Omar Khadr is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’ – as per UN laws

Just about everyone has heard of Omar Khard:  the one Canadian languishing in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Most people – whatever their views and opinions are on the circumstances that lead to his current predicament – agree that his situation is quite tragic.  The kid never had a chance to grow up ‘normally’.

Born into a family which was legally in Canada, emotionally in Pakistan and philosophically in 8th century Arabia, his childhood could not be considered ‘normal’ by any standards.

Both his parents were religious fanatics (his mother still is, his father gave his life to conduct violent jihad).  He was physically bumped around, from living in the ‘Secular West’ at some points to a Muslim school in Pakistan to terrorist training camps.  His sister was given in marriage at the age of 15 to an Al-Qaeda buddy of her father (the wedding is said to have been attended by Osama himself), his brothers actively conducted violent jihad (not all survived), and so on.

It really is a sad story.  I can understand why it pulls at all our collective heartstrings!

Currently, the public debate is focused on what is to be done with young Omar now?

This is a very, very important decision:  whatever action is taken (on not taken) on behalf of Omar Khadr will set THE legal precedent for future situation that are similar.

So, let us get it right!

In order to make the best possible decision, we must objectively examine what Omar Khadr is – and what he is not.

This is an essential step, because it will define under which circumstances the legal precedent set by the ‘Omar Khadr case’ will be applicable.

The most common description of Omar Khadr one hears in the MSM (mainstream media) – as well as one often repeated by his defense lawyers – is that Omar Khadr is a ‘Child Soldier’.

So, let us examine if this is the case:

Is Omar Khadr a ‘Child Soldier’?

The definition of ‘Child Soldier’ has two parts:  ‘Child’ and ‘Soldier’.

First:  is Omar Khadr a ‘Soldier’?

No, he is not.

At least, not according to the UN laws on the matter (or any other law I am aware of which defines who is, and who is not, a ‘soldier’).

The UN laws were written in order to protect the innocent civilians who get in the way of a war first, then the protection of legitimate soldiers second.  And, they are very clear on who is and who is not a ‘soldier’ (again – basic Wikipedia search provides clear answers – but much more material confirming this is easily available through any major search engine…):

‘To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a “fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance” and bear arms openly.’

Omar Khadr, unfortunately, does not satisfy these qualifications.

Not only was he not a part of a recognized military ‘chain of command’, and not wearing any ‘badges’ or ‘distinctive markings’ that could, even remotely, be construed as ‘uniform’ or ‘fixed distinctive marking’:  the crime he is accused of having committed is against the laws and customs of war.  ( I can expand on this, at length, if asked, in the comments sections.)

Therefore, Omar Khadr DOES NOT satisfy the qualifications of having the status of a ‘soldier’.  Therefore, he cannot be treated as a ‘soldier’:  a ‘Child Soldier’, an ‘adult soldier’, or any other kind of ‘soldier’.

But, even if Omar Khadr were a ‘Soldier’:  would he qualify as a ‘Child Soldier’?

This is a more difficult question – but there is a legal answer!

Omar Khadr was aged 15 when he was detained by UN troops and when the premeditated murder of a UN non-combatant medic, which he is accused of having committed, occurred.

Different people mature at different rates:  at 15, some people really are still children while others are quite adult.  Both individual maturing rates and cultural influences are important in determining if a 15-year-old is ‘an adult’ or ‘a child’.  What does the law say?

Omar Khadr straddled two cultures:

  • In Canada, a 15-year old is, legally, a child.
  • Still, 15-year-olds are able to become emancipated, and legally become adults.
  • Under some circumstances, non-emancipated 15-year-olds are charged with crimes as adults – so the ‘legal precedent’ can be applied both ways:  it is a bit of a legal ‘gray area’ in Canada.
  • In Islamist culture, a 15-year-old is considered to be an adult, without any reservations.
  • The Khadr family certainly considers 15 years of age to be ‘adult’ – that is the age at which their daughter was given away in marriage!

It is obvious that in his own eyes, as well as according to the culture of his family, Omar Khadr is ‘an adult’. And, in our multicultural society, would it not be offensive to dismiss Omar Khadr’s minority cultural view of his status at that time?

OK, ok – so, the ‘multiculturalism’ thing is kind of messed up – and we all know it.  Let’s look elsewhere:

What does the International Human Rights Law have to say on the subject? (The following is a cut-and-paste of what Wikipedia has to say on this:  I usually like to paraphrase things, but I could not hope to make it more clear than they had…)

International humanitarian law

According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977:

The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.’

Well, that seems rather clear:  once a person has reached the age of 15, he/she cannot be considered to be a ‘Child Soldier’ – even though it’s better to recruit people who are over the age of 18…. 15-year-olds are ‘regular soldiers’!

Omar Khadr HAD ‘attained the age of fifteen years’ – so he IS, according to international law, ‘regular soldier’!

In other words, legally, Omar Khadr CANNOT be considered a ‘Child Soldier’, because he is not a ‘Child’:  he would have had to have been FOURTEEN years of age or younger in order to be considered a ‘Child Soldier’!

OK – so we are nowhere closer to the answer of what Omar Khadr actually is:  but, I have (hopefully) demonstrated that whatever he is, he is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’!

I know – the facts of the situation are unlikely to affect the direction of the public debate…. I have no illusions about it.  People who point out the laws and the rules are nowhere near as interesting – and nowhere near listened to – as people who play on our emotions…

But, we MUST TRY, mustn’t we?

Just Right: ‘Obama’s America ‘going Canadian’ on hate crime’

How many ways are there of saying:  NOT GOOD!  NOT GOOD!  NOT GOOD!

Just Right has the story – with the video:

Sneaking it in under cover of a defense authorization bill with debate scheduled for the wee hours of the morning the Democrats succeeded in passing sweeping new federal hate crimes legislation.

Just as the ‘general awareness’ of this intrusive oppression is rising in Canada, Americans are going to be blindsided by it!

Of course, the majority of Americans will remain oblivious to the danger, thinking their constitution will protect them and their rights… till one of these neo-fascists smiles primly at them, explaining that ‘Freedom of speech is not an American concept’…or some such thing.

They’ll never believe it could happen to them – even though it already has!

Ayayayayay!



I might just vote Liberal in the next federal election

Yes – it’s true!

I JUST MIGHT!!!

OK – I am suspending my rant against institutionalizing young children, in order to comment on something WAY OVER THE TOP!!!

Yesterday, our Conservative Ministers of Justice (!) and Public Safety (Rob Nicholson and Peter Van Loan, respectively) have announced sweeping new legislation which would give police the power to snoop on all internet traffic – and the identity of people on the net – WITHOUT A WARRANT!!!

From The Canadian Press:

The proposed legislation would:

-enable police to access information on an Internet subscriber, such as name, street address and email address, without having to get a search warrant.

-force Internet service providers to freeze data on their hard drives to prevent subscribers under investigation from deleting potentially important evidence.

-require telecommunications companies to invest in technology that allows for the interception of Internet communications.

-allow police to remotely activate tracking devices already embedded in cellphones and certain cars, to help with investigations.

-allow police to obtain data about where Internet communications are coming from and going to.

-make it a crime to arrange with a second person over the Internet the sexual exploitation of a child.

Did you notice that???

They ‘tack on’ the last one – protecting children from sexual exploitation – on to a whole set of really, really oppressive things.  This way, if anyone speaks up against it – they can SMEAR him/her by saying he/she does not want to ‘protect our children’!

I don’t even know where to begin my rant!!!

Do I start with the oppressive police-powers, or do I start with how the issue was intentionally manipulated, using our children’s well-being as a guise to strip us of our rights!!!

OK, I am a ‘little’ angry.

And I think I am right to be angry!  And every Canadian ought to be bloody angry about this, too!!!

The Harper government has repeatedly failed to reign in the Stalinist HRCs – which have now been shown to be staffed with political activists, religious extremists and corrupt ex-police officers, and which are trampling on REAL human rights in this country!

It is frightening that the federal Conservative Finance Minister’s wife, Christine Elliot, is running for the leadership of the Ontario Provincial Conservative Party leadership:  this kind of ‘political dynasties’ are bad for everyone….and I cannot believe that Conservatives (I am a ‘little ‘c’ conservative – so it is not my place to do so), in Ontario AND federally, have not caused major fuss about this.  But, her stand on the HRCs is truly frightening:  it is not’ politically expedient’ to reign them in – and the people be damned…this is about ME getting elected!!!

Now, it appears that her shalowness and political opportunism are a reflection of her husband’s federal Conservative policy… and THAT explains why the HRCs are allowed to rattle their sabres and continue to persecute anyone who dares to speak up against them!!!

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!

But, even worse, now federal CONSERVATIVES(!) are planning to pass LAWS which would make it easier for the HRCs to abuse people who have committed thought crime – and will give such corrupting power to the police forces, too!

