The following is the prejudist and bigoted
response
of Rose Al Youssef to Amnesty's Report.
Kindly translated by an anonymous
contributor:
Special Report
How Could Anyone
Believe them After this Ridiculous Statement?:
They're Defending Egyptian
Perverts Under the Pretext of "Human Rights"!
What we consider
perversion, they consider personal freedom
What we consider as
maintaining intelligence contacts,
they consider as
practicing political freedom!
From now on: We
have to submit the statements of
these Organizations to lying and
prejudice detectors!
The Amnesty International Statement issued last week can only be
described as "ridiculous" .. It reveals the vast gap in definitions of values,
and reveals that this Organization's (as well as others) statements should not
be overlooked. Amnesty International surprised everybody by its statement in
defending a group of perverts who were recently accused in Egypt of
forming "Lot Organization". Amnesty International
considered the process of legally punishing these people as an act against human
rights!
What's this nonsense all about? Why don't they understand the
obvious cultural and value differences between them and us?
And why do they want to impose their beliefs upon
us? If they consider perversion an expression of personal freedom, we consider
it an attack on values and beliefs .. What we consider maintaining intelligence
contacts and an act against national security (as in the case of Saad El-Deen
Ibrahim), they consider as practicing political freedom! What we reject, such as
abortion, they support by all means.
The following report reveals that
reaching an agreement is hard, and that each and every statement issued
by such Organizations has
to be scrutinised, and has to go first through a lying and prejudice
detector.
Rose
El-Yousef
==================================
*********************************
Human Rights Activists in Egypt Respond to the Awkward
Statement:
Amnesty International .. Excuse Me,
This is Prostitution not Human Rights!
Negad
El-Borai: Certain organisatios want to impose their personal views .. including
perversion .. on us!
Abu-Seada: Abortion is not
among the concerns of Human Rights Activism!
Zarea: We refused to defend the suspects in the Homosexuals Case ..
They haven't been subjected to any violation
Report by: Atef Hilmi
It seems that Amnesty
International, on the occasion of its fourtieth Anniversary, wanted to present
an extremely ridiculous comic show, without making sure that this fantasy is
funny to everybody. It chose a silly case for this purpose, namely the recently
discovered "perverts' Organization". Amnesty International chose it on top of
its priorities in defence of human rights around the world - considering these
suspects as prisoners of conscience instead of criminals!
Regardless of
what is going to happen to these suspects, who stand now facing the Egyptian
Court System .. whether they are found guilty or not .. the approach of Amnesty
International poses several questions regarding the statements released by
international human rights Organizations, and regarding these Organizations'
awareness of other people's cultural and religious specificity. This in tern
generates another question regarding the different standards used in defining
the priorities of these societies. More and above, it leads us to consider the
ways in which we should not mix up the fixed human rights principles on the one
hand, and the personal views endorsed by an individual or a group of people here
and there. There is a host of other questions which we carried to several human
rights activists in Egypt.
"To us, in Egypt, we cannot consider such a
case as "perverts' Organization" a human rights cause. It comes under
prostitution and is an attack on the society's values. This is the
responsibility of Vice Squad forces, and has nothing to do with human rights or
freedom of opinion". These were the words of the lawyer Negad El-Borai, who then
added saying that these people (meaning Amnesty International) suffer from
schizophrenia, and their statement bears witness to the fact that they have no
idea about the reality of the Egyptian society. Issuing this kind of statement
harms the human rights movement in Egypt and the Arab world. These
Organizations, which deal with freedoms, should not defend prostitution. This is
the worse deformation of human rights principles."
"I don't know why this
case became among the priorities of Amnesty International, although this same
Organization has spotted out extreme examples of human rights violations in the
USA [sic]. So why isn't they place such cases on top of their priority list
instead of adopting prostitution?"
He adds: "Perhaps this difference in
the order of priorities lies in the fact that many western Organizations adopt
subjective attitudes and personal issues rather than general issues. Personal
background also plays a role in such situations. Therefore, we should not be
diverted by such matters, which lead us to ignore our main and sole mission,
namely defending freedoms [sic]. Unfortunately, this statement issued by Amnesty
International makes any subsequent statements worthless."
This is not the
first time where there is a difference of points of view between Arab human
rights Organizations on the one hand, and western Organizations on the other
hand. Negad El-Borai says: "We have experienced difference of opinions when they
demanded suspending the legal punishment by execution. They do not understand
the different nature of the Arab and Islamic societies governed by religion and
"Sharia" (Islamic law). They have to take into consideration the religious and
cultural values of other people."
Regarding the "perverts' Organization"
in particular -according to Negad El-Borai- "A prisoner of conscience is the
human being who is subjected to violation in consequence to a non-violent
expression of one's beliefs. In this case -i.e. perversion-, they did not simply
express their beliefs, but formed an Organization, announced themselves and held
parties that offended the values and feelings of others. Nevertheless, if we
consider this issue a matter of freedom of opinion as claimed by Amnesty
International, (this being a false hypothesis in the first place [sic]), is this
issue of supreme importance in Egypt or any other country of the Third World?
This is unacceptable. We have other far more pressing and urgent cases related
to freedoms and human rights violations. These should be on top of our
priorities, instead of prostitution. The Amnesty International statement
seriously harms the international human rights movement which is governed by
concrete standards [sic]. These agreed upon standards include the rejection of
illegal torture and murder [sic], and the absence of justice in trials. There
are other negotiable standards and principles, and nobody has the right to
impose them on others."
Negad El-Borai adds "International human rights
Organizations follow the principle of taking into consideration the specificity
of each country and region. Amnesty International should have consulted human
rights in Egypt before issuing their statement. But this did not happen. Whoever
issued the statement did so by expressing his personal opinion while seated at
his comfortable desk in London (Amnesty International headquarters). The process
did not follow the protocol, thus turning the matter into a ridiculous
act."
On the other hand, the Human Rights Center of Aid for Prisoners
took a practical stance regarding the perverts' Organization. Mohamed Zarea, the
Center Director, says: "As a lawyer, I was personally contacted by some of the
families of suspects in this case following their arrest. But I refused to get
involved in this kind of case, on personal grounds. Many lawyers refuse
defending certain types of suspects, including those related to prostitution.
Regarding the Center, we have other considerations as well. This is a crime,
while we as a human rights center are not concerned with all crimes but focus on
violations against prisoners and detainees during investigations or
imprisonment, such as torture or false confessions given under pressure… etc. We
did not receive any complaints [sic] from these suspects about being subjected
to any pressures or torture to admit their homosexuality. They willingly
admitted their homosexuality. We therefore did not have any grounds for getting
involved as a human rights Center. They are now in the hands of Justice [sic]
and are accused of violating national law, all religions, as well as our
traditions, customs and values."
Commenting on the Amnesty International
statement, Mohamed Zarea says "This statement is the most awkward thing we've
ever received. With due respect to the international history of Amnesty
International, we find it very strange. It could also lead to a pressure
campaign against human rights Organizations in Egypt. I expect certain currents
to make use of this statement to press several accusations against Egyptian
human rights Organizations -- such accusations as allowing and promoting
perversion. This reminds me of the events of 1993 when the Egyptian Human Rights
Organization supported the case against 'Female Genital Mutilation' (FGM).
Although we based our position then on religious and historical evidence which
state that FGM is considered a crime against females, still we were subjected to
severe attacks and accused of promoting promiscuity. The situation did not
change until many years later when a fatwa was issued by the Sheikh of Al-Azhar
and the Mufti [supreme Islamic religious authorities] supporting our view. The
Ministry of Health is currently involved in awareness campaigns against
FGM."
"This does not mean that we support the Amnesty International
statement concerning the perverts' Organization. This is a crime against human
nature and against religious values. We therefore call upon Amnesty
International to show respect for the religious, cultural specificity of other
countries and to respect their traditions. By irresponsible acts, Amnesty
International causes harm to human rights Organizations in Egypt and the Arab
World."
"Defending perverts is naturally not the first nor is it the last
of such issues used by certain groups to impose their personal beliefs or views
on others under the pretext of defending human rights. One of the most obvious
issues in this respect has to do with abortion which is controversial even in
western societies. But some groups are trying to impose the issue by force,
which has even reached a war-like stage in the European society itself [sic].
The latest of such incidents is the Dutch Ship 'Sea of Change' which took off
last week heading to Ireland on its way to several African countries to offer
abortion opportunities on board the ship outside the regional waters of
countries where abortion is illegal. According to the Dutch Organization holding
the journey 'Women on the Waves', the main objective of the event is to offer
women choice. That's what they say [sic]."
We find in this context that
the Egyptian Human Rights Organization has a different opinion on the matter
based on the social and religious values as well as Egyptian laws and
legislation. Hafiz Abu-Seada, General Secretary of the Egytpain Human Rights
Organization says: "We cannot consider the issue of abortion among the concerns
of human rights Organizations since international conventions such as the
International Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women did not bring this issue on board.
The attempts of some people to impose their vision on others is in itself a
crime against human rights. The attempts of one group to impose its values and
traditions on others who differ culturally, cannot be considered at all as
related to issues of freedom or human rights. This was a mistake made by Amnesty
International when it issued its latest statement considering the perverts
Organization prisoners of conscience. "
"Moreover, the issue of abortion
for instance is still very controversial even in western societies. In the USA,
for example, a large section of the Republican Party stand against abortion, and
the difference of opinion continues to exist within the context of party
politics and competition. It hasn't been classified yet as a human
right."
Abu-Seada continues to argue "In our Arab legislation, laws give
the fetus its full right. In inheritance laws, unborn babies get the largest
share of the inheritance. If the baby is born a boy, he gets his full right and
so is the case with the newborn girl. The issue is complex here as abortion is
related to religious beliefs, and consequently cannot be considered at all a
matter of human rights because abortion itself is a crime - a murder, depriving
a human being from the right to life. There is no text that concretely defines
the right to abortion in terms of approval of rejection. Therefore if we rely on
interpretation, we find ourselves - we Arabs - as well as all western religious
entities sharing interpretations that go hand in hand with human rights
principles and international conventions. The right to life is the supreme human
right, so how can we approve of murder even if it were a three month old fetus?!
Killing is a crime in all cases, there is no difference whether the victim is a
child, a fetus or a grownup. This makes abortion an issue against Arab and
Islamic culture and beliefs - against all beliefs in that matter. It is a crime
even when legalised in the countries that allow abortion. "
If this is
the point of view adopted by the Egyptian human rights Organizations, there is
also the legal stance based on the law, Islamic legislation as well as social
traditions, values and beliefs. In this context, Khaled Talaat, the lawyer and
human rights activist defines the legal framework of the individual's personal
freedom in the society. Khaled Talaat says: "We probably all believe in the
saying "do what you want as long as you don't harm others. Unfortunately such a
saying is rather elastic when for instance applied to the perverts Organization
suspects. They would say that they did not harm others, while this is not
exactly the case. They went into the society, held parties, spread their photos
and ideas through the internet. Hence offending our feelings."
"If there
is something like criminalised social behaviour, then there is a problem in the
foundations for criminalisation. Does criminalisation rely on customs,
traditions and values, or is it based on laws and Islamic legislation. If a
female university student is caught smoking cigarettes for instance, then the
criminalisation is based here on social customs and traditions because her deed
is seen as a social crime that can be legal and acceptable in another society.
This means that punishment depends on the society in accordance with its
traditions and values."
"Finally, in spite of the role undertaken by
international human rights Organizations, it does not have to mean that we
should by necessity accept the imported attitudes and views. We share these
Organizations' belief in the principles of international human rights
conventions, by we cannot by all means accept to become a backyard or mere
followers of imposed views that do not conform to our religious and cultural
values, and that do not express but the personal problems of such individuals in
their societies."