Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/552518-h ... -media-law

Quoted in full:

by Soren Billing on Monday, 13 April 2009


Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Monday urged the UAE to clarify and amend parts of its pending media law, which the government is hoping will help develop a free media in the country.

The New York based group said that although the pending law is a significant improvement over the existing one, steep fines for journalists who breach it means it will fall short of the government’s stated goal to rid the media of self censorship.

“I think it undermines that reform mentality,” said Samer Muscati, a researcher at the MENA division of HRW.

“This is why we are trying to encourage [the government] to analyse the law again, to see how it will affect journalists.”

Under the new law, anyone who “disparages” senior government personnel or members of the royal family may be fined up to AED5 million ($1.36 million).

Article 33 of the law penalises anyone who “disseminates misleading news to the public in such a way that it may harm the national economy” by as much as AED500,000.

HRW noted that a number of provisions in the law represent significant improvements, such as the removal of criminal penalties and the protection of journalists’ sources.

But Muscati said it remains unclear whether a journalist could be sent to jail for failing to pay a fine.

The Federal National Council (FNC) passed the draft law in January, and the bill now awaits cabinet and presidential approval.

HRW said it is hopeful that the legislature will take its recommendations into account and revise the pending law.

In a statement carried by state news agency WAM, the National Media Council (NMC), the country’s media regulator, said that HRW’s criticism did not represent a fair assessment of the law.

Article 32 of the draft law states that fines can be imposed as penalties on those who are deemed to insult “the person” of the head of state or other senior federal government officials, and not the way in which they perform their duties, it said.

“Within the context of the system of government and the value system on the United Arab Emirates, personal attacks on senior officials, relating to their personal status, beliefs or behaviour, are considered to be unacceptable, even if such personal attacks, or ‘insults to the person’, are permissible in other countries,” the regulator said.

“The NMC makes no apology for drawing a distinction between personal insults and professional forms of criticism.”

Seems that the UAE just can't win now. They are right to stop the press from making personal insults, Western journalism is rank with vindictive personal attacks on politicians, celebrities, just anyone, and often based on half truths with apologies being written too late, after the damage has been done. It's a bankrupt media and the UAE clearly can see that it's not the way forward.

Anyway, surely journalists will make sure that any fines imposed are initially paid by their employers, under their contract? It's the newpaper that takes the decision whether to go to press with a story or not. If it's found that the reporting was false or misleading then the employer then can take action against the journo.

Lastly, journalists all around the world take risks to break stories. Why should they be wrapped in cotton wool here?

“The NMC makes no apology for drawing a distinction between personal insults and professional forms of criticism.” - absolutely right IMO.

Human Rights Watch have to justify their existence and jump on the latest whipping boy, the UAE.

speedhump, why can't the individuals or companies etc. involved just sue for slander like they do everywhere else in the world? The problem with the current UAE laws is that it can be too broadly used to stifle any criticism whatsoever.

This law is about protecting people from 'personal' attack. OK it has to be determined by someone what is personal attack, but the Council has said that it will differentiate between personal insult and professional criticism. We have to see how it works before jumping on it. The crticism from Human Rights watch is too early and it smacks of talk for talk's sake. The UAE know very well that the eyes of the world are on them. The rulers are trying belatedly to advance rights in this country.

As I just said, suing for slander is a poor and often very late recompense for having your personal life trashed. You know very well that mud sticks, and an apology from a newspaper months or years down the line is no real compensation although litigants try to persuade themselves that they finally scored a victory.

I believe this law should be given a chance to be effective. Let's see.

Why are they so afraid of being insulted? I don't understand why there's even a need to coddle and protect these people in power, many of whom weren't even elected.

This media law is a baby-step towards free speech, that is why the UAE is still being criticized. For a country that's always aiming for the sky, it's unfortunate that all they could manage was a step up to the curb.

gamercowboy wrote:Why are they so afraid of being insulted? I don't understand why there's even a need to coddle and protect these people in power, many of whom weren't even elected.

