BBC
Several Sudanese women have been flogged as a punishment for dressing "indecently", according to a local journalist who was arrested with them.
Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who says she is facing 40 lashes, said she and 12 other women wearing trousers were arrested in a restaurant in the capital, Khartoum.
She told the BBC several of the women had pleaded guilty to the charges and had 10 lashes immediately.
Khartoum, unlike South Sudan, is governed by Sharia law.
Several of those punished were from the mainly Christian and animist south, Ms Hussein said.
Non-Muslims are not supposed to be subject to Islamic law, even in Khartoum and other parts of the mainly Muslim north.
She said that a group of about 20 or 30 police officers entered the popular Khartoum restaurant and arrested all the women wearing trousers.
"I was wearing trousers and a blouse and the 10 girls who were lashed were wearing like me, there was no difference," she told the BBC's Arabic service.
Ms Hussein said some women pleaded guilty to "get it over with" but others, including herself, chose to speak to their lawyers and are awaiting their fates.
Under Sharia law in Khartoum, the normal punishment for "indecent" dressing is 40 lashes.
Ms Hussein is a well-known reporter who writes a weekly column called Men Talk for Sudanese papers. She also works for the United Nations Mission in Sudan.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Muslims Set Church Ablaze But Egyptian Security Implicates a Christian Copt
AINA) --
In a continuation of the ongoing wave of arson attacks on Coptic places of worship, the Church of St. Abaskharion Kellini, in the village of Ezbet Bassilious, Beni Mazar, was burnt down at noon on July 11 by Muslim village inhabitants. No one was injured.
A source in Bani Mazar Diocese told Free Copts advocacy the fire was instigated and directed as usual by State Security, aiming "to prevent prayers in new churches throughout both the Upper Egyptian provinces of Minya and of Beni Suef."
Reverend Abraham Phillobos, pastor of the torched Church told Coptic News Bulletin that the Security authorities are trying to falsely implicate the Copt Reda Gamal.
The Church was officially inaugurated on July 3 by the Bishop of Beni Mazar and was licensed for prayer. It was closed on that same day by State Security 'for security reasons and to avert a sectarian crisis,' and was placed under continuous guard.
Eyewitnesses named three Muslim village inhabitants Ahmed Abdelghani, Ahmed El-Qatawy and Eid Sayed Ahmad of torching the Church after spraying it with kerosene, according to Mikhael Fares of Copts United advocacy.
"The arson suspects went inside the church from a back door, but came out from the front of the burning Church in full view of the security guards," said an eye witness to Coptic News Bulletin. "Guards were there and just watched; when they heard explosions they went and stood far. They saw everything and did nothing, which is evidence of collusion."
"The State, the Security authorities and the Muslims all do not want any Churches, and the Muslim village inhabitants torched it because they just do not want any Churches," an eyewitness who wished to remain anonymous told Coptic News Bulletin. "We have been warned by security not to talk to anyone especially with the Coptic media from abroad."
The Copts in the village of Ezbet Bassilios, Bani Maza, 190 km south of Cairo applied and got a license for a Church in 1979, however, Security placed hurdles and the church, which was never completed, was closed since 1997 for security reasons. According to Copts United it was only through the continuous efforts of the Church leaders to convince security that prayers in that Church do not pose a threat to the village or social peace, that the church was reopened for prayers last week.
The Fire brigade arrived two hours late, after the Church roof had completely collapsed, eyewitnesses said. "Only the holy alter was untouched by the fire."
Copts United reported that when some Christian villagers of Ezbet Bassilious went to the police station to file a report on the incident, and named the suspects, they were detained and threatened to change their statements.
The violence that toos place in the last three weeks in Ezbet Boushra-East on June 6 and Ezbet Guirgis Bey on July 3 in Upper Egyptian El-Fashn by Muslim mobs was directed at social services buildings belonging to the Church, on 'suspicion' that they might be converted to churches, without any of the offenders in both attacks being charged.
The scenario is different in this latest incident in Ezbet Bassilious, which lies only 30 km from El Fashn Diocese. It involves a new Church, which is licensed and the Egyptian security is trying to tamper with evidence to falsely implicate a Copt for setting the Church ablaze, in order to allow the offenders again to escape punishment.
Bani Mazar is in Minya province, which this year has experienced the largest number of incidents of sectarian violence, with cases in the districts of Maghagha, Bani Mazar, Samalut and Mallawi.
By Mary Abdelmassih
http://www.aina.org/news/20090712144135.htm
In a continuation of the ongoing wave of arson attacks on Coptic places of worship, the Church of St. Abaskharion Kellini, in the village of Ezbet Bassilious, Beni Mazar, was burnt down at noon on July 11 by Muslim village inhabitants. No one was injured.
A source in Bani Mazar Diocese told Free Copts advocacy the fire was instigated and directed as usual by State Security, aiming "to prevent prayers in new churches throughout both the Upper Egyptian provinces of Minya and of Beni Suef."
Reverend Abraham Phillobos, pastor of the torched Church told Coptic News Bulletin that the Security authorities are trying to falsely implicate the Copt Reda Gamal.
The Church was officially inaugurated on July 3 by the Bishop of Beni Mazar and was licensed for prayer. It was closed on that same day by State Security 'for security reasons and to avert a sectarian crisis,' and was placed under continuous guard.
Eyewitnesses named three Muslim village inhabitants Ahmed Abdelghani, Ahmed El-Qatawy and Eid Sayed Ahmad of torching the Church after spraying it with kerosene, according to Mikhael Fares of Copts United advocacy.
"The arson suspects went inside the church from a back door, but came out from the front of the burning Church in full view of the security guards," said an eye witness to Coptic News Bulletin. "Guards were there and just watched; when they heard explosions they went and stood far. They saw everything and did nothing, which is evidence of collusion."
"The State, the Security authorities and the Muslims all do not want any Churches, and the Muslim village inhabitants torched it because they just do not want any Churches," an eyewitness who wished to remain anonymous told Coptic News Bulletin. "We have been warned by security not to talk to anyone especially with the Coptic media from abroad."
The Copts in the village of Ezbet Bassilios, Bani Maza, 190 km south of Cairo applied and got a license for a Church in 1979, however, Security placed hurdles and the church, which was never completed, was closed since 1997 for security reasons. According to Copts United it was only through the continuous efforts of the Church leaders to convince security that prayers in that Church do not pose a threat to the village or social peace, that the church was reopened for prayers last week.
The Fire brigade arrived two hours late, after the Church roof had completely collapsed, eyewitnesses said. "Only the holy alter was untouched by the fire."
Copts United reported that when some Christian villagers of Ezbet Bassilious went to the police station to file a report on the incident, and named the suspects, they were detained and threatened to change their statements.
The violence that toos place in the last three weeks in Ezbet Boushra-East on June 6 and Ezbet Guirgis Bey on July 3 in Upper Egyptian El-Fashn by Muslim mobs was directed at social services buildings belonging to the Church, on 'suspicion' that they might be converted to churches, without any of the offenders in both attacks being charged.
The scenario is different in this latest incident in Ezbet Bassilious, which lies only 30 km from El Fashn Diocese. It involves a new Church, which is licensed and the Egyptian security is trying to tamper with evidence to falsely implicate a Copt for setting the Church ablaze, in order to allow the offenders again to escape punishment.
Bani Mazar is in Minya province, which this year has experienced the largest number of incidents of sectarian violence, with cases in the districts of Maghagha, Bani Mazar, Samalut and Mallawi.
By Mary Abdelmassih
http://www.aina.org/news/20090712144135.htm
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Leaders To Vote On Expansion Of Islamic Saudi Academy
(Fairfax County, VA) —
Blueprints for the expansion of the controversial Islamic Saudi Academy head to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on Monday. The controversial plan is expected to draw a crowd. Jim Lafferty, who heads up a group opposed to the school, plans to be there. He says the school promotes hate, and teaches Sharia — the Islamic code of law — which he says conflicts with U.S. Constitutional law.Others are simply concerned the expansion will cause traffic snarls on Popes Head Road. School officials say they’re working to address traffic concerns. They also flatly deny the school is teaching hate or radical views. The public will get a chance to weigh in before Monday’s vote.
Dear Hal,
Greetings from ACT! for America’s main office!
Next Monday evening, July 13th, represents a real opportunity to publicly voice our concerns about the future of the Islamic Saudi Academy in northern Virginia. As you are probably aware, this “school” is fast becoming the poster child for the entire Islamic school movement in the U.S. Among its “illustrious” alumni is a young man (their 1999 class Valedictorian!) convicted of conspiring to kill President George W. Bush.
***ACTION ALERT***
I am requesting that you accomplish two very important action items on this issue:
Plan on being there at the public hearing Monday night. Click here for details. Please be sure to fully read the impassioned plea by one of our local ACT! for America volunteers urging you to be there!Call all of the county supervisors and urge them to not only drop all expansion plans, but to drop all public support for the Islamic Saudi Academy. Click here for details. Let’s flood their phone lines!
This development, unfolding before us at this moment in history, represents a true crossroad not only for Virginia, but our entire nation. Will you be there to stand in the gap?
Thank you for taking a small amount of your precious time to help make a huge difference in the outcome of this battle.
Kelly Cook National Field Director
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 http://www.actforamerica.org/
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Greetings from ACT! for America’s main office!
Next Monday evening, July 13th, represents a real opportunity to publicly voice our concerns about the future of the Islamic Saudi Academy in northern Virginia. As you are probably aware, this “school” is fast becoming the poster child for the entire Islamic school movement in the U.S. Among its “illustrious” alumni is a young man (their 1999 class Valedictorian!) convicted of conspiring to kill President George W. Bush.
***ACTION ALERT***
I am requesting that you accomplish two very important action items on this issue:
Plan on being there at the public hearing Monday night. Click here for details. Please be sure to fully read the impassioned plea by one of our local ACT! for America volunteers urging you to be there!Call all of the county supervisors and urge them to not only drop all expansion plans, but to drop all public support for the Islamic Saudi Academy. Click here for details. Let’s flood their phone lines!
This development, unfolding before us at this moment in history, represents a true crossroad not only for Virginia, but our entire nation. Will you be there to stand in the gap?
Thank you for taking a small amount of your precious time to help make a huge difference in the outcome of this battle.
Kelly Cook National Field Director
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 http://www.actforamerica.org/
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
WOLF QUESTIONS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS
For Immediate Release
July 9, 2009
Contact: Dan Scandling
Jennifer Allen
(202) 225-5136
WOLF QUESTIONS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S
COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS
Cites Missteps in Dealing with China, Cuba, Sudan, Iran,
Egypt, North Korea, Vietnam and Russia
Washington, D.C. - Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), co-chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, today expressed concern over the Obama administration’s failure to date to champion human rights as a central part of American foreign policy.
In a statement entered in the Congressional Record, Wolf said he “joins the ranks of those who are deeply troubled by the trajectory of this administration on human rights.”
Wolf cited a number of instances where the Obama Administration has failed to raise the issue of human rights in meetings with foreign leaders, including the president’s trip this week to Russia. He was particularly pointed in his criticism of the administration’s lack of action on Darfur, noting that candidate Obama said: “We can’t say ‘never again’ and then allow it to happen again. And, as President of the United States, I don’t intend to… turn a blind eye to slaughter.”
Now, Wolf said, the administration “appears divided at the highest levels over whether genocide is even still taking place in Darfur.” He also said the “overtures” the administration is making to Khartoum are, “at best, naïve.”
Wolf was equally distressed by the administration’s dealings with North Korea.
“Even in the face of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions it is inexcusable for their abhorrent human rights record to not just be relegated to the back burner, but seemingly removed from the agenda altogether,” Wolf wrote. “Unlike past administrations, this administration had nothing to say, no public statement, acknowledging North Korea Human Rights Week this April, and Secretary Clinton, who was in town, could not find time in her schedule to meet with any of the 30 brave North Korean defectors in the nation’s capital to mark the occasion.”
Wolf also expressed continued disappointment in the U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, who, according to press reports, recently “rejected” calls by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to put Vietnam back on the State Department’s Countries of Particular Concern watch list, a register reserved for the world’s worst offenders of religious freedom.
“This is the same ambassador who recently gave a 4th of July speech in which he cited the timeless words of our own Declaration of Independence, but then had nothing to say about the oppression and lack of freedom in Vietnam,” Wolf stated.
“It is worth noting that Ambassador (Michael) Michalak is a career foreign service officer who has been in his current position since the last years of the Bush administration,” Wolf continued. “He is well acquainted with my concerns regarding his apparent disregard for human rights in Vietnam and his failure to make the U.S. embassy an island of freedom.
Wolf, who criticized the Bush administration when it missed opportunities to speak out for the voiceless, closed his statement by urging the Obama administration to be more forceful in dealing with foreign leaders on issues of human rights.
“This president and this secretary of State need to remember that the surest way to accomplish their stated goal of bolstering America’s standing in the world is to find common cause not with oppressors, but with those they repress,” Wolf said.
Below is the complete text of Wolf’s remarks. They are also available online at http://www.wolf.house.gov/ .
“A May 5 Washington Post article opened with these words: ‘The Obama administration has backed away from overt expressions of support for human rights and democracy in favor of a more subtle approach, worrying advocates who say that the issues are being given short shrift as President Obama seeks to rebuild relations with allies and reach out to adversaries.’
“I join the ranks of those who are deeply troubled by the trajectory of this administration on human rights.
“In a February visit to Asia, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton plainly indicated that human rights would not be a priority in her engagement with China. She said, ‘We pretty much know what they [the Chinese government] are going to say’ on human rights issues.
“With that logic, the administration will rarely find it advisable to raise human rights concerns with any country, particularly the worst offenders.
“Clinton went on, ‘We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.’
“Human rights organizations were dismayed. How had impassioned advocacy for the dignity of every person been relegated to a position of mere interference? And this in spite of Obama campaign promises to ‘be frank with the Chinese’ and ‘press them to respect human rights.’
“Following Secretary Clinton’s Asia comments, and subsequent remarks during a visit to the Middle East where she indicated that Egypt’s abuses would not negatively affect our bilateral relations, The Washington Post editorialized on March 11, “Ms. Clinton is doing a disservice to her own department - and sending the wrong message to rulers around the world that their abuses won’t be taken seriously by this U.S. administration.’
“Against this backdrop, President Obama in April moved to lift restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban Americans absent any commitment by the Castro brothers to release even one of the hundreds of political prisoners who languish in jails.
“Frank Calzon of the Center for a Free Cuba cautioned, ‘Lifting the travel ban means the most hostile elements of the Cuban government will get an injection of our currency…The tourist industry is controlled and staffed by the Cuban government. If Washington wants to transfer dollars to the Cuban military, that’s one way of doing it.’
“Cuba is still characterized by our own State Department as a ‘totalitarian state.’ This year’s National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) annual Democracy Award recently went to five courageous leaders of Cuba’s pro-democracy movement. The Washington Post editorial page on June 25 pointed out that in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, NED awardees were given either an audience with the president or a statement of support. Not so this year.
“According to the Post, the White House issued a ‘hastily drafted statement’ only after the paper inquired about the president’s silence. These brave Cuban democracy activists are, in the words of the Post’s editorial page, ‘hoping that the American president will focus his policy on supporting them. Yet for now, Mr. Obama’s diplomacy is clearly centered on their oppressors.’
“Or consider Sudan. During the campaign, when asked about Darfur, Barack Obama said, ‘We can’t say ‘never again’ and then allow it to happen again. And, as President of the United States, I don’t intend to…turn a blind eye to slaughter.’ He also spoke of ‘ratcheting up sanctions.’
“Now, almost six months into the administration, the State Department is still conducting a much vaunted ‘comprehensive review’ of U.S.-Sudan policy. Nothing concrete has emerged. The little that has leaked out in press reports is disturbing.
“The administration appears divided at the highest levels over whether genocide is even still taking place in Darfur. Furthermore, they are making overtures to Khartoum which are, at best, naïve.
“As recently as June 18, the Post reported that Special Envoy Scott Gration ‘has advocated easing some American sanctions and upgrading U.S. diplomatic relations with Sudan’s government to induce cooperation.’
“And more recently on the Iranian elections, while the president’s tone has toughened a bit in the face of increased pressure and bloodshed, his initial response was painfully muted.
“Asked about whether there was ‘any red line’ his administration wouldn’t cross where the ‘offer [to talk to Iran’s leaders] will be shut off,’ the president simply replied, ‘We’re waiting to see how it plays itself out.’
“A July 6 National Review Online posting on the plight of seven imprisoned Baha’i leaders set to go on trial later this week, pointed out that a ‘restrained approach’ to human rights advocacy ‘may not work for the seven imprisoned Baha’i in Iran, who face trial on July 11. The Iranian regime needs to understand that such blatant religious persecution has consequences. Silence may convince the Iranian leadership that they can get away with murder.’ The Baha’is are not the only minority faith in the region under duress.
“In the president’s much anticipated Cairo speech, he only made fleeting reference to Egypt’s Coptic Christians, saying that ‘religious diversity must be upheld.’ But far more than diversity is at stake.
“A June 26 press release by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom following recent reported attacks on Egyptian Copts describes the pattern of persecution endured by this community. The commission indicated that ‘initial reports say that state security services did little to prevent the violence from occurring. This repeats the established pattern that security services do not adequately protect Christian citizens in many localities. For all Christians in Egypt, government permission is required to build a new church or repair an existing one, and the approval process for church construction is time-consuming and inflexible. Even some permits that have been approved cannot be acted upon because of interference by the state security services at both the local and national levels.’
“A May 7 Washington Post editorial described the Obama administration as rushing to ‘embrace Egypt’s 81-year-old strongman,’ in reference to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The editorial went on to say that the administration is retreating from raising human rights abuses and that ‘the pullback is not only rhetorical.’
“Funding for democracy promotion in Egypt, reportedly at the request of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, was initially cut from $50 million to $20 million this year. That number has since been bumped by $5 million as the funding bill has moved through the committee process - but even with that increase, the funding amounts to half of the previous year’s figure. Given that millions of dollars in unconditioned foreign aid has gone to the Egyptian government in the years following the Camp David accords, this slash in civil society funding is an embarrassment.
“One of the darkest places on the globe is North Korea. More than 200,000 North Koreans - including children - are being held in political prison camps. It is estimated that between 400,000 and one million people have died in these camps, having been worked to death or starved to death.
“A June 16 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal featured a quote from a North Korean refugee woman who said, ‘If I had a chance to meet with President Obama, I would first like to tell him how North Korean women are being sold like livestock in China and, second, to know that North Korean labor camps are hell on earth.’
“Even in the face of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions it is inexcusable for their abhorrent human rights record to not just be relegated to the back burner, but seemingly removed from the agenda altogether. Unlike past administrations, this administration had nothing to say, no public statement, acknowledging North Korea Human Rights Week this April, and Secretary Clinton, who was in town, could not find time in her schedule to meet with any of the 30 brave North Korean defectors in the nation’s capital to mark the occasion.
“Or consider Vietnam. In its 2009 annual report, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom found that, ‘Individuals continue to be imprisoned or detained for reasons related to their religious activity or religious freedom advocacy; police and government officials are not held fully accountable for abuses; independent religious activity remains illegal; and legal protections for government-approved religious organizations are both vague and subject to arbitrary or discriminatory interpretations based on political factors.’
“The commission recommended that Vietnam be placed back on the State Department’s Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) list, a list reserved for the world’s worst offenders of religious freedom. But a June 25 Washington Times article reported that ‘U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam Michael W. Michalak recently rejected calls by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to put Vietnam back on the CPC watch list. He cited that there was not enough evidence of religious persecution.’
“This is the same ambassador who recently gave a 4th of July speech in which he cited the timeless words of our own Declaration of Independence, but then had nothing to say about the oppression and lack of freedom in Vietnam.
“It is worth noting that Ambassador Michalak is a career foreign service officer who has been in his current position since the last years of the Bush administration. He is well acquainted with my concerns regarding his apparent disregard for human rights in Vietnam and his failure to make the U.S. embassy an island of freedom.
“I was quick to criticize the Bush administration when it seemed that they were missing opportunities to be a voice for the voiceless. Too often in the previous administration the public rhetoric failed to match action. But in this new, young administration, even the rhetoric is absent.
“Reports of the president’s trip to Russia quote a top National Security Council adviser as saying the Obama administration ‘came to the conclusion that us waving our fingers around the world is a strategy that hasn’t worked very well in the past.’ This same adviser later conceded to Politico that human rights were never raised in Obama’s meeting with Russian President Putin.
“It seems this administration could learn a lesson from history… from another Russian in fact.
“The year was 1975. Famed Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was set to visit Washington. The city’s foreign policy establishment, among them Henry Kissinger, sought to obstruct him at every turn. He was refused a meeting with President Ford, who declined to meet with him fearing it would sour an upcoming meeting with Soviet leader Brezhnev. When Solzhenitsyn delivered a major speech at the AFL-CIO, State Department employees were forbidden from attending.
“Ronald Reagan, former governor of California, was angered at the snub and wrote a column which appeared in papers across the country exposing the White House’s motives for refusing an audience with this renowned dissident, author of Gulag Archipelago. Reagan wrote, ‘the real reason for the snub surfaced: a visit with Solzhenitsyn would violate the ‘spirit of détente.’
“Fast forward eight years. Now president, Mr. Reagan delivers an electrifying speech where he refers to the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire.’
“Another Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky, wrote in his book of how word of that speech penetrated the gulag. ‘Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan’s ‘provocation’ quickly spread through the prison. The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally the leader of the free world had spoken the truth - a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.’
“Nearly 30 years later, much has changed, but much remains the same. Speaking truth to power will always place America on the right side of history. Speaking out for those who have no voice will always be a source of hope for people in the darkest corners of the globe.
“This president and this secretary of State need to remember that the surest way to accomplish their stated goal of bolstering America’s standing in the world is to find common cause not with oppressors, but with those they repress.”
Contact: Dan Scandling
Jennifer Allen
(202) 225-5136
WOLF QUESTIONS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S
COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS
Cites Missteps in Dealing with China, Cuba, Sudan, Iran,
Egypt, North Korea, Vietnam and Russia
Washington, D.C. - Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), co-chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, today expressed concern over the Obama administration’s failure to date to champion human rights as a central part of American foreign policy.
In a statement entered in the Congressional Record, Wolf said he “joins the ranks of those who are deeply troubled by the trajectory of this administration on human rights.”
Wolf cited a number of instances where the Obama Administration has failed to raise the issue of human rights in meetings with foreign leaders, including the president’s trip this week to Russia. He was particularly pointed in his criticism of the administration’s lack of action on Darfur, noting that candidate Obama said: “We can’t say ‘never again’ and then allow it to happen again. And, as President of the United States, I don’t intend to… turn a blind eye to slaughter.”
Now, Wolf said, the administration “appears divided at the highest levels over whether genocide is even still taking place in Darfur.” He also said the “overtures” the administration is making to Khartoum are, “at best, naïve.”
Wolf was equally distressed by the administration’s dealings with North Korea.
“Even in the face of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions it is inexcusable for their abhorrent human rights record to not just be relegated to the back burner, but seemingly removed from the agenda altogether,” Wolf wrote. “Unlike past administrations, this administration had nothing to say, no public statement, acknowledging North Korea Human Rights Week this April, and Secretary Clinton, who was in town, could not find time in her schedule to meet with any of the 30 brave North Korean defectors in the nation’s capital to mark the occasion.”
Wolf also expressed continued disappointment in the U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, who, according to press reports, recently “rejected” calls by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to put Vietnam back on the State Department’s Countries of Particular Concern watch list, a register reserved for the world’s worst offenders of religious freedom.
“This is the same ambassador who recently gave a 4th of July speech in which he cited the timeless words of our own Declaration of Independence, but then had nothing to say about the oppression and lack of freedom in Vietnam,” Wolf stated.
“It is worth noting that Ambassador (Michael) Michalak is a career foreign service officer who has been in his current position since the last years of the Bush administration,” Wolf continued. “He is well acquainted with my concerns regarding his apparent disregard for human rights in Vietnam and his failure to make the U.S. embassy an island of freedom.
Wolf, who criticized the Bush administration when it missed opportunities to speak out for the voiceless, closed his statement by urging the Obama administration to be more forceful in dealing with foreign leaders on issues of human rights.
“This president and this secretary of State need to remember that the surest way to accomplish their stated goal of bolstering America’s standing in the world is to find common cause not with oppressors, but with those they repress,” Wolf said.
Below is the complete text of Wolf’s remarks. They are also available online at http://www.wolf.house.gov/ .
“A May 5 Washington Post article opened with these words: ‘The Obama administration has backed away from overt expressions of support for human rights and democracy in favor of a more subtle approach, worrying advocates who say that the issues are being given short shrift as President Obama seeks to rebuild relations with allies and reach out to adversaries.’
“I join the ranks of those who are deeply troubled by the trajectory of this administration on human rights.
“In a February visit to Asia, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton plainly indicated that human rights would not be a priority in her engagement with China. She said, ‘We pretty much know what they [the Chinese government] are going to say’ on human rights issues.
“With that logic, the administration will rarely find it advisable to raise human rights concerns with any country, particularly the worst offenders.
“Clinton went on, ‘We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.’
“Human rights organizations were dismayed. How had impassioned advocacy for the dignity of every person been relegated to a position of mere interference? And this in spite of Obama campaign promises to ‘be frank with the Chinese’ and ‘press them to respect human rights.’
“Following Secretary Clinton’s Asia comments, and subsequent remarks during a visit to the Middle East where she indicated that Egypt’s abuses would not negatively affect our bilateral relations, The Washington Post editorialized on March 11, “Ms. Clinton is doing a disservice to her own department - and sending the wrong message to rulers around the world that their abuses won’t be taken seriously by this U.S. administration.’
“Against this backdrop, President Obama in April moved to lift restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban Americans absent any commitment by the Castro brothers to release even one of the hundreds of political prisoners who languish in jails.
“Frank Calzon of the Center for a Free Cuba cautioned, ‘Lifting the travel ban means the most hostile elements of the Cuban government will get an injection of our currency…The tourist industry is controlled and staffed by the Cuban government. If Washington wants to transfer dollars to the Cuban military, that’s one way of doing it.’
“Cuba is still characterized by our own State Department as a ‘totalitarian state.’ This year’s National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) annual Democracy Award recently went to five courageous leaders of Cuba’s pro-democracy movement. The Washington Post editorial page on June 25 pointed out that in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, NED awardees were given either an audience with the president or a statement of support. Not so this year.
“According to the Post, the White House issued a ‘hastily drafted statement’ only after the paper inquired about the president’s silence. These brave Cuban democracy activists are, in the words of the Post’s editorial page, ‘hoping that the American president will focus his policy on supporting them. Yet for now, Mr. Obama’s diplomacy is clearly centered on their oppressors.’
“Or consider Sudan. During the campaign, when asked about Darfur, Barack Obama said, ‘We can’t say ‘never again’ and then allow it to happen again. And, as President of the United States, I don’t intend to…turn a blind eye to slaughter.’ He also spoke of ‘ratcheting up sanctions.’
“Now, almost six months into the administration, the State Department is still conducting a much vaunted ‘comprehensive review’ of U.S.-Sudan policy. Nothing concrete has emerged. The little that has leaked out in press reports is disturbing.
“The administration appears divided at the highest levels over whether genocide is even still taking place in Darfur. Furthermore, they are making overtures to Khartoum which are, at best, naïve.
“As recently as June 18, the Post reported that Special Envoy Scott Gration ‘has advocated easing some American sanctions and upgrading U.S. diplomatic relations with Sudan’s government to induce cooperation.’
“And more recently on the Iranian elections, while the president’s tone has toughened a bit in the face of increased pressure and bloodshed, his initial response was painfully muted.
“Asked about whether there was ‘any red line’ his administration wouldn’t cross where the ‘offer [to talk to Iran’s leaders] will be shut off,’ the president simply replied, ‘We’re waiting to see how it plays itself out.’
“A July 6 National Review Online posting on the plight of seven imprisoned Baha’i leaders set to go on trial later this week, pointed out that a ‘restrained approach’ to human rights advocacy ‘may not work for the seven imprisoned Baha’i in Iran, who face trial on July 11. The Iranian regime needs to understand that such blatant religious persecution has consequences. Silence may convince the Iranian leadership that they can get away with murder.’ The Baha’is are not the only minority faith in the region under duress.
“In the president’s much anticipated Cairo speech, he only made fleeting reference to Egypt’s Coptic Christians, saying that ‘religious diversity must be upheld.’ But far more than diversity is at stake.
“A June 26 press release by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom following recent reported attacks on Egyptian Copts describes the pattern of persecution endured by this community. The commission indicated that ‘initial reports say that state security services did little to prevent the violence from occurring. This repeats the established pattern that security services do not adequately protect Christian citizens in many localities. For all Christians in Egypt, government permission is required to build a new church or repair an existing one, and the approval process for church construction is time-consuming and inflexible. Even some permits that have been approved cannot be acted upon because of interference by the state security services at both the local and national levels.’
“A May 7 Washington Post editorial described the Obama administration as rushing to ‘embrace Egypt’s 81-year-old strongman,’ in reference to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The editorial went on to say that the administration is retreating from raising human rights abuses and that ‘the pullback is not only rhetorical.’
“Funding for democracy promotion in Egypt, reportedly at the request of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, was initially cut from $50 million to $20 million this year. That number has since been bumped by $5 million as the funding bill has moved through the committee process - but even with that increase, the funding amounts to half of the previous year’s figure. Given that millions of dollars in unconditioned foreign aid has gone to the Egyptian government in the years following the Camp David accords, this slash in civil society funding is an embarrassment.
“One of the darkest places on the globe is North Korea. More than 200,000 North Koreans - including children - are being held in political prison camps. It is estimated that between 400,000 and one million people have died in these camps, having been worked to death or starved to death.
“A June 16 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal featured a quote from a North Korean refugee woman who said, ‘If I had a chance to meet with President Obama, I would first like to tell him how North Korean women are being sold like livestock in China and, second, to know that North Korean labor camps are hell on earth.’
“Even in the face of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions it is inexcusable for their abhorrent human rights record to not just be relegated to the back burner, but seemingly removed from the agenda altogether. Unlike past administrations, this administration had nothing to say, no public statement, acknowledging North Korea Human Rights Week this April, and Secretary Clinton, who was in town, could not find time in her schedule to meet with any of the 30 brave North Korean defectors in the nation’s capital to mark the occasion.
“Or consider Vietnam. In its 2009 annual report, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom found that, ‘Individuals continue to be imprisoned or detained for reasons related to their religious activity or religious freedom advocacy; police and government officials are not held fully accountable for abuses; independent religious activity remains illegal; and legal protections for government-approved religious organizations are both vague and subject to arbitrary or discriminatory interpretations based on political factors.’
