Biased Western coverage of Egyptian uprising

Missive to the Independent following their rather unquestioning opposition to the Egyptian military clamp-down on Islamists


I am very disappointed by the media’s coverage of the military crack-down in Egypt. Most Egyptian people I have spoken to are saying that this is a fight for freedom – of speech, of religious assembly and of human rights.

It is a fight to stop the Muslim Brotherhood turning Egypt into yet another backward Islamist state instead of the secular state where Muslims and Christians (and many other religions) live together in peace as they have for decades.

They are bitterly disappointed that this aspect is being largely ignored by the West.

The majority of Egyptians support their military’s position. This should be reported.

Paul Harper

Surprisingly, they published it, pretty much unedited. There have been several letters along these lines, and the paper does seem to be softening its tone somewhat now.

2013-08-20 06.07.20

A friend on Facebook asked what it was all about, so I replied in rather greater detail what I saw as being the issues:

The problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood made all sorts of very nice-sounding, inclusive noises before Egypt’s general election, about how they would be running the country in a free and fair way. Once in power, though, they reverted to type and started imposing a much more hard-line Islamist agenda than they were elected on.

They also pretty much wrecked the Egyptian economy in the process.

They had no mandate for their policies at all. There were huge demonstrations, involving millions of people, against this and finally the military had to step in and get rid of the MB government, installing an interim government backed by their firepower.

The MB, of course, didn’t like this as they were getting used to the idea that they could turn Egypt into another Afghanistan. So far, so normal for Middle Eastern politics. Happens all the time. The issue here is that Western news outlets can’t get beyond the idea that a freely elected government can be overthrown by a military with the support of the majority of the people. “But they were elected” is where the thought processes stop. Yes, they were elected. On the basis of a collection of deliberate, bare-faced lies.

While the voting process may have been free and fair (and most people seem, in general, to think it was), the basis upon which it was done was corrupt. That the West isn’t reporting this is a source of considerable irritation. Having listened to Will and Ian’s responses and done a bit of research, I have no hesitation saying that this isn’t a military coup against a democratically-elected government, but a popular revolt against a religious coup

About Paul Harper
These posts represent the collected thought of Paul Harper. Usually rants, occasionally lucid, always easily ignored. Read, don't read, your call!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: