Ariel: Round 2 of Peterporn in Bandung...

The death penalty for distributing pornographic videos seems a little bit harsh. Let's face it, a self-confessed pedophile claiming the religious protections of Islam was sentenced to a mere four years in the slammer for sexually violating a 12-year-old girl. On the balance of things, Ariel's case should have been tossed eons ago as he really should not be seeing any more time on the inside than he has already seen in waiting for this trial to get underway.

At best Ariel is guilty of being naive and maybe even a little stupid that he could make a couple of sex tapes that would never see the light of day. In this day and age of instant communication and advanced technology, it was only a simple matter of losing his laptop or having it stolen and the anonymity of these sex-capades was gone.

As it turns out, he lost possession of his laptop and the rest is history, as they say.

To be honest, this really is not the best test case for establishing how well the provisions of the 2008 Anti-Pornography Law work. It is difficult to see how the prosecution will be able to successfully establish the elements of the crime. It just does not seem likely that the prosecution will make out the actus reus or the mens rea of the criminal indictment.

Yet, the prosecutors have opted to pursue this case for reasons that remain unclear. But, now that they have, there is a course of action that must be completed. Hopefully, it does not result in a conviction and then even more embarrassment for Indonesia and the public prosecutors as the case wends its way through the appeal courts.

More exciting than the legal arguments doing the rounds in the court room are the divergent and extreme opinions present outside of the Bandung District Court. Most interesting was the call by the Islamic Reformist Movement (Garis) who is calling for the death penalty to be imposed on Ariel.

Unfortunately, or is that fortunately, for Garis the death penalty is not an option in this case. This is not a Sharia Law court and Ariel is not being tried for adultery. In any event, Ariel would be unlikely to be stone to death for his sexual liaison with Cut Tari. Although, in Sharia Law conducive circumstances, Cut Tari might fall victim to such an antiquated and barbaric form of punishment. This assumes of course that the prosecutors could established when the sex tapes were made and / or where they were made.

I would add that there is nothing reformist about calling for the death penalty in this case.

The base reality here is that this case has become bigger than it needed to be as a result of the self-righteousness of some of the police and prosecutors involved being pushed forward by others, including the white-robed thug brigade (aka FPI), to pursue this. Any self-respecting law enforcement agency would have done the "likely to convict" assessment on this case and determined that the likelihood of a conviction was remote and then decided it is better not to pursue it at all.

It is time to call it quits on this one. Let the man go. He has suffered much more on the public humiliation front than any subsequent jail term will exact. And, he will still have to explain to his child / children (whatever the case might be in the future) what daddy got up to in his younger years. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation (although, if I had a choice, I think I would rather be the fly on the wall in the Tiger Woods household when he has a similar conversation with his kids).

I wonder if Miyabi (aka Maria Ozawa) makes it to Indonesia whether she will swing by Bandung and catch up with Ariel. After all, she would get tongues wagging and there remains a remote chance that an Ariel and Miyabi tape could find its way into the public domain.

Release Ariel! Release Ariel Now!

Let's Hear it for Tolerance...

In a move that is sure to ignite heated debate not only about education, but also the direction of the United Kingdom, an undercover investigation by the BBC has discovered that schools under the auspices of the "Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland" organisation have been teaching some really interesting content. The investigation also uncovered that this content is being taught in some schools in the UK that are owned by the government of Saudi Arabia.

The schools in question are located throughout Britain and are "teaching" somewhere up to 5000 impressionable students from the ages of six to eighteen. The challenging content includes teaching students about Sharia Law, particularly the more brutal and heinous punishments available. For example, students are being taught that thieves will have their hand cut off for a first offense and then a foot for any subsequent offense.

Interestingly, the students are being taught that the process is humane as the stump where one's hand used to be is cauterised so as to prevent the thief from bleeding to death.

Some of the other juicer educational experiences include reminding students that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of Allah. Therefore, suitable punishments for homosexuals include stoning them to death, burning them to death, and throwing them off a cliff. The common denominator here being that homosexuals must die for their sins.

Funnily enough, the Jews do not miss out either in these weekend schools. Students are taught that those evil Jews are hell bent on world domination. And, if given the chance they will seek to take over and control all of the world's wealth and resources.

Ultimately, the theme of all this content seems to be "if you do not follow Islam, or convert immediately, then you are going to be damned to hell!"

Nothing like preaching a little love and tolerance, is there?


Apparently, Ofsted, the British educational watchdog, is doing a little investigating of its own and will soon report to the Education Minister, Michael Gove. I might try and see if I can follow this story through to its conclusion, if for no other reason than I am interested in the implications of teaching such content in schools generally.

To be honest, I do not see any problems with teaching the fundamentals of Sharia Law and what punishments are available under that system. It could be done in a manner that is comparative and without bias. However, the teaching of content that suggests that Jews are focused on world domination through control of financial and natural resources combined with the idea that any one who is not Muslim is damned to hell is likely to be much more problematic and controversial.

The anti-Semitism in the textbooks is surely going to get people fired up. The whole affair is likely to see some interesting to and fro in the cyber-sphere on all manner of things ranging from political correctness to tolerance.

I am surprised that I am yet to see the arguments rehashed that suggest within 20 years Britain will be a Muslim State under Sharia Law. Perhaps even the more extreme protagonists will start to suggest that this is the tip of the iceberg and it will not be long before Europe is an Islamic Caliphate. Hence, the poster and the idea that it will not take long to ignite differences to a flash point.

Does it all start with education?

Can Women Be Leaders?

I actually read the genesis of what I am about to post in The Jakarta Globe. What I had intended to say was way more confrontational and self-righteous than what follows here. It is so because I forced myself to stand up and walk away. I made a sandwich and drank a glass of juice. This was probably a good thing.

I consider myself a tolerant person, although sometimes I have to wonder, but there are some things that really press my buttons. One of them is the idea that women cannot lead and that this is justified in Islam. There are more than enough examples of poor male leaders throughout history that should make us pause and wonder whether men have any inherent right to call themselves the chosen ones, the leaders of men and women.

Yet, Ridwan Muhammad, Speaker of the Local Biruen Government in Aceh, has been lobbying for the need to change the female Head of the Plimbang Subdistrict, Anisah. To all intents and purposes it is politics as normal for any where in the world; you have those that like the job you are doing and those that think you are woeful. It seems that the woeful ledger is winning out as they have gained the support of Ridwan.

The move to replace Anisah though is not based on her woeful performance per se,but rather because she is a woman. And, at least, as Ridwan sees it, this means under Islam and the brand of Sharia Law (ad I use the term loosely) that Aceh has adopted women are not permitted to lead. Presumably, this is because leading men is not the job of women. Yet, the manner in which Ridwan made his views known by saying that women were "unfit" under the laws of Islam to lead is an affront to all women irrespective of their religion.

So, I wonder, Ridwan, what is it that women are good for in your view? Is it that women exist only to serve the pleasures of men? Is it that a good shellacking in the bedroom to satisfy the needs of men is the intent God had in mind? Is it that women are only good for breeding; the old 'bare foot and pregnant' deal? Are women to be judged solely on their abilities to serve their men, where a woman who can cook, wash, iron and sew gets a higher ranking than one lacking in those essential skills?

I wonder, how does this sort of misogyny and chauvinism support the idea that Islam is about protecting the dignity and rights of women? How is it that the Ridwan alternative is one that promotes tolerance, harmony and acceptance? As an aside, Ridwan, are there no prominent women in the history of Islam that had what might be perceived as leadership roles within the religion or the broader community?

Let's not get too deeply into the religious debate. The point of this post is not to dissect Islam and its views on women, in spite of the issue lending itself to such discussion and debate.

Therefore, just focusing on the legal ramifications in a constitutional sense. Does the special autonomy granted to Aceh allow it to discriminate against women within the perceived framework of the implementation of Sharia Law? My limited understanding of the Indonesian Constitution is that discrimination is not permitted, including discrimination against women.

Maybe this idea that women are inferior to men can become part of the new "Visit Indonesia" tourism campaign?

More Canings in Aceh...

Being a Muslim and living in Aceh means that you live under the tenets of Sharia Law. You can either like it or leave it. Leave it means literally leaving and moving to a province that has yet to implement the Sharia code.

I am not Muslim, so as far as I can tell the law does not apply to me. This means that there is a dual standard of law enforcement in Aceh; one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims. However, Muslims do not get the option of choosing which law they wish to live under. By default as a consequence of opting for the type of regional autonomy they have, they have opted to live under Sharia Law. That is the nature of the democracy they have chosen.

This is a story of two young women eking out a living running a roadside food stall. Murni and Rukiah, 27 and 22 respectively, were caught selling cooked rice during daylight hours during Ramadan (the fasting month). This led to them being arrested, charged, convicted, and ultimately to this day where they were to be caned; three strokes and two strokes respectively.

This is what happens in Greater Aceh (Aceh Besar). So, on Friday, just after the completion of Friday prayers, Murni and Rukiah made their way solemnly to the caning platform outside the Al-Munawwarah Mosque in Jantho to receive their punishment. Interestingly, or perhaps not so interesting, is that caning is very much a bloodsport. It draws big crowds. Perhaps this says something about us as human beings that we do not mind taking time out to watch other people's sufferings. It reminds me not only of hangings in the movies about the wild west that I used to watch as a kid, but also the way that people slow down as they drive past an accident.

Selling food during Ramadan is a clear breach of the provisions of Regional Regulation (Qanun) No. 11 of 2002. The punishment for selling food attracts a maximum punishment of six lashes of the cane. There are also financial penalties and jail time if the court so decides to impose those sentences. Essentially, the Qanun says that Muslims cannot sell food to other Muslims who should be fasting.

This is problematic on a number of levels that you have to regulate the way people practice their faith with national or domestic laws. I always figured that God's law was somewhat higher than the laws of men and women. I also have a problem with men and women imposing the laws of God. Now, if God made these laws then she (or he) must be responsible for the enforcement of those laws. After all, that is the purpose of the judgment day, right? God sits in judgment of each and every one of us for the sins we have committed against her and then decides which journey we make.

If my understanding is correct, then where do men in robes sitting in supposed religious courts get off meting out the punishment of God on his fellow servants?

I would also add, if a sin was committed here it was not in the selling of the rice but in the purchasing and eating of it. The women were not committing any crime from cooking in daylight hours or even selling food in daylight hours. I wonder if the Qanun requires that Muslims selling food during Ramadan are required to ask for and see the ID cards of all people who buy food from them?

But, to finish, I return to an earlier point, the sins of men and women against their respective Gods is a sin between them and their God, particularly when it relates to selling or eating food. We are not talking about a murder or a rape or even corruption on a grand scale, we are talking about a few scoops of rice. If I am not mistaken the Koran makes some exceptions with respect to fasting, including those that cannot fast being able to make that day up somewhere else (I suspect my Muslim readers will be setting me straight on this perception).

Maybe, I just do not see caning as a meaningful deterrent in any case, just like the death penalty is no deterrent to serious crime. Or maybe I really cannot get my head around why in a country like Indonesia one would want to cane another for selling food, even during Ramadan.

Shariah Law in Aceh, Indonesia...

This post deserves much more than what it is about to get!

I make it only to highlight a few things that are percolating in the grey matter inside my skull. If I had more time, then I probably would delve more deeply into the legal realm and analyse the implications of allowing Shariah law to be implemented in a secular state, even one with a large majority of Muslims as resident citizens.

Sometimes, I miss not having more time to write about the laws of Indonesia.

The photo attached here made me chuckle, I apologise if this seems flippant as caning generally does not lend itself to flippancy. Yet, check out the garb of the caner. It reminds me of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I think it is the white stripe that cuts across the eyes in what is an otherwise all black ensemble befitting of an executioner.

The idea that Aceh has a right to implement Shariah law because it is "more" Muslim, in a devout sense, than the rest of Indonesia is absurd. It is also offensive to Muslims residing in other parts of the archipelago that the government does not think them Muslim enough to force Shariah upon them as well. This raises an important question, one that gets bandied around every now and then, but never really answered: "do the Acehnese really want Shariah law?"

There has always been this public spin machine that played up the idea that Aceh was so much more devoutly Muslim than anywhere else, so this must mean they want Shariah. After all, what "good" Muslim would not want it? Yet, it has never really been clear whether the people of Aceh wanted Shariah or just to be free from the interference and oppression of the Indonesian state. My guess would be that there are still plenty of Acehnese who would gladly trade Shariah law for some real "autonomy" from Jakarta (aka Indonesia) and even freedom in the form of independence.

Having a quick squiz at the legal foundations from Shariah law in Aceh. It is interesting that the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the five guiding principles encapsulated in Pancasila, make it pretty clear that Indonesia is a secular state. In the most simple terms, there is no preference to be afforded to one religion in preference to another. Or, all people are allowed to practice their faith according to the tenets of that faith (except of course if you belong to the Ahmadiyya sect).

The first steps towards Shariah occurred in 1999 with Aceh being given super special status, and presumably the 'right' to implement Shariah Law. In an attempt to clarify what that meant, the government stipulated some more basic terms as to how autonomy would work. The clarifications, in essence, allowed the locally elected government of Aceh to start the Shariah-nization of Aceh by establishing Shariah Laws (Regional Regulations known as Qanun) and Shariah Courts to hear cases that involved the breach of those laws.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. However, most important is that the implementation of Shariah Law in Aceh creates a two-tiered legal system where Muslims and non-Muslims are treated differently. This, above all else, means that the laws discriminate against some Indonesian citizens. The Constitution clearly prohibits this from happening. In many ways, the provisions of the Constitution are crafted to provide equal protection for all citizens. Simply, being Muslim should not expose you to harsher penalties than are otherwise available to non-Muslim Indonesian citizens.

Nevertheless, the granting of special autonomy in Aceh with the ability to ram through local regulations on Shariah has emboldened other less special provinces to embark on the Shariah-nization of their respective regions through the implementation of Shariah laws. Some have argued that this is Islamisation or the Wahabbi-nisation of Indonesia by stealth. I would argue that there is nothing stealthy about it. In fact, it is overt rather than covert, and politicians seem to think that the Shariah-nization of their regions is a real vote getter. After all, good Muslim politicians do not want to be viewed as being insufficiently devout, and what could be more devout than arguing for the stoning of adulterers and the cutting off of the hands of thieves, right?

The logic is all wrong.

Anyways, enough of the ranting and railing...back to work, there are assessment tasks due!

Aceh and Stoning Adulterers...

The previous Aceh Regional Parliament passed a Qanun on Jinayat which included provisions relating to the stoning to death of adulterers. I have written a more detailed post on the provisions of the regulation here. This piece of 7th Century inspired legislation was passed in the dying days of the previous parliament's existence. However, a new more moderate parliament has been elected and the newly elected members had promised to revisit the regulation and amend it once they had the power to do so.

The new parliament has been installed. It is now a matter of urgency and one of credibility that the new parliament place the amending of the Jinayat regulation. Simply, it is time to ante up and do what must be done.

Some have argued that Aceh is a province that enjoys special autonomy and has special rights to self-government and the enactment and implementation of Shariah based laws and regulations. However, it is not the case that the regional regulations in Aceh can be in conflict with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Special autonomy or not, Aceh is still a province of the Republic of Indonesia, and this means that the 1945 Constitution still applies.

Stoning to death is an unusual, cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment. It is a form of torture of the worst kind. To allow a regulation of this nature to stand unchallenged reflects badly on Indonesia as a whole. Stoning is not an acceptable form of punishment. The reality is that people that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Malaysia, Caning, and Beer -- Part V

Sooner or later it seems Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno is going to feel the thud and sting of the cane. The case is an interesting test of Malaysia's claims to be a moderate Muslim nation and the acceptance of strict forms of Sharia law that impact on only certain groups within the Malaysian ethnic, cultural, and religious fabric. Shukarno has upped the ante in the case by refusing to appeal.

Once the sentence is carried out, she will become the first Muslim woman in Malaysia to be sentenced to a caning and then have the sentence imposed.

Shukarno's crime was to be a Muslim caught drinking beer in a nightclub in Pahang state. The religious court found her guilty of the crime and sentenced her to six strokes of the cane. I have written about the details of the case here.

The government stepped in and requested a review of the case because it believed the sentence to be too harsh and the press about the case could conceivably damage Malaysia's reputation as a moderate Muslim nation.

However, and perhaps in a sign of separation of powers, the religious high court in Kuantan has affirmed the lower religious court's decision and has stated in unequivocal terms that the sentence was correct and it must be imposed as handed-down.

It was also decided that a good ol' caning during the month of Ramadan was not in the spirit of the month where fasting, praying, and cleaning oneself of sins are paramount.

