ASMAA FATHI

CAIRO_In an ear when information travels within minutes from one screen to another, data that appeard on the surface to be a means fo helping find a missing woman or girl can, under certain social conditions, turn into a new source of danger for her.

The incident of the murder of the "Saff" girl in Egypt brings back into focus the balance between society's right to knowledge and women's right to privacy and protection, especially in light of the social stigmatization and psychological and legal harm that may result from the circulation of their information. It also reveals the challenges of early intervention to confront violence and discrimination, and the risks of exploiting digital data and images for defamation and threats, and raises questions about the adequacy of the Egyptian protection system and legislation in protecting the data of missing persons and victims of violence, without prejudice to the right of access to information or exposing them to further danger.

When an Attempt to Search for a Missing Person Turns into a Danger to Her

Cassation lawyer Zeinab Abu Talib believes that this issue reveals a gap that needs clearer treatment, considering that the problem is not only related to protecting the data of the accused, but also extends to protecting the data of victims, especially in disappearance cases that may carry highly sensitive information about the woman.

She explains that the Saff girl incident began as a disappearance case, then after she was found, details and images related to her and the person she was with were circulated, considering that the disclosure of these details took the incident out of the scope of limited security handling into a wider space of circulation, with the serious social repercussions that carried.

She adds that dealing with the data of a missing girl must start first from the principle of protecting her, not just from the desire to reach her. She believes that protecting data in such incidents needs a clear mechanism, because the danger does not end once the missing person is found; rather, another danger may begin if the circulated information includes details that can be used against her or against her family members.

She confirms that the Personal Data Protection Law No. 151 of 2020 represents an important framework for data protection, but she explains that dealing with data related to criminal incidents needs more specific controls and protocols, given the sensitivity of this type of information and the effects that its disclosure may entail beyond merely violating privacy.

How Can Spread Multiply the Danger

The problem lies not in the data alone, but in the meaning that society gives to this data after its spread. Information that may be neutral for a security or journalistic entity can, in a conservative social environment, turn into "evidence of condemnation" in the eyes of the family or social surroundings, even before any investigation is completed or any crime is proven.

According to Zeinab Abu Talib, this point was strongly present in the Saff girl incident. She considers that the arrival of the details of the relationship to the family, then its spread on a wider scale, made the incident be read through the concept of "shame" and "honor" instead of being dealt with as an incident requiring protection and investigation.

She points out that what she described as reactions on social media increased the seriousness of the matter, especially with the appearance of comments praising the act of killing or presenting the killer as a "man" who defended his family's honor. For her, this type of discourse does not content itself with justifying the crime after it occurs, but contributes to normalizing the idea that makes killing a woman an acceptable punishment for behavior viewed as contrary to customs.

When Social Stigma Turns into a Justification for Violence

Zeinab Abu Talib believes that describing these crimes as "honor crimes" represents in itself part of the problem, because the term may suggest the existence of an exceptional justification for violence, while killing remains killing, and cannot turn into a legitimate act merely because the perpetrator gave it social cover.

She explains that there is a difference between the existence of specific legal circumstances that the legislator may regulate in certain cases, and transforming the concept of "honor" into a general justification that allows the father or brother to punish or kill the woman. She stresses that society needs greater legal awareness of these limits, so that social norms do not turn into something like a parallel authority to the law.

She warns against the discourse that deals with the man who kills a woman from his family as having "regained his honor," because this discourse creates a social environment that grants the killer a kind of recognition instead of confronting him with a murder crime complete in its elements. She adds that the reproduction of these ideas through social media makes the danger greater, because comments that glorify the killer or search for excuses for him may contribute to entrenching the belief that violence against women can be acceptable if placed under the title of "honor."

She notes that the idea of a man within the family possessing a right to "discipline" or punish a woman because of personal behavior represents a real danger, especially when it intertwines with undisciplined religious or social discourse that lends legitimacy to violence.

She criticizes what she considers the use of some legal texts or general concepts to justify assault under the name of discipline, confirming that discipline cannot turn into a justification for killing, and that there is a need to review the legal and societal discourse that may allow misinterpretation of some provisions.

But the issue does not stop at the legal text; even the strongest texts are not enough alone if society continues to view the killing of a woman as an act that can be understood or morally mitigated merely because the victim is a woman and the perpetrator is a family member. Here the importance of legal awareness emerges — not only among women, but among families and society as a whole, so that the rule becomes clear: family dispute, anger, stigma, or the idea of "honor" does not grant anyone the right to turn themselves into an extrajudicial punishment authority.

When the Crime Becomes Part of a Broader Pattern of Violence

Away from the Saff girl incident, the recurrence of femicide crimes imposes looking at each incident as part of a broader social context, instead of dealing with it as an incident separate from others.

Zeinab Abu Talib believes that rates of violence and killing are witnessing alarming increases, and attributes this to an intertwined set of factors, including weak family upbringing, the decline of dialogue within the family, intensive exposure to violent content, as well as some forms of bullying and discrimination within the family, school, and society.

She also links the violence that children see in their surroundings with the possibilities of reproducing it later, pointing to the influence of some films, electronic games, and digital content that sometimes presents violence as a means of strength or victory.

But at the same time, she believes that responsibility cannot be placed on a single factor. Rebuilding the value system begins from the family and extends to the school, religious institutions, and society, with the necessity of continuous dialogue within the home that allows children and adolescents to express anger and problems instead of turning them into violent behavior.

How Does Society Learn Violence?

Zeinab Abu Talib notes that discrimination between children within the family, whether between males and females or between one child and another, can plant feelings of anger and hatred, especially when accompanied by physical punishment, humiliation, and bullying.

She also notes that the school is not far from this circle, in light of what some children may witness of beating, humiliation, or bullying — practices that can make violence a familiar behavior instead of an rejected exception. She confirms that confronting femicide cannot be reduced to tightening punishment after the crime only, because part of the confrontation begins much earlier "in the way a child is raised, in the image the family presents of the man's relationship with the woman, in how the school deals with bullying and violence, and in the messages presented by media and digital platforms."