Eighteen feminist and rights organizations and initiatives, along with public figures, on Monday condemned statements by Justice Party MPs Mohamed Fouad and Fatma Adel over discussions about the custody age in the personal status law, saying the MPs’ remarks attacked the groups in “stigmatizing and accusatory language” that “breaches the duty of public responsibility and gravely violates the duties of legislative office.”
Unlike the government draft, which maintains custody at age 15, a position backed by feminist groups, the Justice Party is proposing amendments to lower the age. The change would allow fathers to gain custody earlier and end their obligation to provide housing and maintenance to mothers, making custody one of the most contentious provisions in the personal status bill.
The organizations issued a joint statement after Justice Party MP Fatma Adel said during a televised interview Saturday on the personal status bill, “Feminists do not want a fair law and do not want to solve the issue. They want to wring every possible gain out of the law. Our priority is the child’s best interests. We need to move beyond framing this solely as a women’s rights issue.”
Justice Party parliamentary bloc head Mohamed Fouad made similar remarks in a press interview about his proposal to lower the custody age, a position previously adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood. “We cannot treat the personal status law as a feminist law,” he said. “The feminists who make a living off this issue keep pulling the same scare tactic out of the drawer.”
The remarks were widely condemned by the organizations, which said such rhetoric from parliamentarians could not be classified as “personal opinion,” but was “a grave breach of the duties of office that requires accountability inside the House of Representatives.”
The statement, titled “No family justice without fairness to women,” criticized the two MPs for portraying the defense of women’s issues as “making a living” or a “hustle,” and for accusing women’s rights defenders of obstructing discussions on the personal status law.
The signatory groups, including Edraak Foundation for Development and Equality, the Center for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance, and the New Woman Foundation, said the danger of the remarks lies in giving “social and political cover to rhetoric that encourages violence and opposes equality” while helping “demonize” proposals aimed at protecting women within the family. They warned against such language coming from representatives of the people under the dome of parliament.
Rights lawyer Nada Nashat, director of the women’s public participation program at the Center for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance, told Al Manassa the Justice Party is inconsistent. “It presents itself as a progressive liberal party while proposing a personal status law that includes obedience provisions and jailing a husband who fails to pay alimony,” she said. “Then they talk about the child’s best interests.”
Responding to the party’s support for lowering the custody age, Nashat asked, “How can a child be taken from his mother’s arms at seven or nine years old and be OK? Who is involved in the child’s life at this age, the mother or the father?” She said, “It is unfortunate that a female MP attacks the feminist movement when she has not read about it and does not know the depth of the relationship between feminist struggle and the development of personal status laws.”
Nashat said the party followed a “politically smart” strategy by putting forward MP Fatma Adel to respond, portraying the crisis as a “women’s quarrel.” She rejected that framing, stressing that feminist demands also include men’s rights, such as “shared care.”
“If we, as a feminist organization, wanted only women’s rights, why did we propose that fathers come second after mothers in custody rights, and why are we calling for visitation rights for fathers?” she added.
Fouad, meanwhile, declined to enter a direct argument over the criticism, telling Al Manassa in a brief comment, “I have no comment, and I prefer not to respond to this kind of back-and-forth, but I believe in freedom of opinion for everyone, even if, from my perspective, it lacks accuracy.”
