« | »

6th Day Of Tahrir Square Protests Against Morsi

From Reuters:

Egypt protests continue in crisis over Mursi powers

By Edmund Blair | November 28, 2012

CAIRO (Reuters) – Hundreds of demonstrators were in Cairo’s Tahrir Square for a sixth day on Wednesday, demanding that President Mohamed Mursi rescind a decree they say gives him dictatorial powers, while two of Egypt’s top courts stopped work in protest.

Sadly, this is what democracy looks like. Which is why the founders wanted a republic. Democracies always turn into dictatorships. Though, granted, they usually take a little longer to do so than Egypt has.

Five months into the Islamist leader’s term, and in scenes reminiscent of the popular uprising that unseated predecessor Hosni Mubarak last year, police fired teargas at stone-throwers following protests by tens of thousands on Tuesday against the declaration that expanded Mursi’s powers and put his decisions beyond legal challenge.

Protesters say they will stay in Tahrir until the decree is withdrawn, bringing fresh turmoil to a nation at the heart of the Arab Spring and delivering a new blow to an economy already on the ropes.

Egypt’s Cassation and Appeals courts said they would suspend their work until the constitutional court rules on the decree, which has further damaged Mursi’s already testy relationship with the country’s judges.

In a speech on Friday, Mursi praised the judiciary as a whole but referred to corrupt elements he aimed to weed out.

A spokesman for the Supreme Constitutional Court, which declared the Islamist-led parliament void earlier this year, said on Wednesday that it felt under attack by the president…

Remember when Obama threatened our Supreme Court over their ruling on Obama-Care? Too bad they didn’t the courage to stand up to him like this.

Senior judges have been negotiating with Mursi about how to restrict his new powers, while protesters want him to dissolve an Islamist-dominated assembly that is drawing up a new constitution and which Mursi protected from legal review…

But Morsi said this is what the people wanted.

Mursi’s administration insists that his actions were aimed at breaking a political logjam to push Egypt more swiftly towards democracy, an assertion his opponents dismiss.

And Morsi will decide what is ‘democracy.’

"The president wants to create a new dictatorship," said 38-year-old Mohamed Sayyed Ahmed, who has not had a job for two years. He is one of many in the square who are as angry over economic hardship as they are about Mursi’s actions.

"We want the scrapping of the constitutional declaration and the constituent assembly, so a new one is created representing all the people and not just one section," he said…

Mursi said elements of his decree giving his decisions immunity applied only to matters of "sovereign" importance, a compromise suggested by the judges in talks.

That should limit it to issues such as declaring war, but experts said there was much room for interpretation…

Many liberals, Christians and more moderate Muslims have walked out [of the assembly], saying their voices were not being heard in the body dominated by Islamists

Who could have seen this coming when they put the Muslim Brotherhood in power? Except everyone.

In fact, this raises the question which thought is worse? That the Obama administration didn’t realize this would happen? Or that they did realize this would happen?

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, November 28th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “6th Day Of Tahrir Square Protests Against Morsi”

  1. Rusty Shackleford

    “Sadly, this is what democracy looks like. Which is why the founders wanted a republic. Democracies always turn into dictatorships. Though, granted, they usually take a little longer to do so than Egypt has.

    I’ve been thinking this for years, ever since it was explained to me the difference between a democracy (of which there are different styles) and a representative republic, which is arguably a very fragile thing. For, in order for a republic to survive, the members must think towards the common good by appealing to the needs of the individual in the sense of how freedom helps them. In a democracy, collective socialism takes hold and though the same basic tenets hold true, they are resolved at the state level instead of letting the individuals choose for themselves.

    When one factors into that the very collective attitude that people tend to look to authority figures to solve their problems, even when “taking the law into their own hands” type of arguments, then it runs the risk of bureaucrats deciding on blanket policies and ridiculous levels of application for all.

    The national socialist believes that all people can be made to fit in a particular mold, if the right behavior modification is applied.

    The national republican (in the academic sense) believes that people, when left to their own devices, will work to survive and to better their own lot in life. The only protections needed are to guard against the vices that may cause said republican from interfering with the rights of others.

    Thus we have the “argument” the committed leftists have been crying for years, where they believe that the United States and “evil capitalists” are an “evil empire” that “robs the world of its resources and steals from the poor”.

    Well….firstly they know nothing about empires and how they came about. But when explained, they then get into the mechanics of “greedy capitalism” and believe that people are unfairly leveraged into being forced to give up their natural resources. When I use the oil example, their argument falls apart. We needed oil. They had it. We provided incentives (cash) for them to let us have it. They took that money and kept it for themselves and let only a very few of their countrymen have it because they still live in the 7th century. It is their custom and we didn’t care to change any of that….just let us buy the oil. We’ll pay for the drilling, the land leases, the manpower, all of it. Just let us buy it and we’ll leave you alone.

    But the committed leftists think that it’s the evil oil companies that have caused all the unrest in the middle east when in reality, they’d be at each other regardless of oil. But the leftists cannot comprehend that.

    Secondly….”stealing from the poor”. Well, only the stupidest of thieves would steal from the poor. The poor have nothing to offer. If anything, the committed leftists groom the poor to get their vote so they can continue to get more stuff by stealing from the self-sufficient.

  2. GetBackJack

    And … it will do no good whatsoever

  3. canary

    Americans should take down notes. We have Hillary cheering on Turkey to attack Syria with U.S. Patriot missiles comparing it to the people of Cairo’s protests.
    Obama administration calling terrorist murderers in Benghazi a protest, upping it to a mob.

    Such hypocrisy if roosters came back to roost.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »