Gay Egyptians living in “constant fear” as crackdown from authorities and media worsens

Mona during her show (Image: Al Kahera Wal Nas TV Network/YouTube)

Journalist Mona El Iraqi colluded with security forces in a raid on a public bathhouse allegedly frequented by gay people (Image: Al Kahera Wal Nas TV Network/YouTube)

When prominent Egyptian actor Khaled Abul Naga criticised President Abdel Fattah El Sisi counter-terrorism policies in Sinai in a video posted on the El-Bawaba news website last November, he was slammed by government loyalists and Egypt’s pro-regime media.

Lawyer Samir Sabry, notorious for filing legal complaints against opposition activists, filed a lawsuit against Abul Naga accusing him of “treason” and “inciting anti-government protests”. In a telephone interview with the Egyptian privately-owned satellite channel Sada El Balad, Sabry said “those who go against the will of the people who elected El Sisi, must be punished”.

Abul Naga’s prosecution reflects the growing intolerance in Egyptian society and the persistent intimidation of dissenters since the ouster of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi some eighteen months ago. Since the military takeover of the country on 3 July, 2013, anyone expressing a view that runs counter to the official narrative is labeled a “traitor” and a “spy” by supporters of Egypt’s military-backed regime.

Even more disturbing than the criminal charges faced by Abul Naga is the barrage of insults hurled at him by government loyalists in the media who poked fun at the actor’s alleged sexual orientation.

Talk show host Tawfiq Okasha scandalously mocked Abul Naga’s sexuality, hinting that the actor was gay.

“Why do you sleep on your stomach and not on your back?” the controversial TV presenter (and owner of Faraeen Channel) asked, adding that there must have been a reason why Abul Naga was exempted from military service.

Mazhar Shaheen, a pro-government cleric who presents a talk show on a privately-owned satellite channel, also scoffed at Abul Naga, suggesting that he leave the country.

“If you are not happy with the military’s performance, you should go to either Syria or Iraq,” he said, addressing Abul Naga.

“But watch your pants while you are there,” he sarcastically warned.

Abul Naga’s lampooning by the pro-government media reflects the shrinking space for free expression in today’s Egypt. It also highlights the increased vulnerability of and continued discrimination against the LGBT community in Egypt’s deeply conservative society.

In recent months, Egypt’s gay population have increasingly been targeted amid a brutal crackdown that has seen 150 suspected homosexuals arrested and detained since November. While Egyptian law does not expressly ban homosexuality, gay people are frequently charged with “debauchery” and detained. Muslim scholars and prosecutors have condoned the arrests, arguing that “homosexuals are shameful to God” and that “it is the government’s duty to protect morality” — a conservative view that is widely shared by the Egyptian public. A Pew survey conducted in 2013 found only three per cent of Egyptians accept homosexuality.

While disdain for homosexuality is not new in Egypt, inflammatory reporting by Egypt’s pro-government media has in recent months further fuelled prejudice against gay people and deepened the stigma associated with homosexuality.

Last month, TV reporter Mona El Iraqi who works for the privately-owned Al Kahera Wal Nas TV channel, colluded with security forces in a raid on a public bathhouse in downtown Cairo, allegedly frequented by gay people. Iraqi used her cell phone to take pictures of 26 half-naked men wrapped only in bath-towels as they were arrested. After sending undercover agents to the bathhouse to spy on visitors, she alerted the police, claiming that “promiscuous orgies” were taking place there. On 7 December, police — accompanied by Iraqi’s camera crew stormed the bathhouse and indiscriminately arrested the suspects.

Iraqi unashamedly posted pictures of the half-naked men on her public Facebook page. The images were removed a couple of hours later after she was lambasted by rights activists enraged by what they described as her “insensitivity” and “flagrant intolerance”. Defending her actions in a Facebook post, she insisted that the bathhouse was a “hotbed of immorality” and was “helping spread HIV and AIDS in Egypt”.

Despite the outpouring of horror over the bathhouse raid on social media networks, Iraqi’s episode was broadcast to “mark World AIDS Day and spread awareness about the causes of HIV and AIDS in Egypt” — according to Iraqi.

The 26 men who were arrested were charged with “debauchery” and subjected to intrusive anal checks to determine their sexuality. Human Rights Watch has decried the anal examinations, describing them as being in violation of “international standards against torture“. The forensics report claimed that two of the 26 defendants may have been subjected to rape as signs of struggle were evident on the bodies of the men in question. At the trial last Sunday, defence lawyers argued however, that it was almost impossible to verify whether the men had indeed practiced homosexuality. They also slammed the decision to allow Iraqi to film the arrests, describing the move as “unconstitutional”. Denouncing the arrests, they said it was only natural for the men to have been naked “for they were either in the shower or the steam bath when police stormed the premises”. Khaled Naqash, one of the defence lawyers meanwhile, claimed his client had been fully dressed but was stripped naked by the police before his arrest. The defendants’ families were barred from entry into the courtroom and complained they were “ruffled up” by security guards who had apparently already condemned the defendants even before the verdict has been pronounced. The trial has been adjourned until 12 January when the fate of the men will be decided.

The latest mass arrests are reminiscent of the 2001 so-called “Queen Boat raid“, when security forces stormed a floating nightclub moored on the Nile in Cairo’s affluent neighbourhood of Zamalek, arresting 52 men. That incident sparked international outrage and condemnation and sent a chilling message to Egypt’s LGBT community. Rights advocates say the latest arrests are even more disturbing than the Queen Boat incident as they show media colluding with the police instead of holding security forces to account for their actions.

The bathhouse raid also comes hot on the heels of similar raids on gay hangouts in Cairo in recent months including cafes, bars and even private house parties. In March last year, four men were arrested in a raid on a house party after police allegedly found the men dresses in women’s clothing. The men were accused of “debauchery” and sentenced to eight years in prison. In September, a video of an alleged “gay wedding ceremony” posted online prompted the arrest of another eight men including the alleged “gay couple” who were seen in the video exchanging rings and hugging. While all the men had reportedly tested “negative” for homosexuality, they were nevertheless, sentenced to three years in prison each. A Cairo appeals court later reduced the sentences to one year in prison. The court also ruled however, that the men would remain under police surveillance after completing their jail terms. Last Sunday, El Youm El Sabe’ reported that two men were arrested in Alexandria by “morality police” and charged with “debauchery” and “destroying public morals”.

The recent spate of mass arrests of gay suspects has sparked serious concerns for Egypt’s LGBT community.

“I no longer feel safe,” Karim, a 26 year-old Egyptian homosexual told Index. “Egypt has never been safe for us but things are worse now under the military-backed authorities because we know we are being targeted.” He explained that the current regime was trying to woo the conservatives in the society by “appearing more Islamist than the ousted Islamist regime”.

“I’m always looking over my shoulder now and constantly live in fear,” said Mohamed, 32, another member of Egypt’s LGBT community. “I would leave Egypt if I could.”

For Mohamed and other gay people in Egypt, what is even more worrying than persecution and prosecution is the humiliation and shame they may bring onto their families if their identities were revealed — as has happened with the defendants in the recent bathhouse case.

“Now that the media is aligned with the police, we are at serious risk of public defamation and loss of dignity,” he lamented.

“What is even sadder is that few Egyptians are denouncing the arrests of gays as some media are telling the  public that homosexuality is a disease that will destroy public morality and hence, it is necessary to rid the society of the scourge,” he added.

Buthayna Haleem ( her name has been changed to protect her identity) an Egyptian lesbian writer is one of the few people in Egypt condemning the raids.

“It is not something that concerns others,” she told Agence France Press in a recently televised interview. “This is oppression against people.”

Update: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Mona Iraqi had removed the images posted to Facebook. Facebook removed the images because they violated the service’s terms.

This article was published on 6 January 2015 at indexoncensorship.org

#IndexDrawtheLine: How can we balance religious freedom and religious extremism?

draw-the-line-header

Religious freedom and religious radicalism which leads to extremism has become an increasingly difficult balancing act in the digital age where presenting religious superiority through fear and “terror” is possible both locally and internationally at internet speeds.

The ongoing series of beheading videos released by the Islamic State and the showcase of kidnapped school girls by Nigeria’s Boko Haram on YouTube are both examples that test the extent to which the UN Convention of Human Rights can protect religious freedoms. According to a report by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Egypt’s Youth Ministry are targeting young atheists vocal on social media about the dangers of religion. In Saudi Arabia, Raef Badawi was sentenced to seven years in prison in 2013 and received 600 lashes for discussing other versions of Islam, besides Wahhabism, online.

Article 18 of the Convention states that the “right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”. The interpretation of “practice” is a grey area – especially when the idea of violence as a form of punishment can be understood differently across various cultures. Is it right to criticise societies operating under Sharia law that include amputation as punishment, ‘hadd’ offences that include theft, and stoning for committing adultery?

Religious extremism should not only be questioned under the categories of violence or social unrest. Earlier this month, religious preservation in India has led to the banning of a Bollywood film scene deemed ‘un-Islamic’ in values. The actress in question was from Pakistan, and sentenced to 26 years in prison for acting out a marriage scene depicting the Prophet Muhammad’s daughter. In Russia, the state has banned the publication of Jehovah’s Witness material as the views are considered extremist.

In an environment where religious freedom is tested under different laws and cultures, where do you draw the line on international grounds to foster positive forms of belief?

This article was posted on 15 December 2014 at indexoncensorship.org

Egypt: Regime pushes self-censorship on journalists

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has tightened the screws of the country's journalists. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi has tightened the screws of the country’s journalists. (Photo: Wikipedia)

In a rare show of defiance, hundreds of Egyptian journalists have objected to a “statement of allegiance” to the government signed by editors-in-chief of the main state-owned and independent newspapers.

More than 600 Egyptian journalists signed an online petition defending press freedom and rejecting censorship in all its forms. The move came in response to a loyalty pledge by 17 editors-in-chief of newspapers to refrain from criticizing the police, the military and the judiciary at this sensitive time when Egypt was “at war with terrorism.”

The journalists dismissed the editors’ statement as “a futile attempt to create a one-voice media,” arguing that “fighting terrorism had nothing to do with voluntary abandonment of freedom of speech.”

“The editors’ statement is not worth the ink used in writing it,” Dina Samak, deputy editor-in-chief of the English language semi-official Ahram Online and one of the journalists who signed the petition, told Index on Censorship.

“The terrorists will win when they can control the media, and the state will fall when it agrees on the same goal,” said Khaled El Balshi, a journalist and board member of the Journalists Syndicate, who helped draw up the petition for press freedom.

In a show of solidarity with Egypt’s military-backed regime, the editors had gathered at El Wafd newspaper headquarters on 26 October to forge “a united front against terrorism”, expressing their “rejection of attempts to cast doubt on state institutions.” They also vowed to take measures to halt what they called the “infiltration by elements supporting terrorism” in their publications — a reference to supporters of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, designated as a terrorist group by Egypt last year.

While the move did not come as a surprise to many — as it was already clear that the majority of media outlets had aligned themselves closely with the government since the military takeover of the country in July 2013 — the “loyalty pledge” by the editors was nevertheless unusual even in a country where the media was in lockstep with the regime.

The signatories to the declaration — the editors-in-chief of the three main state-owned dailies Al Ahram, Al Akhbar, Al Gomhouria and those of the independent Al Masry Al Youm, Al Watan, Al Shorouq, El Tahrir, El Ahali, Al Fajr , El Messa, El Esboo, El Youm el Sabe and El Gamaheer newspapers — argued however that “crisis situations” required “exceptional measures”.

Defending the editors’ statement, Emad El Din, editor-in-chief of the independent Al Shorouk denied that the editors’ loyalty declaration gave journalists the green light to practice self censorship.

“We wanted to deliver a message to citizens that the media is with the state in fighting terrorism,” he told NPR Radio shortly after signing the statement.

“At this time of heightened nationalism, the climate does not allow for any criticism of the government,” he added.

The move came in response to a call by President Abdel Fattah El Sisi for Egyptians to rally behind him in his fight against terrorism following two deadly militant attacks on an army checkpoint in North Sinai on 24 October that killed 33 army soldiers and injured at least a dozen others. The militant assaults were the latest in a string of attacks targeting mainly security forces — but at times, also civilians — since the overthrow of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013. The attacks have prompted a surge in nationalism and a heralding of a so-called “war on terrorism” waged by the military against suspect-militants in the Sinai Peninsula. The violence has also resulted in a massive government crackdown on dissent that has targeted all opposition including journalists critical of regime policies.

Six journalists have been killed and dozens detained since the military took power in July 2013, according to the New York-based Committee for the Protection of Journalists. While most have been released, at least 11 journalists remain behind bars for no crime other than being at — or near — Muslim Brotherhood protest sites. Among the detained are three journalists working for the Al Jazeera English news network who have been sentenced to between seven and 10 years in jail on charges of “threatening national security, fabricating news and aiding a terror group”.

The crackdown on the media has led many journalists to practice self-censorship for fear of being imprisoned, killed or labeled “unpatriotic” by an unsympathising Egyptian public. Meanwhile, the statement released by the editors has fueled fears among press freedom advocates of a further shrinking in the already-dwindling space for freedom of expression in Egypt.

Adel Hamouda, an Egyptian journalist and former editor-in-chief of Al Fajr, meanwhile, criticised the editors’ statement as “uncalled for“.

“It is an attempt by the editors to win favour with the regime for the sake of personal gains,” he told Index. He explained that all Egyptians — except those supporting the Muslim Brotherhood — support the state in its war on terror so it is “meaningless” to publicly assert their support. He further noted that all media organisations were required to seek approval from the Armed Forces Morale Affairs Department before publishing or broadcasting any news about the military.

The majority of the independent media outlets that signed the statement belong to wealthy businessmen with close links to the ruling military-backed regime. They are fully aware that publishing any criticism of government policies would ruffle feathers and likely jeopardize their business interests. All top editors were appointed by the Higher Press Council shortly after Morsi’s overthrow in July 2013. Their selection was clearly based on their willingness to cooperate with the regime rather than their merits. Shortly after Morsi’s ouster, a leaked video on YouTube showed then-Defence Minister Abdel Fattah El Sisi asking senior generals to “establish partnerships with media outlets to curb any criticism of the military”. An independent journalist who spoke on condition of anonymity told Index that days before Morsi’s ouster, she had been approached by security officials who promised her “fruitful rewards” if she joined the “winning side” — a clear reference to the country’s powerful security apparatus that drove the uprising against the democratically-elected president.

In the coup’s aftermath, most editors and TV talk show hosts have persistently lionised Sisi and cheered on the military while demonising the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group from which former President Mohamed Morsi hailed.

The media in Egypt has traditionally been a propaganda tool for whoever is in power. Various successive regimes have used the state media as a mouthpiece to further their political gains. Under Mubarak, all editors-in-chief of the state-owned newspapers were handpicked by his powerful Minister of Information Safwat El Sherif who presented the list of chosen candidates to the Shoura or Consultative Council, the upper house of parliament dominated by members of the then-ruling party, the National Democratic Party, for ratification.

In the months following the fall of Mubarak, there was a brief period of free expression and a loosening up of restrictions on the media. Press freedom — one of the major gains of the 2011 mass uprising — was short-lived however as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) which replaced Mubarak, quickly moved to exercise control over the media. During its one year in office, the SCAF confiscated newspapers, ransacked the offices of foreign news networks and investigated journalists critical of the military. Shortly after Morsi won the elections — becoming the country’s first democratically elected president — he too reneged on his election promises to promote freedom of speech, appointing a Muslim Brotherhood member as minister of information. The Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Shoura appointed regime loyalists as senior editors of state-owned dailies, repeating the Mubarak-era practice that allows tight government control over the media. The move provoked an outcry from non-Islamist journalists who held protest rallies and threatened to resign their posts.

