A few days following the Egyptian government’s decision declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, Mohammed Amin Mahdi, the interim Minister of Justice interpreted the decision as a mere notification to the public, which in practical terms meant the decision had no legal significance and did no more than put more pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders and the group’s operatives.

A few days following the Egyptian government’s decision declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, Mohammed Amin Mahdi, the interim Minister of Justice interpreted the decision as a mere notification to the public, which in practical terms meant the decision had no legal significance and did no more than put more pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders and the group’s operatives.

It could also be argued that the only effect of the decision, which has no legal grounds or value, according to legal experts, is that the media has replaced the description of the group as ‘banned’ by the word ‘terrorist’, a more severe description. The decision has not been legislatively published as some legal experts demanded. In addition, there is no law in Egypt under which terrorist organizations’ activists could be tried, as is the case in some other countries.

Interestingly, the Minister of Justice stated that the Egyptian people have already expressed their position towards the Muslim Brotherhood and do not, therefore, need an official decision by the government to label the group. Despite the terrorist acts carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA), for example, it was not described by the British government as a terrorist group because it was customary not to prosecute groups or organizations, as only individuals are tried based on the crimes they have perpetrated.

Thus, the declaration is a political decision aimed at putting psychological pressure on the group, banning its members and giving the public new tools in their struggle against the group, given that the public described by the ruling authority as ‘honest citizens’ are deemed the government’s main tools to combat this group. In addition, the decision has been issued under pressure by the media which seeks to promote the spirit of fascism in society as numerous talk-show programs’ hosts demanded the government to issue this decision and accused it of having ‘trembling hands,’ in addition to convincing viewers that the announcement of such a decision would be instrumental in ending the group’s acts of violence. Thus, the decision has become a popular demand in keeping with the fascist situation which the media seeks to promote in the society. Unfortunately, the media has largely succeeded in achieving this goal.

Yet while the Justice Minister said the announcement merely aimed at informing the public about the nature of the group, a top general at the Interior Ministry said the decision provided for legal punishments. Accordingly, individuals taking part in demonstrations organized by the Muslim Brothers, hoisting their banners or raising the ‘four fingers’ sign that signifies ‘Rabia al-Adwaiya’ mosque proponents will be punished. However, the general did not explain the grounds on which he based his threat. The Interior Ministry publically communicated the telephone numbers through which citizens could report any Brotherhood violations.

But, it is still unclear what charge will be leveled against them and how citizens would prove that their neighbor or colleague belongs to an allegedly illegal group and how the Interior Ministry could ensure that such reported charges were not used to settle personal differences.  Consequently, this declaration means that the government wants to turn Egyptians into an army of informants.

It is not difficult to discover that those standing behind this media campaign, which seeks to isolate the Muslim Brotherhood are associated with the system pre-January 25. The discourse pursued by this campaign does not only seek to isolate the Muslim Brotherhood, but it also seeks to combat any judicious and reasonable voices within the government, which are of the view that a decision against any terrorist group or even those affiliated with them must occur through a judicial order by a competent court. The proponents of such reasonable voices have been branded as fifth columnists or ‘trembling hands’ persons.

It is surprising to hear Hosam Issa, Deputy Prime Minister for Social Justice and Minister of Higher Education, state on Wael Ibrashi’s 10 pm program that he does not support the cabinet decision, which considers the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group even though he read the anti-Brotherhood statement the following day. This means that some members who oppose the decision were blackmailed by the fascist media. Besides, the campaign includes political forces, intellectuals or politicians with visions and perceptions that differ from TV hosts’ positions who demand that the Muslim Brotherhood be further isolated and branded a terrorist group.

On the other hand, the behavior of the Muslim Brotherhood group, despite its public and official isolation and the attacks it has faced since June 30, in addition to the break-up of Rabia sit-in, indicate that it seeks to have a greater tightening of its security grip on society. The group’s behavior isolates the government’s democratic wing, which demands dialogue with the group on condition of renouncing violence. It has, however, embarrassed and isolated that autonomous wing seeking broader social polarization which transforms society to fascism and justifies the return of the police state. Through its practices, the group has confirmed that violence is one of its major tools of action. It is, consequently, a terrorist group that essentially needs no government decision.