The proselytism law:

http://www.habous.gov.ma/fr/detail.aspx?ID=905&z=222&s=190

Translation:
Whoever by violence or threats keeps or impedes someone from worshipping or attending worship is punished by imprisonment of six months to three years and a fine of 100 to 500 dirhams.

The same punishment is set for whoever employs means of seduction in the purpose of shaking the faith of a muslim or to convert him to another religion, either by exploiting his weakness or his needs or by using for such a purpose institutions of education, health, shelter or orphanages. In case of conviction, the closure of the institution which served to commit the offense may be closed, either definitively, or for a length which will not exceed three years.

Comments:
The children in the VOH case are legally Muslim and therefore can be viewed by the law as being “exploited” by being influenced toward Christianity (as much as that goes against our grain to think that lovingly caring for a child could be exploitation) But this is NOT the law that was cited in the press releases by the state. It was Kafala law that was cited. Of course, no one was charged much less convicted of any offense. But if they had been, the orphanage would have been required to be closed for a maximum of three years under this law.

Note that it is NOT illegal for someone to convert to Christianity. The offense lies with the person who tries to convert another person.

The Kafala Law (regarding abandoned children):

http://www.jafbase.fr/docMaghreb/MarocDecretKafala.pdf

Translation :

The guardianship of children declared by law to be abandoned can be accorded to the following persons and institutions:
1) a Muslim married couple of legal age a) who are morally and socially capable of assuring legal guardianship and who have the material means to attend to his/her needs; b) who have never been convicted, individually or together, of a crime threatening the morale and well being of a child or a crime against a child; c) who do not have contagious diseases or medical conditions which might render them incapable of fulfilling their obligation; d) is somehow opposed to the child or the family of the child for which they demand guardianship, involved in a legal dispute with his family, which raises
fears for the wellbeing of the child.
2) A Muslim woman fitting the four conditions listed above.
3) Public establishments charged with child protection or charitable
institutions, organizations or associations recognized by public authorities
and having adequate material means, resources, and human resources to assure
the protection of children and to give them a good education and raise
them in accordance with Islam.

Comments:

It is this third category which allowed Village of Hope to take charge of the children. Local
authorities interpreted this law as meaning that a Christian orphanage could indeed take charge of children if they were well cared for and given a good education, teaching them morals and values in accordance with Islam, and, of course, having them learn Qur’an in their schooling. It was CLEAR to local authorities that the children were receiving a Christian formation in their home settings, but if it was morally and ethically in conformity with Islam, that was acceptable. This was expressed to them many times over the 10 years of their existence.

Nonetheless, it is this law that the
Ministers of the Interior and Justice have cited in saying they were out of compliance.

Laws concerning expulsion or being conducted to the border (which are two very different things):

http://www.justice.gov.ma/fr/legislation/legislation_.aspx?ty=2&id_l=140

Commentary
Note that being expelled and being conducted to the frontier are two different things.

According to article 26, foreigners living legally in Morocco who have not been convicted
definitively of a crime requiring at least a year in prison cannot be expelled. Proselytism can be sentenced to only six months in prison, so that’s not enough. A foreigner convicted of proselytism cannot be expelled. (And foreigners with stronger ties to Morocco,even if they ARE convicted of a crime requiring a year or more in prison cannot be expelled according to article 26).

BUT, according to article 27, all the protections in article 26 can be ignored by the tribunal and such foreigners CAN be expelled IF they are deemed a threat to the security of the country.

Being conducted to the frontier is the more normal way of dealing with foreigners who have an irregular immigration status. According to item 7 of Article 21, foreigners can have their residence cards taken away and therefore be in situation of irregularity (and capable of being conducted to the border) if they seen as a threat to public order.

According to article 23, people who are conducted to the border have the right to contest
that decision within 48 hours with the possibility of it being annulled. If they contest the decision, a public hearing is supposed to be held in which the person in question has the right to a lawyer and an interpreter.

Article 24 says that the decision must not be executed until after 48 hours from the time the person is notified or if the president of the tribunal is “saisi” (I don’t know what that
means in this case), until he (the president of the tribunal) has made a ruling.

Article 24 also specifies that the person be informed immediately of his right to have a lawyer when the order of conduct to the border is made.

Analysis:
If they were being conducted to the frontier, the law was not upheld because they were not informed of their right to a lawyer, nor were they given a delay of 48 hours to appeal the decision.

If they were being expelled, the ONLY valid reason for expulsion would be that they were
considered a security risk to the nation.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10150133793215156&ref=ss#!/topic.php?uid=10150133793215156&topic=17513