Saudi Gazette
By Su’ad Al-Salim and Faris Al-Qahtani
RIYADH – As Saudi Arabia steps up investigation and legal action against those who commit slander online, the Shoura Council is pushing for discussion on whether curbs need to be put on the electronic media, officials said.
The Ministry of Interior on Monday referred a case filed by 13 Saudi women journalists against an online news website for investigation by Security Affairs.
Riyadh Police, meanwhile, announced the launch of investigations into several cyber crimes allegedly committed with the intention of “harming others.”
Cyber crimes have become a phenomenon of late, said Riyadh Police spokesman Maj. Sami Al-Shuwairikh. He said police stations in the capital city have been receiving reports of libelous allegations posted on websites.
He said investigations included searching for the persons allegedly involved and referring them to the Prosecution General.
Al-Shuwairikh said specialists in cyber crimes who have joined the staff of Riyadh Police have successfully looked into several cases and have taken action according to the penal measures regulation.
Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki said the ministry is acting in line with the regulation for combating cyber crimes.
The chaos caused by online slander has drawn the attention of several Shoura Council members who said they would demand an explanation from officials of the Ministry of Information and Culture.
Dr. Shubaili Al-Qarni, Adviser to the Culture and Information Committee (CIC) in the Shoura Council said, “The committee will look into the ministry’s reports. If the reports do not include information on online news websites, the committee can refer to such information in the ministry’s annual report – if it sees that the situation requires control of the electronic media.”
He said control of websites is lost when it is handed over to those who “are not qualified to do so,” especially at a time when they should show their loyalty to the religion, nation, its leadership and people.
Ibrahim Al-Blaihi, a CIC member, called upon the authorities concerned to take swift and firm action against those making libelous allegations against people. He said those who are being defamed are the ones leading the march of enlightening the society. – Okaz
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Monday, June 2, 2008
Egypt: Facebook showdown
Right now, the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is considering blocking Facebook, the social networking website that has become a popular hangout for twentysomethings worldwide and a favorite venue for Egypt's disaffected youth. The reason: In April, one group of young citizens mobilized 80,000 supporters to protest rising food prices.
Facebook networking played a crucial role in broadening support and turnout for an April 6 textile workers' strike and protest. The Egyptian government, which has governed for 25 years under emergency law and doesn't allow more than five people to gather unregistered, hit back hard, jailing young dissidents and torturing Ahmed Maher, a young activist who tried, unsuccessfully, to organize a second demonstration in early May.
Despite these setbacks, the "Facebook movement" in Egypt is significant for several reasons. First, it challenges the perception that there is no prospect for independent, secular opposition in the country. The majority of Egyptians are under 30 and have known no other ruler than Mubarak. They have not seen real political parties because the government has long restricted opposition parties and free media.
The Facebook movement engaged large numbers of youth for the first time. Second, the Web offers a safe political space -- a role the mosque has traditionally played in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood has for decades been the only viable opposition.
With Facebook, young secular people can communicate, build relationships and express their opinions freely. (Significantly, the Muslim Brotherhood opposed the successful April demonstration but supported the unsuccessful May event.) Every member in the 100,000-strong online community could be, at any given moment, a leader of a movement. Third, engaging Egypt's youth is an important item on the agenda of Mubarak's son, Gamal, as he works to gain support for his succession to power.
As a young politician, Gamal established the Future Generation Foundation in 2000, which incubated many of the current leaders of the ruling National Democratic Party and the new Cabinet. Facebook activists and their supporters should be able to turn to this group for support.
A few weeks ago, Belal Diab, a 20-year-old college student, interrupted one of the Egyptian prime minister's speeches to protest the arrests of Facebook activists, shouting: "Look who are you fighting; it is us, the younger generation who stood with you and supported you!"
Nevertheless, Facebook activists are being targeted by government-based media campaigns defaming the website and the youth activists who use it. The government also warns media not to talk about the phenomenon. I saw the heavy-handed efforts of the government while recording a TV show with Maher. During the taping, Egyptian police broke into the studio, threatened the station manager and forced the guest outside the room.
