Egyptian government must release Alaa Abd El Fattah

Index on Censorship and IFEX members call for the release of Alaa Abd El Fattah and all those unjustly detained in Egypt

The military “interim government” in Egypt is cracking down on virtually all meaningful form of assembly, association, or opposition.

Following the passage of a November 2013 law banning peaceful protest, dozens of activists and organizers have been sent to prison. Among them is Alaa Abd El Fattah, software guru, blogger and political activist.

On the night of November 28th, security forces raided Alaa’s home, beat him and his wife when asked to see their warrant, and took and held him overnight, blindfolded and handcuffed, in an unknown location. Currently, he is held at Tora Prison, Egypt’s notorious maximum security detention center, historically used to house men suspected of violent crimes and terrorism.

But Alaa is not being prosecuted for crimes of violence. A critic of repressive state practices and a staunch advocate of free information, free and open source software, and Arabic localization in the Middle East, he was one of the first Egyptian netizens facilitating a movement for political change around a simple idea: freedom of expression.

His wildly popular blog—established with his wife, Manal—helped spark a community of bloggers in the Arab World committed to the promotion of free speech and human rights. It won the Reporters Without Borders award at the 2005 Bobs. Their groundbreaking website, Omraneya, collected blog entries across the Arab World, archiving dissent in the face of repression. As put by one popular independent media outlet: “[Omraneya is] at times the house of alternative expression and at others the amplifier of muted voices.”

Following the uprising of January 25, 2011, Alaa continued to promote free expression through online platforms. He started a nation-wide peoples initiative enabling citizen collaboration in the drafting of the Egyptian Constitution. He initiated and hosted Tweet-Nadwas (“Tweet-Symposiums”), that brought activists and bloggers from across the world into Tahrir Square, to participate in open format dialogue about tough issues ranging from Islamism to Economic Reform.

Without looking down at our feet, let’s look forward and envision the perfect state; I myself don’t want a state but I know that isn’t possible. Instead, I must focus on the steps that might lead me to build the ‘good’ state.” – Alaa Abd El Fattah (Tweet Nadwa, June 14 2011).”

Alaa has been jailed or charged under every government to take power in Egypt. In 2006, when he was only 22, he was jailed by the Mubarak government. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) jailed him in 2011. Morsi brought a case against him in 2013. And he is now imprisoned by the current military government. He is not alone in this cycle of persecution. Alongside him now in prison are activists Ahmed Maher, Mohamed Adel, and Ahmed Douma—all of whom were also targeted by Egypt’s recent regimes. Thousands of other young people are in prison or unaccounted for.

Alaa’s mother, Laila Soueif, one of the founders of the Kefaya protest movement, which is widely credited as one of the key precursors to the January 2011 uprising, commented:

Alaa is one of the most outspoken and uncompromising critics of state violence and repression of his generation. At this particular juncture, those in power are trying to sell the myth that the whole country is united behind them against the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies. The fact that Alaa, who was very vocal in his criticism of the Brotherhood while Morsi was president, is condemning – even more strongly – the current criminal behaviour of the police and the army explodes their myth. Particularly as he is not alone in taking this position. Arresting him and demonizing him in the media is a message to critics of the regime to shut up.”

The current government has already handed Alaa (together with his sister Mona Seif) a one year suspended sentence in a similar, but separate, trial. Current charges may find Alaa facing additional years. Ahmed Seif, prominent human rights lawyer and father of Alaa Abd El Fattah says:

The Prosecution has done everything in its power to impede Alaa’s appeal against his imprisonment on remand. It has been more than a month since the Prosecution completed its investigations and referred the case to the Criminal Court, but lawyers have still not been allowed access to the case file, and neither a district nor a date have been set for the trial.”

As the third anniversary of the January 25 revolution draws near, we express our concern that Alaa’s case marks a worrying trend for civil liberties in Egypt.

The undersigned demand the immediate release and a fair trial for all those unjustly detained in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Egypt is a signatory.

Signed,

Electronic Frontier Foundation
ActiveWatch – Media Monitoring Agency
Afghanistan Journalists Center
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information
ARTICLE 19
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression
Association of Independent Electronic Media
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Centre for Independent Journalism – Malaysia
Derechos Digitales
Egyptian Organization for Human Rights
Foundation for Press Freedom – FLIP
Freedom Forum
Freedom House
Globe International Center
Human Rights Watch
Independent Journalism Center – Moldova
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
Journalists’ Trade Union
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Foundation for West Africa
Media Institute of Southern Africa 
Media Rights Agenda
National Union of Somali Journalists
Norwegian PEN
Pacific Islands News Association 
Pakistan Press Foundation
PEN American Center
PEN Canada
PEN International
Public Association “Journalists”
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
Rasha A. Abdulla, Ph.D., The American University in Cairo
Amir Ahmad Nasr, author of My Isl@m
7iber
Access
Arab Digital Expression Foundation
Association for Progressive Communication
Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Global Voices Advocacy
International Federation of Journalists Asia-Pacific
Internet Sans Frontières (Internet Without Borders)
Jadaliyya
Mada Masr
Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
The Workshops (Egypt)

 

Gagging bill defeat: Britain’s democracy just got worse

(Photo illustration: Shutterstock)

(Photo illustration: Shutterstock)

The parliamentary struggle over the UK government’s gagging bill, which has overshadowed Westminster in recent months, is all but over. And the end result is bad news for British democracy.

Yesterday ministers secured their final victories against freedom of speech campaigners. Their plans to make it much harder for charities to get their voices heard during election periods – exactly when their contribution is needed most – are about to become law as a result.

The transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill, to give it its full title, has troubled civil liberties activists from start to finish.

Its attempted clampdown on the public affairs industry by forcing third-party lobbyists on to a statutory register, has been roundly dismissed because in-house lobbyists – the vast majority – are simply not included.

This flawed solution to the bill’s main target has been accompanied by a brutal attack on the voluntary sector. The government’s aim was to force small-scale charities, community groups and the like on to a complicated regulatory regime.

Such would have been the chilling effect of this law that most local-issue campaigning during elections would have been stifled when it came to election time. No surprise the legislation was dubbed the ‘gagging bill’.

As it was, bitter opposition to the proposals finally forced ministers to the negotiating table. Instead of lowering the threshold at which charities must begin reporting their activities to the Electoral Commission watchdog, it was increased to £20,000.

This was a major concession. There were other, smaller retreats too, on how long ‘election time’ actually means — it was reduced from one year to 7.5 months — and by excluding some costs like spending on translation into Welsh, or security, from controlled expenditure.

Ultimately, though, these alterations failed to change the bill’s big impact: that important voices encouraging politicians to make promises, and then holding them to their word, are to be stifled.

The Lords did its best to limit the damage. It inflicted embarrassing defeats on the government, which meant when the bill returned to the Commons yesterday MPs had to vote on whether or not to overturn the changes.

As the bill was being debated in the Commons chamber the atmosphere was one of resentment and frustration from the opposition benches — and a smug superiority from ministers. They knew they had already won the war. Now they were about to win the last of its battles, too.

A critical division came over staffing costs. For the bigger household names, like Countryside Alliance or Oxfam, this really matters.

The gagging bill is reducing the total amount a campaigning group can spend in a general election period from £988,000 to £390,000. Say it employs ten staff on a £20,000 salary — by including the staffing costs, the amount actually available to spend on leaflets and demonstrations and advertising is slashed still further.

Yesterday the government whipped its MPs against the Lords amendments. Groups like 38 Degrees had been mobilising their members to urge wavering MPs to rebel. In their offices earlier this week, staff expressed delight as the number of emails sent to backbenchers who’d previously expressed disquiet shot upwards.

Back in parliament, the mood at this campaigning onslaught was grim. One MP I spoke to was so worked up he got his staff to forward me the emails as they came in, to demonstrate just how disruptive they were. The flood which followed was, indeed, deeply irritating – about 50 poured in over the course of just a couple of hours.

Elsewhere, a Tory veteran even phoned up the police to complain about a group of activists wanting to petition him at his home. The bitter irony of this didn’t pass unnoticed.

Ultimately, all the efforts to sway the Commons didn’t make much of a difference. When it came to a vote the coalition’s majority was reduced to 32. But it still won, and the Lords’ improvements were consigned to history.

What caused this diminishing of our democracy? It’s mostly the result of those in power simply not caring much for the views of others. The latest reports from Downing Street indicate that senior No 10 strategists are desperate to find ways of reducing the pledges which candidates make during general elections. It’s much easier to avoid breaking promises, after all, if you haven’t made them in the first place.

And yet that is exactly what democracy, and free speech in Britain, are about: the ability to highlight when politicians are not sticking to their commitments, and the opportunity to encourage them to stick by a cause. Charities are a vital part of this, but the gagging bill is undermining their ability to make the case.

The result is not so much a law which makes it almost impossible for small-scale charities and voluntary groups to campaign during general elections, but one which merely makes the lives of their employees more difficult and awkward.

At the end of it all, democracy in Britain has got just a little bit worse. Our future elections will be slightly poorer affairs than before. The country we were in 2013 is not the country we shall be when, in a short while, the Queen finally hands royal approval to her government’s gagging bill.

