15 Aug 16 | Bahrain, Bahrain Letters, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, mobile, Statements
Rt Hon Boris Johnson
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street Whitehall
London SW1A 2AH
15 August 2016
Dear Mr Johnson,
First, may we congratulate you on your recent appointment as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
We write to raise our deep concern over the current ambassador from the Kingdom of Bahrain to the UK, Sheikh Fawaz bin Mohammad Al Khalifa, on his recent statements and record on press freedom, and urge you to raise the concerns set out below to the Government of Bahrain.
Last month, on 20 July, the Bahrain embassy in the UK released a statement in support of the actions of the Information Affairs Authority (IAA), which brought a case against Bahraini journalist Nazeeha Saeed. Ms. Saeed has worked as correspondent for France24 for seven years, and for Radio Monte Carlo Doualiya for 12 years. She was charged with working for international media outlets without a license. Her case is just the latest in a series of regressive actions targeting critical journalists, creating an environment where a free fourth estate cannot function.
The Bahrain embassy’s statement reported that the IAA had lodged a legal complaint against Ms. Saeed for illegally working as a foreign correspondent, that Ms. Saeed’s foreign correspondence license expired ‘over 150 days’ ago, and that she was warned of legal action.1 None of this is true. The undersigned NGOs have seen a letter by the IAA from June 2016 denying her license renewal, which she had applied for at the end of March 2016 (some 110 days earlier to the embassy’s statement, not 150). The IAA did not in fact warn her of legal action in the letter.
It is not innocuous that Sheikh Fawaz, as ambassador to the United Kingdom, had the embassy publish this statement in support of the IAA and we see this statement as a reflection of Bahrain’s antipathy towards a free press, and as Sheikh Fawaz’s direct role in antagonising the press.
The IAA is the government body that regulates the press, issues journalist licenses, and operates Bahrain News Agency and the state-run Bahrain TV. Sheikh Fawaz Al Khalifa, prior to becoming ambassador, was the first president of the IAA between 2010 and 2012, overseeing the institution during the Arab Spring. In that time, the government systematically cracked down on political and civil freedoms. The IAA was responsible for suspending the only independent newspaper, aiding in the censorship of the press and the deportation of foreign-national journalists, and in spreading hate speech through IAA-controlled TV stations.
Journalists interviewed by the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy have told us that press relations were calmer before Sheikh Fawaz’s 2010-2012 presidency of the IAA. Sheikh Fawaz’s appointment as media chief in July 2010 coincided with the arrest and torture of opposition politicians and activists in the lead-up to Bahrain’s November 2010 General Elections, actions which precipitated the Arab Spring protests. Journalists state that government censorship of the press increased substantially with the formation of the IAA under Sheikh Fawaz.
In May 2011, Ms. Saeed was summoned to a police station in connection to the police killing of a protester she had witnessed. There, police detained her and tortured her into signing a confession, as reported by Human Rights Watch.2 To date Ms. Saeed has been denied justice by Bahrain’s courts.3 The IAA, despite its responsibilities to protect journalists, did not support her. Soon after Ms. Saeed’s detention, BBC Arabic interviewed Sheikh Fawaz, then-IAA president, asking him: “Why is a journalist who has come to report these events treated in this way?” He replied: “She does not have any license to report for the French news agency.”4 In fact, Ms. Saeed had a license at that time, and has done throughout her career, until the IAA’s refusal of her latest renewal in April 2016. Sheikh Fawaz not only failed to protect a vulnerable journalist, he intentionally spread falsehoods justifying her mistreatment.
Ms. Saeed’s case is not the only one in which Sheikh Fawaz has played a role. The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, the accepted record of rights violations during 2011, notes (para. 1611) how Sheikh Fawaz’s Deputy Assistant at the IAA summoned an Iraqi journalist working for the only independent newspaper, Al Wasat, for a meeting in April 2011 during an imposed State of Emergency. When the journalist arrived at the IAA offices, police arrested, beat and threatened him, then deported him that same evening.5
Al Wasat newspaper was subjected to a smear campaign led by the IAA itself. On 2 April 2011, the IAA-operated Bahrain TV broadcast a two-hour live show antagonising Al Wasat and immediately afterwards, the IAA suspended the newspaper, only allowing it to resume publication after the resignation of its senior editorial staff.6 The newspaper was not alone suffering this crackdown on free expression: Bahrain TV broadcast programmes identified and vilified celebrity protestors throughout the Arab Spring period. Athletes, including national football team players, who called on live broadcasts to defend their appearance at protests, were arrested and subjected to torture within days of doing so.7 The IAA-run Bahrain TV, which we reiterate would have been executing policy set by the president, Sheikh Fawaz, has never been held to account for its role inciting hatred against legitimate political protest and the targeting of specific persons.
Journalism as a whole was under threat during Sheikh Fawaz’s leadership of the IAA. The repression of independent journalists and media under his watch was on a scale similar to that seen in countries like Turkey and Egypt, which are known for state censorship of the press.
A sure indicator of this is in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, which ranks each country on press freedom, with the 1st country having the freest press. Bahrain’s ranking, which stood at 119th in 2009, the year before Sheikh Fawaz’s IAA presidency, fell by 46 rungs to 165th by 2012, the year his presidency ended. This was the greatest fall in rankings Bahrain ever saw.
Bahrain’s ranking currently sits at 162 (with this latter rise in rank due mainly to the addition of countries ranked below Bahrain). As a point of comparison, the 2016 Press Freedom Index 2016 respectively ranked Turkey and Egypt at 151 and 159. The rankings reflect Sheikh Fawaz’s devastating leadership of the state media body and the long shadow left on press freedom.
It was for these reasons that the community of press freedom activists, rights defenders and NGOs greeted Sheikh Fawaz’s appointment as ambassador to the United Kingdom with alarm. His embassy’s latest statements on the case of Ms. Nazeeha Saeed, for which the history extends back to his IAA presidency in 2011, calls back his direct role in repressing Bahrain’s press and journalists. His role in allowing the incitement of hatred against pro-democracy protesters on his watch, and his continued public attempts to mislead on the cases of journalists like Ms. Saeed, are indications that neither he nor the country he represents share the key British values of the right to free speech and individual liberty, nor in the universally recognised right to freedom of expression, as protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Kingdom of Bahrain’s choice of a person with a key role in repressing freedom of speech as their ambassador to the United Kingdom reflects Bahrain’s unchanged, poor attitudes towards freedom of speech and human rights more generally.
We therefore urge you to address this promptly and raise these issues surrounding Sheikh Fawaz’s past and current involvement in the violations of press freedom with the Government of Bahrain.
Yours sincerely,
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy
Index on Censorship
Reporters Without Boarders
1 Bahrain Embassy in London, Press Release: Information Affairs Authority Clarifies Regulation for Foreign Correspondents Related to Nazeeha Saeed, 20 July 2016, http://us12.campaign- archive1.com/?u=adae2d71fee280549ad890919&id=79fd8c6d53.
2 Human Rights Watch, Criminalizing Dissent, Entrenching Impunity: Persistent Failures of the Bahraini Justice System Since the BICI Report, 28 May 2014, https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/05/28/criminalizing-dissent- entrenching-impunity/persistent-failures-bahraini-justice.
3 Reporters Without Borders, RSF Demands Justice for Bahraini Journalists Tortured in 2011, 20 November 2015, https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-demands-justice-bahraini-journalist-tortured-2011.
4 Bahrain TV on Youtube, IAA President Interview on BBC Arabic – 27 May 2011, 27 May 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDlClo2AIuE.
5 Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), Report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, November 2011, para. 1611, http://www.bici.org.bh/BICIreportEN.pdf.
6 BICI, Report of the BICI, para. 1592.
7 ESPN (mirror), ESPN E:60: Athletes of Bahrain, 8 November 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfhPWwhWlJU.
28 Jul 16 | Bahrain, Bahrain Statements, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
Nazeeha Saeed has been arbitrarily curtailed by Bahrain’s Information Affairs Authority.
We, the undersigned, express our deep concern with the Bahraini Public Prosecution’s decision to charge Nazeeha Saeed, correspondent for Radio Monte Carlo Doualiya and France24, with unlawfully working for international media. We consider this an undue reprisal against her as a journalist and call on Bahrain’s authorities to respect fully the right of journalists to practice their profession freely.
Nazeeha Saeed is an award-winning journalist and correspondent for Radio Monte Carlo Doualiya and France24. She has previously reported on the protest movement in 2011, and has reported on the mounting dissent against the Bahraini government for the last several years.
On Sunday 17 July 2016, the Public Prosecution summoned Nazeeha Saeed for interrogation based on a legal complaint from the Information Affairs Authority (IAA). The prosecution charged her under article 88 of Law 47/2002, which regulates the press, printing and publication. Article 88 states that no Bahraini can work for foreign media outlets without first obtaining a license from the Information Affairs Authority (IAA), which must be renewed annually.
Prior to the expiration of her license, Nazeeha Saeed applied for a new one at the end of March 2016, at which point, the IAA refused a renewal. This is the first time she has received such a rejection. Following this, Saeed continued to work as a correspondent for France24 and Radio Monte Carlo Doualiya. She now faces trial in the civil courts and a fine of up to 1000 Bahraini Dinars (USD $2650) if found guilty.
This is not the first time Nazeeha Saeed has been subjected to harassment by the Bahraini authorities. In May 2011, during a state of emergency imposed in response to Arab Spring protests, police summoned Saeed to the station and detained her there. For her coverage of events in Bahrain – Nazeeha Saeed witnessed police killing a man at a protest and rejected the government narrative of events – police allegedly subjected her to hours of torture, ill-treatment and humiliation, which only ended when she signed a document placed before her. She was not allowed to read it. Despite complaining to the Ministry of Interior and the new Special Investigations Unit, the body under the Public Prosecution charged with investigating claims of torture and abuse, in November 2015 the authorities decided against prosecuting the responsible officers on the basis of there being insufficient evidence.
In June 2016, Bahrain’s authorities placed Nazeeha Saeed on a travel ban, preventing her from leaving the country. The ban was applied without informing Saeed, who only discovered it after she was refused boarding on her flight. The police officer at the airport was unable to explain the reason for this travel ban, and officials from the immigration department, the public prosecution and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), told the journalist that they were not even aware of its existence. Saeed is one of approximately twenty individuals known to have been banned from travel in Bahrain since the beginning of June 2016. Other journalists working for international media face similar threats and have also reported facing increased pressure from the government in the last year, making their work difficult. RSF and the Committee to Protect Journalists both list Bahrain as one of the leading jailers of journalists in the world. One of them, Sayed Ahmed Al-Mousawi, was stripped of his citizenship by a court in November 2015.
As organisations concerned with the right to freedom of expression, we call on the Government of Bahrain to end the reprisals against Nazeeha Saeed, lift her travel ban and drop the charges against her. We also call on the authorities to stop arbitrarily withholding license renewals and to allow journalists to report with full freedom of expression as protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Signed,
Adil Soz, International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
ACAT
Albanian Media Institute
Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain
ARTICLE 19
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy
Bahrain Press Association
Bytes for All
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Cartoonists Rights Network International
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility
Committee to Protect Journalists
Egyptian Organization for Human Rights
English PEN
European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Freedom Forum
Freedom House
Free Media Movement
Front Line Defenders
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Hisham Al Miraat, Founder, Moroccan Digital Rights Association
Human Rights Network for Journalists – Uganda
Independent Journalism Center – Moldova
Index on Censorship
Institute for the Studies on Free Flow of Information
Instituto de Prensa y Libertad de Expresión – IPLEX
International Press Institute
Justice Human Rights Organization
Maharat Foundation
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Watch
Norwegian PEN
Pacific Islands News Association
Pakistan Press Foundation
Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms – MADA
PEN American Center
PEN Canada
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders
Social Media Exchange – SMEX
Vigilance pour la Démocratie et l’État Civique
14 Jun 16 | Asia and Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, India, Italy, mobile, News and features, Poland, United Kingdom
Timothy Garton Ash is no stranger to censorship. On the toilet wall of his Oxford home, there is a Polish censor’s verdict from early 1989 which cut a great chunk of text from an article of his on the bankruptcy of Soviet socialism.
Six months later socialism was indeed bankrupt, although the formative experiences of travelling behind the Iron Curtain in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s — seeing friends such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn interrogated and locked up for what they published — never left him.
Now, in Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World, the professor of European Studies at Oxford University provides an argument for “why we need more and better free speech” and a blueprint for how we should go about it.
“The future of free speech is a decisive question for how we live together in a mixed up world where conventionally — because of mass migration and the internet — we are all becoming neighbours,” Garton Ash explains to Index on Censorship. “The book reflects a lot of the debates we’ve already been having on the Free Speech Debate website [the precursor to the book] as well as physically in places like India China, Egypt, Burma, Thailand, where I’ve personally gone to take forward these debates.”
Garton Ash began writing the book 10 years ago, shortly after the murder of Theo van Gough and the publication of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. In the second of the 10 principles of free speech — ranked in order of importance — he writes: “We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.” What he calls the “assassin’s veto” — violence or the threat of violence as a response to expression — is, he tells Index, “one of the greatest threats to free speech in our time because it undoubtedly has a very wide chilling effect”.
While the veto may bring to mind the January 2015 killings at Charlie Hebdo, Garton Ash is quick to point out that “while a lot of these threats do come from violent Islamists, they also come from the Italian mafia, Hindu nationalists in India and many other groups”.
Europe, in particular, has “had far too much yielding, or often pre-emptively, to the threat of violence and intimidation”, explains Garton Ash, including the 2014 shutting down of Exhibit B, an art exhibition which featured black performers in chains, after protesters deemed it racist. “My view is that this is extremely worrying and we really have to hold the line,” he adds.
Similarly, in the sixth principle from the book — “one of the most controversial” — Garton Ash states: “We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.”
This principle makes the same point the philosopher Stephen Darwall made between “recognition respect” and “appraisal respect”. “Recognition respect is ‘I unconditionally respect your full dignity, equal human dignity and rights as an individual, as a believer including your right to hold that belief’,” explains Garton Ash. “But that doesn’t necessarily mean I have to give ‘appraisal respect’ to the content of your belief, which I may find to be, with some reason, incoherent nonsense.”
The best and many times only weapon we have against “incoherent nonsense” is knowledge (principle three: We allow no taboos against and seize every chance for the spread of knowledge). In Garton Ash’s view, there are two worrying developments in the field of knowledge in which taboos result in free speech being edged away.
“On the one hand, the government, with its extremely problematic counter-terror legislation, is trying to impose a prevent duty to disallow even non-violent extremism,” he says. “Non-violent extremists, in my view, include Karl Marx and Jesus Christ; some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind were non-violent extremists.”
“On the other hand, you have student-led demands of no platforming, safe spaces, trigger warnings and so on,” Garton Ash adds, referring to the rising trend on campuses of shutting down speech deemed offensive. “Universities should be places of maximum free speech because one of the core arguments for free speech is it helps you to seek out the truth.”
The title of the books mentions the “connected world”, or what is also referred to in the text as “cosmopolis”, a global space that is both geographic and virtual. In the ninth principle, “We defend the internet and other systems of communication against illegitimate encroachments by both public and private powers”, Garton Ash aims to protect free expression in this online realm.
“We’ve never been in a world like this before, where if something dreadful happens in Iceland it ends up causing harm in Singapore, or vice-versa,” he says. “With regards to the internet, you have to distinguish online governance from regulation and keep the basic architecture of the internet free, and that means — where possible — net neutrality.”
A book authored by a westerner in an “increasingly post-western” world clearly has its work cut out for it to convince people in non-western or partially-western countries, Garton Ash admits. “What we can’t do and shouldn’t do is what the West tended to do in the 1990s, and say ‘hey world, we’ve worked it out — we have all the answers’ and simply get out the kit of liberal democracy and free speech like something from Ikea,” he says. “If you go in there just preaching and lecturing, immediately the barriers go up and out comes postcolonial resistance.”
“But what we can do — and I try to do in the book — is to move forward a conversation about how it should be, and having looked at their own traditions, you will find people are quite keen to have the conversation because they’re trying to work it out themselves.”
18 May 16 | About Index, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Counter Terrorism, Statements, United Kingdom
The government’s planned Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill must be carefully crafted to avoid damaging freedom of expression.
“The government’s move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all,” said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen.”
The government’s plans to tackle extremism through a “new civil order regime” and other measures must not undermine the very values it aims to defend, free expression organisations said on Wednesday.
Index on Censorship, English PEN, the National Secular Society, the Christian Institute, ARTICLE 19, Big Brother Watch, Manifesto Club and the Peter Tatchell Foundation welcomed plans to consult on the matter, following their demands earlier this year.
The proposals for a new law, outlined in the Queen’s Speech, are more ambiguous than earlier proposals made by this government, but nevertheless leave open broad measures to police a wide swathe of speech and should be resisted, the groups said.
The new legislation will include giving law enforcement agencies new powers to protect vulnerable people – including children – “from those who seek to brainwash them with extremism propaganda so we build a stronger society around our shared liberal values of tolerance and respect”, according to the background notes accompanying the Queen’s Speech.
More specifically, the government proposals are to legislate:
· Stronger powers to disrupt extremists and protect the public.
· Powers to intervene in intensive unregulated education settings which teach hate and drive communities apart.
· A new civil order regime to restrict extremist activity, following consultation.
· Closing loopholes so that Ofcom can continue to protect consumers who watch internet-streamed television content from outside the EU on Freeview.
The new proposals should avoid creating an environment that could make it even harder for people of all faiths and ideologies to express their beliefs and opinions, the groups said. Current legislation already prohibits incitement to violence and terrorism, and a compelling case for broadening them further through civil measures has not been made.
“The government’s move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all,” said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen.”
The groups said plans to introduce new laws in this area presented three main risks:
1. Definitions
It is still not clear how new legislation would deal with the problem of defining “extremism” in a way that would not threaten free speech.
The government has previously defined extremism broadly as “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The continued lack of a clear definition risks outlawing any political expression that does not reflect mainstream or popular views.
Britain already has a host of laws to tackle the incitement of terrorist acts, as well as racial and religious hatred. The government has previously been criticised for the broad definitions of “terrorism” in existing legislation, and the definition of ”extremism” in the Prevent Strategy. The proposed bill must not introduce new vague terminology and widen the net even further.
“The government’s approach to extremism is unfocused. Unless we can make them see sense, the range of people who could find themselves labelled ‘extremist’ by their own government is about to get a whole lot wider,” said Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute.
2. Nature of new civil orders
The government is ambiguous on whether they are still considering “extremism disruption orders” or “banning orders” within the package of civil measures. Though the promised consultation is welcome, these draconian measures are clearly not off the table.
Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, has said previously that extremists need to be exposed, challenged and countered. The proposed measures would have the opposite effect and should not find their way into the new civil order regime.
“Extremism banning orders could mean political activists – or any other activists deemed to be ‘anti-democratic’ – such as environmental activists – could be outlawed in future, thereby undermining democracy itself,” said Jo Glanville, Director of English PEN.
Extremist disruption orders (EDO), suggested under earlier plans for the bill, could have a similar chilling effect on free expression and democracy. Under original plans for EDOs, the police would be able to apply to the high court for an order to restrict the “harmful activities” of an “extremist” individual. The definition of “harmful” could include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or the ill-defined “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: “The prosecution thresholds for EDOs – as originally envisaged – are worryingly low – civil, not criminal – yet the consequences of granting of such an order, even if not broken, are likely to be very serious, e.g. rendering the recipient unemployable. Few faced with such a threat are likely to have the resources to mount any defence as proceedings will be at the High Court.”
“No convincing case has been made for the necessity of new measures to restrict free speech. Existing measures are already deterring individuals and groups from engaging in open debate on important issues. The plans re-announced today, though watered down, do not sufficiently address criticism the government has received; they not only threaten to further chill legitimate speech, but may also fuel divisive ideologies and make us less safe,” said Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.
3. International implications
Governments across the world – such as Russia, Turkey and Egypt – are increasingly using national security laws to censor free expression, including in the media. The government’s moves are likely to legitimise and embolden these efforts, setting a counter-productive example.
UN and regional human rights experts have jointly raised concerns regarding the potential impact of broadly defined initiatives to counter violent extremism on the free expression of minority and dissenting views. They have called for responses to violent extremism to be evidence based, and to respect international human rights law on freedom of expression and non-discrimination.
Conclusion
We call on the government to consult widely with all stakeholders, including civil society and minority groups, to ensure that a bill intended to tackle extremism does not undermine one of the values at the heart of democracy: that of free speech for all.
For more information or to arrange interviews, please contact:
– Melody Patry, head of advocacy, Index on Censorship.
[email protected]; 0207 963 7262
– Robert Sharp, head of communications, English PEN
[email protected]; 020 7324 2535
