Lebanon camp clashes

More people are dying from the clashes between the Lebanese army and Fatah al-Islam militants who are currently beseiging a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon. So far, 100 people have died, including civilians.

The UN says about 25,000 people have fled the camp but some of the 31,000 original residents remain trapped inside.

The army said some of the militants were using civilians as human shields and called on the militants to surrender.

This is the background story of what's going on. Basically, Fatah al-Islam appears to be a new militant group that follows al-Qaeda's radical ideology.

The leader of Fatah al-Islam, Shaker al-Abssi, had reported links with Abu Musab Zarqawi, who led al-Qaeda in Iraq until he was killed last year.

On the other hand, the Lebanese government perceives Fatah al-Islam to be Syrian intelligence, though the Syria government denies all links.

The government regards Fatah al-Islam as an instrument of Syrian intelligence. It believes the timing of the current crisis is linked to efforts to set up an international tribunal into the killing in 2005 of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Syria denies involvement in the assassination, but its critics suspect it is trying to destabilise Lebanon in order to block the creation of the tribunal.

Which is the truth?

lina joy lost

Lina Joy lost.

Malaysia rejects Christian appeal

Ms Joy was disowned by her family and forced to quit her job

Malaysia's highest court has rejected a Muslim convert's six-year battle to be legally recognised as a Christian.

A three-judge panel ruled that only the country's Sharia Court could let Azlina Jailani, now known as Lina Joy, remove the word Islam from her identity card.

Malaysia's constitution guarantees freedom of worship but says all ethnic Malays are Muslim. Under Sharia law, Muslims are not allowed to convert.

Ms Joy said she should not be bound by that law as she is no longer a Muslim.

Death threats

Malaysia's Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said the panel endorsed legal precedents giving Islamic Sharia courts jurisdiction over cases involving Muslims who want to convert.

About 200 protesters shouted "Allah-o-Akbar" (God is great) outside the court when the ruling was announced.

"You can't at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another," Ahmad Fairuz said.

Ms Joy's case has tested the limits of religious freedom in Malaysia.

She started attending church in 1990 and was baptised in 1998.

In 2000, Ms Joy, 42, went to the High Court after the National Registration Department refused to remove "Islam" from the religion column on her identity card. The court said it was a matter for Sharia courts. Tuesday's ruling marked the end of her final appeal.

Ms Joy has been disowned by her family and forced to quit her job. She went into hiding last year. A Muslim lawyer who supported her case received death threats.

Sharia courts decide on civil cases involving Malaysian Muslims - nearly 60% of the country's 26 million people - while ethnic minorities such as Chinese and Indians are governed by civil courts in the multi-racial country.

Well, this was expected. Again, the sanctity of the Federal Constitution as the ruling law over all Malaysian citizens is violated. It is ironic that the dominant group in Malaysia, the Muslims, are not given the right to choose to enter or exit their own religion. Freedom of religion is a basic human right; yet, even the most powerful group in Malaysia are not accorded that simple right.

Is there a silver lining in this dismal event? Perhaps...possible riots were averted. But, how long can they keep this up? Might the Malay Muslims rise up to demand the right to choose their own religion? Most probably not...probably because many perceive that the cost of a human right is a small price to pay for an uncountable number of advantages--political, cultural, and social. Correct me if I'm wrong...but Prophet Muhammad never forced Muslims to remain Muslims. It was not a legal crime to commit apostasy.

Lina Joy decision on Wed

The Federal Court is finally deciding on the Lina Joy case--on Wednesday.

Wednesday decision on Lina Joy

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has set next Wednesday for the delivery of its decision on the appeal of Lina Joy against the Court of Appeal’s majority ruling two years ago, that the National Registration Department was right in not allowing her application to delete the word “Islam” from her identity card.

Lina’s solicitor Benjamin Dawson confirmed May 30 as the date of decision yesterday.

On July 3 last year, Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judge Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff reserved their judgment to a date to be fixed.

Lina, 42, was born Azlina Jailani to Malay parents. She was brought up as a Muslim but at the age of 26 decided to become a Christian.

In 1999, she changed the name in her identity card to Lina Joy but her religion remained as Islam.

On April 23, 2001, the High Court refused to decide on her application to renounce Islam as her religion on grounds that the Syariah Court should decide the issue.

It also dismissed her application for an order to direct the department to drop the word “Islam” from her identity card.

Will the Federal Court uphold Article 11 in the Federal Constitution, and decide in her favor? Probably not, especially with the general elections so near. It's very possible that BN would lose many Malay votes if the Federal Court ruled in her favor. If by some miracle, they did--then this would set a precedent for many other religious conversion cases, and finally stamp the Federal Constitution's authority as THE ruling law of Malaysia.

sex crimes and the vatican

The Roman Catholic church never seems to be free of these sex scandals.

Italian TV urged to scrap BBC film accusing Pope of abuse cover-up

John Hooper in Rome
Monday May 21, 2007
The Guardian

Italy's public broadcasting corporation, RAI, was accused yesterday of withholding approval for the screening of a controversial BBC documentary that accuses Pope Benedict of covering up sex crimes by Roman Catholic priests.

In a pre-emptive strike last Saturday, the newspaper of the Italian bishops launched a furious attack on the film, describing it as "fit only for the dustbin". A front page article in the daily Avvenire said the producers "should bow their heads and ask forgiveness".

The head of the parliamentary committee that oversees RAI, Mario Landolfi of the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance, said yesterday that he had written to the director-general urging him not to allow screening of the documentary. To do so would be to turn the public network into an "execution squad ready to open fire on the church and the pope", he said.

The row has blown up at a time when the Catholic church in Italy is bringing its weight to bear in public life more than at any time since the demise of the country's Christian Democrat party. Last weekend, lay groups brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators on to the streets of Rome to protest at a move by the centre-left government to give legal rights to unmarried couples, including same-sex couples.

Reports in several Italian newspapers said yesterday that the producers of a programme on RAI TV's second channel had agreed a price with the BBC for the purchase of "Sex Crimes and the Vatican", which was screened by Panorama in Britain last October. It caused a storm of controversy and prompted the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, to complain to the BBC's director-general.

The documentary said that in 2001, Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had issued an updated version of an order that was used to silence the victims of sexual abuse. The film was made by Colm O'Gorman, founder of a charity for abuse victims.

The Roman Catholic church accused Mr O'Gorman of misrepresenting the documentary evidence. It said that the Vatican's directive, first issued in 1962, was intended to avoid the misuse of information gathered in confessional. It imposed an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest and any witness.

The BBC documentary said this was meant to protect the priest's reputation during the investigation, but could "offer a blueprint for cover-up".

The document was revised to deal more specifically with sex abuse cases. Both the original and revised versions were kept secret. They came to light in the US in 2003 when their existence was widely reported in the US media.

Panorama's documentary had gone virtually unnoticed in Italy until this month when a subtitled version was put up on a website. It has since found its way to the Italian version of Google video, where it has become far and away the most frequently viewed item.

RAI wanted to give the film a wider audience by screening it on a popular current affairs and discussion programme. The daily La Repubblica said yesterday that the agreed price was within the programme's budget, but "at RAI, no one wants to take the responsibility of signing [the contract]".

Of course, the Church has good reason not to want the screening of that documentary. The ethical question is, should it be screened? It is easy for people to say 'yes' for reasons being that the truth should be unveiled to all. Freedom of speech activists will clamor for the right to view the documentary, and be allowed to decide for themselves if the documentary contains truth. Should the truth be revealed at the cost of the sanctity of a church tradition--the confessional? Showing the documentary would violate the sacredness of the confessional--as the identities of the offending priest, witnesses and victims (possibly) are revealed.

Even if someone were to confess murder, the priest is ethically and spiritually bound not to reveal a single detail of that confession to anyone else. Such a great responsibility is usually only carried by people of great spirituality and integrity. So, if such a person breaks the trust accorded to him by sexually violating a child, should the power of the confessional still be valid for that fallen priest?

I think that it should not. Why should priests hide from legal punishment behind the protective veil of the confessional? Something good should not be used to condone an evil act.

condoms or abstinence?

Apparently, the Health Ministry is not allowed to promote condoms openly, for fear the people will think that they are promoting promiscuity.

Harder to Prevent HIV Spread

KUALA LUMPUR: Preventing the spread of HIV in Malaysia may have hit a snag with the Health Ministry being unable to openly promote the use of condoms.

Health Ministry deputy director of disease control (AIDS/STD) Dr Jalal Halil Khalil said this could lead to prevention programmes being less effective.

“It may slow down the effectiveness of prevention. It is difficult to promote the open usage of condoms,” he said after attending a Malaysian AIDS Council (MAC) International AIDS Memorial Day function.

“The ministry likes to promote it but not openly. We let the NGOs (non-governmental organisations) do the work. It is not to say that we advertise the use of condoms on TV but we use different ways of communicating it or else people will think we are promoting promiscuity.”

As of December 2006, there were 76,000 HIV/AIDS cases in Malaysia with more than 6,000 new cases diagnosed last year.

The main method of HIV transmission in the country is still through the sharing of needles, which accounts for 75% of the cases.

There is, however, an increase of infection through heterosexual relationships where the number of women infected with HIV has increased 10 times from 1.2% in 1990 to 12% in 2005.

Dr Jalal Halil said that while Malaysians were aware of AIDS and how to prevent it from spreading, the knowledge had yet to translate into action.

MAC president Prof Dr Adeeba Kamarulzaman said that while the Government wanted to work with NGOs on condom usage, there were still “difficult laws” in which marginalised groups who worked in brothels could be charged under anti-vice laws if they were found with condoms.

She said that when it came to the general public, the question was not only about condoms but that individuals did not realise the high risk of having casual sex.

“When we ask, most people are more conscious about condoms preventing pregnancies rather than HIV.”

Those who oppose condom use are probably the ones who advocate abstinence, claiming that it's 100 % effective. Sure it is, if you can actually stick to your abstinence vow all the way till marriage. How many people can actually do that?A recent study presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Psychological Society (APS) found that over 60% of college students who had pledged virginity during their middle or high school years had broken their vow to remain abstinent until marriage.

Uganda managed to bring down its HIV prevalence in the population from 15 % in 1991 to 5 % by 2001. This was mainly due to its ABC slogan of Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms. Scientists conclude that the biggest impact on reducing HIV rates is from having fewer sexual partners. Other countries like Zambia, Jamaica, Cambodia and Thailand, that promote both abstinence and condom use, have reduced HIV rates.

So, which is better--abstinence or condoms? Of course, abstinence will work all the time. The thing is, can most people actually practice abstinence? Many studies show that people break their abstinence pledges. Of course, perhaps more people can abstain if abstinence-only education is hammered at them consistently from childhood all the way to young adulthood. Yet, how easy is it to practice abstinence in a culture of sex, sex and more sex? Books, songs, movies, newspapers, advertisements all contain sexual images and connotations. How can you hear a voice calling for abstinence in the midst of a million other voices telling you to just go and fuck someone? Only when we change this culture of sex can we plausibly practice abstinence. But, isn't it easier to slip on a condom than to try and change an entire culture?

may 13 book not seized

Now, the Internal Security Ministry is denying that it seized the May 13 book that was recently published.

Ministry checking contents of May 13 book

KUANTAN: The Internal Security Ministry denied that it had seized 10 copies of the book on May 13, clarifying that it had only taken the books to check the contents.

The books would be returned if they contained nothing that violated the Printing Press and Publications Act 1984.

Its Deputy Minister, Datuk Fu Ah Kiow, said news reports stating that the books were seized were incorrect and believed that the matter was being deliberately blown out of proportion to gain publicity.

“It is just a very ordinary procedure, something that the officers will do if they receive reports about any publication that may be unfavourable for the public.

“They will still carry out their duties even if there is no report,” he told reporters after opening the SK Tanah Putih Baru parent-teacher association meeting yesterday.

Fu was asked to comment on the books taken from a bookstore in Mid-Valley Megamall in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday.

Fu said his officers were still reading the contents.

“The book is not a regular publication but a one-off publication. It does not need a permit.

“However, the ministry still has the responsibility of checking the contents of any publication to see to it that it did not go against the Printing Press and Publications Act 1984,” Fu said.

The Printing Press and Publications Act 1984 is a law that requires all print media to renew their permits annually. If deemed "likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality, or security"; likely to "alarm public opinion", or likely to be "prejudicial to...national interest", the Home Affairs Ministry has a right to ban that publication outright. And the worst part is, once that happens, you can't appeal against it. "Any decision of the Minister . . . to suspend a license or permit shall be final and shall not be called in question by any court on any ground whatsoever," and "[n]o person shall be given an opportunity to be heard with regard to . . . suspension of the license or permit" according to the act. (Article 13A-13B.)

I do not disagree with banning publications that can cause civil violence or racial riots. But, I think that we have been living in the shadow of May 13 for too long, the ghost of which is repeatedly resurrected by the government to instill fear in us. Do we stop searching for the truth just because we might find skeletons in the closet? Some people might actually agree--those who place more importance on preserving their money and peace, rather than on truth. Will a book necessarily lead to racial riots? No. Did the Holocaust happen because of Hitler's violently anti-Semitic book--the Mein Kampf? No.

When people have dialogue and debates over an issue or event, it is less likely that violence will occur. It is only when people are ignorant and hold misconceptions towards each other that violence is used. Whether we like it or not, there is only a thin veneer of racial harmony in Malaysia. There's a lot of things boiling underneath the surface. One spark is all it takes to ignite it, and the government fears that this May 13 book may be that spark. However, I do not think it will be. Why? If the government encourages dialogue over this book and what really happened in May 13, that might help people to think critically over the causes of May 13, and how to avoid it now. Right now, a lot of us have just a fuzzy idea: May 13 is a terrible incident which should be avoided at all costs. We don't know exactly how it started, what were the underlying factors (besides the trigger) etc.

We can only move forward into the future if we have the guts to first face our past.

not enough for Fong

Now, the MPs have apologized to ALL women. Is that enough for MP Fong Po Kuan? Apparently not.

Apology ain't good enough, says Fong
Yoges Palaniappan
May 18, 07 4:00pm

DAP parliamentarian Fong Po Kuan, who bore the brunt of the sexist
remarks made by her Barisan Nasional counterparts Bung Mokthar Radin and
Mohd Said Yusof, is not satisfied with their public apology.

The two apologised to “all women in the country offended by the remarks”
following a meeting with Women, Family and Community Development
Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil this morning.

However, Fong claimed that Bung Mokthar and Mohd Said were not sincere.

"They’re not sincere, especially after what happened on Wednesday where
they apologised and later retracted their apologies," she said when
contacted.

“They are not remorseful. They are just finding excuses to justify their
behaviour by saying it was necessary to do it to defend the government
during debates in the Parliament," she added.

Fong, who feels that an apology is not sufficient punishment for the
duo, said she will discuss with DAP leaders regarding her next move.

Long-term solution

Meanwhile, Women’s Development Collective (WDC) executive director Maria
Chin Abdullah said the focus should be on a long-term solution.

“An apology is just a small part, I rather not focus so much on it. What
is more important is that whether they are going to do it again, and
what will be done if it occurs again?” she said.

Maria told malaysiakini that the government has an obligation to ensure
that sexism does not occur in Parliament again.

“We don’t want to go through the same exercise of staging protests and
accepting apologies from MPs again and again,” she said, adding that a
stop must be put to this.

“MPs like Bung Mokhtar and Badruddin Amiruldin (BN-Jerai) have a history
of hurling sexist remarks in Parliament. It has been happening since
1995 and it cannot be allowed anymore,” she said.

Maria said any MP who uses derogatory remarks against women should be
suspended and his pay and allowances cut until his suspension is over.

“We also propose that the (errant) MPs be made to do community service
with a women’s organisation for that period,” she added.

I like the last suggestion--making male chauvinist pig MPs do work for women's organizations. What a humbling experience! Then perhaps, they will learn how to behave like gentlemen and treat women courteously.