Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

The Brotherhood’s MPs Spot the Defects of the anti-Terrorism Treaty

 Ninety three Members of Parliament (MPs), including the 88 Muslim Brotherhood’s bloc, refused the proposed amendments for the Arab Anti-Terrorism Treaty, sighed on April, 22, 1998. The paragraph, pertaining to the definition of a terrorist crime, of the third article of the treaty received the biggest share of objection.

Facebook Digg Yahoo Del.icio.us reddit StumbleUpon Mixx Google

 Ninety three Members of Parliament (MPs), including the 88 Muslim Brotherhood’s bloc, refused the proposed amendments for the Arab Anti-Terrorism Treaty, sighed on April, 22, 1998. The paragraph, pertaining to the definition of a terrorist crime, of the third article of the treaty received the biggest share of objection. The paragraph defines a terrorist crime as’ any incriminated act or plot of terrifying purpose committed or incited or disseminated in any country or targets its properties, or its interests, or its subjects. And printing, possessing, publishing any writings, or drawings, or audios, prepared to be distributed or viewed, provoke or promulgate such terrorist acts. The terrorist crime includes offering or collecting resources, no matter its kinds, for funding terrorist acts.’   
 
In this respect, the MPs lodged a written protest, singed by 93 legislatives, asserting that the suggested modification violates the international norms where its phases are loose.
 
Legally, the Brotherhood’s lawmaker, Ahmed Abu Brakh, refuted the treaty saying it is unacceptable. He, in addition, protested its executive regulation, indicating that its formula breaches the international rules along with the Egyptian constitution and laws. This refutation emphatically approved by the MPs. 
 
Primly, the vice president of the Brotherhood’s bloc, Hussein Ibrahem, stressed the unanimous rejection of terrorism. The bloc is against terrorism and supports its prevention by all means. However, he remarked that the introduced amendments, the entire treaty more accurately, are subject to criticism and objections, especially of the Amnesty International. The treaty, furthermore, is unconformable with the World Human Rights Declaration, where it breaches personal freedom, enfeebles __expression freedom, and widens the scale of detention.   
 
In his address, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood’s bloc, Muhammad el-Katatny, emphasized his refusal of the modification whose phrases are imprecisely interpretable. Therefore, it expands the circle of crackdowns and indictments: a matter which is frightening. He added that the proposals and the treaty, in general, discard the political element. Both of them focus on the human rights but ignore the organized terrorism; of states, of organizations, and of institutions.
 
On his part, Sheikh el-Said Asker, a Brotherhood’s MP, explained that the amendment does not explicitly define the term ’terrorism’. On the contrary, its provisions are vague providing a chance to put developing countries under control. On the other hand, the treaty does not imply an account of those who intimidate citizens raiding their homes and picking up them. 
 
Mahmmud Atia, a lawmaker, re-asserted this point adding if the terrorism is the terror of innocents, then who can account those who have intimidated voters in the recent polls. Who can reckon those who unjustly put innocents under arrest? Who can punish the Zionists who terrify the defenseless Palestinians? Who can sort the account of the Americans who terrorize both Afghans and Iraqis?