‘Kiev government kills Ukrainian pensioners, children’


A man mourns the dead along a road near Horlivka in Ukraine, photo: EPA

Translated from NOS TV in the Netherlands:

Civilians killed in eastern Ukraine

Tuesday 29 Jul 2014, 13:11 (Update: 29-07-14, 13:30)

The pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine say that today 22 civilians were killed by shelling. According to the rebels in Lugansk a retirement home and other houses were shot at. Five people were killed in this. Russian television showed images of bodies in wheelchairs, covered with blankets.

This video shows shocking images of the destroyed Lugansk home for elderly people.

In Horlivka, besieged by the Ukrainian army, there are 17 dead, according to the mayor, including three children.

Civilian dead

Human rights groups say that both sides in the conflict are using unguided missiles, causing more and more victims within the civilian population. Yesterday, they say, in Lugansk and Donetsk eight people were killed. Because of the fighting in eastern Ukraine, the Dutch [flight MH17 disaster] research team is unable to reach the disaster site.

According to figures from the United Nations, between mid-April and July 26, 1129 people have been killed in Ukraine.

As if these many Ukrainian deaths are not already horrible enough, there is also the MH17 disaster, killing hundreds of people from many nationalities. This disaster should be investigated thoroughly, instead of politicians and corporate media abusing it for militarist propaganda.

An example about Dutch media abusing grief about the Malaysia Airlines disaster.

Hans De Borst, whose daughter Elsemiek was one of the victims, wrote (translated):

Thank you very much, Mr. Putin, separatist leaders, or the Ukrainian government for the murder of my dear and only child, Elsemiek de Borst.

So, in this quote, at least three parties are potentially guilty of the MH17 disaster.

However, when Dutch RTL commercial TV mentioned this, their headline was (translated):

‘Putin, thanks for murdering my only child’

So, the at least three potential sets of guilty people in Mr de Borst’s comment had miraculously been reduced to one person. That is ‘better’ if, being a Big Media corporation, you want to make people war-minded.

In corporate media abuse of the M17 horror for war propaganda in Germany, contrary to Dutch RTL, not one person is blamed. The whole Russian people (pro- or anti-Putin, view A, view B, view C, or view D on Ukraine) is accused by corporate journalist Jan Fleischhauer. Bringing back unpleasant memories of war propaganda during Hitler’s 1941-1945 war on the Soviet Union.

British World War I media censorship


This video abouyt United States armed forces is called Censored letters WWI.

From daily The Guardian in Britain:

First world war: how state and press kept truth off the front page

Threatening journalists with arrest seems unthinkable now

Not that unthinkable, unfortunately, see, eg, here and here.

– but that was just one of the obstacles they faced at the start of WW1

Roy Greenslade

Sunday 27 July 2014 19.00 BST

On this, the 100th anniversary of the day the first world war began, it is sobering to look back at the way that conflict was so badly reported. The catalogue of journalistic misdeeds is a matter of record: the willingness to publish propaganda as fact, the apparently tame acceptance of censorship and the failure to hold power to account. But a sweeping condemnation of the press coverage is unjust because journalists, as ever, were prevented from informing the public by three powerful forces – the government, the military and their own proprietors.

It is undeniable that newspapers began by demonising the German enemy. They published fabricated stories of German barbarism, which were accepted as fact. Although Belgian and French citizens were executed as reprisals by the German army in the early months of the war, many unverifiable stories – later dubbed “atrocity propaganda” – were wholly untrue. Editors and journalists were therefore guilty.

Censorship was a different matter. It was imposed from the opening of hostilities and, although gradually relaxed, it remained sufficiently strict to constrain reporters from obtaining information or, should they manage to get it, from publishing it. Rigid government control was exercised in conjunction with a complicit group of committed pro-war press proprietors.

The Defence of the Realm Act, enacted four days after hostilities began, gave the authorities power to stifle criticism of the war effort. One of its regulations stated: “No person shall by word of mouth or in writing spread reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm among any of His Majesty’s forces or among the civilian population.” Its aim was to prevent publication of anything that could be interpreted as undermining the morale of the British people, but it did not stifle all negative reporting. If it had done so, then Lord Northcliffe could not have campaigned so relentlessly against war minister Lord Kitchener through his newspapers, the Times and Daily Mail.

It was the Times’s war correspondent, Charles à Court Repington, who broke the story in May 1915 of the shortage of artillery ammunition. What became known as “the shells crisis” had explosive political results. It forced prime minister Herbert Asquith to form a coalition government, catapulted David Lloyd George into the post of munitions minister and was a precursor to Lloyd George replacing Asquith.

Northcliffe’s campaign against Kitchener, a national hero then held in high public regard, resulted in a revolt by a million Mail readers and several advertisers. He was quoted as saying at the time: “I mean to tell the people the truth and I don’t care what it costs.” He was vindicated once that truth emerged; sales and advertising returned.

Northcliffe was aware of having two advantages in being critical of the war effort. First, his patriotism was never in question because his papers published hysterical anti-German propaganda. Second, he was assured of support from Lloyd George, with whom he connived in order to oust Asquith. But Northcliffe was far from the only newspaper proprietor who supported the war. CP Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian, was initially opposed to it, as were his senior staff. After hostilities began, they felt compelled to back it. “Once in it,” wrote Scott, “the whole future of our nation is at stake and we have no choice but do the utmost we can to secure success.”

At the war’s outbreak, Kitchener banned reporters from the front. But two determined correspondents, the Daily Chronicle’s Philip Gibbs and the Daily Mail’s Basil Clarke, risked his wrath by defying the ban and acting as “journalistic outlaws” to report from the front line. Gibbs was arrested, warned that if he was caught again he would be shot, and sent back to England. Clarke, after reporting on the devastation in Ypres following the German bombardment, returned home after a similar warning.

Three months later, the government relented by allowing five “accredited reporters” access to the front and, over the following three years, several more journalists were also given accreditation. But censorship ensured that all sorts of facts were hidden from the readers of British newspapers. British blunders went unreported, as did German victories.

Even the bloodiest defeat in British history, at the Somme in 1916, in which 600,000 Allied troops were killed, went largely unreported. The battle’s disastrous first day was reported as a victory. The Daily Mail’s William Beach Thomas later admitted he was “deeply ashamed” of what he had written, adding: “The vulgarity of enormous headlines and the enormity of one’s own name did not lessen the shame.” Gibbs defended his actions, claiming that he was attempting to “spare the feelings of men and women, who, have sons and husbands fighting in France”. He had the gall to claim that the truth was reported about the Somme “apart from the naked realism of horrors and losses, and criticism of the facts”. After the war, both men accepted knighthoods for services to journalism. Others, like Hamilton Fyfe, previously editor of the Daily Mirror and later editor of the Daily Herald, regarded the honour as a bribe to keep quiet about the inefficiency and corruption he had witnessed.

Only later did the public learn of the high casualty toll and the horrific nature of trench warfare, such as the use of poison gas and the effects of shell shock. With these appalling conditions in mind, it was no wonder that Lloyd George confided to Scott in December 1917: “If people really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don’t know, and can’t know.” He was speaking after listening to Gibbs’s description – at a private meeting – of the reality on the western front. He conceded that the censors “wouldn’t pass the truth”.

Lloyd George was sufficiently concerned about sagging public morale in 1917 to encourage the creation of a propaganda body, the National War Aims Committee. He also offered Northcliffe a chance to join the cabinet. He refused that post, but accepted an appointment as director for propaganda at the ministry of information. So Britain’s most influential media tycoon became the war’s official propagandist. The prime minister extended his press control by appointing the newly-ennobled Daily Express and London Evening Standard owner, Lord Beaverbrook, as the first minister of information. Lloyd George used press proprietors as a private reporting service, with censored articles being passed on to the cabinet.

But self-censorship played a big role. As Gibbs wrote later: “We identified ourselves absolutely with the armies in the field. We wiped out of our minds all thought of personal scoops and all temptation to write one word which would make the task of officers and men more difficult or dangerous. There was no need of censorship of our despatches. We were our own censors.”

A fuller version of this article is published in the latest issue of the British Journalism Review.

The posters that sold World War I to the American public: here.

The U.S. confiscated half a billion dollars in private property during #WWI: here.

Is blogging ‘terrorism’ in Cameron’s Britain?


This video says about itself:

UK Terrorism Law: Detention of David Miranda

25 August 2013

This video by Chaninat & Leeds law firm discusses the detainment of David Miranda at Heathrow airport under the UK Terrorism Act. It is inferred the reason for his detainment was due to his partner, Glenn Greenwald‘s reporting of the Edward Snowden situation.

The speaker is Anna Power, an experienced UK solicitor, and a journalist for Chaninat & Leeds, a Thailand law firm specializing in litigation in Thailand.

From daily The Guardian in Britain:

UK definition of terrorism ‘could catch political journalists and bloggers

Terror law watchdog says police and prosecutors have exceptional powers that must be confined to ‘their proper purpose’

Alan Travis, home affairs editor

Tuesday 22 July 2014 08.39 BST

The current British definition of terrorism is so broadly drawn that it could even catch political journalists and bloggers who publish material that the authorities consider dangerous to public safety, said the official counter-terrorism watchdog.

David Anderson QC, the official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws, said Britain had some of the most extensive anti-terrorism laws in the western world, which gave police and prosecutors the powers they needed to tackle al-Qaida-inspired terrorists, rightwing extremists and dissident Northern Irish groups.

“But if these exceptional powers are to command public consent, it is important they need to be confined to their proper purpose, and recent years have seen a degree of ‘creep’ in parliament that could be reversed without diminishing their impact”

In his annual report to be published on Tuesday, Anderson is expected to give three examples of how the terror laws were too widely drawn.

They included “actions aimed at influencing governments”, hate crime and what he called the “penumbra of terrorism”.

On the first, Anderson said Britain’s laws treated politically motivated publication of material thought to endanger life or to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public as a terrorist act if it was done for the purpose of influencing the government.

He said in other European and Commonwealth countries the bar was set much higher and there must also be an “intention to coerce or intimidate”.

The watchdog said: “This means political journalists and bloggers are subject to the full range of anti-terrorism powers if they threaten to publish, prepare to publish something that the authorities think may be dangerous to life, public health or public safety.”

He warned that they could be branded as terrorists even if they had no intention to spread fear or intimidate, and those who employed or supported them would also qualify as terrorists.

The definition was so broad it would even catch a campaigner who voiced religious objections to a vaccination campaign on the grounds that they were a danger to public health.

The laws were so widely drawn that they now included preparatory and ancillary offences including “terrorism-related activity”, which were only used when a crime had been committed and so were unnecessary.

These definitions were so “overbroad” that they could catch a family member “who supports someone who encourages someone else to prepare an act of terrorism and could easily be limited by the home secretary”, the watchdog said.

Anderson said Britain quite rightly had very tough counter-terror laws that the public accepted so long as they were used only when necessary.

“But they can currently be applied to journalists and bloggers, to criminals who have no concern other than their immediate victim, and to those who are connected with terrorism only at several removes,” he said.

“This is not a criticism of ministers, prosecutors or police – who as a rule exercise either their remarkably broad discretions with care and restraint. But it is time parliament reviewed the definition of terrorism to avoid the potential for abuse and to cement public support for special powers that are unfortunately likely to be needed for the foreseeable future.”

Blacklist: The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist: here.

Rupert Murdoch media rummage through personal belongings of flight MH17 victim


This video from eastern Ukraine is called At Sky News, reporter Colin Brazier going through MH17 victims’ belongings.

From AFP news agency:

Sky News apologizes after reporter rummages through luggage of flight MH17 victim on air

Sunday, July 20, 2014 20:20 EDT

British broadcaster Sky News apologised after one of its presenters searched through luggage at the crash site of downed flight MH17 live on air on Sunday.

Sky News is part of the Rupert Murdoch empire, with a very long list of privacy violations: from a murdered schoolgirl to actors to bereaved military families to the British royal family; etc. etc.

In a news broadcast, presenter Colin Brazier was shown rooting through personal belongings in an opened suitcase at the site, picking up a set of keys before saying: “We shouldn’t really be doing this.”

The footage was greeted with anger on social media, including calls for Brazier to be sacked.

BBC presenter Jacqui Oatley tweeted that she was “astonished” while Joe Watson, a professor of Mass Media at Baker University described it as a “horrible moment for journalism”. …

The incident came as Australia called for respect for the bodies of the 298 who perished in the disaster, amid reports the crash site was being trampled and interfered with as investigators struggled to reach the site due to conflict.

See also here. And here. And here.

From Salon.com in the USA:

Brazier’s eagerness to jump into the personal effects of a victim recalls the worst of tabloid behavior – and for many in the UK, it no doubt calls to mind the ethical failures of the Murdoch empire, including hacking into the voicemails of a murder victim.

CNN somehow outdoes Colin Brazier in its MH17 coverage: here.

A Dutch TV journalist rummaged as well at MH17 disaster site: here.

Britain: A desire not to embarrass the Royal Family has emerged as a key reason why the Metropolitan Police failed thoroughly to investigate phone hacking at the News of the World in 2006: here.

The way the crash of flight MH17 in Ukraine is being politically exploited parallels the way the 9/11 terrorist attack in the US was utilized to pursue reactionary aims: here.

Football: Oligarch and Shakhtar Donetsk owner Rinat Akhmetov has threatened to fine a host of players who have failed to return to Ukraine amid fear for their safety due to the ongoing conflict in the capital: here.

Saudi, Bahraini Isis fighters in Iraq, Syria


This video says about itself:

Al Jazeera Journalist Explains Resignation over Syria and Bahrain Coverage

19 March 2012

Ali Hashem: Al Jazeera [with links to the regime of Qatar] has become a “media war machine” and is “committing journalistic suicide”.

From Gulf Daily News (Bahrain; pro-regime):

5,500 Gulf citizens fighting with ISIS

By Raji Unnikrishnan

Monday, July 14, 2014

ESTIMATES suggest up to 5,500 Gulf nationals are fighting with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to a UAE-based expert.

Around 4,000 of them are thought to be from Saudi Arabia, while the rest are believed to be from other GCC countries.

However, Dubai-based Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA) research and development director Dr Theodore Karasik said he expected those figures to grow in the coming months.

“Of the GCC states, Saudi Arabia has the highest amount of nationals in ISIS – perhaps up to 4,000 fighters,” he told the GDN yesterday.

“The rest of the GCC states have much lower numbers, between 1,000 and 1,500.

“Those numbers are likely to grow in the coming months given the announcement (by ISIS) of the Caliphate and successes on the ground.

“Young people, who are being termed ‘third generation Jihadis’, are willing to join this gang of religious fighters.” …

The GDN reported yesterday that Bahraini cleric Shaikh Turki Al Ban’ali had allegedly been photographed giving a sermon for ISIS supporters in Mosul, Iraq.

Dr Karasik claimed Al Ban’ali was actually serving in the ISIS “government” as a religious leader and mufti – a Muslim legal expert empowered to give rulings on religious matters – along with Saudi nationals Omar Al Qahtani (aka Abu Bakr) and Osman Al Nazeh Al Asiri.

He said the three clerics had previously been in Syria, where Sunni rebels are waging a bloody civil war against the Shi’ite government of President Bashar Al Assad.

Recruitment

“As Shariat leaders, these three are responsible for religious discourse as well as aspects of recruiting,” claimed Dr Karasik.

Bahrain welcomes ISIS: here.

Obama has few good options in Iraq — but the worst choice would be emulating George W. Bush: here.

United States NSA role in censoring British daily Guardian


This video from Britain is called Revealed: the day the Guardian destroyed Snowden hard drives under watchful eye of GCHQ.

From daily The Guardian in Britain:

NSA chief knew of Snowden file destruction by Guardian in UK

Revelation contrasts markedly with White House efforts to distance itself from UK government pressure to destroy disks

James Ball

Friday 11 July 2014 11.10 BST

General Keith Alexander, the then director of the NSA, was briefed that the Guardian was prepared to make a largely symbolic act of destroying documents from Edward Snowden last July, new documents reveal.

The revelation that Alexander and Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, were advised on the Guardian‘s destruction of several hard disks and laptops contrasts markedly with public White House statements that distanced the US from the decision.

White House and NSA emails obtained by Associated Press under freedom of information legislation demonstrate how pleased Alexander and his colleagues were with the developments. At times the correspondence takes a celebratory tone, with one official describing the anticipated destruction as “good news”.

On 20 July 2013, three Guardian editors destroyed all copies of the its Snowden material held in London (video), under the supervision of two GCHQ staff following a period of intense political pressure in the UK.

The decision to destroy the UK copies of the material was taken in a climate of advancing legal threats from Cabinet Office and intelligence officials. The Guardian and its publishing partners, which included the New York Times and the not-for-profit news organisation ProPublica, held other copies of the material in the US, and continued reporting revelations from the documents.

When the Guardian revealed it had destroyed several computers a month later in August, the White House spokesman Josh Earnest initially remarked it was hard to “evaluate the propriety of what they did based on incomplete knowledge of what happened” but said it would be hard to imagine the same events occurring in the US.

“That’s very difficult to imagine a scenario in which that would be appropriate,” he concluded.

However, heavily redacted email correspondence obtained by AP reporter Jack Gillum shows senior NSA officials celebrating the destruction of the material, even before it had occurred.

An email to Alexander from Rick Ledgett, now deputy director of the NSA, has the subject line “Guardian data being destroyed”, and is dated 19 July, a day before the destruction of the files. Most is heavily redacted, but Ledgett remarks: “Good news, at least on this front.”

A day later, hours after the material was destroyed, Alexander follows up with Ledgett, asking: “Can you confirm this actually occurred?”

Later that day, Clapper emails Alexander under the same subject line, saying: “Thanks Keith … appreciate the conversation today”.

The remainder of the emails are redacted, including the subject lines in many cases, meaning it is unclear who from the British government briefed the senior NSA and White House staff on the destruction, or whether US officials had any input to the decision to encourage destruction of journalistic material.

A spokeswoman for the Guardian said the revelation of the US-UK correspondence on the destruction was disappointing.

“We’re disappointed to learn that cross-Atlantic conversations were taking place at the very highest levels of government ahead of the bizarre destruction of journalistic material that took place in the Guardian‘s basement last July,” she said. “What’s perhaps most concerning is that the disclosure of these emails appears to contradict the White House’s comments about these events last year, when they questioned the appropriateness of the UK government’s intervention.”

The GCHQ declined to respond to AP’s requests for comment on the email exchange.

Also from the Guardian today:

The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control

At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US, says whistleblower William Binney – that’s a ‘totalitarian mentality’

Emails obtained by the Associated Press show that top US intelligence officials were well aware of the British government’s plans to destroy hard drives containing evidence of massive state spying against the world’s population that were held by the Guardian newspaper last year. The emails show that US officials not only knew of the plans to destroy the material provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden while doing nothing to stop them, but also encouraged and celebrated the police state activities of the British government: here.

Bahrain dictatorship news update


This May 2014 video is called Human Rights Watch Release on Bahrain‘s System of Injustice: Nazeeha Saeed.

By Annie Piotrowski in the USA:

The Freedom Chat Transcripts: Bahraini Journalist Nazeeha Saeed

July 8, 2014

The Freedom Chat is a new video series by Sampsonia Way featuring interviews with journalists and other media workers facing censorship and repression in their home countries. In these Q&A’s, conducted via video chat, journalists talk with Sampsonia Way about press freedom, anti-free speech legislation, and exile.

In the Freedom Chat Transcripts, we share the entire interview with our subjects, including material not included in the video.

An island nation in the Arabian Gulf, Bahrain experienced an outpouring of political unrest and protest during the Arab Spring in 2011. Yet, unlike Egypt, Tunisia, and others, the Bahraini monarchy’s human rights abuses, as well as the falling level of press freedom, have not been widely reported by Middle Eastern or international news outlets.

While the Bahraini government continues to react against the 2011 protests with strict censorship laws and state-controlled media, independent and civilian journalists work to provide objective reports at the risk of torture, imprisonment, and even death. In our latest Freedom Chat installment, we speak to one such journalist: 32 year-old Nazeeha Saeed, who in addition to working as an international correspondent, has challenged human rights abuses through the Bahraini legal system.

While covering Bahrain’s pro-democracy protests in 2011, Saeed was imprisoned and tortured in a local police station. After her release, she brought charges against her torturers and endured a two year trial only to find that the defendants would be acquitted of their crimes. Now, as the Bahraini correspondent for France 24 and Radio Monte Carlo Doualiya, she advocates for press freedom in the Middle East by continuing her work as an independent journalist, speaking out against human rights abuses, and using social media to report untold stories.

In this Freedom Chat, Sampsonia Way spoke to Saeed via Skype about the state of journalism and censorship in Bahrain and her struggle for justice.

What legal penalties exist for journalists in Bahrain?

Since Bahrain does not have specific laws governing journalism, journalists are tried under criminal law. This means they can face any kind of penalty: Fines, prison, and even death if they are accused of being a traitor.

Why do you think the situation in Bahrain has received so little media coverage?

The Arab press is less interested in Bahrain because there are bigger and bloodier scenes else-where in the Arab world: Iraq, Syria, Libya. In contrast, the Bahraini situation seems very peaceful, and both Arab and non-Arab international media ignore it.

A lot of Middle Eastern press is not independent and follows the political agenda of government leaders. We can call what is happening in Bahrain an “uprising,” but if the governments don’t support what’s happening, the media won’t cover it.

You are one of many Bahraini journalists who are active on Twitter. To what extent does the government censor social media?

The Ministry of Information has a special unit just to supervise social media that checks for criminal acts like insulting the king or any of the country’s icons.

Since 2011, using social media has become a call for all people, not just journalists. It’s a tool and window to write about things that the media doesn’t cover. If there were a protest here to-night, most media outlets wouldn’t be interested in it because protests are small and happen every day. Instead, social media is the place where people talk about these events and post pictures and videos.

You mention the crime of insulting the king. How has this been used against writers?

We have a new law which says that if you use any media tool, even social media, to insult the king, you can go to prison for one to seven years. In Bahrain, the royal family is a red line. If a corrupt minister is from the royal family, you can say that the ministry is corrupt, but not the minister himself.

In addition, the opposition‘s slogan is “Down with Hamid,” in reference to the Bahraini king. If you use this slogan at any time, you face the charge of insulting the king. Anyone who wants to overthrow the regime in favor of a republic or a constitutional monarchy risks this accusation.

Do censorship laws apply equally to professional journalists and civilian journalists?

Citizen journalists are more at risk because they don’t have a media outlet to defend them. Therefore, they are more frequently accused of insulting the king and trying to overthrow the regime.

How did the 2011 protests in Bahrain affect media censorship?

The uprising in Bahrain affected the media a lot. Even the media outlets which had improved from 2001 to 2011 went back to square one. They are once again biased towards the government and throw accusations at the opposition and the protesters.

We’ve lost neutrality in the local newspapers and media and news reports have become illogical. For example, there are reports that all of the protesters are backed by foreign countries.

In 2011 you were arrested and tortured. Can you tell me about the process of bringing your torturers to court?

I was one of hundreds of people who were tortured in that police station. It wasn’t just the mistake of one or two officers. At that time, torture was the Ministry of the Interior’s policy against anybody they thought opposed the government.

Bringing that case to court was unprecedented. Many international organizations supported me. However, after two years of going to court and facing my torturers again, there was no justice. In the end, they were acquitted.

Have other journalists pressed charges against their torturers?

No, they haven’t. I encouraged my colleagues to file a case against their torturers, but there were many difficulties. In my case, the media channel that I worked for supported me. My colleagues were working for local newspapers and TV, and nobody supported them.

They also don’t believe the system will help them because, in my case, the system didn’t grant justice. In addition, they didn’t know their torturers, since most of them were blindfolded. In my case, I was very aware of who they were.

To what extent do you consider yourself to be an activist as well as a journalist?

To be honest, I don’t consider myself an activist. I am a journalist who defends freedom of speech and press, who wants this country to have freedom of speech, media, and press. This will lead to democracy, freedom, justice, and other good things for Bahrain.

July 8, 2014 — When Bahrani reporter Nazeeha Saeed went to cover an anti-government protest May 22, 2011, in the capital city Manama, she anticipated seeing a resurgence in public resistance after military forces had shut down demonstrations two months earlier. Saeed did not expect to be summoned to a police station where she would be detained, interrogated and tortured for 13 hours about her reports on the uprisings: here.

Reporters Without Borders condemns the detention of the person the authorities say is the well-known satirical blogger Takrooz (@Takrooz). He has been held on charges of “inciting hatred against the regime” and “using expressions that incite sectarianism” ever since his arrest at Manama airport on his return from Thailand on 18 June: here.