Kenya’s Golden Jubilee offers little to celebrate for free speech

kenyaAs Kenya prepares to mark its golden jubilee on 12 December, the country is still behind in tackling its biggest threats to free expression. Corruption, ignorance and political meddling still reign supreme.

Articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution of Kenya respectively grant the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media. The articles cover individual as well as media freedom and independence free of government interference or intimidation, provided the rights and reputations of others are not infringed. These freedoms, however, will seemingly come at a heavy cost to the recipients.

Corruption has permeated every aspect of Kenyan life. Institutions of repute have fallen prey to the graft menace including the police service, the judiciary, and government ministries. The private sector has also not escaped corruption’s grip. Corruption robs Kenyans of their rights. Various reports by organs like Transparency International perennially rank Kenya among the top most corrupt countries.

There are often untold stories of how envelopes with “tokens” are passed around to journalists after press conferences or meetings by certain organisations, spokespersons or public figures. For all intents and purposes, this is in exchange for good press coverage. There are also cases of journalists being bribed to kill stories that may incriminate or taint the images of certain politicians or advertisers.

The duo of investigative journalists, John Allan-Namu and Mohamed Ali, were once offered a bribe of one million dollars in early 2009 to drop a story they were working on regarding a certain company offering vehicle tracking services. They declined the offer, going on to expose the company’s fraudulent activities, as well as the bribery attempt itself. But this raised the question: how many journalists have accepted bribes?

Media literacy is also a problem. The average Kenyan takes up whatever they see, hear or read about in the media as absolute truth. Media literacy is important for a person to be able to analyze and evaluate content disseminated via the various media outlets as well as to distinguish truth from falsehood, hoax or propaganda. Without this, most Kenyans accept everything portrayed in the media. This is dangerous as messages can be tailored with ulterior motives and used to manipulate the masses and their perceptions.

Ignorance also causes people not to know where the boundaries are in terms of their freedom of expression as well as how much power they really wield. Many crimes go unreported yearly because citizens may be apathetic or unaware of reporting procedures. It is not uncommon to find people who do not know their leaders are.

Political and government interference also play a major role in liberty of expression. The Kibaki administration saw many strides made in the expansion of the democratic space although it was no stranger to controversy. The infamous raid on the Standard Group by masked gunmen on March 2, 2006 sticks out like a sore thumb in the history of media freedom. Even more recently, there is the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill 2013, more popularly known as the Media Bill. Some contentious sections of the bill include forming of a powerful Communications and Multimedia Appeals tribunal to handle regulatory matters; receive complaints and provide judgment over contravention within the new Communications Authority of Kenya or the Media Act.

There is also the imposing of fines of up to 20 million Kenyan shillings for media houses and one million shillings for individual journalists, as well as the powers to suspend and remove a journalist from the roll of practice. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. The media’s role as the fourth estate providing oversight over the other arms of the state, cannot be taken for granted or trampled on.

This article was posted on 4 Dec 2013 at indexoncensorship

Protect Ukrainian peaceful protestors

Members and partners of the Human Rights House Network condemn in the strongest terms the excessive use of force by Ukrainian authorities to disperse peaceful demonstrations, following the refusal by Ukraine to sign the European Union association agreement.
Tuesday, 03 December 2013, by Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)

In their joint letter [download on the right], member and partner NGOs of the Human Rights House Network (HRHN) also call upon President Viktor Yanukovych to immediately revoke measures aiming at using force against protestors and release all protestors and journalists detained, and ensure that relatives of injured and arrested protestors and journalists were informed of their situation.
The 29-30 November 2013 demonstration on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, Kyiv’s Independence Square, essentially of students and activists, was peaceful until the police used excessive force to disperse it. The NGOs call upon Ukrainian authorities to undertake an independent and transparent investigation on the unlawful dispersal of the peaceful protest, and bring those responsible to justice, as requested by one of the members of the Human Rights House Kyiv, the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union.

Another member of the Human Rights House Kyiv, the Information Centre for Human Rights reports that 52 journalists were injured by police forces or by stones and grenades thrown by violent elements. The Centre for Civil Liberties, also a member of the Human Rights House Kyiv, is coordinating the legal aid “EuroMaidanSOS” since Sunday night. The Centre has received around 200 phone calls during the weekend. So far, they have registered 75 complaints related to arrests, beatings and people who were temporarily taken away from the 29-30 November demonstration. This does not include clashes with the police in front of the Presidential Administration Sunday 1 December. The NGOs call upon Ukrainian authorities to immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against peaceful protestors and journalists, release and compensate all of them, and ensure that they can carry out their work.

According to “EuroMaidanSOS”, 14 people (youth activists and students apparently) have disappeared, since the police intervention on 29-30 November 2013 at Maidan Nezalezhnosti. “EuroMaidanSOS” and human rights groups have called hospitals but not found information allowing them to trace back to the disappeared people. The NGOs call upon President Viktor Yanukovych to ensure that law enforcement authorities inform relatives of injured and arrested protestors of their situation. Ukraine has the obligation to protect anybody from being a victim of an enforced disappearance, even more so when injured or arrested by law enforcement authorities at a peaceful protest.

In their joint letter, the NGOs call upon you President Viktor Yanukovych to follow advice from Ukrainian civil society, including by:

Taking concrete measures aiming at stopping the use of force by police to disperse protestors, even if they occupy governmental buildings, and to publicly acknowledge the right of anybody to peacefully protest and the duty of the State security forces to protect peaceful protestors;[1]
Undertaking an independent and transparent investigation on the unlawful dispersal of the peaceful protest of 29-30 November 2013, and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice and do not enjoy impunity; Immediately and unconditionally dropping all charges against peaceful protestors and journalists, release and compensate all of them; Ensuring that law enforcement authorities inform relatives of injured and arrested protestors of their situation, protecting everybody from being a victim of an enforced disappearance, including by immediately investigating the cases of 14 people disappeared following the police intervention on 29-30 November 2013 at Maidan Nezalezhnosti;[2]
Ensuring that human rights NGOs and journalists are able to monitor assemblies and report on police violence without fearing retaliation, and that human rights defenders and activists are not charged for participating in peaceful protests.[3]

Signed by:
Human Rights House Kyiv (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
Ukrainian Helsinki Human rights Union
Human Rights Information Center
Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement (Association UMDPL)

Azerbaijan Human Rights House (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Women’s Association for Rational Development
Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety
Society for Humanitarian Research
Media Rights Institute
Association for the Protection of Women’s Rights in Azerbaijan after D. Aliyeva
Legal Education Society
Azerbaijan Lawyers Association
Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius

Human Rights House Belgrade (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (YUCOM)
Belgrade Centre for Human Rights

Human Rights House Sarajevo (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Association Transitional Justice Accountability and Remembrance in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Renesansa
Serbian Civic Council

Human Rights House Tbilisi (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Article 42 of the Constitution
Caucasian Centre for Human Rights and Conflict Studies
Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims
Human Rights Centre
Union Sapari – Family without Violence

Human Rights House Oslo (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Human Rights House Foundation

Human Rights House Voronezh (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Charitable Foundation
Civic Initiatives Development Center
Confederation of Free Labor
For Ecological and Social Justice
Free University
Golos
Interregional Trade Union of Literary Men
Lawyers for labor rights
Memorial
Ms. Olga Gnezdilova
Soldiers Mothers of Russia
Voronezh Journalist Club
Voronezh-Chernozemie
Youth Human Rights Movement

Human Rights House Yerevan (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor
Socioscope
Jurists against Torture

Human Rights House Zagreb (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Association for Promotion of Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities
B.a.B.e. – Be active, Be emancipated
Centre for Peace Studies
Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past
GOLJP – Civic Committee for Human Rights
Svitanje – Association for Protection and Promotion of Mental Health
Election Monitoring and Education Center, Azerbaijan

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland

Human Rights Club, Azerbaijan

Index on Censorship, United Kingdom

In post-Morsi Egypt journalists toe the military line or self censor

Egyptians gathered on the in Corniche near Qasr Nil Bridge in July 2013 to celebrate news of the announcement by the Egyptian Army Chief General el Sisi, that President Morsi had been removed from power in "response to the will of the people." (Photo: Sharron Ward / Demotix)

Egyptians gathered on the in Corniche near Qasr Nil Bridge in July 2013 to celebrate news of the announcement by the Egyptian Army Chief General el Sisi, that President Morsi had been removed from power in “response to the will of the people.” (Photo: Sharron Ward / Demotix)

Last week, when Egyptian security forces violently dispersed activists rallying against a controversial new anti-protest law, Egyptian media was full of praise for them the following day. Instead of condemning the excessive use force by riot police who beat, sexually assaulted and detained scores of opposition protesters, newspaper editors portrayed the Interior Ministry as “the victor” in the confrontation over the new gag law.

“The Interior Ministry has passed the test on the anti-protest law,” read Wednesday’s bold red headline in the semi-official Al Ahram daily. The independent Al Watan, meanwhile, declared on its front page that the Ministry of Interior had “decidedly resolved the battle over the anti-protest law.”

Headlines, editorials and articles labelling democracy activists “anarchists and “thugs” signal that most Egyptian media has reverted to its old pre-revolution ways, siding with the military-backed government against the opposition. During the January 2011 mass uprising that toppled former President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian media had vilified the opposition activists, describing them as “foreign agents” and “hired thugs.”

Media discourse in Egypt today is reminiscent of the Mubarak era. Then, almost all media outlets had adopted the state line and carefully avoided crossing the so-called ‘red lines’. The only difference is that today, the media has voluntarily and ungrudgingly aligned itself with the military-backed government. During Mubarak’s tenure journalists were motivated by fear of falling out of favour with the authoritarian regime. Ironically, since Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi was toppled by military-backed protests last July, the Egyptian media’s support for the country’s powerful military has come with little coercion from the generals who are riding a wave of popularity and ultra-nationalist sentiment.

Since Morsi’s ouster, the Egyptian media has glorified the military while persistently demonising both the Muslim Brotherhood and the deposed Islamist President, continuing the vilification trend it had started when the former president was still in power. Morsi’s supporters have consistently been branded “terrorists” and “liars” by Egypt’s state-owned and private media alike. As Morsi’s supporters staged a sit in last July demanding “the reinstatement of the legitimate president”, Youssef El Husayni, a presenter on the privately-owned channel ON TV accused the protesters of murder, saying that they “deserved to be hanged.”  Other TV talk show hosts also accused the anti-coup protesters of “getting paid to stay on the streets”. On November 4, the day Morsi’s trial began, the former president was labelled “hysterical” by several Egyptian newspapers including the independent El Youm el Sabe’e and El Masry El Youm for insisting he was still the country’s legitimate president and could not be tried by the court. He was also criticized by journalists for refusing to wear his prison uniform to court–a decision that drew unfavourable comparisons with his predecessor Hosni Mubarak who had previously appeared in court in the white garment.

Earlier this month, the privately-owned network CBC suspended satirist Bassem Youssef’s wildly popular show Al Bernameg (The Programme) after an episode that poked fun at the public fervour for the military and in particular, at the ‘Sissi-mania’ gripping the country. Egypt’s De facto ruler El Sissi earned the adoration of millions of Egyptians when he ousted Morsi, positioning himself as the “guardian of the people’s will” and claiming he had “saved the country from a looming civil war.” He has since been compared by some Egyptian media to Egypt’s former ultra-nationalist leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. In recent months, there have increasingly, been calls for El Sissi to run in the next presidential election.

Surprisingly, the decision to take Youssef’s show off the air came from CBC’s senior management not–as many had initially believed–from strongman El Sissi. Youssef’s last episode met with a public outcry and almost immediately after the broadcast, CBC issued a statement distancing itself from the comedian’s views. The station blamed the suspension of the show on “technical” and “business” issues rather than on the show’s editorial content. CBC’s decision has led to fierce public criticism of the network which had previously given Youssef a free hand to mock former President Mohamed Morsi and his Islamist group. Throughout Morsi’s one year term in office, Youssef had relentlessly kept up his attacks on the former President despite repeated threats of legal action against him. Many of Youssef’s fans have threatened to boycott CBC after the TV satirist quit the channel over the suspension of the show.

