ABU DHABI: The National Media Council (NMC), the UAE's regulatory body, yesterday welcomed all discussion and debate on a new draft media law expected to be issued later in 2009, and said the new regulations provide a number of provisions that protect and promote freedom of expression in the country.

However, Human Rights Watch (HRW) yesterday slammed the draft media law, saying it falls short of international free speech standards, and urged the UAE president to seek revisions.

But the NMC reacted swiftly, claiming that the HRW comments and recommendations "do not represent a fair assessment of the law."

In a study released in Dubai yesterday, the US-based watchdog said the draft law "inadequately addresses the failings of the current law and fails to conform to international free speech standards."

"Ideally, the president would not sign the draft law. We hope that it will not go through as it is," HRW researcher Samer Muscati told reporters as the group released the study, entitled "Just the Good News, Please. New UAE Media Law Continues to Stifle Press."

"Its vague clauses and harsh fines of the new law will almost guarantee arbitrariness by government authorities and self-censorship by the media," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch.

Officials at NMC, however, argue that the draft law is better than the existing regulations, which have been in force since 1980, but have rarely been implemented. In a statement, published by state news agency WAM, NMC said, "The National Media Council would like to note its view that some of the remarks made in the HRW report show either a real lack of understanding of the situation in the Emirates or an attempt to promote concepts and/or procedures that are not compatible with the laws of the UAE and its value system.

"While the NMC does not wish to comment on the HRW report point by point, it further notes that one particular point made by the report is inaccurate and misleading. Thus, while the report mentions that the newspaper Emarat Al-Youm was suspended by a court order in 2008 for 20 days as a result of a conviction for defamation, the report fails to note that the paper appealed successfully to a higher court against this decision which has in consequence not been implemented."

The NMC also said the HRW comments and recommendations do not represent a fair assessment of the law. It said: "(1) The NMC notes that HRW has, accurately, noted that 'a number of the provisions in the pending media law are an important step forward' and that it has pointed to the following aspects of the Law that represent, in the NMC's view, significant steps forward in terms of press freedom in the UAE: (a) that, notwithstanding the provisions in the Press and Publications Law of 1980 relating to the potential imprisonment of journalists and other media personnel, the Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum has directed that no journalist may be sentenced to imprisonment for stories that they may write or publish, this directive is now being incorporated in the draft Media Law, which does not include any article that could lead to the imprisonment of a journalist.

(b) That the draft law 'instructs government institutions to facilitate information flow to the media and to respond to their requests for information.'

The NMC notes that, in this context, the vice president and prime minister has recently set up a website designed specifically to provide a channel through which journalists, and other members of the public, may put forward questions that they may wish to have answered.

(c) That more significantly, the pending law provides journalists freedom from coercion to reveal sources, reflecting the government's commitment to the journalistic right to protect sources; in this particular regard, the pending law's protection exceeds that of many advanced democracies, including the United States.

"The NMC notes that the draft Media Law has been drawn up within a context whereby the prevailing society norms and value system of the United Arab Emirates have been taken into account. It has not been designed for application in other societies, with different value systems, but is only to be applicable within the context of the United Arab Emirates.

"(2). The NMC notes, in particular, that the new draft Media Law also (a) has only three articles relating to potential penalties, far fewer than in the existing legislation (The Press and Publications Law of 1980). (b) Specifies only three types of story whose publication would be contrary to the law, compared to 16 types of story thus specified in the Press and Publications Law of 1980. (c) Provides for a right to appeal to the courts for a judicial review of any decision taken by the government while any financial penalties provided for under the legislation can only be implemented following the completion of a due legal process. (d) Specifically refers in Article 2 to the guarantee of freedom of expression and opinion, whether written, verbal or by other means and, in Article 3, to the fact that there is no prior censorship of licensed media in the country.

"It is the view of the NMC, that, despite the above, the HRW comments and recommendations are based to a large extent on a failure to understand fully a number of significant aspects of the draft Media Law.

"(3). Restrictions on Media Content Under the above heading, Human Rights Watch makes the following Recommendations: (a) 'Amend the UAE (draft) Media Law to conform to international human rights law protecting free speech by removing restrictions on criticism of the UAE Government.' This recommendation relates to Article 32 of the Draft Media Law that states that fines can be imposed as penalties on those who are deemed to 'insult the person' of the head of state, his deputy or other senior federal government officials or their deputies.

"The article, as drafted, specifically refers to an insult 'to the person' of the senior officials mentioned -- not to any comment on the way in which they may perform their duties. Within the context of the system of government and the value system on the United Arab Emirates, personal attacks on senior officials, relating to their personal status, beliefs or behavior, are considered to be unacceptable, even if such personal attacks, or 'insults to the person,' are permissible in other countries. The NMC makes no apology for drawing a distinction between personal insults and professional forms of criticism.

"The NMC notes, however, that, as is the case with regards to other articles of the Draft Media Law involving penalties, the imposition of any fines under this clause can only occur following the completion of a proper trial within the framework of the judicial process.

"Human Rights Watch further comments, in this context that: 'The UAE should modify its defamation laws to exclude speech directed at public figures, particularly government personnel.'

The NMC notes that public figures, including government personnel, in many, if not most, advanced countries are provided with the ability to seek legal recourse against defamation and sees no reason why public figures in the UAE should not enjoy the same right to seek legal recourse against alleged defamation. Human Rights Watch further makes the following Recommendation: (b). 'Amend the UAE media law to conform to international human rights law protecting free speech by permitting discussion of the economic crisis in the UAE.' This recommendation relates to Article 33 which says, in part, that fines may be imposed as penalties for press coverage that is deemed to harm the country's reputation, foreign relations or obligations or that damages its national identity, or 'harms the country's national economy.'

The NMC notes, in particular, the following: Any allegation of a violation of the law with regards to the publication of 'misleading' stories can only be upheld by the courts where it is proven, to the full satisfaction of the courts, that the writer of any such story was fully aware that the content of the story was 'misleading' and that the writer had the deliberate intention of misleading the public and of doing harm, for example, to the national economy or to the country's foreign relations. Unless the courts are satisfied both that the writer was aware that the content of the story was false and that the writer had the full and conscious prior intention of misleading the public or of causing damage, then any allegation of a violation under the law cannot be proven and, in consequence, no penalties under the law can be imposed.

— With input from agencies