Below is a complete copy of Amnesty's condemnation of the continued detention of the "Queen Boat 55" as a blatant breach of the most fundamental of all human rights - the freedom to chose one's partner and to one's own sexuality without fear of arrest. 8 June 2001 AI Index MDE 12/015/2001 - News Service Nr. 100 Egypt: Concerns over detention of alleged gays "Amnesty International is gravely concerned about the ongoing detention of scores of men in Egypt in connection with their sexual orientation," the international organization said today. On 6 and 7 June 2001 54 men were brought before the public prosecution in Cairo facing accusations of "immoral behaviour" and "contempt of religion". The men remain in detention since their arrest during the early hours of 11 May 2001. The following day, they were brought before the public prosecution where they were issued with a detention order and transferred to Tora Prison where they continue to be held. "Amnesty International believes that the majority, if not all, of these men are detained purely on the grounds of their alleged sexual orientation," the organization said. If people are detained solely on account of their sexual orientation, Amnesty International would consider them prisoners of conscience and call for their immediate and unconditional release. During the hearings on 6 and 7 June, the results of forensic medical examinations of all the detainees were presented. According to Amnesty International's information, these examinations were primarily conducted in order to establish whether the men had practised anal sex. Media coverage of this incident by Egyptian newspapers has centred on the alleged sexual orientation of the men, portraying the men in a negative light. In many instances detailed information pertaining to the men has been published in the press, including names of those arrested, in some cases their places of work and in one case even the family address of one of the detainees. Amnesty International is also extremely concerned about allegations that the detainees were tortured or ill-treated during the first days of their detention. There were also reports of ill- treatment during their arrest. These serious allegations should be promptly investigated by the Egyptian authorities. A few days after the arrest Amnesty International wrote to the Public Prosecutor expressing its concerns and seeking further clarification about the detention of these men. The organization has still not received a response. Background Amnesty International believes that the vilification and persecution of persons for their sexuality violate the most fundamental principles of international human rights law. The right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexual orientation, is recognized in regional and international treaties, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Egypt is a state party. "Contempt of religion" is prohibited under Article 98 (f) of the Egyptian Penal Code and stipulates prison sentences of between six months and five years. Amnesty International has repeatedly criticized the use of this vaguely worded article which has been used as the legal pretext for the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience. Earlier this year writer Salah al-Din Muhsin was sentenced to three years' imprisonment under Article 98 (f) for "offending religion" in his publications. Charged with violating the same article, Manal Wahid Mana'i, the alleged leader of a religious group, and three of her followers were sentenced to prison terms of between three and five years in September 2000. Amnesty International considers these men and women to be prisoners of conscience. \ENDS public document For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW web : http://www.amnesty.org *********************************************************** The following is the prejudist and bigoted response of Rose Al Youssef to Amnesty's Report. Kindly translated by an anonymous contributor: Special Report How Could Anyone Believe them After this Ridiculous Statement?: They're Defending Egyptian Perverts Under the Pretext of "Human Rights"! What we consider perversion, they consider personal freedom What we consider as maintaining intelligence contacts, they consider as practicing political freedom! From now on: We have to submit the statements of these Organizations to lying and prejudice detectors! The Amnesty International Statement issued last week can only be described as "ridiculous" .. It reveals the vast gap in definitions of values, and reveals that this Organization's (as well as others) statements should not be overlooked. Amnesty International surprised everybody by its statement in defending a group of perverts who were recently accused in Egypt of forming "Lot Organization". Amnesty International considered the process of legally punishing these people as an act against human rights! What's this nonsense all about? Why don't they understand the obvious cultural and value differences between them and us? And why do they want to impose their beliefs upon us? If they consider perversion an expression of personal freedom, we consider it an attack on values and beliefs .. What we consider maintaining intelligence contacts and an act against national security (as in the case of Saad El-Deen Ibrahim), they consider as practicing political freedom! What we reject, such as abortion, they support by all means. The following report reveals that reaching an agreement is hard, and that each and every statement issued by such Organizations has to be scrutinised, and has to go first through a lying and prejudice detector. Rose El-Yousef ================================== ********************************* Human Rights Activists in Egypt Respond to the Awkward Statement: Amnesty International .. Excuse Me, This is Prostitution not Human Rights! Negad El-Borai: Certain organisatios want to impose their personal views .. including perversion .. on us! Abu-Seada: Abortion is not among the concerns of Human Rights Activism! Zarea: We refused to defend the suspects in the Homosexuals Case .. They haven't been subjected to any violation Report by: Atef Hilmi It seems that Amnesty International, on the occasion of its fourtieth Anniversary, wanted to present an extremely ridiculous comic show, without making sure that this fantasy is funny to everybody. It chose a silly case for this purpose, namely the recently discovered "perverts' Organization". Amnesty International chose it on top of its priorities in defence of human rights around the world - considering these suspects as prisoners of conscience instead of criminals! Regardless of what is going to happen to these suspects, who stand now facing the Egyptian Court System .. whether they are found guilty or not .. the approach of Amnesty International poses several questions regarding the statements released by international human rights Organizations, and regarding these Organizations' awareness of other people's cultural and religious specificity. This in tern generates another question regarding the different standards used in defining the priorities of these societies. More and above, it leads us to consider the ways in which we should not mix up the fixed human rights principles on the one hand, and the personal views endorsed by an individual or a group of people here and there. There is a host of other questions which we carried to several human rights activists in Egypt. "To us, in Egypt, we cannot consider such a case as "perverts' Organization" a human rights cause. It comes under prostitution and is an attack on the society's values. This is the responsibility of Vice Squad forces, and has nothing to do with human rights or freedom of opinion". These were the words of the lawyer Negad El-Borai, who then added saying that these people (meaning Amnesty International) suffer from schizophrenia, and their statement bears witness to the fact that they have no idea about the reality of the Egyptian society. Issuing this kind of statement harms the human rights movement in Egypt and the Arab world. These Organizations, which deal with freedoms, should not defend prostitution. This is the worse deformation of human rights principles." "I don't know why this case became among the priorities of Amnesty International, although this same Organization has spotted out extreme examples of human rights violations in the USA [sic]. So why isn't they place such cases on top of their priority list instead of adopting prostitution?" He adds: "Perhaps this difference in the order of priorities lies in the fact that many western Organizations adopt subjective attitudes and personal issues rather than general issues. Personal background also plays a role in such situations. Therefore, we should not be diverted by such matters, which lead us to ignore our main and sole mission, namely defending freedoms [sic]. Unfortunately, this statement issued by Amnesty International makes any subsequent statements worthless." This is not the first time where there is a difference of points of view between Arab human rights Organizations on the one hand, and western Organizations on the other hand. Negad El-Borai says: "We have experienced difference of opinions when they demanded suspending the legal punishment by execution. They do not understand the different nature of the Arab and Islamic societies governed by religion and "Sharia" (Islamic law). They have to take into consideration the religious and cultural values of other people." Regarding the "perverts' Organization" in particular -according to Negad El-Borai- "A prisoner of conscience is the human being who is subjected to violation in consequence to a non-violent expression of one's beliefs. In this case -i.e. perversion-, they did not simply express their beliefs, but formed an Organization, announced themselves and held parties that offended the values and feelings of others. Nevertheless, if we consider this issue a matter of freedom of opinion as claimed by Amnesty International, (this being a false hypothesis in the first place [sic]), is this issue of supreme importance in Egypt or any other country of the Third World? This is unacceptable. We have other far more pressing and urgent cases related to freedoms and human rights violations. These should be on top of our priorities, instead of prostitution. The Amnesty International statement seriously harms the international human rights movement which is governed by concrete standards [sic]. These agreed upon standards include the rejection of illegal torture and murder [sic], and the absence of justice in trials. There are other negotiable standards and principles, and nobody has the right to impose them on others." Negad El-Borai adds "International human rights Organizations follow the principle of taking into consideration the specificity of each country and region. Amnesty International should have consulted human rights in Egypt before issuing their statement. But this did not happen. Whoever issued the statement did so by expressing his personal opinion while seated at his comfortable desk in London (Amnesty International headquarters). The process did not follow the protocol, thus turning the matter into a ridiculous act." On the other hand, the Human Rights Center of Aid for Prisoners took a practical stance regarding the perverts' Organization. Mohamed Zarea, the Center Director, says: "As a lawyer, I was personally contacted by some of the families of suspects in this case following their arrest. But I refused to get involved in this kind of case, on personal grounds. Many lawyers refuse defending certain types of suspects, including those related to prostitution. Regarding the Center, we have other considerations as well. This is a crime, while we as a human rights center are not concerned with all crimes but focus on violations against prisoners and detainees during investigations or imprisonment, such as torture or false confessions given under pressure… etc. We did not receive any complaints [sic] from these suspects about being subjected to any pressures or torture to admit their homosexuality. They willingly admitted their homosexuality. We therefore did not have any grounds for getting involved as a human rights Center. They are now in the hands of Justice [sic] and are accused of violating national law, all religions, as well as our traditions, customs and values." Commenting on the Amnesty International statement, Mohamed Zarea says "This statement is the most awkward thing we've ever received. With due respect to the international history of Amnesty International, we find it very strange. It could also lead to a pressure campaign against human rights Organizations in Egypt. I expect certain currents to make use of this statement to press several accusations against Egyptian human rights Organizations -- such accusations as allowing and promoting perversion. This reminds me of the events of 1993 when the Egyptian Human Rights Organization supported the case against 'Female Genital Mutilation' (FGM). Although we based our position then on religious and historical evidence which state that FGM is considered a crime against females, still we were subjected to severe attacks and accused of promoting promiscuity. The situation did not change until many years later when a fatwa was issued by the Sheikh of Al-Azhar and the Mufti [supreme Islamic religious authorities] supporting our view. The Ministry of Health is currently involved in awareness campaigns against FGM." "This does not mean that we support the Amnesty International statement concerning the perverts' Organization. This is a crime against human nature and against religious values. We therefore call upon Amnesty International to show respect for the religious, cultural specificity of other countries and to respect their traditions. By irresponsible acts, Amnesty International causes harm to human rights Organizations in Egypt and the Arab World." "Defending perverts is naturally not the first nor is it the last of such issues used by certain groups to impose their personal beliefs or views on others under the pretext of defending human rights. One of the most obvious issues in this respect has to do with abortion which is controversial even in western societies. But some groups are trying to impose the issue by force, which has even reached a war-like stage in the European society itself [sic]. The latest of such incidents is the Dutch Ship 'Sea of Change' which took off last week heading to Ireland on its way to several African countries to offer abortion opportunities on board the ship outside the regional waters of countries where abortion is illegal. According to the Dutch Organization holding the journey 'Women on the Waves', the main objective of the event is to offer women choice. That's what they say [sic]." We find in this context that the Egyptian Human Rights Organization has a different opinion on the matter based on the social and religious values as well as Egyptian laws and legislation. Hafiz Abu-Seada, General Secretary of the Egytpain Human Rights Organization says: "We cannot consider the issue of abortion among the concerns of human rights Organizations since international conventions such as the International Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women did not bring this issue on board. The attempts of some people to impose their vision on others is in itself a crime against human rights. The attempts of one group to impose its values and traditions on others who differ culturally, cannot be considered at all as related to issues of freedom or human rights. This was a mistake made by Amnesty International when it issued its latest statement considering the perverts Organization prisoners of conscience. " "Moreover, the issue of abortion for instance is still very controversial even in western societies. In the USA, for example, a large section of the Republican Party stand against abortion, and the difference of opinion continues to exist within the context of party politics and competition. It hasn't been classified yet as a human right." Abu-Seada continues to argue "In our Arab legislation, laws give the fetus its full right. In inheritance laws, unborn babies get the largest share of the inheritance. If the baby is born a boy, he gets his full right and so is the case with the newborn girl. The issue is complex here as abortion is related to religious beliefs, and consequently cannot be considered at all a matter of human rights because abortion itself is a crime - a murder, depriving a human being from the right to life. There is no text that concretely defines the right to abortion in terms of approval of rejection. Therefore if we rely on interpretation, we find ourselves - we Arabs - as well as all western religious entities sharing interpretations that go hand in hand with human rights principles and international conventions. The right to life is the supreme human right, so how can we approve of murder even if it were a three month old fetus?! Killing is a crime in all cases, there is no difference whether the victim is a child, a fetus or a grownup. This makes abortion an issue against Arab and Islamic culture and beliefs - against all beliefs in that matter. It is a crime even when legalised in the countries that allow abortion. " If this is the point of view adopted by the Egyptian human rights Organizations, there is also the legal stance based on the law, Islamic legislation as well as social traditions, values and beliefs. In this context, Khaled Talaat, the lawyer and human rights activist defines the legal framework of the individual's personal freedom in the society. Khaled Talaat says: "We probably all believe in the saying "do what you want as long as you don't harm others. Unfortunately such a saying is rather elastic when for instance applied to the perverts Organization suspects. They would say that they did not harm others, while this is not exactly the case. They went into the society, held parties, spread their photos and ideas through the internet. Hence offending our feelings." "If there is something like criminalised social behaviour, then there is a problem in the foundations for criminalisation. Does criminalisation rely on customs, traditions and values, or is it based on laws and Islamic legislation. If a female university student is caught smoking cigarettes for instance, then the criminalisation is based here on social customs and traditions because her deed is seen as a social crime that can be legal and acceptable in another society. This means that punishment depends on the society in accordance with its traditions and values." "Finally, in spite of the role undertaken by international human rights Organizations, it does not have to mean that we should by necessity accept the imported attitudes and views. We share these Organizations' belief in the principles of international human rights conventions, by we cannot by all means accept to become a backyard or mere followers of imposed views that do not conform to our religious and cultural values, and that do not express but the personal problems of such individuals in their societies." Latest news 22 May 2012: Cairo psychiatrist claims he can "cure" 70 to 75 per cent of gay teenagers.