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.

Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.