THE REACTION IN JORDAN

The passage of the press law amendments took the country by surprise, and generated vigorous protest from opposition political parties and parliamentary deputies, journalists, and professional associations. Jordanians, including professional journalists, have conceded that some tabloid weeklies practice shoddy or sensationalistic journalism. But critics of the amendments share the view that broad and harsh restriction of freedom of expression - without prior public debate and a transparent legislative process - is a disproportionate and wholly unreasonable response by the state. The publisher of the English-language Star had this reaction:

The press has come under fire in recent weeks for its treatment of many issues; from national unity to peace with Israel, and from the economic woes of the country to official corruption. In addition to this, some newspapers, especially among the Arabic weeklies, have been accused, justly on many occasions, for their irresponsible, sensational and noncredible coverage of public issues. It is no secret that the main casualty of the new law will be the weekly press. Most may have their licenses revoked.

While the government may have a case against the way some tabloids have abused their freedom under the 1993 law, the government's choice of remedy is unjustified and will do more harm than good to press freedom and to the image of Jordan as a beacon of democracy in this region.27

Although government officials tried to portray the revisions of the press law as a response to perceived excesses of the tabloid weeklies, critics in Jordan saw other motives, noting in particular the longstanding pattern of harassment and prosecution of journalists because of politically sensitive subjects that they covered. One human rights activist, who conceded that some of the weekly newspapers had "published bad things for society," put it this way: "The government [is] pretend[ing] to correct this situation [of unethical journalism], but this is a very big lie. The government for the last three years took journalists to court for political articles. The government ... wants to punish opposition weeklies."28 Another human rights activist charged that the revised press law "ushers in an anti-democratic process," and was designed to protect the "government's unpopular policies" in terms of the peace process with Israel and to suppress growing dissatisfaction over the dismal performance of the economy.29

On May 19, 1997, the heads of Jordan's thirteen professional associations issued a joint statement condemning the amendments as a "violation of the constitution, a bypassing of parliament, and an attack on freedom of opinion, thought and expression."30 The head of the doctors' association, Basim Dajani, said on May 22: "We feel this law was issued hurriedly, without consultation with us or parliament or with any of the concerned people. We are cornered, unable to express our opinion."31

Critics were furious that the sweeping amendments were passed without consultation with journalists or parliament, and without public debate. Although parliament was not in session, which enabled the amendments to be promulgated by the council of ministers, the constitution specifies that such lawmaking should take place only in matters of urgency and only if the laws are in conformity with the constitution. "There really is no urgent reason. This kind of law can wait for six months," said a human rights activist.32

Given the sweeping and controversial nature of the revisions of the press law - which affect not only daily and weekly newspapers but all licensed publications in Jordan - critics have pointed out that King Hussein has the power, if he wished to exercise it, to summon parliament to sit in extraordinary session to deliberate the amendments.33 But Minister of State for Information Affairs Dr. Samir Mutawi told reporters on May 20 that "there is no intention whatsoever and under any circumstances to go back on anything enshrined in this law. You must bewell aware that the law was issued by royal decree."34 Twenty opposition parliamentary deputies signed a petition on May 21, addressed to Sa'd Hayil al-Surur, the speaker of the house of representatives, calling for a special session of parliament to debate the press law amendments.35 If the deputies gather forty-one signatures, they can request that the king convene a special session of parliament for discussion of specific matters.36

Setting the Stage for the November 1997 Parliamentary Elections

Opponents of the press law amendments not only view the new provisions as violations of the right to free expression guaranteed in the constitution, but also as a deliberate move by the government to silence the opposition press in advance of the parliamentary elections scheduled for November 1997.37 Interior Minister Nadhir Rashid pledged in May 1997 that the upcoming elections will be "free and fair. This is everybody's right. We will not interfere on anyone's behalf and at someone else's expense, because we believe that both supporters and oppositionists are part of the regime, and no one is outside it. We will use this approach, regardless of the results. Let the results be decided by the ballot boxes, regardless of any views and political hues."38

But the interior minister did not explain how free and fair elections can take place when the government has imposed harsh restrictions on the flow of information in newspapers and other publications about issues of broad concern to voters, such as domestic and foreign affairs, and the performance of government officials and ministries. Human Rights Watch believes that press freedom is an essential condition for free and fair elections, and that censorship of the press - particularly in areas related to government conduct of domestic and foreign affairs - deprives voters of information that is needed to cast ballots as informed citizens.39

Canceling the Reduction of State Ownership in Daily Newspapers

There was also speculation that the hasty passage of the amendments was orchestrated to thwart implementation of the provision in the May 1993 press and publication law which mandated that the government reduce its ownership of newspapers to no more than 30 percent by May 17, 1997.40 Articles 19(d) and 19(f) of the law gave the government a maximum of four years to reduce "the shares of the government, government institutions, or the funds thereof" to no more than 30 percent of the capital of press companies or organizations. The state owns about 61 percent of the Arabic-language daily al-Ra'i, the largest-circulation daily in Jordan, and about 32 percentof the Arabic-language daily al-Dustour.41 In early May 1997, before the passage of the amendments, the Jordan Times reported the impact of government ownership on the content of information that appears in both newspapers:

According to senior journalists in [the Arabic-language dailies] al-Ra'i and al-Dustour, the [1993] law was intended to reduce government holding in the companies in order to enhance freedom of the press. They maintain that although the government does not practice direct censorship, its equity in the newspapers gives it the power to determine who sits on the board of both companies, and therefore dictates editorial policy. As a result, said a senior al-Ra'i official, his newspaper practices heavy self-censorship, and [said] that its news coverage would change if the government sold its shares.42

The revised press law annulled the article in the 1993 law that required the government to reduce its ownership to 30 percent.

Suppression of a Peaceful Demonstration

On May 20, 1997, police violently dispersed a planned sit-in by a small group of journalists and other protesters near the office of the prime minister in Amman. According to the Reuter news agency, some fifty demonstrators waved banners proclaiming "No to the Assassination of Press" and "We will not let our mouths be gagged and our pens broken."43

One editor, who was attacked by police and asked not to be identified, told the Jordan Times that he sustained bruises and bleeding under one eyelid. "I was the first person to be assaulted and I was followed by Leith Shubeilat [president of the engineers association], Khaled Fkhaideh [from Sawt al-Mara' weekly] and Serene Halasa [from al-Jazirah, a Qatari television station]," he said.44 Ms. Halasa told the Jordan Times that she and a crew of three others from her television station were present to cover the sit-in. "We interviewed Leith Shubeilat and afterwards our cameraman had gone to the car....I went to give him the keys and an officer yelled, `stop them, arrest them, confiscate the camera.'" She said that while she and Shubeilat were in the station's equipment van, "We were attacked from all sides....They opened the car from the back, and they pulled me out by my hair and they pulled Shubeilat from the car." Three members of the crew were arrested and, according to Ms. Halasa, equipment was confiscated, including the station's camera and microphone.45 Ten persons altogether reportedly were arrested, but they were released after eight hours.

A Jordanian university professor who was an eyewitness told Human Rights Watch that the protesters were "attacked as they were turning back. Leith Shubeilat [as well as others] were dragged around and hassled. They [the police] meant to do it. It was premeditated."46 Jordan's Minister of State for Information Affairs Dr.Samir Mutawideclared that the police conduct was justified because the protesters did not have permission to demonstrate.47 The Jordanian Television Network showed the gathering being dispersed by police as an announcer said: "Any unlicensed gathering, march, or sit-in is considered a violation of the law."48

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has been a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 1975. Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right of everyone to freedom of expression, including the "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."49 The U.N. Human Rights Committee has noted that the manner in which a state defines and restricts expression determines the extent to which individuals enjoy the right to freedom of expression:

It is the interplay between the principle of freedom of expression and such limitations and restrictions which determine the actual scope of the individual's right....[W]hen a State party imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself.50

Governments have a duty to both publishers and readers to ensure that the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, as required by article 19 of the ICCPR, is guaranteed. Media and publishing pluralism therefore entails both access to newspapers and other publications by all segments of the community and the dissemination of a diversity of views, even if these views are opposed to or critical of prevailing state policies. The Jordanian government, in regulating newspapers and other publications, is obligated under international human rights law to do so in such a manner as to protect and foster freedom of expression. It also has a duty to ensure that regulation does not unnecessarily inhibit the free exchange of ideas and information, including the reporting of news, political analysis, and other issues related to domestic and foreign affairs.

The amendments to the press and publications law raise conflicts with internationally recognized norms of free expression because the provisions attempt to regulate and restrict in unreasonable fashion the content of material published in newspapers and other publications. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR allows restriction of expression only in limited circumstances, namely in the interest of "respect of the rights or reputations of others" or "the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals." Such restrictions must be"provided by law" and be "necessary." These exceptions are narrowly framed, and the burden of demonstrating their validity rests with the state.

In the absence of compelling justifications by the government of Jordan, Human Rights Watch finds that the restrictions on expression in the press law amendments create unacceptable infringements on the right to free expression. The content bans are arbitrary by two measures: the necessity for such sweeping restrictions has not been demonstrated, and the measures appear disproportionate. Bans on material that "pertains to the Jordanian armed forces or the security forces," "offends the king," or "features rumors detrimental to the public interest or state agencies or their personnel" seem designed to bar news and critical reporting about government officials and institutions, and the conduct of domestic and foreign policy, rather than to protect national security or pubic order. Similarly, the broadly formulated language banning material that "contains disparaging remarks about religions," "harms national unity," and "foments disharmony among members of society" is both unexplained and subject to arbitrary interpretation, and places the burden on journalists and editors to guess what is meant by these ambiguous terms. But it is the state, in fact, that must specify the meaning of such terms, and justify any content ban by reference to specific and tangible concerns for national security or public order.

The content bans appear clearly designed to impose a regime of self-censorship on the press and other publications, preventing them from carrying news and other information related to domestic and foreign affairs. In this sense, the provisions enacted by the council of ministers in May 1997 are excessive, and extend beyond what is envisioned in the Jordanian constitution with respect to censorship in times of martial law or a state of emergency, neither of which is currently in effect in Jordan. Article 15(iv) of the constitution provides that, even in such extraordinary circumstances, only "a limited censorship" may be imposed on the press, publications and other media "in matters affecting public safety and national defence."

Jordanian government officials have defended the amendments as measures designed to address tabloid weeklies that have practiced irresponsible journalism. Yet, the remedy taken - which imposes broad and harsh restrictions on all newspapers and other publications in Jordan - is wholly disproportionate to the perceived problem. The sweeping content bans, for example, are bound to affect editorial decisions and journalists' reporting and commentary on a wide range of issues of importance to the public. Further, the imposition of prior censorship of all news and other material related to the military and security forces is an unjustifiable restriction on the print media's right to seek and impart, and the public's right to receive, information and ideas.

The exorbitant fines that may be imposed for violations of the content bans - ranging from over $21,000 to over $35,000, and well beyond the financial means of the majority of journalists in Jordan - also appear clearly intended to have a chilling effect on what journalists decide to write and what editors decide to cover and publish. As former Information Minister al-Sharif has noted, such provisions "will serve as a permanent threat to journalists in carrying out their duties."

The provisions of the new law that place restrictions on the operation of privately owned newspapers - such as the citizenship and professional experience requirements for chief editors - appear to constitute arbitrary and discriminatory interference by the state. The government has not persuasively argued the need for such restrictions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Government of Jordan:

· Ensure that legislation designed to regulate the press and other publications maximizes free expression as guaranteed under international human rights law, and further ensure that the imposition of any restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression are specific and narrowly defined so as not to place in jeopardy the right of free expression itself.

· Repeal the May 1997 law that amends provisions of the press and publications law.

· Facilitate a national debate concerning the full scope of the rights and responsibilities of the press in a democratic society, and permit a transparent process by which legislators and other interested parties, including the media, can deliberate on the factors that strike the best balance between the full enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and state regulation of the print media.

· Ensure that any restrictions imposed by law on free expression - particularly those pertaining to the right of journalists and editors to impart information and ideas to the public - meet the following dual test: such restrictions must be specific and not vaguely worded, and must be persuasively justified by the government as necessary for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals, or respect for the rights and reputation of others, within the strict limits required by international law.

· Further ensure that regulation of the print media is applied on a nondiscriminatory basis, and that financial requirements, as well as monetary penalties for violations of the law, do not have the effect, intended or otherwise, of reducing the diversity of the print media or enforcing a regime of self-censorship on journalists, editors and publishers.

To the European Union and its Member States:

· In negotiations between the European Commission and the government of Jordan concerning the E.U.-Jordan Association Agreement, make clear that article 2, specifying respect for human rights and democratic principles as an "essential element" of the agreement, includes Jordan's compliance with the free expression standards of article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

· In bilateral and multilateral meetings with Jordanian government officials, urge the government of Jordan to repeal the May 1997 decree amending the 1993 press and publications law.

To the United States Government:

· Raise Jordan's compliance with article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in bilateral discussions with the government of King Hussein, and urge the government to repeal the May 1997 decree amending the press and publications law.

· In bilateral talks and in public comments, urge the government of Jordan to ensure that measures designed to regulate the press maximize free expression, in compliance with international human rights instruments to which Jordan is a party, and to ensure that restrictions on freedom of expression are specific and narrowly defined so as not to jeopardize the right to freedom of expression itself.

To the United States Congress:

· Use scheduled hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations and House International Relations committees, and the Appropriations committees of both houses, to query the Clinton administration regarding the above recommendations.

· Convey to the government of Jordan the concern of the Members with policies that unduly restrict freedom of expression, and urge the government to repeal the 1997 law that amends the press and publications law of 1993.

* * *

Human Rights Watch/Middle East

Human Rights Watch is a nongovernmental organization established in 1978 to monitor and promote the observance of internationally recognized human rights in Africa, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and among the signatories of the Helsinki accords. It is supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly. The staff includes Kenneth Roth, executive director; Michele Alexander, development director; Cynthia Brown, program director; Barbara Guglielmo, finance and administration director; Robert Kimzey, publications director; Jeri Laber, special advisor; Lotte Leicht, Brussels office director; Susan Osnos, communications director; Jemera Rone, counsel; Wilder Tayler, general counsel; and Joanna Weschler, United Nations representative. Robert L. Bernstein is the chair of the board and Adrian W. DeWind is vice chair. Its Middle East division was established in 1989 to monitor and promote the observance of internationally recognized human rights in the Middle East and North Africa. Eric Goldstein is the acting executive director; Joe Stork is the advocacy director; Virginia N. Sherry is associate director; Clarissa Bencomo, Elahé Sharifpour-Hicks, and Nejla Sammakia are research associates; Gamal Abouali is the Orville Schell fellow; Awali Samara is the associate. Gary Sick is the chair of the advisory committee and Lisa Anderson and Bruce Rabb are vice chairs.

Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org

Gopher Address: gopher://gopher.humanrights.org:5000/11/int/hrw

Listserv address: To subscribe to the list, send an e-mail message to majordomo@igc.apc.org with "subscribe hrw-news" in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank).