I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Ms. Farahat on Egypt, Ayn Rand, the Muslim Brotherhood, and U.S. foreign policy. —JL

Joshua Lipana: What was it like growing up as a girl in Egypt?

Cynthia Farahat: It was horrible! My mother raised my brother and me, as complete equals. She instilled in us that individuals are defined by their choices, actions, and merits. So you can imagine, with that upbringing, I was culturally shocked every time I left my house. Even to go grocery shopping was to risk getting sexually harassed, spat on, or hearing offensive, derogatory remarks while walking in the street. My first real introduction to Sunni tribalism was when a friend and I walked in the street without an adult for the first time, when I was 13 or 14. We were smiling and happy, and she said something funny and I laughed. For that, we ended up being cursed, spat on, and chased down the street by a group of thugs swearing to hurt us and “teach us a lesson.” We ran home horrified and crying without the slightest idea of what we had done wrong. This was not an “isolated” incident; this is the norm.

Arab culture is misogynist, and gynophobic. The state systematically degrades and demonizes women. According to Arab Islamic culture, all women are whores until proven opposite, and you certainly can’t prove the opposite. Wearing makeup and dressing fashionably is considered an invitation to sexual harassment and sometimes rape. Egypt is governed by a Sharia-based constitution, and Sharia law does not define rape as a crime. Rape was only criminalized in Egypt in 1997. You can imagine how bad the situation is for most women in a country where the military arrests female protestors, strips them naked, beats them in the streets, and gives them “virginity tests.”

JL: How did you intellectually break free of that culture?

CF: I didn’t, as I was never part of it. We had an entirely different upbringing than most Egyptians, our family and morality were much closer to being European than what you’d call conventional Egyptian. Egypt before 1952’s Islamic socialist coup d’état was culturally closer to Europe than Arabia. And many Egyptian families still belong to Egypt’s classic liberal era.

JL: What kind of culture and government would you like to see in Egypt?

CF: Egypt needs to reclaim its sovereignty first. Saudi Arabia—through its petro-dollars—has been funding the ideological subversion of Egypt through the international Muslim Brotherhood organization almost since its inception in 1928. The Brotherhood infiltrated Egypt’s military in the 40s and perpetrated the military coup that destroyed Egypt beyond recognition.

As for my dream for Egypt, it’s simply small government, laissez-faire capitalism, individual liberty, and the ideals of the American Founding Fathers. The American constitution is a glorious document; I dream for something similar for my country, and it’s not so far fetched, as Egypt had a great constitution and significant individual freedom in the 20s. But this will only be achieved when the world starts to confront the blood oil of Saudi Arabia and Iran; Ethical Oil is the first step toward a serious solution.

JL: Which thinkers have influenced your pro-freedom views?

CF: Since my childhood my family exposed us to western classic literature and arts. I have always had pro-freedom views, when one is consistently rational and objective it’s hard to come to different conclusions. But also the key is that my views were never defined by my shortcomings, whether financial, emotional, physical, or psychological, so I was never a theocrat, a socialist, or anti-freedom in any way. But no one was able to communicate my ideas and emotions like Ayn Rand did, she put the ideals I always adhered to in perspective and articulated them better than I ever will. The first book I read of Rand was Anthem, and I relate to this book on a very personal level. It parallels our battle for freedom under Islamic totalitarianism where individualism is the worst crime one can commit. The Egyptian state, through several laws, punishes those who don’t abide by the moral, religious, and dress codes of Islamic Sunni tribalism.

JL: In a testimony in the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the House of Representatives, you stated that the rulers of Egypt are not the “secular autocrats” they would have the West believe.  Would you elaborate on this?

CF: I’m always baffled and shocked that Westerners believed what Arab Sharia theocrats tell them! Just like Arafat told Westerners one thing in English and told his people the opposite in Arabic, it was exactly the case with every Arab dictator, including in Egypt. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, and now the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF), govern Egypt by Sharia based constitutions; so the accurate term to describe them is not “secular autocrats”, but “constitutional theocrats.”

JL: It is generally conceded that Mubarak was a despicable man, but many believe that he and his regime served to prevent the Islamists from attaining power in Egypt. To give one example, Peter Huessy recently said that the United States should not have withdrawn support from Mubarak because he “was a bulwark between the Muslim whackos getting government power in Egypt and using the Suez Canal as a lever.” What is your view on this?

