21 Nov 2012 | Egypt, Middle East and North Africa
The ideological battle for Egypt’s soul has intensified in recent weeks. Rising tensions threaten to polarise a country wracked by deep divisions over the role Islam will play in the “new” Egypt. Many of the revolutionary activists who participated in the January 2011 mass uprising envisioned the new Egypt as a secular, civil state. These hopes were dashed by Islamist victories in the post-revolution parliamentary and presidential elections. Islamists won about two-thirds of 508 seats in the parliamentary election at the end of last year — the Muslim Brotherhood won 38 per cent of seats, and the Salafist Al Nour party secured 29 per cent. As an Islamist-dominated assembly debates the country’s new constitution — a charter that will shape Egypt’s future — liberals fear that Egypt may evolve into an Iranian-style theocracy.
— Egyptian Salafists filled Tahrir Square earlier this month to demand that Sharia law be enshrined in the country’s constitution (Demotix)
Thousands of protesters filled Tahrir Square on 8 November to demand that Islamic Sharia law be enshrined in Egypt’s new constitution. Sharia has been the subject of heated debate among members of the panel engaged in drafting the constitution. Liberals favour preserving the wording of the 1971 Constitution which states that “the principles of Sharia are the basis of all legislation”. Hardline Islamists are demanding the wording be changed to declare that “the rulings of Sharia” law serve as the source of legislation. This more stringent interpretation of Islamic law would include implementing Hudood laws — a set of punishments under Islam’s Penal Law that include punishing theft by cutting off a hand, stonings for adultery, and death for apostates (former Muslims who reject the faith).
The inflexibility of Islamist members on the Constituent Assembly over this issue led liberal rights activist Manal El Tibi to resign from the assembly in September.
As the 12 December deadline for the document approaches, thirty liberal members of the 100-member assembly have quit in protest, complaining that their voices were being ignored by Islamist members determined to use the constitution to turn Egypt into an Islamic state. Representatives from Egypt’s churches also withdrew from the panel on Saturday, rejecting the idea of a “religious state”.
Salafists have wrangled with liberal assembly members over other articles of the draft charter, namely those on the role of Islamic institution Al Azhar (Liberals want to establish the 1,000-year-old Sunni institution as the only authority allowed to interpret Sharia), on women’s rights, and civil and religious freedoms. Liberals are concerned that a strict interpretation of Sharia may usher in restrictive policies for women, such as the imposition of an Islamic dress code, and forced segregation between men and women in public.
— Egyptian woman in Tahrir Square carries sign saying “our rights, now” during marches for women’s rights in Cairo’s Tahrir Square last year (Demotix)
Liberals hoped to eliminate all forms of gender-based discrimination in the new charter, but activist Ziad Ali says that the new charter “is a dismal compromise, which is no better than the previous (1971) constitution.” The draft constitution makes a patronising promise to “help women strike a balance between their family duties and their work in society”, — a pledge slammed by rights activists as “discriminatory” as it would make women second-class citizens.
While women’s rights have been the bone of contention in the constitutional debate, religious freedom too has been at the centre of the controversy. Article 8 on freedom of belief has been revised to read: “Freedom of belief is absolute and religious rights are to be practised if they do not disturb public order”. The added provision, “if they do not disturb public order”, has worried secularists who describe it as “restrictive”. The previous constitution simply stipulated that “the state shall guarantee the freedom of belief and the freedom of practice of religious rites”.
The draft constitution only recognises three religions — Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. According to Article 8, “The state shall ensure freedom to establish places of worship for adherents of Abrahamic religions in accordance with the law.” Adherents to non-Abrahamic faiths will be denied the right to build places of worship.
— Egyptian secularists rallied in Tahrir Square in October to protest against Islamist control of the country’s new constitution (Demotix)
Especially worrying are anti-blasphemy laws outlined in draft articles 40 and 38, which prohibit the “defamation of messengers and prophets”, without specifying what could be classed as “defamation”. The vague definition leaves room for wide interpretation of the law. The draft charter also does not outline what counts as “blasphemous”, making it unclear what would be punishable by law. “With no clear definitions, such laws may potentially threaten and restrict free speech”, complains Mona Makram Obeid, a liberal former MP.
While the draft constitution falls short in the realms of religious freedoms and women’s rights, it makes sizeable progress when it comes to press freedom. The draft includes draft articles safeguarding freedom of thought and expression — and if it is endorsed by a popular referendum next month — it would also protect the right of journalists to work freely through a ban on jail terms for publication offences. It would also allow for new media organisations to launch without restrictions.
While allowing more room for press freedom, the draft charter severely restricts freedoms in many realms, and its vague and ambiguous language opens the door to potentially harmful interpretations — making it a disappointment for some of the pro-reform activists who led last year’s protests in Tahrir Square.
“The Islamists have stolen the revolution. The new constitution is a far cry from the progressive, tolerant state that we had aspired to create”, says revolutionary activist Hazem Mahmoud, who works for the Ministry of Foreign Trade.
Whether or not the new Egypt with fit Mahmoud’s description, or become an Islamic state depends on who emerges as the stronger force in the constitutional battle: the ultra-conservative Islamists, or secular, liberal and pluralistic forces.
Journalist Shahira Amin resigned from her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV in February 2011. Read why she resigned from the “propaganda machine” here.
7 Nov 2012 | Middle East and North Africa, Opinion
Bahrain is preparing for the first anniversary of the Bahrain Independent Commission for Inquiry (BICI) by placing even greater restrictions on free expression.
A Bahraini woman holds up the victory sign at a rally in May | Demotix
As violence escalates in the Gulf kingdom, the country’s government has taken new measures in the name of national security. According to an announcement made last night on the state-run Bahrain TV, the country’s government has decided to strip 31 activists of their citizenship for “being a threat to national security”. The list is mostly made up of political activists, including UK-based Saeed Shehabi and Ali Mushaima, who have been outspoken in criticising the country’s regime, and Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society member Jawad Fairouz, who was a member of parliament before resigning in protest of the country’s brutal response demonstrations that began on 14 February last year.
This is not a new tactic for Bahrain: The country also revoked the citizenship of outspoken activists in the 1980s and 1990s, forcing them into exile. The latest move, however, violates Article 17 of Bahrain’s 2002 constitution:
a. Bahraini nationality shall be determined by law. A person inherently enjoying his Bahraini nationality cannot be stripped of his nationality except in case of treason, and such other cases as prescribed by law.
b. It is prohibited to banish a citizen from Bahrain or prevent him from returning to it.
The decision comes after the tragic death of two migrant workers and the injury of another on 5 November following a bomb blast in Bahrain’s capital, Manama. While none of the 31 activists have been linked to the explosion, Bahrain continues to make efforts to portray the country’s uprising as violent.
Earlier this year, the attention around the hunger strike of imprisoned human rights activist Abdulhadi Alkhawaja and a brutal crackdown on protesters squashed Bahrain’s chances of whitewashing its public image with the Formula One race in April. After the BICI report was presented in November 2011, Bahrain’s government was determined to make the uprising history, but its unfulfilled pledges to reform came back to haunt it in the lead up to the race.
As Alkhawaja’s health deteriorated, the international community placed immense pressure on the Bahraini government to release him to Denmark, where he is also a citizen. Denmark granted Alkhawaja asylum in 1991, and the country’s government has been active in lobbying for his release. The activist moved back to Bahrain in 2001, and was jailed for his role in the country’s uprising in 2011. An editorial published in the Gulf Daily News in the race lead-up explored the “problem” of dual-citizens, claiming it was a “get out of jail free card” for criminals.
Bahrain’s failure to follow through on promised BICI-related reforms, as well as a disregard for its own constitution, signals a chilling next stage for the country. The country’s most recent violence is testament to Bahrain’s failure to diffuse unrest with reforms, rather than force.
