A make or break moment for Egypt's President Morsi

The first anniversary of the president's inauguration is expected to spark nationwide protests. The grassroots campaign Tamarod aims to secure enough signatures to a vote-of-no-confidence petition to outweigh the 13 million votes that brought Morsi into p

Egypt is steeling itself in the run-up to nationwide protests against beleaguered President Mohamed Morsi on the first anniversary of his inauguration.

Sunday's demonstrations, which organisers claim will "make or break" the Muslim Brotherhood president, are spearheaded by a grassroots campaign Tamarod, meaning "rebel". It aims to secure enough signatures to a vote-of-no-confidence petition to outweigh the 13 million votes that brought Morsi into power.

Tamarod say they have already collected at least 18 million, and will present them to Morsi.

As tensions rise, rumours abound that the army may intervene, just one year after handing power to a civilian chief.  Defense Minster Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi cryptically said Sunday that the military "stayed out of political matters" but has a duty to "prevent Egypt slipping into a dark tunnel."

Meanwhile the police, historically hostile to the Brotherhood, vowed to protect state institutions but not the group's headquarters, which have recently been targeted in firebomb attacks.

Tamarod spokesperson Eman El-Haghy tells the New Statesman confidently that they will call on the head of the Constituent Assembly to be interim president. "The president has dragged our country backwards… he has not fulfilled the revolution's goals."

Tamarod say political forces will choose a transitional president and technocratic government to draft a constitution before elections: a tough call for an opposition that critics say hasn't united around anything except dislike of the Brotherhood.

Nevertheless the mounting anger against Morsi is significant.

"I don't think it gets more serious than this," says Hisham Hellyer, Cairo-based non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institute.

"He doesn’t have even have a monopoly on the Islamist trend, the different [ultraconservative] Salafi parties are not deserting him but they are getting there. The more left-leaning Islamist parties are joining protests."

Certainly the non-Islamist faction who backed Morsi during elections - largely to block his rival, Mubarak-era minister Ahmed Shafiq - are now organising demonstrations.  The National Salvation Front, Egypt's largest opposition bloc, has meanwhile rejected any dialogue.

Protesters are demanding "bread, freedom and social justice," the same grievances they voiced during the revolution.

Egypt suffers from a flailing economy; bread, water and fuel crises; and a brutal police force which hasn't been held to account. Many say the recently-ratified Constitution was hastily drafted by an Islamist-dominated assembly.

Basic rights continue to be violated.

According to Human Rights Watch, bloggers and journalists are increasingly being prosecuted for "insulting" officials. State torture remains endemic; defamation and blasphemy prosecutions are increasing.

"The economy is not doing well," says Ahmed Galal, Director of Cairo-based Economic Research Forum.  "The budget deficit is growing, and there is sluggish economic growth at a time of growing unemployment."

Continued unrest and no political consensus means foreign investment has dried up, Galal adds. "Most of Egypt's economic problems would be resolved if a political settlement is reached." Something Morsi has yet to do.

Hellyer says the president also picked fights with institutions like the interior ministry and judiciary "without correct political support."

One embarrassing example was when the High Constitutional Court rejected the electoral law last month, meaning Egypt won't have a parliament until 2014, even though the president had already called elections.

Morsi himself faces direct judicial challenges: Shafiq is appealing the results of last year's presidential poll.

Even the Brotherhood admits expectations have not been met.

"The first year has been much more troublesome than we had expected," says Gehad El-Haddad, an advisor to the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, adding that the government's performance has not been "optimum".

State institutions, El-Haddad says, are the problem. "They are unprofessional and corrupt and actually challenge the president's initiatives."

El-Haddad also maintains that the media distort Morsi's record. Despite the hype, he believes there isn't widespread demand for Morsi's resignation.

Hellyer says Sunday's protests, if successful, are dangerous. "The propensity for violence would increase. It's very bad for the story for Egyptian democracy, as it says that government can be thrown out after a year."

"The only way Morsi leaves is by the military forcing him out, which involves violence and social disorder." Clashes have already broken out in several governorates in the lead up.

Activists maintain they will keep their protests peaceful with marches "with people holding whistles and red cards to signify that it is game over," El-Haghy explains. There will also be protests outside Egyptian embassies in cities around the world - including New York and London.

"We told the world that 30 June, the day we gave him our vote, will be the day we withdraw our confidence."

Whether Morsi will exit the pitch early remains to be seen. 

A protest artist paints Tamarod or "Rebel" graffiti in downtown Cairo ahead of anniversary demos against the president. Photograph: Gregg Carlstrom
Show Hide image

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and wrote an article for the Times on the desecration of Commonwealth war cemeteries in the southern cities of Amara and Basra. It appeared in Monday’s paper, and began:

“‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow. The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should forever be England, but patently is anything but.”

By 6am, less than five hours after the Times put it online, a remarkably similar story had appeared on Mail Online, the world’s biggest and most successful English-language website with 200 million unique visitors a month.

It began: “Despite being etched with the immortal line: ‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.”

The article ran under the byline of someone called Euan McLelland, who describes himself on his personal website as a “driven, proactive and reliable multi-media reporter”. Alas, he was not driven or proactive enough to visit Iraq himself. His story was lifted straight from mine – every fact, every quote, every observation, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors and some lyrical flights of fancy. McLelland’s journalistic research extended to discovering the name of a Victoria Cross winner buried in one of the cemeteries – then getting it wrong.

Within the trade, lifting quotes and other material without proper acknowledgement is called plagiarism. In the wider world it is called theft. As a freelance, I had financed my trip to Iraq (though I should eventually recoup my expenses of nearly £1,000). I had arranged a guide and transport. I had expended considerable time and energy on the travel and research, and had taken the risk of visiting a notoriously unstable country. Yet McLelland had seen fit not only to filch my work but put his name on it. In doing so, he also precluded the possibility of me selling the story to any other publication.

I’m being unfair, of course. McLelland is merely a lackey. His job is to repackage and regurgitate. He has no time to do what proper journalists do – investigate, find things out, speak to real people, check facts. As the astute media blog SubScribe pointed out, on the same day that he “exposed” the state of Iraq’s cemeteries McLelland also wrote stories about the junior doctors’ strike, British special forces fighting Isis in Iraq, a policeman’s killer enjoying supervised outings from prison, methods of teaching children to read, the development of odourless garlic, a book by Lee Rigby’s mother serialised in the rival Mirror, and Michael Gove’s warning of an immigration free-for-all if Britain brexits. That’s some workload.

Last year James King published a damning insider’s account of working at Mail Online for the website Gawker. “I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors...publish information they knew to be inaccurate,” he wrote. “The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.”

Mail Online strenuously denied the charges, but there is plenty of evidence to support them. In 2014, for example, it was famously forced to apologise to George Clooney for publishing what the actor described as a bogus, baseless and “premeditated lie” about his future mother-in-law opposing his marriage to Amal Alamuddin.

That same year it had to pay a “sizeable amount” to a freelance journalist named Jonathan Krohn for stealing his exclusive account in the Sunday Telegraph of being besieged with the Yazidis on northern Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by Islamic State fighters. It had to compensate another freelance, Ali Kefford, for ripping off her exclusive interview for the Mirror with Sarah West, the first female commander of a Navy warship.

Incensed by the theft of my own story, I emailed Martin Clarke, publisher of Mail Online, attaching an invoice for several hundred pounds. I heard nothing, so emailed McLelland to ask if he intended to pay me for using my work. Again I heard nothing, so I posted both emails on Facebook and Twitter.

I was astonished by the support I received, especially from my fellow journalists, some of them household names, including several victims of Mail Online themselves. They clearly loathed the website and the way it tarnishes and debases their profession. “Keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response,” one urged me. Take legal action, others exhorted me. “Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft?” SubScribe asked hopefully.

Then, as pressure from social media grew, Mail Online capitulated. Scott Langham, its deputy managing editor, emailed to say it would pay my invoice – but “with no admission of liability”. He even asked if it could keep the offending article up online, only with my byline instead of McLelland’s. I declined that generous offer and demanded its removal.

When I announced my little victory on Facebook some journalistic colleagues expressed disappointment, not satisfaction. They had hoped this would be a test case, they said. They wanted Mail Online’s brand of “journalism” exposed for what it is. “I was spoiling for a long war of attrition,” one well-known television correspondent lamented. Instead, they complained, a website widely seen as the model for future online journalism had simply bought off yet another of its victims.