Jordan’s Press Association (JPA) slammed parliament Thursday for approving a clause in a draft law that allows the imprisonment of journalists. "We reject this decision. We are opposed to the imprisonment of journalists for expressing their opinions by writing, verbally, or by any other means, and linking this to four taboos," JPA president Tarek Momani said. "At the same time we welcome parliament’s decision to scrap a clause calling for the arrest of journalists over publication matters," he added. During its deliberations of a controversial press and publication draft law, the 110-seat lower house approved Wednesday a clause to imprison journalists over four violations outlined in Article 26.

Source: [Middle East Times]

Yes, I’m disturbed by the news but not surprised. The sad reality is that such a step was somehow expected from the current parliament — whose performance thus far has been extremely disappointing. The Jordanian blogosphere wa quick to react to this new development. Khalaf has a nice wrap up of Jordanian columnists’ reaction to this new draft law. Also the UN news agency, IRIN, ran a feature last week detailing the depressing situation facing Jordanian journalists. Here is an excerpt:

Several incidents of attacks and harassment against journalists in Jordan have been reported since the beginning of this year. The latest involved a reporter from al-Rai newspaper, the most widely circulated Arabic daily, who was beaten up by a group of policemen last month in Amman. The journalist, Khalid Khawaja, was admitted to hospital because of wounds sustained in the attack. The police denied wrongdoing and shifted the blame on Khawaja for allegedly "beating and insulting a policeman on duty."

A few weeks earlier, three journalists from al-Ghad, al-Arab al-Yawm and al-Doustour dailies were arrested when they tried to cover a story in the northern city of Irbid and were reportedly threatened by the military governor to leave the area. Also, the editor al-Mehwar weekly tabloid, Hisham Khalidi, was fined US $15,000 on 9 February for publishing controversial material about a public institution. These events have provoked angry reactions from the media community, including the Jordan Press Association (JPA) and rights groups, who said such measures represent a flagrant infringement of basic human rights and curtail media freedoms.

You can read the full IRIN article here.

Here is a link to a feature that I wrote about a Costa Rican artist who is currently displaying her Petra-inspired artwork at the Jordanian embassy in Washington DC. The feature was published in The Jordan Times last Thursday.

Artist displays Petra-inspired paintings in Washington, DC
By Natasha Twal Tynes

WASHINGTON, DC — For Costa Rican artist Marité Vidales, a brief trip to Jordan in the summer of 2005 served as more than just mere tourism. It was in this trip where she found a muse in the Nabatean city of Petra. Her fascination with Petra started from the first time she laid eyes on it. "I have to paint something about this," Vidales told her husband as soon as they got there. Immediately, the artist and her spouse started taking various pictures of the red-rose city to document everything they saw. "As I walked in the Siq, everywhere I looked I began imagining paintings, in the niches, on the stained rocks and the textured and wind-worn columns," Vidales explained. "I imagined the colors slowly changing throughout time. As soon as I returned from Jordan, I began to paint these images, based on my photographs and memories. I wanted to reproduce and perpetuate the experience," she added.

Read the full story here.

I was dismayed to read that former Minister of Information Adnan Abu Odeh was charged after an interview he granted Aljazeera during which he expressed his opinions about the situation of Jordanian-Palestinians in the Kingdom. I regard it as a real blow to free speech in Jordan.

I interviewed Abu Odeh some years back for a university project that I was working on. I did not agree with everything he said, but I respected his right to say it and even used some of his quotes for my project. In this day and age, charging Abu Odeh for stating his personal opinion is simply outrageous. I want to reiterate what Abu Aardvark has said on the issue:

Whatever one thinks of Abu Odeh or about Jordanian-Palestinian identity politics, nobody interested in liberal reform in Jordan (or in the Arab world) should be happy to see someone like Abu Odeh being prosecuted for simply stating political opinions in public.

Indeed. I also would like to highlight some extracts from today’s The Jordan Times editorial:

Are we never going to learn that silencing the voices of dissent is, ultimately, a self-defeating act? Whether we like it or not, what former Royal Court chief Adnan Abu Odeh recently told Al Jazeera Television should be his right. That he should be charged with sedition is preposterous. First of all, someone engaging in what might be called a seditious enterprise usually intends to create public disorder or disturbance and thereby cause violence. This certainly, by any stretch of the imagination, was not Abu Odeh’s intent … Let us remember that the Jordanian Constitution guarantees citizens freedom of worship, press, opinion, petition and peaceful assembly. That the indignation of some towards Abu Odeh’s opinions should be allowed to be translated into legal charges, flies in the face of these sacred guarantees.

Nas drew my attention to the fact that The Jerusalem Post ran a story today about the on-line reactions to Jordan’s upcoming Red Sea Institute of Cinematic Arts (RSICA). First of all, the title of the Post’s article — Arab bloggers upset Jordanian school open to Israelis — is completely inaccurate. It was not Arab bloggers who were upset. In fact, both Amin, Laith and myself were absolutely thrilled about the project. It was on-line commenters, most of whom were anonymous, that expressed dissatisfaction with the project. Obviously, the journalist who wrote this piece does not know the difference between a blogger and a commenter.

I also noticed that the journalist — Ruth Eglash — decided to highlight the exact same comments that I highlighted on my blog last week without mentioning the fact that I, the blogger, was excited about the project and without making any reference to my blog. It is obvious here that the journalist did not do a fair and forthright job, as she focused only on the negative comments and reported inaccurate information by referring to commenters as bloggers. What irresponsible journalism!