EMIRATI NEWSPAPER FORCED TO SUSPEND PUBLICATION

UNCLAS ABU DHABI 000690

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y - PARA 6 CLASSIFICATION CHANGED

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

FOR NEA/ARP

E.O. 12958: DECL: 7/06/2019
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL AE
SUBJECT: EMIRATI NEWSPAPER FORCED TO SUSPEND PUBLICATION

Classified by Ambassador Richard Olson, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (SBU) Summary: Local Arabic daily, Al Emarat Al Youm, was
ordered on July 2 to suspend publication for 20 days and its Chief
Executive Officer and Editor-in-Chief each fined 20,000 Dirhams
(Approx. 5500 USD),following the 2006 publication of an article
accusing Abu Dhabi ruling family members of race horse doping. Court
proceedings began in January 2007 and only were completed in July,

2009. Post documented the case in the Freedom of Speech sections of
both the 2007 and 2008 Human Rights Reports. The ruling comes down
in the context of an already tense media atmosphere created by the
newly passed media law and the creation of a new court in Abu Dhabi
that will deal exclusively with media cases. End summary.


2. (SBU) In both the 2007 and 2008 Human Rights Reports, in the
context of freedom of speech restrictions, Post reported the
suspension of publication of Al Emarat Al Youm and the fining of its
CEO and Editor and Chief. The ban and fines stemmed from the paper's
2006 publication a story entitled "Doping Scandal at Warsan Stables
in the Emirates" that accused ruling family members Sheikh Hazza bin
Sultan bin Zayed al Nahyan and Sheikh Khaled bin Sultan bin Zayed al
Nahyan of doping their race horses competing in international racing
events.


3. (SBU) The fines were initially issued on April 29, 2007 but never
enforced. According to a journalist at an English language daily,
the suspension of the paper was added to the sentence later, but the
case remained under appeal until the court's July 2 ruling. This
week's enforcement of the ban and the fines is the culmination of
several appeals by the paper and the dismissal by a Federal Supreme
Court judge of the paper's evidence to support its article.


4. (SBU) Local media contacts told emboffs that the ruling was based
on the outdated penal code of a 1980 media law. Our contacts
bemoaned the severity of the ruling and its timing particularly as
the UAEG attempts to woo more international media outlets to the
country. One journalist from the UAE's official news agency WAM
(Emirates News Agency) said the Al Emarat Al Youm editor knew that
the publication of the story would be "like walking through a field
of landmines" and by publishing the story anyway, the editor
increased the legitimacy and readership numbers of his paper.


5. (SBU) In a direct reaction to the July 2 ruling, Al Khaleej
(circulation approximately 90,000) published an anonymous editorial
entitled "A Group Punishment" which commented that rulings by a
"reputable court must be respected" but that the restrictive and
anachronistic law required re-evaluation. The editorial implored the
UAEG to look to the future and pointed out that group punishments of
this nature were retrogressive and counterproductive.


6. (SBU) COMMENT: The UAEG's reaction is not a surprise in the
context of the much- criticized 2008 media law which clearly outlines
the consequences of publication of articles that malign "a ruling
family" in the UAE. What is a surprise is the decision to enforce
the sentence at this time when the public had almost forgotten about
it. As one contact pointed out, "it may simply be a matter of
cleaning house". Journalists are making linkages between this case
and the recently announced specialized court created in Abu Dhabi to
deal with lawsuits involving the media --- including cases of "libel,
defamation, and untruthful reporting." With UAE media already
practicing self-censorship, there is increased concern that the
government will take steps to reinforce its own role in drawing the
lines within which the media operate here.

OLSON