Cairo’s Tahrir Square exploded in joyous revelry and fanfare on Sunday afternoon after Counsellor Farouk Sultan, the Head of the Elections Commission announced the results of the presidential run-off vote in a nationwide televised address. Counsellor Sultan named Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi the winner with 51.73 per cent of the vote and by a slim margin of 800,000 votes. The announcement ended days of speculation over the results of a vote that has polarised Egypt and accentuated a decades-old secularist/Islamist divide.
Supporters of Morsi’s opponent Ahmed Shafik meanwhile expressed their anger and shock at his defeat. Some insisted that “the result was incorrect” while others said they would pack and leave Egypt altogether. Most people in Shafik’s camp were secularists who had voted for the former regime man (the last prime minister under Mubarak) out of fear that Islamist rule would mean intolerance and the stifling of freedoms.
The victory of a conservative Islamist and long-time Muslim Brotherhood member has fuelled concerns about the rights of minorities and women, freedom of expression and possible restrictions on art and creativity.
The secularists’ fears are not totally baseless: In recent months, several lawsuits filed by Muslim hardliners against artists and a Coptic businessman have threatened to curtail free expression. Coptic business tycoon Naguib Sawiris was twice accused by ultra- conservative Islamists of “blasphemy and insulting Islam “after he posted a cartoon on Twitter of a bearded Mickey Mouse and a veiled Minnie. The courts dismissed the charges on both occasions on grounds that “the plaintiffs lacked legal standing”.
Meanwhile, comedian Adel Imam and several other artists who worked with him were charged with “showing contempt of religion” in three films made in the early nineties, including the 1994 film “The Terrorist” (in which Imam played the role of a Muslim fundamentalist). The ultra conservative lawyer who filed the lawsuit accused Imam of mocking Muslim symbols like the beard and the white robe or “gallabeya” traditionally worn by devout Muslims.
While the case against Imam was later dismissed, it did trigger an outpouring of anger from liberals and intellectuals who expressed fears that such conservatism could drag Egypt “back to the dark ages”. Many intellectuals, writers and artists worry that the sweeping tide of Islamism may lead to greater censorship of their work and curb creativity and free expression.
They have demanded that Egypt’s newly elected president make clear his position on freedom of speech and creativity.
“We want a promise from him that creativity won’t be judged on religious principles,” said secular writer Ahmed Al Khamisi. “We want him to pledge not to censor artists nor stifle their freedom to create.”
Activist Dalia Ziada has also expressed her concern that Morsi would “try to take actions against human rights and freedoms, by orders from God.”
While Morsi has not denied his intention to implement Islamic Sharia Law, reiterating in his campaign speeches that the “Qur’an is my constitution”, he has sought to allay the concerns of Egypt’s liberals by promising to protect freedoms and the rights of minorities and women. He has also withdrawn from the Muslim Brotherhood and pledged to appoint a Christian woman as Vice-President.
In his first televised speech after winning the election, he said. “Egypt is for all Egyptians; all of us are equals in terms of rights.”
He has also promised to fulfil the goals of the revolution including freedom, democracy and social justice.
Egypt’s military rulers have meanwhile declared themselves “the guardians of the revolution and protectors of a secular, democratic state council”. They recently introduced supplementary constitutional amendments that consolidate their grip on power. The amendments give the army sweeping legislative and budgetary powers including control over the drafting of the country’s new constitution. All this, while limiting the powers of the newly elected President dramatically.
With tight control from the military and all eyes closely watching him, Morsi is in for a tough time to prove his mettle. Revolutionary activists are monitoring his performance in his first 100 days in office through a new internet application dubbed “The Morsimeter”. They have also been piling pressure on him through continued protests in Tahrir, demanding that he wrest more powers from the military. Satisfying all political forces — the youth revolutionaries, the military authority and the Islamist groups who want Sharia law implemented, may be a near- impossible task. One thing is certain though: divorcing religion from politics will have to be a vital concession for Morsi to make if he wishes to win the support of the secularists who initiated the revolution.
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.
Peter Hill was editor of the Daily Express for seven years, from the end of 2003 to early 2011. Among his claims to fame is that he edited the newspaper throughout the Madeleine McCann affair in 2007-8, overseeing coverage that led to a £550,000 libel pay-out by the group and to grovelling front-page apologies.
Before he became its editor the Express had made its mark in the Motorman files, with seven of its journalists listed by the Information Commissioner as having employed the private investigator Steve Whittamore 36 times to carry out searches or inquiries.
But when Hill appeared before the Leveson inquiry in January, he did so after writing in a sworn statement: “I am not aware of ever having used a private investigator at the Daily Express.” Giving evidence under oath, he also declared: “I didn’t follow any of those practices. The regime completely changed when I became the editor.”
Another answer was less categorical, however. Hill was asked: “Is it your evidence that a number of people left, and therefore, because they left, you could be sure that private investigators were no longer being used? Or is it your evidence that you have no idea at all as to whether private investigators were ever used?” He replied: “I have no idea.”
Consider now the evidence to the inquiry of Nicole Patterson, the Express group’s legal chief. She said that after 2005 (and therefore when Hill was in charge at the Express) the papers had made use of no fewer than five companies in the field of data acquisition, of which one was Whittamore’s firm, JJ Services. In 2005 alone, she revealed, the papers spent £110,700 with these five firms, and though she said she saw no evidence of illegality it is not clear how closely she looked.
Besides answering questions at the inquiry, Patterson submitted documents giving details of the use of private investigators and search agencies by the Express papers. Those documents have not been made public, though some were displayed on screens at the hearings and seen by reporters.
The veteran investigative reporter Mark Hosenball has been able to piece together some details of these transactions in an article for Reuters. Notable among these is the case of ‘P Wilby’.
Peter Wilby is a former editor of the Independent on Sunday and the New Statesman and is now an award-winning comment writer. On 17 September 2007, in an article for the Guardian about the McCann case, he referred to the Daily Express as “a hopeless newspaper that couldn’t tell you the time of day”.
A cheap shot, you might say, but no more. Yet it appears to have had consequences, for according to Hosenball the Patterson documents “show that in September 2007 the Express group paid £963.50 to JJ Services [Whittamore] for information on ‘P Wilby’. This is an apparent reference to Peter Wilby. . .”
“According to the records,” Hosenball continued, “the payment was made shortly after Wilby published an article in the Guardian castigating British newspapers, including the Daily Express, for excesses in their coverage of the saga of Madeleine McCann. . .”
Wilby himself has written about this and is not inclined to make a fuss, but on the basis of Patterson’s public evidence we can say that £963,50 must have been a relatively large payment. Most payments to Whittamore and others in this period were for less than £100, she said. In other evidence it emerged that in 2007 Whittamore charged a daily rate of £240, so £960 would have neatly bought four whole days of investigating time, with the £3.50 added on for stationery perhaps.
If ‘P Wilby’ is indeed Peter Wilby (and it would be a remarkable coincidence if two people called P Wilby crossed the path of the Express in those same few days in 2007), then what we have here is a national newspaper commissioning a private investigator (and convicted criminal) to do four days work, or the equivalent in value, on a distinguished journalist.
Stop and think about that. The Express trades on criticism, frequently dishing out abuse worse than Wilby’s and often in a meaner spirit. The paper would say it has a right to do so. But what happens to someone who criticises the Express? It seems the critic gets investigated, and what could be the objective of such an investigation if not to find some means of demeaning or silencing him?
The paper had the right to criticise, in short, but no one had the right to criticise the paper.
Is there any evidence that the Express took such grave exception to Wilby’s jibe? It so happens that there is. On 19 September 2007, two days after the article appeared, the Guardian’s Media Monkey gossip column reported the following:
‘The Guardian has been banned from the offices of the Daily Express after editor Peter Hill blew his top over a column by Peter Wilby in Monday’s MediaGuardian section. . . Mr Hill has responded by banning the morning delivery of 18 copies of the Guardian to the Express offices on the banks of the Thames near Tower Bridge.” Monkey’s man on the inside explained: “He was deeply offended by a thoughtless remark by Peter Wilby, especially as the latter had met him only a couple of weeks previously and had been perfectly cordial. . .”
So this is what we know: on 17 September 2007 Wilby had a go at the Express in print; on 19 September Hill was reported to be so “deeply offended” that he banned the Guardian from the Express offices; ‘shortly after’ the Wilby jibe, someone at the Express commissioned Whittamore to carry out almost £1,000 worth of work on Wilby.
Two questions leap to mind. First, what was Whittamore commissioned to do? No article appeared in the paper subsequently to give any clue. Could he or an employee of his have spent four days engaged in entirely innocent inquiries about Wilby? By Patterson’s account the Express only employed investigators to do jobs journalists would not normally do, so we can presumably rule out a trawl of Wilby’s past journalism or research for a profile article that was never published.
We can also rule out a four-day search for Wilby’s contact details, since those can be found in the published telephone directory. It is an extraordinary thought (though we know it happened at News International), but is it possible that, for £240 a day, Wilby was placed under surveillance?
The other question is, who at the Express did the commissioning? It can’t have been Peter Hill since he is the man who wrote in a sworn statement: “I am not aware of ever having used a private investigator at the Daily Express.” Hill also had “no idea” whether his subordinates used them, so presumably it was one of them – just as it must have been subordinates who continued to commission work from Whittamore, a convicted criminal, right up to 30 July 2010.
Will we ever know the answers to these two questions? Probably not in this part of the Leveson inquiry, where the caravan has moved on. Perhaps it’s a job for a private investigator.
Read more about Steve Whittamore and the Motorman files here.
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and is a member of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
The internet is now a central feature of everyday life but opinion is still divided on how to make it work for the common good. Earlier today in a panel discussion live streamed from the Council of Europe, Bill Echikson (Google), Simon Milner (Facebook), and Felix Treguer (La Quadrature du Net) debate the gap between responsibility and reality
Chaired by Index’s CEO Kirsty Hughes, you can watch the debate live below.
How can we guarantee freedom of expression online? Should governments monitor their citizens’ lives online in the name of security? Is it acceptable for new software to have inbuilt surveillance capacities? In this new landscape, how do we protect free speech online – and who can we count on to do so?
This panel discussion was jointly organised by Index on Censorship and the Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media and the UK Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers
News that Peter Hain MP may face contempt of court charges in Northern Ireland is disturbing, but sadly not especially surprising.
Post-GFA Northern Ireland does not have a notably good record on free speech and privacy. Journalists such as Suzanne Breen and Henry McDonald have been put under pressure to reveal their sources, and MP Ian Paisley Junior has faced contempt charges after refusing to divulge confidential correspondence with a constituent.
Hain is facing prosecution under common law contempt charges for, essentially, being rude about a judge. In his memoir published earlier this year, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Wales described Lord Justice Girvan as acting as if he was “off his rocker” in a 2006 ruling.
The Attorney General of Northern Ireland is now pursuing Hain and his publisher Biteback publishing (run by Iain Dale) for contempt, claiming Hain’s comments “constitute unwarranted abuse of a judge in his judicial capacity that undermines the administration of justice in this jurisdiction, and consequently constitute a contempt of court” .
Essentially the suggestion is that we should not criticise judges, lest we shatter the faith of the wider community in the courts. Leave aside the obvious fact that Northern Ireland’s courts are not exactly seen as citadels of justice by many people in the country, and we’re still left with the notion that a branch of the state should be beyond criticism. This is a dangerous idea, and an absurd move by the Attorney General. No matter what your political allegiance, it is vital that Hain and Dail are supported.
