High priority: why we must vaccinate children aged 12 and over now

Shutterstock

Emma McBryde, James Cook UniversityPeople aged 16 and above will soon be able to get a COVID vaccine in Australia, but this begs the question: what about children in younger age groups?

Currently, only 12-15 year olds with underlying medical conditions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, and those living in remote communities are eligible.

Modelling by the Doherty Institute has suggested vaccinating 12-15 year olds would not make a material difference to the COVID epidemic.

However, as a researcher with expertise on modelling infectious diseases, it’s my view children aged 12 and over must be vaccinated with high priority.

---

Read more:
We may need to vaccinate children as young as 5 to reach herd immunity with Delta, our modelling shows

---

Children and transmission

A key concept you might have heard about is the reproduction number — the number of new cases per infectious case. For the Delta strain, this number could be as high as nine. In other words, if there were no lockdowns or other controls in place, each Delta infection could theoretically lead to as many as nine new infections.

The “effective reproduction number” is how many new cases you get per infectious case after public health measures such as lockdowns have been applied.

The Doherty modelling used a baseline effective reproduction number of 3.6 but acknowledges the effective reproduction number will be different from state to state. It can also change over time.

The effective reproduction numbers in NSW and Victoria are currently under two — but this figure could rise when lockdowns lift.

Modelling by colleagues and I shows that once the value of the effective reproduction number creeps up above four, all else being equal, children including those younger than 16 start to feature highly in transmission.

In other words, we need to vaccinate children aged 12 and above now, in preparation for a scenario when the effective reproduction number is much higher than it has been under lockdowns.

A reality check

In a scenario where children aged 12 and above are returning to school and moving around the community unvaccinated, could masks and social distancing be enough?

Well, perhaps in an ideal world. But many simply assume children will be able to socially distance and wear masks just like adults do. Parents may wish to reflect on that.

We also need to compare old assumptions about COVID and children with what we are now seeing in reality.

The original strain of COVID-19 appeared to spare children; they were less likely than older people to be infected in the first place. The Delta strain seems to have changed all that.

According to NSW Health’s factsheet on coronavirus disease in NSW, only one person under 20 has died due to COVID. However, people in this age group are showing up significantly in overall case numbers.

Since NSW began its current lockdown, about one third of new COVID cases in NSW (around 3,000) have been in under 20 year olds.

According to NSW Health, only one person under 20 has died due to COVID but people in this age group are showing up significantly in overall case numbers.
NSW Health

Victoria’s chief health officer has also noted childcare centres and schools feature heavily among the hotspots in that state.

If Delta does end up infecting children more than the original strain did, children may become the super-spreaders of the Delta variant — just as they are key transmitters of influenza, pertussis, measles, chicken pox and just about every respiratory virus.

Now, some expert groups — including modellers — are starting to call for younger children to be vaccinated with high priority.

---

Read more:
Should we vaccinate children against COVID-19? We asked 5 experts

---

Which vaccine? While Pfizer is scarce, we should direct it to younger people

While Pfizer is scarce, we should be providing Pfizer to the younger population (who are more likely to transmit COVID-19), while giving AstraZeneca to older people.

While both vaccines are over 90% effective at reducing death and severe outcomes from COVID (including Delta), Pfizer is better than AstraZeneca at reducing transmission of the virus.

In Australia, children 12-17 are approved to receive Pfizer but not AstraZeneca.

What are the consequences of not vaccinating younger children?

The risks of not vaccinating children in the 12+ age group include:

• more children becoming sick with COVID
• denying children potential freedoms that may come with vaccination, such as returning to school, travel or avoiding strict lockdowns
• not vaccinating children means living with the knowledge we haven’t done everything possible to ensure they don’t transmit COVID to more vulnerable people.

It’s unlikely Australia will achieve herd immunity to COVID this year.

But even without herd immunity, every little bit helps — and the growing number of cases in younger children suggests we need to vaccinate this group sooner, rather than later.

Emma McBryde, Professor of Infectious Disease and Epidemiology, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Teens should have a say in whether they get a COVID vaccine

Shutterstock

Melissa Kang, University of Sydney; Cristyn Davies, University of Sydney, and Rachel Skinner, University of SydneyThe Delta variant has taken hold in NSW and Victoria, which are both in lockdown, and now in South Australia too, which will enter a lockdown tonight.

The World Health Organization has predicted Delta will become the dominant variant globally.

A concerning feature of Delta is the number of children and adolescents becoming infected. Earlier in the pandemic, Australians were able to feel reassured that transmission in schools was negligible. But Delta is already proving different, with some evidence of transmission among school children, teachers and their households emerging in Australia.

---

Read more:
Is it more infectious? Is it spreading in schools? This is what we know about the Delta variant and kids

---

Those who’ve been vaccinated against COVID-19 have been less likely to be infected with the Delta strain. If infected, they’re less likely to require hospitalisation.

There’s now a sense of urgency surrounding Australia’s COVID vaccine rollout, which ranks last among OECD countries.

Some experts are calling for vaccination of children and adolescents to be a high priority as well.

Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), may soon approve the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines for adolescents aged 12-15.

If the vaccines are approved for this age group, how might we undertake mass vaccination of adolescents in Australia? And who will be involved in decisions about consent?

How can we vaccinate teens?

Adolescent vaccinations have been effectively delivered in Australian states and territories for many decades, via immunisation programs at schools.

The National Immunisation Program is funded by the federal government, which means vaccines listed in the schedule are provided for free.

Vaccines are given in high schools by nurse immunisers. If a dose is missed at school, adolescents are eligible to “catch-up” via their GP (meaning the vaccine is still free).

The current schedule for adolescents includes vaccines against HPV (human papillomavirus), the “dTpa” (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) booster and meningococcal ACWY disease.

It makes good sense to include COVID vaccines as part of the tried and trusted school-based immunisation program.

Who gives consent?

Because these immunisations are given through schools, adolescent vaccination in Australia is a partnership between health and education departments.

Written parental or guardian consent is required prior to the administration of vaccines.

This differs to what’s done through health settings, such as general practice, where adolescent “competency to consent” is an important consideration.

“Competency to consent” refers to the capacity of someone under 18 to consent to or refuse medical treatment. It signifies the minor has reached sufficient intelligence and understanding to fully understand the proposed treatment. The seriousness of the treatment is taken into consideration and capacity is assessed by individual health professionals. If deemed competent, then there’s no legal requirement for parental or guardian consent. Although, parental consent in addition to adolescent consent is encouraged as best practice.

Currently, adolescents need written parental or guardian consent to get vaccinated through high school immunisation programs.
Shutterstock

2 approaches to adolescent COVID vaccination

First, we must improve adolescents’ understanding of vaccination to support their involvement in decision-making. In our own research about HPV vaccination, we found information designed specifically for adolescents is important. Adolescents otherwise have limited understanding of the vaccines they receive, or the diseases they prevent.

Even if consent from a parent or guardian is required as it is in the school-based program, promoting vaccine literacy among adolescents is appropriate and ethical. Understanding the purpose and process of vaccination increases vaccine confidence and reduces fear and anxiety.

---

Read more:
Young people are anxious about coronavirus. Political leaders need to talk with them, not at them

---

Second, we need to acknowledge adolescents’ legal right to consent where they are competent to do so. This is pertinent where parental consent isn’t obtained, often due to a simple failure to return a consent form in time.

Where this happens, a GP can obtain informed consent in the usual way for medical treatment.

However, the requirement to access a GP practice presents other barriers for mature minors (those under 18 years who are competent to consent), which may impede vaccine uptake.

The national imperative is to achieve as high coverage of COVID vaccination as possible across the population. To achieve this and reduce the impact of the pandemic on young people’s health, we must work with young people.

What do young people think?

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has established a network of researchers who champion adolescent health, called the Wellbeing Health & Youth Centre.

This network has created the WH&Y Commission, which includes the voices of young people. Its goal is to ensure adolescent health research and policymaking are guided by young people themselves.

We asked three young WH&Y Commissioners what they thought about the issue of COVID vaccines and adolescents.

Here’s what they had to say

Young people should be given unbiased, accurate information about the benefits and risks associated with COVID vaccines.

Young people understand that because it’s a new vaccine, there will inevitably be scepticism. They’re aware family members may be hesitant or hold opposing views, which could deny young people their right to be fully informed. They want transparent instruction and information to be a huge priority for governments.

Young people deemed competent should be afforded their legal right to consent to a COVID vaccine. This would acknowledge the autonomy of, and trust placed in, young people to make their own medical decisions. There should be appropriate structures in place to protect young people’s privacy in their decision-making process. This is important to avoid stigmatisation based on their choice.

Australian Common Law reflects the understanding that over the second decade of life, young people gain autonomy over their lives and are capable of making decisions about their own health care. For the majority, this will involve conversations with, and support from, parents and guardians.

From early adolescence, scientific information about COVID vaccine benefits and risks should be provided in a way young people understand.

Ideally, adolescents should also be granted the legal and ethical right to make their own decisions, as would ordinarily happen for medical interventions of low risk. — WH&Y Commissioners Anhaar Kareem, Jenon Castro and Aish Naidu.

---

This article was co-authored with WH&Y Commissioners Anhaar Kareem, Jenon Castro and Aish Naidu.

Melissa Kang, Clinical Associate Professor, University of Sydney; Cristyn Davies, Research Fellow in Child and Adolescent Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, and Rachel Skinner, Professor in Paediatrics, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why children and teens with symptoms should get a COVID-19 test, even if you think it’s ‘just a cough’

Christopher Blyth, University of Western Australia

A Victorian teenager holidaying on the NSW South Coast has been diagnosed with COVID-19, NSW chief health officer Kerry Chant said on Wednesday.

The revelation follows reports senior students at Al-Taqwa College in Melbourne are now considered the main source of Victoria’s second-biggest COVID-19 cluster.

These cases serve as a reminder that although children and teens are considered less likely than adults to catch and spread COVID-19, everyone with symptoms should get a test — including children and teens.

Children, teens and COVID-19 risk: what we know so far

In my field, paediatric infectious disease, new research is emerging all the time about how SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) affects children and teens. In short, the evidence so far says:

• children and teens can contract and spread the disease — but compared to adults, several studies suggest that they are less likely to.

• children and teens are much less likely to get severely unwell, be hospitalised or die compared to adults and older people.

• tragically, children and babies overseas have died of COVID-19, but compared with adults, this is much less common. Thankfully, it has not yet occurred in Australia.

The current thinking is that for most of Australia, the benefit of keeping schools open outweighs the risk. (In metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire, however, school holidays have been extended for all students except for those in year 11 and 12 or specialist schools.)

In Australia, the youngest COVID-19 death has been a person in their 40s. Less than 7% of all cases in Australia have so far have been recorded in children and teenagers. This proportion may rise, depending on the demographics in areas where community transmission is occurring.

What about older teens?

The risk of becoming unwell with COVID-19 increases with age. We know older teens are very different to young teens, both in growth and development but also in their activities – many of these activities put older teens at greater risk.

As Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton has said

They are older kids, they tend to have more transmission that is akin to adults if they’re not doing the physical distancing appropriately.

And if teens do develop COVID-19, the disease can move incredibly quickly from person to person and may soon reach populations with much greater risk, such as older people.

That’s why the very best strategy we have is to get tested.

Most children or teens with COVID-19, and indeed most people, will experience a mild illness that improves by itself. However, a small proportion of the community will become severely unwell. I’d be encouraging parents to remember that having a test is not just about the child; it’s about the community, children, parents and grandparents.

Most children or teens, and indeed most people, who get COVID-19 will experience a mild illness that improves by itself.
Shutterstock

Younger kids and the constant runny nose or cough

As we head into winter time, we’re starting see more children and adults with common cough and cold viruses. For many parents of younger children, runny noses and coughs are a constant part of life during this time.

To these parents I would say: if it is a new cough, a new fever or sore throat, consider getting the child tested. This is particularly important for those living in places where community transmission is occurring, such as Victoria.

Some children, particularly through winter, will have an ongoing sniffle or cough and one infection will roll into the next. In this situation, the thing to watch for is a worsening of a fever or cough. If this happens, do not hesitate to get tested.

The Conversation, CC BY-ND

Testing is a key strategy

To sum it up, testing is one of the key strategies to contain the spread of COVID-19 in Australia. One needs only look to Victoria to see what can happen when flare-ups occur. Although some of the public health interventions may appear draconian, we have to make sure people who are infectious are separated from those who are susceptible.

If your child is showing symptoms, you might be tempted to think “it’s just a cough” — and most of the time it will be just a cough. It’s not that we think every child with a cough has got coronavirus, but early detection — along with other measures such as physical distancing, staying home if unwell and hand hygiene — is absolutely crucial in our response.

Christopher Blyth, Paediatrician, Infectious Diseases Physician and Clinical Microbiologist, University of Western Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Is social media damaging to children and teens? We asked five experts

They need to have it to fit in, but social media is probably doing teens more harm than good.
from http://www.shutterstock.com

Alexandra Hansen, The Conversation

If you have kids, chances are you’ve worried about their presence on social media.

Who are they talking to? What are they posting? Are they being bullied? Do they spend too much time on it? Do they realise their friends’ lives aren’t as good as they look on Instagram?

We asked five experts if social media is damaging to children and teens.

Four out of five experts said yes

The four experts who ultimately found social media is damaging said so for its negative effects on mental health, disturbances to sleep, cyberbullying, comparing themselves with others, privacy concerns, and body image.

However, they also conceded it can have positive effects in connecting young people with others, and living without it might even be more ostracising.

The dissident voice said it’s not social media itself that’s damaging, but how it’s used.

Here are their detailed responses:

---

If you have a “yes or no” health question you’d like posed to Five Experts, email your suggestion to: alexandra.hansen@theconversation.edu.au

---

Karyn Healy is a researcher affiliated with the Parenting and Family Support Centre at The University of Queensland and a psychologist working with schools and families to address bullying. Karyn is co-author of a family intervention for children bullied at school. Karyn is a member of the Queensland Anti-Cyberbullying Committee, but not a spokesperson for this committee; this article presents only her own professional views.

Alexandra Hansen, Chief of Staff, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s not only teenage girls, and it’s rarely attention-seeking: debunking the myths around self-injury

Self-injury is associated with underlying psychological distress, and increased suicide risk. But people who self-injure aren’t doing it to end their life.
Author provided

Penelope Hasking, Curtin University and Stephen P. Lewis, University of Guelph

Non-suicidal self-injury is the deliberate damage of body tissue without conscious suicidal intent. It’s more specific than self-harm, a broader term that can also include suicide attempts.

Self-injury is reasonably common, particularly among young people. In community samples, 17% of adolescents and 13% of young adults had engaged in self-injury.

Self-injury is associated with underlying psychological distress, and increased suicide risk. People who self-injure are typically doing so to cope with intense emotions.

---

Read more:
Why do people intentionally injure themselves?

---

Although we continue to understand more about self-injury, there remains significant public stigma towards people who self-injure.

This stigma can make people who self-injure reluctant to seek help or disclose their experiences to others. Research shows only half the people who are already seeing a therapist for mental health concerns will tell even their therapist about it.

One way to combat stigma, and support disclosure and help-seeking, is to debunk the common myths and misconceptions that surround self-injury.

Myth 1: only teenage girls self-injure

Self-injury is often thought of as a “teen fad”, and as especially prevalent among teenage girls. It’s true self-injury usually starts during adolescence, but people of all ages and genders self-injure. Recent research shows the second most common time to start self-injury is in a person’s early 20s.

Consistent with this, self-injury is common among university students; up to one in five report a history of self-injury, with about 8% self-injuring for the first time during university.

Although more women in treatment settings report self-injury, it’s likely that in community settings, self-injury is equally common among males and females. This may be because women are more likely than men to seek help.

Myth 2: people who self-injure are attention-seeking

One of the more pervasive myths about self-injury is that people self-injure to seek attention. Yet, self-injury is usually a very secretive behaviour, and people go to great lengths to hide their self-injury.

Instead, in the majority of research, people report the main reason they self-injure is to cope with intense or unwanted emotions.

---

Read more:
Talking about suicide and self-harm in schools can save lives

---

Other common reasons people self-injure are to punish themselves or to stop an escalating cycle of painful thoughts and feelings. People may self-injure to communicate how distressed they are, particularly if they have trouble verbally expressing their feelings. In other words, their self-injury is a cry for help.

A recent study found influencing and punishing others was the least likely reason for self-injury.

Myth 3: people who self-injure are suicidal

By definition, non-suicidal self-injury is not motivated by a desire to end life. In addition to serving a different function, the frequency of suicidal and non-suicidal behaviours differs. That is, suicide attempts are generally infrequent, whereas non-suicidal behaviours can occur more often.

People who self-injure can benefit from support from friends, family, and health professionals.
From shutterstock.com

The methods used, the outcomes of the behaviours, and appropriate treatment responses also all differ. People at risk of suicide may require immediate and more intensive intervention; although both non-suicidal self-injury and suicidal behaviour need to be taken seriously and responded to compassionately.

For these reasons, it’s important to be clear when we are talking about self-injury and when we are talking about suicidal thoughts or behaviour.

Myth 4: there is a self-injury ‘epidemic’

While many people report at least one instance of self-injury, fewer people engage in repeated episodes.

Further, there is little evidence rates of self-injury have increased in recent years. Hospital records indicate an increase in presentations for “deliberate self-harm”, but these are predominantly poisonings, not self-injury.

Other studies show more people reporting self-injury, but it’s unclear whether this is because people are more comfortable disclosing their self-injury, or because self-injury is increasing.

Research suggests when the methodologies of the studies are taken into account, rates of self-injury have not increased over time.

---

Read more:
Does more mental health treatment and less stigma produce better mental health?

---

Myth 5: social media contributes to self-injury

Internet and social media are highly relevant to many people who self-injure as they offer a means to obtain social support, share their experiences with others who have been through similar things, and obtain coping and recovery-oriented resources (for example, stories about other people’s experiences).

This is not surprising given the stigma attached to self-injury, which leaves many people who self-injure feeling isolated from others.

Despite these benefits, there are concerns online material, including graphic images and videos depicting self-injury, may trigger people to engage in self-injury. While only a few studies explicitly examine this, there is some evidence viewing graphic imagery is associated with self-injury. However, images of scars may not be as triggering.

There are also concerns exposure to messages that carry hopeless themes (for example, “it’s impossible to stop self-injuring”), may contribute to continued self-injury and impede help-seeking.

But at the same time, exposure to more positive messages may offer hope about recovery.

Fostering understanding

Self-injury is a common behaviour engaged in by a broad spectrum of people. Given its association with psychological difficulties and suicide risk, it’s critical self-injury be taken seriously and not dismissed or glossed over.

---

Read more:
Australian teens doing well, but some still at high risk of suicide and self-harm

---

People who engage in self-injury need to know it’s okay to seek support (from friends, family, and health professionals) and that people can and do recover.

For anyone who knows someone who self-injures, it’s important to respond to that person in a non-judgemental and compassionate manner. Just knowing there is someone supportive who is willing to listen can make a big difference to a person who self-injures.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Penelope Hasking, Associate Professor of Psychology, Curtin University and Stephen P. Lewis, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Guelph

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why this generation of teens is more likely to care about gun violence

Jean Twenge, San Diego State University

When 17 people were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, it was just the latest in a tragic list of mass shootings, many of them at schools.

Then something different happened: Teens began to speak out. The Stoneman Douglas students held a press conference appealing for gun control. Teens in Washington, D.C., organized a protest in front of the White House, with 17 lying on the ground to symbolize the lives lost. More protests organized by teens are planned for the coming months.

Teens weren’t marching in the streets calling for gun control after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. So why are today’s teens and young adults – whom I’ve dubbed “iGen” in my recent book on this generation – speaking out and taking action?

With mass shootings piling up one after another, this is a unique historical moment. But research shows that iGen is also a unique generation – one that may be especially sensitive to gun violence.

Keep me safe

People usually don’t think of teenagers as risk-averse. But for iGen, it’s been a central tenant of their upbringing and outlook.

During their childhoods, they experienced the rise of the helicopter parent, anti-bullying campaigns and, in some cases, being forced to ride in car seats until age 12.

Their behavior has followed suit. For my book, I conducted analyses of large, multi-decade surveys. I found that today’s teens are less likely to get into physical fights and less likely to get into car accidents than teens just 10 years ago. They’re less likely to say they like doing dangerous things and aren’t as interested in taking risks. Meanwhile, since 2000, rates of teen binge drinking have fallen by half.

With the culture so focused on keeping children safe, many teens seem incredulous that extreme forms of violence against kids can still happen – and yet so many adults are unwilling to address the issue.

