 A very warm welcome to the discussion, where is freedom of expression going? I am Manuela Kaspar-Klarich, and I am the editor-in-chief of Deutsche Welle, Germany's international broadcaster. And we are noticing that the expression of freedom of expression and of reporting is more and more difficult and more harder in today's world. And we are here to discuss this problem and learn what we can do about it. And you, as the audience, can later join and ask questions as well. And to kick off the discussion, I'd like to welcome now on the stage Tirana Hassan, she is executive director of the NGO Human Rights Watch, and she will give us an insight into what the rolling back of freedom of speech looks like. Thank you very much, Manuela. So this year, 4.2 billion people will be eligible to vote in national elections around the world. Now, if those elections are free and fair, it's a very important expression of the people's will. But far too often, the votes and our voices are undermined by creeping authoritarianism. That's where power is concentrated and applied, just a favour of few. It's the difference between the rule of law, where laws apply to everyone equally, and rule by law, where the rules are used as an instrument of control. The warning signs, however, appear well before anyone starts their journey to the ballot box. Politicians intent on grabbing power have the same playbook. And it starts with concepts that seem quite harmless. It's concepts like protecting family values or safeguarding our traditions. But pay close attention to these concepts because they are often self-serving, manipulative, and they almost always harm people and restrict human rights. One example of this is how politicians demonise LGBT rights and identity. They create a mystery around it, somehow projecting that it undermines family and is corrupting children. And we have seen this in many countries, from Colombia to the United States. We've seen it from Russia to Hungary to Ghana. Another example is where women's rights come under attack. What we've seen over the last few years is governments telling women where they can go, who they can go with, what they must wear, and whether they can be pregnant or not. Now, when we start seeing these sort of patterns, it is the first indication that society is becoming less free, less open, and less inclusive, and women pay the price with their lives. This was most evident in 2020 in Poland when the previous law and justice government virtually banned legal abortion. And we know that at least six women have died because doctors failed to terminate pregnancies, despite complications. Political leaders' intent on consolidating power don't stop there. Civil society. And by that, I'm talking about independent groups and activists, advocates who protect rights in free societies. We're talking about institutions like the free press, courts. These have become the new battlegrounds for autocratic leaders looking to eliminate scrutiny on their decisions and their actions. Let's take, for example, Tunisia. President Kisei, elected in 2019, has steadily eliminated the checks and balances by weakening the judiciary, cracking down on political opponents and those that disagree, and targeting freedom of expression and the press. And then there is El Salvador. President Naib Bukele has used mass detention of mostly low-income people as an ostensible solution for high levels of crime. Bukele's government has rounded up tens of thousands of people, including up to 2,000 children. He has used a state of emergency to essentially grab power, consolidate it. He has purged the Supreme Court, replacing the Attorney General, and forcing some journalists into exile. And, of course, there is the United States, where state legislatures and courts have weakened laws aimed at removing race-based restrictions and voting to a point that they're basically irrelevant today. In Florida and other states in the US, we have seen educational censorship limiting students' abilities to learn about sexual and gender identity as well as the history of slavery and racism. And politicians know that accurate information on these issues is just one factor that inspires people to participate in civic action and hold authorities to account. And governments are increasingly using technology platforms to silence critics and censor dissent, especially in countries that don't have robust independent judiciaries and oversight. Governments we've seen can implement laws that essentially become traps for critics. They actually have entrapped and arrested activists and even unsuspecting internet users. In one of the most extreme cases in Saudi Arabia, we saw the government has taken action against a 54-year-old retired teacher and sentenced him to death for his peaceful expression of his own opinions on ex formerly known as Twitter and on YouTube. So why do governments target and weaken institutions like the courts? Why do they want to shrink civic space and silence dissent? It's because these provide the checks and balances on their power and they deliver victories for human rights, like in Nepal. We have seen the Supreme Court order local authorities to register same-sex marriages. And it is just the latest in a long stream of rulings which have been guaranteeing the rights of LGBT people in the country. Or there's Brazil, where the Supreme Court has upheld Indigenous people's rights to their traditional lands despite efforts to thwart that. The ruling was not only a huge boost to Indigenous people's fight to preserve their way of life, but it was also critical when it comes to the fight against climate change, because we know that the demarcation of Indigenous lands has been tried and tested and proven to be one of the most effective barriers to deforestation. Lawmakers, though, supported by the farm lobby are now trying to work to actually get around this ruling. And then there's the UK, where the highest court unanimously found that Rwanda, because of its poor human rights record, is not a safe third country for asylum seekers. Now the UK government has since introduced a bill to try and get around the court's ruling, but the government cannot legislate away the fact that Rwanda counters criticism with violence and abuse. These victories highlight tremendous power of independent, rights-respecting, inclusive institutions. And civil society plays a role to challenge those who wield power. Our role is to serve the public interest and chart a rights-respecting path forward. But as we see in Brazil and in the UK, that those victories are very fragile. All governments should redouble efforts with friends and enemies alike to uplift institutions to protect civic space wherever we see the threats to independent civic space and institutions and any ability that we have to hold those in power to account. We all have a role to play in fighting for human rights because protecting everyone's dignity gives the roadmap to build thriving and inclusive societies. Thank you. Thank you very much, Tirana. And we go into the discussion and I'd like to welcome Svetlana Tiranovskaja. She is the leader of the Democratic Forces of Belarus. And you were forced out of your own country, forced into exile for opposing Alexander Lukashenko. And Joe Khan, the executive editor of the New York Times. Svetlana, let me start with you. Just a simple question. How is the state of freedom of expression in your country? I might answer that it's on the lowest level because in Belarus, people don't dare to have their personal opinion, especially if this opinion in the political field. You know, my political journey also started with the problems with freedom of expression because it was my husband who was YouTube blogger who traveled around the country just asking people about their attitude to the government, about their level of life, would they agree or disagree. And he was detained for this immediately. And that's why I put my documents instead of him to become president of the country. So Belarus is the country where the most journalists are imprisoned per capita in the world. So in Belarus, about 40 journalists are recognized as political prisoners. And this number is growing. About 3,000 media outlets and websites are recognized as extremists. So people in Belarus, while they're reading alternative news or looking for alternative information, they also can be recognized as extremists. So people are afraid even to read or to like or to retweet or whatever. And it's tools of tyrants. It's tool of dictators. They're really scared of opinion of people. And they want to suppress people for them, not even have a wish to watch something else than just propaganda TV or media. So there's like the official opinion and that what the people think they don't dare to express that freely. OK, there will be even parliamentary, so-called parliamentary elections in Belarus. Do you see any chance of change in your home country or for change? So this so-called, as you correctly said, parliamentary elections, it's nothing but farce imitation, I don't know, theater, circus, but it has nothing to do with elections. And people in Belarus understand this. And these so-called elections cannot be ten point in Belarus. So people might sacrifice their freedom and lives in vain, like participating or not participating in this election so we are asking people not to vote at all, because it doesn't change anything in our country. Lukashenko put his pocket parliament, designate his pocket parliament and will not change anything. But we are asking people to be involved in politics through different means, to continue to resist and ground to read honest news, to deliver news from inside Belarus to outlets that had to be located after 2020. We actually call Belarusian people our national intelligence, or public intelligence, or people's intelligence. People now in Belarus, they are our local journalists. Though they don't have such profession, they inform us about the situation. They collect information and inform the opposition. We send it to media in exile, because in Belarus now only media can't work at all. And those media that have been relocated since 2020, they can broadcast through YouTube, through Telegram channels. So we don't have opportunity to broadcast on TV. It's really under influence of regime, but still we are looking for new opportunities. We are using TikTok, all the possible platforms, to talk to people. Thank you, Svetlana. A question now to Joe. The job of journalist is, of course, also to hold powerful people to account, to report about problems and so on. But at the same time now, even though we are doing this, we see the rise of autocrats. So are we journalists failing? I wouldn't say that journalists are failing per se. I think the description of the deterioration of the environment for free speech, free press, and independent organizations and a number of societies is connected with the decline of free media. And independent free press is an essential component of having a free society. But having an independent free press, obviously, is not a sufficient guarantee to produce a free society. And the reason that you see a lot of repression of journalists, the jailing of journalists, the killing of journalists, the pressure on institutions that produce journalism in multiple societies around the world is precisely because they are a contributor to a free and democratic society. So I don't think that you can say that journalists have failed because it's a deterioration in democracy. I think that you're seeing repression of journalists and journalism precisely because of the same trend that you're describing here, which is authoritarian leaders are taking advantage of multiple situations, including cultural divisions, political divisions, to repress free expression in multiple societies around the world, to control the independent free press or to take away the independence of the press. In other words, I see open discussion, open reporting as a contributor to a greater free expression. And freedom in society. But I also see the same trend that you're describing in terms of repression as hurting and repressing the free press. So it's more difficult now for journalists to do their job nowadays. Do you feel this also with your journalists in certain regions? It's more difficult for journalists to do their job than it has been certainly in the last 20 or 30 years in multiple places around the world. It's certainly more difficult to, as an international news organization, to dispatch our journalists. The safety situation, the credentialing of journalists around the world has become significantly more difficult. I mean, today, most big international news organizations have had to radically reduce the staff that they have in Russia and in China. So those traditionally are two of the biggest postings for international journalists around the world. Both of them have been radically reduced. It's become more difficult to be an international journalist or a domestic journalist in India, the world's largest democracy. I think we're seeing deterioration essentially everywhere. And it's connected with the same trend that you're describing. I do think that even in that environment, good journalism domestically and globally is contributing to people's awareness of the threat that we're describing today. And we'll continue to contribute to that. And I'm not entirely pessimistic that we can see some degree of positive change. We heard a little bit about the situation in Poland. The situation in Poland has shifted recently with the law and justice party losing its control over all the institutions of Polish society. And seeing the opposition or a group of opposition parties come into power. I think we've seen some progress in places like Columbia. And I believe there can continue, as long as journalists are doing the job of exposing corruption, showing the effects of collusion that exists when authoritarian leaders and their cronies come into powerful positions, that will have an impact over time. And will help inform people's decision-making about what kind of government they want and the kind of participation they want in their own societies. Thank you, Joe. Tirana, you described the global landscape, the difficult global landscape very well. What kind of strategies should we develop to check the rise of autocrats, for example? I mean, I think that Joe was just saying that journalists, and we're talking about civil society, plays a role in this. And we need to ensure that we're not just relying on what is happening in countries as crises are emerging, as rights are actually being regressing. We need to ensure that the friends of those governments, whether they be economic friends, trade friends, we need to be leveraging whatever power we have to hold those governments to account. And there's another disturbing trend that we're seeing across the global landscape. And that is governments throwing their hands in the air, saying, well, it's all just too hard. And that's just not true. There are ways to engage before we hit the crisis point. There are canaries in the coal mine, so to speak. Early indicators. As I discussed, when you start seeing attacks on women's rights, reproductive rights, the LGBT community, migrants, refugees, those are the first indications of the rise of an anti-rights agenda, and often the early indications of authoritarianism, and they can emerge in democracies. That's when action needs to be taken, because if you do not hold governments to account for those sort of regressions, then they go one step further because they feel emboldened. And then they start going for the institutions. Then they start going for the free press. Then they start going for the independence of the judiciary. Then they'll start going for silencing political opposition. And that is when we end up in crisis. That's when we move from a regression in human rights to full-blown autocracy. And that is not a trend that is inevitable. That can be changed through the actions of governments across the world and prioritizing human rights, and that's what we do in society and in democracy. Ladies and gentlemen, you can ask one or two questions, if you like, but first of all, I would like another question, then I come to you, to Svetlana. Svetlana, holding the governments to account, do you feel enough support by the international community because you just described how difficult it is also for you personally and for all the people in Belarus? So what kind of support are you... What do you wish for? First of all, I want to underline that, of course, Belarus is now not in, like, de-focus because so many events are happening in the world and we know that attention span is rather short in the world. And, of course, it's our task to increase attention to our country, to the situation, to abuse of human rights and political prisoners and so on and so forth. What do we want from the world? We want from the political world. We want decisiveness. Because we see how weakness of institutions, you know, or undecisiveness of politicians or absence of political will, is percepted as weakness by dictators. And they, like, think, they feel impunity, impunity for their actions. They can do what they want, I think. Absolutely, without any attention. That's why they ruin media, first of all, in dictatorship, you know, for the world not to see what's going on in countries. In Belarus, every day in our country, 15, 20 people are being detained for their anti-regime or anti-war position. Does the world know about this? No, because we don't have journalists on the ground. And so that's why we know about this, but we can't show pictures, you know. And the world sometimes is thinking only, you know, on the ground of beautiful pictures, you know, or pictures of atrocities. But if they don't have anything to visualize, they think that the problem doesn't exist. So that, you know, international media is so important for the cases like in Belarus, you have to collaborate with democratic forces, you know, to ask our opinion, to keep, to highlight, you know, the tension in our country, to highlight abuses of human rights. And when Belarus is in media, it means that it will be on the tables of politicians. And what we ask, we ask for more political and economical pressure on the regime. We see how Russia and the Russian regime using each other just to create loopholes in sanctions and they continue to trade with the world. Then we need accountability. Lukashenko committed many, many crimes in our country. It's crimes against humanities, torturing people, migration crisis, hijacking airplane, participation in the war, abduction of Ukrainian children. And we are begging for launching special investigation on his crimes. Why? It's still not, it hasn't been done yet. Why? It's about, you know, efficiency of international institutions. Then we need support to people, support to civil society. We can't sustain, but we need to win this war. And we need assistance, first of all, to our media. And now when I see that in Belarus, assistance to media from the democratic world is reduced, I'm shocked because how can we deliver news about Belarus to you if we don't have enough support and enough assistance for our media? And it's also commitment. You know, Belarus chose, people actually chose European path of development and we need support of this path from international media and of course from European politicians. Thank you, Svetlana. Now please, your question and I think you get a mic. Do you see generational differences as to where the public goes for their information? And certain generations may go to the New York Times or, you know, press and others will go to influencers and bloggers or just certain TV stations that you can hear two different opinions and you're talking to someone you really don't know if they're on the right planet or not. So, you know, respectful journalism is important but are they going to the source? Is this question to Joe or? Okay, Joe, would you like to take it? Sure. I mean, yes, trying to broaden the demographics of the readership for quality information is the obligation and the interest of every major news organization and trying to reach younger readers of those who are not as inclined to come to traditional sources is one of the things we're working hard on. I don't think that there is a barrier to good quality information from leading news organizations per se. I do think you're right that the traditional habits of reading, you know, certainly print newspapers is something that is now confined to a very specific, you know, generation of people and hasn't, is not a tradition that has continued but even navigating directly to websites and going to broadcast television outlets also is something that sort of demographically differentiated. I do think when we have put our journalism into forms that work for a broader audience, a younger demographic on platforms like TikTok or Instagram, the response to it tends to be pretty good. There is a hunger for good quality information. There's a hunger to know more about the journalists who are producing it and being more transparent and open and producing in the forms that people of every generation want to consume their news and information in is kind of an obligation on us because the audience is there for it. Thank you, Joe. We can take one more very brief question because we have to come to an end then and we have very important closing remarks as well. Hello, I'm Sajini, I'm with Global Shipper from Sri Lanka. My question is, I'm a Sri Lankan and our Prime Minister is here and the Prime Minister of Vietnam is here. So there have been serious issues about freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, especially very recently, we had this online safety bill coming which hindered the freedom of expression deeply. And in Vietnam, I got to know at COP where certain climate lawyers have been arrested still in jail. So have there been discussions between the NGOs or the human rights bodies here and these leaders who ultimately kind of make these decisions in spaces like this where you kind of mingle all together? I want to know what steps have been taken. Thank you. I think it's very important that we have this discussion here now that just shows that there are discussions but Tirana, probably you like to take that. You will not maybe be surprised that certain leaders who tend to have less rights respecting or autocratic tendencies aren't as willing as to find time in their schedules to meet with civil society and human rights organisations. That said, we do meet with governments, not just here, this is a particular fora but consistently through the year. Particularly not only after bills have actually been introduced, but before, as soon as the draft legislation goes into action, you know, international human rights organisations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others will be working with Sri Lankan organisations, Vietnamese human rights organisations who are under extraordinary pressure by these repressive governments because they are trying to hold them to account, to actually engage in discussions, speak to lawmakers and actually stop the laws before they pass. One of the things I would say about these laws that we're seeing in Sri Lanka, it's not just about Sri Lanka. It is across Asia, it is across Latin America, it is even in Australia, the UK and the US. There are these permissive broad laws all introduced for our security which essentially can be used by governments to silent dissent and critics through online discussions and freedom of speech online. So we need to work and keep a very close eye on ensuring that we stop this regression in the digital space. It's incredibly harmful. Yes, we see this in Turkey as well just recently, for example, yeah. Thank you very much, Tirana, Svetlana and Joe. And now we come to our closing remarks and I would like to ask Taji Ramani to join us on the stage here with his translator. And Mr. Ramani is a Iranian journalist, writer, political activist, and his wife, as you are sure you know, Nagesh Mohammadi is actually being held in prison in Iran, in the notorious Evin prison, and she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in fighting for women's rights and her teenage children accepted the award for her last year. And so please. Hi to everyone and thank you for inviting me here. The freedom of expression of the civil society and the world is over. We live in the world of the world. The changes have become more and more serious. It's not a national issue, it's a national issue. The changes in the world with the media have become more and more serious. For this change, we are not sure whether the change is true or not. But in the end, the economic models and philosophy-based views of the international community and the new social relations are not there. The technology of thinking has been removed. Thinking and ideas must be brought to the control of this 4th technology. For years in Davouts, this has been the case with itself. It's not a national issue, it's a national issue. It's not a national issue, it's a national issue. How supporting free expression and civil society in Iran benefits the world globalization has changed the lines between nation and reshapses the world. The media and the flow of money have created new realities and challenge. Technology has changed the way we interact and relate to each other. Our old theories and concepts cannot keep us with this change. We need to think of new ways to manage and use technology wisely. The world leaders who met in Davouts every year say they want to do this. But are they really doing this? Doing like this. I will let the expert judge that today I want to talk about how freedom of speech, civil society and globalized capital affect my own region and my own country. I have seen two areas of intellectual life in Iran. And I know the first era from the story of Zeus who leave it. Freedom of speech in our country has always been threatened. Let me start for the 17 years ago to make the problem well understood. I have seen two areas of intellectual life in Iran. The first one is dark. Some are from the Ravians. Freedom of speech in our country has always been threatened. Let me start for the 17 years ago to make the problem better understood. After the death toll of 1332 people our country had 2-4 difficult borders to get rid of them and solve them. After that, Iran's border with Karp was destroyed and today the independent government has been established as a base in Iran. And it is necessary from this government. This government is making freedom of speech and is threatening civil rights. It is using Karp's policies in the region. It is controlling the dictatorship. People of our country want freedom of speech and freedom of speech. After the coup d'etat of August 1953, our country has faced challenging events that have kept it from development and peace. Since then, Iran's relations with the West have been fluctuating. Today, the government is authoritarian and built on discrimination and transitioning from its necessary. This government criminalizes freedom of speech and suppress civil institution. It exploits the contradiction and failure of Western policies in the region to stabilize his own dictatorship, increasing its stability in the world region. We dream of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Iran. We know that without freedom of speech there is no democracy possible. Freedom of speech is the door to democracy. For this reason, I have been in prison for 14 years and it has been 10 years since I was born. I have been in prison for many years for the civil rights movement. Of course, this is not only our struggle, but the struggle of the Iranian community that has faith in freedom of speech. But why is that? Freedom of speech is more important and they want the same. And that is more important for the civil society and independent civil society than the government. Without freedom, without civil society and civil society, freedom of speech is not possible. But the governments in our region and the civil society are different. So, the civil society is different. We have a resistance in Iran to civil society that is not against the government. But the governments in the region use it to create Western governments. The era of oil and energy, and the market for the protection of the political parties in the region is the real action and the action of our governments in the region. In this face of our civil society, the governments in the region are against it and they are against it. Please, Mr. Ahmadiyya, can you get the translation, please? We have paid a high price for speaking our minds. I personally spent 40 years in jail and 12 years in exile. My wife, Nargis Mohammadi, is still behind bars for her civic work. But we are not alone. Many Iranians share our struggle and our hope for freedom of speech in Iran. What is the reason for this? Freedom of speech cannot exist without a strong and concrete foundation. That foundation is a vibrant civil society and a civil institution that is free from government or state interference. But why it's so? Freedom of speech needs a supportive environment and strong foundation. And that foundation is a vibrant civil society. Freedom of speech and security depend on a strong and independent civil society and public institution. But the government in our region do not want that. So they crush any civic voice or organization. In Iran, we keep fighting back. We have periodic movement that call for a democratic and uncountable government. The government in our region exploit conflict that serves the interests of the West in their own advantage. The West has to frequently only care about cheap oil, oil and energy to keep its own stability and prosperity. It did not care how it dealt with government in our region, whether friendly or hostile. This earned our civil society and our power rights. We need to pay attention to this pattern of dictatorship and operation in Iran, no matter who support it, because it hurts our freedom of our people. Okay. Freedom of speech needs a supportive environment. The work of the people is not a war and a revolution. The work of the people is not a revolution. For example, our people need freedom of the Internet so that the government can take control of it. Help us in this situation. You need to change the direction for freedom of speech and important politics in the region. We are all in a fight. Help us with freedom and democracy in Iran and our region. Help us to be safe. To finish and to conclude, in Iran, to have freedom of speech, we need a strong and active civil society. The answer is not to harm or isolate our people with war and sanctions, but to support them and their civic organization. For instance, how people need access to free Internet without government censorship. Please help us to achieve this. How people also need to connect with the rest of the world to resist government in position. I urge you to rethink our global strategy for freedom of speech and to take concrete steps to support free expression and civil society. I say this again because it matters. We are all in together and helping freedom of democracy in Iran and our region is also good for your own security. We need more than words. We need real actions. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramani.