The collective Tunisian memory still recalls the restrictions placed on the freedoms of expression and on the media in the 1990’s as well as in the 1960’s.  In those days, and under the pretext of protecting national security and the war against an enemy that had many names, successive Tunisian governments drew many red lines—in a short matter of time, everything was prohibited.

The collective Tunisian memory still recalls the restrictions placed on the freedoms of expression and on the media in the 1990’s as well as in the 1960’s.  In those days, and under the pretext of protecting national security and the war against an enemy that had many names, successive Tunisian governments drew many red lines—in a short matter of time, everything was prohibited.

The obsessions that accompanied Tunisians during the three years that followed the collapse of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s regime can be summarized in few words: fear of trading freedom for security and opening the door to repression.

This fear returned when the Tunisian government shut down the An-Nour Radio Station and the Al-Insan TV Channel on July 20, both of which are affiliated with the Salafist movement.

Closure of ‘takfiri’ outlets

The government justified its decision by claiming that these channels, which had been using the public Monastir Radio waves for months, were inciting violence, terrorism and a takfiri—when one Muslim accuses another of apostasy—discourse.

The outlets were alleged to have repeatedly described state security and army officials using the term ‘al-Taghout,’ used by Jihadist groups to describe idolatry or worship of anything except Allah. They were also accused of encouraging jihad and the application of Islamic law in Tunisia, rejecting the Constitution and accusing those who participated in the political process in the country of infidelity.

The Al-Insan Channel was accused of similar violations, although its discourse hasn’t yet reportedly reached the level of accusing people of infidelity or incite people against infidels.

The channel’s discourse and its rhetoric have reached the levels of explicit encouragement of Jihad and the carrying of weapons in support of Islam.  This has made it hard for activists to oppose the shutdown for fear of being accused of supporting terrorism.

However, these activists, as well as many other media circles, have tended to denounce the closure and the ‘redlines’ drawn by the government.

The first to directly express its rejection of the shutdown was the Tunisian Journalists Syndicate, which stood against the use of terrorism as a pretext to undermine the freedom of the press and the diversity of the media landscape. 

Riff between the government and the Journalists Syndicate

The conflict between the Journalists Syndicate and the crisis cell formed by the government has also spilled over into the public opinion, which is divided into two parts: one side supports the government’s efforts in fighting terrorism and those who incite violence and another part finds restrictions on media freedoms very dangerous.

Ziad Dabbar, a member of the executive office of the syndicate told Correspondents: “The syndicate does not defend media organizations which encourage terrorism and promote it. The objection was more about the way the closure decision was taken, which did not rely on any legal basis.”

Dabbar believes the Independent High Authority for Audio-visual Communication is the only body authorized by Decree 116, which punishes media outlets that do not respect the laws in accordance with stipulated procedures—affected institutions have the right to seek redress in the courts.

Dabbar insists that the danger of this decision is that it creates a precedent, because it allows the government to interfere, close a media outlet, and punish it outside the framework of the law under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

The Journalists Syndicate caught the stick from the middle. It announced that it is against the closure of any media organizations without strictly following the legal procedures.

In the case of the An-Nour Radio, it said that it does not oppose the closure decision on the condition that the law is observed.  The private broadcasters’ syndicate, however, blessed the government’s decision to close An-Nour Radio and considered it a positive step, without saying where it stands regarding the decision-making mechanism.

The mechanism of the An-Nour Radio Station closure decision, as a step towards closing other privately-owned radio stations, has been taken without consulting with the constitutional commission tasked with supervising audio-visual media, according to Nouri Ellajmi, head of the commission.  Ellajmi stressed the importance of applying the law, and respecting the procedures stipulated in the Constitution and in the amended Decree number 116 of the commission.

This debate, which has raged on between the government of Mahdi Jumaa and those active in the media sector, accelerated its pace when the government announced in a statement that it had consulted with the commission before taking the decision; the latter denied this.

A source at the Prime Ministry Information Office, who spoke under conditions of anonymity, criticized the commission and said that it is careless and ineffective because of its delay in closing down media institutions that are inciting and encouraging terrorism.

The audio visual commission joins the debate

Nouri Ellajmi, head of the High Authority for Audio-visual Media was against the closure because any such decision should be taken after giving the media outlet a warning, a fine and a circumstantial closure before the final closure, as stipulated in decree number 116.

Ellajmi said this direct closure decision went against the philosophy upon which the commission was created.

In this controversy, most of the politicians in Tunisia were engaged and they all criticized the performance of the media and accused it of the absence of efficiency and professionalism.

Most of the leftist, rightist and centrist political parties have supported the decision of Mahdi Jumaa’s government to close the two channels under the slogan “We Are All Against Terrorism” and in line with the popular responses that have criticized the government’s failure in confronting terrorism.

According to many observers, this controversy brings to mind the events of the 1990’s when politicians supported Ben Ali’s regime and backed him when he took decisions, which affected the principles of freedom of expression and the freedom of media, but then 23 years later,  they said they had made a mistake.