“We call on our national and state legislatures to finally act responsibly and reduce the number of these tragic incidents,” said Eleanor Nuechterlein and Whitney Bowen, the teen organizers of the D.C. lie-in. “It’s essential that we all feel safe in our classrooms.”

Treated with kid gloves

In a recent analysis of survey data from 8 million teens since the 1970s, I also found that today’s teens tend to delay a number of “adult” milestones. They’re less likely than their predecessors to have a driver’s license, go out without their parents, date, have sex, and drink alcohol by age 18.

This could mean that, compared to previous generations, they’re more likely to think of themselves as children well into their teen years.

As 17-year-old Stoneman Douglas High School student David Hogg put it, “We’re children. You guys are the adults. You need to take some action.”

Furthermore, as this generation has matured, they’ve witnessed stricter age regulations for young people on everything from buying cigarettes (with the age minimum raised to 21 in several states) to driving (with graduated driving laws).

Politicians and parents have been eager to regulate what young people can and can’t do. And that’s one reason some of the survivors find it difficult to understand why gun purchases aren’t as regulated.

“If people can’t purchase marijuana or alcohol at the age of 18, why should they be given access to guns?” asked Stoneman Douglas High School junior Lyliah Skinner.

She has a point: The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, is 19. Under Florida’s laws, he could legally possess a firearm at age 18. But – because he’s under 21 – he couldn’t buy alcohol.

Libertarianism – with limits

At the same time, iGen teens – like their millennial predecessors – are highly individualistic. They believe the rights of the individual should trump traditional social rules. For example, I found that they’re more supportive of same-sex marriage and legalized marijuana than previous generations were at the same age.

Their political beliefs tend to lean toward libertarianism, a philosophy that favors individual rights over government regulations, including gun regulation. Sure enough, support for protecting gun rights increased among millennials and iGen between 2007 and 2016.

But even a libertarian ideologue would never argue that individual freedom extends to killing others. So perhaps today’s teens are realizing that one person’s loosely regulated gun rights can lead to another person’s death – or the death of 17 of their teachers and classmates.

The teens’ demands could be seen as walking this line: They’re not asking for wholesale prohibitions on all guns. Instead, they’re hoping for reforms supported by most Americans such as restricting the sale of assault weapons and more stringent background checks.

In the wake of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the teens’ approach to activism – peaceful protest, a focus on safety and calls for incremental gun regulation – are fitting for this generation.

Perhaps iGen will lead the way to change.

Jean Twenge, Professor of Psychology, San Diego State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Another Copt Killed as Alleged Shooters Plead Not Guilty in Egypt

Coptic carpenter killed outside building that Muslims feared would be used as church.

ISTANBUL, February 16 (CDN) — Three men accused of killing six Coptic worshipers and a security guard pleaded not guilty on Saturday (Feb. 13) as the Coptic community mourned the loss of yet another victim of apparent anti-Christian violence.

The three men allegedly sprayed a crowd with gunfire after a Christmas service in Nag Hammadi on Jan. 6. In addition to the seven that were killed, nine others were wounded. The killings were the worst act of anti-Coptic violence since January 2000, when 20 Copts were killed in sectarian fighting in Al-Kosheh.

Defendants Mohammed al-Kammuni, Qorshi Abul Haggag and Hendawi Sayyed appeared Saturday in an emergency security court in Qena, a city 39 miles (63 kilometers) north of Luxor.

In front of the packed courtroom, the three men said little at the hearing other than to enter their plea before Judge Mohammed Adul Magd, according to one attorney present at the hearing. The men are charged with premeditated murder, public endangerment and damaging property.

Numerous Muslim attorneys volunteered to defend them for free as seven attorneys representing the interests of the victims looked on. The next hearing is set for March 20.

Even as the men entered their pleas, the Coptic community mourned the loss of yet another Christian, this one shot dead by police. On the evening of Feb. 9, Malak Saad, a 25-year-old Coptic carpenter living in Teta in Menoufia Province, was walking outside a meeting hall that police had seized from Christians when he was shot through his chest at close range. He died instantly.

Scant details are known about the shooting. Police surrounded the entire village and closed it to all reporters. In a statement, officials at the Interior Ministry said the Saad was killed by mistake when a bullet discharged while a police guard was cleaning his weapon. The Interior Ministry said the shooter has been detained and will be tried in a military court. Such courts are traditionally closed to the public.

One of Saad’s cousins, who requested anonymity, disputed the Interior Ministry’s version of the incident. He said that the guard had used the bathroom inside the meeting hall and had come outside of the building when he exchanged a few words with Saad and shot him at close range. The bullet went completely through Saad’s chest.

The building in question had been Coptic-owned for 16 years, but two days prior to the shooting, police seized it after a group of Muslims started a rumor that the owners planned to convert the hall into a church building.

Disputes over worship venues are common in Egypt. Copts and other Christians are extremely restricted in opening or even maintaining houses of worship because of complex government statutes. Anti-Christian elements within Egyptian society often use the statutes to harass Christians, Christian leaders said.

Christians Arrested

Following the Jan. 6 shootings, in a move that Christian leaders said was designed to silence the Coptic community’s protests, police began going door to door and arresting Coptic men in their late teens and 20s. Reports vary widely on the numbers of how many men were arrested, but 15 arrests have been confirmed.

Early in the morning of Jan. 8, officers from State Security Intelligence appeared at the home of Tanios Samuel looking for a different house. When officers realized they were at the wrong home, they arrested his brothers, Fady Milad Samuel, 21, and Wael Milad Samuel, 24.

“We are Copts. It is their country, they will do whatever they want,” Tanios Samuel said about the arrests.

He said the government is using his brothers and the others arrested as pawns to silence dissent. He said he lives in fear for himself and his brothers.

“The families are very scared – scared of violence, getting threats all the time,” Samuel said. “All we want is peace.”

Last month’s attack brought widespread outrage across the Coptic community and from human rights groups around the world.

Since his rise to power in 1981, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has avoided classifying any anti-Coptic attack as part of a larger sectarian struggle within the country. His critics however, have long said his policies or lack thereof contribute greatly to the anti-Christian climate within the country.

Although freedom of religion is guaranteed in Egypt’s constitution, Islam is the official state religion. In public schools, the Quran is used to teach Arabic.

On Jan. 21, Mubarak made an uncharacteristically strong statement about the shootings to MENA, the government-run news agency.

“The criminal act in Nag Hammadi has bled the hearts of Egyptians,” he said. “I hasten to affirm that the reasonable people of this nation, and its religious leaders and thinkers … bear the greater responsibility to contain discord and ignorance and blind fanaticism and to confront the despicable sectarian strife that threatens the unity of our society.”

Despite Mubaraks’s comments, the government has characterized the attack as either a random criminal act or as one done in reaction to a November incident in which a 21-year-old Christian man allegedly raped a 12-year-old Muslim girl.

In an interview with BBC Arabic, Dr. Fathi Sourour, head of the Egyptian Parliament, said, “The Nag Hammadi shooting of Christians on Christmas Eve was a single criminal act, with no sectarian dimensions.” He added that the crime was “prompted by the ‘death’ of a Muslim girl as a result of being raped by a Copt.”

Later, commenting on a report about the incident, he described the shootings as “a clash between two brothers living in one home.”

Copts, however, have a starkly different impression of the shooting.

Georgette Qillini, a Coptic member of the Egyptian Parliament, described the attack as “a purely sectarian crime and by no means an individual criminal attack,” the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram reported.

Ibtessam Habib, another Coptic Parliament member, agreed that “sectarian rather than personal motives lie behind the Nag Hammadi attack.”

Report from Compass Direct News 

PAKISTAN TALIBAN MILITANTS MURDER AND RAPE CHRISTIANS

Pakistan’s military and the militant Taliban group clashed in the country’s strategic Swat Valley Wednesday, May 6, adding to fears among minority Christians and forcing thousands of civilians to flee the area, reports FCNN.

Some 40,000 people reportedly fled the city of Mingora in northwestern Pakistan and officials said a further half a million others were expected to leave as well. Wednesday’s clashes came shortly after the Taliban threatened to expand Sharia, or Muslim law, far beyond Swat Valley and reports of massive Muslim attacks against minority Christians, including murder and rape.

Since late April, militants of the Taliban group executed at least two residents in a Christian neighborhood while one child died during a crackdown on believers who protested against the Talibanization of Pakistan, local Christians and rights investigators confirmed to BosNewsLife.

United States-based International Christian Concern (ICC), which investigates cases of persecution, said the incidents happened April 21, in Taseer Town near the city of Karachi, where Christians protested against pro-Taliban messages “chalked onto the walls of two churches.”

