Middle East Transparent	24 October 04	شفــــاف الشــــرق الأوســــط
On the sidelines of the first Coptic symposium in Zurich Are Copts ‘persecuted’? Youssef Sidhom When I attended the Coptic symposium in Zurich during the final week of last September, I carried within me a plethora of convictions related to the definition and diagnosis of Coptic grievances as regards equality and citizenship rights, as well as the envisioned cures. I thank the good Lord that these convictions were agreeably accepted by the symposium participants, as clearly revealed in the symposium’s final resolutions which Watani duly printed on 3 October. One question, however, aroused heated debate among the attendants, and especially among the committee which prepared the wording of the final resolutions. This concerned the term persecution and how far it applied to the Copts. In point of fact, I have always avoided the persecution word while dealing with the Coptic file. I felt that it was wiser not to rush to use a word which carried tragic, bloody intonations that could not in all fairness describe the state of affairs of Copts, and does not place the Coptic issue in its proper perspective. It appears though that many of the concepts and terms which dominate our national and cultural milieu carry local intonations and do not conform to internationally acknowledged definitions. This notwithstanding the fact that the relevant official institutions in Egypt are all familiar with the said international terms and with the outcome of their application in declarations or treaties which Egypt has already recognised and signed. The discrepancy between the implications of local and international terms thus remains unexplained and uncorrected, generating an uneasy sensitivity when an internationally acknowledged term is applied in the local context. This discrepancy particularly applies to the term ‘persecution’ when used in connection to Copts. Until I went to Zurich to attend the symposium, I was under the impression that the term did not apply to Copts. When I objected to the use of the term, I was presented with a paper prepared by Michael Meunier and Christine Tadros on “Egypt’s Copts: A persecuted minority?”, which examined the status of Copts through the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which Egypt signed in December 2000. I herewith quote excerpts from the paper as follows: · The study explores the significance of the definition of persecution as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. According to the statute, persecution is categorised as a crime against humanity. The study dissects and examines the elements of this crime as to their applicability to the status of Egypt’s Coptic Christians. · Persecution is normally related to action by the authorities of a country. It may also emanate from sections of the population that do not respect the standards of the laws of the country concerned. A case in point may be religious intolerance where a sizeable fraction of the population does not respect the religious beliefs of their neighbours. Where serious discriminatory or other offensive acts are committed by the local populace, they can be considered as persecution if they are knowingly tolerated by the authorities, or if the authorities refuse, or prove unable to offer effective protection to the victims. · For long, the status of Copts and their treatment within Egypt was obscured by a heightened environment of political sensitivity. The continued denial by official authorities of a “Coptic problem” has been cloaked as an effort to dispel foreign intervention in internal affairs. · Elements of persecution involve the following: Since the 1970s Islamic militant groups have attacked innocent Coptic civilians leaving scores dead, hundreds injured, and countless businesses, homes, and churches destroyed. Even so, the courts did not issue a single murder or assault conviction. While the Islamists have targeted figures of authority and government officials as well, Copts remain the sole victims whose attackers were not brought to justice. It is thus clear that the hatred, rejection, ridicule, evasion and marginalisation inflicted upon Copts because of their faith, whether at the hands of individuals, groups, or officials, and before which the government stands unable to protect or vindicate them, can—according to international statutes signed by Egypt—be defined as persecution. So instead of dissipating our energy attempting to deny or denounce persecution, we would do better to face it rationally and courageously, because the only way to rid ourselves of this damning allegation is to correct not to deny it.
Your Comments