26 Jun 2015 | Academic Freedom, Academic Freedom Letters, Magazine, News, Turkey Letters, Volume 44.02 Summer 2015
With threats ranging from “no-platforming” controversial speakers, to governments trying to suppress critical voices, and corporate controls on research funding, academics and writers from across the world have signed Index on Censorship’s open letter on why academic freedom needs urgent protection.
Academic freedom is the theme of a special report in the summer issue of Index on Censorship magazine, featuring a series of case studies and research, including stories of how setting an exam question in Turkey led to death threats for one professor, to lecturers in Ukraine having to prove their patriotism to a committee, and state forces storming universities in Mexico. It also looks at how fears of offence and extremism are being used to shut down debate in the UK and United States, with conferences being cancelled and “trigger warnings” proposed to flag potentially offensive content.
Signatories on the open letter include authors AC Grayling, Monica Ali, Kamila Shamsie and Julian Baggini; Jim Al-Khalili (University of Surrey), Sarah Churchwell (University of East Anglia), Thomas Docherty (University of Warwick), Michael Foley (Dublin Institute of Technology), Richard Sambrook (Cardiff University), Alan M. Dershowitz (Harvard Law School), Donald Downs (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Professor Glenn Reynolds (University of Tennessee), Adam Habib (vice chancellor, University of the Witwatersrand), Max Price (vice chancellor of University of Cape Town), Jean-Paul Marthoz (Université Catholique de Louvain), Esra Arsan (Istanbul Bilgi University) and Rossana Reguillo (ITESO University, Mexico).
The letter states:
We the undersigned believe that academic freedom is under threat across the world from Turkey to China to the USA. In Mexico academics face death threats, in Turkey they are being threatened for teaching areas of research that the government doesn’t agree with. We feel strongly that the freedom to study, research and debate issues from different perspectives is vital to growing the world’s knowledge and to our better understanding. Throughout history, the world’s universities have been places where people push the boundaries of knowledge, find out more, and make new discoveries. Without the freedom to study, research and teach, the world would be a poorer place. Not only would fewer discoveries be made, but we will lose understanding of our history, and our modern world. Academic freedom needs to be defended from government, commercial and religious pressure.
Index will also be hosting a debate in London, Silenced on Campus, on 1 July, with panellists including journalist Julie Bindel, Nicola Dandridge of Universities UK, and Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, US.
To attend for free, register here.
If you would like to add your name to the open letter, email [email protected]
A full list of signatories:
Professor Mike Adams, University of North Carolina, Wilmington, USA
Monica Ali, author
Lyell Asher, associate professor, Lewis & Clark College, USA
Professor Jim Al-Khalili OBE, University of Surrey, UK
Esra Arsan, associate professor, Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey
Julian Baggini, author
Professor Mark Bauerlein, Emory University, USA
David S. Bernstein, publisher, USA
Robert Bionaz, associate professor, Chicago State University, USA
Susan Blackmore, visiting professor, University of Plymouth, UK
Professor Jan Blits, professor emeritus, University of Delaware, USA
Professor Enikö Bollobás, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
Professor Roberto Briceño-León, LACSO, Caracas, Venezuela
Simon Callow, actor
Professor Sarah Churchwell, University of East Anglia, UK
Professor Martin Conboy, University of Sheffield, UK
Professor Thomas Cushman, Wellesley College, USA
Professor Antoon De Baets, University of Groningen, Holland
Professor Alan M Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, USA
Rick Doblin, Association for Psychedelic Studies, USA
Professor Thomas Docherty, University of Warwick, UK
Professor Donald Downs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Professor Alice Dreger, Northwestern University, USA
Michael Foley, lecturer, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Professor Tadhg Foley, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Nick Foster, programme director, University of Leicester, UK
Professor Chris Frost, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
AC Grayling, author
Professor Randi Gressgård, University of Bergen, Norway
Professor Adam Habib, vice-chancellor, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Professor Gerard Harbison, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Adam Hart Davis, author and academic, UK
Professor Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern School of Business, USA
John Earl Haynes, retired political historian, Washington, USA
Professor Gary Holden, New York University, USA
Professor Mickey Huff, Diablo Valley College, USA
Professor David G. Hoopes, California State University, USA
Philo Ikonya, poet
James Ivers, lecturer, Eastern Michigan University, USA
Rachael Jolley, editor, Index on Censorship
Lee Jones, senior lecturer, Queen Mary University of London, UK
Stephen Kershnar, distinguished teaching professor, State University of New York, Fredonia, USA
Professor Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University, USA
Ian Kilroy, lecturer, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Val Larsen, associate professor, James Madison University, USA
Wendy Law-Yone, author
Professor Michel Levi, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Ecuador
Professor John Wesley Lowery, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA
Greg Lukianoff, president and chief executive, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (Fire), USA
Professor Tetyana Malyarenko, Donetsk State Management University, Ukraine
Ziyad Marar, global publishing director, Sage
Charlie Martin, editor PJ Media, UK
Jean-Paul Marthoz, senior lecturer, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, King’s College London, UK
John McAdams, associate professor, Marquette University, USA
Timothy McGuire, associate professor, Sam Houston State University, USA
Professor Tim McGettigan, Colorado State University, USA
Professor Lucia Melgar, professor in literature and gender studies, Mexico
Helmuth A. Niederle, writer and translator, Germany
Professor Michael G. Noll, Valdosta State University, USA
Undule Mwakasungula, human rights defender, Malawi
Maureen O’Connor, lecturer, University College Cork, Ireland
Professor Niamh O’Sullivan, curator of Ireland’s Great Hunger Museum, and Quinnipiac University, Connecticut, USA
Behlül Özkan, associate professor, Marmara University, Turkey
Suhrith Parthasarathy, journalist, India
Professor Julian Petley, Brunel University, UK
Jammie Price, writer and former professor, Appalachian State University, USA
Max Price, vice-chancellor, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Clive Priddle, publisher, Public Affairs
Professor Rossana Reguillo, ITESO University, Mexico
Professor Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee College of Law, USA
Professor Matthew Rimmer, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Professor Paul H. Rubin, Emory University, USA
Andrew Sabl, visiting professor, Yale University, USA
Alain Saint-Saëns, director,Universidad Del Norte, Paraguay
Professor Richard Sambrook, Cardiff University, UK
Luís António Santos, University of Minho, Portugal
Professor Francis Schmidt, Bergen Community College, USA
Albert Schram, vice chancellor/CEO, Papua New Guinea University of Technology
Victoria H F Scott, independent scholar, Canada
Kamila Shamsie, author
Harvey Silverglate, lawyer and writer, Massachusetts, USA
William Sjostrom, director and senior lecturer, University College Cork, Ireland
Suzanne Sisley, University of Arizona College of Medicine, USA
Chip Stewart, associate dean of the Bob Schieffer College of Communication, Texas Christian University, USA
Professor Nadine Strossen, New York Law School, USA
Professor Dawn Tawwater, Austin Community College, USA
Serhat Tanyolacar, visiting assistant professor, University of Iowa, USA
Professor John Tooby, University of California, USA
Meena Vari, Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore, India
Professor Leland Van den Daele, California Institute of Integral Studies, USA
Professor Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law, USA
Catherine Walsh, poet and teacher, Ireland
Christie Watson, author
Ray Wilson, author
Professor James Winter, University of Windsor, Canada
29 Apr 2015 | Europe and Central Asia, mobile, News
OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović, at the Permanent Council in Vienna, 16 January 2014. (Photo: OSCE)
Anniversaries and commemorations are times to reflect, judge and move forward. So it is with World Press Freedom Day, which we note for the 22nd time this year amid worldwide evidence of hostility toward the media.
The date of 3 May was set aside by the UN General Assembly in 1993 to foster free, independent, pluralistic media worldwide.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the largest regional security organisation in the world, just four years later in 1997 created the position I now hold, the Representative on Freedom of the Media. The position was established expressly to help countries that are members of the organisation (which includes all of Europe, the countries of the former Soviet Union and Mongolia, as well as the United States and Canada) implement their promises to uphold the rights to free expression and free media.
It is my job to advocate for these two concepts. It is also my job to help, cajole and sometimes plead with the 57 nations in the organisation to simply live up to their promises to provide the environment in which free expression and free media can flourish.
Over the past 18 years only three people have held the position of Representative. As I enter my sixth and last year in this position, the time has come to reflect on the state of media freedom and to analyse the overall health of free expression across the OSCE region.
To do so, I needed a base from which to judge. I found that by returning to the very first public statement issued by the Representative’s office, then headed by German politician Freimut Duve, on 7 September 1998. It announced, ironically, that Duve had been denied a visa by authorities in Belgrade to visit the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to lobby the government to change its policy of denying visas to reporters from other countries, some of whom were considered foreign intelligence agents.
The Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the very document that eventually brought the OSCE into existence, expressly called for improving the working conditions for journalists, which included examining “in a favorable spirit and within a suitable and reasonable time scale requests from journalists for visas” and to “grant to permanently accredited journalists…on the basis of arrangements, multiple entry and exit visas for specified periods”.
Duve wrote in the public statement: “Tito himself, as President of the former Yugoslavia, signed in 1975 his country’s acceptance of the principles and commitments of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe.”
Those commitments expressly included the right of journalists to work internationally.
Promises made. Promises not kept.
Have things changed over the years?
The fact that you are reading this posting identifies you as someone well aware of the precarious position journalists and the media find themselves in today. They face a litany of problems, none of which is bigger than the issue of life itself.
The year 2015 hardly had started when eight journalists for the French magazine Charlie Hebdo were murdered in their office in Paris – over the depiction of a religious figure. Two weeks later, a discussion group in Copenhagen convened to talk about the Paris incident came under gunfire with another person killed. So much for free media. So much for free expression.
But we all know that while homicidal violence against journalists is the most drastic form of attack on free media, it is not the only one. Across the OSCE region media is subject to all nature of offences: criminal defamation laws that put reporters in jail for rooting out corruption in public places; cyber-attacks that plague internet media sites; new laws that are being adopted to criminalise free expression in the name of fighting terrorism; and increasing regulation of the internet in an effort by authoritarian governments to squelch media and free expression advocates.
The simple violations of media rights continue, too. In the past 12 months I have written to authorities and issued public statement on at least six occasions condemning the refusal of governments in the OSCE region to grant visas to foreign-based reporters. Have things really changed in 2015 from 1998? Only the countries involved; not the practices.
But even if my judgment on the past 18 years is harsh, media freedom advocates, such as me, must continue to move forward and provide the defenses necessary for free expression and free media to flourish. Complacency is not an option.
Solidarity, however, is.
For example, three rapporteurs on free expression from the United Nations, the Organization of American States and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights and I annually issue a joint declaration on a topic related to free expression. Those declarations now are seeing their way into decisions of national and international bodies, including judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This is real progress. Decisions upholding citizens’ rights under Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are real results.
And all of us must continue to raise the issue of the rights of media before national legislatures. Public awareness campaigns on behalf of media can be effective tools to prod elected officials to spend the resources, including political capital, necessary to build environments conducive to free expression. Elected officials and their appointed, often nameless and faceless bureaucrats, can be taught and encouraged to write good laws and appoint good law enforcement authorities, including police, prosecutors and judges, to interpret those laws in a fashion that will provide oxygen for those who champion free expression.
It is easy to become disillusioned and depressed by the daily fare of media issues. We should recognise the perilous state of free media and free expression in many spots in the world. But we never should lose our focus. We should take note of this date and make a personal commitment to stand for the basic human rights of free expression and free media – this year and the next and the years after that.
World Press Freedom Day 2015
• Media freedom in Europe needs action more than words
• Dunja Mijatović: The good fight must continue
• Mass surveillance: Journalists confront the moment of hesitation
• The women challenging Bosnia’s divided media
• World Press Freedom Day: Call to protect freedom of expression
This column was posted on 29 April 2015 at indexoncensorship.org
18 Mar 2015 | Bahrain, Campaigns
After several unsuccessful appeals to prison administration officials for adequate medical assistance, leading Bahraini human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja has publically announced that he has gone on hunger strike in protest of his continued arbitrary detention and mistreatment while in prison.
Al-Khawaja, who began the water-only hunger strike on 2 March 2015, is suffering from serious health issues and is at severe risk of further health complications.
“He sounded weak and exhausted on the phone to an extent that we could tell how sick he was, but this won’t stop him from battling for his freedom and the freedom of all human rights defenders in Bahrain,” said his daughter Maryam Al-Khawaja, Co-Director of at the Gulf Center for Human Rights (GCHR).
Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, the Co-founder of the Gulf Center for Human Rights (GCHR) and the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), was sentenced to life in prison in June 2011 for peaceful human rights activities The undersigned organizations and individuals express their grave concern about the continued mistreatment of Al-Khawaja while in detention and call on the Government of Bahrain to immediately and unconditionally address Al-Khawaja’s legitimate demands.
On 23 February 2015, Al-Khawaja delivered a letter to the head of Jaw prison informing the authorities that he would be starting a hunger strike on 2 March 2015 including the demands listed below.
Specific demands related to the hunger strike:
1. Hand over a copy of his medical file to his family or his lawyer to get a second opinion on a much-needed operation. This request was previously made on 2 January 2015.
2. Allow visitation rights to his son-in-law via the procedure of making special requests, according to standard procedures.
3. Allow flexibility in the number of people permitted during family visits as it used to be 10 but had been reduced to six.
4. Make available the prison law list to make clear what rights and obligations prisoners have.
5. Allow families to bring magazines to prisoners, which used to be allowed but have been stopped since three weeks ago.
6. Make available Al-Wasat and Al-Watan newspapers with the rest of newspapers available.
7. Allow families to bring a radio or make it available at the prison store as per the decision that was made five months ago but not implemented after the banning of MP3 players.
8. Set up a mechanism for follow up in regards to the other issues related to Building 7 at Jaw prison.
General demands:
1. Protest about continued arbitrary arrests and lack of investigation into torture.
2. Protest against the generally bad situation in the prison, especially in the recent period.
Background information:
On 4 September 2012, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued a decision on Al-Khawaja’s case, defining it as “arbitrary” and calling for his immediate release. This is at least the fourth time Al-Khawaja has gone on a water-only hunger strike, putting him at serious risk of cardiac arrest or slipping into a coma. During the last phone call he made to his family on 14 March, Al-Khawaja’s blood sugar was 2.5, his blood pressure was 90/60, his weight had gone down 10 kilos to 53, ketone level was 2+, and he sounded exhausted and weak on the phone. He also informed his family that the doctors conveyed a threat from officers that if his health further deteriorates, he will be forcibly moved and force fed, an action that is considered torture by the United Nations experts.
According to a local internal medicine specialist, “When fat stocks are used up after prolonged or recurrent periods of hunger strikes, a catastrophic protein catabolism will develop. Main somatic complications ensuing from these physiopathological mechanisms are dehydration, shock, renal failure, stroke, hypoglycemic coma, metabolic disturbances (arrhythmias), vitamin deficiencies (Gayet-Wernicke), peptic ulcers and nephrolithiasis, without forgetting the major risks associated with re-nutrition.”
She warned, “Serious complications and death occur especially from the fortieth day on, but early and unexpected complications are possible. Close medical monitoring is recommended after 10% of weight loss in lean healthy individuals. Serious medical problems begin at a loss of approximately 18% from initial body weight. The risk of neurological signs by thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency is common in cases of fasting with exclusive intake of sugar and liquids.” Those who go on hunger strike are prone to have multiple deficiencies including iron deficiency, Vitamin b12 and Folate deficiency which will make them at greater risk of developing anemia.
Al-Khawaja’s family members noticed that he was very pale, which could be secondary to chronic anemia due to his recurrent hunger strikes with underlying malnutrition conditions. Chronic anemia especially in cases of hunger strike with Folate or B12 and other mineral deficiencies will make persons undergoing hunger strikes prone to have cardiac failure with high risk of arrhythmia.
We the undersigned organisations and individuals call on the Government of Bahrain to immediately and unconditionally release Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, who has been imprisoned solely for practicing his right to free expression and as a result of his human rights work. We also call on the authorities in Bahrain to respond to Al-Khawaja’s demands, and to guarantee better prison conditions for all prisoners in Bahrain.
Signed:
Avocats Sans Frontier (ASF)
Amman Center for Human Rights Studies
Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR)
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
Bahrain Rehabilitation and Anti-Violence Organization (BRAVO)
Bahrain Salam for Human Rights
Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR)
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
CIVICUS : World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Damien McCormack – Irish Surgeon and activist
European Bahraini Organization for Human Rights (EBOHR)
Freedom House
Gulf Center for Human Rights (GCHR)
Index on Censorship
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Service for Human Rights
Khiam Center for Rehabilitation
Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada
Lord Eric Avebury – Vice-Chair, Parliamentary Human Rights Group UK
MENA Monitoring Group
No Peace Without Justice
PEN International
Sentinel Defenders
The International Center for Supporting Rights and Freedoms
Yemen Organization for Defending Rights and Democratic Freedoms
Participate in our campaign #FreeAlkhawaja
Take an active role in our solidarity campaign by supporting Al-Khawaja in his hunger strike battle, by signing the petition to free Al-Khawaja on the following link:
https://www.change.org/p/the-government-of-bahrain-freealkhawaja-immediately-and-unconditionally-2?just_created=true
And post your photo with the hash-tag #FreeAlkhawaja on:
Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gulf-Center-For-Human-Rights/273623332709903
Twitter: @GulfCentre4HR
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/1/112405182651959689611/posts
3 Mar 2015 | About Index, Campaigns, Press Releases, Statements
On the second anniversary of the start of the mass “UAE 94” trial that imprisoned dozens of government critics and reform activists in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), including prominent human rights defenders, judges, academics, and student leaders, a coalition of 13 organizations calls on the UAE government to release immediately and unconditionally all those imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and association following this grossly unfair trial, as well as those who remain detained or imprisoned for publicizing concerns about it. The organizations also call on the authorities to ensure that the allegations of torture and other ill-treatment that the individuals were subjected to prior to and following their trial are promptly, independently, impartially and thoroughly investigated, that those responsible are held to account, and that the victims have access to effective remedies and to reparation.
The organizations share the serious concerns raised since 2011 by several UN human rights bodies and human rights organizations regarding the UAE government’s continuing pattern of harassment, secret, arbitrary and prolonged incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances, and unfair trials targeting activists and those critical of the authorities, as well as its increasing use of national security as a pretext to clamp down on peaceful activism and to stifle calls for reform.
The space for dissent in the UAE is increasingly shrinking. The repression has been entrenched with the enactment in 2012 of the cybercrimes law, which the government has used to silence social media activists and others who support and defend freedom of expression online, and the enactment of the 2014 counter-terror law. The vague and overly broad definition of terrorism in the 2014 law, which treats a wide range of activities, including those protected by human rights standards, as amounting to terrorism, may be used to sentence human rights defenders or critics of the government to lengthy prison terms or even death.[1]
The organizations call on the UAE government, which currently is a member of the UN Human Rights Council, to adhere to its obligations to uphold human rights at home, including respecting the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, and to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.
The anniversary of the mass trial, widely known as the “UAE 94” trial, coincides with the anniversary of the March 2011 petition from a group of 133 high-profile women and men addressed to the UAE President, which called for democratic reform. The petition elicited an uncompromisingly repressive response from the UAE authorities and many of its signatories, and their families, have been harassed, arbitrarily arrested, or imprisoned in the four years since they put their names to their call for reform.
The UAE 94 trial, which began on 4 March 2013 before the State Security Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi, saw a total of 94 defendants, including eight who were charged and tried in absentia, stand trial en masse on the charge of establishing an organization that aimed to overthrow the government, a charge which they all denied. The trial failed to meet international fair trial standards and was widely condemned by human rights organizations and UN bodies, including the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The court accepted prosecution evidence that consisted largely of “confessions” made by defendants while they were in pre-trial detention. The court failed to require, before the admission of such evidence, that the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the “confessions” were obtained by lawful means and voluntarily from the accused. The court also failed to take steps to investigate, or order a prompt, independent, impartial and thorough investigation of the defendants’ claims that State Security interrogators had forced them, under torture or other ill-treatment, to make false “confessions” incriminating themselves and others during months when they were held incommunicado in secret locations and without access to lawyers or the outside world. The defendants were also denied a right of appeal to a higher tribunal; under UAE law, Federal Supreme Court judgments are final and not subject to appeal.[2]
On 2 July 2013, the court convicted 69 of the 94 defendants, including the eight tried in absentia, and acquitted 25. The defendants included many people who had achieved prominence in the UAE in their respective fields in the law, education and academia, business, and as government advisers. The court sentenced to prison terms of between seven and 15 years many well-known figures including: prominent human rights lawyer and law professor Dr Mohammed Al-Roken, who has written a number of books and journal articles on human rights, freedom of expression, and counterterror laws; high profile lawyers Dr Mohammed Al-Mansoori and Salem Al-Shehhi; judge Mohammed Saeed Al-Abdouli; law professor and former judge Dr Ahmed Al-Zaabi; lawyer and university professor Dr Hadef Al-Owais; senior member of the Ras Al-Khaimah ruling family Sheikh Dr Sultan Kayed Mohammed Al-Qassimi; businessman Khalid Al-Shaiba Al-Nuaimi; Science teacher Hussain Ali Al-Najjar Al-Hammadi; blogger and former teacher Saleh Mohammed Al-Dhufairi; student leader Abdulla Al-Hajri; and student and blogger Khalifa Al-Nuaimi who, before his arrest, had kept an active blog which he used to express criticism of the human rights situation in the UAE and the heavy-handed approach of the State Security apparatus.[3]
Others convicted at the trial include seven activists, known as the “UAE 7”, who had their citizenship arbitrarily withdrawn in 2011 and were told to leave the country. They are economist Ahmed Ghaith Al-Suwaidi; teacher Hussein Al-Jabri; former long-term employee of the Ministry of Presidential Affairs Hassan Al-Jabri; teacher Ibrahim Hassan Al-Marzouqi; former teacher Sheikh Mohammed Al-Sadeeq; Dr Shahin Abdullah Al-Hosni; and Dr Ali Hussain Al-Hammadi.
During the trial, the authorities took steps to prevent independent reporting of the proceedings. International media and independent trial observers were not permitted access to the court. Security authorities refused to allow an independent trial observer delegated by Amnesty International entry to the UAE immediately prior to the opening of the trial. Two independent observers sent by the International Commission of Jurists were turned away by plain-clothed security officials before they reached the Federal Supreme Court building.[4] Another international observer mandated by the International Federation for Human Rights, the Gulf Center for Human Rights, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, and the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, was also denied access to the final trial hearing on 2 July 2013, despite an earlier indication by the UAE authorities that she would be allowed to attend.[5]
In November 2013, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an Opinion on the UAE 94 case, concluding that the UAE government had deprived the defendants of their right to a fair trial, enshrined in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that the arrest and detention of the individuals had resulted from the exercise of their rights to freedom of opinion and expression and to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, guaranteed under articles 19 and 20 of the UDHR, stating that the restrictions on those rights could not be considered to be proportionate and justified. It declared the arrest and detention of the 61 defendants who were imprisoned following the mass trial to be arbitrary and called on the UAE authorities to release them and afford them appropriate reparation.[6]
Authorities also barred some of the defendants’ relatives from the courtroom; and others, who were permitted to attend, were harassed, detained or imprisoned after they criticized the proceedings and publicized torture allegations made by the defendants on the Twitter social media website.
In April 2013, a court sentenced Abdullah Al-Hadidi, the son of one of the UAE 94 who was convicted, Abdulrahman Al-Hadidi, to 10 months’ imprisonment on the charge of publishing details of the trial proceedings “without probity and in bad faith,” after he criticized the proceedings on Twitter. He was released in November 2013.
Blogger and netizen, Obaid Yousef Al-Zaabi, brother of Dr Ahmed Al-Zaabi, was arrested in July 2013 and again in December 2013, and was prosecuted on several charges based on his Twitter posts about the trial, including spreading “slander concerning the rulers of the UAE using phrases that lower their status, and accusing them of oppression” and “disseminating ideas and news meant to mock and damage the reputation of a governmental institution.” In June 2014, Obaid Yousef Al-Zaabi was acquitted of all charges but, despite this, the authorities continue to arbitrarily detain him, even though there is no legal basis for depriving him of his liberty. He remains in the prisoners’ ward of Sheikh Khalifa Medical City Hospital in Abu Dhabi, as he continues to suffer from advanced arthritis and rheumatism and has difficulty walking.[7]
Osama Al-Najjar, netizen and son of Hussain Ali Al-Najjar Al-Hammadi, was arrested in March 2014 and prosecuted for charges based on messages he posted on Twitter defending his father, who is one of the UAE 94. In November 2014, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a heavy fine for charges including “designing and running a website on social networks with the aim of publishing inaccurate, satirical and defaming ideas and information that are harmful to the structure of State institutions”; “offending the State”; “instigating hatred against the State”; and “contacting foreign organizations and presenting inaccurate information” about the UAE 94 trial and living conditions inside Al-Razeen Prison. He had no right to appeal the verdict and is imprisoned in Al-Wathba Prison, Abu Dhabi.[8]
The UAE 94 trial proved to be the centerpiece of the authorities’ broader crackdown targeting expression of dissent and advocacy of greater public participation in the governance of the UAE and other reform. At one stroke, the authorities removed from the public arena their most prominent critics and the country’s leading advocates of reform, while signaling to other potential dissenters that they will not tolerate open political debate in the UAE or any form of criticism of the government.[9]
The coalition is very concerned about the lack of space for rights organizations to do their legitimate work and about the repeated attempts by the UAE authorities or their supporters to eliminate freedom of expression for its residents, not only in the traditional media, but also on social media networks. On 28 October 2014, for example, high profile human rights defender and blogger Ahmed Mansoor’s Twitter account, in which he publishes his personal thoughts and views, was hacked. On 15 February 2015, three sisters, Asma Khalifa Al-Suwaidi, Maryam Khalifa Al-Suwaidi and Alyaziyah Khalifa Al-Suwaidi, were subject to enforced disappearance and there are serious concerns for their safety. The three sisters have campaigned peacefully online for the release of their brother, one of the UAE 94 prisoners, Dr Issa Al-Suwaidi, highlighting his unfair trial and the human rights violations to which he was subjected at the hands of UAE authorities. Dr Issa Al-Suwaidi is a respected academic and was the General Secretary of the Red Crescent in the UAE between 1996 and 1998.
On 16 February 2015, government-owned newspaper The National reported that the UAE government had adopted 36 recommendations made by the Human Rights Department of the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs after it carried out a study of international reports on the country’s human rights performance. The online newspaper said one of the recommendations was that an independent committee be established to review all allegations of torture, which the coalition endorses. However, the report disappeared from The National’s website the day after it was published, which is discouraging.[10]
The coalition urgently calls on the UAE authorities to implement recommendations by UN bodies and international human rights organizations to:
- release immediately and unconditionally all those individuals detained or imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and association;
- prohibit the practice of secret detention;
- institute safeguards against torture and other ill-treatment, and ensure that all complaints or allegations of torture and other ill-treatment are promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated;
- ensure that victims of torture and other ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and other human rights violations have access to effective remedies;
- ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty receive a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court in accordance with international human rights standards, including by having the right to appeal the judgment before a higher court or tribunal;
- publish the 36 recommendations made by the Human Rights Department of the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and implement the recommendation that an independent committee be established to review all allegations of torture;
- amend any legislation which impermissibly restricts the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, with a view to bringing all of these laws into full conformity with the UAE’s obligations under international human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
- ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocols, and the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
***********************************
Amnesty International
For more information please call Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa press officer Sara Hashah on +44 20 7413 5566 / +44 7778 472 126, or email: [email protected]
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
For more information, please email Rawda Ahmed, Deputy Executive Director and Head of Legal Aid Unit, on [email protected]
ARTICLE 19
For more information, please contact David Diaz-Jogeix, Director of Programmes, on [email protected]
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
For more information, please call Khalid Ibrahim on +961 70159552, or email: [email protected] www.gc4hr.org
Freedom House
For media inquiries, please email Robert Herman, Vice President for Regional Programs, on [email protected]
Front Line Defenders
For more information, please call Jim Loughran, Head of Media and Communications on +353 (0)1 212 3750, or email [email protected]
Index on Censorship
For more information, please contact Melody Patry, senior advocacy officer, on +44 207 260 2660 or [email protected]
International Commission of Jurists
For more information, please contact Said Benarbia, Middle East and North Africa Programme, on + 41 22 979 38 17 or [email protected]
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
For more information, please contact Arthur Manet, Director of media relations, on +33 1 43 55 90 19 or [email protected]
Lawyers for Lawyers
For more information, please call Ms Adrie van de Streek, Executive Director on +31 (0)6 26 274 390 or email [email protected]
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
For more information, please call Gail Davidson, Executive Director, on +1 (604) 736 1175, or email [email protected]
PEN International
For more information, please contact PEN’s Communications and Campaigns Manager Sahar Halaimzai on +44 (0) 20 7405 0338 or email [email protected]
Reporters Without Borders
For more information, please call Lucie Morillon, Programme Director on +33 1 44 83 84 71, or email [email protected]
[1] Gulf Centre for Human Rights, Front Line Defenders, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, UAE: Fear that Anti-Terrorism Law will be used to curtail human rights and target human rights defenders, 13 December 2014, http://www.gc4hr.org/news/view/850
[2] International Commission of Jurists, Mass Convictions Following an Unfair Trial: The UAE 94 Case, 4 October 2013, http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UAE-report-4-Oct-2013smallpdf.com_.pdf
[3] A few days before his own arrest in July 2012, Khalifa al-Nuaimi wrote on his blog about the wave of mass arrests by the UAE’s State Security apparatus, saying “You do not have the right to take a son from his father…a father from his son…a teacher from his students…a preacher from his audience…and imprison them unlawfully.”
[4] International Commission of Jurists, United Arab Emirates: ICJ condemns blatant disregard of the right to a fair and public trial, 12 March 2013, http://www.icj.org/united-arab-emirates-icj-condemns-blatant-disregard-of-the-right-to-a-fair-and-public-trial/?_sm_au_=iVV7R4317ftBnjDP
[5] Doughty Street Chambers, UAE denies International Legal Observer access to verdict in show trial of UAE 94, 1 July 2013, http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/article/uae-denies-international-legal-observer-access-to-verdict-in-show-trial-of-; The coalition released two judicial observation reports based on interviews conducted by British human rights lawyer Melanie Gingell with family members who attended the hearings, local human rights defenders and activists, as well as international and local media: International Federation for Human Rights, Gulf Center for Human Rights, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, United Arab Emirates: Criminalising Political Dissent, 27 August 2013, https://www.fidh.org/International-Federation-for-Human-Rights/north-africa-middle-east/united-arab-emirates/united-arab-emirates-criminalising-political-dissent-13879; Alkarama, Amnesty International, Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, Gulf Centre for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights, UAE: Unfair Trial, Unjust Sentences, 3 July 2013, https://www.fidh.org/International-Federation-for-Human-Rights/north-africa-middle-east/united-arab-emirates/uae-unfair-trial-unjust-sentences-13590
[6] United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary detention at its 68th Session (13-22 November 2013), UN Doc A/HRC/WGAD/2013/60.
[7] Amnesty International understands that during the first few weeks after his arrest, a senior State Security Prosecution official told Obaid Yousef Al-Zaabi that he would not be released even if he went to trial and a court found him innocent.
[8] Reporters Without Borders, Online activist gets three years for criticizing torture of detainees, 2 December 2014, http://en.rsf.org/emirats-arabes-unis-online-activist-gets-three-years-02-12-2014,47327.html;
[9] Amnesty International, There is no freedom here – Silencing dissent in the United Arab Emirates (MDE 25/018/2014), 18 November 2014 https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/MDE25/0018/2014/en/
[10] The National, “Government approval for 36 human rights ‘recommendations’, FNC hears”, 16 February 2015, http://www.thenational.ae/uae/government-approval-for-36-human-rights-recommendations-fnc-hears
