Chit-chat controversy

Are government officials free to express personal viewpoints? Not really, discovers Jailan Halawi

---

The way the press handled the row sparked by Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni following his comments on the hijab, or headscarf, reflects a rift in the nation's understanding of the limits of freedom, each pulling in a different direction. So far it remains unclear which party will win.

The row was sparked by an article published last week Thursday in the daily independent Al-Masri Al-Yom in the form of an interview with Hosni during which he expressed his personal views concerning women covering their heads, describing it as "a setback" and "a symbol of backwardness".

While sticking to his opinion, Hosni stated that his comments were part of a "chit-chat" reflecting his own personal views rather than an official stance. Yet, no matter which context his words were said in, the fact remained that the subject he talked about obviously represents a weak spot in a nation where secularism and fanaticism seem to run parallel.

The news dominated this week's press as it coincided with the opening session of the People's Assembly, whose MPs opened fire on Hosni, some calling for his resignation or a public apology. Some claimed that because Hosni is a minister who represents the government, he is not free to express ideas that antagonise the public. A counter-campaign was launched in Hosni's defence pointing fingers at what his supporters described as a fanatical attempt to suppress freedom and terrorise opposition views.

In a full page, the daily Al-Ahrar, mouthpiece of Al-Ahrar Party, dedicated a full page to the story, sounding expert reaction that clearly was not on Hosni's side. The article quoted Islamic scholar Abdel-Moeti Bayoumi's denunciation of Hosni's comments. "Criticising the hijab came from a minister who represents the government whose official religion is Islam," Bayoumi said. Another scholar was quoted as saying that the remarks "are a clear invitation to violence since it incites conflict within society". The article reported news of individuals filing complaints to the prosecutor- general's office against Hosni, calling on him to stand trial for deriding Islam.

Similarly went the daily Al-Wafd newspaper, mouthpiece of the opposition Wafd Party, with its red banner reading: "The NDP MPs slaughter Farouk Hosni". Al-Wafd coverage did not exceed displaying the People's Assembly's session and the petitions filed against the minister without any special columns or coverage sounding other reactions. Equally reserved was the coverage of the pro-government daily Al-Gumhuriya. While minimising the space of its front page coverage of the event, Galal El-Sayed of the daily pro-government Al-Akhbar wrote a column in praise of the People Assembly's stance regarding Hosni. "A collective call for the minister's resignation" was the headline of El-Sayed's column in which he displayed the statements of denunciation by MPs against Hosni. He ended his column by noting, "any official who wishes to express his personal views has to first leave his post, specially when his views oppose that of the general stream which he represents. There are limits to freedom of expression whereby personal freedoms should not encroach on other freedoms including that of religious beliefs."

Hosni's statement, however, seemed to have forged some sort of agreement for the first time between NDP MPs and those of the Muslim Brotherhood, explained the banner of the daily independent Al-Masri Al-Yom, the newspaper that broke the story.

Yet, the newspaper carried articles in the minister's defence like that of Samir Farid. "Hosni's statements were obviously blown out of proportion and turned into a political issue, since he neither asked veiled women to take it off, nor did he talk on behalf of the government but made it clear that he was expressing his own personal opinion." When Hosni described the hijab as a step backward, noted Farid, "he had a point since 25 years ago, it was not that common for women to don the veil and yet they were Muslims." Farid explained that the concept of the veil was a novelty to Egyptian culture, copied from the oil-rich Gulf countries (where hijab is part of their culture and understanding of Islam) where many Egyptians travelled for work and were hence influenced by their culture. "Hosni," noted Farid, "was hence defending the Egyptian culture, and if he does not who else will?"

In "Chill out" Assem Hanafi in Al-Qahira criticised the row sparked over Hosni's statements, describing it as an attempt at "suppression" by fundamentalists who wish to squash voices that dare differ or oppose their views. "Our fundamentalist brothers thought that they had won the hijab battle, that it had become a fait accompli in Egypt, and moved next to forcing the niqab (face cover). Then came the minister of culture casting doubts over the whole issue [of the obligation of women wearing a headscarf] and hence the row. Thus, [such fundamentalists] launched a campaign of terror [against the minister] in an attempt to flex muscles to demonstrate how opposing views, over an issue that has not yet been settled, would be dealt with."

While everything, including religious issues, ought to be discussed freely, argued Hanafi, fundamentalists have exerted much effort over the past years to stigmatise ideas that differ from what the group considers "an established fact".

"Despite the existence of highly reputable voices doubting the concept of hijab, I don't understand why all this rage over an issue that has been controversial for many years."

In the daily pro-government Al-Ahram, Nabil Omar wrote: "The culture of backwardness" criticising the ferocity by which Hosni's statements were met. "Could it be possible that in the 21st century we are still upholding the mentality of that of the 12th? The answer is yes, since back then men of the church used to describe women who leave their homes without a head cover as adulterous, which more or less is what's happening in our culture today. Backwardness breeds intolerance and here I am not arguing whether the hijab is obligatory or not, but about the mentality of a nation and its way of thinking that cannot tolerate an opposing view and has opened fire on a minister for thinking differently."

Omar said a nation's culture and hence development is measured by its ability to accept differences in all aspects of life including views, and that the squabble raised over the minister's personal view is a dangerous sign, insisting that, "nations do not flourish by stoning those who have different views but rather by keeping the doors of dialogue open."