Religion in Belarus: no conscience, no freedom
In an authoritarian state, the regime uses loyal religious institutions to impose strict control over society and oppress freedom of conscience. Zmitser Yanenka reports from Belarus
(more…)
Religion and free speech: it’s complicated
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]While they exist harmoniously on paper, free expression and religion often conflict in practice, and free speech is often trampled in the name of protecting religious sensibilities — whether through self-censorship or legislation that censors.
History offers many examples of religious freedom being repressed too. Both free expression and religious freedom need protection from those who would meddle with them. And they are not necessarily incompatible.
Over 200 years ago, the United States’ founding fathers grouped together freedom of worship and freedom of speech. The US Constitution’s First Amendment, adopted in 1791, made sure that the Congress couldn’t pass laws establishing religions or prohibiting their free exercise, or abridging freedom of speech, press and assembly.
More recently, both religion and free expression were offered protection by The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) drafted in 1949. It outlines the ways in which both free expression and religious freedom should be protected in Articles 18 and 19. Article 18 protects an individual’s right to “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion” and the freedom to change religion or beliefs. Article 19 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Why is it, then, that for centuries — from the Spanish Inquisition to the Satanic Verses — free speech and religion have been cast as opponents? Index on Censorship has explored, and will continue to explore, this crucial question.
Offence
Muslims gathered in Malaysia’s capital to protest against the controversial Innocence of Muslims film (Demotix)
Sporadically explosive conflicts arrise when words or images offensive to believers spark a violent response, the most recent example being the reaction to the controversial Innocence of Muslims film. Index has stated before that the majority of states restrain by law distinct and direct incitements to violence; however, causing offence doesn’t constitute an incitement to violence, much less a good excuse to react with violence. Yet violent protests sparked by the YouTube film led many countries to push for the video to be taken down. As the controversy unfolded, digital platforms took centre stage in an age-old debate on where the line is drawn on free speech.
The kind of connectivity provided by the web means a video uploaded in California can lead to riots in Cairo. Real-time transmission, real-time unrest. It presents a serious challenge for hosts of user-generated content like YouTube and Facebook.
Before the web, British-Indian writer Salman Rushdie’s “blasphemous” 1988 novel — The Satanic Verses — sparked protests and earned its author a death sentence from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who called upon Muslims to assassinate the novelist, his publishers, and anyone else associated with the book. The Japanese translator of the Satanic Verses was killed, and Rushdie’s Norwegian publisher was shot and wounded, leading some to think twice about publishing works potentially “offensive to Islam”.
These fears were renewed after the 2005 decision of Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten to publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which were protested about in riots worldwide, largely initiated as a result of agitation by Danish clerics.
The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel about the life of Muhammad’s wife Aisha was due to be published by Random House in the US in 2008, but it was pulled when an academic warned the publishers of a possible violent backlash to the novel. After the UK-based publisher Gibson Square decided to take on the novel, Islamic extremists attempted to firebomb the home of the company’s chief executive. More recently, ex-Muslim and author of The Young Atheist’s Handbook Alom Shaha wrote that initially, staff at Biteback publishing had reservations about releasing his book in the UK. Upon being presented with the book, one staff member’s reaction was, “we can’t publish this, we’ll get firebombed”.
Article continues below[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Join the Index mailing list and get an exclusive gift” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:28|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Index on Censorship’s summer magazine 2016
We’ll send you our weekly emails and periodic updates on our events. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.
You’ll also get access to an exclusive collection of articles from our landmark 250th issue of Index on Censorship magazine exploring journalists under fire and under pressure. Your downloadable PDF will include reports from Lindsey Hilsum, Laura Silvia Battaglia and Hazza Al-Adnan.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Protecting religious sensitivities at price of free expression
Many countries have legislation designed to quell religious tensions and any ensuing violence.
India, for example, has a Penal Code with provisions to protect “religious feelings”, making “acts” or “words” that could disturb religious sensitivities punishable by law. However, while such laws exist to address prevent sectarian violence their vagueness means that they can also be used by groups to shut down free expression. This opens up a question, which is when do states have the right to censor for public order reasons even if the actual piece of writing, art or public display is not a direct incitement to violence.
