Press law amendments emotional, say legal experts
January 21, 2010
KUWAIT: Proposed amendments to the press law are emotionally motivated and lack consistency, legal experts said. The statements came during a seminar held at Kuwait University's (KU) Law School on Wednesday morning. The seminar titled 'The Audio-Visual law and the Need to Make Amendments' hosted a number of legal experts who agreed that there is no need for amendments.
The event came as part of several activities in opposition to government suggested amendments to the press and publication, and the audio-visual law. "The existing law is already tight," said Legal expert Muhammad Al-Feily, "the amendments are suggested to make it more strict.
Al-Feily explained that the executive authority was given the right to suggest legislations as an exception. They were given this ability so they could interact with the realities on the ground but this privilege should no be abused , "especially because it is not coming from an elected authority," he said. "Legislation is a very powerful tool," Al-Feily said. "In nature everything is allowed. Defining something as a crime should only be done out of necessity and to achieve a clear goal. This law does not seem to do any of that.
Protecting social peace and national unity cannot be reached by forbidding talk about it," he added. "If I have an ugly face and I break the mirror my face will not look any better.
According to Al-Feily, also a professor at KU Law School, the proposed ideas are wrong and unbalances the art of legislation. If the bill is passed it would restrict the power of judges to assess the level of violations. Also, it contains inconsistencies like allowing foreigners to own parts of media outlets, he pointed out. This could allow foreign forces to influence public opinion in Kuwait and ultimately harm national unity, he said. "In general, it seems like an emotional reaction from the government,
he concluded.
Attorney Ahmad Al-Mulaifi said that this kind of censorship was desired a long time ago. "There are people who think the current law is a mistake, just like there are those who believe the constitution is a mistake," Al-Mulaifi said. "They are working to limit the amount of freedom in the country.
Al-Mulaifi was an MP and part of the legal committee in the National Assembly (NA) when the current audio-visual law was passed. He said that back then the government proposed censoring blogs and their attempt was stopped by MPs. "Now they've added censorship on blogs on these suggested amendments," he said.
The ex-MP asserted that the current law already gives the government numerous tools to deal with local TV channels but they refuse to use them. He said that one of his acquaintances works at a local channel and told him that during the last elections the channel received a check.
January 21, 2010
KUWAIT: Proposed amendments to the press law are emotionally motivated and lack consistency, legal experts said. The statements came during a seminar held at Kuwait University's (KU) Law School on Wednesday morning. The seminar titled 'The Audio-Visual law and the Need to Make Amendments' hosted a number of legal experts who agreed that there is no need for amendments.
The event came as part of several activities in opposition to government suggested amendments to the press and publication, and the audio-visual law. "The existing law is already tight," said Legal expert Muhammad Al-Feily, "the amendments are suggested to make it more strict.
Al-Feily explained that the executive authority was given the right to suggest legislations as an exception. They were given this ability so they could interact with the realities on the ground but this privilege should no be abused , "especially because it is not coming from an elected authority," he said. "Legislation is a very powerful tool," Al-Feily said. "In nature everything is allowed. Defining something as a crime should only be done out of necessity and to achieve a clear goal. This law does not seem to do any of that.
Protecting social peace and national unity cannot be reached by forbidding talk about it," he added. "If I have an ugly face and I break the mirror my face will not look any better.
According to Al-Feily, also a professor at KU Law School, the proposed ideas are wrong and unbalances the art of legislation. If the bill is passed it would restrict the power of judges to assess the level of violations. Also, it contains inconsistencies like allowing foreigners to own parts of media outlets, he pointed out. This could allow foreign forces to influence public opinion in Kuwait and ultimately harm national unity, he said. "In general, it seems like an emotional reaction from the government,
he concluded.
Attorney Ahmad Al-Mulaifi said that this kind of censorship was desired a long time ago. "There are people who think the current law is a mistake, just like there are those who believe the constitution is a mistake," Al-Mulaifi said. "They are working to limit the amount of freedom in the country.
Al-Mulaifi was an MP and part of the legal committee in the National Assembly (NA) when the current audio-visual law was passed. He said that back then the government proposed censoring blogs and their attempt was stopped by MPs. "Now they've added censorship on blogs on these suggested amendments," he said.
The ex-MP asserted that the current law already gives the government numerous tools to deal with local TV channels but they refuse to use them. He said that one of his acquaintances works at a local channel and told him that during the last elections the channel received a check.
When he asked about the reason for receiving the check he was told it was to broadcast more news regarding a specific list of candidates. "This is why they don't want to use the tools they have, especially the one that states the Ministry of Informatino should assign an auditor to local channels. They don't want to stop the illegal funding of these channels," he concluded.
Ayed Al-Manna, a KU professor and a counselor with the Kuwait Journalists Association, said that there is no point in asking to change legislation if the executive authority does not implement the rules. Al-Manna accused the government of doing this to cover up their own failure. "We had periods of pre-censorship, and a period of post-censorship. When those ideas didn't successfully gag voices a new solution was proposed. One to change editors in chief into observers out of fear of punishment. It doesn't forbid you from writing but it makes it so you don't want to write. It is a legislation that changes freedom into 'useless freedom,'" he said.
Al-Manna, who is also a host on a local TV channel defended people's right to know. "It is the obligation and the role of the media to tell people the truth and provide a medium for people to express their opinions. He accused the government of generating the buzz around this law simply to keep people busy. He added that the law is not likely to be approved by the NA, and that the Kuwaiti media will not let this incident pass peacefully.
------------------------
January 22, 2010
A shameful bill!
Just when everyone in Kuwait has begun believing that the government is being victimized in the power struggle with the National Assembly, the proposed amendments to the Press and Publication Law have ruined the picture. The government appears to be one of those sad characters from movies who are incapable of having friends. Think Jim Carey in 'The Cable Guy.'
