THE COPTS ARE A NATIONAL MINORITY

By Dioscorus Boles (On Coptic Nationalism, 8 December 2019)

Content
A. Why don’t the Arab Muslims of Egypt want us to claim a minority status?
B. What is a minority? In the science of sociology
C. Definition of minority in international law
D. Recognition of minorities is not an exclusive matter for states
E. There is no disagreement in international law about the minority status of autochonous minorities
F. A national minority is not a bone of contention – one knows a minority when one sees one
G. The legal international protection accorded to minority groups
H. The Copts are a minority
I. The likely benefits for the Copts from being considered a national minority
J. What the Copts should do

A. Why don’t the Arab Muslims of Egypt want us to claim a minority status?

The Arab Muslims of Egypt do not want the Copts to refer to themselves as a minority or to be considered, internally or externally, as a minority group. Why is that? Is it because of the goodness of their heart, because they really love us and care about our feelings more than us, or because they genuinely want us to feel at home, “ahl bait أهل بيت”, meaning “members of the household”, as they deceptively say? The sad answer is, no! The Copts are an oppressed minority – and they are oppressed by Egypt’s Arab Muslim majority. This is an undeniable fact. They treat us different; their discrimination and oppression of the Copts is old and persistent, widespread and well documented. Their insistence that we are not a minority, I am afraid to say, is not a charitable or benevolent one as it seems. It is, as a matter of fact, yet another exercise in oppression: a denial that the Copts – being a unique national minority with distinctive identity and culture – are persecuted and discriminated against. A response from an Arab Muslim individual on Twitter wrote in response to a tweet by myself emphasising that the Copts were a minority group in Egypt:

“من الآخر كده، ما دمت لسه بتستخدم لفظ أقلية حتى لو ده حقيقة، فحضرتك بتثبت مفهوم الإضطهاد والتفرقة بين الطرفين.”[1]

“Without beating in the bush, as long as you still use the term ‘minority’, even if it is the truth, you are confirming the understanding that the Copts are persecuted and that they are discriminated against.”[2]

Anyone from the Copts who dares to talk about the Copts as a minority is quickly challenged and accused of wanting to say that the Copts are oppressed. They are further blamed of attempting to divide the “nation”, which is already divided by them, and accusations of betrayal and treason are lavishly thrown at them.

We know why the Arab Muslims of Egypt basically don’t want us, or the outside world, to label us as a minority group: it is because they don’t want their oppression of the Copts and their culture get exposed and seen by all. That would expose their lies; and the Arab Muslims of Egypt are epitomes of denial. But, the entire world knows that they treat us badly because of the national characteristics that separate us from them; and it, too, knows that we are both a minority in number and a minority in the sense that we are dominated by the Arab Muslim majority of Egypt that exclusively holds the reins of power. Further, the world knows that Egypt has dismally failed to solve the Coptic Problem in accordance with international law. It does nothing to stop the oppression of the Coptic minority. What Egypt’s majority (and I don’t mean every single one but certainly the majority of them) wants is to maintain the discrimination and oppression that is rooted in their religion and culture, and is based on their belief that Muslims are superior over Copts in worth and dignity; all while trying as much as possible to avoid being challenged or called out, inside or outside Egypt. And in this, they threaten the Copts with treason.

But what beyond that: Why do Arab Muslims in Egypt really want to silence the Copts from seeing and describing themselves as a minority? The reason for this is simple: they know that designating the Copts as a minority, and the acknowledgement of them as such by the international community, will provide us with a powerful tool to redress and end this discrimination. This is really why they want to deny us the label of minority.

For for Egypt to acknowledge that the Copts as a minority has suffered, and is still suffering persecution, is to recognise that there is a “Coptic Problem”. Acknowledgement of such injustice would be the first step towards redressing the problems of inequality. But, with all the talk about “national unity”, the “two elements of the nation” and the staged kisses, the truth is that there is no real resolve by the successive Egyptian governments to end the discriminatory laws, regulations and practices. This injustice must be resisted and fought. One of the ways to fight that is to work towards recognition of the Copts as a national minority, and to get the full force of the international law behind us. The Egyptian successive governments may resist attempts to label the Copts a minority, but it is not really in their hands. The matter is mostly in our hands and those of the international community. We can make the international community recognise our minority status; we can cause the international law to be activated to protect our identity and culture and to ensure that all Copts are treated with respect and dignity without prejudice that may arise from cultural differences with the Arab Muslims majority; and we can make it obligatory upon the Egyptian state to guarantee the individual and collective rights of the Copts as a minority, and as specified in the international law.

Sadly, some Copts have succumbed to brainwashing by the Egyptian government’s propaganda and parrot what they are told – that they are “ahl bait” when all the evidence points to the contrary. Some Copts do not know what is in their interest and what would benefit them, and many believe that designating ourselves as a minority would emphasise the differences, increase the oppression, and generally harm our cause. They are either crushed with fear, which leads to self-deception, or politically naïve. Because of all that, I am writing this article, with the hope to dispel some of the confusion about the matter. Here is an attempt to make the Copts understand the meaning of a minority group in both sociology and international law, the advantages and power that the concept of minority rights can confer on us, and why it will good to designate ourselves as a minority.

B. What is a minority? In the science of sociology

Fortunately, the definition of a minority group is clear, and has been dealt with by the disciplines of sociology and law. The best definition of minority that has been accepted by most sociologists is that given by Louis Wirth in his The Problem of Minority Groups:

Any group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as object of collective discrimination.[3]

At the core of the definition is the dominance exercised by the oppressive majority over the minority: in any situation where a minority is oppressed, there is a dominant group (the majority) that holds the rein of power in the society, and there is a subordinate group (the minority) that lacks power compared to the dominant group. Such dominance-subordinacy relationship results in the minority receiving unequal treatment and having less power over their lives:

1. They get few or no representation in the echelons of power (parliament, executive, judiciary, army, police, and security services).
2. They are discriminated against in education, appointments to important positions (such as university chairs, directors at hospitals, etc.) and jobs interviews to various positions.
3. Their freedom to exercise, enjoy and promote their unique culture, religion, history, traditions and language is seriously curtailed.
4. Their identity and culture are not protected or promoted but exposed to attacks, insults and prejudice by members of the dominant majority, the media, religious institutions and the politicians.
5. In addition to that, members of minority groups have to observe the norms, values, cultural patterns and laws of the dominant group which often do not serve their interests.

A minority is commonly numerically smaller than the majority, but not always. Rarely, a numerical minority can hold the rein of power in the state, rendering the numerical majority powerless and helpless, and therefore the numerical majority becomes a minority in sociological terms. One example of this is the situation in South Africa during Apartheid: the Blacks, though constituted a numerical majority were held in a subordinate position by the Whites who were a minority in numbers. Another example is the position of the Copts after the Arab Conquest in 640 AD when the numerical majority of the Copts were held in a position of inferiority by the ruling Arabs who were comparatively few: the Copts though a numerical majority, being deprived of political power, were held in a subordinate position.

Sociology distinguishes five characteristics of a minority group. These characteristics have been detailed in 1958 by Charles Wagley and Marvin Harris in their Minorities in the New World: Six Case Studies, and since then they have been widely accepted.[4] The five characteristics are as follows:

1. Distinguishing physical or cultural traits.

Members of the minority group share some characteristics that distinguish them from the majority, dominant group. These characteristics could be:

a. Physical characteristics that are obvious to the eye, such as the colour of the skin, facial appearances, etc. When this is the case, the minority group is called a racial minority. Examples of racial minorities are the Blacks in the US, the Blacks in South African during the Apartheid, the Latin Americans (Mexicans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, etc.) in the US, the Bangladeshi and Pakistanis in the UK, and the Jews in Europe in the Middle Ages.

b. Cultural characteristics that make the minority stands out, such as language, religion, cuisine, costumes, music, history, laws like family and personal status laws. When this is the case, the minority group is called ethnic minority. Examples of ethnic majorities are the Gypsies in Rumania, Basques and Catalans in Spain, Rohingya people Myanmar, Uyghurs in China, Russians in Latvia, Scots and Welsh in the UK, Sardinians in Italy, Serbs in Kosovo, Tartars in Russia, and the Turks in Austria.

Sometimes a racial minority can simultaneously be an ethnic minority, such as the Jews in Nazi Germany, since they were distinguished from the dominant majority not only by their physical characteristics but also by their culture.

2. Unequal treatment and less power over their lives, which we spoke about above constituting the essence of the dominance-subordinace dynamic.
3. Involuntary membership in the group. This is described as “ascribed status”, meaning that the members of the minority are usually born into the group. Race (such as the skin colour) and ethnicity (such as religion) are considered ascribed statuses which are not chosen voluntarily in normal circumstances but individuals are born with or into.
4. Awareness of subordination and solidarity. Members of minority groups experience prejudice and discrimination, and in this they have a shared experience. They are aware of the discrimination, and attribute it to the dominant group. This creates in them “in-group consciousness” and solidarity which makes them stick to each other, feel more comfortable and at home with each other, make them sympathise with each other’s pain and joy, and induce them to help each other in their common effort to lift up the injustice they all labour under. In other words they see that they possess common experiences, interests and destiny; and therefore they develop common loyalties. They may share some experiences, interests and loyalties with the dominant majority, since they live in one country, but they also have significant differences.
5. High rate of in-group marriage. Members of the minority group usually marry within their own group to maintain their culture and identity. Often the dominant group doesn’t want to intermarry from the minority group in order to keep its dominance, privileges and “supremacy”.

C. Definition of minority in international law

 The above definition is according to sociology. In international law, the best definition of minority is that proposed in 1977 by Francesco Capotori, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities:

A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a state, in a non-dominant position, whose members – being nationals of the state – possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language .[5]

This is a clear definition with the following elements:

1. A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of the state;
2. Its members are nationals of the state;
3. It is in a non-dominant (i.e. subordinate) position within the state;
4. It possesses ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from the rest of the population (these are called objective criteria that qualify a group for being considered a minority group);
5. Its members show a sense of solidarity directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language (this is called subjective criteria that qualify a group for being considered a minority group) ;
6. Such solidarity does not need to be explicit but can be implicitly shown.

In 1986, Judge Jules Deschênes prepared a report for the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in which he added to the above six defining elements a seventh element focused on the objective of the minority in achieving equality not only in law but also in fact:

A group of citizens of a State, constituting a numerical minority and in a non-dominant position in that State, endowed with ethnic, religious and linguistic characteristics which differ from those of the majority of the population, having a sense of solidarity with one another, motivated, if only implicitly, by a collective will to survive and whose aim is to achieve equality with the majority in fact and in law.[6]

As you can see, the above legal definition of the term ‘minority’ is not very different from what sociology provides.

D. Recognition of minorities is not an exclusive matter for states

Recognition of the existence of a minority group is not a matter of choice left for the state to arbitrarily make. A minority is defined by certain objective and subjective criteria that are agreed in the international law; and states cannot simply deny the existence of these criteria and hence the minority groups within them, and, by doing so, get away with forsaking their duty under international law to protect these minorities or, worse still, oppress them. The UN document, Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation (2010) makes this very clear:

It is now commonly accepted that the recognition of minority status is not solely for the state to decide, but should be based on both objective and subjective criteria.[7]

The matter is made even clearer in the United Nations General Comment No. 23: The Rights of National Minorities (1994):

The existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in a given State party does not depend upon a decision by that State party but requires to be established by objective criteria.[8]

About the powers that can recognise a minority status, the UN says:

… all national cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities whose minority status has been recognised by national legislation or by internationally binding declarations as well as minorities that define and organise themselves as such”.[9]

This is clear in that the recognition, or unrecognition, of a minority status is not the monopoly of the state: the international community and the minority itself can do so. A group of people becomes in international law a minority group, and therefore entitled to its protection, if the members of the minority “define and organise themselves as such”. The Egyptian state, based on this, cannot legally deny or prevent the Copts from seeing themselves as a minority group, or organising themselves as such, and from getting protection under international law.

Many states, such as the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Canada, India, Ethiopia, etc., do recognise the existence of minorities within them by domestic laws designed to protect the individual and collective rights of the members of their minorities. In these countries, minorities are given equal treatment. Not the same case in states where injustice prevails: the existence of minority groups that are different from the dominant majority is denied, and their culture is suppressed. Egypt is indeed such unjust state: it denies the existence of the Coptic national minority and fails to protect its identity, rights and culture.

E. There is no disagreement in international law about the minority status of autochonous minorities

The definition by Capotori is clear, but Capotoris has deliberately intended it to be limited in its scope. He avoided providing a common, universal, comprehensive definition.

The preparation of a definition capable of being universally accepted has always proved a task of such difficulty and complexity that neither the experts in this field nor the organs of the international agencies have been able to accomplish it to date.[10]

Sometimes Capotori’s definition of a minority group is said to be lacking in clarity, but that is mainly because he does not expand on groups that may satisfy both objective and subjective criteria but are still not universally accepted as minorities. In the international community there is a tendency to privilege autochonous groups (i.e. indigenous, native to the soil, native to the place) over and above groups comprised of immigrants and their descendants.[11]  About autochonous groups there is little disagreement. The main disagreement is related to what is called by some “new minorities”, such as the recent migrants to Europe from diver places.

In 1994, the Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights through its United Nations General Comment No. 23: The Rights of National Minorities tried to widen the definition of a minority to include all groups without restriction based on the duration in which they became nationals of the state, and to guarantee them minority rights:

[T]hose rights simply are that individuals belonging to those minorities should not be denied the right, in community with members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to practise their religion and speak their language. Just as they need not be nationals or citizens [note that this is contrary to Capotorti] they need not be permanent residents. Thus, migrant workers or even visitors in a State party constituting such minorities are entitled not to be denied the exercise of those rights. As any other individual in the territory of the State party, they would, also for this purpose, have the general rights, for example, to freedom of association, of assembly, and of expression.[12]

This is considered a very liberal definition and is rejected by many. Some countries, like the UK, recognise recent migrants, such as the Bangladeshi and the Pakistani groups, as minority groups; but others attach conditions on the recognition of the group based on the duration in which its members have been nationals of the state. Thus, e.g., Sweden insists in its Bill 1998/99: 143 National Minorities in Sweden that the group to be recognised as a minority should have an “historic or long bond with Sweden”.[13]  Hungary is more specific: in its Section 1 of its Minorities Act, it defines minorities as “all groups of people that have lived in Hungary for at least one century”.[14] Using this definition, Hungary recognises its Bulgarian, Gypsy, Greek, Croatian, Polish, German, Armenian, Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian, Slovakians, Slovenian, and Ukrainian nationals as minority groups, entitled to protection by the state, while refuses to grant the same status to new comers.  The Croatian Constitution recognises “the autochonous national minorities”, and identifies within them Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Hungarians, Jews, Germans, Austrians, Ruthenians, and Ukrainians who are citizens of the Republic of Croatia.[15]

Thus when it is said, “There is no internationally agreed definition as to which groups constitute minorities”,[16] it must not be understood by this that there is no definition for a national minority in international law. All agree that autochonous groups, or “old minorities”, that satisfy the definition by Capotori must be recognised as minority groups and be protected by the states in which they reside. It must be noted that the Copts perhaps constitute the most ancient, the most autochonous of all minorities in the world; and therefore the disagreement about Capotori’s definition of a minority group does not apply to them.

F. A national minority is not a bone of contention – one knows a minority when one sees one

Which group should be entitled to the term ‘minority’ and the legal protection that comes with it isn’t really a difficult matter. It has been a mantra in the international community that a minority group is pretty obvious to the onlooker. As Max van der Stoel, CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, said in 1993:

Even though I may not have a definition of what constitutes a minority, I would dare to say that I know a minority when I see one. First of all, a minority is a group with linguistic, ethnic or cultural characteristics which distinguish it from the majority. Secondly, a minority is a group which usually not only seeks to maintain its identity but also tries to give stronger expression to that identity.[17]

In 1995, Stoel emphasised again the same thing as he talked about the definition of minority:

It is a group with an identity of its own which clearly distinguishes it from that of a majority and in addition it has the clear wish to maintain or even to strengthen that identity. And my experience is – and probably yours – that you recognize a national minority when you see it.[18]

G. The legal international protection accorded to minority groups

The United Nations recognises that minorities are in a vulnerable situation, and therefore aims to protect members of a minority group from discrimination, assimilation, prosecution, hostility or violence. For this purpose the concept of minority rights has been introduced. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a global treaty, signed by Egypt, and it specifically refers to minority rights in its Article 27:

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.[19]

The essence of minority rights is the protection and promotion of the identity of the minorities and not to try to suppress it. This is what the international law insists on:

Promoting and protecting their identity prevent forced assimilation and the loss of cultures, religions and languages—the basis of the richness of the world and therefore part of its heritage. Non-assimilation requires diversity and plural identities to be not only tolerated but protected and respected. Minority rights are about ensuring respect for distinctive identities while ensuring that any differential treatment towards groups or persons belonging to such groups does not mask discriminatory practices and policies. Therefore, positive action is required to respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, and acknowledge that minorities enrich society through this diversity.[20]

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights though does not talk about minority rights in detail. To strengthen the instruments for protection and promotion of minority rights, the UN issued in 1992 the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Minorities.[21] The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues and the Forum on Minority Issues all work to ensure that the rights of minorities are respected by the states. This Declaration specifies the rights belonging to minorities and makes obligatory upon the states to guarantee such rights. No state can wriggle its way out of such an obligation in international law. States are required not only to protect the existence of their minorities and their identity, but also to encourage conditions for promotion of that identity.

We can look at the Declaration under four headings:

1. Rights of the persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities

a. The right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.

b. The right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.

c. The right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.

d. The right to establish and maintain their own associations.

e. The right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.[22]

2. These rights may be exercised individually as well as in community

a. Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in the present Declaration, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination.

b. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.[23]

 3. Obligation put on states

a. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.

b. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.[24]

4. Measures that should be taken by the state

a. Ensure that persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.

b. Create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards.

c. Ensure that persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.

d. Take measures in the field of education, in order to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the minorities existing within their territory. Persons belonging to minorities should have adequate opportunities to gain knowledge of the society as a whole.

e. Consider appropriate measures so that persons belonging to minorities may participate fully in the economic progress and development in their country.[25]

H. The Copts are a minority

The Copts – whether the Egyptian government like it or not, recognise them as such or not – do constitute a national minority. And this is by applying the definition of a minority according to the science of sociology and international law.

Louis Wirth would agree that:

The Copts are a minority group as because of their physical or cultural characteristics they are singled out from others in Egypt for differential and unequal treatment, and therefore they regard themselves as object of collective discrimination.

Charles Wagley and Marvin Harris would say that the Copts share the five characteristics necessary for designating them as a minority group:

1. They have distinguishing physical or cultural traits; and in this sense they are both racial and ethnic group, for they can be identified by themselves and the Arab Muslims of Egypt by how they look (the Arabs call them “Genus Pharaonicus [جنس فرعوني]”) and their national, cultural characteristics that range from a different history, religion, language, literature, art, music, traditions, family and personal laws, etc.
2. They suffer unequal treatment and have less power over their lives, borne from the dominance-subordinace dynamic that govern their situation in Egypt.
3. Their membership in the Coptic minority group is involuntary. Their status is ascribed by religion and other elements of their culture.
4. They are aware of their subordination. They experience prejudice and discrimination, and in this they have a shared experience. They are aware of the discrimination, and attribute it to the dominant Arab Muslim group. This creates in them “in-group consciousness” and solidarity which makes them stick to each other, feel more comfortable and at home with each other, make them sympathise with each other’s pain and joy, and induce them to help each other in their common effort to lift up the injustice they all labour under. In other words they see that they possess common experiences, interests and destiny; and therefore they develop common loyalties. They may share some experiences, interests and loyalties with the Arab Muslim majority, since they live in one country, but they also have significant differences.
5. They have a high rate of in-group marriage. In fact, they don’t marry with Arab Muslims, except in a very limited way that is shunned by their majority and often occur by coercion and between Arab Muslim men and kidnapped or seduced Coptic women. Arab Muslims don’t allow Coptic men marrying women from their fold.

Francesco Capotori would also classify the Copts as a minority since:

The Copts are numerically inferior to the rest of the population in Egypt and that they are in a non-dominant position and whose members – being nationals of Egypt – possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from the rest of the population and show, explicitly and implicitly, a sense of solidarity directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language .

Combining the elements specified by both Capotori and Deschênes, we can say the Copts possess the seven elements of a national group:

1. They are numerically inferior to the rest of the population of Egypt.
2. They are nationals of Egypt.
3. They are in a non-dominant (i.e. subordinate) position within Egypt.
4. They possess ethnic, religious and linguistic characteristics differing from the rest of the population of Egypt.
5. Their members show a sense of solidarity directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion and language.
6. They explicitly express their solidarity with each other.
7. They aim to achieve equality with the Arab Muslim majority in fact and in law.

In fact the fact that the Copts are a national minority shouldn’t be a bone of contention, or in the words of the Arab proverb, “no two goats could lock horns over it”. When one sees the Copt one knows that they are a minority – it is a matter of fact decided by their objective and subjective criteria. The designation of the Copts as a national minority does not depend on recognition by the Egyptian government – it is in the hands of the Copts working with the international community. And while the United Nations may discuss the inclusion or exclusion of “new minorities”, i.e. recent migrants and their descendants, in the definition of minority, such a discussion is irrelevant to the Copts – for there is no dispute about autochonous groups of being recognised as minorities. And as we have seen, the Copts possibly come top of the list of such autochonous groups – they are the original natives of Egypt, and their roots in Egyptian soil goes back thousands of years in history before the Arabs and Muslims came.

I. The likely benefits for the Copts from being considered a national minority

 We have seen that the Copts constitute a minority and that their status as a minority is not a matter of dispute and that it is not in the power of the Egyptian government to deprive them of this designation. But the minority status in itself would not be significant had it not been for the internationally recognised minority rights that come with it. The designation of the Copts as a minority will empower the Copts to use the international law to protect their identity, culture and rights; improve their political, economic and social position in Egypt; and end the persecution and oppression.

What does the 1992 UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities offer us? First of all, it will make it mandatory on the Egyptian governments to:

1. Protect our existence.
2. Protect the national, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of the Copts in Egypt.
3. Encourage conditions for the promotion of Coptic identity.
4. Adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

And the rights that we shall enjoy will be all encompassing:

1. The right to enjoy our culture, to profess and practise our religion, and to use our language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.
2. The right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.
3. The right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and regional level concerning ourselves.
4. The right to establish and maintain our own associations.
5. The right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with Copts, and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with Copts citizens of other States who are related to us by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

 And rights may be exercised by the Copts individually as well as in community, and no disadvantage shall result for any Copt a consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.

Further, the Egyptian governments shall:

1. Ensure that the Copts may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.
2. Create favourable conditions to enable the Copts to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs.
3. Ensure that the Copts may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.
4. Take measures in the field of education, in order to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the Copts, and ensure that the Copts should have adequate opportunities to gain knowledge of the Egyptian society as a whole.
5. Consider appropriate measures so that the Copts may participate fully in the economic progress and development in Egypt.

Such are the benefits that the Copts may obtain from being designated a national minority. The essence of the whole exercise is protection of the Copts, their persons, their places of worship and their businesses and properties, from attacks by Arab Muslims, with or without the collusion of agents of the Egyptian governments, such as its police and security services.

J. What the Copts should do

The oppression and persecution are well known and documented. They are not only recognised by the Copts but by many non-Copts inside Egypt and also by the international community. And the failure by successive Egyptian governments to alleviate the suffering of the Copts is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. The hopes of the Copts have many times been dashed by the false promises given them by successive Egyptian governments, including the present one. Egypt lives in denial of the obvious, and will not voluntarily recognise the Copts as a national minority or work to protect them, their identity and their culture. Egypt will not change on its own; and for it to change much internal and external pressure is needed.

What shall the Copts do? They must apply pressure on the Egyptian government to recognise their rights; and in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities the Copts have an instrument that can empower them and change their situation. But first, the Copts must have no qualm about advertising themselves in the international arena as a national minority and organising themselves as such. But for this to happen they need much courage. And they need to ask themselves the question: Do we want to protect, preserve and promote our identity, religion, language and other parts of our courage, or do we want to see them lost and the oppression and persecution to continue unabated with the eventual result of our assimilation into the Arab Muslim majority?

Some will say that we are Christian, and as Christians we must suffer and accept our lot in silence. This kind of Copts will apply false theology to try to convince their brethren of doing nothing. They must face their passivity, selfishness and cowardice that find no basis in our religion. The author would just want to caution them not to confuse the vices of subservience with the virtues of Christianity.

Some will say that using international law instruments to force change in Egypt would cause divisions. This is easily answered by pointing to the fact that, despite the façade of “national unity”, Egypt is in fact a much divided country; and this division is not of our making. Those who are responsible for the divisions are those who are responsible for the oppression and persecution of the Copts. Much more are those who refuse to abolish the divisions by ending the oppression and the persecution. Implementation of the provisions of international law should not cause conflict but heal them. In the words of the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit of Heads of State and Government:

The promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities contributes to political and social stability and peace and enriches the cultural diversity and heritage of society.[26]

This is what the call for using the Declaration to improve the Coptic situation in Egypt aims to: a better, united in diversity Egypt. But on the way to achieve that a certain tension must be created, the sort of healthy tension all great leaders like Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr, sought to achieve in order to create an atmosphere conducive to real change. Justice must be our final aim.

____________________________

[1] @Heba_A_S_A, on 24 Nov 2019, 6:42 am.

[2] My translation.

[3] Louis Wirth, The Problem of Minority Groups in Linton Ralph (ed.), The Science of Man in the World Crisis (New York, Columbia United Press, 1945), p. 347.

[4] Charles Wagley and Marvin Harris, Minorities in the New World: Six Case Studies (New York, Columbia University Press, 1958). Joe R. Feagin has repeated the same in Racial and Ethnic Relations, 2^nd ed. (Prentice-Hall, 1984), p. 10.

[5] Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation (UN, 2010), p. 2.

[6] Jennifer Jackson-Preece, Beyond the [Non] Definition of Minority (ECMI-Issue Brief # 30, 2014), p. 6.

[7] Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation (UN, 2010), p. 3.

[8] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: CCPR General Comment No. 23: Article 27 (Rights of Minorities) Adopted at the Fiftieth Session of the Human Rights Committee, on 8 April 1994 CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, General Comment No. 23. (General Comments).

[9] Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation, United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner (New York and Geneva, 2010).

[10] Jennifer Jackson-Preece, Beyond the [Non] Definition of Minority, p. 5.

[11] Ibid, p. 6.

[12] Ibid, p. 7.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation, p. 2.

[17] Jennifer Jackson-Preece, Beyond the [Non] Definition of Minority, p. 8.

[18] Ibid., p. 9.

[19] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. Entered into force on 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49.

[20] Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation, United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner (New York and Geneva 2010), p. 8.

[21] Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Adopted by the UN General Assembly on 18 December, 1992, without a vote[1], by resolution No. 47/135.

[22] Ibid, Article 2.

[23] Ibid, Article 3.

[24] Ibid, Article 1.

[25] Ibid, Article 4.

[26] UN, General Assembly, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005 [without reference to a Main Committee (A/60/L.1)] 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome.