The verdict of closing down Aljazeera Mubashar– Egypt—part of the Qatari Aljazeera Network—earlier this month, created a storm of controversy in media circles with some journalists supporting its closure for “inciting violence” while others believed the verdict to be a flagrant violation of freedom of speech and expression.
The verdict of closing down Aljazeera Mubashar– Egypt—part of the Qatari Aljazeera Network—earlier this month, created a storm of controversy in media circles with some journalists supporting its closure for “inciting violence” while others believed the verdict to be a flagrant violation of freedom of speech and expression.
The Administrative Judiciary Court of the State Council said in its ruling on September the 3: “We have once thought that the channel is a blessing protecting the revolutions of the Arab Spring, but it turned out to be a devil after its true character was unveiled. It is a partner in a global conspiracy that aims at dividing the country and spreading segregation between its people and its army and police enabling, thus, a popularly rejected group to control the people of Egypt.”
“Prejudice to National Security”
In the details of the ruling’s rationale, the court pointed out that those responsible for the satellite broadcast should use their powers granted by law to stop “media tampering with Egypt’s security as the continuity of such channels is an insult and provocation for the public in the Egyptian society and prejudices national security.”
The court concluded that media in Egypt, be it audio, visual, printed or digital, “must have a social function, striking a balance between the freedom of speech and expression, society’s interests and goals and protecting values, traditions and the right to privacy.”
“Wrong Decision”
Prof. Hassan Emad Mekawi, Dean of the Faculty of Mass Communication at Cairo University believes Aljazeera Mubashar– Egyptdid not have a legal base to broadcast and demanded to hold those who allowed the channel to be present in the street accountable, especially since it “exploited the state of chaos and the rush that existed in Egypt following the revolution of January 25,” he said.
“The channel does not work professionally, it is an advertisement channel. It supports a faction that has been rejected by the people. It also spreads rumors and exaggerates in showing the demonstrations that are staged by a limited number of people. It is merely a mouthpiece of a country that takes hostile policies against Egypt.”
On the other hand, Prof. Mona Hadidi, Head of the Radio and Television Department in the Faculty of Mass Communication – Cairo University, expressed her discontent with the closure of Aljazeera Channel stressing that this ruling is inconsistent with the freedom of expression and information sharing that was called for in the January 25 revolution.
Although she believed the Aljazeera Channel “wrongly covered the latest events and breached the professional standards” she, however, disagreed that the punishment should be closing down the channel completely since “it could have been limited to a financial fine, a broadcast ban or banning one of its programs but not closing it down,” she said.
“I was surprised that the merits of the ruling includes that the channel had been working without a license or a legal basis, a matter that astonished many people and made them wonder how officials left this channel work in Egypt without any problems,” she added.
“The Ruling is Just and Logical”
Prof. Mahomoud Alam El-din, Head of the journalism department in the Faculty of Mass Communication – Cairo University, has a different view point. He believes that the ruling to stop the broadcast of Aljazeera Channel is “just and logical” as it has not abided by ethical and professional standards and has not respected the Media Code of Ethics. “This ruling was a reaction to its attempts to ignite strife and incite sabotage and violence,” he said.
In line with the court description of the ruling’s merits, Alam El-din added that Aljazeera Mubashar “was a threat to the national security of Egypt and it did not abide by the simplest professional standards, i.e. precision, objectivity and not contributing to spreading hatred and violence. The channel decided to adopt one perspective serving the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood and now we are surprised to learn that the channel’s officials are accusing the government with restricting the freedom of speech and expression as well as muffling.”
Professor Layla Abdul Majeed, Dean of the Faculty of Mass Communication – The Canadian International University, believes that the problem of the channel is that it worked without licensing all the past years and that represents “a major catastrophe” as she describes it. “No advanced respectable government with laws allow such a thing,” she stressed.
Thus, Abdul Majeed believes that this ruling is “a normal procedure that should have been taken years ago”. She added, “The other reason which made me support this ruling is that this channel was waging an indirect war against Egypt and its people. It depended on falsifying facts and spreading hatred as well as violence. It did not consider social responsibility or the ethical and professional job standards,” she explained.
Aljazeera: We Are Under a Campaign of Distortion
Ayman Jaballah, Director General of Aljazeera Mubashar– Egypt, now residing in Qatar, highlighted that media now is facing a real danger by forcing it to convey one image and one perspective. He rejected all accusations against the channel including the incitement to violence and falsifying facts.
“Aljazeera Channel is under a fierce attack of some parties and it is dealt with as if it is an occupation that must be annihilated although Aljazeera was one of the most important channels that played an important role during the January 25 revolution,” he said.
The channel director stressed that there are people in Egypt who describe any journalist or personnel working in the channel as an enemy of the state seeking to destroy it. “Despite all these attempts, the channel still attracts large audiences and the Egyptian people are aware of everything around them,” he underlined.
Concerning the verdict of closing down the channel, Jaballah said: “I do not want to comment on the verdict of preventing the broadcast of Aljazeera channel, but I want to stress that all our documents are sound and we have clear and valid licenses as well. We are taking numerous legal procedures to prove it and we are getting prepared to take other legal measures against the violations and abuses against our staff. Additionally, our channels’ frequencies have been intercepted which represents a breach of the principles of the freedom of speech and expression as well as information transfer.”
Unionists against the Ruling
“I am against closing down any mass media or newspaper,” said Abir al-Saadi, member of the Journalists Union Council, commenting on the verdict of closing down Aljazeera Mubashar– Egypt.
The media unionist stressed her refusal based on the principle of “collective punishment. The wrongdoer should have been punished or a financial fine should have been imposed on him/her, but not by closing down media. This contradicts the freedom of speech and expression.”
Al-Saadi underlined the call of the Journalists Union to the 50-member committee – which is mandated to amend the Constitution – adding an article to prevent closing any media means without a court verdict under certain restrictions, in addition to making laws to punish any person who incites violence and hatred.
Al-Saadi concluded with a warning tone to all workers in media: “If we accept this principle today for any justification, we would accept it tomorrow without any, and then it would apply to the rest of the journalism sectors and satellite channels.”
