Members of the 25 January Revolution Youth Coalition in Alexandria gathered to commemorate the martyrs of the revolution while calling for the prosecution of National Democratic Party members and police officers responsible for killing protesters.
…
Bystanders asked the protesters to end the demonstration at the mosque, saying that any further demonstrations would put the country in turmoil.
We are a nation of hypocrites.
The referendum of March 19 was nothing more than an attempt by the Egyptian military to gauge just how many Egyptians were willing to compromise their freedom in the name of stability. The results demonstrated that the military had in fact overestimated the pressure it was under to enact meaningful political reform and to hold the last remnants of the old regime accountable for the crimes committed under their watch. As for the rewriting of the constitution, that should never have even been an option.
Regardless of the reasons for which specific individuals chose to vote Yes or No, the fact of the matter is: those votes are positioned within a larger context. A Yes vote was posited as a vote for stability and a return to normalcy. Things in Egypt are, however, a) not stable and b) not normal, nor will the situation be “resolved” by an acceptance of amendments to a constitution that was rendered illegitimate (غير شرعي) by a large-scale popular uprising against a regime that had comprehensively abused that same constitution and neglected the rule of law. Despite what you would think is an obvious logical inconsistency, the majority did vote Yes.
It is very much in the army’s interests to foster this discourse of “moving on” (even if it doesn’t actually translate into concrete change) and the referendum was only part of it. It is now beginning to seep into the culture itself, even into the freaking billboards (حفظك الله يا مصر). This is the counter-revolution. The idea that in the past we were oppressed, but then we had a revolution and now everyone is free. The army handed out freedom packages and LOOK YOU GUYS people are cleaning the streets which means we’re living in a new Egypt (?).
Every new protest that emerges (Cairo University, Maspero, Nubians, Alexandria) is not seen as part of an emerging culture of dissent or even as a continuation of the revolution to dismantle the regime (still alive and well), but as a setback to the triumph of law and order. The revolution came out of a need to carve out a new social space for accountability and politics of contention, and yet here we are persisting in an illusion that this is what has been achieved and now is the time to go about “building our democracy” and people who are still demanding their rights are selfish and making everything worse.
Meanwhile,
- The dregs of Amn Dawla are leeching into positions in the new government.
- The army is torturing people and lying about it (even using the language of the old regime).
- The army is submitting female detainees to virginity tests and threatening to charge them with prostitution.
- The army entered Cairo University last Wednesday, forcibly broke up a sit-in, beat and arrested students and faculty.
- Essam Sharaf’s cabinet has passed legislation that would make protests and demonstrations illegal.
Stability? Fuck that noise. Wasn’t it only two months ago that Mubarak was using the same excuses to keep himself in power? What the fuck is going on? I am utterly baffled. Does the army conjure up a fog of nostalgia of such density that we are unable to sustain a critical discourse? These abuses are being reported in the media (as opposed to before) and yet no one is doing anything about them. I say it isn’t yet the time for politicking. It’s not even the time to concentrate exclusively on the old regime and how we’re going to bring its colluders to justice. Now is the time to air out in the open the things that are being done post-revolution (or at least what is being called the post-revolution), and address the certainty that there are still structures of power in place that are doing their utmost to keep it from fully succeeding. I am not currently interested in a sham democracy. I am interested in the still-pervasive culture of torture and the forces that shift the national discourse away from acknowledging it.
Finally, I want to draw your attention to this Shorouk headline (of which I approve out of context) which I think illustrates my point:
الثورة المضادة تنتقل من المظاهرات إلى الوزارات
DS: I lost a few followers with my niqaab rant yesterday #meh
ST: serves you right for defending “assimilation.”
DS: I wasn’t defending assimilation at all. I just said niqab is one extreme we can do without.
DS: If I were defending assimilation, I’d say the veil should be banned too.
ST: you’re making a distinction that shouldn’t exist. It’s not a question of which Muslim head covering should be banned.
ST: a violation of civil liberties should not be heralded as “feminism.” It’s part of a wider culture of European supremacy.
DS: Also there IS a distinction between hijab and niqab.
ST: there shouldn’t be in legal terms. All that does is demonize niqabis.
DS: Civil liberties also includes my right to see a person’s face in order to identify them.
ST: you don’t actually have a right to see other people’s faces. Your rights don’t extend to control over other people.
ST: niqab laws are nothing more than a targeting of France’s Muslim community disguised as women’s emancipation.
ST: they are xenophobic to the extreme.
@TheOnlyWarman: and their not banning crucifixes, skullcaps or orange robes
DS: Those religious symbols don’t hurt anyone or society.
WM: neither does the veil
ST: and niqabis do? Wtf.
DS: Not saying the veil should be banned. On the contrary. Just the face veil.
WM: but it’s still a part of freedom
ST: also demonstration of how secularism can become its own state religion and be used to justify intolerance.
DS: Why can’t they show their faces?
ST: ana maly it’s their choice.
@marwan_ehab: I can debate that the niqab is not a religious duty & it does more harm than good by posing a lot of threats
ST: it has nothing to do with whether or not it’s a religious duty which it demonstrably isn’t.
ME: y do people have an identity then? Might as well cancel any ID card bcuz it’ll be useless
ST: logistics. If a niqabi is pulled over for drunk driving then the police officer has a right to see her face. But come on ya3ny.
DS: But it’s my RIGHT to be able to see the person in front of me.
ST: no it isn’t. You have no rights when it comes to other people. They, on the other hand, have the right to cover their faces.
DS: What purpose does the face veil serve? It does more harm than good 2 society and poses as a security issue.
ST: clothes never serve as a force for good in any society so I don’t see your point.
ST: in sum, niqabis are human beings with agency and are therefore accorded the right to do what they want.
ST: you have no right to demand that they show their faces.
ST: in the Western context, niqab laws are an attempt to impose “correct” cultural values on an “alien” immigrant community.
DS: Thats not true its a basic right & need from any society 2 b able 2 see everyone’s face. Ma I’m saying it should b banned here 2
ST: we are debating the rights of a group of women to which none of us belong as if they’re up for grabs.
ST: rights, in case you need reminding, are inalienable.
ME: we should give rights 2 terrorists then to practice what they want if security doesn’t matter 2 u!
ST: terrorists kill or espouse the killing of people. Niqabis cover their faces for personal religious reasons.
ST: if you can’t see a distinction: a7a. Your conflation of niqabis and terrorists is extremely out of line and worrying.
ST: if you want to read about how niqab is being used as a site for rhetorical anti-Muslim violence (1)
ST: read “The Burqa in Vogue” and “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving” both available through databases. (2)
DS: So would it be ok for men to cover their faces too?
ST: yes.
ST: Identifying niqabis with terrorism is flat out discrimination.
ST: I am a committed secularist and a hardcore agnostic who hates Wahabi Islam.
ST: However, niqabis are agent human beings who have rights that I will continue to defend.
ST: Even if the practice stems from a brand of faith that I personally despise. I uphold women’s rights to dress however they like no exception.
DS: So would it be ok for all of society to walk around with their faces covered?
ST: yes it would.
DS: That’s a problem.
@Deenasdfghjkl: I dont understand why there was OUTRAGE when France banned the face veil. Time to do away with these outdated traditions & improve our image
@spacetubes: no. France is targeting women who don’t conform to Western standards of dress. Women should be able to choose what they wear.
ST: appearing in public space under parameters you set for yourself is a condition for democracy.
DS: You can’t walk around covering your face. People have a right to know what you look like & this poses as a security concern.
ST: furthermore, assimilation is bullshit. Western does not equal modern or women’s emancipation.
ST: there was a lot of really disgusting colonial feminist rhetoric around this. It only affects 200 women in France.
ST: I personally hate niqab/hijab, but this is a violation of civil liberties.
DS: hijab is more than fine.I like to think of it as a fashion choice. Niqab makes absolutely no sense.
ST: I agree that it makes no sense. However, it’s not for me to decide what does or doesn’t make sense to other people.
DS: You can’t walk around covering your face. People have a right to know what you look like & this poses as a security concern.
ST: it poses a security threat in banks and airports, maybe. Logistics that can be individually dealt with.
DS: In all public spheres in general. A wanted criminal can be walking around in niqab and no one would know.
ST: a wanted criminal can always dye their hair or wear a fake moustache. Maybe France should ban them.
ST: come on. How many criminals do you think are randomly caught by strangers on the street?
ST: read: http://bit.ly/csVvOg
DS: You still can’t have people not show their faces! How is that even modest?
ST: I’m not defending the reasoning behind it. I don’t agree with it. It’s a question of rights and of minorities being targeted.
DS: how is it Islamic? It’s not.
ST: Deena! While it is not required by Islam, it is distinctly Islamic in the sense that Muslim women wear it.
DS: True but its a form of Islam that I believe the world can do without. I really really hate it and hate what it stands for.
ST: niqabis in public/people walking around in their underwear. Neither is a threat to French society.
ST: more reading: http://bit.ly/fDKvi8
ST: same here. I will, however, uphold the right of Muslim women to do whatever the fuck they want.
DS: Me too but there are limits.
