 |
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 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Focus Culture Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters The golden mean
By Salama Ahmed Salama
Interaction between the press and political institutions may spark disputes that can only be settled in courts, but it is a sign of a healthy society, one that seeks an equilibrium between freedom and responsibility. When interaction ceases, and voices are stifled, we are ultimately in a prison where all varieties of ideas and people are locked up.
Today, we are witnessing another one of the battles fought by the press everyday all over the world. Once again, the press is attempting to prove its right to publish material the government would rather keep buried. This battle is being fought regardless of the consequences, and in the absence of any criteria allowing us to distinguish valid criticism from slander.
In the case of Youssef Wali (the deputy prime minister and minister of agriculture) versus the journalists of Al-Shaab, the court found the journalists guilty and sentenced them to a prison term and the payment of a fine. The case was appealed, and we are still waiting for the ruling. Since publication crimes are not among the cases in which the defendants commonly seek to escape justice, efforts today are aimed at suspending the execution of the sentence by the first degree court, until the higher court pronounces its verdict. This is only fair, and it is common practice today.
The second matter relates to the need to abolish penalties for publication crimes that limit journalists' freedom. Imprisonment as a punishment for libel has been discarded by most democracies today, but attempts to amend the law are facing immense resistance despite the relentless efforts journalists, the press syndicate and the Supreme Press Council have made since 1993. The sole objection to the demand to stop incarcerating journalists for libel and slander (as publication crimes are often designated) is that such crimes, in different contexts, are punishable by prison. Hence, it is the constitutionality of the matter that is in question: why should journalists not receive the same penalty as other members of society for committing the same crime?
Much can be said to refute this argument. First, by its very nature, journalism requires a considerable amount of personal initiative to secure news material, which is not the case for other occupations. A doctor whose faulty diagnosis causes the death of a patient does not go to jail, but may be asked to pay a fine or may see his licence to practice withdrawn for a period.
Had the long-awaited amendment related to the incarceration of journalists in publication crimes been introduced in a timely manner, the case of Wali vs Al-Shaab would never have gone so far. The gap between the rights and duties of the government and the freedoms and responsibilities of the opposition has opened up opportunities for misunderstanding and poor democratic performance. Our courts are facing a deluge of similar cases. When Al-Shaab unleashed its campaign against Wali, accusing him and his ministry of cooperating with Israel, no attempt to refute the charges came from Wali, his spokesman, his ministry or the government. The campaign, which raged for months, was received with absolute silence. It would seem that a political and legal trap was carefully being laid, giving the newspaper and its journalists all the time in the world to become inextricably entangled. The government's arrogant response to criticism has very little to do with the response expected in any democracy, where opposition parties and the public exercise their right to information. Had the government exercised its authority with the necessary transparency, and had we sufficiently trusted the people's ability to understand the meaning of public interest, such campaigns would have been aborted before they began. Evidently, the opposition press is responsible for pursuing allegations not founded on sufficient proof, and can only blame itself for falling into the trap that was waiting for it. In this case in particular, and at this juncture in the democratisation process, the government's task is immense. While it alone possesses any existing evidence (which it does not often share with other parties), it is responsible for preventing opposition parties from engaging in activity detrimental to the public good. Ambushing enemies in the hope of catching them red-handed is not an exemplary way of exercising political power.
