Law

Lebanese Judge Rules Graffiti not a Crime in Landmark Victory for Freedom of Expression


When the horrendous Lebanese government decided to hike up all our taxes before they eventually slightly raised a part of Lebanese people’s salaries, many upstanding citizens went down to protest. They were protesting the proposed 5000LBP increase on fuel to pay to export our unsorted garbage, in one of the saddest chapters in the humiliating, still ongoing trash crisis.

That was in 2016, if you can believe it. A brave group of activists spray painted those cement blocks they put in Beirut to force us to pay for valets and expensive parking, with phrases like the ones below:


They were arrested for doing that, and it’s been in the courts since then.

Those indicted were two lawyers: Marwan Maalouf and Fouad Debes, two activists: Mathieu Torbey and Cynthia Sleimam, and journalist Mary Jose Azzi.

This week, Judge Abir Safa proved once again that judges are often our only salvation in Lebanon, especially in the face of such a ruling political class that is against any meaningful legislative reform unless it makes them get richer off our backs.

The judge exonerated all those indicted on all three counts they were charged with.

The first were 3 articles of slander and libel. The judge decided that it didn’t constitute slander and libel, given no one specific was mentioned or defamed, but instead the general performance and policies of Lebanon’s government. Activists 1, corrupt government 0.

The second charge against the activists was vandalism and destruction of public property. The judge saw the stencils being sprayed as a form of peaceful expression and did not see intent to vandalize or destroy in this legal form of speech.

The most absurd charge was “placing ads on historical monuments”. Now, I don’t know who exactly chose that charge, but if Solidere cement blocks designed to make you pay Valets is a historical monument, then I’m a bikini super model. Luckily, the judge disagreed with this charge, and did not see this form of peaceful protest as an “advertisement”.

Judges Can Make or Break Lebanon

Just as we got wind of this beautiful decision, a day later, another judge set free a wife beater and murderer, in a blow to women’s rights and the country’s fight against wide-spread and unchecked domestic violence.

This is why judges like Joyce Akiki, and the judge in this case, Judge Abir Safa, are progressive examples who embody the ideals that make Lebanon special: freedom, tolerance and the respect of free speech and the press. It’s why we need to celebrate these judges and support their decisions in the face of our corrupt politial establishment. It’s also why we need to condemn judges who bring Lebanon down, and let the killers of Lebanese women off the hook because of pressure from bad people in high positions.

Thoughts on the Cybercrimes Bureau Chief Sacking


I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel gleeful at such ironic poetic justice… That the person heading the bureau that had summoned and arrested so many civilians, journalists, activists and bloggers for shares, retweets, likes and statuses, would be sacked from her job for “liking” a tweet about Saudi Arabian women being able to drive now.

However, past the initial “you deserve it” gut reaction, there are several worrying things about this case, which I will try to discuss below.

Saudi Arabia is a Topic You Can Be Fired for in Lebanon

It’s a bit sad that all the violations of the Cybercrime Bureau, didn’t cost anyone there their jobs, but a tweet seen as “insulting” to Saudi Arabia did the trick.

Where were her superiors when university students were lured to the offices under false pretenses, like “your phone is a stolen one” only to be arrested and thrown in jail for days and weeks over an article they shared or a status they wrote? What about the random phone calls afterhours, asking a person to show up for “coffee” the next morning, only to be interrogated, without the charge or reason being specified, and without officially summoning them in person, as the law states.

The message being sent to taxpayers by the ISF, is that if its bodies abuse citizens’ rights, no one will be held accountable for that, but if you “like” a tweet poking fun at Saudi Arabia, the main financier and godfather of several political parties in Lebanon, then you’ll be out of a job at lightning speed.

This is both demoralizing for taxpayers like us, but also honest cops, who know that they will not be punished for breaking human rights law, but might suffer the full wrath of their superiors if they dare utter, by mistake or not, something that a foreign ambassador might not like…

Hobeiche’s Response Was Even More Censorship Attempts

You’d think that being at the receiving end of censorship and bullying, that the former head of the Cybercrimes Bureau would realize the error of her ways and the negative, unfair and obtuse impact of trying to control what people can and cannot say, share or agree/disagree with. Instead though, she has filed a lawsuit against the person who caught her “like” of Charbel Khalil’s tweet. Whether by mistake or not, she did like that tweet, and punishing the person who revealed that, instead of taking it up with her superiors as a misunderstanding, shows that this ironic twist of fate didn’t really hammer in the idea we might have hoped it would: that trying to shut people up by force, and twisting their arms when they say something you don’t like, is never the answer.

Alas, this is not the case, and I wish that person luck in the upcoming investigations.

The Real Problem is Still There

The Cybercrimes Bureau is a symptom, not the disease. The real issue is with the judiciary, especially the general prosecutors, which are the folks who forward cases to that bureau. The problem is, any and all Internet-related cases are sent there, whether it’s child porn or a tweet that someone found offensive to the “symbols of the nation”. So, it’s no surprise the detectives there treat you like some criminal for a like or share, if what they’re supposed to be investigating is heinous crimes like credit card fraud, sexual abuse online, blackmail and malicious hacking.

That bureau is no place for a journalist or activist who in their passion said something that the current ruling elite were ticked off by.

The removal of Hobeiche, will not solve anything, and in the spirit of not prejudging her successor, he might do a better job, but he might also ramp up the bureau’s bullying activities as a tool against anyone who dissents from the general party line of the ruling political parties and politicians in Lebanon.

In Conclusion

The Cybercrimes Bureau needs to focus on real crimes, and stop wasting our tax money and arresting people for something they wrote, shared or liked. The judiciary needs to keep up with the times, and appoint qualified people who enforce laws that don’t date back to the 1950s before the Internet had even been concieved in fiction novels of the time.

What happened to Hobeiche is a valuable lesson for everyone in power, that the loopholes and ambiguities and lack of accountability you use to bully taxpayers like us, can come back to haunt you yourselves one day.

I hope the Cybercrimes Bureau will stop being a tool of oppression against taxpayers, and instead do the job it’s supposed to: fight online crime, not online free speech. For this to happen, public prosecutors need to stop wasting the bureau’s resources and accomplishments against actual crimes, in order to bully innocent citizens of Lebanon.