Sharia Law isn't special or unique, no matter how you dress it.

Well, it's been a while since my last post.  I was going to post up another Curious Reading since I've found where I hid my booklets by Dr Naik, but something else has set my blood pressure going (which, given its poor state anyway, is probably a good thing in the long run). 

BRUNEI Darussalam will soon see the creation of a unique hybrid legal system where Islamic laws are integrated into existing civil legislation, making them Syariah-compliant.

In a country that already runs on traditional religious grounds, this only convinces me that rather than sell itself as a modern, fair nation, it's taking five steps back into the Dark Ages.  A senior council member commented that instead of having a seperate law for Muslims and non-Muslims, the two systems will be integrated into one Penal Code, to comply with Sharia law for offences punishable under the Quran.  According to the text, there are six areas of punishable crimes - Theft and Robbery (for some reason, they are separate sections), Illicit Sexual Relations, Unproven Accusations of Illicit Sexual Relations, Drinking Intoxicants and Apostasy. 

From what I am able to recall, these rules aren't anything new for the country.  Corporal punishment is in effect in Brunei and as a child, I remember seeing PSAs on television regarding the punishments a person faces for performing illegal acts (mostly to do with drug trafficking).  I do remember that unrelated, unmarried men and women weren't allowed to be alone together in public or private and there have been reports of couples being arrested for such "crimes" (and being cousins doesn't exempt you from this, by the way).  Drinking was always forbidden for Muslims and given the society out there, I don't blame anyone raised in an Islamic household for not coming out if they stopped believing in Allah. 

There have been complaints to this new system of laws, over the "draconian punishments" prescribed under Hudud (restrictions and punishments for serious crimes), such as amputation of hands for theft and flogging for adultery.  In defence, Zuraini Haji Sharbawi, a senior counsel, points out that the burden of proof under Hudud is "very, very difficult".  An example -

For someone to be punished for sex with a minor, there must be at least four witnesses to fulfil the burden of proof.

Who does this protect, really?  The minor or the offender?  This can only be an advantage to the predator in this situation; where is the victim going to find four witnesses to their abuse?   When sex outside of marriage has such a taboo in their society, who is even going to believe them when they try to report their abuse?  In fact, even if they are brave enough to report their sexual abuse, if they are unable to prove that an adult has had sex with them through witnesses, the victim themselves will be punished for unproven accusations of illicit sexual relations.  Sure, some can claim that this law prevents innocent people from being accused of being sexual predators, but this protects the abusers more than saves the innocent accused.  And even outside of the whole paedophilia net, unmarried couples aren't allowed to "fornicate" either.  And affairs are punishable by flogging.  How is this considered right by any means?  Suppressing people's sexual desires doesn't make them any more or less moral than anyone who sleeps around as long as no one is hurt. 

In addition to this reformation, there will be a review panel to decide if every case should be brought to the Hudud court, or the Takzir court (civil offences with no punishment under Hudud).  Forgive my cynicism here, but if the people employed on the panel are supporters of such a system, who support a moral code based on a scripture as opposed to a society's opinions, I don't hold a lot of hope for anyone who is unlucky enough to be caught drinking, not believing in Allah or for having sex out of marriage and wedlock. 

This system has been cited as unique and special to Brunei, but I fail to see how this is anything more than a redressing of Sharia Law.  At the end of the day, they are still using religion to punish people and I don't see how this will result in a fair and just judicial system.

All these equal rights are taking away our religious privilege!

Don't worry, these aren't my words, per se.  Rather, I was translating what one Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, has been saying.  It would seem that he, along with other religious leaders, are worried about the lack of "religious liberty" and that the number of believers in England are "extraordinarily low".

"I share a real concern that the attempt to impose the current prevailing template of equality and discrimination on religious organisations is an erosion of religious liberty."

He suggests that with the rise of equality laws and rights in England, many religious people will be repeating history by leaving the country in what he calls a mass exodus on the same level as the Mayflower pilgrimage from the 17th century when English Separatists left England for America. 

At face value, you would feel sorry for them if there was a good reason for why they feel like they are not being given their religious liberty.  What then is it that these people are disappointed about? 

> Charles Wookey, the assistant general secretary of the Catholic bishops conference of England and Wales, told the MPs that religious organisations were struggling with “rapid social change”. This meant they were forced to alter practices that had been in place for many years, he said.

 > Roman Catholic adoption agencies have closed because they cannot reconcile the requirements under the new laws with their belief that children should not be placed with gay couples.

So....Lord Sacks and other religious leaders are angry they have to keep up with the times, drop out-dated and irrelevant practices and not be bigotted?   Oh dear, poor them!  How dare we treat gays, women and the secular society as equal human beings?  How dare we allow gay couples the right to adopt, to tell people that they cannot pass their bigotted ways down to children, that people cannot use their faith to mistreat others as they see fit? 

Lord Sacks has it all wrong.  England is one of the few countries in the world where ANY religion can be practiced freely, without fear of prosecution as long as it does not infringe on the rights and welfare of others.  So no, sirs, you cannot complain that you are being singled out, silenced and downtrodden.  You are only complaining that you cannot do the singling out, the silencing and keeping the heathens down yourselves.  If you want the Government to stop telling you to open your doors and stop being such bastards to others, then by all means, hop on a boat and leave (I think you might find some brethren in America who would gladly take you in).  The people left behind will be grateful for it. 

Rape: Be prepared!

You know, is it really that hard for some people to drum up some empathy for a victim of rape?  They've been through enough already - violated, humiliated and abused, left broken, afraid and vulnerable.  The last thing they need is for more grief to come from somewhere that should be helping them.

