Capital Punishment - Why Yakub Memon's hanging should have been telecast live

Mike Ghouse for India | http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-yakub-memons-hanging-should-have.html

I am pleased to share my thoughts about Capital punishment and the deliberate killing of the criminal Yakub Memon, as this has become the most talked about death penalty in the nation. 

I have been opposed to Capital punishment from the early 80�s, however, I have slipped twice since then; first when I heard about a guy who raped my friends� daughter, and a Houston woman who killed 7 of her children for claiming insurance. All other times, I have stood firmly with the idea that the society cannot act like outrageous beasts and we cannot deliberately kill an individual no matter what caused him to be a killer.

In a democracy, civility goes hand in hand. If everything is just in a society all goes well, but when injustice occurs directly, indirectly or remotely, bad things multiply in the society, and it will take time to restore dharma � the righteousness. Justice and Fairness are the pillars of any society; a good system ensures trust, prosperity and peace for all.

Who do you blame when some punk shoots the cashier at a 7/11 for a few bucks? His parents, his community or his situation? What if that man or woman was raised where you and I were raised? Is society responsible for creating such a monster? Should we punish that monster? Will that end more monsters?

Of course the state shamelessly kills its criminals either through a lethal injection as in Texas or chopping the head off in public as in Saudi Arabia. Both acts are disgusting and barbaric. In the early 80�s I was appalled with an Indian judge who was visiting,  his unflinching take on death penalty was just plain shocking, I thought being a judge, he would have debated, hesitated or would have reservations� NONE Whatsoever!

I have written quite a lot on the topic, but the following paragraph expressed my sentiments very well. �Today, the Indian state has shown itself to be no better than Tiger Memon. Tiger planned the bombings in retaliation to the terrible violence against Muslims that followed in the wake of Babri Masjid demolition. We have terminated his brother's life to extract vengeance for the blasts.

Tiger's act was a reaction of a hotheaded criminal; we sent his brother to the gallows after keeping him in jail for 22 years - what could be more cynical and cold-hearted than that. What ends of justice does that serve now? Are we safer from his judicial elimination? How have we shown ourselves to be different from those we condemn? �

I am citing a beautiful example, which you will find them in all societies. This by no way exonerates any society; criminals are in every group of people.  Hazrat Umar once commuted an order to cut the hands of a thief as a punishment. He discovered that the man stole the food to feed his children. Umar took the blame on the society for creating such a desperate situation for individuals to resort to such a thing.  I hope we all start thinking what is just instead of blindly applying the laws. We the Americans are no exception to that.

The following column is a compelling article to read.

Mike is a speaker, thinker, writer, pluralist,  TV-Radio commentator and a human rights activist committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. His info in 63 links at MikeGhouse.net and writings at TheGhouseDiary.com

# # #

Why Yakub Memon's hanging should have been telecast live
Courtesy of Catch News. com

MANISHA SETHI@catchnews

|30 July 2015

The verdict

• Supreme Court's late night hearing on Yakub Memon's punishment was a charade
• It was a way of projecting that we give a fair trial "even to a terrorist"

The double standards

• While we celebrate Yakub's execution, we are asked to forget the 1992 Mumbai riots
• We speak of "closure" for blast victims but ask riot victims to "move on"

The bloodlust

• On television, there were grotesque blow-by-blow accounts of the run-up to the execution
• Given our vicarious pleasure, his hanging should have been public, preferably telecast live

Till the end, till the very last minute possible, the charade of due process was played out. Three judges who had rejected Yakub Memon's petition in the day deliberated upon his lawyers' plea once again till early morning. Some were irked by what they saw as Memon's delaying tactics - as though a condemned man should go gently into the night, without fuss, abandoning the human instinct for self-preservation. Others gushed at the greatness of our judicial system. The Supreme Court by constituting a bench in the middle of the night had displayed extraordinary accommodation towards Memon. What further proof did we need that we give a fair trial "even to terrorists"?

First, there was nothing unprecedented about a late night sitting of the Supreme Court. In 2014, Chief Justice HL Dattu stayed Surinder Koli's imminent hanging through a late night order after his lawyers woke him up at 1 am.

Second, though Yakub's death warrant was issued before he had exhausted his legal rights - a clear violation of the 'procedure established by law' to precede a death sentence - the Supreme Court finally upheld it, both in the day, as well as in the dramatic early morning hearing.

But, more importantly, we would do well to remember that Yakub was tried and convicted under TADA, a law that was allowed to lapse less than a year after his return to India.

In May 1995 - as the Mumbai blasts trial was proceeding in the TADA court - the Parliament decided not to grant extension to this law. The law was not renewed because it militated against every shred of the values and principles embodied in our Constitution.

Burgeoning evidence of rank prejudice in its application, its rampant use as an instrument for witch-hunting and vendetta, forced us to acknowledge that such a law could not have a place in a democracy.

However, cases such as Memon's, already filed under TADA, continued as though the draconian law was still in existence.

So let us disabuse ourselves of the notion that law - objective, blind, undiscriminating law has spoken.

Today, the Indian state has shown itself to be no better than Tiger Memon. Tiger planned the bombings in retaliation to the terrible violence against Muslims that followed in the wake of Babri Masjid demolition. We have terminated his brother's life to extract vengeance for the blasts.

Tiger's act was a reaction of a hotheaded criminal; we sent his brother to the gallows after keeping him in jail for 22 years - what could be more cynical and cold-hearted than that. What ends of justice does that serve now? Are we safer from his judicial elimination? How have we shown ourselves to be different from those we condemn?

Yakub was tried and convicted under TADA, a law that lapsed less than a year after his return to India

The sanctimonious bile of media commentators asks us not to think of the Muslim victims of 1992 riots or the Srikrishna Commission Report, to forget that only three people were ever convicted for the anti-Muslim violence, one of whom, the Shiv Sena MLA Madhukar Sarpotdar did not serve a single day of his one-year sentence.

To raise the question of selective justice is to 'politicise' Yakub's hanging, which has after all, gone through all the legal motions.

Only the deliberately blind will fail to see that there are two parallel worlds of law: one affords 'closure', the other urges you to 'move on'; one, which grants last minute clemency and reprieve, the other, determined to sacrifice a life.

Law will take its own course surely, but the course it charts will be strikingly different in different cases.

And then there are our lynch mobs. On television, there was a grotesque, almost orgasmic obsession with the "last hours of Yakub Memon".

Blow by blow accounts - graphically and dramatically rendered - of how Yakub would be given a new set of clothes, how he would be provided with a copy of the Quran, what breakfast he might be offered, were aired non stop.

In one, an officer who had been on the investigating team of the 26/11 attacks, excitedly showed how Yakub's hands would be tied at the back when he takes his last walk - from his cell to the phansi yard.

Have we plumbed the depths of our moral abyss? Perhaps not. But it's still possible to.

Why did they execute Yakub inside the walls of the jail? His hanging should have been public, preferably telecast live. The keepers of our collective conscience should have cheered as Yakub walked to the gallows, his hands tied at the back. We could have swooned and thrown stones and bottles at him as the hangman covered his face with a hood.

We could all have held our breath as his neck snapped, and then broken into a raucous cry as his body turned limp. Surely, in such a carnivalesque celebration of death, we would have deepened our sense of justice, our faith in the processes of law, and in the fairness of our democracy.

Why stop at vicarious pleasures. Let us degrade and debase ourselves completely.

The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect of the organisation.

#ilovemalcolm: Tariq Ali on Malcolm X at Oxford

Whose Sharia Is It? by Kecia Ali

It has been a lousy month for Islamic law.

First, there was the kidnapping and threatened sale of Nigerian girls by Boko Haram, which claimed religious acceptability for their acts. As Muslim theologian Jerusha Lamptey opined, this is not my sharia.

Then, the Sultan of Brunei�s horrific new penal code came into effect. Unlike the Nigerian girls, where a social media campaign garnered White House attention, the Brunei law gained visibility because the Sultan�who is dictating law that his track record suggests he does not observe�indirectly owns the famous Beverly Hills Hotel. Hollywood figures have objected to the rules, due to come into effect next year, which would punish proven male-male anal sex with death. (As far as I know, the code does not prescribe any particular punishment for lesbian acts, though the rhetoric has become that the new law prescribes �stoning gays and lesbians.�)

Claims like that of the Sultan or Boko Haram that �Islam� demands implementation of �sharia� ignore the complex reality in which there is not now nor has there ever been a uniform set of identifiable rules that Muslim scholars have agreed on much less that governments in Muslim majority countries have implemented over the centuries. As I wrote elsewhere, so-called sharia laws on the books in Brunei, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Morocco are not directly revealed by God. They are human products with human histories negotiated in human contexts. The pretense that these laws are straightforward implementations of God�s will not only serves to justify these otherwise unjustifiable rules but also feeds the demonization and dehumanization of Muslims. Though happening on two continents and perpetrated by two quite distinct sorts of actors � a multibillionaire monarch enmeshed in global capitalism and a militant anti-Western, anti-government insurgency � the Nigerian kidnapping and the Brunei law became exhibits A and B for the vilification of sharia.

And then I heard an NPR story about Sudan�s intended flogging and execution of Meriam Ibrahim for apostasy and illicit sex. My first response, as someone who writes and teaches about Islamic law and is committed to understanding it in all its historical complexity: how barbaric.

That was followed by resignation. Why bother to advocate for more sophisticated understandings of Islamic law? What is the use in pointing out that the claims of timelessness authenticity are groundless? So what if these versions of Islamic law are selective, partial, implemented by dictators with populist pretensions and monarchs with captive constituencies? They still apply it. And yes, it�s true that Americans generally aren�t interested in threats to Muslim lives or well-being or African lives or well-being except when there is a sensational story to be made (drone attacks don�t cut it). Doesn�t matter; this is still happening, and it�s wrong.

My �what�s the use?� phase shifted into the simmering anger phase once I began to think about why exactly this version of Islamic law holds sway. It�s patriarchy straight down the line.

The charge of apostasy is based on the claim that Ibrahim was born Muslim: her religion follows that of her (Muslim) father, who left her (Christian) mother when Ibrahim was young. She was apparently raised Christian. Patriarchy allows interreligious marriage between a Muslim man and a Christian woman, but not the reverse, and supports the presumption that the child�s religion follows that of its father.

The charge of illicit sex for which Ibrahim has been sentenced to lashes results from the court deeming her marriage to a Christian man void. Since she is considered Muslim (because of her father�s religion), and since, unlike the situation in her parents� marriage, marriage between a Muslim woman and a Christian man cannot be valid, the court determined that she had sex outside of marriage. Her toddler, and the child growing in her belly, prove her offense. Score another one for patriarchy.

According to reports, Ibrahim�s case was brought to the attention of the authorities by some relatives (presumably Muslim ones) who objected to her marriage to a Christian. As far as the charge of illicit sex goes, a premodern court would almost certainly have applied the doubt rule: essentially, if there are anygrounds for exoneration � such as the fact that the woman thought her marriage was valid � avert the punishment. Apostasy, too, seems to have been seldom punished in practice, however strongly the rule was upheld in theory. One can make a case that as with Brunei�s new penal code or the Boko Haram kidnapping, the Sudanese verdict represents a modern and profoundly problematic view of Islamic law.

At the moment, though, I am less interested in insisting on the nuance and variability of traditional Islamic law and more on critiquing its powerful patriarchal presuppositions. However tempered they were in past practice by judicial clemency, they lay the ground for the charges against Ibrahim. Of course we need to remember that context matters: we will not understand these developments in Nigeria or Brunei or the Sudan without reference to national and global politics, economics, and � in the last case � individual family dynamics; Islamic law is only part of the picture. And yet it is a key piece of the picture. Rethinking Islamic law without questioning its basic presumptions about male dominance will not take us nearly far enough.

Whose sharia is this? It is certainly not mine. I cannot believe that it is God�s.

Kecia Ali, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Religion at Boston University where she teaches a range of classes related to Islam. She writes on early Islamic law, women, ethics, and biography. Her books include Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur�an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence (2006), Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam (2010), Imam Shafi�i: Scholar and Saint (2011) and The Lives of Muhammad (due out this fall). She lives in the Boston area with her family.

 Source

Harvard recognises Quranic verse as one of the greatest expressions of justice

Harvard Law School, one of the most prestigious institutions of its kind in the world, has posted a verse of the Holy Quraan at the entrance of its faculty library, describing the verse as one of the greatest expressions of justice in history.

Verse 135 of Surah Al Nisa (The Women) has been posted at a wall facing the faculty�s main entrance, dedicated to the best phrases articulating justice:

�O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah , even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted�

According to a Saudi daily, a Saudi student who studies at Harvard first highlighted the development when he published a picture of the display on his Twitter page.

�I noticed that the verse was posted by the faculty of law, which described it as one of the greatest expressions for justice in history,� Abdullah Jumma said.

Established in 1817, Harvard is the oldest continually-operating law school in the United States and is home to the largest academic law library in the world. Among its alumni is US President Barack Obama and a host of influential journalists, writers, media and business leaders and even professional athletes.

According to its official website, The Words of Justice exhibition is a testimony of the endurance of humanity�s yearning for fairness and dignity through law. �The words on these walls affirm the power and irrepressibility of the idea of justice.�

There are approximately two dozen quotations on display in the art installation created by the Law School. The three most prominently displayed at the entrance of the art installation, are quotes from St. Augustine, the Holy Quraan and the Magna Carta. According to the Harvard Law School these quotations illustrate the universality of the concept of justice throughout time and cultures.

Quotations were selected from a pool of over 150 contributions from law school faculty, staff and students. Librarians at the Law School Library researched the historical context and authenticity of each quotation and developed a website to share this research with visitors to the art installation.

Source

Blackmailer jailed for using photos to get sex and money from woman

 Rot in jail!!

A blackmailer who repeatedly raped a woman and pocketed her life savings after threatening to publish lingerie photos of her has been jailed for 17 years.

In passing sentence on Daood Hussain at Birmingham Crown Court Judge Peter Carr, said �You treated her, on the evidence that I have heard, in a demeaning and degrading fashion and with complete contempt.

"The prosecution were right in their submission to the jury in that you were a man who wanted control and you were not going to take no for an answer from her.

"You also made a demand for �10,000 which she paid.

"Again you threatened that you would distribute the documents I have already referred to.�

And the judge said the effect of releasing the pictures would have had a �potentially devastating� effect on the victim and her family within their community.

Hussain, 28, of St Andrews Road, Bordesley Village, an unemployed electrical engineer, had denied but was found guilty of blackmail and 12 charges of rape by a jury following a trial.

The defendant was ordered to register as a sex offender for an indefinite period and was also banned from contacting the victim or her family on his release from jail.

In a police interview the woman said Hussain had demanded she meet him during the summer of 2012.

He showed her a leaflet he had made which included pictures of her in lingerie, along with her address and telephone number with a caption advertising her as a prostitute.

She then agreed to meet him ten times for sex sessions in the run up to Ramadan, in June and July 2012, sometimes in his car and other times at various hotels around Birmingham.

The woman eventually complained to the police.

Farah Ramzan, defending, said �He is the youngest of six siblings and comes from a very close knit family. Clearly this is going to have a devastating effect on the whole family.�

Source

InshaAllah this evil man will die in prison, shunned by his entire community. Also the daughter must have known what what was going on she should have been  punished accordingly.

A pensioner who repeatedly raped a deaf and mute girl he had trafficked into the UK to work as his domestic servant has been jailed for 13 years.

Ilyas Ashar, 84, brought the girl to the UK from Pakistan in June 2000 when she was aged around 10. She was beaten and forced to sleep and work in the cellar of Ashar's five-bed family home in Eccles, Greater Manchester.

Their victim, who had no family or friends in the UK and had never been to school in Pakistan or Britain, was taught by the Ashars to sign her name so they could steal more than �30,000 in benefits. She was made to work for the Ashars for almost a decade.

The girl was sexually abused from pre-puberty, Minshull Street crown court in Manchester heard. Ashar would routinely rape the girl in the cellar and other houses the family owned while she tried to fight him off.

Ashar was convicted by a jury last week of 13 specimen counts of rape, though the court heard that the abuse happened "many, many times more". He was convicted at an earlier trial of two counts of trafficking a person into the UK for exploitation, two counts of furnishing false information to obtain a benefit and one of permitting furnishing of false information to obtain a benefit.

His wife, Tallat Ashar, 68, was jailed for five years for two counts of trafficking a person into the UK for exploitation and four counts of furnishing false information to obtain a benefit.

Their daughter, Faaiza Ashar, 46, who was found guilty at an earlier trial of two counts of furnishing false information to obtain a benefit and one count of permitting furnishing of false information to obtain a benefit, was given a 12-month community order with 300 hours of unpaid work.

Passing sentence, the judge Peter Lakin said: "You Ilyas Ashar and you Tallat Ashar did not treat this girl as a human being. To you she was merely an object to be used, abused and cast aside at will.

"You took full advantage of her extreme vulnerability. You exploited her physically, you exploited her mentally and you exploited her economically. There was throughout a distasteful undercurrent of violence and intimidation.

"All that she had in her life was the love of her family and her own human dignity. You two took that away from her. You consigned her to a life of misery and degradation."

He added: "Throughout these proceedings not one of you have shown any remorse. You are concerned with your own selfish, self-centred interests. You Ilyas and Tallat Ashar are deeply unpleasant, highly manipulative and dishonest people."

Source