I don’t even know what is happening any more…

How could they?!?!?

Has Ezra’s lesson not sunk in?!?!?

How DARE they?!?!?

This is one lesson that if we wait until after we have learned what it means, it will be too late to ‘undo’ it!!!

What the (insert expletive of your choice) is going on?!?!?

Will I be forced to vote Liberal?

Damn them all!



add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

State is Mother, State is Father…

My dog loves the sofa.  He also loves blankets.

He absolutely relishes sleeping on the sofa – and this is one dog that has elevated ‘sleeping’ into an art form. Really – I have known many dogs, and owned a few, but I have never met a dog who relishes sleep like this crazy canine does!

Also, he does not like strangers to sit on his the sofa.  He’ll watch to see if the person gets up for some reason – even for a moment, sneak in behind them, steal the spot and immediately start pretending that he’s asleep, has been asleep in that spot for a very long time, and why is everyone getting all worked up about this?

He also loves to steal blankets:  and has been known to quietly grab a corner and, slowly but steadily, sneak off with the blanket of an unwary person lying down on the sofa, watching TV late at night.

When my son and I came home Monday, he greeted us with great enthusiasm.  He slithered off the sofa, stretched slowly and thoroughly, and wandered over to the front hallway to greet us.  Honestly – this passes as ‘enthusiastic’ from him:  sometimes, he just lifts his head off the sofa’s arm-rest and wags his tail a tiny bit to show he’s noticed you came in.

So, today’s was an enthusiastic greeting!  Then, after he followed me to the kitchen and stopped in front of the fridge, hoping that his beautiful brown eyes would hypnotize me to give him a pepperette, when – suddenly and visibly – a though struck him.

Quite suddenly, he abandoned begging communicating and, with unusual swiftness, he ran to the living room.  OK, we knew when we adopted him that he was ‘special’ and, though incredibly good natured, he was no border collie in the brain department – so I thought nothing of it.

Later, when I came into the living room, I noticed that he was not lying down on the sofa, but on a chair.  And he was not really lying down in his usual way… instead, he was more ‘splayed’:  all four paws spread as far apart as possible, his centre of gravity as low as he could get it.  His head was not resting, but just slightly elevated in a high-strung sort of way.  And his eyes…

His eyes were priceless!  They were ‘big’ – his ‘vigilant look’ (well, as vigilant as he gets) – with lots of ‘white’ showing.  And they were flashing, side to side – in a particularly self-pleased way!

Had his behaviour not been so ‘obvious’, I would not have looked around too closely to see what he was doing.  But, his very demeanour gave away that he was ‘being tricky’:  that he had ‘done’ something naughty and thought he was getting away with it!

It turns out that my son – in a fit of insomnia – brought his blanket down, watched some TV, then forgot his blanket on the chair.  The dog knows ‘bed blankets’ are off limits to him:  but this blanket was not on a bed, was it?  So he lay down on it, spread his body as wide as possible to hide the fact that he was indeed occuppying a ‘bed blenket’ which was currently ‘not a bed blanket’…  The dog was very, very pleased with himself!

So, what does this story have to do with my post today?

Yes, it was a bit of a long segway, and this story took me a few days to write up, but…

Monday, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty made an announcement.  Some person whose makes his living ‘educating children’ released a report today, saying that ‘children need more educating’!

Why, that is almost as convincing as a ‘Cure-all’ salesman saying this potion in this here bottle will ‘cure all’!!!  Better buy a few!!!

And, Mr. McGuinty, he is so concerned about the welfare of children, he’ll have to do what is best for all of the children! (Will somebody please shut up the parents of those pesky Autistic kids?  They’re not even photogenic:  no photo-ops from that lot!)

As I was saying:  Mr. McGuinty, he is so caring, he only wants what is best for the children!  And since that report by a guy who gets rich by sticking EVERY child into a ‘one-size-fits-all’ ‘institutions of teaching’, that is exactly what this kind and caring man announced he would do!!!

Aside:  make no mistake!  Our public schools are ‘institutions of teaching’, NOT ‘institutions of learning’!!!  They are centered around the needs and desires of teachers, whose powerful union regularly holds the whole population hostage by refusing to ‘teach’ unless it is ‘on their terms’ – ONLY!  Therefore, schedules, methodology, material and just about every aspect of ‘teaching’ you can name is tailored to suit the comfort of teachers.  Students, who have no union to represent them, are just pawns to be cycled through the system – a pesky annoyance to be minimized and with which the teachers have to put up with as a minor part of this ‘education system’…

So, what is it that this caring, loving man (who is reportedly married to a teachers’ union activist) proposing to do???

He wants to institutionalize our children for 10.5 hours a day, 5-days per week, 50 weeks per year, from toddlerhood on!!!

Of course, the words he used to make his announcement were not as direct as my statement of it is – but the meaning is identical.  His version is all about ‘what is best for the children’!  And he has that ‘study’ (by a guy who, among others, will have an increased revenue stream if McGuinty institutes) this to back him up!

Here is the video – I invite you to watch the body language:

Did you notice it?

The way he shifts his eyes, the way he enunciates certain words, the way he uses his whole body to help him spit out some ‘concepts’?

It’s that SAME body language my not-so-bright (but way more lovable than McGuinty) dog used when he was trying to ‘pull one over’!

This sent me ‘looking for’ what it is that is ‘the loophole’ here:  what is this man ‘pulling over’ on us?

I’ll rant more on this tomorrow….

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

It sounds like little Ms. Lynch is pouting….

Little Miss. Ms. Lynch says those nasty bloggers have unmasked discredited her nice little minions…

BCF has the scoop!

What is wrong with the Human Rights Commissions?

One of my young American friends has asked me an honest question:  “What is wrong with the Ontario Human Rights Commission?”

Where do I begin?!?!?

But, it is my bane that I always seem to think that if I know something, then it must be clear and obvious to everyone else!  Of course, this is not so – and I KNOW that… I just forget it sometimes and do not explain things as thoroughly or clearly as I ought to.  My apologies!

The topic of our Human Rights Commissions is less clear to people who do not live in Canada and have not been following what has been happening to our rights and freedoms…. but it is NO LESS important to them, because these things are spreading in Medusa-like fashion and subverting the very foundations on which our ‘Western’ civilization is built.

So, here is a little explanation (sorry if it is a bit of a rant – I get very emotional about this!)

OHRC is called ‘Ontario Human Rights Commission‘.  It is a fancy name which suggests that its aims are to protect human rights: and, it – along with it mother-organization, the Canadian Human Rights Agency and sister ones, one for each Province and Territory in Canada – was created with that in mind.  It was meant to be a non-threatening place that people who were denied housing or jobs because of the colour of their skin could go and record their grievance.

This was especially aimed at the less-privileged members of society who would not be able to afford an attorney and try to get justice in court.

So, the theory goes, the agency accepts the grievance/complaint, investigates it on its own and, if it finds it meritorious, it is then supposed to (somehow – without ever going to court) figure out a way to fix the problem.  The solution it decides on then becomes legally binding, as if it were a declaration of a real court.

In effect, the ‘Human Rights Commissions’ – and/or their tribunals – become the complainant, the investigator, prosecutor and judge…  It answers to nobody!

Can you spot the problem?

What has happened with Canadian HRCs – federal and provincial/territorial – is that they have been staffed with people who ‘have causes’.  And these people are promoting their ’causes’ at the expense of REAL human rights.

Their main line is that ‘human rights’ have to be ‘balanced’ against the need of the society to ‘promote tolerance’.  In other words, anything which these people find ‘rude’ or ‘intolerant’, they have the power to censor, ban and so on.

Here is a recent example from the Ontario HRC.  A guy was smoking pot in the doorway of a restaurant.  Pot is, of course, illegal – but this guy had a ‘medical exemption’.  Smoking, however – inside and within 2 m (I think – this does vary from place to place) of a restaurant (or any other place where people work) is forbidden.  The law does NOT specify cigarette smoke or pot or whatever else.

The ‘no smoking’ laws came about because people insisted that EVERYONE has the RIGHT to work in a smoke-free environment.  And, nobody has the right to CHOOSE to work where people smoke, because ‘poor people’ might be coerced….  OK, so we all banned smoking in or near workplaces.

Now, this restaurant owner finds himself in front of the OHRC, because he asked a guy NOT to smoke within the legal ‘no-smoking’ boundary.  He ended up – when it was all over – with tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs….

And, he lost:  the OHRC said that because the guy has a ‘medical exemption’, he can smoke his pot anywhere he wants to – including INSIDE this guy’s restaurant.’

A couple of weeks later, the ‘no-smoking enforcement’ people show up at the restaurant for inspection, and see this guy smoking pot.  They cite the restaurant owner for violation of the rights of his workers to work in a smoke-free environment – and the restaurant owner looses his liquor license….

The OHRC people are enforcing THEIR ruling and care nothing about the smoking bannies laws.  The smoking bannies are enforcing THEIR laws, and don’t care about the OHRCs ruling – not their jurisdiction!

The poor sap gets caught in the middle – and pays, pays pays legal fees,  fines and eventually looses his right to run his business (his type of restaurant cannot survive without a liquor license!).

But THAT is just ONE of MANY such cases.

And these HRCs have the right to issue a lifetime gag-order on people:  forbidding them from speaking, writing, or communicating in any way, shape or form, publicly or privately, on specific topics.  These lifetime gag-orders, once issued, are legally binding!

If you thought things could not get worse….

The ‘double jeopardy’ – where you can only be tried for a crime in one jurisdiction – does NOT APPLY with HRCs in Canada.  For example, MacLeans magazine was charged – for the same complaint – in three different jurisdictions:  Ontario, BC AND federally!  And, they HAD TO prepare a defense – and pay lawyers – for each one of the three trials!

Recently, the OHRC’s head, Barbara Hall, has been making noises about expanding the scope of the ‘transgressions’ they will assume jurisdiction over.

Oh – by the way – TRUTH is NO DEFENSE against the HRCs!

The complainant does NOT have to prove anything.  And, even if the defendant proves that what they said/did was TRUE, it does not matter – IF it has a POTENTIAL to harm someone by making them FEEL discriminated against!

So, no CRIME, no HARM is needed:  only the POTENTIAL for ANYONE to PERCEIVE something MIGHT be hurtful or seen as discriminatory is sufficient to find one guilty…

Another thing I revile these organizations for is that they are often used at the tool to enforce linguistic apartheid which is like a cancer on our Canadian society.

The people running this – the investigators AND the ‘judges’ – do NOT have to have ANY training in law whatsoever.  Many don’t!  Evidence has shown that a cop dismissed for some serious corruption is now a mover and a shaker at the Ontario HRC… As well, some evidence seems to be coming that several of these HRCs have been infiltrated by radical Islamists who find anything short of instituting Sharia to be ‘offensive’!

Just think about it:  extrajudicial process – with none of the restraints cops and real trials have (the HRCs can enter your premises and seize things without a warrant or notification to you – and you are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – and truth is no defense…), in the hands of people who think that individual rights are things that must systematically bow and be supplanted by ‘community needs’.

THAT – ALL of the things I listed above…and much more – is why so many of us want to get rid of these corrupt, un-accountable, oppressive organizations who now have the power to limit our human rights at their whim to serve their own special interests!

Holocaust Rememberance Day

Let us not forget:  never again!

We all have the responsibility – as individuals and as members of the human race – to never again let this happen!  It does not matter who the victims are:  if they are a specific race, or religion, or whatever!   Because, as my favourite philosopher says:

A person’s a person, no matter how small!

So, as we ponder and remember this horrible thing that happened – the Holocaust – we must not lie to ourselves about HOW something like that could possibly occur.

Some people are quick to point out that the Holocaust did not begin with actions – and they are right.  The Holocaust began with the BANNING OF FREE SPEECH!

Pre-Hitler Germany had very strong ‘hate-speech laws’ – ones which were eerily similar to the ‘hate-speech’ laws we, in Canada, much of the EU, and other ‘Western countries’, have now.  And, the Jewish community in Germany then was quite ‘satisfied’ with the way these laws were used to prosecute people who SPOKE anti-semitic sentiments.  Just as many Jewish groups say they are ‘satisfied’ with the ‘hate-speech’ laws here, now…

These very same ‘hate-speech’ laws were used in 1930’s Germany to muzzle anyone who spoke up against the ACTIONS and government policies which brought about the Holocaust!  Remember my first law of human dynamics:  if a law CAN be abused in any way – IT WILL.  Do people really not see the danger how laws which allow governments to silence people on topics of their choice can be abused?  Or that they are indeed being abused now…that the seeds of abuse of these very laws have already been sown in our society and are beginning to sprout?

Look around yourself now:  we are seeing more and more people becoming muzzled (even including lifetime bans to speak or communicate in any way on a whole topic!) for speaking up against certain government policies!!!

This is ONE lesson we MUST learn from history – because the Holocaust is something we must never allow to be repeated!

Never again!
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

White flowers for Aisha

The story of Aisha Ibrahim Duhuhulow – the child who was stoned for the crime of being raped – has really touched me.

The young girl grew up under one application of Sharia, where ‘justice’ meant that rapists are caught and punished.  However, her local Mosque had come under ‘new management’:  the ‘elders’ (Islamic scholars) who now controlled it applied Sharia very, very differently.   Admitting to having been raped was interpreted by them as admitting to having had sexual intercourse outside of marriage, which is punishable by stoning.  And, while stoning her, the cleric, Sheik Hayakallah, continued to praise ‘sister Aisha’ for ‘wanting Sharia and its punishment to apply’!

And THIS is why Sharia – even if it were fully compatible with ‘Western’ laws and principles (which it is not) – is UNACCEPTABLE !!!

This ‘Islamic Law’ and its applications are not consistent:  the local Islamic leader has the authority to interpret it in any way he deems to be correct!  (This does not even take into consideration that there is no consensus as to what training (if any) a person requires in order to be an Imam or an ‘Islamic scholar’.  Currently, any man who considers himself to be knowledgeable of the Koran and the Sunnah can declare himself to be  an Islamic scholar and act as an Imam.)

Thus, a simple change of Imams at a Mosque could completely change the rules under which are ‘the laws’ which govern every aspect of public and private behaviour in the local community.  And, the people might remain completely unaware how the changed interpretation of Sharia will be meted out:  unaware, that is, until someone like Aisha gets stoned for having been raped!

THAT, in my never-humble-opinion, is a big problem!

As for Aisha, not only was her story criminally mis-reported (at first), she herself has remained faceless:  no amount of Googling has revealed any pictures online of the unfortunate girl.  (If you find one – please, let me know!)

Since I could not find a picture of her, I decided to paint one…  this is my impression of ‘Aisha’:

Aisha

Then, someone posted this comment about Aisha:

WHITE FLOWERS FOR AISHA
I could not sleep for days after reading about Aisha’s tragedy. I would have wanted to bring flowers to her grave, but there was no grave to be reached. I felt so powerless!
But then I got the idea that we should all try and create a wave of sweetness and kindness in the love of Aisha, all over the world. May her death not have been in vain. Let us transform it into a stimulus to spread lovingkindness.
I decided to buy a bunch of white flowers and offer one of them, together with a 5 dollar bill and a piece of candy,to every homeless person I woud find at the railway station,
mentioning Aisha’s name and sending her a blessing every time.
I also made an offer to Amnesty international to honor her name.
Let us all do something, let us create a wave of white flowers and of kind actions so as to try and counterbalance the horror of her death. And let us pray for her, telling her we all love her.
Ilaria

Yes!  WHITE FLOWERS FOR AISHA!

What a beautiful idea:  the innocent blossom, plucked before her time!

White Flowers for Aisha

White Flowers for Aisha

This is my take on ‘White Flowers for Aisha‘!  What is yours?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

‘Marriage under Sharia’ permits child prostitution

My first law of human-dynamics is:  if a law can be abused, it will!

That is why every law must be examined very, very carefully; all the ways it can be perverted and abused must be considered and weighed.  This should – preferebly – be done before such a law is accepted and before it becomes the norm in a society.

Sharia is based on the Koran and the Sunnah (the ways of the Prophet Muhammad).  It governs every aspect of a person’s life.  Here is the definition of Sharia from the Islamic Dictionary:

“Way to the water.” The “way” of Islam in accord with the Qur’an and Sunna, ijma’ and qiyas. Sharia is the law of Islam. It is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunna, though there are many sources outside these two, such as Arab Bedouin law, commercial law from Mecca, and the law of some conquered nations such as Roman and Jewish law. The Sharia extends beyond what Westerners consider law. It covers the totality of religious, political, social, including private life and makes no distinction between sin and law.

While there are several ‘schools’ of Sharia, they all have the same roots and tend to be considered complementary of each other, rather than in opposition to each other.  And, they are in agreement on many of the most fundamental rules of human behaviour and social organization.

One thing that is troubling about ‘Sharia Courts’ is that there is no formal differentiation between these various legal interpretations of the Islamic laws:  rather, it is the leadership of the local Mosque which determines what ‘school’ of Sharia applies to the congregation.  If a change occurs in the leadership (or ‘elders’) in the Mosque, the legal standards are automatically changed, without any notice being given to the populace.

It is my conviction that Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow was a victim of such a change.  She grew up under the interpretation of Sharia where rapists were caught and punished.  That is why, after this 13-year-old child was raped, she went to her local officials and ‘demanded that justice be done’.  Unbeknown to her, her town Mosque was recently taken over by officials who subscribed to the most extreme form of Sharia, where the rape victim is stoned to death for adultery.  That explains why she kept begging for her life and calling for help, while the officials who sentenced her to death praised her for ‘demanding that justice according to Sharia be done’…

Both courses of action are possible under different schools of Sharia!  How was the child to know that things could change THAT drastically?!?!?

Which brings me back to my original statement:  if a law can be abused, it will!

Now, I would like to ask you to consider  the rules which govern marriage under Sharia:  I have posted some of the major rules here and here. And, human nature being what it is, I would like you to consider the most twisted possible interpretation of these rules which will not be breaking the letter of the rules.  Because, sooner or later, that is exactly how every law will be applied.  (The background information is in my two earlier posts on this, linked at the beginning of this post).

The example of Muhammad, the Prophet:

  • Muslims emulate the behaviour of Prophet Muhammad, because Islam teaches that they are supposed to do that in order to lead good and pious lives.
  • Muhammad had married his ‘only virgin wife’, Aisha, when she was 6 years old (thought he waited until she was 8 (or 9 – the lunar year calculations are a little different from the solar ones)).  Therefore, that is the example that all Muslims are taught to emulate.
  • Therefore, most countries governed by Sharia allow – nay, encourage – marrying girls of  ‘Aisha’s age’.

‘Age of consent’ in the Koran:

  • Neither the Koran, nor the Sunnah, specify what is the minimum age for a person (male or female) to enter into marriage.  Therefore, there is no prohibition against very young people entering into marriage.
  • In order to ensure adequate protection of the ‘fair sex’, females – both children and adult women – have male guardians to look after them.  A girl/woman’s first guardian is her father, then her husband, her brother, and, eventually, her son.  As such, this guardian represents the girl/woman’s interests in all legal matters, such as management of property and conracts, like marriage and divorce.
  • The Koran has very specific laws about divorce.  IVery specific rules are set out in order to ensure that a husband retains control of any offspring sired – but not yet born – at the time of divorce.
  • Among these rules are ‘special cases’ for widdows, as well as for divorce from women who are no longer fertile because they have reached menopause or because they have not yet reached sexual maturity.
  • Putting these things together, the majority of Muslim scholars support the marriage of pre-pubescent girls, provided her father/guardian permits the marriage.  Some assert that ‘sexual enjoyment’ is permitted with females as young as one day old, though penetration is not ‘recommended’ (but not forbidden).
  • Following a divorce, the guardianship of the girl/woman reverts back to her father – or her closest male relative, who is free to (and encouraged to) arrange the next marriage for the girl/woman in question.

‘Bride Price’

  • Many Muslim scholars do not like the term ‘Bride Price’ – it is supposed to be a ‘nest-egg’ to support the wife in the case of divorce, until her guardian can arrange another marriage for her.  In practice, however, that is exactly what it is.
  • The size of this ‘present’ is usually set by the bride’s father or guardian, who arranges the marriage.

Hmmm…  is it really that difficult to see how this can be (and is) exploited for prostituting children?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Marriage under Sharia – part 2

In Part 1 of ‘Marriage under Sharia’, I explained the types of marriages which Sharia (Islamic law) permits: Nikah (‘permanent’ marriage), Nikah Mut’ah (temporary marriage) and Nikah Misyar (traveler’s marriage).  I also explained the Mahr – the ‘marriage present’ or ‘bride price’ which is paid by the groom at the time of the marriage.

Here, I would like to look at who is and is not eligible to enter into a marriage contract well as the rules of divorce under Sharia.

3.  Islamic Divorce (Koran, Chapter 65)

In Islam, divorce is not considered sinful, as it is in some forms of Christianity.  To the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable and there are very specific rules under Sharia which regulate it:  both the husband and the wife (through her guardian) can request a divorce.

In practice, it is much easier for the husband to obtain divorce than it is for the wife, as in some schools of Sharia, women are sometimes not allowed to address the court (and thus request divorce) without her husband accompanying her there.  Other times, women may be allowed to go to court, but a a male relative intervene on their behalf or the divorce will not be granted against the husband’s wishes (this may be difficult, as in many cases, the husband is in full control of whom the wife may or may not contact – including her relatives).  There are even cases where young married women are told they are too young to request a divorce:  to come back when they ‘reach maturity’!

The wife must observe a ‘waiting period’ (iddah) of three menstrual cycles following the divorce, to see if pregnancy resulted from the marriage.  (The ‘waiting period’ for a widow is 3 lunar months and 10 days.)

