Ass, curious case of convenient Judgement Can Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.that he did not conspire with his wife


There seem to be lapses. Why? Why can’t we be honest? In any case, don’t get your hopes high, because basic principles of natural justice e.g. ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’; ‘precedence’; ‘fair hearing’ are all turned on its head.In order to win a case in court, the party making the charge of wrongdoing must meet a burden of proof.  The weight of the burden depends on the type of trial — civil or criminal — and sometimes on the specific charge.  In criminal trials, the burden of proof is reasonable doubt, which means that a normal person should not have any serious doubt about the truth of the charges.  Reasonable doubt is sometimes characterized as 95% certainty about the verdict.  In civil trials, the burden of proof is usually the much weaker preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a normal person weighing all of the relevant evidence would consider the charges more likely true than not.  Preponderance of the evidence is sometimes characterized as 51% certainty.  Finally, in a small handful of cases (such as patent infringement and termination of parental rights) an intermediate burden called clear and convincing evidence is used.  Clear and convincing evidence is sometimes characterized as 75% certainty.

The different burdens of proof are loosely reflected in the number of jurors required to reach a verdict.  In the federal system and in almost every State, unanimity is required in criminal trials.  In civil trials, unanimity is sometimes but not generally required; the exact number of jurors needed to render a verdict differs among jurisdictions.  (The number of members on a jury also differs substantially among jurisdictions.  In criminal trials, 12 is the usual number, but it is sometimes lower.  In civil trials, smaller juries are more common.  Juries almost always have at least 6 members.)

There are two primary sources of laws and legal rules:  legislatures and judges.  When the law has been created by legislators, it is called statutory law.  When it has been created by judges, it is called common law.
Criminal laws are all statutory.  But most of civil law has its origin in common law, albeit modified by various statutes.  The rules of common law are not to be found in codes written by a single authority, but instead in the case law — that is, the body of decisions made in previous decisions by judges.  The guiding principle of common law is the notion of precedent.  This means that judges are, in general, expected to make rulings that follow the pattern established in previous, similar cases.  When a new case arises whose resolution is not clearly dictated by existing precedents, the judge’s decision in the case becomes the precedent for future cases of a similar nature.  In this way, the common law develops over time in response to the cases that appear before the courts.
Common law is a venerable system with roots that precede the existence of the state.  The Anglo-American common law can be traced back to the local courts of Anglo-Saxon villages, long before there was an English king.  For many centuries, the common law system had authority independent of the king, but eventually the common law system was absorbed into the (previously separate) legal system of the state.
The United States inherited the common law system of the British, and at some point the U.S. Congress even passed a law that adopted the whole of the British case law as the starting point for American courts.  However, the law has developed differently in each State, so the current precedents may differ from State to State.  Louisiana, which was settled by the French, has a civil code system instead of common law.  Civil code is a system in which all civil law is passed by the legislature, as in France and much of continental Europe.  In the other States, civil law is now a hybrid of common law and civil code.

Jumanana HASEEN Under the veil, we are free souls
Why Najib and Rosmah Mansor did not the stand say under the court oath that the meeting was not related to events on June 26.why hide under his  his AG’s sarong
 Anwar’s lawyer Sankara Nair said the defence would call Najib and Rosmah Mansor to the stand to be grilled for their part in the conspiracy.
The complainant Saiful had met Najib two days before lodging the police complaint that eventually led to Anwar’s arrest. The prime minister had initially denied ever knowing Saiful but as photos of Saiful and his own aides began appearing in cyberspace, Najib U-turned and admitted to the meeting.Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife are not relevant witnesses to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s ongoing sodomy trial, their lawyers claimed today, adding that the duo would not be able to offer any material evidence to the court.
Datuk Hisyam Teh, one of the lawyers representing the Prime Minister and Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor in their joint application to avoid testifying, said that the opposition leader has failed to furnish proof that the two were relevant witnesses.
The lawyer said Anwar’s application to compel Najib and wife to testify was merely a “fishing expedition” to seek information.
While Najib admitted to meeting Anwar’s accuser, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, on June 24, 2008  — two days before the alleged sodomy act — the PM’s lawyers stressed that the meeting was not related to events on June 26. read more Lawyers insist Najib, Rosmah not key to Sodomy II | Din 
The 64-year old Anwar was accused of sodomising his personal aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 25, at a plush condo on June 26, 2008 just weeks after Anwar announced his decision to make a parliamentary comeback.
If convicted, Anwar stands to be imprisioned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years under section 377B of the Penal Code.
Scores of Anwar supporters had packed the cortroom from as early as 4.30am. Many were from his constituency of Permatang Pauh in Penang. They were obviously upset by the ruling, which they felt insulted the Opposition Leader given the flimsiness of the charges that have been lambasted by world leaders from the United States, UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden to Ireland PKR leaders called for calm. Anwar’s wife and PKR president Wan Azizah told the media that it was another dark day for justice in the country.
Everyone knows Pattail got promoted to AG 
For his role in Anwar’s case for sodomy
Maha Shithead purposely brought him
To stop and kill Anwar Ibrahim
They now trying to do the same scenario
Najis, Musang, Pattail, bastards, the trio
Trying, again to do it all over
But round one went to Anwar’s favour
The judges have become brave and daring
Saying enough is enough to your raping
Of the court and the judiciary
With your repeated cases of sodomy
Pak Lah has not only been sleeping on his job as PM during the last 5 years, he is also very deaf to what the citizens had been crying-out loudly that his AG “practises selective prosecution”.
This serious perception is not only common local-coffee-shop topic but also among foreigners. So if Pak Lah really has ears, he should have heard this talk and should have taken remedial action instead of allowing him to “bermaharajalela” for too long.
So now Pak Lah, you are paying partly for his wrong-doings.
Pak lah left behind a legacy of being the most incompetent Malaysian PM. His circle of advisers and ministers shows him little respect and makes him looks like an idiot. Sad to say he lacks any leadership skills for the job.
..’The govt. must be prepared to review the presently unfettered powers of the AG’
Absolute power in the hands of AG can lead to absolute corruption just as absolute power in the hands of politicans can and will lead to absolute corruption.There must be proper check and balance if truth and justice are to have meaning and value to people who have respect for the system of rule of law.
You trust this Guni 4 Tahil? He was already a crook and a samseng during his school days. His brother was quite o.k.
Mahathir is the REAL culprit who destroyed our judiciary.Current crop of AG, DGP and the crooked police are his products! These shitheads whom are already corrupted to the core should be caught,charged and sentence in open,just and public court.These SOB’s are the living dead and souless bast*rd who won’t even think twice about prostituting their own mothers,daughter and country just for the sake of money! 
PKR leaders called for calm. Anwar’s wife and PKR president Wan Azizah told the media that it was another dark day for justice in the country.

Malaysian judge bars evidence of a political conspiracy in Anwar’s trial

., “The Conspirator“ centers around the aftermath of the  and the country’s search for justice at any cost. Directed by malaysiakita786., the film chronicles the trial and conviction of Anwar Ibrahim,
“The Conspirator” If anyone had any doubts as to the political and biased character of the legal proceedings against former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim then the events of the week should have been enough to dispel them.
The trial restarted on Monday after a break of more than a week to allow defence lawyers time to prepare the case in light of substantial last-minute amendments by the prosecution to the four charges of corruption. The first defence witness to take the stand was Anwar himself who gave evidence and was cross-examined by prosecution lawyers.
The nervousness of the government of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad over Anwar’s testimony was underscored by the decision of Attorney-General Mochtar Abdullah to turn up unexpectedly in court on Monday to take over the leadership of the prosecution team.
Mochtar told the court that he had not done so earlier only because he had previously expected to be called as a witness. But the real reason was all too evident. The Mahathir government had to have one of its own in the court room in order to prevent Anwar from revealing too much about its internal operations. At one point, Mochtar pointedly warned Anwar about divulging “state secrets”.
Anwar, who was sacked from his positions last year and expelled from the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), is charged with having used his position to influence police to compel two people to withdraw written allegations of sexual misconduct against him. He is also facing a further charge of corruption and five charges of sexual misconduct.
Since he was seized under Malaysia’s draconian Internal Security Act (ISA), Anwar has maintained that he is innocent of all charges. In the course of the prosecution case, his defence lawyers effectively undermined the credibility of the two people who had made the allegations and began to link them to a high-level conspiracy against Anwar involving Mahathir’s private secretary, Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin and Consumer Affairs Minister Megat Junid.
At the end of its case, the prosecution lawyers made a highly unusual application to the presiding High Court judge Augustine Paul to change the wording of the charges so that it was no longer necessary to prove that the original written allegations were true. Not only did Paul agree to the prosecution motion but he also expunged evidence of sexual misconduct from the record. Anwar’s lawyers are now unable to challenge in court the lurid sex stories that have been splashed through the Malaysian media for weeks.
In the course of the last week, Paul has made a series of highly political rulings making it virtually impossible for Anwar to present evidence of a high level plot against him, and thus severely restricting the defence case.
On Monday, Anwar testified that he had encouraged police to look into the allegations even though they were made in letters that were written by his enemies. He stated that he had not asked police to arrest the two who had made the accusations or to force retractions from them.
He explained that as chairman of the committee on government management and corruption he had been privy to many allegations against ministers and state officials. He had been involved in investigating the alleged waste of billions of ringgit in the Department of Public Works and the Ministry of Defence.
The prosecution challenged the testimony, claiming that his position as chairman of the committee was irrelevant to the case. Anwar has alleged that one of the reasons for the conspiracy against him was that officials and ministers feared the committee would expose them. Justice Paul upheld the prosecution objection, thus preventing any details of corrupt activity from being aired on court.
On Tuesday, Anwar gave evidence that in August and September 1997, Special Branch police officers had informed him of a high-level political conspiracy involving Zainuddin and Junid. Earlier in the day he explained that he had met on August 31, 1997 with Mahathir who said the allegations were baseless.
But as the defence lawyers sought to pursue the issues, Justice Paul intervened to block the line of questioning. In a sweeping ruling, he stated: “Evidence of political conspiracy, if any, is irrelevant…the issue of political conspiracy is too remote.” He insisted that Anwar should stick to proving that he never abused his powers to cover up alleged sexual trysts.
Even within the strict terms of the case, the decision is deeply flawed. Senior police claim that Anwar ordered them to extract confessions. He denies it. If Anwar is to prove the police are lying then he has to be able to adduce evidence to explain how and why. By ruling that the defence cannot enter any evidence of a high level conspiracy between the police, government ministers and officials, the judge has denied Anwar any active defence.
Taken within the broader political context of the trial, the judge’s decision directly serves the interests of the Mahathir government both by preparing the basis for a guilty verdict, and preventing his inside knowledge of its activities from being aired in court.
This was confirmed the following day when Justice Paul placed a ban on the press reporting Anwar’s statements concerning discussions he had held with Mahathir or the former chief of police. He also ordered the media not to report what Anwar had said about the International Trade Minister Rafidah Aziz.
According to Anwar, the conflict with Mahathir arose as sharp differences emerged over economic policy. The decision to lay the charges was made after a confrontation with Mahathir on the day of his dismissal–September 2. The prime minister had delivered an ultimatum to resign or to face charges of sexual misconduct.
The conduct of the Anwar trial has broad political implications for working people in Malaysia. If, in the glare of the international media, the rights of a former deputy prime minister to mount a legal defence to politically motivated charges can be flagrantly violated, the same anti-democratic measures can be used with impunity against workers and young people.

diocratic judges the need for tolerance

Almost all Muslim rulers in India were secular. This they were in their own interest, for the vast majority of their subjects were Hindus. So if they persecuted Hindus there would be revolts and turbulences regularly, which no ruler wants.
Thus, the Mughals, Nawabs of Avadh and Murshidabad, Tipu Sultan, Nizam of Hyderabad etc were almost all thoroughly secular. For instance, the Nawabs of Avadh used to celebrate Holi, Dussehra and Diwali, organize Ramlilas, etc and give respect to all religions.
Akbar used to hold discussions with people of all religions, and give them respect (see my judgment in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Koresh Jamaat online and ‘Akbarnama’). His son Jehangir used to regularly meet the Hindu sadhu Jadrup, and hold discussions with him (see ‘Jehangirnama’).
The controversy is about Aurangzeb. I discussed about him with many Professors of history in Aligarh Muslim University and Allahabad University. Strangely enough, The Professors of AMU with whom I discussed Aurangzeb, and who are Muslims, regard Aurangzeb as communal, while the Professors of Allahabad University, who are Hindus, regard him as secular. Which is the correct view?
My own view is that more research is required.
On the one hand there is evidence to show that in Aurangzeb’s time grants were given to several Hindu temples, e.g. Mahakal temple at Ujjain, the Chitrakoot temple, etc. In this connection one may see online ‘History in the Service of Imperialism’, which is a speech given in the Rajya Sabha by Dr. B.N. Pandey, former Professor of History of Allahabad University and Governor of Orissa. Details of the grants to Hindu temples in Aurangzeb’e reign can be seen there. Many of Aurangzeb’s army commander’s, e.g. Raja Jai Singh, were Hindus.
I had been to Bikaner a few years back. A part of the Maharaja’s palace has been converted into a museum. I went to that museum and saw there a letter by Aurangzeb to the new Maharaja of Bikaner, who was a young man whose father (the previous Maharaja) had just died. Aurangzeb writes to the young Maharaja consoling him, and said that he could understand the loss of one’s father. He concludes the letter saying that the young Maharaja should regard Aurangzeb as his own father, and if he needed anything he had only to inform Aurangzeb.
Now the point is that if Aurangzeb hated all Hindus would he have written such a letter?
On the other hand, the fact cannot be denied that Aurangzeb reimposed jeziya on Hindus, a tax which his great grandfather Akbar had revoked. When I mentioned this to the Allahabad University Professors (with whom I discussed Aurangzeb) they said that Aurangzeb needed money for his wars. Now if Aurangzeb needed money for his wars he should have imposed a tax on everyone, why only Hindus?
The charge against Aurangzeb is that he demolished several Hindu temples e.g. the original Kashi Vishwanath temple, which is now the Gyanvapi mosque, standing next to the present temple built in the 18th Century by Maharani Ahilyabai Holkar. In fact the rear wall of the Gyanvapi mosque has Hindu carvings, which are clearly discernible.
Which is therefore the true Aurangzeb?
My own view is that he is somewhere in between, but more research is required.
It cannot be denied that Aurangzeb antagonized Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs, etc which hastened the demise of the Mughal Empire. After his death in 1707 within a few years the Mughal Empire’s size was reduced to Delhi and its suburbs only ( ‘ Saltanat-e-Shah Alam, Az Dilli ta Palam’).
Though Aurangzeb was a totally honest man (he earned his living by making caps), he seemed to lack the great quality which Akbar had, of accommodating everyone and pursuing a tolerant and flexible, instead of rigid policy. Akbar realized that India is a country of great diversity, and so only a tolerant, flexible and accommodating policy can keep the Empire together. This realization, evidently, Aurangzeb lacked.
However, this is only my tentative opinion, and more objective research is required by experts.

The Federal Court, which represents the last bastion of hope for upholding civil liberties and protecting citizens whose rights are violated by the executive, has once again disappointed.

The majority decision not to allow the Catholic Church leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the Home Ministry’s ban on the use of ‘Allah’ in the Herald has allowed the fundamental right of Malaysians to practice the religion of their choice to be violated without remedy.

Article 3 of the federal constitution states that Islam is the official religion of the federation but Article 11 guarantees that every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and to propagate it (except among Muslims). The Federal Court has now rendered the 10-point solution meaningless.

The government of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak must take immediate action to correct the incursion into Article 11 of the federal constitution if this government believes in the rule of law.

In multi-cultural and multi-religious Malaysia, the government has a duty to create and maintain an environment where the different faiths may peaceably be practiced and equal protection of all faiths is ensured.

Failure to do so will increase tension and disharmony. It leads to tyranny and oppression resulting in the disintegration of our nation and the government must be held accountable.

The government is reminded that freedom of religion is an internationally recognised basic human right. It is enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nations recognises in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.

The United Nations has also declared religious tolerance is important as set out in the preamble to the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief that the disregard and infringement of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or whatever belief, have brought, directly and indirectly, wars and great suffering to mankind and amounting to kindling hatred between peoples and nations.

Article 6 declares that the right to freedom of religion includes the freedom to write issue and disseminate publications which includes newsletters such as the Herald.

If the government does not practice these basic tenets and principles, its attempt to seek a seat in the Security Council is hypocritical and farcical in pretending to uphold these principles in the United Nations and enforcing them against the rest of the world while violating them at home.  

Supreme Court’s clarification that fatwas issued by sharia courts or muftis had no legal basis and hence could not be enforced has important social ramifications. Ruling on a PIL questioning the jurisdiction of sharia courts, the apex court asserted that fatwas had no place in the country’s constitutional scheme. This comes against the backdrop of fatwas being regularly issued on a wide range of subjects and cases concerning Muslims. Most of these religious diktats are out of sync with modern life, leading to unfortunate outcomes.
Take for example the fatwa issued by a cleric that called for banning an all-girl Kashmiri rock band, purportedly on religious grounds. Despite it having no legal force, the girls were compelled to disband their group due to community pressure. In fact, by their very design, fatwas are particularly harsh on women — recall the fatwa asking a woman from Muzaffarnagar to treat her husband like her son after she was raped by her father-in-law. Fatwas and other extrajudicial community rulings reinforce patriarchal biases and militate against reason and justice. Worse still, they can be easily manipulated to suit vested interests.
In this regard, Supreme Court’s observation that attempts to enforce a fatwa will be deemed illegal and dealt with according to the law should also serve as a safeguard against north India’s khap panchayats and Bengal’s shalishi adalats. In January, a shalishi court in Birbhum district shocked the nation by ordering the gang rape of a 20-year-old woman for immoral conduct. Those behind such rulings need to be strictly prosecuted. That said, sharia and other community courts may be able to adjudicate petty cases. But neither can these rulings be binding nor can they preclude the aggrieved party’s right to approach the judiciary. Supreme Court has done well to forcefully clarify this.

A Tragedy when even an Eminent former Judge and Chief Justice cannot tell the truth

