Tunisian Media: Al-Nahda Tightens its Control

[Zied Krichen, 2nd right, editor of the newspaper \"The Maghreb\", and Hamadi Redissi, right, President of the Tunisian Observatory for a Democratic Transition, are chased by Tunisian Salafi muslims as they leave the Tunis courthouse after attending the trial of Nabil Karoui, the owner of a Tunisian private channel, Nessma TV, Jan. 23, 2012. Nearly 140 lawyers filed lawsuits against Karoui for `violating sacred values` and `disturbing public order` after his station broadcast a version of the French-Iranian film Persepolis dubbed in Tunisian dialect. Image by Amine Landoulsi/AP Photo.] [Zied Krichen, 2nd right, editor of the newspaper \"The Maghreb\", and Hamadi Redissi, right, President of the Tunisian Observatory for a Democratic Transition, are chased by Tunisian Salafi muslims as they leave the Tunis courthouse after attending the trial of Nabil Karoui, the owner of a Tunisian private channel, Nessma TV, Jan. 23, 2012. Nearly 140 lawyers filed lawsuits against Karoui for `violating sacred values` and `disturbing public order` after his station broadcast a version of the French-Iranian film Persepolis dubbed in Tunisian dialect. Image by Amine Landoulsi/AP Photo.]

Tunisian Media: Al-Nahda Tightens its Control

By : Christopher Barrie

Tunisia’s Prime Minister and Secretary-General of the ruling Islamist al-Nahda party, Hamadi Jebali, was invited to close a two-day event held in Tunis in May to celebrate World Press Freedom Day. In his speech, Jebali remarked upon the importance of a free press for a properly functioning democracy, adding that the present government in Tunisia was “fully committed to safeguarding a public and independent media.”

Despite such words of assurance, the freedom and independence of Tunisian media remain under threat. Attacks on journalists are often treated with impunity while heavy punishments are handed out to those deemed to have “disturbed public order or public morals.” To some extent, the faltering process of media reform can be attributed to the failure to adopt the new Press Code as elaborated in November 2011 by the National Committee of Information and Communication Reform (INRIC). One must, however, ask why, despite commitments to the contrary, the government and justice system have so consistently failed to implement this new law or pay heed to the recommendations of the INRIC.

Since the ruling coalition came into power in October of last year, multiple instances of violent attacks on journalists have been recorded. On 4 January 2012, police attacked two journalists covering a protest in Manouba. At a protest called by the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT) on 25 February, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) recorded seven instances of assaults on journalists at the hands of the police. During the April 9 Martyrs’ Day celebrations, RSF recorded 16 instances of assault against journalists, prompting them to send an open letter of condemnation to the Tunisian head of state arguing that RSF had “not witnessed violence of such magnitude since the overthrow of President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali.”

In the same letter, RSF called upon the government to undertake proper proceedings according to Article 14 of the Press Code, which prohibits “the humiliation or harm of a journalist, verbally or by gesture, action or threat.” Yet five months down the line, the new Press Code is yet to be implemented with any sort of consistency.

On 7 October 2011, the television channel Nessma, headed by Nabil Karoui, broadcast the Iranian film Persepolis. The film, in one sequence, shows a depiction of God, something deemed offensive by a small percentage of the Muslim population in Tunisia, which prompted a mob attack on Nessma’s Headquarters. Karoui could have faced up to three years imprisonment under Article 48 of the old Press Code for libeling a religion and up to five years under Article 121(3) of the Penal Code for distributing information that could do harm to “public order or good morals.” Ultimately, Karoui was forced to pay a fine of 1200 TND ($750). Those charged with attacking Nessma’s headquarters and intimidating or assaulting staff members were asked to pay a fine of only 9.6 TND ($6). The same article of the Penal Code was used to sentence Nasreddine Ben Saida for allowing the publication, in his Attounissia newspaper, of a picture of German-Tunisian footballer Sami Khedira in an embrace with a nude model. Ben Saida was detained pretrial and later forced to pay a fine of 1000 TND ($625). Most disturbing, however, are the cases of Jabeur Mejri and Ghazi Beji, two men who have been sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for having published a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad on the Internet. Beji fled the country and, convicted in absentia, is not able to appeal. Mejri remains in prison.

In all of these cases, the judges based their prosecutions on a previously abrogated law. Instead of the new Press Code, the judgments were based on Article 121(3) of the former Penal Code, which outlaws “the distribution, sale or public display” of any material “likely to disturb public order and decency.”

The new Press Code includes several decree laws intended to protect journalists from such unjust treatment and provides for the creation of an independent authority to regulate broadcast media – the High Authority for Audovisual Communications (HAICA). While still imperfect, this revised code does at least provide a body of law relating specifically to the media.

Most importantly, considering recent developments, Decree Law 2011-116 of the new Press Code states that all nominations to executive positions in public media institutions must be carried out with the agreement of the HAICA. Nevertheless, on 7 January, Nahda’s Jebali unilaterally named the new heads of three major state-run media institutions. The nominees, two of whom formerly held posts close to Ben Ali’s defunct Rally for Culture and Democracy Party (RCD), sparked large protests in the capital Tunis. Indeed, Mohamed Nejib Ouerghi, now head of the Société Nouvelle d`Impression de Presse et d`Edition (SNIPE), formerly held the post of editor-in-chief at Le Renouveau, the press outlet of the RCD. Mohamed Taieb Youssefi, the new head of news agency Tunis Afrique Presse (TAP) ran the Prime Minister’s office under Ben Ali in 2010.

Jebali explained that the nature of these appointments was necessitated by the urgent need to replace the former heads of these institutions and promised that such nominations, conducted without prior consultation, would be the exception and not the rule. However, on 24 April, Habib Belaid, interim director of the National Public Radio Network, was removed from his position and replaced in the same manner. Three months later, Sadok Bouabene, director of the national news channel Wataniya 1, was similarly dismissed. More recently, on 17 August, Imen Bahroun was chosen, without the knowledge of the relevant bodies, to head Tunisia’s public television network. Bahroun was previously director of Wataniya 2 and reportedly enjoys close links with Nahda.

The situation finally came to a head on 21 August. Four days prior, the editorial team at Dar Assabah, one of the oldest press outlets in Tunisia, held an “editorial strike,” leaving a blank box on the front page of their two major newspapers, Assabah and Le Temps, in place of that day’s editorial. This act of protest was provoked by the mooted replacement of the Director General of the paper, Kamel Samari, by Lotfi Touati. Touati was formerly a police commissioner under the Ben Ali regime, who also took part in a campaign to undermine the National Union of Tunisian Journalists (SNJT) in 2009. The SNJT, for its part, claim that Touati’s articles since the fall of Ben Ali demonstrate his support for Nahda.

On 21 August, a general meeting was held where it was decided, thanks to the deciding vote of Mustapha Beltaief, President of the Board of Directors at Dar Assabah, that Samari would keep his position. Following the meeting, Beltaief resigned from his post, uncomfortable with the means by which Samari’s dismissal was being sought. In a bid to take advantage of Beltaief’s resignation, the shareholders of Dar Assabah covertly convened a meeting just a few hours later naming Touati as the new Director General.

As Sami Ben Abdurrahman, judge at the administrative court, makes clear, “all these appointments to executive positions at public media institutions are illegal.” Nahda, however, continues to cite apparent flaws in the new Press Code as reason for its non-implementation.

It is clear that Nahda has failed, and continues to fail, to implement the revised law. This failure is, of course, deliberate and has severely hindered the process toward a just and accountable legal framework regulating the media industry. In July, INRIC ceased its activities, citing a “lack of willingness” on the part of the government to advance press freedoms. It is this same resolute lack of willingness which has, however, allowed Nahda to self-appoint the heads of the major public information organizations in Tunisia.

The other and more difficult question to answer is why Nahda has chosen to put a number of former close allies of Ben Ali’s RCD party at the heads of Tunisia’s major media institutions. One answer is that as long as they can ensure the loyalty of such figures, who already understand the benefits of remaining loyal to the ruling party, Nahda will extend their control over the public information services until the next elections and perhaps beyond.

In his speech to the World Press Freedom Day conference, Jebali went on to speak of his own experience of censorship and stifled press freedoms under the Ben Ali regime during his time as head of the al-Fajr newspaper. It now appears that the exigencies of political office and electoral gamesmanship have trumped any former allegiance he may have had with the media profession. It was in December 2011 that Jebali gave the first hint of his party’s intentions when remarking, on national radio, that “current media does not reflect the wishes of the people” – the people in question being those who had voted for his party. Latest events suggest that Nahda is seeking, by any means possible, to ensure that the media reflects the wishes of the ruling party. 

[This article was originally published on Al Akhbar.]

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?