Egyptian blogger Kareem Suleiman’s four-year prison term for insulting both Islam and President Hosni Mubarak has been upheld on appeal.  Reporters sans frontières/Reporters Without Borders today issued a statement condemning the decision and pointing out its ominous implications.

“All of Egypt’s Internet users are being targeted through Suleiman,” the press freedom organisation said. “A threat is now hanging over their heads. We fear that other arrests and website closures could soon take place as the authorities seem to have decided to bring Internet users into line.”

RSF also includes this very interesting tidbit.

During today’s appeal hearing, the presiding judge ruled that the courts could accept complaints brought by individual lawyers demanding reparations from Suleiman for “insulting” Islam in his blog, for which he used the pseudonym “Kareem Amer.” He said Suleiman would appear soon before a civil court, which could order him to pay damages to lawyers who had brought complaints.

I have a question: Is that privilege limited to lawyers?  Don’t all Muslims suffer “damages” when someone insults Islam?  This sounds like a racket scheme to enable Egyptian lawyers to pad their income and/or Islamic credentials.

The day before Kareem’s sentence was upheld, an Egyptian judge made a complaint against the government for failing to shut down 21 websites alleged to insult the president.  What a country!  The government allows a modicum of freedom of speech to websites supposedly dishonouring the president, and it falls to a judge to take action—against the government.  Why does President Mubarak need a judge to force him to defend his own honour?

Among the websites named are the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information and two popular blogs: Baheyya and Gharbeia.  (Baheyya is in English, the other two in Arabic.)

RSF had previously named Egypt an enemy of internet freedom.

h/t: Global Voices Online

Previous related posts: