Al-Ahram: A Diwan of contemporary life (481)
Laws in print
As late as 1880, Egypt had no laws regulating the press. Rather, "royal will" had the power to toss a journalist into prison for allegedly exceeding the limits. However, such arbitrariness would not continue. The growing number of local and foreign publications, writes, Professor Yunan Labib Rizk* , would make legislation inevitable
Salim Taqla
|
When applying to the Ministry of Interior in 1875 for a permit for Al-Ahram, Salim Taqla chose his words very carefully. The newspaper he intended to produce would restrict itself to the publication of "wire releases; news on commercial, agricultural and domestic affairs; matters pertaining to morphology, grammar and the Arabic language in general; items on medicine, sports, historical events; literary material such as proverbs, anecdotes, poems and stories; and other such material that can be published without broaching political matters".
Nevertheless, in 1879, the Khedive Ismail had Salim's younger brother, Bichara, imprisoned for an article that appeared in the newspaper's supplement. "The oppression of the peasant", as it was called, reeked of "politics". The khedive released Bichara after three days, but only upon the intervention of the consul-general of France, with which the Taqla brothers had subject status.
As this incident illustrates the press, even though enjoying immunity under the Capitulations System, was a perilous profession. A dramatic change, though, would come by way of Egypt's first Publications Law, as it was called, the text of which appears in Freedom of the Press in Egypt: 1798-1924, by Khalil Sabat, Sami Aziz and Yunan Labib Rizk. Promulgated on 26 November 1881, the new 23-article law established a number of restrictions. For example, no periodical could publish material on political, religious or government administrative affairs without official permission. Newspaper owners were required to pay insurance of LE100 for daily publications and LE50 for publications appearing three times a week or less. The law gave the minister of interior the right to suspend or close down a publication on the grounds of safeguarding public order, religion or public morals. The minister was also empowered to prohibit the import or sale of newspapers.
Soon after this law was promulgated the Orabi Revolution erupted and the law proved an effective government weapon against mouthpieces for the uprising. In 1882 the British occupied Egypt. It is commonly believed that the occupation authorities stopped enforcing the Publications Law since the British consul-general in Egypt, Lord Cromer, was a reputed advocate of freedom of the press. The authors of Freedom of the Press in Egypt, however, discovered otherwise. The law remained in operation for another 12 years. Ultimately, they had to face the reality that the immunities under the Capitulations System afforded to foreign newspaper owners or Arabs, generally of Syrian extraction, who enjoyed the protection of nations benefiting from the capitulations, impeded effective application of the law. In addition, during the tug-of-war between Dubara Palace and Abdeen Palace, headquarters of British consul- general and the khedive, respectively, the Publications Law proved a two-edged sword. The British authorities discovered that Abbas II could just as easily invoke the law against the pro- occupation press as they did against nationalist newspapers. It was thus that in 1894 that the Publications Law was shelved though not rescinded.
Developments over the first decade of the 20th century would inspire authorities to change their attitude on the Publications Law. The dismay stirred by the Entente Cordiale between France and Britain in 1904, in accordance with which Paris relinquished claims in Egypt, and by the Taba incident of 1906, which occurred when Istanbul asserted claim to the southern Sinai, hastened the rising tide of Egyptian nationalism. The movement was given further impetus with the introduction of the party system in 1907, which brought to the fore the popular Nationalist Party. As the decade progressed, Abdeen and Dubara Palaces increasingly found themselves in the same corner, and following the departure of Cromer, they began to make common cause against the nationalists. Once again, the Publications Law exerted its lure as an instrument the authorities could wield against their adversaries. In March 1909, under the government of Butros Ghali, it was reinstated.
However, it was not until the assassination of Prime Minister Ghali in February the following year that the Publications Law was applied on a wide scale. Once again, newspapers could be suspended or closed by a decree by the minister of interior instead of by judicial ruling. In addition, the law was modified so as to subject journalistic offences to the criminal court instead of the court of misdemeanours. The application of the provision of this law brought the closure of most National Party newspapers, including Al-Liwa' and Al-Alam, leaving only its mildest mouthpiece, Wadi Al-Nil, published in Alexandria. At the same time, other major newspapers were brought down by other factors: Al-Mu'ayyid because of the death of its owners and Al-Garida because the Umma Party of which it was a mouthpiece dissolved. Of the widest circulating newspapers only Al-Ahram and Al-Muqattam remained by the end of the pre-war period. The outbreak of war, the declaration of the British protectorate over Egypt and the imposition of martial law, finished off the rest of the nation's minor newspapers.
With the Declaration of 28 February 1922 and the promulgation of the Constitution of 1923 a new era was ushered in. On 22 June 1931, a front page Al-Ahram article relates the state of freedom of press in Egypt over the previous decade:
"The constitution provides for the respect for civil liberties in every sense. It states, 'Freedom of belief is absolute and freedom of opinion is guaranteed. Every individual has the right to express his ideas through speech, writing, pictures or other media within the limits of the law, and the press is free within the bounds of the law.' Regrettably, selfishness and vanity have squandered that freedom and rendered this constitutional provision no more than ink on paper. When the constitution was written, Saad Zaghlul said, 'Words are one thing, acting on them is another.' How true his observation proved to be. How many writers have been harmed in the era of the constitution and how many newspapers were destroyed or fought even in the age of Wafdist majority parliaments and cabinets? The Al-Akhbar and Al-Kashkul incident is still vivid in our minds, as is the campaign against Al-Siyasa at the time of its opposition to the government. These events took place in the presence of the constitution as the houses of parliament held their meetings in Egypt. The penal code should have been sufficient to penalise the sinful aggressor, if a sin or aggression was committed in the first place."
The author of the preceding passage was an Al-Ahram reader called Masoud Farag Masoud, and he had good reason to be angry.
Just three days earlier, on 19 June 1931, the Egyptian press published the official text of a new Publications Law, the country's second such law since the one promulgated 50 years earlier. The news took the public completely by surprise and such was the outcry that the minister of interior hastened to issue an explanatory statement.
The idea of promulgating a new law dated back to the Mohamed Mahmoud government of 1927, the minister claimed. That government felt that harsher penalties were needed in order to deter the press from "various forms of disruption of public order, a decay of public morals or defamation of character". The law also had to be clearer in attributing responsibility "so that it will not be lenient with those who call themselves representatives of the press".
The statement asserted that journalism, more than any other profession, demanded of its practitioners the highest level of integrity "due to its extensive and powerful influence". While it was possible that there were individuals in this profession who did not meet this condition, "the status of those professionals is no greater than ordinary workers, for they, too, must have someone to supervise and be accountable for their work. It is this man who must possess certain qualities, not all members of the press."
The statement then proceeded to outline the modifications to the old law that were potentially controversial, beginning with Article 7 which stated:
"Editors-in-chief or those responsible for the newspaper must possess the following qualities. First, they must be Egyptian if the newspaper is published all or in part in Arabic. Second, they must be no less than 25 years of age. Third, they must be of sound mind. Fourth, they must not have received convictions for or attempted to perpetrate a crime or theft, concealing stolen goods, fraud, confidence trickery, forgery, using counterfeit documents, perjury, inducing others to perjury, sexual assault, luring minors into prostitution or vagrancy, or perpetrating a misdemeanour in order to evade military service. Fifth, they must have no record of dismissal from a job for actions impugning their honour or soundness of behaviour. Sixth, they must not have received more than one conviction for perpetrating crimes listed in sections 14 and 17 of the penal code. Seventh, they must be of sound character. Eighth, they must not be members of parliament."
These conditions are not harsh or excessive, the minister's statement observed. The purpose of requiring the editor-in-chief of an Arabic-language newspaper to be Egyptian was to ensure that he could be subject to prosecution in the Egyptian courts if necessary. The third and fourth conditions were requirements for voter eligibility, "for it is difficult to imagine that an editor-in- chief who deals in public issues would not be a voter". The conditions pertaining to good character were equally required for the practice of law. Finally, the stipulation of non-membership in parliament was inspired by provisions in European constitutions and press laws such as those of Italy and Yugoslavia. The minister added, "Such a condition is not demeaning to the journalistic profession. Rather, it is to obviate any connection between the responsibility of the journalist and the possible irresponsibility of the parliament member. Were an individual who enjoys parliamentary immunity to become editor-in-chief of a newspaper that would impair his journalistic responsibilities. Such a situation would tarnish the name of the press while granting it an unwarranted privilege."
The minister of interior then turned to articles 10 and 11 of the new press law. The first stipulated LE300 in insurance for newspapers appearing three or fewer days a week and a LE500 deposit. Article 11 stipulated that newspapers appearing three or more times a week should possess their own printing press, owned by the individual or company that publishes the newspaper. These prerequisites aimed at ensuring that newspaper founders were sincere and committed to their work. Owning a printing press was "essential under ordinary circumstances for the serious pursuit of press publication when a newspaper is to appear daily" and it was "a duty now that closure of the press and impounding its equipment have become penalties against persons operating a newspaper".
Article 16 of the new law stated that the editor-in-chief was responsible for issuing corrections for wrong information that appeared in the paper and apologising. Such corrections or apologies had to appear in the newspaper in the first edition after receiving official notification to issue such a correction or apology, or in the subsequent edition, and in the same place and in the same font as the original offending article had appeared. The minister's statement argued that this provision was modelled on recent legislation in Austria, which also clarified the instances when the editor-in-chief need not publish a correction or apology.
Under Article 25 of the press law, the cabinet, based on a request filed by an educational institute or an organisation charged with the protection of youth, could prohibit the circulation of a publication on the grounds that it corrupted the young. This article, too, was inspired by provisions in Austrian law which sought to safeguard the young from the growing tide of publications "known as pornography, which aim to arouse their carnal desires and lure them into sin". This form of corruption "has come to pose great peril to society, the effects of which are visible in Europe and in Egypt".
The minister of interior's statement did little to appease public opinion which engaged in that ever-recurring battle over the freedom of the press.
Events in parliament on 1 July 1931 must have taken the government of Ismail Sidqi by surprise. After all, Sidqi had promulgated a new constitution that he thought would ensure a completely loyal parliament. And indeed, the majority of parliament consisted of members of the two royalist parties, Al-Shaab and Al-Ittihad, with a handful of members from the National Party which had agreed to cooperate with the Sidqi era. There was no sign of Sidqi's adversaries, the Wafd and the Liberal Constitutionalists, the country's largest parties, which had opposed the new constitution and boycotted the parliamentary elections that were held under its provisions. Certainly, the new press law would deal with such a problem without the slightest hitch, or so Sidqi must have imagined before the Nationalist Party threw down the gauntlet before that overwhelmingly pro-government parliament.
The minutes of that day's session, published in Al-Ahram the following day, furnish a detailed portrait of the events in the chamber. Addressing the assembly, Nationalist Party leader Hafez Ramadan said, "Gentlemen, you find in the speech to the throne a collection of proposed legislation, of which I would like to address one: the Publications Law. We are all aware that dangerous parasites have penetrated and crawled up the tree of the Egyptian press, reaching the lowest depths of depravity and the highest degrees of slander and calumny."
The speaker was compelled to pause here due to the thunderous applause with which the "government's deputies", as the Wafd Party press described the majority of the house, greeted his introductory remarks. When the applause subsided, he resumed: "However, the presence of these parasites does not mean that our remedy should consist of legislation that severs this tree at its roots, for the health of the press is directly dependent upon the freedom of opinion and expression, the crown of all freedoms. Any law we introduce must therefore conform with the proper approach, which is to eliminate the parasites, not fell the tree. Yet in the first article of the Publications Law we find financial obligations that those parasites might be able to sustain but that many noble journalists among us might not. It would have been more appropriate for the law to give ethical and technical restrictions priority over other considerations." Before the prime minister interrupted him, Hafez Ramadan managed to add that not all financial obligations should apply to all newspapers equally because "the degenerate obscene press is more equipped to undertake these obligations than the sober polite press".
If the Nationalist Party delivered the first salvo against the new law the second came from the press. Spearheading the opposition were the Wafd Party newspapers, Al-Balagh, Al-Diaa and Kawkab Al- Sharq, and some non-partisan newspapers. Al-Ahram unleashed an impassioned campaign against the new law, drawing on the resources of its own writers and of its mail box.
Foremost among the Al-Ahram staff writers to speak out against the law was Abdullah Hussein who produced two articles on the subject, the first entitled, "The position of the press and journalists under the new constitution", and the second, "Observations on the new press law". Hussein objected to the minimum age requirement for editor-in-chief. "There are school magazines run by students and there are teachers bearing higher educational certificates who are less than 25," he pointed out. He also criticised Article 10 prohibiting individuals who have been found guilty of acts impugning their honour from becoming editors-in-chief. He argued that rehabilitated offenders should not be prevented from writing for publication as this skill qualifies them for employment.
Hussein expressed his surprise that members of parliament should be barred from supervising the publication of a newspaper. "We do not want our parliamentary representatives to be unemployed, and what liberal profession is more in touch with parliamentary activities than journalism?" Turning to the financial guarantees newspaper owners or operators were expected to pay, he could not fathom why such a demand was being made "at a time when all are aware that newspapers are reeling under the worst possible economic circumstances". Not only did newspapers' revenues fall into a slump in the summer when subscriptions and advertisements fell off, but the press was suffering in general from the global and domestic economic crisis.
Al-Ahram's Ahmed El-Sawi Mohamed entered the fray in his column "Short but significant", appearing on 20 June. Echoing Abdullah Hussein's views, El-Sawi described the new law as a form of "obstinacy". "Demanding financial guarantees is obstinacy and requiring possession of a printing press is another facet of obstinacy," he wrote. After continuing further in this vein, he concludes: "If its purpose is to fight certain individuals, this law is, without a doubt, a two-edged sword. And why should a newspaper owner or editor-in-chief be barred from parliamentary membership? What is the secret behind this prevention? How is the press to be represented in parliament? Journalism is the noblest of professions because it guides the people to victory in war and during times of trouble and it leads them to courage and patience when everything around them evokes despondency and despair."
Al-Ahram also took the occasion to relay observations and criticisms that appeared in other national newspapers. From Al- Balagh it cited an article reporting that the government's Shaab (People's) Party did not possess a printing press for its newspaper, but rather had it printed at the Ittihad Party's press. "How can the government expect people to respect its decisions when it is the first to break the rules?" the writer asked.
Abul-Hol, another newspaper cited in Al-Ahram, asked other pertinent questions: "Who is the press to turn to for the resources it needs to enable it to serve the public as it wishes? What will happen when the country loses powerful and beneficial portions of its press?"
Nor did Al-Ahram restrict itself to the Arabic press. From the French-language Journale de Caire it cites an article condemning the new law "for which there is no practical excuse for its existence". The article continues, "This law will never be just unless it lightens certain provisions such as compelling existing newspapers to have their own printing press and to pay insurance worth LE300. At least newspapers should be able to benefit from acquired rights as occurred with the implementation of the 1881 law."
Since those who stood to lose the most from the new law were the owners of small publications, they gathered around the collective plea not to apply the financial provision on the law retroactively.
On 20 June 1931, Al-Ahram dedicated space for them to present their case. At the time 20 magazines were published in Egypt. To their owners, these magazines were their source of income, or to use the title of Salama Mousa's Journalism: A Career and a Mission, these magazine owners needed their careers. That they felt their careers were in jeopardy is evident from the wording of their grievance: "We do not believe that the Sidqi government, which has done so much good for the country, intended to impose this financial restriction in order to handicap journalists. What harm would come were it to show compassion for those journalists and substitute the financial deposit with a personal guarantee so that the restriction does not bring ruin to the many families whose livelihood has and continues to depend on the press."
From the commentaries Al-Ahram cites from the British press, it appears that British opinion was divided over the new law. For example, while African World came out in favour the Saturday Review denounced it so cogently that Al-Ahram felt compelled to publish its article in full. The following day, the article was also the subject of Mae Ziyadah's editorial to which she gave the headline: "A prize I dedicate to the Saturday Review for its comments on the press law and democracy". The famous poet and commentator had encapsulated the issue in a nutshell.
* The author is a professor of history and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre.
