19 Oct 2012 | Uncategorized
A peaceful protest against the Innocence of Muslims in London – Brian Minkoff/Demotix
The Innocence of Muslims controversy put a spotlight on whether offensive online content should be censored or criminalised, as violence in Egypt, Libya and beyond meant many were tempted to argue for the removal of the video from the web.
Most states have laws to control clear and direct incitements to violence; but causing offence is neither an incitement to violence nor a reason to respond with violence. Yet since the initial protests, many countries have queued up to ask Google to block the offending video. Google initially blocked it in Egypt and Libya without even a government request, and then unblocked it.
Should companies, rather than governments, ever be the censors — arbiters of acceptability? Is it more palatable if companies are served with court orders to block access to Internet content? Or that, in keeping with its policy to abide by local laws, Google blocked the video in India and Indonesia because it was ruled illegal?
But more importantly, has a clear line been drawn between the direct incitement to violence (which should absolutely not be protected as free speech) and whether people choose to respond with violence to something they find offensive?
Rwanda is often cited as a case where the balance between safeguarding free speech and preventing violence is particularly relevant, given the severe ethnic conflicts resulting in the 1994 genocide following callings for violence. Local officials and government-sponsored radio incited ordinary citizens to kill their neighbours, and those who refused to kill were often murdered on the spot. The genocide-inciting radio broadcasts shouldn’t have been allowed. There is a clear dividing line.
But The Innocence of Muslims is not in the same category. And if Internet censorship is used because there is crowd violence — and in anticipation of violence, where does it end?
“The big story here is the crack-down on the Internet” William Echikson told me in a telephone interview from Brussels. “The pressures have grown dramatically. And we are doing our best to protect free expression. ”
Echikson is Head of Free Expression Policy and PR, Europe, Middle East & Africa at Google.
According to different reports, Innocence of Muslims was also blocked in India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia as a result of court orders. Google also blocked the video in Malaysia after receiving an official complaint from the Communications and Multimedia Commission, according to AFP. Reporters without Borders said the video was also blocked in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Russia via court orders on grounds of being “extremist”. And in Pakistan, it was blocked by the Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, who issued a directive to the Ministry of Information Technology.
The key, original censors here seem to be violent demonstrators and restrictive governments. Of the 150 countries where Google operates, in about 30 its service has been “affected one way or the other”, adds Echikson.
Governments are indeed cracking-down on the web, either because they already censor blasphemous and other offensive material (even without any likelihood of violence) or because they are giving in to actual or threatened violence. But if governments continue doing that, couldn’t it become an incentive for any fanatical group to threaten or act violently, and get censorship as a result? Isn’t this very similar to the mechanisms of terror: you terrorise or hurt one to scare a thousand?
That is why it is so vital that everyone understands the difference between incitement to violence, and violence in response to offense, an idea that, weeks after the video furore, has vanished from the agenda.
A country such as China may shed some light on where we are heading.
After a series of huge protests and ethnic riots (many of which were organised using instant messaging services, chat rooms, and text messages), China is reported to have intensified its efforts to neutralise online criticism. According to Amnesty, China has the largest number of imprisoned journalists and cyber-dissidents in the world, while the number of “Internet police” is rumoured to be higher than 30,000.
The reason for all this political censorship.
Many of the violent reactions to The Innocence of Muslims were for political reasons, using offence as an excuse. In fact, some analysts and US officials have reported that Benghazi attack of 11 September, which killed the US ambassador to Libya, appeared to have been planned in advance, and had nothing to do whatsoever with the video.
So for the Internet, where does all this end? With the annihilation of McLuhan’s global village and the beginning of a new era of of separate, isolated, over-scrutinised, parochial Internets.
Miren Guitierrez is editorial director of Index on Censorship
16 Oct 2012 | Middle East and North Africa
Saudi Arabia has said it is “insulted” by the announcement of a UK Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry into the UK’s relationship with the Gulf states, in particular Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. In a veiled threat to key trade deals, the country warned that it may “re-evaluate their country’s historic relations” with the UK in response. The inquiry has asked for responses on “how the UK can encourage democratic and liberalising reforms in Saudi Arabia”.
This probe was first announced unofficially by Ann Clwyd MP at an Index on Censorship Bahrain briefing in early September. Attending the briefing on human rights abuses and stalled efforts of reform was Maryam al-Khawaja, Acting President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR). Highlighting censorship and human rights abuses in her country, al-Khawaja said “the UK is to Bahrain what Russia is to Syria”.
