 |
 |
HOZZÁSZÓLÁSOK
| Binary |
2008.02.15. 22:48 [#171] |
Meg még ahány hasonló példát fel lehetne hozni...
Könnyű feministának lenni ott, ahol a csirkés plakát a legnagyobb "baj". |
| |
| cibere |
2008.02.15. 22:45 [#170] |
| torokorszag?! |
| |
| Binary |
2008.02.15. 22:30 [#168] |
| Akkor ezzel a témát le is zártuk. |
| |
| Binary |
2008.02.15. 22:17 [#166] |
| Nem akarok rosszindulatúnak látszani, de a piroslapvillogtatás helyett lehet, hogy van olyan hely, ahol hasznát vennék (direkt használtam ezt a kifejezést) a feministáknak, és bizony kurvasok férfi szó nélkül támogatná őket (leglábbis én biztosan)! |
| |
| CsP |
2008.02.15. 21:38 [#164] |
Katica:nagyjából.A "vicces" csupán az,hogy a nagy világvallások páneurópai leszármazásai (ez akkora üres zsurnalizmus volt, hogy fogom én is a fejem, bocsánat),szóval a nagy közös kohéziós erő az alapjában a varacskosan surmóhímsovi. Ebben legalább egyek.
Reménykedem abban, hogy az arab "tűnjünk valamennyire PC-nek"-akciója ki fog terjedni arra is, hogy ne végezzék ki a szerencsétlent.
(Az afgánoknál is megy emiatt a purparlé, méghozzá jó nagy, Karzai meg nem szól bele...legalább ki tudta verni a biztosítékot ilyen szinten egy Korán-értelmezés, miszerint nem arról van szó eredetilerg, hogy a nők untermensch-ek) |
| |
|
|
| emese |
2008.02.15. 00:30 [#162] |
Itt van egy level a Saudi kiralynak. Egy not halalra iteltek mert allitolag boszorkany. Egy ferfi fasza nem allt fel, es ezt rafogtak hogy o tette a pasit impotensnek. kepzeljetek el semmi bizonyotekra nincsen szukseg, csak hogy egy ferfi beteg elmeje es farka egy no bune.
Ezek az esetek gyakoriak Saudi Arabiaban.
HRH King Abdullah bin Abd al-?Aziz Al Saud
Royal Court
Riyadh 11111
Saudi Arabia
Your Royal Highness,
Human Rights Watch urges you to immediately halt the execution of Fawza
Falih Muhammad Ali, currently imprisoned in Quraiyat Prison. Fawza
Falih has exhausted her appeals and her relatives in Jordan believe the
papers are currently in your office awaiting your approval of the
execution.
Saudi Arabia: Halt Woman?s Execution for ?Witchcraft?
Press Release, February 14, 2008
The court in Quraiyat, on April 2, 2006 (3/3/1427), sentenced her to
death by beheading for the alleged crimes of ??witchcraft, recourse to
jinn [supernatural beings], and slaughter? of animals.
Your Highness, the conviction of Fawza Falih for ?witchcraft? is a
travesty of justice and reveals severe shortcomings in Saudi Arabia?s
justice system. The crime of ?witchcraft? is not defined by law; judges
breached safeguards for a fair trial in existing Saudi law; and there
were significant procedural flaws throughout the trial which
effectively eradicated her ability to defend herself against the
ill-defined charges against her.
We remain convinced that Fawza Falih has not committed any crime at
all. First, it is not clear what the actual elements if any of the
crime of ?witchcraft? are, and the offence is not defined in Saudi law.
As you know, Saudi Arabia does not have a written penal code that
spells out the elements of a given crime. The accusation of witchcraft
appears to have been based upon a broad, vague concept, which cannot be
said to constitute ?law?. Under international human rights law, persons
suspected of crimes may only be charged with offenses as established by
law, and which are sufficiently clear so that everyone has the
possibility to understand clearly what behavior it is that will cause
them to violate that law.
Furthermore, in addition to the lack of a clear definition of
?witchcraft? in Saudi law and the absence of a written penal code in
which to search for such a definition, the judges in the court of
Quraiyat did not define the meaning of ?witchcraft?, but instead cited
a variety of alleged actions, stated intentions, and ?tools? for
?witchcraft? in a weak attempt to suggest that ?witchcraft? had indeed
taken place. The court cited one instance in which a man allegedly
became impotent after being ?bewitched.? In another, a divorced woman
reportedly returned to her ex-husband during the month predicted by the
witch said to have cast the spell. The court failed to probe
alternative explanations for these developments which appear to be
ordinary phenomena. Indeed drawing on the illustrations cited by the
courts, it is evident that the practice of ?witchcraft?, if it exists,
is by its nature impossible to prove, since it involves the alleged use
of supernatural powers.
The court record itself reveals significant doubt about the truth of
the ?witchcraft? accusations, which are substantiated solely on the
basis of statements by persons who believed they had been ?bewitched,?
and by ?strange? objects reportedly found in the house of the accused
and on a tree.
Court Verdict number 125/2 of October 10, 2006 (17/9/1427) states that
Fawza Falih confessed that ?I take 1,500 Riyal for each act of which I
send half to the magician Abu Tal?a [who allegedly taught her
?witchcraft?] according to the agreement, for Abu Tal?a said to me, ?If
you do not bring the money, by God, you will become possessed by jinn
like dogs.? If any ?strange? acts did indeed take place, they seem to
have been the result of a money-making scam. Those who lost money have
not sued to have their money returned. Fawza Falih?s alleged actions
did not result in any complaints of injury or damage suffered by any
party.
In addition, there were numerous procedural and legal errors throughout
the course of this trial. Judges of the court appear to have both
disregarded established laws and made up new law as the trial
proceeded. Their first verdict sentenced Fawza Falih to death for
?witchcraft? as an ?offense against God? (hadd) with a prescribed
punishment of death. The legal basis for this decision includes the
statement that witches ?are not given the opportunity to repent,
because witchcraft is not eradicable by penitence.?
Following remarks on the case by the Court of Appeals of September 1,
2006 (19/12/1427) that two of the accused were sentenced to death
?despite having retracted their confessions,? and that consequently
?doubt shields from hadd punishments,? the judges in Quraiyat, in a new
verdict of June 6, 2007 (25/5/1428), sentenced Fawza Falih to death on
a ?discretionary? basis, in the name of ?public interest? and to
?preserve the creed and the souls and property of this country.?
Aside from the spurious nature of the charges against her, during the
trial, Fawza Falih attended only the first and the last of at least six
sessions. Article 140 of the LCP states that, ?in major crimes, the
accused shall personally appear before the court.? In the first
session, only one judge was present and questioned her. Article 129 of
the LCP specifies that a panel of three judges must sit in cases
involving death sentences, and Article 7 halts proceedings until the
judges have reached the prescribed number. Furthermore, the accused was
unable to challenge any of the witnesses against her: the witnesses did
not testify in court, but gave written statements, and the judge kept
her in the waiting room during sessions when evidence was presented.
Article 163 of the LCP states that ?Each of the parties may
cross-examine the witnesses called by the other party and discuss its
evidence.? Fawza Falih in her appeal claims not to even know some of
the witnesses who claim have seen her perform acts of ?witchcraft?. The
denial of her legal right to cross-examine witnesses in court seriously
impaired her efforts to defend herself against the charges.
The judge also prevented her son, who was acting as her officially
certified legal representative, from attending any of the court
sessions, violating Article 4 of the LCP which gives ?Any accused
person
the right to seek the assistance of a lawyer or a
representative to defend him during the investigation and trial
stages.? Article 140 states that the obligation to appear in person in
major crimes cannot be used as a justification to exclude legal
representatives from the proceedings.
Other aspects of the arrest, treatment and trial of Fawza Falih are
also deeply worrying. Fawza Falih spent 35 days in detention at the
Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV)
after her arrest on May 4, 2005 (25/3/1426). Her detention there
violated a 1981 royal decree prohibiting the CPVPV from holding and
interrogating suspects at their centers. She asserted in her appeal
that she was beaten during her interrogation, naming one official of
the governorate. Her appeal states that she lost consciousness during
one beating and was treated at the hospital. She asserts that fellow
female prisoners bandaged her wounds. Human Rights Watch spoke to a
relative who was allowed to visit her for the first time after about 20
days in CPVPV detention, following her hospital treatment, and saw
marks from beatings on her back. There would thus have been ample
evidence to indicate that her confession was coerced.
The interrogators and the judges violated Fawza Falih?s rights to due
process and a fair trial in other ways as well. Her family hired lawyer
Abdullah al-Suhaimi, but the head of the interrogation committee
refused him access to her when he asked to see her within a few days of
her arrest. Article 64 of the Law of Criminal Procedure (LCP) specifies
that ?During the investigation, the accused shall have the right to
seek the assistance of a representative or an attorney,? and Article 70
states that ?The Investigator shall not, during the investigation,
separate the accused from his accompanying representative or attorney.?
Furthermore, Fawza Falih, who is illiterate, claims that her confession
was not read to her, but that she was nonetheless forced to fingerprint
it as a mark of authentication.
Your Highness, Human Rights Watch is deeply troubled by the miscarriage
of justice that has occurred in the case of Fawza Falih. We urge you to
halt immediately all proceedings for her execution, to void her
sentence, and to instruct officials to preserve the facts of the case
so that the prosecution may initiate proceedings against the members of
the CPVPV and the governorate who wrongfully arrested and mistreated
Fawza Falih and so that the inspector of the judiciary is able to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the judges who violated her
rights under Saudi and international law.
Sincerely,
/s/
Christoph Wilcke
Researcher
Human Rights Watch
|
| |
|
|
| Macskalány |
2008.02.14. 21:02 [#159] |
Tényleg vannak itt "Hölgyek"?
Nagy H-val, kalapban, kesztyűben, jólnevelten? :-) |
| |
|
|
|
|
SZOC&POL 
