Burma

A Muslim woman, Win Win Sein, has been charged with “religious defamation”, after she accidentally knocked over the alms bowl of a Buddhist monk (AFP)

France
The video for “College Boy” by rock band Indochine has been banned from TV for its portrayal of bullying and the crucifiction and shooting of a schoolboy (Huffington Post France)

(Warning: video is graphic)

Turkmenistan
Government officials searched phones and cameras of spectators at a horse racing event in an attempt to suppress footage of President Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov falling off his horse at the end of a race he “won” (The Times £)

The post Free expression in the news appeared first on Index on Censorship.

On 31 March, hardline Islamists submitted a list of 84 “atheist” bloggers to authorities, demanding their arrest. Rasel Parvez, Mashiur Rahman Biplob and Subrata Adhikari Shuvo, were arrested on 1 April, and had laptops and other devices confiscated. Asif Mohiuddin was arrested days later.

The arrests take part against the backdrop of the Shahbag protests. The protests, which began as demands for the death penalty for figures convicted of war crimes during the 1971 war that led to independence from Pakistan — when many Islamist groups sided with Pakistan — have broadened to general demonstrations against the radical Jamaat-e-Islami and other “extremist” groups.

The secular movement has drawn a strong response from hardliners, who have called for a blasphemy law, along the way smearing activists as defamers of the prophet Muhammad.

The Islamist group Hefajat-e-Islam has said the capital Dhaka will face a “siege” unless the government meets its demand to introduce the death penalty for blasphemy.

However, Bangladesh’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina has rejected calls for a blasphemy law, telling the BBC that “existing laws are enough”.

She went on to say that while Bangladesh is a “secular democracy”, where everyone “has the right to practice their religion freely”, it was “not fair to hurt anybody’s religious feeling”, and that the government “try to protect every religious sentiment.”

The post Bangladesh rejects call for blasphemy law, but atheist bloggers still detained appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt‘s press freedom and general freedom of expression were a convoluted issue at best. In theory the media was fairly free, but it was often impossible to set up an independent newspaper or get a television broadcast licence. The government couldn’t truly prevent the independent papers from printing something, but they could punish and intimidate them after the fact in multiple ways.

Well into the 21st century, it was forbidden to speak or write critically of Mubarak or his family. That taboo was eventually breached and Mubarak’s final years featured a parade of direct abuse from the opposition and independent press. But other barriers held firm. Every editor in the country could expect the occasional visit from the dreaded State Security Investigations agency. And they all knew that any mention of the military or Muslim-Christian tensions had to be dealt with very carefully to avoid the wrath of the government.

Nearly two years after the revolution that ousted Mubarak from power, the media scene is still something of a mixed bag. In some ways, being a journalist in post-revolutionary Egypt is even more complicated and treacherous than it ever was under Mubarak.

A media war in the new Egypt

As 2012 came to a close, the issue of public expression was particularly relevant, as the country’s main political factions seem destined to spend most of 2013 publicly screaming at each other.

Egypt’s public debate has become shrill and bitter as the country has split into deeply polarised camps: Islamists versus everybody else. President Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood allies have succeeded in forcing through a rushed and controversial constitution — a process that has burned almost all bridges with the largely secularist opposition.

Protest outside the Presidential Palace in Cairo, 4 December 2012. Mohamed El Dahshan | Demotix

This polarisation is reflected in the country’s media. As Egypt has broken into warring camps, much of the media has followed suit and taken sides — leaving very little in the way of objective journalism. At times different media outlets seem to be reporting from alternate universes. One classic example of this came on 23 December, the day after a nationwide referendum on the new constitution.

Al Ahram, the venerable state-owned flagship daily paper, proclaimed in a front-page headline: “The People Sided With Democracy.” Meanwhile, from across the ideological divide, Al Masry Al Youm — the largest independent daily and Al Ahram’s strongest competitor — covered the same event with the front page headline: “Wholesale Violations.”

The fall of Mubarak and the collapse of his regime’s many restrictions on the media have certainly led to an explosion of new media in Egypt. Immediately after Mubarak’s ousting, a wave of new newspapers and satellite television channels appeared, kicking off a raucous new era of freewheeling expression. Much of the independent media — including several major satellite channels—feature talk shows that are heavily anti-government and anti-Islamist.

We’ve seen the creation of new media stars such as Bassem Youssef — a heart surgeon by training who has become the Egyptian equivalent of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. Youssef started out posting videos on YouTube in the midst of the revolution and immediately drew a huge audience. He now hosts a weekly show called Al Bernamig (The Programme) that has become essential viewing across the country.

In the realm of the state-owned media, the picture is far less encouraging. Critics charge — with some merit — that Morsi and his allies haven’t even tried to reform journalistic standards at state-owned newspapers and television channels; they’ve simply co-opted Mubarak’s old media machine for their own ends. State journalists — who were accustomed to dispensing Mubarak propaganda under the old regime — have smoothly shifted to dispensing Muslim Brotherhood propaganda under the new regime. This is less of a problem at newspapers such as Al-Ahram, which faces stiff competition from independent papers and whose readership is widely believed to be dwindling fast. But the dozens of state-owned television channels continue to hold tremendous sway over a population with a high rate of illiteracy.

Free expression under attack

The government has struggled to maintain a consistent policy on this newly liberated media. Despite proclamations of a new post-Mubarak era of freedom, prosecution of journalists has continued on-and-off since the revolution — both under Morsi and under the military government that immediately followed Mubarak. Most recently, prominent television talk show host Wael al-Ibrashy was interrogated for eight hours and released on LE100,000 bail (about GBP £10,000) on charges of insulting Egypt’s judiciary. And dozens of other journalists have been called in for questioning on similar grounds.

In August, firebrand anti-Islamist television host Tawfiq Okasha was arrested and the channel he owns shut down. His televised rants against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood often verged on incitement to violence and the episode that landed him in jail featured Okasha stopping just short of personally threatening the president.

Aside from the occasional journalist prosecution, there’s a disturbing new trend emerging in the past few months: direct intimidation of and violence against journalists in Egypt. Hazem Abu Ismail — a charismatic ultraconservative Salafist preacher has repeatedly rallied his slightly fanatical followers (known locally as the Hazemoon) against journalists who criticise him. They recently held a noisy several day-long sit-in outside Media Production City — where many of the most popular satellite talk shows are broadcast — openly intimidating the hosts and station employees as they came to work. Even more disturbingly, Abu Ismail’s followers were alleged to have recently attacked the offices of a heavily anti-Islamist opposition newspaper with petrol bombs, though the preacher took to Facebook to deny any involvement.

It’s not just the Islamists who are targeting journalists they dislike. Egypt’s secularist protestors are guilty of the same crime. The anti-Islamist forces absolutely despise the Al-Jazeera satellite news channel, regarding it as completely biased towards the Brotherhood. That antipathy came to a head in late November during a string of violent protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The anti-Islamist protestors firebombed a street-level studio of Al Jazeera Live Egypt — an offshoot Al Jazeera channel devoted to 24/7 Egypt news.

Earlier this year, we learned that there are limits to just how much freedom of expression the Egyptian public is willing to stomach. An amateurish YouTube video trailer for The Innocence Of Muslims, a film that insulted the life and legacy of the Prophet Muhammad touched of a week of angry protests outside the US embassy in Cairo. At one point, a small group of protestors invaded the embassy grounds and took down the US flag. The rage toward the makers of the film was understandable, but the anger directed at the US government was based on a widespread misunderstanding. Many of the protestors were angry at US President Barack Obama for “allowing” the film to be made and not immediately prosecuting those behind it. The protestors here simply didn’t understand or believe that blasphemy is not a crime in the United States and most of Europe.

Indeed there seems to be absolutely no sort of public appetite for that level of freedom of expression. A young and outspoken atheist activist named Alber Saber was arrested and eventually sentenced to three years in prison for allegedly promoting the offensive film on his Facebook page.

15 December: An Egyptian woman votes on the new constitution in Cairo. Sniperphoto Agency | Demotix

An uncertain future for free speech

The country’s new constitution — which was approved in late December by a 63.8 per cent vote in a national referendum — makes it clear that blasphemy will not be considered a freedom of expression issue. Article 44 of the constitution bluntly states that:

Defaming all religious messengers and prophets is prohibited.

But the constitution is far more murky when it comes to safeguarding the rights of journalists. Morsi and his supporters have hailed the document as enshrining unprecedented press freedoms. However an examination of the text reveals some potentially dangerous built-in loopholes to that freedom.

One article on freedom of the press clearly states:

The freedom of the press, printing, publication and mass media is guaranteed … The closure, prohibition or confiscation of media outlets is prohibited except with a court order.

But another article seems to open the door to a very broad interpretation of what exactly constitutes defamation and irresponsible public speech. Under the strangely-worded title of “Dignity and the prohibition against insults,” the article states:

Insulting or showing contempt toward any human being is prohibited.

Even in a healthy political environment, it’s impossible to imagine a free media functioning without somebody getting insulted or shown contempt. But given the absolutely toxic state of the modern Egyptian political playing field, this constitutional paradox seems likely to be tested almost immediately.

Ashraf Khalil is a Cairo-based journalist and author of Liberation Square: Inside the Egyptian Revolution and the Rebirth of a Nation

The post What future for free speech in the new Egypt? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Russia: British artists investigated for extremism and blasphemy appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Sanal Edamaruku is facing up to three years in an Indian jail for telling the truth.

For the past two decades Edamaruku, president of the Indian Rationalist Association, has been spearheading a campaign of de-mystification and public education aimed at undermining the power of the fake gurus and God-men who still wield considerable power in India. In a never-ending series of rationalist roadshows Edamaruku and his merry band of debunkers have traversed India, setting up on street corners in big cities and small towns. On first glance they are no different from the travelling shows of the sadhus and gurus who criss-cross India performing miracles for cash. The rationalists perform a series of these same “miracles” — coconuts crack open and appear to bleed, beds of nails are reclined on, bodies levitated under sheets, flesh pierced without blood. Once the crowd is sufficiently enraptured, the curtain is dropped, and Edamaruku’s team explain that each miracle is a trick, and how that trick is performed. When they pack up, they leave ordinary Indians inoculated against the tan-tricks and supernatural claims of the fakirs, and better informed about basic scientific processes. “What may look like Sunday entertainment for children,” Edamaruku says, “is nothing less than breaking the little hook on which the god-men’s enormous power, and the fate of their victims, hangs.”

In recent years the roadshow has moved into the TV Studio. Edamaruku has become something of a star, the hardest working man in the debunking business – last year he estimates he did 200 appearances.  He is usually called on to pour cold water on supernatural claims. In one famous instance, the “Great Tantra Challenge” of 2008, he challenged the self-styled guru Pandit Surinder Sharma to prove his claim that he was so powerful he could kill with the power of his mind. After several hours of trying to kill Edamaruku he was forced to withdraw, utterly deflated.

Alongside vanquishing charlatans Edamaruku delights in debunking miracles — revealing the mundane scientific processes that lie behind these supposed supernatural events. The statue of Ganesh that actually drinks milk? No, capillary action as the stone dries. The coconut that rolls by itself compelled by mystical force? Nope, there’s a mouse inside. A statue of Christ dripping holy water? Sorry, it’s just a leaky tap.

But this is where the trouble started. Following these last revelations in April this year concerning a “miraculous” weeping statue at the Catholic Church of Our Lady of Velan Kanni in Vile Parle, Mumbai, the debunkees went on the offensive. Various Catholic groups, including the seemingly unironically-named Catholic Secular Forum, acting, apparently, with the tacit support of the Archdiocise of Mumbai, brought a complaint against Edamaruku, under article 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code which functions as a de facto blasphemy law, making “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage of insult religious feelings” an offence punishable by up to 3 years in jail. Letters started to arrive at Edamaruku’s Delhi offices from the Mumbai police demanding that he present himself to answer the allegations. His legal attempt to secure “anticipatory bail” — which would have meant he could be sure to be released after questioning — was turned down. He found himself facing the prospect of being picked up by the police and incarcerated for an indefinite period, pending whatever case was eventually brought. Edamaruku felt he had no option but to leave the country — he is currently staying in Europe and visiting Britain briefly next week (where he will speak at a free event to publicise his case).

However, he is not running from the case. Since the original allegations were made something of a public furore has been ignited in India. The Archbishop of Mumbai has claimed that he was not behind the allegations, and that all could be smoothed over if only Edamaruku issued an apology, something he refuses to do. After all, he says, why should he apologise for telling the truth? More than that he thinks it’s time that India’s blasphemy law — legacy of colonialism, put in place in 1860 to tamp inter-communal strife and ensure a smooth-running Raj – was challenged. He would like to take his case to the Indian Supreme Court and challenge section 295(a) on the basis that it conflicts with provisions in the Indian constitution which protect free speech and promote the scientific temper.

The case could have major consequences, and not just in India. Neighbouring Pakistan also inherited 295(a) from the British, which General Zia l-Huq went about strengthening in the 80s adding sections (b), (c) and (d) which explicitly outlaw blasphemy against the Qur’an and Muhammad, the latter offense carrying a mandatory death sentence. These laws have become a weapon for settling personal scores and furthering the agenda of religious extremism, according to the journalist Beena Sarwar, and there is growing clamour in Pakistan for reform. Edamaruku’s campaign could help bring the issue the public attention and support needed to push through legal reform in both countries.

There is a serious debate to had about whether countries with histories of inter-faith violence do need to protect religions from hate speech. Religious minorities continue to require legal protection from persecution. But can the law be used to protect feelings? Can you legislate against offence without compromising free speech? Hopefully participants in Wednesday’s debate, including the retired judge Stephen Sedley, can kickstart such a debate. What is clear is that in bringing such charges against Sanal Edamaruku, someone articulate, determined and armed with irrefutable scientific facts, these Catholic groups — no doubt cheered on by Sadhus and gurus with lucrative snake-oil careers to protect — have chosen the wrong issue, and the wrong target.

Caspar Melville is editor of New Humanist Magazine. For tickets and details of New Humanist and Index on Censorship’s free event with Sanal Edamaruku, Stephen Sedley and journalist and novelist Salil Tripathi, click here

The post India: Blasphemy backlash appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Polish rocker faces religious offence charge appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Top pianist tried in Turkey for “offensive” tweets appeared first on Index on Censorship.

 Protesters against anti-islamic film at the US Embassy in London (Demotix)

The controversy over “The Innocence Of Muslims” rumbles on, with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah calling on supporters to demonstrate throughout Lebanon this week.

Has this particular incident been different from previous blasphemy rows? In some ways, yes. Perhaps the most interesting was Google’s removal of the video from YouTube Egypt and Libya, independent of any court order. This should be of real concern to anyone concerned with freedom on the web. While Google-owned YouTube is not the only video sharing site, its dominance is such that it can severely restrict free speech should it wish.

To be fair to Google, it has refused requests to block the film in other jurisdictions. Australian Communications Minister Paul Conroy’s request that YouTube consider removing the video was met with a flat rejection. But Google has now left itself open to more demands to remove material, having set a precedent, no matter how exceptional the circumstances.  As Jillian C York of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has written: “…by placing itself in the role of arbiter, Google is now vulnerable to demands from a variety of parties and will have to explain why it sees censorship as the right solution in some cases but not in others.”

This was also the first large scale controversy of this type since the Arab Spring, and many who had been keen to portray the popular uprisings across the Middle East as Islamist coups are using these events as vindication.

Certainly, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, effectively the ruling party, could have handled this much better. Its call for a mass protest on Friday (subsequently recalled as the situation escalated) was inappropriate, and instead the group should have moved to calm the situation, (listen to this BBC radio debate between me and Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Dr Hany Eldeeb) But President Morsi did at least manage to tread the line between criticising the film while condemning the violence.

But if we look at the attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan and the US consulate in Libya, it’s clear that these were launched by groups who would have attacked US interests regardless of the film controversy. There’s a certain amount of truth to the claim that there is more to the protests, riots and attacks than blasphemy alone.

For all that is new, this is a sadly familiar pattern. As with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy, consciously provocative material created in the west was picked by extremists in the Middle East, and used to stoke up anger and anti-Western feeling.

We may now witness the emergence of a new argument for censorship: the traditional hate speech “incitement test” — that there must be a clear link between “words and deeds” — may come under re-examination. Is there a difference between comment published with the intent to incite violence and comment published with the intentional expectation that violence will result?

Padraig Reidy is News Editor at Index on Censorship

The post A new argument for censorship? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Take Two: Islam blasphemy riots now self-fulfilling prophecy

It would be very easy to cast, as many commentators have so far, the latest riots in response to the Islamophobic film The Innocence of Muslims, as another example of intolerant Muslims lacking a funny bone. The Rushdie affair, the Danish cartoons, the murder of Van Gogh — surely the latest saga fits neatly into a pattern of evidence suggesting Muslims are over sensitive and violent. After all, critics will argue, Christians are regularly derided through the arts and media and they don’t go around burning embassies and killing people.  Only the situation is hardly analogous. Muslims perceive this as a dominant majority insulting and humiliating a disgruntled and feeble minority. Ignoring the violent minority, the truth is, the protests and anger across the Arab world are about much more than the usual “free speech” versus “Islam” narrative.

In fact, at the heart of the unrest is a powerful current of anti-Americanism rooted in imperialist policies and bolstered dictatorships.

Firstly, although the film may have been the catalyst for riots, it would be wrong to assume that all the protests have exactly the same cause. The murder of American embassy staff in Libya appears to have been the work of an Al Qaeda fringe which had been plotting the revenge of one its senior leaders and used the protest against the film as a smokescreen for its attack. However there and elsewhere, the anger of the masses has appeared to morph into something much broader – a reflection of anti-American sentiment grounded in America’s historically fraught relationship to the region.

This is hardly the first demonstration of anger against western targets in any of these countries.

For those with a short memory, it was only last month that a pipe bomb exploded outside the US consulate and both the Red cross and other Western aid organisations have come under fire in recent months. It is misguided to think that NATO intervention in support of the rebels against Gaddafi somehow erased deep-seated grievances against the US, not least the sense of humiliation in the Arab world stemming from decades of Western domination. Sure, the west may have helped get rid of Gaddhafi when it was expedient, but for a long time, we traded quite happily with the man whilst he brutally repressed his people. In some cases, we even helped him do it.  A recent Human Rights Watch report, Delivered into Enemy Hands: US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya details the stories of Libyan opposition figures tortured in US-run prisons in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and then delivered back to Libya, with full awareness that they were going to be tortured or possibly killed. Even in the “new Libya”, not all sections of the revolution feel the outcome of the recent elections was truly representative of popular feeling. Not to mention Egypt, where Mubarak, whom Hillary Clinton once described as a “close family friend”, tortured and killed innumerable dissidents in a US-backed dictatorship. To think that the Arab Spring would transform popular opinion concerning the US’s role in the region is ludicrous. And that’s before we even get to Iraq.

Broken by poverty, threatened by drones, caught in the war between al Qaeda and the US, to many Arab Muslims, the film represents an attack on the last shelter of dignity — sacred beliefs —  when all else has been desecrated.

It is no surprise that some of the worst scenes of violence come from Yemen, where US policy has resulted in the deaths of dozens of civilians, fuelling anger against a regime whose brutality and corruption has left the country ranking amongst the poorest in the Arab world. Given that it is also one of the countries where people have the least access to computers and the internet, it is also entirely likely that many protestors never even saw the film. It also seems unlikely anyone believed the film was actually produced by the American government. Though many might have believed the US government could act to restrict the film’s diffusion, censorship being altogether common in many of these countries, the focus on American symbols — embassies, American schools, even KFC — suggests the roots of popular anger are not merely tarnished religious pride.

These symbols of America were not the unwitting target of frustration over a film – rather the film has provided an unwitting focal point for massive and widespread anger at US foreign policy in the region. If the Arab revolutions let the dictators know exactly how people felt about their repression, these demonstrations should be read as equally indicative of popular anguish with the US’s role in the region.

The film is merely the straw that broke the camel’s back — to stand in consternation at the fact a single straw could cripple such a sturdy beast is to be naïve or wilfully blind to the accumulated bales which made the straw so hard to carry.

This is not an attempt to minimise the offence caused by the film — Muhammad is a man whose status in the eyes of many Muslims, cannot be overstated. When your country has been bombed, you’ve lost friends and family, possibly your livelihood and home, dignity is pretty much all you have left.

The producers of the film may have known very little about film-making, but they knew lots about how to cause a stir. Despite its obscure origins, references to an “Israeli” director living in the US, to a “100 Jewish donors” who allegedly provided “5 million dollars”, to a hazy “Coptic network” – all played into a well-known register. When two out of five Arabs live in poverty, a five million dollar insult has more than a slight sting to it.

Those who sought to bring winter to an Arab spring and possibly destabilise a US election, were keenly aware of the impact those words would have, situating the film within on-going tensions between Israel and the Arab world and stirring up the hornet’s nest of minority relations in a region where they remain unsettled.

In a tweet, the Atheist academic Richard Dawkins decried the events by lambasting “these ridiculous hysterical Muslims”. In so doing, he, like others, not only failed to read these events for what they are — political protests against US meddling, but he also failed to recognise the basic humanity of the protestors. To dismiss deep anger as mere hysteria is to diminish to decades of oppression experienced by many Muslims, particularly in the Arab world, often with US complicity.

If you deny any relationship between the systematic discrimination of Muslims and stigmatisation of Islam and the overreaction of the Muslim community to offensive jokes, or films, or cartoons, then you are only left with essentialist explanations of Muslim hysteria and violence. These protests aren’t about a film — they’re about the totality of ways in which Muslims have felt humiliated over decades. The actions of a virulent fringe shouldn’t overshadow the peaceful majority, nor should it impede our ability to recognise the message of frustration and humiliation coming from the Arab and Muslim world.

Reporting on these “clashes of culture” as somehow indicative of Islam’s essential incompatibility with the West conveniently omits the realities of Muslim oppression global. Before we start searching for the nebulous network behind the film, or the reasons why “Muslims are so prone to getting offended”, we would do better to actually consider the conditions that have contributed to rendering the mass dehumanisation of particular group of people socially unobjectionable and do well to remember that the right to protest is just as central to the concept of free speech, as the right to make offensive movies.

Myriam Francois-Cerrah is a writer, journalist and Postgraduate researcher at Oxford University. A version of this piece appeared on Myriam’s blog. 

Also read:

Kenan Malik on The Satanic Verses and free speech and Why free expression is now seen as an enemy of liberty

Sara Yasin on France, Charlie Hebdo and the meaning of Mohammed

When we succumb to notions of religious offence, we stifle debate, writes Salil Tripathi

Sherry Jones on why UK distributors refused to handle her book The Jewel of Medina

The post Film protests about much more than religion appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Indonesia: Shia cleric jailed for blasphemy appeared first on Index on Censorship.