07 Nov 12 | Middle East and North Africa, Tunisia
From 1 to 23 November, The International Free Expression Exchange’s (IFEX) International Day to End Impunity campaign is highlighting cases where “an individual who has been threatened, attacked or worse for expressing themselves.” In all the case the perpetrators of abuse have not been brought to account.
On the anniversary of the coup that brought President Ben Ali to power in Tunisia in 1987, IFEX is highlighting the case of Tunisian poet Mohamed Sghaier Ouled Ahmed, who was attacked by Salafists in August. Nobody has been arrested in connection with the assault.
God you were right
Kings would – as would Presidents too –
Ruin a village if they enter it
So ruin the castles that belong to Kings
To serve the villagers right
…
We all went to vote
And none voted for those who won
From the poem “Ilahi” (My God), by Sghaier Ouled Ahmed
Since Tunisia’s 2011 revolution, Tunisian poet Sghaier Ouled Ahmed has been accused of being an infidel and abusing Islam by the country’s religious leaders because of hard-hitting poems such as “Ilahi”.
In August this year, ultra-conservative Salafists took the accusations to a new level.
In a TV interview In the interview, Ahmed criticised the ruling Islamist party, Ennahda, which won elections after Ben Ali was ousted in 2011. A group of at least five Salafists were waiting outside the studio for the prominent poet to finish the interview.
As soon as Ahmed stepped out of the Tunis television station, one of the men punched him in the face. Onlookers and police stood idly by.
After the attack, he said,
I no longer recognise this government which cannot protect its citizens… No officers or officials will be saved from the bombs of my poetry and prose if they continue to turn a blind eye to such attacks.
The IFEX Tunisia Monitoring Group, a coalition of 21 IFEX members campaigning for free expression in Tunisia (including Index on Censorship), calls it an example of “old style repression in new Tunisia“. They report that attacks against journalists, artists and writers by police and ultra-conservative groups are actually on the increase since the country was freed from Ben Ali’s regime in 2011. And the new government has done nothing about them.
Find out more about Sghaier Ouled Ahmed and the International Day to End Impunity campaign here
10 Oct 12 | Middle East and North Africa, Tunisia
In Tunisia, politicians and the people are abandoning freedom of expression. In a conservative society, Islamists’ obsession with blasphemy and the opposition’s passivity in defying an illiberal constitutional clause are placing free speech and Tunisia’s democratic transition under threat.
After years of being deprived of it, the Tunisian public agrees that freedom of expression is a fundamental right which needs to be guaranteed by the country’s new constitution. Six assembly committees which were elected last February have separately drafted different sections of the text which is yet to be presented for debate and voted in the 217-member constituent assembly. An absolute majority is required for the adoption of each article. MPs will then have to approve the entire draft by a two-thirds majority.
“Freedom of expression, opinion, media and creativity is guaranteed,” states article 26 of Tunisia’s draft constitution written by the rights and liberties assembly committee. Article 3 contradicts it saying: “The state guarantees freedom of religious belief and practice and criminalises all attacks on that which is sacred.”
But in August the Islamist Ennahdha party filed an anti-blasphemy bill which criminalises “curses, insults mockery, and desecration” of Allah, the Prophets, the three Abrahamic books, the Sunnah (the practices of the Prophet Muhammad), churches, synagogues and the Kaaba (the most sacred building in Islam). The bill also forbids pictorial representation of God and Prophet Muhammad.
Sadly, secular politicians are not pushing back against these new threats to free expression. When Islamists portray themselves as the guardians of the “sacred” in order to score points against their rivals, secular politicians face a dilemma. Should they stand up for their secular values and oppose blasphemy laws — and so risk losing popular support among the populace — or stay silent?
They have chosen silence.
In an essay entitled Speaking on the Unspeakable: Blasphemy & the Tunisian Constitution, columnist Monika Marks condemns their decision to stay mute:
Groups that would typically be expected to oppose Article 3, like the Tunisian League of Human Rights, journalists’ associations, and secularly oriented political parties, have kept silent — likely for fear of losing legitimacy with Tunisian society, which tends to view offences against Abrahamic faiths in general, and Islam in particular, as unacceptable.
Free speech advocate and journalist Henda Hendoud shares the Marks’ view and argues that the opposition is not strong enough to tackle the issue of religion and freedom of expression at the National Constituent Assembly.
“I think that if there is going to be pressure and controversy regarding article three, it will come from the civil society, which is somewhat more independent and distant from political calculations,” she says.
The view that freedom of expression must be regulated to protect “sacred religious symbols” is widely held in Tunisian society. It is a Sunni Muslim-dominated country and religion still plays a major role in the people’s daily lives despite 56 years of secular dictatorship under the presidency of Habib Bourguiba and his successor Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. It is likely that Tunisia’s new constitution will criminalise blasphemy, and the public will not protest because “protection of the sacred” and the “sacred” are important to them.
A sculpture by Nadia Jelassi depicting the stoning of women at this summer’s Tunis Spring Arts Fair
Only a small group of free speech advocates, journalists and activists regard blasphemy laws as a curb on free expression. They are worried new blasphemy legislation will see similar incidents to that which took place at the Spring of Arts fair between 1 and 10 June this year, when ultra-conservative protesters clashed with police over an exhibition which they claimed included “blasphemous” artworks. The government and, surprisingly, the Minister of Culture blamed the fair for attacking Tunisians’ sacred religious symbols.
The “blasphemy” pretext was enough to bring “public disorder” charges against two artists, Mohamed Ben Slama and Nadia Jelassi. Ben Slama exhibited an artwork illustrating the “Praise God” phrase inscribed by ants, while Jelassi displayed sculptures depicting the stoning of women.
In late June, Hendoud helped set up a support committee for Ghazi Beji and Jabeur Mejri, two young men sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for publishing cartoons of the prophet on the internet. “The political parties are still not talking about the case of Ghazi and Jabeur,” she says. “However, the two young men are supported by Tunisian and international civil society.”
Blasphemy can be used as a pretext to stifle freedom of expression and pave the way for the comeback of dictatorship. Former dictator Ben Ali exiled, jailed and tortured his Islamist political opponents, who today rule the country, under the pretexts of “national security” and “extremism”.
Criminalising blasphemy is only going to deepen divisions in a country which endured decades of oppression and abuse.
ALSO READ: A NEW ARGUMENT FOR CENSORSHIP?
15 Aug 12 | Tunisia
Tunisia’s data protection authority is in the process of amending the country’s 2004 privacy law, which will regulate the use of personal data.
Hacking into activists’ emails, tapping into dissidents’ phone calls, or installing surveillance cameras in the homes of political opponents were common practices during the reign of Zeine el-Abidin Ben Ali. Amending this particular law section related to the processing of personal data by public entities, would place the State and its organs under the scrutiny of the INPDP.
(more…)
06 Aug 12 | Middle East and North Africa, Tunisia
Tunisia’s ruling party, the Islamist Ennahdha movement, seek to criminalise blasphemy.
The Ennahdha party filed a blasphemy bill on 1 August in response to what their leaders describe as “a continuous increase in number of offences against the Sacred”. The bill aims to “providing legal protection to the Sacred”.
Ennahdha also complained about the absence of “a blasphemy legal basis” during the trial of Nessma TV boss Nabil Karoui, who in May was fined for “transgressing morality”, and “disturbing public order after broadcast the animated film Persepolis which shows depictions of God. Ennahdha believe he should have been convicted of “offending” religion.
The bill lists Allah, Prophets, the three Abrahamic books (the Quran, Bible, and Torah), Sunnah (the sayings and teachings of Prophet Muhammad), churches, synagogues, and the Kaaba (Muslims’ holiest shrine) as sacred.
“Cursing, insulting, mocking, undermining, and desecrating” any of these symbols could lead to a two-year jail term and a 2,000 TND fine (794 GBP). The proposed bill would also forbid the pictorial representation of God, and Prophets.
Hichem Snoussi, the Tunisian representative of the freedom of speech NGO Article 19, told Index:
In France, and Germany there is a law which prohibits the denial of the Holocaust. Such a law [a blasphemy act] could be passed … But, the “sacred” has to be defined in a very specific and detailed way. This definition should not be expanded, so that it would not stand in the way of art and creativity.
The move comes amid a fierce local debate about freedom of expression and religion, which culminated in the Tunis-based Printemps des Arts fair in June. The fair was accused by Islamists and the government of displaying artworks “offensive” to Islam. On 12 June, the Tunisian Ministry of Culture decided to temporarily close a gallery after ultra-conservative Islamists broke into the exhibition and destroyed three artworks.
“Today the debate on the “sacred” is part of electoral propaganda, and aims at diverting the public debate from its right direction,” Snoussi added. “We do not need chains. We need freedom to heal our past wounds.”
