As Egypt closes 2012 with the approval of a new constitution, Ashraf Khalil reflects on a tumultuous year, and looks ahead to an uncertain future (more…)
Guidelines issued today on when criminal charges should be brought against people posting offensive or abusive comments on social media sites could boost free speech (more…)
International Day to End Impunity is on 23 November, and since the start of the month, the campaign has highlighted activists, journalists, and dissidents who have suffered from impunity. Today the campaign highlights Bahraini activist Zainab Alkhawaja, who has been in and out of prison for her work speaking out against human rights abuses in the country.
It’s hard to keep track of how many times Bahraini Twitter activist Zainab AlKhawaja, 28, has been in and out of jail. AlKhawaja (@angryarabiya) has faced more than a dozen charges this year alone for speaking out about human rights violations in Bahrain, where dozens of people have been killed since pro-democracy protests began in February 2011.
Officially, AlKhawaja has been jailed for “illegally” protesting, insulting the King, and inciting hatred against the regime. A “disrupting traffic” charge was made after she staged a one-person protest outside the prison where her father, human rights activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, is serving a life sentence for his role in organising protests.
During her numerous arrests, she has been abused by police, who enforce the will of the regime and thus have not been punished for their crimes. At a June protest, she was seriously injured when security forces shot a tear gas canister at her leg. The cast on her leg did not stop them from handcuffing her and dragging her down stairs when they arrested her after another one-person protest in August. She was kept in jail for two months following that arrest, which was hard on her young daughter.
In its report released on 23 November 2011, the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) noted a “culture of impunity” for abuses committed by security forces and police during the protests. Yet despite the inquiry being ordered by the King himself, very few people have been held accountable, allowing for ongoing violations.
Despite being an obvious target, AlKhawaja won’t stop protesting. “We have a king who has been killing and torturing his own people. We should have the right to protest against that,” she said after the authorities banned all demonstrations in October 2012.
For more information on the International Day to End Impunity, visit the site here.
This article was originally published in The New Statesman
Between the Leveson Inquiry and the crisis at the BBC, it seems journalism is all we ever read or hear about these days.
These crises are heightened because journalists are, essentially, gossips who like talking about journalists. In this, we’re no different from people in any other line of work: programmers talk about other people’s code, plumbers slag rivals’ work – it’s human.
Note I wrote “line of work” rather than profession. That’s because it is very, very important to remember that journalism is not and cannot ever be a profession.
This is at the very heart of the debate over what Lord Justice Leveson should conclude from his findings when he reports in the coming weeks. Can you legally force journalists to behave in a certain way without damaging free expression?
Some point to regulatory bodies such as the Law Society or the General Medical Council, and say that regulation does not affect those professions. But think. One can strike off a doctor or a lawyer – how does one strike off a journalist? Sure, you can sack her, but what if she starts a blog? Starts making phone calls? Starts covering stories?
How do you stop people doing journalism? The old distinction will become ever more blurred as we all now carry publishing apparatus in our pocket. Journalists in the traditional sense had desks, telephones, expense accounts and bad habits. But most importantly, access to a printing press and means of distribution. A decent smartphone carries all this in one (apart from the expenses and habits).
Journalism is one way in which people can exercise their right to free expression, and the danger with statutory regulation is that one can actually create separate levels of access to a right – giving the journalist less of a right to free expression than anyone else. That’s not how rights work.
Some will point out that there are many “statutes” that apply to journalists, and this is true, but these statutes – contempt, libel etc, do not apply just to journalists – they are universal.
Creating a new law governing the press compromises that universality.
Many point to the “Irish model” as an example of statutory underpinning. But this is not entirely correct. The Press Council of Ireland was already established before it was recognised in statute, and then only with membership as a mitigating factor in a libel defence. It was not established by statute. (Bear in mind, by the way, Leveson watchers, that it took five years of negotiation to set up the Irish Press Council. This may go on for some time.)
Meanwhile, Germany (in terms of market size, possibly a better example for the UK) does not even permit specific laws on the press.
A press regulator cannot carry legal compulsion. Politicians already try their hardest to influence newspapers, and allowing them to create statute that will rule over the press will almost inevitably prove too tempting for a parliamentarians fed up of their eternal role as lamposts to the press’s dogs (as HL Mencken had it). Statute specifically dealing with the press will hurt free speech, no matter how much its advocates say it won’t.
Padraig Reidy is news editor at Index on Censorship