Reykjavík Grapevine - 19.07.2013, Blaðsíða 34

34The Reykjavík Grapevine Issue 10 — 2013
Do it
!
Whale
Watching
& Puffin Tours
from Reykjavík
1½ hour
Departure times in: June - July - August
08.00 - 10.00 - 14.00
Sími/Tel. 861 3840
We are located in the whale watch-
ing area at Reykjavík Old Harbour.
IMMI is the shared acronym of the
Icelandic Modern Media Initiative
and International Modern Media In-
stitute. The Icelandic Modern Media
Initiative is a parliamentary proposal
aimed at developing legislature that
is more effective at protecting free
speech and freedom of informa-
tion in an age when digital devel-
opment has outgrown existing le-
gal frameworks. The proposal was
unanimously passed by the Icelandic
parliament in June of 2010. The In-
ternational Modern Media Institute,
founded and run by MP Birgitta
Jónsdóttir and information freedom
activist Smári McCarthy, is a small
research-based organisation created
to further the development of the Ice-
landic Modern Media Initiative and
connect with other organisations
and countries doing similar work.
Information, not people
The Icelandic Modern Media Ini-
tiative is still in a developmental
stage. The proposal has passed, but
the laws are still being written by a
steering committee appointed by the
former Minister of Culture and Edu-
cation.
Indeed, IMMI legislature has been
moving notoriously slow. “This is
mostly, but not entirely, due to the
enormous amount of filibustering
that happened during the last par-
liamentary term,” Smári wrote in
an email correspondence. There
are, however, some laws that have
already passed. Thanks to IMMI,
Iceland has very high quality source
protection, and IMMI has raised the
overall standard for any future laws
passed in the categories it address-
es.
Birgitta hopes that more laws
will be put before parliament this
fall. One of the laws she’d really like
to see pass is greater protection for
whistleblowers, but it’s important to
understand that the IMMI laws aimed
at protecting people are only domes-
tic.
The IMMI legislature cannot di-
rectly protect foreign whistleblow-
ers. This seems to be the origin of
some confusion. “I think that there is
a misunderstanding, which has been
coming from [WikiLeaks spokesman]
Kristinn Hrafnsson. I have never
claimed—and Smári McCarthy has
never claimed—that the Institution
or the Initiative can protect whistle-
blowers from other countries,” Bir-
gitta said. “On the contrary, what we
are trying to do is to ensure that the
stories that are being published are
safe, that they cannot be taken down.
That was the sort of information ref-
uge, the safe haven element. But that
was not for people. We recognise
that we cannot protect people unless
they are based in Iceland.”
Formalities
In the weeks leading up to Edward
Snowden formally applying for asy-
lum on July 1, WikiLeaks took on a
primary role in providing him with
needed assistance. On June 12 in-
vestigative journalist and WikiLeaks
spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson
stated that he received a message
from Edward Snowden asking him
to notify the Iceland government that
he wanted to seek asylum. Kristinn
tried to talk with the Prime Minister
and Minister of the Interior, but nei-
ther was able to meet.
“I expected them to reach out and
extend a helping hand to a man that
was requesting a shelter from the po-
litical persecution that he’s under,”
Kristinn said over the phone. Kristinn
was told that Snowden could not ap-
ply for asylum unless he was either
in Iceland or at an Icelandic embassy.
“He can however apply for citizen-
ship from wherever, which is what
the "Fischer approach" amounts
to. This is a route that has not been
travelled, presumably because the
people who have the ability to com-
municate with Mr. Snowden have not
informed him of the formal mecha-
nisms,” Smári McCarthy wrote on
June 24. Applications for asylum and
citizenship go through the Director-
ate of Immigration.
Edward Snowden did eventually
apply for asylum through an official
route—a fax of his application was
reportedly sent to the Icelandic Em-
bassy in Moscow. As to the formali-
ties of granting asylum or citizen-
ship, Kristinn noted that, “there are
exceptions to every law and basic
rule, and if ever in history when it
comes to asylum seekers and even
granting of citizenship, that should
be it. That should have been that mo-
ment for exceptions.”
Insanity of asylum
The “Fischer approach” is in refer-
ence to Bobby Fischer, an American
chess player who was granted Ice-
landic citizenship in 2004 while de-
tained in Tokyo. He faced US criminal
charges for violating sanctions when
he accepted prize money after play-
ing chess in former Yugoslavia. Ice-
land seemed to have an affinity for
Bobby Fischer because of his famous
Cold War era match in Reykjavík.
Bobby didn’t mess around with
asylum, and the reality is that Ice-
land’s Directorate of Immigration
(UTL) does not have a good track re-
cord when it comes to handling po-
litical asylum seekers. The UTL has
complained of being understaffed
and having bad working conditions,
and its true that pressure has in-
creased in the past few years as the
number of applications for asylum
and citizenship have risen substan-
tially. However, many activist and
human rights groups think that that
long processing periods for appli-
cants and the often-ambiguous deci-
sions of the UTL are unethical. There
have also been a number of incidents
where the UTL has deported asylum
seekers still considered to be at high
risk.
“Iceland’s asylum record is abys-
mal, mostly due to the blatantly hos-
tile tendencies of the Directorate of
Immigration. That said, the concept
of asylum would hardly be of much
value if extradition treaties could
trump asylum, and until a final de-
cision would be made on the sub-
ject, there would be little chance of
[Snowden] being extradited,” Smári
wrote.
Birgitta agreed that asylum in Ice-
land was a bad option for Snowden.
“If he would have asked for citizen-
ship much earlier on, it actually
would have been an option to pro-
cess it. I tried every possible way
that I could to make this clear. But
unfortunately the message was may-
be never delivered to him, or he got
advice that was not the best possible
advice on this regard.”
By the time Iceland received
Snowden’s request, which Birgitta
said was still not entirely formal, it
was July 4, the last day of parliament
before summer recess. Six members
of parliament from the Pirate Party,
the Left Greens, the Social Demo-
crats, and Bright Future sponsored
a bill to grant Snowden citizenship.
“We put forward a bill and since we
did it on the last day we never antici-
pated it would be agreed on,” said
Birgitta. Realistically, she hoped the
bill would be put on the fall agenda,
but it was rejected that day. “The
Progressive Party, well, they have
been more interested in these same
issues I’ve been fighting for. Both
the Foreign Affairs Minster and the
Prime Minister have their names as
sponsors on the Icelandic Modern
Media Initiative, so I was surprised.
I thought they were more…pro-
gressive,” Birgitta said with a small
laugh, “except there were I think five
MPs that abstained, they were on the
yellow button.”
Pressure from the US
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs re-
cently received a letter from the
American Embassy in Reykjavík re-
garding legal assistance with a US
citizen. The Ministry of Foreign Af-
fairs wouldn’t further divulge the
content of the letter beyond saying
it had been forwarded to the Minis-
try of the Interior, which was unau-
thorised to give information, and the
American Embassy would not even
confirm that a letter had been sent.
Other countries where Snowden ap-
plied for asylum also reportedly re-
ceived this letter. It hasn’t been con-
firmed when exactly the letter was
sent, but Birgitta thinks it probably
affected parliament’s decision.
As of July 19, it has been only 34
days since the Guardian released
the Edward Snowden interview. And
only three months since the new Ice-
landic government was elected. Its
not a matter of blaming the Icelandic
government for what it did or did not
do in regards to Edward Snowden,
which would divert attention away
from the core issues in the content of
Snowden’s leaks.
This is a matter of paying atten-
tion to how governments react when
they are put under a spotlight and
given the opportunity to hold them-
selves accountable for connecting
the values they claim to represent
with the actions they actually take.
This applies as much to Iceland as
it applies to the United States.
Now offering
catering service!
Laugavegur 2 101 Reykjavík tel: 552 4444
Paradise Lost?
IMMI and the mythology of Iceland as
“whistleblower paradise”
By Shea Sweeney
“My predisposition is to seek asylum in a country with
shared values. The nation that most encompasses this
is Iceland. They stood up for people over internet free-
dom,” American whistleblower, Edward Snowden,
said in his June 2013 Guardian interview. Regardless
of what Edward was specifically referring to, one re-
sult of the comment was furthering the already prev-
alent trend of misconceptions about IMMI and what
Iceland is currently able and willing to do for interna-
tional whistleblowers.