Despite the criticism, the draft law — which was prepared by the Islamist-dominated Shura Council’s Human Development Committee — has been given preliminary approval by the Council, the upper house of Egypt’s parliament endowed with legislative powers until the election of a new People’s Assembly or lower house.

Egypt’s government is considering a draft NGO law. Photo: Shutterstock

If passed, the legislation would put the 13,000 or so local and international NGOs operating in Egypt under full government control, requiring security agencies to grant them licenses and monitor their funding. According to the draft law, a committee comprising members of the Interior Ministry and Egypt’s National Security Agency would decide whether NGOs may or may not receive funding from abroad. Furthermore, those allowed foreign funding would not have direct access to the money as transfers would get deposited in a government bank account, ensuring that all transactions take place under close government scrutiny. NGOs would also need the committee’s permission to transfer funds abroad and would be barred from conducting surveys and from profiting from their organization’s activities.
　
Rights groups and campaigners have decried the draft legislation, arguing that it is even more restrictive than the current Mubarak-era Law 84 (issued in 2002) which was designed to limit and control the operations of NGOs. The draft law would severely hamper the work of NGOs, they say.

“The draft law would make it almost impossible for NGOs to operate in Egypt,” lamented Heba Morayef, director of Human Rights Watch, Egypt in comments published in state-sponsored daily al-Ahram.

Freedom House, a U.S.-based NGO working to promote democracy and human rights has also expressed deep concern over the draft legislation, stating “that the proposed bill would radically restrict the space for local and international NGOs working on issues of human rights and democracy.” It called on the Egyptian government to demonstrate its commitment to democratic reform by replacing the current draft law with one that promotes freedom of association.

“The legislation blatantly contradicts the Egyptian government’s stated goal of moving the country toward democracy,” Freedom House President David Kramer said in a statement posted on the NGO’s website. He also urged the international community to link political and financial support for Egypt with the Egyptian government’s actions to advance progress toward democracy.

Lawmakers and some members of the liberal opposition have defended the bill, however, arguing that it was “necessary to protect Egypt’s national security interests. ”

“Some of the NGOs are undercover espionage cells secretly promoting a US-Israeli agenda”, Nagi El-Shehabi, a member of the Generation Party has been quoted by al Ahram as saying.

The allegations echo similar accusations made last year by then-Minister of International Cooperation Fayza Aboul Naga against foreign-funded non-profit organizations working to promote democracy and human rights in Egypt. Aboul Naga had claimed that the pro-democracy organizations were working “to spread chaos in the country”. Her remarks came after a vicious crackdown on NGOs — both local and foreign, including Freedom House by security forces. In December 2011, security raids were conducted on 17 NGO offices and hundreds of their staffers were threatened with investigations. Meanwhile five mostly-US funded NGOs working to promote human rights and democracy were accused of “receiving illegal funding from foreign governments, including the US ” and of “operating in Egypt without a license”–charges that were denied by the NGOs.

Forty-three NGO workers were prosecuted including 17 foreign nationals who left the country some weeks later, save for one defendant who chose to remain and face trial. A verdict in the landmark case is expected on June 4, 2013. While state-run media lambasted the NGOs, accusing them of plotting to divide the country and threatening Egypt’s national security, rights campaigners insisted that the widely-publicized NGO case “was politically motivated”. Bahieddin Hassan, Director of the Cairo Centre for Human Rights Studies, meanwhile suggested that the foreign NGOs were attacked “to intimidate local NGOs and undermine their work.”

The chilling NGO court case also succeeded in fueling suspicions among an already skeptical public of foreign organizations operating in the country, consolidating the government’s view that the NGOs’ activities were tantamount to “foreign interference in the country’s internal affairs”. The trial of the pro-democracy activists (which has dragged on since), meanwhile coincided with public service announcements that were broadcast on Egyptian TV channels, warning citizens against talking to foreigners “because they might be spies.” Although the TV spots were quickly removed after fierce denunciations by critics that they were “fueling xenophobia”, they unleashed a wave of angry attacks by demonstrators on tourists and foreign journalists covering protests against military rule during the country’s turbulent transitional period.

Meanwhile, Essam El Erian, a former Presidential advisor and a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, FJP, has lauded the draft law as “an attempt to curb corruption promoted by some international NGOs.”

“Some of the money given by the US to those NGOs has gone to spreading corruption in the country,” he said, adding that the bill would ensure “greater transparency of NGOs’ activities and funding”.

The storm raised by rights campaigners and NGOs over by the contentious draft legislaion has forced Freedom and Justice Party MPs, who hastily pushed the draft law through at a Shura Council session last week, to back down. After the session during which the draft law was “approved in principle” by lawmakers in parliament, Shura Council Speaker, Ahmed Fahmy — a Muslim Brotherhood member — affirmed that “the Council was still willing to review an alternative NGO law drafted by the government”.

Although no details have yet been released about the government-drafted law, rights groups and activists hope that the alternative legislation — which MPs have promised to discuss in parliament “within days” — will be free from the restrictions and tight control on funding and licensing that threaten to cripple Egypt’s civil society (if the MPs draft law is passed).

“We want an NGO law that would empower civil society organizations contribute to the development of this country not one that undermines their work”, Omar El-Sharif, Deputy Justice Minister, told a parliamentary session last week. Many are holding their breath.

See more coverage: Shahira Amin | Egypt

The post Egypt’s draft NGO law draws fierce criticism appeared first on Index on Censorship.

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.

The post Egyptian activists counter ‘state media propaganda lies’ appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Sir Hugh was pipped at the post in 2011 as a candidate to be the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, by Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. Some suggest Sir Hugh’s blunt style may have cost him political support — though he is often labelled the police’s favourite police officer.

Sporting a pink striped tie against a blue striped shirt, Sir Hugh is welcoming, friendly and loquacious in his rather austere office just up the road from Scotland Yard in central London. And as we talk, he is indeed blunt. Some of his comments have a hard edge and he gives the impression of a man who takes no hostages but has a sharp political sense.

Sir Hugh describes ACPO as “the glue that holds national policing together”. From briefing newly elected police commissioners to coordinating national police responses to terrorist threats, it is a wide and demanding brief, not least as chief constables all volunteer, on top of their day job, to lead different areas for ACPO where national coordination is needed. As Sir Hugh told the Leveson Inquiry: “In the absence of a federal model of policing [ACPO] provides a voluntary structure to secure national agreements.”

Human rights and free speech

In the UK, the police are, in theory, part of a system that defends our individual and collective human rights — including the right to free speech, and the freedom of assembly and association. Yet the police’s commitments to human rights in practice is, inevitably questioned as real life events unfold. Meanwhile, parts of the British media and frequently suggest our human rights laws and commitments are undermining common sense policing and democratic decision-making, or risking our security.

Sir Hugh is clear and liberal-sounding on the overarching principle. Free expression and human rights are, he insists, “a function of good policing…human rights are not an impediment to effective policing.”

But there’s a hard underpinning to this view: “Those who want cheap tilts at the Human Rights Act paint it as an impediment; it’s the opposite. We use lethal force — compliant with article two — so it’s flawed to say it’s an impediment.” Article two sets out the right to life, but also allows police to use no more force than “absolutely necessary” to arrest someone or in tackling a riot. This can cover cases where deaths occur. Sir Hugh’s is not a soft defence of the Human Rights Act.

Nor does he see security and police openness in providing information necessarily as trade-offs: “The biggest national threats without question are cybercrime and terrorism” he says. But he thinks transparency, as far as possible, is part of tackling these threats “so you only don’t talk [about them] if you absolutely can’t.”

The harder challenge in policing free expression is where there may be calls to constrain free speech or the right to protest. There are a number of laws that give police the option or even the requirement to step in — some, such as section 5 of the Public Order Act are broadly phrased and mean the police have a lot of leeway (although ‘insulting’ language is now to be taken out of the Act).  Sir Hugh admits frankly that where and whether to constrain rights can be a “nightmare – the first default is to call the police”. He  underlines the importance of discretion in policing and argues “cops tolerate a lot”. He adds: “if we enforced everything, there would be no cops on the streets.”

Having faced the challenges in Northern Ireland of how to manage the right to protest in the face of major community tensions, Sir Hugh is clear that these rights are not absolute: “These are conditional rights not unconditional rights — you can’t just ride roughshod over others….you have to manage that very difficult territory.” When pushed he admits that the tactic of kettling “is pretty hard edged” but adds: “We have used containment in football stadium for decades, and no one complained.”

Public sensitivity to offence is, Sir Hugh thinks, on the rise not least in the context of some recent high profile prosecutions of ‘offensive’ speech on social media: “The expectation of citizens that the police will act if they are insulted has increased, especially if it’s personal and hurtful.” He thinks the interim guidelines issued last December by the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, which aim to rein in the number of such prosecutions, will be “helpful” and does not want police time taken up policing “every insulting comment.”

But laws, he insists, are the realm of government: “We don‘t lobby” he says. “We act on laws as the government creates them.”

He says frontline officers “have never been so well trained” and do understand their responsibilities in defending and protecting human rights, and using discretion and judgement. But he thinks “with 20 per cent cuts, training tends to go” – and describes the cuts facing the police as their “biggest challenge”.

Costs can be a key issue for free expression; if there’s a major protest against a play or an exhibition, the policing that may be needed isn’t necessarily provided free. But should we have to pay to have our human rights defended? “As a chief constable” says Sir Hugh “I’d be prepared to have a conversation about it. But it’s not necessarily wrong for someone dealing with a commercial event to make a contribution if others are put at risk because we shift resources.” We have to balance, he says, the human rights principles of the right to be protected with ever more limited resources.

Police and the Press

Sir Hugh is clearly pleased with the findings of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry that there were some wrong judgements and decisions by police but no pervasive corruption or lack of integrity. He bristles slightly at the suggestion Leveson let the police off lightly, saying Leveson is a judge who “follows evidence and there is none to leap from individual actions to root and branch failure to police media relations.”

He also argues that most police-media relations have been for the most part unproblematic: “A lot of cops gave evidence to Leveson and the vast majority described an utterly proper professional relationship with the press…and meeting to discuss over tea or a pint of beer is OK, proper and proportionate.” He is not concerned with Leveson’s suggestion that there shouldn’t be off the record briefings: “I think it [‘off the record’] became misunderstood as secret, clandestine, and Leveson was trying to take the heat out of it.” But he insists that there will be briefings that are not for the public or for background context.

He has some sharp words for the press too, emphasising the difference in public trust ratings for police compared to journalists. “If you look at the polls…you see the public feel quite powerless.” The police, he says, deal with victims, such as “people dealing with massive grief and utterly unused to the media” and if there is a public interest in intrusion that is, he thinks, for journalists to justify. But if media behaviour is “horrendous, unfair, then the public must have a right to complain.”

In the end, Sir Hugh thinks the United Kingdom is doing OK compared to other countries in the world: “If you walk outside and talk on the street corner you are very unlikely to get arrested —- isn’t that the point?” The British model, he believes, is built around tolerance, “though that’s not to say sometimes there is not a hard edge.”

Tolerance with a hard edge — perhaps a good summary of Sir Hugh’s approach to policing our rights. But where that hard edge is placed and how it is interpreted on the ground will continue to be a central question for whether free expression and other rights are adequately defended by the police.

 Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship

The post “Human rights are not an impediment to effective policing” appeared first on Index on Censorship.

When confronted with the facts of its own brutal crackdown on popular protests and human rights defenders, Bahraini officials usually stick to a routine. They hide behind tired lines of denial and hype supposed reforms. The actual situation on the ground continues to deteriorate — and inaction from the international community has emboldened the government. Most astounding is the silence from one of Bahrain’s greatest allies: the United Kingdom.

The UK government has made countless pledges to push on Bahrain to implement supposed reforms, but has yet to push forcefully on its partner where it counts. Almost a year after the Bahraini government publicly accepted the grim picture of human rights painted in the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry report and its recommendations, the country continues to perpetuate flagrant human rights violations.

It is more important than ever for the United Kingdom’s legislators to question Britain’s relationship with Bahrain — and to place pressure on the government to demand real reform. Bahraini officials like Nasser Bin Hamad Al Khalifa, who was a VIP guest at the London Olympics despite the numerous allegations he tortured protesters, should be shunned by British mandarins. UK legislators must also push on Bahrain to follow through on promises of transparency and accountability; many of those involved in the crimes committed in the past year and half, have either remained in their positions or been promoted.

The United Kingdom’s silence places it in danger of being seen as complicit in Bahrain’s human rights abuses, particularly when the UK has a direct method of influencing Bahrain: through its economic relationship. If it doesn’t halt arms sales, the United Kingdom is ostensibly giving permission to the Bahraini government to violently silence its people. A serious commitment to human rights from the United Kingdom means that a serious conversation about economic and diplomatic sanctions is necessary and important to do.

Political prisoners jailed on trumped up charges need the United Kingdom to press on its friend on the international stage. It is shameful that the UK and the US refused to sign onto a joint-statement issued by 27 countries this year, condemning human rights violations. Despite damning evidence that continues to mount both countries have been shamefully silent on this topic — and this must change.

This isn’t about regime change, or a chaotic dialogue about political reform. It is about something very simple: human rights. Silence from such an important trade partner spells out permission, casting a shadow on the UK’s commitment to free expression and human rights. Bahrainis have started saying that the UK and USA are to Bahrain what Russia is to Syria — enablers.

Maryam al-Khawaja is acting President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights Deputy Director of the Gulf Center for Human Rights. Twitter @MARYAMALKHAWAJA

The post Bahrain is Britain’s shame appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Both resolutions were connected with long-awaited reports by PACE rapporteurs, and both contained recommendations from the body to the Azerbaijani authorities to improve the human rights situation in the country. PACE’s split approach to the two resolutions was the result of a carefully crafted lobbying strategy by the Azerbaijani delegation, which supported the somewhat-critical first resolution and the monitoring report on Azerbaijan — using it to make the second resolution on the more sensitive issue of political prisoners look both biased and unnecessary.

International and Azerbaijani rights groups viewed the defeat of the political prisoner resolution as deeply disappointing — particularly to those unjustly behind bars in the country who had high hopes pinned to its passage – and as a failure by the Council of Europe to hold Azerbaijan accountable for its obligations as a member state. The vote also has dangerous implications for the future of member states’ cooperation with PACE rapporteurs, as the body turned a blind eye to the Azerbaijani authorities’ refusal to issue a visa to Christoph Straesser, PACE’s special rapporteur for political prisoners in Azerbaijan — a fact that was then used to undermine the report’s credibility.

As Human Rights House Foundation Executive Director Maria Dahle emphasised in a press conference following the vote, the fact that the resolution did not pass does not mean that there are not political prisoners in Azerbaijan. Although it is true — as pointed out by opponents during the debate on the resolution — that many of the alleged political prisoners included in the original report have since been released, there have been new cases in their wake, as outlined in the report’s addendum, which many of the speakers who took the floor during the debate seemed to have not read. The real problem is the lack of political will of the authorities to improve the freedom of expression situation in the country, allowing for continued persecution of those who express critical opinions.

Indeed, there are a number of cases of journalists, human rights defenders, and activists currently in prison or detention in connection with exercising their right to freedom of expression, including Ilham Amiraslanov, Vugar Gonagov, Zaur Guliyev, Hilal Mammadov, Faramaz Novruzoglu and Avaz Zeynalli. Dayanat Babayev, Ogtay Gulaliyev, and Mehman Huseynov also face jail-time if convicted of politically motivated charges of hooliganism.

In failing to support the political prisoner resolution, PACE failed to take a stand on human rights and freedom of expression in Azerbaijan at a pivotal moment for the country’s relations with the Council of Europe. But all is not lost. As pointed out by UK MP Christopher Chope during the debate on the resolution, Straesser’s work has already resulted in the release of many persons he identified as potential cases of political prisoners and it also ensured that the monitoring report contained language on political prisoners.

PACE should use all available mechanisms to hold Azerbaijan — and indeed all member states — accountable for their Council of Europe obligations. The monitoring report contains important recommendations on human rights and freedom of expression issues, such as ending prosecution of those who express critical opinions and effectively investigating all cases of attacks against journalists and bringing the perpetrators to justice – including the murders of Elmar Huseynov and Rafiq Tagi. Failure to follow up on these and other key recommendations will serve to further damage the Council of Europe’s already weakening image as a body that promotes and protects human rights.

Rebecca Vincent is a freelance human rights consultant and an expert on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan

Index on Censorship and Crow Hill Films invite you to a screening of Amazing Azerbaijan! followed by a discussion on Azerbaijan and human rights on 30 January.

