The trial of 20 journalists charged with “fabricating news and assisting or belonging to a terror cell” has been adjourned until 5 March.
Eight of the defendants work for the Al Jazeera network including four foreign reporters, three of whom are out of the country and are being tried in absentia. Three Al Jazeera English (AJE) journalists who were in the defendant’s cage during the trial on Thursday, pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.
After a month and a half in detention, Australian award-winnning journalist Peter Greste, AJE Cairo Bureau Chief Mohamed Fadel Fahmy and producer Baher Mohamed appeared in court looking haggard and anxious. They kept up a brave front however, shouting out to foreign journalists attending the court session,” We are strong and we shall walk free.”
“Tell my fiancée Marwa that I love her; big wedding when I’m released,” Fahmy said, sounding optimistic.
In recent weeks, journalists have staged rallies in several cities around the world calling for the release of the AJ detainees and rejecting claims they have links to the Muslim Brotherhood, designated a “terrorist organisation”by Egypt’s military-backed authorities in December.
Fahmy, his right arm in a sling, complained to journalists in the courtroom that he had not received treatment for a shoulder injury sustained before his arrest in December despite repeated requests to prison authorities. Members of his and Baher’s families were denied entry into the courtroom, but Peter Greste’s brother, Andrew, was allowed to attend the trial.
The trial was held amid tight security in a makeshift courtroom at the Police Institute near Torah Prison where the three journalists are currently in detention. The three of them now share a cell after Fahmy and Baher were transferred to Torah Prison earlier this month from a high security prison where they had been held in solitary confinement. Although prison conditions at Torah are slightly better than in the Scorpion Prison where they were previously held, the defendants complained that they “are locked up for 23 hours a day and are being denied newspapers and books.”
Two other defendants in the case, also complained to journalists during the trial that they were being denied food and family visits, adding that they had been “blindfolded , electrocuted and hung from the ceiling” by state security officers in a prison camp before being brought to Torah. One of the two , Anas Mohamed El Beltaguy is the son of prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed El Beltaguy who is also behind bars. His mother told journalists outside the courtroom that his detention was “act of revenge” against her jailed husband.
The heavy international media presence in the courtroom was a sign that the case, which has come to be known as the “Marriott Cell Case” (a reference to the hotel at which Fahmy and Greste were arrested) has captured worldwide attention. It also reflected the shared concerns of foreign journalists working in Egypt over their own safety in light of a widening crackdown on dissent by the Egyptian authorities, that has increasingly targeted journalists critical of the government. Increased physical assaults on foreign journalists by mobs on the streets, accusing them of being spies or suspecting them of working for Al Jazeera (a network that many Egyptians perceive as being sympathetic to the now unpopular Muslim Brotherhood) have also been a cause for concern for the journalists. The attacks are driven by rising xenophobia in Egypt, fuelled by Egypt’s pro-military media which persistently warns against “foreign conspiracies” aimed at dividing the country and undermining stability.
At least 11 incidents of attacks on journalists covering a popular referendum on the constitution were reported in mid-January. Ten days later, severa local and international journalists reported more attacks while covering clashes between police and supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi, according to CPJ. Most of the attacks — carried out by pro-regime loyalists — took place in Cairo’s downtown area where rallies were being held to mark the third anniversary of the January 2011 revolution. Journalists were also arrested and detained for at least a couple of hours before being released. Sarah Al Masry, from Cairo-based NGO Freedom of Thought and Expression Association told Daily News Egypt last month that “the maltreatment of journalists by security forces gives the public the green light to do the same.”
In a report released in December, the Committee to Protect Journalists ranked Egypt the world’s third deadliest country for journalists after Syria and Iraq. At least 5 journalists were killed and 45 assaulted last year, according to the CPJ report. The country also ranks among the top 10 jailers of media workers in the world, with five journalists behind bars at the time the report was released.
Abdalla el Shamy, a cameraman working for Al Jazeera’s Arabic service is among those imprisoned. Arrested on 14 August while filming the violent dispersal by security forces of a pro-Morsi sit in in Northeastern Cairo, he has been in jail since and has just entered his second month on hunger strike to protest his confinement.
Analysts and press freedom advocates say the trial — coming hot on the heels of the passing of the country’s new constitution enshrining freedom of expression — is “a litmus test for Egypt’s commitment to press freedom”. The adjournment of the trial to allow the prosecution to listen to eyewitness accounts and summon an interpreter to the court is a disappointment for many, including Al Jazeera, which had hoped to see its journalists released on Thursday.
“We are deeply disappointed that Fahmy, Greste, and Baher were not released from prison on Thursday,” Al Austey, Managing Director of Al Jazeera English said shortly after the court session had ended. He described the charges against the network’s staff as “baseless, unacceptable, and unjustified”.
“Journalists should not have to risk years in an Egyptian prison for doing their job,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The prosecution of these journalists for speaking with Muslim Brotherhood members, coming after the prosecution of protesters and academics, shows how fast the space for dissent in Egypt is evaporating.”
But some, including Sue Turton, a British AJE reporter who is being tried in absentia in the case, are still hopeful that the current situation will be reversed. If that happens, it would demonstrate Egypt’s willingness to commit to the democratic principles embodied in its new charter. In an interview broadcast on Al Jazeera English, Turton said she has faith in the independence of the Egyptian judiciary and is certain that justice will prevail. “The journalists were just doing their work and journalism is not terrorism,” she said.
Rio’s Batman honours the recently deceased network cameraman Santiago Andrade, who died after being hit in the head with fireworks released by black bloc activists during a protest on February 6. (Photo: Leonardo Coelho / Demotix)
The death of Santiago Andrade on 10 February, a cameraman for Brazil’s Bandeirantes Network, from injuries he suffered while filming a Rio de Janeiro transport price protest has shocked the country.
In the uproar that followed, two protesters — Caio Silva de Souza and Fabio Barbosa Raposo – were arrested for targeting Andrade with fireworks. The media quickly filled with editorials and coverage that declared democracy was at risk. Journalists described the attack as a grave threat to freedom of expression and criticism of police handling of the protests. One op-ed even accused a leftist party deputy of links with the attack without presenting evidence.
However, there is a lack of preparation from the Brazilian press itself, when covering the demonstrations. This deficiency was highlighted by a BBC reporter who provided first aid to Andrade. Brazilian journalists usually cover protests without identification vests, protection or training.
Violence against the press is not a new problem in Brazil. There have been 126 attacks on journalists by police or demonstrators since the mass protest movement began in June 2013. It is common for journalists’ cars to be targeted by protesters. At the same time, it has been reported that journalists have been murdered for political reasons.
Brazil is the 11th most dangerous country for the journalistic profession, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). “The number of journalists killed has grown in recent years and the official government response has been insufficient. Brazil has become a dangerous country for the practice of journalism,” CPJ coordinator Carlos Lauría told UN Radio.
The attack on Andrade was the fourth episode of violence against journalists during protests in 2014. On 25 January, two reporters were injured in São Paulo — EFE reporter Sebastião Moreira and freelancer Paul Alexander were attacked by the police. UOL News reporter Gustavo Maia was assaulted by police on 6 February — the same day Andrade was injured.
The death of the cameraman happened at the same time the Brazilian Congress — with the backing of the federal government — was attempting to quickly pass two controversial bills against terrorism. The public reaction was overwhelmingly negative. The justice department is likely to present a new bill to congress. While the bill has not yet been published, it is said to provide stricter punishment for violent infiltrators in demonstrations, in addition to standardizing police responses throughout Brazil. The Minister of Justice, José Eduardo Cardozo, also met with representatives of the media and promised action to protect reporters.
Several national and international organizations expressed concern over the Andrade attack. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and Reporters Without Borders called on the Brazilian authorities to guarantee the safety of journalists covering demonstrations. The UN expressed concern about violent protests and the “excessive use of force and arbitrary arrests of demonstrators and journalists by police forces”. UNESCO pleaded with Brazilian media groups to train their employees working in hazardous environments. The Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (Abraji) released a statement condemning the the attack and urged the Brazilian government to protect journalists and freedom of expression. The International Press Institute (IPI) recalled various crimes against Brazilian journalists and insisted that investigation of crimes against journalists be a priority for the government.
Brazil’s president Dilma Rousseff expressed her grief on Twitter. She said the death of Andrade “revolts and saddens” and stressed that “freedom of expression cannot be used to threaten life”. In an official statement, the Secretary of Human Rights of the Presidency said that “this case unfortunately tragically symbolizes the systematic violence against communication professionals engaged in covering demonstrations”.
From the standpoint of the investigations, this is a confusing story, full of questions, with different versions of events coming from the media and the police.
The lawyer for the men arrested for detonating the rocket said the two were recruited by, and received money from ,“activists”. The Civil Police claims there are infiltrators in protests that are paid by political parties of the extreme left.
The governor of Rio de Janeiro, Sergio Cabral, also said that “there are political parties and organisations embedded in these violent actions”.
Is there cooptation of popular movements? There is no evidence of it. Is Brazilian democracy facing a crisis? It seems that nobody wants to be responsible for the answers.
While the press is mourning the loss of yet another one of its own, there needs to be time to ascertain the facts rather than lob accusations when tensions are high. The press needs to investigate and confirm or deny the official line directed against the left or nothing will come from the death of a colleague symbolised by the cameras placed in front of the congress.
India’s lower house of parliament – the Lok Sabha – though capable of witnessing introspective and impressive debates, is often in the news because of the bawdy and boisterous behaviour of its elected members. Obstructionist behaviour – unacceptable in streets, schools and other workplaces – is employed to register protest, all under the watchful eye of Lok Sabha TV – a government channel dedicated to broadcasting the proceedings. The transmission is used by private TV channels, to report on important debates of the day, but most often to highlight “unparliamentary” behaviour.
Only last week, a member of parliament from Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh used, not logic or reason, but pepper spray on fellow parliamentarians to protest the tabling of the “Andhra Pradesh Reorganisational Bill”. Just five days later, on 18 February, the same bill was tabled in parliament amidst much uproar, and the house was adjourned three times due to disruptions. Then, around 3:18pm, the bill was tabled on the floor of the house, but the live proceedings that usually accompany it were “blacked out”. The government called it a “technical error” while the leader of opposition in the lower house, Sushma Swaraj of the BJP, called it a “tactical error”. Thus, for the first time in its history, the lower house of Indian parliament passed a law as important as creating a new state – by reorganising Andhra Pradesh into two states; Andhra Pradesh and Telangana – away from the media glare and the public eye. The upper house has also passed the Telangana bill, which the president — a Congress appointee — is expected to sign.
The history behind the controversial bill is long and emotional; however in a nutshell, the demand is to carve out a new state from the existing state of Andhra Pradesh, which would absorb the current state capital of Hyderabad. Protestors against such a move have argued that bifurcation would cause detriment to new Andhra Pradesh, also known as Seemandhra, as the more developed city of Hyderabad, water bodies and income opportunities would no longer be easily accessible to them. They also believe that they would be more vulnerable to the threat of naxalism, a communist ideology. The protests have been raging since 2011, which have seen many incidents of violence, vandalism, arson, ransacking, petrol bombs, tear gas, and most recently, pepper spray.
The history behind protests in the well of the house leading to disruptions and adjournments over crucial issues, of course, extends well beyond the issue of Telangana. In 2013, a report by the Times of India indicated that since the 1950s, the hours spent working in the Lok Sabha have been gradually decreasing; from about 3784 hours on average between 1952-57 (during the 1st Lok Sabha session) to 1157 hours since 2009 (the current and 15th session of the lower house). Lok Sabha floor management seems to be dismal, resulting in critical legislation still pending consensus. Further, members seem to be “trying to impress their voters back home with their commitment to the cause they are espousing” by their interruptions, using the live broadcast of Lok Sabha to their advantage. The infamous pepper spray incident wasn’t just about the MPs who were wheeled off to the hospital. Glass screens on the tables were smashed, microphones were uprooted, papers flew everywhere, and the parliamentarians were in fisticuffs with each other. The images of the day shocked the media and viewers alike, with reports calling it a “day of shame”.
On 17 February, a day before the “black out” the Indian Express reported that the government had made arrangements for the Finance Minister P. Chidambaram to read out the 2014-15 Interim Budget in the Lok Sabha TV studio, should the MPs disrupt the proceedings once again. The report also stated that: “If the speech is read from the studio, it would be the first such instance. Government managers said they hope the step won’t be necessary, but have alerted the studio authorities to be prepared.” Luckily for him, the house listened with minor interruptions and passed the bill.
However, it was just the next day that the government chose to manage the disruptions in the lower house, caused by the tabling of the Telangana bill, by ordering Lok Sabha TV to stop both, broadcasting the proceedings of the House and transmitting its live feed to other private media channels. The Economic Times reports that: “The House looked like a virtual battle-ground during the 90-minute proceedings as members resorted to slogan-shouting to protest against passage of the bill. Live telecast by Lok Sabha TV was stopped, perhaps the first time.” Many members of parliament called it a “black day” in the country’s democracy, and others likened the move to the heavy censorship employed during India’s Emergency, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi heavily censored the media. Despite a statement from Lok Sabha TV’s CEO who has called it a “snag”, the Parliamentary Minister, Kamal Nath, confirmed that the black out was “a decision of the Lok Sabha secretariat”. There are hints that the opposition, while protesting the black out loudly in public, knew about the plan to stop transmission.
Congress Minister Rajeev Shukla defended the move by saying that the media gallery was open, therefore there was no intention to keep anything behind closed doors. Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated in a TV interview that, “why is so much noise being about the live transmission? Eight years ago there was no live coverage. Does it mean parliament didn’t function or people did not speak? There were 200 correspondents were in the press gallery who were witness to what happened during the passage of the bill.” Others, on the winning side, like Telangana supporter KT Rama Rao felt that “people have no problem if the TV channels did not receive their TRPs. The Speaker might have decided to stop the telecast to save some lives at the moment when emotions were high.”
In an interesting analysis, Sevanti Ninan, of the Hoot, looks back at the role of Indian media in creating and sustaining movements such as Telangana. She writes: “In the case of Telangana, newspapers and TV channels have come into existence in the last few years primarily to articulate the statehood demand. If the media pre-2009 was owned largely by businessmen and politicians from the Andhra region, there are now entrants such as T News, V-6 and others on the Telangana side of the divide.” In fact, such was their role that in January 2010, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that “on account of some of these abusive visuals, people are becoming violent…”
Therefore the issue boils down to a few either/or questions. Did the Speaker of the House cancel the broadcast on purpose, and if yes, in today’s television era, is the move justified? Do people have a right to see how their MPs behave in parliament – good or bad – or does the Congress argument that other forms of media can report on the proceedings of the House hold water? Is this a dangerous precedent set by the ruling UPA? Is the move to simply deny private channels/political parties who oppose the government’s position their TRPs for the day, by cancelling live footage of the ruckus of the House? Can the Lok Sabha simply choose to switch off live proceedings in order to pass a contentious bill, or can this be categorised as “floor management”?
And the elephant in the room – without the free publicity by Lok Sabha TV cameras, did the MPs finally get down to actually doing the work — vote — that they are meant to instead of prolonged disruptions?
The panel from left to right: Gavin Millar QC, Tom Phillips, Padraig Reidy, Jonathan Heawood and Gill Phillips (Image: Georgia Hussey)
A new press regulator, with or without statutory underpinnings, would not stop another scandal like phone hacking from happening, an Index on Censorship panel said yesterday. The panel, consisting of Gill Phillips (Legal Director, Guardian Media Group), Gavin Millar QC (Doughty Street Chambers), Jonathan Heawood (Director of the Impress Project), and Tom Phillips (Senior Writer, Buzzfeed UK), chaired by Padraig Reidy, spoke at a Doughty Street Chambers and Index on Censorship debate on press freedom in the UK after the Leveson inquiry.
“In terms of the institutions that failed over phone hacking, the Press Complaints Commission doesn’t even make it onto the podium,” said Tom Phillips. “So the idea that any kind of regulation was ever intended to be the solution to this is missing a whole bigger picture.”
If you set up a system to stop something “human ingenuity and imagination” will find a way to get around it, said Gavin Millar QC. He added that the best regulation “has to come from the heart”, and was worried about the complicated rules surrounding regulation taking the responsibility away from those “who are putting the stuff out.”
Jonathan Heawood argued that we can make press abuses “less likely” though a “good, intelligent, intelligently applied regulator” and “sufficiently enforced, sufficiently clear sanctions”. He added that regulation is “part of the solution” to improve conditions allowing public interest journalism to flourish.
Press regulation took centre stage at the event, but wider issues of press freedom were also discussed. Gavin Millar pointed out how the UK’s debate on press freedom and press regulation may be perceived in authoritarian countries, while Tom Phillips warned that ignoring the evolving social norms of the internet age bad is for press freedom. Gill Phillips argued that while the UK isn’t as bad on press freedom as some other countries, “where we’re going” and “the threat of criminalisation that effects every day journalism” is worrying.
The event took place ahead of the release of Index on Censorship’s policy paper Life after Leveson: British media freedom in 2014. The paper acknowledges that the recent change in libel law was good for this country’s press freedom, “the record of successive governments have been far from perfect” and “there are still several areas where this government can act to safeguard the free press and free speech more broadly in the coming year.”
It was a timely discussion, as yesterday the High Court dismissed David Miranda’s challenge to his detention at Heathrow under the Terrorism Act in August. It was also the day former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks took the stand in the ongoing hacking trial.
“The [Miranda] judgement has some wide ranging views downgrading journalism in the 20th century that I find personally bizarre,” said Philips. Millar said the judgement shows how the “remaining tendency of government using the possibility of court proceedings against newspapers to stifle the publication of state secrets” has a “chilling effect” on press freedom.
The sold-out event encouraged audience interaction, which made for a lively and at times heated, debate. One comment from the floor argued the panel had missed the point — that the debate was about press abuses, and a regulator was the minimum step that had to be taken. Another audience member questioned the press calling for regulation of other industries, but not wanting to be regulated themselves. The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade argued that we need to separate those issues of press abuse that can be tackled through the law and those that must be tackled by self-restraint on the part of the media. Observer columnist Peter Preston said the Royal Charter regulator would be part of a “conspiracy of chaps”.
The discussion also took place on Twitter, under the hashtag #LifeAfterLeveson