Almost immediately after Morsi’s overthrow, all Islamist-leaning newspapers and TV channels were shut down by the new authorities — a move that sent a message to journalists that there was little tolerance for dissent in Egypt, post-3 July. The last sixteen months have seen a return of the media censorship reminiscent of that which prevailed under Mubarak. Newspapers that published articles deemed “controversial” by the authorities, have been pulled off newsstands and confiscated. In October 2014, a print edition of the independent Al Masry Al Youm was confiscated by government censors for publishing an interview with former national security intelligence chief Mohamed Gebril in which he was quoted as saying that “no Israeli spy has ever been executed in Egypt”. The paper later appeared on newsstands, albeit without the interview. Months earlier, columnist and screenwriter Belal Fadl resigned from the independent Al Shorouk after the paper’s management allegedly refused to publish his column ridiculing the promotion of Sisi (who was defence minister at the time) to the rank of field marshal. Fadl was accused by pro-military commentators of being a “traitor” and “a fifth columnist plotting to destroy the country”.

Several editors who signed the statement of support to the government are also known to be part of a fake opposition created by Mubarak to give a semblance of free speech and democracy. Like other pro-regime editors, they too have persistently glorified the military and vilified the Muslim Brotherhood. And they have gone a step further, slandering the January 25 Revolution as a “foreign conspiracy” and labelling the secular opposition activists who mobilised public support for the 2011 mass protests “traitors” and “foreign agents.”

Mostafa Bakri, editor-in-chief of Al Osbou — and one of the editors who signed the loyalty pledge — has recently been summoned by the public prosecutor after several legal complaints were filed against him by private citizens for “fabricating news” and “slandering the January 25 Revolution”.

Meanwhile, the journalists behind the online petition for press freedom are planning to form an independent association to advocate freedom of expression. While this is a step in the right direction, press freedom advocates fear the negative effects of the editors’ pledge of allegiance are already being felt.

“Their statement was perceived as a warning message by the younger, less skilled journalists, many of whom are now practicing self-censorship for fear of losing their jobs or in a bid to win favour with the management and get promoted,” lamented Dina Samak.

Despite the setback, the battle for press freedom is on.

“It is a battle pitting the younger, pro-reform journalists against the old regime loyalists, resisting change,” Amany Kamal, a former radio presenter told Index. Kamal was forced to quit her job as a broadcaster with a state-run radio channel after being accused by the management of sympathising with the Muslim Brotherhood. “But we shall win,” she said.

This article was published on 24 November 2014 at indexoncensorship.org

Draw the Line: Should the police do more to protect free speech?

draw-the-line-light-backgrounds

Free expression and policing can have an antagonistic relationship. Recent events in Ferguson are demonstrative of the issues that arise as the demands for protest clash with those for civil safety.

The police are naturally drawn to the forefront of such a debate as they become the physical manifestation of a state’s commitment to free expression and the right to protest. Thus, as the Obama administration launches a federal investigation into whether the Missouri police systematically violated the civil rights of protesters, it is prescient to ask whether one can demand more of the police to protect free expression.

Undoubtedly, enforcement agencies across the world play a tricky role in facilitating expression while protecting the legitimate safety concerns of the local community. Between 2009 and 2013, police in England spent £10 million on security arrangements for EDL marches. There can also be a huge social cost to galvanic protest and the director of Faith Matters, Fiyaz Mughal, has called for a ban on such marches, claiming that “[We] know there is a corrosive impact on communities, it creates tensions and anti-Muslim prejudice in areas. I think enough is enough. I think a banning order is necessary with the EDL”.

What the recent altercations in Ferguson illustrates is that the role of the police in safeguarding free expression must not be overlooked. More importantly, this is a global issue and as six activists being retried for breaching Egypt’s protest law have started an open-ended sit-in and hunger strike it must be remembered that this debate truly gets to the heart of the basic demands of any civic society.

As scenes from Ferguson have at times resembled the images of police crackdowns in Cairo it is clear that complacency about such issues can prove disastrous. It therefore seems vital to drawn certain lines as to where we feel the police should stand when it comes to creating the basis of a safe but also free society.

This article was posted on 11 Sept 2014 at indexoncensorship.org