 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 26 Aug. - 1 Sep. 1999 Issue No. 444 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 26 Aug. - 1 Sep. 1999 Issue No. 444
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
After months of waiting and watching, journalists have revived their call for the government to cancel provisions in the Press Law that punish publication offences with imprisonment. Press Syndicate Chairman Ibrahim Nafie chaired a meeting of the syndicate's council last week, at which it was decided it was time to get the imprisonment penalty stricken off the Press Law. The meeting was followed up on Sunday by another meeting of a council sub-committee on "improving professional legislation," headed by Osama El-Ghazali Harb, chief editor of Al-Siyasa Al-Dawliya and a council member.
Pressing for legal change
By Shaden Shehab
photo: Adel Ahmed
In accordance with decisions taken by the Press Syndicate Council, chaired by Ibrahim Nafie (left), journalists staged a two-hour sit-in on Saturday
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Focus Culture Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters "The sub-committee will hold a dialogue with journalists and then set up a committee of legal experts and veteran journalists to prepare a draft press law that does not include provisions for the imprisonment of journalists for publication offences," said Yasser Rizk, a council member. He said imprisonment should be replaced by hefty fines.
And in accordance with the decisions taken by the syndicate's council, a two-hour sit-in was organised on Saturday to protest against the imprisonment provisions. In a statement afterwards, journalists demanded "the continuation of efforts aimed at gaining the cancellation of imprisonment provisions" and announced solidarity with imprisoned journalists.
Last week, Al-Shaab's chief editor Magdi Hussein, journalist Salah Bedewi and cartoonist Essam Hanafi were given two-year jail sentences and fined LE20,000 each. The court found the three guilty of libeling and slandering Minister of Agriculture Youssef Wali.
The call to replace imprisonment provisions with fines is not new. The programmes of all candidates in last June's elections included calls for striking off legal provisions of imprisonment for publication offences. All elected council members have vowed to fight for this cause, especially after four journalists were imprisoned last year.
Since the enactment of Law 93 of 1995, journalists have campaigned for cancelling the imprisonment provisions. Law 93 provided for tough penalties for offending journalists. Following stiff opposition from the Press Syndicate, the law was repealed and another press law was passed in 1996, but it too provided for the imprisonment of journalists for publication offences, albeit for a shorter duration. Under this law, libel is punishable by a maximum of one year imprisonment and/or a fine ranging between LE1,000 and LE5,000. If the target of the offence is a public official or if the issue is related to public duties, the maximum penalty is two years in jail and/or a fine ranging between LE5,000 and LE20,000.
The sentences given to the three journalists with Al-Shaab, mouthpiece of the Islamist-oriented Labour Party, came as a reminder of the need for the cancellation of the imprisonment provisions. However, some journalists opposed to Al-Shaab or who believe that its reporters had indeed crossed "the red line", have campaigned against them and have urged the syndicate "not to encourage such journalists."
In an editorial on Sunday, Ibrahim Nafie, Al-Ahram's board chairman and editor-in-chief, attempted to resolve the apparent contradiction. "It is the duty of all, journalists and non-journalists, to show responsibility as well as the ability to draw a distinction between what is contingent and related to a specific case and what is a general deeply-rooted principle that we all seek to affirm," Nafie wrote. He added: "The demand to cancel the imprisonment penalties for publication offences tops the demands of Egyptian journalists. It was on the list of the basic demands of all the candidates for the Press Syndicate Council elections that took place in June, taking into account the fact that imprisonment sentences had been dropped from all the press laws of developed and developing nations and replaced by a hefty fine."
Nafie said that a hefty fine "could lead to the bankruptcy of the publication that violated the rights of society and the privacy of individuals. Some countries have even established a special insurance system for the payment of fines imposed on journalists....
"Therefore, the demand has been valid and pressing for many years, and is not linked to the case of the imprisonment of colleagues Magdi Hussein, Salah Bedewi and Essam Hanafi because of the professional violations they committed against Youssef Wali," Nafie wrote.
"To endorse such a principle requires the establishment of a committee which will include experts such as former chairmen of the Press Syndicate and veteran journalists, as well as a distinguished group of legal experts who are known to advocate freedom of expression," Nafie said.
"Such a committee," Nafie continued, "would come up with a draft law that will drop imprisonment provisions for publication offences, offering the alternative of hefty fines that may reach as high as LE1 million in some cases, and guarantee the rights of society and the privacy of individuals. This will realise responsible freedom for those who work in journalism," Nafie said.
"The committee will discuss the draft with journalists and then submit it to the concerned authorities, executive and legislative. Through dialogue, a law will be enacted that will be satisfactory to all parties. Under no circumstances was there any intention or claim that the Press Syndicate's Council or General Assembly can replace the institutions responsible for enacting laws in our country," Nafie stressed.
"There is general agreement that journalists have respect for the judiciary, it being the fortress of freedom in our country. We are aware that violations are being made by the Egyptian press, be it national or party newspapers. Such violations have been increasing in the past few months, which is evident in the report compiled by the Supreme Press Council. These violations have indeed overstepped certain limits by touching on the integrity and patriotism of individuals. This has harmed the press greatly, especially when it came to libel and slander and the use of indecent language," Nafie said.
"Conceding these facts and working through the Press Syndicate to correct them does not mean that some journalists may object to the cancellation of imprisonment sentences for publication offences, even if unacceptable violations have indeed occurred," Nafie said.
"The distinction between what is a principle and what are contingent developments is essential. The call for dropping imprisonment provisions for publication offences is not an opportunity to go fishing in murky waters or inciting society against the press...
"We should not be prisoners of certain developments, making no distinction between what is good and what is bad, what is general and what is specific, allowing for doubts and suspicions to prevail. Matters have reached the point where a well-known journalist was accused of making up a statement and attributing it to the prosecutor-general, to the effect that the prosecutor's office does not have the authority to amend laws and that legislative amendments are made by the People's Assembly or by means of proposals made by the Press Syndicate," Nafie wrote.
Nafie referred to Mohamed Zayed, managing editor of Al-Ahram and a prominent writer, without mentioning his name. In an interview with Prosecutor-General Maher Abdel-Wahid published last Friday, Zayed wrote that Abdel-Wahid was in favour of the cancellation of imprisonment sentences for publication offences. However, the next day, a statement issued by Abdel-Wahid, published in most newspapers, declared that "the prosecutor-general does not have the authority to amend laws but is duty-bound to make all people respect the law and enforce it." The statement added that "it is not the duty of the prosecutor-general to be in favour of, or object to, demands related to laws currently in force."
