The Justice and Security Bill was introduced in the House of Lords this week. Should it become law then it will have a devastating effect on the extent to which the public can find out about matters of major importance. These include the activities of those suspected of threatening security and of the authorities who attempt to counter such threats.
Do not be misled by the Daily Mail’s claim that the Bill is a “climbdown” and a victory for their campaign against secret justice. To be sure, the Mail was a key player in the government’s decision to remove inquests from the proposals, but this Bill is not victory. The Justice Secretary Ken Clarke maintains it will not result in the “public finding out less about the truth in important cases”, but that seems unlikely.
Under the bill if information emerged in civil cases that could affect national security, then the government could ask the court to use closed material proceedings (CMPs). The opposing parties and their lawyers would then be excluded from crucial parts of the case; only the judge and government parties would remain, with a special advocate representing the interests of the claimant.
The media will have no access. There is no requirement that the public be notified a CMP will be sought, even though in criminal cases seven days’ notice is required for an application to close a court on national security grounds. The media would be totally excluded from hearings which consider whether CMPs should be used, without even a special advocate representing the public interest in open justice.
It is virtually certain CMPs will become the norm in this area because the proposed rule is that if the judge thinks that a disclosure of information would be damaging to national security, then she or he must order a CMP. The judiciary defer strongly to executive judgments about what will damage national security (and the government tends to set a low threshold for damage) and, once reaching the conclusion national security would be damaged, a judge will have no discretion on the order that follows.
In theory, the legislation would not permit the government to use CMPs to cover up embarrassment. In practice, however, the outcome is likely to be different. A key rationale behind the laws is that the government must protect relationships with other countries, and especially the United States. If embarrassment to the UK government can be claimed to affect those international relationships then, in a kind of legal alchemy, non-damaging embarrassment can be transformed into damage. The result will be secrecy.
We can expect these procedures to apply in many important cases. The Justice Secretary has indicated that it is intended to apply only to a narrow group of cases, such as actions for damages by former Guantanamo Bay detainees claiming British complicity in detention or torture. The Green Paper that preceded the Bill said 27 cases were in issue, though the government refused to say what they were.
In the Law, Terrorism and the Right to Know research programme at the University of Reading, we have tried to identify the cases likely to be affected. Our list is now at around 20 cases where claimants have been subjected to detention, torture, extraordinary rendition and the like. They stretch across the world, alleging British complicity in wrongdoings from Guantanamo Bay to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Uganda, Libya, Egypt and Bangladesh, among others.
But the reach of the Justice and Security Bill is wider than even these cases. It will also include matters that occur solely within the UK. While inquests are no longer to be subject to CMPs, any civil actions which follow inquests could fall within its provisions if intelligence sources or methods could be disclosed. That could well include cases relating to deaths as a result of shootings by police.
If police make arrests in a counter-terrorism operation and are subsequently sued for assault or false imprisonment then CMPs would very likely be sought because the action may well involve disclosure of methods used by the security services.
There will inevitably be other categories of cases in which the laws will be applied. National security is a broad church.
One of the most disturbing provisions in the Bill is the absence of any weighing of competing public interests in the decision to order the use of CMPs. The Bill removes all consideration of competing interests in open justice. No matter how strong the public interest may be in the substantive issues or in process of justice being done in the public eye, a judge cannot take account of that.
Moreover, there will be no recording of how often CMPs are used. There will be no method or point of review to determine when closed judgments can be made open. This Bill proposes that these matters are closed forever.
There is every reason to see this Bill as laying the foundations for a secret state where the executive is able to use national security as a blanket to hide proceedings from the public eye, regardless of how great the public interest in open justice might be.
This Bill will make our governments less accountable. It will make secrecy the norm. Our parliament should oppose it fiercely.
As Egypt prepares for presidential elections in less than two weeks’ time, the country is on the brink of chaos. Tensions have been brewing for more than a year and the patience of Egyptians is wearing thin. They yearn for stability and many feel betrayed by the country’s de facto military rulers who have held power since Mubarak was toppled in February 2011.
“The ruling military generals who promised us stability have only delivered brutality and repression,” complained 24-year-old activist Tarek Ali at a protest two weeks ago outside the Defence Ministry in Abbasia.
The violent confrontations between pro-democracy activists and security forces that have erupted sporadically during the transitional period have been the focus of local media, but once again there has been a stark contrast between the independent media coverage of the deadly violence and that shown on Egyptian State TV.
Democracy activists accuse state television of launching a vicious defamation campaign against them — one which, they say, has largely succeeded in turning public opinion against them.
“Right after last year’s mass uprising, everyone was proud of the young activists who started our revolution,” says taxi driver Maher Sobhy. “Now, we hate them for causing chaos and instability.”
The vilification campaign is reminiscent of a similar campaign launched by the state-run broadcaster during last year’s 18-day mass uprising. State TV has long been described by critics as “a propaganda machine” of the ousted authoritarian regime. The broadcaster initially dismissed the anti-Mubarak protests as nonevents, labelling the pro-democracy activists as “foreign agents” and “anarchists.”
When pro-Mubarak rallies were staged on 1 February 2011, state TV channels exaggerated the number of protesters, reporting that “the streets were flooded with thousands of Mubarak supporters” instead of the few hundred who were in fact there. Many Egyptians turned to foreign satellite channels and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter to follow the events in central Cairo. Angry protesters in Tahrir Square retaliated by carrying banners that denounced and ridiculed state TV, branding presenters who worked there “liars”.
But halfway through the uprising, state TV made an abrupt turnaround, adopting a more pro-revolutionary tone.
Media analysts saw the change as a sign that the regime was losing its grip on power. But the shift had come too late and state TV had already lost many of its viewers.
For a few weeks after the fall of Mubarak, state television fought to regain credibility. Opposition figures, including Islamists who had not been welcome in the building, were invited to appear on talk shows, and state TV reporters made a noticeable effort to enhance the ratings of their channels through factual, unbiased reporting. But the spell of freedom was short-lived and news editors and anchors soon fell back into their old habits. State employees began practicing self-censorship again after several journalists and talk show hosts working for private channels were summoned to the Military Prosecutors’ office after they criticised the military regime. Two bloggers were convicted in military courts for expressing their views in blog posts and on Facebook — a move that sent a strong message to journalists and broadcasters that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) would not tolerate criticism.
Tamer Hanafi, a news anchor working for the Arabic state-run Nile TV was investigated a few months after the revolution for refusing to heed calls from the station manager to abruptly cut his programme short after his studio guest, the outspoken activist Bothayna Kamel lashed out at the military rulers on air. Tamer, his face flushed with anger, told viewers that he had been ordered to end the show but that he would continue because he did not see anything wrong with Bothayna’s comments.
Other presenters and reporters who attempted to stand up to censorship have been sternly reprimanded by their bosses in recent months. Finding that the stakes are high — they could lose their jobs — most state employees have reverted to the old ways, obediently following directives from senior management.
News anchors complain that they have to read what their editors write without questioning the source. One senior anchor, who spoke on condition of anonymity said she had had to read that “the Emergency Law was in place to guarantee freedoms” and that “protesters in Kasr El Eini were hurling rocks at the military forces” when there had actually been an exchange of rock throwing. “Any anchor who deviates from the adopted state line lands in trouble,” she lamented. During most of the protests, state TV broadcast exclusive footage of the ongoing clashes shot by the Ministry of Interior, most of it portraying the soldiers and riot police as victims rather than aggressors.
Little has changed at the state broadcaster where the anchor lamented that “SCAF has replaced Mubarak as the red line not to be crossed.” Despairingly the anchor explained that the senior military general who was appointed Minister of Information now exercises control over all broadcasts and ensures that state TV continues to churn out propaganda messages about the lack of security, foreign meddling in Egypt’s internal affairs, the threats foreign-funded NGOs pose to national security or the plummeting stock market.
State TV’s flagrantly biased coverage of the deadly October clashes last year between Coptic protesters and security forces triggered another wave of stinging criticism of the state broadcaster, once again earning it the wrath of the public. The news network was accused of inciting the sectarian violence in which at least 27 people were killed — some of them crushed to death by army tanks — after Channel One’s lead anchorwoman Rasha Magdy urged Muslims “to protect the army from Christian attackers.”Although an investigative committee later cleared state TV of the charge, critics like media expert Hisham Qassem say repeating the mistakes of the past has cost the broadcaster its reputation for life.
Sixteen months after the onset of Egypt’s uprising, Egyptians are still struggling to shed decades of repression and transform their country into a democratic and free society. In a country where 35 per cent of the population is illiterate and relies heavily on the state-run broadcaster for information, a highly politicised, partisan state TV is a major impediment to the democratic process. “The ruling generals who have on several occasions since the revolution turned their guns on peaceful protesters are using State TV as another weapon to kill the revolution,” said 29 year- old activist Waleed Hamdy. They know it is a powerful tool and have used it to further their interests.”
Journalist Shahira Amin resigned from her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV in February 2011. Read why she resigned from the “propaganda machine” here.
Tens of thousands of protesters returned to Cairo’s Tahrir Square in a massive demonstration Friday demanding that the ruling military generals immediately hand over power to a civilian government. The protesters also called for former regime members to be barred from running in next month’s presidential elections.
Revolutionary forces had earlier called for a day of rage which they dubbed “Self Determination Friday”. They accuse the military generals running the country in the transitional phase of “hijacking the revolution” and hope to steer the country back on the right path of democratic reforms.
“The military council has only plunged the country into deep political chaos and has not carried out any of the aspired goals of our revolution,” lamented Hazem Mahmoud, an activist who works for Egypt’s Ministry of Foreign Trade.
He and other protesters in Tahrir Square on Friday expressed skepticism that the military regime had real intention to bring about the desired change, alleging that the military authority’s aim instead was “to maintain its tight grip on power and to ensure the appointment of yet another military candidate as the next president of Egypt”.
“Down with military rule!” and “The people are the red line” chanted the pro-democracy activists, insisting that they would foil SCAF’s attempts to re-instate a “feloul” (as former regime remnants are referred to) in the top job.
Liberals had stayed away from an earlier protest organised by Islamists on 13 April. The latter are angry at the election commission’s decision to disqualify two Islamist candidates — who were both seen as frontrunners in the presidential race. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Khairat El Shater and the Salafi presidential candidate Hazem Abou Ismail have been barred from running in the upcoming election along with eight other presidential hopefuls. El Shater was disqualified as a candidate because of earlier convictions of money laundering and for funding the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood during former President Hosni Mubarak’s rule. He was released following Mubarak’s fall after spending four years behind bars. Salafi candidate Abou Ismail was meanwhile disqualified from the presidential race after the country’s election commission confirmed that the popular contender’s mother held American citizenship. According to the rules of the presidential vote, those who have criminal record or hold dual citizenship (themselves or their close relatives) cannot run for the presidency.
Mubarak’s Former Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman — highly unpopular with both the Islamists and the liberal revolutionary forces — was also barred from the presidential race in what was largely seen as an attempt to appease a disgruntled public.
“The move is a ploy by the military council to trick us into believing that they weren’t deliberately targetting the Islamist candidates alone. The Egyptian public did not accept Suleiman as Vice President in the weeks that followed the January mass uprising, why should they want him as their President now?” asked Sabbah el Sakkary, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Justice and Freedom Party who had joined this Friday’s protest.
But despite agreeing on the target goal to remove old regime remnants from the upcoming presidential election, liberals had refused to close ranks with the Islamists and join them in last week’s protest because of widespread sentiment among revolutionary youths that the Islamists had “betrayed the revolution , placing their own political ambitions before the country’s interests.”
“The Islamists have largely stayed out of anti-military protests since the revolution and have tried to appease the military council all along in the hope that they would get a sizeable slice of the pie ( meaning a share in political power),” said Ahmed Mostafa, an activist who had come from Alexandria to join this Friday’s protest. He demanded an apology from the Islamists for “their insincerity” — a demand voiced by other secularists in the Square.
Other secularists believe that the Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest political group, had initially struck a power-sharing deal with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces ( SCAF ) and had thus, forsaken the revolution.
Islamists dominating the new parliament however feel powerless to effect change. They believe the SCAF is marginalizing them and has been monopolizing power.
“When parliament requested that the military-backed cabinet headed by Prime Minister Kamal el-Ganzouri (a former Prime Minister under Mubarak) be dissolved, SCAF rejected the demand. This prompted the Brotherhood in turn, to renege on an earlier promise not to field a presidential candidate,” said El Sakkary of the Freedom and Justice Party.
Meanwhile, the Islamist-dominated assembly whose members were handpicked by parliament to draft the constitution last month was annulled by the military after fuelling anger among the liberal forces who saw it as an attempt by the Brotherhood to unilaterally determine the country’s future.
Members of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the hardline Salafists turned up in large numbers at Friday’s protests — a move that could pile pressure on the military to cede some of its own powers. Bearded supporters of Abou Ismail were seen flaunting posters of the ultra-conservative contender and called for his reinstatement. They were eyed with skepticism by liberals who accused them of “using the protest to campaign for their candidate”.
Fourteen months after the toppling of Mubarak, Egypt is divided into two main camps: secular and Islamist with further fragmentation within each camp. The common goals shared by both camps is that the military return to the barracks and that former regime loyalists be barred from coming to power. Yet, the shared goals have not succeeded in unifying the two forces and it looks unlikely that their ranks will be closed anytime soon.
Although presidential elections are scheduled for 23-24 May and SCAF has pledged to hand over power at the end of June, many Egyptians are skeptical — fearing the election may be postponed. Statements made by the ruling generals last week that Egypt’s new constitution should be written before a president is seated have fuelled worries that the military is serious about handing over power.
“Writing the constitution that will stay with us for a long time is a task that is impossible to complete within the limited timeframe. That is one more reason for us to be back in Tahrir,” said Mohamed Fathy, a sales manager for a pharmaceutical company.
Journalist n Shahira Amin resigned her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV on February. Read why she resigned from the “propaganda machine” here.
(IFEX-TMG) – The International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) Tunisia Monitoring Group (IFEX-TMG), a coalition of 21 IFEX members which includes Index, is alarmed by ongoing attacks targeting journalists, artists, performers and women for the “crime” of freely expressing their opinion as well as by the Tunisian security forces’ alleged inaction during most of these instances in the past year. Furthermore, the IFEX-TMG condemns the use of force by police or other parties against journalists covering demonstrations, as well as long sentences for Facebook users on religious morality charges.
In an extremely alarming development, on 28 March, Ghazi Beji and Jabeur Mejri were sentenced to over seven years in prison for posting online manuscripts critical of Islam which included caricatures of a naked Prophet Mohammed. This comes just a fortnight after authorities announced 13 March would be marked as the national day for internet freedom.
A recent string of attacks have been carried out by individuals, some of whom have been alledgedly identified as Salafists, a conservative group of Sunni Muslims who approach Islamic theology from a literal point of view.
Amongst those targeted were artists, academics, journalists as well as media personnel and institutions. The most recent attack based on religious motivations, occurred on 22 March, when a theatre group performing on Habib Bourguiba Avenue in Tunis was attacked by Salafists. The police are said to have intervened much later and rather than protect the thespians and their equipment from the attack, moved them into the nearby Municipal Theatre.
Rather than protecting freedom of expression, the authorities have since banned demonstrations on Habib Bourguiba, the city’s main street, which was a symbolic place of resistance for the revolution. On 28 March, the Ministry of the interior banned “all demonstrations, marches and any other form of collective expression” on the Avenue.
Furthermore, police violently attacked peaceful demonstrations held in different cities on 7, 8 and 9 April to protest unemployment and social injustice. Police beat demonstrators with batons and fired teargas at them during a protest on 9 April on Avenue Habib Bourguiba by around a thousand people, defying the ban on protests on the capital’s main thoroughfare. Journalists were reportedly beaten during a demonstration in Sfax on 8 April, and then 14 journalists were beaten in Tunis on 9 April.
This follows a pattern of police abuse. In January 2012, two women journalists Sana Farhat and Maha Ouelhezi were physically assaulted by plainclothes police in Tunis as they were covering a demonstration organised by university teachers calling for academic freedom outside the Ministry of Education. Journalists were also attacked violently by police while covering a union protest in Tunis on 28 February.
Meanwhile, Director of the privately-owned Nessma TV, Nabil Karoui, is facing charges of blasphemy and disturbing public order for the screening of the animated film Persepolis in October 2011. The trial has been postponed a number of times and is now set for 19 April 2012.
The airing of Persepolis in October led to protests in Tunis because it contained a scene depicting God, which is considered forbidden by Islam. A week later, a crowd damaged Karoui’s home in Tunis with Molotov cocktails.
There has been little protection for those being attacked, including during a sit-in at Manouba University protesting the banning of niqab-wearing students from sitting for their exams that became violent. Not only did security forces fail to intervene to prevent demonstrators from becoming violent and disrupting classes, but there were no arrests made. Professor Fatma Jegham was attacked with impunity by Salafists last year at the Fine Arts University in Tunis for teaching a subject deemed “offensive to God.”
Not all recent violations of the right to free expression have been motivated by religious doctrine. On 24 March, celebrated journalist and Al-Jazeera journalist Lotffi Hajji was attacked physically and verbally as he was reporting from a meeting organised by supporters of the former Interim Prime Minister Caid Essebsi.
While all citizens reserve the right to protest against speech or an act they deem offensive, the IFEX-TMG and its local Tunisian partners have been campaigning to raise awareness that obstructing or interfering with their fellow-citizens’ rights to express their views is a violation of free expression, an intrinsic right and a basic building stone for any democracy, and one that must be enshrined in the Constitution.
While Said Ferjani, a leader in the ruling Ennahda political party, said they aim to protect the choice of wearing “the bikini or the Burqa”, more is needed to protect all citizens from the intolerant acts of individuals and groups.
“We call on the government to put its rhetoric into action by taking practical steps such as training their security forces on positively interacting with protesters, sensitising them on how to work with the media and on actively stepping in to protect the right to free expression so that citizens can enjoy this fundamental right without the fear of retribution,” said Virginie Jouan, Chair of the IFEX-TMG.
ARTICLE 19
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Cartoonists Rights Network International
Egyptian Organization for Human Rights
Freedom House
Index on Censorship
International Federation of Journalists
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
International Press Institute
International Publishers Association
Journaliste en danger
Maharat Foundation (Skills Foundation)
Media Institute of Southern Africa
Norwegian PEN
World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
World Press Freedom Committee
Writers in Prison Committee, PEN International
10 avril 2012
Le TMG de l’IFEX s’inquiète des attaques répétées qui ciblent les manifestants, les médias, les acteurs et les universitaires
SOURCE: Le groupe d’observation de la Tunisie de l’IFEX
(TMG de l’IFEX) – Le Groupe d’observation de la Tunisie organisé par l’Échange international de la liberté d’expression (TMG de l’IFEX), coalition de 21 membres de l’IFEX, s’inquiète vivement des attaques répétées contre les journalistes, les artistes et les femmes qui commettent le « crime » d’exprimer librement leur opinion, ainsi que de l’inaction présumée des forces de sécurité tunisiennes pendant la plupart de ces incidents survenus au cours de la dernière année. De plus, le TMG de l’IFEX condamne le recours à la force par des policiers ou d’autres groupes contre les journalistes qui couvrent les manifestations, ainsi que les lourdes peines infligées à des utilisateurs de Facebook pour des infractions à la morale religieuse.
Un événement extrêmement inquiétant est survenu le 28 mars. Ghazi Beji et Jabeur Mejri ont été condamnés à plus de sept ans de prison pour avoir affiché en ligne des écrits critiques de l’islam, qui incluaient des caricatures du Prophète Mahomet dénudé. Cela est survenu une quinzaine de jours à peine après que les autorités eurent annoncé que le 13 mars serait célébré comme la journée nationale de la liberté de l’internet.
Une série d’attaques auraient été perpétrées récemment par des individus dont certains ont été identifiés comme des salafistes, des musulmans sunnites conservateurs qui adoptent une interprétation littérale de l’Islam.
Parmi les personnes visées se trouvaient des artistes, des universitaires, des journalistes ainsi que des employés de médias et des institutions. L’attaque la plus récente ayant un mobile religieux est survenue le 22 mars, lorsqu’une troupe de théâtre en représentation avenue Habib-Bourguiba à Tunis a été agressée par des salafistes. La police serait intervenue beaucoup plus tard et, au lieu de protéger les acteurs et leur équipement contre l’attaque, les aurait déplacés au Théâtre Municipal voisin.
Au lieu de protéger la liberté d’expression, les autorités ont depuis interdit les manifestations sur l’avenue Habib-Bourguiba, principale artère de la ville, lieu symbolique de la résistance pendant la révolution. Le 28 mars, le Ministère de l’Intérieur a interdit « toute manifestation, marche et toute autre forme d’expression collective » sur cette avenue.
De plus, la police s’est violemment attaquée à des manifestations pacifiques qui se sont tenues dans différentes villes les 7, 8 et 9 avril pour protester contre le chômage et l’injustice sociale. Le 9 avril, la police a attaqué à coups de bâton et de gaz lacrymogènes environ un millier de manifestants qui protestaient avenue Habib-Bourguiba, défiant l’interdiction de manifester dans la principale artère de la capitale. Des journalistes auraient été tabassés lors d’une manifestation le 8 avril à Sfax, puis 14 journalistes auraient été tabassés à Tunis le 9 Avril.
Ce comportement s’inscrit dans un schéma d’abus de pouvoir par la police. En janvier 2012, deux femmes journalistes, Sana Farhat et Maha Ouelhezi, ont été agressées physiquement à Tunis par des policiers en civil tandis qu’elles couvraient, à l’extérieur de l’immeuble du Ministère de l’Éducation, une manifestation organisée par des professeurs d’université qui demandaient la liberté de l’enseignement. Des journalistes ont aussi été attaqués violemment par la police le 28 février tandis qu’ils couvraient une manifestation syndicale de protestation à Tunis.
Par ailleurs, Nabil Karoui, directeur de la chaîne privée Nessma TV, doit répondre à des accusations de blasphème et d’avoir troublé l’ordre public pour avoir diffusé en octobre 2011 le film d’animation Persépolis. Le procès a été reporté un certain nombre de fois et il est maintenant prévu pour le 19 avril 2012.
La présentation de « Persépolis » en octobre a provoqué des protestations à Tunis parce que le film comporte une scène où l’on voit Dieu, ce que proscrit l’Islam. Une semaine plus tard, une foule a attaqué le domicile de Karoui à Tunis et l’a endommagé à force de cocktails Molotov.
Il y a peu de protection pour ceux qui se font attaquer, y compris lors d’un sit-in en novembre et décembre à l’Université Manouba (pour protester contre l’interdiction faite aux étudiantes portant le niqab de passer leurs examens), un sit-in qui a dégénéré dans la violence. Non seulement les forces de sécurité ont-elles omis d’intervenir pour empêcher des manifestants de recourir à la violence et perturber les classes, mais elles n’ont arrêté aucun des auteurs de cette violence dans les universités. La professeure Fatma Jegham a été attaquée en toute impunité l’an dernier par des salafistes à l’Université des Beaux-Arts de Tunis parce qu’elle enseignait une matière jugée « offensante pour Dieu ».
La religion n’est pas le prétexte de toutes les violations récentes du droit à la libre expression. Le 24 mars, Lotffi Hajji, journaliste renommé et correspondant d’Al-Jazeera, a été agressé physiquement et verbalement pendant qu’il assurait la couverture d’un meeting organisé par des partisans de l’ancien premier ministre par intérim Caid Essebsi.
Alors que tous les citoyens ont le droit de protester contre des propos ou des actes qu’ils estiment offensants, le TMG de l’IFEX et ses partenaires locaux en Tunisie font campagne afin de sensibiliser la population au fait que l’obstruction ou l’entrave au droit des citoyens d’exprimer leur opinion constitue une violation de la libre expression, droit intrinsèque et pierre angulaire de toute démocratie, qui doit être inscrit dans la Constitution.
Alors que Said Ferjani, l’un des dirigeants de Ennahda, le parti politique au pouvoir, a affirmé que son parti entend protéger le choix de porter « le bikini ou la burqa », il faut faire davantage pour protéger l’ensemble des citoyens contre les gestes d’intolérance de certains individus et de certains groupes.
« Nous demandons au gouvernement de traduire ses paroles en actes par l’adoption de mesures pratiques comme la formation des forces de l’ordre à communiquer avec les manifestants, à travailler avec les médias et à intervenir activement pour protéger le droit à la libre expression afin que les citoyens puissent jouir de ce droit fondamental sans crainte de représailles », a déclaré Virginie Jouan, Présidente du TMG de l’IFEX.
تونس
مصدر: آيفكس مجموعة مراقبة حالة حرية التعبير في تونس
10 أبريل 2012
مجموعة مراقبة حالة حرية التعبير في تونس تبدي قلقها حول الهجمات المستمرة التي تستهدف المتظاهرين والإعلاميين والفنانين والأكاديميين
(آيفكس – مجموعة مراقبة حالة حرية التعبير في تونس) – أعلنت مجموعة مراقبة حالة حرية التعبير في تونس، و هي ائتلاف من 21 عضوا من أعضاء آيفكس، عن قلقها حول الهجمات المستمرة على الصحافيين والفنانين والنساء بتهمة “حرية التعبير” عن رأيهم وإزاء تقاعس قوات الأمن التونسية خلال العام الماضي. وتدين مجموعة مراقبة حالة حرية التعبير في تونس استخدام القوة من قبل الشرطة أو الأطراف الأخرى ضد الصحفيين الذين يغطون المظاهرات أو الأحداث بالإضافة الى الحكم القاسي على مستخدمي الفايسبوك بتهمة الإساءة للأخلاق الدينية.
ففي تطور خطير، حكم على غازي الباجي وجابر ماجري، في 28 آذار\ مارس، بالسجن لأكثر من سبع سنوات بسبب نشر كتابات على الانترنت تنتقد الإسلام والتي تضمنت رسوما كاريكاتورية عارية ومسيئة للنبي محمد. ويأتي هذا فقط بعد أسبوعين من إعلان السلطات 13 آذار\ مارس يوما وطنيا لحرية الانترنت.
ويزعم أن بعض “السلفيين” أو مجموعة من المحافظين المسلمين السنة، الذين ينتهجون الفقه الإسلامي “بحرَفيته” قد استهدفوا فنانين وأكاديميين وصحفيين فضلا عن موظفي وسائل الاعلام. ويعتبر الهجوم الأخير والذي وقع في 22 مارس، مبنياً على أسس ودوافع دينية. حيث هاجم “السلفيون” مجموعة من المسرحيين خلال أداءهم في جادة الحبيب بورقيبة في تونس. وقيل أن الشرطة تدخلت في وقت لاحق. وبدلا من حماية المسرحيين ومعداتهم، نقلتهم الشرطة الى المسرح البلدي.
فعوضا عن حماية حق حرية التعبير، منعت السلطات منذ ذلك الحين المظاهرات في جادة الحبيب بورقيبة، الشارع الرئيسي للمدينة، والذي شهد ﺘﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕ ﻀﺨﻤﺔ ورمزية اثناء الثورة. وفي 28 آذار\ مارس، منعت وزارة الداخلية “جميع المظاهرات والمسيرات وأي شكل آخر من أشكال التعبير الجماعي” على الجادة.
وعلاوة على ذلك، هاجمت الشرطة بعنف مظاهرات سلمية في مدن مختلفة في 7 و 8 و 9 نيسان/أبريل إلى احتجاج البطالة والظلم الاجتماعي. وقامت الشرطة بضرب المتظاهرين بالهراوات والغاز المسيل للدموع وأطلقت النار عليهم خلال مظاهرة احتجاج في 9 نيسان/أبريل على شارع الحبيب بورقيبة وقدرت المظاهرة بحوالي ألف شخص، في تحد للحظر المفروض على الاحتجاجات على الشارع الرئيسي في العاصمة. ويقال أنه تم ضرب صحفيين خلال مظاهرة في صفاقس يوم 8 نيسان/أبريل وتلى ذلك ضرب 14 صحفي وصحفية يوم 9 نيسان\ أبريل في العاصمة تونس.
وهذا يتبع نمط من سوء معاملة الشرطة، ففي كانون الثاني \ يناير عام 2012، تم الاعتداء على الصحفيتين، سناء فرحات ومها أولهزي، من قبل الشرطة في لباس مدني في تونس، بينما كانتا تغطيان مظاهرة نظمها أساتذة الجامعات تطالب بالحرية الأكاديمية خارج وزارة التربية والتعليم. وهاجمت الشرطة صحافيين بعنف من قبل بينما كانوا يقومون بتغطية احتجاج نقابة الصحافيين في تونس في 28 فبراير من العام ذاته.
في هذه الأثناء، يواجه نبيل القروي، مدير تلفزيون نسمة الخاصة، اتهامات بالتجديف والإخلال بالنظام العام لعرض القناة فيلم “برسيبوليس” في تشرين الأول\ اكتوبر 2011. وقد تم تأجيل المحاكمة عدة مرات، ومن المتوقع أن تعقد في 19 نيسان\ أبريل 2012.
وأدى بث “برسيبوليس” في اكتوبر الماضي الى احتجاجات في تونس لأنه يحتوي على مشهد يصور الله، الأمر الذي يحرمه الإسلام. وبعد أسبوع من العرض، قامت مجموعة بإلقاء “قنابل المولوتوف” على منزل قروي في تونس.
لا يوجد ما يكفي من الحماية للذين يتعرضون للهجوم، فعلى سبيل المثال حصل خلال الاعتصام الذي شهدته “جامعة منوبة” إحتجاجاً على حظر الطالبات المنقبات من الانتظام في دراستهن. ولم تكتف قوات الأمن بالفشل في التدخل لمنع العنف الذي تلى ذلك وتعطل المحاضرات؛ بل وأيضاً لم تسجل أية اعتقالات. وهاجم السلفيون العام الماضي، البروفيسورة فاطمة جغام، في جامعة الفنون الجميلة في تونس لاعتبارها أنها تدرس مادة تعتبر “مسيئة إلى الله”، إلا أنهم تمكنوا من الإفلات من العقاب.
و لكن الإنتهاكات الأخيرة ليست كلها متعلقة بأسس دينية. ففي 24 مارس، تعرض الصحافي المشهور ومراسل الجزيرة، لطفي حجي، الى هجوم عنيف اثناء تغطيته للقاء نظمه أنصار رئيس الوزراء المؤقت السابق الباجي قائد السبسي.
وفي حين أن جميع المواطنين لديهم الحق في الاحتجاج على خطاب أو فعل يرونه مستفزاً أو هجومي، تقوم مجموعة مراقبة حالة حرية التعبير في تونس وشركائها في تونس بتنظيم حملات لزيادة الوعي حول أهمية عدم تدخل المواطنين في حقوق الاخرين في التعبيرعن وجهات نظرهم والذي يعتبر انتهاك لحرية التعبير. و حق حرية التعبير حق جوهري وحجر البناء الأساسي لأي نظام ديمقراطي، و يجب أن يكون منصوصاً عليه في الدستور.
وقال سعيد فرجاني، القيادي في حزب النهضة السياسي الحاكم، أنهم يهدفون إلى حماية خيار ارتداء “البرقع والبكيني “، إلا أنه ، هناك حاجة إلى المزيد من الجهود لحماية جميع المواطنين من تعصب أفراد أوجماعات.
و قالت فيرجيني جوان، رئيسة مجموعة مراقبة حالة حرية التعبير في تونس، ” إننا ندعو الحكومة إلى تنفيذ وعودها من خلال اتخاذ خطوات عملية، مثل تدريب قوات الأمن التابعة لها على التفاعل الإيجابي مع المتظاهرين، وتوعيتهم حول كيفية العمل مع وسائل الإعلام، وعلى المبادرة في حماية حق حرية التعبير حتى يمكن المواطنين بالتمتع بهذا الحق الأساسي من دون الخوف من العقاب.”
