Response to US report (part VII) [Archives:2002/29/Reportage]
F: Arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence.
The report mentions that Despite constitutional provisions against government interference with privacy, security forces routinely search homes and private offices, monitor telephones, read personal mail, and otherwise intrude in personal matters for alleged security reasons, Such activities are conducted without legally issued warrants or judicial supervision. Security forces regularly monitor telephone conversations and interfere with telephone services of government critics and opponents.
– These measures are not taken without supervision of the judiciary and whenever it is necessary and in accordance with the valid legislation and laws. They are not as the report mentioned of being carried out haphazardly, . It is also incorrect that security forces monitor telephone conversations of opponents or critics of the government. The available large margin of democracy and freedom of opinion make those people express themselves whether in press, other local and intentional media, or by holding symposiums and activities. They publicly criticize the government policies so the government does not have to resort to such outdated actions characterizing the totalitarian eras.
SECTION 2
Respect for civil liberties, including:
a: Freedom of speech and press
The report mentions The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press within limits of the law, however,the government influences the media and restricts press freedom..
– We would like to make it clear here that Yemens constitution does not limit freedom of speech, as article 42 stipulates. Law No. 25 for 1990 on press and publications guarantees the freedom of expression of opinion and thought. There should not be any mixing between limiting freedom of speech and abiding by the law regulating the question of expressing thought and opinion.
The report says Some security officials attempt to influence press coverage by threatening, harassing, and detaining journalists.
– This is a general point and has no evidence. What it mentions is inconsistent with the constitution and the law. Reality of press in Yemen stems from democracy, political pluralism and freedom of opinion and speech. The evidence is that each political party owns one or more newspaper. No party organ newspaper has been suspended because of its criticizing the government policy.
The report also mentions that The relative freedom of press permitted between unification (1990) and the civil war (1994) has not been reestablished.
– Decisions and laws regulating the press law issued in 1990 have not been changed. This means that the report contradicts itself and proves in this point the contrary of what allegations it has brought forth in the previous point which in part refutes what is mentioned in this paragraph. The opposite is correct. In course of time the experiment has been refurbished and consequently all newspapers in general have been committed, in what they publish, to the law and order in a situation quite contrary to the chaos that was prevalent at the beginning of the experiment. At that stage the newspapers gave themselves the liberty to impinge on the national constants, enrage the spirit of difference and division and instigate fanatical matters. The best description of the situation is chaos in its stark meaning rather than freedom.
Under the same paragraph the report says The ministry of information influences the media through its control of most printing presses, subsidies to certain newspapers, and its ownership of the countrys sole television and radio outlets.
– The government does not control but of three printing presses while there are more than 20 commercial printing presses in the capital Sanaa only let alone the number of printing presses in other governorates. Concerning the government subsidies they do not exceed 5000 rials a month offered by the ministry of information to each newspaper, whether it were party organ or independent. This stresses the governments keenness on supporting press and consequently supporting the freedom of expression, not the contrary, as it was mention in the report. The government does not have any objection against owning TV. or radio outlets or TV. channels by individuals or private or partisan organizations as long as there is legal legislation regulates that and as long as they abided by them. The question is the unavailability of financial and human potentials with those who are willing to enter this field.
The report mentions that Press law regulations specify that newspapers must apply annually to the government for licensing renewal, and that they must show continuing evidence of $4,375 (700,000) in operating capital. Some journalists claim that regulations were designed to drive some opposition newspapers out of business.
– For clarification of this point we confirm that regulations are organizational procedures aimed at defining the operating capital of the independent newspapers only. Opposition parties newspapers are not meant by this decision. They are treated in the same way as the newspapers of mass organizations and those of governmental institutions. According to this clarification, the targeted is not freedom of opposition press but rather the contrary. Opposition press is exempted from organizational financial measures that are applied to commercial press.
In another portion, the report mentions Although newspapers ostensibly are permitted to criticize the government, journalists at times censor themselves, especially when writing on such sensitive issues as government policies toward the southern governorates, relations with Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments, and official corruption. The penalties for exceeding these self-imposed limits may be arrest for libel, dismissal from employment or extrajudicial harassment.
– The report has previously repeated the same allegation since 1996 and in the same generalized phrasing and in this year it has not come with anything new. It could have depended on certain realities if what the report has mentioned was true so that we would be able to give our reply in detail. Regarding what has been mentioned that the journalists at times censor themselves, we think this is a good initiative. The successful journalist is he who can communicate the message to the reader and at the same time keeps to the national constants and legal texts. Many newspapers and journalists have learnt the ways of using texts of the law through exploiting any gaps if existing in them and evading commitment of apparent violations, as well as to let pass sharp criticism against the government or any of its institutions. These are among the advantages acquired by the press through accumulated practice and experience. Those who exceeded texts of he law and gave themselves the freedom to attack whoever they want without fear of accountability, judiciary is then the judge and protector of rights of citizens or institutions.
The report mention that Following what it deemed was irresponsible reporting on an alleged military helicopter crash, in May the ministry of information issued a circular to local newspapers and magazines prohibiting publication of information or news pertaining to the armed forces before consulting with the ministry of defense.
– That circulation had been issued according to the law of press and publication and its rules of procedure that ban publication of any information or news pertaining to armed forces and issues of defense and security unless they are derived from their responsible and officially authorized sources and within the limits permitting them.
The report mentions that During the year, journalists continued to be detained for questioning for short periods of time for writing articles that were critical of the government or that the government considered sensitive, primarily issues involving Saudi Arabia. However, the decline in number of such incidents from 1999 continued…
– Here the report once again is contradicting itself . In the above paragraph it mentions that the government allows its being criticized by the press but now it mentions a general allegation that the government detains the journalist who criticizes it. This is an allegation in need of a proof from reality that affirms non-existence of any detention of any journalist because of his profession as a journalist and because of an article he has written. But this does not mean that the journalist is above the law . He is as any other citizen. If he has broken the law or violated others rights, he would be responsible for what may result from violating the laws and rules, as any other citizens.
The report claims that In January a Sanaa court found al-Shumu newspaper guilty of libeling Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and ordered it to suspend publication for a month…. Al-Shumus editor in chief, Seif al-Hadhiri was also fined $59 (10,000 riyals).
– Al-Shumu newspaper had appealed that verdict and the case is still before the court of appeals, not decided yet. The newspaper is independent and not an affiliate of the ruling General Peoples Party, as claimed in the report.
The report says In February 2000, the ministry of information referred a complaint from the ministry of foreign affairs to the Sanaa court against Dr. Qassem Sallam, the secretary general of the opposition Arab Socialist Baath Party, and the partys newspaper, Al-Ihya al-Arabi, for an article Sallam wrote entitled The Dangerdom of Saudi Arabia which alleged that there were supporters in the Saudi leadership.
– The ministry of information did not bring a case against Dr Qassem Sallam but rather referred a complaint it had received from the foreign ministry to press and publications prosecution which the side authorized to investigate into complaints against newspaper. The prosecution had undertaken the investigation in the complaint that said that the newspapers editor in chief Abdul Wahid Hawash published articles in which he had targeted some members in the Saudi leadership, a matter makes him liable to legal accountability. The government of Yemen, out of its keenness on higher national interests and distinguished relations with all countries, does not permit using territories of the Yemen Republic for any kind of assailment on any sisterly or friendly country. The press law categorically prohibits criticizing any personality on a personal basis. Personal libel is legally prohibited against ordinary people therefore when it concern officials or kings in other countries it is taken as a serious matter. Such irresponsible handling by press essentially impinges on higher national interests and also encroaches Yemens foreign relations and policies.
Final part VIII is to
be published next week
——
[archive-e:29-v:2002-y:2002-d:2002-07-15-p:./2002/iss29/report.htm]