Anyway, for old times' sake, I will try to explain why the proposed amendments to the law are wrong.
First of all, how can we be guaranteed that the new law will be implemented properly? I mean, the whole crisis occurred because the authorities did not use the legal procedures, that were already stipulated, to resolve the situation. Instead of the Ministry of Information bravely accepting the blame for failing to perform its duties properly, the suggested amendments imply that there are loopholes within the existing laws, not in the way they were implemented!
Secondly, the very fact that violations occur, do not necessarily mean there is a need to increase punishment. It will be like saying "it appears as if the death penalty is not enough to stop drug smuggling into the country, so we are going to increase punishment to - death penalty plus flogging the dead body 100 times!
Thirdly, even if the law is passed, people will still find other ways to express what they want to say. In practice, it will only be one more way to embarrass Kuwait internationally, especially if international organizations will start demanding the release of imprisoned journalists. It might also create a wave of Kuwaiti political asylum-seekers in the world, because they can't voice out their opinions in their homeland. Some of them may even launch media outlets in those countries, where the Kuwaiti government cannot reach or gag them.
So, the government better have other reasons to propose these amendments, because from what is apparent, they simply don't make any sense at all. As for the Parliament, it's an entirely different story. MPs need to consider few facts before voting on these amendments. First of all, they need to remember the oath they took when they started their duties. It reads "I swear ... to protect freedoms, interests, and the wealth of the nation." They should ask themselves why 'freedoms' comes first in the word order.
After doing so, MPs would probably want to look into the possibility of the entire crisis over the controversial TV show being 'staged.' Some 'hidden forces' could've used the man to say these offensive things and generate such angry reactions in order to use this momentum to impose censorship. If I know what your reaction will be like, then I can fool you into demanding what I really wanted to do in the first place. It will probably be much better for all of us if MPs stop being so predictable.
If these concepts are beyond our respected parliamentarians, then there will be a price for that. If they okay the amendments and then decide to practice their freedom (which is a hobby for some MPs) of criticizing the government, then no one will dare deliver their messages to the public. Journalists who do that will be risking a jail term.
Finally, if all this is completely meaningless to everyone and if the law is passed, then we will be the first, and probably the only country in the world, that managed to democratically suppress freedoms. We will be the one and only democratically-practiced dictatorship!
Ayed Al-Manna, a KU professor and a counselor with the Kuwait Journalists Association, said that there is no point in asking to change legislation if the executive authority does not implement the rules. Al-Manna accused the government of doing this to cover up their own failure. "We had periods of pre-censorship, and a period of post-censorship. When those ideas didn't successfully gag voices a new solution was proposed. One to change editors in chief into observers out of fear of punishment. It doesn't forbid you from writing but it makes it so you don't want to write. It is a legislation that changes freedom into 'useless freedom,'" he said.
Al-Manna, who is also a host on a local TV channel defended people's right to know. "It is the obligation and the role of the media to tell people the truth and provide a medium for people to express their opinions. He accused the government of generating the buzz around this law simply to keep people busy. He added that the law is not likely to be approved by the NA, and that the Kuwaiti media will not let this incident pass peacefully.
------------------------
January 22, 2010
A shameful bill!
Just when everyone in Kuwait has begun believing that the government is being victimized in the power struggle with the National Assembly, the proposed amendments to the Press and Publication Law have ruined the picture. The government appears to be one of those sad characters from movies who are incapable of having friends. Think Jim Carey in 'The Cable Guy.'
Anyway, for old times' sake, I will try to explain why the proposed amendments to the law are wrong.
First of all, how can we be guaranteed that the new law will be implemented properly? I mean, the whole crisis occurred because the authorities did not use the legal procedures, that were already stipulated, to resolve the situation. Instead of the Ministry of Information bravely accepting the blame for failing to perform its duties properly, the suggested amendments imply that there are loopholes within the existing laws, not in the way they were implemented!
Secondly, the very fact that violations occur, do not necessarily mean there is a need to increase punishment. It will be like saying "it appears as if the death penalty is not enough to stop drug smuggling into the country, so we are going to increase punishment to - death penalty plus flogging the dead body 100 times!
Thirdly, even if the law is passed, people will still find other ways to express what they want to say. In practice, it will only be one more way to embarrass Kuwait internationally, especially if international organizations will start demanding the release of imprisoned journalists. It might also create a wave of Kuwaiti political asylum-seekers in the world, because they can't voice out their opinions in their homeland. Some of them may even launch media outlets in those countries, where the Kuwaiti government cannot reach or gag them.
So, the government better have other reasons to propose these amendments, because from what is apparent, they simply don't make any sense at all. As for the Parliament, it's an entirely different story. MPs need to consider few facts before voting on these amendments. First of all, they need to remember the oath they took when they started their duties. It reads "I swear ... to protect freedoms, interests, and the wealth of the nation." They should ask themselves why 'freedoms' comes first in the word order.
After doing so, MPs would probably want to look into the possibility of the entire crisis over the controversial TV show being 'staged.' Some 'hidden forces' could've used the man to say these offensive things and generate such angry reactions in order to use this momentum to impose censorship. If I know what your reaction will be like, then I can fool you into demanding what I really wanted to do in the first place. It will probably be much better for all of us if MPs stop being so predictable.
If these concepts are beyond our respected parliamentarians, then there will be a price for that. If they okay the amendments and then decide to practice their freedom (which is a hobby for some MPs) of criticizing the government, then no one will dare deliver their messages to the public. Journalists who do that will be risking a jail term.
Finally, if all this is completely meaningless to everyone and if the law is passed, then we will be the first, and probably the only country in the world, that managed to democratically suppress freedoms. We will be the one and only democratically-practiced dictatorship!
