Balancing freedom of expression with public interest

Egyptian blogger Abdel-Karim Suleiman Amer was recently jailed for four years for insulting Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on the Internet. Egyptian Ambassador to Malta Abdelkarim Soliman writes about the case which involves the right of freedom of expression and the responsibility that goes with it.followed with interest the Reuters report entitled "Egypt's bloggers test State media control", which appeared recently in the press, regarding the case of Egyptian blogger Abdel-Karim Suleiman Amer. I would like to highlight the following important facts which are related to this case.

The Public Prosecutor's office conducted its investigations regarding this case and examined the charges brought against the defendant, namely the denial of the existence of God, contempt of the Islamic faith and incitement to hate it, the depiction of the Prophet Mohamed and his followers as icons and symbols of terrorism, and that the teaching of Islam incites to murder, pillage and terror.

Moreover, Mr Amer published statements on his Website that were defamatory, insulting and libellous against the President of Egypt.

During his questioning, the defendant confessed to having posted these statements on his Website. This was further confirmed by the witnesses subpoenaed by the Prosecutor to appear before court.

Therefore, the Prosecutor decided to refer the defendant to the Court of Misdemeanours in Alexandria on the charge of violating articles 98, 102 bis and 179 of the Egyptian Criminal Code. During the proceedings, the defendant admitted these charges.

On February 22, the court sentenced Mr Amer to three years' imprisonment for contempt of religion and one year for the defamatory and libellous statements against the President.

The defendant has appealed the judgment to a higher court, which will examine the case tomorrow. The defendant may also appeal the decision again in the Cassation Court, the country's highest court.

It is worth stressing that the Egyptian Constitution upholds and protects freedom of opinion and the right of expression.

Article 47 of the Constitution states: "Freedom of opinion shall be guaranteed. Every individual shall have the right to express his opinion and to publicise it verbally, in writing, by photography or by other means of expression within the limits of the law. Self-criticism and constructive criticism shall guarantee the safety of the national structure."

Egypt believes that the right of expression should be practised in a free and responsible manner that does not represent a threat to public order. However Egyptian legislation, in line with international legal instruments, has placed certain limitations and regulations to govern the enjoyment of freedom of expression.

Specifically, Egypt, in an effort to protect the rights of its citizens, has criminalised acts amounting to contempt of religions, misrepresentation of Divine scripture, dissemination of hatred of religious icons or threatening places of worship, defamation, in addition to other acts which undermine public order and social stability.

It is the view of the Government of Egypt that such limitations are necessary and proportionate to the objective of protecting public security, morals and social peace, particularly in view of the veneration, reverence and utmost respect that such religious figures are accorded in Egyptian society.

It is worth noting that provisions in Egyptian legislation conform to international human rights legal instruments, notably Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates:

"1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. 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, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputation of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals."

Moreover, there exists a plethora of jurisprudence from a multitude of jurisdictions that affirms the obligation of States to limit the exercise of the right of expression to protect religions.

Among such judicial decisions is the opinion of the European Court on Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Wille vs. Liechtenstein (1999), wherein the court found that in the context of religious opinions and beliefs 'duties and responsibilities' of expressing opinions may legitimately include an obligation to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to object of veneration, gratuitously offensive to others.

The court decided that when expressed opinions may cause public disorder and jeopardise public interest, they may be subject to restrictions and limitations.

Furthermore, the EHCR ruled in Wingrove vs. UK that the State was allowed to prohibit the broadcasting of material that was blasphemous and that was in contempt of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, it is irrefutable that the right to express one's opinions must be exercised in a responsible manner that does not jeopardise public order, security and morals.