14 Feb 2012 | Middle East and North Africa
This week the departure lounge at Bahrain’s airport seems to be full of people who were turned back at the passport desk without being allowed into the country. The authorities are incredibly sensitive about who’s going to see what and report what during the days around the 14 February anniversary of last year’s mass protests.
Bob Naiman, an American who was refused entry a couple of days ago, said that groups of British and Spanish business people were among the human rights observers and journalists being shut out. I didn’t get that far myself this time. I’d planned to go to Bahrain at the end of January, but a week before I was going to leave I received the dreaded letter telling me not to bother, that I should wait until March before I tried to get into Bahrain, when a committee set up to implement reforms would have done its work.
The week before Rick Sollom from Physicians for Human Rights was turned away when he landed in Bahrain. Authorities told him that “all government officials are under tremendous work pressure” and that he should come back after the end of February when a trip would be “more beneficial.” Then last week some journalists were allowed visas to enter and others weren’t, notably Nick Kristof of the New York Times, whose brilliant coverage of Bahrain has made him persona non grata with the regime.
These are stiff reminders that the Bahraini government should be judged on its actions, not its words. Denying (rather, “delaying”) access to human rights organisations is a hallmark of repressive regimes. Bahrain already ticked many of those boxes in 2011. Mass arrests? Check. Torture? Check? Deaths in custody? Check. Shootings of civilians? Unfair trials? Attacks on places of worship? Targeting of peaceful dissidents? Check, check, check, check.
Of course Bahrainis are more than capable of reporting what happens and distributing it everywhere, which makes the attempts to restrict access all the more farcical. Bahraini activists and journalists are among the most tech-savvy in the world, and events are being relayed at the speed of Twitter both day and night. So why Bahrain thinks it’s a good PR move to keep prominent international human rights organisations and journalists out is anyone’s guess. No-one really benefits from this — we don’t get in, and the Bahraini government looks bad. The only winner is the coffee shop in the departure lounge.
Brian Dooley is the director of the Human Rights Defenders programme at Human Rights First. He tweets at @dooley_dooley
13 Feb 2012 | Index Index, Middle East and North Africa, minipost
Syrian journalist Mazhar Tayyara was killed by government forces’ fire in the city of Homs, a centre of the Syrian resistance against President Bashar al-Assad, on 4 February. Tayyara, a stringer for Agence France-Presse and other international news organisations, was reporting from the Homs neighbourhood of Al-Khaldiyeh when government forces shelled the area. The journalist sustained multiple severe injuries and died in hospital within hours.
13 Feb 2012 | Americas, Index Index, minipost
Brazilian political journalist Mário Randolfo Marques Lopes and his girlfriend were kidnapped and shot dead in the early hours of 9 February in Barra do Piraí, Rio de Janeiro state. Known for being critical of local authorities on his website, Lopes had faced more than one attempt on his life. He was reportedly shot five times in the head when a gunman burst into the website’s newsroom around four months ago, and survived being shot three times at his home last July.
13 Feb 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
The Sun’s associate editor Trevor Kavanagh has launched a stirring attack on the police in this morning’s paper. When Kavanagh lays out of what happened over the weekend, it’s hard not to agree that this looks like an assault on the press by an overzealous police force. While there is a criminal investigation ongoing and the police will need to talk to people, dawn raids at the weekend seem excessive and intimidatory.
Brian Cathcart suggests:
“As for the [Metropolitan Police], it is doing its job. It may well be doing it with a special zeal, in response to criticisms about a previous absence of zeal, but we can hardly complain about that either. “
I think I can complain, if I’m honest. The Met’s embarrassment over past unwillingness to investigate phonehacking does not give it licence to act disproportionately now, and journalists being roused from their beds by police is a bit too close for comfort to the kind of events we at Index cover and campaign on in the less free world. Moreover, one can’t help feel this is all part of an attempt to show willing ahead of the Leveson Inquiry’s scrutiny of the relations between police and the press, due to begin at the end of February.
Kavanagh correctly points out that “illegal” practices take part across the media. As Index noted in our submission to the Leveson Inquiry, these practices can be justified if there is a public interest and a clear line of accountability within the publication.
He then notes that the UK rates below Slovakia, Poland and Estonia in press freedom. The post-Soviet countries the UK is behind are not exactly Belarus or Turkmenistan, or indeed Russia, but Kavanagh is technically correct on this. The rating comes from Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) annual Press Freedom Index. The RSF report comments:
Against the extraordinary backdrop of the News of the World affair, the United Kingdom (28th) caused concern with its approach to the protection of privacy and its response to the London riots. Despite universal condemnation, the UK also clings to a surreal law that allows the entire world to come and sue news media before its courts.
The “surreal law” referred to is English defamation law, while the “approach to privacy” is the fondness for the judicial injunction displayed by those who seek to stifle stories about them, not, as one might read it, the tendency of certain gentlemen of the press to listen to people’s voice messages.
While it may be tempting to aim a dismissive “calm down, dear” at Kavanagh, we should not pretend that there are no press freedom issues at stake in this country.
