Malaysia court rejects Christian conversion

In a divided two to one decision, Malaysia’s highest court refused to recognize a Muslim woman’s conversion to Christianity.  Lina Joy tried to change her religious status and remove the word Islam from her identity card to marry her Catholic fiance.  Under separate laws in Malaysia, Muslims must marry within the faith.  The abandonment of Islam is sometimes punishable by fines or imprisonment.  Here, the Islamic Sharia court rejected Ms. Joy’s appeal.

Ms. Joy, born Azlina Jailani, has lost her job, been disowned by her family, and went into hiding last year after receiving death threats.  She now may seek asylum in Australia.

Malaysia’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but declares all ethnic Malays are Muslim and thus are not allowed to convert.  In this multi-racial country, Muslims constitute sixty percent of Malaysia’s population of nearly 25 million people.  Critics say this ruling underlines the increasing separation of Muslims from others. Additionally, it reinforced the notion that Islamic laws should have primacy over secular laws in some aspects of Muslims’ lives and the question of the separation of religion and state.

For more information, please see:

–Malaysia rejects Christian appeal

–Malaysia Top Court Doesn’t Honor Muslim’s Conversion

Iran forcibly deports Afghani refugees

Since April 21, 2007, ninety thousand Afghan refugees have been forcibly removed from Iran.  As a result of Iran’s toughened stance on illegal immigrants, thousands of Afghanis, mostly men, have been arrested and put on buses to Herat, Afghanistan.  While most of the deportees were single men, almost 22,000 have been families.  Some have been separated from their spouses and children, and in some cases, some children have been deported alone.

Afghanis comprise the second largest refugee group in the world. Millions left their home during the Soviet invasion and more left Afghanistan during the Taliban regime that followed.  Since 2001 and the fall of the Taliban, 3.5 million Afghans repatriated and returned home.  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees described three ways refugees are returning from Iran.  First, voluntary repatriation; where registered refugees are given a repatriation package ($100 (US)/person or $500 (US)/family of five) to facilitate the relocation process. Second, spontaneous return; where unregistered (and therefore illegal) refugees chose to return to Afghanistan.  They are given time to gain proper certification to return.  The third method is deportation; where illegal refugees are forced to return.

Since 2002, 860,000 refugees have left Iran and returned to Afghanistan.  However, 915,000 Afghani refugees still reside in Iran. Some entered illegally.  Some entered with a visa that has now expired.  Some are legal refugees who lack the proper papers and therefore are deemed illegal by the Iranian government.

Beginning on April 21, Iran began its new two pronged strategy to decrease the number of Afghani refugees. The first prong is to provide incentives, such as repatriation packages or facilitating illegal refugees in getting the proper return papers, to encourage refugees to return.  The second prong is to crack down on illegal immigrants by arresting and deporting them. 

Iran and Pakistan are homes of largest population of Afghani refugees. Currently, Iran spends approximately $7 billion a year to support their Afghani refugee population.  While the UN agrees that Iran has the right to address the matter of illegal immigrants in their countries, but appeals that it is done in a humane manner.

For more information please see:

BBC:  “Expelled from Iran – Refugee Misery”  8 June 2007.

UNHCR:  “Return to Afghanistan”  30 May 2007.

Bahrain Police Fire at Protestors

            The protesters gathered in response to the seizure of their land by a member of the royal family. The perpetrator, Sheik Hamad bin Mohammed Salman al-Khalifa, is the cousin to the King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifaa. Two years ago, the Sheik built a 500 meter wall to protect his alleged territory. This enclosure has not only given the Sheik disputed land, but also prohibited local fishermen from accessing the sea.
            The villagers protested the action. They gathered and held signs displaying their disgust. The Associated Press reported that some of the signs stated that “Bahrain’s lands are not for sale.” According to the head of the district municipal counsel’s report, the crowd had gathered civilly, when the riot police fired the rubber bullets. The tear gas rendered some of the crowd unconscious.

            According to the Police Captain’s report the crowd rioted without an exact purpose. They tried to harm the police. The rioters used danger weapons such as sticks, gasoline bombs, golf balls, and slingshots to injure the police. The police had to fire rubber bullets to quiet the crowd and prevent further havoc.
            Bahrain rarely blocks peaceful protests, as long as the crowd consents to certain requirements. In this case, the protesters got permission to gather, and yet the police fired on the anti-seizure land protesters quickly.
            A possible reason for the quick and strong response by the police is because the Shiite majority is being ruled by a Sunni ruling family.  The government’s fear is that this rally was actually related to the protest on 21 May 2007, where Shiites sought more rights for themselves through greater democratic reform. In that riot, one man was injured by police to dissipate the crowd. Shiites make up 60 percent of the population of the nation, and have long complained about being discriminated against by the Sunnis.

Al-Jazeera. Bahrain Police Fire on Protesters. 10 June 2007.
Alalam News. Bahrain Police, Opposition Clash. 21 May 2007.
Associated Press. Anti-riot police clash with demonstrators protesting land seizure. 9 June 2007.
Gulf Daily News. Riots ‘orchestrated.’ 10 June 2007.

Reactions to Beginning of Charles Taylor Trial

By Impunity Watch Africa

Charles Taylor’s boycott and refusal to show at the first day of his trial in The Hague for war crimes that occurred in Sierra Leone has sparked much response and criticism from scholars and commentators.  Instead of attending the first day of his trial, Taylor sent a letter from his cell calling the court a “charade” and firing his counsel, apparently intending to represent himself.

The former founding Chief Prosecutor David Crane of the Special Court for Sierra Leone indicted Charles Taylor, Liberia’s former President, on March 3, 2003. The original indictment included seventeen counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity including rape, murder, pillage, enslavement, mutilation, and unlawful recruitment of child soldiers.   It was later changed to eleven to make for more concise charges.

Former Prosecutor David Crane attended the opening statements.  His response to Taylor’s boycott is that “Taylor and his counsel are predictably providing the histrionics that accompany the public disgrace of a bloody tyrant.”  He saw Taylor’s actions as no different from those of Milosevic or Hussein or any other former head of state on trial for war crimes.

With a three-week break before the trial begins, many are cautioning the court to ensure proper control over the proceedings in order to prevent a disaster.  The presiding judge in this case has started well, and was able to manage the defense counsel’s attempts to derail the opening statements and was able to get the proceedings back on track.  Corrine Dufka, a West African researcher for Human Rights Watch, noted that the judge has already started off well.  Unlike the Milosevic trial where the defense and prosecution were allowed to go on and on and there was a lack of management from the bench, here the judge has already instituted order and is working to ensure a fair trial.

The trial resumes in three weeks on June 25.

For more information, please see:

Jurist – An Empty Chair at The Hague: Trying Charles Taylor – 08 June 2007

World Politics Review –  Accountability in West Africa: Charles Taylor on Trial at The Hague – 07 June 2007

VOA – Charles Taylor Boycotts His War Crimes Trial in The Hague – 04 June 2007

Guardian – Liberia’s Taylor Snubs War Crimes Trial – June 2007

Kenyan Police Crackdown on Mungiki Sect

By Myriam Clerge
Impunity Watch, Africa

The Mungiki is an outlawed religious sect inspired by the Mau Mau rebellion of the 1950s against British colonial rule. Banned in 2002, the sect is accused of mutilating and beheading around 20 people during the recent months. Among the murdered was a constituent of Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki. According to Police Chief Albert Kimanthi, leaflets circulated in the Mathare slum, which is home to some 500,000 people, threatened that more beheadings were imminent unless residents and traders pay between $1 and $3 as protection fees.

President Kibaki warned that the government would not “allow criminals to get away with wanton acts of violence.” On Thursday May 31st, the government spokesperson announced that 2,464 members of the Mungiki sect were arrested.

During a police raid on Tuesday June 5th, in which 21 people were killed after a shootout, a BBC reporter and a reporter for Reuters news agency claim to have seen a woman holding her baby clubbed in the throat by an officer and nearly 40 women and children forced to lie face down in the mud.

Mungiki leaflets accuse Kibaki’s administration of failing to honor election pledges made in 2002 to create jobs and rewrite Kenya’s constitution. Even more leaflets claim that high-level government officials, lawmakers and over 16,000 member of Kenya’s security force are members of the sect.

Many fear the sect may disrupt the December election in which current President Kibaki is expected to seek his second term.

For more information please see:

Yahoo – Kenyan president vows crackdown on sect as killing rage – 01 June 2007

Yahoo – 2,464 sect suspects arrested in Kenya – 01 June 2007

BBC – Kenya police shoot sect suspects – 07 June 2007