Like others interested in issues of rights and freedoms, I saw the latest Human Rights Watch report, and the truth is that I looked at it without the intention of writing about it, the core of its work, and the government has the right to interact with what is objective in it, and present its biases or errors, and “our patient, they have nothing to do with it”.
In fact, I first looked at your summary, not looking carefully at the rest of the paragraphs, and found nothing new in it that requires interaction in criticism, adoption, or being in the middle, because what the summary came with is closer to the allegations of a committee that of the committees that support the detainees mentioned in the report, and these committees function freely, and publicly, without any restriction, and far from the report of a human rights organization that assumes its commitment to investigate and scrutiny of the facts, and a commitment to adhere to the controls stipulated in the universally devoted literature on human rights.
However, the negative echoes of the report, and the reactions of some civilian actors that we did not know responding to the reports of international organizations, made me read the entire report again, a reading that made me ask myself questions about the context and the objectives.
The report cites a saying attributed to Mr. Omar Al-Radi, which is “You are in you”, and made it the title of the report’s author, meaning that no matter how good your intentions seem, conviction is yours. destiny. , and in fact, this saying is valid in the case of Morocco with some international organizations, which means that no matter how much Morocco has given evidence of the development of the human rights system in terms of reality and legislation, and no matter how false they are the accusations against him, and because of much cooperation with UN mechanisms, including special rapporteurs and working groups, which has always been praised by the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, the accusations and clichés will continue to be the reporting column of some internationals. organizations, including Human Rights Watch, and that is why I titled my article with: “In you, my country”.
Some of the objectives of this report are evident in the recommendations it made and, by the way, we have no objection to the recommendations made to the Moroccan government and Parliament, regardless of our agreement with some of them, and our reservations about others. because such recommendations are tools of the work of human rights organizations, and because most of them are backed by universal references in this field, and because this is the most important, it is one of the issues around which a debate is taking place internal free and open, and raised in the recommendations of the national human rights organizations, and in the recommendations of the National Human Rights Council, as raised even in Parliament and in public debate, and therefore no one expected that a international organization raised it as if we were minors In interaction with the recommendations that have a human rights perspective, with which Morocco interacts every year when it harmonizes its national legislation with the conventions, letters and additional protocols that it ratifies, including those belonging to the new generations of human rights.
But the horse is stuck in the recommendations that are made to the great powers, such as the United States, England and the European Union, which call for pressure on Morocco to respond to those recommendations, and that means going from a human rights actor to a political actor, adopting threatening language on issues that are at the heart of national sovereignty, that is, questions of legislation.
As a trade unionist and defender of human rights, and one of the defenders of the compatibility of national legislation with universal pacts and agreements, but rather a defender of the supremacy of universal human rights pacts, I consider that national legislation is the result of a discussion and a purely national consensus, and that the recommendations on human rights do not become the sword of Damocles in international relations, otherwise, we will make the nobility, comprehensiveness and universality of human rights a goal that we must look for in a blackmail tool in the framework of international relations, and each nation develops its legal arsenal according to its historical process conditioned by respect for the balance of values, otherwise, why would the United States of America America didn’t abolish the death penalty? And why did the US Supreme Court throw out the bill allowing intentional termination of pregnancy/abortion?
The report repeats the phrase “opponents of the king” in many paragraphs, to suggest to its reader that the cases in which the report worked are cases of detainees who were convicted for their opposition to the monarchy in Morocco, and the fact is that these detainees, their families and their support committees have never raised the issue of the position of the political system, for example, Mr. Taoufik Bouachrine, sentenced to 15 years in prison, has long been accused by some radical voices in the country from “al-Makhaznah” due to his support for the 2011 constitution, and Mr. Sleiman Raissouni previously wrote an editorial glorifying the person of the king in the newspaper “Akhbar Al-Youm”, whose editor-in-chief was titled “ Zayd “A king Zaid.” As for Mr. Maati Monjib, he was a member of the Moroccan coalition for a parliamentary monarchy, so the report does not defend these cases, but eats garlic in his mouth and attributes to her what she never stated, to fulfill its purpose, which is to attack and photograph the monarchy to take revenge on their opponents. A consolidation of the orientalist reference in which most international organizations operate, dealing with countries outside the European and North American axis, as if they were countries that did not leave the pre-colonial stage, where there are no effective institutions, parties, and the civil society, and limit them to the dichotomy of the ruler and the ruled.
And when the organization did not find an example to substantiate its statement about the Moroccan State’s fight against freedom of opinion and expression, and because Morocco was and is known for the plurality of its press platforms with different editorial lines, the report “ Dial Faik’s husband” invented two lies that reveal the hobby in which the authors of the report fell.
As for the first “Fayek”: it is related to the closure of the newspaper “Moroccan News of the Day” founded by Taoufik Bouachrine. The report stated that the closure was an arbitrary act committed by the Moroccan authorities, knowing that the closure of any journalistic platform in Morocco is only a final judicial sentence, and the fact is that no judicial file was requested on the arrest of “Akhbar Al-Youm”. manager and founder, despite the fact that the acts of sexual assault for which he was convicted occurred at the newspaper’s headquarters, and the authorities had sufficient justification to close the newspaper and its headquarters if it was their intention to stifle opinion and the independent press, as he promoted, but he acted wisely by separating the editorial line of the newspaper from the actions of its general manager, which fall under criminal law, and even human rights condemn the ugliness of his exploitation of the workers and journalists who fall under his authority .
The fact is that if we go to the Casablanca courts, and to the Casablanca Labor Inspectorate, we will find a dispute between the journalists who sacrificed themselves for the continuation of the newspaper and its owners, who are Mr. Bouachrine’s family, who automatically closed it, avoiding the fulfillment of the rights of all workers and employees, as well as collaborators and suppliers. Human Rights Watch itself bothered to contact the Moroccan National Press Union, so that it could meet with all the journalists of the newspaper, and to discover the truth about the owners of the newspaper, and that the Moroccan authorities had nothing to do with its closure.
Regarding the second hypothesis: it is the affirmation that the following platforms: “Le 360, Parliament and Shuf TV” are among the tools of the State to attack the opposition, with evidence, as the organization says, that these platforms they do not criticize officials. .
We will not enter into the debate about the freedom to choose the editorial line, which a journalistic platform can do defending the government in all or one of the State institutions. It is known in journalistic norms to say that this newspaper, for example, is close to the military institution, such as “Larazon” in Spain, or close to intelligence such as the American website Axios, or the socialist government such as the Spanish “El País”, or the government when it is on the right such as “El Mundo”, and nobody has never talked about that this is what is wrong with these platforms, which are known to be one of the strongest sources of news internationally, not just locally.
We will not go into this controversy, and we will prove the demand of “Human Rights Watch” regarding the three cases and their pacification by officials, knowing that a simple follow-up of what these sites publish will find that they criticized heads of state. government, ground officials, and senior officials appointed by the king, including the current prime minister. That according to the report had taken over the entire journalistic body.
We can go further by exposing the failures of the report, especially in terms of its deviation in defending cases in which there was a legal dispute over sexual assaults, and in which the State was not a party, since the conflict is between plaintiffs of civil rights, including women journalists, and the Public Ministry, which is entrusted with public rights and is an independent authority from the rest of Salt, including the Ministry of Justice, and between people who happened in this case who are press professionals , but The organization instead of supporting the human rights trend that claims to have a bias towards victims of sexual assault until it is proven that they did not occur, which did not happen during the trials that were public, preferred to speak of fabrication without providing any evidence, to serve its narrative that seeks to condemn the Moroccan regime for ends that only the future will reveal.
But the examples that we have given will suffice, which are clear in revealing the inconsistency of the report, which is the inconsistency that, when added to the madness of the denunciations of possession and use of the “Pegasus” software, whose creators evaded the legal challenge, we conclude that these reports are one of the mechanisms to use soft power (in our case, NGOs (international government and international media close to the circles that move them), to blackmail sovereign states and try to weaken them by questioning their institutions, especially those that guarantee stability: the royal institution, the judiciary, the military and security institutions.