Manitoba Press Council

Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, who had been held in U.S. military custody for more than two years, has been freed. What follows is an Associated Press account of his release. See earlier blog items on this site for report of his captivity.

By ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD — Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was reunited with family and colleagues Wednesday, ending more than two years in U.S. military custody after Iraqi judges dropped all legal proceedings against him.

Tearful relatives rushed to embrace Hussein, who had been given just a few hours’ notice of his release. He thanked co-workers and supporters around the world who had worked on his behalf.

“I have spent two years in prison even though I was innocent. I thank everybody,” said Hussein, 36, looking healthy and dressed in a brown traditional Iraqi robe.

American military police handed over Hussein to AP colleagues at a checkpoint near Baghdad International Airport two years and four days after he was detained by U.S. Marines in Ramadi, 70 miles west of the capital.

Hussein, who is unmarried, was brought out of the detention facility at Camp Cropper to the checkpoint aboard a prison bus. There he was hugged by two colleagues before being driven to a Baghdad location for his reunion with more than a dozen family members.

He spoke to other well-wishers on a mobile phone as he was showered with flowers and sweets. Later, he was the center of attention at a traditional feast surrounded by colleagues and relatives.

“I thank God for Bilal’s release and I hope that all Iraqi detainees will be released,” said his 69-year-old mother, Taqiya Ahmed.

“Right from the beginning, I believed my son was innocent … I didn’t sleep a single minute last night thinking it would be the happiest day of my life to see Bilal again. I would like to thank the American army for his release, though it came late,” she added.

His brother Yassir Hussein, a 35-year-old university professor in Baghdad, said he could not describe his happiness. “The family has been going through a hard time over the past two years, but now we thank God that we will have some rest,” he said.

In the United States, AP President Tom Curley said Hussein “is safely back with AP and his family, and it is a great relief to us.”

“Our heartfelt thanks to all of you who supported us during this difficult and challenging period,” Curley said. “Bilal will now be spending some quiet time with his family and resting up.”

Two judicial amnesty committees had ruled in recent days that there would be no trial on any of the accusations raised again Hussein. After confirming those decisions, the U.S. military’s detention command said Monday it no longer deemed Hussein a security threat and he would be freed.

U.S. military investigators had asserted that Hussein had links to insurgents and was found in possession of bomb-making materials when he was detained April 12, 2006. In December, military authorities referred Hussein’s case into the Iraqi court system for possible trial.

In February, the Iraqi parliament enacted a U.S.-backed amnesty law in a step toward national reconciliation. In separate rulings on Sunday and last week, the two Iraqi judicial panels granted Hussein amnesty, which drops the case and assumes no finding of guilt or innocence.

Throughout his detention, Hussein denied he maintained any improper contacts, saying he was doing the normal work of a photographer in a war zone.

Hussein was a member of the AP team that won a Pulitzer Prize for photography in 2005, and his detention drew protests from rights groups and press freedom advocates.

In New York, the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Joel Simon, said the group was “thrilled” by Hussein’s release.

“He now joins a growing list of journalists detained in conflict zones by the U.S. military for prolonged periods and eventually released without any charges or crimes ever substantiated against them,” said Simon. “This deplorable practice should be of concern to all journalists. It basically allows the U.S. military to remove journalists from the field, lock them up and never be compelled to say why.”

Hussein said he heard about the amnesty rulings while listening to Radio Sawa, an Arabic language station financed by the United States. But he received formal notice about the military’s decision to free him just a few hours in advance.

The case of Ken Peters, a Hamilton Spectator reporter who refused to reveal a source during a 2004 civil trial, is now before the Ontario Court of Appeal. What follows is a Canadian Press account of the proceedings.

TORONTO — Ontario’s highest court was urged Tuesday to seize upon the case of a journalist found guilty of contempt as an opportunity to set an important precedent by considering a reporter’s constitutional right to protect confidential sources.

