A case currently before the French courts accusing Al-Ahram's editor-in-chief of " inciting racial hatred against Jews" raises worrying questions about freedom of speech in France and the defence of Arab rights, argues Ali El-Ghatit* As if the summer were not already hot and tense enough, the editor-in-chief of the largest-circulation Egyptian Arabic-language newspaper and head of the Arab Journalists Federation has recently received a French court summons in connection with an article published two years ago by one of the many writers who contribute to this paper. The editor in question is being sued by a Paris-based Zionist society on charges of inciting racial discrimination against Jews, disseminating anti-Jewish hatred and promoting racist violence. The Zionist society in question is appealing to the 1881 French law on Freedom of Expression and of the Press. Under Article 48 of this law, amended in accordance with Article 93 of Law 652 of 1982, the editor-in-chief of the Egyptian paper and the writer of the article have been accused of "criminal responsibility" for the "crime" of inciting hatred through publication. As readers are probably already aware, the newspaper in question is Al-Ahram daily, whose editor-in-chief is Ibrahim Nafie, and the author of the contested article is Adel Hamouda. The article in question was published in Al-Ahram on 28 October 2000, and it was also carried in Al-Ahram's international edition, which is distributed in France. What the case against Nafie and Hamouda amply shows is that Zionist agencies in France are seeking recourse to this or to other articles in the French Freedom of the Press Law in a bid to criminalise Arab writers for publishing accounts of violence perpetrated by Zionists. In other words, French law is now expected to safeguard the image of the Jew as a perpetual victim; that Jews, having been the victims of atrocities and great injustice � at European hands � could not themselves commit such atrocities and injustices against others. Sadly, this is just what has been happening in the case of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land, where Israeli atrocities and injustices against the Palestinians have been documented and denounced by fair-minded people of all faiths, including many Jews. For the Arabs, the danger of this situation lies in the fact that the law is being used to prevent the defence of those whose rights have been targeted by Israeli aggression. The current criteria for differentiating between what is permitted and what is prohibited under the French freedom of the press law, at least as it is being currently used by Zionist groups in France, have nothing to do with historical facts and everything to do with who is presenting those facts. If an Arab presents the facts, then he is guilty of inciting racial hatred; if an Israeli or Zionist presents the same facts, then he is innocent of any suspicion of breaking the law. Thus, the purpose of the law is to shut Arab mouths and to deprive Arabs of the ability to defend themselves in print. It is regrettable that such a potential travesty of justice should be taking place in France, which is a country that has long symbolised the fight for liberty and for civil rights. It is regrettable, too, that such a case should have come before the French courts. In this case French law contains an anomaly that should disturb specialists in comparative and constitutional law. At the heart of this anomaly lies the issue of freedom of expression. The European Convention on Human Rights states that "everyone is entitled to freedom of expression," and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states in Article 19 that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds." However, the summons issued against Ibrahim Nafie contravenes these guarantees of freedom of expression. Moreover, it violates the principle of equality under French law, as defined in Article 14 of the International Convention on Human Rights: "Human rights and freedoms are guaranteed to all, without distinction of any kind based on sex, colour, language, religion, or political or other opinions." Several courses of action are open to us. First, the subpoena in question demands a formidable defence, not only before the French court, but also, if necessary, before the European Court of Human Rights or, as the case may be, the European Court of Justice. However, in mounting such a defence, we must constantly bear in mind that the crime resides not in what we publish, but in the charges that have been leveled against us for carrying out a legitimate activity. We must continue to perform this activity assiduously and to bear the full consequences of it. At the same time, we should ask ourselves whether we should not revise our own laws with a view to protecting ourselves from the various forms of racial hatred against Arabs in the media. It may be useful to consider issuing legislation to safeguard the publication of historical and contemporary facts in domestic law and to prohibit the recognition of foreign laws that deem such publication to be an offense. The Arabs should also consider passing legislation safeguarding their culture, history and present from defamation. Part of this strategy should include founding Arab societies, both at home and abroad, to protect Arab rights and to shield them from Israeli intellectual and cultural terrorism. The public's right of access to information is a fundamental part of the freedom of opinion and expression; indeed, it is integral to the existence of a free press. Nothing should alter this, including the publication of facts that, though they may cause shock or distress, are published in accordance with the public's right of access to information. This is one of the prerequisites of a pluralistic society, as well as of the tolerance and openness that are the touchstones of a democratic society. Today, on the other hand, under French law and other similar European laws, every time we publish news of incidents in which our rights have been abused in Palestine we risk criminal charges. This compels us all to be on the alert and to act. The current summons against Ibrahim Nafie should alert us to how the legal and judicial vice is tightening around Arab rights. Indeed, the danger is such that it requires a collective response, and this response should be comprehensive, going beyond the case in question. However, this case of course already has particularly grave ramifications, since it involves the head of the Arab Journalists Syndicate and the editor-in-chief of the largest and oldest media establishment in the Arab World and a major regional and international forum through which we speak to the world and defend Arab rights. * The writer is a visiting professor of International Law at Cairo University and deputy chairman of the Egyptian Association for International Law.
