Voices of conscience in the Middle East: Raif Badawi

Raif Badawi is famous for a sinister occurence: he was condemned by the Saudi Arabia authorities to 10 years of prison and 1000 lashes - yes, we are still in the 21st century - plus fines of an amount of the equivalent of 194,00 Euro, for his texts published on his blog. His wife, Ensaf Haidar, who is a strong militant for his release, run the country together with their 3 kids and is a Canadian resident. 

His only guilt is to have been approached sensitive issues for the theocractic Saudi Arabia, such as secularization, need to get rid of religious extremism, liberalism, pluralism, respect for diversity of religions and freedom of thought. The texts published on his blog between 2010 and 2012 were erased by the high tech authorities who are meanwhile maintaining a strict control of the www, in order to prevent any actions or writings against the predominant Islam. Some of the short written interventions were gathered in a thin book. Pledging for the adoption of a secularist model similar to that introduced in France after the French Revolution, he approaches various issues at stake in the Middle Eastern and particularly Saudi society: the contradictions between religious assumptions and scientific reality, the chutzpe of wanting a mosque close to the ruins of the WTC destroyed during the terrorist attacks of 9/11, equality between men and women, the rejection of autocratic movements such as Hamas. He also warned about extremists and the danger of the 'Caliphate'. There are a lot of interesting ideas and concepts outlined but unfortunately this is only the beginning of a larger discussion and clarification of concepts that as long he is in prison cannot be continued or developed. The original texts were published in Arabic, but translated in several languages. Personally, I've read the German version.

In December 2015, Badawi was awarded the prestigious European Sakharov prize by the European Parliament for freedom of thought. His condemnation is going on, with the last January 50 of the 1,000 lashes being done, although medical warning about Badawi's health situation were issued. At the end of the last year, he went on hunger strike for a short while.

He is not the only member of the family persecuted by the authorities. His sister, Samar Badawi, a human rights avocate was shortly detained this January. 

Is Angola ready for the elections?

On August 31, Angola will organize parliamentary elections, for the first time since the end of the civil war. For 27 years after Angola became independent from Portugal, the country was revaged by a civil war that made over 300,000 victims. 

The current president, Jose Eduardo dos Santos is in power for 33 years and the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) - which is expected to win again - is in power since 1975. During the Cold War, MPLA benefited from the support of Cuba and the Soviet Union. The main opposition is represented by the Union for the Total Liberation of Angola (UNITA) which includes former Army rebels and which is very active in the oil-rich enclave of Cabinda. Cabinda is an important source of oil for the US and China. Angola is rich in other natural resources, as gold, uranium, diamonds and gas.

In 2001, a young movement was created following the model of the 'Arab spring', but the organizers are usually harassed by the police and the representatives of the security forces - and the so-called 'caenches', muscle men. A new Constitution was adopted in 2010, but the level of application depends at a great extent by the good will of the Santos regime. 

According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch, there are a couple of problems that the authorities in Luanda should consider seriously in order to guarantee a free and fair choice. 

The main observations of HRW are:

- the need to limit the political and security forces involvement in harassing media and the political oppositions;

- the need to clarify the situation of organizers of anti-governmental protests that disappeared since March;

- the National Election Commission should guarantee the impartiality of the electoral process.

Even though the results of the elections are predictable, the content of change depends at a great extent of the change taking place till the next elections is hard to predict. 

The state of art

of the Middle East blogosphere.

MKs support arrest over denial of Israel's existence

Bill calling for one year in prison for anyone speaking against Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state passes preliminary reading. Bill's initiator MK Orlev: This is our lesson from Bishara affair. Meretz: Government is losing it

Amnon Meranda

Israel News
May 27

'Nakba law' not alone: The Knesset on Wednesday morning approved in a preliminary reading a bill introducing one year in prison for anyone speaking against Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state, should the call contain a reasonable possibility "that it may lead to acts of hatred, scorn or lack of loyalty to the State or its government authorities or law systems which have been established legally."

Forty-seven Knesset members voted in favor of the motion, 34 voted against it, and one MK abstained. The bill was initiated by MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi), chairman of the Knesset's Education Committee.

Orlev explained the bill by saying that "the Azmi Bishara affair teaches us that statements can quickly turn into actions."

Following the vote, a harsh argument erupted between MKs Jamal Zahalka (Balad) and Arie Eldad (National Union), leading to Zahalka's removal from the auditorium.

A heated discussion erupted at the Knesset before the vote. Meretz Chairman Chaim Oron slammed the government, saying, "Have you lost your confidence in the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state? This crazy government – what exactly are you doing? Thought Police? Have you lost it?

"Israel's citizens have the right to say that they believe Jewish and democratic is an incorrect wording. I think they are wrong, but what does this have to do with the criminals area? Enough with this story." MK Orlev replied, "You used very shallow demagogy."

'You want to punish people for thinking?'
MK Zahalka said before the vote, "Many intellectuals in the academia who talk about a country belonging to all its citizens belong in prison, according to MK Orlev. Arab and Jewish leaders who seek real democracy in Israel also belong in jail, according to Orlev… He wants to put anyone who doesn’t agree with him in jail.

"This is the proposal: Whoever says 'death to the Arabs' should not be put in prison, but whoever says 'a country of all its citizens' should not be put in prison. This is a crazy law aimed at managing the political discourse according to laws."

Knesset Member Ronnie Bar-On (Kadima) said that his movement opposed the bill in principle for the simple reason that "a democratic Jewish state is performed, not talked about. We want to do this, and you with your remarks are thwarting the matter once and again.

Turning to Orlev, Bar-On asked, "What is there in your proposal that it not covered in Basic Law: The Knesset or in the Penal Law? You want to punish people for speaking? Soon you'll want to punish people for thinking."

MK Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) said in response to the bill, "We will not recognize a Jewish and Zionist Israel despite the draconian law, even if we pay a personal price. This coalition will soon propose a low banning 'expressing shock over the occupation' and calling for a penalty of five years in prison for anyone expressing such shock."

‘Libel Tourism’: When Freedom of Speech Takes a Holiday

Adam Cohen

The New York Times

September 15, 2008

When Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It,” she assumed she would be protected by the First Amendment. She was, in the United States. But a wealthy Saudi businessman she accused in the book of being a funder of terrorism, Khalid bin Mahfouz, sued in Britain, where the libel laws are heavily weighted against journalists, and won a sizable amount of money.

The lawsuit is a case of what legal experts are calling “libel tourism.” Ms. Ehrenfeld is an American, and “Funding Evil” was never published in Britain. But at least 23 copies of the book were sold online, opening the door for the lawsuit. When Ms. Ehrenfeld decided not to defend the suit in Britain, Mr. bin Mahfouz won a default judgment and is now free to sue to collect in the United States.

The upshot is a First Amendment loophole. In the Internet age, almost every American book can be bought in Britain. That means American authors are subject to being sued under British libel law, which in some cases puts the initial burden on the defendant to prove the truth of what she has written. British libel law is so tilted against writers that the United Nations Human Rights Committee criticized it last month for discouraging discussion of important matters of public interest.

Mr. bin Mahfouz, who has denied financing terrorism, said Ms. Ehrenfeld’s book contained inaccuracies and demanded a retraction. He also demanded a significant contribution to a charity of his choice — a charity Ms. Ehrenfeld said she feared would be one with ties to terrorism. Ms. Ehrenfeld, who describes herself as being “in the business of stopping people who fund terrorism,” refused to back down. “I said,” she later recalled, “he’s found the wrong victim.”

Ms. Ehrenfeld rallied prominent champions of free speech to her cause, including the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers and the PEN American Center. She also set to work trying to change American law. The New York State Legislature passed a bill that some are calling “Rachel’s law,” which blocks enforcement of libel judgments from countries that provide less free-speech protection than the United States. Gov. David Paterson signed it on May 1.

A similar, bipartisan bill has been introduced in Congress. The federal bill would extend protection to the entire country. It would also allow American authors and publishers to countersue, and if a jury found that the foreign suit was an attempt to suppress protected speech, it could award treble damages. There is little opposition to it — and Congress should pass it before it adjourns later this month.

“Libel tourism” is a threat to America’s robust free-speech traditions, which protect authors here. If foreign libel judgments can be enforced in American courts, there will be a “race to the bottom”; writers will only have as much protection as the least pro-free-speech nations allow.

Most writers, particularly those who concern themselves with arcane subjects like terrorism financing, are not wealthy. The prospect of a deep-pocketed plaintiff coming after them in court can be frightening. Even if the lawsuit fails, the cost and effort involved in defending against it can be considerable.

The result is what lawyers call a “chilling effect” — authors and publishers may avoid taking on some subjects, or challenging powerful interests. That has already been happening in Britain. Craig Unger’s “House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties” was a best seller in the United States. But its British publisher canceled plans to publish the book, reportedly out of fear of being sued. (A smaller publisher later released it.)

Ms. Ehrenfeld says that even in the United States, writers and publishers have been backing away from books about terrorism financing — particularly about the Saudi connection — out of fear of being sued. It is hard to know if other books are not being written out of fear of lawsuits — that is the essence of the chilling effect.

Britain should rethink its libel laws, as the U.N. committee urged, for the sake of its citizens. But until it does, the United States should ensure that other countries’ pro-plaintiff libel laws do not infect this country and diminish our proud tradition of freedom of expression.

See also


US House introduces Bill to stop "Libel Tourism"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1304:

Thai lese majeste laws - a political weapon

A leftist commentator in Thailand was charged on Tuesday with insulting the king, a punishment which could took from 3 to 15 years of the life of the indicted person.


See also:

Lese majeste cases in Thailand - Reuters