In the briefing she pointed out that:
The UK government has made countless pledges to push on Bahrain to implement supposed reforms, but has yet to push forcefully on its partner where it counts…the country continues to perpetuate flagrant human rights violations.
The UK Foreign Office (FCO) regularly refers to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as “close friends”, “key allies” and “valuable trade partners”. Just yesterday as the inquiry furore was made public the FCO said: “Saudi Arabia is a key strategic partner in the region and one of the closest friends and allies”.
Clearly it is politically expedient to ignore the way Saudi Arabia ruthlessly constricts the freedom of its female population, censors much criticism of the ruling authorities and regularly breaks international human rights law in the way it treats its citizens. Bahrain, another ally, breaks up peaceful protests with teargas, birdshot and police brutality, locking up its citizens for such dreadful crimes as tweeting and “insulting the King”.
Throughout the recent uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, the UK government openly supported protests and revolutions that toppled dictators in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. However when the Bahraini people gathered at the Pearl Roundabout in Manama to voice their discontent they were met with a brutal crackdown by the Bahraini authorities aided by Saudi forces. Despite promises of reform this crackdown continues complete with numerous injured protesters, political prisoners, and claims of torture.
And the punishment by the UK government to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain? The UK signs a defence agreement with the Gulf Kingdom to “bolster Bahrain’s security with regards to its regional standing, as well as its internal stability” and remains silent on the issue of human rights abuses in the country.
Index calls upon the UK Foreign Office to live up to its international commitments on human rights and to put real and adequate pressure on Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to reform.
Index and the BCHR both welcome the announcement of this week’s inquiry and plan to submit evidence.
Annette Fisher is international programmes manager at Index
Read more:
Index’s spotlight on Bahrain on the anniversary of the 14 February unrest
18 Sep 2012 | Uncategorized
A Libyan woman shows her ink-stained finger after voting during the National Assembly election this year. (Demotix)
As protests against the anti-Islam film, The Innocence of Muslims, rage on across the globe, some began to ask if this means that the so-called Arab Spring was a failure, as news from the Arab world is once more dominated by chanting, burning American flags and beards. This conclusion is not only problematic, it is also wrong.
The number of protests only seems to grow, but we aren’t really saying much about the amount of people that are actually participating in them. Take Egypt — protests against the film drew about 2,000 protesters in Cairo Friday. A paltry number compared to the reported 1,000,000 that took to the streets of Cairo to call for the fall of Mubarak’s regime last year. Even now, labour protests have spread across schools, universities, and government bodies in Egypt, with thousands demanding improved pay and rights. The Muslim Brotherhood claimed that it organised 350 protests nationwide, no doubt distracting from some of the growing discontent with Morsi’s presidency.
There is no doubt that religious extremism is very present in the Arab world, but these groups are more interested in power, rather than protecting the integrity of Islam or the Prophet. I think it is no surprise that calls for protests have come from political religious groups like the Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. Religion is a pretty quick and easy tool to gain support and divide populations.
Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, made a rare public appearance to address tens of thousands of protesters in Beirut, but made it clear that protests were about the age-old enemy: the US and Israel. No doubt an important message for Nasrallah, as his ally, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad continues to wage a brutal war to stay in power. Focusing on an external threat is a convenient way to distract from an internal struggle.
Sectarianism has been the choice tool of many repressive regimes and political groups. One of the major victories of the so-called Arab Spring was a start of a conversation to push back on those lines — hurting political groups and regimes that draw their loyalty along religious lines. Still, political leaders have clamoured to use the revolutions to their advantage, strategically condemning human rights abuses, and turning a blind eye when similar abuses are inconvenient. In a translation of a speech by Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi, where he condemned Syria’s regime, Iranian state TV replaced “Syria” with “Bahrain”.
Bahrain’s government has painted the country’s ongoing unrest as a Shia uprising, even though the protesters’ demands have been secular, and largely focused on calling for democracy. In addition to a brutal crackdown on protests, state-owned media has depicted the protesters as Shia troublemakers and agents of Iran — a transparent attempt to use religion to crush dissent. While Bahrain has voiced concern over Syria, it has yet to address its own ongoing human rights abuses.
Last year’s uprisings were the start of a long road of change, and religious extremism is another part of those struggles. The Arab world, much like many other parts of the world, is a region that has been rife with corruption, despotism and inequality, as well as groups struggling to gain power with whatever tools they can get, including religious, ethnic or racial identities. Boiling unrest in the region down to Muslim anger or an inherent hatred of the West is short-sighted: it only encourages the flattened image that benefits the groups who wish to exploit it.
Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index on Censorship. She tweets from @MissYasin
Also read:
