Where does it say that ''New constitution denies freedom of speech and equality of rights for women, omits ban on slavery'' ot that it is an ''Islamic state''. You could really check your facts, moreover the link you posted is one of the most objective sites I have ever seen....really!
There are some tricky lines in that constitution, I agree.
I'm certainly not saying their draft is a model constitution in any way but you're being sensational. For instance your very own source article had this to say about womans equality.
The draft contains no article specifically establishing equality between men and women because of disputes over the phrasing. However, it maintains that a woman must balance her duties toward family and outside work, suggesting that she can be held accountable if her public role conflicts with her family duties. No such article is mentioned for men.
- An article seeking to ensure people's dignity bans "insulting humans", a vague phrasing that rights activists say contradicts freedom of expression.
- An article maintains that the state supports the arts, science and literature and works to implement them in a way that serves society. That has raised concerns that some arts deemed not in the service of society may be restricted or censored.
These are the ones that really bother me. As it seems like a step forward towards heavy censoring.
Omissions of certain articles, such as bans on slavery or promises to adhere to international rights treaties, were equally worrying to critics of the new draft, who pulled out from the panel before the vote.
I don't think the slavery omission is really worth mentioning. Egypt clearly isn't going to become a slave nation, hence my criticism of your sensationalism that you regularly use to demonize Islamic states. Now what will really be interesting is how this draft will go in the nationwide referendum vote. Will the people accept it? Will the voting process be fair in transparent?
Muslim Brotherhood 'paying gangs to go out and rape women and beat men protesting in Egypt' as thousands of pro-Sharia demonstrators take to the streets
Large protests outside the presidential palace, with the police line being broken at least once (which isn't really that momentous as right behind the police line is a big wall), have caused Morsi to leave the palace for a presumably safer place:
Egyptian police battled thousands of protesters outside President Mohamed Mursi's palace in Cairo on Tuesday, prompting the Islamist leader to leave the building, two presidential sources said.
Police fired teargas at demonstrators angered by Mursi's drive to hold a referendum on a new constitution on December 15. Some broke through police lines around his palace and protested next to the perimeter wall.
Several thousand people had gathered nearby in what they dubbed "last warning" protests against Mursi, who infuriated opponents with a November 22 decree that expanded his powers. "The people want the downfall of the regime," the crowd chanted.
"The president left the palace," a presidential source, who declined to be named, told Reuters. A security source at the presidency also said the president had left the building.
I think we're only weeks away at the most from a major amount of violence in Egypt unless tensions are lowered and passions are cooled. Neither side seems interested in doing either of those things.
its ok. it happens in turkey every 10 years or so. islamists try to change the constitution, military sends them in jail and keep their shit together until a new democratic government is elected.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Perscienter wrote: That one is not available.
Does someone have a good dossier about the 2012 constitutions changes? Because I have lost the string.
Why do they protest, if they'll vote on the draft any way? I lack the overview.
President gave himself sweeping (dictatorial) powers through a decree. Calling for vote on the constitution. Either continue with a president with sweeping powers or vote yes for a bad constitution.
Oh dear, I do not have a good feeling about these next few weeks in the Middle East.......Syria and Egypt appear to be unraveling ever faster, not to mention Gaza
As obvious as no violence would be preferred, I believe this is an inevitable and necessary course for them. Only through shedding blood may some of the more deeply ingrained problems of some of these countries be solved. Just my personal opinion, anyway.
According to several sources, Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi has annulled the constitutional decree he announced just weeks ago, which would have given him far-reaching state powers and immunity from judicial oversight.
According to the AFP, Islamist politician Selim al-Awa told a news conference that "the constitutional decree is annulled from this moment."
The decree, in combination with an equally controversial constitutional draft that will be voted on in December, have inspired large, violent protests in Cairo for days.
No i dont think the protestors won The decree has been annulled but every decission made during the time of the decree still stands if i understand it correctly. There is one thing i dont understand about this whole situation btw. Why are we (the west and the rebels) against the referendum about the constitution??? We might be against the constitution but a referendum seems to most fair way to decide about it. Yet we are strongly apposed to this referendum and that makes me wonder why? We are probably afraid of the outcome of the referendum (cant think of anny other reason) and thats why we are against it, wich is kinda undemocratic.
On December 09 2012 23:50 Rassy wrote: No i dont think the protestors won The decree has been annulled but every decission made during the time of the decree still stands if i understand it correctly. There is one thing i dont understand about this whole situation btw. Why are we (the west and the rebels) against the referendum about the constitution??? We might be against the constitution but a referendum seems to most fair way to decide about it. Yet we are strongly apposed to this referendum and that makes me wonder why? We are probably afraid of the outcome of the referendum (cant think of anny other reason) and thats why we are against it, wich is kinda undemocratic.
It's been explained in this thread already; Either you accept the constitution or the president keeps his excessive powers. It's therefore not a true referendum.
On December 09 2012 23:50 Rassy wrote: No i dont think the protestors won The decree has been annulled but every decission made during the time of the decree still stands if i understand it correctly. There is one thing i dont understand about this whole situation btw. Why are we (the west and the rebels) against the referendum about the constitution??? We might be against the constitution but a referendum seems to most fair way to decide about it. Yet we are strongly apposed to this referendum and that makes me wonder why? We are probably afraid of the outcome of the referendum (cant think of anny other reason) and thats why we are against it, wich is kinda undemocratic.
ah ty for clearing that up, i didnt knew that.
A referendum is only as good as the electorate, I hate to be the Hitler guy but it really is relevant in this case as it is the best example of why they don't work. Hitler was more involved in direct democracy than pretty much any leader in European history ever but the combination of propaganda, voter intimidation and people just being bad at voting responsibly allowed him success he would not otherwise of had. And then he could turn around to his foreign detractors and say he was just doing the clearly expressed will of the people and to object to that would be undemocratic and make them all imperialist pigdogs. The same applies here, representative democracy is responsible democracy, being opposed to referendums is undemocratic but supporting them is ignorant of the inherent flaws within democracy. The people are bad at making decisions.
On December 09 2012 23:50 Rassy wrote: No i dont think the protestors won The decree has been annulled but every decission made during the time of the decree still stands if i understand it correctly. There is one thing i dont understand about this whole situation btw. Why are we (the west and the rebels) against the referendum about the constitution??? We might be against the constitution but a referendum seems to most fair way to decide about it. Yet we are strongly apposed to this referendum and that makes me wonder why? We are probably afraid of the outcome of the referendum (cant think of anny other reason) and thats why we are against it, wich is kinda undemocratic.
ah ty for clearing that up, i didnt knew that.
A referendum is only as good as the electorate, I hate to be the Hitler guy but it really is relevant in this case as it is the best example of why they don't work. Hitler was more involved in direct democracy than pretty much any leader in European history ever but the combination of propaganda, voter intimidation and people just being bad at voting responsibly allowed him success he would not otherwise of had. And then he could turn around to his foreign detractors and say he was just doing the clearly expressed will of the people and to object to that would be undemocratic and make them all imperialist pigdogs. The same applies here, representative democracy is responsible democracy, being opposed to referendums is undemocratic but supporting them is ignorant of the inherent flaws within democracy. The people are bad at making decisions.
Are you saying that, generally speaking, the representatives of the people would make better decisions than the people would in terms of voting on the constitution? Because I know there are some pretty extreme representatives that are elected in politics, supporting far-right parties that emulate Hitler in various ways (don't remember specifics).
There obviously needs to be some middle ground between dictatorship or one party rule and direct democracy. But in this case, if there is the barest of majorities of Muslims who voted in Morsi to create a government based on Islamic Law, why wouldn't their representatives vote in a similar fashion?
Besides representatives it doesn't seem like there is any viable alternative. Its almost arbitrary in terms of who decides what side is using brainwashing techniques. At some point a country simply gets the leadership and constitution they deserve.
Personally I feel like they should split Egypt into two countries, one with Sharia Law, and the other a modern and progressive state.
On December 09 2012 23:50 Rassy wrote: No i dont think the protestors won The decree has been annulled but every decission made during the time of the decree still stands if i understand it correctly. There is one thing i dont understand about this whole situation btw. Why are we (the west and the rebels) against the referendum about the constitution??? We might be against the constitution but a referendum seems to most fair way to decide about it. Yet we are strongly apposed to this referendum and that makes me wonder why? We are probably afraid of the outcome of the referendum (cant think of anny other reason) and thats why we are against it, wich is kinda undemocratic.
ah ty for clearing that up, i didnt knew that.
A referendum is only as good as the electorate, I hate to be the Hitler guy but it really is relevant in this case as it is the best example of why they don't work. Hitler was more involved in direct democracy than pretty much any leader in European history ever but the combination of propaganda, voter intimidation and people just being bad at voting responsibly allowed him success he would not otherwise of had. And then he could turn around to his foreign detractors and say he was just doing the clearly expressed will of the people and to object to that would be undemocratic and make them all imperialist pigdogs. The same applies here, representative democracy is responsible democracy, being opposed to referendums is undemocratic but supporting them is ignorant of the inherent flaws within democracy. The people are bad at making decisions.
Are you saying that, generally speaking, the representatives of the people would make better decisions than the people would in terms of voting on the constitution? Because I know there are some pretty extreme representatives that are elected in politics, supporting far-right parties that emulate Hitler in various ways (don't remember specifics).
There obviously needs to be some middle ground between dictatorship or one party rule and direct democracy. But in this case, if there is the barest of majorities of Muslims who voted in Morsi to create a government based on Islamic Law, why wouldn't their representatives vote in a similar fashion?
Besides representatives it doesn't seem like there is any viable alternative. Its almost arbitrary in terms of who decides what side is using brainwashing techniques. At some point a country simply gets the leadership and constitution they deserve.
Personally I feel like they should split Egypt into two countries, one with Sharia Law, and the other a modern and progressive state.
edits: grammar
I think he's saying that the world has a problem wherein democracy is introduced to countries where it hasn't been before and is being abused by the majority to create an undemocratic society that has a veneer of democracy.
The West has acted in a completely stupid fashion and will pay the price down the road. We've mindlessly supported "democracy" movements without regard for the long-term or who the players on the ground actually are, and our reward will be more confrontation with aggressively Islamic governments in the future. There's a direct correlation and causation between the strength of political Islam in a country and the amount of conflict inside that country and with other countries. The West refuses to squarely deal with it now (mostly by refusing to recognize that political Islam is essentially a revival of fascism but in a religious context), we'll get to deal with it when it's a bigger mess later.
Been thinking about this a bit more. It seems reasonable to be against the referendum based on previous posts but i still wonder if this is the whole story. Morsi has been in power as an intermediate as far as i know (pls correct me if am wrong) whos task is to guide egypt through this transition towards an economy. They have drafted a concept constitution about wich people can vote. It seems no more then logical that if the concept is not accepted by the people, that the status quo should stay. Morsi and his clan will have to draw up another constitution and see if that one gets accepted. Beeing against the referendum purely based on the fact that if it does not pass, morsi will stay in power i find a weak argument.
I think he's saying that the world has a problem wherein democracy is introduced to countries where it hasn't been before and is being abused by the majority to create an undemocratic society that has a veneer of democracy
And here is what i think is the true reason of beeing against this referendum. There actually is a majority in egypt for a constitution like the one they want the vote on. This constition is not to our liking and therefor we are against it, even though it seems to be a democratic process. Democracy is fine for us, as long as the majority votes for what we do like. If the majority does not vote for "us" then they are not ready for democracy, and need to be guided into making the right choise, the choise we all would like to see.
Somehow this does not feel right. I do realise there is a legit concern about the workings of a democracy when a democracy is just beeing build up in a place it never been before, but this concern should not be used as an argument to basicly get rid of democracy all together.