The Ontario Court of Appeal reserved its decision in the case of Ken Peters, a Hamilton Spectator reporter who refused to reveal a source during a 2004 civil trial.

While all sides agreed the trial judge failed to follow procedure in finding Peters in contempt four years ago, media lawyers squared off against counsel for the Ontario Attorney General on whether there was a constitutional question at stake.

“Cases like this are exceedingly rare,” lawyer John Norris, who represents the Canadian Association of Journalists and Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, told the court. “It would be a tremendous benefit to all for this court to decide those broad (constitutional) issues.”

Not so, Crown lawyers countered. “The appeal can be disposed of on other grounds,” argued Robin Basu. “It is not necessary and it can be a mistake to embark on a (constitutional) analysis.”

The media lawyers took the position that the courts should do their level best to obtain evidence from other sources before compelling a journalist to reveal a source, in light of freedom-of-speech rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The Attorney General argued it wasn’t necessary to drag the Constitution into the appeal as contempt and common law, when followed properly, directs judges to do as much.

Although lower courts have considered freedom-of-speech rights in cases where journalists are ordered to divulge sources, a ruling from Ontario’s top court would “clarify and strengthen” the approach to be taken, said lawyer Brian Rogers, who represents Peters. The courts must “ensure that harm is minimum and infringement of (constitutional) rights is kept to a minimum,” Rogers told the court. “This is a rare case. It will set a precedent… an important precedent.”

Peters was called to testify in a $15.5-million dollar civil suit launched by the St. Elizabeth Villa retirement home against the former Hamilton-Wentworth Region, the city and the former mayor. He was found in contempt after he refused to disclose the identity of a person who was present when he received documents alleging abuses at the retirement home.

Former city alderman Henry Merling eventually admitted to being the source of the information.

Peters could have been sent to jail, but was instead ordered to pay $31,600 in legal costs.

That decision effectively told news organizations, large and small, that the price of protecting a confidential source is roughly $32,000, lawyer Patricia Jackson told the court. “Many will say, unfortunately, it is too high,” said Jackson, who represents the Canadian Newspaper Association. The result would be a form of “self-censorship” in order to avoid the use of confidential sources. “We would all be much poorer for that,” Jackson said.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, an arm of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center in Washington, has just published a survey of 111 journalists working in Iraq.

Most of them are veteran war correspondents, and a majority say most of the country is too dangerous to visit. Nine out of 10 say the same about at least half of Baghdad itself. Wherever they go, travelling with armed guards and chase vehicles is the norm for more than seven out of 10 surveyed.

Fifty-seven per cent of respondents said they had local staff murdered or kidnapped in the last year.

Forty-six per cent said there was verbal or physical threats to staff several times a month.

Eighty-seven per cent said local staff could not identify themselves as working for a news organization.

Full details of the survey can be found at the Project website.

On Nov. 1, the Manitoba Press Council sponsored a forum for Red River College journalism students. The topic of the forum was a private MP’s bill to amend the Canada Evidence Act, and thereby create a limited shield law for journalists. What follows are excerpts from what press council chairman John Cochrane told the students.

Why is this private member’s bill so important?

The author of the bill, Mr. Serge Menard, said in parliament in Ottawa last week that he has been working on attaining privilege for journalists for 30 years. He was a media lawyer and is now a sitting member of the Bloc Quebecois. He feels the time is right, and he may be right.

He has gained the support of some important organizations in Quebec: the Legal Bar, the Communications Union, the Confederation of Journalists, and the Quebec Press Council. They represent over 31,000 people with direct knowledge of the process of journalism. These organizations jointly support his bill, and that is impressive.

This idea of shield laws has been simmering for about 50 years, mainly in the U.S., Canada and Europe. Legislation has been adopted in 32 states in the U.S., in most European countries, and this year in Japan. Case law has developed in 18 other states in the U.S., in Britain and Canada. There are no federal laws on this issue in these three countries.

Last Friday, Oct. 23, the bill to create federal law in Canada was given second reading. It is interesting to read some of the comments made by MP’s of each political party as reported by Hansard. Here’s a sampling:

“Freedom of the press is crucial in a democracy.”

“It was a foundation of our democracy.”

“The practice of journalism needs to be protected by legislation as it has been in other countries.”

Situations as what happened to Juliet O’Neill of the Ottawa Citizen should be corrected.’

“The reporting of Watergate, the Enron Scandal, and even the sponsorship scandal in Quebec probably wouldn’t have happened without the protection of whistle blowers by reporters.”

It was all very heady stuff, and a lot of it was true. It would make you proud to be a journalist to hear such glowing support in our parliament. However, the granting of privilege or the passing of this bill cannot be considered a done deal.

One MP last Friday suggested that, “freedom of the press is not actually the issue here and what must be determined is whether the provisions improve existing legislation. A change could have far reaching repercussions on the administration of the justice system as a whole.” Many judges, lawyers, legislators and members of the public have voiced similar concerns over the years.

Some MP’s also suggested that the definition of the word “journalist” in the bill was too broad and that there could be a problem in court getting information from sometimes bloggers. One MP said that, in fact, there was no definition of the word “journalist” in any legislation across Canada

The bill will likely be passed on to a parliamentary committee for further discussion and possible amending and it may not see the light of day.

It is a major consideration to grant privilege which is the right not to have to disclose information to a court. Only the doctor-patient and lawyer-client relationships have been granted it. It also may be allowed in some instances for national security and where there is specific statutory law.

Even some journalists do not agree with privilege and special treatment for journalists. In an article in the Ryerson Review of Journalism in 1995, veteran journalist, George Bain, gave the opinion, “There is a spreading tendency in routine journalism to use one unidentified person as the only source, or among the sources, throughout stories. The reader is left to take on faith such persons actually exist and are not the invention of the reporter. Could any reporter make up an anonymous source? Why not? The courts, in their wisdom, give short shrift to anonymous sources because they concede the possibility of any sort of chicanery occurring anywhere.”

Attribution is very important. Consider a letter to the editor published just two weeks ago in the Winnipeg Free Press. A citizen gave the opinion that, “whenever reference sources are omitted the author loses all credibility. The information becomes useless because the audience cannot weigh the source to decide whether it is willing to trust it. If you cannot decide whether a source is trustworthy, by extension the information presented must be rejected as incredible.” While that is a bit tight and doesn’t consider opinion, it is a very good description of the importance of attribution. And the writer wasn’t commenting on journalism, it was in reference to a story where a teen advised classmates not to eat meat.

Two years ago an op-ed columnist in the New York Times commented about three reporters who had recently been ordered to jail for protecting sources, and the results of a survey of the public’s opinion of journalists. He said that federal shield laws could be helpful in such situations but it is crucial to reflect on why this is happening. He suggested a major reason was “that we in the news media are widely perceived as arrogant, out of touch and untrustworthy and we will have to work harder to win back our credibility with the public.”

So discussions about the issue of protecting sources are important because they hit at the heart of what journalism is all about and why it is important to society. And anyone involved in the process of communicating information to others should consider the responsibility that comes with it.

While it may seem complicated, it really isn’t. It is about the importance of attribution and that facts help in the search for truth. It can be managed, and is done so every day by Canadian media. Even if privilege for the protection of sources never becomes enshrined in law, newsrooms will continue to handle tips and protect sources only after careful consideration and discussion.

Privilege may not even be necessary. New whistle blower legislation being contemplated across Canada and elsewhere will be very helpful to journalists.

Consider what happened in the current case here about the off duty policeman who pleaded guilty of causing the death of a young woman driver. Manitoba’s chief provincial court judge praised reporters for their effort to dig up the truth. It is fair to assume that media received tips from individuals with inside knowledge that led to some of their stories. And it was handled by media without the protection of sources. Just to be fair, the defense lawyers called the coverage “scandalous” and “baseless yellow journalism”.

What are your views on shield laws?

The Associated Press reports that the manager of a radio station critical of both the Somali government and the Islamic extremists who have been trying to overthrow it was killed outside his home in Mogadishu on Friday.

Radio Shabelle’s Bashir Nor Gedi was the eighth journalist slain in the country this year.

The Associated Press said that more than a dozen staffers remained inside the station after the shooting, afraid to return to their homes.

The station was shut down for 15 days earlier this month after government soldiers threatened to pound it with missiles and machine-gun rounds.

A story in today’s Los Angeles Times says five Iraqi journalists were killed in separate attacks on Sunday, marking one of the deadliest days for reporters covering the war-torn country in nearly a year.

The Times report said four reporters for Iraqi media organizations were reported shot to death in ambushes near Kirkuk, in northern Iraq. Previously reported was the death of Salih Saif Aldin, a correspondent for the Washington Post, who apparently was shot to death Sunday while on assignment in the dangerous Sadiyah neighbourhoud of southwest Baghdad.

Western media organizations rely on Iraqi journalists for street reporting, going where foreign correspondents often cannot go because of the dangers to Westerners, the Times noted. Although they speak the language and blend in more easily, the Iraqi reporters often face equal threats: Iraqis discovered working for Western media organizations are treated as enemy collaborators.

“Two years ago, murder became the leading cause of journalists deaths in Iraq, overtaking cross fire,” Joel Campana, the Middle East Project Coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, told the Times. “That is a trend that has continued to this day, and the overwhelming number of victims are Iraqi journalists, for international news organizations and local Iraqi media.”

Before Sunday, the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists had tallied 118 reporter deaths in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Of those, roughly 85 per cent were Iraqis. In recent months, several major news organizations, including ABC, Reuters, The New York Times and CBS have lost Iraqi correspondents.

Some chilling statistics have come out of a meeting of the Inter American Press Association in Miami this weekend.

At least 13 employees of media organizations were killed and two have disappeared in the past six months in the Western Hemisphere.

The Associated Press covered the IAPA meeting. What follows is based on its report.

The Inter American Press Association said media freedom is increasingly under attack in the Western Hemisphere, especially in countries such as Venezuela and Colombia.

And Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries in the hemisphere for journalists, said Gonzalo Marroquin, head of IAPA’s committee on press freedom, during the group’s 63rd General Assembly in Miami.

“The situation is not improving in general. We are seeing that in some countries it is becoming considerably worse,” Marroquin said.

The group saw some advances. In the U.S., the House and Senate Judiciary committees have approved laws that would shield reporters from being forced to reveal their sources in federal court. And Argentina’s Supreme Court ruled a local government could not withdraw advertising form newspapers simply because of its critical coverage. The Mexican senate decriminalized libel and defamation on a federal level.

Yet in Mexico, three journalists and three delivery workers were killed, the IAPA reported. Two other reporters disappeared. Journalists in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Haiti, Paraguay, Peru and the United States also were killed.

At the meeting, U.S. newspapers cited concern over a federal judge’s order that five journalists identify government sources who told them a scientists was a suspect in a series of 2001 anthrax attacks. And they reported the continued detention of Associated Press photographer Bilal Husein, who has been held in Iraq by the U.S . military since 2006 but has never been charged.

The longest and most passionate discussion focused on Venezuela, where, representatives said, the government of Hugo Chavez is slowly muzzling any media outlet critical of the government.

Venezuelan newspapers reported nearly 30 incidents of politically motivated attacks or lawsuits against journalists there in the pst six months.

Jose Ocanto, editor of the daily El Impulso, told the AP he is still battling legal and civil defamation cases stemming from a four-year-old story on public corruption. After a court initially ruled in his favour, Ocanto was chased through the courthouse by protesters and his car set on fire, he said. In December, a military official threatened to kill him if he did not reveal the name of a photographer who ook a picture of the official’s daughter carrying his weapon, Ocanto said.

In Cuba, at least 27 independent reporters are in jail.

And in the case of Colombia, Humberto Castello, the executive editor of The Miami Herald’s Spanish-language sister paper, denounced President Alvaro Uribe for accusing the paper’s stringer of reporting lies. Journalist Gonzalo Guillen was already receiving death threats before Uribe’s statement. Following the president’s accusation, which the paper maintains is unfounded, Colombian authorities rescinded protection of Guillen, and he was forced to flee the country.

The Manitoba Press Council is sponsoring a debate for journalism students at Red River College on Nov. 1 on the issue of legislative protection for journalists and their sources. Veteran Winnipeg lawyer and newspaper columnist Harold Buchwald and Chair of the Manitoba Press Council, John Cochrane, will present the pros and cons of the issue.

Here’s a bit of background on the current debate.

Generally, such legislative protection is known as a shield law. The proposal which prompted the current debate came from Serge Menard, a Quebec MP, who presented to the last Parliament a private member’s resolution, which, if it had passed, would have amended the Canada Evidence Act. His action has the strong support of the Quebec Press Council and journalists in Quebec .

Backers of the proposal argue that it balances two fundamental rights in Canada - the free movement of information and the right to a fair and eqitable trial.

The bill sought to establish the principle that journalists cannot be forced to disclose in court unpublished notes from a story unless they are “of a decisive importance” for the resolution of litigation, and only if there is no other means of providing the evidence. The decision on this would be made by a judge, not the police or Crown prosecutors.

The bill would also have provided protection for confidential sources. Disclosing these sources also would be up to a judge, who would first need to ascertain that such disclosure would be in the public interest by taking into account a variety of factors including the conclusion of litigation and the consequencdes to the source of his or her identity being disclosed.

Finally, the bill would have put additional constraints on police searches of the homes of media members.

Add your views on this matter to our blog.

Journalists’ demands for access to information frequently are in collision with privacy rights, which various levels of bureaucracy cite as a reason for withholdling information.

Where do individual Canadians and media fit into this ongoing tug-of-war between privacy and access?

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada recently launched a blog, written by staffers, dealing with an assortment of privacy issues and problems. In its mission statement, the commissioner’s office says “this blog will make a special effort to identify and highlight information and advice that may help Canadians understand their rights under Canada’s privacy legislation. We will be making a special effort to identify and explain material that will help owners, managers and employees of small and medium-sized enterprises to understand their rights and responsibilities under Canada’s privacy legislation.”

Two forums are coming up soon on access to information. The first takes place Oct. 2, from noon to 1 p.m. in Portage Place at the Edmonton Court. Moderator Tom Brodbeck will be joined by panelists Irene Hamilton, the Manitoba Ombudsman, Steve Lambert from Canadian Press and others. On Oct. 4, John Reid, the former federal Information Commissioner, will be speaking at the University of Winnipeg on the topic: Twenty years later. The increasing importance of access to information. Reid’s talk is set to run from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Theatre B (Room 447) Manitoba Hall.
An exhaustive annual report released recently by the Canadian Newspaper Association found the federal government among the worst in Canada at responding to access requests, The Canadian Press reports.
In a CP story out of Ottawa last week, the head of the CNA says the Conservative government is thwarting Canadians’ right to know how federal business is being conducted.

See CNA news conference here.
But Anne Kothawala says roadblocks faced by reporters using the access-to-information system are not a partisan issue unique to the current government, which was elected on a platform of accountability and transparency.
The practice of “red-flagging” access requests that come from reporters continues under the Tories as it did under the Liberals, Kothawala contends. She said that results in information being sat upon by federal departments to the point that it is no longer newsworthy.
It’s an old government practice, first revealed in 2003. It was denounced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he was in opposition.