Watchdog calls on Lebanese authorities to respect press freedom, amend laws

Public prosecutors summoned journalists for interrogation at security agencies over the past week. (The Coalition to Defend Freedom of Expression in Lebanon/Sourced)
Short Url
Updated 06 April 2023
Follow

Watchdog calls on Lebanese authorities to respect press freedom, amend laws

  • Beirut Bar Association issues a decision to change rules governing lawyers’ relationship with the media
  • 2 Lebanese journalists were summoned last week by security agencies over published content

LONDON: The Coalition to Defend Freedom of Expression in Lebanon denounced on Wednesday the instances over the past two weeks in which authorities had summoned journalists for investigation.

The media watchdog believes the moves aim to stifle freedom of expression, according to a statement published by Amnesty International, a member of the coalition.

The Council of the Beirut Bar Association, as per the statement, issued on March 3 a decision to amend Articles 39 to 42 of Chapter Six of the Lawyers’ Code of Ethics.

The amendments seek to regulate lawyers’ relationship with media outlets, requiring the former to obtain permission from the head of the Bar Association to participate in legal seminars, conferences, interviews, discussions with media outlets, social media platforms, websites, and groups.

Nizar Saghieh, the executive director of The Legal Agenda, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, was summoned in the wake of the decision by the Bar Association to a hearing without being informed of the reasons. 

Head of the Beirut Bar Association Nader Gaspard said during a media-focused seminar on March 31 that the rising number of social media platforms had created “chaos and confusion” about “which court has jurisdiction to look into cases of defamation, libel, slander, insults and fake news, the Court of Publications or the Criminal Court.”

He announced the formation of an in-house Media Committee “to examine draft laws appropriate for the current developments and technologies,” the statement read, and called for the introduction of new legislation defining what constitutes a social media outlet, types of platforms and their function, and the conditions of their use.

The coalition said in its statement: “This new and troubling trend pursued by the Bar Association to restrict the freedoms of registered lawyers coincides with another trend that the groups of the coalition have been documenting for years, and which the authorities recently escalated, to restrict the freedom of the press.”

The coalition pointed out in its statement that powerful Lebanese political and judicial figures had in the past week resorted to criminal defamation laws “to silence criticism,” highlighting that “public prosecutors also summoned journalists for interrogation at security agencies, in violation of the Publications Law.”

Among those summoned was editor-in-chief of the Public Source website, Lara Bitar, who was the target of a complaint by the Lebanese Forces over an article about toxic waste. 

The co-founder of Megaphone, Jean Kassir, was called to questioning on March 30, a day before Bitar’s summoning, without being informed of the reasons, an act described by Amnesty International as “an intimidation tactic.”

Megaphone linked the summons to an article it published earlier in March, headlined “Lebanon ruled by fugitives from justice.” The piece named Ghassan Oueidat, the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, among several officials accused of “various crimes ranging from looting public money and illegal enrichment to obstructing the law.”

The Coalition to Defend Freedom of Expression said: “We are alarmed and worried about the direction that the Bar Association has recently taken and about the summons targeting journalists, as such actions increase the restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of the press in the midst of an escalation in the use of criminal defamation provisions, violating international standards.”

The coalition called on the Lebanese authorities and the Bar Association to “respect the protections guaranteed in the constitution and international covenants, including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

It urged the Council of the Beirut Bar Association to “reverse its decision issued on March 3, 2023,” explaining that it restricts “lawyers’ freedom of expression and subjects it to prior censorship,” harming “the community’s right to be informed of legal and judicial affairs.”

The coalition also called on the Public Prosecution Office and Lebanon’s security agencies “to stop summoning journalists for investigations… for exercising their right to free speech and exposing corruption.”

It asked Parliament to amend Lebanese laws to meet international standards, including “decriminalizing defamation and insults such that they become civil offenses that do not carry any prison sentences, prohibiting government institutions, including the army and security agencies, from bringing defamation suits,” and “providing that truth will be a complete defense to defamation, regardless of whom the defamation is directed at.”

It added: “In matters of public interest, the defendant should only be required to have acted with due diligence to ascertain the truth.”

The coalition stressed that “reforms will not be achieved in Lebanon so long as no laws are enacted to protect journalists and others who act as a watchdog, monitoring the conduct of public officials, recording their violations, and exposing their unlawful practices.

“People have the right to monitor authorities and expose their violations in order to uphold justice. The act of monitoring should not be manipulated as a means of repression by individuals with power and influence.”


TikTok calls report of possible sale to Musk’s X ‘pure fiction’

Updated 7 sec ago
Follow

TikTok calls report of possible sale to Musk’s X ‘pure fiction’

  • Rumors circulated Monday that TikTok’s owner, ByteDance, is considering selling the platform’s US operations to Elon Musk’s social media platform, X
  • Congress legislation could force TikTok to divest its US operations, requiring its parent company, ByteDance, to either sell the platform or shut it down
NEW YORK: TikTok on Tuesday labeled as “pure fiction” a report that China is exploring a potential sale of the video-sharing platform’s US operations to billionaire Elon Musk as the firm faces an American law requiring imminent Chinese divestment.
Citing anonymous people familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News had earlier reported that Chinese officials were considering selling the company’s US operations to Musk’s social media platform X.
The report outlined one scenario being discussed in Beijing where X would purchase TikTok from Chinese owner ByteDance and combine it with the platform formerly known as Twitter.
“We cannot be expected to comment on pure fiction,” a TikTok spokesperson told AFP.
The report estimated the value of TikTok’s US operations at between $40 billion and $50 billion.
Although Musk is currently ranked as the world’s wealthiest person, Bloomberg said it was not clear how Musk could execute the transaction, or if he would need to sell other assets.
The US Congress passed a law last year that requires ByteDance to either sell its wildly popular platform or shut it down. It goes into effect on Sunday — a day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
The US government alleges TikTok allows Beijing to collect data and spy on users and is a conduit to spread propaganda. China and ByteDance strongly deny the claims.
TikTok has challenged the law, taking an appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on Friday.
At the hearing, a majority of the conservative and liberal justices on the nine-member bench appeared skeptical of arguments by a lawyer for TikTok that forcing a sale was a violation of First Amendment free speech rights.
Bloomberg characterized Beijing’s consideration of a possible Musk transaction as “still preliminary,” noting that Chinese officials have yet to reach a consensus on how to proceed.
Musk is a close ally of Trump and is expected to play an influential role in Washington in the coming four years.
He also runs electric car company Tesla, which has a major factory in China and counts the country as one of the automaker’s biggest markets.
Trump has repeatedly threatened to enact new tariffs on Chinese goods, which would expand a trade war begun in his first term and which was largely upheld, and in some cases supplemented, by outgoing President Joe Biden.

Indonesia plans minimum age for social media use

Updated 10 min 45 sec ago
Follow

Indonesia plans minimum age for social media use

  • Minister Meutya Hafid said plans will “protect children in digital space,” did not specify minimum age

JAKARTA: Indonesia plans to issue a regulation to set a minimum age for users of social media, a move aimed at protecting children, its communications minister has said.
The plans follows Australia’s decision to ban children under 16 from accessing social media, with fines for tech giants from Instagram and Facebook owner Meta to TikTok if they failed to prevent children accessing their platforms.
Minister Meutya Hafid did not say what the minimum age would be in Indonesia. Her remarks, made late on Monday, came after Meutya discussed the plan with President Prabowo Subianto.
“We discussed how to protect children in digital space,” she said in a video uploaded on the YouTube channel of the president’s office.
“The president said to carry on with this plan. He is very supportive on how this kind of child protection will be done in our digital space,” she said.
Internet penetration in Indonesia, a country of about 280 million people, reached 79.5 percent last year, according to a survey of 8,700 people by the Indonesia Internet service providers’ association.
The survey showed 48 percent of children under 12 had access to the Internet, with some respondents of that age group using Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. The survey showed Internet penetration was 87 percent among “Gen Z” users, or those age 12 to 27.


Saudi Arabia chairs Arab media talks in Tunisia

Updated 14 January 2025
Follow

Saudi Arabia chairs Arab media talks in Tunisia

  • Mohammed bin Fahad Al-Harthi highlighted the importance of enhancing Arab media cooperation to address development issues and convey the voice of Arab people globally
  • Meeting was a key step toward unifying media efforts among member states, with a strategic vision focused on promoting Arab identity

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia chaired the 112th executive council meeting of the Arab States Broadcasting Union in Hammamet, Tunisia, on Tuesday, with the presence of member states and the union’s president, Mohammed bin Fahad Al-Harthi.

Al-Harthi highlighted the importance of enhancing Arab media cooperation to address development issues and convey the voice of Arab people globally, according to the Saudi Press Agency.

The meeting was a key step toward unifying media efforts among member states, with a strategic vision focused on promoting Arab identity, shared values and keeping pace with global media developments in line with the needs of Arab societies, he said.

Al-Harthi also highlighted investment projects to provide the union with sustainable financial resources, ensuring its flexibility and continuity, including the creation of a company to serve as the union’s investment arm.

The meeting reviewed the union’s achievements over the past year, discussed challenges facing Arab media and explored investment opportunities to support media integration.

It also covered preparations for the Arab Media Conference, expected to be held in Iraq later this year, which will serve as a platform for exchanging expertise and fostering media collaboration among member states.

The meeting concluded by stressing the importance of continued joint efforts to achieve the union’s objectives, elevate Arab media’s global status and present a positive, comprehensive image of the Arab world.


Pressure mounting on police to reverse ban on pro-Palestine march at BBC

Updated 13 January 2025
Follow

Pressure mounting on police to reverse ban on pro-Palestine march at BBC

  • London’s Met Police banned rally amid concern over “serious disruption” to nearby synagogue
  • Organizers pledge to hold Jan. 18 march following widespread backlash

LONDON: Calls are growing for London’s Metropolitan Police to reverse their decision to ban a planned pro-Palestine demonstration that was set to take place on Saturday outside the BBC headquarters.

The march’s organizers, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and its coalition partners, issued a joint statement on Monday urging the police to reconsider their decision.

They also highlighted their commitment to proceeding with the protest, albeit along a revised route, following widespread backlash.

“PSC are calling on all those who support an immediate ceasefire and an end to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, as well as everyone who believes in the democratic right to protest, to join us in London at 12 p.m. on Jan. 18,” the group said.

“We will assemble in Whitehall, which will allow us to form up in massive numbers in an orderly fashion, and we will march toward the BBC.”

In a statement sent to Arab News on Monday evening, Met spokesperson Chris Humphreys said that authorities were aware of the proposed new route and would meet with PSC representatives on Tuesday to discuss the matter further.

“The Palestine Solidarity Campaign has announced a new route for its march this Saturday. This route is a reversal of the original one that had been advertised,” said Humphreys.

“It is not one we have agreed and it would breach the conditions that have been imposed under the Public Order Act.

“We imposed those conditions because we were satisfied, after carefully considering the evidence, that a demonstration forming up in the vicinity of a synagogue on a Saturday, when congregants would be attending Shabbat services, would cause serious disruption. Our assessment is that a demonstration ending and dispersing from the same place would have the same impact.”

The decision to ban the march, announced last week, came amid concerns about potential “serious disruption” to a nearby synagogue.

The police invoked the Public Order Act to prevent the rally — initially agreed upon in November — from gathering at the BBC’s headquarters.

The Metropolitan Police said that their decision followed consultations with local community and business representatives, including members of the synagogue’s congregation located “very close” to the rally’s proposed starting point.

The PSC has rejected claims that the march poses a threat to Jewish communities.

In a previous statement, the group said: “There has not been a single documented case of a threat or incident at a synagogue in relation to the national Palestine marches that have taken place over the last 15 months of the Gaza genocide.”

Ben Jamal, the PSC’s director, said on Monday: “Hundreds of thousands of people wish to continue to protest at our government’s ongoing complicity with Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people.

“They also wish to protest at the complicity of the BBC, which has failed to report the facts of this genocide, as revealed in recent investigations. There are no legitimate grounds for the police to impede our proposal to march from Whitehall to the BBC, finishing with a rally outside its HQ. We call upon the Met Police to make clear they will drop any conditions which will deny the right to protest as planned.”

Over the weekend, hundreds of political, social and cultural figures voiced their support for the right to demonstrate in solidarity with Palestine.

A letter organized by a Jewish bloc that regularly takes part in Palestine marches was signed by more than 700 members of the Jewish community.

Among the signatories were Holocaust survivors and their descendants, who also penned a public letter supporting the rally.

The PSC said that they have written to the police requesting a meeting about the march.

The PSC have been contacted for comment.


BBC editor ‘considering’ legal action against Owen Jones over Israeli bias claims

Updated 13 January 2025
Follow

BBC editor ‘considering’ legal action against Owen Jones over Israeli bias claims

  • Jones published a report accusing Raffi Berg and the BBC of ‘watering down everything that’s too critical of Israel’
  • Investigation sparked wave of death threats against Berg via social media and email

LONDON: BBC Middle East online editor Raffi Berg is reportedly considering legal action against British journalist Owen Jones, following accusations in an investigative article that claimed Berg exhibited bias in favor of Israel.

The allegations have allegedly triggered a wave of online abuse and threats directed at the editor.

The 9,000-word article, titled “The BBC’s Civil War Over Gaza,” was published earlier in December by Drop Site, an investigative news platform.

In the report, Jones accused the BBC and its Middle East editor of favoring Israeli narratives in their coverage of the Gaza conflict and alleged that internal objections raised by staff were repeatedly dismissed.

According to The Times, the report has led to “a torrent of antisemitic abuse” against Berg, which BBC sources described as “the worst case of targeted abuse” they had seen at the organization.

Police are now investigating death threats made against Berg via social media and email.

Mark Lewis, a partner at the legal firm Patron Law, confirmed that he had been instructed to explore legal action on behalf of Berg.

In the article, Jones cited interviews with 13 current and former BBC staffers, who alleged that Berg “sets the tone for the BBC’s digital output on Israel and Palestine.”

One former journalist was quoted as saying: “This guy’s (Berg’s) entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel.”

Jones also claimed that internal complaints about the network’s Gaza coverage were “brushed aside” and that Berg had been given months to respond to the allegations but had not done so.

The BBC rejected the allegations, describing Berg’s role as “fundamentally mis-described.” It also denied claims that the organization had taken a lenient stance toward Israel during its coverage of the conflict in Gaza, where Israel’s war has now lasted 15 months.

The investigation has sparked significant public debate about the BBC’s impartiality in its reporting on the Gaza conflict.

While critics of the network, including Jones, have accused it of pro-Israel bias, others argue that the backlash against the BBC has fueled antisemitic rhetoric.

Jake Wallis Simons, writing in The Telegraph, criticized Jones and his supporters: “Brave Owen Jones has revealed that the corporation is actually the broadcasting equivalent of Theodor Herzl, Ze’ev Jabotinsky and Moshe Dayan rolled into one. Phew! How typical of those cunning Jews to make everyone believe the opposite.”

A petition calling for Berg’s suspension has garnered 8,000 signatures, while another demands the resignation of Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News.

The controversy has coincided with the police banning a planned pro-Palestinian march near the BBC headquarters in London earlier this month.

The protest, organized by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), cited Jones’s article in its criticism of the BBC.

In a statement, the PSC rejected any implication that its demonstrations posed a threat to Jewish communities: “The Palestine coalition rejects the implication that our marches are somehow hostile to or a threat to Jewish people.”