This article was published on 23 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org

Iran: Friends with (social media) benefits?

During the World Economic Forum currently taking place in Davos, Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani dropped some major news — he doesn’t write his own social media messages.

While there has been some confusion in the past about who actually runs his accounts (English and Persian), this confirmation from the man himself may come as a blow to his hundreds of thousands of followers. Since bursting onto the Twitter scene, the 140-characters-or-less long messages — from (later denied) holiday greetings…

…to (later deleted) details of chats with colleagues…

— have been known to cause a stir. Indeed, large parts of Iran’s political elite seem to have taken to social media, as accounts were “set up for every candidate” in last year’s presidential election. Even Ayatollah Khamenei appears to have his own Facebook page.

Meanwhile, most Iranians don’t have the same privilege. Twitter, YouTube and Facebook are all blocked in the country. The crackdown on social media came in the wake of the massive 2009 protests known as the Green Revolution. But Rouhani — or rather, his Twitter team — told the site’s founder back in October that “efforts” were being made to allow citizens to “access all info globally”.

Maybe today’s comments were part of these efforts? Maybe all the citizens of Iran have to do to access social media freely, is become friends with a high-ranking politician?

Pakistani journalists plea for protection

(Image: Rajput Yasir/Demotix)

Journalists in Hyderabad staged a protest after the killing of three media workers in Karachi (Image: Rajput Yasir/Demotix)

The Taliban crossed a red-line last week, when they killed three media workers in Karachi. An incensed Pakistani media blamed the prevalent culture of impunity for the violence against the press, and have urged the state to appoint special public prosecutors to investigate murders of journalists. But why should journalists be demanding this privilege?

Umar Cheema, special correspondent with The News, whose writings have landed him in trouble several times already, has a ready answer: “We are in the frontline on behalf of the citizens; we are paying with our lives.”

And Cheema, who in 2011 was awarded the Committee to Protect Journalists’ International Press Freedom Award for his courageous reporting, is not exaggerating. More than 50 journalists have been killed in the line of duty in Pakistan in the last ten years. According to the Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF), 40 were murdered because of their work.

The demand for a special public prosecutor has resonated with many journalists, including Mazhar Abbas, former secretary general of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists. “If the government appoints special public prosecutors at the provincial as well as at the federal level, it will help speed up both the trials and convictions,” said Abbas. At present no more than four or five cases out of the scores of journalists killed, have made it to court, he said.

There are several reasons for that, he explained: “Our courts are a big deterrent as it takes forever to seek justice. At times, the family of the deceased journalist is reluctant to pursue the case, sometimes the police discourages the family; and even the media organisation the journalist belongs to is not interested in taking it up.”

Journalists are also looking to media organisations to come up with a set of safety  protocols. “The only weapons we can fight with are pens and mikes provided we know how to use them,” said Abbas.

And, added Cheema, regular demonstrations by journalists do not seem effective anymore. “Our protests should lead to some action, we have to become part of the solution.” To his mind, the journalist organisations should stop dithering and hold a dialogue with media owners to make certain demands on their behalf.

Abbas said reviving the joint action committee, comprising of journalists and media organisations who can “find ways of dealing with violence against media” would be a big first step.

Giving examples, he said: “The last strike against violence was observed by such a committee in 1989, when three journalists in Sindh were killed in one day. The second strong protest from a committee was witnessed in 1995, when the then Pakistan People’s Party government banned six evening newspapers in Karachi. The ban was lifted within a few days!”

But requests for media owners to commit to something where resources may be needed, will probably fall on deaf ears, says Ashraf Khan, a Karachi-based senior journalist: “We all know that while precious equipment at electronic media houses is insured as a top priority, the human machinery is not considered worthy enough to be insured!”

Cheema also cites lack of professionalism as something that may land many journalists into trouble. Hasan Abdullah, a journalist researching Islamist groups and who frequents both Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Afghanistan pointed out there were no “guarantees to life in a war zone”.

To keep from getting caught in the Taliban’s crosshairs, Abdullah said journalists “should be very careful with their language”.

“They should avoid using politically-loaded terms that would give their position away. It is best to stick with language that does not carry positive or negative connotations.”

Further, he said: “Every sane human carries an ideology or a set of ideologies, but when reporting, one must be seen to be impartial. Journalists should ensure that no matter how much they disagree with or loathe a view, they must give everyone the right to express their version. For TV journalists, it may be a good idea if their body language and tone is not too expressive of their internal feelings,” he cautioned.

 This article was published on 23 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK