(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – On 13 May 1998, ARTICLE 19 released the following statement regarding Egypt’s use of their Penal Code against journalists: **Updates IFEX alert of 20 April 1998** ARTICLE 19, the International Centre Against Censorship, is greatly concerned by the Egyptian governmentâs renewed use of over-broad provisions in the Penal Code to bring prosecutions […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – On 13 May 1998, ARTICLE 19 released the following
statement regarding Egypt’s use of their Penal Code against journalists:
**Updates IFEX alert of 20 April 1998**
ARTICLE 19, the International Centre Against Censorship, is greatly
concerned by the Egyptian governmentâs renewed use of over-broad provisions
in the Penal Code to bring prosecutions against journalists, editors and
proprietors of the independent media in Egypt on account of their exercise
of the internationally-recognized right to freedom of expression.
ARTICLE 19 is still awaiting a reply to a letter sent to President Mubarak
in April 1998, which expressed concern about the issues outlined below (see
IFEX alert of 20 April 1998).
Malcolm Smart, Deputy Director of ARTICLE 19 said:
“Journalists, editors and newspaper proprietors are being imprisoned as a
result of the restrictive laws, and prosecutions are having a chilling
effect on the Egyptian media as a whole, to the detriment of the public
interest.”
Law No. 95 of 1996, which was pushed through by the government in the face
of strong opposition from journalists, writers and other sectors of Egyptian
civil society, increased the severity of penal sanctions related to the
dissemination of information. It also extended the already potent menace
arising from the authoritiesâ previous use of the criminal law against
journalists.
In ARTICLE 19âs view, these restrictions, and the prosecutions being
initiated under them, breach Egyptâs obligations as a state party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The following
provisions of the Penal Code are a major concern:
Articles 86 and 174, punishing writings damaging to national unity, and
incitement to hate or ridicule of the political system – even in the absence
of advocacy of violence or indeed any tangible threat to public order – are
sweeping restrictions that exceed the scope provided for at international
law.
Articles 179 and 184, punishing offence to the President and other public
authorities, contradicts the accepted position under international law that
politicians and public officials must tolerate a greater degree of criticism
than ordinary individuals.
ARTICLE 19 is concerned that media professionals held to have violated these
laws have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment, instead of, and often in
addition to, the payment of fines. International law requires that any
sanctions must remain strictly proportionate to the harm caused by the
publication.
Penal sanctions are clearly inappropriate in matters such as defamation,
particularly in respect of public figures like the President who must
tolerate greater scrutiny. Civil remedies should provide sufficient redress
for persons offended by such publications.
ARTICLE 19 is also concerned that despite being prohibited in the Egyptian
Constitution, censorship and the closure of newspapers are increasingly
being practised. The vulnerability of publications licensed abroad to
censorship prior to their distribution, and even outright banning – as has
recently been the case with the “Cairo Times” and “Al Dustour”
respectively contravenes Egyptâs obligation under international law to
guarantee freedom of expression “regardless of frontiers.” [Article 19(2) of
the ICCPR]
Prior censorship is such a restrictive measure on freedom of expression that
it is expressly prohibited in some regions of the world and subjected to
careful scrutiny in others. Restrictions on individual liberties must be
strictly necessary to meet the exigencies of the situation, even in
emergency situations.
ARTICLE 19 therefore urges the Egyptian government to take the following
steps to comply with its obligations under international law:
publishers and proprietors on account of their peaceful exercise of freedom
of expression;
use of prison sentences in such cases;
incitement to ridicule of the political system, damage to national unity and
offence to the President.
and of the press by embarking on widespread reform of all legal provisions
affecting the media, particularly Law No.20 of 1938 on foreign publications,
Law No. 96 of 1996 on the Press Authority, as well as many emergency and
state security laws.
criminal
proceedings against the media and critics of government policy, and ensure
that the public prosecutors act with due restraint in instituting
proceedings.
