Egypt and China have always ranked poorly on press freedom. In 2013, Egypt ranked 158th while China ranked 173rd out of 178 nations in Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index. In recent months, a government crackdown on free expression in the two countries has shown disturbing similarities with repressive tactics used by the two regimes to silence dissent being invariably the same.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I was struck by how the authorities in both Egypt and China persistently use the media to serve their own interests and to tighten their grip on power. In both countries, opinion leaders, rights activists and critics who challenge those in power are perceived as “a national threat” and often become targets of intimidation, physical assaults, detention and sometimes, even death. The predicament of some journalists and bloggers in the two countries serves as a chilling reminder of the hazards media workers are subjected to as they strive to tell the story.
Thanks to heavy internet censorship in China — including the blacklisting of a host of foreign websites — the country has been described by free speech advocates as “a world leader in repression of the internet”. A draconian campaign against online “rumourmongers” has recently fuelled fears of even tighter government control on social media and online expression and increased self-censorship in China.
The so-called “anti rumour” campaign unveiled on 9 September allows Chinese authorities to arrest and jail internet users accused of “spreading false rumours” for up to three years. The ruling applies to internet activists who deliberately post what the government perceives as “false information” which is then shared by at least 500 others or is viewed at least 5,000 times. Critics warn the campaign will give the government an excuse to crush rights activists, bloggers and independent news providers who challenge the authorities or report abuses by the government as well as those demanding greater freedom and democracy.
In a widening crackdown on free expression in recent weeks , China has seen sweeping arrests of government critics, rights activists and opinion leaders accused of “disturbing public order”. While many of them remain in custody, 16-year-old Yang Hui–a school student who had been among the first group of bloggers jailed on charges of “spreading online rumours”– was released late September after spending a week behind bars in Gansu province. He remains under police surveillance however, and has been prohibited from speaking publicly. Yang was detained after questioning an investigation into the death of a man whose body had been found outside a karaoke club. Police had claimed that the man had fallen to his death from the building and had closed the case, but Yang insisted that the case should have been probed further. Moreover, he had posted comments daring the authorities to arrest him.
Repressive measures to silence dissent are not peculiar to the Chinese government. In recent days, a leaked video posted by activists on YouTube has shown Egyptian military generals discussing plans for a media clampdown similar to that imposed by the Chinese authorities . The footage — which appears to have been shot some months before Islamist President Mohamed Morsi was toppled: The video shows officers wearing winter uniforms — shows Defense Minister Abdel Fattah El Sissi addressing the officers . The recording starts with a senior officer urging El Sissi to re-establish red lines for the media and find new ways of “neutralizing media outlets”. He also calls on El Sissi to engage with owners of media outlets directly. “There are twenty to twenty five people controlling the media in Egypt, ” the senior officer notes. “We could either win them over or terrorize them”, he adds. El Sissi jokingly responds that he knows how to win them over but asks how he could possibly terrorize them?
That however does not rule out plans by the military generals to control the media. El Sissi acknowleges in the video that “we have been concerned with controlling the media” since the army took over power in February 2011. He goes on to affirm that the military was working on doing so and was achieving positive results but “we are yet to achieve what we want”, he says.
Since Morsi’s ouster, the tone of Egyptian media has shifted, reflecting the interests of those now in power. Print journalists and TV talk show hosts have persistently cheered on the powerful armed forces as “the guardians of the revolution” while demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a ” terrorist organization”.
Meanwhile, the military-backed interim government has cracked down on journalists covering the anti coup protests. In recent weeks, several journalists have reported harassment by police and soldiers including physical assaults, molestation, confiscation of their equipment and detentions. Worse still, journalists at the frontlines are getting caught in the crossfire. Mick Deane, a British Sky News cameraman, was shot and killed while covering the violent breakup of a pro- Morsi protest camp in Cairo in August. Egyptian Journalist Habiba Ahmed Abd Elaziz was also shot dead near the Rabaah al-Adawiya mosque in Cairo the very same day as security forces moved in on the pro- Morsi sit-in demanding the reinstatement of the toppled Islamist President. Abu Dra’aa , a Sinai-based journalist working with the independent Al Masry El Youm recently faced a military tribunal for a post on his Facebook wall suggesting that the military was misinforming the public about its offensive in Sinai. He was handed a six month suspended jail sentence. A number of other journalists including several working for Al Jazeera (which has been accused of being biased towards the Muslim Brotherhood) remain in custody. Several pro- Muslim Brotherhood channels (including Al Jazeera Mubasher) and Al Faraeen, a private channel owned by controversial talk show host Tawfeek Okasha, have been shut down. While the latter has recently been allowed back on the air, its temporary closure sends a powerful warning message to other channels to “adopt the pro-military state line or risk a similar fate.”
Meanwhile, the military has been using the media to fuel xenophobic sentiment: In remarks to state owned daily Al Ahram,after the brutal massacre outside the Republican Guard Headquarters in July, an unnamed military source warned that “the foreign press is inciting sedition between the army and people. ” With the surge in xenophobic sentiment gripping the country in the aftermath of the June 30 military takeover, foreign correspondents covering the Tahrir rallies commemorating the October 1973 War last Sunday expressed concern on Twitter about possibly being mistaken for “foreign spies”.
“There are rumours of a no-foreigner rule in Tahrir Square today. Can anyone confirm?” asked Louisa Loveluck, a freelance journalist based in Cairo . The BBC’s Middle East Correspondent Quentin Sommerville meanwhile posted a picture of himself near a military tank in Tahrir Square ahead of the protests with the sarcastic byline “foreign spy in Tahrir” before quickly deleting it , possibly for fear it may evoke unwarranted anger.
Nationalistic fervour and a rising tide of xenophobia are characteristics shared by all countries where autocratic regimes use the media to consolidate their grip on power. Egypt and China are no exception to the rule. The muzzling of the press through continued intimidation and the sweeping arrests of journalists, bloggers and rights activists bears testimony to the fact that neither country is serious about carrying out the desired democratic reforms.
The government of Sindh province warned last week it would block Skype, Whatsapp and Viber Tango.
Dr Asha Bedar, a clinical psychologist, looks at the news of a proposed three-month blockade of Skype and WhatsApp in Karachi, with much trepidation. Having recently moved to this southern port city of an estimated 20 million, these apps are almost like a lifeline.
“Like so many others, my family and friends are scattered around the globe. It’s these Skype, Whatsapp etc., that help bridge the distance. We are constantly in touch and able to share our joys and sorrows, ” she said.
The ban on internet chat and telephony apps including Skype, WhatsApp and Viber Tango is to help curb militancy, Sindh province information minister, Sharjeel Memon, said at a news conference last week.
Pakistan’s commercial hub, Karachi, has witnessed much violence in recent years. According to the Citizens-Police Liaison Committee, the city witnessed 2,124 murders last year and 2,058 in the last nine months.
Memon said terrorists had switched from cell phones to these networks which were difficult to trace.
However, the news opened a floodgate of criticism and derision from all strata of society.
“What next? Motorbikes, cars, cell phones, since the terrorists use all of these as well!” wrote Saroop Ijaz, a Lahore based lawyer in the Express Tribune.
Matters only got worse after 25-year old Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, co-chairperson of Sindh province’s ruling Pakistan People’s Party, tweeted: “Dear Burgers [referring derisively to westernized young people] Sorry abt Skype/Viber/Whtsapp. Excuse us while we catch some terrorists and save some lives. SMS for 3 months. Sincerely BBZ”.
“Our right to communicate shouldn’t be a victim to national security,” pointed out Sana Saleem of co-founder Bolo Bhi, a group that campaigns for freedom of speech.
Pakistan is among the bottom ten countries in the annual report — Freedom on the Net 2013 — by the Freedom House, an independent watchdog based in Washington D.C. The report measures internet and digital media freedom in 60 countries. It said Pakistan blocks objectionable content, monitors internet users, lacks adequate connectivity in rural areas and has not done enough to protect users from accusations of blasphemy.
The ban if imposed, even if temporary, can only reflect Pakistan as one of the most restrictive nations in the world for internet use.
The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority has a history of clampdowns. It has banned more than 4,000 websites for what it considers objectionable material, including YouTube, which was blocked last year after a U.S. citizen posted a film was deemed blasphemous by Muslims around the world. In 2011, in a particularly ill-thought-out move it announced censoring text messages containing swear words. In 2010, after a decision by the Lahore High Court, Facebook was blocked as a reaction to the ‘Everybody Draw Muhammad’ page that was seen as offensive to the prophet and in 2009, then interior minister had announced a ban on jokes ridiculing the President Asif Ali Zardari and warned that the Federal Investigation Agency would trace electronically transmitted jokes under the Cyber Crimes Act.
While Saleem says the impending ban reflected a “flawed counterterrorism policy”, sports reporter Faizan Lakahani, working for private television channel, Geo, feels it only showcases that the government “is just not competent in nailing down terrorists”.
