Kareem Amer was interviewed by Copts United after being investigated by Al-Azhar University for his online writings. As a result, he was charged with disdaining religions, insulting Al-Azhar’s teachers, and atheism. A few days later, he was formally expelled, and the Dean of the Sharia & Law Faculty, Dr. Hamdi Shalby, submitted a copy of the investigation documents to the Public Prosecutor.

The two videos below were recorded during his two-part interview. We have provided English subtitles and transcripts below.

(Thanks to Mina for providing the translation for the first video!)

Transcripts:

Interview with Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, Part I

Following is a transcript from the first of a two-part interview with Egyptian blogger Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, which occurred on March 14, 2006. You can view the video with English subtitles here.

Interviewer: The young thinker Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman: Welcome to Copts United. We welcome you, and we would you like to tell us about the investigation that was run today by the disciplinary board in Al-Azhar University. Go ahead.

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: Frankly, I wasn’t expecting you to label me as a thinker. I’m just a seeker of the truth. Thank you, you made me happy by your saying this, but I do not acknowledge that I am a thinker. I’m just a seeker of the truth. Today I headed for the college to attend the disciplinary board, and the lawyer Mr. Mamdouh Nakhla was with me. Our appointment was at 11:00 a.m. but we started a bit late, at 2:30 p.m. The investigation was initiated by four of the college professors: Dr. Abdul Hadi Zarea, Dr. Ra’fat Hammad, and two others.

Interviewer: Sir, we would like to know from you what the reason of the investigation is in the first place.

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: The reason of the investigation is some of my articles published on the Web sites of Modern Discussion and Copts United. There was an article in which I criticized Al Azhar University because of its segregation of male and female students; they accused me of insulting Al-Azhar University because of this article.

Interviewer: And is this wrong, or what?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: Well, I am criticizing and expressing my opinion. I am trying to criticize. The purpose of…

Interviewer: That’s what I mean. To Al-Azhar University, is criticism wrong? As well as freedom of expression, or what exactly?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: They prevent… In Al-Azhar, here in the university… In the end of the investigation, the told me that that this article is considered to be insulting and slanderous. They accused me of insulting and slandering, but I did not write anything of the sort. All I did was try to express my thoughts. I tried to criticize something I saw is wrong. But they interpreted it another way.

Interviewer: In a wrong way.

Interviewer: Mr. Abdul Kareem, we would like to know what exactly you are charged with.

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: I was charged with disdaining religions in general, and specifically Islam; as well as insulting and slandering the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University [inaudible] and one of the professors of the college here [Sharia & Law Faculty]. That’s all.

Interviewer: Anything else?

Interviewer: Anything else?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: And another charge, I don’t know from where they got it from: Atheism.

Interviewer: Atheism?

Interviewer: Mr. Abdul Kareem, we would like to know: How did the investigation end?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: The investigation ended by my refusal to sign on my statements. Not out of fear; I told them everything. I was frank with them about everything. However, I refused to sign because I don’t recognize the legitimacy of the disciplinary board. I told them in the end that they don’t have the right to investigate me inside the college for an activity I exercised away from list of rules that should bind me only inside the university. They imposed on me…

Interviewer: A certain way of thinking?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: Yes, indeed, they imposed on me a certain way of thinking, and they prevented me from even trying to think outside this framework.

Interviewer: What do you expect the result to be after the investigation? Or what will their judgment be?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: In reality, I have been expecting confronting Al-Azhar University for a long time. From the time I entered this university, I felt it’s not my place.

Interviewer: It’s not your place?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: Of course [it’s not my place].

Interviewer: Were these thoughts, Abdul Kareem, a reason for arresting you a while ago in Alexandria or not?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: Of course. I was previously arrested on the 26th of last October [2005], following the events that occurred at the church of Muharram Bek, because I wrote an article criticizing some of the acts of the demonstrators in the Muharram Bek area. They tried at that time to attack the church, and they assaulted some of the Copts and [stole] their property. So, I was held for eighteen days, and I was released after pressure from human rights organizations and other international bodies.

Interviewer: Thanks to the young thinker, Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, a second-year student in the Faculty of Sharia & Law at Al-Azhar University, Damanhour branch.

Interview with Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, Part II

Following is a transcript from the second of a two-part interview with Egyptian blogger Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, which occurred on March 14, 2006. You can view the video with English subtitles here.

Interviewer: This is our second interview with the young thinker Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, a second-year student in the Faculty of Sharia & Law at Al-Azhar University, Damanhour branch, after taking a rest, and after he had calmed down after leaving the investigation. Mr. Abdul Kareem, welcome to our second interview. Could you provide us with an idea on the summary of today’s investigations at the Faculty of Sharia & Law?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: The investigation began at around 2:30 p.m. It was about some of what was brought up in my articles that were published on the Modern Discussion and Copts United Web sites. Among the professors who investigated me were Deputy Dean Dr. Abdul Hadi Zarea and former Dean Dr. Ra’fat Muhammad Hammad.

I was asked some questions regarding opinions I had expressed in my articles. They saw that these opinions constituted exceeding their red lines. Of course, I do not recognize the existence of such red lines in the first place, and never in my life have I been limited by a red line. The only red line is my relationship with others. That is the only red line that I might accept to limit the freedom of the individual.

I answered them in all frankness. I cannot let go of my frankness for any reason. No matter what the price is, I cannot let go of it. This might cause me trouble but I shall never rest until I am frank and until I have a single personality.

For example, I could have denied all what had happened, and to, as they say, ‘play on words’ by pretending that nothing had happened. However, I’d lose myself. What would I have gained? What would I have gained when what’s inside me is one thing, and what’s outside of me, what I tell and face people around me with, is something else? I’d surely lose myself. Even if I were to have gained people, and if people were to encourage me and were to be impressed with me, in the end, I would not be pleased with myself this way.

Interviewer: Mr. Abdul Kareem, can you tell us what you were specifically charged with, and what your response to these charges was?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: The disciplinary board accused me of three main charges. The first charge… They are ideological charges. It’s the first time for me to learn that an idea would be a charge. Today, when I went to the university, I learnt that I can commit a crime that does not have any physical effects: Thinking!

The first crime I was accused of committing was disdaining religions, and of course specifically Islam. I had not imagined that I would face a charge like this because it was never my intention to disdain any religion. The purpose of the existence of religions was to institute ethics that human beings can make use of in their lives. That was the purpose of the emergence of religions, regardless of how they were founded and what their origins are. Whether they are mythical or not is not our topic. I found them accusing me of disdaining religions.

The second charge: Atheism. I had written an article during the election period of the President of the Republic, titled “Pledge Allegiance to President Mubarak… As The Leader of the Believers!” The first paragraph of this article was interpreted by them as… Well, I was discussing in it the relationship between those with religious authority and those with political authority, and the ties that bring them together… That is, the benefits that bring them together. There are mutual benefits. For example, they monopolize the authority of deities. I employed a phrase that they used against me: I described god as ‘the imaginary being’. I did not mean it that way. Generally, in the view of some people, deities are imaginary, and there is no physical evidence to prove god’s existence. This does not mean that I am an atheist. I make my own point of view clear, and I write neutrally and stay away from claiming the existence of this god or that god. That was what I meant, but it was used against me.

The third charge they caught and used against me… It seems that they deliberately track down my mistakes. The most eloquent expression describing what they do is tracking down mistakes. They try to highlight my mistakes and bring anything against me. There was an article in which I criticized some of the policies of Al-Azhar University. I was discussing the idea of segregating male and female students. I described it as apartheid segregation, and indeed it is so, on the basis of the race of male students being separated from the race of female students. That generates problems. It gives them excessive repression, and each gender looks at the other gender as… Well, what’s forbidden is desired. They look at each other as strange beings, and as nonexistent in front of them, or not available for them. Once they get the chance, they tend to commit adultery. That was the topic I was handling.

I also criticized one of the doctors in a lecture who was teaching the students the invalidators of wudu [partial ablution]. In a blatant manner, he explained to the students wudu invalidators in an unethical way. So I criticized him, and they considered that to be insulting and slandering of this doctor.

There was also something else I had written about: When Dr. Muhammad Sayid Tantawy, the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, tried to produce a document pledging allegiance to President Mubarak during the election period of the President of the Republic, from the Islamic Research Academy members, which they refused to do. The disciplinary board considered that this writing is insulting and slanderous.

Interviewer: Mr. Abdul Kareem, do you expect to be referred to investigatory agencies, aside from the disciplinary board?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: Well, in such a country where law is designed to serve certain aims, I do not rule out being referred to any agencies. However, this will not dissuade me from doing what I wish to do. It will not push me to leave the path I have begun to walk in. I shall walk in it in endlessness. In fact, it has no end. I don’t believe that this ideological way is ascending, but walking in it is endless. I’ll keep walking in it until I die.

Interviewer: Do you interpret the position of the university toward you as a personal one, or is it a public policy that aims to place many more restrictions on the freedom of expression, opinion, and belief?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: In general, the policy of the university is one that denies the thinking of the ‘other’. It employs the policy of one opinion, one idea. It has no readiness to accept a differing idea to appear. Because of that, any idea that goes against its unidirectional ideas – that it wants to impose on its students – even if they do not publish on it… I have no publications inside the faculty or university, and my activities are almost completely limited to the articles I publish on the Internet. To be precise, the university aims to extract students’ minds. They do not want them to think. They want them to learn the material as it was brought down, and that they accept it and submit to it as it is. They cannot try to think of it, or to use their minds to think of it.

Interviewer: Thanks to Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, a second-year student in the Faculty of Sharia & Law at Al-Azhar University, Damanhour branch.

An interesting read: World’s ‘insult laws’ ensure that mum’s still the word.

Excerpt:

A report by the World Press Freedom Committee out today indicates that in spite of strides toward democracy and freedom worldwide, “insult laws” are still widespread. These laws make it a crime to insult public officials, or in some cases, to insult any individual, group or religion — a chilling influence on discourse worldwide.

The study was funded by Danish media leaders who know a thing or two about the virulence of insult and religious blasphemy laws. When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a group of editorial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in 2005, worldwide protests ensued. You might not have known that Danish Muslim groups also went to court, invoking blasphemy laws to punish the newspaper’s editors. The lawsuit failed, but publishers elsewhere were not so lucky. And the mere existence of these laws gave unfortunate legitimacy to the violent reaction against the cartoons.

Other recent examples:

*In Egypt, blogger Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman is serving a four-year jail term for insulting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and for “contempt of religion.”

*The Philippines’ “first gentleman” Jose Miguel Arroyo, husband of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has sued more than 40 Philippine journalists under insult laws for reporting on allegations of corruption against him. Arroyo even sued one columnist for describing him as “the fat spouse,” which Arroyo said was “obviously meant to denigrate me for my rotundity.”

*In Russia, insult laws are a powerful tool for silencing dissent. When Kursiv, an Internet publication, joked that President Vladimir Putin was “Russia’s phallic symbol” because of his campaign to boost the birth rate, investigators raided its offices and shut it down, fining the editor under Russia’s insult law.

*Laws that make defamation and insult a crime persist in France, Germany and Austria. French media critic Philippe Karsenty was fined last year for defaming the honor of a state-owned TV station.

*Journalist Hrant Dink was murdered in Istanbul in January after being prosecuted repeatedly under a Turkish law that makes it a crime to insult “Turkishness.”

Giovanni, manager of theViewPoint.org and dalMondo.info, has kindly provided an Italian translation of an Al-Jazeera article in which Egypt’s Foreign Minister expressed frustration and apathy over the world’s ‘interference’ with the Egyptian court’s jail sentence passed to Kareem.

Original Arabic article: القاهرة تستنكر ردود الأفعال على الحكم بسجن مدون.

Our English translation: Cairo Condemns Reactions to Sentencing Blogger to Prison.

Giovanni’s Italian translation: Il Cairo condanna le Reazioni alla condanna al carcere del Blogger.

Il Cairo condanna le Reazioni alla condanna al carcere del Blogger

PHOTO: Ahmed Abul-Gheit considera le critiche alla condanna di Abdul Kareem Suleiman delle interferenze sul sistema giudiziario.

L’Egitto critica pesantemente le reazioni alla condanna a 4 anni di carcere del blogger egiziano accusato di attaccare, nel suo blog, l’Islam ed il presidente Hosni Mubarak

Il Ministro degli Esteri egiziano Ahmed Abul-Gheit ha dichiarato che nessuno, “chiunque esso sia” deve intromettersi nel lavoro dell’autorità giudiziaria egiziana, ne commentare le sue decisioni.

Abul-Gheit ha anche affermato che l’Egitto rifiuta le posizioni di alcuni “media ed organizzazioni non governative straniere”, esprimendo il “forte disappunto e la costernazione” dell’Egitto per quanto è stato detto.

Un tribunale di Alexandria, nel nord dell’Egitto, ha condannato Abdul Kareem Suleiman a quattro annni di prigione, con l’accusa di disprezzare la religione islamica e di insultare il presidente Mubarak.

Il tribunale “Moharram Bek Misdemeanor” ha condannato l’accusato a tre anni di carcere per l’accusa di disprezzo della religione islamica, e ad un anno per le offese al Presidente. Suleiman era uno studente all’Università Al-Azhar, che lo aveva espulso lo scorso anno e che aveva richiesto che venisse processato. E’ il primo blogger egiziano ad essere condannato al carcere.

Il portavoce del Dipartimento di Stato Americano, Tom Casey, ha dichiarato la propia preoccupazione per l’incarcerazione del blogger Abdul Kareem Suleiman, condannato per aver espresso le propie opinioni. La sentenza è stata criticata anche dalle organizzazioni per i diritti umani egiziane ed estere, quali il “Committee to Protect Journalists” con sede a New York e l’”Egyptian Organization for Human Rights”.

Otto articoli

Suleiman ha firmato i propri articoli con l’appellativo di Kareem Amer. E’ stato processato per il contenuto di otto post, pubblicati sul suo blog, nei quali critica fortemente l’Università Al-Azhar, descritta come “l’Università del terrorismo e dell’estremismo”.

Inoltre, in uno di questi articoli, critica Mubarak, paragonandolo ad un “dittatore faraonico”. In un altro articolo intitolato “la nuda verità sull’Islam come la vedo io”, Suleiman parla degli scontri tra sette religiose avvenuti ad Alexandria nel 2005, accusando i mussulmani di aver fomentato gli scontri ed infangandone l’immagine.

In custodia dallo scorso Novembre, Suleiman non ha mai rinnegato quanto scritto, affermando che gli articoli riflettono solo le proprie opinioni personali. Gli avvocati della difesa hanno dichiarato che ricorreranno in appello contro la condanna, ritenendo ingiusto il processo.

Cam Vidler has published Kareem’s story in The Varsity, the University of Toronto’s official student newspaper: Jailed Egyptian Blogger An Example To Us All.

Excerpts:

In pursuit of this objective, Kareem has used his website to speak out against gender inequality at his university (Al-Azhar University in Cairo) and criticize what he sees as the negative influence of Islam on Egyptian society. For this, the brave writer found himself expelled, chased by knife-wielding thugs while security officials stood aside, referred to the public prosecutor, charged, convicted, and sentenced to four years in prison for “inciting hatred of Islam” and “insulting” President Hosni Mubarak. Needless to say, freedom of expression is under attack in Egypt.

Since then, the case has spurred a global movement calling for his safe release and for free speech in general. Western media outlets, including the Washington Post, Le Monde, the Globe and Mail, Der Speigel, and many others have embraced Kareem’s cause by publicizing his tragic story. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders have condemned his imprisonment and are currently lobbying the Egyptian government for his release. Politicians from Italy and the U.S. have also joined the effort by sending official letters to Cairo calling for Kareem to be pardoned.

[…]

To the dismay of the Egyptian government, the case has now become an important symbol of human freedom. Despite the gross injustice committed against him, Kareem has created an opportunity for bottom-up democratic reform by encouraging others to stand up with him. The internet is increasingly being effectively used as a tool to communicate political ideas in an area of the world where mainstream discourse is often controlled by the state.

Tom Palmer, director of the Byrne Project on Middle East Liberty and a close friend to Kareem, believes this is a key moment for the region.

“In every society, brave people have to struggle for their freedom, and the Middle East is no different. Arabs-and especially Arab Muslims-are taking the initiative to defend their precious right not to be arrested, imprisoned, or subjected to violence for expressing their views.”

Kareem’s message, however, should not be limited to Egypt, or the Middle East. Freedom of speech is constantly under attack from governments around the world. Countries like China, Russia, and Venezuela combat undesired expression with a range of tools, from restrictive licensing policies to state-owned ISPs and media outlets.

Manal el-Jesri recently wrote the following article for Egypt Today. It offers an analysis of Kareem’s outcome and the message it sent to other bloggers and activists.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

Never mind that Amer is just a kid who is foaming and frothing at the mouth as he harangues against The Establishment. Never mind that his foaming and frothing took place in the sanctuary of his own bedroom, probably while wearing his pajamas and shibshib.

The Pajamahideen, as local bloggers are known among themselves, had emerged as a threat. Something had to be done.

And so it was that the good folks at Al-Azhar got together and decided that the best way to stop the blasphemous fiend in his tracks was to give him publicity. Lots and lots of publicity — so much publicity that the whole world would start paying attention to him.

Even better than publicity, they reasoned: Let’s turn him into a martyr.

[...]

We have a popular saying here in Egypt: idrab el-marboot, yikhaf el-sayeb, which basically means if you strike the one that is tied down, you scare off the free ones. In sentencing Amer to four years of prison, you scare all the other bloggers out there. Unimportant as his blog may have been in comparison with the blogs mentioned earlier, Amer gave the authorities the excuse they needed to scare off the more active bloggers, those whose work is more widely noted and who cannot be imprisoned because they largely focus on recording the truth. Although many of them have been arrested in the past, it was very difficult to build a case against them and they were consequently released.

Amer was easy prey and the court that ruled against the young offender hoped to show bloggers the rod.

But let us look at the publicity that such an action has brought: Hot on the heels of last year’s inclusion of Egypt on Reporters Without Borders’ blacklist of countries considered “enemies of the internet,” Amer’s verdict was a rather defiant action, albeit one forecasted by international media.

[...]

Did Al-Azhar want to set an example? I am sure it did. Is this really the outcome it wanted? I do not think so.

Ultimately, Al-Azhar’s bid to set an example has backfired: While attempting to sidestep criticism at home, it has only managed to unleash a storm of dissent abroad.

The international media attention and concern has made blogger Karim Amer’s name synonymous with the fight for freedom of expression. The FreeKarim campaign has circled the globe. Hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — have seen it, and hundreds of blogs carry a link to it. He has become a martyr, a symbol for many of Egypt’s youth — and for activists around the world.

Last Friday, the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva pushed through a controversial resolution prohibiting defaming religions, particularly Islam. (AP article here.) This resolution was primarily spearheaded by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries in response to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy.

At this UN meeting in Geneva, the Jubilee Campaign issued an intervention (with thanks to a staffer of US Congressman Trent Franks) highlighting Kareem’s case an example of the dangerous precedent this resolution can lead to. The Becket Fund mentioned Kareem as well at the UN, and has published its condemnation of the defamation resolution.

While criticizing, mocking, and defaming faiths can be offensive to those who adhere to that faith, it contradicts our basic human right of free speech to deny anyone the right so express their opinions. Opinions are opinions and they do not harm anyone. Furthermore, there’s no opinion expressed by someone that does not offend at least one other person on the globe.

You can download the Jubilee Campaign’s statement here. (MS Word document).

You can download the Becket Fund’s statement here. (Adobe PDF).

Excerpt from the Jubilee Campaign’s statement:

Last month, a Muslim law student was sentenced to three years in prison for “insulting Islam.” In this case, the government justified the Court’s decision on the basis that freedom of expression can be limited in order to protect against the “defamation of religions”, namely Islam. This case is but one example of a pervasive problem with defamations laws. It exposes the critical need to clarify the difference between advocacy of religious intolerance which qualifies the state’s intervention under Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, and expressing opinions that may unintentionally offend the religious sensitivities of another. The Council needs to clarify that offending the religious sensitivities of another does not necessarily implicate advocacy of religious intolerance. If religious institutions are given precedence over individual rights to belief, all adherents become vulnerable to defaming religion.

Excerpt from the Becket Fund’s statement:

Just this past February, an Alexandria court sentenced Egyptian blogger “Kareem Amer” to three years in prison for “inciting hatred” of Islam. Free press groups have decried the sentence, but the Egyptian embassy in America published a letter in the Washington Post citing international law and Egyptian cultural values as justification for the sentence. See Letter from Kareem Haggag, Press Attaché, Embassy of Egypt, to the Editor, Washington Post (5 March 2007, Page A14). The letter emphasised that free speech is a value held dear in Egypt, but also justified specific limitations with regard to religion alone. The letter demonstrated that like all state censorship, Egypt’s is selective.

At the meeting, the OIC remarked:

There was a license apparently for anyone to attack Islam and Muslims. The Organization of the Islamic Conference hoped that the Human Rights Council would look at the resolution again to see how best the concerns of the OIC in this matter could be addressed.

The European Union voted against the resolution:

It was problematic to reconcile defamation with discrimination, as the two were of a different nature… The main focus should remain the rights and freedoms of individuals, and such an approach would be better for this resolution. International human rights law protected individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion and belief, and not the religion itself.

So did Canada:

There was also concern that the protection of the religions themselves, rather than the protection of the adherents to the resolution, was the focus of the resolution.

Switzerland:

[I]t would have preferred that the resolution be against discrimination based on religion, and not defamation per se. Its unclear wording could lead to restrictions on the freedom of expression.

In his last blog post, Kareem himself said:

I hereby declare, in all frankness and clarity, my rejection and repudiation of any law, any legislation, and any regime that does not respect the individual’s rights and personal freedom, and does not acknowledge the absolute freedom of the individual in doing anything – as long as he does not affect anyone around him in a physical way –, and does not acknowledge the individuals’ absolute freedom in expressing their opinions, whatever they may be and whatever they cover, as long as this opinion is merely an opinion or words coming from a person, and is not coupled with any physical action that harms others.

We don’t agree with everything he wrote on his blog, but this is a statement we agree with. We invite anyone who disagrees with Kareem to join us in following Voltaire’s principle: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The following report very briefly mentions Kareem (page three), its theme revolves around the socio-political importance of the Egyptian blogosphere. It features an interview with Wael Abbas who, amongst other things, explains how torture videos from police stations are exposed. It is worth the read for those interested in how influential Egyptian blogs have become.

[Many thanks to Jesse for the scans!]

Click on each picture for a larger image.

Pg. 1

Pg. 2

Pg. 3

On the National Review Online, Dr. Tom G. Palmer has written on how some bloggers, who met Kareem at a conference, ignited the campaign for Kareem’s freedom: Getting Kareem Freed.

When Esra’a, our campaign Director, started the first rally for Kareem last year in Bahrain, it only involved three people in front of the Egyptian Embassy in Manama. Initial mockery she and her friends received only strengthened her will. Indeed, this year supporters for Kareem had demonstrations in five other countries worldwide, and Kareem’s case has appeared in virtually every media outlet and in every blog. This is all thanks to the hard work of bloggers, volunteers, and staff members around the globe: namely, you.

We thank you all for your continued solidarity. We shall not rest until Abdul Kareem is unconditionally released.

Excerpts:

Prior to his expulsion and detention, Kareem was not widely known outside of a small circle (although the Coptic community did publicize his writings). His case is now known all over the world. That is mainly due to the efforts of a group of young bloggers who met Kareem at a conference co-sponsored by the Cato Institute and the Hands Across the Middle East Support Alliance (HAMSA).

[…]

In October I was in Tbilisi for a Cato Institute conference and got my usual instant message of “Hello, Dr. Tom.” I asked how he was, and he told me that was worried, because he had been told to go the next day to the prosecutor’s office. I asked him if he had informed anyone else. “No. Just you.” I said that wouldn’t do and he had to send e-mails right now to all of the people from our conference, to other friends, and to anyone who should know. I immediately shot off text messages and e-mails. Several people immediately stepped up to defend Abdelkareem. Dalia arranged for him to have a lawyer go with him to the prosecutor’s office. He went with the lawyer, but the lawyer left the prosecutor’s office alone. Abdelkareem was detained, “pending investigation of his case,” a phrase that was repeated over and over. He was never let free.

As news of his detention came out, other people from the conference stepped up. Esraa, who is behind www.Mideastyouth.com, set up a website dedicated to Abdelkareem’s case: www.FreeKareem.org. She and a few friends began to gather information about the case and post it on the site. I blogged about the case and informed Andrew Sullivan, Johann Norberg, and others, who also posted on the case. HAMSA and PetitionOnline.com set up online petitions (now at over 8,000 signatures), and Jesse Sage of HAMSA and Dalia published an article in the International Herald Tribune. Esraa and some others in Bahrain organized a public protest in Abdelkareem’s behalf. A former Cato Institute intern, Constantino Diaz-Duran, wrote about it in the Columbia Spectator, and with another former Cato-ite, Chris Kilmer, he organized a rally in New York, as did Cato interns and other young libertarians in Washington. Another former Cato intern (Andrew Perraut) organized an event in London, and then libertarians in other cities followed suit (Paris, organized by Vincent Ginocchio of Liberte Cherie; Rome, organized by Alberto Mingardi of the Instituto Bruno Leoni; and Stockholm, organized by Jonas Virdalm and attended by Johan Norberg, who also spoke at the conference where we met Abdelkareem; and elsewhere). Jesse Sage arranged a letter from members of the U.S. Congress; Alberto arranged letters from members of the Italian parliament; and others mobilized diplomatic pressure from their governments. With Raja Kamal of the University of Chicago, I published op-eds on the case in the Washington Post and the Lebanon Daily Star. (The Post article has been distributed in Arabic through Cato’s Arabic Lamp of Liberty.) While the better known organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued much-appreciated statements, the agitation and publicity was mainly organized by a loose network of classical liberal/libertarian activists and writers.

Most important have been the Muslim Arabs who have stepped forward to defend Kareem, embracing his cause of freedom even as they reject his strong criticism of their religion. Dalia and Esraa and the people they have mobilized (including Mohammed and Lalith, the web administrators for the FreeKareem.org site) are pious and observant Muslims who are bravely standing up against extremists. They are standing up proudly for freedom of speech, and not because they agree with all of what Abdelkareem said, for they strongly disagree with much of it.

[…]

ACTION ITEM
If you visit www.FreeKareem.org, think about putting $10 into the kitty through Paypal. It’s easy. The whole movement is being financed by college students, who have dug deep into their own pockets to pay for signs, leaflets, banners, and bandwidth. I’ve donated. I hope you will, too. Then, after you’ve put up $10 (or more!) to support people who have a lot more on the line than you or I do, write a respectful letter to the Egyptian ambassador asking the government to correct the mistake that has been made and release Abdelkareem Nabil Soliman. He should be free, don’t you think?

Here are the statement and letter by Reporters Without Borders (RSF):

English / français
27.03.07

Reporters Without Borders / Internet Freedom desk

EGYPT

UN secretary-general asked to raise imprisoned blogger’s case with Egyptian president

Reporters Without Borders today asked UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon to raise the case of imprisoned blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during the two-day Arab League Summit that begins tomorrow in Riyadh. Suleiman was given a four-year sentence on 22 February because of his blog posts, which he wrote under the pseudonym of Kareem Amer. Reporters Without Borders points out the UN has chosen Egypt to host the Internet Governance Forum in 2009.

Letter sent on 27th March by Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Robert Ménard :

Dear Secretary-General,

Reporters Without Borders would like to ask you to raise the case of imprisoned blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during the two-day Arab League Summit that begins tomorrow in Riyadh. Mr. Suleiman, who is better known as “Kareem Amer,” received a four-year sentence on 22 February because of his blog posts. We would point out that the UN has agreed to Egypt’s hosting the Internet Governance Forum in 2009, a choice that would seem inappropriate as long as this young blogger remains in prison.

We know you are committed to promoting an uncensored Internet, one on which users can express themselves freely. We therefore feel sure you would agree that it would damage the UN’s credibility if one of the seven countries in the world that imprison bloggers was asked to host the IGF. We remind you that the second stage of the World Summit on the Information Society – which paved the way for the IGF – took place in Tunisia, a country that systematically violates online free speech.

Mr. Suleiman was arrested on 6 November 2006 because of articles he had posted on his blog (www.karam903.blogspot.com), in which he often condemned the government’s authoritarian excesses and criticised Egypt’s highest religious institutions, especially the Sunni university of Al-Azhar, where he studied law. He was sentenced on 22 February to three years in prison for “inciting hatred of Islam” and one year for “insulting” the president. The sentence was upheld on appeal on 12 March. While his outspokenness may have caused displeasure, we do not think it justified putting him in prison.

We trust you will give this matter your careful consideration.

—————————

EGYPTE

Reporters sans frontières demande au secrétaire général de l’ONU d’intervenir auprès du président égyptien en faveur du blogueur “Kareem Amer”

A l’occasion du sommet de la Ligue arabe qui se tiendra à Riyad les 28 et 29 mars, Reporters sans frontière a appelé le secrétaire général des Nations unies, Ban Ki-moon, à évoquer avec le président égyptien, Hosni Moubarak, le cas d’Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman (“Kareem Amer”), condamné le 22 février 2007 à quatre ans de prison pour des textes publiés sur son blog. L’organisation rappelle que l’Egypte a été choisie par l’ONU pour organiser un sommet sur la gouvernance d’Internet (IGF) en 2009.

Lettre envoyée le 27 mars par Robert Ménard, secrétaire général de Reporters sans frontières :

Monsieur le secrétaire général,

A l’occasion du sommet de la Ligue arabe qui se tiendra à Riyad les 28 et 29 mars prochains, Reporters sans frontière vous prie de bien vouloir évoquer avec le président égyptien, Hosni Moubarak, le cas d’Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman (“Kareem Amer”), condamné le 22 février 2007 à quatre ans de prison pour des textes publiés sur son blog. Nous tenons à vous rappeler que l’ONU a accepté que l’Egypte organise le Forum sur la gouvernance d’Internet (IGF) en 2009, un choix qui nous semble inapproprié tant que ce jeune blogueur demeure emprisonné.

Nous connaissons votre attachement à la promotion d’un Internet non censuré et sur lequel les internautes peuvent s’exprimer librement. Vous conviendrez par conséquent que confier l’organisation de l’IGF à l’un des sept pays du monde qui emprisonnent des blogueurs est une décision qui peut porter atteinte à la crédibilité de votre organisation. Nous vous rappelons d’ailleurs que la seconde phase du Sommet mondial sur la société de l’information (SMSI), dont l’IGF est le prolongement, s’était déjà déroulée en Tunisie, un pays qui viole systématiquement la liberté d’expression sur le Net.

Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman, plus connu sous le nom de plume “Kareem Amer”, a été arrêté, le 6 novembre 2006, pour des articles publiés sur son blog (www.karam903.blogspot.com). Il dénonçait régulièrement les dérives autoritaires du gouvernement de Hosni Moubarak et critiquait les plus hautes institutions religieuses du pays, en particulier l’université sunnite Al-Azhar, dans laquelle il étudiait le droit. Le blogueur a été condamné, le 22 février 2007, à trois ans de prison pour avoir “incité à la haine de l’islam” et à un an pour avoir “insulté” le président égyptien. La sentence a été confirmée en appel le 12 mars. Nous comprenons que la liberté de ton d’Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman puisse déplaire, mais les propos tenus par ce blogueur ne peuvent en aucun cas justifier son emprisonnement.

Confiant dans l’intérêt que vous voudrez bien porter à notre requête, je vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur le Secrétaire général, l’expression de ma plus respectueuse considération.

–

Bureau Internet et libertés / Internet Freedom desk
___________________________________________

Reporters sans frontières / Reporters Without Borders
TEL: ++ 33 (0) 1 44 83 84 71
FAX: ++ 33 (0) 1 45 23 11 51
internet@rsf.org
www.internet.rsf.org

www.rsfblog.org- Do something good by creating your blog with us.
- Read our weekly “blog review”

www.leblogmedias.com / “L’actualité des médias” (en français)

Read our handbook for bloggers and cyber-dissidents :
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=542

On The Wall Street Journal, two fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations discuss the attacks on Internet freedom by United States allies worldwide, including Egypt’s jailing of Kareem Amer: Tangled Web.

Excerpts:

The past few weeks have seen a chilling crackdown on Internet freedom by American allies. An Egyptian appeals court upheld a four-year prison term for Abdel Kareem Soliman, a blogger who outraged religious authorities, while a Turkish judge ordered that Internet companies block YouTube, citing videos that disparage the memory of Turkey’s founder, Ataturk.

This is nothing new: Bahrain, where the U.S. 5th Fleet is based, has been hounding bloggers and Internet activists for the past three years. While the United States has focused its attention and outrage on China, Internet censorship has become a problem with friends and foes alike. Adapting the U.S. approach to China elsewhere would mean singling out U.S. allies for opprobrium at a time when America needs all the friends it can find. The smart alternative is to shift from a bilateral approach to making the promotion of freedom on the Web a genuinely global policy.

The Internet has been hailed as a technology that empowers average citizens to make their voices heard. Its dispersed nature, most assume, makes it difficult to control. Yet countries generally route Internet traffic through a small number of checkpoints, allowing governments to efficiently monitor and control what happens on the Web.

[…]

Washington should not go so far as to bar U.S. companies from operating in states like Turkey, but it should make clear that its diplomats will not actively facilitate IT investment from U.S. firms in countries that are repressing bloggers and restricting freedom of speech on the Web. Making investment in information technology dependent on good Web citizenship has the potential to encourage meaningful change in emerging economies like Turkey and Egypt as well as small but important countries like Bahrain. Leaders in all three countries are hungry for Silicon Valley to invest in their economies.

The U.S. should also exert global leadership. A first step would be to sponsor a United Nations Declaration of Internet and Electronic Freedom. To be sure, the U.N.’s enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly weak, but the declaration can serve as a standard against which countries can be judged. Using universal standards set forth in the new U.N. Declaration, the State Department should include a status report on Internet freedom in its annual report on human rights around the world.