The post Have Europe’s politicians failed Azerbaijan? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Iranian blogger detained for criticising regime dies in custody appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Most international observers would agree with the UK Foreign Affairs Committee’s conclusion that the Foreign Office should have listed the Gulf island Kingdom of Bahrain as a “country of concern” more than a year ago. Since February 2011 and the start of protests against state corruption and discrimination against Bahrain’s Shia majority populace, the government has driven a fierce crackdown on protesters, bloggers, civil society leaders and ordinary citizens caught up in the crisis.

Instead the country was left off the list, reflecting Britain’s significant business commitments in the country and the desire of some in Whitehall to treat Bahrain as a “country of un-concern” when the UK’s commitment to human rights is tested there. The MPs were diplomatic, finding it “difficult” to discern “any consistency of logic” in the UK government’s response to boycott calls around 2012’s European Championship games in Ukraine but avoiding taking a position on similar calls around the Bahrain Grand Prix.

The issue is not a consistency of logic, but a consistency of oil, and in particular the government’s unwillingness to antagonise Bahrain’s strongest ally, Saudi Arabia, which has warned the UK off from “interference in the workings” of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) alliance, which comprises Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Oman.

Index on Censorship continues to protest the denial of freedom of expression in the country. Bahrain’s media is severely controlled, and its public attacks on human rights defenders are directly or indirectly coordinated by the government. The regime wields a 2002 press law that allows prison sentences for critics of the regime and Article 246 of the country’s penal code which blocks reporting on the current round of arrests.

Several websites have been forcibly shut down or banned, including the pro-democracy site Bahrain Online, founded by rights activist and blogger Ali Abdulemam. Bahrain’s cyber defamation laws — which include the publication of “fake news” — were revised in September, resulting in heavier monitoring of social media networks to tackle the “misuse” of such platforms. Index award winner Nabeel Rajab of the Bahrain Human Rights Center is currently appealing a three-year sentence for organising pro-democracy rallies via social networks.

On Wednesday the country’s Interior Ministry announced the arrest of four people for defaming public figures on social media. A fifth is still sought. The ministry said that the suspects confessed to their crime, which could result in a jail sentence of up to five years. The claim of “confessions” rings an immediate alarm bell. Many suspects have been tortured to extract “confessions” on fabricated charges, later admitted as evidence in court in contravention of international law.

Bahrain uses military courts to try civilians, and continues to sentence them to jail time way out of proportion to the supposed offence. Suspects are routinely ill-treated in detention, held incommunicado and denied access to family and lawyers. All of this has been documented in detail by an independent commission of inquiry set up by the King of Bahrain in July 2011, which reported it in November. Described as a “substantial and respected report”, by UK MPs, it found clear evidence of torture and of physical and psychological abuse of detainees.

Yet the abuses go on. In one of several reports of general human rights abuse recorded by Index in recent months, five medics were arrested in dawn raids on 2 October, just a day after the nation’s highest court upheld their prison sentences in a case international rights groups have condemned as politically motivated.

The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) report should be acted on. It called for, among other things, the founding of an independent and impartial Bahraini national commission to follow up and implement the BICIs recommendations. The commission was founded as asked, but its members were selected by the King leaving its independence and impartiality in doubt, but its ineffectiveness unchallengable.

The BICI also called on Bahrain to reopen the cases taken to military trial. It also sought for all convictions and sentences by the National Security Courts, where fundamental principles of a fair trial had not been respected, to be subject to review in civilian courts. Such action would only be a start at finally addressing the long list of rights abuses in Bahrain.

Index CEO Kirsty Hughes has said: “The government has been inconsistent in its approach to uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. With Bahrain, it has allowed business interests to override human rights concerns and not put sufficient pressure on the Bahrain government to reform.’”

The UK needs to get its priorities straight and put Bahrani blood before oil.

Rohan Jayasekera is Associate Editor and Deputy Chief Executive of Index on Censorship

The post Britain should not put Saudi oil before Bahraini blood appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Bahrain medics arrested in dawn raids appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Bahrain medics to remain in jail after appeal refused appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Bahrain activist jailed for tearing up picture of king appeared first on Index on Censorship.