Crackdown on journalists: State security vs human rights

The trial of three Al Jazeera reporters continues in Cairo, amid heightened international scrutiny and criticism of the interim government’s crackdown on journalists ahead of next month’s presidential elections. The foreign correspondents – charged as terrorists for aiding the banned Muslim Brotherhood – are among scores of domestic journalists jailed by the military-backed government since ousting President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013.

These measures have dashed hopes for a democratic resolution to the tumult of Egypt’s political change – and put Egypt on par with the world’s most press-hostile regimes.

Yet, it also spotlights the alarming upsurge in the use of national security and counter-terrorism laws to silence journalists, by both undemocratic and democratic governments alike. Human rights groups in recent years have warned of the growing misuse of anti-terrorism laws by authorities to stifle and punish journalists on grounds of national security. This trend is driving steady declines in press freedom at both state and global levels. Of the 232 imprisoned journalists worldwide in 2012, more than half were incarcerated on anti-terrorism charges, according to data monitored by the Committee to Protect Journalists

This trend is linked to the spate of national security legislation introduced by states around the world over the past decade. According to a 2012 report by Human Rights Watch, 144 of the world’s 195 countries have passed new counter-terrorism laws since 9/11 – and a majority of these are “overbroad”, often including provisions against disrupting “public order”, along with broad powers for warrantless searches, surveillance and detentions. Collectively, these laws represent a “dangerous expansion of powers to detain and prosecute people, including peaceful political opponents”, according to the organisation.

National security vs civil liberties

On this front, Western governments face growing criticism for their leading role in putting national security concerns ahead of civil liberties – a legacy of former US President George W Bush-era “war on terror” policies amplified into the present day. The US and European governments increasingly rely on post-2001 anti-terrorism laws to shield government secrets and constrain journalists from publishing classified information.

These measures have been hastened in the post-WikiLeaks, post-Edward Snowden era. Although no US journalist has been successfully prosecuted under the country’s anti-terrorism laws, US President Barack Obama’s administration has aggressively utilised the Espionage Act of 1917 to crackdown on government whistleblowers who leak classified information to journalists – a measure decried by reporters and human rights groups for undercutting basic democratic tenants and the media’s watchdog role.

Along with exposing the US government’s massive domestic surveillance programme, the Snowden case also reveals an increasing willingness among democratic governments – as well as among prosecutors and courts – to opt for national security over journalists’ rights, especially in cases involving state secrets.

In the UK, a high court this February ruled that authorities had acted in accordance with the Terrorism Act 2000, and “in the

For More:

http://ift.tt/1lsgGt0