JUNE 06 Newsletter

[back to the Table of Contents]

The Da Vinci Travesty
Eng. Hassan Elsawaf

The Da Vinci Code is a gripping story that cleverly mixes fact with fiction and casts some doubt on several long-accepted beliefs surrounding the person of Jesus Christ and the Christian religion. It has created widespread global controversy from the moment the book hit the streets and, as a result, has gained immense popularity. The film version, despite many unfavourable reviews, is set to break many box-office records around the world. Well, almost around the world.

Some countries still living under entrenched tribal despotism do not even allow a Walt Disney film in, so banning The Da Vinci Code is hardly an anomaly. Others are different, having worked hard at building an image of genuine openness, while actually remaining extremely closed.

In Egypt, much official effort is made to depict a picture of liberalism and political as well as religious tolerance. But it is spurious!

The role of a film censor is to determine whether minors can handle a film without being traumatised. It is not to educate an adult population in morality. One of the principal traits of an adult population in any self-respecting nation is the right to think freely, as long as laws are not broken. That is the way to instil a sense of responsibility in people. It seems the Egyptian public is condemned to remain in categorized as irresponsible juvenile delinquents for a long time.

Banning the screening of The Da Vinci Code in Egypt, however, is not a decision reached by the official film censors. It is a purely political decision and illustrates the extent of control the authorities still wield over the public mind-set, or at least they would like to believe that. Of course you will find arguments galore to justify the verdict: this is no time for more sectarian unrest, proselytising is not allowed in our law, our culture cannot deal with such derisive material about a holy prophet, and other equally trivial reasoning. In essence, our authorities, in their astute understanding of human psychology and social behaviour, have decided that we, the Egyptian public, are not qualified to see the film as it could be dangerous for us. This is where we have a serious flaw in defining the role of government. Governments are not supposed to be nannies. Their role is more like a referee’s, making sure everyone plays by the rules.

The religious establishment in Egypt has long been an obedient minion of the regime, blindly doing its bidding and loyally singing its tune. It has no moral leg to stand on as it has already sold its soul and has been known to adapt its positions according to the political wind. Both al-Azhar, the supreme Muslim authority, and the Coptic Church have a history of suddenly reversing position, thus leaving no doubt as to the identity of their actual decision-maker.

It is hard to deal with this issue as a religious matter devoid of political connotations in a country in which the political establishment is omnipotent, with scarcely a field escaping its tentacles. Indeed, the recent uprising of the nation’s judges, desperately vying to break loose from the shackles of the political establishment, highlights the extent of state interference in the justice system, an epitome of how things work around here.

The authorities estimate that by banning the film, the country will be seen to be upholding its religious rectitude and that trouble will thereby be averted. In fact, they are behaving like ostriches with their heads in the sand, as public frustration approaches the boiling point and any case it is probable that more illegal viewers will now watch pirated copies of the film than would ever have seen it otherwise.

The rotten Egyptian regime is becoming more paranoid by the day. It is definitely losing its marbles, committing unprecedented vile acts such as the sexual molestation of a peaceful male demonstrator at the Qasr al-Nil police station. Are these signs of the last gasps of a moribund regime?

Is it not time to conclude that it is precisely the nervousness of the regime and its increasing sense of desperation, manifest in its parochial approach to controlling people’s lives, thereby precipitating the problems the authorities purport to resolve?