Legal Perspectives (8) … an attack on social values ​​and public morals – Rania Fahmy

While studying law at the Faculty of Law at Cairo University, I was always struck by the phrase “social values ​​and family principles”, which we find in multiple texts of Egyptian law and which appears in the charges of the Public Prosecution to convict those who were considered to have assaulted her. By consulting the Constitution and the law, I did not find a specific definition of these concepts, and I was and still am puzzled by the constitutionality of the “concepts” or “principles” mentioned in the law and the penalties for “principles” that are not “specific acts” or specific “crimes”, that is, the charges do not have material elements that do not have different bases and basically consist of actions or omissions that occur in violation of the penal text.

In this regard, the Constitution, without mentioning the law, has a general text: “The family is the foundation of society, its foundation is religion, morality and patriotism, the state desires the cohesion and stability of the family, consolidates its social order and values” (Article 10). The Criminal Code does not define the meaning of these phrases, and there are two chapters entitled “Indecency, corruption of morals” and “Defamation, insult, disclosure of secrets”, which include harassment, indecency, rape, adultery, incitement to immoral behavior by gestures or words, and indecent behavior that violates modesty, all of which are punished. But it has not yet been determined whether these behaviors are intended to “attack community values ​​and family principles.” For example, indecent behavior or sexual innuendo on public roads is also not defined.
The same applies to Law No. 175 of 2018 on Combating Information Technology Crimes, which regulates the fight against information technology crimes, which are crimes committed through computers or other electronic devices through information networks, whether private, public or international. Article 25 of its penal code states: “Anyone who violates any family principle or value of Egyptian society or violates the sanctity of the family shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six months and a fine of not less than fifty thousand pounds and not more than one hundred thousand pounds, or one of these two penalties.”
The same vague language appears in Article 15 of the Private Employment Regulation Law No. 149 of 2019 (the Societies Law): “Societies are prohibited from engaging in the following acts: engaging in activities that disrupt public order, public morality, national unity, or national security.”
I would have expected to find in the implementing regulations of these laws the specific definitions I was looking for of prohibited activities that were contrary to social and family values, but I did not find anything. The law books I studied in law school mentioned that community values ​​and family principles are included in a broader concept called “public order,” which is also loosely defined as: “a set of fundamental rules related to the highest interests of society, whether political, economic or social.” Since public order is a relative concept, the concept of which varies according to time and place, it is not the clear text in the law that determines what actions are related to public order and criminalizes them when they violate it, but the judge in the court, as long as he uses social reality and the prevailing public trends and their values ​​in his assessment, rather than arbitrarily imposing his personal views and moral prejudices. Therefore, the same act may be criminalized by one judge in one lawsuit and acquitted by another judge in another.
Hisham Ramadan mentioned in his article: “The accusation of attacking family values. The electronic newspaper “Darb” on July 3, 2020 “Legal Reader”. The Supreme Constitutional Court made an important ruling on the constitutionality of Article 25 of Law No. 175 of 2018 on Combating Information Technology Crimes, stipulating in the ruling that “legislators must always carefully balance the interests of society and concerns for its security and stability with individual freedoms and rights. ” The meeting also decided that punitive texts must be formulated in a clear and specific manner, without any hiding or ambiguity, so that these texts do not become a net or trap cast by the legislator to catch those who fall into it or miss it. The purpose of these guarantees is to make those who are targeted by the punitive text understand its reality, so that their behavior should not be inconsistent with it, but consistent with it and follow it. “.
Therefore, the article itself is suspected of being unconstitutional, vague and unsuitable as a punitive text. In my opinion, this applies to all texts in other laws that refer to social values ​​without specifying, defining or clarifying them.
• • •
The Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision made me think about the relationship and distinction between morality and law: What is considered by society to be public order and public morality, and thus punishable by law? A set of principles and values ​​established in the conscience of the group, the failure to respect which leads to social disapproval and contempt for the violator, without being convicted by law?
Dr. Rajab Karim, in his book Introduction to Legal Science, which he recommends to students at Cairo Law School, explains the difference between the two. First, in terms of scope: ethics is more general and comprehensive than law, because ethics focuses on intentions and is not limited to judging a person’s external behavior. As for law, it includes the manifestation of a person’s will, not the manifestation of his will. A person’s deepest hidden intentions are considered criminal as long as they reflect external behavior condemned by the law.
Secondly, in terms of purpose: the purpose of law is to maintain order, security and stability by defining the rights and obligations of individuals to each other, while the ideal goal of morality is to make people better people.
Thirdly, in terms of punishment: punishment in law is material, tangible, related to a person’s body (limiting his freedom) or his money, and public power is the one who imposes punishment, but punishment for moral violations is moral, manifested as remorse of conscience and dissatisfaction with society.