The crime which took place in Nag Hammadi last Wednesday on the eve of Coptic Christmas, can be seen in no light other than being a gross, criminal terrorist act. The Copts were targeted as they left church following Midnight Mass; five Copts and a Muslim guardsman died, and 11 Copts were critically injured.
Such terrorism, which exacts out-of-law collective penalty against Copts, ought to be firmly and resolutely confronted by the State security apparatuses before it gets totally out of hand.
With this in view, I strongly denounce the stance adopted by the Sate and the State-run media in rushing to depict the criminal incident as revenge against the rape of a Muslim girl by a Coptic man. The incident occurred two months ago and was followed by a wave of vengeful attacks against the blameless Copts of Farshout, Nag Hammadi, during which their church, property and businesses were plundered and set on fire. These Copts, who were not in any way related to the alleged rapist, were collectively made to pay a price for no crime they had committed, owing to the mere fact that they were Copts. This collective penalisation of Copts has recently gained phenomenal proportions as a result of the spread of mob action and security deficiency.
It is common practice that any terrorist act is followed by two motions. One, the group who has conducted it declares its responsibility for the act, and; two, the security authorities rush to catch the culprits and bring them to justice. In the case of Nag Hammadi, however, a serious mix-up has occurred. The security officials rushed to issue a statement that the incident involved no sectarian dimension but was in revenge of the rape incident of two months ago. This statement carries the very serious implication of a political opinion, which far surpasses the role of the security authority’s role in bringing the culprits to justice. Even more seriously, it hints at a tendency to justify the crime and find excuses for the criminals—the justification coming from no less than an authority which represents the State and the law. Not surprisingly, it was this statement and similar ones that took the lead in the State-owned media.
It is just such official stances that help form the conviction prevalent among terrorists and fanatics that the State apparatuses will turn a blind eye to their crimes against Copts. Why should not they carry on with their crimes as long as none other but the official apparatuses themselves volunteer justification for the crimes?
