Freedom of Speech and Cybercrime Laws: Panel Discussion at Queen Mary University

Freedom of Speech and Cybercrime Laws: Panel Discussion at Queen Mary University

On Monday 11th of March, the International Campaign for Freedom in the UAE (ICFUAE), together with the Queen Mary Free Speech Society and Politics and International Relations Society (QMPIR) held a seminar at Queen Mary University gathering journalists and legal experts on freedom of speech in the digital era.

The event, titled “Freedoms in the Digital Era: The UAE and the Rights to Free Speech and Assembly”, was chaired by Petros Petrikkos, from the Politics and International Relations Society.

The seminar opened with a presentation by Shazia Arshad, journalist and political campaigner working on human rights in the Middle East, who discussed the human rights situation in the UAE and cybercrime laws. Shazia placed emphasis on the strong relationship between the UK and the UAE, which sees an opportunity for citizens to be more demanding towards the UK government. She continued with an overview of the response by international bodies to the UAE’s violations of human rights. These include the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who highlighted that more than 200 cases of torture had been reported in the UAE but none had been investigated by the authorities, in contravention of international law.. The speaker insisted that cases of torture and other human rights violations do not only affect “activists, nationals, or people we don’t know” but also non-nationals. As she confirmed, simply going to the UAE could lead to detention. She put forward the example of a British tourist who went on holiday in the UAE and was kept for two nights in a unknown location for a simple tweet, with the British Embassy unable to get access to him.

Shazia proceeded by stressing three relevant cases. First, she discussed the case of the eminent Emirati economist Dr Nasser Bin Ghait, who was arrested by UAE authorities in 2015. He was kept in a secret location until 2016, when he appeared for his trial, stating he had been denied access to his family, to any form of legal assistance, and that he had been tortured. The family confirmed his claims when they saw him for the first time as “he really looked like a broken man”.

Second, she raised the case of Ahmed Mansoor, Emirati human rights activist who received the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders in 2015. Ahmed is the only well-known human rights activist who is still free in the UAE. Nevertheless, as Shazia said, “he’s been banned from travelling outside the UAE, he’s been physically intimated and his family got harassed several times.” With this example, the speaker emphasised that activists are not the only ones targeted; so do their families and relatives.

Finally, it is important to remember the UAE 94 trial, stemming from a petition of Emirati activists calling for political reforms. UAE authorities responded to this by mass arrest where 94 people were subjected to an unfair trial. Many of them remained in detention in inhuman conditions, being denied food, water, or not having enough space to lay down and sleep. Shazia said that since then, there’s been no possibility to criticize the government whatsoever, and that the Emirati elections are “nothing but window dressing”, as they only allow a specific list of people to vote.

The speaker emphasized that every kind of media is monitored by the government in the UAE. “You feel really vulnerable because wherever you go, whatever they say, someone will be watching”. As she highlighted regarding the smartphone app Snapchat, “People have been using it innocently and then found themselves deported”.

Following this, a video on Mohammed Al Roken, a leading human rights lawyer, was shown, describing his story of arbitrary detention.

The next speaker, Pàdraig Hughes, Legal Director at the Media Legal Defence Initiative, began his speech by focusing on a legal aspect:  the absence of a jurisdiction court to appeal one’s case to and monitor the decisions of the Supreme Court.  Although the misuse of cybercrime laws to detain journalists and activists is very common not only in the Middle East but also in Africa, the striking difference in these regions, is that “at least they have an international court to go to”.

Cybercrime can be related to charges of defamation or national security but can also be highly political. Pàdraig took the example of Cameroon’s elections, when the government shut down specific apps in different regions, to prevent social activism against the regime and prevent any discussions. The Anglophone regions “haven’t had internet since the 18th of January”, he mentioned. He also dealt with the case of Gambia, where two journalists were detained and forced to leave the country and return to the USA because they had expressed their critical view about the government.

To prevent cybercrime laws from being misused for political purposes, the speaker recommended the use of litigation to address arbitrary decisions by local courts.  In the specific case of the UAE, activists could look to the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention or to a UN special rapporteur. Nevertheless, as the speaker highlights “going to an international court can be really difficult.”

The conference ended with an open debate, where the difficulty of bringing legal assistance to prisoners of conscience was raised. Other interventions highlighted the connection between the arms trade with the UAE and the lack of concern for human rights as well as testimonies of personal experiences of human rights abuses in the UAE. 

 

Join our campaign and sign up to get involved: media@icfuae.org.uk