Introduction
In an increasingly digital world, ensuring ethical and legal compliance is of utmost importance when conducting digital communication activities. Creating a handbook on digital communication’s legal and ethical aspects is a crucial step in this direction. Drawing on the latest case studies and examples, this handbook analyses the relevant legal and ethical considerations. It provides detailed guidance on how digital communication should be conducted responsibly and equips those responsible for such activities with the necessary knowledge to ensure ethical and legal compliance. In doing so, this handbook promotes an environment where digital communication is conducted in a manner respectful of both legal and ethical principles.
Laws and Regulations
The first section of the handbook provides an in-depth discussion of the laws and regulations associated with digital communication. Through illustrative examples, we are shown how the First Amendment applies to digital and mediated communication, while landmark court cases provide insight into how changes in communication law are made. The “best legal practices” that summarize these changes help personnel within our companies put together media messages without running any legal risks. The importance of staying up-to-date with the ever-shifting landscape of digital communication cannot be understated. The rights and responsibilities of businesses and private citizens on the internet can directly impact their day-to-day operations, often in unexpected ways. Companies can ensure they stay out of legal trouble with this handbook as a guide, which elucidates the fundamentals of digital communication law for easy comprehension. Through this resource, we gain valuable knowledge about our rights as digital citizens and how to exercise them responsibly.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution has been used to extend the right to free speech to include digital speech in landmark court cases. The Supreme Court affirmed this right in Packingham v. North Carolina, which ruled that states could not prevent users from posting online, even if their statements could be potentially interpreted as offensive or criminal–as long as they did not constitute serious offences such as child pornography or obscenity. This ruling was mirrored in another Supreme Court case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, which determined that government employees should not be punished for their speech unless it disrupts their job duties or interferes with the workplace’s operations and mission. These rulings have been instrumental in upholding digital speech rights by making it illegal for states and employers to impose restrictions on online activities based on user posts’ content. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech has become even more pertinent in the digital age, as people rely more heavily on digital communication platforms as a mode of expression. The cases mentioned above are evidence of the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting these digital speech rights by ruling that content regulation should be narrowly tailored and only aimed at the most severe offences. These rulings have helped to ensure that users can communicate freely online without fear of censure or punishment for their views–thus upholding the fundamental Constitutional right to free speech.
Recent landmark court cases have highlighted the importance of understanding digital media law in modern society. From the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association that protects minors from violent video games to the fact that companies can no longer hide behind Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act for online content, it is clear that legal standards have become stricter for digital media messages. By analyzing landmark court cases, it is evident that digital media law has enjoyed several advancements in recent years. From upholding the power of copyright law to protecting the rights of minors, these laws and regulations reveal the dynamic and ever-changing landscape of digital communication (Boyd, Blackburn, & Pennebaker, 2020). As a result, organizations must always remain accountable to current laws to ensure compliance with copyright and other regulations. The importance of understanding digital media law is demonstrated in landmark court cases that have shaped this area of communication. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association was a crucial case in determining the power of copyright law by asserting the government’s right to restrict minors’ access to violent video games. Similarly, companies can no longer hide behind Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, as they are now liable for any content created by third parties on their platforms. These cases emphasize the need for companies to observe all relevant media laws or face potentially severe consequences.
The development of “best legal practices” for digital communication messages is a critical area that businesses must pay attention to ensure their actions remain within the scope of the law. In order to ensure businesses are engaging in legal practices, they should adhere to the following points:
1) Obtain legal counsel – when beginning any activities which may have potential legal implications, businesses must obtain appropriate legal counsel to ensure they are not operating outside the scope of the law.
2) Ensure accuracy – when making any factual statements via digital communication, companies must ensure they are accurate not to mislead their audience and potentially cause a breach of privacy rights.
3) Be aware of copyright laws – businesses should be aware of copyright laws to protect the rights of both themselves and those from whom they obtain information.
4) Respect First Amendment rights – businesses should respect the First Amendment rights of all parties involved, including themselves, to protect free speech and expression.
5) Respect individual privacy rights – businesses must also consider individual privacy rights when engaging in digital communication, as this type of communication can easily invade an individual’s privacy if not appropriately managed.
6) Refrain from engaging in false or misleading advertising – businesses must ensure that they do not engage in any false or misleading advertising, or they stand to face repercussions.
7) Adhere to applicable state laws – all digital communication should comply with applicable laws to ensure businesses do not violate civil or criminal codes within that jurisdiction.
8) Avoid defamation and libel – businesses must be aware of the potential consequences of defamation or libel, mainly when communicating with customers, and should always strive to ensure such instances are avoided (Korpisaari, 2022).
9) Respect intellectual property rights – intellectual property rights should be respected at all times, both domestically and internationally, to ensure a company does not face potential action for violation of those rights.
10) Abide by FTC guidelines when promoting products – when promoting products via digital communications, companies must abide by Federal Trade Commission guidelines in order to protect consumers from false or deceptive advertising.
11) Abide by CAN-SPAM law when sending emails – all email communications must comply with the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act and should never tolerate spam activities.
12) Ensure compliance with international data protection regulations. In addition, companies should also comply with applicable international data protection regulations to safeguard customer information and prevent potential violations of foreign data use laws.
Ethical Guidelines
In the digital age, companies must abide by legal regulations about communication activities and consider ethical considerations when crafting messages for their target audiences (Reale, 2019). As such, organizations must formulate a code of ethics that articulates explicit rules and expectations on employees when formulating messages for public dissemination. This code of ethics should provide detailed guidance on appropriate language, authenticity, and accuracy issues to ensure that the messages generated are respectful and truthful. Additionally, the code should incorporate measures for assessing the potential impacts of one’s messages on the public and how to prevent any potential harms that may arise from unethical communication. By implementing a comprehensive code of ethics that emphasizes ethical practices, organizations may protect themselves from any adverse consequences of unethical communication.
The existing professional codes of ethics from organizations such as journalism and public relations offer invaluable insight into how communicators should craft digital communication materials. These codes align with the values of accuracy, responsibility, transparency, respect for context, respect for individuals, honesty, restraint, and objectivity—all cornerstones of ethical behaviour for digital communication. Accuracy is perhaps the most important value when crafting digital communication messaging. All content shared with audiences needs to be factual and reflective of reality. If information is inaccurate, communicators can damage their credibility and reputation with the public. Responsibility is also crucial when creating messaging materials. Communicators should be mindful of the sensitivity of any information they share regarding target persons or groups before disseminating. This includes respecting any privacy regulations already in place.
Alongside accuracy and responsibility, transparency is essential in creating digital communication messaging. Communicators should disclose their sources whenever possible and be transparent about their motivations behind sharing this information with their audiences. This builds creditability and trust between communicators and their audiences. Furthermore, professional codes of ethics emphasize respect for the context in which digital messages are distributed despite other individuals’ opinions or agendas. Communicators should understand the implications any messaging has on its intended audiences before distribution. In addition to context, communicators must remember to respect the individuals these messages affect regardless of race or gender identity. Guarding against any form of discrimination or exploitation is essential in maintaining ethical practices while respecting individuals’ identities and humanity. Finally, honesty and restraint are essential tenets of ethical digital communication practices. Communicators should be honest when presenting facts publicly and refrain from engaging in activities that identify themselves or their organizations in a negative light online among members of their target audience.
Based on these common themes, this handbook suggests the following “best ethical practices” for companies in the digital age:
1) Ensure Accurate Facts and Information: Falsifying or misrepresenting information can severely damage a company’s reputation. Companies should take utmost care to ensure that all facts are accurate and verifiable before distribution or use.
2) Respect the Privacy of Individuals: Respect for the privacy of individuals is vital in the digital age. Companies must protect the confidentiality of any private data collected, used, or distributed. Companies should also seek permission before sharing any images, videos, or other digital content.
3) Be Aware of Cultural and Social Sensitivities: Companies should be aware of their cultural and social context when crafting messaging materials. This may involve looking into any potential biases caused by language, symbols, or visuals used in the message.
4) Respect Different Contexts and Audiences: Companies must consider the potential range of audiences exposed to the message being created. This could affect the tone and language used to ensure that the message is communicated appropriately in different contexts.
5) Be Transparent About Sources: It is essential for companies to be open and transparent about the sources used to craft their messages. This builds customer trust and helps ensure accuracy in the facts being distributed.
6) Refrain From Making False Claims: To maintain trust with customers and partners, companies must refrain from making false claims that cannot be verified. Companies should ensure that any statements they make are backed up with facts and evidence.
7) Approach All Opinions or Statements Objectively: Companies need to approach all opinions or statements objectively, presenting both sides of an issue fairly and without bias. This ensures transparency and credibility in communication materials.
8) Avoid Offensive Language or Visuals: Companies should avoid any language or visuals that could be interpreted as offensive, discriminatory, or illegal. Doing so can create reputational damage and result in legal action from offended parties.
9) Refrain From Engaging in Unethical or Illegal Activities: Finally, companies must refrain from engaging in any activities which can be deemed as unethical or illegal, such as bribery, discriminatory behaviour, and fraud. Doing so can result in severe reputational damage as well as criminal prosecution.
Case Study
The case study presented in this handbook examines the controversy surrounding the 2018 release of the movie “The Interview”, a comedy film starring Seth Rogen and James Franco as two operatives attempting to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jung Uhn (Carroll, 2021). It provides insight into the numerous challenges faced by Sony Pictures when making decisions regarding the movie’s release while facing security threats. The complexity of this case necessitates a comprehensive analysis examining various elements, including censorship issues, diplomatic implications and related economic considerations. It also considers, in detail, the challenges presented by potential cyber-attacks and the steps that were taken to mitigate potential threats, drawing upon the legal and ethical implications surrounding this case. Our analysis will provide an in-depth understanding of how Sony Pictures arrived at a decision that balanced its interests with respect for international democratic values.
The groundbreaking Sony Pictures film, “The Interview”, caused significant controversy in the United States and abroad due to North Korean officials threatening retaliation against the movie’s release. This led Sony to initially pull the movie from theatres, which sparked outrage in the US due to censorship by a foreign regime. This case is an important reminder of how understanding and implementing laws and ethical considerations is essential in digital communication dilemmas like this one. The decision to release the movie had long-reaching effects and illuminated the importance of being mindful when making such choices in any digital situation.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution plays a vital role in protecting the rights of individuals and organizations to voice dissent against foreign regimes. In this case, the American film studio, Sony Pictures, had the right to release a movie that criticizes a foreign nation, shielded by the First Amendment’s protection of citizens’ right to free speech. This right directly contrasts with North Korea’s attempts at censoring ideas and notions seen as controversial by its leaders, thus safeguarding Sony Pictures’ plans to continue with the movie’s release despite facing threats from North Korean authorities. Thus, the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment is instrumental in allowing individuals and entities to express their beliefs while avoiding censorship by broader societies and foreign governments.
In terms of communication laws, companies must be aware of state laws concerning defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, product liability laws, antitrust laws, false advertising laws, internet service provider laws, libel laws, online consumer protection laws, and data protection laws among others. Companies must ensure that these laws are not violated when creating messages as a form of communication. In the case of Sony Pictures, they had to ensure that they did not engage in false advertising when promoting the movie, as well as avoid any libellous claims against North Korean officials.
From an ethical perspective, Sony Pictures had to navigate competing rights when deciding whether or not to release “The Interview” since the movie was bound to provoke controversy due to its subject matter. Existing codes of ethics emphasize accuracy in reporting facts and responsibility when using sensitive information about coverage targets. Sony Pictures was able to stay true to these ethical considerations while still being able to produce a controversial film by taking measures such as fact-checking information and not releasing any information they could not verify as valid. Additionally, codes of ethics emphasize respect for all people regardless of race or gender identity when creating messages and respect for different contexts and audiences which will be exposed to their messaging materials – both of which Sony Pictures exhibited by taking into account individuals’ views on the movie before proceeding with its production and release.
In conclusion, this legal and ethical handbook guides companies engaging in digital communication activities. It provides an overview of applicable legal regulations and ethical considerations that must be considered when creating messages for public consumption. The case study shows how these considerations can be applied in real-life situations and helps ensure that companies exercise caution and restraint when creating digital media messages. By following these guidelines, companies can help create a digital world where reliable communication is encouraged and respected.
References
Boyd, R. L., Blackburn, K. G., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2020). The narrative arc: Revealing core narrative structures through text analysis. Science advances, 6(32), eaba2196.
Carroll, R. (2021). Cyberattacks Are Taken into Consideration on the US Government’s State Terror List. Cyberterrorism, 49.
Korpisaari, P. (2022). From Delfi to Sanchez–when can an online communication platform be responsible for third-party comments? an analysis of the practice of the ECtHR and some reflections on the digital services act. Journal of Media Law, 1-26.
Reale, M. (2019). Digital market, bloggers, and trendsetters: The new world of advertising law. Laws, 8(3), 21.
A Comparison Of The Concepts Of Justice And Morality In Paganism And Christianity Free Essay
Paganism is a polytheistic religion that worships multiple gods and goddesses (Althaea Sebastiani, 2020), while Christianity is a monotheistic religion that worships only one God. Paganism and Christianity have many different views regarding justice and morality. To start with, let us first define what each of these terms means. Justice can be defined as the quality of conforming to principles of reason, generally accepted standards of right and wrong, and the rules of just conduct. At the same time, morality is conformity to the rules of proper conduct. (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2014) With that said, let us look at how these concepts are viewed in Paganism and Christianity.
In Paganism, justice and morality are two separate concepts. Justice is about upholding what is right and punishing what is wrong, while morality is about following a code of conduct that is considered good. In Christianity, these two concepts are often seen as being intertwined. Christians believe God is the ultimate source of justice and morality. As such, Christians often see it as their duty to uphold justice and follow God’s moral code. (Boyd & Thorsen, 2018)
Another significant difference between the two concepts is that, in Paganism, justice is often seen as relative. What is considered unjust can vary from culture to culture (Althaea Sebastiani, 2020). For example, in some cultures, it may be considered to kill someone who has murdered another person. In other cultures, however, it may be seen as unjust to kill someone, no matter what they have done. Christianity, on the other hand, often views justice as being absolute. This means that there is a fixed standard of what is right and what is wrong. Christians believe that God is the ultimate judge of right and wrong, so they often look to Him for guidance on how to live justly. (Boyd & Thorsen, 2018)
Focus on each is another crucial way justice and morality differ in Paganism and Christianity. In Paganism, justice is about ensuring people get what they deserve. This is often based on the idea that an eye for an eye or that person should suffer the consequences of their actions. In the tragedy Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, justice is the central theme. The main character, Oedipus, is trying to discover who killed the previous king of Thebes, Laius. He is determined to find the killer and punish them for their crime. This is an example of justice as Oedipus tries to ensure that the killer gets what they deserve (Sophocles, 2018). This view of justice is similar to what is seen in Paganism, where justice is often seen as relative and is based on the idea of an eye for an eye. Morality, on the other hand, is about living in a pleasing way to the gods. This means that people should follow the rules and regulations set forth by the gods, even if they will not get what they deserve. In Christianity, justice ensures that people are treated fairly (Grudem, n.d.). This is based on the idea that all people are created equal in the eyes of God and should be treated as such. Morality, on the other hand, is about living in a pleasing way to God. This means that people should follow the rules and regulations set forth by God, even if it means that they will not get what they deserve.
In Paganism, the focus is on living in harmony with nature and the universe. The ultimate goal is to achieve balance and peace. There is no right or wrong way to live, and everyone can follow their path. There is no judgment or punishment for wrongdoings, and everyone is responsible for their actions. The emphasis is on personal growth and development and finding your truth. In Christianity, the focus is on obeying God’s laws and living a good and moral life. A strict code of conduct must be followed, and those who break the rules will be punished. There is a clear right and wrong, and good and evil. Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins and that by following his teachings, we can achieve salvation. (Boyd & Thorsen, 2018).
In Paganism, there is often a focus on the current life rather than the afterlife. This means that pagans may be more likely to take justice into their own hands rather than wait for a higher power to meet out punishments. In Christianity, there is a focus on the afterlife and on living by the will of God. This means that Christians may be more likely to make moral choices based on the consequences in the next life rather than the current one. (Boyd & Thorsen, 2018)
Another most straightforward way that the concepts of justice and morality differ between Paganism and Christianity is in the area of human rights. In Paganism, there is no belief in the inherent worth or dignity of every human being (Althaea Sebastiani, 2020). Instead, people are seen as deserving of rights and protections based on their merits or contributions to society. This can lead to a situation where people considered “undeserving” or “unworthy” are denied fundamental rights and protections and are treated as second-class citizens. On the other hand, Christianity teaches that every human being is made in God’s image and therefore deserves respect and dignity. This belief in the inherent worth of every human life leads to a much different view of human rights, where everyone is entitled to fundamental rights and protections regardless of their merits or contributions.
In Paganism, justice is often tied to balance (Althaea Sebastiani, 2020). This is the idea that for the universe to be in harmony, there must be a balance of good and evil. On the other hand, Christians believe that justice is about restoration, not balance. In other words, Christians believe that it is always to make things right, regardless of whether or not this creates a balance of good and evil.
In Paganism, morality is often based on the consequences of one’s actions. If an action results in good consequences, then it is considered moral. If an action results in dire consequences, then it is considered immoral. Christians, however, believe that the morality of an action is based on the character of one who performs it. In other words, Christians believe it is always to do what is morally right, even if the consequences are dire.
In Christianity, morality is about responding to God (Grudem, n.d.). This means Christians must obey God’s commands to be moral. Christians believe they are accountable to God for their actions and will be judged by him according to their morality. In Dante’s Divine Comedy, morality is da central theme. Dante is trying to reach the highest level of heaven, which requires him to make moral choices. He is guided by Virgil, who represents reason and justice, and Beatrice, who represents faith and love (Alighieri, 2021). This view of morality is similar to what is seen in Christianity, where morality is about responding to God and following His commands.
In contrast, Paganism generally does not have the same concept of accountability to a higher power. For pagans, morality is about following the natural order of things. This means living in harmony with nature and the universe.
In Paganism, morality is often about following the crowd or fitting in (Althaea Sebastiani, 2020). This means that people are more likely to do what is considered morally right if it is what everyone else is doing. In Christianity, morality is about being different from the world and being set as part of God. This means that people are more likely to do what is considered morally right if it is what God wants them to do, even if it is not what everyone else is doing.
Another critical difference between the concepts of justice and morality in Paganism and Christianity is how each religion approaches the problem of suffering. In Paganism, suffering is often seen as part of life (Althaea Sebastiani, 2020). It is something that cannot be avoided and that people must learn to deal with. Christianity, on the other hand, views suffering as being a problem that needs to be solved. This is because Christianity believes that suffering results from sin and can be overcome through faith. Christians believe forgiveness is the best way to achieve justice, while pagans believe that revenge is the best way to achieve justice. This difference in belief often leads to different approaches to justice. The Christians tend to focus on forgiveness, while the pagans tend to focus on revenge.
Moreover, in Paganism, humans are responsible for creating justice. This means there is no right or wrong way to live, and everyone is free to follow their path (Althaea Sebastiani, 2020). There is no judgment or punishment for wrongdoings, and everyone is responsible for their actions. The emphasis is on personal growth and development and finding your truth. On the other hand, Christianity views God as the ultimate source of justice. This means that a strict code of conduct must be followed, and those who break the rules will be punished. There is a clear right and wrong, and good and evil. Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins and that by following his teachings, we can achieve salvation.
In Paganism, the concept of justice is often used to justify violence. This is because pagan cultures often believe it is to use force to get what you want. Christians, on the other hand, believe that justice is about peace. This is the idea that it is always to seek peace, and violence is never the answer.
In Paganism, morality is about being a good person. This usually means following the rules set forth by society and being a good community member. In Christianity, morality is about being Christ-like (Boyd & Thorsen, 2018). This means being selfless, loving, and forgiving. It also means living a life that is pleasing to God. Paganism generally focuses on doing what is right to maintain balance and order in the world. This includes following the rules set forth by society and being a good community member. Christianity, on the other hand, focuses on being like Christ. It means living a life that is pleasing to God. While both Paganism and Christianity have their moral code, the main difference is the focus.
In conclusion, Paganism and Christianity have very different views regarding justice and morality. While Paganism often sees these concepts as relative, Christianity views them as absolute. Christians tend to focus more on the afterlife and obeying God’s laws, while pagans often focus on the present life and on following the natural order of things. Christians also believe that every human being is made in God’s image and deserves respect and dignity. In contrast, pagans may not believe in the inherent worth of every human life.
References
Alighieri, D. (2021). The Divine Comedy (illustrated). Strelbytskyy Multimedia Publishing.
Althaea Sebastiani. (2020). Paganism for beginners: the complete guide to nature-based spirituality for every new seeker. Rockbridge Press.
Boyd, C. A., & Thorsen, D. (2018). Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy. Baker Academic.
Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. (2014). Handbook of organizational justice. Psychology Press.
Grudem, W. A. (n.d.). Christian ethics: an introduction to biblical moral reasoning. Crossway Uuuu-Uuuu.
Principles of Moral Thought and Action. (n.d.). Www.patheos.com. https://www.patheos.com/library/pagan/ethics-morality-community/principles-of-moral-thought-and-action
Sophocles. (2018). Oedipus the King. Franklin Classics Trade Press.
A Shade Of Colonialism Sample College Essay
Freedom is sweet, and no one wants it taken away from them. After world war I, London declared Egypt a British protectorate, and this feeling of Egyptians’ freedom was snatched from them. They needed a revolution to revolution so that they could get their freedom. The first reaction to this “colonialism” was seen after Sa’d Zaghlul seized president Woodrow’s speech claiming that all the British protectorate had the right to self-determination. Still, he felt that since the protectorate declaration was a war necessity, now, because the war had ended, there was no need for these protectorates, which should be lifted. After Zaghlul’s claims were not paid attention to, he and other representatives of Egypt flew to Paris to attend the post-war conference so that they would raise their country’s urge for independence (Powell P.173).
To tam their movements, Wingate refused to give them passports, and they were arrested while still in Europe and then deported to Malta. Wingate’s action caused even more revolution, this time, not only from nationalists but every person in Cairo, Alexandria, and any other big city in Egypt joined the demonstrations seeking their freedom. Nationalists who were women established a well-connected organization that would make demonstrations as there were beliefs that women’s marches worked out faster. Later, the Great Britain administrators acknowledged their mistake and released Zaghlul and his colleagues after several confrontational and violent months of violence (Powell P. 173). Egyptians did not want to be seen as subjected and colonized as the British denied them the right to be natives in their own land. Sabry, one of the Egyptian nationalists, believed that the British had deracinated them in their motherland. After Wingate was relieved of his duties and powers, he was replaced by Marshal Edmund, who allowed negotiations between Egypt and Britain to be held. Negotiations took about four years, and although not every point of contention was resolved, Egypt was granted nominal independence as the British abolished their declaration of Egypt as their protectorate (Powell P. 174).
After Egypt was granted freedom, the issue of Sudan was left unsolved as there were questions on who should rule over her as Egyptians felt that they had done more than Britain and had the right to rule over Sudan. Egyptian Wafd Party continued to raise the issue of Sudan’s political status. It claimed that Egyptians and Sudanese political, cultural, economic, and geographical features should be united and that Egypt should be the one running Sudan. Wafd claimed this because even after 20 years since Britain started exercising authority over Sudan, Egypt was still the one who was responsible for the treasury bill of Sudan. Moreover, the Egyptian soldiers were the ones that were running the financial and political infrastructure of Sudan. According to Wafd, Egypt had more right to rule over Sudan than Britain as he felt that in 1899 during the Sudan conquest, more Egyptian soldiers participated and fought General Kitchener. Egypt had spent millions of pounds on Sudan since its win, in addition to many casualties of war (Powell, P. 176). Even after several attempts to make Sudan under Egypt, Britain made it clear that Sudan was not under negotiations. They tried to avoid the Sudan discussion with Egypt, claiming that Egypt and Sudan were different countries with different issues.
Sudanese and Egyptian racial slavery can be traced back to the completion of the Suez Canal, which used a lot of finances and left Egypt bankrupt. Since Mitchell wanted to make Egypt great, he established schools like the school of administration and ancient languages, among other schools not only in Cairo but also in other cities like Tanta and Alexandria. More and more dreams of Isma’il were outgrown by his finances as the Egyptian treasury could not support these projects. Lack of finances made him borrow heavily from British, French, and German loans with unfavorable terms. Lack of finances made the Egyptian army weak, and the British could conquer them easily. Egyptian’s lack of freedom posed a threat of them being slaves to the European occupants during the 1870s and 1880s. From the writings of Sana’a and Abdallah al-Nadim, they recorded that they had witnessed how the enslaved people from Sudan came to be part of the Egyptian culture (Powell P.135)
Slavery in Egypt was more like slavery in South America, although those in Egypt suffered less. Still, they worked in similar plantations. The slave trade had been abolished, and those caught doing it were arrested and taken to court trials. Ali Pasha Sharif was arrested for conducting the slave trade, having bought six Sudanese women, Zanuba being one of them, and three Egyptian traders. Having walked barefoot across the desert to the Cairo slave market, they were posed with the danger of their justice not being served. Ali Pasha Sharif would not undergo the Egyptian trial on the military court martial as he had claimed his Italian Citizenship almost immediately, which exempted him from the Egyptian government’s Jurisdiction (Powell P. 150).
The British observers claimed that Sharif wanted to escape his punishment after breaking Egyptian law by announcing him as an Italian subject. He conceded his guilt, but his appeal for a second hearing was not granted as it was considered inappropriate. The slave traders tried to hide in the Islamic culture claiming that Zanuba and the other women were their wives, but she clearly stated that she was not his wife nor was a formerly enslaved person, but she was enslaved that they intended to the sale for money. All the other women also gave the same defense as the slave traders claimed to be married to these women (Powell P.151). laims of Sharif and his colleagues caused a strong reaction from an officer who was sitting on the court of the president known as Frith Bey as he scoffed at this claim of marriage. He asked questions like if they were their wives, why they were brought to Cairo during the Night, and why did they have to hide them, among other questions that reflected the connection between Islamic wedlock and slavery, which the British saw was supposed to be institutionalized (Powell P. 152).
The trial made the British think of the civilization of the Egyptians as there were connections between the Muslim slave traders and the use of Islamic marriage cloaks and that this subterfuge of marriage was still used in Sudan to justify the presence of the Egyptians. According to doctor Powell, the women who faced the trial were like the whirling mass of fluid for the victory of the conceptions of race, colonialism, and the Family man because of the changes they brought to the above three issues. There were interpretations that Egypt wanted to be an empire, but these claims were dismissed, and the British created an empire in both Sudan and Egypt. After the kingdoms were justified, momentums in the newly formed governments were influencing arrangements of institutions that concretized the interpretations. For instance, the slavery trade bureau was given to the interior ministry, giving him more jurisdiction to exercise the anti-slavery policy. Schaefer, the minister of the interior, made reports about raiding slave dealers in Sudan and Egypt, and his statements were canonized by the Anti-Slavery Society (Powell P. 152, 153). The Zanuba trials led to the above, among others, that the British people thought were ways of civilizing Egypt and Sudan.
Slavery is deeply rooted in Egyptian and Sudan history as enslaved people were common in both countries where a hierarchy of labor had been well established as most of the middle and upper classes families were served by enslaved Africans, primarily women from Egypt. From the historical records, it was clear that after one was purchased and taken to a small household, one was supposed to become part of the household and help raise children. In some cases, female slaves would have children with the head of the family in both Egyptian and British accounts (Powell P. 142). Slavery was among the things that caused polygamy, as after the head of the family had a child with an enslaved woman, she and the child needed to be treated as family members. According to European scholars like Ernest Renan, the family structure of both Egyptians and that of the people of Sudan was shaped by the historical slaves due to the changed concept of marriage (Powell P. 142).
Work Cited
Eve M. Trout Powell, A Shade of Colonialism: Egypt, Great Britain, and the Mastery of the Sudan (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 2003).