What can be done to help this movement? The international community and the U.S. government should pressure the Egyptian government to support Internet freedom and keep Facebook accessible to Egyptians. One young activist, Ahmad Samih, is campaigning to gain local and international support to prevent the Egyptian government from blocking Facebook.
So far, nearly 20 Egyptian human rights organizations are supporting this cause. International human rights organizations should publicly join in that show of support. Egyptian democrats are "Facebooking" their advocacy in order to escape heavy recriminations. It would be shameful for the international community not to stand up on their behalf against a government that seeks to deny them even that small space to express themselves.
Otherwise, Mubarak's self-fulfilling prophesy as the only alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood will continue to hold Egypt back from the democracy its people deserve.
-- Sherif Mansour, LA Times
Facebook networking played a crucial role in broadening support and turnout for an April 6 textile workers' strike and protest. The Egyptian government, which has governed for 25 years under emergency law and doesn't allow more than five people to gather unregistered, hit back hard, jailing young dissidents and torturing Ahmed Maher, a young activist who tried, unsuccessfully, to organize a second demonstration in early May.
Despite these setbacks, the "Facebook movement" in Egypt is significant for several reasons. First, it challenges the perception that there is no prospect for independent, secular opposition in the country. The majority of Egyptians are under 30 and have known no other ruler than Mubarak. They have not seen real political parties because the government has long restricted opposition parties and free media.
The Facebook movement engaged large numbers of youth for the first time. Second, the Web offers a safe political space -- a role the mosque has traditionally played in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood has for decades been the only viable opposition.
With Facebook, young secular people can communicate, build relationships and express their opinions freely. (Significantly, the Muslim Brotherhood opposed the successful April demonstration but supported the unsuccessful May event.) Every member in the 100,000-strong online community could be, at any given moment, a leader of a movement. Third, engaging Egypt's youth is an important item on the agenda of Mubarak's son, Gamal, as he works to gain support for his succession to power.
As a young politician, Gamal established the Future Generation Foundation in 2000, which incubated many of the current leaders of the ruling National Democratic Party and the new Cabinet. Facebook activists and their supporters should be able to turn to this group for support.
A few weeks ago, Belal Diab, a 20-year-old college student, interrupted one of the Egyptian prime minister's speeches to protest the arrests of Facebook activists, shouting: "Look who are you fighting; it is us, the younger generation who stood with you and supported you!"
Nevertheless, Facebook activists are being targeted by government-based media campaigns defaming the website and the youth activists who use it. The government also warns media not to talk about the phenomenon. I saw the heavy-handed efforts of the government while recording a TV show with Maher. During the taping, Egyptian police broke into the studio, threatened the station manager and forced the guest outside the room.
What can be done to help this movement? The international community and the U.S. government should pressure the Egyptian government to support Internet freedom and keep Facebook accessible to Egyptians. One young activist, Ahmad Samih, is campaigning to gain local and international support to prevent the Egyptian government from blocking Facebook.
So far, nearly 20 Egyptian human rights organizations are supporting this cause. International human rights organizations should publicly join in that show of support. Egyptian democrats are "Facebooking" their advocacy in order to escape heavy recriminations. It would be shameful for the international community not to stand up on their behalf against a government that seeks to deny them even that small space to express themselves.
Otherwise, Mubarak's self-fulfilling prophesy as the only alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood will continue to hold Egypt back from the democracy its people deserve.
-- Sherif Mansour, LA Times
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Morocco: Awkward trial and error
What a difference three years, half-a-dozen postponements and plenty of stalling makes.
On Wednesday, Nadia Yassine, a leader of the banned Justice and Charity Islamic movement and one of the biggest thorns in the side of Morocco’s King Mohammed VI, did not even bother to make an appearance at the Rabat courthouse to face charges of publicly criticizing the monarchy.
On Wednesday, Nadia Yassine, a leader of the banned Justice and Charity Islamic movement and one of the biggest thorns in the side of Morocco’s King Mohammed VI, did not even bother to make an appearance at the Rabat courthouse to face charges of publicly criticizing the monarchy.
It was a far cry from her first court appearance in the controversial case back in June 2005.
Back then, the veiled Moroccan grandmother grimly marched to the courthouse, under the full glare of international TV cameras, surrounded by scores of chanting, agitated supporters. But even more embarrassingly for the Moroccan monarchy, Yassine prominently sported white tape over her mouth, emblazoned with a red “X,” a taunting reminder that a basic human right to free speech was at stake.
The reason for Yassine’s arraignment was a 2005 interview with a Moroccan daily in which she stated she preferred a republican system of government to a hereditary monarchy.
Morocco is a country ruled by one of the world’s oldest reining dynasties. The 1,200-year-old Alaouite dynasty traces its ancestry back to the Prophet Mohammed, and is not historically known for tolerating dissents.
Yassine was promptly charged with damaging Morocco’s “holy institutions”.
A colossal mistake?
It was an act that most experts agree was a colossal mistake on the part of the Moroccan authorities.
Certainly the makhzen - a term popularly used to refer to the palace and the country’s ruling elites - underestimated the infectious charm and sheer media savvy of the 49-year-old Moroccan grandmother.
The daughter of Sheikh Abdessalam Yassine, the 79-year old founder of the virulently anti-monarchist Justice and Spirituality movement, Yassine has impeccable credentials. Her father, a revered – if somewhat ideologically erratic – Muslim scholar, spent considerable chunks of his adult life in jail for criticizing the monarchy. Articulate, intelligent and a darling of the international press, Yassine has adeptly exploited the case.
“This trial is a gift, a present, to Al Adl wa al-Ihssane,” said Aboubakr Jamai, a Nieman fellow at Harvard University, referring to the Arabic name for Justice and Charity. “Nadia Yassine is shrewdly using the issue of openness and freedom of expression because it poses a tricky situation for the palace - to crackdown on this would run counter to the values espoused by the West.”
Certainly the trial is under careful scrutiny by the international community. In a statement emailed to FRANCE 24 Wednesday, a US State Department official said: “We support freedom of expression in Morocco, and consider a free press and the free exchange of ideas to be a fundamental aspect of a democratic society. We follow this case, as we do all cases related to human rights in Morocco. We also continuously advocate for fair and impartial judicial proceedings in all cases.”
Given the controversial nature of the case, the Moroccan judiciary appears to have taken the path of inaction over the past three years. Since the initial June 2, 2005 hearing, there have been six court hearing dates that end with a postponement. “They really don’t want to judge her,” said Ali Amar, editor of Le Journal Hebdomadaire, Morocco’s leading weekly news magazine “They wish it would just go away.”
Emerging from the ‘years of lead’ - leadenly
After two decades of brutal political repression in the 1960s and ‘70s under former King Hassan, locally known as the “years of lead,” Morocco has been making a slow, democratic transition. Perched at the western extremity of the Arab world with only a few miles separating one of its edges from Europe, Morocco is often viewed as a model Arab nation, one that has close ties to the US and European capitals.
Since he ascended the throne in 2000, Mohammed’s moves to put a lid on the “years of lead” as well as his efforts to stem the rising tide of Islamism in the region have won him many admirers in Western capitals.
But within the kingdom, political opposition and freedom of expression is still strictly – and sometimes bizarrely – suppressed.
Last month, a Moroccan computer engineer was sentenced to jail for creating a Facebook profile in the name of Prince Moulay Rachid, King Mohammed’s younger brother. The sentencing came despite defense pleas that the computer enthusiast was an admirer of the prince and the profile was only intended as a bit of fun.
Following a massive outcry by the international rights community, the fake Facebook profiler was granted a royal pardon Wednesday in the lead-up to the anniversary of the birth of the Prophet Mohammed.
As the bearer of the title amir al-muminin or “commander of the faithful,” Morocco’s 44-year-old monarch is particularly well placed to offer such a pardon.
