The latest draft law referred to the Shura council—the upper house of Egypt’s Parliament—bans rallies and demonstrations in places of worship. It has aroused huge debate among political pundits, legislators and the public in general. The law stipulates that demonstrations should not be organised in mosques or churches or their courtyards under whatever circumstances. Those who call for or organise a demonstration will be sentenced to a maximum of one year in prison, a LE1000-5000 fine, or both. Participants in demonstrations will be sentenced to six months in prison or a LE500-2000 fine, or both. Surprisingly, one could trace a wide agreement among Islamists, Copts and leftists that the proposed law was introduced to curb freedom of expression. As for religious minorities like Shia and Baha’is, they argue that the law aims at imposing restrictions on their meetings.
Watani discussed the issue with a group of leading figures of political currents and legislators.
Curbing freedom
Dr Gamal Nassar, media consultant of the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) Guidance Office finds in the law an attempt to prevent the group from expressing their views on national and regional questions. He told Watani the Brotherhood would oppose the law “which utterly contradicts human rights”. Yet he is almost certain that the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) would be able to pass the law easily due to the majority it enjoys in Parliament. Similarly, Ali Abdel-Fattah, former MP in Alexandria and MB leading figure views the law as part of the regime’s pursuit to go on with the plans of securing the passage of power to Gamal Mubarak, President Mubarak’s 44-year-old son and head of the influential Policies Committee in the NDP. Abdel-Fattah called upon Copts to join forces with the MB against the law.
Kamal Khalil, head of the Centre for Socialist Studies, views the draft law as part of an inclusive strategy to curb political freedom in Egypt, which involves controlling the activities of trade unions, professional syndicates and NGOs and issuing an oppressive anti-terrorism law. Khalil rules out that the newly proposed law would put an end to the movement of the Egyptian street. The latest nation-wide sit-in staged by property tax workers is highly indicative in this respect, he says.
The new law comes as no surprise, lawyer of Islamic Jamaat, Muntassir al-Zayat says. It was the Ministry of Islamic Endowments after all which stood behind it, and the ministry is of course part of the ruling regime, he remarks.
Alternative channels
Contrary to the above opinions, Ahmed Rifaat, professor of law and chairman of Beni-Sweif University argues that sit-ins and rallies should not be dealt with as an absolute right. In most developed countries, he says, demonstrations are regulated. Using the journalist syndicate for instance as a platform of demonstration, Dr Rifaat argues, is illegal since syndicates should be used for professional, not political purposes. Zayat, agrees that the proposed law is an arbitrary procedure aimed at curbing freedom of expression.
Before placing restrictions on protest in places of worship, head of Centre of Human Dialogue Mustafa al-Nabarawi says alternative channels of expression should be opened. Ramzi Zaqlama, deputy to the head of the Wafd Party cannot agree more. He argues that before banning protests in mosques and churches, constraints on freedoms of expression and demonstrations should be lifted. Furthermore, protests in churches, he remarks, are usually self-restrained and almost never develop into violence.
If we really care
More important than curbing rallies in places of worship, lawyer and rights activist Nigad al-Borai believes, is passing the unified law of places of worship, that is, he told Watani, if we really care for places of worship. “As for the new law, it is but a tool to curb freedom of expression, since demonstrations or rallies do not desecrate mosques or churches,” he said.
Especially where Copts are concerned, Rev Rifaat Fikry from Shubra, Cairo, says, the proposed law is beneficial since it would force them to go out of their churches and conduct their protests in public. This should serve, he stresses, to put an end to the isolation of Copts and drive them to transform their perspective from a sectarian into a national one. “Churches and mosques are, first and foremost, places of worship not political action,” Rev Fikry says.
In absolute agreement, Abdel-Moeti Bayoumi, member of the Islamic Research Academy, says that mosques and churches should be kept out of any concern apart from worship.
MP Ragab Higazi sees the new law as a means to fight religious extremism. “Religion should not be exploited for political ends,” he explains.
As for Hussein Abdel-Razeq, secretary-general of Tagammu party, he believes it is impossible to keep politics away from the mosque or church, since politics touch upon the core concerns of a person. “We can never forget, Abdel-Razeq says, that the resistance against Napoleon’s military campaign against Egypt was spearheaded from al-Azhar. Even so, he reminds, both Muslims and Copts took active part in it.”
Target: Copts
Naguib Gabraïl, Head of Egyptian Union for Human Rights, argues that the law’s main target is Copts, who usually use churches as platforms of protest. On the contrary, Muslims express themselves in street demonstrations not in mosques. Gabraïl views the new law as no less oppressive than the emergency law, for it could be used as a pretext to break into meetings and celebrations held in churches. Moreover, extremist security officials could use the law as a pretext to forcibly enter a church.
Rifaat al-Saïd, head of the leftist Tagammu Party and member of the Shura council, argues against using mosques in political purposes. According to him, the street, not the place of worship should be the place of political action. Saïd, however, sees Copts’ sit-ins in churches as legitimate since asking for the return of a kidnapped Coptic young woman for instance is a rights, not a political, issue.