RSF Italia

Il 13 dicembre la corte d’appello di Dubai ha confermato la condanna dell’editore capo del sito d’informazione Hetta.com, Ahmed Bin Gharib, a pagare una multa di 20 000 dirhams ( 3 775 euro) e 10 000 dirham (1 877 euro) per danni ed interessi a Abu Dhabi Media Company, a causa di commenti postati da internauti ad un articolo riguardante la società. Quest’ultima li ha considerati infamanti ed ingiuriosi. La corte ha ordinato anche la chiusura del sito per un mese. L’avvocato della difesa ha dichiarato di ricorrere in cassazione.

Reporters sans frontières condanna questa decisione dichiaratamente sproporzionata nei confronti di un sito d’informazione indipendente. Perché chiudere un sito per un mese per qualche commento esterno alla redazione del sito, visto che solo il suo editore ne è ritenuto responsabile? Perché la società accusatrice, prima di adire al giudice, non ha chiesto direttamente alla direzione di Hetta.com di cancellare i commenti, in spirito di conciliazione? Una tale decisione rivela la volontà di fare di questo sito un esempio per intimidire in futuro tutte le persone che intendono affrontare il grave problema della corruzione”, ha dichiarato l’organizzazione.

Hetta.com aveva sollevato un dibattito di interesse generale in merito a temi come la “corruzione amministrativa” e “l’appropriazione indebita di fondi” in seno alla società accusatrice. (http://www.rsf.org/Proces-en-appel-de-deux.html ). La maggioranza dei commenti postati dagli utilizzatori di Internet sul sito e dichiarati illegali non presentano niente di diffamatorio né di ingiurioso. In base a questa condanna e all’assenza d’illegalità di certi commenti incriminati, ci si può chiedere quale sia stata l’influenza della compagnia sulla corte d’appello.

Reporters sans frontières ha contattato la società Abu Dhabi Media Company e le autorità di Dubai per chiedere loro, innanzi tutto di lasciar cadere le accuse verso l’editore durante il ricorso, e poi di non applicare delle pene così inique e di riconsiderare le loro decisioni. E’ nell’interesse di tutti che la libertà di stampa sia rispettata.

Gli Emirati arabi uniti fanno parte di una lista di paesi sotto sorveglianza in merito alla libertà di espressione su Internet, compilata da Reporters sans frontières.

Vedere il sito di Hetta.com : (http://www.hetta.com/new/index.php)

Archiviato in: Emirati Arabi Uniti | Commenti disabilitati

The exclusive account of Courtney C. Radsch, a US journalist who was recently fired by the Al Arabiya news website (www.alarabiya.net) in the United Arab Emirates for posting information about safety violations by the national air carrier, Emirates Airlines.

“ On Sunday Oct. 4 one of my reporters asked me if we could write about a report on safety concerns at Emirates Airlines following a report about pilot fatigue. Since the report was from a respected Australian paper based on a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) for a report from the FAA (Federal Aviation Authority) and I assessed that the story was newsworthy and in the public interest. We sought and received a response from the airline which we featured in the lede and devoted an entire section of the story to. The story was on the site for about 4 hours before I received a call from Dawood al-Shirian, the manager of AlArabiya.net, telling me to remove the story from the site.

He provided no explanation and I refused to remove the story without a discussion about its merits explaining that to do so would compromise my journalistic principles. I have built a reputation as a journalist based on my professionalism, credibility and refusal to compromise on journalistic standards. I spoke with Nakhle al-Hajj, who had also expressed concern over the story, but was willing to discuss its merits. He asked me if I had spoken to a pilot or anyone else who could corroborate some of the issues in the report and I agreed to do so and add this to the story. I asked whether if I were to do that it would alleviate the need to remove the story. I interviewed an EA employee on the record anonymously who confirmed that fatigue among pilots and crew was a problem and that the airline was not adhering to the required rest time between legs and I added this to the story. I hoped that this would assuage Dawood’s concerns and attempted to call him 15 times, sent 2 text messages and an email but never received a response. He refused to take my calls and told the Arabic editor, when he called on my behalf, that he was in a meeting. I spoke to my Arabic colleagues and they explained that they had been told a few months ago not to publish anything about the airline. This had never been conveyed to me or my English team and I told them this. As it turns out the head of Emirates Airlines is also the head of the aviation authority and an al-Maktoum, a member of the ruling family. About 6 hours after posting the story I agreed to take it down out of concern for my and my fellow journalist’s personal safety (it was a dual byline story). We did not want to land in jail or be fined, which according to the new media law, was a real possibility. I decided that if Al Arabiya was unwilling to standup for what’s right and publish an important article that I was not willing to go to jail for Al Arabiya.

But an hour later we saw that Gulf News, considered a state mouthpiece that provides guidance on which stories are acceptable to publish, and Arabian Business had both published articles about the report and the airline’s denial. I called Dawood, got no answer, and texted him to let him know that other Emirati papers had published the story. I got no response. I wanted to put the story back up, but I did not have access to the CMS at home and did not want to ask my fellow reporter to put her neck on the line. The next day when I got into the office I emailed him to express my disappointment that a critical story with major pubic safety implications had not been published. The media plays an important role in putting the spotlight on companies that are not abiding by regulations or are cutting corners that put the public at risk. About an hour later I was requested to attend a meeting with Dawood and the head of Human Resource where I was informed that I had been “made redundant” effective immediately. They said the English website was being “restructured.” Less than 24 hours after publishing the story I had lost my job and have 30 days from the cancellation of my work visa to leave the country.

Residency visas in the UAE are tied to one’s job. Upon termination the employee provides the visa for cancellation to the company and is given 30 days to leave the country. If you have paid rent in advance – most landlords require rent be paid in one to four checks meaning that one has paid for at least 3 months at a time – then you will loose your money, since there is no protection for such cases and there would be no time to go to court“.

She left the UAE today.

Archiviato in: Emirati Arabi Uniti | Commenti disabilitati

An Abu Dhabi court is about to hear the appeal of Inas Al Bourini, the owner of the Hetta.com news website, and his editor, Ahmed Mohamed bin Gharib, against a fine of 20,000 dirhams (3,700 euros) that a lower court imposed on 7 September in a defamation suit by the state-controlled Abu Dhabi Media Company. The first hearing is scheduled for 12 October.

“Inas Al Bourini and Ahmed Mohamed bin Gharib were the victims of false allegations because they wrote about corruption,” Reporters Without Borders said. “We urge the appeal judge to reconsider the lower court’s verdict and to allow the accused to defend their case properly.”

The Abu Dhabi Media Company (http://www.admedia.ae/en/index.php) filed its complaint on 2 June over an article posted on the website on 4 May about Abu Dhabi TV, a station it owns. Headlined “Abu Dhabi TV: a UAE television by name only” and written by Al Bourini, the article was defamatory, insulting and humiliating, the complaint alleged.

The article claimed there was “administrative corruption” and “embezzlement” within the company. It also criticised some of the station’s programmes, nowadays mainly of an entertainment nature, and said its official positions were dictated by “foreign interests.”

Many commentators referred to the article after it was published, adding information that tended to confirm the allegations. The lower court convicted the two journalists under articles 1.3/b and 372 of the criminal code, articles 79 and 86 of Publications Law and article 16 of the Cyber-Crime Law.

Meanwhile, many websites are blocked in the United Arab Emirates, especially those referring to human rights, prison conditions, the royal family and free speech. See the list: http://www.emarati.katib.org/node/52

Archiviato in: Emirati Arabi Uniti | Commenti disabilitati