CAIRO - Egypt's new military rulers will issue a warning on Monday against anyone who creates "chaos and disorder", an army source said.
The Higher Military Council will also ban meetings by labor unions or professional syndicates, effectively forbidding strikes, and tell all Egyptians to get back to work after the unrest that toppled Hosni Mubarak.
The army will also say it acknowledges and protects the right of people to protest, the source said.
Protesters argued heatedly in Tahrir Square over whether to stay or comply with army orders to leave. "The people want the square cleared," one group chanted. "We will not leave, we will not leave," replied another.
Police officers, emboldened by Mubarak's downfall, gathered outside the Interior Ministry to demand higher pay. Warning shots were fired in the air. No one was hurt.
Workers from the health and culture ministries staged demonstrations as Egyptians began venting pent-up frustrations.
Thousands of workers have staged strikes, sit-ins and protests over pay and conditions at firms and government agencies in fields such as steel, textiles, telecoms, railways, post offices, banks and oil and pharmaceutical companies.
Egypt declared Monday a bank holiday after workers disrupted operations at the country's main state banks.
Protest organizers were forming a Council of Trustees to defend the revolution and urge swift reform from a military intent on restoring law and order during the transition.
Mahmoud Nassar, a youth movement leader, said: "The army has moved far along to meet the people's demands and we urge it to release all political prisoners who were taken before and after January 25 revolution. Only then will we call off the protests."
Monday, February 14, 2011
Hope and Change: Egypt's New Military Leaders To Ban Unions, Strikes
Is this the kind of democracy the left have been so excited about? It seems that the left can't think through the cause and effect part of policy and politics. We all know what the Muslims will do with freedom and the left-wing in Egypt if they gain power. It's nice to see Obama cheering for the Egyptian people. But I wonder why Obama isn't cheering on the Iranian people? That one has a chance of turning out good for the people and us if that regime falls. I can't figure out why Obama hasn't said anything to promote or nudge the Iranian protesters. It turns out that Wiki leaks outed the US for helping the Egyptian revolution for some time now. That doesn't look good to our friendly nations now does it? But who needs friends when we have so many more enemies now. I sure wish someone would have ask what Obama meant by "Change". It seems that no matter what Obama touches, it turns to crap. We are only starting to find out what this administration has been involved with in the Middle East. It seems that this administration has been community organizing on a global scale. Too bad it hasn't been working out for We the People.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chris, i have a few questions. Think you could try to answer them.
ReplyDelete1. Do you think that unions and professional associations will be banned permanently or just till orders restored? I dislike the bans as i believe that the right of assembly and thereby the right of association is fundamental to a free society. I am unsure that the military will keep this ruling longterm though.
2. This wiki leaks theory your promoting here, is it Obama's fault? I mean does the blame ride on him? I've read the actual cables and it seems that most of the actions were by the Bush State Dept under Condi at the time. Also he was invited to speak before a committee on a house resolution concerned with democracy in Egypt that was co-sponsored by Michigan Republican McCotter. So who's to blame if your passing around blame?
3. As for Iran what do you expect? Other than blame what would you like to see and why?
1.It depends on who gains control of the Egyption government. This move doesn't sound like democracy to me. 2.Yes and No. I think Obama had the power to do something about the illegaly gotten wiki leaks, but chose to do and say next to nothing. You would have felt the same way or worse if it was Bush in charge. I also blame Bush for his part in this. We have lost a lot of trust artound the world and both those presidents did that. 3. I would expect that Obama would come out strong for the people of Iran and against the Iranian leaders, our enemy. He did it against our friend in the Middle East so why so shy when it's our enemy that could fall? Does that make sense to you Joe? If the Iranian government falls we can always do better if it does. He should be rooting for that outcome. He did root for the fall of Egypt our aligh. Doesn't that sound a little backwards to you Joe?
ReplyDeleteChris, I don't think that Egpyt will move directly towards a democracy. It will be fits and starts but nothing smooth. Just like Iraq. People vote and the government gets nothing done.
ReplyDeleteAs for Iran, i agree that he should encourage their leadership to move towards some freedoms using the fact that we pushed for our ally to come to terms with his constituents, but to use hostile language would only hurt the case.
No it doesn't sound backwards that he did not stand up and defend Mubarak. when you don't learn from history your bound to repeat it. We took a hard line on Iran in the 70's and lost the country. If we stood behind Mubarak and he got repressive like the Shah did then we'd only have one more enemy not the potential for friendship or at least apathy.
Never piss into the wind and if you can't feel the winds change you might just do that.