Special Case 1:  Pregnancy

If the marriage resulted in pregnancy, the husband must support the wife for the duration of the pregnancy.  Once the child is born, it is the father’s choice to either take custody of the infant right away, or to continue to support the mother (ex wife) while she nurses the child.  Once the child is weaned (or a specific time period set by the father is up), the child will be handed over to the father and his obligations toward the mother will end.  (This will also end any claim – legal (guardianship) or moral – that the mother has towards the child, including visitation rights.)

Special Case 2:  Infertile wives

There is a special provision in Koran for divorce from women who are not fertile, because they are either too old or too young to have their ‘monthly courses’.  Their ‘waiting period’ cannot  be ‘three monthly courses’ – because they do not have them.  Therefore, their ‘waiting period) is set at 3 months.

Special Case 3:  Unconsummated Marriage

If the marriage has never been consummated (and this ‘consummation’ is up to the will of the husband – he has up to 1 lunar year to ‘consummate’ the marriage from the date of the marriage contract), the ‘waiting period’ following divorce is cut down to 1 lunar month.

4.  Who may marry whom

There are very, very specific rules over who is – and who is not – allowed to marry whom.

A man may marry any female except those who are

  • direct blood relatives:  mother, sister or daughter
  • direct ‘nursing’ relative:  his wet-nurse (she is considered to be his ‘milk mother’)
  • a female child who is a direct blood relative of his ‘milk mother’ (that is, anyone a woman who was nursed by his ‘milk mother’
  • a female who is a ‘milk mother’ relative of (was nursed by) his wives or his mother
  • not ‘of the book’ – that is, not Muslim, Christian or Jewish  (all children resulting from this marriage MUST be Muslim) – this prohibition does not apply to female slaves.

In addition, a woman may never marry any man who is not a Muslim, because it is not permissible for a non-Muslim to be the ‘superior to’/’in the position of power over’ (in business, politics – or marriage, where the husband is the superior of the wife) a Muslim.

A man may re-marry his ex-wife, provided she had been married to another man in between the marriages to him.

In order to get married, the terms of the marriage must be negotiated by the groom and the bride’s guardian.  The bride must then formally consent to the marriage – silence is considered to be ‘consent’.  In practice, this ‘consent’ is often forced by threats – and if the bride refuses, the alternative is ‘honour killing’ or the ‘ever-growing-in-popularity’ honour suicide!

Islam does NOT set any age limits on the age of the bride or groom.

However, the Koran states that onlywomen are to be veiled:  men and children (including female children, before they are ‘ready for marriage’).  It is up to the father to decide when his daughter is ready for marriage.  When he judges that she is available for an Islamic marriage, he signals that fact to the community by having her wear the veil (hijab)  in public.

(If you take nothing else away from this post, please, understand this: when we see little girls, as young as 7 or 8, wearing hijabs to school, we are allowing their fathers to advertize that they are actively seeking a suitor for their daughters!)

There are many Islamic experts who assert that it is ‘not recommended’ that a female should ‘reach her first course [of menstruation] in her father’s house’, but rather that she should do so in her husband’s house!

There is no limit on how young a female should be upon marriage:  the Ayatollah Khomeini unequivocally stated that a man may ‘enjoy’ a girl – a suckling –  as young as 1 day old – he just should not ‘penetrate’ her ‘right away’…

Here is a YouTube video of an Islamic expert, being interviewed on the topic of Islamic marriage with ‘underage girls’:

What is more – Islam dictates that in order to live a righteous life, men must emulate the actions of Prophet Muhammad.  He is well documented to have married his ‘only virgin wife’, Aisha, when she was 6 years old, and he consumated the marriage when she was 8 years old (sometimes reported as 9:  this discrepancy is due to the use of Lunar callendar to measure age in Islam – as Allah is the name of the Arabic Lunar God, not the Arabic word for ‘God’ as it is often stated to – and the lunar and solar years do not line up perfectly).

Therefore, it is ‘pious’ for Muslim men to marry females who are as young as Aisha was when Muhammad consumated his marriage with her:  8 or 9 years old!  And, a Muslim woman must submit to her husband’s sexual desires and preferences at his whim:  there is no option for her to say ‘no’ to anything her husband may desire.

The Prophet Muhammad is even reported to advise one of his friends that it is better to marry a child-bride, rather than a grown woman, so he can ‘have sport with her’…

I suspect I have left out a lot that really ought to be said…but, it is a beginning at bringing about an understanding of what Marriage under Sharia truly means!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank