June 24, 2001

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please note that direct contact with the Egyptian government is not suggested; inasmuch as the current events seem to ride on the crest of
anti-foreign xenophobia, such contacts may be counterproductive.

Thank you for your attention to this grave situation.

A detailed report follows this message.

William Courson
======================================================
RECENT EVENTS IN THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
INVOLVING THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY

l. THE PRESENT SITUATION

The information comprising this section of the communication has been
provided by the International Secretariat of Amensty International’s
Research Bureau and the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
A number of non-governmental organizations have evinced their grave concern
about the ongoing detention of scores of men in the United Arab Republic of
Egypt in apparent connection with their sexual orientation.
On June 6th and 7th, 2001, 54 men were brought before the Office of
Public Prosecutions in Cairo facing accusations of “immoral behaviour” and
“contempt of religion.” These men have remained 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 had stated its belief that the majority, if
not all, of these men are being detained purely on the grounds of their
alleged sexual
orientation, i.e., they are believed to be homosexual, and thus prisoners of
conscience.
During the hearings on June 6th and 7th, the results of forensic
medical examinations of all the detainees were presented. According to
observers, these
examinations were primarily conducted in order to establish whether the men
had practised anal sex.
In an apparent effort to coerce the detainees into silence and
stifle any attempt at organizing public manifestations of disapproval at
their arrest and
detention, media coverage of this incident by government-owned and
government–controlled 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.
There is also intense concern – on the basis of observation - about
allegations that the detainees were tortured and otherwise ill-treated
during the first days of their detention. There were also reports of ill-
treatment during their the course of their arrest. These allegations have
not been investigated or addressed by the Egyptian authorities.
A few days after the arrest the London-based Amnesty International
wrote to the Chief Public Prosecutor expressing its concerns over the men’s
condition and seeking further clarification about their detention. The
organization has still – nearly a month after the fact - not received a
response.
The vilification and persecution of persons for their sexuality
violate the most fundamental principles of international human rights law,
including in the
instant case the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to
freedom from cruel and inhuman treatment, the right to equality before the
law, the right to freedom from discrimination, and the rights to association
and assembly as guaranteed by a number of international agreements to which
Egypt is a party
and thus bound, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights (among others).
All of the foregoing treaties state plainly, or have been
interpreted to mean, that the right to freedom from discrimination on the
basis of sex, which includes sexual orientation, is recognized as a right
which states are bound to espect, protect and promote.
In terms of Egyptian domestic law, “contempt of or offense toward
religion” is prohibited under Article 98 (f) of the Egyptian Penal Code, and
stipulates
prison sentences of between six months and five years. Human rights
advocates have repeatedly criticized the use of this vaguely worded article
that has often
been used as the legal pretext for the imprisonment of prisoners of
conscience. Earlier this year noted writer and human rights advocate 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 Manai, 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. Human rights advocate consider these men and women to be prisoners of
conscience.

II. SUMMARY of EVENTS LEADING UP TO JUNE 6th and 7th, 2001

On the night of May 10th, 2001, Cairo law enforcement agents
arrested approximately 55 Egyptian men in a raid a boat moored in the Nile
in Cairo’s
Zamalek district known as the "Queen Boat," a discotheque frequented by
homosexual persons on Thursday evenings. Although the venue is neither
openly nor exclusively a homosexual entertainment venue. Since then, the men
have been held incommunicado without access to legal representation or to
their families.
State Security officers have described the detained men as members
of a "Satanist" organization, and have publicly threatened to try them
before a
Special State Security Court, whose procedures have been found to violate
international norms of a fair trial and whose judgments admit no appeal.
Sources in Egypt, communicating under condition of anonymity, fear
the men are being tortured while in detention. As noted above, they have
been the subject of
intense vilification in the Egyptian press, promoting fears of both
religious dissent and foreign influences.
There is grave concern that these men are victims of trumped-up charges, and
that the Government is determined to improve its own increasingly perilous
political position by taking sexual nonconformity as the sign of a
subversive cult, or of heretical religious nonconformity. Given Egypt’s
religious composure, it is likely that nearly universal public support would
be lent to government efforts to prosecute (effectively, persecute), condemn
and punish these individuals notwithstanding Egypt’s international legal and
moral
obligations to respect, promote and protect human rights.
There is also grave concern that these men may have been subjected
to torture, and that the prosecution of 55 purported "Satanists" will only
whet, not sate,
the State's appetite for the elimination of dissidents of any stripe,
political, cultural, religious or sexual: this incident may mark the
beginning of a broader
campaign of harassment against gay men and lesbian women – and their allies
- in Egypt. It is reported that each day the climate worsens, as new
articles in
State and non-State media dwell on the religious and political threat of
homosexuality.

III. DETAILS OF THE EVENTS OF THURSDAY, MAY 10th, 2001 AND FOLLOWING, AS
REPORTED FROM CAIRO:

On the night of Thursday, May 10, ten undercover officers from both
State Security and the Cairo vice squad entered the bar at about 2 AM; after
watching
(and, according to one news report, filming) the dancing for some time, they
began forcibly rounding up customers believed to be Egyptian citizens. An
Egyptian man who was present that night, but who managed to escape, has
stated that police targeted either men "who looked gay" or who were simply
unaccompanied by women. According to the English-language Cairo Times, no
foreigners were arrested; other sources have later suggested that five
foreigners were detained briefly, then freed.
The Cairo Times reported that 55 persons were arrested (other papers
have suggested 56, 60, or 62). One of them, a professor at Cairo
University's Faculty
of Medicine, "was slapped on the face several times by a police officer and
called a derogatory slang word for homosexual when he refused to go"
("Morality Police Crackdown," Cairo Times, May 17-23, 2001). The owner and
staff of the discotheque were not arrested. Those detained were driven to
the vice squad
headquarters in Abdin police station.
Reports in the Western press that a "gay wedding" was taking place
in the discotheque are apparently based on defamatory reporting in the
Egyptian media, and are untrue. In this case the charges are still more
severe.
The authorities have chosen to treat sexual nonconformity as the
mark not of a community but of a subversive cult. Officials of the High
State Security
Prosecution Office told the press that the men would be charged with
"exploiting religion to promote extreme ideas to create strife and
belittling revealed religions."
The Cairo Times also reports that the defendants will stand trial
before a State Security court, whose rulings are not subject to appeal.
The arrestees were interrogated for at least two days by the High
State Security Prosecution Office, led by Prosecutor Hisham Badawi. Their
whereabouts were not revealed to their families or friends. An Egyptian
source who wishes to remain anonymous has informed IGLHRC (i.e., the San
Francisco-based International Gay &
Lesbian Human Rights Commission):

“We couldn't do anything more than sending a lawyer to help. He went
to the police station to look for our friend and the others. But they denied
they were
there. After bribing a soldier, our lawyer found out that all the arrested
people were locked in there and that they'll be sent to the prosecutor next
morning. One only wonders what is going on in there. Still the lawyer
couldn't meet his client. Is it in the law that a lawyer can't meet his
client?”
On May 12, a source in the prosecutor's office told the press that
the defendants were "practicing deviant rituals and holding parties where
they practiced group sex and abnormal activities."
This statement inaugurated a vicious smear campaign in the Egyptian
media, seemingly aimed at pillorying the 55 arrestees before they could ever
approach trial. For the benefit of nationalists, they were identified as
Europeanized cosmopolitans and Israeli sympathizers; for the benefit of
Islamists, they were charged with Satanism.
On May 13, the daily paper Al Maasa alleged the defendants belonged
to an organized group, of religious heretics as well as foreign agents:

"The accused persons admitted to the police officers that they believe in .
. . perverse ideas which they brought from a perverse group in Europe whose
members
practice deviant practices such as homosexual marriage, and believe that
perverse relationships between men are stronger than sexual relationships
between men and women. Their ideas stress the negation of revealed
religions, which they consider based on absurd and mythical beliefs." The
group spread its ideas "among youth groups in universities, high schools,
and clubs."

The State Security Office had been tapping the telephones of members
of "the perverse group" for some time, Al Maasa reported.
On the same day, the crime page of the state-owned daily Al Ahram
also identified the defendants as devil worshippers and cultists, who "tried
to recruit new members to their cult and called on them to go to swim in the
Dead Sea in Jordan to be blessed by its water." One of the group, Al Ahram
stated, had confessed to being "immersed in Judaism."
Al Maasa on May 14 quoted Mohammed El Shahat, Professor of Islamic
Law at Tanta University, as urging that, with this "perversion" spreading,
the highest
possible punishment should be imposed for the sake of deterrence. (Egypt,
nonetheless, does not apply Islamic shari`ah law.)
On May 15, Al Maasa returned with the "Latest on Satanists' Case."
By this time a "leader" of the "group" had been identified: a man "who
traveled to a number of European countries as well as Israel, and is also a
prominent member of many international perverted organizations that are
widespread in these countries, and adopted their perverted ideas in
practicing deviance, and recruited a number of his friends to spread the
organization's ideas in Egypt."
The newspaper reported that three additional Satanist "cells" had
been closed down in the cities of Maadi, Heliopolis, and Hadayek el Kobba.
It also noted
that lawyers were refusing to attend hearings in the prosecutor's office
"after seeing the photos of the suspects in disgusting deviant poses," and
that the
suspects' families refused to visit them "for fear of scandal."
The truth appears to be quite different. The accused have so far
been denied legal representation.
According to the Cairo Times, a lawyer from the Hisham Mubarak
Center for Law--an independent Egyptian human rights organization--tried to
visit the defendants, but was turned away.
Another Egyptian source has told IGLHRC, "By a strange process,
State Security says that the prisoners themselves must appoint a lawyer by
writing out a power
of attorney in person; since no lawyer is allowed in to see them unless s/he
can produce a power of attorney, it becomes a catch-22 situation."
Meanwhile, family members have been forbidden to see the prisoners
and denied information about their whereabouts. The same source reports:

“Today I myself went, with the brother of one of the suspects, to
State Security Headquarters, where he asked to see him. Despite the fact
that a brother conforms to their requirements for an "immediate relative",
they absolutely refused to let him see the suspect in question, saying "Come
back on the 23rd [of May], and stand outside like all the [other families],
and you'll be able to see him being brought in."

The 23rd is the day for renewal of the detention period -- meaning
that he would just catch a glimpse of him being led in handcuffs from the
armored prison
van into the State Security building, but not be allowed to go inside and
talk to him.
The prisoners have reportedly been transferred to Tora Prison.
Egyptian human rights organizations have documented patterns of physical
abuse of prisoners in
Tora. IGLHRC's source fears that family visits are being denied in order to
conceal the evidence of physical torture during the interrogations.
In addition, Al-Wafd newspaper revealed on May 14 that State
Security had subjected the prisoners to an anal forensic medical
examination. Determinining whether they had been anally penetrated would
offer "proof" of their homosexuality. Both Human Rights Watch and IGLHRC
have condemned such examinations as a form of cruel and inhuman treatment,
"profoundly degrading and humiliating to those forced to undergo them." As
an intrusive assault by the State upon the bodily integrity of the victim,
they are comparable to forced examinations of women's virginity, a practice
which has also been condemned by the United Nations. (See Concluding
Observations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women: Turkey, 23/01/97, A/52/38/Rev.1, paras.151-206; and
Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the
Child : South Africa, 28/01/2000, CRC/C/15/Add.122.)
The present case bears some resemblance to a 1997 case in Egypt
where 78 teenage men were arrested, and, amid charges of homosexual
practices, accused of
Satanism. While the case never came to trial, their names and even
photographs were widely circulated in the popular media.
The case also follows on another incident in February 2000, in which
two gay Egyptians who had arranged dates through the Internet were arrested
and
charged with prostitution, a crime carrying a 3-6 year prison sentence.
Media coverage of that case played heavily on fears of globalization
and porous borders, with one newspaper warning of "new criminals" using "new
technologies" in a world "which will become one in a short while" (El Nabaa,
March 4, 2001).
Some human rights advocates fear that the Egyptian government is
combining homophobia and nationalism in a volatile and deadly cocktail, to
invigorate its support among conservative and Islamist political forces.
Further, it appears to be credible to expect that a police campaign
against Egyptian gays may be underway. The identities of those arrested in
the boat raid are already public knowledge: on May 13, Al Maasa listed 56
names of the accused. On May 15, the newspaper Al-Gomhoureya proceeded to
list the names, ages, and occupations of 30 members of the "Satanist
organization." The presence of doctors, lawyers, and engineers among the
"perverts" was particularly noted.
Beyond the humiliation such publicity entails, the details reveal an ominous
fact. Less than half of the names on the May 15 roster are from Al-Maasa's
older
list of arrestees; the rest of the names are new. One possible explanation
is that police are rounding up additional "Satanists," perhaps by forcing
those
already detained to name names.
An atmosphere of terror now invests much of Egypt's underground gay
community. Some gay men are reportedly destroying computer files, and even
their computers. One source in Egypt in a communication directed to IGLHRC
has asked that outsiders "Pray for us."

lll. THE LAW:

(a) DOMESTIC LAW OF THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT

According to the “World Legal Survey” prepared by ILGA (the
International Lesbian & Gay Association)
(see,http://www.ilga.org/Information/legal_survey/africa/egypt.htm)
homosexuality is not mentioned in the law of the United Arab Republic of
Egypt (and Sharia law does not apply). Although Egypt has some
administrative regulations concerning "offences against public morals and
sensitivities" which have been used against
homosexuals, homosexual acts are not illegal. The minimum age for
heterosexual, lesbian and gays sex is set at 18 (Art. 269 CC).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, prosecutors have charged the
detainees with the serious charge of “Offending Religion” under Section
98(f) of the Penal Code, which carries the possibility of sentences of
imprisonment of up to five years. Additionally, charges may be filed under
the relevant articles prohibiting
“prostitution” and engaging in “publicly scandalous conduct” which charges
are also subject to protracted terms of imprisonment.
In terms of Egypt’s Constitution (Constitution of the Arab Republic
of Egypt of 11 September 1971) Egypt is a social democracy in which Islam is
the state
religion. The Constitution provides for various human rights, including a
multiparty political system, regular elections, the rule of law, an
independent judiciary, freedom of opinion, and the right to peaceable
private assembly as well as the role of international law. However, both
the Emergency Law still in force (see below) as well as the novel
interpretations of Constitutional texts and international legal obligations
established by Egypt’s courts continue to restrict many basic rights. The
Government continues to restrict substantially basic rights of expression
and the press, and women, homosexual people, Jews and Egyptian Christians
face discrimination based on tradition and some aspects of the law.
The provisions of the Constitution apparently recognizing human and
civil rights are seriously neutered in their application by the continued
existence of Egypt’s “Emergency Law” as noted above (which has recently been
extended by Presidential decree for another three years, marking the third
decade since the
law was enacted on the 6th of October 1981 after the assassination of then
President Anwar Sadat) and by the recent issuing of Law No. 153 controlling
(in
fact, severely constraining) the activities of non-governmental
organizations including those monitoring human rights situations. So
invasive are these of
basic human and civil rights and fundamental freedoms that they have been
termed the "Second Constitution" of the country.
Illustrative of the degree of damage these are seen as doing to the
democratic process in Egypt, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Prof. Mary Robinson while visiting the country publicly and
unprecedentedly announced that she had decided to review Law No. 153 to
ensure that its articles did not contravene with international declarations
that protect the activities of non-governmental organizations, and guarantee
the freedom to form them, which it was found subsequently to do. Prof.
Robinson criticized the new law and publicly accused the Egyptian government
of
deliberately framing the law’s text in such a fashion as to evade the
country’s international obligations. Prof. Robinson asked human rights
organizations to form a non-governmental alliance to challenge the new law
during its
implementation, and she also invited them to resort to her whenever they
perceive any infringements of Egypt’s international obligations affecting
them, and promised immediate intervention.

(b) THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW

Egypt is party to a number of international conventions, treaties and
agreements seen as prohibiting conduct such as that exemplified by the
state's recent actions. These include the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (signed by Egypt on 4 August 1967 and ratified and
entered into force on 1 January 1982)and the Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed by Egypt on
26 June 1986 and ratified and entered into force on 27 June 1987).

IV. OTHER RECENT CASES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION INVOLVING
EGYPT

a.) The Sydney Star Observer (No. 339 , 30 January 1997, Sydney,
Australia)Reported that the Australian Federal Immigration Review Tribunal
last week upheld a gay man's appeal to have his Egyptian partner considered
for residency in Australia. The Australian embassy in Cairo had previously
told Christopher Lane his lover did not meet partnership criteria because of
their lack of time together. Lane argued – successfully - that Muslim laws
made it dangerous for the pair to associate too often during his visits to
Egypt, and said last week's
decision did not mean his partner would be automatically approved if he
re-applied to immigrate.

b.) According to a report furnished by GLAS (the Gay & Lesbian Archives
of Southern Africa housed at the University of the Witwatersrand) A
religious ruling by Egyptian authorities in 1997 provided that "A man can
undergo an operation to become a woman and a woman can do the reverse if a
doctor deems the intervention necessary to bring out signs of femininity or
masculinity which are present but hidden" said a new “fatwa” or religious
decision, from Al Azhar, the
highest Sunni Islam authority in Egypt. Sayed Abdullah, the first person to
undergo a sex-change operation was thrown out of Al Azhar University Medical
School in 1988. Taking the name of Sali Abdullah, the university condemned
the transsexual as a "disgusting imitation of a woman forbidden by Islam."
An administrative court later overturned the university's ruling and ordered
Sali
placed in Al Azhar's medical school for women. Sali married recently after
working as a belly dancer in a Cairo cabaret. She attracted numerous
clients, not to mention the interest of the Egyptian press. Though she has
been widely photographed, Sali has turned down repeated requests for
interviews from a number of news agencies, commenting, "My husband is
jealous and has forbidden me to speak to the press. I obey him to preserve
our happiness." (GLAS 1997 Archive)

c.) It was reported on 8 May. 1994 that two hundred twenty-seven
HIV-positive foreigners have been deported from Egypt since the AIDS
epidemic began according
to the (then) Deputy Health Minister. Mohammed Aboul Nasr also reported
that 178 Egyptians have died of AIDS and another 167 were at the time
HIV-positive. (RW/712)

d.) It was reported on 15 December 1994 that Egypt deported Nigerian
soccer player Yusif Omar the preceding December 11th because he tested
HIV-positive, according to Reuters news agency. Omar, 22, had signed a
contract with the professional team Olympic of Alexandria six months ago. He
told reporters at the airport he had no idea how he got infected, noting he
had not had a blood
transfusion and does not sleep around because he is a devout Muslim. Omar
was the 227th person kicked out of Egypt for testing HIV- positive. Three
hundred seventy-five Egyptians have been diagnosed with AIDS and 178 have
died, according to Health Minister Ali Abdel-Fattah el-Makhzan. (RW/1020)

e.) "Plain Bread," a noted autobiographical novel by Moroccan author
Muhammed Choukri, had in March of 1999 been dropped from the curriculum of
the American
University of Cairo for "indecency" because of its descriptions of his
homosexual experiences, according to the "Al-Wafd" newspaper. Although the
institution is privately-run, the withdrawal was announced to the parliament
this week by Egypt’s Minister of Higher Education, Mufid Shihab, who said
that, "Egypt allows free thinking but rejects violations of its values and
traditions." Despite some student complaints, the university had stated that
it will be establishing a committee to review books before they are taught
there.

f.) It was reported on 21 April, 2000 that, according to various
periodicals of the Egyptian government-controlled press, while society may
frown on
homosexuality, the state rarely interferes in relations between gay men;
however, when the Egyptian press discovered that two men in Zaqaziq had
gotten "married" by drawing up what the press called a private "urfi"
contract, the state was forced to act. Both men were taken into custody.
Thirty-eight year old Mumin S.— as he was called by the press—was charged
with a "violation of honor by threat," while Amir Mohammed Saber Abduh Ali,
18 or 19 years of age, was initially held on charges of practicing immoral
and indecent behavior before being released on 13 April. While local press
coverage carried somewhat conflicting information, all reported that the
relationship between the two men
had been going on for approximately one and a half years, during which Ali
worked for Mumin at the latter’s computer game store. Ali’s father
reportedly took his son to the police station to file a complaint against
Mumin for threatening his son after neighbors allegedly told him something
was fishy in the relationship between the two men. Al Maydan of 11 April
reported that the
youth at first denied that there was any sexual contact between the two men,
but later confessed that indeed they had been carrying on a relationship for
some time. He subsequently testified that he had been tricked into the
relationship.

V. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Because these men have been accused of acting under foreign
influence, some human rights advocacy organizations have not at this time
recommended that
individual activists outside Egypt communicate with the Egyptian government,
possibly reinforcing the impression already cultivated by comments in the
Egyptian media (probably acting at government behest) of conspiratorial
international activity aimed against both morality and the State.
Instead, they have urged for the present that sympathetic
governments and organizations directly approach the Egyptian government to
condemn this action.
These organizations have further suggested that concerned individuals
communicate with their Foreign Ministry, their member of Parliament or
Congress
and (for citizens of the European Union) their member of the European
Parliament. These organizations have suggested correspondence asking that
these institutions or representatives condemn the persecution and
prosecution of these men, both publicly and in private communications to the
Egyptian government.