 The next item of business is members' business debate on motion 7.970, in the name of Ivan McKee, on the day of the imprisoned writer. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Ivan McKee to open the debate for around seven minutes, please, Mr McKee. I am delighted to be able to hold this debate today to commemorate the day of the imprisoned writer, which falls annually on 15 November. I am grateful to Scottish Pen and Amnist International for their support in organising the debate and welcoming the members of both organisations who are present in the gallery this afternoon. Around the world, writers find themselves imprisoned or worse for doing no more than putting pen to paper. There are so many that are persecuted for this simple act in the 21th century as something that should concern us all. Last week, I attended and spoke briefly at the evening reception organised in the Parliament by Michael Russell MSP, Scottish Pen and Amnist. Works from writers from around the world were read out from a range of countries. The works themselves and the stories that lay behind them were harrowing, yet inspirational, painful and powerful—a reminder of the power of words to move us. Those who read the works on behalf of imprisoned writers who could not be there often had direct experience of them inside of prison cells. Many of the speakers in this debate today will highlight the story of a particular writer imprisoned somewhere in the world just now, the diversity of geography, language, culture and beliefs that will be represented today indicates the worrying scale of the problem, the commonality of the suffering that lies behind the tales, but also the universality of the human spirit that drives writers to continue to put pen to paper to speak truth and to power, despite the magnitude of the consequences that may ensue. The 2017 world press freedom index, compiled by reporters without borders, noted a significant decline in press freedom, as a situation had worsened in nearly two-thirds of the 180 countries in the index. In 2016, according to RSF, 74 journalists had been killed worldwide, while 384 had been imprisoned during the course of their duty. Since January this year, 38 journalists, four citizen journalists and eight media assistants have been killed, with 183 journalists, 170 citizen journalists and 13 media assistants imprisoned. Additionally, according to Deutsche Welle, in 2015, 1,054 authors were attacked, imprisoned, tortured or killed. What can we hope to achieve today in this Parliament by holding this debate? At one level, nothing changes. We will leave this place in a little under an hour to go our separate ways. Some words will have been spoken and that is all, but another level much will have changed. Words, as imprisoned writers we remember today know well, have the power to do everything, to motivate and inspire, to reverberate and echo. That most basic of human characteristics, to use words to communicate and through words to create change. The words that we speak today will be written and recorded, to be read and viewed by many in the days and weeks to come, to extend like a rippling of point, influencing behaviour, making the simple yet powerful statement that words matter. The day of the imprisoned writer has been held by a pen international since 1981, and it is marked by promoting literary culture, celebrating the freedom to write and taking action to call for justice and freedom for imprisoned and murdered colleagues. The intention of the day is to increase public awareness of persecuted writers in general and to draw attention to specific cases of individual writers and their circumstances. The general public is encouraged to take part in the form of donations and letters of appeal on behalf of the selected writers. We hope that the Scottish Parliament will recognise the day of the imprisoned writer as a focus for the campaign to free those that we remember today and others. We will hope that it will inspire many to take part in other activities, including amnesty's letter writing campaigns in the work of pen through their writers at risk committee. Giving hope to those imprisoned for the beliefs and giving notice to their jailers that their plight is known and understood in places distant. 37-year-old Ashraf Fayad is an artist and poet of Palestinian origin. Ashraf is the son of refugees from Canunus in the Gaza Strip, and while he lives in Saudi Arabia, he does not have Saudi citizenship. He has been active in the arts scene in Saudi Arabia and is organizing curated exhibitions of Saudi art in Europe and Saudi Arabia. He was active in the British Arabian arts organisation, Age of Arabia. After an argument with a fellow artist at a soccer game, Fayad was detained by the country's religious police in 2013. Released on bail, he then re-arrested and tried in early 2014. He was then sentenced to four years in prison and 800 lashes. On a Saudi appeal court, he returned the case to the lower court where a new judge was assigned to the case. In November 2015, Fayad was sentenced to death by beheading for apostasy. He used his evidence against him, with several poems in his book, instructions within, Twitter posts and conversations that he had in a coffee shop. Prior to his death sentence, Fayad was accused of having promoted atheism in the same book of poems within, which was published in 2008. He was also convicted of having images of women on his mobile phone. He did, but there was nothing salacious in the photos. There were fellow artists who were appearing at the Jeddart fair. That led to an international outcry and organised protest. 