18 Nov 2013 | Palestine
A Palestinian news agency closed down in the Gaza Strip for allegedly fabricating reports regarding Hamas and their support for pro-Morsi Egyptian Islamist groups is to reopen after four months.
The decision to allow work once again at the offices of Ma’an News Agency, the largest independent TV, radio and online media group in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was the result of a meeting between the Hamas leader President Haniyeh and those of Palestinian factions on Saturday. According to Khaled al-Batsh, leader of the Islamic Jihad Movement, the meeting was called by Haniyeh to deliberate issues in the Gaza Strip, including potential reconciliation among Palestinian political factions. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement was not represented at the meeting.
A spokesman for Hamas, Ehab Ghissin, stated that Haniyeh “gave his instructions for the Ministry of Information to open the agency’s bureau” as long as Ma’an abides by professionalism and accuracy in its work.
The office of Ma’an was closed down in July after publishing reports suggesting Hamas was involved in supporting terror groups opposed to Egypt’s new regime. Citing Israeli sources the article stated the Hamas government gave refuge to fugitive leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in a Gaze hotel. After the meeting President Haniyeh spoke of the importance of a positive relationship between Egypt and Palestine, emphasising that Hamas is a national movement that does not depend on external organisations.
The decision to reopen the news office in Gaza was welcomed by Ma’an General Director, Raed Othman. “Ma’an aims to provide its media services to all Palestinians everywhere,” he said, adding that the news organisation will attempt to increase its activity in the area in the coming weeks.
The Saudi Arabian news channel Al-Arabiya was also shut down for the same reason and at the same time as Ma’an. Despite discussion during Saturday’s meeting to reopen Al-Arabiya too, the organisation remains closed in the Gaza Strip. The news channel has openly stated it was in favour of the removal of President Morsi from power.
18 Nov 2013 | Egypt, News and features, Politics and Society, Religion and Culture
Supporters of Egypt’s ousted President Mohammed Morsi in Helwan District raise his poster and their hands with four raised fingers, which has become a symbol of the Rabaah al-Adawiya mosque. (Nameer Galal / Demotix)
Public service messages on Egyptian radio stations candidly tell listeners that a new constitution currently being drafted by a fifty-member panel “won’t be the best that the country has had”. Listeners are assured however, that the new charter will not be Egypt’s last.
“Regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of the new charter, you must vote in the popular referendum on the document,”exhorts the radio ad. “This will send a message to the world that Egyptians are united.”
The radio spots serve as a warning to the public against raising their expectations too high for the new constitution which –if endorsed in a national referendum slated for January 2014–will replace the country’s first post-revolution constitution drafted under Muslim Brotherhood rule. The 2012 constitution’ crafted by an Islamist-dominated panel was suspended on July 3 — the day Islamist President Mohamed Morsi was toppled by military-backed mass protests. Critics blame the “divisive, Islamist-tinged constitution” for Morsi’s political isolation while he was still in office and say that it ultimately led to his downfall. The 2012 charter– and a decree issued by the now-deposed president giving himself extra-judicial powers –sparked violent protests outside the presidential palace last December in which around a dozen people were killed. The toppled president is now facing trial for allegedly inciting the killing of protesters during what has since come to be known as the “Ittihadeya violence”.
A fifty-member constituent assembly made up mostly of leftists and liberal politicians, who were hand picked by the interim government, is currently working on amending the 2012 disputed charter. The assembly has been given a sixty day mandate, which expires on December 3, to complete the seemingly Herculean task. Democracy advocates had hoped the revised document would be a vast improvement to the one liberals had complained “strengthened the role of Islamic law, gave the military extensive powers and undermined the rights of minorities and women.” But as the deadline draws near for submitting the draft document to interim president Adly Mansour, rights campaigners say their hopes for a more liberal constitution that meets the aspirations of Egypt’s revolutionaries have been all but dashed . They complain that “the draft charter grants the military even greater powers and preserves the Islamic law provisions while also falling short of protecting the rights of women and workers .”
Revolutionary activists are particularly enraged by a provision that would grant the military the power to try civilians in secret military courts. Senior army officials have defended the clause saying it is “necessary in light of the surge in Islamist militant attacks against security and military forces in the Sinai and elsewhere in the country since Morsi’s ouster.” Rights advocates meanwhile argue that such trials are “hasty and are known to deliver disproportionately harsh sentences.” Hassiba Sahraoui , Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa has denounced Egyptian military tribunals as being “notoriously unfair.” Egyptian journalist Ahmed Abu Draa , the Sinai correspondent for the independent Al Masry El Yom Newspaper was detained by the military last September and faced a military tribunal on charges of “spreading false news about the military”. In a statement calling for his release, Sahraoui reminded Egyptian authorities that “trying civilians in military courts flouts international standards.” She also denounced the decision to try Abu Draa in a military court as “a serious blow to press freedom and human rights in Egypt.” While Abu Draa was handed a six month suspended jail sentence in October,anyone who challenges or “insults the military” risks suffering a similar fate.
While the previous constitution had given the military the discretion to indict civilians for “crimes that harm the armed forces,” the revised document allows the army to indict anyone “for crimes in which officers are involved.” The “No To Military Trials For Civilians group”–a grassroots movement working to end the practice, has in recent days threatened to reject the draft charter if the provision remains unchanged.
“It is clear that the military wants to maintain its privileges including the broad discretion to punish and try people as they choose,” Heba Morayef, Human Rights Watch Egypt Director, told the Washington Post earlier this month.
A brutal security crackdown on members and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood — including the detention of more than 2000 members of the Islamist group, ill-treatment of political detainees and the killing of around 1000 people since Morsi’s ouster– signals continued impunity for the military and the police in Egypt, Morayef lamented.
Role of Islam
Religion has always played an important role in Egypt’s conservative, patriarchal society. Prior to the January 2011 uprising, Egypt could neither be described as a “religious” state nor as a “secular” state (in the Western sense of the word). While the country was not ruled by “religious authority, practically every aspect of Egyptian life was governed by religion. Under Muslim Brotherhood rule, Egypt’s liberals and Christians had feared the country was headed on the path of even greater Islamisation. Morsi’s ouster, however, revived the hopes of some of the revolutionary and liberal groups for the creation of the “secular, civil state” that revolutionary activists had called for during the 2011 mass uprising that toppled former President Hosni Mubarak. It is now almost certain that those groups are headed for disappointment.
Right from the start of the constitution amendment process, it became clear that Article 2 would remain unchallenged. The article –adopted from the two previous constitutions– states that “the principles of Islamic Law (Sharia) are the principle source of legislation in the country” and that “Islam is the religion of the state.” Another provision meanwhile, stipulates that Egyptian Christians and Jews should refer to their own religious laws on personal status issues. Unlike those two provisions which are supported by a majority of the assembly members, Article 219 –which defines Islamic Law based on Sunni Muslim jurisprudence — has been a bone of contention, sparking heated debate among the members. The three Christian members on the panel this week threatened to walk out if the controversial article was not removed. They fear the provision which allows for stricter interpretations of Islam could undermine the rights of Egypt’s minority non-Muslim population (including Christians who make up an estimated 10 to 12 percent of the population). Bassam al-Zarqa, the sole Salafi member on the panel insists however that the provision should remain in the new charter.
Since the military takeover of the country a little over four months ago, Egypt has witnessed a surge in church attacks while hundreds of Christians have been forced to flee their homes in search of less hostile environments.
While the panel has voted separately on each of the amended articles, it has postponed discussions on the contentious issues until the end of the month to allow tensions to ease. It remains to be seen however, whether the wide gap in the members’ perceptions of the role of Islam in the “new Egypt” can be bridged .
Women’s Rights
Rights advocates have also expressed concern that the draft charter may not match expectations for greater rights for women. Calls by women’s rights groups for restoration of a quota system that would ensure fair representation of women and Christians in parliament have so far fallen on deaf ears. Last Wednesday, dozens of activists staged a protest rally outside the Shura Council headquarters in Cairo demanding the re-introduction of the women’s quota without which they fear women will be grossly under-represented in the next parliament.
“The panel has announced it would retain the obligatory 50 percent parliamentary representation of workers and peasants from earlier constitutions, why then doesn’t it re-introduce the quota system so that women too can guarantee a fairer representation in the People’s Assembly?” asked Mona Qorashy, a feminist who participated in Wednesday’s rally.
Low female representation in parliament and a surge in sexual violence against women have pushed Egypt to the bottom of the Arab region for women’s rights. A recent poll by the Thomson Reuters Foundation on the treatment of women in 22 Arab countries has labelled Egypt “the worst Arab country for women” below Saudi Arabia and Iraq — two countries known to have an exceptionally poor human rights record.
Workers’ Rights
Workers too are unhappy about their rights in the draft constitution. In comments to the semi-official Al Ahram newspaper, Kamal Abbas, a rights activist and Coordinator of the Centre for Trade Union and Workers Services described the draft document as “labour-unfriendly.” He cites Article 14 as one of the reasons for his conviction. “The article states that ‘peaceful industrial actions like strikes and sit-ins are inherent labour rights’ but then goes on to empower legislators to regulate such action,” he complained.
Representatives of the newly formed trade unions are absent from the constituent committee, he lamented, adding that “the sole labour representative on the panel is a member of the government-controlled Egyptian Trade Union Federation–an ardent opponent of the ongoing labour strikes.”
As panel members race against time to meet the December 3 deadline for submitting the draft document to the President , public debates on the document are taking place in parallel outside the confines of the Shura Council premises. Egyptians who have become increasingly politicized since the 2011 uprising, are adamant to take part in the discussions that will shape their future for years to come. “We cannot afford to wait for the referendum to express our views on the constitution. Now is the time to pile pressure on the politicians. After all, it is our destiny –and that of our children– which is at stake,” said Somaya Saeed, a veiled housewife who was at the women’s protest last Wednesday. She pointed to a placard raised by another protester and read the words out loud: “Women are capable of effecting change. Where are the women in the new constitution?” With only five women on the constituent panel, it is not surprising that the rights of women are being overlooked.
This article was originally published on 18 Nov 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
4 Nov 2013 | Digital Freedom, News and features
We can partially blame gerrymandering for the current gridlock in the U.S. Congress. By shaping the electoral map to create politically safe spaces, we have generated a fractious body that often clashes rather than collaborates, limiting our chances of resolving the country’s toughest challenges. Unfortunately, revelations about the global reach of American security surveillance programs under the National Security Agency (NSA) are leading some to propose what amounts to gerrymandering for the internet in order to route around NSA spying. This will shackle the internet, inherently change its technical infrastructure, throttle innovation, and likely lead to far more dangerous privacy violations around the globe.
Nations are rightly upset that the communications of their citizens are swept up in the National Security Agency’s pervasive surveillance dragnet. There is no question the United States has overreached and violated human rights in its collection of communications information on innocent people around the globe; however, the solution to this problem should not, and truly cannot, be data localization mandates that restrict data storage and flow.
The calls for greater localization of data are not new, but the recent efforts of Brazil’s President, Dilma Rouseff, to protect Brazilians from NSA spying reflected the view of many countries suddenly faced with a new threat to the privacy of the communications of their citizens. Rouseff has been an advocate for internet freedom, so undoubtedly her proposal is well intentioned, though the potential unintended repercussions are alarming.
First, it’s important to consider the technical reasons why data location requirements are a really bad idea. The Internet developed in a widely organic manner, creating a network that allowed data to flow from all corners of the world – regardless of political boundaries, residing everywhere and nowhere at the same time. This has helped increase the resilience of the internet and it has promoted significant efficiencies in data flow. As is, the network routes around damage, and data can be wherever it best makes sense and take an optimal route for delivery.
Data localization mandates would turn the internet on its head. Instead of a unified internet, we would have a fractured internet that may or may not work seamlessly. We would instead see districts of communications that cater to specific needs and interests – essentially we would see Internet gerrymandering at its finest. Countries and regions would develop localized regulations and rules for the internet to benefit them in theory, and would certainly aim to disadvantage competitors. The potential for serious winners and losers is huge. Certainly the hope for an internet that promotes global equality would be lost.
Data localization may only be a first step. Countries seeking to keep data out of the United States or that want to exert more control over the internet may also mandate restrictions on how data flows and how it is routed. This is not far-fetched. Countries such as Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and China have already proposed this at last year’s World Conference on International Telecommunications.
As internet traffic begins to demand more bandwidth, especially as we witness more real-time multimedia applications, efficient routing is essential to advance new internet services. High capacity applications like Apple’s FaceTime may slow to the painful crawl reminiscent of the dial-up days of the internet.
This only begins to illustrate the challenges internet innovators would face, but big established players like Facebook, Google and Microsoft, would potentially have the resources to abide by localization mandates – of course, only if the business case supports working in particular locales. Some countries with local storage rules may be bypassed altogether. For small or emerging businesses, data localization requirements would be a greater challenge. It would build barriers to markets and shut off channels for innovation. Few emerging businesses could afford to locate servers in every new market, and if local data server requirements become ubiquitous, it will be businesses in emerging markets that are most disadvantaged. The reality for developing nations is that protectionist measures such as data localization will further isolate local business from the global market, depriving them of the advantages for growth that are provided by the borderless internet.
Most important though, is the potential for fundamental harm to human rights due to data localization mandates. We recognize that this is a difficult argument to accept in the wake of the revelations about NSA surveillance, but data localization requirements are a double-edged sword. It is important to remember that human rights and civil liberties groups have long been opposed to data localization requirements because if used inappropriately, such requirements can become powerful tools of control, intimidation and oppression.
When companies were under intense criticism for turning over the data of Chinese activists to China, internet freedom activists were united in theirs calls to keep user data out of the country. When Yahoo! entered the Vietnamese market, it placed its servers out of the country in order to better protect the rights of its Vietnamese users. And the dust up between the governments of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, India, and Indonesia, among others, demanding local servers for storage of BlackBerry messages in order to ensure legal accountability and meet national security concerns, was met with widespread condemnation. Now with democratic governments such as Brazil and some in Europe touting data localization as a response to American surveillance revelations, these oppressive regimes have new, albeit inadvertent, allies. While some countries will in fact store, use and protect data responsibly, the validation of data localization will unquestionably lead to many regimes abusing it to silence critics and spy on citizens. Beyond this, data server localization requirements are unlikely to prevent the NSA from accessing the data. U.S. companies and those with a U.S. presence will be compelled to meet NSA orders, and there appear to be NSA access points around the world.
Data localization is a proposed solution that is distracting from the important work needed to improve the Internet’s core infrastructural elements to make it more secure, resilient and accessible to all. This work includes expanding the number of routes, such as more undersea cables and fiber runs, and exchange points, so that much more of the world has convenient and fast Internet access. If less data is routed through the U.S., let it be for the right reason: that it makes the Internet stronger and more accessible for people worldwide. We also need to work to develop better Internet standards that provide usable privacy and security by default, and encourage broad adoption.
Protecting privacy rights in an era of transborder surveillance won’t be solved by ring fencing the Internet. It requires countries, including the U.S., to commit to the exceedingly tough work of coming to the negotiating table to work out agreements that set standards on surveillance practices and provide protections for the rights of privacy and free expression for people. Germany and France have just called for just such an agreement with the U.S. This is the right way forward.
In the U.S., we must reform our surveillance laws, adopt a warrant requirement for stored email and other digital data, and implement a consumer privacy law. The standards for government access to online data in all countries must likewise be raised. These measures are of course much more difficult in the short run that than data localization requirements, but they are forward-looking, long-term solutions that can advance a free and open internet that benefits us all.
Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Chief Technologist at Center for Democracy and Technology, co-authored this piece with Leslie Harris.
This article was originally posted on 4 Nov 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
1 Nov 2013 | News and features, United Kingdom
State control of the press is hot topic. On Wednesday, Queen Elizabeth signed off a Royal Charter which gives politicians a hand in newspaper regulation. This come after David Cameron criticised the Guardian’s reporting on mass surveillance, saying “If they don’t demonstrate some social responsibility it will be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act”.
But what does state control of the press really look like? Here are 10 countries where the government keeps a tight grip on newspapers.
Bahrain
Press freedom ranking: 165
The tiny gulf kingdom in 2002 passed a very restrictive press law. While it was scaled back somewhat in 2008, it still stipulates that journalists can be imprisoned up to five years for criticising the king or Islam, calling for a change of government and undermining state security. Journalists can be fined heavily for publishing and circulating unlicensed publications, among other things. Newspapers can also be suspended and have their licenses revoked if its ‘policies contravene the national interest.’
Belarus
Press freedom ranking: 157
In 2009 the country known as Europe’s last dictatorship passed the Law on Mass Media, which placed online media under state regulation. It demanded registration of all online media, as well as re-registration of existing outlets. The state has the power to suspend and close both non-registered and registered media, and media with a foreign capital share of more than a third can’t get a registration at all. Foreign publications require special permits to be distributed, and foreign correspondents need official accreditation.
China
Press freedom ranking: 173
The country has a General Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television and an army official censors dedicated to keeping the media in check. Through vaguely worded regulation, they ensure that the media promotes and toes the party line and stays clear of controversial topics like Tibet. A number of journalists have also been imprisoned under legislation on “revealing state secrets” and “inciting subversion.”
Ecuador
Press freedom ranking: 119
In 2011 President Rafael Correa won a national referendum to, among other things, create a “government controlled media oversight body”. In July this year a law was passed giving the state editorial control and the power to impose sanctions on media, in order to stop the press “smearing people’s names”. It also restricted the number of licences will be given to private media to a third.
Eritrea
Press freedom ranking: 179
All media in the country is state owned, as President Isaias Afwerki has said independent media is incompatible with Eritrean culture. Reporting that challenge the authorities are strictly prohibited. Despite this, the 1996 Press Proclamation Law is still in place. It stipulates that all journalists and newspapers be licensed and subject to pre-publication approval.
Hungary
Press freedom ranking: 56
Hungary’s restrictive press legislation came into force in 2011. The country’s media outlets are forced to register with the National Media and Infocommunications Authority, which has the power to revoke publication licences. The Media Council, appointed by a parliament dominated by the ruling Fidesz party, can also close media outlets and impose heavy fines.
Saudi Arabia
Press freedom ranking: 163
Britain isn’t the only country to tighten control of the press through royal means. In 2011 King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia amended the media law by royal decree. Any reports deemed to contradict Sharia Law, criticise the government, the grand mufti or the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, or threaten state security, public order or national interest, are banned. Publishing this could lead to fines and closures.
Uzbekistan
Press freedom ranking: 164
The Law on Mass Media demands any outlet has to receive a registration certificate before being allowed to publish. The media is banned from “forcible changing of the existing constitutional order”, and journalists can be punished for “interference in internal affairs” and “insulting the dignity of citizens”. Foreign journalists have to be accredited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Vietnam
Press freedom ranking: 172
The 1999 Law on Media bans journalists from “inciting the people to rebel against the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and damage the unification of the people”. A 2006 decree also put in place fines for journalists that deny “revolutionary achievements” and spread “harmful” information. Journalists can also be forced to pay damages to those “harmed by press articles”, regardless of whether the article in question is accurate or not.
Zimbabwe
Press freedom ranking: 133
The country’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act gives the government direct regulatory power over the press through the Media and Information Council. All media outlets and journalists have to register with an obtain accreditation from the MIC. The country also has a number of privacy and security laws that double up as press regulation, The Official Secrets Act and the Public Order and Security Act.
This article was originally posted on 1 Nov 2013 at indexoncensorship.org.
