A year ago today, mass protests took place at the now demolished Pearl Roundabout in the Bahrain capital, Manama. This year protesters have been attempting to return to the square where, for a month last year, thousands gathered to call for change. Protesters documented their failed attempts to reach the roundabout on 12 February, when a march to the symbolic square was quickly crushed by security forces. Clashes have escalated in the lead up to the anniversary of Bahrain’s mass protests, which has now claimed at least 60 lives.
During the attempt to return to the roundabout on Sunday, activist and prolific Twitter user, Zainab Al-Khawaja was arrested by security forces, having previously been arrested and released on bail in December. According to her sister Maryam Al-Khawaja, head of foreign relations for the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, Zainab was detained on charges of “illegal gathering” and “disturbing the peace”. She will be in prison for the 14 February protests, like her father, who is currently serving a life sentence for his participation in protests last year.
Still, protesters are determined to return to the heavily monitored square. Last night, hundreds were dispersed through the use of tear gas by officials.
Prominent human rights activist and director of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, Nabeel Rajab, said that he was taking his family to the roundabout to remind the government that they have “legitimate demands”, to “give people strength” and to show the commitment of leaders:
This week the departure lounge at Bahrain’s airport seems to be full of people who were turned back at the passport desk without being allowed into the country. The authorities are incredibly sensitive about who’s going to see what and report what during the days around the 14 February anniversary of last year’s mass protests.
Bob Naiman, an American who was refused entry a couple of days ago, said that groups of British and Spanish business people were among the human rights observers and journalists being shut out. I didn’t get that far myself this time. I’d planned to go to Bahrain at the end of January, but a week before I was going to leave I received the dreaded letter telling me not to bother, that I should wait until March before I tried to get into Bahrain, when a committee set up to implement reforms would have done its work.
The week before Rick Sollom from Physicians for Human Rights was turned away when he landed in Bahrain. Authorities told him that “all government officials are under tremendous work pressure” and that he should come back after the end of February when a trip would be “more beneficial.” Then last week some journalists were allowed visas to enter and others weren’t, notably Nick Kristof of the New York Times, whose brilliant coverage of Bahrain has made him persona non grata with the regime.
These are stiff reminders that the Bahraini government should be judged on its actions, not its words. Denying (rather, “delaying”) access to human rights organisations is a hallmark of repressive regimes. Bahrain already ticked many of those boxes in 2011. Mass arrests? Check. Torture? Check? Deaths in custody? Check. Shootings of civilians? Unfair trials? Attacks on places of worship? Targeting of peaceful dissidents? Check, check, check, check.
Of course Bahrainis are more than capable of reporting what happens and distributing it everywhere, which makes the attempts to restrict access all the more farcical. Bahraini activists and journalists are among the most tech-savvy in the world, and events are being relayed at the speed of Twitter both day and night. So why Bahrain thinks it’s a good PR move to keep prominent international human rights organisations and journalists out is anyone’s guess. No-one really benefits from this — we don’t get in, and the Bahraini government looks bad. The only winner is the coffee shop in the departure lounge.
In early February, Carmarthenshire county council confirmed that its chief executive Mark James will sue local blogger Jacqui Thompson for libel. The decision was made by the council’s executive board, and indemnifies James from the costs associated with the legal action.
The same local authority that is switching off 5,000 street lights as a result of cuts to its central government grant is pursuing a libel action that is likely to cost a six, maybe even seven, figure sum. The case is symptomatic of a wider trend where local authorities are becoming increasingly intolerant of local bloggers and using their legal, press and even security teams to hit out at vocal critics.
The Carmarthenshire dispute is long-running. It began with a libel action between Kerry and Jacqui Thompson from Llanwrda and the local authority’s director of planning Eifion Bowen, after the couple were sued for circulating defamatory letters, though they were never published in the wider media. The Thompsons apologised to Bowen at a hearing in October 2007, when they were given 12 months to pay legal costs totalling £7,000.
In 2008, the county council controversially changed its constitution so that public money could be used in future libel actions; an FOI request revealed its total legal costs from external organisations (solicitors and counsel) shot up from £364,369 to £711,832.
The legal authority for using public money for libel actions is questionable. The Derbyshire county council v Times Newspapers Ltd judgment of 1993 specifically rules out local authorities from suing for libel. As Lord Keith said in the judgment: “It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism”.
This ruling was derived in part from earlier case law, which asserts the fundamental importance in a democracy of citizens being able to express their views — even offensive or distressing views — about their government, at national or local level.
While elected members and officers can use local authority funds to defend themselves if sued for libel in the course of their duties under the 2004 Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) parliamentary order, it specifically does not allow members to bring actions as claimants. And though Derbyshire specifically rules out local authorities and elected members suing for libel, it is less clear on councils funding libel actions brought by individual officers.
Wesley O’Brien, a solicitor at Bevan Brittan, pointed out in Local Government Lawyer magazine that local authorities can fund a claim brought by an individual officer and assist them if it can justify this expenditure. He said: “As the law currently stands, a local authority can fund a claim brought by an individual officer [council staff member] and it can also assist an officer in defending such a claim, where it considers such public expenditure to be justified.
“The position is, however, different for members where a local authority is only entitled to fund a defence, but not a claim … the only condition is that the statements made must refer to and be defamatory of the individual concerned.”
This isn’t the only case where taxpayer-funded local authorities are using their resources to take on vocal critics.
South Tyneside council, while making £35m worth of cuts in its 2010-11 budget, has admitted to Index on Censorship that it has used in excess of £75,000 worth of public money to launch a legal action by the council’s leader Iain Malcolm, fellow Labour councillor Ann Walsh and independent David Potts, alongside borough regeneration boss Rick O’Farrell.
Originally, South Tyneside told us that total case costs would not rise about £75,000, but the council has since admitted costs have rocketed into six figures. “The legal costs of this case have passed the £75,000 as a result of additional costs incurred to defend an ‘anti-Slapp’ motion … our American lawyers have advised that these costs total $64,370 and they have submitted a claim for this amount to the court in California. We are advised that the claim will be considered by the court at a hearing in February 2012,” it explained.
South Tyneside’s constitution requires cabinet sign-off for items over £75,000 – which of course creates a direct conflict of interest as Malcolm is a claimant in the case. However, the press office declares cabinet sign-off is not required.
As the case is being pursued in the Californian courts, it seems that the Derbyshire principle does not apply. But the council would find it hard to argue in the English courts that funding a case brought by an elected member did not breach either the Derbyshire principle, or the 2004 parliamentary order, leading to serious questions as to why the legal action has been taken.
These troubling recent cases, demonstrate the need to include a prohibition on all public bodies from suing for libel, as recommended by the Libel Reform Campaign, a coalition of Index on Censorship withEnglish Pen and Sense About Science. The government is currently considering including the draft defamation bill in the next Queen’s speech, with thousands across the country writing to MPs to urge them to do so. If it does, ensuring that the resources of public bodies cannot be brought to bear against vocal opposition should be a serious priority.
Local authorities that open up access to information and learn from their critics will in the long-run build trust with their citizens. Councils that use public money to silence local voters are on a hiding to nothing — thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we know what they’re spending, and how their decisions are being made. The old control impulse is strong, but it’s hard to justify to taxpayers in South Tyneside that their money is being thrown at lawyers in a Californian court so one councillor can sue another.
I worked in higher education in Bahrain at the College of Arts, University of Bahrain from 2007-2008, and at Bahrain Teachers College, University of Bahrain — founded in 2008 as a key part of the Crown Prince’s “Bahrain 2030 Vision” from 2008-2011 — where I was Academic Head of Continuing Professional Development, and was closely involved in the start-up of the college. The last time I set foot there was 13March 2011, when I bore witness to an attack on a peaceful anti-government protest by armed outsiders, followed by a general melee involving pro- and anti-government supporters, the latter backed up by the riot police. I sent testimony and supporting evidence based on what I witnessed to the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI).
The University of Bahrain, Bahrain Teachers College, and Bahrain Polytechnic have effectively lost whatever autonomy they once had from the Bahrain Ministry of Education, and are now an extension of the regime. The Bahrain Ministry of Education is deeply complicit in repression. From mid-2010 onwards, I witnessed the toxic effects of institutionalised sectarianism, the suppression of academic freedom and the violation of civil and human rights at the University of Bahrain. These continue to this day.
The University of Bahrain refused to accept my May 2011 resignation, thereby depriving me of a substantial settlement, citing surveillance of my Internet use to invoke contract clauses against “unauthorised political activity” and “promoting sectarianism”. My wife and I are now prohibited from re-entering Bahrain.
In December 2011 the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) presented its Academic Freedom Award to:
…all faculty, students and staff of Bahraini institutions of higher education who, by speaking out, documenting abuses, and engaging in myriad other forms of resistance have struggled against a range of brutal assaults by the Bahraini government upon academic freedom and upon the autonomy and integrity of the country’s educational institutions.
On 20 September 2011 MESA wrote its third letter of 2011 to Dr Majed Al Noaimi, the Bahrain Minister of Education, to express its “serious concern over the ongoing assaults, arrests, and dismissals of individuals connected to academic institutions in Bahrain”
On 27 November 2011 The Chronicle of Higher Education reported “…attacks on academic freedom, including the dismissals of professors and students for participating in political demonstrations last spring”, while on the 16 May it reported that the University of Bahrain was ” requiring students to sign pledges of support for the government of King Hamed ibn Isa Khalifa”.
When these abuses were pointed out to the University of Edinburgh in early 2012, it pulled out of a proposed deal with the Ministry of Education. Rector-elect at the University of Edinburgh Peter McColl e-mailed me on 26 January, saying “I share your concerns” and Edinburgh University Student Association President Matthew McPherson wrote a handwritten letter to me on 27 January stating: “The student body at Edinburgh shares your concerns, and I am glad the University has decided to withdraw the agreement in question”.
Finally, Edinburgh University’s Principal wrote to me on 30 January saying: “Your letter was of interest and I note your personal experience and the important information it contained. I am in a position to confirm that the University of Edinburgh will not proceed with the work in question.”
University internationalisation is fast becoming and important revenue stream for cash-strapped UK universities. More positively, it leads to the internationalization of curricula, and a globalised learning environment for all students. Governments are also keen to use quality higher education institutions as a means of projecting “soft power”. However, to be sustainable, internationalisation has to have an ethical dimension if such relationships are not to be used as PR to legitimise oppressive regimes. The University of Edinburgh withdrawal is important, since now other UK universities contemplating involvement with Bahrain will have to follow Edinburgh’s lead, or explain why they have a different set of ethical standards.
The ball is now in Bahrain’s court. If it wants real higher education reform, the deeper crises of political legitimacy, representation, human rights and equality of opportunity will have to be addressed first. A tree that has been planted in unprepared soil will die.
Mike Diboll is former head of Professional Development at the Bahrain Teacher’s College, with an interest in education and the Middle East. He tweets at @MikeDiboll
