Sonia Farid

Abu Hasira: Between Religious Intolerance and Political Squabbles

Abu Hasira: Between Religious Intolerance and Political Squabbles

The Abu Hasira Festival, an annual celebration in Egypt commemorating the birth of a Moroccan Rabbi, was canceled permanently by court order in December 2014. The Alexandria Administrative Court, which issued the verdict, cited “moral offenses” as the main reason for cancelling the festival. It also ordered the removal of the shrine from Egypt’s list of historic monuments, and refused Israel’s request for the transfer the rabbi’s remains to Jerusalem. The ban can only be reversed if a higher court overturns it on appeal. While the verdict was generally welcomed by Egyptians who oppose normalization with Israel, and by residents of the village in particular, apprehensions about its implications for religious freedom and cultural diversity have surfaced. Reactions to the verdict have also been highly politicized, revealing the widespread overlap in Egyptian perceptions of Jews and Zionists.

Abu Hasira, or Yakouv bin Massoud, a nineteenth century Moroccan rabbi died in 1880 in the Beheira village of Damitu, where he was buried. His tomb has since become a pilgrimage destination for Jews from all over the world, with annual official trips from Israel starting after the 1979 peace treaty.

Controversy surrounding the Abu Hasira Festival is certainly nothing new in Egypt. Egyptian courts issued similar verdicts in 2001 and again in 2004 calling for the festival to be canceled, but authorities never implemented the orders. In fact, the Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni listed the tomb as recognized monument that same year. In 2009, Israeli pilgrims were denied entry to Egypt for the festival as Israel was in the midst of Operation Cast Lead, a three week offensive against Gaza. Celebrations were also canceled in 2012, under the then-ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. At the time, the Muslim Brotherhood channel, Misr 25, reported on “human chains” preventing “the nightmare of Zionist crowds” from reaching the shrine. At least thirty-one parties announced their support for the campaign.

Much of the controversy links back to security measures put in place each year during the festival. Alaa al-Khayam, a member of the Bloggers against Abu Hasira, launched in 2007, declared his support for the verdict, adding that he, and his group, are not opposed to the right of religious groups to practice their rituals. “We oppose the Jewish festival because it turns the area into military barracks to protect the Jews and halts all aspects of life,” he explained. Residents of the village told local reporters in 2013 that they were subjected to house arrest during the festival.

Journalist Mahmoud Doweir, however, linked the cancellation to the Egyptian revolution. “No Zionists visited the shrine since the revolution took place,” he said. “Israel claimed that the security situation was the reason, but the truth is that the revolution uprooted the Zionist presence in Egypt.” Multiple campaigns against the festival organized protests, in what Doweir described as “efforts to reject cultural normalization with Israel.” The verdict, he said, was a reward for those efforts.

General Farouk al-Maqrahy, a security expert and former Member of Parliament for the Beheira governorate, saw the verdict as a victory which honored the demands of most Egyptians. “Political factions and residents of the village have long called for the festival to be canceled since the pilgrims are usually involved in activities that violate our values and traditions,” he said, in reference to reports that Jewish devotees visiting the shrine allegedly drank alcohol during the celebration. Maqrahy also refused to acknowledge the site as Jewish. “This is neither a shrine nor a monument. It is just an excuse to desecrate Egypt. There is even a possibility that Abu Hasira was not Jewish at all,” he alleged.

Madga Haroun, head of the Jewish community in Egypt, condemned the verdictas unconstitutional. “The Egyptian constitution gives every religious group the right to practice its rituals,” she said. “Abu Hasira has a special place in the heart of Jews and they have the right to visit his grave.” Haroun voiced her concern that crossing the shrine of the monuments’ list might eventually lead to its demolition. She also explained that heightened security during the festival was mainly the result of cultural and intellectual problems. “This happens because people do not know the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Abu Hasira lived and died in the nineteenth century, a long time before the creation of the state of Israel.” Haroun, however, supported the court decision not to hand Abu Hasira’s remains to Israel. “Abu Hasira had nothing to do with Israel or the Zionist project, so Israel does not have the right to claim his remains.”

Said Okasha, an Israeli studies expert at al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies, argued that the verdict will tarnish Egypt’s image abroad, particularly since it is political in essence. “The issue of the festival has always been tackled politically,” he said. “Now after the verdict, it will be much easier to accuse Egypt of anti-Semitism.” Okasha added that the shrine and the festival belong neither to Jews nor to Israelis, but to Egyptian heritage. “Jews, like Muslims, Christians, and Pharaohs are part of Egyptian history. There was too much fuss around the festival and the issue has grown out of proportion.”

Mina Thabet sees the verdict as the further deterioration of Jewish heritage in Egypt. “We are on the verge of losing an important component of the cultural diversity we have always been proud of,” he wrote in his article “An apology to Jews.” Thabet argued that unless Egypt takes immediate steps towards redressing this mistake, it can no longer claim to be a civilized nation.

Even though this controversy, no stranger to Egypt’s courts, has existed for years, the finality implicated in the verdict makes current concerns more real than before. Egyptian people’s tendency to equate between Judaism as a faith and Zionism as a political project is not likely to change any time soon. Abu Hasira is another casualty.

Egypt’s latest homosexual raid: AIDS and sensationalism

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2014/12/18/Egypt-s-latest-homosexual-raid-AIDS-and-sensationalism.html

The Egyptian AIDS Society (EAS) announced its intention to file a lawsuit against TV anchor Mona Iraqi for a report she ran on her show “Al-Mistakhabi” (“The Concealed”) on a recent raid on homosexuals in a Cairo public bath, which she claimed was part of a campaign against AIDS.

“The channel where Iraqi works did contact us to take part in a special episode on the occasion of World AIDS Day,” the EAS said. “We agreed and the society’s director gave an interview answering several questions related to awareness.”

The society said it was surprised that the interview was used for “unethical purposes,” and was aired together with videos and other interviews that “are totally against the society’s codes.” The EAS added: “We did not know about the details that were later inserted and the channel manipulated the interview.”

The controversial episode included a report on 33 homosexuals arrested in a public bath in downtown Cairo, as well as a video from inside the bath where, according to the report, male orgies took place. Iraqi said a member of the show’s crew sneaked into the bath to take the video after the owner confirmed that “orgies are being held all day.”

The show played a recorded phone call between the crew member and the owner, in which the latter said: “People who frequent the bath can’t bring strangers to their houses for fear of being exposed, so they come to the bath to do that.”

Iraqi said she contacted one of the bath workers for more information: “He told me that the price of one night can amount to $100, and that businessmen come from abroad to have sex with men there.” She said she reported the issue to the Interior Ministry, and security forces subsequently raided the bath and arrested the customers.

“This place is a pigsty and it had to be closed,” she said, promising to dedicate the following episode to “more causes of AIDS.” Iraqi posted photos of the semi-naked customers on her Facebook account, which she deactivated following the heated debate caused by the report.

Allegations

Rights groups across the Middle East and North Africa issued a joint statement condemning the raid and Iraqi’s role in it. “Iraqi did not only file a report with the police, but also accompanied security forces in the raid and took pictures of naked men trying to hide their faces,” said the statement.

According to the rights groups, Iraqi violated ethical codes of journalism, as well as articles 58 and 75 of the Criminal Procedures Law, which prohibit the disclosure of police procedures by unauthorized individuals or institutions. “Therefore, we ask that Iraqi be accordingly prosecuted.”

The signatories said Iraqi used AIDS as a facade for the report she ran on her show. “Such reports and raids will only lead to further stigmatization of AIDS patients and will, thus, discourage most of them from seeking advice or undergoing medical examination.”

Iraqi has denied all accusations leveled against her, saying she was only doing her job. “I am not a detective as people claim. I am working in investigative journalism and this necessitates reporting any crimes I come across to the police,” she said in a statement. “I did the same before the episodes on drug dealing and medical waste.”

Iraqi denied allegations that the episode and the police report constituted a violation of privacy. “I did not violate anybody’s personal privacy. I went to a public place where prostitution is openly practiced,” she said, adding that the customers were having unsafe sex, which is why the incident was relevant to the episode about AIDS.

Iraqi said even in countries where prostitution is legal, such places are constantly monitored, while this is not the case in Egypt, where those men’s families could easily contract AIDS. “I have done what my conscience dictated upon me on both the personal and professional levels,” she said.

Legality

Interior Ministry officials confirmed the legality of the raid and the charges. Ali al-Demerdash, director of the Cairo Security Bureau General, said the raid was “100% legal and arrest warrants were issued in advance.” District Prosecutor Mohamed Hetta said the owner of the bath would also be prosecuted for “turning a public bath into a homosexual brothel.”

Brian Whitaker of British newspaper The Guardian wonders why the customers in the bath, even if homosexuals, were arrested if there is no law in Egypt criminalizing homosexuality. He said defendants in such cases are charged with debauchery “under an old law originally intended to combat prostitution.”

Whitaker said the latest raid was conducted for the same reasons as one in 2001 known as the “Queen Boat Case,” in which 52 men were arrested for engaging in homosexual activities: diverting public attention.

The governments of former President Hosni Mubarak and current President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi are acting in the same way, Whitaker wrote. “It seems very likely that the crackdown under President al-Sisi is occurring for similar reasons: to distract attention from bigger issues, to show that while suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood the regime is still capable of playing the ‘morality’ card, or a combination of both.”

Insulting Egypt’s revolutions: Criminalization vs. free speech

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/2014/12/11/Insulting-Egypt-s-revolutions-Between-criminalization-and-free-speech.html

“The Jan. 25 revolution is a reality that no one can ever question,” Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi told journalists, adding that a law to criminalize insulting the revolution would be issued shortly. The decision came in response to demands by activists and political factions following a rise in accusations that the Jan. 25 protests were a conspiracy, as was the acquittal of toppled President Hosni Mubarak and his interior minister.

“The law is the only way to show respect to Egyptians who sacrificed their lives for freedom and democracy,” said the joint statement issued by revolutionary and youth movements, including the Revolutionary Youth Coalition, the Revolutionary Powers Bloc, and the Egypt MPs Union. Sisi’s announcement has been warmly welcomed and heavily criticized.

Professor of political science Hazem Hosni says the law complements the constitution. “Even though the constitution mentions the Jan. 25 revolution, it doesn’t say anything about insulting it,” he said. “That’s why the law was much needed.”

Professor of political science Ahmed Darrag says the law is the only way to counter allegations that the revolution was a conspiracy plotted by external powers: “Through protecting the revolution from its enemies, the law would make it easier to fight corruption.”

Amr Hisham Rabei of Al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies says the law is necessary to assuage fears that members of Mubarak’s regime might return to politics. “The acquittal of Mubarak and his top aides intensified doubts about the authenticity of the revolution, and raised concerns that the country might be heading back toward the pre-revolution era,” Rabei said. “This is a message to everyone that there’s no going back.”

Magdi Morshed, vice-chairman of the Congress Party, welcomed the decision, but said it should have been made much earlier. “Both revolutions have been severely reviled by supporters of Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said, referring to the protests of June 30 last year that led to the ouster of President Mohamed Mursi, which will also be included in the law. “The trial and acquittal of Mubarak and his aides, and the fact that none of them was harmed, prove how civilized these revolutions are, so they deserve to be honored.”

Legal expert Essam al-Islambouli says journalists will not be jailed just for criticizing the revolution. “Article 71 of the constitution bans the imprisonment of journalists,” he said. “The law can be applied in case such anti-revolution statements by journalists are linked with the crime of inciting violence.”

Islambouli supports the inclusion of the June 30 protests in the law. “Those who call June 30 a coup should definitely be penalized,” he said, referring to the Brotherhood, whose members were the first to call the protests a “military coup.”

Objections

Lawyer Samir Sabry said the law “violates the constitution, which gives every citizen the right to freedom of expression. Therefore, everyone has the right to criticize the revolution.” Sabry said if such a law is passed, it should also apply to the July 1952 revolution that toppled the monarchy.

Similarly, Refaat al-Said, former head of the Cairo Court of Appeals, asked: “Why should we single out the January revolution? The law should then apply to all revolutions that took place in Egypt, starting with the First Cairo Revolution.” He was referring to the 1798 revolution against the French invasion of Egypt.

“This is all so childish,” he said, adding that every revolution has positive and negative sides. “Even the French revolution that changed the world had many unacceptable downsides, despite the principles of democracy and freedom it called for,” he said. “The same applies to the Egyptian revolution. Let history decide this, not the law.”

Pro-government journalist and TV anchor Ibrahim Eissa slammed the law. “Is the revolution like the Quran now? Nobody is allowed to question it?” he asked on his show. “We’re dealing with double standards here. How can we be calling for freedom while telling people what to say and what not to say?” Eissa said everyone should have the right to criticize the revolution, and even question whether it was a revolution to start with. “This law will be a huge mistake,” he added.

There are also objections from activists and revolutionary movements. Haitham Mohamadeen, a member of the Revolutionary Socialists movement, wrote: “The only purpose of this law is to legitimize the June military coup. The January 25 Revolution does not need a law since it acquired its legitimacy from the masses that took to the streets and the martyrs that sacrificed their lives.”

Human rights activist and lawyer Khaled Ali wrote that the revolution “cannot be protected through laws but only through policies and legislations that achieve its goals and principles.”

Activist Ahmed Hassan says June 30, rather than Jan. 25, is the reason behind the law. “The main purpose of this law is to clamp down on those who oppose June 30 and refuse to call it a revolution,” he wrote. Hassan added that those who call Jan. 25 a conspiracy will stop doing so on Sisi’s orders, while those who call June 30 a military coup will not follow suit. “Therefore, only the latter would be penalized under this law.”

Journalist Abdel Qader Shoeib says the law may backfire. “We have enough laws and enough penalties for those who violate them,” he wrote. “We don’t want more laws to monitor what we say. If this happens, we will all end up behind bars just for having different opinions.”

So who killed the protesters?

So Who Killed the Protesters?

Who killed the protesters? This question was the headline of almost every major Egyptian newspaper, after charges against former president Hosni Mubarak were dropped, and his interior minister Habib al-Adly, and six ministry aides were cleared of charges in what was known as “the trial of the century.” In addition to corruption charges, Mubarak was on trial for his role in the death of hundreds of civilians during the January 2011 uprising. The question is asked at times seriously, and at others mockingly. It’s asked by those who believe the verdict is fair and those who question the judiciary’s independence.

Blaming the Brotherhood
Blaming the Muslim Brotherhood appeared to be the easiest way to pacify public opinion, while not holding the former regime accountable. In his article ‘Who killed the protesters?’ journalist Abdel Rahim Ali cites the testimony of late state security officer Mohamed Mabrouk, given during the trial of ousted president Mohamed Morsi. According to Mabrouk, who was assassinated on November 17, 2013 reportedly by Islamist jihadists, a meeting was held in Damascus in November 2010 under the auspices of the Muslim Brotherhood. This meeting included chairman of the Center for Strategic Research at Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council Ali Akbar Velayati, senior commander at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Ali Fadavi, and head of the Hamas’ politburo Khaled Maashal. “It was in this meeting that the deal was struck,” Ali said, quoting Mabrouk.

“The Iranian Revolutionary Guard was to train militants that would be later taken to Egypt through Gaza.” The plan, according to Mabrouk’s investigations, was to attack detention facilities and police stations in order to deal a fatal blow to the Egyptian police, as well as to shoot at civilian protesters to implicate Mubarak’s regime. “Colonel Mabrouk detailed in the testimony for which he paid with his life how this plan was carried out on January 28, 2011,” added Ali, one of the bloodiest of the eighteen days before Mubarak stepped down. For Ali, Mabrouk’s findings offer definitive proof that the police was not the real culprit. Ali also cited the testimonies of former Mubarak-era officials, Intelligence Chief General Murad Mowafi and former Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, both denying the police’s responsibility for the death of protesters.

A Transparent Argument

While they are among the staunchest critics of Brotherhood rule, secular activists and movements refused the offering of scapegoats to absolve Mubarak’s security forces. The April 6 Youth Movement, also opponents of the current regime, objected to pressing criminal charges against Mubarak and his interior minister from the outset. They argued that all the defendants should have been tried for their political responsibility. “In the absence of clear penalties for such crimes in the Egyptian penal code, a criminal trial was of course expected to yield such results,” said Mohamed Salah, member of the movement’s politburo. Salah added that evidence that criminally implicated the police had been destroyed.

Activist and filmmaker Khaled Youssef, who campaigned for President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, wrote an open letter to the prosecutor general in which he, as an eyewitness to the violations of the police on January 28, vehemently objected to the verdict. Youssef refuted allegations that Brotherhood snipers were responsible for all the killings. “Although I admit that, given Muslim Brotherhood’s history of violence, this scenario is not unlikely, there has been no proof so far,” he wrote. “Even if the Brotherhood had snipers, what about other protesters who died under the wheels of armored vehicles in front of us, or were shot by police officers also in front of us? Those are incidents that were recorded and shown on TV.” The interior minister and his aides, Youssef added, should also be tried for more general crimes like the abuses citizens were exposed to at police stations.

The Court’s Culpability

Journalist Sahar Talaat argues in her article ’Who Killed the protesters?’ that the judiciary only focused on the acquittal of the former interior minister and his aides, while totally ignoring the necessity of revealing who is responsible. For Talaat, accusations leveled against the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, or any other external parties are not confirmed, thus leaving the question unanswered. “The court only focused on acquitting the defendants while the families of dead protesters are still suffering as they wonder, ‘Who killed our children?’ Is it the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas or foreign powers that wanted to undermine the Egyptian state,” she wrote. “The end result is that those martyrs are not avenged.”

Legal expert Tarek Negeda explained a point that appears to have been lost in translation in the local media circus: that the verdict does not mean the protesters were killed by another party. “The verdict is not proof that Mubarak and his aides did not kill the protesters,” he said in a press statement. “It only proves that there was a legal mistake on the part of the prosecution.” Negeda explained that the defendants were not acquitted, but the charges against them were dropped owing to the absence of criminal evidence and the court ruled accordingly. Negeda refused to question the independence of the Egyptian judiciary and advised families of dead protesters to focus on reopening the case inside Egypt rather than through international courts. Families of the victims announced their intention to submit an official request to the Egyptian president to facilitate the release of videos that show the shootings whether taken by state institutions like State Security, intelligence agencies, and state TV or by foreign satellites belonging to the US, Russia, and the European Union.

In the midst of this heated debate and the different versions of the story that accompany it, one group seems to be certain of what really happened. Protesters who were there on January 28, 2011 say, without a doubt that, after failing to disperse the growing crowds with tear gas, they started using rubber bullets followed by live ammunition. Those who witnessed the day first-hand are not willing to accept the verdict, whether it is the result of intentional destruction of evidence or a coincidental procedural error. It is hard for many not to perceive how flawed the course of the trial has been from the beginning with senior officials being held accountable criminally rather than politically. The January 28 protesters who survived, stand by their narrative: in a regime as centralized as Mubarak’s, it is extremely unlikely for security forces to embark on a violent clampdown without being instructed, if not by the president then at least by the minister of interior.

The verdict leaves Egypt in a state of intense polarization once more, and introduces another wave of division. On the one hand, there is the camp that has, for a while, been willing to trust state institutions and accept regime policies in return for a much awaited return to normalcy. On the other, are those who prioritize the goals of the revolution and see a grassroots restructuring of executive and judiciary authorities as inevitable. It is worth noting, however, that members of the second camp, though indignant, made it clear that the verdict came as no surprise and was, in fact, quite expected. The earlier acquittal of all police officers tried for killing protesters already casted doubts on the entire process. Nevertheless, the shock prevails maybe not because of the outcome of the trial, but rather for what is seen by many as the final nail in the revolution’s coffin.

What is Egypt’s Islamist uprising about?

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2014/11/27/What-is-Egypt-s-Islamist-uprising-about-.html

Nov. 28 is the date set for the start of an Islamist uprising termed “the battle for Egyptian identity.” The call was first made in a YouTube video that explained the reasons why Egyptian Muslims should start a revolution.

The men and women in the video say a war is being waged against Islam and Islamic identity “when mosques in Sinai are razed to the ground by Apache helicopters,” when “Islamic studies courses are cancelled from schools,” and “when adultery and homosexuality become the norm.” A revolution, they add, is needed to restore values and morals, “without which no country can move forward.”

They say the revolution is not being organized by any specific party, group or faction, and does not condone bloodshed or sectarianism, but is rather about freedom and justice. Nov. 28 “is when you can defend your religion and liberate your country,” the video concludes.

The Muslim Brotherhood is supporting the protest movement, saying in a statement: “The Egyptian people will never accept to have their identity eliminated, their religion desecrated, their mosques destroyed, their Quran burnt, their youths killed, and their women dragged.”

The group added that the “coup,” in reference to the ouster of Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi, is about to come to an end. The statement warned the authorities not to carry out acts of violence or vandalism then blame the protestors.

The Salafi Front also expressed its support for the protests, which the ultra-conservative movement said will start right after Friday dawn prayers. Protestors “will ask God for victory and prepare themselves for martyrdom,” the front said in a statement. “The 28th will not necessarily be the day of victory, but at least the start of a wave of protests that will continue till the anniversary of the January 25 Revolution” that toppled President Hosni Mubarak.

Opposition to protests

Not all Islamist factions adopt the same view. The Construction and Development Party, the political wing of the formerly militant Al-Gamaa al-Islamiya, objects to the protests. “Calling for an Islamic revolution will only create division among the members of Islamist movements, and will increase tensions between Islamists and non-Islamists,” said party leader Essam Derbala. “Moreover, it will lead to a violent crackdown on the part of the state.”

The Salafi Calling movement, and its political wing the Nour Party, have launched a campaign against the uprising.

“These protests will bring about guerrilla wars,” said Yasser Borhami, the movement’s vice-chairman. “The collapse of the state is what will actually lead to the desecration of religion.” Borhami added that protestors killed in the uprising would not be martyrs even if they were peaceful.

Several non-Islamist movements that are opposed to the current government are refusing to take part in the protests. “We are against all attempts at polarizing society whether on the sectarian or the political level,” the April 6 Youth Movement said in a statement. “We believe that every citizen has the right to freedom of faith.” The movement stressed its support for the right to peaceful protests, and condemned all forms of violence.

The Revolutionary Socialists denied allegations about its members taking part in the protests, which “revolve around demands by Islamist factions and totally ignore revolutionary demands.”

Political researcher Wessam Fouad said the protests would deepen the rift between opposition factions, which he saw as divided into two main groups. “The first group calls for a civilian state and is categorically against military rule. The second group sees Islamic identity as the main cause at the moment,” he wrote.

Fouad added that the protests would make it easier for the government to win over the secular opposition by playing on its members’ apprehensions about the Islamization of the revolutionary discourse. “The Islamist uprising will also give the regime the perfect pretext for endowing the war against terrorism with more credibility.”

Journalist Belal Fadl wrote that Nov. 28 marked the Brotherhood’s “political suicide,” as it was trying to “drag the country to an illusory battle for identity through promoting lies like the destruction of mosques and the burning of the Quran.”

He added: “As usual, the Brotherhood did not call upon its members to participate so that it can hijack the uprising if it yields fruit, or engage in more self-victimization if the regime stages another violent clampdown against Islamists.”

Militarizing Egypt’s Trials

Militarizing Egypt’s Trials

While the military trials of civilians are nothing new in Egypt, the circumstances in which Egyptians can be brought before these courts have seen a worrying expansion. From January to September 2011 alone, estimates place the number of Egyptians who faced military trials under the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) at 12,000. A new law issued by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in October could likely lead to a significant rise in this figure, and raises more concerns about a further clampdown on freedoms.

According to Law number 163/2014 for the Protection of Public and Vital Facilities, issued on October 27, following the death of more than thirty Egyptian soldiers in a militant attack in the Sinai Peninsula, the Egyptian army will now aid the police in guarding “public” and “vital” facilities. For the next two years, these facilities are to be placed under military supervision and treated as military establishments. They include, but are not restricted to, power stations, oil and gas fields, railways, roads, bridges, and “public establishments of a similar nature.” Universities, seen as the last bastion of freedom of expression, were also later declared to be subject to the law. “Of course universities are included. Aren’t they public establishments?” said Minister of Justice Mahfouz Saber one day after the law was issued. Perpetrators of violent activities targeting any establishments seen to fall under the law will be referred to the military judiciary.

Less than a month after the law’s enactment, five Al-Azhar students have been referred to a military court on charges of torching a room on the university campus. Another eleven members of the Muslim Brotherhood were referred to military prosecutors on charges relating to planting a bomb in a local court, and blocking railway tracks in Kafr al-Sheikh.

While official statements insist the law aims only to counter terrorism and restore security, and also stress its constitutionality, activists and rights organizations have a different point of view. Fifteen local rights organizations including the Egyptian Imitative for Personal Rights (EIPR) and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, issued a joint statement calling on the government to repeal the law, describing it as a “masked state of emergency.” A Human Rights Watch (HRW) statement argues that even “the shaky due process guarantees” offered by regular courts in Egypt and which render a fair trial quite unlikely anyway are totally absent in their military counterparts.

The phrasing of the law is also regarded as a major drawback. HRW Middle East and Africa director Sarah Leah Whitson says, “Its absurdly broad provisions mean that many more civilians who engage in protests can now expect to face trial before uniformed judges subject to the orders of their military superiors.”

Diana al-Tahawy, head of the Transitional Justice Department at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, describes the law as “catastrophic.” Tahawy agrees that a lack of a proper definition “public and vital facilities” is problematic. She also argues that the law violates article 204 of the Egyptian constitution. “The constitution specifies that military courts are only authorized to deal with offenses directly targeting military establishments and personnel,” she said, noting a lack of objectivity on the part of judges and prosecutors in military courts since they are appointed by the minister of defense. This was precisely the concern of Amnesty International’s deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui. “The disturbing truth is the government passed this law to remove any chance of an independent and impartial judge ever delivering a not-guilty verdict,”she said.

Mahmoud Salmani, a member of the No to Military Trials for Civilians movementsays protestors, not terrorists as claimed by the state, are the main target of the new law. “People take to the streets and sometimes block roads or railways to protest. All those will face military trials for demanding the rights granted by the constitution and denied them by the state. The same will apply to students who protest on campus,” he said, adding that the stability this law claims to establish will never materialize as long as injustice persists.

For all the local and international criticism the law has faced, it certainly has its support in Egypt. Editors-in-chief of seventeen state and independent newspapers issued a joint statement supporting the new law and pledging “to take part in fighting terrorism” and “countering unpatriotic rhetoric” in their coverage. While the signatories stressed their respect for freedom of expression, they rejected attempts at “questioning the intentions of state institutions and undermining the army, the police, or the judiciary.”

When asked to contribute to resolving the debate over the specifications that make an establishment vital or public, the head of Military Judiciary Authority, General Medhat Ghozy only added to the mystery, saying the law applies to “Any building that is state owned or offers public services… be it a university, a factory, or a power station,” adding, “The law is broad.”

It is, in fact, the law’s ambiguity that refutes the argument that only Islamist extremists and the Muslim Brotherhood–designated a terrorist organization by the Egyptian government and whose members and sympathizers have been subject to a fierce clampdown following the ouster of Mohamed Morsi– who are the target of the law. Given the number of secular activists currently serving jail sentences for breaching the controversial protest law, it is likely that military trials will become a new frontier they must now face in Egypt.

How ‘treacherous’ is criticizing Egypt’s president?

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2014/11/23/How-treacherous-is-criticizing-the-Egyptian-president-.html

Egyptian actor Khaled Abul Naga might be facing high treason charges for criticizing the policies of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. According to the lawsuit, filed by lawyer Samir Sabry, Abul Naga insulted the president, incited the public against the Egyptian army and promoted anarchist principles, which makes him a traitor and necessitates trying him as such.

“Abul Naga is a political dwarf who is attempting to gain fame through making such statements,” Sabry said in a television interview. “Those troublemakers have to be stopped by law.”

Sabry also declared that he plans to file another lawsuit accusing Abul Naga for attempting to topple the regime and “defy the will of Egyptians who elected Sisi as president.”

The lawsuit came in response to Abul Naga’s criticism of the current regime, especially as far as the Sinai evacuations are concerned.

“The regime does not have the right to kick people out of their houses under the pretext of security,” he said in an interview on the margins of the Cairo International Film Festival.

“If the regime cannot defend the country without displacing people, it is failing.”

Abul Naga argued that bringing back the security state would eventually ruin the country, especially that the revolution’s main goal was to eliminate it. Although he did not mention Sisi by name, he explicitly called upon the president to deliver or resign.

“If you cannot do your job then you better leave. Looks like we’ll be saying that very soon,” he added, referring to one of the Egyptian revolution’s most renowned slogans and which was at the time addressed to former President Hosni Mubarak: “Leave.”

Sabry’s lawsuit triggered a wave of indignation among activists and intellectuals who defended Abul Naga’s right to freedom of speech. A group of filmmakers, journalists, and writers issued a statement condemning what they termed “terrorism disguised as patriotism and which allows leveling grave accusations like high treason against citizens who have a different opinion.”

The statement pledged solidarity with Abul Naga and called for the respect of the rights granted by the constitution “for which Egyptians paid with their blood and lives.”

The signatories also called for expelling Sabry from the Bar since he “not only violated the constitution, but also contributes to undermining political life in Egypt.” A hashtag called “support_naga” was also launched on Twitter.

On the other hand, Abul Naga was the subject of a fierce campaign started by several journalists and talk show anchors, several of whom resorted to slander.

Anchor Tawfik Okasha, in fact, claimed that Abul Naga was a homosexual, a matter that Sabry apparently hinted at when he said there was a reason why Abul Naga could not join the army.

“You are no different from tabloids,” added Okasha.

Mazhar Shahin, a preacher-turned-talk-show-host, followed the same strategy.

“If Abul Naga does not like Egypt, he is the one who has to leave,” he said.

“He can go to Syria or Iraq where there is no army to bother him. He just needs to take care of his pants there.”

Journalist Moustafa Bakri accused Abul Naga of taking part in conspiracies against the Egyptian state since the Jan. 25 revolution.

“One is ashamed to talk about those people whose views conflict with the people’s will,” he said on television.

Talk show host Ahmed Moussa sarcastically called upon Sisi to appoint Abul Naga head of operations in the Sinai Peninsula.
“There he can apply all the military tactics he is an expert in and show us how he can fight terrorism,” he said in his show.

Meanwhile, talk show host Khairy Ramdan argued that Abul Naga’s statements are not worth paying attention to in the first place because of how “naïve” they are. “So, if you want someone else to be in charge, who is going to fight terrorism?” he asked. “Wouldn’t it be the army still? What is the alternative in your own point of view, Khaled?”

While objecting to the high treason accusation, journalist Hamdi Rizq argued that Abul Naga has been impulsive in his statements.

“Abul Naga seems to be totally oblivious to the terror through which the country has been going in the past year,” he wrote.

“There is a huge difference between heroic roles you play on the screen and the actual wars waged against Egypt.”

Rizq expressed his surprise that as an actor like himself, Abul Naga was not thankful for having Sisi as head of the state.

“Had it not been for Sisi, you would have stayed at home with no films to make and no festivals to attend,” he said. “You would have been governed by people who reject creativity and believe that arts are prohibited,” he explained, in reference to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abul Naga, who refused to retract his statements, cited article 65 of the 2014 constitution, drafted after the toppling of the Muslim Brotherhood regime, to hold on to his right to express his views freely.

“Freedom of thought and opinion is guaranteed,” reads the article. “All individuals have the right to express their opinion through speech, writing, imagery, or any other means of expression and publication.”

Abul Naga’s supporters saw the Best Actor award he received Tuesday from the Cairo International Film Festival as a compensation for the insults he has been exposed to following his statements.

Mona Seif, founder of the No to the Military Trial of Civilians movement and sister of controversial activist Alaa Abdel Fattah, said Abul Naga’s patience in the face of slander was well rewarded.

“He has been bearing with incredible attempts at tarnishing his image for the past few days,” she wrote. “Now, he is named Best Actor. Congratulations to him and to us for having him among us.”

Seif also noted the role Abul Naga has played since 2011 in opposing the trial of civilians before military courts. Activist Hazem Abdel Azim wrote: “Congratulations to Khaled Abul Naga for getting the Best Actor award at a time when terrorism is used as a pretext for the suppression of freedom of speech.”

Meanwhile, no official statement was issued regarding Abul Naga’s controversial statements in what could be seen as part of Sisi’s policy toward opposition and insults to his person.

In a speech he gave for the commemoration of the 41st anniversary of the October 6 victory, Sisi stressed that he is not interested in responding to criticism. “If I responded to insults, I would be degrading myself,” he said.

“Many people have been insulted before but that never meant they were weak or unsuccessful.”

Fate of Egyptian NGOs hangs in the balance

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2014/11/14/Fate-of-Egyptian-NGOs-hangs-in-the-balance.html

Nov. 10 marked the expiry of the ultimatum given to Egyptian NGOs to “adjust their legal status” by registering under law 84, which dates back to ousted President Hosni Mubarak.

The registration decree was issued in July by Minister of Social Solidarity Ghada Wali, supported by amendments to the penal code, and approved by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

It states that citizens who receive material or logistical funding from local or foreign bodies for the purpose of destabilizing national security will be sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of no less than 500,000 Egyptian pounds ($69,924).

With the passing of the deadline, NGOs that have not registered risk facing criminal charges, while some opted to close down and others have started the registration process.

There is heated debate about whether the decree and amendment will enhance security or clamp down on civil society.

Several NGOs refused to register in principle, saying the law contradicted the nature of civil society.

Magda Adli, head of Al-Nadim Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence, said: “The law allows the authorities to interfere in the NGO’s affairs, including sources of funding, which makes it no different from any governmental body.”

She added that NGOs are supposed to monitor the performance of government, not the other way round.

Mohamed Abdel Azim, head of the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, said registration under this law will give the government the right to approve only activities that serve its interests. “This will be a problem for our center, which basically works on torture.”

Saad al-Din Ibrahim, head of the Ibn Khaldoun Center for Developmental Studies, said his organization will not register under the law. “If the government objects to our status, we’ll file a lawsuit and I’m sure we’ll win,” he said.

“I’ve actually been through many legal battles with the government, and the verdict is usually in our favor.”

Concerns over the law’s negative impact on civil society were expressed in a statement signed by 29 Egyptian NGOs: “The signatories of this statement believe that the law defeats the purpose of civil society since it aims at closing down independent organizations and authorizing only ones that will abide by the government’s rules.”

Hafez Abu Saeda, chairman of the Egyptian Organization of Human Rights, said the law violates article 75 the 2014 constitution on “the right to establish associations,” and “the right to form NGOs and institutions on a democratic basis, which shall acquire legal personality upon notification.”

That is why no action should be taken before a new law is issued in line with the constitution, Abu Saeda added.

“A law was already drafted by a civil society committee formed in 2013 under the former minister of social solidarity,” he said.

“Why not wait until this law is approved by the upcoming parliament, especially since it was approved by a large number of organizations?” The current law is also against international charters and democratic principles, since it deprives citizens of one of their basic political and civil rights, he added.

George Ishak, an activist and member of the National Council for Human Rights, said it is unlikely that any measures will be taken against NGOs that have not registered until the election of a new parliament.

The Ministry of Social Solidarity “is only negotiating with NGOs to adjust their status, but a new law will be issued by the upcoming parliament,” he said.

Legal expert Essam al-Islambouli said the amendment of the penal code does not target NGOs, but rather aims to fight terrorism. “The amendment aims to impose harsher penalties on those who receive funding in order to destabilize security.

I don’t know why NGOs are making a fuss about it,” he said, adding that some terrorist groups have used NGOs to store weapons.

A source at the Ministry of Interior, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said more than 80 NGOs in Egypt are operating outside the law.

“Some activists also work for foreign NGOs that have no offices in Egypt, and some of them attended conferences and training sessions without notifying the authorities,” he said, adding that Egypt is targeted by several countries that want to jeopardize its national security.

The National Security Bureau estimates the funds received by 57 NGOs in Egypt as of July 2014 at more than 100 million Egyptian pounds ($13,984,843).

Wali said nine foreign NGOs and eight Egyptian ones applied for registration before the deadline. “We are currently in the process of surveying NGOs that have not adjusted their status,” she said.

A source at the Ministry of Social Solidarity said a day after the deadline that looking into the files of unregistered NGOs will be postponed because “the ministry does not have a clear vision of the measures to be taken against those NGOs.”

Egypt’s Sinai evacuations: A case of displacement for security?

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2014/11/08/Egypt-s-Sinai-evacuations-A-case-of-displacement-for-security-.html

Creating a buffer zone along the border with the Gaza Strip has been the Egyptian government’s priority since the Oct. 24 attack that killed more than 30 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula. The plan, which promises to stem the flow of smuggled weapons and militants, necessitates the immediate evacuation of thousands of residents and the demolition of hundreds of homes.

While both the decision and the speed of its implementation are lauded as a positive step toward eliminating terrorism in a restive region, concerns about the financial and psychological damage sustained by locals are emerging.

Lawyer and human rights activist Gamal Eid said the evacuation constituted a blatant violation of the constitution. Article 63 “states clearly that forced evacuations of citizens are prohibited,” he said. “Even if only one person refuses to evacuate, it’s still a crime.” Eid also objected to permitting the evacuation in return for compensation. “The constitution mentioned nothing about compensation.”

Naeim Gabr, a chief of the Sawarka tribe in northern Sinai, said he did not see how evacuation would contribute to countering terrorism. “This is absolutely illogical. National security is achieved when an area is properly populated, not deserted,” he said, adding that some residents are planning to file lawsuits that could reach an international level. He also noted residents’ strong ties to their lands. “No compensation can replace the land for the locals of Sinai.”

Political activist Haitham Mohamedin said the evacuations “will neither end terrorism nor protect soldiers in Sinai. They’ll only trigger animosity between the people and the army,” which is “treating the people as second-class citizens, and accuses many of them of treason.” The army “is technically imposing martial laws on the people of Sinai, on the basis that the peninsula has become a military zone.”

However, security expert Hossam Sweilam said the evacuation plan “was done in agreement with the Sinai locals, and most of them accepted the decision and will be compensated. Even if it’s unconstitutional, the constitution isn’t a holy book, and national security takes precedence over the constitution.”

Sweilam said the buffer zone, and a planned canal inside it, will be large enough that members of Palestinian group Hamas “wouldn’t be able to infiltrate the Egyptian border.”

Military and strategic expert Mahmoud Zaher refuted claims that the government was treating Sinai residents as traitors. “On the contrary, the army is fully aware of the major role played by the people of Sinai in helping it combat terrorism,” he said. “The army is now asking them if they can go one more extra mile.”

Zaher also denied that Sinai residents were being treated as second-class citizens. “They are of course first-class citizens, and nobody can say otherwise. We know that evacuation isn’t a pleasant business, but the government is unfortunately forced to do it. It’s a matter of national security.”

Samir Ghattas, chairman of the Middle East Forum for Political Studies, highlighted the importance of a buffer zone in closing tunnels used to smuggle weapons and militants from Gaza into the border town of Rafah.

“Those tunnels constitute a grave threat to Egypt’s national security,” he said, adding that Hamas has been “using Sinai as a warehouse for their weapons” because “they’ll be safer than in [Gaza], where they’re subjected to Israeli attacks.” Ghattas said Sinai residents found to be involved in smuggling would be forcibly evacuated and not compensated.

He acknowledged that some residents have started complaining, but not about the evacuation in principle. “They only complained that they weren’t given enough time,” he said, referring to the 48 hours given to leave their homes.

Sinai-based journalist Mustafa Singer said the evacuation, “delivered over megaphones, took people by surprise.”

New York Times reporter Kareem Fahim said it was hard to gauge local reaction because it is difficult for journalists to get access to the area, and because protests without permission are strictly banned. “But the lack of outcry also seemed to measure the fatigue in Sinai, after decades of government neglect and months of armed conflict pitting the army against a stubborn insurgency.”

Egypt’s new ‘societal police:’ Better security or more repression?

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2014/10/28/Egypt-s-new-societal-police-Better-security-or-more-repression-.html

On Oct. 18, the legislation committee at the Egyptian State Council approved the establishment of the “societal police.” According to the ruling, members of this force will be non-police civilians who will be given police powers, the power of arrest being the most significant. The new law lists shooting, martial arts, and dealing with riots among the skills members will be taught during their 18 months of training.

The societal police will be chosen according to certain criteria to be determined by the Interior Ministry, which this force will answer to. Since its inception, the law has been the subject of heated debate, with proponents considering it a step toward stability, and detractors foreseeing negative impacts on personal and political freedoms.

Fouad Allam, former deputy head of state security, considers the law a practical solution to the years-long security vacuum, and an efficient way to make citizens feel safer, especially in neighborhoods with a limited security presence.

“The presence of societal police, whose members will be regularly patrolling their respective areas, will lead to a remarkable drop in the crime rate, with criminals and terrorists finding it more difficult to melt into the crowds,” he said. Allam downplayed concerns about lack of training: “The new police will get the proper training so they’ll be able to handle all necessary situations while of course respecting citizens.”

Security expert Gamal Abu Zikri said establishing societal police “will offer a large number of job opportunities to Egyptian youths,” lauding the idea as “innovative.”

For journalist Ahmed Marei, societal police will complement regular police, especially when dealing with issues “that cannot be tackled with security measures only.” The law, he adds, will establish a close relationship between the people and security forces, with the latter including regular citizens. This will alleviate long-standing tensions between “society and state institutions.”

Societal police, Marei said, would “take the role of the citizen in the community to a much higher level,” and “raise security awareness among Egyptians in general.” Being part of the general public, they will also be better able to deal with post-crime situations in their areas: “They will, for example, offer support and advice for victims of domestic violence, and will play a major part in their rehabilitation and integration in society.”

Criticisms

The April 6 Youth Movement is vehemently opposed to the law. “The Interior Ministry is in charge of maintaining security and should assume full responsibility for that and solve the problems it has internally instead of resorting to external solutions,” said movement coordinator Amr Ali. The ministry needs to start a restructuring process that eliminates corruption and promotes citizenship principles, he added.

“Policemen need to know that their duty is to protect the people and to apply the law to everyone including their own people,” he said. In response to official statements about the existence of societal police in other countries, Ali said: “Each country has its own circumstances.”

Rights researcher Mina Thabet said establishing societal police is another step toward recruiting citizens for security apparatuses. “The Interior Ministry is making citizens work for it,” he said. “This started with encouraging students to write reports about their colleagues, then turning media outlets into propaganda machines, and now having detectives in every neighborhood and every street.”

The Justice Organization for Development and Human Rights said the ministry has ulterior motives beyond having citizens spy on each other. “The ministry is creating this new force to get away with the crimes it commits especially before international courts,” the organization said, adding that attributing violations to societal police is an ideal exit for regular police.

The Independent Judiciary Front, which considers the ouster of President Mohammed Mursi a military coup, called the new law a “legalization of thuggery,” in reference to the Interior Ministry’s recruitment of thugs to clamp down on activists during the era of President Hosni Mubarak.

“There has always been a shady, undeclared relationship between the ministry and thugs,” the front said. “This law will create legalized militias that crush opposition as instructed by the regime.”

Yousry Hammad, deputy head of the Watan Party, said societal police will be the Egyptian version of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, “which works for the regime and its cliques.”

For Mokhtar Ghubashi, head of the Arab Center for Political and Strategic Studies, giving societal police the right of arrest is alarming, especially since “the law doesn’t provide a detailed job description for the new police, or how they’re going to deal with crimes or political unrest.”

Legal expert Mohamed Abdel Fattah said regardless of the pros and cons of the law, a decision of that sort should have been postponed until a parliament is elected. “In fact, the State Council might retract the decision, or at least postpone its implementation, until there’s a parliament,” he said. The law is to be ratified by the president, who currently has legislative power until parliament is elected.

Ahmed Fawzi, secretary general of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, says the law not only ignores the necessity of parliamentary approval, but also overlooks civil society organizations. “This decision shouldn’t have been made without establishing societal dialogue.”