250 days on hunger strike: Can Laila Soueif secure her son's freedom?
Laila Soueif, 69, has been on hunger strike in London for more than 250 days in an effort to secure the release of her son, the activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah, from jail in Egypt. As diplomatic pressure mounts, she is now in a critical condition.
Alaa's sister Mona Seif describes to Michael Safi the toll that imprisonment has taken on her brother, her mother's determination to do whatever she can to secure his release, and the difficulty of coming to terms with her mother's decision to risk her life.
The Guardian's diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour, describes meeting Soueif and says she and her British-Egyptian family have a long history of activism. This includes a reported past incident between her husband, Ahmed Seif, and the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, that many believe may be influencing Alaa's potentially indefinite detention.
The two discuss the attempts made by different British governments to secure her son's release, the Foreign Office's strategic considerations, and possible diplomatic options.
Support the Guardian today: theguardian.com/todayinfocuspod
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BEL MOONEY: Why is it called ‘infanticide' to kill a newborn child, yet it will soon be legal to end the life of a baby when it's fully formed in the womb?
There are times in life when you shake yourself hard, as if wishing to awaken from sleep, only to find that the nightmare is all too present and frighteningly real. So I felt when our representatives in His Majesty's Government, elected MPs in the country we like to call the 'Mother of Parliaments', gave a resounding 'Yes' to making it legal for any woman to pop a pill at any time in a pregnancy – and terminate the baby in her womb.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Angela Rayner accused of waging 'class war' over her plans to cut funding for wealthier Southern areas so more can be spent in the North
Labour was yesterday accused of declaring 'class war' over plans to cut funding for town halls in the South and splurge it in its northern heartlands. Under Angela Rayner 's shake-up, wealthier southern households face a raft of raids to help pay for the giveaway in Labour's traditional working-class areas. These include hikes in council tax bills and fees, such as parking, planning and licensing charges. Town halls in the South also face having to cut existing services because of the raid on their coffers. Under the plans, unveiled yesterday, town halls with 'stronger council tax bases', which tend to be in wealthier parts of London and the Home Counties, will get less Government cash. Those with 'weaker bases', often in the North, will get more under the 'progressive' redistribution model. The Deputy Prime Minister Ms Rayner, who is also the local government secretary, has long argued that an overhaul of council funding is needed. Ms Rayner, the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, has pointed to people living in the North who pay hundreds of pounds more in council tax than those in wealthier southern areas, calling it 'unfair'. But the plans, which affect councils in England and would begin for three years from next April, sparked a furious backlash. Greg Smith, the Tory MP for Mid Buckinghamshire, said: 'We're already massively over-taxed and council tax has already blown out of all proportion across the country. 'Anything that takes from the South to pay for the North is class war.' And Kevin Hollinrake, the Tories' local government spokesman, said: 'In reality, Labour's appetite for tax hikes knows no bounds. These new backdoor rises in fees and charges are nothing more than stealth taxes – punishing the very councils that have kept taxes low and responsible.' The new proposed formula for allocating money would take into account local needs, based on population, poverty and age data. This will lead to more cash going to deprived areas. And Government grants, which account for about half of councils' income, will now be based on calculations of what local authorities could raise if all areas charged the same rates of council tax based on their housing mix. This will mean steep falls in grant income for wealthier councils. Vikki Slade, the Lib Dems' local government spokesman, said: 'It would be a big mistake for the Government to force councils into unfair council tax rises. 'At a time when councils desperately need support, it beggars belief that Angela Rayner is considering reducing funding entitlements for many, including councils which already receive very little grant funding.' But ministers insist councils won't go bust as it would be phased in over three years, removing a potential 'cliff edge' if the redistribution happened in one go. They also say it will not lead to huge council tax hikes because these are already capped at 5 per cent, and most councils already raise it by this amount every year. However, they could apply to Ms Rayner, who is from Stockport, for special permission to raise it by more than this given the unprecedented pressure their finances could come under. They are also likely to look at cutting back on existing services and hiking other fees to help balance the books. It raises the prospect of councils being handed more powers to raise revenues by hiking such fees. Yesterday's new consultation, which will run until August 15, said ministers will now 'review all fees previously identified and consider where there is the strongest case for reform'. Kate Ogden, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said councils in 'leafier suburban and rural areas' in the South will be among the biggest losers. Local government minister Jim McMahon said: 'There's broad agreement across council leaders, experts, and parliamentarians that the current funding model is broken and unfair. 'This Government is stepping up to deliver the fairer system promised in the 2017 Fair Funding Review but never delivered.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
