4 Feb 2014 | Digital Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Today Facebook celebrates its 10th anniversary. The social networking giant now has over 1.23 billion users, but there are still political leaders around the world who don’t want their country to have access to the site, or those who have banned it in the past amid fears it could be used to organise political rallies.
North Korea
Perhaps the most secretive country in the world little is known about internet access in Kim Jong-un’s nation. Although a new 3G network is available to foreign visitors, for the majority of the population the internet is off limits. But this doesn’t seem to bother many who, not knowing any different, enjoy the limited freedoms offered to them by the country’s intranet, Kwangmyong, which appears to be mostly used to post birthday messages.
A limited number of graduate students and professors at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology do have access to the internet (from a specialist lab) but in fear of the outside world many chose not to use it. Don’t expect to see Kim Jong-un’s personal Facebook page any time soon.
Iran
In Iran, however, political leaders have taken to social media- despite both Facebook and Twitter officially being extraordinarily difficult to access in the country. Even President Hassan Rouhani has his own Twitter account, although apparently he doesn’t write his own tweets, but access to these accounts can only be gained via a proxy server.
Facebook was initially banned in the country after the 2009 election amid fears that opposition movements were being organised via the website.
But things may be beginning to looking up as Iran’s Culture Minister, Ali Jannati, recently remarked that social networks should be made accessible to ordinary Iranians.
China
The Great Firewall of China, a censorship and surveillance project run by the Chinese government, is a force to be reckoned with. And behind this wall sits the likes of Facebook.
The social media site was first blocked following the July 2009 Ürümqi riots after it was perceived that Xinjiang activists were using Facebook to communicate, plot and plan. Since then, China’s ruling Communist Party has aggressively controlled the internet, regularly deleting posts and blocking access to websites it simply does not like the look of.
Technically, the ban on Facebook was lifted in September 2013. But only within a 17-square-mile free-trade zone in Shanghai and only to make foreign investors feel more at home. For the rest of China it is a waiting game to see if the ban lifts elsewhere.
Cuba
Facebook isn’t officially banned in Cuba but it sure is difficult to access it.
Only politicians, some journalists and medical students can legally access the web from their homes. For everyone else the only way to connect to the online world legally is via internet cafes. This may not seem much to ask but when rates for an hour of unlimited access to the web cost between $6 and $10 and the average salary is around $20 getting online becomes ridiculously expensive. High costs also don’t equal fast internet as web pages can take several minutes to load: definitely not value for money for the Caribbean country.
Bangladesh
The posting of a cartoon to Facebook saw the networking site shut down across Bangladesh in 2010. Satirical images of the prophet Muhammad, along with some of the country’s leaders, saw one man arrested and charged with “spreading malice and insulting the country’s leaders”. The ban lasted for an entire week while the images were removed.
Since then the Awami-League led government has directed a surveillance campaign at Facebook, and other social networking sites, looking for blasphemous posts.
Article continues below[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Stay up to date on freedom of expression” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:28|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that defends people’s freedom to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution. We fight censorship around the world.
To find out more about Index on Censorship and our work protecting free expression, join our mailing list to receive our weekly newsletter, monthly events email and periodic updates about our projects and campaigns. See a sample of what you can expect here.
Index on Censorship will not share, sell or transfer your personal information with third parties. You may may unsubscribe at any time. To learn more about how we process your personal information, read our privacy policy.
You will receive an email asking you to confirm your subscription to the weekly newsletter, monthly events roundup and periodic updates about our projects and campaigns.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Egypt
As Egyptians took to the streets in 2011 in an attempt to overthrow the regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak the government cut off access to a range of social media sites. As well as preventing protestors from using the likes of Facebook to foment unrest, many websites registered in Egypt could no longer be accessed by the outside world. Twitter, YouTube, Hotmail, Google, and a “proxy service” – which would have allowed Egyptians to get around the enforced restrictions- seemed to be blocked from inside the country.
The ban lasted for several days.
Syria
Syria, however, dealt with the Arab Spring in a different manner. Facebook had been blocked in the country since 2007 as part of a crackdown on political activism, as the government feared Israeli infiltration of Syrian social networking sites. In an unprecedented move in 2011 President Bashar al-Assad lifted the five year ban in an apparent attempt to prevent unrest on his own soil following the discontent in Egypt and Tunisia.
During the ban Syrians were still able to easily access Facebook and other social networking sites using proxy servers.
Mauritius
Producing fake online profiles of celebrities is something of a hobby to some people. However, when a Facebook page proclaiming to be that of Mauritius Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam was discovered by the government in 2007 the entire Mauritius Facebook community was plunged into darkness. But the ban didn’t last for long as full access to the site was restored the following day.
These days it would seem Dr Ramgoolam has his own (real) Facebook account.
Pakistan
Another case of posting cartoons online, another case of a government banning Facebook. This time Pakistan blocked access to the website in 2010 after a Facebook page, created to promote a global online competition to submit drawings of the prophet Muhammad, was brought to their attention. Any depiction of the prophet is proscribed under certain interpretations of Islam.
The ban was lifted two weeks later but Pakistan vowed to continue blocking individual pages that seemed to contain blasphemous content.
Vietnam
During a week in November 2009, Vietnamese Facebook users reported an inability to access the website following weeks of intermittent access. Reports suggested technicians had been ordered by the government to block the social networking site, with a supposedly official decree leaked on the internet (although is authenticity was never confirmed). The government denied deliberately blocking Facebook although access to the site today is still hit-and-miss in the country.
Alongside this, what can be said on social networking sites like Facebook has also become limited. Decree 72, which came into place in September 2013, prohibits users from posting links to news stories or other news related websites on the social media site.
This article was published on 4 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1538131415482-d092e45b-9f66-5″ taxonomies=”136″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
4 Feb 2014 | News and features, Pakistan, Politics and Society
PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari addresses the opening ceremony of the Sindh Festival on 1 February (Photo: Jamal Dawoodpoto / Demotix)
Hoping to use culture to battle Pakistan’s slide into “Talibanisation”, the son of Benazir Bhutto kicked off a two-week-long arts festival on 1 February to offer an alternative to what is perceived here as dithering by prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who announced he was giving “peace another chance”.
After a spate of violent attacks in January, Pakistanis assumed Sharif would crack down on the Taliban with an iron fist. However, in a speech on 29 January, Sharif opted to promote talks instead. Critics immediately pointed out the repeated violations of peace accords signed by the Taliban.
Finding it a “characteristic feature” of Pakistani politics on matters of national security, Ambreen Agha, a research assistant with New Delhi’s Institute for Conflict Management said: “Mr Sharif finds it convenient to keep the nation busy with his idle pursuit of rhetoric, with nothing concrete being done.”
Among the many who are tired of hearing about the peace talks with the Taliban is 25-year old Bilawal Bhutto Zardari — the son of the assassinated former prime minister — who believes Pakistan has “exhausted the option of talks”, arguing that the militants need to be beaten “on the battlefield”. He recently put forth his point of view to BBC’s Lyce Doucet.
Despite threats from the Taliban and other armed groups, Zardari, who is also the chairperson of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), has begun waging a war of words against them where others have been silenced. He has urged politicians to “wake up” to the looming threat and unite against the Taliban.
“Though Bilawal’s idea of political will sounds positive, I doubt that this idea is there to stay,” said Agha and added: “Like many of his predecessors he is susceptible to fall on the same track of delays and betrayals. But, if he is willing to take the bull by the horns, which in my opinion is not even a rudimentary possibility, he needs the much called for political will.”
Zardari is spearheading the cultural festival. In a televised advertisement, in which he is seen as a head of state addressing a nation, he is declaring a “cultural coup” to fight the threat posed by the Taliban to Pakistan’s civilisation. The opening ceremony extravaganza that started with a light and music show at one of world’s ancient ruins of Mohenjo Daro — much to the disapproval of conservationists — included kite-flying, donkey cart races, cricket matches, fashion shows, theatre, music and literature.
But many in Pakistan refuse to take him seriously. He is often scoffed at for his anglicised Urdu accent, his exile in Dubai and London and his English education. Critics believe his sudden passion for reviving Sindh’s culture is misplaced.
Agha finds him “distanced from his own society, standing on a pedestal too high to be reached”.
“Of course there is a lot of criticism of him and many consider him out of touch of with reality,” agreed Islamabad-based independent journalist, Taha Siddiqui, but added: “His coming back and making this effort…it’s commendable…”
Siddiqui has been travelling the length and breadth of Pakistan for the last several years and has seen the “creeping radicalisation and religious extremism” in not just Sindh but all over the country.
While he believes the festival such as the one organised by Zardari will be a small step, more needs to be done to stem rising extremism, like revamping of school curriculum, checks and balances on religious seminaries, and for the state to clearly label the Taliban as the enemy which it has so far been unable to do.
“Unless all of these and such other measures are taken together, we will see Pakistan moving further down the trap of Talibanisation,” Siddiqui concluded.
Conceding to a need for a more holistic approach to fight Talibanisation, Agha said that while the cultural synthesis may rejuvenate the lost cultural ethos and values of Sindh, the PPP chairperson will have to “penetrate deeper into the layers of Pakistani society and address the issues that bind the people culturally.”
This article was posted on 3 Feb 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
4 Feb 2014 | Egypt, News and features
Just as rights groups and press freedom advocates were thinking things could not get any worse for journalists in Egypt, a video that aired on an Egyptian private TV channel showing the arrest of Al Jazeera journalists Peter Greste and Mohamed Fahmy, proved them wrong.
The footage shown on the channel “Tahrir” on Sunday night was far less dramatic than the background music to which it was set –the kind of ominous-sounding soundtrack used to create suspense in intense mystery movies. It featured lingering shots of recording equipment including cameras, microphones, electronic cables, laptop computers and mobile phones used by the journalists in their work prior to their arrest. It also showed a perplexed-looking Fahmy being interrogated during the raid on his Cairo hotel room . Meanwhile, a caption at the bottom of the screen read ” exclusive footage of the Marriot cell accused of fabricating news on Al Jazeera.”
The interrogator who did not appear in the video but could only be heard, asked Fahmy about the type of work they were doing , why they were working out of a hotel room and how they get paid by the network. Asked if he had valid press credentials, Fahmy replied that his accreditation card had expired sometime ago. He added that he had applied for new credentials and was waiting to hear back from authorities.
The airing of the video drew fierce condemnation from Al Jazeera –the Qatari-funded network targeted by Egyptian authorities who accuse it of “inciting violence” and of being ” a mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood”. In the first-of-its-kind prosecution in Egypt, 20 Al Jazeera journalists have been charged with conspiring with terrorists and manipulating clips that tarnish Egypt’s image abroad by protraying the country as being on the brink of civil war. Al Jazeera has denied the allegations, insisting its journalists were only doing their job. Fahmy, Greste and producer Baher Mohamed , who are among the defendants in what has come to be known as the Al Jazeera case, had been in custody for five weeks before formal charges were brought against them on Saturday. Two cameramen working for the Al Jazeera Arabic service and Al Jazeera Mubasher are also behind bars . They were arrested last summer while covering the unrest that erupted after the country’s first democratically elected President Mohamed Morsi was toppled by military-backed protests. One of the two defendants– Cameraman Mohamed Badr– was acquitted earlier this week along with sixty one suspect-protesters after spending the last six months in jail.
In a statement published on its website, Al Jazeera said Sunday’s airing of the controversial video was “another attempt to demonise its journalists”, adding that “it could prejudice the trial.”
Rights groups meanwhile see the detention of the Al Jazeera journalists as part of a wider crackdown on freedom of expression in the country. Index on Censorship — along with partner organisations Article 19, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reports Without Borders– condemned the Egyptian government’s attacks on media freedom and called for the release of the journalists. (Full statement: English | Arabic)
“What has happened with the Al Jazeera journalists is part of an overall attempt to repress freedom of expression,” said Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International. In an interview with Al Jazeera, he urged the international community to keep up pressure on the Egyptian government to resolve the situation.
Egyptian and foreign journalists also joined the chorus of denunciations of the aired video, using social media networks to express their alarm and frustration.
“The video and detention of Fahmy and Greste make our jobs as journalists in Egypt all the more difficult, ” Egyptian Journalist Nadine Maroushi complained on Twitter. Some reiterated calls for Twitter-users to follow the “FreeFahmy” hashtag on Twitter in support of the Al Jazeera detainees. Others dismissed the video as “ridiculous,” joking about how the items found in the room –such as a copy of Lonely Planet Egypt (which presumably belongs to Greste)–were “the evidence that would likely incriminate the journalists. ”
“The cameras, laptops and flipped toilet seat are proof that the journalists’hotel room was a den of espionage,”was another tongue-in-cheek comment posted on the social media network. Using Fahmy’s Twitter account, his brother Sherif sent a bitter message on Monday saying ” In Egypt, you are guilty until proven innocent.”
Meanwhile , foreign journalists’ associations are planning protest marches on Tuesday outside Egyptian embassies in cities as far away as Nairobi to demand the release of the detained journalists. Egypt’s military-backed government has so far largely ignored the calls , turning a blind eye to a petition signed last month by journalists and editors from more than fifty- two news organizations . Media freedom advocates are hoping however ,that Cameraman Mohamed Badr’s acquittal may be a sign that the government was finally easing its heavy-handed crackdown on journalists. They also hope that the Egyptian authorities would keep their recently- made promise of “ensuring that foreign journalists work freely to cover the news in an objective and balanced manner.” The pledge was made in a statement released on January 30 by the State Information Service–the government body responsible for accrediting foreign journalists.
They say the onus is now on the government to show its commitment to implementing articles in the constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression and the press. Releasing Fahmy and the other detained Al Jazeera journalists would be a step in the right direction.
This article was posted on 4 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
3 Feb 2014 | Digital Freedom, Egypt, News and features
(Image: Aleksandar Mijatovic/Shutterstock)
Statement: Egyptian authorities must stop their attacks on media freedom from Article 19, the Committee to Project Journalists, Index on Censorship and Reporters Without Borders. PDF: Arabic
The wording of proposed anti-terrorism legislation in Egypt has been leaked, sparking concern amongst opposition activists over upcoming government censorship. The legislation could allow for social networking sites such as Facebook to be barred, if they are deemed to be endangering public order.
Al Sherooq, an Arabic-language daily newspaper, reported on the news, stating that ant-terrorism legislation “for the first time includes new laws which guarantee control over ‘terrorism’ crimes in a comprehensive manner, starting with the monitoring of Facebook and the Internet, in order of them not to be used for terrorism purposes”.
According to Al Sherooq, the document is now being circulated around Cabinet for approval, and will build upon the country’s new constitution, recently approved with 98% support. The constitution includes provisions for emergency legislation at points of crisis.
The law is ostensibly designed to improve the ability of the military government to provide security, against a backdrop of rising violence and terrorism attacks. It lays out proposed punishments for those involved with designated terrorism offences, and for inciting violence. It would also establish a special prosecution unit and criminal court focused on convicting terrorists.
The leaked document also shows how broadly terrorism will be defined, as it includes “use of threat, violence, or intimidation to breach public order, to violate security, to endanger people”. It is also defined “as acts of violence, threat, intimidation that obstruct public authorities or government, as well as implementation of the constitution”.
Commentators were quick to note that Facebook would be high on the list of potentially barred sites, as it is frequently used by members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other opposition groups, to co-ordinate protests.
YouTube has also recently been used by jihadist groups; one video posted recently showed a masked man firing a rocket at a freight ship passing through the Suez.
“What worries me most is the level of popular support for these laws,” said Mai El-Sadany, an Egyptian-American rights activist. “If you look at how much support the referendum won, and also recent polling about the terrorism laws, there is definitely a sense that people want peace and stability.”
“But Egypt now is like America after 9/11,” she added. “People are believing the lies the government are telling them. There is the same sentiment of fear, with a legitimate basis, but human rights abuses and loss of civil liberty are a possibility.”
Since Morsi’s deposal in July 2013, terrorists group have attempteed to kill the interior minister, bombed the National Security heaquarters in Mansoura and Cairo, shot down a military helicopter in the Sinai Peninsula, fired a rocket at a passing freighter ship in the Suez canal, and assassinated a senior security official. A group calling itself Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (translated as “Supporter of Jerusalem”) has claimed responsibility for most of the attacks.
The constitutional referendum result has already been used by the regime to demonstrate Sisi’s credibility. However, critics say that any media channels supportive of the opposing Islamist agenda were all shut down after the military coup, and that voters suggesting they might vote against the referendum were threatened by government officials, suggesting Sisi’s mandate may be questionable.
There was also a notable lack of support for the referendum in the south of Egypt as opposed to the north.
Recent polling data suggests that the terrorism legislation could be popular, with 65% of Egyptians having heard about possible new laws, and 62% approving of it. Polling results also showed significantly more support amongst degree-educated Egyptians as opposed to less educated people.
An earlier form of the legislation has already been used to arrest dozens of activists and journalists, including several employees of Al Jazeera. Viewership of the Qatar-based network has reduced as support for the Muslim Brotherhood has declined. The Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in Egypt have been funded by Gulf states.
It is thought the new definition of terrorism could be used to indict the detained Al Jazeera journalists. To date, it has been unclear under what legislation they could be prosecuted.
Political analyst and blogger Ramy Yaccoub, from Cairo, criticised the leaked legislation voraciously via his Twitter account: “This is becoming ridiculous,” he tweeted. This was followed by: “There needs to be an international treaty that governs the sanctity of private communication.”
There is currently no agreed timeframe for the Egyptian legislative process, so it is unclear how long it will take for the laws to come into force.
The wording of the legislation has been translated into English and is available here.
This article was posted on 3 Feb 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
