3 years for insulting the prophet, 2 for insulting the president, and 1 for insulting a lawyer. You can't cure stupid. Islamism must be stopped. www.egyptindependent.com/news/egyptian-court-sends-copt-prison-over-anti-islam-post
Like I've always asserted there's no democracy in Egypt and plainly as there's little outcry after this verdict there's no real desire for it. The so called prodemocracy protests were not about achieving democracy but regime change. Critics of the regime were thrown in prison before, during and now after the regime change and not many seem to care even Egyptians on this forum. The West is also at fault here as its never made it sufficiently clear that freedom of expression is a requirement for a functioning democracy and that too goes for this forum. As Salman Rushdie says the freedom of expression is the basic freedom every other freedom rests on.
Or at least just ground down by hundreds of years of violent and ethical conflicts into a generally less harmful and tyrannical and powerful form like Christianity was
Stopped like how exactly? Personally I prefer the model we have adopted for Christianity which removed it as the dominant form of thought but allowed it to continue. There's a reason modern cars are built with crumple zones, rapid changes in momentum and force have violent leakages of energy elsewhere. Islam must be allowed to evolve as Christianity is. How we do that in a world with stark socio-economic gaps and problems is a massive challenge but one that is worthy of facing. We will rise together or not at all. I put it to you that blasphemy as a crime means nothing to god. Words and actions can never wholely portray the essence of spirit within a person. God would know that spirit and laugh at the attempts by other people to judge that which they cannot know. People and power, the strange things they do to hold on to each other.
What did you expect , Egypt to become France in a couple of years? It took Europe centuries of agony and blood to get from despotism to democracy why should Arabs have it any easier?
Considering Islam still plays an important role in the lives and affairs of Arabs, laws against blasphamey won't be removed any time soon. This is somewhat similar to the Holocaust-denying laws in some European countries, where the Holocaust obvoisuly has yet to be 'forgotten.'
Democracy and freedom dont necessarily go hand in hand. If the ignorant population does not want freedom, there will not be. Also, there are stupid laws against insulting someone/something even in the west, tough not this extreme.
Wow!! One year for insulting a lawyer? That's almost as bad as the following court case: Stella Liebeck sues McDonald's claiming that their coffee was "defective" because it was too hot. The coffee was served at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Here is an extract from The Physics Handbook: "The best level of extraction of coffee is 20% of the solids in the grind. This is achieved by keeping the brew water temperature between 88°C and 93°C. If the temperature of the water is too low, underextraction will occur and the coffee will be too weak. Underextraction will cause the coffee to have a sour flavor" The only "defective" issue is a legal system that allows someone who clamps coffee at a standard heat between her thighs and then tries to pop the lid without holding the cup. I agree. Daft legal systems should be ridiculed.
One year for insulting a lawyer!! That system is almost as daft as the following legal system: Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, sued McDonald's claiming that its coffee was "defective" because was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. Sitting in a motor vehicle she clamped the flexible cup of coffee between her thighs and pulled off the lid without holding on to the cup. The case was allowed to go to court and McDonald's paid an undisclosed sum. McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Here is an extract from The Physics Handbook: "The best level of extraction of coffee is 20% of the solids in the grind. This is achieved by keeping the brew water temperature between 88°C and 93°C. If the temperature of the water is too low, underextraction will occur and the coffee will be too weak. Underextraction will cause the coffee to have a sour flavor" I judge that one beats the lawyer insulting story.
The blasphemy law is part of our legal system and will pretty much remain so at least for a couple of more decades , I just posted it on this forum a couple of days ago . So here it is : "Confinement for a period of not less than six months and not exceeding five years, or a fine of not less than five hundred pounds and not exceeding one thousand pounds shall be the penalty inflicted on whoever makes use of religion in propagating, either by words, in writing, or in any other means, extreme ideas for the purpose of inciting strife, ridiculing or insulting a heavenly religion or a sect following it, or damaging national unity." ( Farahat, Cynthia) Simple if you don't break it you don't get arrested .It's a cultural law that may seem offensive or unjust to outsiders much like how in Germany you can get arrested for denying the holocaust .
Ok, so there are plenty of other threads on the blasphemy stuff. And it'll probably keep getting brought up. So lets set that aside for the moment because this story has something else entirely going on. Specifically the bit about jail sententences for insulting the president. Is there some important detail left out of the short article in the OP, or does that work the way it sounds like it does where you just can't say bad things about the guy.
Leftover law from the Mubarak era , though it's not completely in effect as the media has been consistently slamming Morsi left and right anything less then outright slander is ignored . The law will most likely be removed or adjusted whenever we get around to writing the new constitution.
Far from it, it is exactly the same principle of putting something beyond criticism, making it sacred, giving it special protection etc. etc. Basically yes, it is the way it sounds except you can say bad things about the guy and get away with it if he's in a good mood: Giza Criminal Court, headed by Judge Mohamed Fahim Darwish, decided to suspend considering the case of Islam Afefy, Al Dostour Editor-in-chief, in which he is convicted with insulting President Mohamed Morsi, and publishing false news, till deciding the challenge request. The court has decided before to adjourn the trial of Islam Afefy till today's session. It also remanded him in custody, but President Morsi decided to cancel the decision; therefore the prosecutor general released him. The prosecution has charged Islam Afefy with publishing false data and news that can disturb the public security, frighting people and harming the public interest. This is after the newspaper has published that Arish lands are being sold to the Palestinian paving the way for occupying Sinai. The presidential elections results were rigged. And the president order to open Rafah crossing to let militants enter Sinai. The prosecutor also accused Islam Afefy of deliberately publishing false news to harm the public interest. source
That's for sure On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAAs dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president and all future presidents to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. Including American citizens.
Democray and freedom do go hand in hand. Freedom is what gives the elctorate the basis to cast an informed vote. Are you claiming the NDAA is going to infringe upon this in any significant way like we see your approval of throwing people behind bars for expressing an opinion does in your country?
That is about it. And this present president is no different about insulting than Mubarak was. I believe you can get thrown in jail for insulting the Thai King btw. Not saying I agree but am saying different countries have different laws.
So then I beg to ask the question why was Mubarak a tyrant and Morsi is a humanist? Honestly the revolution is taking you more steps back then it is taking you forward.
I agree completely. Look at any of my posts and you will know that I was firmly against the revolution and the present govt from the beginning. Egypt thrived under Mubarak. The problem was that the businessmen who brought in foreign investment forgot about the masses. There was absolutely no trickle down effect economically. The military hated the prospect of Gamal Mubarak or any non military man for president and made a deal with the MB---- which backfired on them ( the military). This thing was just so predictable- it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
While I'm not surprised to hear that such a law was in place for Mubarak, I'm quite surprised to find that getting rid of such a law wasn't among the first orders of business. While I could see a law being left on the books during a time of transition jsut because there are other matters to attend to, it seems this one is actually being used without uproar. I would have expected the Egyptian people to make something of this. Not just for the people being prosecuted, but also because the press in Egypt was presumably well trained under Mumbarak to comply with such a law, and they would be expected to shift back into compliance now that some examples have been made. Slander/libel is still a thing of course, but those are entirely different laws which require dishonesty as opposed to something being insulting or desparaging. Are there some cultural factors in play why this seems to accepted? Is it not accepted, but people are burnt out on protesting and are willing to give the government some time, anticipating that the laws will change? This is off topic, but it is something that Americans are quite concerned about. And they are quite concerned despite the fact that it isn't considered clear if that law could be used on American citizens on American soil, there is also (unless it's been overturned) an injuction at the federal level of actually using this law for that, and if it were used in that way here it would certainly be a case for the surpreme court in addition to probably suddenly becoming an issue for congress. But again, this is discussed a fair bit here because it might possibly be abused at some point in the future.
