A vivid example of intolerance in Azerbaijan

***

-A journalist Sevinj Osmangyzy, who lives and works abroad, stated that she was threatened with the tradition of publicizing materials relating to her private life. What do people who threaten her want?

"In general, in recent years, especially after the 2000s, there have been many different examples of mass intolerance for freedom of expression in Azerbaijan. One of them is the threat of disseminating information about the private life of the heralds of freedom of expression, those who cover some facts of corruption, disturbing the authorities. There were many such examples. Unfortunately, some of these people responded to threats by changing their position or completely abandoning their activities, and some simply fell silent. We have seen this more specifically in cases of threats addressed to men. However, with threats to women, this technique did not work very effectively. Reanimation of this practice shows that the government or people in the government, who attach greater importance to this method, believe that, although it is not so effective, it can still stop someone, silence someone. Like, if anyone has any problems, they can, in this context, review their activities and restructure relations with the government. In any case, here is the goal; the strengthening of such threats is directly related to the current human activities. Thus, an attempt is being made to stop this journalist, to force her to abandon her position.

- You said, the practice of intimidating journalists by giving publicity to the details of private life in Azerbaijan began to be applied in the early 2000s and was tested on many journalists. However, this experience has not been used for a long time. What is the purpose of the rehabilitation of this notorious way of defaming the disagreeable?

-"I don"t think that interference in any form into private life was suspended and started again. These attempts continued on different platforms. The reason for their application is that they somehow turned out to be effective against some persons, even if not by one hundred percent. However, in any case, the authorities achieved a 50% result, and therefore re-activated this resource.

The second point is that, unfortunately, some authorities, instead of manifesting a political culture or a culture of political struggle, use very primitive, at the level of everyday life, methodologies that do not fit into the ethical framework, and they use state resources for this. For example, without the help of secret services it is impossible to obtain personal correspondence, to eavesdrop on someone"s telephone conversations. In addition, it is also impossible to do without breaking the law.

From this point of view, I think that what happened is not just an interference a person"s private life and alienation from activity, but it also involves the implementation of such illegal actions as collecting and using personal information, interfering with privacy, disclosing confidential telephone conversations, and disrupting secrets of correspondence. For each of these actions, according to the law, it is necessary to bear responsibility before the law. They are a criminal offense, as they violate Articles 155 and 156 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which protect the privacy of correspondence and personal life, respectively. These criminal acts, that is, the abuse of power by officials in order to obtain confidential information, their transfer to the media and the replication of the latter, are inevitably punishable.

However, these officials do not stop such actions because the law does not work against those who must apply it. Both the prosecutor's office and other law enforcement agencies that have taken citizens' rights and freedoms hostage do not protect their rights, that is, violate their duties; and the authorities turn a blind eye to this. That is why these shameful actions continue.

- Many think that the authorities are pursuing a policy of mitigation. According to them, those who take such illegal steps are against this policy. However, some people do not agree with this opinion and believe that there has been no change in the rhetoric of the authorities. What do you think? Is there really no change in the government"s rhetoric over the years?

- The change of the policy of mitigating or changing the rhetoric of the authorities as a whole depends on the events. For example, certain changes are observed in some areas of government social policy. However, compared with what happened 10 years ago, the rhetoric of the authorities against political opponents or journalists, especially those who operate within the framework of freedom of expression, has become even tougher. Ten years ago: there was no interference with the Internet, but now there is; privacy has not been invaded in the form we are talking about, but now it is being done; there was not printout of our telephone conversations or a snapshot from the screen of our correspondence, now we see it all the time. However, if one approaches somewhat in different way, in the field of struggle on the political platform and the attitude towards political opponents, the rhetoric has not softened, but, on the contrary, it has become tougher.

It is just that political rhetoric manifests itself not only in the political, but also in the public sphere, in particular, in relation to certain media and journalists. Remember how Afghan Mukhtarly was brought to the country from Georgia and thrown into prison, then the private life of Khadija Ismail (and today Sevinj Osmangyzy) were published in the press organ licensed by the authorities themselves. The conclusion suggests itself: the rhetoric of the authorities did not soften at all, but on the contrary, became irreversible. Unfortunately, the opinion about softening the rhetoric of the government is wrong. It is irreversible, and does not progress at all; it is aimed at failure, and is doomed to self-destruction.

-The practice of the journalists' retreat before such threats ended when the journalist Khadija Ismayilova was threatened with the tradition of publicizing information about her private life and an intimate video. She, with her perseverance, interrupted this tendency and continued her activity. Now another journalist claims that she will continue her work, despite the threats. In short, journalists are no longer scared. So why do those who create these disgraceful affairs themselves not refuse such rhetoric?

- It is wrong to say unequivocally that the government has not achieved any results from such actions at all. Yes, despite all the threats and charges against her, Khadija Ismayilova did not give up her activities and continued to investigate corruption. This is an exception, and such exceptions, unfortunately, are few. Actually, the government therefore still continues its practice that there are few such exceptions.

Some forces in power consider these exceptions not as forming a certain system, very clear systemic phenomena, but as an exception itself. The main thing is that such so-called "facts", in general, the methodology of blackmail in this form seems to satisfy the authorities, and therefore they develop and continue to apply it. If to you look back, although I will not disclose the names of people, there have been many deviations due to such cases; but sometimes there was not.

For example, at one time, this happened with Ganimat Zahid, the then chief editor of the Azadlig newspaper, but he did not retreat. Others retreated. This was happening before our eyes. In any case, the reason why the authorities do not abandon this methodology lies in the fact that this activity in a certain direction led to certain results. These "facts" frighten people, make them beware, activate the fear of losing respect in society, and therefore they sometimes refuse political activities, perform public functions and conduct research, there are relevant examples

That is why I think that Khadija Ismayilova, in a good sense, showed great courage, did a great job, continued her work, and proved that such blackmail would not interrupt her activities, but few people choose this format. Since there are few people who continue their activities in such a format, the government still believes that blackmail works as a methodology.

-What should be done in Azerbaijan, so that journalists can work normally?

-First of all, it is necessary to protect the rule of law, and it is necessary to provide a legal environment. All over the world, the authorities are obliged to ensure a normal environment, protect the atmosphere of freedom, and protect the rule of law necessary for the normal activities of journalists and the media. If all this is provided, their activity will continue.

Today, one of the biggest problems in Azerbaijan is unlawful interference with the work of journalists. In no case should these illegal invasions be discussed in the plane of law enforcement agencies. In turn, many of these actions are due to interference with the laws themselves, the illegitimate laws.

For example, blocking sites, defamation, etc. In all this aspect, the liberalization of the legal environment and the adaptation of democratic values, conditions, ensuring the rule of law and non-interference in the activities of journalists and the media will create favorable conditions for their normal activities.