25 - 31 January 2001
Issue No.518
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 25 - 31 January 2001 Issue No.518 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Nasserist paper in court over Sadat headline
The question of freedom of expression, a recurrent theme in public debate, has again been sparked by a lawsuit being brought against the weekly newspaper Al-Arabi. This time, the controversy is swirling around the issue of slander and how far political criticism can go before it crosses the line.
A frank discussion of history is certainly permissible. An analysis of presidential policies is also fair. But does anyone have the right to denounce a deceased leader as a traitor -- and in a blaring newspaper headline to boot? The question is a bone of contention between the family of the late President Anwar El-Sadat and the two chief editors of Al-Arabi newspaper, the mouthpiece of the Nasserist Party.
A recently published editorial titled "Nasser, the hero of the age; El-Sadat, the greatest traitor" angered El-Sadat's widow, Jihan, and their four children. The family filed a libel lawsuit against the newspaper, demanding compensation of LE5 million, the closure of the paper for three months and the imprisonment of its two chief editors. The lawsuit will be heard by the criminal court of northern Cairo on 20 February.
Farid El-Dib, the lawyer of the El-Sadat family, contends that calling El-Sadat the greatest traitor is an offence punishable under Egypt's Penal Code. Legally speaking, a person is branded a traitor for committing an act that threatens the country's independence, unity, peace or safety. Spying for another country, propagating news against one's country or joining the armed forces of a foreign country with which the country is at war all fall under this definition. High treason is punishable by death under Egyptian law.
Citing the cases of the 1973 victory against Israel and the return of Sinai under the 1979 peace treaty, El-Dib claims that El-Sadat was "a symbol of patriotism" who dedicated his life to the service of his country. "El-Sadat's 1973 victory stands in sharp contrast to the 1967 setback that claimed the lives of 25,000 Egyptians," he said, adding that in any case, the defamation of anyone, even historical figures, after their death should not be allowed, since they cannot defend themselves.
Al-Arabi's chief editors, however, argue that by calling El-Sadat a traitor, they simply exercised their right to freedom of expression. Executive Chief Editor Abdel-Hamid Qandil says that the word "traitor" was merely used as a "metaphor" in a political context, and that its usage should be distanced from any strict legal definition.
"By 'traitor' we meant that El-Sadat betrayed Nasser's national development project in return for peace with Israel," Qandil explains, saying that they hold El-Sadat primarily responsible for Egypt's current economic crisis and the deteriorating conditions in Palestine. "We are not going back on our viewpoint," Qandil insists, "but we tolerate other views. The press should be an open forum for all opinions."
Al-Arabi Chief Editor Abdallah El-Sennawi has argued that a court is not the right place to settle political and intellectual disputes. "This case is a sharp reflection of the narrow margin of freedom of expression that is available," El-Sennawi said. "Criticism is a main component of liberty." Lawyer El-Dib responds that El-Sadat's family is ready to accept criticism, but not slander.
El-Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by Islamist militants angered by the signing of the peace treaty with Israel. Following the peace deal, El-Sadat was often the target of criticism and was branded a traitor on more than one occasion. It is curious, then, that El-Sadat's family should decide only now to make a stand and take the case to court. El-Dib says that slander is simply unacceptable.
But Qandil believes the move is an attempt to close down Al-Arabi because the newspaper has caused so many problems. "An announcer on the [Qatari] Jazira channel used the same term [traitor] and nobody took him to court," Qandil notes.
Asked why the newspaper chose to spark off a debate over El-Sadat now, Qandil explains that the commentary was part of its millennium issue. One interesting rumour has it, however, that slamming El-Sadat was an attempt by the Nasserist Party to close down its own newspaper. The party is suffering from internal divisions and the newspaper is mired in debt.
"This is a joke," Qandil scoffs. "No party would ever close down its own newspaper."
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
