Was Egypt's football violence political?

The death of 74 football fans in Egypt is a worrying sign of the country's deteriorating security si

 

"This is not football, this is a war and people are dying in front of us. There is no movement and no security and no ambulances," declared Mohamed Abutreika, a football player for Egypt's Al-Ahly team. He was speaking in the aftermath of football riots in the northern city of Port Said which left 74 fans dead and hundreds injured.

The violence broke out after Cairo club Al-Ahly lost 3-1 to local team Al-Masry. Fans stormed the pitch. Television footage showed players being chased and attacked by fans. Most deaths were caused by the stampede. Clearly, the scale of the violence means that this goes beyond football: parliament have called an emergency session to discuss the lack of security at the match. But what exactly does it say about Egypt's current political situation?

One theory is that the military and the police were actually complicit in the violence. Essam el-Erian, a politician from the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, alleged that the military wants to show that emergency regulations giving security forces wide-ranging powers must be maintained. The longstanding law was recently abolished, and the interior minister Mohamed Yusuf has recently spoken about the need to keep the extraordinary powers it provides to handle crime.

El-Erian was unequivocal: "This tragedy is a result of intentional reluctance by the military and the police." While it is difficult to say whether it was a deliberate policy, it was plainly evident that riot police did little to prevent the situation. Some clips show a small group of police attempting to protect the players, although they appear to be overwhelmed. Others show riot police standing by as fans storm the pitch.

What this shows without any doubt is the political and security vacuum in which Egypt finds itself after the revolution which overthrew Hosni Mubarak nearly a year ago. The military continue to hold sway, and a smooth transition of power to civilian rule has not been secured. Fans were heard chanting "down with military rule" as the violence broke out.

Al-Jazeera's correspondent reports:

There were clearly riot police on that pitch, but they were seen either not getting involved or running in the other direction.

Some people say the police force perhaps has not been trained to deal with violence, except in the way they were trained during Mubarak, which was with sheer and brutal force. And now when they can't do that, they're unable to deal with violence.

Football violence happens all over the world (although this is the worst instance worldwide since 1996), but this raises serious questions about the ability of Egypt's state police to deal with crowds and emergencies. It comes off the back of high profile incidents of crime, such as the robbing of a bank in broad daylight. As angry fans amass in Cairo to march on the interior ministry to protest against the major lapse of security, it is clear that we have not seen the last of this.

UPDATE 12.15pm: The entire board of Egypt's football board has been sacked and some members placed under investigation.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496