Bahrain renews detention of human rights activist Nabeel Rajab

5 Jan 2017 | Bahrain, Bahrain News, News and features

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Nabeel Rajab, BCHR – winner of Bindmans Award for Advocacy at the Index Freedom of Expression Awards 2012 with then-chair of the Index on Censorship board of trustees Jonathan Dimbleby

Index award-winning human rights activist Nabeel Rajab’s pre-trial detention was renewed for a further 15 days by Bahrain’s Public Prosecution on 5 January according to Nabeel’s lawyer. 

Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, is being prosecuted on multiple charges related to his media activities, was supposed to be freed on bail following a decision by the high criminal court on 28 December 2016.

However, he was instead immediately re-arrested and remanded in custody for seven days, on charges related to media interviews he gave in 2015. Rajab has been in police custody since 13 June, when he was arrested for “spreading false news and rumours about the internal situation in Bahrain.”

Since his arrest, prosecutors have instead pursued Rajab with three charges which amount to a total of 15 years in prison if convicted, all relating to his twitter activity. Two of these charges -“spreading rumours in wartime” and “insulting a statutory body” – were originally brought against Rajab in 2015 and relate to his criticism of the humanitarian cost of the war in Yemen and his documentation of torture in Bahrain’s Central Jau Prison, but no prosecution occurred at the time. A third charge of “insulting a neighbouring country” – Saudi Arabia – was added to the case following his June 2016 arrest, and also related to his comments on the Yemen war. Rajab’s next trial date for this case is 23 January.

Rajab also faces separate charges in relation to a letter he wrote to the New York Times in September 2016, and may face additional charges for a December 2016 opinion piece in the French Le Monde.

Rajab has been in pre-trial detention since his arrest in June. His detention, much of it in solitary confinement, has caused a deterioration in his health.

The other charges against Rajab are in relation to remarks he tweeted and retweeted on Twitter in 2015 about the humanitarian crisis caused by the Saudi-led war in Yemen and documenting torture in Bahrain’s Jau prison. In all, he stands accused of spreading false information, “criticising” the government and “insulting” Saudi Arabia.

A tweet by Index, which Rajab shared, is also to be used as evidence against him. It reads:

He was first expected to be sentenced in October 2016, but the court has now postponed hearings for a sixth time, raising doubts about the reliability of evidence against him. His next trial date is 23 January 2017.

The US has called for Rajab’s release “full stop”, and the EU’s top human rights official yesterday expressed his “hope” for Rajab’s release. In September, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights used his opening statement at the 33rd session of the Human Rights Council to warn Bahrain: “The past decade has demonstrated repeatedly and with punishing clarity exactly how disastrous the outcomes can be when a Government attempts to smash the voices of its people, instead of serving them.”

On Tuesday 14 December, 23 MPs penned a joint letter to the Foreign Secretary calling on the UK government to demand the “unconditional release” of Nabeel Rajab from prison, and for the charges against him to be dropped. The letter signed by a cross-party group of MPs urges the UK to follow the lead of the US, the European Parliament, and the UN in calling for Bahrain to release Rajab.

On the same day, Index joined the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy at a protest outside Downing Street and delivered a letter to UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The letter stated: “There is nothing bold in silence over clear human rights violations, and we urge you to now make a public call for Nabeel Rajab’s immediate and unconditional release.”

On 23 December, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement calling for Rajab’s release. His spokesperson stated: “Criticising the Government should not be the grounds for detention or prosecution and we call on the Bahraini authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Mr Rajab.”

Rajab is the winner of a 2012 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award, in part for his work speaking out against human rights violations committed by the Bahrain’s government following a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests on 14 February 2011.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1483696015757-3c65d400-8784-7″ taxonomies=”3368″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

If another country had a press law like Section 40, Britain would condemn it for persecuting journalists

3 Jan 2017 | Media Freedom

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article originally appeared in The Telegraph on 3 January 2017

For years Index of Censorship has monitored state interference in news reporting, from the authoritarian Chile in 1970s to North Korea today. With a history of scrutinising government pressure on media, we were never going to join Impress, the new state-approved UK press regulator.

There should always be a clear distance between any government and journalists that report on it. Again and again Index has reported how governments have set up bodies that stop the media covering stories they don’t like.

In Zimbabwe, the 2002 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act requires all journalists and media companies to register. Unlicensed journalists can face criminal charges and a sentence of up to two years in prison.

Last year the Turkish government has forced the closure of news outlets including Zaman and the Cihan News Agency. As our Mapping Media Freedom project has reported, dozens of journalists have been arrested. In Syria we have seen a systematic stifling of reporting.

Meanwhile in the UK, the Government is considering triggering Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which will ratchet up pressure to self-censor. This repressive legislation would pressurise newspapers to avoid the controversial and not publish things others would rather were not heard.

If such laws were introduced in another country, British politicians would be speaking out against such shocking media censorship. There’s no doubt that authoritarian powers will use this example to bolster their own cases in imposing media regulation.

As the leading media lawyer Mark Stephens has pointed out, this could mean that if a Somalian warlord sued a British publisher for something stated in an entirely truthful report, the publisher could still be ordered to pay the warlord’s costs when he lost the case for defamation. Section 40 has been on the statute book for three years but was not triggered because there was no approved regulator of which publishers could be part.

That changed when Impress, a regulator to which so far only tiny local media publishers have signed up, was approved in October.

Having an approved regulator means Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could now be brought into force and that we and many other small publishers could face crippling costs in any dispute, threatening investigative journalism or those who challenge the powerful or the wealthy.

Newspapers and magazines need to be able to tackle controversial subjects, and hold the powerful to account, whether they choose to join Impress or not. In every issue, Index covers stories of corruption, of threats to writers or journalists and physical violence against people telling the truth. If threats of massive, unreasonable legal costs hang over newspapers and magazines then investigative journalism will be further squeezed.

Local daily newspaper editors are horrified by Section 40 and what it may to do to news gathering. Michael Sassi, editor of the Nottingham Post, warned: “Our future could be seriously compromised if either the proposed Section 40 were to become law or we were forced to submit to a government-sponsored regulator. Section 40 could encourage an avalanche of complaints because of the profoundly unfair clause that would force us to pay complainants’ costs – win or lose.”

As George Orwell said: “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” At times like this the Government must be even more vigilant about standing up for freedom of expression. If it fails to do so, it will undoubtedly be held up by other nations as an example they can follow.

Culture Secretary Karen Bradley is consulting on whether this chilling law should be activated. She told MPs last month that a number of editors of local newspapers were concerned that the exemplary damages section could put out them of business and certainly “would impact on their ability to do investigative journalism”.

That is an understatement. Section 40 is a direct threat to press freedom in the UK and must be scrapped.

Rachael Jolley is the editor of the Index on Censorship magazine

This article originally appeared in The Telegraph on 3 January 2017[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1484058713590-29d066e3-327e-3″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK