I have repeatedly written about the official hurdles in the way of licensing social services buildings belonging to churches, be they near or far from the church, maybe even in another neighbourhood or town. Neither the distance separating a church from the social services building belonging to it, nor the purpose of the building make any difference whatsoever. What only matters is the fact that the building belongs to a church. In the eyes of the security apparatuses, this qualifies the building to the harsh, tedious regulations governing the building of churches.
No matter how hard church officials attempt to prove the building is not intended as a church but for use as an orphanage, clinic, home for the aged, hostel or such services as normally offered by churches or mosques, the licensing process is bound to be fettered by security obstacles and undue procrastination. The applicants must first prove they are innocent of any intention of ever turning the building into a church.
Despite the fact that doubts of the intention to turn any services building into a church are never substantiated, and despite the universal rule that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, security apparatuses spare no effort to prevent social services buildings from seeing light. Yet the question security officials never contemplate is why would a building for a non-ecclesiastical activity be turned into a place for worship? And the answer these officials never acknowledge is that the licensing of churches involves procedures fraught with so much injustice, indefinite delay, indignity, and humiliation that many an applicant may throw all provisions and regulations to the wind, and build without licence. This is not to imply that we condone illegality, but it is impossible to overlook the flagrant discrimination against Copts where the building of places of worship is concerned. Law infringement in this case should be dealt with through issuing the longed-for unified law for building places of worship rather than complicating the issue by resorting to oppressive and punitive measures.
Until the law is passed, crises will not cease to erupt occasionally. A case in point is the social services building located in King Maryut and affiliated to Abu-Seifein Church in Lumbroso, Alexandria. The building is some 30km west of Alexandria, and is intended as a home for the aged and an orphanage. The Church had officially bought the land from its owner and erected the building according to a licence issued in 2007. Although the officials concerned know that it serves the aged and the orphans, the local government of al-Amriya district last February issued an inexplicable demolition order. Last March the church took the matter to the administrative court which issued a ruling on 29 November annulling the order.
But it was too late. Nine days before the ruling was expected, the Amriya local government bulldozed the building even though the officials were fully acquainted with the fact that a court ruling on the matter was due. They blocked the streets leading to the building, demolished the surrounding fence, gates, windows and doors, and threw out the furniture. It is obvious the local officials were determined to accomplish their mission before the court ruled in favour of the Church.
Officials in charge of the building stood by helpless, watching the tragic scene while asking themselves about the so-called citizenship rights stressed in the Constitution.
Today, however, the question which begs an answer is who bears the responsibility of demolishing the building without waiting for the court decision? And who should pay for the material damages and the even greater moral ones? Will the local officials responsible for the damage get away with it? Could one expect a presidential decree obliging the State to fund the reestablishment of the building the sole crime of which was that it is affiliated to a church?
Regrettably, all this takes place while citizenship rights sit at the forefront of our Constitution.
