The cover-up of the October 9 massacre is well underway. It was reported on October 13 that the Egyptian military was taking over the investigation of its own massacre of Coptic protesters, which was aided by incitement from state television, from the civilian prosecutor.
Below are additional developments, as the "Arab Spring" progresses into an Islamic supremacist winter across North Africa. "Group warns of cover-up in Egypt Christian deaths," from the Associated Press, October 25:
CAIRO (AP) — A leading international rights group has warned of a cover-up by the Egyptian military in the investigation of the killing of more than two dozen mostly Coptic Christian demonstrators in the deadliest single incident since the February overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak.
The New-York based Human Rights Watch called Tuesday for the independent investigation of the October 9 deaths of 27 people, mostly Christian, in front of Cairo's state TV building in the Maspero district along the Nile. Military vehicles were filmed running down protesters.
The group also urged authorities to transfer investigation of the case from military to civilian prosecutors.
"The only hope for justice for the victims is an independent, civilian-led investigation that the army fully cooperates with and cannot control and that leads to the prosecution of those responsible," the HRW said in a statement.
Egypt's military council composed of top army generals took power on Feb. 11 when Hosni Mubarak stepped down, ending the country's 18-day mass uprising. The generals have pledged to eventually yield power to an elected civilian government.
However, activists charge that the military during its time in power has cracked down on discontent in a manner reminiscent of Mubarak. The generals have urged an end to street protests and seem particularly sensitive to any criticism of the army.
The generals have portrayed the October 9 protest and the ensuing bloodshed as the work of provocateurs, thereby shielding the soldiers present from any blame.
Did "provocateurs" plow armored personnel carriers into the crowd?
The HRW statement reflects fears by activists that an army-controlled investigation may simply back up the official story, and may even seek to make scapegoats of some of the protesters.
Some 28 people were arrested in the aftermath of the killings. Most of the names are of Christians. There have been no reports so far of arrests of soldiers involved in the incident.
"The generals seem to be insisting that they and only they investigate the Maspero violence, which is to ensure that no serious investigation occurs," said HRW spokesman Joe Stork. "The military has already tried to control the media narrative, and it should not be allowed to cover up what happened on October 9."
Egypt's newspapers, many of them state-run, have been willing participants.
The group also urged an investigation into whether the military manipulated the media and the state television coverage on Oct. 9 which "may have amounted to incitement to violence."
As protesters marched towards the TV building, state television called on viewers to rush to the army's rescue, casting the Christians as a mob seeking to undermine unity between the people and the military.
Egypt's military rulers have signalled since the killings that they might move to address some long-standing Christian grievances.
That includes a decree purported to criminalize discrimination. It appears to talk a good game, but there are many unanswered questions about its actual enforcement.
On Monday, the state media reported, the head of the ruling military council Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi met with Pope Shenouda III and promised to resolve issues related to the construction of churches. Attacks on a newly-repaired church in southern Egypt sparked the Christian protests which turned deadly on Oct. 9.
A pre-20th century law forbids Christians, who are estimated to number 10 percent of the population, from building or repairing churches without receiving special permission from Egypt's rulers.
That is not just some old law from a century or so ago. It is Sharia, which forbids the construction of new churches or the repair of old ones. Sharia is the basis of legislation in Egypt according to Article 2 of the current constitution, and is certain not to budge from the next one.
This law lies at the root of much tension between the military and Christians, with Egyptian presidents from the 1960s on carefully rationing church-building licenses to gain leverage with the Coptic church.
The Egyptian cabinet said it will issue a new law to regulate construction of churches, a move that would risk antagonizing some conservative Muslims.
That is because the current rule is Sharia, with some allowances for political expediency. The post-revolutionary government has already proposed a law that would be a useless exercise in window-dressing with regard to the construction of churches, and would only serve to restructure the biased bureaucracy standing between Christians and the churches they would build.
But even as they make this overture to the church, Tantawi and his fellow officers have avoided shouldering any blame for the bloodshed of Oct. 9.
Any nation that considers itself civilized should hold Egypt accountable.
RSS Feed
There was a ridiculous opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by the mediocre Bret Stephens. In it, he indulged in the most banal moral equivalencies imaginable.
First, he makes it sound as though Egypt is simply chaotic, and that anything at all might happen. Of course, what is unfolding there is, really, entirely predictable in an Isamizing state.
Then, he makes the *Copts* sound 'extreme':
"Consider what happened on Sunday. A Coptic group called the Maspero Youth Union—an outspoken movement with an uneasy relationship with the Coptic religious establishment—had decided to march on the headquarters of Egyptian state television, partly in protest of a mob attack (unhindered and possibly abetted by local authorities) on a church in Aswan, but also against the army for conspicuously failing to protect Coptic interests since the revolution."
The claim that they have "an uneasy relationship with the Coptic religious establishment" simply means that they are tired of being oppressed and murdered, while the religious establishment fears that things will be even worse for the Copts if they have the temerity to protest. Sadly, both are right.
This *does not* mean that people making a peaceful protest are some sort of renegades.
Later, he goes on to acknowledge that 'extremism' on the Muslim side include a soldier bragging about murdering an unarmed Copt, while receiving cheers that, "By God, you are a man!"
He goes on:
"Taken together, the sequence of events captures the broader collapse of authority throughout Egypt. Timid regional officials who will not stand up to Islamist mobs. Furious Coptic youth who no longer accept the cautious dictation of their elders. Conscript soldiers not afraid to disobey their orders. A "free" media that traffics in incitement—including a bogus claim from the Arab News Agency that Hillary Clinton called for U.S. troops to be deployed to Egypt to protect the Copts."
Uh—so now, protesting murder—in defiance of those who fear further murders—is morally the same as inciting or even committing those murders.
He does cite an ex-pat American Copt who worries, "Will the Middle East be emptied of its Christians, like the earlier pogroms emptied the Middle East of its Jews?", but—unsurprisingly—he never really answers this question.
Here's the whole sorry piece:
"Egypt's Silhouette of Fire"
Sectarian violence flares on the streets of Cairo.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203499704576622800107490180.html
And the Wall Street Journal is hardly the worst...