Growing up in California I can only think of one time when a “state of emergency” was declared: the Los Angeles Riots of 1992, and let me tell you, it was scary! Of course at the time I was only 13 years old and hearing words like “state of emergency” and “curfew” while watching my hometown burn down on TV and seeing the smoke from my window at the same time was something I was not prepared to see and never even thought possible. Other than earthquakes, I can sincerely say the riots were the most unsettling thing I ever experienced in my time in the United States.

Then I moved to Argentina and in 2001 watched the country go into default. I witnessed first-hand how people rioted and looted everything from supermarkets to mom and pop shops. I watched them empty stores out, break everything they couldn’t take, and throw food on the streets; but the most unsettling thing I saw then, other than the violence with which they acted, was people taking food from street floors like animals. I was 22 then, and I thought I had seen too much already, but then came law school.

In law school we learned all about the human rights violations of past military regimes in Argentina after declaring a “state of emergency” and literally putting constitutional rights (or better yet, the Constitution itself) on hold for a couple of decades. We learned how before the constitutional reform of 1994, the executive found a way to tip the balance of powers in its favor and legislate through decrees – only to further strengthen its legislative powers after the constitutional reform. We learned about how after the default, the government washed its hands of the financial disasters the population was suffering by declaring a “state of financial emergency” and making the Argentine people bear the weight of decades of inefficient economic policies and corruption.

Needless to say, after 31 years on this Earth, I have learned at least one thing: nothing good ever comes when governments use the words “state of emergency.” Today I heard the words “state of emergency” again, this time I’m not directly affected by them, but according to the New York Times, the words “state of emergency” are once again being used, in Egypt, to justify the denial of basic rights and freedoms; and they have been doing so since 1981. On Tuesday, the Egyptian parliament approved a government request to extend an emergency law that allows arresting people without charge, detaining prisoners indefinitely, limiting freedom of expression and assembly, and maintaining a special security court. The law supposedly only applies to cases of terrorism, the problem is that the concept of terrorism in Egyptian law is so broad and malleable that, according to Michael Slackman, “the government decision was immediately criticized by human rights groups, political activists and independent human rights monitors, who say they expect little to change in a nation that routinely uses the heavy hand of the police and prisons to silence political opposition.”

Hossam Bahgat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, told the New York Times that, “Even the claim that emergency powers will now be limited to terrorism and drug trafficking cases only is false. […] More dangerously, the culture of exceptionalism stays, and with it the message that security agencies are still above the law.”

The new law is being heavily criticized by the UN and Human Rights Watch and I don’t think I have the authority or knowledge of Egyptian law to add anything to their insightful reports, but as someone living in a country where concepts like “state of emergency” have lead to unimaginable atrocities I can say one thing: the fact that this “emergency” law has been in place for 29 years alone is reason enough to doubt its legitimacy.

Related Posts:
1. Lithuania: Protecting Minors or Depriving Young People of Rights?
2. When Vaguely Worded Charges are Used to Violate Human Rights
3. Lithuania: Protecting Minors or Depriving Young People of Rights?