, are to be considered by a cross-party group of lawyers, politicians and academics under the chairmanship of Helena Kennedy.
The new group, known as the standing group on atrocity crimes, says its genesis does not derive from a specific conflict such as Gaza or Xinjiang, but a wider concern that such crime is spreading as international law loses its purchase.
Palestinians continue to hold on to the practice we call sumoud – refusing to give up or leave – despite the world turning its back on us
Over the past 21 long months of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, voices all over the world have decried the demise of international law and the rule-based order. And indeed, the facade of Israel’s adherence to international law has vanished and policies that constitute war crimes are now brazenly declared.
This week, Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has shared plans to forcibly move Palestinians into a camp in the ruins of Rafah. Once they enter, they cannot leave. In other words, a concentration camp, which by definition is an internment centre for members of a national group (as well as political prisoners or minority groups) on the grounds of security or punishment, usually by military order. Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer, was quoted in the Guardian as saying that Katz “laid out an operational plan for a crime against humanity”. Hundreds have been killed and thousands wounded trying to access food.
ECHR rules South African runner did not have fair trial on need to lower testosterone levels to compete in women’s sport
The South African runner Caster Semenya has called for athletes’ rights to be better protected after Europe’s top human rights court ruled that she had not been given a fair trial when she contested a policy that required her to lower her testosterone levels in order to compete in women’s sport.
The decision, handed down on Thursday by the European court of human rights, was the latest twist in the two-time Olympic gold medallist’s extraordinary legal battle.
Extrajudicial killings, sexual violence and forced labour among accusations upheld by court in judgment
Russia has committed flagrant and unprecedented abuses of human rights since it invaded Ukraine in 2014, including extrajudicial killings, sexual violence and forced labour, the European court of human rights has found.
The court’s grand chamber unanimously held that between 11 May 2014 and 16 September 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the European convention on human rights it had committed “manifestly unlawful conduct … on a massive scale”.
Indiscriminate military attacks.
Summary executions of civilians and Ukrainian military personnel.
Torture, including the use of rape as a weapon of war.
Unlawful and arbitrary detention of civilians.
Unjustified displacement and transfer of civilians.
Intimidation, harassment and persecution of all religious groups other than adherents of the historically Moscow-aligned Ukrainian Orthodox church.
Intimidation and violence against journalists and new laws prohibiting and penalising the dissemination of information in support of Ukraine.
Forcible dispersal by the Russian military of peaceful protests in occupied towns and cities.
Destruction, looting and expropriation of property.
Suppression of the Ukrainian language in schools and indoctrination of Ukrainian schoolchildren.
Transfer to Russia, and in many cases, the adoption there of Ukrainian children.
Hundreds put to death for non-violent drug offences over past decade, with little scrutiny of Saudis, says Amnesty
Saudi Arabia has carried out a “horrifying” number of executions for drug crimes over the past decade, most of which were of foreign nationals, according to Amnesty International.
Almost 600 people have been executed over the past decade for drug-related offences, Amnesty International has found, three-quarters of whom were foreign nationals from countries including Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Nigeria and Egypt.
In 2015, a nationwide campaign rounded up hundreds of rights advocates. Since then, suppression has become more systematic and less visible, lawyers say
A decade on from China’s biggest crackdown on human rights lawyers in modern history, lawyers and activists say that the Chinese Communist party’s control over the legal profession has tightened, making rights defence work next to impossible.
The environment for human rights law has “steadily regressed, especially after the pandemic”, said Ren Quanniu, a disbarred human rights lawyer. “Right now, the rule of law in China – especially in terms of protecting human rights – has deteriorated to a point where it’s almost comparable to the Cultural Revolution era.” The Cultural Revolution was a decade of mass chaos unleashed by China’s former leader Mao Zedong in 1966. During that time judicial organs were attacked as “bourgeois” and the nascent court system was largely suspended.
Since 1963, when he photographed a fellow student being arrested, David Hoffman has turned his camera on rebels and rioters. His archive tells an alternative story of Britain, from Greenham Common to students marching on Whitehall
Duncan Campbell on the power of protest
From the suffragettes at the start of the last century to Reclaim the Night in the 1970s; from the battle of Cable Street against the British Union of Fascists in 1936 to the Anti-Nazi League marches four decades later; from the million marchers against the Iraq war in 2003 in London to the massive turnouts across the country two decades later against the war in Gaza, protest has been a vital and constant part of the fabric of British society.
Washington, D.C., July 3, 2025— The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the June 18 arrest of journalist Muzahim Bajaber in central Yemen’s Hadramout Governorate on unspecified charges.
The warrant, reviewed by CPJ, was issued by a Specialized Criminal Court and violates Article 13 of Yemen’s Press and Publications Law, which protects journalists from punishment for publishing their opinions unless they violate the law.
“Bajaber’s arrest is the latest example of the deteriorating press freedom situation in areas controlled by the Internationally Recognized Government (IRG),” said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. “We call on the IRG to immediately release Bajaber and to allow journalists to do their job without fear of reprisal.”
Yemen has been mired in civil war since 2014, when Houthi rebels seized the capital, Sanaa, and ousted the government. The Saudi-backed IRG intervened in 2015 in an effort to restore the government to power.
Journalists face grave threats in areas controlled by the Houthi, IRG, and Southern Transitional Council (STC). Violations—including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, and unfair trials—are carried out with near-total impunity.
Bajaber, publisher and editor-in-chief of the independent, Hadramout-based media outlet, Al-Ahqaf Media Platform, was arrested by security forces in the IRG-controlled city of Al-Mukalla.
In a separate incident, journalist Ahmed Maher—who was detained in August 2022 by security forces affiliated with the STC and released in January 2025—has recently over the last month been subjected to online incitement and threats, according to Yemeni press freedom and human rights organizations, as well as messages sent directly from the journalist to CPJ.
CPJ emailed the Ministry of Human Rights in the IRG for comment on the arrest of Bajaber, but did not receive an immediate response.
