Youssef (Egypt's Jon Stewart) Arrested for "Insulting Morsi"

[Debater Slayer]

This is the inherent difficulty (and injustice) of blasphemy laws though. Who gets to define what "insulting" religions or prophets is?

There are many ways to interpret the Egyptian Constitution such that so long as someone was insulted by Bassem, and Bassem's subject matter was Islam, that he has actually broken the law and can be legally punished -- even if from our perspective it's ridiculous to say it was "insulting."

The Egyptian Constitution is just begging for more incidences like this, the Egyptian people need to fix this important document before it's too late!

The subjectivity of the whole "insulting" thing is definitely apparent in this case. Millions who follow Bassem's show on a regular basis--and some of his fans are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, too--found nothing wrong with the satire, but some Islamist lawyers did and filed lawsuits against him as a result.

Seeing as how most Egyptians voted in favor of the current constitution, though, I don't see those laws getting changed any time soon. Adding an article that forbids "insulting or mocking prophets and messengers" to the constitution was actually applauded by many people, so I think the majority support such laws.

 

[Meow Mix]

The subjectivity of the whole "insulting" thing is definitely apparent in this case. Millions who follow Bassem's show on a regular basis--and some of his fans are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, too--found nothing wrong with the satire, but some Islamist lawyers did and filed lawsuits against him as a result.

Seeing as how most Egyptians voted in favor of the current constitution, though, I don't see those laws getting changed any time soon. Adding an article that forbids "insulting or mocking prophets and messengers" to the constitution was actually applauded by many people, so I think the majority support such laws.

Then unfortunately, there will be a lot of oppression in Egypt yet to come, and its "freedom" of expression will be stifled until the population matures on this issue. I will be surprised if Youssef's show survives unless it either dumbs itself down or avoids politics/religion altogether, because otherwise this will keep happening unless the Constitutional weaknesses are addressed.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Defined by whom -- and how is it *legally* definable?

Obviously there are ways to interpret even light-hearted satire as a grievous insult, and obviously there are those who will NOT hesitate to try to oppress with the force of law based on that.

Blasphemy laws are unjust and untenable for these exact reasons, and Egypt's Constitution is even worse in that it only protects whatever the "divine religions" are.

Blasphemy is basically any type of assault against someone else’s rights or beliefs. As in someone taking a TORCH to a public place of worship or burning a flag or any type of defamation.

That is blasphemy, pure hatred for someone else just because they have differing views or beliefs, to slander someone else.

I’m sure you already know what political satire is. Unless you want me to explain that too, but now that you have an idea of what blasphemy is, you can compare the two.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Then unfortunately, there will be a lot of oppression in Egypt yet to come, and its "freedom" of expression will be stifled until the population matures on this issue. I will be surprised if Youssef's show survives unless it either dumbs itself down or avoids politics/religion altogether, because otherwise this will keep happening unless the Constitutional weaknesses are addressed.

Youssef said that he will not be toning down his show because of this, and he did continue it when he was threatened with lawsuits before. I don't see him changing that now.

I wouldn't be surprised if exposing perceived weaknesses of the constitution was actually one of the reasons he intends to keep up his show despite all of the trouble he's currently in because of it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Blasphemy is basically any type of assault against someone else’s rights or beliefs. As in someone taking a TORCH to a public place of worship or burning a flag or any type of defamation.

That is blasphemy, pure hatred for someone else just because they have differing views or beliefs, to slander someone else.

I’m sure you already know what political satire is. Unless you want me to explain that too, but now that you have an idea of what blasphemy is, you can compare the two.

I understand what blasphemy is but what do you do if people in a country think insinuating their prophet wasn't really a prophet and had human failings is "blasphemy," even if it's a legitimate opinion? What then?

What if I have no ill regard towards, say, Jesus, but I tell this joke: "Jesus walks into a bar and sets down three nails on the counter and asks 'Hey could you put me up for the night,'" and I say that joke only because I think it's light-hearted and funny (and I think Jesus would laugh about it too) -- is that blasphemy?

What if someone is EGREGIOUSLY upset over it?

Well, what if I say that I think Jesus was mentally deranged (I don't necessarily believe this, but roll with it)? Is THAT blasphemy? What if someone is *extremely* upset over me stating such an opinion?

Sorry to bring up such a common example with Islam, everyone's seen this before (I know), but -- what if I have very serious ethical concerns about stories of Mohammed consummating marriage with a 9 year old or otherwise very young girl? What if I have legitimate concerns about that -- can I express my outrage without it being "blasphemy?" Even if my expressing of this opinion OUTRAGEOUSLY insults someone?

See the problem?

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I understand what blasphemy is but what do you do if people in a country think insinuating their prophet wasn't really a prophet and had human failings is "blasphemy," even if it's a legitimate opinion? What then?

I don’t know.

Some people are capable of civil discourse others aren’t.

There is nothing wrong with having or holding an opinion or being critical of any subject matter. That is basically part of politics. But just like there is freedom of religion in some places, that means religion isn’t necessarily supposed to be tied into politics.

What if I have no ill regard towards, say, Jesus, but I tell this joke: "Jesus walks into a bar and sets down three nails on the counter and asks 'Hey could you put me up for the night,'" and I say that joke only because I think it's light-hearted and funny (and I think Jesus would laugh about it too) -- is that blasphemy?

What if someone is EGREGIOUSLY upset over it?

Then it was done in good humor. I have never met a Christian that isn’t capable of handling a joke about Jesus or their religion.

Even Jon Stewart jokes about his own people and religion, just like this Youssef guy was doing. Its part of political satire. Its not intended to be taken literally or as an attack on someone's religion, views, beliefs, etc.

Well, what if I say that I think Jesus was mentally deranged (I don't necessarily believe this, but roll with it)? Is THAT blasphemy? What if someone is *extremely* upset over me stating such an opinion?

Then that is your opinion or belief. I don’t see why anyone would get upset, but it happens. Since this is about political satire, take note from Jon Stewart! Some people have thick skin and others don't.

Sorry to bring up such a common example with Islam, everyone's seen this before (I know), but -- what if I have very serious ethical concerns about stories of Mohammed consummating marriage with a 9 year old or otherwise very young girl? What if I have legitimate concerns about that -- can I express my outrage without it being "blasphemy?" Even if my expressing of this opinion OUTRAGEOUSLY insults someone?

See the problem?

Yeah, sure, you can express your concerns, but why would you want to get outraged over something like that? Especially when you are more than capable of expressing your concerns without getting all hostile and violent, are you not?

 

[Meow Mix]

Youssef said that he will not be toning down his show because of this, and he did continue it when he was threatened with lawsuits before. I don't see him changing that now.

I wouldn't be surprised if exposing perceived weaknesses of the constitution was actually one of the reasons he intends to keep up his show despite all of the trouble he's currently in because of it.

I sincerely hope the awareness he raises will usher in some positive change -- otherwise people less visible than he will likely suffer for it!

 

[Meow Mix]

I don’t know.

Some people are capable of civil discourse others aren’t.

There is nothing wrong with having or holding an opinion or being critical of any subject matter. That is basically part of politics. But just like there is freedom of religion in some places, that means religion isn’t necessarily supposed to be tied into politics.


Then it was done in good humor. I have never met a Christian that isn’t capable of handling a joke about Jesus or their religion.

Even Jon Stewart jokes about his own people and religion, just like this Youssef guy was doing. Its part of political satire. Its not intended to be taken literally or as an attack on someone's religion, views, beliefs, etc.



Then that is your opinion or belief. I don’t see why anyone would get upset, but it happens. Since this is about political satire, take note from Jon Stewart! Some people have thick skin and others don't.



Yeah, sure, you can express your concerns, but why would you want to get outraged over something like that? Especially when you are more than capable of expressing your concerns without getting all hostile and violent, are you not?

But the point is that blasphemy laws are untenable for the reasons stated: that it's not really feasible to make a working legal definition for what constitutes an "insult." Obviously, people *are* getting insulted by jokes made in good humor and for the expression of honest opinions.

So should these jokes and expressions of honest opinions be crimes or not? Some Egyptians appear to believe they should be crimes. Would it be just to foist their interpretation on all the rest of Egyptians?

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

But the point is that blasphemy laws are untenable for the reasons stated: that it's not really feasible to make a working legal definition for what constitutes an "insult." Obviously, people *are* getting insulted by jokes made in good humor and for the expression of honest opinions.

So should these jokes and expressions of honest opinions be crimes or not? Some Egyptians appear to believe they should be crimes. Would it be just to foist their interpretation on all the rest of Egyptians?

Its hard for me to tell if you are taking this debate seriously. Can you define for me what political satire is since I explained to you what blasphemy is. You seem to be blurring (skewing) the lines as to what they actually are and mean.

On top of that, the few people that filed complaints don't speak for ALL Egyptians. Otherwise maybe you can ask what Egyptians think. He is obviously a very popular guy and has a big audience.

 

[Meow Mix]

Its hard for me to tell if you are taking this debate seriously. Can you define for me what political satire is since I explained to you what blasphemy is. You seem to be blurring (skewing) the lines as to what they actually are and mean.

On top of that, the few people that filed complaints don't speak for ALL Egyptians. Otherwise maybe you can ask what Egyptians think. He is obviously a very popular guy and has a big audience.

I think you're just confused on what it is I'm saying: that the lines are blurry is my point. Given someone says something about some prophet or religion, they might personally know whether it was satire, a good natured joke, or mean-spirited blasphemy, but there's no legal standard by which to judge what it is from "outside."

If I say any of the examples from my earlier post with the samples of jokes and statements, I might know internally whether I'm telling a good-natured joke from whether my intent is to be mean-spirited and only to inflame, but no one besides me knows what my intent is in a court of law: thus even if my intent is to tell a funny joke, someone might get offended and treat it as though I was just trying to inflame them, and then I could possibly get sued -- that is, unless this sort of injustice is fixed in the Egyptian Constitution!

I never said the people who filed complaints speak for all Egyptians, either: but it is an injustice that just because a FEW Egyptians didn't like what he was saying, they were actually able to get him arrested (and to be forced to post bail money).

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I think you're just confused on what it is I'm saying: that the lines are blurry is my point. Given someone says something about some prophet or religion, they might personally know whether it was satire, a good natured joke, or mean-spirited blasphemy, but there's no legal standard by which to judge what it is from "outside."

If I say any of the examples from my earlier post with the samples of jokes and statements, I might know internally whether I'm telling a good-natured joke from whether my intent is to be mean-spirited and only to inflame, but no one besides me knows what my intent is in a court of law: thus even if my intent is to tell a funny joke, someone might get offended and treat it as though I was just trying to inflame them, and then I could possibly get sued -- that is, unless this sort of injustice is fixed in the Egyptian Constitution!

I never said the people who filed complaints speak for all Egyptians, either: but it is an injustice that just because a FEW Egyptians didn't like what he was saying, they were actually able to get him arrested (and to be forced to post bail money).

Defamation isn’t exactly legal in America. However, freedom of speech and expression are which include comedy and political satire.

Look at how many times civil rights activists were arrest just 40 years ago in America. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 30 something times along with others like Rosa Parks. Stuff like that isn’t uncommon during times of political unrest or revolution.

 

[Meow Mix]

Defamation isn’t exactly legal in America. However, freedom of speech and expression are which include comedy and political satire.

Look at how many times civil rights activists were arrest just 40 years ago in America. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 30 something times along with others like Rosa Parks. Stuff like that isn’t uncommon during times of political unrest or revolution.

I agree -- I'm not defending America and certainly not America's *history.*

I'm defending what's just.

That I'm an American is incidental. I take issue with many things American government does wrong, too.

 

[YmirGF]

Defamation isn’t exactly legal in America. However, freedom of speech and expression are which include comedy and political satire.

Look at how many times civil rights activists were arrest just 40 years ago in America. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 30 something times along with others like Rosa Parks. Stuff like that isn’t uncommon during times of political unrest or revolution.

Neither is the public outcry that follows such arrests and detentions. The thing is that the Muslim Brotherhood is just getting rolling. Things are going to get much, much worse.

 

[Sahar]

Wait, if you're talking about the ID thing, I did admit my error in that thread. (Indeed, Fox is not a credible source, and I was a fool for having posted it at face value!)

Sorry, maybe you just missed my apology in that thread. I did admit I was in error due to a faulty source, and if I wasn't clear there, hopefully I'm clear here :sorry1:

OK

I did still think it was weird that the Arabic-language source given to me by someone in that thread still mentioned the religion change *in itself* (outside of the illegal documentation) was cited in the sentencing, mind you, but I didn't find the need to press the point too far.

Three members whose first language is Arabic did tell you that the google translation was not good. But it's up to you anyway to believe that or not.

So why did Bassem have to *pay bail* if he did nothing wrong? Why was he arrested in the first place -- I certainly couldn't go file a bunch of ugly complaints against Jon Stewart and get him arrested. So why could Egyptians get Bassem arrested? The whole question here hasn't been resolved: why did the state find him plausibly guilty of a crime enough to actually arrest? Then force him to pay bail to get out?

When you face charges, you can be innocent and get arrested by police...you can be innocent and get questioned..you can be innocent and be released on bail...you can be innocent and go to court. The court decides if the person is innocent or not.
If you have some info saying that the "state" (though, don't know what you mean by the state exactly) found him guilty, I hope you will share your source with us.

Do you have to pay to "freely" express opinions about Morsi or the MB in Egypt?

[/QUOTE]
People (including media) who don't like Morsi and the MB, do voice their opinions to the most free possible level up to fabricating news, spreading lies, and inciting violence against them, of course the insults and demonization of MB don't stop, it's occurring day and night on TV, in newspapers, the internet, in the streets. No worries.

 

[Sahar]

They refers to the people of Egypt.

I know they didn’t want what they have now, but they have it anyways and have no choice over the matter, so they are stuck with whatever oppressive regime they have.

Am I wrong?

Are Egyptians happy with their current government or state of governance?

No they are not happy. The reasons can vary but what I know that the good section of them are not happy because economy is bad, the prices are rising, they can't find enough gas, they don't feel safe....because people are fighting over politics...because violent protests don't stop...etc. I guess the last thing they care about is Bassem Yousef's case...what do we expect from people who can't find a decent life and their basic needs?

However, all this instability and chaos are very much expected after the toppling of a regime. It's not like the economy is going to improve between day and night, or the corruption will end by a magic wand, or the police whose creed was to humiliate the poor citizens will suddenly change...the anti-revolution forces are working very hard to prevent any change...because they feed on corruption...

Of course there are Egyptians who are troubled by the arrest of Bassem and they are expressing their condemnation and anger freely.
No one can actually stop any person from expressing anything (including violence) these days in Egypt.
I don't think there was any time in which Egyptians could speak freely as it's now in Egypt.

 

[Sahar]

I know they didn’t want what they have now, but they have it anyways and have no choice over the matter, so they are stuck with whatever oppressive regime they have.

The majority voted for the Constitution freely. Egyptians democratically elected Morsi. They also elected the members of the dissolved parliament freely. And guess what the secularists and the liberals keep losing. Most of them are a bunch of hypocrites who don't really believe in democracy. They want secular dictatorship (even military rule) because they can't have the majority of voices.

Egyptians will determine how the next Parliament will look like. Egyptians can change the President. They are not stuck with the current president or the government.

 

[Sahar]

Blasphemy isn't free speech in Egypt?

Egypt’s main blasphemy law, Article 98(f) of the EPC, criminalizes “any use of religion to promote or advocate extremist ideologies…with a view toward stirring up sedition, disparaging or showing contempt for any divinely revealed religion, or prejudicing national unity and social harmony.” Other provisions of the EPC address various forms of religious insult. For example, Article 160 punishes the destruction, vandalism, or desecration of religious buildings, sites, symbols, cemeteries, and graves, as well as the hindering of religious ceremonies. Article 161 prohibits the printing and dissemination of deliberately distorted religious texts for state-approved religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism), and also criminalizes the mocking or ridicule of religious ceremonies in public.
reports

 

[Debater Slayer]

The majority voted for the Constitution freely. Egyptians democratically elected Morsi. They also elected the members of the dissolved parliament freely. And guess what the secularists and the liberals keep losing. Most of them are a bunch of hypocrites who don't really believe in democracy. They want secular dictatorship (even military rule) because they can't have the majority of voices.

Egyptians will determine how the next Parliament will look like. Egyptians can change the President. They are not stuck with the current president or the government.

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen any Egyptian politician who claims to be a "secularist" or "liberal" who hasn't said hypocritical stuff that clearly contradicts their supposed stance. Almost each and every one of the more "popular" self-proclaimed secularist politicians has tried to deceive people into voting for them by appealing to religion, contradicting their own statements, and assuming an unclear stance that doesn't seem to be on either end of the spectrum.

... but that's not to say that the Islamist parties there are any better; it just means that the political climate as a whole is really messed up, and the people keep paying for it.

 

[Sahar]

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen any Egyptian politician who claims to be a "secularist" or "liberal" who hasn't said hypocritical stuff that clearly contradicts their supposed stance. Almost each and every one of the more "popular" self-proclaimed secularist politicians has tried to deceive people into voting for them by appealing to religion, contradicting their own statements, and assuming an unclear stance that doesn't seem to be on either end of the spectrum.

... but that's not to say that the Islamist parties there are any better; it just means that the political climate as a whole is really messed up, and the people keep paying for it.

I agree.

 

[dust1n]

Egypt’s main blasphemy law, Article 98(f) of the EPC, criminalizes “any use of religion to promote or advocate extremist ideologies…with a view toward stirring up sedition, disparaging or showing contempt for any divinely revealed religion, or prejudicing national unity and social harmony.” Other provisions of the EPC address various forms of religious insult. For example, Article 160 punishes the destruction, vandalism, or desecration of religious buildings, sites, symbols, cemeteries, and graves, as well as the hindering of religious ceremonies. Article 161 prohibits the printing and dissemination of deliberately distorted religious texts for state-approved religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism), and also criminalizes the mocking or ridicule of religious ceremonies in public.
reports

So Egypt stills lack free speech. Thanks for the info.