Middle East: A bad month for media freedom

It’s not going well for maverick, boundary-pushing journalists this month.

In Morocco edgy magazine Nichane closed its doors, with the publisher claiming it was the victim of an advertising boycott ordered by the royal palace.

In Syria, a young female blogger who was mysteriously arrested 10 months ago, has officially been accused of being a spy for an unnamed foreign power. It remains unclear whether Tal al-Mallohi’s arrest or the espionage accusation has anything to do with her  blogging activity.

Several journalists are facing jail time in Turkey, and the murder of a prominent journalist three years ago remains unresolved with no convictions.

In Saudi Arabia, the religious police have ominously started training on how to monitor Facebook, Twitter and other digital forms of social media. The Saudis, along with fellow Gulf monarchy the United Arab Emirates, continue to block the Blackberry messaging service.

Finally in Egypt Al-Dostour newspaper publisher Ibrahim Eissa, Egypt’s best and most provocative political columnist,  was abruptly pushed out of his job and potentially blackballed.

There are two national Egyptian elections on the horizon — parliamentary next month and a crucial presidential vote next year. The authorities seem to be tightening the screws in preparation. The latest sign: new restrictions on SMS text messaging, which is frequently used as a mobilisation tool by activists. Independent newspaper Al Masry Al Youm (disclosure, I work for its English language edition) speculated that the new restrictions would,

hinder the logistical capabilities of Egypt’s political opposition, which has come to depend on SMS messaging to mobilise supporters for public protests and demonstrations.

A government spokesman’s priceless response? “We are not making life difficult. We are making life organized, that is all.

The very next day, the exact same telecommunications regulatory agency struck again. This time it moved to establish firmer control over all live television news broadcasts from Egypt.

Leading activists keep the pressure on the Chinese leadership

More than 100 Chinese professors, writers, lawyers and activists sign an open letter which calls on the government to release nobel prize winner Liu Xiaobo

关于刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的声明

On Liu Xiaobo and the Nobel Peace Prize

The awarding of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese citizen, has drawn strong reactions both inside and outside China. This is a major event in modern Chinese history. It offers the prospect of a significant new advance for Chinese society in its peaceful transition toward democracy and constitutional government. In a spirit of responsibility toward China’s history and the promise in its future, we the undersigned wish to make these points:

1. The decision of the Nobel Committee to award this year’s prize to Liu Xiaobo is in full conformity with the principles of the prize and the criteria for its bestowal. In today’s world, peace is closely connected with human rights. Deprivation and devastation of life happens not only on battlefields in wars between nations; it also happens within single nations when tyrannical governments employ violence and abuse law. The praise that we have seen from around the world for the decision to award this year’s prize to a representative of China’s human rights movement shows what a wise and timely decision it was.

2. Liu Xiaobo is a splendid choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. He has consistently advocated non-violence in his quest to protect human rights and has confronted social injustice by arguing from reason. He has persevered in pursuing the goals of democracy and constitutional government and has set aside anger even toward those who persecute him. These virtues put his qualifications for the prize beyond doubt, and his actions and convictions can, in addition, serve as models for others in how to resolve political and social conflict.

3. In the days since the announcement of his prize, leaders in many nations, regions, and major world organisations have called upon the Chinese authorities to release Liu Xiaobo. We agree. At the same time we call upon the authorities to release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience who are in detention for reasons such as their speech, their political views, or their religious beliefs. We ask that legal procedures aimed at freeing Liu Xiaobo be undertaken without delay, and that Liu and his wife be permitted to travel to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

4. Upon hearing the news of Liu Xiaobo’s prize, citizens at several locations in China gathered at restaurants to share their excitement over food and wine, and to hold discussions, display banners, and distribute notices. Normal and healthy as these activities were, they met with harassment and repression from police. Some of the participants were interrogated, threatened, and escorted home; others were detained; still others, including Liu Xiaobo’s wife Liu Xia, have been placed under house arrest and held incommunicado. We call upon the police to cease these illegal actions forthwith and to immediately release the people who have been illegally detained.

5. We call upon the Chinese authorities to approach Liu Xiaobo’s Nobel Prize with realism and reason. They should take note of the responses to the prize inside and outside China and see in these responses the currents in world thinking as well as the underlying preferences of our fellow citizens. China should join the mainstream of civilized humanity by embracing universal values. Such is the only route to becoming a “great nation” that is capable of playing a positive and responsible role on the world stage. We are convinced that any signs of improvement or goodwill from the government and its leaders will be met with understanding and support from the Chinese people and will be effective in moving Chinese society in a peaceful direction.

6. We call upon the Chinese authorities to make good on their oft-repeated promise to reform the political system. In a recent series of speeches, Premier Wen Jiabao has intimated a strong desire to promote political reform. We are ready to engage actively in such an effort. We expect our government to uphold the constitution of The People’s Republic of China as well as the Charter of the United Nations and other international agreements to which it has subscribed. This will require it to guarantee the rights of Chinese citizens as they work to bring about peaceful transition toward a society that will be, in fact and not just in name, a democracy and a nation of laws.

The signatories included two writers who have written for Index in recent years, Tibetan poet Woeser and journalist Li Datong

徐友渔(北京,学者)
郝建 (北京,学者)
崔卫平(北京,学者)
贾葭 (北京,专栏作家)
何方 (北京,学者)
张祖桦 (北京,宪政学者)
戴晴 (北京,学者)
资中筠(北京,学者)
沙叶新(上海,回族剧作家)
张博树(北京,学者)
周舵 (北京,学者)
夏业良(北京,学者)
于浩成(北京,学者)
王力雄(北京,作家 )
唯色 ( 西藏,作家)
滕彪 (北京,学者)
莫之许(北京,自由撰稿人)
蒋亶文(上海,作家)
马亚莲(上海,人权捍卫者)
温克坚(杭州,自由撰稿人)
钱跃君(工学博士,德国《欧华导报》主编)
浦志强(北京,律师 被限制人身自由中)
程益中(北京,出版人)
梁文道(香港,媒体人)
李大同(北京,学者)
梁晓燕(北京,编辑)
许医农(北京,编辑)
傅国涌(杭州,学者)
丁东 (北京,学者)
艾晓明(广州,学者)
邢小群(北京,学者)
宋以敏(北京,学者)
王东成(北京,学者)
徐岱 (杭州,学者)
丘延亮 (台北,副研究员 中央研究院民族学研究所)
王康 (重庆,学者)
徐贲 (北京,学者)
邓晓芒(武汉,学者)
叶匡正(北京,诗人)
朱日坤(北京,独立电影人)
张闳 (上海,学者)
老村 (北京,作家)
周枫 (北京,学者)
蔡甘铨(香港,媒体人)
林盈志(台湾,编辑)
雷永生 (北京,学者)
杨富芳(北京,教师)
徐敬亚(海南,诗人)
王小妮(海南,诗人)
吕频 (北京,妇女权利工作者)
郑海天(北京,离休编辑)
程迺欣(北京,离休编辑)
岳建一(北京,学者)
郭于华(北京,学者)
姚大力(上海,学者)
杨伟中(台湾,媒体人)
周保松(香港,学者)
徐晓 (北京,编辑)
朱正琳(北京,学者)
郑也夫(北京,学者)
石涛 (北京,企业管理者)
朴抱一(上海,媒体人)
郑褚 (成都,媒体人)
花落去(北京,媒体人)
姚博 (北京,作家)
杜婷 (香港,媒体人)
何杨 (北京,独立纪录片制作人)
华泽 (北京,纪录片导演)
张辉 (北京,德先生研究所负责人)
野渡 (广州,作家)
游精佑(福建,工程师)
吴华英(福建,人权捍卫者)
苏雨桐(德国,媒体人)
杨海 (西安,民间学者)
黎雄兵(北京,律师)
倪玉兰(北京,维权律师)
刘巍 (北京,维权律师)
李和平(北京,律师)
金光鸿(北京,律师)
李金星(北京,律师)
唐吉田(北京,律师)
陆以诺(上海,公民 基督徒)

黄燕明 (贵州,人权捍卫者)
郑创添(广东,公民)
刘强本(北京,公民)
董继勤(北京,人权捍卫者)
周洪玉(福建,公民)
吴玉堂(福建,公民)
魏英 (福建,人权捍卫者)
卓友桂(福建,人权捍卫者)
林碧仙(福建,人权捍卫者)
李华 (北京,自由职业)
任嘉祺(北京,诗人)
张永攀(北京,由撰稿人)
王德邦(广西,人权捍卫者)
张居正(河南,人权捍卫者)
韩颖 (北京,人权捍卫者)

杨树枝(北京,人权捍卫者)
杨树萍(北京,人权捍卫者)
王炜 (山东,公民)
游豫平(福州,大学生)
王立红(哈尔滨,自由职业)
门延文(北京,市民)
王我 (北京,纪录片导演)
刘沙沙(北京,人权活动人士)
胡杰 (南京,纪录片导演)
王超 (北京,电影导演)
徐娟 (德国,媒体工作者)
唐晓渡(北京,评论家)
魏海田(内蒙古,新闻记者)
张真 (纽约,学者)
安替(北京,媒体人)
萨冲 (意大利, 工程师)
郭小林(北京 , 诗人)
王晓鲁(北京,媒体人)

Middle East: A bad month for media freedom

It’s not going well for maverick, boundary-pushing journalists this month.

In Morocco edgy magazine Nichane closed its doors, with the publisher claiming it was the victim of an advertising boycott ordered by the royal palace.

In Syria, a young female blogger who was mysteriously arrested 10 months ago, has officially been accused of being a spy for an unnamed foreign power. It remains unclear whether Tal al-Mallohi’s arrest or the espionage accusation has anything to do with her blogging activity.

Several journalists are facing jail time in Turkey, and the murder of a prominent journalist three years ago remains unresolved with no convictions.

Finally in Egypt Al-Dostour newspaper publisher Ibrahim Eissa, Egypt’s best and most provocative political columnist, was abruptly pushed out of his job and potentially blackballed.

There are two national Egyptian elections on the horizon — parliamentary next month and a crucial presidential vote next year. The authorities seem to be tightening the screws in preparation. The latest sign: new restrictions on SMS text messaging, which is frequently used as a mobilisation tool by activists. Independent newspaper Al Masry Al Youm (disclosure, I work for its English language edition) speculated that the new restrictions would,

hinder the logistical capabilities of Egypt’s political opposition, which has come to depend on SMS messaging to mobilise supporters for public protests and demonstrations.

A government spokesman’s priceless response? “We are not making life difficult. We are making life organized, that is all.

The very next day, the exact same telecommunications regulatory agency struck again. This time it moved to establish firmer control over all live television news broadcasts from Egypt.

In Saudi Arabia, the religious police have ominously started training on how to monitor Facebook, Twitter and other digital forms of social media. The Saudis, along with fellow Gulf monarchy the United Arab Emirates, continue to block the Blackberry messaging service.

Fundamental differences?

The ever-readable Salil Tripathi, in his column in India’s Mint, points us to a disturbing story in Mumbai. The university there has withdrawn a book by renowned author Rohinton Mistry after a member of the right-wing Hindu Shiv Sena group complained it was offensive to his party.

…Rajan Waulkar, vice-chancellor of Mumbai University became the poster child of acquiescence to bullying when he hastily withdrew Mistry’s acclaimed previous novel Such A Long Journeyusing his emergency powers, after an undergraduate student aspiring for political leadership of the Shiv Sena’s youth wing, the Bharatiya Vidyarthi Sena, complained that the book made disparaging remarks against his party and his people. His claim to lead the youth wing rests on what he considers his inherent birthright—he is born in the Thackeray family.

Such A Long Journey is a thoughtful narrative about the scarcity-prone India at the cusp of the Bangladesh war of 1971, when Gustad Noble, a bank clerk, gets enmeshed in a conspiracy to assist the Mukti Bahini, the India-backed armed group fighting for Bangladesh’s freedom. He is brought to the shadowy world by an old acquaintance who is an intelligence officer, loosely based on the life of Rustom Nagarwala, who allegedly imitated prime minister Indira Gandhi’s voice and got a State Bank of India officer to hand him Rs. 60 lakh after the phone call, ostensibly for Bangladesh’s liberation.

The junior-most Thackeray’s complaint is vague, and political analysts might see his grandstanding as part of his desire (and his father Uddhav’s desire) to regain political ground, ever since Uddhav’s bête noire, his cousin Raj Thackeray, began wolfing down the Shiv Sena’s jhunka bhakar through his party, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena.

Salil points out an uncomfortable truth for fundamentalists:

Hindu nationalists get riled when they are compared with Muslim leaders declaring fatwas. But the difference between those who want Such A Long Journey or Breathless in Bombay banned and the clerics who hate Rushdie—and the cartoonists of Jyllands-Posten—is marginal. Their threats chill free speech.

Read the full article here