Egypt’s new constitution, which is currently being drafted, includes in the chapter on “Public rights, freedoms and duties”, an Article 2 which reads as: “Citizens are equal before the law.
Problems on hold
Egypt’s new constitution, which is currently being drafted, includes in the chapter on “Public rights, freedoms and duties”, an Article 2 which reads as: “Citizens are equal before the law. They are equal where public rights and duties are concerned; regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, language, religion, faith, opinion, social status, or disability.” Article 8 of the same chapter reads: “Freedom of belief is secured. The State secures the freedom to build places of worship for the heavenly religions, as stipulated by the law and in what does not violate public order.”
These two articles are nothing new. They were not invented in the draft constitution, but were part of the 1971 Constitution which was dropped by the January 2011 Revolution. Even so, pre-Revolution laws and legislation and official practices threw it to the wind. Discrimination between Egyptians basing on their religion was notorious by both the State and the community at large. The State failed miserably to secure the right of Copts to build places of worship equitably with their Muslim fellow citizens. This failure was not because of official fanaticism, tyranny, or disrespect of the law; it was based on legislation, laws, and official codes that rooted the discrimination and inequality, and allowed for violation of the constitution.
The scandalous tools exploited over the years to root the discrimination were easily accessible. Major among them were the “Ten Conditions” decreed in 1934 by Egypt’s then deputy to the Interior Minister, Ezabi Pasha, and to this day proudly attributed to him. These conditions stipulated overly strict, notoriously discriminative conditions for the building of churches. They entitled security officials to bar the allocation of land to build a church, or to freeze a church licence, under the pretext that a church would threaten social peace or ruffle the sensibilities of Muslims.
There were also the stipulations that the building of a church required a presidential decree; and the maintenance, expansion, restoration, or renovation work in any church required a governorial permit.
All such legislation concerns churches and Church-owned buildings or facilities alone; they do not apply to mosques. How then does it conform with the constitutional stipulation of non-discrimination based on religion, or the freedom to build places of worship and practice religious rites? No point in questioning that; constitutional articles are apparently stipulated as some form of adornment we can easily disregard.
Back to the Article 2 and the Article 8 cited at the top of this article: Is it any surprise that we are not too happy about them; but are rather wary they would go the same way as their predecessors in the now-defunct constitution: mere legislative decor? Is there sufficient goodwill towards the Copts to put an end to their treatment as second-class citizens under the supervision and control of security officials, politicians, governors, and the president in person? Will the new constitution mark the empowerment of the values of citizenship and non-discrimination? Copts are on the watch, and their fears and anxieties run high; not only on account of their long, bitter experience, but also on account of what they see as an absence of political will to root equality and correct the flawed legislation that has brought us to where we are today.
Anyone who doubts this or sees the anxiousness as overly paranoid need only look at the long-awaited unified law for places of worship which has been placed on hold since 2005. Every time Copts are victim to the by-now-familiar vicious attacks against them, officials pledge to work to quickly pass the unified law for places of worship. Then matters calm down and the promises vanish into thin air. And what plausible explanation can there be for the persistence in refraining from opening churches that were closed ‘for security reasons’ or in the wake of attacks against Copts? Or the freezing of licences already issued for churches or church activities? How can there be any justification for the failure of the security authorities to uphold the law in the face of hardline, fanatic Muslims who terrorise communities into closing churches once any much-needed, licensed restoration or renovation work as much as even starts?
All such practices should have been tackled for the Copts to believe the much-touted constitutionally-instated freedom and equality would materialise on the ground. But it looks like there are some in Egypt who believe that freedoms, rights, and non-discrimination need only be implemented after—not before—the constitution is in place.
Leaving the status quo as is, in absence of the political will to change it, gives rise to bitter fears and worries which may surely be uncalled-for, but are inevitable. Is it any surprise Copts look suspiciously at such phrases as “the intentions of Islamic sharia”, “in what does not conflict with the sharia of Allah”, or “in what does not violate public order” in the draft constitution? They cannot help wondering if there are hidden intentions to place clauses that would practically prohibit or abort the equality cited so explicitly in the constitution.
WATANI International
30 September 2012
