Who Has the Loose Character: Krishna or Jesus?

A nun in Warsaw, Poland, filed a case against ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness). The case came up in court.

The nun remarked that ISKCON was spreading its activities and gaining followers in Poland. She wanted ISKCON banned because its followers were glorifying a character called Krishna who had loose morals, having married 16,000 women called Gopikas.

The ISKCON defendant to the Judge:  Please ask the nun to repeat the oath she took when she was ordained as a nun.

The Judge asked the nun to recite the oath loudly. She would not.

The ISKCON man asked whether he could read out the oath for the nun.
Go ahead, said the judge.

The oath said in effect that ‘she (the nun) is married to Jesus Christ’. The ISKCON man said, “Your Lordship! Lord Krishna is alleged to have ‘married’ 16,000 women. There are more than a million nuns who assert that they are married to Jesus Christ. Between the two, Krishna and the nuns, who has a loose character?

The case was dismissed.

 

Blasphemy Law in Pakistan: Aasia Case

Irrespective of whether she gets relief in the appeal against her death sentence in a blasphemy case, Presidential pardon or the blasphemy laws are amended, Aasia Bibi is a marked woman. Ironically, more so, because of the attention her case has drawn over the past month-and-a-half after a sessions court in the Nankana Sahib district of Punjab sentenced her to death under Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the Prophet in an argument with women from her village.

The argument began after the two women refused to drink water from a glass Aasia Bibi had touched because, according to them, it had been defiled due to her faith and caste. This was in 2009. In early November 2010, the sessions court announced the death sentence; triggering yet another debate on the dreaded blasphemy laws, which according to the last report of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, had come to haunt even the Muslims as rivals sects of Islam had begun to use the provisions against each other.

Being a Christian, her case – as one lawyer put it – seemed to have bothered the conscience of the international community and condemnation from overseas including The Vatican was quick to come. President Asif Ali Zardari – himself a member of the minority Shia community – asked the federal Ministry of Minority Affairs to conduct an enquiry. He also constituted a committee under the minister, calling upon religious experts, intellectuals and others to suggest amendments in the blasphemy laws.

The Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, visited Aasia Bibi in Sheikhupura jail where he addressed a press conference with the death row designate sitting beside him. In front of the media, she put her thumb impression on the mercy petition that Mr. Taseer was to submit to the President. Meanwhile, civil rights organizations took to the streets.

The `religious’ right wing parties were not far behind; calling for street-wide protests on Christmas-eve, a shutter down strike on New Year’s Eve and a public meeting in Karachi next month to protect the blasphemy laws.

All this attention has actually put Aasia Bibi’s life in jeopardy, lament some opposed to the blasphemy laws. “If the sessions court convicted her, so what? Appeal. There is a High Court, there is the Supreme Court. Instead, Salman Taseer generated unwelcome publicity regarding this case at the cost of a woman who the government does not have the courage to support now,’’ rued former federal Law Minister Iqbal Haider.

“Extremely disturbed and shocked how Aasia’s life has been put on the alter of political expediency’’, academic and human rights activist Farzana Bari said while she was supportive of the move to amend the blasphemy laws, it ought have been raised at the time of the 18th Amendment when the entire Constitution was under review. “It is unfortunate that this highly sensitive and controversial issue has been raised around the unfortunate case of Aasia whose chances of release are further reduced by this controversy.’’

Their fears are not unwarranted. While no one has been executed in Pakistan under Section 295C of the PPC, the National Commission for Justice and Peace has recorded that 34 people – many of them Muslims — have been murdered for alleged blasphemy by individuals or frenzied mobs since 1986 when this clause was introduced by the then Parliament elected under military dictator Zia’s supervision.

Most of the victims were booked under the blasphemy laws – including Section 295B for defiling the Quran – and at least seven of them were killed or “committed suicide’’ under police watch. There have been instances when even judges who ordered acquittals of blasphemy accused have not been able to escape the fury of vigilantes. A most chilling instance, according to Jinnah Institute – one of the many organizations which have called for a review of Aasia Bibi’s case and repeal of the blasphemy laws – is the murder of Lahore High Court (LHC) judge Arif Iqbal Bhatti in 1997 for acquitting two Christian boys sentenced to death for blasphemy by a lower court.

So, in or out of prison, the fate of people booked under the blasphemy laws remains uncertain “as the `religious’ right wing – despite never having won a majority at the polls – wields disproportionate street power’’; primarily because the majority prefer to look the other way. Aasia Bibi’s impoverished husband and children have been on the run and now the primary concern of civil rights activists is her protection; especially with rewards being announced by hardline clerics for anyone who kills her in case she gets acquittal/pardon and threats being issued to those who dare to suggest amendments.

Repeal, under the circumstances, has been given up by even die-hard optimists among civil rights activists. According to lawyer Asad Jamal, “the time to seriously pursue repeal has not arrived; though it is good to keep suggesting that such laws will ultimately have to be repealed but let’s settle for amendments for now. It is simple politics. If you can’t kill the snake, try taking out the sting. Sherry Rehman’s proposed changes aims to take out most of the venom. I think a government besieged from all corners cannot be expected to even amend these laws. A government led by Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) is not likely to take up this cause. Other than PPP, Awami National Party and Muttahida Qaumi Movement, no party can be expected to join hands to alter these laws. And, right now even that is not possible.’’

This is a widely held view. “I don’t think our federal government, which is presently hostage to ethnic and sectarian militants, would even think of preventing misuse of the blasphemy law by incorporating necessary amendments in section 295C of PPC or consider adopting administrative measures to prevent this rampant misuse of blasphemy law in Pakistan to satisfy all kinds of prejudices of the complainants in vast majority of cases. This is unfortunately a most painful state of affairs,’’ laments Mr. Haider who – as part of then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s cabinet – had attempted to amend the law in 1994 in vain.

In fact, even the discourse that Ms. Rehman had hoped her Private Member’s Bill would provoke in the National Assembly has not been possible because of the delay in it being taken up. And, on Wednesday – two days ahead of the shutter down strike called by `religious’ right wing parties and organizations, federal Religious Affairs Minister Syed Khursheed Shah reiterated the Government’s commitment to the blasphemy laws on the floor of the National Assembly and clearly distanced the administration from the Private Member’s Bill; more so because Ms. Rehman belongs to the PPP.

A main change that her Bill proposes is doing away with the death sentence in 295C of PPC as this has been misused in a big way by people to settle scores with each other. Statistics testify this. In the 60 years since 1927 – when 295-A was introduced in the Penal Code and still remains both in India and Pakistan to prohibit blasphemy toward all religions and holy persons – there were less than 10 reported cases of blasphemy. Since 1986, nearly 1,000 people have been charged with blasphemy.

So, what Ms. Rehman’s Bill proposes to do is remove ambiguities in the law that provide scope for abuse and reduce punishments which have encouraged frivolous claims while introducing penal provisions for those making such allegations to settle personal scores. Also, the Bill moots removal of trial of cases under 295A-C from the sessions courts to High Courts as they are always under a higher degree of public scrutiny. Besides, as the MNA points out, sessions courts very often come under pressure; they get filled with mobs that then pressurize the judges.

With the `religious’ right wing parties mounting pressure on the Government against amending the blasphemy laws, civil rights activists are making an effort to rally together across the country to mobilize opinion under the banner of `Citizens for Democracy’. At the risk of coming across as pro-government, member organizations feel it is important to show visible support to the PPP-led federal dispensation in its initial intent to amend the blasphemy laws and for now view the Minister’s turnaround as an attempt to diffuse a potentially volatile situation.

Their mission is not easy in a country where any criticism of the blasphemy laws is immediately billed by the `religious’ right wingers as “anti-Islamic’’. Some are openly citing the example of the murder of the LHC judge to threaten the government and legislators. And, a petition has already been filed in the LHC asking it to stop Parliament from discussing any amendment to the blasphemy laws.

Such being the odds, civil rights organizations are banking on Mr. Zardari; citing the manner in which he pushed through the Human Organs Transplant Law despite stiff opposition. But, that was a long haul. And, this promises to be even more uphill; all the more now that PPP’s biggest coalition partner – the MQM which may have supported the amendments to maintain its secular credentials – has left the cabinet with the threat to withdraw support to the government at a time of its choosing.

by Anita Joshua/ The Hindu

 

 

US Embassy Information Office Press Release

Illegally Detained Diplomat Has Full Diplomatic Immunity

United States Calls for Pakistan to Adhere to Legal Obligations

Islamabad, February 3, 2011 – The United States Government once again calls upon the Government of Pakistan to abide by its obligations under international and Pakistani law and immediately release the American diplomat illegally detained in Lahore.  The U.S. Embassy reiterated to the Government of Pakistan today that his continued detention is a gross violation of international law.

The U.S. Government has repeatedly communicated to the Government of Pakistan that the illegally detained diplomat enjoys diplomatic immunities under the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations (1961).

The U.S. Government notified the Government of Pakistan on January 20, 2010 that the American diplomat was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad as a member of the administrative and technical staff.  Under the Vienna Convention and Pakistani domestic law, he is entitled to full criminal immunity and cannot be lawfully arrested or detained.

This morning, the American diplomat was remanded in court without notice to the U.S. government, without his lawyer present, and without translation assistance.  He was denied due process and a fair hearing.

We deeply regret that the January 27 events in Lahore resulted in the loss of life following an attack on the diplomat by armed assailants.  However, the Government of Pakistan must comply with its obligations under international and Pakistani law and ensure that he has immunity from criminal jurisdiction.

We look forward to working with the Government of Pakistan toward the expeditious resolution of this incident.  Responsibility for the safety and well-being of the illegally detained diplomat rests with the Government of Pakistan and Punjab provincial authorities.

###
Information Office
Public Affairs Section
U.S. Embassy Islamabad
Pakistan

 

The Mubarak Legend

By Arnaud De Borchgrave
UPI Editor at Large
President Hosni Mubarak has been at the top or near the top of the Egyptian pyramid since 1975 when he was appointed vice president by his friend and mentor President Anwar Sadat.

A fighter pilot, he was trained at the Soviet air force academy at Bishkek, then Soviet Kyrgyzstan. And as chief of staff of the Egyptian air force in 1971, he bluffed his Soviet air force advisers into a humiliating defeat.

It was during the 1969-1971 War of Attrition that followed Egypt’s total defeat in the 1967 Six Day War. The three major Egyptian cities along the canal — Suez, Ismailia and Port Said — had been leveled by Israeli bombs. Some 18,000 Soviets military advisers were in Egypt, courtesy of Gamal Abdel Nasser. They had installed batteries of SAM-2 anti-aircraft missiles to cover the 103-mile length of the Suez Canal, against Israeli air attacks.

As chief of staff of the Egyptian air force, Mubarak’s Soviet advisers informed him they had detected a gap in the Israeli radar screen around the Sinai Peninsula, which was occupied by Israel. They told him this was a golden opportunity to fly through the gap and drop a few bombs on Israeli-occupied Sharm el-Sheik as a morale-booster for a dispirited Egyptian population.

A skeptical Mubarak declined the invitation.

Five Soviet pilots climbed into Egypt’s MIG-21s and were ordered through the radar gap to bomb Sharm el-Sheik. Israeli fighters were waiting for them. Four of the Russian-piloted Egyptian aircraft were shot down. One skedaddled back to base. A Russian general was recalled to Moscow.

The Mubarak legend was established. He was promoted to deputy minister of war and, following the Yom Kippur War, he went up another rung to air chief marshal. Sadat had found a successor.

This reporter interviewed Mubarak a dozen times over 30 years. Perhaps the wisest piece of advice came in a lengthy conversation in Sharm el-Sheik, less than a week after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that caught me in the region.

“I know you are going to retaliate massively but there is one thing you must not do,” he said. “Do not send American troops to fight a new war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Such an operation must be conducted by Muslim troops alone.”

If U.S. troops and other NATO contingents are dispatched, he added, America will find itself cast as the villain in a war against Islam, “which is precisely what Taliban wants.”

So what would he suggest? I asked. “Egyptian, Jordanian and Moroccan troops, for example,” he said. “And don’t forget the Pakistanis. They had a lot to do with standing up the Taliban after the Soviets pulled out following 10 years of failed operations.”

Mubarak contributed two Egyptian divisions to the liberation of Kuwait in the first Gulf War (1990-91).

He is now paying the price for having been a close ally of the United States, a phenomenon that has achieved cliche status. He was sitting next to Sadat when Islamist extremists in the army riddled him with bullets, assassinated for signing a peace treaty with Israel.

Between the first and second world wars, Egypt hovered between faux colonialism and faux democracy, between bad and worse. It has only known six years of real democracy (1946-52) in its 5,000-year history.

Much has been written about revolutions occurring because the masses are poor and their conditions beyond tolerable. Egypt has to produce 1 million new jobs a year to keep up with population growth and more than half of its 83 million people eke out an existence on $2 a day.

The million-strong anti-Mubarak demonstration in Cairo’s Liberation Square was a bread-and-circuses affair that demanded blood — Mubarak’s.

Lame duck president, dead man walking, said would-be President Mohammed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who could see himself as an interim successor. Mubarak pledged he wouldn’t be running for president again in the fall, which was his intention all along, as he maneuvered to get his 48-year-old son Gamal into the job. Now both are out with no redeeming features.

With the Gamal ploy now squelched by Twitter, Facebook, al-Jazeera’s platoon of strategically placed correspondents openly siding with the million-plus demonstrators, Mubarak was backed into an electronic corner.

The conscript army is Egypt’s most respected — and popular — institution. It moved in after the police, unable to cope, was overwhelmed. Inmates from four Cairo prisons escaped in the confusion. Vandalized stores, houses and apartments followed.

The army’s tanks and armored personnel carriers — all U.S. supplied with an annual $1.2 billion in U.S. defense aid as compensation for the 1978 Camp David accords that established normal diplomatic relations with Israel — kept huge crowds from spinning out of control.

The main concern in the White House, State Department, Pentagon and governments throughout the Arab and Muslim world is the notorious Muslim Brotherhood. It stands for Islamic Shariah law and is close to the Iran-funded Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.

On Jan. 26, 1952, the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorists torched some 300 buildings, including the old Shepherds (where this reporter had arrived the day before), and many luxury stores in Cairo. This led to martial law — and six months later to a bloodless army coup that ended the monarchy and brought Nasser to power, where he stayed for the next 18 years.

The Muslim Brotherhood tried and failed to kill Nasser in 1954.

During World War II, it sympathized with the Nazis against what it then called the colonial occupation of Egypt.

In recent years, officially banned, it has morphed into a regular political party and commands about 20 percent of the popular vote. Its political philosophy is certainly closer to Iran’s thuggish theocrats than to what they brand American colonialism.

Democracy in today’s Egypt is the antithesis of stability.

 

 

Malawi Moves to Ban Farting

As if to prove their incompetence, Malawi’s government has confirmed reports that it intends to outlaw breaking wind in public.

The African nation’s justice ministry says the proposed legislation is part of a wider campaign to “mould responsible and disciplined citizens”.

Local media is questioning how the proposed law will be enforced when it is so easy to blame the offence on others.

 

 

“You’re not God. I’m not your subordinate. I’m a person just like you.”

by Dalia Mogahed        The Huffington Post

During my visit to Cairo last month, I witnessed an incident that today seems almost prophetic. At one of Cairo’s posh coffee shops, I saw a customer screaming at the young man serving him, claiming that the waiter had shown him disrespect. The young worker responded firmly, “I did nothing wrong. You yelled at me.” “Do you know who I am?” the customer slammed back. He then went on to demand that the cafe manager reprimand the worker publicly, by, in the customers’ words, “dragging the dog’s honor in the dirt.”

Anyone familiar with Cairo has seen this scenario too many times: a member of the “protected” upper class elite abuses a member of the working class for a trivial perceived offense. What came next however was new. Instead of cowering into an apology, the young worker looked his accuser in the eye and said, “You’re not God. I’m not your subordinate. I’m a person just like you.”

Many Western analysts and media outlets are attempting to force categorize Egypt’s uprising as either a secular demand for democracy (which we should therefore support) or a religious revolution (which we should fear and try to stop). Neither depiction captures the complexity or the opportunity of this historical moment in Egypt. To truly partner with the Egyptian people, as President Obama recently promised, U.S. policymakers must first develop a far more sophisticated understanding of Egyptian aspirations.

Ordinary Egyptians’ growing sense of self worth fuels the current popular anti-government uprising, not any political ideology or charismatic leader. It is a belief that citizens should no longer have to endure the daily humiliation of economic and political stagnation. The protesters represent a wide cross section of Egyptian society who demand justice, as they call for Muslim-Christian solidarity. They wave Egyptian flags, not specific opposition party banners or sectarian symbols.

At the same time, Egyptians’ rising religiosity may very well play a role in this development, just as faith often animated our own civil rights struggle. If Tunisia’s success story was the match that ignited Egypt’s popular uprising, decreased tolerance for injustice — in some cases born out of a religious awakening — provided the fuel. Gallup found that Egyptians were the most likely in the region to say moving toward greater democracy would help Muslims progress, and the most likely to agree that attachment to spiritual and moral values would similarly lead to a brighter future. This duality stands strong in the country with the highest percentage of people in the world affirming that religion is an important part of their daily lives. Surveys show that Egyptians prefer democracy over all other forms of government. They also say that religion plays a positive role in politics.

The majority of Egyptians want democracy and see no contradiction between the change they seek and the timeless values to which they surrender. More than 90 percent of Egyptians say they would guarantee freedom of the press if it were up to them to write a constitution for a new country. Moreover, most Egyptians say they favor nothing more than an advisory role for religious leaders in the crafting of legislation. Egyptians choose democracy informed by sacred values, not theocracy with a democratic veneer.

U.S. policy makers would do well to embrace this nuance, which to us as Americans should sound familiar. From abolitionists to the civil rights movement, American leaders have drawn inspiration from their faith in their pursuit of justice. Today, some of the loudest voices in the United States calling for environmental preservation, an end to torture or global poverty eradication are faith leaders. I witnessed this first hand when serving on the White House Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships advisory council. Religious and secular leaders and scholars from different backgrounds sat at one table to find solutions to our country’s toughest challenges, each drawing on their individual ethical tradition for the common good.

Our country’s unique history and passion for social justice makes us natural partners to the Egyptian people in their struggle for a better future. Moreover, there is hunger on both sides for greater cooperation. Gallup surveys found that the majority of both Americans and Egyptians say greater interaction between Muslims and the West is a benefit not a threat, despite Egyptian disapproval of U.S. policies in their region.

The continuing popular protests in the most influential and populated Arab country may represent the future of the Middle East. U.S. policy makers cannot afford to alienate this movement by failing to understand its intricacies. Faith is a part of Egypt, but most Egyptians do not support the rule of clerics. They seek the rule of law.