Talk:Egyptian Constitution of 2012

Contradiction

As the summary here is written there seems to be a contradiction: the constitution asserts a general freedom of religion, but only for the Abrahamic religions. I have read the reference and it seems less contradictory: "Freedom of belief is absolute", the constitution "guarantees the establishment of the worship places for the Abrahamic faiths", as well as "Citizens ... are equal in general rights and duties without discrimination between them based on ... religion, belief, opinion." <POV>Of course, Islam gets other "benefits", and "no religion" is not mentioned at all... not sure I'd feel happy there yet.</POV> Mark Hurd (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

How does "no religion" benefit "Islam" in Israel? Of course, it is so called a "no relegion" Democracy yet still it is a "Jew-ish nation" belongs to the 80% "Jews" :) & the hell with the 20% arabs....No!No How does "no religion" benefit "Islam" in the west? I lived in Canada for 7 years and can tell NO ONE "religious or irreligious" ever gave a damn about discrimination and instigation against Islam and Muslim minority (only 1% of pop... really insignificant to change or cause harm to your valued culture :) yet still gets bashed in your everyday TV programs and media...it's freedom man :)...you get to choose your ways and we get to choose ours too!!!!!...where was the "No religion" when George Bush decided to launch his crusade on Iraq and slaughter and destroy the lives of 2 million Iraqis, torture, humiliate them and steal their oil in the process!!!. The good part was that god was talking to him, asking him to do it! didn't god know that America's got a secular constitution man!!!!

I thought the western constitutions where irreligious to make equal of all beliefs, specially that of minorities, yet it turns out to be just a piece of toilet paper when comes "the interests of Israel"..same here when it comes to the rights of the Aboriginals suddenly they become some kind of extinct subhuman species (wandering scattered zombies with free access to wine and cigs) when it comes to White Canada's Interests..I guess sis America has got no different view towards its natives...can't say I'd feel happy about western constitutions yet :) --علي سمسم (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really a "New" Constitution

Why is this being written as a "new" constitution? It's almost exactly the same as the one in place for the last 40 years. Specifically, one of the core issues: "Article 2, defining the relationship between Islam and Egyptian law, remains essentially unchanged from Egypt’s old constitution". Egypt remains an religious state. I don't even know if it's NPOV to use the word "constitution" to describe this structure. The modern usage of the word constitution in english really relates to the creation of structure and legal framework in rejecting the monarchy. I don't see how this can be reconciled. Nonetheless, I'm not comfortable enough with wikipedia policy to BE::BOLD and edit this article for what I feel is egregious pandering to religion. Jeff Carr (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a new constitution because it has different words, and it was adopted by the government as a new constitution. That's honestly enough to make this "new". But obviously there are many significant differences between this one and the old one, such as advances in women's rights and freedom of belief, changes in presidential powers, etc. For a full analysis see [1]. And of course it's neutral to call it a constitution. All a constitution is is a "is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed". So a constitution doesn't have to guaruntee seperation of religion and state or democracy or anything. It's just a document that says how a state a is governed. This goes so far as to mean that if I was able to pass a constitution in a state that said that I was the absolute leader of the country and that reading is illegal from now on, then it would still technically be a constitution. For a real life example, at least this constitution says that power lies in the people; the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that the power of the government lies in God, not the people, but everyone including the media, Wikipedia, and secularists still calls it a constitution, because it literally is. Trinitresque (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

2012 Constitution of Egypt → Constitution of Egypt – This constitution has recently been signed into law. This draws a huge difference between this constitution and other ones. This one is in effect. The others are not. This one is the supreme law of Egypt. The others are completely moot. So at this point this constitution is (present tense) the constitution of Egypt, whereas the 2011 Provisional Constitution of Egypt was the constitution, just as the Constitution of Russia is the Russian constitution, whereas the Russian Constitution of 1978 was the constitution. Let's also think about what we're going to call this article if we don't move it to Constitution of Egypt in a few days, in 2013. Obviously it will still be the constitution in 2013, and in the indefinite future. Would we call it the 2012–2013 Constitution of Egypt? Then the 2012–2014 Constitution of Egypt, and so on? That's ridiculous. Crucially, there is no reliable source that refers to this constitution as the "2012 constitution" or "2012 Constitution of Egypt" or anything like that, that I know of. Now that this is the sole constitution of Egypt, the media has taken note. As you can see from [2], [3], [4], [5], and numerous other articles from numerous sources, the media is only referring to the constitution as the "Egyptian constitution" or "Egypt's constitution", and so on. In other words, the media is treating this constitution as the constitution of Egypt. I believe that moving this article to "Constitution of Egypt" meets all of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: it is recognizable since the title makes it clear that it is referring to the only current and in effect constitution of Egypt, it is natural and searchable, it is precise but not overly precise since it is sufficiently specific and follows what is used by the media, it is concise, and it is conistent with the rest of Wikipedia since it would follow the exact naming of virtually all active constitutions that call themselves "constitutions", even the Constitution of South Sudan and Constitution of Hungary, both enacted in 2011. Trinitresque (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose "Constitution of Egypt", "Egyptian constitution" and "Egypt's constitution" should redirect to History of the Egyptian Constitution ; Wikipedia does not just cover the here-and-now, it also covers the past. As for "2012 constitution", that simply won't work, since there are other constitutions created in 2012 (such as the change in the constitution of Ireland) So, "2012 constitution of Egypt" or "2012 Constitution of Egypt" are the viable descriptive titles; while "2012 constitution", "2012 Constitution" are not WP:PRECISE enough. As for South Sudan, it never had a previous constitution. But Hungary should similarly be an overview article, not the specific constitution. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I meant that the Egyptian constitution is never refered to as "2012 [anything]", so "2012 Constitution of Egypt" would not be based on any outside-of-Wikipedia usage. My initial two examples I see now weren't good ones, but other examples from the list include Constitution of Kyrgyzstan, which was adopted in 2010 and only covers that constitution, not the previous one that existed from 1993 to 2012, the Constitution of Bolivia, which was adopted in 2009 and replaced the older one, the Constitution of Montenegro which was adopted in 2007 to replace the older one, and so on. Trinitresque (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It is now the de jure constitution, and I noticed most articles on constitutions refer to the currently effective constitution of the state. History of that constitution is something separate. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It was moved from 2012 Draft Constitution of Egypt at 19:27, 25 December 2012‎ but since it is Egypt's constitution the date is not important. If it is replaced with another constitution, then this one gets a date, and the new one gets this title. Apteva (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I would have to agree with the logic above...append a date if it is superceded.-Kiwipat (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per above supports.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose but in either case it must be clear that it is a new constitution; it was written by a 'founding committee' because legally this is the 'second Egyptian republic' not some modification on what was there before. --عبد المؤمن (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• No one ever said that it should not be made clear that this is a new constitution. That is already the case, since you can see that in the second sentece of this article it states that the constitution was signed into law in 2012. As for the 'second republic' thing, you'll have to find a source. I haven't read any analysis that finds that the constitution created a new republic. In some cases in history, such as France, yes, a new constitution means a new republic. But in cases like the United States when it dropped the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new constitution, it was just seen as a continuation of the same republic under new rules. Trinitresque (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How to handle article regarding new constitution

If the new constitution is approved, should we just create an article called Egyptian Constitution of 2012? This page would then be about the constitution of 2013.David O. Johnson (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, move the current one to Egyptian Constitution of 2012 and this will be the new ones' and keep a Egyptian Constitution of 2014 one redirects to here. Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 17:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

it's no a new constiution but a amending look like 1971 and 1980 constiution --Panam2014 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

amend : a·mend [uh-mend] : to "change" for the better; improve: to amend one's ways.

Change : [cheynj] to substitute another or others for; exchange for something else, usually of the same kind

amending is a change. it's a new one with new referendum. Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 19:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree - A new article should be created that deals with the 2012 constitution. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose It is just a big modification look like the 1980, 2005 and 2007 modifications of the 1971 constitution --Panam2014 (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it.David O. Johnson (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)