Islamic scholars in Malaysia have generally supported the sentence and have said in any event Shukarno is to be fully clothed and the cane is much smaller and lighter than the canes used in criminal matters. Perhaps this is meant to suggest that it is a lesser offense and hence there is a lesser punishment or it just won't hurt that much anyway, so let's get this over and done with.

Manohara Odelia Pinot -- Part XIX -- Upping the Ante

At the outset, a reminder is necessary...this is a fascination and not an obsession! :D

The prince, Tengku Fakhry, has certainly upped the ante in the domestic / marriage dispute between himself and his teenage wife and her mother. The ante in this case is reportedly in the tens of millions of Ringgit for the defamation case that the Fakhry has submitted to the Malaysian courts. Latest reports set the figure at 105 million ringgit. There is also another claim that Manohara's mother, Daisy, owes the prince about 1 million ringgit.

I am still wondering why a 30-year-old prince wanted to marry a 16-year-old wanna be starlet and social climber. Perhaps he was sucked into the black magic powers of the mother and the surgically implanted golden needles and diamonds in Manohara's jaw. Who knows, and I guess in the big scheme of things, who really cares outside of those immediately affected by this ever deepening crisis of domestic bliss turning to domestic mess.

Upping the ante also sees the prince's legal team for the defamation case, headed by Mohd. Haaziq Pillay, seeking special leave from the Kuala Lumpur High Court to file a writ of summons in Jakarta. Generally, in common law legal systems the permission of the court is required where a summons needs to be filed outside the jurisdiction because the defendants are not within the local jurisdiction. There would seem to be no reason why the court would not grant this application, except if the court was of the opinion that the case had no merit and no likelihood of success.

The court has since granted the leave and it would seem now the writ of summons needs to be forwarded to Indonesian authorities and onto the legal team of Manohara and her mother. It will be interesting to see if this spurs both mother and daughter into returning fire and filing criminal complaints in Malaysia regarding the alleged conduct of the prince.

If the duo do return fire then it will require them to start furnishing evidence of the alleged abuse, rape, kidnapping, and torture that the prince allegedly perpetrated against Manohara during their brief marriage. The reports of the abuse and alleged photos of the razor blading of Manohara have surfaced on the internet and doctors have issued statements in support of Manohara's claims. However, this has been a case of the drama being played out in the court of public opinion and the burden in this court is considerably different to that required in a criminal court of law or even in a civil matter.

To be clear, the sense here is not that Manohara has not been abused or raped or kidnapped or tortured in the manner that she claims. However, there is this underlying and emerging series of questions starting to bubble to the surface not only in Malaysia, but also in Indonesia, that if these claims and allegations are true, then why are Manohara and Daisy not more forcefully pursuing justice? On a personal level, I would like to think that in the big scheme of things that Manohara and her mother could use this unsavoury and tragic occurrence to help victims of domestic violence to escape their respective tragic existences for a better future.

Perhaps not one filled with a sinetron named after them and multi-billion rupiah appearance fees and the like, but an escape to a better life.

The defamation case is set for mention in the Malaysian courts on 2 August 2009.

The Indonesian authorities, headed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, has offered to help in any way that they can in terms of assisting Manohara and her mother filing the necessary paperwork to commence legal proceedings in Malaysia. Even the Malaysians themselves have committed to a thorough investigation to ensure that justice is done wherever that justice may be.

No matter what happens, there is still the issue with Daisy being to all intents and purposes on the run from French authorities. The sad part is that Manohara is not implicated in the legal problems that befell her mother in France, yet it is ironic that the mother, who has been so vehement in wanting to see the prince punished for his abuse of her daughter, is in fact a person who has been convicted of assaulting and abusing an Indonesian under her care.

If Indonesia is series about stamping out the practice of foreigners thinking that they can abuse Indonesia's migrant workers with impunity, then this would be a perfect case to say, enough is enough. The Indonesian government should be pro-active in working through the merits of the Daisy Fajarina case, and if necessary facilitating her return to France to face the music. To not do so sends a very poor message to all of Indonesia's migrant workers; where here for you if you want to come back and star in a sinetron and engage in some Malaysia bashing, but while your overseas you're on your own.

The last point is not entirely fair. Indonesia has and continues to pursue initiatives to afford greater protection to their migrant workers. If for no other reason than migrant workers repatriate huge sums of foreign exchange into the Indonesian banking system. Cynical, I know, but also true.

The time has come for Manohara and her mother to decide whether they are going to play legal ball here. The prince has shown his hand, Manohara's move.

Why Wait for Friday?

I promised to provide an update on the planned executions of the Bali Bombers (photo from Kompas) on Friday unless something interesting came up, and it did.

It seems that the legal team of the three are going to take this thing to the ICJ. I am not entirely convinced that they can as the ICJ is generally a State against State deal.

Achmad Michdan of the legal team has said they are going to send a letter to the "International Court". I am guessing that this is the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

My guess is based on a Kompas Newspaper report (in Indonesian). However, a letter would seem to be wasted on the ICJ. It would make more sense to send a letter to a UN organ that dealt with human rights, such as the Human Rights Council.

It seems that the legal teams complaint is that the Constitutional Court of Indonesia does not take into account that the prescribed method of execution in Islam is beheading. I need to find out some more information on this.

I will check it out later in the morning and add a postscript if, and when, I find out something.

Thanks to Calupict for pointing me in this direction.

Muslims Against Sharia

There is definitely a need to learn more about groups purporting to represent the interests of others. Muslims Against Sharia have "arrived" on the scene and it will not be too long before the to and fro starts on whether they really are Muslims or just part of a broader Zionist conspiracy about Islam and what exactly is it that they represent.

Any attempt to reform Islam has traditionally been looked on with distrust and the fact that the Muslims Against Sharia site has a dedicated email address for death threats is an interesting way of dealing with any backlash, real or imagined.

Just a little bit of reading uncovered that some of their associations and contributors are neo-conservatives and other right-wingers. Does this discredit the positions adopted by Muslims Against Sharia, No! But it does beg the question why weren't these associations disclosed up front?

I guess time will tell and history will judge.

Interesting symbol though all the same.

Islam & Democracy

Now what follows is by no means the definitive debate on this subject. However, it was interesting to me for two reasons: one that the debate occurred in Australia and secondly my personal belief that frank and open discussion is the only way we, as a people, can overcome our differences and live in a world where there is peace!

I do not paste this to offend but if anyone drops by and feels the need to comment, then go for it, as I said frank and open discussion!

What follows is cut and pasted in its entirety as it appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald.

IT was a debate over one of the most vexed issues of our times - one that pitted not only ideas and opinions against each other, but entire civilisations.

In front of a packed audience of 1200 passionate souls, a panel of experts on politics and Islam opened the Intelligence2 debate series by ripping into the proposition that Islam is incompatible with democracy.

The security guards and flyer-wielding campaigners at the doors gave some indication of the fraught nature of the subject matter from the outset. And those on stage did not disappoint, taking the discussion from the soaring heights of Islam's philosophical antecedents to the cold, hard reality of suppression under Sharia law.

Having told another Sydney audience earlier this week that Islam would dominate Europe, the director of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, immediately provided a cutting criticism of the world's second largest religion.

"Islam is undemocratic in spirit," he said. "It takes a lot of learning to have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association. These are things that are learnt over a period of time and it is that which the West has achieved and which Islam is a long way from learning.

"Yes, there are Muslim states which are democratic in form, but true democracy is yet to take root. The great obstacle to this change is the fact that in the Middle East the social system is fundamentally tribal and that obstructs the development of the key requisites of democracy."

The rebuttal from the Pakistan-born director of the University of Western Australia's Centre for Muslim States and Societies, Samina Yasmeen, was a cool cloth to Pipes's fire.

"You will see what you want to see and if you want to identify Islam as incompatible I have no doubt that you will continue seeing that," she said.

"How is it, though, that Muslims in non-Muslim societies are able to get on so well when Islam is incompatible? I would argue that Muslim majority states do show a lot of tolerance, not only of the Muslim community, but also of the non-Muslim community."

Amina Rasul, a human rights activist and director of the Philippine Council on Islam and Democracy, followed the theme. "What the West should not do is criticise states which are not democratic while supporting despots who suppress human rights because it is in their economic benefit," Rasul said.

"There are 800 million Muslims living happily and successfully in democratic nations - why is it that the extremes are always focused on?"

The Herald columnist Paul Sheehan brought the question into stark relief by comparing a trip to Mecca with a trip to Rome.

"When you visit the Vatican, one thing that is for certain is that you will be allowed in," Sheehan said. "When you visit Saudi Arabia the checks at the airport and for those travelling into Mecca are not just for security reasons, they are to prevent non-Muslims from coming in."

Finally the statements were brought back to first principles by Waleed Aly, the young lawyer, writer and spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria.

"My opponents have defined terms such as Islam and Sharia law to suit their arguments and in so doing have ignored the myriad interpretations of these terms."

In the end, the audience had the final call and it delivered a victory to hope - but only just. A poll conducted as the audience entered found 38 per cent for the affirmative, 42 per cent for the negative and the remaining 20 per cent undecided. In the tradition of many a democratic poll, the numbers had tightened by the end of the night - with the proposition going down by a narrow margin of 52 to 48 per cent.

"The response to this debate has been phenomenal and I've been trying to find an explanation for this overwhelming response," said Simon Longstaff from the St James Ethics Centre. "For the past decade people have not really engaged with these issues. People have formed hasty judgments and not engaged with the details. They've been more focused on their own concerns in their community and in their backyard. But there has been a change in mood in Australia."

Indeed, it could have been a hostile affair, but there were no howls from the audience. Sheehan referred to threats against Pipes before the event and the need for security to protect him. As it turned out, the guards had little to do.

Not even Michael Darby could get a reaction in the foyer afterwards as he handed out pamphlets on "how you can ensure Australia remains a Christian nation". Darby said: "I may have handed out some to Muslim people but I can't tell who is Muslim. I can say ladies with scarves did not rush me."

The IQ2 debate series is a partnership between the St James Ethics Centre, The Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC and the City of Sydney.

Steal and Lose a Hand!

The implementation of strict Sharia Law in Indonesia was always thought to be a matter of time proposition in the world's largest Muslim nation. However, there was always an underlying hope that this would not come to pass as the potential for this to become a trigger of social unrest and conflict is also a matter of time proposition. Unless, the laws apply universally across the archipelago then a double standard of punishment will be in effect. No doubt an interesting case for the Constitutional Court to hear in light of the no discrimination articles in the 1945 Constitution.



With the decentralization and devolution of central government authority as a consequence of greater regional autonomy there has been a significant increase in the number of Sharia-based or inspired laws finding their way on to regional statute books. Bulukumbu in the Province of Sulawesi is touted often as an example of Sharia Law implementation.



Since 2002 there have been laws implemented relating to the drinking of alcohol, gambling, the compulsory wearing of Islamic attire, as well as compulsory learning of the Koran. Depending on who you ask there is a sense that with the implementation of Sharia Law there has been a decrease in crime, gambling, and other sinful activities. There is also a belief that women are more pure. This is to be expected considering that Sharia Law is seen as the laws of God as implemented on earth.



For non-Muslims wanting to become part of the Civil Service in this part of the world, a headscarf for women is also compulsory attire. The justification is that it is part of the uniform and if you want the job you wear the uniform, simple enough!



However, it is being reported that 20 villages within the Gantarang municipality have agreed to implement a regulation that requires the hand of a thief to be cut off. It seems that this is conditional on the thief being caught red-handed (pun intended). At the same meeting it was also agreed that for offences relating to alcohol and gambling the public canings will be upped to a level of 80 lashes.

In the period since regional autonomy was legislated there has been an explosion in the numbers of regional regulations being enacted. The exact amount of suspect regional and local regulations that would not comply with the necessary superior legislation is estimated to be in the hundreds and possibly thousands. It is not uncommon for the Department of Home Affairs to cancel non-complying regulations. So, it will be interesting to see whether this particular regulation survives the cut (again the pun intended).

The biggest fear is vigilante justice. How is this regulation to be enforced and who gets to decide when the punishment must be implemented. In Indonesia it is not uncommon for a victim to scream out thief and the local populace come to the rescue by chasing down the alleged perpetrator and beating them senseless, sometimes to death, but without a doubt within an inch or two of their lives. This form of retribution is often excessively violent and because of its instantaneous nature completely free of any due process of law.

But in the meantime if you are ever in any one of these villages make sure anything you pick up you put back or pay for it!