In August Firesnake looked at the June 2008, 8th Session of the UN Human Rights Council and the evident clash between freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It followed - indeed required - the council adoption of a resolution to effectively modify the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Expression. David Littman was challenged with 16 Points of Order from Egyptian delegate Amr Roshdy Hassan, Iran and Pakistan.

The mandate now includes a requirement to report on abuse of that right, as well as violations. Violations reference harmful disregard and a breach of that right. The "abuse" is not related to "violation" but to misapplication, perversive, inappropriate and excessive authoritarian abuse of the right to speak freely. In the present global environment, and certainly with respect to history it is plain Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the UDHR - would clash, and do so favouring religious "freedom". Violation of the freedom to express oneself is objective, qualified and quantifiable. Abuse reported through subjective claims of offence taken, when demonstrably false or culturally specific superstition is the claimed "target" or "victim", is harder to define, thus dismiss.

Such cases may contain more material designed to explain why, rather than complain that, a religious freedom has been suppressed. The right to plainly say that this situation is redefining and rubber stamping all behaviour supposedly related to a particularly strong opinion - or belief - and will certainly nurture archaic, misogynistic and inhumane criminality is vital. This has been lost. More so, the devout of any belief system, suffering under the dominance of an elite, have lost a defensive voice. The slow morphing of god's will into one that crushes women and children whilst sanctioning blatant, violent criminality in men, can continue on it's holy way. Simply put, objective, accurate abuse of human beings comes second to novel, malignant or ambiguous "insults" to religious freedom. Including 'freedom' of intellectual subjectivity.

This doesn't mean any problems may be levelled at the articles within the UDHR, but suggests that Article 30, the final article, should be reconsidered seriously in resolving what is rapidly becomming a struggle and cause for angst:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Similarly, The Cairo Declaration has a final article:


As a crucial part of the International Bill of Human Rights, the UDHR accompanies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; ICESCR. Firesnake has touched on the latter quite often in revealing Swedish "drug free-zero tolerance" policies as abusive and, as that Special Rapporteur noted, in breach of the international right to health. The two covenants provide the option to address issues within the UDHR and are referenced or used as tools in discourse and debate in a variety of arenas.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union - the IHEU - note the two day seminar in October [2] to examine articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR during which over 200 national delegates and NGO's submitted written statements. The Geneva seminar had the subheading; Freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. Entered into force in 1973 the covenant was not ratified by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who aren't bound by it. Muslims globally do not embrace this decision, many dismissing the influence of the OIC and some have made this plain.

At the 9th session IHEU main representative Roy W Brown presented a statement to the council, challenging the notion of Islamaphobia as the negative it was portrayed as, which drew a point of order from Egyptian delegate Amr Rosdy Hassan. We let Amr have his say. We also visit the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC] website, have a quick review and a look at an Islamophobia Monthly Bulletin, from October this year. In the midst of all this we consider the crucial aspect of discerning between xenophobia, caution, human rights and prioritising where our concerns may fall. It's important to not forget the struggle against Islamic suppression has gone on for centuries. Only recently, has it become a force against our way of life, as well as the continual control of the lives of millions which has always been resisted. Here too, as is plain in the Islamophobia bulletin, we cannot generalise. Those who promote, support and tolerate Sharia come from diverse lifestyles.

With all this going on it's easy to miss other events related to ongoing abuses under Sharia. Around 2000, Sharia Law had clearly began to be imposed in Nigeria's Northern states, with Zamfara a key hub of support, openly snubbing the government's secular legal system. At the time the simple fact is Nigeria had Christians, Igbo People practicing Odiani, followers of Yoruba who worshiped that deities manifestation of Orisha, via the Ifá divination method and Muslims. Even today Sharia is not supported in Southern or South Eastern areas, whilst Northern Christians are legally bound by Sharia. A welcome sign identifies Zamfara as the home of Sharia.

Christian females wear a unique head scarf and must take compulsory Koranic lessons. Separate taxis and buses transport women and a growing generation of confused oppressed and suppressed girls. From the town of Zamfara in Northern Nigeria, Governor Sani reminded us in 2000 of the importance of entering a toilet with the left leg, exiting with the right, thanking Allah for banishment of such evil and the benefit of beheading dissenters.

The BBC reported in 2002:


Saudi Arabia is his role model, and a generation of women have had their lives cropped short. Again we see the familiar theme of men favoured socially, legally and domestically to the point of absurdity and women assumed to be quite simply guilty of the perpetual crime of being female. War Against Women is a predictably damning comment on the use of this new global trend of rag-tag Sharia used to control a semi-terrified populace.

In what is truly a malignant meme, the concept of interpreting scripture to use medieval justice as social control continues to astonish with individual mutations. As noted here before, Islamically speaking, many Jihadists are bound for hellfire via the act of indiscriminate killing of Muslims. Securing a notable "only apology" from the recently executed "Bali Bombers", such a crime against Islam is not well accepted by traditional and many radical clerics. Similarly, forcing Muslims to forgo all modern or Western influence as a means to spread The Ummah is ignorant of the cultural achievements of Islam, much less the grief devout Muslims feel about that loss. This is compounded by opportunists nurtured and raised in "infidel" nations - a far cry from poverty, war or an Egyptian jail cell. Yet presently the de-radicalisation voice from Mu'man Bin Othman, Sayid Imam [Dr. Fadl] and others is small compared to the global orchestration of recruitment of alienated young men.

If one thing can be said of Sadi it is that he shrewdly imposed Sharia, taking advantage of the crime rate, prodding the deeply spiritual nature of Nigerians and exploiting the propensity to bond in a loosely organised male population. Also he is skilled in corrupt circles. A penchant for scooping a large percentage from major infrastructure contracts had made him a powerful man. This was a guy who manipulated his environment, understood his people, used fear and doled out inducements.

Far from the radical and explosive scenes noted elsewhere, Sharia has been almost clinical in it's rise in Zamfara. Nonetheless, many now live in fear and those who benefit are in that almost intractable position of being asked to relinquish power, wealth and ultimately face actual justice - not Jihadist 'justice'. Whilst a rising crime wave shrank with the guarantee of losing a limb and the sight of stoning, lashings, severe jailing, mutilation, decapitation and enforced indoctrination, present Sharia in Nigeria isn't government sanctified. About Africa Action list an extensive list from Amnesty, now almost seven years old, in which Amnesty single out notable cases. Cases which Aussie skeptics had heard of just recently.

Nigerian Skeptic Leo Igwe wrote in The Skeptic, Sharia and Human Rights in Nigeria - Vol 28, No 1: Autumn of 2008, pp. 55-56. He covered the unique case of charges brought against a well known social critic for a play he'd written criticising the double standards of Sharia in the North of Nigeria. His coverage of human rights abuses and history of Sharia in Nigeria is excellent. We look further at the 1,000 year history of Sharia, culminating in expansion following Uthman Dan Fodio's 1804 jihad, and political maneuvering last, and this century. Original Deputy Governor of Zamfara, Aliyu Shinkafi, has risen to dominate and has also boosted the glowing image of Sharia Success.

The history of Sharia finding it's way to Nigeria is - as in many parts of the globe - bound to culture, commerce and politics. Today, amidst the background rumble of serious concern a typical African head-in-the-sand article may be found praising Sharia, Zamfara and today's Governor, Aliya Shinkafi. The Daily Independent wrote on November 10th 2008, in Nigeria: Sharia for Peace and Sanity - Shinkafi, that concerns were severely misplaced. People were safe, life was good and "a critical review" revealed the role of the media in painting Sharia law as more strict than it was. In fact, readers were told:


God indeed works in mysterious ways.

---

Access to articles here.
Music thanks to Garageband

Gags,

55.49
19.2 MB