128 regions of Fayad's poetry took place worldwide in 47 countries, three of those events in Scotland. The sentence was commuted in February 2016, apparently because of the international protest, but the poet still faced a sentence of eight years in prison and 800 lashes and must also repent through an announcement on official media. Fayad's supporters believe that he has been punished by hardliners for posting a video online, showing a man being lashed in public by the religious police. Adam Cougal, a Middle East researcher for human rights watch, said that Fayad's death sentence showed Saudi Arabia's complete intolerance of anyone who may not share government-mandated religious, political and social views. Ashraf's father had a stroke when he learned that his son was to be beheaded. He died a few months ago before the sentence was commuted. Ashraf was not allowed to attend the funeral. An extract from Ashraf Fayad's disputed poems from Instructions Within, translated by Mona Kireen. Her mute to blood will not speak up as long as you pride yourself in death, as long as you keep announcing secretly that you have put your soul at the hands of those who do not know much. For Ashraf Fayad, for all the other writers that we will remember today, for all the other thousands who are imprisoned, or at risk of being imprisoned around the world, and for the right of all to put pen to paper, we are proud to stand in solidarity with those around the world who have been persecuted for expressing themselves. We commemorate the day of the imprisoned writer and work to raise awareness of their plight and to secure their release. Thank you, Mr McKee. We move to the open debate of speeches around four minutes, please, and I call Rachel Hamilton to be followed by Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Ivan McKee for bringing this debate to Parliament, and I welcome this debate, and it's an important debate to have, free and open speeches in a necessity of democracy, and all should be able to express their views to encourage further debate. Of course, there are debates that are unpleasant ones, but it is my belief that even the most unpleasant debates with the most unpleasant people must be had. For without debate views that we deem repugnant, repulsive, regressive go unchallenged, but these views must be challenged. Indeed, these are the most crucial views to hear so that we can challenge them, and that is the fundamental importance of free speech and why this debate is important to have. For in the UK, in Scotland, we live in a democracy, and all of us here are well aware of the importance of debate, and from all sides. In recent weeks, it has become clear that there are those who have attempted to interfere with debate. That is the attempt to seek fraction in our society and challenge our democracy. That is not right. We cannot allow others to dilute debate to undermine arguments on both sides and so discord within the foundations of our political system. Likewise, we cannot imprison writers who add to strengthen that debate. Those are not people who seek to fracture and destroy but to encourage and challenge. Orhan Pumac, a Turkish Nobel prize-winning writer, was threatened with imprisonment when he said that 1 million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in these lands, and no one but me dares to talk about it. Pumac was referring to the Armenian genocide. Pumac should talk about this. We all should talk about this. It is important to do so. It is important to explore history and learn from the past. Pumac, however, was a writer that was not imprisoned. His trial was dropped after international pressure, although he was fined and asked to apologise for his remarks. The same is not true for others. At least 81 journalists are imprisoned in Turkey, and Turkey for some time has had the most journalists in its prisons out of any country in the world. The failed coup last July resulted in a crackdown on officials, and journalists alike have been jailed, believed to be government antagonists. The situation in Turkey is precarious to say the least, and indeed no journalist nor anyone should be imprisoned unjustly. At the end of October this year, 48 journalists were put to trial in three different trials. Earlier this year, a Turkish court sentenced Wall Street Journal reporter Aylia Abaric to two years and one month in prison, declaring her guilty of engaging in terrorist propaganda in support of the PKK through one of her Wall Street Journal articles. However, the original article did not include any praise for the group, but rather provided a balanced and objective view of urban warfare that had gripped areas of Turkey's predominantly Kurdish south-east at the time. This is the type of journalism we should encourage not to arrest its authors for producing. More examples of unjust arrests are those of the 17 employees of the Cumyat, which is a Turkish newspaper, accused of being accomplices to terrorism. Reporters without borders argue that the employers were put on trial because the paper is critical of the Turkish Government. Huge questions hang over those arrests, and it is a deep concern that those examples are becoming ever more common in Turkey. To close, freedom of speech is central to healthy democracies. It is highly concerning that cases of imprisoned journalists are ever-growing. Debate is a good thing, a healthy thing, and that should certainly be encouraged everywhere in the world. I thank Amnesty International and Penn for highlighting those injustices. I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by Daniel Johnson. I would like to thank my colleague Ivan McKee for bringing in an issue of such significance to the chamber. I am pleased to contribute to the debate on an issue of such fundamental importance, the right to freedom of expression, as we commemorate the day of the imprisoned writer. This is a time to reflect on how fortunate we are to live in a society where freedom is respected, cherished and defended by all parties and by each of our parliaments. It is also a time to remember that we should never take that for granted and that we must always be vigilant of any attempts to dilute the fundamental right. Most importantly, the day of the imprisoned writer is a time to reflect on those who do not yet have that most basic human right of freedom of expression, those who are still struggling and fighting for it, those who are suffering unjust imprisonment, persecution and violence for the simple act of expressing their thoughts in writing. I would like to join with colleagues in expressing my thanks to organisations such as Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International, Penn International, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Human Rights Watch, who work tirelessly all year round to highlight the plight of imprisoned and persecuted writers and to campaign for a world where everyone has the fundamental right to freedom of expression. As we have heard, each year Penn highlights the cases of five persecuted writers who are emblematic of the persecution and threats that are faced by writers and journalists across the world. One of this year's cases is that of Kurdish poet and artist, Zeridogan, who is currently imprisoned in Turkey. As co-convener of the CPG on Kurdistan and as someone with a long-standing interest in Kurdistan, I would like to use my time to highlight her story in this chamber of the Scottish Parliament and to hopefully inspire more people to take action to help her. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Turkey has earned the accolade that holds no glory. It's the biggest jailer of journalists in the world. Zeridogan is one of them. She's imprisoned primarily because of a painting that she drew and a news report that she wrote. The painting issue is her recreation of a photograph taken by the Turkish military of the Kurdish town of Nusebin following its destruction by Turkish forces who were fighting the PKK. For the Turkish army, it's a victorious photograph of their suppression of the town, with destroyed buildings draped with Turkish flags and surrounded by tanks. For Zera and the residents of the town, by contrast, it was a picture of suffering and displacement. To reflect this, Zera adapted the photograph by painting the army tanks as huge, grotesque creatures consuming innocent civilians. However, although the Turkish flags were present in the original photograph, Zera was found guilty of painting the Turkish flags on the destroyed buildings and the painting was condemned as anti-Turkish propaganda. To quote Zera herself, she gave me a prison penalty for taking the photo of destroyed houses and putting Turkish flags on them. But it wasn't me who did that, it was them, I just painted it. The second reason for her imprisonment, a news report that she wrote, featured a quote from a child who was affected by the clashes in the town. The child said, we're hearing gunfire right now. When the shots intensify, we run to our homes. When the tanks go away, we take to the street to protest. I think we're right. I know our voices will be heard one day. Zera's reporting of these five sentences was also deemed terrorist propaganda. Zera was first sent to prison in July 2016 and released in December of the same year. In June of this year, she was arrested again and is in prison as we speak. The actions of the Turkish authorities are condemnable and disgraceful. Zera's an inspirational and highly skilled painter and journalist, not a criminal, and I add my voice to the global calls for her immediate and unconditional release. It's one thing to talk and quite another to take action, and I hope that in conclusion I can persuade everyone to take action today, and perhaps do what I did earlier this week, write to the Turkish Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to press for her immediate release. The addresses can be found on the PEN website. You can send a short postcard to her personally. The prison only accepts letters in Turkish, but fortunately PEN provided a model letter that you can copy. Translated, the letter reads simply and powerfully. Zera, you are not alone. We're proud of your work and celebrate your courage. Your voice is heard around the world and we will keep advocating for your freedom. In that spirit, let's commit to using our own precious freedom of expression to support those who are still fighting for it. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by declaring an interest as a member of Amnesty International. Like others, I'd like to thank the various organisations that have provided briefings and information and continue to campaign on that. I think that it's an important campaign that PEN organised. Fundamentally, this is about democracy, and democracy is precious. It's important, but it's also fragile and needs looking after it, because democracy isn't just about voting. It's not just about casting ballots. It requires rule of law. It requires freedom of association, and it perhaps most importantly requires freedom of speech and expression, something that we almost take for granted on a daily basis in here, but something in many parts of the world for many people is something that they simply do not have and something that they find themselves persecuted or indeed imprisoned because of. And press freedom is a very important, a critical element of that, because it's through the press that we hold that mirror to power, that we challenge power and authority, that we can highlight its mistakes, its errors and indeed its injustices. As Ivan McKee set out in his opening remarks, today is a day for highlighting those who have suffered because of these repressions, and I would like to highlight the story of Oleg Stensoff, a Ukrainian filmmaker imprisoned in Russia. He was arrested on 10 May 2014 and subjected to a brutal three-hour ordeal involving beatings, suffocation and threatened sexual assault. Something that's unimaginable to most of us in here. He was charged with the establishment of our terrorist group, politically motivated arson, and finally, and the bit that I almost had to reread again, conspiring to blow up a statue of Lenin. This was in 2014. This isn't something that happened in Soviet Russia. This is something happening in 21st century Russia. And because of these, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He was refused extradition because Russia claims he had become a Russian citizen after the annexation of Crimea. Key prosecution witnesses have retracted their statement saying that it was extracted under torture. He's been added to a list of terrorists and all clearly because, as Penn states, his opposition to Russia's annexation of Crimea. That's the reality of Putin's Russia. Journalists are imprisoned but they are also killed. Just this year, two journalists have been killed in Russia. Nicolai Andyshenko, co-founder of the Novi Peterberg and reporter on corruption in human rights abuses, was beaten and died from his injuries in April this year. Dmitry Popkov, co-founder and chief editor of Taun M in my Russian is not up to scratch, but was reported to corruption and found dead in May 2017. In total, 25 journalists have lost their lives since Putin came to power. Indeed, as others have rightly pointed out, the committee to protect journalists said that we are at a 30-year high primarily because of what's happening in Turkey of journalists being imprisoned. So this is the context of this debate. It's these freedoms that we have to speak up, these people who we have to speak on behalf of. But I think that we also need to reflect on the actions of the Russian state because it isn't confined to their own borders. They are actively seeking to undermine democracy in other parts of the world. They have active propaganda factors, whether it's Twitter factories through to their official outlets in this country, Russia Today, which has been condemned on several occasions by Ofcom. So I would say gently to colleagues, let's think twice about legitimising those outlets. Let's refuse to appear on Russia Today and certainly let's not take their money because we must stand up for press freedom and we cannot legitimise the actions of the Russian state. I call Andy Wightman to be followed by Gillian Martin. I first declare as a writer an interest as a member of Scottish Pen, and I thank Ivan McKee for bringing this debate. As members know, Pen International's Day of the Imprisoned Writer started in 1981 to highlight journalists who have been persecuted for pursuing their craft. The written word speaks to the human story and all its complexity from personal inner thoughts to historiography and politics through to investigative journalism and activism. Writers, as we've heard, are a particular target for oppressive regimes and powerful interests because the written word can, particularly in the modern era, be spread far and wide. Words are powerful tools in the hands of anyone, which is why in an oppressive regime, authorities frequently attempt to silence writers who write freely or who critique their regime. It was so with Anna Polatkovskaya. She was born in New York in 1958 to Ukrainian parents who were UN diplomats. She started her journalistic career at Izvestia, a Russian broadsheet newspaper in 1982, as the editor of the Accidents and Emergencies section. From 1994 to 1999, she worked as assistant chief editor at Obshaya Gazeta, where she frequently wrote about social problems, including problems facing refugees. From 1999 to 2006, Anna wrote columns for the bi-weekly Navaya Gazeta, whereby her own admission became obsessed with exposing the killing, torture and beatings of civilians by Russian soldiers in Chechnya. She wrote at that time also in an essay that the editors at the newspaper would receive, and I quote, visitors every day in our editorial office, who have nowhere else to bring their troubles, because the Kremlin finds their stories off message so that the only place they can be aired is in our newspaper. She was, as a consequence of work, highly critical of Vladimir Putin. She won numerous awards, but as she gained prominence abroad, she was increasingly marginalised at home. Despite being a US citizen and holding a US passport, as an adult she spent no more than a few weeks outside Russia, her life was threatened on multiple occasions, and she was murdered in the lift to her Moscow flat on 7 October 2006, having been shot four times a point-blank range. After trials in 2008, 2012 and 2014, five men were convicted with Anna's murder, but those who ordered it have never been brought to justice, and it's likely that they never will. In Anna's own words, I am a pariah. You don't get used to this, but you learn to live with it. Some time ago, Vladislav Surkov, Putin's deputy chief of staff, explained that there were incorrigible enemies who simply needed to be cleansed from the political arena. So they are trying to cleanse it of me and others like me. She continued, Chechen leader Ramzan Khadarov has publicly vowed to murder me. He said during a meeting of his Government that he'd had enough and that Politkovskaya was a condemned woman. I was told about it by members of the Government. Why has Khadarov vowed to kill me? I once interviewed him and printed the interview just as he gave it, complete with all his characteristic moronic stupidity, ignorance and satanic inclinations. He was sure that I would completely rewrite the interview and present him as an intelligent and honourable man. That is after all how the majority of journalists behave now, those who are on quotes our side. Presiding Officer, I welcome this opportunity to put on the official record of the Scottish Parliament the testimony of one among far too many of the writers imprisoned for their beliefs across the world. As Presiding Officer and members, no, we enjoy under section 41 of the Scotland Act 1998 absolute privilege in relation to the law of defamation. This is an important liberty for parliamentarians to enjoy. All writers should be free to speak openly and freely without fear of persecution and I agree with Ivan McKee's suggestion that Parliament should consider recognising every year the day of the imprisoned writer. I call Gillian Martin to be followed by Tavish Scott. I want to thank my friend and colleague Ivan McKee for bringing this important debate to the chamber. The list of writers that we know are imprisoned in order to silence them is distressing and freedom of speech is a human right. This is a day when we draw attention to those who need us to be their voices and I commend my colleagues for telling the stories of those who cannot speak for themselves. I apologise for departing from doing that ever so slightly because I want to talk about someone who was imprisoned and is now free. The reason I do that is because it is very close to home and it shows that, even in the European Union, writers' voices can be silenced for political reasons and we must always be vigilant and condemn it where it happens. At the time of his arrest in February 2003, Marcello Atamendi was a reporter of the BASC language newspaper in Hegwng, Korea, the only daily newspaper that published entirely in BASC language at that time. Hegwng, Korea, had very strong anti-ETA editorial stance, but the Spanish authorities falsely claimed that Hegwng, Korea was financed by ETA and the stance was a smoke screen. After the paper published a feature that included some interviews from members of ETA, among others, the authorities used it as an excuse to close the paper down and the journalists were put into custody. Under Spanish anti-terrorist legislation, prisoners may be held in custody for up to five days without having to be told why. Atamendi and nine other members of the Hegwng, Korea team were held under those terms. I met Marcello Atamendi around two years ago when I was visiting the BASC country on a speaking tour and he is now the managing editor of BIRIA, a BASC language newspaper. Atamendi told me that he was prevented from speaking or sleeping when he was in