Meanwhile, the “red lines” are back at Egyptian State TV where show presenters and anchors have kept up the pro-military rhetoric in recent months for fear of being stigmatized as “pro-Muslim Brotherhood ” and “fifth columnists.” The latter is a term that is being widely used to describe sympathizers or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood whose activities were banned by a court ruling in November. Presenters who are suspected of being sympathetic to the outlawed Islamist group are being deprived of air time. Several presenters have faced investigations in recent weeks over “their shameful links to the enemy Islamist group”. Journalists have been repeatedly accused of “destroying the country and wreaking havoc to abort the goals of the revolution.” A list of names of so-called “fifth column TV presenters and activists” has gone viral on social media networks Facebook and Twitter after being posted on several local websites with the declared aim of “exposing and sidelining the traitors.” Those on the list–which includes reform leader El Baradei, revolutionary activists and prominent TV journalists known for their objectivity–have also being accused of receiving foreign funding.

Many journalists have again resorted to practising self-censorship for fear of being labelled “enemies of the state.” Ironically, the pressure on them has come from fellow-journalists rather than from the generals themselves. Those piling the pressure are journalists who were either appointed by the ousted Mubarak regime or others with strong links with the country’s notorious security services. In September, controversial talk show host Tewfik Okasha, who is also the owner of the private El Fara’een Satellite Channel, gave Defence Minister El Sissi “an ultimatum to purge the media of fifth columnists”. Abdel Rahim Ali, the chief editor of El Bawaba news site, meanwhile told Al Midan TV in September that “those who oppose the reinstatement of state security are from the fifth column.” He did not hesitate in naming the activists and political figures he suspected had links with the “Islamist terror organization.” Responding to a list of suspect-fifth columnists published in the state-owned Al Ahram El Arabi in September, veteran columnist Fahmi Howeidi warned that “such accusations only serve to further empower the country’s notorious state security service, the SSS.”  The SSS, known in Egypt as “Amn El Dawla” was a symbol of police oppression under ousted President Hosni Mubarak. It was disbanded in March 2011 only to return a month later, albeit under a different name–the National Security Service.

The “Fifth Column Campaign” targeting government critics with the aim of silencing voices of dissent, has succeeded in fulfilling its objective, lament rights campaigners.

“In this atmosphere of deep political divisions and at a time when anyone can be accused of espionage for merely mentioning such ‘taboo’ words as ‘coup’ and ‘reconciliation’, many in our profession have opted to play it safe by siding with the stronger power–the military. This is an indirect way of muzzling the press and unfortunately, it is working,” Sameh Kassem, Cultural Editor who works for the independent Al Dostour said.

In the ‘new Egypt’ –now once again under the tight grip of military rule — where scores of journalists have been assaulted and detained for covering the anti-coup protests, the critics are falling silent.

This article was published on 3 Dec 2013 at indexoncensorship.org

Canadian journalists face limits on free speech

(Photo illustration: Shutterstock)

(Photo illustration: Shutterstock)

Journalists in the Canadian province of Alberta could see their right to free speech stifled as new legislation, aimed at suppressing the illegal striking of union members, will impose heavy fines on those who comment publically in favour of those picketing.

For members of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) it has been illegal to strike since 1977. The new legislation, introduced by Alison Redford’s Progressive Conservative government, will abolish the action of arbitration, as well as freezing wages and imposing fines, both for those who take part any form of “illegal” striking and those who comment on it.

According to Bob Barnetson, the director of the Human Resources and Labour Relations programme at Athabasca University, Bill 45 would see newspaper columnists who write opinion pieces about the plight of workers, or those who merely comment “the only option they have is to strike” handed a hefty penalty for their work. Making such comment would be a violation of section 4.4 of the bill.

“So what happens to the editor or academic?” Barnetson wrote on his blog  last week. “Well, s.18.1 says that if you violate s.4.4 you are guilty of an offence. Under s.18.1(d), the editor or academic would be liable for a fine of $500 a day per day of the contravention. Section 20(a) says that prosecution may occur within 1 year of the last day the offense occurred”.

David Climenhaga, a well-known labour blogger in Alberta, believes the imposed fines would stretch as far as catching-out members of the public who showed up at an “illegal” picket line or members of other unions, not subjected to the legislation, who joined a picket out of solidarity: “So, while the bill is mostly careful to restrict penalties to union members and officers, on the always dangerous question of free speech, it extends its attack to “any person” who says the wrong thing to a civil servant.”

Bill 46, which will run alongside Bill 45, will see the 21,642 members of the AUPE forced back to the bargaining table in January or accept a 0% wage increase for the next two years.

An earlier version of this article referred to Alberta as a state. It is a province.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK