Ethics in the Media - Assignment Example

Ethics in the Media The freedom of Somaliland’s press was seriously compromised in the year 2007. Journalists and other media personnel were made the target of widespread violence. Several journalists were either killed, injured or intimidated. Detention and other forms of violence on journalists and media workers had become commonplace in Somaliland (United Nations). However, the unabated violence against the press was at its highest, in the year 2007. This violence against journalists and media persons emerged from continuous internal conflicts and the resultant social insecurity. Moreover, these internal conflicts had become very severe over a period of seventeen years (National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ)). 1. Who are the stakeholders? The Somali journalists were subjected to violent attacks constantly, and the perpetrators of such violence were granted immunity. In fact, none of the perpetrators of crime against journalists had been prosecuted in Somaliland. There were several persons who had perpetrated attacks against journalists and media persons. They included officials of the Transitional Federal Government, rebel leaders, the opposition and gangsters. All these entities invented novel methods of violence to suppress the media and to prevent news coverage by journalists. They had cautioned the press and asked it to refrain from publishing or broadcasting information and policies (National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ)). Journalists had to work in a very dangerous and hostile environment. They were abused in several ways, and directed to abstain from exposing the facts to the public. The Transitional Federal Government had imposed various restrictions on the freedom of press and the electronic media in the capital city. The Somaliland government had closed down five private radio stations that were based in the capital city. Furthermore, the Regional Administration of Banadir had enacted restrictive laws, which aimed at curbing the freedom of press and media (National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ)). 2. What are the morally relevant facts? There were several incidents, wherein the police had conducted illegal raids on the offices of newspapers in Somaliland. In one particular incident, the police and officials from the Criminal Investigation Department raided the offices of the Haatuf Daily Newspaper, based in Hargeisa. After this raid, they took Yusuf Abdi Gabobe, Director of Haatuf Media Network into custody, along with several other journalists. The police and CID officials also arrested Ali Abdi Dini, Editor-in-Chief of Haatuf Daily Newspaper and its treasurer, Hussein Kalif Abdullahi. These people were beaten by the police, in the police station. Subsequently, they were released from police custody. Thereupon, the police arrested Mohammed Omar Sheik, the Borame – based correspondent for the Newspaper (Gabobe, Dini and Ibrahim). The police framed charges against these journalists and media persons, for having published defamatory content against Dahir Rayale Kahin, the President of Somaliland, and his wife. This defamation case was brought before the Somaliland court. On the 4th of March 2007, the presiding judge sentenced Yusuf Abdi Gabobe, the Director of the Newspaper, to two years in prison. Furthermore, this judge sentenced to two years and five months, Ali Abdi Dini, Mohammed Omar Sheik and Mohammed Rashid Farah, who were the other accused in this case. The proceedings of the case were held at Mandhera Prison, in which the journalists had been detained by the police (Home Office). The sentencing of Mohammed Rashid Farah was done in absentia. The judge also ruled that the license of Haatuf Media Network was to be immediately withdrawn. Later on, the President pardoned these persons and set aside the court’s ruling. Finally, these journalists were released on the 30th of March 2007 (Gabobe, Dini and Ibrahim). 3. What are the ethical or moral issues at stake in this case? The officials of Somaliland’s government had violated the provisions of the national law, on several counts. They had deliberately breached national legislation, in order to terrorize journalists and media persons. To this end they launched a systematic approach to restrict the freedom of press. Their modus operandi, in their operations against the journalists was as follows. First, the police officers and officials from the government raided and searched the offices of newspapers and electronic media without any warrant and arrested the journalists. Secondly, the Supreme Court did not take into cognizance the provisions of the 2004 Press Law. Instead, it ruled that the Penal Code was to be applied to cases relating to journalists and the press. This Penal Code was enacted in the 1960s by the previous Somalia union (Höhne). This decision made it possible to frame criminal charges against the arrested journalists. Thirdly, the police authorities shifted the detainees to the Mandheera Prison. This transfer removed the arrested journalists from the jurisdiction of the courts in Hargeisa, the capital city. Fourthly, the court proceedings were held in the absence of defense lawyers, in violation of normal judicial practice. In fact, no provision was made to provide defense lawyers. This was against the tenets of natural justice (The Somaliland Times). Fifthly, after the courts had delivered their judgment on the basis of the charges framed; the police included new charges against the accused. Specifically, the Somaliland government framed charges against the Haatuf Media Network. This was a subsequent inclusion and as a consequence, the Haatuf Media Network did not have any legal representation in the court. Yusuf Gabobe was charged with having resisted arrest; which had been denied by the Deputy Commander of CID, who had supervised the arrest process (The Somaliland Times). The case of Haatuf journalists, revealed the highhandedness and personal animosity of the concerned Somaliland authorities. As such, journalists have a right to a fair trial, like any other citizen. This right had been intentionally violated by the government. This clearly demonstrated the partisan attitude of Somaliland’s judiciary. A question also arose, as to the commitment of the judiciary towards upholding the rule of law. Many social observers anticipated that a Presidential pardon would be accorded to these journalists. In addition, social organizations like the EHAHRD-Net stepped up their efforts to ensure respect for human rights in Somaliland (The Somaliland Times). The Committee to Protect Journalists or CPJ intervenes, in order to protect journalists who are placed in dangerous situations, on account of their profession. It helps them to obtain medical attention, if they suffer injury or illness in the course of their work. In addition, the CPJ comes to the rescue of journalists who are ill treated in prisons. In situations, wherein journalists have to hide, in order to protect themselves; or when journalists are compelled to leave their country due to serious threats from government officials, military officials or mafia gangs, the CPJ provides the required assistance. It also provides legal and monetary assistance to journalists against whom charges are framed. Moreover, the CPJ provides shelter to journalists in dire straits (Committee to Protect Journalists). Throughout the world, journalists are targeted by repressive governments. This behavior is not restricted to any one nation. Journalists are attacked, detained and imprisoned. Repressive governments force journalists to censor their reporting. Such governments compel the journalists to adopt self – censorship. Many of these governments are apprehensive of their misdeeds being exposed to the public or the international community. The universal feature among nations is that they are unwilling to allow the publicizing of their abuses (Amnesty International, 2006). Nevertheless, national governments are duty bound to protect journalists, and to prevent the suppression of the flow of information. A free society needs a free media. The media exposes human rights violations within a state; and permits the minorities to have themselves heard (Amnesty International, 2006). Furthermore, the media promotes the proper application of justice in all segments of society. It encourages discussion regarding trying situations that results in a reduction of confrontation. If journalists are forced to submit themselves to self – censorship under the threat of attack, then the media cannot effectively work for the benefit of the oppressed people. As such, under these circumstances, the media may become unwilling accomplices of the government in its misdeeds; and it would not take an active role in exposing human rights abuse or the proper application of justice to all the communities in a state (Amnesty International, 2006). 4. What possible courses of action are available? In Somaliland, journalists come under the aegis of the Somaliland Press Law 2004. Any complaints and cases against journalists must be dealt with solely under this Act. According to this Press Law, journalists should not be detained or arrested on account of their job related activities. Article 8(1) of this Law states that journalists can be detained only under the orders of a competent court. Moreover, laws that are found to be inconsistent with the Press Law 2004 of Somaliland are to be rescinded (Somaliland Times). The Press Law 2004 has been enacted by Parliament and provides for the freedom of press as provided by the Constitution. Journalists have to be treated as ordinary citizens. Thus, they are to be arrested under the provisions of criminal law if they perpetrate any crime. The Press Law states that journalistic activities, such as news coverage or publication of defamatory content, should be prosecuted under the Press Code and the provisions of civil law. They should not be dealt with under criminal law. The Press Law thus, invalidates and nullifies the application of the earlier laws, which had applied criminal sanctions against such journalistic activities (Ibrahim Hashi Jama , 2007 ). GAZA STRIP – ISRAEL CASE The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that journalists were to be allowed into the Gaza Strip. However, the Israeli government failed to comply with this ruling and prohibited the entry of foreign correspondents and journalists (Israel Continues to Bar Journos from Gaza , 2009). In response to the petition filed by the Foreign Press Association, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered that the government of Israel to permit foreign journalists to cover the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip. This was a legal battle amidst armed battle. The government of Israel justified its embargo on foreign journalists on the grounds that their coverage would be unfair and biased, Vis – a – Vis Israel (Sengupta, 2008). Despite the fact that Israel had allowed the officials from the UN to visit the Gaza Strip during the cease – fire period, and volunteers from humanitarian organizations. It had prevented the entry of journalists into the Gaza Strip. As such, the government had intentionally ignored the Supreme Court’s decision, in this regard (Folkenflik, 2009). COMPARISON In the Haatuf and Gaza Strip cases, freedom of press was restricted by the government. In the Haatuf case, the Supreme Court gave a decision that favored the government. This decision violated the Press Law Act, which had been passed by Parliament; because the Supreme Court had decided on the basis of criminal law and not civil law, as required by the Press Law Act. Moreover, the court procedures were ignored. On the other hand, in the Gaza Strip case, the Israeli Supreme Court had directed the Israeli government to permit foreign journalists to enter the battle zones, in order to report on the battle taking place in that place. However, the Israeli government chose to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court, and contended that the accord of such permission would be detrimental to Israeli interests. The proceedings of the court in the Haatuf case were conducted in the absence of defense counsel. Moreover, the journalists were relocated to a jail that was in a different jurisdiction. Article 31 of the Press Law states that legislation that contradicts the Press Law is to be rescinded. The Somaliland Supreme Court had ignored the provisions of the Press Law. 5. What are the predictable effects of each action? If the Press Law had been obeyed by the court in the Haatuf case, then criminal sanctions would not have been imposed on the journalists. The case would have been dealt with on the basis of the Press Law, and would therefore have been a civil action. Provision of defense counsel to the accused journalists would have rendered the proceedings equitable to some extent. The Somaliland judiciary breached the right of the journalists to a fair trial. This speaks ill of the respect that the judiciary has for the rule of law. 6. Which set of possible outcomes is relatively better? In the Gaza Strip case, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled impartially that the journalists were to be allowed access to the battle fields. This decision was contrary to the wishes of the Israeli government. On the other hand, in the Haatuf case, the Somaliland Supreme Court breached the extant legislation and behaved as a mere extension of the Somaliland government. Thus the Gaza Strip incident entailed injustice to a lesser degree, because the Israeli Supreme Court was supportive of the rule of law. Hence, this is relatively better than what had happened in the Haatuf incident of Somaliland. The international community had already recognized the importance of the media and journalists. It is of the opinion that the nation states have to create a free and fair environment for the media to work in. There should be no unjustified restrictions on journalists and there should be no threats of violence against them. In addition, no country should attempt to control or regulate the functioning of the media (Amnesty International, 2006). The Human Rights Watch groups contend that journalists working in battle fields must be treated as ordinary citizens. Therefore, breach of rights in the case of journalists would constitute breach of international human rights law. Accordingly, the international bodies must provide the necessary legal protection to journalists (UNESCO). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has to be respected by every nation. Article 19 of this Declaration enshrines the right to disseminate and receive information, irrespective of territorial borders. Similarly, the other UN human rights apply to each and every individual. Thus journalists are automatically protected by a large body of international law. Even in the battle field and war zones, journalists are treated as normal civilians, and all the rights applicable to civilians are to be provided to them. However, in practice, this fundamental principle is ignored by repressive governments. This reprehensible practice was witnessed in Somaliland, where journalists were subjected to torture, detainment and other oppressive practices by the government and criminal gangs (UNESCO). Works Cited Amnesty International. Press Freedom: Journalists in need of protection. 3 May 2006. 3 February 2009 . Committee to Protect Journalists. Journalist Assistance. 2 February 2009 . Folkenflik, David. Despite Court Order, Journalists Barred From Gaza. 7 January 2009. 2 February 2009 . Gabobe, Yusuf Abdi, Ali Abdi Dini and Mohamed Omar Sheikh Ibrahim. Prisoners of conscience/incommunicado detention/fear of ill-treatment. 2 February 2007. 2 February 2009 . Höhne, Markus V. "Somaliland: between press freedom and limitation." June - July 2008. Horn of Africa Bulletin. 2 February 2009 . Home Office. "Country of Origin Information Report Somalia." 30 July 2008. 2 February 2009 . Ibrahim Hashi Jama . 27 January 2007 . 2 February 2009 . Israel Continues to Bar Journos from Gaza . 2 January 2009. 2 February 2009 . National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ). Documentation of Press Freedom violations in Somalia During 2007. 2007. 31 January 2009 . Sengupta, Kim. Israel ordered to allow journalists into Gaza. 31 December 2008. 2 February 2009 . Somaliland Times. 2 February 2009 . The Somaliland Times. Mission Report on the Trial Observation of Detained Human Rights Defenders in Somaliland. 4 January 2007. 1 February 2009 . UNESCO. Press freedom: safety of journalists and impunity . 2 February 2009 . United Nations. "Media under fire in January." Somalia Humanitarian Overview (January 2008): Vol. 1, P. 3. Read More