|
Afghani faces execution for converting to Christianity
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EvilTree |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4831426.stm
| quote: |
Afghan convert 'faces execution'
Abdul Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and could be executed under Sharia law unless he reconverts.
The US made a subdued appeal for him to be allowed to practise his faith - but stressed it did not want to interfere.
Germany, Italy and Canada, which all have troops in Afghanistan, also voiced concern over Mr Rahman's plight.
Mr Rahman, 41, converted 16 years ago as an aid worker helping refugees in Pakistan. His estranged family denounced him in a custody dispute over his two children.
His is thought to be Afghanistan's first such trial, reflecting tensions between conservative clerics and reformists.
Conservatives still dominate the Afghan judiciary, four years after the Taleban were overthrown, and Afghanistan's post-Taleban constitution is based on Sharia law.
'Hollow praise'
Speaking alongside Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah at a press conference in Washington, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns urged Afghanistan to respect Mr Rahman's religious rights.
However, he did not ask for his immediate release and said he respected Afghan sovereignty.
Trial judge Ansarullah Mawlazezadah holding the bible he says belonged to Abdul Rahman
The trial judge holds the bible he says belonged to the accused
"Our government is a great supporter of freedom of religion," Mr Burns said.
"As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion, will be upheld in an Afghan court."
Mr Abdullah in turn said he hoped "through our constitutional process there will be a satisfactory result".
He said the Afghan embassy in Washington had received hundreds of messages of concern about the case from US citizens.
The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the case has the potential to embarrass the US, which has invested huge efforts and resources in trying to help Afghanistan embrace democracy and freedom.
US President George Bush only recently visited Kabul, praising the country's emergence from years of oppression under the Taleban.
That message will ring hollow if individuals still face the threat of persecution for their beliefs, our correspondent says.
'Alarming signal'
The Italian foreign ministry has said that Mr Rahman's arrest is incompatible with the defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Officials in Berlin have also raised his plight, while German Cardinal Karl Lehmann said the case sent an "alarming signal" about freedom of worship.
Canada has called on Afghanistan to meet its human rights obligations.
Observers say executing a converted Christian would be a significant precedent as a conservative interpretation of Sharia law in Afghanistan. |
Afghanistan has a long way to go |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
nice to see we are defending "freedom" :rolleyes:
if anyone deserves citizenship here its this guy. Not that half baked idiot who was trying to extort it. |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
Good times in Afghanistan!
And they wanted to implement that Sharia law here in Canada? Holy . |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Good times in Afghanistan!
And they wanted to implement that Sharia law here in Canada? Holy . |
that was just political correctness run amok. Abolishing religious courts was about the only good thing mcguinty has done so far |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Good times in Afghanistan!
And they wanted to implement that Sharia law here in Canada? Holy . |
it would still have to comply with Canadian law...no one would be killed for being a Christian ;)
(FWIW, I don't support allowing it here either as it's ridiculously discriminatory against women)
I see now that the prosecutor is now contemplating not proceding with a trial, stating that the defendent may not be mentally fit. I think this is the convenient "out" that will be used to avoid further outrage in international community. good. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| sharia law shouldnt be used because this is canada and we use canadian law. Not simply just because its discriminatory to women. Because in Canada you follow canadian rules and you are prosecuted the canadian way. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Because in Canada you follow canadian rules and you are prosecuted the canadian way. |
crazy concept |
|
|
| Floorwhore |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Good times in Afghanistan!
|
lol |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
sharia law shouldnt be used because this is canada and we use canadian law. Not simply just because its discriminatory to women. Because in Canada you follow canadian rules and you are prosecuted the canadian way. |
I don't see a problem with using it as alternate mediation, if both parties agree (since independent arbitration is already allowed in for other religious and cultural groups, such as for native peoples)...but it *must* be consistent with Canadian law and it must be entered into by both parties willingly and without duress.
One problem specific to using Sharia law here, some critics say, is the context under which it exists in other countries is itself inconsistent with Canadian law in that women face pressure from their communities and families to agree to it in lieu of going through the regular legal process (i.e. duress/coercion)...and that's unacceptable. At the very least, even independent Legal Aid representation would theoretically better serve the women's interests. |
|
|
| geroin |
| they are at least 500years behind the rest of the humanity |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I don't see a problem with using it as alternate mediation, if both parties agree (since independent arbitration is already allowed in for other religious and cultural groups, such as for native peoples)...but it *must* be consistent with Canadian law and it must be entered into by both parties willingly and without duress.
One problem specific to using Sharia law here, some critics say, is the context under which it exists in other countries is itself inconsistent with Canadian law in that women face pressure from their communities and families to agree to it in lieu of going through the regular legal process (i.e. duress/coercion)...and that's unacceptable. At the very least, even independent Legal Aid representation would theoretically better serve the women's interests. |
i do see a problem with it. Every treated equally under the law. No exceptions. If that is unacceptable then you shouldnt have moved here. And independent arbitration was actually outlawed recently and rightly so. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i do see a problem with it. Every treated equally under the law. No exceptions. If that is unacceptable then you shouldnt have moved here. And independent arbitration was actually outlawed recently and rightly so. |
source?
it's only religious-based arbitration that was not permitted...otherwise, for civil cases, independent arbitration is alive and well.
even in criminal law, there are co-operative efforts to this day between the courts and native groups to allow for trial and sentencing in accordance with native principles.
it's not problematic per se...but if the underlying context is inconsistent with Canadian law, such as women being clearly "2nd class" to men under Sharia law, then yes it is a problem.
if you and I have a civil matter and we both agree, without duress, to accept independent, 3rd party arbitration, that's between us. |
|
|
|
|