Earlier, on the outskirts of Sargodha, a key city in Punjab province, a Christian young man was shot and killed and another Christian boy sexually molested by at least one suspected militant, although his links to the Taliban could not be established, family sources said.

 

Many bullets

On April 19, Adeel Masih, 20, was “sprayed with bullets” after returning home from work in Marrium Town near Sargodha, and died of his injuries at a local hospital, said his father Iqbal Masih. At the same time a suspected Muslim militant, identified only as Israar, allegedly raped a 10-year-old Christian boy, Waseem Sabir, in a field of Marrium Towm, residents said.

The man apparently managed to flee, but police promised to investigate both cases. Elsewhere, a nine-year-old Pakistani Christian girl was gang-raped and murdered on April 9, Christian right investigators said. Nisha Javid was reportedly abducted while walking near her home in Punjab’s Essangri village. Her battered body was found two days later in a canal, but local Christians say police has been reluctant to detain suspects. Another Christian girl in her early teens was gang raped by Muslim men twice in as many months here in the village of Gumhe-k-Lidhur near Punjab’s main city of Lahore, according to local residents.

Ambreen Munir 13, a daughter of an impoverished Christian laborer and a house wife, was allegedly kidnapped twice since February by Muslim youth, who took her to a lonely neighborhood where they apparently raped her for several hours. It came on the heels of another incident in the village of Chak # 39 NB where impoverished Christian carpenter Tariq Masih 19 was murdered because of his relationship with a 17-year-old Muslim girl, his maternal uncle, Allah Ditta said.

Churches and rights investigators have accused the Taliban of encouraging its militants and other Muslims to attack Christians, including minors, in several parts of the country. In one of the latest incidents, some 400 angry Muslims armed with clubs, iron rods and firearms attacked homes of Christians and accused five Christian villagers of desecrating the Koran, seen as holy by Muslims, villagers said.

 

Islamic extremism

Eyewitnesses told BosNewsLife the May 1 incident happened in the village of Harappa in a remote part of Punjab, considered a hot-bed for Islamic extremism. The violence broke out after police detained a Christian man Ashfaq Gill April 28 on suspicion of “tearing and desecrating” the Koran, Christian villagers said.

Soon after, Harappa police detained four other Christians, identified as Naseer Gill Madhauv, Imran Gill Naseer, Harris John Emmanuel Hero, Israar Wilson Inyat-Ullah and Ghulam Freed, under Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy legislation, Christians said. Villagers went on saying that police also accused all five Christians of bursting into the Girls High School of Harappa and “desecrating the Book of Koran” there during theft.

However the ‘All Pakistan Minorities Alliance’, a major advocacy and political group, denied wrongdoing saying all five detained Christians are its political workers in the area.

Rights groups have urged the government to investigate these incidents and arrest those responsible, amid allegations of reluctance among police to detain suspects. Federal Minister for Minorities and head of APMA Shahbaz Bhatti told BosNewsLife he would “make sure that culprits responsible for this showdown are booked and justice is served” including to the five Christians against whom blasphemy charges have been leveled.

Yet, with the Taliban gaining ground in Pakistan, extremism is spreading and Christians are among minorities with little influence in this predominantly Islamic nation, rights groups warned.

Report from the Christian Telegraph

BELARUS ORTHODOX CHURCH SEEKS APPROVAL TO REGULATE INTERNET

Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk and Slutsk offered the Byelorussian state to regulate Internet at the legislative level, reports Interfax-Religion.

“There’s an urgent need to effectively regulate the contents of Internet at the legislative level,” Metropolitan Filaret said on Friday at the meeting between the country’s president Alexander Lukashenko and members of the Byelorussian Orthodox Synod.

The Metropolitan believes Byelorussia can use Chinese experience where “responsibility for using Internet lays on Internet providers instead of the state.”

According to Metropolitan Filaret, “Internet is an open door to the world and has enormous influence on people’s minds.”

“The main threat is that most vulnerable categories, children and teens have easy access to immoral information, while their psyche is unstable. Virtual chaos is very dangerous for them,” the Metropolitan said.

He hopes that the state will pay attention to the problem of “open access to dirty resources.”

Report from the Christian Telegraph