This media law is a baby-step towards free speech, that is why the UAE is still being criticized. For a country that's always aiming for the sky, it's unfortunate that all they could manage was a step up to the curb.

I think that's wholly unfair, you don't re-make a political/religious system overnight.

My opinion is that the press in the west have got away with far too much for far too long. Tolerance is great when not abused, laws should be stronger to protect individuals from UNFAIR personal comment, not from exposure of illegalities; that's totally different.

No, you certainly can't reform the entire system overnight. But this media law is so underwhelming as to be near pointless. The Dubai metropolis also didn't pop up overnight (though I could've sworn that building wasn't there yesterday...) but here it is now. I would much prefer a less opulent but more free Dubai than this extravagant city where journalists have to watch what they say.

Btw, I don't really understand your statement, "tolerance is great when not abused". I think you meant to say that lying, slander, and libel are wrong. Technically, you can't "abuse" tolerance. Freedom of speech is a human right and as such, the abuse comes from those who limit and control it; not from those who make use of their freedoms.

gamercowboy wrote:No, you certainly can't reform the entire system overnight. But this media law is so underwhelming as to be near pointless. The Dubai metropolis also didn't pop up overnight (though I could've sworn that building wasn't there yesterday...) but here it is now. I would much prefer a less opulent but more free Dubai than this extravagant city where journalists have to watch what they say.

Btw, I don't really understand your statement, "tolerance is great when not abused". I think you meant to say that lying, slander, and libel are wrong. Technically, you can't "abuse" tolerance. Freedom of speech is a human right and as such, the abuse comes from those who limit and control it; not from those who make use of their freedoms.

Lying, slander and libel, the great triumvirate of the western press. Freedom of the press has to be and is curtailed even in the UK, they can't just say want they want and that is of course correct. Your kneejerk liberal thinking tells you that 'freedom of speech' is everything but you're just wrong. People on the streets or in mosques advocating murder is wrong, you know that too. That everyone is entitled to total freedom of speech is NOT a global truth!

This law protects journo's from going to jail whereas previously they could. That's underwhelming? The press are fined all over the world for baseless attacks on individuals, where is your sense of balance?

first of all , I would vote for the media to more honest and clear , me as a local want's to know what is really going on around me (Curiosity
kills )

however the media is a powerful weapon that can be used for or against someone or a country and we all have seen the impact of false or un proven with out solid source or evidence news.

some media passed the freedom of press foundries to insults ,personal revenge, economical and political game and it became a toy everyone can play with more than being a clear reality and facts.

bad news became the key marketing aspect all media which personally brought me nothing but being depression really.

one have to understand that there is a diff between Criticizing and being malicious or indignant which we have allot of now a days .and you really or I can't till the diff any more.


but I don't know why aren't they allowing criticism in news papers for officials ! I mean if you attend one of the national council meeting you will be shocked of the criticizing , finger pointing and accusation happens there and it is in public !! so why not write it to the public

SH, that's not the point. It's so very hypocritical, that they want all the love and attention towards the UAE when things are fine and dandy, but can't take the heat when things are uncovered that might tarnish the image of the place or its leaders.

As Kid says, people havea right to know exaclty what is going on - so long as it is the truth and not just some made up rubbish.

Anyway how they couldn enforce this on foreign journalists is beyond me, ones working here yes, outside no.

uaekid wrote:first of all , I would vote for the media to more honest and clear , me as a local want's to know what is really going on around me (Curiosity
kills )

however the media is a powerful weapon that can be used for or against someone or a country and we all have seen the impact of false or un proven with out solid source or evidence news.

some media passed the freedom of press foundries to insults ,personal revenge, economical and political game and it became a toy everyone can play with more than being a clear reality and facts.

bad news became the key marketing aspect all media which personally brought me nothing but being depression really.

one have to understand that there is a diff between Criticizing and being malicious or indignant which we have allot of now a days .and you really or I can't till the diff any more.


but I don't know why aren't they allowing criticism in news papers for officials ! I mean if you attend one of the national council meeting you will be shocked of the criticizing , finger pointing and accusation happens there and it is in public !! so why not write it to the public

I agree with all of that. But I do say still that criticism in newspapers must be objective, not personal insult, even if everyone is fair game in meetings, that's one on one, and does not have the crushing power of the press behind it

You're right, speed. The UK is hardly the barometer for free speech these days. And hate speech is absolutely despicable, whether it's done in the name of religion or otherwise. But I will not condone silencing them. Why? Because it just drives it underground and those who spout the hate, as bad as they are, could get even worse when they have no way to express themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand your viewpoint. I just don't agree with it. And that's the beauty of free speech

Chocoholic wrote:SH, that's not the point. It's so very hypocritical, that they want all the love and attention towards the UAE when things are fine and dandy, but can't take the heat when things are uncovered that might tarnish the image of the place or its leaders.

As Kid says, people havea right to know exaclty what is going on - so long as it is the truth and not just some made up rubbish.

Anyway how they couldn enforce this on foreign journalists is beyond me, ones working here yes, outside no.

I'm not the sort of person that want's to read that UK's Princess Matilda (or whatever) had an abortion last week in private. Or such rubbish. I think people's personal lives are brought into the public eye FAR too often and when it has no relevance to their work or their impact on society, purely because little people with small lives love to read scandal. That's what this law is against, to my mind. I'm not saying that it's always wrong to investigate PEOPLE rather than facts, but only is right when it's relevant. That would I guess be up to the Council to decide here, and we have to see how effective it is yet, rather than pour cold water on it from the get-go.

gamercowboy wrote:You're right, speed. The UK is hardly the barometer for free speech these days. And hate speech is absolutely despicable, whether it's done in the name of religion or otherwise. But I will not condone silencing them. Why? Because it just drives it underground and those who spout the hate, as bad as they are, could get even worse when they have no way to express themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand your viewpoint. I just don't agree with it. And that's the beauty of free speech

Mate it's a tough one, it's huge, I know. But where has the UK's liberal speech and open door policies taken it? Much of the world dislikes the fact that the UK has allowed itself to become a meeting place for terrorists of the world. That quite honestly had to be addressed. The fact that the policing of the UK has always been so successful means that it hasn't suffered so badly on the scale of terrorism committed on its own soil, but there's no doubt that it became a haven for all manner of evil people.

What price your freedom to say what you want and go where you want with no identity cards?

Edit:spelling

Chocoholic wrote:As Kid says, people havea right to know exaclty what is going on - so long as it is the truth and not just some made up rubbish.

Anyway how they couldn enforce this on foreign journalists is beyond me, ones working here yes, outside no.

That's a good point and is why such a limitation serves no purpose other than to hold back the local media.

And speed, I think tabloid trash belongs *in* the trash too but I think it would be a net negative thing to limit what can be reported on just because of crap like this. If journalists had a piano suspended over their heads, threatening to squish them at the moment they publish anything that could be misconstrued as "insulting", then they're obviously going to avoid it.

No-one wants to be squished by a piano. Even if it'll only hurt their wallets.

gamercowboy wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:As Kid says, people havea right to know exaclty what is going on - so long as it is the truth and not just some made up rubbish.

Anyway how they couldn enforce this on foreign journalists is beyond me, ones working here yes, outside no.

That's a good point and is why such a limitation serves no purpose other than to hold back the local media.

And speed, I think tabloid trash belongs *in* the trash too but I think it would be a net negative thing to limit what can be reported on just because of crap like this. If journalists had a piano suspended over their heads, threatening to squish them at the moment they publish anything that could be misconstrued as "insulting", then they're obviously going to avoid it.

No-one wants to be squished by a piano. Even if it'll only hurt their wallets.

One of my points was that any serious newspaper/magazine (for example) should agree contractually to take the burden of any penalty off the journo. I think that's normal.