I have heard some bizarre things, but Heath Ledger being "whacked" by some sort of Hollywood Hit Gang is way up there. Thanks to Mr Randy Quaid for letting us all know that at least eight actors have been victim to this gang of 'whackers'. Aside from Ledger, the whacker gang has also had success with Chris Penn and David Carradine.
Randy Quaid and his other half, Evi, have fled from justice in the USA to the 'safer' confines of Canada. According to Randy, he is being pursued by the whackers. Presumably this means he is next in line to be whacked.
The legal troubles and the stories surrounding the Quaids just keep getting weirder all the time. The Quaids legal problems include squatting and burglary among others. The fact that they need to flee to Canada in order to avoid being whacked is icing on the weirdness cake.
You have to give it to the Israeli courts, they will be creative in their jurisprudence if it means protecting some absurd sanctity of Jewishness and purity. If you tell lies and mistruths or you misrepresent something, like who you are for example, you might be guilty of deception. But to say you are someone you are not, or to lead someone to believe you are someone you are not, seemingly gets you in a position where you can be guilty of rape by deception.
In essence, if you embellish your personal story to get laid, then you get laid and the other person finds out that you are not who or what you say you are, then you are guilty of raping that other person because they would not have willingly engaged in sexual relations with you if they had known the truth.
This brings us to the case of Saber Kushour. It is a story I came across as I plough through the news online. I found this story at The Guardian here. The article is based solely on the account of Kushour.
The story is a sad tale because Kushour is a married father of two, and irrespective of the outcome of the case he acknowledges that his stupidity has harmed his family.
Kushour is an Arab Israeli who speaks fluent Hebrew without an Arab accent, and obviously passes for a Jew in some circumstances. Perhaps he now wishes that he did not in hindsight. Kushour has been sentenced to eighteen months in jail for the rape by deception of a Jewish woman.
The sex was consensual at the time and lasted a mere 15 minutes. Kushour's case is on appeal and attracting considerable attention in Israel for the underlying racist nature of the sentence and what this says about justice in Israel, and perhaps what is morally acceptable to Israelis in general.
Why has Kushour been sentenced to prison? This is a crude tale, an adulterous tale, where a single Jewish woman propositions a married Arab Israeli man and then has sex with him on a rooftop. To be fair the Jewish woman does not know that Kushour is married. But, Kushour is married and seemingly figured it was a good idea to avail himself of an opportunity to have a casual sexual encounter that his wife would never find out about. Unfortunately for Kushour, the Jewish woman when she found out that Kushour was really an Arab Israeli and not a Jew she lodged a police complaint claiming that she never would have had sex with him if she had known he was an Arab Israeli and not a Jew.
So, what was the legal reasoning of the judge, Zvi Segal, in this case that would allow a decision like this to be reached:
'Judge Segal conceded that it was not "a classical rape by force". He added: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated. The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls."' (from the Guardian).
The problem with this reasoning is that the woman was clearly not thinking about the sanctity of her body or soul when she engaged in the consensual sexual activity. The reality is she picked a man up off the street and then had sex with him on a rooftop. The judge has seemingly gone above an beyond in constructing his decision based on the need to protect the public interest from smooth talking criminals.
It would seem that Kushour's crime is that he suggested to the Jewish woman that he was a bachelor interested in a long-term relationship. In addition to the failure to be explicit in saying to the Jewish woman. "before we have sex you should know that I am an Arab Israeli, are you still interested in proceeding with our sexual encounter?" However, it must be pointed out that the Jewish woman did not ask about Kushour's lineage either.
The judge has then decided that the Jewish woman would not have 'co-operated' if she had known that Kushour was not a bachelor, and presumably she definitely would not have proceeded had she known he was an Arab Israeli. Yet, I would argue that the simple fact that she picked this man up while he was out buying cigarettes and then had sex with him on a nearby roof suggests that she was not all that interested in a period of courtship, marriage, and then sexual relations.
Kushour might be an adulterer but he is not a rapist.
Note: If I can find what the appeal court decides in this case I will add a postscript to this post. If the appeal court upholds this decision it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to argue and introduce it in other jurisdictions.
What is it with this grabbing the dog from behind picture. Everywhere one goes looking for a Luna Maya picture, this is one of the first ones to appear...
Luna Maya (@lunmay) has returned to the Twittering fold and reactivated her account on the microblogging site. I guess this means you cannot keep a good woman down, even if you lodge a criminal defamation complaint against her?
The Luna Maya fiasco erupted when some infotainment journalists became a little over-zealous in their pursuit of the interview and photo that we mere mortals crave in our daily celebrity fix. During the ensuing free-for-all Ariel's (the boyfriend of LM) little girl was clocked in the head with a camera or something. This led to the famous tweet comparing infotainment journalists to prostitutes and murderers. Subsequently, the Luna Maya Twitter account disappeared after a short apology was posted.
But, it is back! There have been no new tweets apparently. Apparently is because I do not tweet or twitter and I am going on what others have said. Ah, the beauty of second hand information.
What is interesting is that the Minister of Communication and Information, Tifatul Sembiring, has come out and said that the Information and Electronic Transactions Law that the Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI) is using as the basis of its criminal defamation claim was not drafted not designed for this sort of criminal defamation action.
According to Sembiring, the ITE Law was drafted and is designed to prevent computer related crimes such as credit card fraud and hacking., That said, it would seem that Article 27 also seems to open the door for arguments that the ITE Law also conceives that criminal defamation might also be a crime within the scope of the law.
As usual, a Luna Maya post lends itself to some gratuitous picture posting.
I want to see the word laogai in every dictionary in every language in the world. I want to see the laogai ended. Before 1974, the word 'gulag' did not appear in any dictionary. Today, this single word conveys the meaning of Soviet political violence and its labour camp system. 'Laogai' also deserves a place in our dictionaries.
-- Harry Wu the laogai are Chinese labour camps.
Kerobokan prison has been the subject of a recent book by Kathryn Bonella titled 'Hotel K'. The prison has been described and characterized as a veritable hellhole that people battle to survive in. However, as Bonella notes in her book, the guards are corrupt and life's little luxuries are always available for the right price.
Kerobokan houses Schapelle Corby and the Bali Nine.
Yet, what inspired this post, aside from the above quote, was that I read recently that Kerobokan makes Guantanamo Bay look like a five star resort. Now, I have not been to Cuba so I cannot say with authority however it strikes me as unlikely that favours and better conditions are for sale there.
The reality of Kerobokan is that prisoners with resources can purchase a cell 'upgrade' and enjoy some of the finer things of prison life such as delivered food and freedom to roam.
Prison is not supposed to be summer camp. You are supposed to be punished for crimes that you have committed. I am sure that Kerobokan is not a nice place, and I am sure that I am glad I am not inside. However, to compare it to places like Guantanamo Bay or to suggest it is the worst prison in Asia or the world undermines the credibility of those making such comments. It also serves to shine light on the ways in which prisoners of means can play the system and garner more favourable conditions during they forced stay.
Is Kerobokan the worst prison in Indonesia? No. Is Kerobokan the worst prison in Asia? No. Is Kerobkan the worst prison in the world? No. Is it a fun place to be? No!
I wonder if Schapelle has benefited from the 'corruption' of Kerobokan and upgraded her cell or enjoyed any other benefits that money can buy?
A recent survey of 1873 electors in Australia showed that 57% of them support a woman's right to have an abortion "readily when they want one". The results of the survey suggest that a minority is dictating government policy on the legality of abortion in Australia generally, and in the states specifically. Victoria and the ACT have decriminalized abortion. WA has amended its laws. All other states and territories have abortion provisions on their criminal statute books.
It appears that politicians are more concerned about being seen to be pro-abortion than they are about being seen to be pro-women's rights.
Consequently, any moves towards decriminalizing abortion have been hampered by minority groups. So, perhaps democracy is not always as simple as the majority imposing their will on the minority. It would seem that in some debates that the minority quite often punches above its weight.
However, it is worth noting that in a similar survey from 20 years ago, the percentage of those that agreed with a woman's right to have an abortion if, and when, she wanted one was only 38% percent.
Queensland, according to the survey results, is the most pro-abortion state, with some 63% of respondents saying they favoured a woman's right to have an abortion. This is interesting because Queensland is currently pursuing a young couple who procured a miscarriage (sometimes reported as an abortion) by acquiring the drug RU 486 (this is not the morning after pill). What makes this interesting is that the young woman being charged is thought to be the first woman in more than 50 years to be charge with procuring her own miscarriage.
The actions of the woman and her boyfriend are illegal because RU 486 is only available at a limited number of medical practitioners. The RU 486 that was used in this case was sourced from overseas.
The abortion debate is an interesting one in Australia considering the studies show that growing majorities in the primary voting demographics support a woman's right to an abortion. This makes the arguments usually put forward by politicians that the electorate is not in support of a move towards decriminalization, wrong. Even more interesting is research that suggest more than 75% of politicians themselves are pro-choice.
The current study is available in the journal People and Place and published by the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University.
The idea that Indian students in Australia are always the victims of senseless crimes is one that does not always hold true. This is a case in point.
Two Indian citizens who are in Australia on student visas, Sukhjinder Singh and Amarjit Singh, have been charged with sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl who was asleep on a train travelling from Melbourne to Sydney. This is a train I have travelled on frequently in my youth when I went to Hurlstone Agricultural High School as a boarder.
The girl awoke to find the two Indians attempting to restrain her. They apparently restrained her long enough to sexually assault her. Sometime during the assault the girl managed to break free and notify train staff of the assault. The train staff radioed ahead to police and police met the train at Goulburn railway station and arrested the two men.
Neither of the accused entered a plea at their hearing and both were remanded in custody until the matter is to be heard again on 16 September 2009. At this hearing both are expected to make applications for bail. It is likely that bail will be granted with strict conditions. I would be guessing those strict conditions would include surrendering travel documents and reporting to police at least several times a week.
The moral of this story, if there is one, is that visitors to this fine land are not always victims of racial taunts and other types of vilification, but are in fact perpetrators of crimes against citizens of this fine land. Simply, those that take advantage of and abuse visitors to Australia, irrespective of what those visitors are doing here must be punished. Similarly, visitors who come to this fine land must understand that they too will be punished in accordance to the law.
The Cobra seems destined for jail. Ali Cobra who also goes by the aliases Ali Kobra, Labasa Ali, Ali Basa, and Sultan Ali has been characterized as one of the main men of the people smuggling scene in Indonesia. Ali Cobra was arrested back in May as part of a joint Indonesian and Australian operation. The charges are not related to the people smuggling activities as the laws are not available in Indonesia.
The prosecutors trying the case in the Kupang District Court have asked for a four year prison sentence and a IDR 15 million fine. Both of these numbers seem a little on the light side considering the crimes committed. However, when considered in light of the charges leveled at the Cobra, then they are within the expected scope. This is because the charges relate to assisting in the mass break out of asylum seekers from a detention center in West Timor and then facilitating them onto a boat headed for Australia.
The boat eventually sank and nine asylum seekers drowned.
Interestingly, Cobra has not employed a lawyer. He has asked the court for leniency when it sentences him on 9 September 2009 as he has a wife and children living in Sulawesi who need him.
The idea of issuing a fatwa (edict) against terrorism is an appealing one. If for no other reason than it would serve to distance the more moderate adherents to the faith from the more radical. However, the big question is how binding are these fatwas on Muslims and what are the real world punishments for failing to adhere to them?
More importantly, how should Muslims respond to competing fatwas or competing interpretations of what is acceptable with respect to violence perpetrated in the defense of the religion of Allah? There are plenty of Muslim organizations, and Muslims, throughout the world that are seeking to issue fatwas against terrorism as a means of distancing the faith from the criminal acts of a few. The YouTube video below relates to a fatwa issued in India.
This post is not suggesting that terrorism is a Muslim issue alone or that only Muslims perpetrate terror. However, the post is dealing with the issue of fatwas and terrorism, and this is a discussion within the framework of Islam and the interpretation of what is forbidden (haram) and what is permitted / legitimate (halal).
This is an interesting question. I thank Harry over at Multibrand for, in essence, challenging me on the issue, and also Tikno over at Love Ely for pointing me to the Indonesia version of a 2004 Fatwa on terrorism issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia / MUI).
In the Indonesian context, a fatwa is not binding in a strict legal sense. The government may consider them and may even adopt them if they are so inclined. However, adoption would require the codification of the fatwa into law. This is something that happens to a certain degree in matters relating to Islamic finance where the MUI plays a role in determining what financial products are legitimate under the rules of Islam. These are then codified in laws and regulations enacted by the state.
Furthermore, Indonesia already has an Anti-Terrorism Law (Interim Law No. 1 of 2002 / Law No. 15 of 2003) so is there a need for a fatwa forbidding conduct which is already prohibited in the criminal legal sense? For an interesting paper on the subject you can read Simon Butt's paper by downloading it from here.
I have taken the time to translate the MUI fatwa and would be happy to send it out if anyone wanted a copy in English. I am reluctant just to post it here because I am hopeless at formatting and "stuff" within the blogspot framework.
The fatwa is interesting because it does not forbid in an absolute sense the killing of oneself in the defense of the religion of Allah. Yet, the fatwa goes to considerable lengths to try and point out that random suicide bombings with undefined targets is absolutely against the teachings of Islam.
The primary difference in the fatwa between terrorism and jihad is that terrorism is used for destructive purposes and to cause chaos and fear whereas jihad is a legitimate struggle to defend the faith. Unfortunately, the violence perpetrated in both cases can be the same, but the intent of the perpetrator is what makes the difference. If the perpetrator is amaliyah al-istisyhad or undertaking the action in search of syahid, then this is acceptable. In contrast, where the perpetrator is one who kills themselves and others because they are a pessimist has therefore sinned in the eyes of God and has committed a crime that can never be permitted by Allah or Islam.
Therefore, the violence is a matter of perception with respect to whether it is legitimate or forbidden. Yet, the fatwa states that the act of suicide bombing is an act of despair and is therefore forbidden under the laws of Islam irrespective of whether it is done in a time of peace or a time of war or in an area dominated by Muslims or in areas dominated by other faiths.
But, in the next point of the fatwa a suicide death where the losses inflicted on the enemies of Islam are greater than those inflicted upon Islam would constitute amaliyah al-istisyhad. However, this is seemingly modified by the phrase dar al-harb which is reasonably translated as regions at war. Yet, it can also be translated to places where Muslims are in the minority and are therefore in constant struggle to practice their faith.
What is interesting about the MUI fatwa was that it was issued in 2004 and even today it is not widely known and has not been widely discussed. It is interesting because wider and more open discussion of the fatwa and terrorism could have made a significant contribution to the understanding of the "problem" of terror and how the Indonesian Muslim community is seeking to deal with it.
There are plenty of sites dedicated to debunking fatwas on terrorism as nothing more than fakes of ways of diverting attention from the real intents and purposes of terrorism. To each their own.