Indian artist and Index award winner was forced to leave his native India in the 1990s after being threatened for his work
In the 1990s, Indian artist and Index award winner MF Husain was the subject of a violent intimidation campaign after painting Hindu gods and goddesses naked. He received death threats and had his work vandalised. Hundreds of complaints were brought against the artist, leading to his prosecution under sections 295 and 153A of India’s Penal Code, which outlaw insulting religions, as well as promoting animosity between religious groups. Locally these laws are justified as an effort to control sectarian violence. While the cases against Husain were eventually thrown out, the spectre of new legal battles combined with violent threats and harassment pushed Husain to flee his home country. He never returned, and died in exile last year.
Across the world restrictions on free expression are imposed using laws designed to protect religious sensitivities.
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are notorious for being abused to silence and persecute the country’s religious minorities. Although the country’s Penal Code has always had a section on religious offence, clauses added in the 1980s set a high price for blasphemy or membership of the Ahmadi sect of Islam — an Islamic reformist movement. These laws, including a possible death sentence for insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad, have been slammed by civil society inside and outside of Pakistan.
A report issued in September by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, says that blasphemy laws should be repealed. Controls on free speech in order to protect religious sensibility seem to run parallel to controls on religion.
Globally, restrictions on religious expression have increased according to a report released last month by the Pew Research Center. In 2010, the study found that 75 per cent of the world’s population lived in countries where restrictions placed on religious practice were rated as either “high” or “very high”. The study found that the greatest restrictions on religion take place in the world’s most heavily populated countries — India, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, and Russia stood out on the list.
Outrage and incitement to religious hatred
In 1977 Christian campaigner Mary Whitehouse successfully brought charges against the publishers of a magazine that printed a graphic sexual poem about Jesus Christ
In 2007, the UK introduced the offence of “incitement to religious hatred”, which some feared was merely a replacement for the scrapped blasphemy law, made more wide-ranging by covering not just Christianity but all religions. The last conviction under that law was the infamous 1977 Gay News case, where Christian campaigner Mary Whitehouse brought a successful private prosecution against the publishers of Gay News magazine for publishing a poem describing a Roman soldier’s fantasy of sex with Jesus Christ.
In the UK, one of the most pernicious means by which restrictions on free speech have grown tighter has been through the use of incitement laws, both incitement to hatred and incitement to violence and murder. In some cases, as in the outlawing of incitement to religious hatred through the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, the law is being used to censor genuine debate. In other cases, incitement law is being used to shut down protest, as in the convictions of Muslim protestors Mizanur Rahman and Umran Javed for inciting racial hatred and ‘soliciting murder’ during a rally in London against the publications of the Danish Muhammed cartoons. Over the past decade, the government has used the law both to expand the notion of ‘hatred’ and broaden the meaning of ‘incitement’. Much of what is deemed ‘hatred’ today is in fact the giving of offence. And should’t the giving of offence be viewed as a normal and acceptable part of plural society?
In 2009, Ireland created for the first time a specific blasphemy offence. This law states a person is guilty of blasphemy if
“he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”
This wording was later used as a template for attempts to introduce the idea of “defamation of religion” as an offence at the United Nations. The attempt to introduce this concept failed, but the UN Human Rights Council did pass a resolution condemning “intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatisation, discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against, persons based on religion or belief”.
On the other hand, according to Frank La Rue, quoted by Journalism & Intolerance said: “blasphemy is a horrible cultural phenomenon but, again, should not be censored or limited by criminal law. I would like to oppose blasphemy in general by being respectful, but that’s something you build in the culture and the traditions and the habits of the people, but not something you put in the criminal code. Then it becomes censorship.”
Crushing religious freedom
Other European countries have had their own free speech versus religion battle when a push towards bans on the veil or niqab began, infringing on choices of Muslim women. France’s controversial ban on the niqab went into effect last year. Offenders must pay a 150 € fine or take French citizenship classes. There have been similar discussions in the Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Such bans are not restricted to Europe — in 2010 Syria banned face veils from university campuses. From 1998 – 2010, Turkey banned headscarves from university campuses. In fact, Turkey has a much wider ban on headscarves in public buildings, a ban the government faces difficulties overturning though it would like to. Just as troubling — countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have strict dress codes for women that visitors must comply with as well.
Both enforced secularism and enforced religiosity constitute a form of censorship; the key word being “enforced” as opposed to “free”. Whether it is tackling enforced religion, religious offence, hatred and incitement to violence, or enforced secularism, only a constructive approach to free speech can genuinely guarantee freedom of conscience and belief, whether in one god, many or none.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1493908381135-56de588f-391f-0″ taxonomies=”78, 4880″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Two years on, what’s happened to Egypt’s dream of religious freedom?
Egyptians who took to the streets in mass protests in January 2011 demanding the downfall of Mubarak’s authoritarian regime were rebelling — amongst other things — against restrictions on their civil liberties and infringement on their rights. Religious minorities, like Coptic Christians and Baha’is, who participated in the January 2011, 18- day mass uprising had hoped that toppling Egypt’s oppressive regime would usher in a new era of greater freedom of expression and equality. More than two years on, many of them say it has not.
Under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s Coptic Christians (who make up an estimated 12 per cent of the population) often complained of discrimination. They could not build or renovate churches without a presidential decree, never reached high positions in the army or police and were rarely appointed to senior government positions. Christians also had to settle for token representation in government and parliament (there were just two Christian ministers in the last cabinet before Mubarak was toppled).
In the last decade before Mubarak’s ousting, sectarian tensions flared sporadically in Egypt and those responsible for acts of violence against Copts were rarely brought to justice. Many Egyptians believe that a New Year’s Eve church bombing in Alexandria that left 21 people dead (mostly Christian worshippers who had been attending New Year’s Eve mass), fuelled the anger that led to the January 2011 revolt that erupted a few weeks later.
Egypt’s Coptic Christians were among the hundreds of thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square in January 2011 demanding their rights as equal citizens. The rise of Islamists to power in Egypt post-revolution has raised concern among Christians that they could face further marginalisation and harassment.
During the presidential campaign, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi had promised to be “a leader for all Egyptians.” He also vowed to appoint a Coptic-Christian Vice President and to “protect the rights of minorities.” But those promises have all fallen flat.
A February demonstration in Tahrir Square against the Muslim Brotherhood
Last November, after violent clashes between Islamists and opposition protesters outside the Ittihadeya Presidential Palace over a Constitutional Declaration giving him absolute powers, Morsi addressed a rally organized by his Islamist supporters , accusing his opponents of being”‘paid thugs”. That appearance outside the palace earned Morsi criticism from liberal opposition parties and Christians who said that he had shown that he was the “President of the Islamists, rather than the elected leader of all Egyptians.”
Morsi has also reneged on his promise to appoint a Christian Vice President, appointing instead a Christian presidential aide — Samir Morcos — (the sole Christian out of a total of 21 presidential assistants) who resigned a few months later in protest at Morsi’s controversial decree. Morcos later said that the President had not consulted him before making the decision.
Egypt’s Christians also complain that Morsi has also done little to protect them against extremists’ threats..
Churches have continued to be torched and death threats by extremists have forced many Christians to flee their homes and at times — their villages — en masse. In the past year alone, Christians have been forcibly evacuated from the Alexandria district of Amreya and from Dahshour, a village 40 kms south of Cairo following sectarian tensions in their neighborhoods.
More recently, Christian families in the North Sinai border town of Rafah have had to flee to neighboring towns after receiving death threats from extremists. In October 2011, 27 Coptic Christians were killed by military and security forces during a protest staged outside the State Television building in downtown Cairo by Christians demanding government protection for their churches. Video footage of what has since come to be known as the “Maspero Massacre” showed Armoured Personnel Carriers running over protesters and live ammunition being used against them. Most of the victims died of gun-shot wounds .
Almost a year and a half later, no-one has been held responsible for the deaths. Instead, two Copts — Michael Naguib and Michael Shaker — have been convicted for their involvement in the violence after being charged with stealing a machine gun from the military and causing damage to public property. They have each been sentenced to three years in prison.
A new Islamist-backed constitution passed in a popular referendum in December 2012 has fueled fears of further alienation of Egypt’s religious minorities. Rights advocates say the new charter “restricts freedom of belief by limiting the right to practice one’s religion to the adherents of Abrahamic religions, thus discriminating against citizens on the basis of religion and undermining equal citizenship.”
Meanwhile, Article 2, stipulating that “the principles of Islamic Sharia Law are the main source of legislation” has remained unchanged from the previous Constitution, dashing hopes for a secular state aspired to by liberal opposition forces and Christians during the uprising. The only change in that provision is that Al Azhar — the highest authority in Sunni Islam — has now been tasked with interpreting those principles, a decision that critics say “indoctrinates a specific religious school of thought.”
Furthermore, liberals and Christians have expressed concern that an article which provides that “the state and society oversee the commitment to the genuine character of the Egyptan family ” may open the door for enforcement of a hardline vision of society by morality police. While the provision has had little impact in the past, Christians and liberal activists fear it may take on a new meaning under the Islamist regime. And last but not least, an article that guarantees freedom of expression and opinion has been undercut by other provisions that prohibit defamation and insults of people and prophets. Critics say both such articles restrict free expression as well as personal and religious freedom.
Indeed, media hate speech targeting Coptic Christians in recent weeks has confirmed Christians’ worst fears. Radical Salafi preachers appearing on independent religious channels have increasingly criticised Christians and incited violence against them. Islamist cleric Ahmed Abdalla (popularly known as Abu Islam) who burnt a Bible during a protest sparked by anger over the anti- Islam film “Innocence of Muslims ” last year, faces detention after being charged with “contempt of religion” — a crime punishable by up to three years imprisonment in Egypt. A Coptic Christian lawyer had earlier filed a lawsuit against Abu Islam, accusing him of calling Christian women protesters “whores” on his TV talk show. Abu Islam had earlier stirred controversy by justifying rape and sexual assault against women who join the Tahrir protests saying that they go there because “they want to get raped.” Coptic lawyer Naguib Gabriel demanded that Abu Islam be prosecuted, adding that “Copts are bitter over the absence of justice in cases involving Christians.”
Seven Coptic Christians have been sentenced to death in absentia for their role in the anti-Islam film that sparked protests across the Muslim World last year. In October 2012, two Coptic children aged 10 and 9 were arrested and detained on charges of insulting Islam after they ripped pages from the Qur’an.
While the country’s new constitution grants Christians, Jews and Sunni Muslims the right to “worship freely”, that same right is not afforded to other religious minorities in the country — such as Baha’is — who are banned from building places of worship.
For decades, Egypt’s estimated 4,000 Baha’is have been kept on the margins. The current discriminatory policies against them are a carry over from successive regimes. Unrecognised by the state, Baha’is were in the past, unable to obtain national ID cards (which allow holders to vote, buy and sell property and open bank accounts.) That changed in 2008 when a Cairo Court granted Bahais the right to issue Identification documents — albeit without stating their religion on the cards. All IDs of Baha’is are marked with a dash, thus distinguishing them from followers of the three officially recognised faiths (Islam, Christianity and Judaism). While the IDs have given Bahais certain rights (allowing them to issue other documents like birth, marriage and divorce certificates and enabling them to vote), they’ve also contributed to deepening the discrimination and stigma associated with the yet-unrecognised faith.
“I’ve heard stories of Bahais who’ve been rounded up and detained for nothing more than their faith,” said Somaya Ramadan, an Egyptian academic and award-winning writer who follows the Baha’i faith. She recalled that armed security forces had stormed the home of a Baha’i family in Tanta some years ago and arrested a Baha’i woman in the middle of the night , leaving her young children unattended. Like many followers of her faith, Ramadan is worried that Islamist rule in Egypt could lead to an upsurge in religious intolerance against members of her community and subsequently, restrict their freedom of expression, religion and assembly.
Recent statements by Education Ministry officials advocating that “Bahai children may have difficulty enrolling in government schools in future because the constitution only recognises the three Abrahamic faiths,” have confirmed Bahais’ worst fears.
“The January 2011 Revolution raised our hopes for justice, equality and freedom but now, we feel let down,” Ramadan told Index .
“The current government favours Muslims over people of other faiths. This attitude can only reinforce hypocrisy, encouraging people to lie about their religious beliefs. Islamising the society will only deepen the sectarian divisions in the country — The disenfranchisement of Bahais and other religious minorities must end.”
Still, she remains hopeful and is confident that change will come.
For that to happen, Egyptians need to take some bold steps to put their country back on a path of reconciliation and compromise — including amending provisions to the constitution that are ambiguous or unpopular with the public. President Morsi has recently appointed a committtee of legal experts and representatives of opposition political parties to discuss amendments to the charter. For the secular opposition activists and religious minorities in Egypt, the talks are a new opportunity to press for a document that truly secures freedom of religious expression and respects human rights — necessary conditions for a viable democracy.
Two years on, what’s happened to Egypt’s dream of religious freedom?
Egyptians who took to the streets in mass protests in January 2011 demanding the downfall of Mubarak’s authoritarian regime were rebelling — amongst other things — against restrictions on their civil liberties and infringement on their rights. Religious minorities, like Coptic Christians and Baha’is, who participated in the January 2011, 18- day mass uprising had hoped that toppling Egypt’s oppressive regime would usher in a new era of greater freedom of expression and equality. More than two years on, many of them say it has not.
Under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s Coptic Christians (who make up an estimated 12 per cent of the population) often complained of discrimination. They could not build or renovate churches without a presidential decree, never reached high positions in the army or police and were rarely appointed to senior government positions. Christians also had to settle for token representation in government and parliament (there were just two Christian ministers in the last cabinet before Mubarak was toppled).
In the last decade before Mubarak’s ousting, sectarian tensions flared sporadically in Egypt and those responsible for acts of violence against Copts were rarely brought to justice. Many Egyptians believe that a New Year’s Eve church bombing in Alexandria that left 21 people dead (mostly Christian worshippers who had been attending New Year’s Eve mass), fuelled the anger that led to the January 2011 revolt that erupted a few weeks later.
Egypt’s Coptic Christians were among the hundreds of thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square in January 2011 demanding their rights as equal citizens. The rise of Islamists to power in Egypt post-revolution has raised concern among Christians that they could face further marginalisation and harassment.
During the presidential campaign, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi had promised to be “a leader for all Egyptians.” He also vowed to appoint a Coptic-Christian Vice President and to “protect the rights of minorities.” But those promises have all fallen flat.
A February demonstration in Tahrir Square against the Muslim Brotherhood
Last November, after violent clashes between Islamists and opposition protesters outside the Ittihadeya Presidential Palace over a Constitutional Declaration giving him absolute powers, Morsi addressed a rally organized by his Islamist supporters , accusing his opponents of being”‘paid thugs”. That appearance outside the palace earned Morsi criticism from liberal opposition parties and Christians who said that he had shown that he was the “President of the Islamists, rather than the elected leader of all Egyptians.”
Morsi has also reneged on his promise to appoint a Christian Vice President, appointing instead a Christian presidential aide — Samir Morcos — (the sole Christian out of a total of 21 presidential assistants) who resigned a few months later in protest at Morsi’s controversial decree. Morcos later said that the President had not consulted him before making the decision.
Egypt’s Christians also complain that Morsi has also done little to protect them against extremists’ threats..
Churches have continued to be torched and death threats by extremists have forced many Christians to flee their homes and at times — their villages — en masse. In the past year alone, Christians have been forcibly evacuated from the Alexandria district of Amreya and from Dahshour, a village 40 kms south of Cairo following sectarian tensions in their neighborhoods.
More recently, Christian families in the North Sinai border town of Rafah have had to flee to neighboring towns after receiving death threats from extremists. In October 2011, 27 Coptic Christians were killed by military and security forces during a protest staged outside the State Television building in downtown Cairo by Christians demanding government protection for their churches. Video footage of what has since come to be known as the “Maspero Massacre” showed Armoured Personnel Carriers running over protesters and live ammunition being used against them. Most of the victims died of gun-shot wounds .
Almost a year and a half later, no-one has been held responsible for the deaths. Instead, two Copts — Michael Naguib and Michael Shaker — have been convicted for their involvement in the violence after being charged with stealing a machine gun from the military and causing damage to public property. They have each been sentenced to three years in prison.
A new Islamist-backed constitution passed in a popular referendum in December 2012 has fueled fears of further alienation of Egypt’s religious minorities. Rights advocates say the new charter “restricts freedom of belief by limiting the right to practice one’s religion to the adherents of Abrahamic religions, thus discriminating against citizens on the basis of religion and undermining equal citizenship.”
Meanwhile, Article 2, stipulating that “the principles of Islamic Sharia Law are the main source of legislation” has remained unchanged from the previous Constitution, dashing hopes for a secular state aspired to by liberal opposition forces and Christians during the uprising. The only change in that provision is that Al Azhar — the highest authority in Sunni Islam — has now been tasked with interpreting those principles, a decision that critics say “indoctrinates a specific religious school of thought.”
Furthermore, liberals and Christians have expressed concern that an article which provides that “the state and society oversee the commitment to the genuine character of the Egyptan family ” may open the door for enforcement of a hardline vision of society by morality police. While the provision has had little impact in the past, Christians and liberal activists fear it may take on a new meaning under the Islamist regime. And last but not least, an article that guarantees freedom of expression and opinion has been undercut by other provisions that prohibit defamation and insults of people and prophets. Critics say both such articles restrict free expression as well as personal and religious freedom.
Indeed, media hate speech targeting Coptic Christians in recent weeks has confirmed Christians’ worst fears. Radical Salafi preachers appearing on independent religious channels have increasingly criticised Christians and incited violence against them. Islamist cleric Ahmed Abdalla (popularly known as Abu Islam) who burnt a Bible during a protest sparked by anger over the anti- Islam film “Innocence of Muslims ” last year, faces detention after being charged with “contempt of religion” — a crime punishable by up to three years imprisonment in Egypt. A Coptic Christian lawyer had earlier filed a lawsuit against Abu Islam, accusing him of calling Christian women protesters “whores” on his TV talk show. Abu Islam had earlier stirred controversy by justifying rape and sexual assault against women who join the Tahrir protests saying that they go there because “they want to get raped.” Coptic lawyer Naguib Gabriel demanded that Abu Islam be prosecuted, adding that “Copts are bitter over the absence of justice in cases involving Christians.”
Seven Coptic Christians have been sentenced to death in absentia for their role in the anti-Islam film that sparked protests across the Muslim World last year. In October 2012, two Coptic children aged 10 and 9 were arrested and detained on charges of insulting Islam after they ripped pages from the Qur’an.
While the country’s new constitution grants Christians, Jews and Sunni Muslims the right to “worship freely”, that same right is not afforded to other religious minorities in the country — such as Baha’is — who are banned from building places of worship.
For decades, Egypt’s estimated 4,000 Baha’is have been kept on the margins. The current discriminatory policies against them are a carry over from successive regimes. Unrecognised by the state, Baha’is were in the past, unable to obtain national ID cards (which allow holders to vote, buy and sell property and open bank accounts.) That changed in 2008 when a Cairo Court granted Bahais the right to issue Identification documents — albeit without stating their religion on the cards. All IDs of Baha’is are marked with a dash, thus distinguishing them from followers of the three officially recognised faiths (Islam, Christianity and Judaism). While the IDs have given Bahais certain rights (allowing them to issue other documents like birth, marriage and divorce certificates and enabling them to vote), they’ve also contributed to deepening the discrimination and stigma associated with the yet-unrecognised faith.
“I’ve heard stories of Bahais who’ve been rounded up and detained for nothing more than their faith,” said Somaya Ramadan, an Egyptian academic and award-winning writer who follows the Baha’i faith. She recalled that armed security forces had stormed the home of a Baha’i family in Tanta some years ago and arrested a Baha’i woman in the middle of the night , leaving her young children unattended. Like many followers of her faith, Ramadan is worried that Islamist rule in Egypt could lead to an upsurge in religious intolerance against members of her community and subsequently, restrict their freedom of expression, religion and assembly.
Recent statements by Education Ministry officials advocating that “Bahai children may have difficulty enrolling in government schools in future because the constitution only recognises the three Abrahamic faiths,” have confirmed Bahais’ worst fears.
“The January 2011 Revolution raised our hopes for justice, equality and freedom but now, we feel let down,” Ramadan told Index .
“The current government favours Muslims over people of other faiths. This attitude can only reinforce hypocrisy, encouraging people to lie about their religious beliefs. Islamising the society will only deepen the sectarian divisions in the country — The disenfranchisement of Bahais and other religious minorities must end.”
Still, she remains hopeful and is confident that change will come.
For that to happen, Egyptians need to take some bold steps to put their country back on a path of reconciliation and compromise — including amending provisions to the constitution that are ambiguous or unpopular with the public. President Morsi has recently appointed a committtee of legal experts and representatives of opposition political parties to discuss amendments to the charter. For the secular opposition activists and religious minorities in Egypt, the talks are a new opportunity to press for a document that truly secures freedom of religious expression and respects human rights — necessary conditions for a viable democracy.