April 2008 - Page 8 of 8 - Index on Censorship

04 Apr 08 | Comment

Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin are trying to stifle debate in Belfast’s media, writes Anthony McIntyre

Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin is the current Westminster MP for West Belfast. For decades he rightly campaigned against censorship policies crafted by successive British and Irish governments for the purposes of undermining his party. British readers may recall him as the only member of the House of Commons they could see but not hear. On each occasion that he appeared on TV over a six-year period from 1988, an actor’s voice was used to dub his words. On radio he was neither seen nor heard, the dubbing procedure again in play. It was only one of a range of draconian measures applied to silence him and his party. Former Irish Journalist of the Year Ed Moloney has repeatedly asserted that such censorship prohibited dialogue and consequently prolonged Northern Ireland’s violent conflict.

Although a victim of harsh political censorship, Adams’ disinclination to use this invidious tool of political repression has been less than salutary. Never a figure at ease with even the mildest form of political criticism, he has persistently sought to undermine those who do not see the world through his eyes and who are prepared to voice their misgivings publicly. Virtually everyone who has left Sinn Féin since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement a decade ago has highlighted the suppression of debate among their reasons for quitting. Adams has no record of speaking out against those murdered, kidnapped or beaten by his party’s military wing simply because they chose to dissent from his political project. On occasion Adams has hit out at those daring enough to have a public ‘poke’ at his leadership. Elsewhere he has been on record saying that people should not be allowed to even think that there is any alternative to the Good Friday Agreement. There is no concession to the idea that without audacious thinking, West Belfast intellectual life would be even more restricted than it currently is.

Egypt’s witch-hunt

Journalist Ibrahim Eissa faces a prison sentence for his criticism of President Mubarak. The government’s intention to intimidate the free press is all too clear, writes Amira Howeidy

On 26 March a Cairo court sentenced Ibrahim Eissa, editor of the independent Al Dostour newspaper, to six months in prison for publishing a series of articles on 79-year-old president Hosni Mubarak’s health.

Eissa has the right to appeal the ruling, which he probably will, knowing all too well that he’ll end up in one of Egypt’s notorious prisons anyway.

This 42-year-old critic of the Mubarak regime still faces at least four other court cases concerning articles deemed ‘insulting’ to figures in the ruling party and, again, the president.

‘Rachel’s law’ protects free expression

The New York State Legislature has passed a law protecting American journalists from defamation lawsuits brought against them overseas. The Libel Terrorism Protection Act, known as ‘Rachel’s Law’, was introduced after Rachel Ehrenfeld was successfully sued for libel in the UK by Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi businessman she alleged had financed terrorism.

Saudi woman murdered for chatting online

A young Saudi woman was murdered by her father last August after he discovered she had been engaging in online chats on Facebook. There are thought to be as many as 30,000 Facebook users in Saudi Arabia, and the site offers several popular dating and singles forums. This is rare in a society where contact outside of strict family and class structures largely remains taboo.