Syria passes draconian cybercrime laws

Syria has become the latest country to implement new far-reaching cybercrime legislation that goes beyond what is necessary to keep the internet safe.

On 18 April, Syrian president Bashir al-Assad announced new laws that could result in harsh penalties criticising or otherwise embarrassing the Syrian government.

Anyone breaking the law can be jailed for up to 15 years and face penalties up to S£15 million (£23,000).

The highest fines and sentences are reserved for “crimes against the Constitution” and for undermining the prestige of the State including websites or content “aiming or calling for changing the constitution by illegal means, or excluding part of the Syrian land from the sovereignty of the state, or provoking armed rebellion against the existing authorities under the constitution or preventing them from exercising their functions derived from the constitution, or overthrowing or changing the system of government in the state”.

Publishing what the new law describes as “fake news…that undermines the prestige of the state or prejudices national unity” can lead to five-year jail sentences and S£10 million (£15,300) fines which seems to target bloggers and digital activists who publish criticism of the government online.

In a statement the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) said the law could be used to violate many of the basic digital rights of citizens, especially freedom of expression and freedom of digital privacy.

It said, “GCHR believes that the law should be reviewed and its definitions defined more clearly to ensure the existence of a strong and practical law that does not violate the basic rights of citizens, but rather contributes to creating a free and accessible internet in which diverse opinions are respected and human rights are protected and promoted.”

The new law also obliges internet service providers to save internet data for all users for a period of time to be determined by the competent authorities.

The GCHR calls this “a flagrant violation of the digital privacy of citizens and provides ease of access by security services to all information related to peaceful online activists”.

The Syrian cybercrime law is just the latest in a growing body of legislation around the world ostensibly used to target cybercrime but clearly intended to stifle legitimate criticism and restrict freedom of expression.

According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 81% of countries have now implemented cybercrime legislation with a further 7% with draft legislation.

Many argue that cybercrime legislation makes the internet a safer place but many countries with human rights are under attack, including Brazil, Myanmar and the UAE, are using such legislation to silence critics.

In January, the United Arab Emirates adopted new legislation that promised fines of up to AED100,000 and jail terms of up to a year for “anyone who uses the internet to publish, circulate or spread false news, rumours or misleading information, contrary to the news published by official sources”. These penalties are doubled when publication happens “during times of pandemic, crises or disasters”

Attempts to introduce such draconian legislation are being resisted by human rights and journalism associations.

In February this year, the Pakistani government passed an ordinance amending the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. Of particular concern was an expansion of the “offences against dignity” section of the legislation to cover the publication of “false” information about organisations, companies and institutions, including the government and military.

However, in April, the Islamabad High Court, following challenges by the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists and the Pakistan Broadcasters Association, threw out the ordinance. The court noted: “Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and it reinforces all other rights guaranteed under the Constitution … [and] free speech protected under Article 19 and the right to receive information under Article 19-A of the Constitution are essential for development, progress and prosperity of a society and suppression thereof is unconstitutional and contrary to the democratic values.”

Dear Andy Burnham, name a street in Manchester after Ahmed Mansoor

Andy Burnham
Mayor of Greater Manchester
Manchester, UK
[email protected]

31 May 2018

Dear Mayor Burnham,

The undersigned organisations are writing to you to request your support for the release of the award-winning Emirati human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor, sentenced this week to ten years in prison for his human rights activism. We believe that this will be facilitated by raising awareness of his case by naming a street after him in Manchester.

Ahmed Mansoor is a pro-democracy and human rights campaigner who has publicly expressed criticism of serious human rights violations in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Mansoor was sentenced to ten years in prison by the State Security Court in Abu Dhabi on 29 May 2018 for “insulting the status and prestige of the UAE and its symbols”, including its leaders, as well as of “seeking to damage the relationship of the UAE with its neighbours by publishing false reports and information on social media.”

Mansoor is the 2015 Laureate of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders, and a member of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) Advisory Board and Human Rights Watch’s Middle East Advisory Committee. Amnesty International considers him to be a prisoner of conscience, imprisoned solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression, who should be immediately and unconditionally released. There are concerns that Mansoor has been tortured in pre-trial detention that lasted more than one year.

On 20 March 2017, about a dozen Emirati security officers arrested him at his home in

Ajman in the early hours of the morning. The UAE’s official news agency, WAM, claimed that Mansoor had been arrested on the orders of the Public Prosecution for Cybercrimes,

detained pending further investigation, and that he was accused of using social media websites to: “publish false information and rumours;” “promote [a] sectarian and hate-incited agenda;” and “publish false and misleading information that harms national unity and social harmony and damages the country’s reputation.”

Human rights groups are banned in the UAE and people in the UAE who speak out about human rights abuses are at serious risk of arbitrary detention, imprisonment, and torture and other ill-treatment. Many such people are serving long prison terms or have felt they have no choice but to leave the country.

Before his arrest, Mansoor was the last remaining human rights defender in the UAE who had been in a position to criticise the authorities’ human rights record publicly.

As you are aware, Manchester City Council has developed close commercial links with senior figures in the UAE government, via its stake in the Manchester Life Development Company (MLDC), a joint venture ultimately controlled by the Abu Dhabi United Group for Investment and Development (ADUG). ADUG is owned and controlled by the Abu Dhabi Executive Affairs Authority, whose chair is Mohamed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, the de facto ruler of the UAE. In addition, Manchester City FC is owned by the deputy Prime Minister of the UAE, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

While Abu Dhabi’s investments may have brought financial benefits to Manchester, this should not preclude criticism of human rights violations in UAE – violations which are starkly at odds with the values and principles that Greater Manchester celebrates as part of its heritage. In recent years, Senior members of Manchester City Council have celebrated Manchester’s long history of standing up for a range of rights-related causes, including the anti-slavery movement, votes for women, and pro-democracy demonstrations in Manchester in 1819. But they have apparently shied away from criticising human rights violations by the UAE and Abu Dhabi authorities with whom their commercial partners are linked.

We support the local residents who are part of the “Ahmed Mansoor Street” campaign, who argued it would be “a fitting honour to bestow upon an individual who embodies so many of the qualities that the city and the wider region celebrates as a key part of its history.”

As the first directly-elected Mayor of Greater Manchester you are in a unique position to show leadership on this issue. In your manifesto for the Mayoralty you referred to Greater Manchester as “the home of radical forward thinking” and expressed your desire to make it “a beacon of social justice for the country.” Your public support for a street named after Ahmed Mansoor, and calling for his immediate and unconditional release, would demonstrate your commitment to this heritage and these ideals.

Signed,

  1. Adil Soz
  2. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
  3. Amnesty International
  4. Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
  5. Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
  6. Asociación Mundial de Radios Comunitarias América Latina y el Caribe (AMARC ALC)
  7. Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
  8. Bytes For All
  9. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
  10. Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
  11. CIVICUS
  12. European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
  13. FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
  14. Freedom Forum, Nepal
  15. Free Media Movement, Sri Lanka
  16. Front Line Defenders
  17. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
  18. Human Rights Watch
  19. Index on Censorship
  20. International Press Centre, Nigeria
  21. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  22. Maharat Foundation
  23. Martin Ennals Foundation
  24. National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ)
  25. Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)
  26. PEN Canada
  27. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  28. South East Europe Media Organization
  29. Syrian Centre For Media And Freedom Of Expression
  30. Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State, Tunisia
  31. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Note to supporters and media: The street-naming campaign event will take place on 01 June 2018 at 2pm on Thomas Street in the Northern Quarter.

Join us! Email your message or Tweet using the hashtag #FreeAhmed to the following:

UAE Authorities:

Could Serbia’s new Prime Minister spell disaster for press freedom?

(Image: Theo Schneider/Demotix)

(Image: Theo Schneider/Demotix)

Serbia is in the process of forming a new government. Following the Progressive Party ‘s (SNS) landslide victory in Sunday’s elections — securing 48% of the votes and 156 of 250 parliamentary seats — one man in particular holds the keys to the country’s future. Leader Aleksandar Vucic, Deputy Prime Minister in the previous coalition, is dropping the prefix and taking the top spot this time around.

While at 44, he would be a relatively young leader, he has had plenty of experience in high politics. Indeed, back in the 90s, he served as Minister of Information under Slobodan Milosevic. Many people spend their twenties trying figure out what to do with their lives. Vucic, meanwhile, was busy introducing a notoriously hardhanded media law, among other things, introducing fines to punish journalists and banning foreign media. As he now prepares to take office, should Serbia’s press be worried?

On the one hand, Vucic has worked hard to shift his image from hardline nationalist, to pro-EU reformer, his focus firmly fixed on Serbia’s struggling economy. He has gone after some of the country’s biggest financial criminals in a high-profile anti-corruption campaign. He has pushed for normalisation in the strained relationship with Kosovo, to put EU accession on track. On election night, the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahyan, could be found celebrating with Vucic at the SNS headquarters. The man who once said that 100 Muslims should be killed for every Serb, is securing loans in the billions from the UAE to help fund ambitious regeneration projects in Belgrade.

Yet, despite this apparent commitment to transparency, and despite claiming freedom of the media as one of his “five priorities” — his own personal regeneration, if you will — big words have not really translated into action when it comes to Serbian press freedom.

The country’s journalists have long been working under less than ideal conditions. From the direct, physical threats suffered under the Milosevic regime, to repressive legislation, free expression has been well and truly chilled. But the biggest challenge today is soft censorship, according to the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).

“Press freedom in Serbia is mostly endangered by soft censorship meaning that it is mostly endangered by discriminatory and un-transparent allocation of state funding towards media outlets. This money is usually used to reward those who are in favor of the government and to punish those who oppose it. As opposed to direct threats, soft censorship is much harder to detect,” BIRN’s Tanja Maksic told Index.

“In [the] last year and a half of the Vucic and [former Prime Minister] Dacic government, we haven’t witnessed much of the determination to stop this undemocratic practice,” she adds.

Indeed, evidence points to the Prime Minister to-be doing the exact opposite. A recent report analysing election content on TV showed that the Progressive Party, and Vucic specifically, were favoured in the, overall strikingly positive, coverage. And back in February, a video adding satirical subtitles to genuine footage showing Vucic rescuing a boy from a snowstorm, was taken down. The video, originally from public broadcaster RTS, was removed over copyright infringement claims, despite campaigners arguing it did not break copyright laws. Authorities are widely believed to have played a part in the removal. A number of websites that had published it were blocked or attacked from within the country, while individuals behind the sites saw their social media profiles hacked. The claims made in the subtitles — that the whole report was staged to paint Vucic in a favourable light ahead of the elections — might have cut too close to the bone.

Vucic’s alleged control over sections of the Serbian media is perhaps most evident in the case of former Economy Minister Sasa Radulovic. Following his resignation, not long before the eventual collapse of the previous government, he was, without explanation, dumped from a popular TV talk show. The last-minute replacement? Aleksandar Vucic. Radulovic soon tweeted that he couldn’t wait to tune in to the evening’s show “to figure out why I resigned”. He followed this up by publishing an explosive resignation letter, accusing the government, including the anti-corruption crusading deputy prime minister himself, of corruption. He added that he’d been subjected to a “media lynching” by tabloids friendly to the government, that self-censorship is rife in Serbian media and that “news is being smothered”. The letter was covered by state-funded news agency Tanjug, but the report was removed within minutes and only republished following complaints.

Lily Lynch is the co-founder and editor of Balkanist, an independent online magazine covering, as the name suggests, the Balkan region. They have first-hand experience of Serbia’s restrictive media environment, once having their power cut for three days after publishing government leaks. She says Vucic has been “disastrous” for Serbian media, and believes that with his newfound, unchecked power they will see “more censorship”.

“I think that self-censorship will likely get even worse than it already is, as compliance with the status quo is often the only way to keep a job in Serbia,” she explains to Index. “Independent media outlets like Pescanik will be allowed to work because their audience is small and marginal, and their existence actually benefits Vucic because he can cite them as evidence that there is media freedom in Serbia. Meanwhile, the media that the majority of the country reads or watches will continue to depict Vucic as the savior of the nation.”

This depiction seems to have made an impact beyond Serbia’s borders too. Vucic’s pro-EU stance, and especially his perceived pragmatism regarding Kosovo, has boosted his international profile. He’s been labelled “the man bringing Belgrade in from the cold”, and American ambassador Michael Kirby has even praised Serbia’s media freedom.

It is, however, also worth noting certain cracks in this image within Serbia. The turnout figures of 53.2% — following the downward trend of previous elections — would suggest the adulation among the population is not as widespread as on first glance. The Facebook group “I did not vote for Vucic”, set up on election day, with its some 2,400 likes and counting, might point to the same.

Tanja Maksic says the real test for the Vucic government will come with adoption of much needed laws prescribing stricter control of media funding from public budget. If these are passed and implemented it “will be a clear demonstration of a new political will to pass the reforms in media sector,” she adds.

Lynch is not optimistic. She says there is a real danger Serbia could go the way of Hungary, a country that under the leadership of Victor Orban has witnessed the state of media freedom nosedive. She is not the only one to make the link. A recent Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty asks if Serbia “is headed for Orbanization”?

“Vucic has used the media as mouthpieces to denounce opponents, smearing them and accusing them of crimes without evidence. I definitely think this will continue. Others say “everything is up to Vucic now, he has no one to excuses anymore” but he has attained this level of power and will not let it go so easily. Anything that goes wrong will be the fault of some minister or other, who will be sacked and humiliated in the press so that Vucic is not viewed as responsible in the eyes of the public,” Lynch says.

“Vucic’s arrests and “anti-crime crusade” has made many public persons, including journalists, very afraid.”

This article was posted on 21 March 2014 at indexoncensorship.org

Free expression in the news

#DONTSPYONME
Tell Europe’s leaders to stop mass surveillance #dontspyonme
Index on Censorship launches a petition calling on European Union Heads of Government to stop the US, UK and other governments from carrying out mass surveillance. We want to use public pressure to ensure Europe’s leaders put on the record their opposition to mass surveillance. They must place this issue firmly on the agenda for the next European Council Summit in October so action can be taken to stop this attack on the basic human right of free speech and privacy.
(Index on Censorship)

BAHRAIN
After Arresting and Disappearing of Two Journalists, ANHRI Demands Revealing their Fate
The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI), denounces the continuing harassments against the photographers and the journalists by the Bahraini authorities in addition to arresting them without clear reasons in addition to the denial of the authorities for its relation with some of the direct detention process, which arouse concerns related to the life of the detainees.
(ANHRI)

BRAZIL
Citizen journalists take on Brazil’s media
The Ninja media group want independent journalism and a revolution of Brazil’s media coverage. During the country’s recent unrest, the citizen journalists were hailed as an alternative to major media outlets.
(DW)

CHINA
Fear and Loathing at the China Daily
When Mitch Moxley arrived in Beijing in 2007 to work for China’s largest English-language daily, he discovered life in the Chinese media could be very strange indeed.
(The Atlantic)

IRAN
Hassan Rouhani raises Iranian hopes for free expression
During his inauguration address, Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani promised peace and a push towards a more open dialogue with the West. Although it is far too soon to gauge whether his promises will transform into policies as he pushes against Iran’s convoluted theocracy, one thing is certain–Rouhani’s election has instilled a great feeling of hope among the Iranian people. Small Media reports
(Index on Censorship)

ITALY
Hundreds expected to protest anti-free speech ‘homophobia’ law in Rome, Paris
Up to 500 people are expected to hold a demonstration later tonight outside the Italian parliament to protest a bill that would criminalize homophobia and “transphobia,” something constitutional experts believe would shut down citizens’ right to free speech, especially for Christians.
(LifeSiteNews.com)

KENYA
Parliament Should Not Kill the Freedom of Expression
As Parliament passes the forthcoming media bill, it should remember Kenya and her development require more, not less freedom of the media.
(The Star via AllAfrica.com)

RUSSIA
Banned, unbanned – film debacle continues
“We have the greatest constitution on the planet,” tweeted a relieved Jahmil Qubeka after the Film and Publishing Board’s Appeal Tribunal unbanned his film Of Good Report over the weekend.
(Index on Censorship)

SOUTH AFRICA
Banned, unbanned – film debacle continues
“We have the greatest constitution on the planet,” tweeted a relieved Jahmil Qubeka after the Film and Publishing Board’s Appeal Tribunal unbanned his film Of Good Report over the weekend.
(Grocott’s Mail)

The futility of online censorship
Local legislators should not follow the UK prime minister’s ill-advised plan, says Andrew Verrijdt.
(TechCentral)

TUNISIA
How Censorship Stifled Us In Tunisia
During the era of former Tunisian President Ben Ali, book-shoppers were banned from buying books that have anything to do with politics. Being exposed to such books would allow both intellectuals and common people to better understand the nature of political life in Tunisia and ultimately realize that Tunisians are indeed living under the shadows of dictatorship.
(The Tunis Times)

TURKEY
Turkey sentences nearly 300 for “plotting coup”
A Turkish court on Monday sentenced a former military commander to life in prison and dozens of others including opposition members of parliament to long terms for plotting against the government, in a case that has exposed deep divisions in the country.
(Al-Akhbar)

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Journalist Held Incommunicado, Netizens Arrested, Censorship
Reporters Without Borders condemns Egyptian journalist Anas Fouda’s detention by the authorities in the United Arab Emirates for the past month. Based for many years in the UAE, Fouda has been held incommunicado ever since his arrest on 3 July.
(RSF via AllAfrica.com)

UNITED STATES
Children given lifelong ban on talking about fracking
Two Pennsylvanian children will live their lives under a gag order imposed under a $750,000 settlement
(The Guardian)

Judge Says No Speech Protection Applied To Whistleblower Cop
A Federal Judge last week dismissed a lawsuit by an NYPD officer who said he was punished when he complained about quotas in his precinct, ruling that constitutional protections on free speech do not apply because the officer was speaking as a member of the Police Department and not as a private citizen.
(The Chief)


Previous Free Expression in the News posts
Aug 5 | Aug 2 | Aug 1 | July 31 | July 30 | July 29 | July 26 | July 25 | July 24 | July 23 | July 22 | July 19 | July 18 | July 17 | July 16