I was afraid I would become a ‘traitor’ to the Malays and Islam,” Former Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad said. He was not truthful; he was not offered a place in a unity council, says source –
CJ of Malaya Hamid
Malaysia’s flirtation with democracy died 45 years ago, in the racial riots of May 13, 1969, in which Malaysians attacked Malaysians in acts of savagery. Today, we live in a state which, on the surface, seems to be a functioning, normal democratic society, but if one were to scratch beneath the surface, one would wonder if democracy was just a figment of the imagination.
We all despise and mistrust politicians, from both sides of the political divide. Detractors will insist that we are a democratic nation. That is one myth which must be immediately quashed. It does not mean that we live in a democracy just because we visit the polling stations every five years.
The electoral system is corrupt, indelible ink washes off, boundaries are skewed to benefit the ruling party, ballot boxes are switched during blackouts, thugs intimidate voters and money and citizenship is given to illegal immigrants, in exchange for voting rights. These are not the hallmarks of a democracy.
Politics in Malaysia is just a game for the ruling elite. They swop roles and tinker with administration and funding. The main thing is to keep the party in power. Personal interests outweigh the national interest. Our freedom is curbed, along with our freedom of thought.
It is a grave concern, when the rakyat increasingly accepts corruption, murder and thuggery, as part of the normal government machinery.Today, apart from it being a religion, Islam is also used as an implement for political suppression, a divisive tool, a diversionary tactic and a ploy to destroy the opposition.
Few Malaysians will have heard of the book, Malaysia, Death of a Democracy bySlimmingJohn Slimming, a journalist who lived and worked in Malaysia from 1951 to 1967. Slimming’s book gives an unbiased and graphic account of the riots, the reasons they happened and the aftermath. The book was banned in Malaysia, but having obtained a copy of the book, I know that Slimming’s conclusions are just as applicable now, as they were, in 1969.
In June 1969 photocopies of Fred Emery’s articles from The Times were smuggled in from Singapore and sold for RM20. People who were caught with these photostats, about the riots, were imprisoned for up to two years.
In the section of the book about ‘One-Party Rule and Ultra-nationalists’, Slimming said, “The present UMNO leaders cannot risk offending the Malays for fear of widening the rift within their own party.” He observed that, “As long as the opposition is suppressed, there can be no long-term solution to the country’s difficulties.”
Tun Razak told one correspondent (The Far Eastern Economic Review of July 10, 1969) that the policy of the National Operations Council (NOC), which Abdul Razak Hussein set up under Emergency Rule, was to “do nothing”, but “ensure the preservation of law and order, and wait, hoping that tensions would relax and memories fade”. Slimming said that Razak did not want public debate on racial issues because it would heighten tension.
‘Like father, like son’-Najib’s Say Nothing and Do Nothing Policy
Today, nothing has changed and following the adage, “like father, like son”, Najib Abdul Razak has emulated his father’s “do nothing” and “say nothing” policy. Slimming said that Tan Siew Sin, the then-MCA president, also supported the NOC policy of “do nothing” and that Tan had lost the respect of the Malaysian Chinese. The Chinese have no respect for the MCA, in May 2014.
TDM--21 MarchSlimming said that Tunku Abdul Rahman was “made to walk a very slender tightrope” and that a “little known UMNO backbencher, Dr Mahathir Mohamad (in photo), wrote a letter to the Tunku in “Rajah Malay”, to demand his resignation. The letter was banned and Mahathir ejected from the UMNO central committee. Slimming added, “Had an opposition backbencher written that letter, he would have found himself in detention, without delay.”
In 1970, Razak became Prime Minister and Mahathir was embraced into the UMNO fold. By 1973, Mahathir became a senator, then Education Minister in 1974 and in 1981, the Prime Minister. Mahathir abused the Internal Security Act (ISA)–Op Lallang 1987– to tighten his grip on power. Hell hath no fury as a dictator who was once scorned.
Slimming details the thoughts of a university lecturer, Mukhtaruddin Dazin, who said, “The Malays must not want a return to parliamentary rule. The NOC must lead the country towards the aims of the national Malay philosophy… to be carried out by the armed forces loyal to the Malay race. When non-Malays fight for equal rights, Malays must… be offensive and fight to review the question of citizenship… by means of language tests, essays, religion and Malay customs…” Today, we find extremists like Perkasa and Isma spouting the same offensive ideals.
Slimming’s book described Malay student leaders demanding an “all-Malay apartheid-style government, with the Chinese barred from taking part”. These same students previously condemned the racial discrimination in South Africa and Rhodesia.
In a section called ‘Boycott and Goodwill’, Slimming said that after the riots, the Chinese (and Singaporeans), boycotted Malay shops, foodstalls and markets. The Malays suffered greatly and in an ironic twist, the then-Selangor Chief Minister Harun Idris, whom Slimming said was “the sponsor of the original UMNO demonstration”, pleaded with the public not to boycott the shops. Harun’s appeal fell on deaf ears.
Under the section marked ‘Singapore, Malaysia and external Defence’, Slimming said that Lee Kuan Yew had positioned multi-racial security forces on alert and swiftly clamped down on an outbreak of racial clashes. The forces acted with complete impartiality, unlike their Malaysian counterparts and because of this, Singapore quickly returned to normal, thus restoring confidence and preserving racial harmony.
hype_najib1Today, our leaders are afraid to act swiftly to contain the extremist elements, nor are our police able to act with complete impartiality. Slimming observed that Malay leaders were concerned with the threat from external dangers, but chose to ignore the threat from within.
Malaysia has degenerated from its predicament in 1969. Will Najib face the facts, and allow discussion of “sensitive issues”, or will UMNO Baru prolong the policy of doing nothing?
Issuing death fatwas based on an evaluation of a religious cleric, often a mufti or a mullah, is neither civilized nor scientific in its approach. A democratic society cannot allow its citizens being subjected to fatwas issued by Sharia courts, which can very easily result in gross violation of fundamental rights of people. Once again, the Supreme Court of India is right in insisting that religion or faith cannot and should not be allowed to victimize innocent citizens irrespective of faith. Now there is a lot of hue and cry about the verdict of the Supreme Court on Monday that implies that a Sharia court has no legal sanction. We should sometimes listen to our neighbor, where 96 percent of the population are Muslims. One distinguished lawyer of Pakistan´s Supreme Court said to me in Denmark that India’s Supreme Court offers a lot of inspiration to courts in Islamabad, and many verdicts are studied thoroughly with the motive to emulate them in the Pakistani context.
Through its judgments the Supreme Court of India has made India and the region around it progressive. We have to recognize the importance of this valuable institution along with the role of the free press in India as a milestone in India´s arrival as a true democracy.
We all know of the famous death fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie because he once dared to use his freedom of expression. It resulted in a decade-long period of persecution during which Rushdie was forced to go underground and live under a totally different identity with huge consequences for himself and his family. No literary work, however critical, lousy or derogatory, should result in death penalty or death fatwas. Once again the Supreme Court of India has excelled in its function as a safeguard mechanism to protect and uphold the rights of the citizens of India.
India´s Supreme Court has quite justifiably shown its reluctance to offer death penalty for even severe crimes. I am not arguing for India´s membership of the European Union. But all member states which have joined the European Union or intend to do so have to completely drop death penalty as a form of punishment. This is without doubt one of the best achievements for promoting human rights in Europe.
In a civilized society even a state should not be allowed to take away the most precious thing we all have – a human life. Taking another human being’s life is criminal, inhuman and uncivilized. Thank god, many countries and most European countries have either abolished the death penalty or established a moratorium on its courts from coming to such a heinous judgment.
Historically speaking, human societies have made great progress, from passing death penalties for many types of crimes, and now most societies limit its use only to the most unacceptable form of crime. India allows its use in the rarest of rare cases. But why not abolish it completely?
The paradox is that countries that have abolished the death penalty are also the ones where there are fewer of those crimes which we consider unpardonable or detestable. Death penalty is no deterrent from horrible crimes. A creation of a just, equitable and prosperous society prevents people from indulging in crimes.
So death penalty is no deterrent. Therefore I really appreciate that in recent years the Indian Supreme Court has shown its utmost restraint and reluctance in handing out the barbaric treatment of taking someone´s life.
India, though, should take the final leap and either abolish the death penalty or impose a moratorium on its use. Whether it is heinous rapes or other crimes, India should not take the short cut to justice by hanging its citizens. What we need is a lengthy and long discussion of gender equality, which is the only way to reduce such crimes. We have to create a society where both sexes can freely and easily meet each other.
The bottom line for a society which demands to be called civilized should be to abolish the death penalty completely. States have an obligation to protect life, not to take it. And clerics who want to issue death fatwas cannot be taken seriously in a state based on human rights law.
India desperately needs a justice system that prevents the collective from harming the individual. Therefore the verdict of the Supreme Court on Monday regarding the Sharia Court, should be welcomed by both the religious and secular-minded citizens of India.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s