DSE: Experts sound alarm on human rights as PA debates 30 constitutional amendments
Experts sound alarm on human rights as PA debates 30 constitutional amendments
By Liam Stack
First Published: February 20, 2007
CAIRO: This week, members of the legislative and constitutional committee of the People’s Assembly (PA) will begin formally drafting more than 30 new amendments to the constitution, including controversial proposals on terrorism and the electoral process.
Human rights activists and legal experts are denouncing the proposed amendments, which, they say, will broadly expand state power and contribute to political oppression.
“We do not want the kind of democratic system that the regime wants to give us,” says Hisham El-Bastawisi, a prominent judge and leader of last spring’s judges protest movement. “Whenever they amend the constitution, they make it worse, not better. They are spoiling democracy as if it was food that has gone bad.”
In particular Bastawisi expressed concern over the proposal of an amendment to Article 88, which would strip judges of their authority to monitor elections and empower the regime’s state security apparatus to fill this role.
“Changing Article 88 will give the state security police the right to intervene in and control the election process,” said Bastawisi. “It will create an eternal state of emergency under the guise of a terrorism law.”
He added: “This amendment has no value. It will take us back to before the year 2000, when judges had no authority to monitor or prevent fraud in elections. We need a system that posts one judge at each ballot box, and we will not abandon this demand.”
The proposal of Article 179, which provides “constitutional protection of the measures used in government crackdowns against terror suspects,” has also drawn criticism from independent observers and human rights campaigners.
This new article was proposed by President Mubarak in a letter addressed to both houses of the parliament at the end of December.
In it, he requested legal protection for the state’s counter-terrorism measures as well as permission to violate articles of the constitution which guarantee basic rights, including Article 41, on arrest and due process; Article 44, on house searches; and Article 45, on the privacy of mail and other forms of communication.
"The President's proposal to extend constitutional protection to exceptional security measures, while depriving citizens of the same protection, is simply unacceptable," said Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR). "Basic rights are protected by our constitution precisely in order to prevent impinging on them by excessive powers such as those proposed in the President's letter to parliament."
Bahgat fears that such an amendment would write the regime a constitutional blank check for abuse.
"Since the state of emergency was declared in 1981, retroactive judicial oversight provided by the emergency law has offered little protection against systematic violations of human rights at the hands of security officials. The proposed Article 179 will only sustain this atmosphere of impunity and even embed it in the country's constitution."
Human rights activists express particular concern over new anti-terror measures because of what they call the regime’s “broad and vague definition of terrorism.”
The EIPR argues that the constitutional definition of terrorism, outlined in Article 86, includes acts that could also be considered the peaceful expression of dissent, and which are protected by the constitution itself under the right to freedom of expression and assembly.
“This law threatens all of us, and we can all see that, even the man who sells fuul on the street,” warns Judge Bastawisi. “If you produce a TV show or sing a song or write an article that the state does not like, maybe you will be charged with terrorism.”
“This law will have the upper hand over all of our lives,” he continued. “They will be able to launch a terrorism case against anyone at any time, for any reason. If they think someone is a threat, or he is demanding human rights or democracy too loudly, they can take him to court as a terrorist. We should all be aware of the danger of this law.”
The government, on its part, has indicated a willingness to reconsider some of the proposals, but critics say the state is not willing to go far enough.
“The biggest problem in Egypt is not constitutional amendment,” says Osama Ghazali Harb.
Harb is a member of the Shura Council (the Upper House of Parliament), a former member of the ruling National Democratic Party, and founder of the new Democratic Front Party.
“This is a technical issue that could be fixed in a short time. The real problem in Egypt is that the regime does not have a genuine desire for change,” he says.
Bastawisi agrees: “The regime has indicated a willingness to make some minor amendments, but for them the state security law is untouchable and will never be cancelled or altered.”
“If these laws pass, then Egyptians will lose all hope for peaceful change and the peaceful transfer of power.”
By Liam Stack
First Published: February 20, 2007
CAIRO: This week, members of the legislative and constitutional committee of the People’s Assembly (PA) will begin formally drafting more than 30 new amendments to the constitution, including controversial proposals on terrorism and the electoral process.
Human rights activists and legal experts are denouncing the proposed amendments, which, they say, will broadly expand state power and contribute to political oppression.
“We do not want the kind of democratic system that the regime wants to give us,” says Hisham El-Bastawisi, a prominent judge and leader of last spring’s judges protest movement. “Whenever they amend the constitution, they make it worse, not better. They are spoiling democracy as if it was food that has gone bad.”
In particular Bastawisi expressed concern over the proposal of an amendment to Article 88, which would strip judges of their authority to monitor elections and empower the regime’s state security apparatus to fill this role.
“Changing Article 88 will give the state security police the right to intervene in and control the election process,” said Bastawisi. “It will create an eternal state of emergency under the guise of a terrorism law.”
He added: “This amendment has no value. It will take us back to before the year 2000, when judges had no authority to monitor or prevent fraud in elections. We need a system that posts one judge at each ballot box, and we will not abandon this demand.”
The proposal of Article 179, which provides “constitutional protection of the measures used in government crackdowns against terror suspects,” has also drawn criticism from independent observers and human rights campaigners.
This new article was proposed by President Mubarak in a letter addressed to both houses of the parliament at the end of December.
In it, he requested legal protection for the state’s counter-terrorism measures as well as permission to violate articles of the constitution which guarantee basic rights, including Article 41, on arrest and due process; Article 44, on house searches; and Article 45, on the privacy of mail and other forms of communication.
"The President's proposal to extend constitutional protection to exceptional security measures, while depriving citizens of the same protection, is simply unacceptable," said Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR). "Basic rights are protected by our constitution precisely in order to prevent impinging on them by excessive powers such as those proposed in the President's letter to parliament."
Bahgat fears that such an amendment would write the regime a constitutional blank check for abuse.
"Since the state of emergency was declared in 1981, retroactive judicial oversight provided by the emergency law has offered little protection against systematic violations of human rights at the hands of security officials. The proposed Article 179 will only sustain this atmosphere of impunity and even embed it in the country's constitution."
Human rights activists express particular concern over new anti-terror measures because of what they call the regime’s “broad and vague definition of terrorism.”
The EIPR argues that the constitutional definition of terrorism, outlined in Article 86, includes acts that could also be considered the peaceful expression of dissent, and which are protected by the constitution itself under the right to freedom of expression and assembly.
“This law threatens all of us, and we can all see that, even the man who sells fuul on the street,” warns Judge Bastawisi. “If you produce a TV show or sing a song or write an article that the state does not like, maybe you will be charged with terrorism.”
“This law will have the upper hand over all of our lives,” he continued. “They will be able to launch a terrorism case against anyone at any time, for any reason. If they think someone is a threat, or he is demanding human rights or democracy too loudly, they can take him to court as a terrorist. We should all be aware of the danger of this law.”
The government, on its part, has indicated a willingness to reconsider some of the proposals, but critics say the state is not willing to go far enough.
“The biggest problem in Egypt is not constitutional amendment,” says Osama Ghazali Harb.
Harb is a member of the Shura Council (the Upper House of Parliament), a former member of the ruling National Democratic Party, and founder of the new Democratic Front Party.
“This is a technical issue that could be fixed in a short time. The real problem in Egypt is that the regime does not have a genuine desire for change,” he says.
Bastawisi agrees: “The regime has indicated a willingness to make some minor amendments, but for them the state security law is untouchable and will never be cancelled or altered.”
“If these laws pass, then Egyptians will lose all hope for peaceful change and the peaceful transfer of power.”
posted by Liam at
1:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home