But a royal pardon for Yassine however seems unlikely, according to Jamai. For one, he notes, she would need to be convicted in order to be pardoned. To attain that, Jamai explains, “The case would have to be argued in court. Given that Nadia only said she thinks a republic is superior to a monarchy -- an idea that’s so widely accepted in modern society -- it would make an interesting debate. But that’s the last thing the monarchy wants.”
By Leela Jacinto/ FRANCE 24
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Middle East: How governments handle the news
From The Economist:
PREDICTABILITY is a trait that few would ascribe to the Middle East, yet Arab interior ministers have gathered quietly, every winter for the past 25 years, to talk about how better to secure the regimes they serve. At this year's summit, in Tunis, the security chiefs agreed to toughen rules on publishing, recording or distributing material that might promote terrorism. A worthy goal, surely, except that the region's authorities have a habit of defining as crimes the kind of things their critics would deem legitimate dissent.
Despite the flourishing of alternative media, such as satellite television and internet blogs, that challenge once-impregnable state monopolies on the flow of news, governments keep finding new ways to suppress contrary views. Whereas the dictatorships of old snuffed out opponents or chucked them in jail, today's softer incarnations achieve similar silence by subtler means. Hyper-regulation via catch-all laws, plus financial carrots and sticks, tend to replace cruder direct control.
In draconian Syria, the vague crime of “disseminating false information” carries a stiff jail sentence. But as many journalists in relatively liberal Morocco have discovered, to criticise public officials is to risk libel charges that carry ruinous fines. Jordan, another semi-constitutional monarchy, recently issued a press law that independent-minded journalists suspect will be used against them, stipulating stiff penalties for slander. The regional government of Iraqi Kurdistan, a pro-Western enclave, is working on a similarly restrictive law. In Yemen last year, Abdel Karim Khaiwani, who edits a news website, found himself facing a possible death sentence for allegedly supporting terrorism after reporting on such issues as a bloody tribal rebellion and nepotism in President Ali Abdullah Saleh's government.
In many such cases, the state itself need not dirty its own fingers. Pro-government lawyers in Egypt filed a barrage of private lawsuits last year against editors who had, among other things, rubbished the ruling party and speculated on the state of President Hosni Mubarak's health; four were imprisoned. Plaintiffs in Kuwait, supposedly acting as private citizens, succeeded in winning hefty damages from the al-Jazeera satellite network because it had allegedly insulted their country. In tightly-controlled Tunisia, a journalist who had dared to air widely whispered rumours of corruption among President Ben Ali's relatives was charged with public indecency and insulting a state official after what appeared to be a staged altercation with police. He was sentenced in January to a year behind bars.
Older methods still work, too. According to Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based lobby, more than 200 media workers have lost their lives in Iraq since 2003. In the same period, prominent journalists in Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya and Sudan have been killed or gone missing in suspicious circumstances. In the past two months alone, the authorities in Gaza, Saudi Arabia and Sudan have summarily jailed reporters or internet bloggers.
Non-Arab Iran continues to lead the region in banning newspapers. Under the fundamentalist government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dozens of reformist publications have had their licences revoked. The most recent victim, a popular women's magazine, was accused of “threatening the psychological security of society” and of having “weakened military and revolutionary institutions”.
In January, after several participants in a call-in television show criticised a recent salary increase for government employees as too small, the Saudi authorities stopped any programme from being beamed live. The kingdom's minister of information then barred journalists from seeing himself questioned in the kingdom's all-appointed proto-parliament, the Shura Council. Saudi Arabia, like Iran, Syria and Tunisia, extensively monitors the internet, blocking tens of thousands of websites, ostensibly to protect public morality. Even Yemen, with its less sophisticated electronic means, has joined in. In recent weeks, half a dozen opposition news sites have suddenly become inaccessible to local users.
With satellite dishes proliferating even in remote villages across the Middle East, television has proved harder to control by such means. Governments have instead put pressure on the states that host stations. A recent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for instance, has produced a marked toning down of news about the kingdom on al-Jazeera, which is based in Qatar. The mooted new rules on incitement to terrorism may have been partly intended to stop the channel, still by far the most popular across the region, from broadcasting statements by Islamist militants. But the last time al-Jazeera aired a video from al-Qaeda's fugitive leader, Osama bin Laden, Islamist radicals fumed that the footage was so heavily edited that it completely distorted the message.
PREDICTABILITY is a trait that few would ascribe to the Middle East, yet Arab interior ministers have gathered quietly, every winter for the past 25 years, to talk about how better to secure the regimes they serve. At this year's summit, in Tunis, the security chiefs agreed to toughen rules on publishing, recording or distributing material that might promote terrorism. A worthy goal, surely, except that the region's authorities have a habit of defining as crimes the kind of things their critics would deem legitimate dissent.
Despite the flourishing of alternative media, such as satellite television and internet blogs, that challenge once-impregnable state monopolies on the flow of news, governments keep finding new ways to suppress contrary views. Whereas the dictatorships of old snuffed out opponents or chucked them in jail, today's softer incarnations achieve similar silence by subtler means. Hyper-regulation via catch-all laws, plus financial carrots and sticks, tend to replace cruder direct control.
In draconian Syria, the vague crime of “disseminating false information” carries a stiff jail sentence. But as many journalists in relatively liberal Morocco have discovered, to criticise public officials is to risk libel charges that carry ruinous fines. Jordan, another semi-constitutional monarchy, recently issued a press law that independent-minded journalists suspect will be used against them, stipulating stiff penalties for slander. The regional government of Iraqi Kurdistan, a pro-Western enclave, is working on a similarly restrictive law. In Yemen last year, Abdel Karim Khaiwani, who edits a news website, found himself facing a possible death sentence for allegedly supporting terrorism after reporting on such issues as a bloody tribal rebellion and nepotism in President Ali Abdullah Saleh's government.
In many such cases, the state itself need not dirty its own fingers. Pro-government lawyers in Egypt filed a barrage of private lawsuits last year against editors who had, among other things, rubbished the ruling party and speculated on the state of President Hosni Mubarak's health; four were imprisoned. Plaintiffs in Kuwait, supposedly acting as private citizens, succeeded in winning hefty damages from the al-Jazeera satellite network because it had allegedly insulted their country. In tightly-controlled Tunisia, a journalist who had dared to air widely whispered rumours of corruption among President Ben Ali's relatives was charged with public indecency and insulting a state official after what appeared to be a staged altercation with police. He was sentenced in January to a year behind bars.
Older methods still work, too. According to Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based lobby, more than 200 media workers have lost their lives in Iraq since 2003. In the same period, prominent journalists in Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya and Sudan have been killed or gone missing in suspicious circumstances. In the past two months alone, the authorities in Gaza, Saudi Arabia and Sudan have summarily jailed reporters or internet bloggers.
Non-Arab Iran continues to lead the region in banning newspapers. Under the fundamentalist government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dozens of reformist publications have had their licences revoked. The most recent victim, a popular women's magazine, was accused of “threatening the psychological security of society” and of having “weakened military and revolutionary institutions”.
In January, after several participants in a call-in television show criticised a recent salary increase for government employees as too small, the Saudi authorities stopped any programme from being beamed live. The kingdom's minister of information then barred journalists from seeing himself questioned in the kingdom's all-appointed proto-parliament, the Shura Council. Saudi Arabia, like Iran, Syria and Tunisia, extensively monitors the internet, blocking tens of thousands of websites, ostensibly to protect public morality. Even Yemen, with its less sophisticated electronic means, has joined in. In recent weeks, half a dozen opposition news sites have suddenly become inaccessible to local users.
With satellite dishes proliferating even in remote villages across the Middle East, television has proved harder to control by such means. Governments have instead put pressure on the states that host stations. A recent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for instance, has produced a marked toning down of news about the kingdom on al-Jazeera, which is based in Qatar. The mooted new rules on incitement to terrorism may have been partly intended to stop the channel, still by far the most popular across the region, from broadcasting statements by Islamist militants. But the last time al-Jazeera aired a video from al-Qaeda's fugitive leader, Osama bin Laden, Islamist radicals fumed that the footage was so heavily edited that it completely distorted the message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)