Coptic Christian in U.S. loses Egyptian citizenship: he "showed allegiance to Judaism"

You've got to love how democracy is improving things in Egypt!

A lawyer leading the case against Sadek said he had ... showed allegiance to Judaism...

Does that mean being Jewish or even pro-Jewish is a statutory crime in Egyptian jurisdiction? I'd be interested to know what clause in the Egyptian statute books defines this; travel agents and visiting tourists need to make provision against being arrested in Egypt for Judeophilia.

Here, again, we are offered YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of why Islam is wholly incompatible with Western values.

An ominous marker of any totalitarian regime is a set of laws under which a citizen, more accurately a subject, can be charged criminally at any time and/or on no basis. Such laws are intended to keep subjects wary and on guard at all times such that no mischief against the state can be generated.

In other words, “peace.” Stated differently, peace to the leftist means no opposition to the state. This explains why defending First Am guarantees is an essential in preserving liberty.

In any totalitarian regime the state is first and foremost, with individuals allowed to exist only to perpetuate the state.

Obedience-through-fright is the objective of these deliberately vague laws. JW readers may recall Section 301 of Turkey's penal code which criminalizes behavior which "offends Turkishness." Similarly with Pakistan's infamous Section 295 which criminalizes various forms of "blasphemy." [Section 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings; Section 295-B forbids defiling the Quran; Section 295-C forbids defaming Muhammad.]

The “basis” used to strip this man of certain civil rights - it would be a real stretch to consider this stratagem of Egypt as any sort of “law” within Western understandings - is cut from the same cloth.

In American jurisprudence such laws would be stuck unconstitutional under the due process clauses of either the 5th Am. (for federal behavior) or the 14th Am. (for state behavior) on the basis that these laws are void for vagueness.

The void-for-vagueness doctrine supports accepted American social policies. {ASIDE: Bear in mind that in the American tradition federal and state constitutions are designed so that the people control their governments. That governments are increasingly and deliberately misreading constitutions (as in “war is peace” or “we’re going to strip search you before traveling for your own protection”) in order to assert more and more power over the people is a clear perversion of the original design.}

First, the void-for-vagueness doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the due process clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, criminal law can become a standard-less trap for the unwary.

Second, the void-for-vagueness doctrine discourages judges from attempting to apply sloppily worded laws. Like anyone else, judges often labor without success when interpreting poorly worded legislation.

Finally, the void-for-vagueness doctrine seeks to avoid encroachment on First Am. freedoms, such as freedom of speech, expression, petitioning of grievances. Because vague laws cause uncertainty in the minds of average citizens, some citizens will inevitably decline to take risky behavior that might land them in jail. When the vague provisions of a state or federal statute deter citizens from engaging in certain political or religious discourse, chilling is the operative word, courts will apply heightened scrutiny to ensure that protected expression is not suppressed. For example, a law that prohibits "sacrilegious" speech would simultaneously chill the freedoms of expression and religion in violation of the void for vagueness doctrine.

Islam, not ready for prime time; not now, not ever.

A lawyer leading the case against Sadek said he had insulted Islam, showed allegiance to Judaism, called for the killing of Arabs and requested the United States and Israel to interfere in Egypt’s domestic affairs.

It would be interesting to see if Sadek is quoted anywhere, and to see what constitutes his alleged affronts against Islam, Egypt, and Arab nationality.
...............................

I'd like top see his exact quotes, as well—the idea that he has "called for the killing of Arabs" is, I imagine, quite unlikely.

I just thank goodness is living in the democratic United States—but I worry about his family back in Egypt...

Morris Sadek is described as "one of Egypt's leading human rights advocates"—which makes his loss of his Egyptian citizenship all the more disturbing. This does not bode well for the new, "democratic" Egypt.

Sadek has defended Coptic rights in several high-profile cases in Egypt—which is probably why they wanted to discredit him and get rid of him.

http://www.nationalamericancopticassembly.webs.com/

Here he is defending freedom of expression and freedom of religion in Egypt (this was before Mubarak's ouster):

http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=11677

Here he is on the plight of Copts in Egypt even before the revolution:

http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=11100

Here he is tartly taking Obama to task over his ludicrous claim that "Islam has always been a part of America’s story”:

http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=9870

He has also stood against the travesty of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque:

http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=12895

Morris Sedak seems like a good man. That's why Muslim Egypt doesn't want him.

"The action was taken against Sadek for a number of alleged crimes, including calls for war against Egypt." -- from the story

So, when will Leftists in the United States, so keen to cite foreign laws as precedents in our courts, use this as justification to withdraw U.S. citizenship from Muslims living here who call for the war against the West, and Israel in particular?

I won't be holding my breath that any of them even take notice of this story. Or if they do, they will agree that the stripping of this man's citizenship was justified because, well, you know, the man insulted Islam.

Egypt's loss is America's gain. After all: when Raymond Ibrahim's Coptic parents shook the dust of Egypt from off their feet, and escaped to America, they gave America a son with a razor-sharp mind, a strong moral sense, and the mother-tongue fluency in Egyptian Arabic which enables him to provide accurate translations of all sorts of things that the Muslims say to one another in Arabic when they think the dirty kuffar can't hear them.

Mr Sadek is another such a one: an asset to America.

I am sure that when this man reads the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitutional Amendments/ Bill of Rights, he 'sings' the words to himself, deeply enjoying the implications of every clause.