Comments on: Court denies Bahais legal recognition

By: The Arabist » New blog on Egypt’s Bahais

The Arabist » New blog on Egypt’s Bahais — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:09:42 +0000

[...] focuses on Egypt’s official discrimination against Bahais, an issue we’ve talked about before. It has links to other Egyptian Bahai sites and [...]

By: bilo

bilo — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:31:11 +0000

It is a defacto denial of citizenship to Baha’is with all its implications. This verdict is a serious threat to all known norms of justice….

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:12:36 +0000

Thanks Hossam and Issandr. So in other words, what’s at stake here is neither a law nor a regulation but an unwritten policy, and the SAC has final authority over those? Hopefully something can be done politically.

By: hossam

hossam — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:13:37 +0000

Jonathan,
The EIPRâ€™s brief cited a plethora of case law and constitutional arguments which were all ignored by the court. the court decision unfortunately did not respond to a single one of the 9 legal arguments we submitted. Regarding the constitutional court, in this case there is no law or ministerial decree that we can challenge on constitutionality grounds and the supreme administrative court has jurisdiction over the consistency of government policies or practices with the constitution. The SAC had already considered the constitutionality of the 1960 law that closed Bahaâ€™i assemblies and in 1975 found the law constitutional! Moreover, with the current composition of the SCC and its chief judge being the notorious previous public prosecutor maher abdel wa7ed we and all human rights lawyers are trying to avoid going before him unless we absolutely have to.

By: issandr

issandr — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:34:52 +0000

On your last question, yes. It means no healthcare, no ability to register your children in school, no ID card (which is compulsory in Egypt and necessary for all interactions with government bureaucracy), no getting a driving license, etc. But I would assume that, practically speaking, it doesn’t mean one is no longer considered Egyptian and kicked out.

Your other questions are a bit too technical for me so I have send them to a lawyer friends. Your reference to Art. 40 is interesting but I think in practice it is interpreted as Muslim, Christian or Jewish - no other religions.

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:49:40 +0000

Issandr, did the SAC discuss the 1924 case at all, or give any reason for reaching a different conclusion? And are any further appeals possible, for instance to the Supreme Constitutional Court? There are certainly issues of constitutional magnitude here, and a broad (or even plain-language) interpretation of article 40 would seem to suggest that the government has no right to discriminate against the Bahais on religious grounds.

Am I correct, also, in concluding that this decision amounts to a de facto denial of citizenship for any Baha’i who refuses to register as a member of another faith?

By: Issandr El Amrani

Issandr El Amrani — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:36:07 +0000

Well, I suppose that was a rather vague use of the word. I think I meant “idealized” by it, in the sense that they seem to rely in a fundamentalist (in the more scholarly sense of the word) interpretation of Islam rather than a more organic understanding of Islamic culture, which has plenty of examples of tolerance for non-Muslims, including for people who are not “of the book.”

By: Cosmic

Cosmic — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 06:54:49 +0000

“Abstract” idea of religion? I personally despise Gomaa and Tantawi, but I’m curious as the authoritative tone you’re using here. And what, pray tell, is your non-abstract definition of religion?