Egyptian activists counter ‘state media propaganda lies’

“I swear, by God, the armed forces did not kill nor order killings of protesters,” Egypt’s Defence Minister Abdel Fattah al-Sissi told Egyptian State TV earlier this month.

Al-Sissi defended the armed forces, insisting the military had “protected Egypt and safeguarded the January 25, 2011 Revolution.” He also warned the media against slandering the military.

Al-Sissi’s comments came in response to leaks to the Guardian and Egypt’s independent Al Shorouk newspaper from a report by a fact-finding commission implicating the military in human rights abuses during and after the 18-day mass uprising that toppled President Hosni Mubarak. The commission was formed after President Mohamed Morsi came to power in June 2012 in the wake of tensions with the country’s powerful military. In a report handed to President Morsi in December, the commission stated that “the military had ordered doctors to operate on wounded protesters without anaesthetic and that soldiers killed and tortured demonstrators — including performing humiliating virginity tests on female protesters less than a month after the uprising”, according to the Guardian. The military had also participated in forced disappearances, with more than 1,000 people reported missing during the 18 days of the January 2011 uprising.

While al-Sissi has denied the charges, a video clip posted on YouTube shortly after his statement was broadcast on Egyptian state TV tells an entirely different story. The video was posted by Askar Kazeboon, or Military Are Liars — a group of volunteers whose declared aim is to “expose the lies of the armed forces and inform the public about military abuses.” The clip showed soldiers brutally beating and kicking protesters. It also depicted scenes of the December 2011 “blue bra incident” during which a female protester was dragged by soldiers and stripped half naked during protests against military rule outside the parliament building in Cairo. During the clashes between military forces and protesters on Qasr al-Aini Street, the army had also assaulted and arrested journalists, confiscating their equipment, and targeting news outlets. A military spokesman soon afterwards denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the army had “exercised self-restraint.”

Activists responded to the claims by launching Askar Kazeboon — an alternative campaign to “expose the state media propaganda lies” by screening video clips in public spaces across the country, depicting scenes of military forces practicing severe brutality against peaceful demonstrators. The footage is often interlaced with military denials of involvement in any criminal activity. Besides screening videos of military abuse, the Askar Kazeboon — or the Military are Liars — team has staged protest-marches in several cities and towns and used social media networks Facebook and Twitter to raise public awareness about the violent military crackdown on protesters demanding an end to military rule during the transitional period (when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was in power). The group’s Facebook page has approximately 149,000 fans and the number is steadily increasing.

The latest Askar Kazeboon video which has gone viral on social media networks Facebook and Twitter, has embarassed the armed forces while serving as a reminder that it is becoming all the more difficult to hide truths in the ‘Information Age’ when activists and bloggers are constantly taking pictures on their mobile phones, uploading and sharing them with internet users around the world. But the video is not the first of its kind countering the narrative of state media . On 27 January 2012, the group’s video clips were projected onto the facade of the Egyptian State Television building at Maspero “to shame the state broadcaster for propogating lies” — according to campaign members — after state TV channels broadcast a video produced by the military’s Public Affairs Department depicting protesters throwing rocks and molotovs at military forces in downtown Qasr el Aini Street and showing children “confessing” to having been paid to attack the military. The following month, the Askar Kazeboon group took their campaign one step further, projecting their video clips onto the outer walls of the Ministry of Defence –the SCAF Headquarters.

“By taking our protest movement out of Tahrir Square into other districts , villages and hamlets, we have managed to attract more followers to our cause ” Reem Dawoud, a founding member of the campaign told Index. She added that the group’s mission was the pursuit of” transparency, accountability and free flow of information.”

The campaign has over the last sixteen months evolved into an initiative “countering the lies of those who speak in the name of religion” — in reference to the ruling Muslim Brotherhood, which has reneged on several promises, including the promise not to field a presidential candidate. Askar Kazeboon and other initiatives — like Ikhwan Kazeboon and the No to Military Trials Campaign — do more than just open peoples’ eyes to vivid truths; they also symbolise an unprecedented level of street and cyberactivism that was lacking in the pre-revolution days. Gone are the days when the state had near-total control over the media and when the government had succeeded in silencing voices of dissent. Despite growing fears that a government crackdown on media critical of the Morsi regime in recent months could pave the way for a regression in the freedom of expression — overturning the gains made in freedom of speech since the revolt more than two years ago — the campaigns bring hope of a freer, more transparent society where every citizen has the right to access information and hold authorities to account.

Journalist Shahira Amin resigned from her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV in February 2011. Read why she resigned from the  “propaganda machine” here.

Tunisian court fails to review verdict in Muhammad cartoon case

Tunisia’s Court of Cassation yesterday failed to review the seven-and-a-half year sentence of Jabeur Mejri, who was convicted last year of publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad on Facebook. Mejri’s lawyer, Mohammed Mselmi, told AFP that the demand for an appeal “was mysteriously withdrawn”, even though a hearing had been scheduled on 25 April. The defence team will now seek a presidential pardon for their client.

Last March, a primary court in Mahdia (eastern Tunisia) sentenced Mejri and his friend Ghazi Beji to seven and half years in prison. Beji, who published a satirical book entitled “the illusion of Islam” online, fled Tunisia. Mejir, however, has been in prison since he was arrested on 5 March 2012.

Both men were fined 1,200 dinars (GBP £480) and sentenced to five years in prison for publishing content “liable to cause harm to the public order” under article 121 (3) of the Tunisian Penal Code. They each received a two-year jail term for “offending others through public communication networks” (article 86 of the Telecommunications Code), and another six months for “moral transgression.”

On 25 June 2012, the Monastir Court of Appeal upheld Mejri’s conviction.

On 23 April 2013, a committee supporting the two young men published a letter from Mejri, written in his prison cell in Mahdia, in which he claims he has been subject to torture. Mejri wrote:

There’s no freedom of expression here in Tunisia, it is dead…I am forbidden from medicines to cure my illness and from other rights. Seven years and six months is a long period to spend within a dark and gloomy small place. Officers find pleasure to torture me [sic]”

Bahrain’s grand prix problem

Bahrain’s top news during the past 48 hours say a lot about the troubled country: glitzy races are welcome; experts on torture are not.

Bahraini officials yesterday claimed that UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, had cancelled his upcoming visit “indefinitely”. Funnily enough, the special rapporteur has denied this claim, saying that the government has actually blocked his visit, which was set to take place next month. The Special Rapporteur said in a release today that officials claimed that his trip could potentially endanger the success of the country’s National Dialogue, which began earlier this year.

Mendez said that the decision “does not enhance transparency with regard to the situation in the country nor demonstrate a commitment to redress impunity regarding any violations. Rather the authorities seem to view my visit as an obstacle rather than a positive factor to the reform process.”

The tiny gulf kingdom has faced unrest since the start of popular protests on 14 February 2011, which have now left 88 dead, according to Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR). 

The US State Department recently released a report evaluating human rights globally, and outlined Bahrain’s troubles with keeping up with its commitments to human rights. The report said that the country’s government has “limited freedom of speech and press through active prosecution of individuals under libel, slander, and national security laws; firing or attacking civilian and professional journalists; and proposing legislation to limit speech in print and social media.”

Bahrain says that reforms are underway, but their effect remains to be seen: according to Human Rights Watch, Bahrain’s authorities “have failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for serious human rights violations.” To top it all off, the group also reports that there have been “more than 300 formal allegations of torture and ill-treatment.”

Even though there’s no room for UN experts in Bahrain, it looks like the doors are wide open for another Bahrain Grand Prix. This Monday, Formula 1 head Bernie Ecclestone said he would be pleased to extend the country’s contract for another five years.

“I feel they do a super job and don’t see any problems”, Ecclestone told the BBC.

Let’s recap last weekend’s race: BCHR has reported a total of 96 arrests in the lead up to the race — with 16 protesters arrested the day of the Bahrain Grand Prix. Protests took place in 20 of the troubled country’s villages, with clashes between protesters and security forces. An ITV news crew was forced to leave Bahrain right before the race, after reporting on protests — even though they had the appropriate accreditation. During last year’s race, three Channel 4 journalists were arrested and deported while covering a protest, but officials said that they were cast out for covering protests without media accreditation. I wonder what the excuse was this year?

Last year’s race drew crowds of protesters, who were met with brutal show of tear gas and bird shot pellets from security forces. One man, Salah Abbas Habib, was killed during protests. Bahrain did charge a police officer with murdering Habib, but his case is sadly the exception. In 2011, the race was canceled after 35 people were killed during the country’s crackdown on popular protests at Manama’s now-demolished Pearl Roundabout.  Even though this year’s race went forward, every year this seems to come with a worrying cost.

Sounds like a problem to me.

Free speech in post-Gaddafi Libya

After the fall of dictator Muammar Gaddafi, Libya has seen a flourishing of new media outlets and NGOs. But two years on, the country still faces challenges to free expression, says Ghazi Gheblawi

Read more »

An interview with one of Gaza’s banned journalists

On 25 December 2012, Gaza’s Hamas government announced a ban on Palestinian journalists working with Israeli media. 

This decision affected just three journalists in Gaza, one of whom is 25-year-old Abeer Ayyoub. Abeer went from working as a fixer for visiting foreign journalists to writing stories herself, and in the process landing a job with Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz. Starting at the beginning of the last attack on Gaza in November 2012, she quickly made a name for herself by breaking stories that most journalists operating in the Strip had never realised existed.

I spoke to Abeer about what the ban means for her work, and for the state of press freedom in Gaza today

Ruth Michaelson: When we spoke the other day, you described working for Ha’aretz as “your dream”. Why did you want to work with Israeli media?

Abeer Ayyoub: Because I wanted to be the Palestinian voice in Israeli media, to send a message and cover these events from Palestinian eyes — I didn’t want Israeli journalists to be talking about something they’ve never seen [Israeli citizens are banned from entering Gaza]. So I wanted to be the one talking to Israelis, to communicate exactly what is going on here. Most Israelis are misled about what life is like here — they think that we’re all terrorists, which is not the case: Gaza has many civilians who have nothing to do with resistance. Sure, they have their own affiliations, but people have lives here, and they want to live in peace.

RM: Did you feel under threat while you were working for Ha’aretz?

AA: No, never. People showed understanding about my reasons for doing this; my family, my colleagues, even the Gaza authorities were supportive when I asked them before starting at Ha’aretz. They told me that they were in favour of having Palestinians writing for the Israeli media. The criticisms I heard or felt came from people who aren’t involved with the media, so I didn’t take them seriously.

RM: Why did you decide to talk to the Hamas government before going to work for Israeli media?

AA: I hate to do things in secret: I want to do everything under the light. I wasn’t asking for permission, I was just informing them of what was going on. They told me “go ahead, we never banned anyone from working with Israeli media, and it’s the same for you.” It was the head of media relations in Gaza who told me that, the same person who later told me I was banned.

RM: What reason did Hamas give for the ban?

AA: There were several different reasons given — that Israeli media is hostile to us, and that Israel doesn’t allow Palestinians to go inside and cover what’s going on, so we’re not going to allow them to do the same here. But the third and most depressing reason is that they expressed concern that journalists who work with Israeli media will ultimately become spies.

RM: Why do you think they changed their minds like this?

AA: It’s been very difficult to figure this out, as the reasons kept changing — especially as they banned their officials from talking with Israeli media in the same ruling. They certainly have their reasons, but it’s none of the reasons they’ve made public.

RM: So how were you informed about the ban?

AA: Just like everyone around me, I read it in the papers. No one called me or contacted me to let me know. So after I read about it, I went to the media office and asked them if they were serious about this. They told me that they were, and that I had no other choice but to submit to this decision. Initially I thought that I wouldn’t submit to this, but then I reasoned that I have no wish to create extra problems for myself.

RM: What were the risks involved if you hadn’t complied?

AA: The statement said that anyone working for Israeli media will be “punished”: I didn’t want punishment or to be arrested, as I have work that I still want to do here nonetheless. The thing is that a lot of normal people on the ground are against working with Israeli media, so I didn’t think that I would find a lot of support. I decided to stop for a while until things change, and I’m sure that they will change, because Hamas tend to take decisions like this and then repeal them at a later date.

RM: What do you think is the reason behind such a sweeping ruling that only affects three people?

AA: This is the thing — there have been allegations that there are people who work for Israeli media in secret, with no bylines. But again, this was a ruling also designed to affect Hamas officials, and I believe this was aimed primarily at them. Once again, the reason for this will be anything except the reasons they gave.

RM: The timing of the decision seems political, in that it came after the ceasefire with Israel. Do you think that this has anything to do with the ruling?

AA: This was one of Hamas’s claims, that Israel had targeted journalists during the war, and so if Israel doesn’t respect our journalists then we don’t want them to work with Israel. How these two things are related is something that I don’t personally understand.

 RM: How comfortable do you feel working as a journalist in Gaza now, following this ban?

AA: I feel comfortable at the moment, my relationship with the government is good. I work a lot with other forms of international media, and things seem to be okay. Sometimes [the Hamas government] remind me, with provocations or questions about whether I’m still working with Ha’aretz, that they are still focused on this, even if they say it as a joke. But this to me is nothing too serious.

RM: Many elements of both Israeli and Palestinian life are hidden from view given the restrictions on freedom of movement, do you feel like the decision contributes to this?

AA: Exactly. Now there is a real problem — things are disjointed. I can’t express myself within Israeli media: this is permitting any potential media bias, or at the very least reports lacking in sufficient information.

RM: What will be missing from Israeli media discourse as a result of this decision?

AA: Basically I think the gap between civilians on both sides will be widened. We only know about their government, and they only know about ours. The things that I wanted to write about were what normal, everyday people are doing — people like me or my family and friends: we hate the on-going conflict. We believe in resistance, but things are not like the normal depiction of Palestinians in the media, which is likely to portray us as inherently violent.

RM: What would you say is the state of press freedom in Gaza?

AA: I would say it’s changing from time to time, sometimes we have enough space to write, but other times we are denied our simplest rights. It’s the case wherever; governments always try to control journalism when it comes to writing about them.

Ruth Michaelson is a freelance journalist. She tweets at @_Ms_R

Index calls on Bahrain government to free Nabeel Rajab

Index on Censorship has called upon the Bahraini government to release 2012 Index  Freedom of Expression Award winner Nabeel Rajab and other prisoners of conscience, and honour its promises to uphold freedom of expression.

Index’s Chief Executive Kirsty Hughes said:

“The continued imprisonment of Nabeel Rajab and other activists shows that Bahrain is not serious about reform. The targeting of human rights activists and imprisonment of prisoners of conscience shows that government commitments to reform are for now meaningless.

“Index calls on the Bahrain government to respect  the right to peaceful protest and the right to free speech, to end its violations of these rights and to implement fully the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission for Inquiry (BICI).”

According to the Project on Middle East Democracy, the government of Bahrain has only succeeded in fully implementing three of the 26 recommendations made by the Bahrain Independent Commission for Inquiry (BICI) report in November 2011.

Members of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) have faced repression from Bahrain’s regime for their tireless work documenting human rights violations committed by the government, since popular protests began on 14 February 2011. According to BCHR, there have been 89 deaths since the start of the country’s uprising.

In March 2012, accepting the Index on Censorship Advocacy award on behalf of BCHR, human rights activist Nabeel Rajab said that the international community heard little about uprisings in Bahrain because “we have oil”. He is currently serving a two-year sentence for organising so-called “illegal gatherings”. The founder of BCHR, Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, is on hunger-strike to protest his ill-treatment in prison. Alkhawaja is currently serving a life sentence for allegedly plotting to overthrow the ruling regime. His daughter Zainab is also on hunger strike and serving a three-month jail sentence.

In April, international attention will once again turn to Bahrain when it hosts the Formula 1 Grand Prix. Last year, the Bahraini government attempted to use the race to gain positive international attention while continuing to clamp down on protesters who are critical of the regime.

Doubts over Bahrain “dialogue” as teenager protester killed on anniversary of uprising

The second anniversary of the uprising in Bahrain was marked with violence today, with reports that a teenager was shot dead during protests in the village of Al-Daih, west of the capital Manama. The 16-year-old boy has been named as Hussain al-Jaziri

Read more »

Israel’s “Prisoner X” case and the creep of military censorship

OPINION: In June 2010, Israel’s Ynet website reported on the detention, and then six months later on the death, of unknown detainee “Prisoner X” in solitary confinement.

A gag order issued by an Israeli court soon after put an end to any reporting on the case, or even reporting of the order itself. “Prisoner X” became a byword in the Israeli media for yet one more of the kind of security-related stories that no-one quite knows the truth of, and probably never will.

Nothing more was heard until this week, when an Australian TV documentary claimed that the man in question was one Ben Zygier, a 34-year-old father-of-two and an Australian citizen who had moved to Israel a decade earlier.

Zygier, who called himself Ben Alon in Israel, was apparently held in the cell — built to hold Yigal Amir, the assassin of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin — for a number of months before he was found hanged, and his body flown to Melbourne a week later. His father Geoffrey, a grandee of the Jewish community there, has refused to speak to the media regarding his son.

Military censorship and wide-reaching gag orders are a fact of life for Israeli journalists. But this gag order was absolute. Articles which appeared on a number of Israeli websites yesterday noting the Australian programme were soon removed.

Even more extraordinary was the meeting called that afternoon by the Prime Minister’s office convening the so-called “Editors’ Committee”, a grouping set up in the early years of the state through which senior media figures could be briefed on secret information if they agreed to not publish it.

Historically this was a sort of gentleman’s agreement between the hacks and the establishment, who in the nascent days of Israel were understood to be more or less on the same side. Now, the annual meeting between the PM and the Editors’ Committee has become largely a matter of show, open to the scrutiny of other journalists. Self-censorship is managed more obliquely.

The Prisoner X situation was so extraordinary that a number of MKs used parliamentary privilege yesterday to ask the outgoing Justice Minister, Yaakov Ne’eman about the Australian reports.  Zahava Gal-On, head of the left-wing Meretz faction pouring scorn on the implied complicity of the Israeli media.

“I want to hear your stance on the fact that journalists volunteer to censor information at the government’s request,” she said. “Is it proper that the Prime Minister’s Office invited the Editors’ Committee to prevent news from being publicised? Today, we hear that in a country that claims to be a civilized democracy, journalists cooperate with the government, and that anonymous prisoners, who no one knew existed, commit suicide.”

The gag order has now been softened, perhaps due to the MKs’ questions,  and Israeli media are now reporting on the Australian story. But it’s the press rather than politicians who should be charged with exposing this kind of event.

There is an argument to be made that there is a need for some level of censorship to protect national security. But the censors need to choose their battles.

It’s stupid and self-destructive to try and suppress a story after it appears on a foreign media outlet. The suppression will inevitably serves to draw additional attention to the story.

The danger is that security becomes its own justification for censorship with a creeping reach.

Daniella Peled is editor at the Institute of War and Peace Reporting and writes widely on the Middle East