prison. He could not see his surroundings because his head and face were covered by guards. He was threatened with sexual abuse and, on one occasion, a pistol was held against his head and he was forced to perform a sexual act. Following a visit from a forensic specialist to check his condition after a period of torture, he was told by the Guardian Civil that if he told the truth about the torture, he would be killed. He was also pressured into giving a false confession. The Guardian Civil had told him that members of ETA who were already detained had confessed that Hegwng, Korea was financed by them and that he would have no choice but to confess. Of course none of this was true. BASC detainees are often taken directly to Madrid where they are arrested and the purpose of this firstly is that it prevents them from being tried by sympathetic BASC judges. Secondly, it ensures that detainees' complaints about their treatment are only lodged in Madrid and they are likely to win. The Spanish judge, allocated to Atamendi's case, did not believe that he was tortured and closed the case without calling him to testify. Of the 10 originally arrested five members of the Hegwng, Korea editorial board members were indicted in charges of being ETA members. They were released on bail a waiting trial. They would need to wait seven years for that trial, enough time to kill their newspaper, which could not be restarted under bail conditions. In 2010, the final and unanimous court verdict stated that there were no grounds to have the newspaper closed. The court noted that the newspaper's closure was, I quote, in interference with press freedom. The judge declared that allegations have not proven that the defendants have the slightest relation with ETA and that determines in itself the acquittal with all pronouncements favourable to the defendants. No one has ever accepted responsibility for shutting down the newspaper without justification, and those who were tortured, including Marcello Atamendi, have never had any justice for those crimes. That happened in the EU only a few years ago. Human rights abuses and the silencing of journalists do not just happen in totalitarian regimes. It happens uncomfortably close to home in elected democracies and we must always be vigilant that it does not happen in our watch. One of the challenges of a debate like this is that the case study that might have been raised by an integer member has already been spoken about. I will not repeat the striking writer's experience that someone else has already described in his contribution earlier this afternoon, other than to say that I'm with Ruth Maguire on this. It's actually what we can do about these circumstances and I've got a couple of suggestions for the cabinet secretary on that. We meet delegations. There are ambassadors in this place regularly up in the VIP gallery in this chamber. Parliamentarians go on cross-party visits frequently from here, and the consular corps are regular attendees at parliamentary events. Many of them are good friends of ours across all the political parties, but I do not think that we systematically look at the kind of issue that Ian McKee has rightly raised in Parliament today and say what is the cross-party work that we could do on behalf of an individual, our writer, a journalist who is being held in prison or worse in one part of the world or another, and ask for some co-ordinated work to be taken forward both by our Government and indeed by our Parliament as well in a way that could actually make a difference. I'm with Ian McKee in terms of his suggestion of having an annual event or an annual debate on this, but I'm more than that. I'd like to see us on that cross-party basis taking such a case and actually seeing what we could practically do about it. I can't be the only one, Daniel Johnson mentioned it, who's had Amnesty International magazine sitting around my home when I was a child from a young age and being encouraged during modernised classes at school to write letters, in those days they were letters, to one oppressive regime around the world after another. On behalf of a journalist or someone else being held in the most object circumstances imaginable actually in circumstances that we can't even imagine, you can watch the movies you like, but the psychology of imprisonment, the psychology of torture, the psychology of what is done to individuals is not really possible to understand, I suspect, unless you can talk to someone who has been through that. So this is an important debate and as others have said, Scottish Pen and Amnesty International and the other organisations that have rightly been praised today for their work should be and should be again and again. But I think we should just reflect on, and I'm just going to finish with this, reflect on one other aspect to these kind of debates. There is much good in this country across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. There are some fundamental values that we share in our country, no matter where we come from in this group of places that we all inhabit. Therefore, when the United Kingdom loses its judge, a judge that we've had for a long time on the International Court of Justice and therefore loses standing in the world, I think we should be deeply concerned about that for our long-term future. It doesn't matter where you are on the constitutional issue or all the rest of it, but just on the sheer principle of the UK and its constituent nations and regions playing a massively important role because of the values that we suggest and hold dear to us in that kind of form, I think is important. To brush that off, as some have done in other places in recent days, I think is a great failure of our diplomacy around the world, which sure has had lots of faults but also has lots of positive aspects as well. Those organisations, Scottish Pen and Amnesty International and champions on their behalf, such as Ivan McKee, are to be congratulated for making that kind of debate happen. However, I'm going to talk to Dr Maguire, which is that we need to do an awful lot more than just talk about it. Before I call Mr Chapman, there's a number of speakers who wish to speak in this debate. I'm therefore accepted. Excuse me. I'll start again with that because I'm feeling quite emotional at this debate, so excuse me. Due to the number of members who wish to speak in this debate, I'm minded to accept a motion without notice. That's under rule 8.14.3 and it would extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. Can I invite Ivan McKee to move a motion without notice? The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I would have dared you to do otherwise, I have to say. I therefore now call Peter Chapman to be followed by Sandra White. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Ivan McKee for the chance to take part in this important debate today. Today's debate gives me an opportunity to mention some of the great playwrights, essayists and novelists that Scotland has to offer. You know, in poetry we have some of the greats, Robert Burns of course, something of a rebel himself, but neither at the home we have Carlann Duffie, the first female poet laureate, and I'll never forget some of our great Doric poets, such as Flora Gary, John M. K. and JC Mill, who are some of my favourites, as you might imagine. The modern author, Alice Smith, uses her voice to express LGBT issues, rejecting gender stereotypes and exploring modern ideas of relationships in her novel How to be Both. Denise Meena has tackled topics such as mental health, abuse and addiction in her crime novels. It is vitally important that our authors continue to represent those ideas in popular culture and continue to push the boundaries. I must acknowledge that this worldwide recognition of those writers is not only down to our great pool of talent, but that here in the UK, those artists have the freedom to express their ideas and have them heard, discussed and appreciated. Elsewhere in the world, some writers are not afforded this opportunity. Penn International is an association representing writers, journalists and poets, promoting literature and defending freedom of expression. Each year, a variety of cases are brought to light by Penn to recognise and support writers who have resisted repression of their most basic human right, freedom of expression. From 2006 to 2017, the day of the imprisoned writer has recognised and paid tribute to over 50 writers who are either in prison or had lost their life for their work. While reading those cases, one that stood out to me in particular for its severity was that of Susanna Shavets Castillo. Susanna Shavets was a prominent poet and woman's rights advocate in her hometown of Theodad Joires and had received recognition at accolades throughout Mexico for her work. The phenomenon of female homicides in Theodad Joires had resulted in an estimated 370 women being killed between 1993 and 2007. In very few suspects of those killings were arrested or imprisoned due to suspected gang involvement. Susanna Shavets stood up against this injustice. She was an active member in numerous organisations supporting women and the families and friends of those who had been murdered. In 2002, a social justice movement formed. They were called Ni Una Mas. A slogan Shavets is known for having coined and popularised in full Ni Una Muerta Mas, meaning not one more death. This slogan began to be used to protest around her hometown. Shavets was known for being highly vocal in her fight for justice for women and often read her poetry dedicated to the murdered women at demonstrations. On 6 January 2011, Susanna left her home to meet some of her friends at a local bar. She never made it to her friends and she never made it home. She was found the following day strangled with a plastic bag over her head and one of her hands cut off with a saw. This abhorrent murder was followed by four more women writers in 2011. The case is just one of the many that Pen International have recognised. Its brutality is shocking but this brutality is vital in bringing to light the importance of freedom of speech and the injustice that exists in other parts of the world. I acknowledge the work that Pen carries out in supporting those who face unjust imprisonment, attacks, harassment and violence, simply for using free expression in their work. Call Sandra White, who is followed by Ross Greer. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I take this opportunity to thank yourself for the work that you have carried out in human rights issues. I know very well that it is an issue that is very close to your heart and still remains very close to your heart as well, but I do thank you sincerely for the work that you have carried out in that. I thank Ive McKee for securing this debate. I think that it is a really important debate and everyone has spoken. I think that it has been fantastic with all the different people that they have mentioned. When Tavi Scott was talking about being a privilege position, particularly in the CPA, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, when we get an opportunity to speak to people from those particular countries, we should use that opportunity to push the rights for freedom of expression with the people that we meet and with the Government also. I want to touch on two, if I have time, which I think deserves to be heard in the Parliament. One is that I have met with the family, Rife Bidy, from Saudi Arabia, and Daryne Tatour from Palestine, if I could touch on that, particularly in prison for persecuted as well for expressing themselves. Rav's story is pretty well known. He has been in prison for 10 years, 1000 lashes for setting up a website, which championed free speech in his blog. The Saudi Free Liberals Forum was shut down in 2012. Rav has already served half of his prison term, however, even after he has released, he still faces a further 10 years separated from his family and his three children, who I have met here in Edinburgh and also in Glasgow, due to the travel ban that has been imposed by the Saudi Arabian Government. I was really inspired when I met Rav's wife, inspired by her absolute dignity and her determination. If I could just read some of the letter that she wrote on the Rav Baldy Foundation for Freedom website, his wife's name is Ensav, and she said, I am writing this letter today to express how thankful we are in my family and for your continued support for Rav's cause. Unfortunately, he is not the only journalist in the world who faces a punishment, and Saudi Arabia is not the only country in the world where freedom of expression is not implemented. Many countries have yet to implement the liberty of expression, thought, belief and opinion. My husband dared to talk, and as you may know, he faces 1000 lashes, five more years in prison and 10 years before leaving the country. I am here today to tell you that the foundation and I will keep on pursuing Rav's dream, which is to see a world where liberty of expression is not a privilege but a given right, and, as I said earlier on, I think that the lady has such dignity and determination in that respect, and I wish all the best to the foundation and those who support him also. The second one, if I could just perhaps touch at the moment, is Dane Tatour. Prior to her rest, Dane was 33-year-old. He was a little known poet and photographer living in the outskirts of Nazareth. She herself admits that her works posted online were rarely viewed more than 20 to 30 times, yet, in the love of October 2015, she was arrested at her home in charge with support for a terrorist organisation and several counts of incitement to violence. That came about in relation to a video that she posted on YouTube in which she recites her poem, Resist My People, Resistom. The poem is set in music against a backdrop of Palestinian resistance of men throwing stones at the Israeli army. Dane has spent several months in prison at the moment that she is under house arrest and curfew. While she is able to go out, she can still not use the internet, two very different types, but also people who are pushing forward their freedom of expression and basically wanting the world to know what is happening. So I thank all the organisations who have given us the opportunity and to continue to fight for freedom of expression throughout the world. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The last of the open debate speakers is Ross Greer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Ivan McKee for bringing the day of the imprisoned writer to Parliament. It seems almost fashionable today to bash the media as a monolithic, corrupt and deceitful force to see journalists as opponents of whichever cause you are aligned to. This trend is irresponsible and it is one that we as elected representatives have a role in standing against. It is not good enough for us to simply resist falling into the trap ourselves, we must actively speak out against it, particularly when it takes hold in movements that we as MSPs are leading members of. Skepticism, particularly of corporate media, is healthy, is legitimate, many journalists pursue political agendas as they have a right to do, but journalism remains one of the most important and still one of the most dangerous jobs on earth. Journalists speak truth to power and hold it to account. Not every writer, of course, is a journalist, but as co-convener of the cross-party group on Kurdistan, like Ruth Maguire, I would like to highlight the oppression of journalists, particularly Kurdish and progressive journalists in Turkey. Like Ruth Maguire, I agree absolutely that it is more than just our words but our actions that count here. Having spent considerable amount of time with the Turkish consul, having written to him a number of time, advocating on behalf of imprisoned opposition activists in Turkey, including a friend of mine, I can say strongly to members that this level of activity does count. Those Governments do notice when we stand up on behalf of those that they are oppressing. In recent years, Turkey has earned the unenviable accolade of the world's most prolific jailer of journalists. Once held in high regard as an emerging secular democracy, Erdogan has dragged his country into the dark ages of oppression, human rights abuses and the erosion of democratic freedoms. In one day of October last year, the Turkish Government shut down 15 Kurdish media outlets. That brought the total to 168 outlets closed during the Government's declared state of emergency last year. It's grown since. The suppression of Kurdish media in particular has reached the comical heights of closing a children's cartoon channel. Turkish state oppression is not contained to either the recent referendum on expanding the president's powers, widely regarded to being rigged, or the post coup attempt, state of emergency. On Tuesday of this week, Ogu's Gouven, an online editor from an opposition daily paper, was sentenced over three years in prison for making terrorist propaganda. They relate to a tweet from the paper's account about the death of a state prosecutor in a traffic accident. The tweet was deleted within 55 seconds, but it will cost him more than three years of his life. Yesterday, Aisunir Pardula, a former court reporter for another daily paper, which has been closed by the Government, was sentenced to seven and a half years for being a member of an armed terrorist organisation. She maintains her only crime was reporting on the notorious Turkish justice system, and she says that she rejects how she regrets having done so. She wishes that she'd never done it. That's exactly what Erdogan wants. They want not just to crush what little free-press remains, but to create an environment where no one is able to step up and take the place of those who have been thrown in jail. The trial against Nazim Turfen, a reporter for the pro-Kurdish digital news agency resumed last week, despite all 17 prosecution witnesses having withdrawn their testimonies, telling the court that they testified under torture and threats from the police against a journalist that they did not know. During the first, the second and the third hearings of the trial, all 17 witnesses who submitted testimonies against Turfen withdrew their statements, said that they originally signed the testimonies because the police threatened them, and yet the trial continues. Today, we stand in solidarity with Oghuz, with Aisunir, with Nadim and with the many, many other jailed journalists, lawyers, politicians, opposition activists and human rights defenders in Turkey. We tell them that they are not alone, and we tell the Turkish Government that we are watching and that we demand an end to their oppression. I now call Fiona Hyslop to respond to the debate. I thank Ivan McKee for raising the subject in debate today and all members for their very thoughtful contributions. Clearly, there is a lot of support across the chamber for the day of the imprisoned writer. Scottish Pen, Amnesty International and others have a crucial role to play in raising awareness of and showing solidarity with writers who face persecution for expressing themselves. I join other members in thanking them for their work. I also want to come to the central question of freedom of expression shortly, but I would like to point out that, firstly, my belief is that it is the job of Government not just to promote freedom of expression but to promote a broader culture that gives space for literature and writing to flourish. I think that that was a point that Daniel Johnson reflected on about the precious nature of democracy and freedom. Tonight, I will speak at the Literature Alliance's Scotland's Literary Cabaret, which has been established to pay tribute to Scotland's publishing festivals, libraries, writers and international activities. It will be a celebratory event and a reminder of the richness in Scotland's writing talent. Today's debate is a telling reminder of how not all parts of the world are able to promote and draw on writing so freely. In Scotland, we defend fiercely the right to say what we think. It is something that we so often assume without thinking, but it is worth pointing out that this right is also established and protected in law, both internationally and in Scotland. Following World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, described as a common standard of achievements for all peoples in all nations, set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected. That included the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Since then, freedom of expression has been given practical effect in the international covenant on civil and political rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course, in Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 require Scottish legislation, the acts of Scottish ministers and the actions of public authorities, all comply with the rights that are contained in the European Convention. We all have an obligation to respect the rights of others, perhaps especially the right to hold views with which we disagree. Pluralism in democracy is vital and fundamental to individual autonomy and the health of our and, indeed, any society. That is why the motion is right to support the importance of defending and supporting freedom of expression for every person. Gillian Martin focused on freedom of expression, particularly on a Basque writer in her remarks. Last week in a speech in London, the UN Secretary General identified winning the battle of ideas as key in the fight against terrorism. He stated plainly that, when we protect human rights, we are tackling the root causes of terrorism. He spoke of the need to invest in inclusive societies where diversity is perceived as a richness, not a threat. He urged political, religious and community leaders to fulfil their responsibilities in promoting a culture of tolerance and mutual respect. He underlined the importance of standing up for free media and the right to dissent, promoting the rule of law, demanding accountability and justice, adding that the brave activists in civil society organisations that take on the issues are keeping us all safe. The legal protections that we have in Scotland are essential both in themselves and as statements of a commitment throughout society to uphold this essential feature of any modern democracy. The day of the imprisoned writer reminds us that this is not the case in many parts of the world. Indeed, as are noted by reporters without borders in this year's world press freedom index, there has been a significant decline in press freedom in nearly two-thirds of the 180 countries. Peter Chapman referred to the situation in Mexico. The highlighted case studies demonstrate that, as well as journalists, poets, bloggers, novelists, artists and filmmakers in Africa, Asia, South America and Europe in the Middle East have suffered threats, attacks, imprisonment and even been killed for their activities. I personally met Enceph Bodawie in May this year, whose husband Rafe was referred to by Sandra White in Houston been sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for setting up a website that championed free speech in Saudi Arabia. In Russia, journalists who seek to uncover issues like corruption often face threats, violence and harassment. 58 journalists have lost their lives in Russia since 1992. Andy Wightman spoke on the Russian situation in particular. Since last year, Turkey has been the world's biggest jailer of journalists. Ross Greer and Rachel Hamilton set out their concerns about Turkey and their contributions in Ruth Maguire set out one very personal case. In my last two, however brief conversations with the Turkish ambassador and consul general, I have raised the systematic and general issue of imprisoned writers. Tavish Scott is right to urge members in this Parliament to take responsibility, not just to debate but also to act. The Istanbul 10, who was detained on 5 July while attending a workshop to discuss ways to continue their human rights work in Turkey's state of emergency, is of course a matter of concern. After months of campaigning by the global amnesty movement on 26 October, the Istanbul 10 was released from jail on bail, how amnesty's Turkish chair, Tanakhilić, remains behind bars awaiting trial. When we consider such people, it is essential that we remember that they are being treated in this way for doing something that we would consider to be normal, acceptable and worthy of supporting and encouraging. It is impossible to overstate the importance of standing with all those throughout the world who make personal sacrifices to defend and uphold human rights. An important part of that has been absolutely steadfast in defence of our own rights and freedoms. Beyond our borders, we remain determined to promote democracy, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. As we mark the day of the imprisoned writer and reflect on the individuals highlighted by Scottish Pen and others, our shared goal must be to stand with those who do suffer in this way and make our ambition to do all that we can to ensure that freedom of expression is maintained throughout the world. As Ian McKee said, words matter, writers matter, and this Parliament says that imprisoned writers matter to us and their creative minds matter. I am sure that many of us in this chamber would agree and reflect with that reflection by Gandhi. You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind. Words matter, writers matter, imprisoned writers matter to us. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate and the meeting is suspended until 2.30 p.m.