West Bengal Politics, Administration, Police want to crush Hindu Organisations in West Bengal.
Under political pressure from Ruling Party (TMC), the West Bengal Police is plotting to ensure untroubled Cow Slaughter in maximum places very much illegally.
Hindu Existence (Special Investigating Team) | Kolkata |13-10-2012 :: Through its Valuable Judgements dt 02.11.2011 and 13-10-2011, the Honb’le Calcutta High Court categorically said that “the officials of the State and local bodies have no power to facilitate holding of markets for trading of cattle for sacrifice and also the movement of cattle for the said purpose on the occasion of Id-uz-Zoha”. Earlier, the Supreme Court of India reiterated that “sacrifice of a cow on Bakr id Day is not an obligatory overt act for a Musalman to exhibit his religious belief and ideas”. In many occasions the appex court directed that “such slaughter cannot be a religious purpose because it is not a part of religious requirement for the Musalmans..” In fine Cow slaughter in the name of Medicinal, Research or Religious purposes is strictly prohibited as per the directions given by the Honb’le courts time to time. In West Bengal one can procure beef from the authorised slaughter houses and permitted outlets, obviously not violating the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 in force.
But, unfortunately the Police in West Bengal allowing Animal Cruelty, Ghastly Slaughtering and Perilous Pollution in these days of ensuing Bakar Idd on 27th Oct, 2012, by violating Preventions of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960; Animal Transportation Act; WB Pollution Control Act; WB Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 and the relevant judgements of different Hon’ble courts. The political and police nexus in different places in West Bengal is promoting local Cow markets (Garu-hat) and the illegal transportation for Cow Slaughter in ensuing Bakar Idd and taking huge amount of speed money-bribe from the unauthorized cow traders and transporters.
This news coming from every corners of West Bengal and the ruling TMC (All India Trinmool Congress) has framed a policy to allow maximum cow markets-cow slaughter for Bakar idd to satisfy its Muslim Vote Bank. For example, the Usthi PS has arranged an illegal Cow trade point just adjacent to Police Station itself (Northern side of PS, in between PS and Usthi Agricultural Nursery). In Joynagar PS area, big cow markets are presently seen in Mouzpur and Biswanathpur villages. In Sahararhat (Falta PS), the Beef-eaters are canvassing such a illegal Cow market there on mike. Not only that, in some areas Police is trying illegal Cow Slaughter in new places under political pressure.
On 12-10-2012, Sri Sudip Singh (M. +919831115206). Officer-in-Charge, Usthi Police Station invited Sri Pintu Mahish of vill-Pianjganj for a discussion over a General Diary made by him (Pintu Mahish) on 4-10-2012 through registered post (book no. 9508, receipt no. 178). In course of the discussion, Mrs. Papiya Sultana, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Falta Zone, Ph. 2448-0366 , M. +919874690988 , Fax-03174-241100), South 24 Parganas also appeared in that meeting very interestingly. Through out the meeting, the Police authority pressurized Pintu for negotiating a cow slaughter in Pianjganj village. A bold Pintu negated the proposal of Police to allow cow slaughter in that village only to satisfy the Muslim brothers and sisters of the Muslim Police Officer Papiya Sultana. Further he said to the police officials not to favour anybody but to uphold the law of the land and the verdicts of Hon’ble Courts. It is heard that the O/C of Usthi Police Station is hatching a plan to allow the cow slaughter by a crooked means and set a further meeting on 13-10-2012 evening. But, so far it is gathered that the Police has not formally invited the village leaders of Pianjganj in the All Party Meeting on 13-10-2012. But, a resolution may be adopted to permit an OPEN COW SLAUGHTER IN PIANGANJ VILLAGE violating all the rules in broad day light.
It was very much astonishing that an Officer-in-Charge is negotiating for an illegal cow slaughter in a convened meeting and a Deputy Superintendent of Police is trying to convincing their inability to do anything if such a cow slaughter may happen in a cattle house of a personal occupancy. All the proceedings say a police intention to allow an illegal cow slaughter in Pianganj area, where Hindus are united to resist it in both legal and agitational way.
Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) also entered and enquired into the village of Pianjganj and took some sample of posters of Bangiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Posters from the wall where a SAVE COW – SAVE NATION call was envisaged in connection of a Rashtra Raksha Sammelan (Protect the Nation Meet) on 09-10-2012 at Kolkata. The Kolkata Police did not allow that meeting to make a repression upon the Save Cow Activists and maintained the State Policy of Miss Mamata Banerjee (Chief Minister, West Bengal) to curb out all the Hindu Force from West Bengal step by step.
On the other hand, cross border cow transportation and cow-theft in rural areas in North 24 Pgs, South 24 Pgs, Nadia and Murshidabad are getting optimum rates due the inaction of BSF and State Police in West Bengal.
Banner-Posters of banned Rashtra Raksha Sammelan at Kolkata on 09-10-2012.
The Police is now trying to arrest the Save Cow Activists (Go Bhakta) in different place in West Bengal including in the area of Usthi Police Station.
But, the Go Bhaktas in West Bengal in various forums and in Bangiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Arya Veer Dal, Rashtriya Go Raksha Mission, Rashtriya Go Sewa Manch, Manishika, Samarpan, Rashtriya Go Raksha Sena, Hindu Existence – Go Raksha Vahini etc. have been united to SAVE COWS IN WEST BENGAL.
In last two days in Kulti area (Burdwan) and Jharkhan Border, 67 Cows in Border areas, 15 Cows in Nirsa and 7 Cows in Kulti have been recovered from the illegal Muslim Cow Traders. 3 cows with valid documents were taken to the custody of Police to return the original owners to retain and not to be slaughtered any way in this critical juncture for avoiding any further tension.
In the last couple of days, the Save Cow Activists had recovered 5 Cows from Salt Lake IT Sector (Techno-polish) and put in the safe custody of Rajasthan G0 Kalyan Trust Goshala near Barasat. These cows were being transported in a very small vehicle (Chotta Hathi) very wretchedly violating various attracted section of law. Now, Firhad Hakim (Bobby), Urban Development Minister of West Bengal is trying hard to take those 5 Cows for (fake) petting. Then why that vehicle on which the cows were being transported was superscribed with “KURBANIR GARU” on its window screen? It is reported that some Muslim fanatics and the group of Bobby Hakim have given a bond of Rs. 70,000/= to take out the Cows from the Goshala.
The position of Cow protection in West Bengal is in a very vulnerable position as the Ruling Party is not maintaining the Verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian and Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta. In many places Police and local administration are allowing illegal Cow Markets (Garu-hat) and Cow transportation as narrated above, though totally banned by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta.
The tensions related to hurting Hindu sentiments by slaughtering cows at various places in the event of Bakar idd may affect the peace and harmony of the State. And it is not desirable anyway.
…………………. Despite all these, some sincere and patriot Police officials are exceptionally endeavouring hard to protect the Cow-Wealth in the light of exactness of the law and the judgements of Hon’ble Courts.
Arya Veer Dal Bangal, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Bengal, Rashtriya Go Raksha Mission Rashtriya Go Sewa Mission, Hindu Existence – Goraksha Vahini and all other Cow Protection Groups and Forums in West Bengal met recently and vowed to SAVE COWS IN WEST BENGAL at any cost. SHAME SHAME MAMATA BANERJEE, CHIEF MINISTER OF WEST BENGAL.
See this revealing Video: MAMATA BANERJEE ADVOCATED COW SLAUGHTER IN PARLIAMENT : Late RAJIB DIKSHIT.
Jailed: Pakistan-born Atiq Rehman, who was twice refused leave to remain in the UK, was jailed for six years
Atiq Rehman lured a 22-year-old woman into the back room of a corner shop and attacked her on a mattress laid on the ground
He led her from outside a nightclub before threatening to tie her up with tape while he carried out the attack
When he carried out the rape he was free on the condition he reported regularly to authorities
He was jailed for six years on both counts of rape, to run concurrently, and ordered to be deported on his release from prison
An illegal immigrant who was twice refused asylum in Britain raped a woman before he could be deported, a
court heard yesterday.
Atiq Rehman, 20, spotted his 22-year-old victim leaving a club and tricked her into thinking he was a taxi driver.
He then lured her into the back room of a corner shop and attacked her on a mattress for 45 minutes.
Yesterday the Pakistani national was jailed for six years after he pleaded guilty to two counts of rape.
Sentencing him, Judge Usha Karu said: ‘The fear she must have experienced simply can’t be imagined.’
Rehman had applied for asylum in the UK twice last year.
His initial asylum application and subsequent appeal were rejected by the Home Office.
After his rejection, he dropped under the radar of the authorities and may have used a fake name to avoid detection.
In the hours before the attack, his victim had spent the evening with friends at Infernos nightclub in Clapham, south London.
Within minutes of luring her into the shop, Rehman raped her.
He threatened to tie her up with duct tape if she did not stop crying.
He then raped her again before callously asking her how many children she wanted to have.
After the attack on April 29 he threw her out of the shop. The young woman stumbled to a friend’s house in nearby Balham and called the police.
Describing the attack, prosecutor Jeffrey Israel told Inner London Crown Court the victim met Rehman after becoming separated from her friends outside the club.
‘He approached her and she mistakenly thought he was offering a taxi service,’ Mr Israel said.
‘Mr Rehman had keys to open the metal shutters to the shop, and led her through to the back room.
Attack: Rehman led the woman to Newspoint store in Clapham
Common Southside, (pictured) after she became separated from her friends outside
the club following a night socialising
There were two mattresses on the floor, and the woman began to cry. She was scared because she didn’t want to be in that room alone with the defendant.’
During the attack the woman was ‘shouting and crying’ and ‘physically trying to push him away from her’, he said.
‘Throughout, she was shouting at him to stop and trying to escape from him,’ Mr Israel said. ‘She told him she didn’t want to do this, and was begging him to stop.
Rather than stopping, he pushed her on to her back and pulled her arms. She was struggling to get away.’
Club: Rehman had led the girl from outside
Inferno’s nightclub in Clapham, south London, (inside pictured) with the
promise of a taxi ride home before threatening to tie her up with tape
while he carried out the attack
The owner of the shop, Bilal Akbar, was initially arrested on suspicion of rape, but told detectives he had lent his keys to Rehman, who had fled to Manchester.
Rehman handed himself in to police on May 26, but initially claimed a friend was responsible and he had been wrongly accused.
Later he changed his story and claimed he had consensual sex with the victim. Eventually he pleaded guilty to two counts of rape. However, even in court yesterday he continued to maintain the sex had been consensual.
Rehman, of Thornton Heath,
Surrey, was jailed for six years on both counts of rape, to run concurrently, and
he was ordered to be deported on his release from prison
Judge Karu said his crimes had been compounded by an ‘element of abduction’, the length of the ordeal, and the fact he took advantage of a woman who had been drinking.
The judge ordered Rehman, of Thornton Heath, South London, to be deported on his release from prison. Outside court, investigating officer Detective Constable Lisa Greedy, said: ‘This was an horrific attack by a man who had no qualms in exploiting a woman who he believed to be intoxicated.
‘The fact that he then threatened his victim with violence only added to her trauma.
‘I would like to pay tribute to the victim who showed strength and determination throughout the investigation.’
When Salim Mansur, a political scientist at the University of Western Ontario, asked me to provide a promotional blurb for his 2011 book Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism, I was only too happy to oblige. Here’s what I wrote:
“In an age of ideological conformity such as ours, it takes courage
to speak against the prevailing orthodoxy. This is a courageous book.
Professor Mansur exposes how multiculturalism corrodes the values and
traditions that sustain Canada as a liberal democratic order. The result
is a book to galvanize Canadians against the apostles of extremist
I would like to restate that view. Mansur, a practicing Muslim, is
one of the few intellectuals in Canada willing to speak truth to power
on this issue even if that truth is unpalatable — and therefore
politically incorrect — to the elites hellbent on re-engineering
Canadian society in their own ignorantly destructive image.
Indeed, earlier this week, on October 1, Mansur appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
and, more or less, warned that unless Canada abandons its current
multicultural policies and, accordingly, its immigration policies, we
will in the not too distant future “severely undermine our liberal
democracy.” In particular, he focused on the need to curtail immigration
“from Muslim countries for a period of time given how disruptive the
cultural baggage of illiberal values is brought in (to Canada) as a
Not surprisingly, nary a word of Mansur’s testimony made it into the
mainstream media, at least as far as I could determine. With a view to
correcting that deficiency, let me provide what no one else seems
willing to even acknowledge. I shall eschew commentary in order to let
Mansur have his full say, although I have Boldfaced those parts of his
statement that seem to me most relevant, and most provocative.
Many thanks for inviting me to share my thoughts with this Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
I appear before you as a common citizen deeply apprehensive and
concerned about the drift of our country as it changes due to the rate
of immigration that is without precedent among any of the advanced
liberal democracies of the West. My expertise, or to the extent my
expertise is recognized by this Committee for which I have been invited
to appear before you, is that of a professional academic, a researcher,
writer, author and public intellectual of some recognition in this great
country of ours, and I am both proud and humbled to come before you as
an unhyphenated Canadian.
Let me state right at the outset, before I
share with you my perspective on immigration, I support all measures
under consideration that modern technology provides for in securing our
borders, monitoring those who seek to gain entry into Canada, those who
arrive here without proper documentation and claim refugee status, and
those in legions outside of Canada who want to come here as immigrants. I
believe it is a no-brainer to work towards a more secure Canada, and to
implement smart cards, biometric systems, and other tools available now
or will be in the future for the purpose of keeping Canada and
Canadians secure from those who would do us harm. I have no doubt on
this matter that were we to have the thoughts of our founding fathers
inform us, and those remarkable leaders who have come after them such as
Laurier and King, Pearson and Trudeau, Knowles and Douglas, they would
remind us that a constitution agreed upon by a free people to provide
for, as John A. Macdonald put it, “peace, order and good government” is
not a suicide-pact.
In the small amount of time I have before you I want to stress upon the first principle behind the Immigration policy
as it has evolved since the centennial year and presently stand.
Needless to remark that Canada is an immigrant country, and our history
tells us as we should know it has been immigrants from Europe over the
past several centuries that built this country. On the whole they built
it well and, indeed, so well that Canada has come to be an eagerly
sought country for people from around the world as I did. But, and here
is the point, at some stage of Canada’s historical development since at
least 1867 those who built Canada in the early years of its history
could have reached an agreement to close the door to further
immigration. They did not. They believed the strength of their country
would be maintained through a judicious policy of accepting new
immigrants from Europe. But the key point here I want to emphasize, and I
have written about this at length in the public media, is they all
believed that immigration judiciously and carefully managed (I emphasize
manage) in terms of numbers and source origin of immigrants should be
such that the nature of Canada as a liberal democracy is not undermined.
It is numbers and the nature of numbers
that matters and, given the nature of things, determines how existing
arrangements are secured or undermined. Since the open door immigration
policy was instituted around the time of Canada’s centennial year, the
nature of immigration into Canada started to change from what had been
the pattern since before 1867 to around 1960. During the past fifty
years immigration from outside of Europe, from what is generally
designated the Third World, has rapidly increased in proportion to those
immigrants originating in Europe. Furthermore, given the revolution in
transportation with the introduction of wide body trans-continental
jetliner that has made mass travel economical and easy the distinction
between immigrant and migrant workers has been eliminated. This means,
and it is not simply in reference to ethnicity, that Canada is
rapidly changing culturally in ways our political elite, media elite and
academic elite do not want to discuss. But the fact that this is not
discussed, or driven under the carpet, does not mean the public is not
keenly aware of how much the country has changed in great measure in a
relatively short period, and if this pattern continues for another few
decades there is the likelihood that Canada will have changed
irrevocably, and not necessarily for the better in terms of its
political tradition as a liberal democracy.
So in terms of first principle, we need
our governing institutions and those individuals we, as Canadians, send
to them to represent us, to boldly re-examine our existing immigration
policy and re-think it in terms of what it represents and how it will
affect the well-being of Canada in the years to come. I do not need to
remind you that any set of policy, however benign or good the intent is
behind the making of such policy, is riddled with unintended
consequences. History is a paradox. What you intend is not how things
turn out in the long run, and not even in the short term. Pick any
example you want, and think it through and see for yourself the
paradoxical nature of history and how it surprises us by confounding our
I have at hand the recent publication of Statistics Canada, Projections of the Diversity of the Canadian Population: 2006 to 2031.
In other words, this projection affects me now and what remains of my
life, but more importantly affects my children, my students, my friends
and neighbours in their life time. Your views, as our representatives,
are critical and will affect all of us, and you will be responsible in
terms of our history, if you take your place in these hallowed halls
with the seriousness it demands, for the good and the bad that come out
of your decisions.
Let me quickly, time permitting, point out from this Statistics Canada publication the following:
Given the nature of our immigration policy since the 1960s, the
foreign born population is growing about 4 times faster than the rest
of the population; consequently, in 2031 there will be between 9.8
million and 12.5 million foreign-born persons compared to 6.5 million in
2006, and the corresponding number in 1981 was 3.8 million.
According to Statistics Canada projection, the population
estimated for 2031 will be around 45 million of which 32 per cent, or
around 14.5 million people will be foreign-born.
One more interesting, and yet critical, figure is the cultural/religious make up of Canada in 2031. The
fastest growth, according to the report, is “the Muslim population…
with its numbers tripling during this period. This increase is mainly
due to two factors: the composition of immigration… and higher fertility
than for other groups.” The figures are for Muslims in 2006 at around
900,000 constituting 2.7 per cent of the population, and rising to in
2031 to around 3.3 million constituting 7.3 per cent of the population.
If the levels of immigration in Canada is
being maintained, and defended, on the basis of the needs to deal with
the problems of Canadian society in terms of an aging population,
fertility rates among Canadian women, skilled labour requirement and
maintaining a growth-level for the population consistent with the growth
of the economy, then this policy needs to be seriously re-evaluated.
We cannot fix the social problems
of the Canadian society by an open immigration policy that adds to the
numbers at a rate that puts into question the absorptive capacity of the
country not only in economic terms but also, if not more importantly,
in cultural and social terms and what this does to our political
arrangements as a liberal democracy.
The March 2012 Herbert Grubel and Patrick
Grady study for the Fraser Institute on Immigration and Refugee Policy
should end once and for all the naivety that immigrants add in the short
and medium term to economic gains for the country. Indeed, the
cost-benefit analysis the Grubel-Grady study provides, based on
government sources and revenue Canada numbers, indicates immigrants are a net cost to the rest of the society.
“The fiscal burden imposed by the average recent immigrants,” Grubel
and Grady write, “is $6,000, which for all immigrants is a total between
$16 billion and $23 billion per year.” This is unfair, unsustainable,
and disruptive to the Canadian society when set against the demands of
Canadians for their needs, especially in distressing economic times as
we have been witnessing since 2008.
The flow of immigration into
Canada from around the world, and in particular the flow from Muslim
countries, means a pouring in of numbers into a liberal society of
people from cultures at best non-liberal. But we know through our
studies and observations that the illiberal mix of cultures poses one of
the greatest dilemmas and an unprecedented challenge to liberal
societies, such as ours, when there is no demand placed on immigrants
any longer to assimilate into the founding liberal values of the country
to which they have immigrated to and, instead, by a misguided and
thoroughly wrong-headed policy of multiculturalism encourage the
opposite. It is no wonder that recently the German Chancellor
Angela Merkel and the British Prime Minister David Cameron, among other
European leaders and a growing body of intellectuals, have
spoken out in public against multiculturalism and the need to push it
back, even repeal it.
I have written a book on the wrong headed policy of multiculturalism published recently under the title Delectable Lie: a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism.
Time forbids me to discuss this matter at any length, but I would
surely hope members of this Committee might take the time and read my
book even if they disagree with me. Here I want to leave you in your
deliberations to reflect upon the following situation of a paradoxical
We may want to continue with a level of
immigration into Canada annually that is about the same as it is at
present; i.e. somewhere in the vicinity of 300,000 immigrants, refugee
claimants, and students and workers under visa provision entering
We cannot, however, continue with
such an in-flow of immigrants under the present arrangement of the
official policy of multiculturalism based on the premise all cultures
are equal when this is untrue, and that this policy is a severe, perhaps
even a lethal, test for a liberal democracy such as ours.
This means we cannot
simultaneously continue with both, the existing level of immigration and
official multiculturalism, as they together endanger greatly our
liberal democratic traditions.
If we persist we will severely
undermine our liberal democracy or what remains of it, compromise the
foundation of individual freedom by accommodating group rights, and
bequeath to our children and unborn generations a political situation
fraught with explosive potential for ethnic violence the sort of which
we have seen in Europe as in the riots in the ban lieu or suburbs of
Paris and other metropolitan centres.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize we need
to consider lowering the number of immigrants entering into Canada
until we have had a serious debate among Canadians on this matter. We
should not allow bureaucratic inertia determining not only the policy,
but the existing level of immigrant numbers and source origin that
Canada brings in annually. We have the precedent of how we
selectively closed immigration from the Soviet bloc countries during the
Cold War years, and we need to consider doing the same in terms of
immigration from Muslim countries for a period of time given how
disruptive the cultural baggage of illiberal values is brought in as a
result. We are, in other words, stoking the fuel of much unrest in our country as we have witnessed of late in Europe. And lest
any member wants to instruct me that my views are in any way
politically incorrect or worse, I would like members to note I come
before you as a practicing Muslim who knows out of experience from the
inside how volatile, how disruptive, how violent, how misogynistic is
the culture of Islam today and has been during my lifetime, and how
greatly it threatens our liberal democracy that I cherish since I know
what is its opposite.
Mansur’s testimony did not go down well with most of the committee
members, who were eager to establish their multikulti bonafides and
ensure their respective constituents that they, too, prayed at the altar
of diversity. It is worthwhile reading their questions of Mansur, as well as his responses.
For the most part, we get duck-and-cover banalities from the
politicians, a least in comparison to Mansur’s display of courage. Too
bad so few other Canadian intellectuals — particularly non-Muslims —
aren’t willing to display equal moral fortitude. But then I guess you
don’t get government grants by criticizing government policy.
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 13 — The government will soon table in Parliament a provision disallowing judges from exercising their discretionary power to reduce the sentence given to statutory rapists, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, following an uproar on the light sentences received by two men convicted of having sex with their barely pubescent girlfriends.
If passed, it will be added to section 376 of the Penal Code, which prescribes a mandatory jail sentence for those convicted of statutory rape.
According to a Star Online report today, Nazri (picture), who is the de facto law minister, said the provision would state that section 294(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which gives the judge discretionary power to reduce or give a lighter sentence to the accused, would not apply.
“If passed, the provision will mean that judges cannot give lighter sentence in the case of statutory rape.
“I have spoken to the Attorney-General on the provision and he has agreed; therefore it will be tabled in the next Parliament sitting,” he was reported as saying at a press conference in Padang Renggas, Perak today.
Nazri said the additional provision was important as it would protect minors.
The minister had last month said the government was considering setting up a sentencing council to ensure the streamlining of criminal punishment meted out by the courts.
"The government believes that a sentencing council can be put in place but not a committee to review court decisions," Nazri told Parliament on September 25.
"It is dangerous if we have a review system as this will create another tier in the legal system. This is because there is a committee higher than the courts to review their decision," he said then.
Nazri further said the proposed sentencing council would only look at streamlining court sentences and not revisit cases to review judgments.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has also backed amendments to the law to inflict tougher penalties on convicted child rapists.
“The department’s stand is that rape cases require deterrent sentencing to reflect the abhorrence and revulsion of the public towards such crimes.
“This aberration of justice for those who most need the protection of law must be rectified,” the AGC said in a statement on September 5.
In August, former national bowler Noor Afizal Azizan and electrician Chuah Guan Jiu who were bound over for five years and three years respectively on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond each after being found guilty of statutory rape.
In both cases, the judges had stated that they had taken the “bright futures” of both men into consideration as well as the fact the sex acts were consensual.
The AGC added that it had filed an appeal against the Penang Sessions Court’s decision on August 29 for Chuah’s case and that it was considering the use of the court’s inherent power to review the decision in Noor Afizal’s case.
The NGO criticises the police force for their alleged practice of seeking cash in exchange for information or other favours from family members of those detained.
PETALING JAYA: Suaram lambasted the police over what appears to be a prevailing culture of their officers requesting bribes from family members in exchange for information on the whereabouts of their detained loved ones.
The latest allegation involves the wife of death in custody victim, P Chandran, who said she was asked to pay RM300 for information on her husband just before he died in detention.
N Selvi said she attempted to check with the police on the whereabouts of her husband so that she could pass him medication for hypertension problem.
“Suaram is gravely concerned at the steady repetition of corrupt practices by the police,” said Suaram coordinator R Thevarajan.
He said that this was not the first time such allegations have been brought to Suaram’s attention.
In one instance, said Thevarajan, police had requested RM13,000 as “release fee” from parents of teenagers detained under the Emergency Ordinance in 2011.
He also said that according to Suaram’s records, police have, throughout the years, never claimed any responsibility for the death of detainees.
“Suaram is perturbed at the cause of death and recounts that every death-in-custody was either attributed to the victim’s health or passed off as a case of accident,” he said.
Suaram wants the officer-in-charge of the Dang Wangi lock-up, where Chandran was detained, to produce his daily journal for “scrutiny and an independent inquest”.
Thevarajan said that an inquest should be held within a month.
“Suaram repeats the call for the setting up of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission [IPCMC].
“The police institution needs an independent disciplinary mechanism before such thuggish attitude becomes the official code of conduct of the institution,” he said.
Dang Wangi police chief ACP Zainuddin Ahmad told Bernama that Chandran died from heart disease in the Dang Wangi police station lock-up on Sept 10.
An attempt by FMT to get further response from Zainuddin was unsuccessful.
PKR’s Kapar MP S Manickavasagam announced that he is helping the family to bring a suit against the government and police for neglect.
Chandran was apparently arrested for suspected kidnapping of a baby in Cheras.
Although the Immigration Department boss says his officers were stopping Bersih leaders at airports based on a list from the police, the police chief however appears clueless about this.
KUALA LUMPUR: Immigration Department director-general Alias Ahmad had confirmed that his officers were stopping certain travellers at airports based on a list furnished by the Bukit Aman police headquarters.
But when the question of a police list was posed to Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar today, the latter seemed to be in the dark.
“Who said that? Who?” he asked, visibly puzzled.
“Can you confirm that with the Immigration [Department]?” he added. “[Is that claim] from the right channels or hearsay?” he was quoted as saying.
Ismail had initially said that the Immigration Department had the right to stop travellers for checks when quizzed on such incidents involving several Bersih leaders.
“It is the right and process of the Immigration to stop [travellers],” he said.
Yesterday, FMT had obtained a confirmation from Alias regarding the list, after Bersih co-chaiperson S Ambiga claimed that she was stopped for no reason.
Ambiga, who was at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport to board a flight to Australia, said she was held at the auto-gate for about 10 minutes on Tuesday night.
The former Bar Council president claimed that it was an act of harassment.
This morning, two other Bersih steering committee members K Arumugam and Toh Kin Woon were stopped at the LCCT and KLIA airports respectively.
Prior to Ambiga, other Bersih leaders who suffered similar treatment were Maria Chin Abdullah, Wong Chin Huat, Yeo Yang Poh and Andrew Khoo.
If Pakatan Rakyat forms the federal government, then the threat of hudud being implemented is real both politically and economically.
By Shen Yee Aun
I would like to help MCA publicity bureau chief Kow Cheong Wei on certain points that he had missed out during his debate against DAP’s Hew Kuan Yew on Thursday night.
Hew said there were less than two-third Muslim MPs in Parliament and it needed the consent of at least 148 MPs to push for an amendment to the Constitution to introduce hudud.
“Out of the 222 MPs in Parliament, only 107 MPs from the Peninsular are Muslims. If we add the East Malaysian Muslim MPs, there will only be 130.
“Besides, our constituency delineation is such that there are only 136 Muslim-majority seats, with more than 61% of the voters being Muslims,” said Hew.
