[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”يسلط ردّ الفعل العنيف ضد الصحفيين الذين يقومون بتغطية اضطهاد الشيشان للمثليين الضوء على مخاطر محاولة الحصول على الحقيقة في هذه الدولة المنخورة بالفساد. يتحدّث صحفي شيشاني عن هذه التحديات”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
مسيرة في مدينة تورونتو بكندا من اجل لفت الأنظار الى الاعتداءات ضد المثليين في الشيشان, Mitch Altman/Flickr
هناك قاعدة واحدة فقط تحكم عمل الصحفيين في الشيشان: نحن جميعا جزء من ماكينة رمضان قديروف الاعلامية. بعد صعود قديروف إلى السلطة في عام 2007 كرئيس جمهورية البلاد، تحولت وسائل الإعلام الى أداة دعاية شخصية له. كدت أن أفقد عملي مرّة بعد استخدام لقطات في نشرة الأخبار تظهر الرئيس السابق آلو ألخانوف، سلف قديروف. ألخانوف لا غبار عليه سياسيا، ولكن قديروف لا يحبّه. بسبب ذلك، فإنه من الممنوع حتى ذكر اسم ألخانوف. في حالة أخرى، قمت بتسجيل مقابلة مع رجل كان قد تعرض للتعذيب على يد السلطات الشيشانية. بعد انتهاء المقابلة، اضطر الرجل إلى الفرار من البلاد لضمان سلامته. أنا لا أزال أعتقد ان ذلك كان بسببي.
الصحفيون هنا يعرفون الآن ما الذي يمكنهم وما الذي لا يمكنهم كتابته من أجل حماية أنفسهم. ولكن للأسف، ما يسمح بكتابته هو قليل جدّا. فالموضوع الرئيسي لأي خبر يجب أن يكون قديروف وعائلته وأقاربه. لا توجد تقريبا أي قصة منشورة في وسائل الإعلام الشيشانية لا تأتي على ذكر اسم قديروف. فقد تشير إلى رئيس الشيشان نفسه؛ أو أبوه، الذي اغتيل في عام 2004؛ أو أمه، التي ترأس مؤسسة خيرية؛ أو زوجته وأطفاله. هذا هو الحال بالنسبة لكافة الأخبار المنشورة، من السياسة إلى الرياضة.
على سبيل المثال، قد يشير عنوان خبر الى حضور قديروف بروفة فرقة رقص، أو تكريمه لفنانين أو تسليمه لأحد العازفين المنفردين مفاتيح لسيارة أو حتى شقة لمكافأته. قد يقول خبر أخر أن قديروف حضر بطولة فنون القتال المختلطة السنوية في غروزني أو زار مستشفى
لتوزيع مغلفات تحتوي على المال إلى المرضى. المناسبة الوحيدة التي لا يتم فيها ذكر رئيس الشيشان في الأخبار قد تكون نشرة الطقس.
في هذه الأثناء، يستخدم التلفزيون ليس فقط كأداة دعائية بل أيضا كأداة للترهيب. المواد التي
تبدو بأنها الأكثر متابعة هي تلك التي تظهر الناس يعتذرون لقديروف بعد قيامهم بانتقاد السلطات. يحدث هذا عادة على هذا المنوال: يقوم أحدهم على شبكات التواصل الاجتماعية بالشكوى حول عمل السلطات، أو يتحدّث عن الفساد، وحجب الرواتب أو الاختطاف الخ. ترى السلطات هذا
الشكاوى، ثم تجد صاحب الشكوى وتعتدي عليه أو تهدّده، قبل أن تصوّره بعد أن يتم إجباره على الاعتذار أمام الكاميرا.
هناك مثال آخر: عندما بدأ قديروف باستخدام إينستاجرام، رأى الشيشانيون في وجوده على الشبكة الاجتماعية كفرصة للتحدّث معه مباشرة. في ضوء قيامه بتقديم الشقق والسيارات والهدايا الثمينة إلى شخصيات متميّزة، بدأ المواطنون يخبروه حول مشاكلهم الحقيقية، مثل التشرّد، أو وجود طفل مريض لديهم، أو البطالة أو ضعف الرواتب. كان قديروف يقوم بالردّ على كل رسالة تقريبا. ثم كانت تقوم مجموعة خاصة بالتواصل مع كلّ من أرسل هذا الرسائل، وتزورهم في منازلهم للوقوف على أوضاعهم. للوهلة الأولى، بدا كل هذا كأنّه لفتة إنسانية جميلة من قبله، ولكن في الواقع كان غرض انشاء هذه المجموعة حماية قديروف من مشاكل الناس. في كثير من الأحيان، أدّى “التحقق” من الشكاوى هذه الى اصدار تقارير أذيعت على شاشة التلفزيون، ادّعت أن صاحب الشكوى كان من المهملين أو النصّابين.
هناك أيضا مزرعة لمتصيّدي الانترنت في الشيشان. تقع المؤسسة في أحد مباني من مجمّع مدينة غروزني وتوّظف اثني عشرة شخصا يرصدون الإعلام الشيشاني والروسي باستمرار ثم يقومون بكتابة تعليقات على أي شيء يتعلّق بقديروف أو الشيشان. إذا كانت الأخبار إيجابية، يقوم موظفو المنظمة بتأكيد ذلك. إذا كانت الأخبار سلبية، فإنهم يقومون بدحضها وتكذيبها. في أحد الحالات مثلا، كتب شخص يسمّي نفسه باسم نيكولاي من أرخانجيلسك بكتابة التعليق التالي: “أنا عدت من الشيشان أمس. لا توجد هناك أي عمليات خطف. الناس جميعا يحبون قديروف. غروزني هي المدينة الأكثر أمانا في العالم”.
يتلقّى هؤلاء الموّظفون مقابل تصيّدهم على الانترنت رواتب مغرية. بعض العاملين في وسائل الإعلام يحصلون على مكافآت إذا ما قاموا بنشر أخبار جيدة عن الشيشان على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي.
تعمل بعض وسائل الإعلام المستقلة من روسيا وبلدان أخرى في الشيشان، ولكن عملهم يواجه العديد من الصعوبات أيضا. يزعم قديروف مرارا وتكرارا أن وسائل الإعلام مثل روسيا إخو، موسكفي، نوفايا غازيتا، أر.بي.سي، دوزد، وميدوزا ومقرها لاتفيا هي وسائل “غدّارة وعدائية وتسعى لخراب البلاد”. وعندما نشرت نوفايا غازيتا سلسلة من المقالات التحقيقية تبيّن أن السلطات تقوم باعتقال وتعذيب الرجال الذين يشتبه بكونهم مثليي الجنس في سجون سرّية، تم نفي هذه الأخبار بسرعة. قال ألفي كريموف، المتحدث باسم قديروف، بأن تقرير غازيتا هو “كذب مطلق” في مقابلة مع وكالة إنترفاكس الروسية الشبه الرسمية، زاعما بأنه لا يوجد هناك رجال مثليون في الشيشان أصلا لكي يتم تعذيبهم.
لكن التهديد لا يكمن فقد في تكذيب والتشكيك في مصداقية الإعلام، فهناك مخاطر حقيقية تتهدّد الصحفيين. فالصحفيون من هذه المؤسّسات هم تحت دوما المراقبة ويتعرّضون في الكثير من الأحيان الى الترهيب، وفي بعض الأحيان، حتى القتل.
فعلى مدى العقدين الماضيين، قتل صحفيان من نوفايا غازيتا أثناء تغطيتها لأخبار من الشيشان فيما تعرّض المراسل الذي قام بتغطية قضية المثليين الى التهديد المباشر. في تجمّع في 3 أبريل/نيسان حضره نحو 15000 شخص، أعلن مستشار قديروف، آدم شهيدوف، أن الصحفيين العاملين في نوفايا غازيتا هم “أعداء الدين والوطن” متوعّدا إياهم “بالانتقام”، وفقا للجنة حماية الصحفيين.
ثم هناك صعوبات في العثور على مصادر فالأشخاص العاديون يخافون التحدّث إلى الصحفيين أما المسؤولين فهم يرفضون القيام بذلك بكل بساطة. هذه الخدمات الإخبارية لا يمكنها الاعتماد على المراسلين المكتومي الهوية في الشيشان لأنه يكاد يكون مستحيلا الحفاظ على سريّة الهوية. الشيشان بلد صغير حيث الجميع يعرف الجميع. يمكن للصحفيين إخفاء أساميهم، ولكن من أجل ممارسة العمل الصحفي الطبيعي يحتاجون إلى مقابلة الناس، وتقديم التفاصيل، ووصف الأحداث. ولكن من خلال هذه التفاصيل يصبح من السهل جدا كشف النقاب عن ما ومن تكتب المقالات عنه، وبالنظر الى ما هو السلطات الشيشانية قادرة على ارتكابه عند قمع الأصوات المعارضة، فلا أحد يريد تعريض الأشخاص للخطر حتى بسبب شيء بسيط مثل قبولهم أن يتحدّثوا الى الصحافيين، لا أكثر ولا أقل.
حتى الصحافة الأجنبية تعاني. حتى فترة قريبة مضت، كانت وسائل الإعلام الأجنبية ممثلة تمثيلا جيدا وكثيرا ما جاء الصحفيون الأجانب وأجروا المقابلات في الشيشان. كان الناس يتحدّثون بسهولة أكبر معهم، ربما بسبب نشر المقالات في اللغات الأجنبية والتي نادرا ما كانت تترجم. لكن الوضع تغيّر بشكل كبير منذ مارس 2016 عندما تعرّضت مجموعة من الصحفيين كانوا يسافرون برفقة نشطاء لحقوق الإنسان الى الضرب وأصيبوا بجروح خطيرة في جمهورية إنغوشيتيا المجاورة. تم حرق سيارتهم وانتهى بهم المطاف في المستشفى. لم يكن لدى أحد أدنى شك أن المعتدين كانوا قد تصرّفوا بناء على أوامر السلطات الشيشانية. بعد هذه الحادثة، لم يعد سوى عدد قليل من الصحفيين الأجانب يخاطر بالذهاب الى الشيشان. ولكن من دونهم، هناك أمل ضئيل بأن نرى تقارير تظهر بصراحة ما يجري في الشيشان.
*كاتب هذه المقالة هو من الشيشان وعمل في وسائل الإعلام هناك لأكثر من عقد من الزمن. وهو طلب عدم الكشف عن اسمه لدواعٍ أمنية.
*ظهر هذا المقال أولا في مجلّة “اندكس أون سنسورشيب” بتاريخ ١٩ يونيو/حزيران 2017
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”100 years on” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2017%2F12%2Fwhat-price-protest%2F|||”][vc_column_text]Through a range of in-depth reporting, interviews and illustrations, the summer 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine explores how the consequences of the 1917 Russian Revolution still affect freedoms today, in Russia and around the world.
With: Andrei Arkhangelsky, BG Muhn, Nina Khrushcheva[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”91220″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/12/what-price-protest/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
An annual celebration of the freedom to read, Banned Books Week was launched in 1982 in response to a surge in book censorship in schools, bookshops and libraries in the USA.
Since then, over 11,300 books have been banned. Thankfully, there have always been those committed to challenging censorship, including authors, librarians, teachers and students.
But what are the censors so afraid of? Here are 10 books banned in some way over the last year to give us an idea.
13 Reasons Why – Jay Asher
The Netflix adaption of Jay Asher’s young adult novel 13 Reasons Why has been causing controversy over its exploration of teenage suicide ever since its release in March 2017. So much so that New Zealand’s classifications body created a whole new category of censorship, RP18, to restrict the showing of the series to anyone under the age of 18.
An official Mesa County Valley School District in Colorado, USA, briefly ordered librarians to pull 13 Reasons Why from school bookshelves in April 2017. However, after the intervention of a number of librarians, the curriculum director for the district reversed her decision.
The works of Howard Zinn fall foul of US Republican lawmakers
Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, which is part of many school and college curriculums across the country, is an attempt to bring to light parts of US history that aren’t covered in-depth elsewhere, including equality movements throughout the 20th century.
Many US conservatives argue that there is already too much focus on race and class, including slavery and the genocide of Native Americans, in school curriculums. Bills such as Hendren’s — and that of an Oklahoma lawmaker in 2015 which sought to correct the fact that the USA was not portrayed in a positive enough light in history curriculums — are intended to redress the situation.
However, Hendren’s bill has only increased demand for the works of Zinn. Some 700 copies of A People’s History of the United States were sent free to teachers and librarians throughout Arkansas thanks to the controversy and thanks to a flood of donations copies are being given away to any middle or high school teacher or librarian in Arkansas who asks.
To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – Mark Twain
In December 2016, a US school district has banned To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn after a parent complained about use of racist language. The books were removed from classrooms and school libraries in Accomack County, Virginia.
It came after one parent told a school board meeting: “I’m not disputing this is great literature, but there is so much racial slurs in there and offensive wording that you can’t get past that, and right now we are a nation divided as it is.”
Racism is a central theme in Mark Twain’s classic work, which explores the oppression of black slaves in pre-Civil War America. It includes the word “nigger” over 200 times. But it is a satire which tackles racism with irony and many fans of the book would agree that is, in fact, a great anti-racist novel. Which is why so many were dismayed in 2011 when a new edition of Huckleberry Finn was released with all uses of the offending word removed.
Likewise, the treatment of To Kill a Mockingbird seemed to be more motivated by the words characters use rather than its critique of racism.
The Adivasi Will Not Dance – Hansda Sowvendra Shekhar
Along with thinking of the children, protecting the dignity of women has always been a mainstay of the moralists. In 1928 all of Chicago’s public libraries removed the Wizard of Oz for “depicting women in strong leadership roles”. Such attitudes are not a thing of the past.
Authorities, claiming that the content of the book may disturb law and order situation in Jharkhand, began seizing copies and the author, a government doctor, was suspended from his position.
Shekhar vowed not to edit a single word and advised all who have a problem with it to take the time to actually read it.
Fanny Hill – John Cleland
Sexual content has been the number one reason for the banning of books this century, and just because a book wasn’t written in this century, doesn’t mean it escapes the censor’s pen.
Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, more widely known as Fanny Hill, an erotic novel first published in London in 1748, has been peeving off puritans since it was first printed. While it doesn’t contain a single rude word, John Cleland’s work is about a sex worker who enjoys her work.
For this, the author was prosecuted for “corrupting the king’s subjects”. The book is one of the most banned in history, and in August 2017, a professor at Royal Holloway, University of London, Judith Hawley, said she would worry about upsetting students by teaching the work. Many in the media have accused Hawley of banning the book outright, some saying she removed it from a reading list, but she claims she hasn’t as it was never on the course in the first place. But when is a ban a ban? Speaking on BBC Radio 4, Hawley said of the book: “I use it less than I used to. In the 1980s I both protested against the opening of a sex shop in Cambridge and taught Fanny Hill. Nowadays I’d be afraid of causing offence to my students.” She also raised concerns that her “students would slap me with a trigger warning”. Not teaching something for fear of offending students or to avoid becoming a trigger warning does amount to a ban.
“We shouldn’t assume that pornography is really speaking about sex, or that the only way to speak about sex is pornography,” she later added, but then expressed her worry at the “pornification of modern culture”.
LGBT books banned at Honk Kong book fair
Unless a book contains strictly conventional values and conduct, it has probably irked someone in a position of power somewhere along the way. Unfortunately, this means if you write a book called Gay Soldier’s Diary, you’re likely to to face trouble.
This was the case at the Hong Kong Book fair in July, where several titles, including Gay Soldier’s Diary, were banned on the grounds that they were “indecent”. The books depict no violence or nudity, so don’t actually breach the fair’s rules on indecency, but this didn’t stop organisers removing nine of 15 titles at the Taiwan Indie Publishers Alliance stall, including A Gentleman’s Wedding and Crying Girls.
Winnie the Pooh – AA Milne
In 1988, when official censorship ceased in the Soviet Union, banned publications suddenly became easily accessible to the general public. Works by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Leon Trotsky and even Henry Kissinger, which were critical of the Soviet Union or deemed in some way to be subversive.
Whenever the vaults in China finally open, Chinese citizens will find curiosities like Winnie the Pooh, English writer AA Milne’s children’s series.
Pooh Bear’s only crime was to resemble China’s current president Xi Jinping, which some Chinese dissidents were only too eager to point out. Memes that went viral included a 2013 photo of a meeting between Xi and then-US president Barack Obama alongside a picture of Winnie the Pooh and his friend Tigger. As a result, the Chinese name for Winnie the Pooh (Little Bear Winnie) is blocked on Chinese social media sites and those who write”Little Bear Winnie” on the site Weibo are met with an error message.
Breaking the Silence – G25
G25 is a group of 25 Malay-Muslim leaders whose goal is to preserve the basic rights of freedom of expression and worship in Malaysia, where Islam is the official religion.
Challenges to Bill Cosby’s Little Bill children’s book series followed allegations of sexual assault were made against the comedian by a number of women, reaching back over many years. The censoring of Little Bill books is believed to the first time a title has been targeted solely for its author and not its content, ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom Director James LaRue said.
This article was updated on 28 September to add more context to Judith Hawley’s views on Fanny Hill.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”2″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1506589920727-40713b18-3658-2″ taxonomies=”8820, 6696″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Established in 2003, the LGBT organisation Arcoiris, meaning “rainbow” in Spanish, works on all levels of Honduran society to advance basic rights. Honduras has seen an explosion in levels of homophobic violence since the military coup in 2009. Working against this tide, Arcoiris provides support to many LGBT victims of violence, run awareness initiatives, promote HIV prevention programmes and directly lobby the Honduran government and police force. Its tactics are diverse and often inventive. Between June 2015 and March 2016, six members of Arcoiris were killed for this work. Many others have faced intimidation, harassment, physical attacks or been forced to flee the country.
“All our campaigns have been well received and have enabled families to get a bit closer to their diverse sons and daughters,”Arcoiris coordinator Donny Reyes says.
“I’ve been imprisoned on many occasions. I’ve suffered torture and sexual violence because of my activism, and I’ve survived many assassination attempts,” he said, in an interview with Index on Censorship in April 2016. The activist had spent a year in exile and on his return feared he would be attacked and killed. However, he felt obliged to return to Honduras to fight homophobia and transphobia.
Many LGBT activists in Honduras share Reyes’ fears as dozens are murdered each year, with killers rarely facing justice.
In the second half of 2015 alone, Arcoiris reported 15 security incidents against its members, including surveillance, harassment, arbitrary detentions, assaults, robberies, theft, threats, sexual assault and even murder. Other LGBT activists have experienced forced evictions, fraudulent charges, defamation, enforced disappearances and restrictions of right to assembly.
Journalist Mona El Iraqi colluded with security forces in a raid on a public bathhouse allegedly frequented by gay people (Image: Al Kahera Wal Nas TV Network/YouTube)
When prominent Egyptian actor Khaled Abul Naga criticised President Abdel Fattah El Sisi counter-terrorism policies in Sinai in a video posted on the El-Bawaba news website last November, he was slammed by government loyalists and Egypt’s pro-regime media.
Lawyer Samir Sabry, notorious for filing legal complaints against opposition activists, filed a lawsuit against Abul Naga accusing him of “treason” and “inciting anti-government protests”. In a telephone interview with the Egyptian privately-owned satellite channel Sada El Balad, Sabry said “those who go against the will of the people who elected El Sisi, must be punished”.
Abul Naga’s prosecution reflects the growing intolerance in Egyptian society and the persistent intimidation of dissenters since the ouster of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi some eighteen months ago. Since the military takeover of the country on 3 July, 2013, anyone expressing a view that runs counter to the official narrative is labeled a “traitor” and a “spy” by supporters of Egypt’s military-backed regime.
Even more disturbing than the criminal charges faced by Abul Naga is the barrage of insults hurled at him by government loyalists in the media who poked fun at the actor’s alleged sexual orientation.
Talk show host Tawfiq Okasha scandalously mocked Abul Naga’s sexuality, hinting that the actor was gay.
“Why do you sleep on your stomach and not on your back?” the controversial TV presenter (and owner of Faraeen Channel) asked, adding that there must have been a reason why Abul Naga was exempted from military service.
Mazhar Shaheen, a pro-government cleric who presents a talk show on a privately-owned satellite channel, also scoffed at Abul Naga, suggesting that he leave the country.
“If you are not happy with the military’s performance, you should go to either Syria or Iraq,” he said, addressing Abul Naga.
“But watch your pants while you are there,” he sarcastically warned.
Abul Naga’s lampooning by the pro-government media reflects the shrinking space for free expression in today’s Egypt. It also highlights the increased vulnerability of and continued discrimination against the LGBT community in Egypt’s deeply conservative society.
In recent months, Egypt’s gay population have increasingly been targeted amid a brutal crackdown that has seen 150 suspected homosexuals arrested and detained since November. While Egyptian law does not expressly ban homosexuality, gay people are frequently charged with “debauchery” and detained. Muslim scholars and prosecutors have condoned the arrests, arguing that “homosexuals are shameful to God” and that “it is the government’s duty to protect morality” — a conservative view that is widely shared by the Egyptian public. A Pew survey conducted in 2013 found only three per cent of Egyptians accept homosexuality.
While disdain for homosexuality is not new in Egypt, inflammatory reporting by Egypt’s pro-government media has in recent months further fuelled prejudice against gay people and deepened the stigma associated with homosexuality.
Last month, TV reporter Mona El Iraqi who works for the privately-owned Al Kahera Wal Nas TV channel, colluded with security forces in a raid on a public bathhouse in downtown Cairo, allegedly frequented by gay people. Iraqi used her cell phone to take pictures of 26 half-naked men wrapped only in bath-towels as they were arrested. After sending undercover agents to the bathhouse to spy on visitors, she alerted the police, claiming that “promiscuous orgies” were taking place there. On 7 December, police — accompanied by Iraqi’s camera crew stormed the bathhouse and indiscriminately arrested the suspects.
