English preview of Egypt's new protest law

[DJKeefy]

Egypt's presidential spokesman Ehab Badawy revealed in a press conference on Sunday the contents of the cabinet's protest bill, which was signed into law by Interim President Adly Mansour earlier in the day .

The law consists of 25 articles, which outline in detail the conditions that must be met before a protest, political meeting or march is held. It also details the punishment for violations of the law.

Below is Badawy's summary of the articles included in the new protest law. The full text will published in Egypt's Official Newspaper on Monday.


Chapter one: General rules and definitions

Article 1: Citizens have the right to hold and join general meetings, marches and peaceful protests in accordance with the provisions and regulations of the protest law.

Article 2: Definition of general meetings and electoral meetings.

Article 3: Definition of marches.

Article 4: Definition of protests.

Article 5: Prohibits any political gathering in houses of worship, their vicinities or buildings associated with them, in addition to barring houses of worship from serving as meeting points for marches.

Article 6: Participants in protests, meetings or marches are prohibited from carrying any weapons, explosives, fireworks or other items that may put individuals, buildings or possessions in danger.

Wearing masks to hide the face during such actions is prohibited.

Article 7: Violations of general security, public order, or production are prohibited, as well as calling for disrupting public interests. It also forbids actions which could impact on public services, transportation or the flow of traffic, as well as assaults on security forces or exposure of danger to individuals, public or private possessions.

Article 11: Security forces in official uniform should disperse protests, meetings or marches in the event of a crime at the order of the field commander.

The field police commander can ask a judge to determine the non-peaceful state of a meeting or protest. A decision should be issued immediately.

Article 12: Security forces must utilise methods of gradual dispersal for protests in breach of the law.

Authorities must first ask participants to voluntarily leave through audible verbal warnings, which should be repeated several times whilst indicating and providing secure paths out of the venue of assembly.

If participants refuse to leave, security forces have the right to use water cannons, batons, and teargas to disperse protesters.

Article 13: In the case of security forces failing to disperse gatherings through afore mentioned measurements, or if violent assaults erupt against security forces, escalatory measures may be taken.

In this case, security forces should first fire warning shots, then escalate by using rubber bullets and finally metal pellets.

If participants use weapons, security forces should respond using means proportional to the danger imposed.

Article 14: The Minister of Interior, in coordination with the concerned governor, should designate a safe space for protesters in front of vital institutions for participants.

Such institutes include government, military, and security buildings, as well as courts, prosecution centres and museums.

Article 15: Protests in certain spacious venues will be allowed to take place without prior notification. Such spaces will be defined by the governor.


Chapter two: Punishments

Article 16: The following states the punishments in the case that earlier articles are violated.

Article 17: Whoever possesses weapons or explosives while participating in a protest, meeting or march could face imprisonment of seven years and pay a fine of between LE100,000 and LE300,000.

Article 18: A participant who it has been proven has received or given money and/or benefits to protests, meetings or marches is to face prison and a fine of between LE100,000 and LE200,000. The same punishment will be imposed on whoever is responsible for inciting such a crime.

Article 19: A participant who violates article 7 in the protest law could face 2 to 5 years of imprisonment, in addition to the possibility of paying a fine of between LE50,000 and LE100,000.

Article 20: Violating articles 5 and 14 or wearing masks while committing a crime during a protest could lead to a maximum sentence of a year in prison and a fine worth LE100,000.

Article 21: Holding a protest, meeting or march without giving prior notification as dictated by article 8 could result in a fine of between LE10,000 and LE30,0000.

Article 22: For any of the listed crimes, the courts can order the confiscation of tools or money used during protests or marches. However, this article excludes those who act with good intentions.


Chapter three: Procedural provisions

Article 23: Law 14, issued in 1923, is to be annulled, in addition to the cancellation of any laws that contradict the new protest law.

Article 24: The cabinet is to issue decisions regarding the implementation of the provisions of the protest law.

Article 25: This law is to be published in the official Gazette, and will be in effect the day after publication.

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/87375.aspx

[Dusak]

I hope they have enough prison space.

[Hafiz]

The legislation seems unremarkable that is until you read it when you realize that it is in fact quite repressive and that the real powers will be hidden in regulations and the conditions for getting a permit.

The legislation says you can't use house of worship for political meetings or use them as a gathering point for subsequent protests. How would this work. You wouldn't always know, whether you were the filth or the citizen, at the time of the gathering whether there was going to be a subsequent protest. Judges probably won't worry too much about legal niceties if their summary justice for protesting girls and women in the past few weeks is any guide.

The houses of worship provision might work but remember what it would have meant in the west and the positive role that religion and houses of worship has had in defending minority rights and promoting democracy.,

Church buildings were extensively used by Polish Solidarity in the 1980's. Priests and Bishops called not only for the fall of the government but the complete removal of the ruling classes, judges, academics, police, army etc. Churches were used to plan protests.

Churches in Argentina were used by political opponents against the generals in the 1980's. Similar preaching against the government and army.

Churches were used for political meetings and political sermons in Nicaragua in the 1970's. Again open preaching to bring government down.

The grounds of St Pauls were used for protests and meetings by the Occupy movement before they were shamelessly betrayed by that lacky of the state, the Dean of St Pauls.

During the 1960's and 70's very large numbers of white and black churches in the US were used for protest meetings and gathering points for protest.

Churches and mosques across the world are used as a refuge from police in a way which is not so different from the Cairo mosque in July or August although in the case of Cairo there was a more pressing need for refuge than in western situations.

In poorer countries congregations look to their religious leaders to give them direction on social and political matters. Would this be illegal?

The law limits the 'right' to demonstrate when it disrupts transport. Ignoring the cheap shot that transport in Cairo couldn't be made worse by a demonstration and that whoever drafted this provision either had a sense of humor or none, demonstrations in every city in the west disrupt traffic. If they didn't disrupt traffic they wouldn't be much of a demonstration.

The law says a lot out of weapons which builds on the government's allegations that the Muslim protestors in July and August carried weapons. Whilst government press releases and local media at the time stated this much of this, I am not aware of any western report or photograph which says other than the security services used arms to provoke and deliberately target and to protect themselves from unarmed protestors and that few to negligible numbers of protestors were armed with more than machetes and old rifles. Remember that guns and shots from the crowd infront of army barracks in July were used as a justification for live fire. Under the new law how would disprove the army If it said it acted with overwhelming force to this threat as it observed it.

You aren't allowed to call for something which disrupts public interests. What the hell does that mean: you could drive a truck through that one and still satisfy a judge.

A similar law in most other countries would place obligations on the state or the security forces. This one does not. All it does is to set out the responses to various levels of protest/violence which maybe isn't a bad thing but at no point are those with power obliged to behave reasonably in the circumstances. Also missing is the touchstone of policing - to preserve the peace - rather than stop the demonstration no matter what the cost.

The western newspapers say the real weakness in the law is for not its legislated provisions but the powers to make (sometimes secret) orders and regulations which undermine its major and public provisions. The real power is in the bureaucratic granting or denial of a permit to demonstrate. Glaringly the legislation sets no conditions on the arbitary use of this power. The rest is just window dressing. Looks good on the outside, but I like that joke about Cairo traffic.

[newcastle]

I wouldn't disagree with any of Hafiz' critique of the protest legislation, and the way, in all
likelihood, it will be used, but what do you propose instead to avoid anarchy?

[Hafiz]

Newcastle. Good question but I don't know the answer. As a non-Egyptian I shouldn't be in the business of suggesting positive answers and, in any case, I usually stick to the negative role of shooting fish in a barrel. Its easier.

Here is another question. If such laws as now proposed had been in place in early 2011 would it have been more or less likely that Mubarak would have been removed?

Read carefully. The proposed new laws set out a system which describes the provocation and and then sets out the response. This is almost a license to kill. On one reading they almost mandate a deadly response given certain circumstances. Good for protecting the security forces from criminal prosecution. Maybe the law also has the function of requiring reluctant commanders on the ground to do things they might not otherwise do. Commanders not firing into crowds was a feature of 3 years ago and maybe the junta wants to avoid such slackness in the future: but this is just a cynical speculation.

Given world response look for more female marches.

Maybe Egyptians have heard of the Argentinian mothers of 'the disappeared' who demonstrated every day for years in front of the junta palace. They bared their aging breasts to show contempt for the junta, prevent young police from arresting them and to attract international attention. Probably not something suitable for Egypt but if the Brotherhood are half smart they would have learned the lessons of the past 2 weeks about women and girls in demonstration.

For those interested, women in full hijab were in the vanguard of the major political demonstrations of 1919 which called for the overthrow of the constitution and the decadent Khedival regime. Here is a remarkable image which acts as a corrective to conventional views about women in Egypt.

[Ruby Slippers]

They look suspiciously like men to me, Hafiz! Wolves in sheeps clothing, in fact.

[Hafiz]

Given the date and the culture I think they look stylish. Look an the drape of the skirts - a long way from the box cut often seen. Qiute stylish shoes in the European style.

Women were more influential in politics of the time than is put around beginning with the formidable wife of Saad Zagoul who was a salon madam in the style of the French.