Bans to restrict citizen’s freedom were not only futile but counter-productive. The government should use technology to trace out terrorists, instead, Lakahani said.
“The ban on cellular phones in the past has led to disabling of car security and home security systems,” added Saleem. “For every blockage there are dozens of ways to circumvent them. It would be a huge challenge and technology-wise nearly impossible to do a province specific ban.”
But for many like Bedar, the ban could significantly affect work.
“I work from home regularly and keep in touch with my clients. At times due to distance I even do therapy sessions on Skype. In addition, I regularly take up international assignments for which we often hold meetings and discussions via Skype. The ban could potentially affect both my work and efficiency,” she said.
Saleem , who uses Skype regularly for work, would also be affected. “I also use Whatsapp for work. Currently I’m working on short documentary stories on migrant workers and refugees in two different regions. I’ve Whatsapp’ed groups for people I’ve interviewed to keep in touch and to keep them posted once I’m back in Pakistan,” she said.
Many believe it wouldn’t be totally unfounded if the excuse to implement the ban was shaped by the telecommunications companies themselves, as these apps were threatening their revenues. Saleem agrees: “The telecom sector has been widely impacted because of these ad hoc measures”.
The ban has not been put into force because final authority rests with the central government in Islamabad. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had already sounded out his reservations.
“The state has often backtracked from such announcements in the past after public outrage”, Saleem said.
India’s National Integration Council met in the last week of September 2013 to discuss the threat of communal violence in the country. The council, first set up in the early 1960s, gives senior Indian politicians and public leaders a platform to discuss issues that could divide the country along caste, communal, language and regional fault lines. This September, with the backdrop of violent communal clashes that have seen over 50 killed and 40,000 displaced in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sat with some of the Chief Ministers, to discuss how to resolve these issues.
There were early reports that the meeting was going to discuss the ‘misuse’ of social media, as news reports have indicated that the violent clashes in Uttar Pradesh were spurred on by false videos on YouTube. In India, the regulation of social media has been a subject of great controversy. The government has, in the past, used the IT Act’s Section 66(A) to arrest people for irresponsible posts that they claimed could cause ‘communal tension’. However, as the famous case of the Palghar girls demonstrated, many early arrests under this Section were politically motivated. Similarly, while the government has in the past asked social media companies to take down controversial posts, it has been revealed that most of the requests were again to take down criticism against the government.
However, at the same time, social media and MMS (multimedia messages through texts) have indeed been known to cause real damage. Last year, false rumours spread through MMS resulted in the exodus of northeastern migrants from south India, as the threat of violence seemed imminent. At the time, the government had to ban bulk text messaging, and ultimately restricted messages to 5 a day to curb any more rumours. Meanwhile, with global violence in the aftermath of the YouTube video, The Innocence of Muslims, the government of Jammu and Kashmir decided to suspend the internet for a few days to prevent any incidents.
Only about 164.81 million Indians have access to the internet, and only 143.20 million over mobile phones according to official figures released by the Telecom and Regulatory Authority of India in March 2013. Given this scenario, both the reach in terms of positive and negative impact, is still quite limited in India.
The prime minister, however, chose to focus on social media’s role on fanning communal violence in his address at the National Integration Council. His views on hate speech on social media were echoed by many others, including Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav, Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan, Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Meghalaya Chief Minister Mukul Sangma. The majority of chief ministers, then, favour social media regulation. Ideas thrown forward included taking action within the current legal framework, setting up ‘social media laboratories’ to monitor posts under intelligence departments and even mobilizing NGOs and prominent citizens to counter social media rumours.
There are a few important points to keep in mind while looking at this debate: the real need for regulating social media, scapegoating by politicians and finally, preserving freedom of expression and an open internet.
Given India’s experience with hate speech online, and reports about gender targeted abuse, along with abuse based on political, caste, community and regional affiliation, there is a valid point raised for some kind of regulation of social media. However, the real question is the kind of regulation India chooses to favor. In China, a new law can charge people with defamation if a false rumor started by them gets reposted over 500 times. In India, current laws allow citizens to go to court over information that has even caused them “annoyance” under Section 66A of the law. To ensure this is not abused, the government has now mandated that a senior police officer looks at individual cases before allowing charges to be filed to avoid nuisance cases. In the aftermath of the Muzzafarnagar riots of Uttar Pradesh, some citizens are urging the National Human Rights Commission to ask the Department of Telecom to screen and remove inflammatory posts on social media. However, when looking at cases where mass impact can cause damage (such as the exodus of northeasterns from south India), the government relied immediately on technology to solve the problem. The same can be said of the Jammu and Kashmir government, which switched off the internet, at the slightest hint of trouble.