Iraqi unashamedly posted pictures of the half-naked men on her public Facebook page. The images were removed a couple of hours later after she was lambasted by rights activists enraged by what they described as her “insensitivity” and “flagrant intolerance”. Defending her actions in a Facebook post, she insisted that the bathhouse was a “hotbed of immorality” and was “helping spread HIV and AIDS in Egypt”.
Despite the outpouring of horror over the bathhouse raid on social media networks, Iraqi’s episode was broadcast to “mark World AIDS Day and spread awareness about the causes of HIV and AIDS in Egypt” — according to Iraqi.
The 26 men who were arrested were charged with “debauchery” and subjected to intrusive anal checks to determine their sexuality. Human Rights Watch has decried the anal examinations, describing them as being in violation of “international standards against torture“. The forensics report claimed that two of the 26 defendants may have been subjected to rape as signs of struggle were evident on the bodies of the men in question. At the trial last Sunday, defence lawyers argued however, that it was almost impossible to verify whether the men had indeed practiced homosexuality. They also slammed the decision to allow Iraqi to film the arrests, describing the move as “unconstitutional”. Denouncing the arrests, they said it was only natural for the men to have been naked “for they were either in the shower or the steam bath when police stormed the premises”. Khaled Naqash, one of the defence lawyers meanwhile, claimed his client had been fully dressed but was stripped naked by the police before his arrest. The defendants’ families were barred from entry into the courtroom and complained they were “ruffled up” by security guards who had apparently already condemned the defendants even before the verdict has been pronounced. The trial has been adjourned until 12 January when the fate of the men will be decided.
The latest mass arrests are reminiscent of the 2001 so-called “Queen Boat raid“, when security forces stormed a floating nightclub moored on the Nile in Cairo’s affluent neighbourhood of Zamalek, arresting 52 men. That incident sparked international outrage and condemnation and sent a chilling message to Egypt’s LGBT community. Rights advocates say the latest arrests are even more disturbing than the Queen Boat incident as they show media colluding with the police instead of holding security forces to account for their actions.
The bathhouse raid also comes hot on the heels of similar raids on gay hangouts in Cairo in recent months including cafes, bars and even private house parties. In March last year, four men were arrested in a raid on a house party after police allegedly found the men dresses in women’s clothing. The men were accused of “debauchery” and sentenced to eight years in prison. In September, a video of an alleged “gay wedding ceremony” posted online prompted the arrest of another eight men including the alleged “gay couple” who were seen in the video exchanging rings and hugging. While all the men had reportedly tested “negative” for homosexuality, they were nevertheless, sentenced to three years in prison each. A Cairo appeals court later reduced the sentences to one year in prison. The court also ruled however, that the men would remain under police surveillance after completing their jail terms. Last Sunday, El Youm El Sabe’ reported that two men were arrested in Alexandria by “morality police” and charged with “debauchery” and “destroying public morals”.
The recent spate of mass arrests of gay suspects has sparked serious concerns for Egypt’s LGBT community.
“I no longer feel safe,” Karim, a 26 year-old Egyptian homosexual told Index. “Egypt has never been safe for us but things are worse now under the military-backed authorities because we know we are being targeted.” He explained that the current regime was trying to woo the conservatives in the society by “appearing more Islamist than the ousted Islamist regime”.
“I’m always looking over my shoulder now and constantly live in fear,” said Mohamed, 32, another member of Egypt’s LGBT community. “I would leave Egypt if I could.”
For Mohamed and other gay people in Egypt, what is even more worrying than persecution and prosecution is the humiliation and shame they may bring onto their families if their identities were revealed — as has happened with the defendants in the recent bathhouse case.
“Now that the media is aligned with the police, we are at serious risk of public defamation and loss of dignity,” he lamented.
“What is even sadder is that few Egyptians are denouncing the arrests of gays as some media are telling the public that homosexuality is a disease that will destroy public morality and hence, it is necessary to rid the society of the scourge,” he added.
Buthayna Haleem ( her name has been changed to protect her identity) an Egyptian lesbian writer is one of the few people in Egypt condemning the raids.
“It is not something that concerns others,” she told Agence France Press in a recently televised interview. “This is oppression against people.”
Update: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Mona Iraqi had removed the images posted to Facebook. Facebook removed the images because they violated the service’s terms.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]