Above the Law

On June 23^rd, Egyptian courts convicted several Al Jazeera reporters to sentences between seven and ten years. And the world roared.

Mia Farrow tweeted: “Considering a trip to #Egypt? Skip it. You could end up in prison for 7 years for spying – they don’t need ANY evidence to convict you.” Jon Stewart, too, finds the prosecution “shamy," and is repulsed by the cage the reporters were in. I, too, find the cage repulsive, but in the same cage Egyptian Presidents faced their judges. The journalists are no better than Egyptian presidents.

The Huffington Post says, “Jon Stewart loves to go after Egyptian president Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, but never has he had more reason to take him on than now.”  And BBC staff held a silent vigil in protest against the sentencing. 

And in an unsettling discussion on Twitter, much to my disappointment, a human rights watcher suggests I don’t watch or read Al Jazeera if I find it inciting.

I’m not equipped to defend the sentencing or go against it, and by the way neither are all those noisemakers. The sentences are harsh and maybe even unfounded, but my take is with the defenders. What they are doing is threefold: one, assume that the judicial system in Egypt has been coerced into its verdict, that journalists are infallible, and that Egypt will listen to the uproar. 

The first argument is offensive. I regard the judiciary system in Egypt with respect. I hope that it has the wisdom and clout to carry out its sentences void of pressure from within Egypt, be it from authorities or Egyptians, or from the world, be it the journalists or the Mia Farrows. I hope that it maintains a high standard in dealing with the horrendous pressure that has been put upon its shoulders with the hundreds of cases and the hundreds of insinuative and demoralizing attacks.

The second argument is not very explainable. Just about everyone assumes that these journalists are innocent. I can neither vouch for or against the journalists, but I know that journalists are human. They can, like anyone else, side with or against an issue, be bought or at least be paid to lobby for a cause, or become tools in a propaganda scheme.

The journalists’ Code of Ethics entails seeking truth and reporting it, being honest, fair, and courageous, upholding accuracy of information, and averting deliberate distortion. Whether journalists, in general, pursue the rigid guidelines of such an oath is a matter I can't attest to. Though other professionals vow to similar oaths, policemen abuse and kick their fallen detainees, accountants forge and deceive, and politicians lie to their teeth. Why are journalists any better?

On day one of the Egyptian January 25th Revolution, Al Jazeera egged Egyptians on against Mubarak, then it hailed Morsi blindly, and later it denounced Sisi with a vengeance. An obvious propaganda machine, it never hid it allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood and its discard of Egypt, its army, and, in particular, it current president, Sisi.

Al Jazeera’s Ahmed Mansour and Alaa Sadek have called for the death of Egyptian journalists and Egyptian soldiers and officers. Names, cell phones, and addresses of officers involved in cases against the Muslim Brotherhood were highlighted. Officer Mohammed Mabrook, referenced in that same list, was shot in front of his home. 

Here is Alaa Sadek’s tweet (translated from Arabic):

“Any officer who killed a civilian deserves an immediate death. The names and faces of these officers are known, and their addresses are known, too. Retribution must follow. It is time revolutionists seek revenge against these criminals.” If this is pursuance of the journalist Code of Ethics, then Al Jazeera is truly a victim. These are mere examples of what journalists are capable of saying. 

The third argument is that Egypt may listen to the uproar and react. The noisemakers don’t realize that Sisi has already said that neither he nor the government will get involved in judicial decisions. This means that a pardon is out of the question, and that an appeal is their best bet. Indeed, Sisi should not get involved. It is up to the court to deal with the case the way it deems fit.  

More than anything else, I ask these folks not to involve themselves in Egyptian affairs. Egypt, hopefully, has outgrown this era where it listened to others and acted accordingly.

I’m for a fair and just trial; I’m for freedom of the innocent, and I do want these journalists freed, but I’m against alluding to fake assumptions and portraying Egypt as a bully.

 

Comments

[Shahira Amin]

dear Azza,
your argument is valid: there should be no outside interference in Egypt's internal affairs and no coercion of judges. The judiciary needs to be independent and not politicised. I would have agreed with you on many of the points you mention especially the part about the role of journalists and their ethics expect that in this particular case, the "facts" do not match what has been happening on the ground. The three defendants are award winning highly professional journalists of the best calibre. I happen to know Mohamed fahmy personally and he is a man of integrity and high repute. He risked his life to rescue a female journalist who was being assaulted by a mob outside the Israeli Embassy. He was reluctant to reveal the names of his crew members out of concern for their safety when many others would have obliged under pressure from police. And he is totally liberal with no links to the MB whatsoever. He even protested against Morsi's government in Tahrir on June 30. Mohamed would never ever fabricate news or try to tarnish Egypt's image. Peter too won a Peabody award for his reporting on Somalia. I attended all the court sessions and we watched the videos with footage that prosecutors alleged was "evidence" against them. There was not one shot in all the videos shown that proved they were assisting a terror group. One clip was of a Kenyan safari, another was of Peter's parents on holiday somewhere and a third was of a kenyan official speaking about the bombing of the mall in Nairobi. a fourth clip was a report on the protests in Cairo but by another news network not AJ. where then is the evidence? You may be right about AJ Arabic being pro Islamist but there's a huge difference between its coverage and that of AJE which is balanced and shows all viewpoints. Please don't hurl accusations based on the official narrative. The only" crime" these journalists can be accused of is working without valid credentials which they have admitted they did. This merits a fine . they have already spent nearly 180 days behind bars. isn't that enough? As for news fabrication that harms the country's reputation, that is what the local privately-owned channels can easily be accused and are guilty of.

[azza radwan sedky]

You are really making valid points here. I don't argue with your points one bit. Mind you though I did not hurl accusations at anyone.
Quite the contrary I merely said I'm not equipped to defend or be against the sentences. I also said that the sentences maybe harsh and unfounded, but my take is a more holistic one. Many are defending blindly because they assume that journalists do not err. Not true.
Tell me that these men did not err, and I will accept it, but to assume that all journalists are free of fault is unacceptable.

[Shahira Amin]

nor did I say that journalists do not make mistakes and I did point out the one mistake these journalists made : work without valid credentials. Other than that they are innocent of all charges against them. the trial was farcical and the charges against them outrageous to say the least. That is why the world is shocked and appalled at the verdict

[Lily Badrawy]

Without even getting into the issues, very generally, I remain focused on the fact that the West and other governments retain for themselves the right to scrutinize and criticize Egyptian judiciary and other institutions without reference to national borders. Egypt is Egypt and the USA is the USA..... Each have their areas of jurisdiction. There are trillions of examples of transgressions (Guantanamo the most flagrant) and others. What did the world do, but turn a blind eye most of the time?

[azza radwan sedky]

Well said, Lily.