The Arab governments finally officially re-muzzled their already constricted press.

They did it with a media charter last month that, according to an official statement, is meant to be a “bold step towards supporting the Arab media industry” through it’s implementation of “a code of honour that balances between the values of freedom and responsibility.”

In other words, the Arab governments – minus those in Qatar and Lebanon who have not signed the agreement – have the right to take legislative action against satellite stations whose broadcasts harm “the supreme interests of Arab states,” are “in contradiction with the principles of Arab solidarity” or defame “leaders or national and religious symbols.”

One of the main issues with the code seems to be the fact that there are no clearly defined guidelines, giving authorities the opportunity to interpret and charge as they see fit.

Although, this can hardly be seen as surprising in a region where the consistently vague nature of the law is something reporters are more than familiar with.

Oh, and this isn’t really censorship anyway, says Salah Al Din Maawi, an Arab States Broadcasting Union official.
Never mind that this is a regulatory body consisting of members outside the profession, and never mind the fact that the credibility of independent reporting is even more at risk.

Actually, “the idea of censoring media has become outdated.” (His words translated.)

“All the regions of the world including Europe and America have their own standards and rules for regulating satellite broadcasting. We have been inspired by global values like banning any form of instigation of violence, sectarianism, broadcasting pornographic materials and harming social harmony.”

Yes. This code is very clearly modeled on Western approaches to media freedoms.

I think we are doing well.

But Egypt’s done it again so here’s me talking about what I just said I wouldn’t.

Apparently, the wise as always Anas Al-Feki, Egypt’s information minister, has decided to ban four publications that reprinted the infamous cartoons, including New York’s Wall Street Journal.

I think this is absurd for obvious reasons, but that’s not what I want to get into in this short post. I think what is most interesting about the cartoons and their publication is what they say about the question of what constitutes justified, publishable comment.

There was a discussion in an ethics class I attended this week that dealt with freedom of expression and the lines that are or aren’t crossed by commentators. I thought it was interesting how religious groups were generally approached in comparison to other ‘offended communities,’ and by that I mean groups targeted by apparently offensive commentary based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

It seems to be easier to accept certain defenses – such as the freedom to critique or even, as was mentioned in class, the defense of artistic expression – when the target has anything to do with the religiously sacred.

Again, I completely disagree with the ban placed on the papers and I am in no way an advocate of the extreme reactions to the cartoons’ initial publications, but I can’t help but feel there was a serious lack of sympathy and understanding of the Muslim community’s concern.

I think part of the problem lies in the differing views on what the cartoons actually represented.

Moving beyond the issue of creating an image of the Prophet, to many Muslims I’ve spoken to, this had nothing to do with a freedom of opinion. The cartoons were attacking something fundamentally wrong: that the Prophet himself advocated/preached violence. The cartoons didn’t attack the practice of fundamentalists or even go so far as to generalize, as many do, and just say ‘Muslims.’ They seemed to target the core of Islamic belief, namely the teachings of the Prophet specifically – the doctrine as represented through him.

The cartoons ultimately signified the extent to which Muslims and their beliefs are stereotyped and generalized, and were nothing more than symbols of ignorance, irresponsibility and blatant racism at an already sensitive time.

I realize I’m at risk of oversimplifying the issue, but what is it that makes these cartoons so different from ones that target the gay community, African Americans or Judaism?

What makes this reasonable commentary?

I’m happy to say this won’t be. Well…

Apparently Egypt has dropped a jail term that was shamefully handed down to an Al Jazeera producer for running a story filmed without a proper license.

The filmmaker, documentarian Howaida Taha, completely denies it, claiming she had received authorization from the Ministry of Interior, and not surprisingly, the subject of the piece in question, the marginalized and poor population of a Cairo neighborhood, wasn’t the most flattering for Egypt.

The critical approach also wasn’t a first for the journalist.

At the time of the conviction, she was in the process of fighting another jail sentence she was given earlier for ‘fabricating’ footage.

And by fabricated video, they’re referring to reconstructed scenes of torture committed by Egyptian police that Taha used for her Al Jazeera piece, “Beyond the Sun,” aired back in April.

A quick, contextualizing side note: Egyptian authorities adamantly deny claims of the systematic torture human rights organizations charge them with, but there are a number of documented investigations and convictions that seem to say otherwise.

This time around, Taha was still found guilty of hurting the country’s reputation again and spreading “false news,” for which she was sentenced to six months in jail, along with 20,000 Egyptian pounds in fines. She will only have to deal with the latter.

I know this is essentially representative of yet another part of the string of unwarranted jail terms being thrown at government-offending journalists in the North African nation, but it’s difficult not to feel even the slightest bit more optimistic.

There aren’t many moments and I’m going to try to take advantage of this one.

 ”Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki stressed that the freedom of the press in new Iraq is one of the most important democratic gains that our people achieved after the toppling of the tyrant regime. He added that protecting journalists and media institutions, and strengthening the role of the press, which is considered the fourth estate, top our priorities. In a statement issued by the Prime Ministry’s Media Office, the prime minister directed the Ministries of Defence and Interior and the government institutions to facilitate the mission of journalists and satellite channels’ correspondents and protect them so they can carry out their duties. The prime minister stressed the need to take deterring measures against those involved in harming journalists and media figures and in violating their rights and freedom. The statement said that those who violate the prime minister’s directives should be penalized. Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki reiterated the government’s eagerness to ensure the freedom of media and press in Iraq.” *

The statement came at what many may consider to be a symbolic time in Iraq when the country’s new flag was flown for the first time, set over Baghdad’s cabinet building – a sign of the new Iraq, albeit a temporary one until the final version of the flag is finished next year.

I should say right now that I have a lot of trouble openly accepting the claims that were made in the statement, and I’m regularly told to be more optimistic about Al Maliki’s position.

But it’s not easy to forget the numerous bans that were put in place affecting outlets that were responsible for “stirring up religious and ethnic passions.” TV stations have been shut down and journalists taken into custody under the PM.

While I do believe in the principles, his plans and ambitions, and I understand he’s trying to play a certain role – and doing so more successfully than his predecessor – the conflicts do not justify blatant banning and threats of censorship, and that is exactly what has been done in the recent past.

There is no real freedom of speech if there are the exceptions.

– 

* I found this English translation online.

So what’s new with one of the world’s least press-friendly nations? 

Nothing less than a complete and sudden ban on live broadcasting. The minister of Culture and Information, Mr. Iyad Madani, officially banned live broadcasts on public television a total of two days after “unflattering comments” were made by call-in viewers about state employee salaries, criticising officials on air including Saudi’s King Abdullah.

The incident happened in late January on state-owned Al Ikhbariya, famous for being the first with female anchors and set up in 2004 “to improve the image of Saudi Arabia and its media in the region and the rest of the world.”

Its director, Mohammed Al Tonsi, was subsequently replaced by one of Madani’s aids.

According to the same article, now there are rumors government censors will be allowed to get their hands on all pre-broadcast programs before airing.

I won’t bother with context because I assume everyone’s pretty much familiar with the ins and outs of Saudi oppression over the media. I did want to end with something Madani said at a ministry-hosted event in Jeddah during the last annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca that I think is appropriate: 

“…we at the Ministry of Culture and Information will not dictate that the Saudi media or a newspaper must say what we want it to say.”

 Apparently that is as long as no one actually does say what they don’t want them to say.

Just to put it into context, the Emirates has for some time now been seen as the region’s media hub – to recycle an overprinted term.

It’s listed the second highest Gulf country – behind Kuwait – on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index last year, saw the 2004 establishment of a Journalist’s Association, the development of the country’s code of media ethics, and has its widely-discussed Media City, housing the offices of agencies, publications and broadcasters like Reuters, AP, MBC and BBC.

Vice President Sheikh Mohammed’s recent order to ban the jailing of journalists can’t be overlooked in a region where this is very much a first (Kuwait’s attempt still criminalizes offences like blasphemy), and the fact that transparency is the word-of-the-day alongside news of the press law amendments is nothing but promising.

Still, as someone who has the majority of her work experience based in government-run stations and Gulf-glossies, I can’t help but remain critical of where local press finds itself today.

The article I mentioned above made an interesting point:

“The biggest challenge to the freedom of press in the UAE comes through self-censorship.” *

Openness and transparency seem to be more welcomed in the realm of international news. I’m not saying the UAE law in any way makes a distinction between news locally and abroad, but self-censorship and political ‘caution,’ for lack of a better word, still strongly affects the broadcasting and publication of stories based on the local government, society and the like.

When I was working in Dubai last year, there was a point in time when I was told, straight-faced, by one of my supervisors: Don’t look for the story.

There’s protocol. There are rules. Ethical guidelines? Don’t make important people mad.

While that was a case of someone being surprisingly candid about the role of a local reporter as he saw it, it almost always seemed to make itself known as the essentially unspoken rule.

Najla Al Awadhi, Dubai Media Incorporated‘s Deputy CEO and General Manager for Dubai One TV wrote in an article back in August:

“Why would I want my government to be less involved, when I know that my government and its progressive policies have fostered prosperity and growth for the UAE?” 

She goes on to explain the fact that she is by no means suggesting restricting freedom of opinion, but that, “If something is going to harm the social harmony that we have created, then that piece of information cannot be justified as freedom being practised with responsibility towards the greater good.”

Now the UAE is in the process of setting up its own media ‘watchdog,’ “to monitor and enforce a media code of conduct.”

I’m not exactly sure where all this will leave the now apparently free local reporter.

–

*This is the article’s paraphrase of a point made by Fazal Malek, a journalism faculty member of Dubai Men’s College of the Higher Colleges of Technology.

My automatic response is this is an incredibly positive step forward.

The union, headed by newly elected representatives, stands symbolic of a growing resistance to the Tunisian regime and its oppression and censorship of the press, most recently in the form of the highly criticized jailing of Slim Boukhdir.

Writer for the London-based paper, al Quds al Arabi, and correspondent for a number of Arab News websites, such as Al Arabiya, Boukhdir was arrested in November of last year. He was stopped on a bus on his way to receive a passport that had for years up until that very day been refused to him.

On January 18th, an extreme one-year sentence, handed down on the charges of using “insulting behaviour towards an official,” being an “affront to public decency” and “refusing to produce his identity papers,” was upheld in a court of appeals.

“Tunisian journalists are often jailed on grounds unrelated to their work so that the authorities cannot be accused of censorship,” the NGO, Reporters Without Borders (RWO) said in the article quoted on their website.

“But no one is fooled. Boukhdir is paying the price for being outspoken. Banned from working for the government newspaper that used to employ him and harassed by the police, Boukhdir has never stopped covering the human rights violations committed under President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali.”

So where does this very recent news leave the country that has seen its previously – some would say exemplary in the context of journalism in the Middle East – independent ATJ slowly placed under the control of the government?

Tunisia rose to a spot one slot higher than Egypt’s depressing 146th rank in the 2007 World Press Freedom Index, the latest annual listing of 169 surveyed countries by RWO.

The North African state is continuously in the news for its police assaults on outspoken reporters, harassment through intensive government surveillance and the jailing of a number of local journalists.

With history in mind in the form of its 40-year-old union predecessor, how much “hope” can there really be in the industry’s future?

In it are a number of referenced cases, including a group involving Cairo-based journalists that recently threw international human rights groups into a frenzy.

The Egyptian cases referred to deal with seven editors being handed criminal charges because they published articles saying President Mubarak is sick, which according to the government is a lie.

His wife, the ever-supportive Suzanne Mubarak, dismissed the concern after the 79-year-old president’s televised appearances failed to convince he was as healthy as ever.

“The president in Egypt is a god and the gods don’t get sick,” goes the offending front-page editorial by Ibrahim Eissa, editor of Al Dostour

newspaper, translated by the Chicago Tribune. “Mubarak’s state wants to present the President as someone who is sanctified, who makes no mistakes and who no one questions and no one competes against.”

Now, amendments were made to the Egyptian Criminal Code in 2006 meant to put an end to imprisonment in regards to cases of libel as they relate to the press.

So, what do Egypt’s democratic courts decide to do in response?

They started by charging the editors with (1) spreading rumours causing harm to the public interest, and (2) insulting the President. Eissa in particular faced heavier punishment because he was the first to say Mubarak was ill and is therefore accused of economic espionage.

Apparently, by claiming the President was sick, Eissa intentionally discouraged foreign investors and negatively affected the stock market and Egyptian economy. It is, as a result, a matter of national security.

The prosecution’s witnesses? The Director of the Central Bank of Egypt.

Interestingly, Reuters’ Cairo bureau quotes financial officials as saying the week of the change in market indexes were unrelated to the question of the president’s health:

“Egypt’s main stock indexes fell on August 29, by 0.7 and 0.8 percent, but brokers said this was because of fears of weakness in the U.S. economy. Many brokers told Reuters at the time the Mubarak health rumours were not a market factor.”

Still, Egypt is a democracy, and freedom of speech is an essential right listed in the Egyptian Constitution as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), on which Egypt has been a signatory since Oct 1, 1981. Since, uncountable human rights violations committed in the country have notoriously littered international news.

Thank goodness for democratic freedoms.