“The commission recommended that Vietnam be placed back on the State Department’s Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) list, a list reserved for the world’s worst offenders of religious freedom. But a June 25 Washington Times article reported that ‘U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam Michael W. Michalak recently rejected calls by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to put Vietnam back on the CPC watch list. He cited that there was not enough evidence of religious persecution.’
“This is the same ambassador who recently gave a 4th of July speech in which he cited the timeless words of our own Declaration of Independence, but then had nothing to say about the oppression and lack of freedom in Vietnam.
“It is worth noting that Ambassador Michalak is a career foreign service officer who has been in his current position since the last years of the Bush administration. He is well acquainted with my concerns regarding his apparent disregard for human rights in Vietnam and his failure to make the U.S. embassy an island of freedom.
“I was quick to criticize the Bush administration when it seemed that they were missing opportunities to be a voice for the voiceless. Too often in the previous administration the public rhetoric failed to match action. But in this new, young administration, even the rhetoric is absent.
“Reports of the president’s trip to Russia quote a top National Security Council adviser as saying the Obama administration ‘came to the conclusion that us waving our fingers around the world is a strategy that hasn’t worked very well in the past.’ This same adviser later conceded to Politico that human rights were never raised in Obama’s meeting with Russian President Putin.
“It seems this administration could learn a lesson from history… from another Russian in fact.
“The year was 1975. Famed Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was set to visit Washington. The city’s foreign policy establishment, among them Henry Kissinger, sought to obstruct him at every turn. He was refused a meeting with President Ford, who declined to meet with him fearing it would sour an upcoming meeting with Soviet leader Brezhnev. When Solzhenitsyn delivered a major speech at the AFL-CIO, State Department employees were forbidden from attending.
“Ronald Reagan, former governor of California, was angered at the snub and wrote a column which appeared in papers across the country exposing the White House’s motives for refusing an audience with this renowned dissident, author of Gulag Archipelago. Reagan wrote, ‘the real reason for the snub surfaced: a visit with Solzhenitsyn would violate the ‘spirit of détente.’
“Fast forward eight years. Now president, Mr. Reagan delivers an electrifying speech where he refers to the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire.’
“Another Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky, wrote in his book of how word of that speech penetrated the gulag. ‘Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan’s ‘provocation’ quickly spread through the prison. The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally the leader of the free world had spoken the truth - a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.’
“Nearly 30 years later, much has changed, but much remains the same. Speaking truth to power will always place America on the right side of history. Speaking out for those who have no voice will always be a source of hope for people in the darkest corners of the globe.
“This president and this secretary of State need to remember that the surest way to accomplish their stated goal of bolstering America’s standing in the world is to find common cause not with oppressors, but with those they repress.”
Somali Muslims behead seven people for being "Christians" and "spies
Reuters
MOGADISHU -
Somalia's hardline Islamist rebels beheaded seven people on Friday for being "Christians" and "spies" in the latest imposition of strict sharia, Islamic law, by the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab group, witnesses said.
Al Shabaab, which controls large tracts of south Somalia and parts of the capital Mogadishu, has carried out such executions before, but the beheadings on Friday were believed to be the largest number of killings at one time, Somalis say.
"Al Shabaab told us that they were beheaded for reasons they described as being Christian followers and spies," said one relative, who gave his name only as Aden, after the killings in the south-central town of Baidoa.
The group, which western security services say is a proxy for al Qaeda in Somalia, beheaded three people in the same region last month.
Al Shabaab, which means "Youth" in Arabic, has vowed to rule the majority Muslim nation by a hardline interpretation of Islamic law. The group has dug up Sufi graves, forced women to wear veils, closed down movie halls and cut off limbs for theft.
"My husband was missing up to 20 days. Al Shabaab confirmed to us that he and six others were beheaded. We are waiting for his dead body," said Maryan, the wife of one of the victims.
Somalia's government has been unable to beat back al Shabaab militants who are making guerrilla-style attacks on Somali troops and an African Union (AU) force there.
FOREIGN WAR
The government says the insurgency is being led by foreign fighters in al Shabaab's ranks. The United Nations and the AU say hundreds of jihadists have flocked to Somalia to battle the government led by ex-rebel leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed.
"The current war is a foreign war led and supported by outside forces. The money and ideologies are foreign-based. Somalis all support the government," Somali Foreign Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Omaar told reporters in the Ethiopian capital.
"This is not a war between Somali clans. It is a war against foreign forces who come into the country to overthrow the government that has been elected constitutionally by the Somali people and supported by the international community."
On Thursday, the U.N. Security Council warned Eritrea that it would consider action against anyone undermining peace prospects in Somalia, which has been devastated by civil conflict since 1991 .
Asmara has repeatedly denied claims that the Red Sea state was providing support to insurgents battling the western-backed government, also supported by Eritrea's arch-enemy Ethiopia.
The AU, which has 4,300 peacekeepers in the Somali capital, has called for sanctions against Asmara.
Ethiopian tanks and troops crushed an Islamist movement in Somalia in late 2006, but since then a revived insurgency has killed 18,000 civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands.
U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay accused al Shabaab on Friday of extrajudicial killings, setting off bombs in residential areas and using civilians as human shields in their fight against Ahmed's administration.
The insurgents say they are nationalists seeking to rid Somalia of a western-imposed government which has no popular support.
( Saturday, 11 July 2009 )
MOGADISHU -
Somalia's hardline Islamist rebels beheaded seven people on Friday for being "Christians" and "spies" in the latest imposition of strict sharia, Islamic law, by the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab group, witnesses said.
Al Shabaab, which controls large tracts of south Somalia and parts of the capital Mogadishu, has carried out such executions before, but the beheadings on Friday were believed to be the largest number of killings at one time, Somalis say.
"Al Shabaab told us that they were beheaded for reasons they described as being Christian followers and spies," said one relative, who gave his name only as Aden, after the killings in the south-central town of Baidoa.
The group, which western security services say is a proxy for al Qaeda in Somalia, beheaded three people in the same region last month.
Al Shabaab, which means "Youth" in Arabic, has vowed to rule the majority Muslim nation by a hardline interpretation of Islamic law. The group has dug up Sufi graves, forced women to wear veils, closed down movie halls and cut off limbs for theft.
"My husband was missing up to 20 days. Al Shabaab confirmed to us that he and six others were beheaded. We are waiting for his dead body," said Maryan, the wife of one of the victims.
Somalia's government has been unable to beat back al Shabaab militants who are making guerrilla-style attacks on Somali troops and an African Union (AU) force there.
FOREIGN WAR
The government says the insurgency is being led by foreign fighters in al Shabaab's ranks. The United Nations and the AU say hundreds of jihadists have flocked to Somalia to battle the government led by ex-rebel leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed.
"The current war is a foreign war led and supported by outside forces. The money and ideologies are foreign-based. Somalis all support the government," Somali Foreign Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Omaar told reporters in the Ethiopian capital.
"This is not a war between Somali clans. It is a war against foreign forces who come into the country to overthrow the government that has been elected constitutionally by the Somali people and supported by the international community."
On Thursday, the U.N. Security Council warned Eritrea that it would consider action against anyone undermining peace prospects in Somalia, which has been devastated by civil conflict since 1991 .
Asmara has repeatedly denied claims that the Red Sea state was providing support to insurgents battling the western-backed government, also supported by Eritrea's arch-enemy Ethiopia.
The AU, which has 4,300 peacekeepers in the Somali capital, has called for sanctions against Asmara.
Ethiopian tanks and troops crushed an Islamist movement in Somalia in late 2006, but since then a revived insurgency has killed 18,000 civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands.
U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay accused al Shabaab on Friday of extrajudicial killings, setting off bombs in residential areas and using civilians as human shields in their fight against Ahmed's administration.
The insurgents say they are nationalists seeking to rid Somalia of a western-imposed government which has no popular support.
( Saturday, 11 July 2009 )
Friday, July 10, 2009
Egypt arrests 26 over suspected Suez Canal plot
10 July 2009Egypt carries out preemptive clampdowns on terror suspects Of the 26 Egyptian terror suspects one was PalestinianEgyptian security forces arrested 26 suspected al-Qaeda loyalists on charges of plotting attacks on foreign ships passing through the Suez Canal, the interior ministry said on Thursday, in the latest of a series of clampdowns and evictions on suspected Islamists.
The suspects, 25 Egyptians and a Palestinian named Tamer Mohamed Moussa, reportedly headed by mob leader Mohammed Faheem Hussein, were in contact with the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Army of Palestine, the ministry said in a statement.
The cell carried out a deadly armed robbery of a Coptic Christian owned jewelry shop in Cairo in May 2008 in which the owner and four workers were killed. The gun used in the attack has also been found, the statement said.
Five suspects "gave detailed confessions on carrying out (the attack)... to fund their activities," it said.
Egypt's MENA News reported that arrested members allegedly confessed to receiving donations from abroad to fund their activities through the internet under the guise of Islamic charity work.
They also confessed to plotting to carry out attacks against targets in Egypt, such as foreign ships through the Suez Canal and oil pipelines.
The security source explained the clampdown was part of the government's intensified security efforts to thwart attempts by foreign terrorist organizations to form networks with the country's extremist elements.
Copies of books on jihad (religious struggle) were seized at the different places of arrest among them being the canonical 'Milestones' a book on modern day Islamic struggle by Seyyid Qutb, the leading intellectual of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s.
In May, the interior ministry said it had arrested seven members of another alleged al-Qaeda-affiliated cell over a Cairo bazaar bombing that killed a teenage French tourist.
That cell called itself the Islamic Army of Palestine and was led by two Egyptians living abroad, one of them reportedly in Gaza.
A month before, the public prosecutor said that 49 people had been charged with forming a Hezbollah cell suspected of planning attacks against tourist resorts and ships passing through the Suez Canal.
Twenty-five of the suspects were arrested with the others on the run.
But Hezbolah leader Hassan Nasrallah denied seeking to destablize the Egyptian government although he acknowledged that Sami Shihab, one of the people arrested, was a member of the Shiite group
ukcopts
The suspects, 25 Egyptians and a Palestinian named Tamer Mohamed Moussa, reportedly headed by mob leader Mohammed Faheem Hussein, were in contact with the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Army of Palestine, the ministry said in a statement.
The cell carried out a deadly armed robbery of a Coptic Christian owned jewelry shop in Cairo in May 2008 in which the owner and four workers were killed. The gun used in the attack has also been found, the statement said.
Five suspects "gave detailed confessions on carrying out (the attack)... to fund their activities," it said.
Egypt's MENA News reported that arrested members allegedly confessed to receiving donations from abroad to fund their activities through the internet under the guise of Islamic charity work.
They also confessed to plotting to carry out attacks against targets in Egypt, such as foreign ships through the Suez Canal and oil pipelines.
The security source explained the clampdown was part of the government's intensified security efforts to thwart attempts by foreign terrorist organizations to form networks with the country's extremist elements.
Copies of books on jihad (religious struggle) were seized at the different places of arrest among them being the canonical 'Milestones' a book on modern day Islamic struggle by Seyyid Qutb, the leading intellectual of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s.
In May, the interior ministry said it had arrested seven members of another alleged al-Qaeda-affiliated cell over a Cairo bazaar bombing that killed a teenage French tourist.
That cell called itself the Islamic Army of Palestine and was led by two Egyptians living abroad, one of them reportedly in Gaza.
A month before, the public prosecutor said that 49 people had been charged with forming a Hezbollah cell suspected of planning attacks against tourist resorts and ships passing through the Suez Canal.
Twenty-five of the suspects were arrested with the others on the run.
But Hezbolah leader Hassan Nasrallah denied seeking to destablize the Egyptian government although he acknowledged that Sami Shihab, one of the people arrested, was a member of the Shiite group
ukcopts
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Advocates of a Theocratic State
Adel Guindy
Dr Ahmed Fathi Sorour, the Speaker of Egypt's People’s Assembly (since 1990) published an article titled “Between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Belief,” which occupied 24 pages of the March 2009 issue of the Assembly's quarterly review. He later published an abridged version in Al-Hayat newspaper (May 14) and Al-Ahram (May 20, 21).
For those who do not know him well, Dr Sorour, a prominent law professor, is among other occupations, the honorary president of the Institute for Higher Studies in Criminal Science, Sicily-Italy; the president of the International Institute for Law in the Francophone Countries–Paris; and the vice president of the International Society for Criminal Law–Paris
The article deserves a lot of comments, but we will focus here on its last section, which covers the important issue of ‘the effect of a religious affiliation of a State on the balance between the freedoms of expression and religious belief.’ It starts by stating that:“Constitutions in some democratic countries establish a religion of the State. An example is Greece's constitution, which states in Article 3-1 that ‘the prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The Norwegian constitution states in Article 2 that Evangelical-Lutheran is the official religion of the State. Egypt's constitution states that Islam is the religion of the State. Constitutions of some Arab countries (U.A.E., Bahrain, Somalia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Iraq) have also made the same statement.”
It is appreciated that Dr Sorour makes a point in clarifying the statement in the Greek constitution, as:“the jurisprudence has established that the religious affiliation stated in the constitution is a mere declaration about the predominant religion with no legal consequences that would justify stifling the freedom of expression or giving supremacy to the prevailing religion. That is because the constitution has explicitly guaranteed each individual’s religious freedom in the large sense, that is the freedom of religious belief and the freedom of a religious community to practice of rituals, without hindrance (Art. 13-1).”The constitution indeed states (Art. 13-1) that “Freedom of religious conscience is inviolable. The enjoyment of civil rights and liberties does not depend on the individual’s religious beliefs.”
But Dr Sorour seems to have found what he may consider to be a golden opportunity in the case of Norway. However, one must not ignore the fact that this is a rare case in the modern western world and that the text has old roots (against a backdrop of a religious war (1534-36), the result of which Norway became ‘Evangelical-Lutheran,’ not Catholic). That stipulation on the State religion is largely a formality, which does not affect - legally or practically - the laws in the country nor violates freedoms in any way. Indeed the same Article 2 starts by stating that “all inhabitants of (Norway) shall have the right to free exercise of their religion.”References (among ‘democratic countries’!) to some Arab countries which established Islam as a State religion (including the failed State of Somalia!), appears as a flimsy justification for Egypt's case (more on that later).Dr Sorour then returns to Egypt's constitution:“The statement about the official State religion in Article 2 is complimented by Article 46 which concerns the freedom of belief and the freedom of practice of religious rituals. The Constitutional Court has emphasized that (..) Egyptian constitutions have upheld these freedoms, being among the established constitutional principles in every civilized country; for every human-being may believe in whatever he wills of religions or beliefs as his conscience accepts and his soul favors, without external authority beyond convictions in the depths of the heart.”
Once more, it is wise to reiterate what the Constructional Court has emphasized as something well established in ‘every civilized country.’ The pressing question is: Why such established principles do not find their way to be applied in Egypt, but are usually subjugated in practice to Article 2 (on Sharia)? A case at point is yet another ruling by the Administrative Court (June 13) to deny Mr. Maher Al-Gohary the right to convert to Christianity, because this “contradicts Sharia.”
After going out of his way to minimize the negative effects of the constitutional text regarding the religion of State in Egypt, Dr Sorour then comes to the “real meaning of stating in Article 2 that the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation.” He reminds the reader of other cases:
“in the constitutions of U.A.E., Bahrain and Qatar that Sharia is ‘a main source;’ in Sudan’s constitution that Sharia and Ijmaa are ‘a source’ of national laws, applicable in the northern states of the country; in Syria’s constitution that Islamic jurisprudence is ‘a main source’ of legislation; in Oman’s constitution that Sharia is ‘the source’ of legislation; and in Iraq's constitution which states that no laws contrary to the fundamentals of Islam’s provisions may be issued.” Unfortunately, Dr Sorour ignores that adopting a ‘religious law’ as a source of legislation is a particularity of only a limited number of ‘Islamic’ countries. He also reverts to the cases of some ‘brotherly Arab countries’ as a justification, ignoring that most of them are quite novice when it comes to having a constitution, and that these were mostly drafted by the same crafty Egyptian experts who had written their country’s constitution, with all its aberrations and contradictions. He ignores that the Iraqi constitution he partially quotes actually stipulates that “No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in this Constitution (Second Chapter) may be enacted. This (constitution) (..) guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of belief and religious practice, such as Christians, Yazidis and Sabeans.” He further ignores that many Arab countries (e.g. Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia) do not mention Sharia as a source of legislation in their constitutions. He ignores that many Islamic, non-Arab, countries (e.g. Cote d'Ivoire, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Turkey or Uzbekistan) not only do not mention Sharia in their constitutions, but also uphold secularism, and/or mention no religion of state. He also ignores that among the examples he quoted, there are countries that consider Sharia to be ‘a’ source, or ‘a main’ source even though Muslims may represent up to 99% of the citizens; yet Egypt, a multi-faith country, with a history of progressive evolution over two centuries, has made Sharia ‘the’ main source of legislation which makes it, according to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court, the de-facto sole reference. In sum, Dr Sorour knows that Egypt has become an ‘extreme case’ (or a case of extremism!), yet he endeavors to defend her reckless course of action!
***Dr Sorour then gets to the issue of contradiction between adopting a ‘religious law’ as a source of legislation, and the freedoms:“Even if Islamic Sharia has undoubtedly a religious nature, being the essence of Islam, yet it is independent from the religious belief in being a legal system. Thus it is conceivable to apply Islamic Sharia in a non-Islamic society, on non-Muslims living in an Islamic society, or on foreigners living in (Islam’s) land, without affecting the principle of freedom of belief. This is because of (Sharia's) civilizational nature, logical basis and social values.”This must represent a logical dilemma to most mortals, but not to Dr Sorour who tries a new kind of logic! For even when he qualifies Sharia as a system with ‘an undoubted religious nature,’ he ignores these propositions and jumps to contradictory conclusions. He never bothers to explain how could Sharia be an independent legal system, that could even be happily implemented in a non-Islamic society (!), whereas it is founded on submission to certain religious injunctions? In fact (as the experts say) Sharia is not even a positive system of law, but a ‘normative corpus that regulates in detail inter-personal relations,’ without a possibility to elaborate laws based on general principles and the society’s needs.
But realizing the logical impasse, Dr Sorour deploys another idea: ‘Sharia's civilizational nature, logical basis and social values.’ However, these are by no means given facts, but a mere opinion; an opinion, moreover, that can only be expressed by a partisan biased to his own narrow religious vision. Furthermore, it is an opinion that can be easily refuted: It is enough to subject Sharia to a ‘Litmus test,’ by comparing its provisions and applications to the international conventions of Human Rights. The results are well-documented. ***When constitutions refer to certain principles, they usually do so explicitly. Egypt’s constitution is an exception when it refers vaguely to ‘principles of Saharia.’ The Constitutional Court had to come to some rescue as..“it took interest in clarifying what is meant by the ‘principles of Islamic Sharia’ to be those provisions (ahkam) which are firm, both in veracity and meaning. They are not subject to ijtihad, as their incidence does not change with time or place (Case 119 of 12/2004). Ijtihad is limited to conjectural provisions whose veracity and/or meaning are not fully confirmed (Case 18 of 5/1995).”
We notice that the court may have narrowed the scope of discussions regarding the ‘principles of Sharia,’ but it has not ventured to clearly delineate them (nor clarify those ‘firm provisions’ on which they are based).Here, one has every right to ask: In the absence of clear statements in the body of the constitution itself; who, besides men of religion, would determine what represents ‘firm provisions’? Isn't this exactly the essence of the theocratic State? (defined as a system where “the primary effort of government is to implement and enforce divine laws.” -- Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, ed. Robert Wuthnow).
One can further wonder what would happen when certain Sharia provisions contradict in letter or spirit the international conventions on Human Rights or, indeed, other stipulations in the very same constitution? Courses on Sharia, taught in Al-Azhar as well as in law schools in secular universities, are awash with texts which reflect the non-equality between woman and man, and between non-believer and believer (i.e. Muslim). They cover a wide range of aspects, from treating dthimis, to hudud (bodily punishments); from personal status to slavery. Supposedly they are based on ‘firm provisions,’ and hence still applicable -- even if some scholars (a minority) indicate that these may not be fully enforceable in today’s societies. Are we to rely upon occasional disagreements between exegetes, hoping to find some reassurances as to our fate and to that of our country?
It is important at this point to highlight that some may warn that ‘criticizing Sharia means attacking Islam as a religion.’ Rejecting such claims which aim at muzzling mouths we emphasize that the debate is not at all religious, but strictly about fundamental legal issues, with broad political and societal ramifications.***Reaching a climax, Dr Sorour finally proclaims that:“It needs no demonstration that considering Islamic Sharia a main source of legislation does not infringe on the State’s duty to protect freedom of belief for the (followers of) other religions.”Yet again, he sees no need to demonstrate how could such contradictory statements hold together-- simply because he cannot.***How depressing to see some pillars of the regime (who occasionally declare their ‘belief’ in the ‘civil’ State, where freedom, justice, equality and democracy prevail!) act. They had better understand the disastrous implications of a theocratic State, and that many of Sharia injunctions do contradict the established principles of human rights, yet instead of devoting their talents and assuming their responsibilities to advance a badly-needed progressive agenda for Egypt, they support (knowingly or not) the cause of the Islamists whose ultimate goal is nothing but to turn the world into an Islamic abode, by ‘imposing Allah’s Law on the Earth and its inhabitants.’Woe to you, Egypt!
ukcopts.org
Dr Ahmed Fathi Sorour, the Speaker of Egypt's People’s Assembly (since 1990) published an article titled “Between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Belief,” which occupied 24 pages of the March 2009 issue of the Assembly's quarterly review. He later published an abridged version in Al-Hayat newspaper (May 14) and Al-Ahram (May 20, 21).
For those who do not know him well, Dr Sorour, a prominent law professor, is among other occupations, the honorary president of the Institute for Higher Studies in Criminal Science, Sicily-Italy; the president of the International Institute for Law in the Francophone Countries–Paris; and the vice president of the International Society for Criminal Law–Paris
The article deserves a lot of comments, but we will focus here on its last section, which covers the important issue of ‘the effect of a religious affiliation of a State on the balance between the freedoms of expression and religious belief.’ It starts by stating that:“Constitutions in some democratic countries establish a religion of the State. An example is Greece's constitution, which states in Article 3-1 that ‘the prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The Norwegian constitution states in Article 2 that Evangelical-Lutheran is the official religion of the State. Egypt's constitution states that Islam is the religion of the State. Constitutions of some Arab countries (U.A.E., Bahrain, Somalia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Iraq) have also made the same statement.”
It is appreciated that Dr Sorour makes a point in clarifying the statement in the Greek constitution, as:“the jurisprudence has established that the religious affiliation stated in the constitution is a mere declaration about the predominant religion with no legal consequences that would justify stifling the freedom of expression or giving supremacy to the prevailing religion. That is because the constitution has explicitly guaranteed each individual’s religious freedom in the large sense, that is the freedom of religious belief and the freedom of a religious community to practice of rituals, without hindrance (Art. 13-1).”The constitution indeed states (Art. 13-1) that “Freedom of religious conscience is inviolable. The enjoyment of civil rights and liberties does not depend on the individual’s religious beliefs.”
But Dr Sorour seems to have found what he may consider to be a golden opportunity in the case of Norway. However, one must not ignore the fact that this is a rare case in the modern western world and that the text has old roots (against a backdrop of a religious war (1534-36), the result of which Norway became ‘Evangelical-Lutheran,’ not Catholic). That stipulation on the State religion is largely a formality, which does not affect - legally or practically - the laws in the country nor violates freedoms in any way. Indeed the same Article 2 starts by stating that “all inhabitants of (Norway) shall have the right to free exercise of their religion.”References (among ‘democratic countries’!) to some Arab countries which established Islam as a State religion (including the failed State of Somalia!), appears as a flimsy justification for Egypt's case (more on that later).Dr Sorour then returns to Egypt's constitution:“The statement about the official State religion in Article 2 is complimented by Article 46 which concerns the freedom of belief and the freedom of practice of religious rituals. The Constitutional Court has emphasized that (..) Egyptian constitutions have upheld these freedoms, being among the established constitutional principles in every civilized country; for every human-being may believe in whatever he wills of religions or beliefs as his conscience accepts and his soul favors, without external authority beyond convictions in the depths of the heart.”
Once more, it is wise to reiterate what the Constructional Court has emphasized as something well established in ‘every civilized country.’ The pressing question is: Why such established principles do not find their way to be applied in Egypt, but are usually subjugated in practice to Article 2 (on Sharia)? A case at point is yet another ruling by the Administrative Court (June 13) to deny Mr. Maher Al-Gohary the right to convert to Christianity, because this “contradicts Sharia.”
After going out of his way to minimize the negative effects of the constitutional text regarding the religion of State in Egypt, Dr Sorour then comes to the “real meaning of stating in Article 2 that the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation.” He reminds the reader of other cases:
“in the constitutions of U.A.E., Bahrain and Qatar that Sharia is ‘a main source;’ in Sudan’s constitution that Sharia and Ijmaa are ‘a source’ of national laws, applicable in the northern states of the country; in Syria’s constitution that Islamic jurisprudence is ‘a main source’ of legislation; in Oman’s constitution that Sharia is ‘the source’ of legislation; and in Iraq's constitution which states that no laws contrary to the fundamentals of Islam’s provisions may be issued.” Unfortunately, Dr Sorour ignores that adopting a ‘religious law’ as a source of legislation is a particularity of only a limited number of ‘Islamic’ countries. He also reverts to the cases of some ‘brotherly Arab countries’ as a justification, ignoring that most of them are quite novice when it comes to having a constitution, and that these were mostly drafted by the same crafty Egyptian experts who had written their country’s constitution, with all its aberrations and contradictions. He ignores that the Iraqi constitution he partially quotes actually stipulates that “No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in this Constitution (Second Chapter) may be enacted. This (constitution) (..) guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of belief and religious practice, such as Christians, Yazidis and Sabeans.” He further ignores that many Arab countries (e.g. Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia) do not mention Sharia as a source of legislation in their constitutions. He ignores that many Islamic, non-Arab, countries (e.g. Cote d'Ivoire, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Turkey or Uzbekistan) not only do not mention Sharia in their constitutions, but also uphold secularism, and/or mention no religion of state. He also ignores that among the examples he quoted, there are countries that consider Sharia to be ‘a’ source, or ‘a main’ source even though Muslims may represent up to 99% of the citizens; yet Egypt, a multi-faith country, with a history of progressive evolution over two centuries, has made Sharia ‘the’ main source of legislation which makes it, according to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court, the de-facto sole reference. In sum, Dr Sorour knows that Egypt has become an ‘extreme case’ (or a case of extremism!), yet he endeavors to defend her reckless course of action!
***Dr Sorour then gets to the issue of contradiction between adopting a ‘religious law’ as a source of legislation, and the freedoms:“Even if Islamic Sharia has undoubtedly a religious nature, being the essence of Islam, yet it is independent from the religious belief in being a legal system. Thus it is conceivable to apply Islamic Sharia in a non-Islamic society, on non-Muslims living in an Islamic society, or on foreigners living in (Islam’s) land, without affecting the principle of freedom of belief. This is because of (Sharia's) civilizational nature, logical basis and social values.”This must represent a logical dilemma to most mortals, but not to Dr Sorour who tries a new kind of logic! For even when he qualifies Sharia as a system with ‘an undoubted religious nature,’ he ignores these propositions and jumps to contradictory conclusions. He never bothers to explain how could Sharia be an independent legal system, that could even be happily implemented in a non-Islamic society (!), whereas it is founded on submission to certain religious injunctions? In fact (as the experts say) Sharia is not even a positive system of law, but a ‘normative corpus that regulates in detail inter-personal relations,’ without a possibility to elaborate laws based on general principles and the society’s needs.
But realizing the logical impasse, Dr Sorour deploys another idea: ‘Sharia's civilizational nature, logical basis and social values.’ However, these are by no means given facts, but a mere opinion; an opinion, moreover, that can only be expressed by a partisan biased to his own narrow religious vision. Furthermore, it is an opinion that can be easily refuted: It is enough to subject Sharia to a ‘Litmus test,’ by comparing its provisions and applications to the international conventions of Human Rights. The results are well-documented. ***When constitutions refer to certain principles, they usually do so explicitly. Egypt’s constitution is an exception when it refers vaguely to ‘principles of Saharia.’ The Constitutional Court had to come to some rescue as..“it took interest in clarifying what is meant by the ‘principles of Islamic Sharia’ to be those provisions (ahkam) which are firm, both in veracity and meaning. They are not subject to ijtihad, as their incidence does not change with time or place (Case 119 of 12/2004). Ijtihad is limited to conjectural provisions whose veracity and/or meaning are not fully confirmed (Case 18 of 5/1995).”
We notice that the court may have narrowed the scope of discussions regarding the ‘principles of Sharia,’ but it has not ventured to clearly delineate them (nor clarify those ‘firm provisions’ on which they are based).Here, one has every right to ask: In the absence of clear statements in the body of the constitution itself; who, besides men of religion, would determine what represents ‘firm provisions’? Isn't this exactly the essence of the theocratic State? (defined as a system where “the primary effort of government is to implement and enforce divine laws.” -- Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, ed. Robert Wuthnow).
One can further wonder what would happen when certain Sharia provisions contradict in letter or spirit the international conventions on Human Rights or, indeed, other stipulations in the very same constitution? Courses on Sharia, taught in Al-Azhar as well as in law schools in secular universities, are awash with texts which reflect the non-equality between woman and man, and between non-believer and believer (i.e. Muslim). They cover a wide range of aspects, from treating dthimis, to hudud (bodily punishments); from personal status to slavery. Supposedly they are based on ‘firm provisions,’ and hence still applicable -- even if some scholars (a minority) indicate that these may not be fully enforceable in today’s societies. Are we to rely upon occasional disagreements between exegetes, hoping to find some reassurances as to our fate and to that of our country?
It is important at this point to highlight that some may warn that ‘criticizing Sharia means attacking Islam as a religion.’ Rejecting such claims which aim at muzzling mouths we emphasize that the debate is not at all religious, but strictly about fundamental legal issues, with broad political and societal ramifications.***Reaching a climax, Dr Sorour finally proclaims that:“It needs no demonstration that considering Islamic Sharia a main source of legislation does not infringe on the State’s duty to protect freedom of belief for the (followers of) other religions.”Yet again, he sees no need to demonstrate how could such contradictory statements hold together-- simply because he cannot.***How depressing to see some pillars of the regime (who occasionally declare their ‘belief’ in the ‘civil’ State, where freedom, justice, equality and democracy prevail!) act. They had better understand the disastrous implications of a theocratic State, and that many of Sharia injunctions do contradict the established principles of human rights, yet instead of devoting their talents and assuming their responsibilities to advance a badly-needed progressive agenda for Egypt, they support (knowingly or not) the cause of the Islamists whose ultimate goal is nothing but to turn the world into an Islamic abode, by ‘imposing Allah’s Law on the Earth and its inhabitants.’Woe to you, Egypt!
ukcopts.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
