Ethics in the balance

After a stormy opening on 18 July of the trial of 52 young men, accused of contempt of religion and acts of sexual immorality, the judge decided to postpone hearings until 15 August. The case is being heard by a State Security Misdemeanours Court under the authority of the Emergency Law, which denies defendants the right to appeal before a higher tribunal. The Emergency Law has been in force since the 1981 assassination of President Anwar El-Sadat.

Charges related to contempt of religion are usually brought to a State Security Court. In this case, only two of the 52 defendants are accused of deriding religion. They face up to five years in prison.

"The rest of the group are accused of habitual debauchery with men, which is case for a civil court," human rights lawyer Taher Abul-Nasr said.

Until the trial opened, lawyers had not been informed officially of the accusations levelled against their clients. "We have a vague idea, but we have nothing official," said lawyer Bassem Abdel-Rahman, minutes before the opening. "The dossier of the case includes 1,000 pages. We had little time to study it and prepare our defence," Abul- Nasr. said

"This case is nonsense," said Farid El- Deeb, head of the defence team and lawyer of the first defendant. "The law penalises habitual debauchery but, in this case, there is no proof of anything habitual." According to the law, "habitual" means engaging in the act repeatedly in different places with different people.

Sources who happened to be on the floating restaurant where the arrests took place said that some of the accused were heterosexuals.

Human rights activists and lawyers are asking why the detention has been so prolonged, why the hearings have been adjourned and why a State Security Court will hear the case.

"The primary concern here is the right to a fair trial," said Hany Megally, executive director in charge of the Middle East and Northern Africa for Human Rights Watch.

Sections of the Egyptian press have reacted angrily to statements issued by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch expressing "grave concern about the detention of men in connection with their sexual orientation." Some newspapers have accused the two organisations of meddling in Egypt's internal affairs and attempting to impose their beliefs on Egyptian culture. "There is no law against homosexuality in Egypt; our aim is to see the rule of the law and to safeguard human rights," Megally argues. "The only thing we can ask for is to have an international observer."

The rule that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty seems to have escaped the attention of sections of the Egyptian press in this case. The "traditional and rooted aversion towards homosexuality," as Yehia Qallash, secretary-general of the Press Syndicate, put it, has overridden the assumption that some of the accused may not be guilty. And even the guilty deserve a fair trial and some basic rights, Qallash said.

Some newspapers have published names, ages and work places of the accused, making it difficult for their families to live a normal life. At the opening of the trial, families of the defendants physically attacked reporters and photographers, screaming at them for "ruining" their reputations and lives.

The Code of Ethics of the Press Syndicate clearly states that "reporters should refrain from publishing details of a criminal or civil investigation or trial with the aim of influencing the course of proceedings." Also, "a reporter is not allowed to publish names or photos of defendants or guilty minors." And privacy is to be protected.

"What happened is a clear violation of the code and has to be stopped," Qallash said.

The defendants were arrested in a police raid on a floating restaurant on 11 May and held incommunicado for weeks following their arrest. Initial press reports spoke of alleged gay weddings, public orgies and Satanic worship.

The detainees were subjected to medical examinations "which proved that my client did not engage in homosexual activities," said El- Deeb, the first defendant's defence attorney, adding that his client had been receiving psychiatric treatment since 1992.

The trial opened at the Abdin court complex in downtown Cairo. Hundreds of people, including reporters, lawyers and the defendants' families, gathered outside. Only reporters and lawyers were allowed inside the small courtroom, but many family members managed to push their way through, screaming, "We haven't seen our sons for months!" The defendants, hand-cuffed, dressed in white T- shirts and covering their faces with handkerchiefs, were seated in one half of the room, surrounded by security men. The other half was crammed with people. Amidst screams and sobs from families and defendants, the judge read out the charges. The defendants pleaded innocent. One said: "I was taken from the street." Another: "There is no evidence," and a third: "This did not happen!"

The situation in the courtroom was chaotic. "We had requests and wanted to present them, but it was impossible," lawyer Abdel- Rahman said.

After the hearing was adjourned, the defendants were pushed into a police truck, with their families running after them until they disappeared from sight.

Abul-Nasr said the presiding judge later asked the Ministry of Justice to allocate him a more spacious courtroom in order to prevent a repeat of the chaos.

Return to Gay in Egypt
http://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/GayinEgypt.htm

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

 

       http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/537/op2.htm

Bothered and bewildered

Where is the country heading? The question has become very difficult to answer. We seem to have lost our innocence -- or at least our clarity of mind and vision. No one seems able to propose a credible view of the future that could generate consensus. Intellectuals and politicians alike seem disoriented and confused as to the direction Egyptian society will or should take. There seems, indeed, no one capable of giving society at large, and the younger generations in particular, a clear sense of direction.

What we know is far from sufficient to light the path ahead. We do know that the momentum for democratisation gained in the early 1980s is dissipated, the multi-party system is not functioning, popular interest in public affairs is receding alarmingly, political participation is eroding, and no system based on the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights is in place as yet.

On the other hand, we are unwilling to give up the image we wanted to impress on ourselves and on the world around us. We sought to believe in the image of a progressive, open society, freely interacting with the outside world on the basis of equality and mutual respect: a society committed to the cause of democracy and the highest standards of human dignity, a society determined to construct for itself an effective political system reconciling the need for rapid mobilisation aimed at achieving development with the principle of popular sovereignty and political pluralism. We have not entirely given up on these ideals, but we infringe on them all the time, perhaps increasingly and in a more flagrant manner as time goes by.

In the past few months, a vast array of developments have made depressing news headlines: the regular arrest of Muslim Brotherhood activists, the arrest and sentencing of Saadeddin Ibrahim and his colleagues at the Ibn Khaldun Centre, and, most recently, the arrest of a large group of young men accused of homosexuality. We may add to this list the new legislation shackling civil society institutions.

All these events conflict violently with the image that the state continues to offer of itself. The contradictions, however, are simply overlooked. Fundamental violations of the democratic model are somehow justified in the name of democracy or, worse still, originality and authenticity. In the first case, credibility is lost. Indeed, the very conventions that underpin the political discourse are brutalised and twisted. In the latter case, when excuses for flagrant violations are made in the name of our cultural specificity and authentic political experience, identity, independence or originality, we simply make ourselves even more ridiculous. Such excuses are simply humiliating to our national identity, which is inevitably linked to some of the more notorious practices of totalitarian regimes.

Such justifications, furthermore, lack logical consistency, a fact that tends to mislead observers of our national scene. The Muslim Brothers are accused of plotting to infiltrate the professional syndicates; but what is wrong with such "scheming," as long as it is not linked to violence or conspiracy as defined by the law? Any political group is required to "scheme" if it wants to win elections in syndicates and other public associations or representative bodies. If such scheming is regarded as a crime against state security, why are all other candidates left free?

While the Muslim Brothers are condemned for religious fanaticism, alleged homosexuals are found guilty of religious laxity. The logical conclusion is that people should be religious only in the precise way and to the specific extent defined by the government; they must express their religiosity only according to the modalities it dictates. The point here is not just logical inconsistency; there is also the fact that the government has failed to define the ideal model of religiosity to which it wants people to conform. In principle, therefore, the government can arrest people for having violated a model of religiosity that is not defined in philosophy or law. This vague definition of criminality jibes perfectly with the inadequate respect shown for the procedures the civil code establishes.

The confusion is greater yet in the Ibn Khaldun case. It was the government, after all, that initiated the open door policy; and that policy calls for free interaction between private actors at the domestic level, on one hand, and the outside world on the other. It was the government that ratified bi- and multilateral cooperation agreements with various foreign states and international institutions, allowing private entities in Egypt access to development assistance granted by these states or international institutions. Why should it not come as a total surprise to public opinion, then, when the Ibn Khaldun Centre, precisely by acting in conformity with the letter and spirit of these agreements, is convicted of criminal behaviour? Here are paradoxes within paradoxes.

The legal system itself is intrinsically contradictory, and so vague that people are suddenly accused of a "crime" they had been committing for years under the eyes of various law enforcement agencies. Not only did the prosecution fail to define the crime adequately; worse still, the behaviour suddenly defined as criminal is exactly what people are urged to do according to the open-door policy. Since all other private entities that interact with the outside world are guilty of the same crime, it is impossible to take them all to court; therefore, the Ibn Khaldun Centre, and possibly several other private institutions, must be singled out for punishment. Yet any of the tens of private institutions that prepare detailed feasibility studies for foreign companies continue to act in the same way as the Ibn Khaldun Centre did.

I have restricted my comments here to a formal level, since formalities distinguish laws from habits, traditions, norms or philosophies. The most basic need of any organised society is the existence of formal laws that are consistent, clear and applicable to all. We need not comment on the substance of the laws that make the individual cases mentioned above "criminal," simply because these laws contradict the image of democratic development the government has never renounced in public.

Where all this is taking us?

Pessimists are inclined to see the situation as a slippery slope leading back to closed and authoritarian politics. This characterisation overlooks certain major gains, however. Diversity and pluralism are now entrenched in national politics. Levels of democratic consciousness are high, as shown by many unambiguous public opinion polls. Traditional forms of control are rapidly becoming obsolete and ineffective, thus making a new and democratic structure of compromise vital for the very survival of society, let alone its peaceful development. Power resources are now distributed far more evenly within society than they were the past. Civil society has accumulated experience and knowledge, and even the formal institutions of the state are gaining greater activism and relative autonomy from the bureaucracy and the executive branch of government. Indeed, the new parliament is demonstrating unprecedented vitality, most recently in a series of discussions on national issues. Freedom of expression, while not fully codified, has come a long way. In brief, a new democratic bargain and a new structure of compromise are even more necessary than they were a few years ago.

Are all these positive developments adequate indicators that the democratic model will triumph? Certainly not. The complex mixture of gains and reverses and the intrinsic ambiguity of the present political situation underline the transitional nature of the present juncture in our national history. The conflicting signs should simply alert all democratic forces in our society to the need for greater coherence and their responsibility to future generations. A new, more vibrant national dialogue is necessary to clarify ambiguities and to set democratic parameters for our society's development.

Return to Gay in Egypt
http://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/GayinEgypt.htm

Al-Ahram		Al-Ahram Weekly Online 31 May - 6 June 2001 Issue No.536
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Current issue | Previous issue | Site map

On to the next chapter?

Egyptian, regional and international human rights organisations have said they were disturbed and dismayed by a State Security Court's decision on 21 May to send Saadeddin Ibrahim, a sociology professor at the American University in Cairo (AUC) and NGO activist, to prison for seven years. Editorials in the American press went further, using threatening language to condemn the verdict.

Prosecutor-General Maher Abdel-Wahed denied that Ibrahim or any of his colleagues had been subjected to any "extraordinary measures" and insisted that their trial had been fair.

Ibrahim, 62, who has both Egyptian and American citizenships, is the founder and director of the Ibn Khaldun Centre for Developmental Studies.

Ibrahim was arrested, and the Ibn Khaldun Centre closed, on 30 June. Ibrahim was detained for 40 days before being released on bail. The government charged Ibrahim and 27 others connected to the Ibn Khaldun Centre with several alleged crimes, including accepting foreign funds without government approval. After an earthquake hit Egypt in 1992 and relief aid poured into the country, a military decree banned accepting foreign donations without government permission. The foreign donor in question is the European Union, which provided money to promote political awareness and participation in Egypt's general elections. Other charges included compiling false reports about the status of Copts in Egypt; attempting to embezzle money; and making plans to bribe radio and television officials to broadcast programmes about the Ibn Khaldun Centre.

The trial began last November.

The European Union audit published at the time declared that "there is no misuse of funds."

And two days after the ruling, Gunnar Wiegand, a spokesman for the European Union's Executive Commission, said: "The European Commission is seriously disturbed by this development." He added that "we strongly question the State Security Court's line of judging the financial propriety of the voter education programmes and are very worried to see an Egyptian court finding that EU financial support to promote democracy and human rights constitutes a criminal offence."

Egyptian and Arab human rights groups called for the release of Ibrahim, and said that they were "shocked and deeply disturbed" arguing that the ruling was based on flawed emergency legislation. In a joint statement, six human rights organisations said that they believe that the arrest and trial of Ibrahim and his colleagues were "a continuation of the state's hostile policies against civil institutions in Egypt with the intention of silencing all institutions that try to participate effectively in public action."

The six groups are: The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the Hisham Mubarak Law Centre, the Human Rights Centre for the Assistance of Prisoners, the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights (EOHR), the Arab Centre for the Independence of the Judiciary and Al Nadim Centre for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence.

Attorney Negad El-Borai, a member of the board of trustees of the EOHR, believes that the verdict is a message to Egyptian civil society. "Egypt is no longer a suitable place for NGO and human rights activities," El-Borai told Al-Ahram Weekly. "The government insists on considering and treating human rights organisations as political opposition," he added.

In a separate statement, the Arab Organisation for Human Rights, a regional group which Ibrahim helped found in 1983, said it would assist Ibrahim's lawyers in making preparations for contesting the judgement before the Court of Cassation, which is the only court where rulings of the Supreme State Security Court can be appealed.

Ibrahim's lawyer, Ibrahim Saleh, told the Weekly that he has no plans to submit a petition for clemency to President Mubarak but will take the case to the Court of Cassation. "I am 100 per cent sure that this judgement will be overruled," he said.

The US-based Human Rights Watch and the UK-based Amnesty International condemned the verdict by saying: "We fear that the decision to convict [Ibrahim] had already been made prior to the conclusion of the trial."

Mahfouz El-Ansari, board chairman of the Middle East News Agency (MENA), wrote that if some American circles consider Ibrahim to be "an American hero, for sure he is not an Egyptian hero at all, he is not a hero, period."

According to El-Ansari, there were reports that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon instructed his foreign minister to express Israel's "shock" at the ruling to the Egyptian chargé d'affaires in Tel-Aviv. But Eyellet Yehiav, spokesperson of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, told the Weekly: "It never happened. PM Sharon has not complained about Saadeddin Ibrahim's judgement or anything to the Egyptians."

According to El-Ansari, the American media "should have first explained to their readers the reasons why they imposed an information blackout on what is taking place in the Palestinian territories and the war unleashed by one side, using all kinds of weapons, against an unarmed people."

Mohamed El-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, said that "any statement that contains an allusion to America and Israel is now used to condemn Saadeddin [Ibrahim] and to promote the government." He argued that the government is using the West's declared support for Ibrahim as a "proof of its nationalism and independence." But he added: "Why do they have to prove that at the expense of justice?" Said considered the whole affair "a tragedy but it is not the end of life."

A spokesman of the US State Department said on 21 May that the United States government is deeply troubled by the outcome of the trial. A spokesman for the US Embassy in Cairo added: "We have some concerns about the process that resulted in this sentence. While the embassy declines to comment on the specifics of the court's sentencing of Dr Saadeddin Ibrahim, we have consistently stated our concern that the rule of law be respected in this case and that the outcome of the trial bring credit to Egypt's judicial system. The embassy shares the concern of those in the international community who question the conviction of an internationally-recognised advocate of civil society and democratic reform in the region."

For the American press, however, the ruling seemed an occasion for a virulent campaign, which local supporters of Ibrahim believe to be motivated much more by the Egyptian government's position vis-a-vis Israel than any real concern for democracy and human rights in the country.

The Washington Post wondered in an editorial entitled An Insult from Cairo why Egypt "thought it was worth delivering this slap in the face to a superpower ally that has backed this government for 20 years." The editorial urged the American administration and Congress to prove to Egypt that the jailing of Ibrahim would be reflected on the $2 billion a year in aid.

"It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr Ibrahim was selectively prosecuted for political reasons," said a New York Times editorial entitled Injustice in Egypt.

Columnist Thomas Friedman, also writing in the New York Times, considered the trial to be a "sham" and a "travesty," which is "tarnishing Egypt's image." In his article entitled Tarnished Pyramids, Friedman wrote that if the Egyptian government "is ashamed of him [Ibrahim] because he 'tarnished' their image, every American should be proud of him, because he burnishes ours."

A spokesman for the American Embassy said: "As we do in the case of any American imprisoned anywhere in the world, we are seeking regular consular visits to Dr Ibrahim and we remain in close contact with Dr Ibrahim's family."

Barbara Ibrahim, Ibrahim's wife, Randa, his daughter, and Ahmed, his brother, visited him at Torah prison last Friday after obtaining an exceptional permission from the prosecutor. The rule is that visits are permissible only after one month has passed since the handing down of the ruling. According to Barbra Ibrahim, "He is still in a state of shock and sadness for the lack of deliberation before issuing the sentence. But his spirits are strong and he is prepared to pursue his rights by challenging the judgement in the Court of Cassation."

She quoted Ibrahim as saying that conditions in his prison are "very proper." Although he looked rested, "his nervous condition deteriorated," she said. Ibrahim expressed concern about the rest of his colleagues and their families, she said.

On the fierce editorials in the Western press supporting him, Ibrahim said that "they don't make me happy, but we didn't bring this on Egypt; it was done by the government."

"I don't think we've seen the last chapter of this story yet," said Barbra Ibrahim. "We are witnessing the chapter before last."

weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg

Return to Gay in Egypt
http://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/GayinEgypt.htm

Return to Gay in Egypt
http://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/GayinEgypt.htm