CF: With all my respect to Mr. Huessy, this is a grave misconception. This popular idea—which endangers the lives of millions of people in the Middle East and helps the Islamists—is a result of one of the biggest political scams in modern history. While Mubarak portrayed himself as the “shield against radical Islamism,” he governed Egypt with a Sharia-based constitution and threatened, imprisoned, tortured, abducted, and killed classical liberal secularists, among them many of my friends who were by default the real shield against terror and Islamism.

Mubarak’s Islamist regime rebuffed two political parties I co-founded by two court orders for being secular, classical liberal, and pro-normalization with Israel, and threatened and harassed and terrorized me almost daily for a decade. Mubarak did all this while allowing the legal founding of an Islamist Nazi party in 1990 called Misr al-Fatat, which actually adheres to Nazism and Sharia law.

Mubarak lied and said the Muslim Brotherhood was “banned” while they were the only opposition that was allowed to fully and freely function. He let the Brotherhood acquire millions of dollars in funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar and have offices in every neighborhood in Egypt. In addition, Mubarak allowed jihadists full control of state media.

In 2005, Mubarak allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to become a parliamentary opposition in a fraudulent election, while banning secularists from public political discourse. Mohammed Tantawi, the head of SCAF, is doing exactly the same today, by giving the parliament to the Islamists in a fraudulent election. The West falls for it every time.

JL: What do you think the U.S. government should be doing with regard to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

CF: The current administration and State Department obviously want the Muslim Brotherhood in power. When President Obama declared Dalia Mogahed as one of his advisors, I wrote on Facebook that this was going to translate to the advancement of the Muslim Brotherhood and we can kiss our dreams goodbye. The Arabic website of the Brotherhood celebrated Dalia Mogahed’s position in the administration and discussed their strong ties with her in an article that was removed shortly afterwards. Dalia Mogahed’s involvement with the Brotherhood—the founders of al-Qaeda and Hamas—is not a secret.

If we had allies in a different U.S. administration, one that understood and advocated freedom, there are things that could be done that would save Egypt and the Middle East:

1. Cut the annual 1.3 billion dollars in military aid to the Pakistani style military dictatorship in Cairo that funds Salafi jihadists.
2. Designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), because it is, and if it does not qualify the current definition of FTO then the definition obviously needs to be amended to integrate it. It doesn’t make any sense that the Muslim Brotherhood’s military wings like Hamas and al-Qaeda are on the list while their masterminds and founders are not.
3. Now that Egypt’s parliament is controlled by the legislative wing of Hamas—the Muslim Brotherhood—Egypt needs to be monitored closely as it is possibly eligible to be designated among the State Sponsors of Terrorism. Saad Katatni, secretary general of Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP)— which is the Muslim Brotherhood party—and the current speaker of the parliament who was also the president of the Muslim Brotherhood bloc in the parliament under Mubarak, has made numerous pro Hamas statements. Katatni said in December 2007 in an interview for Islam Today: “The vote for Hamas is a vote for the true form and true path of Islam, and Islamic resistance.” He added, “Hamas is the first front of defense against any aggression on Muslim countries.” Katatni also said in April 2010 in an interview for an Egyptian newspaper called Misr al-Gadeeda: “Hamas are pioneers, and their support is important for resistance.” He also called for opening the borders between Egypt and Gaza and for sending aid to Hamas. So how far is he going to go to support Hamas?

JL: What in your view can freedom lovers in America and elsewhere in the civilized world do to help Egyptians who want freedom?

CF: They can do the kind of thing you are doing now—which I’m truly thankful for. They can help spread the message of dissidents, and anti-Sharia Egyptians who speak the truth about what is happening in Egypt.

After a decade of vigorous political activism in Egypt against international Islamism, theocracy, and the military regime, I know how weak the enemies of freedom are. When America is a strong horse like it was during the first term of President Bush’s administration, we were almost invincible; when America is weak and submissive, we get crushed.

JL: Where can readers keep up with you and your ideas?

CF: You can read my ideas about international politics and religion at www.cynthiafarahat.com.

JL: Thank you very much for your time, Cyn.

CF: Thank you so much for having me, Joshua!

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• An Interview with John R. Bolton on the Proper Role of Government
• Interview with Reza Kahlili, an Ex-CIA Spy Embedded in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
• The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go

Wayne Laugesen explains for the Colorado Springs Gazette:

President Barack Obama’s administration finalized orders last week that will force all Americans, with few exceptions, to buy health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and abortion pills without the burden of fees or co-pays. Obama is not merely ordering all Americans to accept abortion and contraception, he is demanding their support with mandatory purchases.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers told the Gazette, “This extends telling Americans they must buy health insurance to telling them they must buy products that are contrary to their religious beliefs.” Laugesen added, “Freedom of religion is under siege.” Republican Presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum harshly criticized the president on similar grounds. House Speaker John Boehner vowed to overturn the policy by Congressional action.

True, the government should not force Catholics to fund birth control against their religious beliefs. But the government should not force anyone to fund any type of insurance coverage against their wishes. The government should not force people to buy insurance that covers birth control, acupuncture, maternity leave, or any other good or service. Such mandates violate the rights of insurance companies and their clients to freely negotiate terms, and they drive up the costs of premiums.

Insurance mandates not only violate Catholics’ freedom of religion; they violate everyone’s freedom of conscience and everyone’s freedom to use their own resources as they judge best. To be genuinely “pro-choice,” one must respect people’s choices across the board—including their choice of religion or philosophy, their choice of whether to buy insurance and if so what kind, and their choice of how to dispose of the fruits of their labor.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America
• Newt Sides with Anti-Abortion Zealots

Image: Wikimedia Commons via Kancelaria Prezydenta RP

No doubt abusive litigation in America has spun out of control. But why should select industries receive special protection that others don’t enjoy? Lawmakers should focus on crafting sensible liability rules that apply equally to everyone.

In his book The Right to Earn a Living, Timothy Sandefur (an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation) summarizes, “The abuse of tort law by mercenary lawyers poses a major threat to American businesses and therefore to the economic liberties of everyone.”

One major problem Sandefur cites is that courts often fail to recognize explicit contracts limiting liability. He offers the example of a 2005 case in which a New Jersey court refused to recognize the liability waiver a woman signed before her son used a skate park. (The son broke his leg, and the mother sued the park despite her signed waiver.)

Whether people want to skate in a park or fly into space, they should be able to decide what level of risk they are willing to accept. When courts fail to recognize freely negotiated agreements limiting liability, that drives abusive lawsuits, puts producers out of business, and limits the creation of new businesses.

Spaceflight companies deserve legal protection from abusive lawsuits. And so do the rest of us here on planet Earth.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law by Timothy Sandefur
• Instrumentalism and the Disintegration of American Tort Law

Image: Wikipedia Commons

The backlash was swift. Said NJ Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex): “Governor — people … were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It took legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans.”

“People of color in the American South,” lectured civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), “…could not register to vote… take a seat in the front of the bus [or] visit state capitals. If it had been put to a referendum, we would have never ever won”; only “congressional actions, court decisions and presidential executive orders” made victory possible.

And as the NJ Star-Ledger pointed out: “Imagine how different American history would be if this rule by referendums had carried the day from the start. … [M]inority rights should not be subjected to majority vote. That misses the gist of constitutional rights.”

The governor’s critics are correct, up to a point: Rights are not a matter of voter approval. But nor are they a matter of legislative approval, court order, or executive order. The right of individuals to freely contract with one other, so long as their contracts and actions don’t involve the violation of others’ rights, is a moral matter, which precedes politics and legislation.

Should the bill pass, the NJ legislature in fact will not have created a right to gay marriage; rather, it will have removed NJ’s ban on the practice, thus recognizing that same sex couples have an inalienable right to join together under a marriage contract.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• Gay Marriage and Rights vs. Democracy
• Church and State: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven

Image: Creative Commons by Bob Jagendorf

But contrary to what HRW implies, the “majority preference” of foreigners is not a standard by reference to which civilized nations should set foreign policy. Further, political Islam means violating rights and, ultimately, killing those who reject Islam. Whether Islamists gain power by force or by vote, they seek to force their barbaric creed on the citizenry and ultimately the world. Encouraging Islamists to “respect basic rights” is like encouraging communists to respect basic rights. It can’t happen.

Further, for Islamists to say that they intend to “respect basic rights” would be a patent lie. Iranian Reza Kahlili, in an interview with TOS, recounts what happened when Islamists took over Iran:

[T]he new government went back on its promise that the clerics would not interfere in government matters, that they would only address the spirituality of the people. The clerics started enforcing Islamic law, which was not supposed to be part of the new government. Soon Khomeini and other clerics declared that they were representatives of God on Earth and that anybody who opposed them would be regarded as a “moraheb,” an enemy of God, and executed.

Following that, tens of thousands of men and women were arrested, opposition political parties were banned, and certain universities were shut down to get rid of the Western influence in our education. Among the thousands taken to Evin prison, where they kept political prisoners, were my best friend and his siblings.

I witnessed the torture and the horror that this new regime was inflicting on Iranian citizens. Teenage girls were raped prior to execution—because of the Muslim belief that virgins go to heaven. Boys and girls were tortured in unimaginable ways, some of which I’ve described in my book [A Time to Betray], and then executed.

Political Islam should not be tolerated; it should be eliminated.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• Interview with Reza Kahlili, an Ex-CIA Spy Embedded in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
• “No Substitute for Victory” The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
• The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go
• An Interview with John R. Bolton on the Proper Role of Government

Image: Creative Commons by atphalix

Conservative writer Liz Peek praises this bill on the grounds “that union labor costs and work rules have become an obstacle to job growth.” No doubt her claims about unions are true. But the problems arise from various federal statutes, including the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act signed by FDR in 1935, that violate the rights of employers and employees to contract as they see fit. One practical result has been to hamstring the American auto industry, as Daniel J. Mitchell pointed out even before the auto bailouts.

The conservative solution, as articulated by Peek, merely compounds previous violations of freedom of contract with new ones, apparently on the grounds that two wrongs somehow make a right. In her view, the bill is good because it “prohibits contracts requiring workers to pay union dues.” But why should the government be in the business of setting the terms of employment contracts? Employers should be free to hire whomever they want on whatever terms the parties mutually agree to accept.

More broadly, there is no “right to work” against an employer’s consent, any more than there is a “right to health care.” A right refers to a freedom of action—such as the right to seek employment or medical care from willing partners—not to an entitlement to a specific good, service, or outcome. People have the right to work for others only insofar as the employer freely consents to the terms of employment. (Of course, people always have the right to work for themselves using their own labor and resources.)

The solution to rights-violating labor laws is not to impose more rights-violating labor laws, but rather to repeal them all and restore liberty of contract.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• Mitch Daniels: Business is “One of the Noblest of Human Pursuits”
• America’s Unfree Market

Image: Bob Glass

Though praised by some conservatives, the law violates the rights of doctors and patients and opens the door to similar attacks on all our rights.

The Texas law violates freedom of contract by restricting consensual, voluntary agreements between women and their doctors. Conservatives who support such restrictions on abortion can offer no principled resistance when leftists wish to use government force to restrict freedom of contract in medicine in other ways, as by imposing myriad costly insurance mandates.

The law violates rights of trade and self-determination by forcing women to wait 24 hours to get an abortion in most cases. By the same logic, the government could force people to wait to enter any other controversial economic transaction. No doubt other activists would love to use government force to make people wait to buy a gun, buy unhealthy foods or drinks, trade certain stocks or other financial instruments, or even read or publish “sensitive” materials (such as that denying human-caused global warming).

The law also violates the free speech of doctors who, under the law, must discuss what politicians dictate rather than what their professional judgment demands. By the same standards, politicians could impose rote speech on marriage and divorce counselors, sellers of controversial magazines, etc. (The argument that the Texas law merely ensures informed consent is an obvious pretext to make abortions costlier and more difficult to obtain; the idea that women seeking abortions don’t already understand what an abortion entails is ludicrous.)

The choice is stark. We can have either economic liberty or laws that restrict freedoms of contract, trade, and speech; we can’t have both. Those who act to restrict economic liberties in the realm of abortion should not be surprised when other sorts of transactions fall prey to the same types of controls.

Regarding the broader case for why women have the right to seek an abortion, and why fetuses don’t have rights, see Diana Hsieh and my recent Objective Standard article, “The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.”

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• Gingrich Seeks to Violate Rights of Women and Doctors to Engage in Fertility Care
  
• The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty
  

Image: Creative Commons

Yet Gingrich’s recent call for more rules controlling in vitro fertility treatments raises an important issue: Under the proposed anti-abortion “personhood” laws that Gingrich endorses, common fertility treatments would be outlawed. The result would be that many women who wish to have children would be legally barred from getting pregnant.

“Personhood” laws would arbitrarily declare eggs at the moment of fertilization to be the legal equivalent of a born child, conferring full legal rights to zygotes. Among many other things, such laws would ban common fertility treatments that involve harvesting multiple eggs from the woman, trying to fertilize those eggs, and then implanting one or more of the resulting zygotes in the woman’s uterus. Because these procedures typically produce extra zygotes that are later destroyed, “personhood” laws declare them to be murder.

If doctors were forbidden from fertilizing more than a single egg at a time, that would dramatically increase the cost of fertility treatment and dramatically reduce the chances of success. As a result, many women who wish to have children would be legally prevented from doing so. (For details, see a 2010 paper on the subject by Diana Hsieh and me.)

Thus, “personhood” laws would violate the rights of women and their partners to seek fertility care as well as the rights of doctors to administer it—a violation of the founding rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And yet, even though they would prevent many women from having children of their own, the “personhood” laws are preposterously called “pro life” by their advocates. They are in fact profoundly anti-life, and it it time for Americans to recognize them as such.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties
  
• Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society
  

Image: Creative Commons by Gage Skidmore

That’s the stark challenge faced by the seven protagonists of the movie The Grey, starring Liam Neeson. An airplane carrying Alaskan oil field workers crashes during a storm, and they must battle harsh winter conditions and a pack of aggressive wolves while attempting to find their way back to civilization. In addition to spectacular cinematography and spellbinding action scenes, the movie demonstrates surprising philosophical depth in delivering its theme: “What does it really mean to fight for one’s life?”

The movie also dramatizes three related principles that are easy to forget during everyday life but that are made vividly clear in the context of the movie:

1) Man’s basic means of survival is his reasoning mind.

The wolves in The Grey survive using their claws, fangs, and instincts in accordance with their basic nature. Humans, however, cannot survive in this fashion. We lack the fur to keep us warm in subzero temperatures, claws and fangs to kill prey (or to protect ourselves against predators), and instincts to dictate our actions. To survive, we must use our minds, rearrange nature, and create the goods we need. Reason is our basic means of doing so.

2) Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

Do you need to start a fire? Then you must identify the nature of the material at hand and proceed accordingly. Do you need to cross a violently rushing river? Then you must devise a method that holds the weight of a full-grown man; you must respect and apply the laws of physics. Wishful thinking, bluster, or drunkenness won’t make reality bend to your desires or make your problems go away. The only way to solve your problems or accomplish your goals is to face reality head-on, heed the facts, and act accordingly.

3) Modern man is extremely dependent on the benefits of technology.

Technology is an incredible enhancement to our lives. I would rather be typing a movie review on my MacBook Air in the comfort of my living room than shivering in a dark cave wondering whether I’ll be eaten by wolves tonight.

But it’s easy to take for granted the benefits of industrial civilization until we are reminded (in fiction or in real life) what life is like without those benefits. In Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden hosts a fancy party during a storm. During the party, Francisco D’Anconia tells him:

“[Y]ou are able to have summer flowers and half-naked women in your house on a night like this, in demonstration of your victory over that storm. And if it weren’t for you, most of those who are here would be left helpless at the mercy of that wind in the middle of some such plain.”

The Grey reminded me how grateful I am for the many entrepreneurs, engineers, and businessmen who have created our modern industrial civilization. Without them, we wouldn’t enjoy the iPads, cell phones, automobiles, central heating, and electricity we so easily take for granted. Instead, we’d be like the protagonists of The Grey, struggling mightily against raw, untamed nature, hoping to survive another day.

For this reason, although The Grey is not a political movie, it also helped me better appreciate Ari Armstrong’s recent blog post, “Great Producers Deserve Our Gratitude, Not Obama’s Tax Hikes.”

In the hubbub of everyday life, it’s easy to forget some basic truths about man, nature, and the fundamental role of reason in our lives. A gripping tale of novel and dire circumstances, The Grey reminds us of what we must never forget if we want to live.

Though Daniels’ speech is a mixed bag, his identification of the nobility of business is spot on and is a refreshing contrast to Obama’s anti-business agenda. Businessmen are productive dynamos who trade value for value to earn their wealth. Steve Jobs, John Allison, Bill Gates, Jonathan Hoenig, and other businessmen deserve to be praised for pursuing their rational self-interest and for creating goods and services that further their lives and, consequently, the lives of those who trade with them.

Republican leaders desperately need to recognize and embrace the moral nature of business. And they need to work to protect the individual rights of businessmen and unshackle producers from regulations and discriminatory taxation.

Related:

• Capitalism and the Moral High Ground
• The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism

Image: Wikimedia Commons