Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2012

[Mark Bailey]

I would certainly anticipate a greater interest in controlling the public consumption of alcohol and those sorts of things that tend to be of concern to some elements of the people in the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm not sure it would necessarily have an impact on the Coptic Christians.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

The reason I ask is that when we talk about the constitution, the articles in the constitution appear to give some sense of protection to the Coptic Christians. If the Brotherhood has been involved with the evolution of that, then that may well be more positive than what it first appears.

[Mark Bailey]

That would be my expectation.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I think the media in the west have kind of portrayed the Brotherhood.... We're used to hearing about brotherhoods in terms of something like the Mafia, in a negative context. Brotherhood in some places, of course, is far more progressive than in the religion-based....

In this case, which would you see the Brotherhood as being—more progressive or more regressive in terms of the constitution and how it may be applied?

[Mark Bailey]

I think they will be much more progressive on issues like political liberty, freedom of speech, ability to organize political parties, and so on, because they themselves were the objects of oppression for many decades by the Mubarak regime, and the Sadat and Nasser regimes before. So I think in that area they will be a good deal more progressive.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's good news.

[Mark Bailey]

I understand also, from our own mission's reporting, that the Brotherhood made quite serious attempts to reach out to the Coptic Christian community in the context of the elections and things that have been held out, and trying to offer assurances—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's contrary to the view that was being put out there by the media, in the suggestion that perhaps things were going to go in the opposite direction. So that's very good news.

[Mark Bailey]

Yes.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That will conclude that round.

We now go to Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bailey, I certainly hope you're correct, because one of the big concerns I have is a constitution where the premise of future legislation will be based on sharia; it gives me grave concern, grave concern not only for general human rights but particularly for the rights of women.

I can't see how that wouldn't be something that would have at least a red flag over it going forward in terms of what will be transpiring after a constitution is made, and then after new legislation is being developed in their own Parliament.

[Mark Bailey]

I think it's important to understand that insofar as the reference to sharia, this is nothing new. The previous Egyptian constitution had it as well. So this doesn't represent a change in terms of drafting the new constitution.

That is an important preface to what I'm about to say, which is that although in the west, as we were just discussing, there is a tendency to focus on very particular aspects of the Islamic sharia, aspects that we in the west find very difficult to accept—notably, some of the provisions relating to women, some of the provisions relating to kinds of punishments, and so on, for criminal offences, etc.—in fact sharia is a very large body of law that deals with a whole vast array of things in the areas of criminal law, family law, property law, and all these kinds of things.

You know, in a way, it leaves the legislators free to pick and choose which of the various aspects of sharia they will implement, as Egypt has already done, and indeed as have most of the other countries in the region that are Muslim—which, with one exception, they all are. They have all done the same thing. They will all tell you that, oh yes, sharia is important, but as I say, they tend to pick and choose those aspects of it that they're going to implement or not.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

As I said, I truly do hope you are correct. The difference with Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak is that theirs were decidedly secular regimes, with sharia to give them, as was mentioned, some “cover”, for lack of a better word. It will be different, I think, with the Muslim Brotherhood, but we'll see for certain going forward.

One of the other concerns I have is that Christians and Jews are mentioned in the constitution, but there's also a significant population of Baha'is. Of course, we've had the Baha'i community before us a number of times. They are very persecuted in Egypt—of course more profoundly in Iran, but persecuted in Egypt—and my concern is that any other religious minority is going to experience that, as the Copts have. I think it would be an error on our part to think that the Coptic persecution just began. I mean, this has been going on for years. They could only live in certain places. They could only do certain business. They even had to apply for improvements on their churches.

Again, this must be a warning that we're watching as well, I would hope.

[Mark Bailey]

Absolutely.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I know I'm making statements more than asking questions, because of course you don't speak for the Egyptian government or anything; you're here only to update us.

My other concern is that I have not heard any strong statements that would indicate to me a substantial change. For example, the Libyan prime minister, who's dealing with similar things—albeit it's a different size of population, but he's certainly dealing with extremists there as well—very forcefully said that the attack on the United States embassy was one that was masterminded and strategically carried out; it wasn't by accident. He was very courageous in that regard, and made that statement in order to serve notice on those who are radicals that they were going to be serious about it.

I haven't heard any of those kinds of statements. I've heard nice statements, that they're going to look after people and make sure they're not persecuted, but I haven't heard any statements coming from the leadership in Egypt that would send a strong signal to the population as well as to the military that they were elected by the people and that they're going to govern in a way that is serious with regard to human rights.

[Mark Bailey]

There have been some statements. Whether they'd be strong enough to satisfy you, I couldn't say. If you like, we can find a few examples and send them to your office.

Are you talking specifically about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, or are you talking more generally?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

No, I was using an example of what I would be looking for, and particularly—my colleague mentioned this too—about when we've seen people actually murdered and no one has been brought to justice, or when they are...very minor sentences.

I find it unbelievable that part of the whole process is going to include a couple of Copts who apparently had some weapons, and they're on trial too, after 28 people were murdered and hundreds injured. Those are the kinds of things that I think the prime minister should be making strong statements about, and bringing people to justice as a follow-up to that as well.

I have a suspicion that I've now used up that very precious commodity at the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You're remarkably good. Your internal clock is excellent, because you just ran out as you were saying that, which means that it is time to move on to Professor Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend Mr. Bailey for his fulsome statement to us this morning on this evolving situation, and in that context, Mr. Bailey, I want to bring up the case of the Egyptian Coptic Christian blogger, Maikel Nabil.

He was the first political prisoner in a post-Mubarak era. He was sentenced to three years in prison. Shortly after, he made a statement in Tahrir Square, initially that the army and people are of one hand, but when he saw what happened with the army, he changed it to say that the army and the people are no longer of one hand.

For that he was charged and imprisoned for three years for insulting the Egyptian military. I came to represent Mr. Nabil. Due to his own courageous affirmations and the like, he was released—including after having been on a hunger strike for 30 days—after close to a year in prison. But we just learned, on September 30 to be exact, that Mr. Nabil is once again being charged by the Egyptian authorities, allegedly now on charges of insulting Islam. The Egyptian newspaper Youm al-Saba’a reported on September 30 that those charges included being in contempt of the Islamic religion and abuse of the divine, insulting the prophet and his followers, and the like.

I met with Mr. Nabil after his release and he told me he was going to be going to Germany for post-graduate studies. Egypt has now requested his return from Germany to stand trial on these charges. It's unclear now what the German response might be.

I'm not sure you've had a chance to even know of these developments because they've just occurred, so my question is whether you will be able to make some appropriate inquiries on this case and see where matters now stand. I think it would be regrettable if one of the leading voices in Tahrir Square—himself, as I say, a Christian Copt, the first political prisoner—would now once again be sought by Egypt to stand trial on these charges.

[Mark Bailey]

Yes, we'll be happy to look into that indeed. We'll ask our missions both in Berlin and in Cairo to follow up.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

The second question has to do with some of the questions that have been put to you. You mentioned that the drafting of the constitution will follow the guidelines of the Al-Azhar document, setting forth basic principles with respect to the protection of minority and religious rights and the like.

I'm wondering about the overall constituent assembly that is responsible for the drafting of the new constitution. To what extent is the constituent assembly itself a representative body? For example, are Coptic Christians represented in the actual constitution drafting process? Are there Coptic women who are participating in the drafting process? What is the presence of women, generally speaking, in that drafting process? My basic concern is whether the actual constituent assembly is itself a representative body.

[Mark Bailey]

Thank you.

I don't have the answer to that question right now. As I think I mentioned a bit earlier, there were concerns earlier on that the constituent assembly was overly dominated by members of the Brotherhood.

But I'll have to follow up with our mission and see if we can find out the exact composition of the assembly. We can get that back to you. We'll be sending it to the clerk of the committee and perhaps she can share it with all of you.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

My last question—given time constraints and the like—is to what extent at this point is the evolution of the government and presidency in the person of the Muslim Brotherhood, and does that alter the manner in which we as a Canadian government have been dealing with Egyptian authorities? What changes in our engagement, let us say, with Egypt have come about as a result of the changes in Egyptian leadership?

[Mark Bailey]

I think it would be fair to say that our vigilance was already high, but we've notched it up another notch or two in light of the very concerns that the members of the committee have been voicing. We recognize that there are reasons why people are asking questions and are a bit concerned.

However, I come back to what Minister Baird and others have said. It's very much important to judge the Government of Egypt, and indeed any government, by what it does, and not necessarily by what is said about it, or even by what sometimes relatively less important members of it might say. What's most important is what it actually does. In that regard, I think we would hold the view that it's still very early days for Egypt in terms of its transformation following the revolution they had last year.