Sara Yasin is an editorial assistant at Index on Censorship. She tweets at @missyasin
29 Oct 2012 | Digital Freedom, India
Following outrage from India’s civil society and media, it appears the country’s government has backed away from its proposal to create a UN body to govern the internet. The controversial plan, which was made without consulting civil society, angered local stakeholders, including academics, media, and industry associations. Civil society expressed fear that a 50-member UN body, many of whom would seek to control the internet for their own political ends, would restrict the very free and dynamic nature of the internet. The proposal envisaged “50 member States chosen on the basis of equitable geographic representation” that would meet annually in Geneva as the UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies (UN-CIRP).
Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Indian parlimentarian and critic of the proposal, said: “CIRP seems like a solution in search of a problem”. At present, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), a non-profit with ties to the US State Department, serves as the platform for internet governance, using an organisational structure that allows input from the wider internet community and not just governments of the world.
Sachin Pilot, India’s Minister of State for Telecom
However at the 4-5 October Conference on Cyberspace in Budapest, the Minister of State for Telecom, Sachin Pilot, indicated that India was moving away from the “control of the internet by government or inter-governmental bodies”, and moving instead towards enhanced dialogue. Pilot has now confirmed the change to Index, saying that the Indian government has now decided to “nuance” its former position.
![]()
The sudden move can be explained by India’s decision to now develop its own stance, claiming that it was initially just supporting proposals made at the India, Brazil and South Africa seminar (IBSA) on Global Internet Governance in Brazil in September 2011. However, there are indicators that the country might have played an active role in pushing for the new body.
The government representatives present at the IBSA seminar drafted a set of recommendations focused on institutional improvement, which pushed for the UN to establish a body “in order to prevent fragmentation of the internet, avoid disjointed policymaking, increase participation and ensure stability and smooth functioning of the internet”. The proposal was to be tabled until the IBSA Summit on 18 October 2011, but according to a Daily Mail report, Indian bureaucrats publicly discussed the proposal at the 2011 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Kenya, saying that the move “was criticised across the board by all countries and scared away both Brazil and South Africa.” The report also alleges that the Indian government only consulted one NGO — IT for Change — in drafting the proposal presented in Brazil, despite repeated offers from other participants to pay for members of the country’s third sector to participate in the seminar. India’s proposed UN-CIRP was slammed for moving away from multi-stakeholderism and instead opting for government-led regulation.
Whatever the truth behind the Indian government’s motives in proposing UN-CIRP, its new and more “nuanced” position is a welcome move. It remains to be seen if India will maintain its new stance at the upcoming IGF, which will be held from 6-9 November in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Mahima Kaul is a journalist based in New Delhi. She focuses on questions of digital freedom and inclusion
29 Oct 2012 | Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa
South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma dropped his defamation lawsuit against the country’s most prominent newspaper cartoonist, Zapiro, over the weekend [28 October].
The suit centred on a 2008 cartoon in the Sunday Times, the highest-circulation local weekend newspaper, depicting Zuma unzipping his pants to rape a woman held down by other politicians. Zapiro, whose real name is Jonathan Shapiro, identified the figure of the woman as symbolising “Lady Justice”.
At the time, the cartoon drew mixed responses, given racist attitudes towards black male sexuality and the cartoon’s use of rape as “metaphor” in a country with a high incidence of rape (studies show between 25 to 40 per cent of South African women will experience at least one sexual assault in their lifetime).
In 2006, Zuma was charged with and acquitted of rape.
His office explained this weekend’s unexpected withdrawal of the case as based on a concern over its chilling effect on freedom of expression. “The President (…) would like to avoid setting a legal precedent that may have the effect of limiting the public exercise of free speech,” Zuma’s spokesperson, Mac Maharaj, said in a statement.
Maharaj indicated that the president regarded the case as a “diversion”, as he wishes to provide leadership in the face of more urgent matters such as “the global economic meltdown and frustrations by the people on the ground”.
Zapiro celebrated with the cartoon below:
© 2012 Zapiro (All Rights Reserved) Printed/Used with permission from www.zapiro.com
Christi van der Westhuizen is Index on Censorship’s new South African correspondent