This being the case, I suggest avoiding getting raped in Kansas.   Especially if you fall pregnant as a result.  This month, legislators have approved a ban on abortion coverage on general health insurance policies, the only exception being if a pregnancy risks the life of the woman.  No other exceptions - not even a pregnancy as a result of sexual assault.  Sam Brownback, the Governor of Kansas, has been hard at work it would seem police abortions in his state - he already approved restrictions on late-term abortions, health and safety standards for abortion clinics and getting doctors to obtain written parental permission for minors' pregnancies.

Lance Kinzer, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (and Republican) said it best in the article when he said that "this bill includes very crucial pro-life language".  However, I get the feeling he wouldn't have had to spit it out like I just had to, along with another delightful quote "The fundamental issue here is not — although I wish it were — the ability to further limit legal access to abortion, but rather who pays".  I could ALMOST buy that he was truly concerned about the financial welfare of those hard-up businessmen who must have to shell out bags of money for abortions.

Oh yeah, about the whole businessmen thing? Apparently the banning of abortion coverage on company health insurances is also apparently good business sense.

Supporters of the bill argue that it will protect employers who oppose abortion rights from having to pay for policies that cover the procedures.

"I would view this as an important conscience protection for Kansas business owners."

So this bill isn't to protect the women affected by unwanted pregnancy, oh no no no.  This is to take care of the poor business owners who find it offensive that a woman has the choice to not be pregnant.  This is to help all those pro-lifers make it even harder for a woman to have an abortion.  This is to help all those repugnant far-right Republicans shove their version of morality and justice down people's throats, all the while screaming it's God's will, dammit! 

What's even sadder is that other states are looking to Kansas as an example for similar legislations, undoing the work of previous Democrats who fought to protect the rights of women in these states.  Democratic State Rep Annie Kuether sums all this up well - that women are basically treated as second-class citizens. 

In fact, to drive that point further, State Rep Pete DeGraaf has compared planning for pregnancy as a result of rape as being on the same level as planning for a flat tyre on your car. 

Bollier asked him, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"
DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, "I have spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."

Yeah, because every woman should be aware she could be raped at any given time!  Why, it seems almost logical; she's only a second-class citizen after all.  And hey, it's also one of the few places in the world where it's the victim's fault if she does get raped, outside of say Saudi Arabia, Africa and Pakistan.  Oh, but don't tell the Republicans that, they hate being compared to those "savages". 

My friend, Grace Barton, has a proposal for DeGraaf, actually.

"Can I put something to him? Can we ban his health cover for AIDS if he gets raped and catches it?"

 You know what, Grace?  Doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

Dancing on graves

As you will have no doubt heard, one of the most high profile criminals in the world has been killed in Pakistan.  Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda and the man behind the deaths of hundreds of innocents, was shot dead in his compound during a US raid on his home.  When I first heard the news yesterday morning before work, I felt some grim satisfaction about it.  The world can heal a little bit more now that there is one less madman killing in the name of some ill-placed ideal and expert manipulation.  However, as the news broke through the day as I was listening to the radio, I felt a different grim sickness in my stomach.

Yes, Osama bin Laden was a vile, evil man with no compassion for fellow human beings.  Yes, he killed without hesitation.  Yes, he made many many lives miserable.  But is his death really a cause for celebration?  A lot of people, most of them being American, seem to think so.  The raucous cheers of joy from the streets of New York and the noise of jubilation was something akin to a street party.  Is it really right that we celebrate the death of another human being?  People have been saying that justice has been done, but wouldn't a better practice of civilised justice be to bring him to trial in a court of law, to judge him in front of millions and hold him accountable for his crimes?  It was good enough for Saddam Hussein, why isn't it good enough for Osama bin Laden?  A lot of people seem to believe that making him stand in court would be too humane, but wouldn't it be a better example to him?  Why should we stoop to his level and regress to barbarians?  We should be better than that. We are better than that.

I have said this a lot to people in the past 24+ hours, but it still holds true to me - death should never be celebrated.  Death should never be "right".  Sometimes necessary, but never right. 

What? Just.....WHAAAT!?

I try to keep my posts as happy as I can given that I am not that much of a cynic.  However, given my disjointed sleep last night and a 7am start at work tomorrow morning with the last thing I need is for my bed to vibrate from the bass volume coming from the rest of the family watching what sounds like a very action packed Bruce Willis movie (very selfish of them as I love both genres!) - all this makes me a very cranky woman indeed.  As such, I end up online and come across this article from Yahoo News.

Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican from Marietta, Georgia, has introduced a bill that would criminalize miscarriages, making abortion and miscarriage -- or "prenatal murder" in the language of the bill -- potentially punishable by death.

 Excuse my language, but WHAT THE FUCK!?   Punishable by DEATH!?  As pointed out, even trained medical professionals can't say for sure what causes a lot of miscarriages.  Heck, a lot of women don't know they're pregnant when they miscarry, or even if they were pregnant in the first place!  But oh no.  According to this pleb:

Women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage.

 Okay, so unless you can prove that you were very good in keeping still, letting nature do its silent secret work in your uterus making a bunch of cells into something resembling a human a few months down the line, you could be arrested, jailed and ultimately executed.  How do you even prove that crap in the first place!?

The article points out in some digression to the main point that no one is quite sure if Mr Franklin is married or not.  I don't see why he shouldn't be.  What woman can resist his obvious caring, intelligent nature.  I sincerely hope this is just me finally having fallen asleep and having a bad dream, or if it isn't, that Congress has some sense and flat out laugh this bullshit bill out of their halls.  I mustn't be as tired as I think because I can feel some glimmer of hope that the latter is true. 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see playing some loud piano music can drown out the explosions downstairs and help me sleep before I become anymore snappy and cranky.

EDIT:  Okay, so Bobby Franklin has been married for 27 years.  I guess it takes all sorts.