However, both responses need to have legal sanctity. We already know the Indian government monitors its citizens’ communications, and much like many other governments across the world, and the legal basis for these programmes are still dubious. The government may want to come up with a plan for targeted control of certain communication channels should a particularly disastrous video or message surface over social media, and clearly contributes to an inflamed environment and damage on the ground. Social media is already being used to recruit terrorists. Perhaps some communication channels will be used to organize riots, as have been seen before in London. These will become bigger concerns when more than a sliver of India is connected to the internet. The debate will undoubtedly be seen through the prism of security instead of the freedom of expression, as we are currently witnessing the world over.
In a predominantly uneducated country, rumours run rife, and the result is not violence alone. For example, in 2006, polio campaigns in India have failed in Muslim communities, because of rampant rumours that the polio campaigns were a method to sterilize the community. In 2008, despite warnings, rumours that an apparition of the Virgin Mary would appear to devotees after staring into the sun caused dozens to go blind. Earlier in June 2013, three men were lynched to death in the state of Assam because of a rumour that a group of “naked men” were raping women. This does not mean every misguided or even damaging video needs to be censored immediately.
The constitution of India allows for freedom of expression, although with restrictions. However, any plan to take reasonable action in light of clear and present danger, should be drawn up with the help of civil society organizations and lawyers, and cannot be made and implemented unilaterally. The potential for abuse is too great.
Unfortunately, as it seems today – social media has become become the target of scapegoating by politicians. For example, the violence in Uttar Pradesh may or may not have been caused/spurred by a YouTube video. There is no empirical evidence for that. What isclear is that the Muzzafarnagar riots started with two Hindu boys stabbing a Muslim youth because he stalked their sister. Not YouTube. However, it would appear that instead of focusing on other causes of communal tensions in a neighbourhood, which include poverty, development, and unemployment, senior politicians vilified social media.
With elections looming, can one guarantee that any gap in planning, law and order management or inflammatory campaign speeches won’t be blamed on a tweet or Facebook update? Will the outward calling for “regulating social media” will substitute for real change on the ground?
Finally, the most important point remains. Hate speech, law and order, and mass panic are realities India’s states have been living with for years. It would appear that, in dealing with free expression on the internet, India’s politicians seem to err on the side of control. Perhaps the next election is not just about the economy, but equally about the Indian citizens freedom of expression and freedom from control.
Earlier this week, I made an appearance on the BBC News Channel, offering my expert opinion (no laughing) on the Ed Miliband/Daily Mail case.
When asked about the now-notorious “Man Who Hated Britain” feature about Ed Milband’s Marxist father Ralph, I suggested that the Mail had every right to run the article, but probably shouldn’t have. By which I mean I wouldn’t have run that particular piece myself.
But I would be genuinely interested in a good article looking at Ralph Miliband’s politics, and his influence on his son’s politics, even if it was written by an attack dog. As long as it was an accurate attack dog. Part of the oddness of Geoffrey Levy’s original article was just how silly it was.
One of the curious aspects of the fallout has been some Conservatives pointing out the hypocrisy of those on the left who were outraged by the Mail’s Miliband moment but seemingly saw nothing wrong with celebrating the death of Margaret Thatcher.
The problem with this is that exactly the same people who were mortally offended by the Thatcher protests were suggesting that Miliband supporters should just accept the Mail mauling.
If you want an argument to work, it needs to apply universally, as all decent Kantians know.
I recall when the late Christopher Hitchens died, the Guardian, amid gushing tributes, ran a very silly piece by Frances Stonor Saunders, attacking him for all the wrong reasons. I knew Hitchens very vaguely, and liked him and his prose, so I was, for a while offended. But then one had to remember the glee with which Hitchens had attacked the fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell after he died. And one had to think, “fair enough”.
The phrase “you can’t libel the dead” is tossed around quite lightly, but it is actually a very important principle. Turkish writers and activists frequently struggle with laws criminalising criticism of the founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk. In Russia, a new chauvinism is making it increasingly difficult for groups such as Memorial to talk about Stalin’s crimes.
And then there is North Korea, where a man who has been dead since 1994 is still called the Great Leader and Eternal President.
Ancestor worship is simple: an entire culture gazing awestruck into the grave. Moribund. The vigorous arguments that civilisation requires will involve a great deal of criticism of the past and the characters that made it.