Hew’s calculation is based on the current political scenario where in total there are only 130 Muslim MPs in Parliament. He must not neglect the current political reality where his calculation is based on the the current government ruled by Barisan Nasional.
The hudud calculation is only impossible in the BN political structure because mathematically the maximum number of Muslim MPs from BN even if they win all their seats will only be 117 MPs from Umno. It is almost impossible to have a Muslim/Malay MP from MCA, MIC, PPP and other BN component parties. So hudud is only mathematically impossible if BN rules.
As for Pakatan Rakyat, the number of their Muslim MPs can be intangible and hard to predict because any Muslim candidate can represent both DAP and PKR in the general election.
Moreover, DAP themselves have already pledged to introduce few potential Muslim/Malay candidates in the upcoming general election. So to have an extra 18 MPs from both PKR and DAP to reach 148 for hudud to be implemented is possible.
Hew also claimed that our constituency delineation is such that there are only 136 Muslim-majority seats. But he forgot to include the number of Muslim candidates and MPs from mixed constituencies.
Basically, Pakatan just needs an additional 12 seats from Muslim MPs contesting in mixed seats to reach 148 for hudud to be implemented.
It’s not all about mathematics
So when we claim that hudud is possible and a potential threat, this is a political reality based on when Pakatan governs the country and not based on the calculation where the current government is helmed by BN.
Hew also forgot to include the factor of the potential strength of the upcoming prime minister. What if the majority of Muslims MPs in Pakatan decide to elect (PAS president Abdul) Hadi Awang as their prime minister.
Having the influence of a prime minister will also increase support among the non MuslimPakatan MPs for Hadi for their own political survival in the coalition and government. Mathematically, the number of Muslim MPs from Pakatan will be more than the number of Muslim MPs from BN.
Mathematically, Pakatan’s strong performance in the last general election also led to Parliament witnessing a decrease of seven non Muslim MPs.
Even if their choice is Anwar Ibrahim for prime minister, Anwar has pledged his personal support for the implementation of hudud and never once dared to object to it like how Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has done.
Even Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, who seems pro-Malay has never once made a stand or expressed personal support for hudud.
In politics, sometimes it is not all about mathematics. Just look at Perak where DAP won three times the number of seats compared to PAS but the menteri besar came from PAS.
Despite DAP existing in Kelantan, its leaders have never been able to block PAS’ Islamic state agenda in the state.
A similar situation is also unfolding in Kedah – bumiputera housing loan has been increased from 30% to 50% and then from 50% to 70%, pork abbatoirs were banned, gambling was banned and the list goes on even without a 2/3.
Let us talk about Selangor where PAS is the least dominant political party. Do they actually need to be a strong political powerhouse or obtain 2/3 support to raid 7/11 outlets for selling alcohol beverages? What about the ban imposed on a cinema in Bangi back then?
In conclusion, the threat of hudud under Pakatan is real, be it politically or mathematically.
Shen Yee Aun is a political observer and former Klang DAP Youth chief.
(Harakah) - Dua peguam Suaram dalam kes Scorpene di Perancis, William Bourdon dan Joseph Breham akan datang ke Malaysia dalam masa terdekat untuk memberi taklimat berhubung isu itu kepada Ahli Parlimen di Dewan Rakyat.
KeadilanDaily melaporkan, Pengarah Eksekutif Suaram, Cynthia Gabriel berkata, kedua-duanya telah memohon visa dan akan hadir sebelum sidang parlimen berakhir, November ini.
“Kita sedang merancang tarikh sesuai untuk bawa mereka beri penerangan di Parlimen. Mungkin dalam bulan November. Visa kedua-dua peguam untuk ke Malaysia telah dimohon minggu lalu.
“Kita akan bawa mereka masuk secara sah untuk beri penerangan kepada Ahli Parlimen Malaysia dan sekarang sedang cari tarikh sesuai,” ujar Cynthia yang dipetik portal PKR itu.
“Kalau boleh kita tak nak buat penerangan di Singapura. Itu hanya pilihan terakhir,” ujar beliau lagi.
Menurut Cynthia, kemasukan itu dibuat mengikut prosedur selepas Wisma Putra dan Jabatan Imigresen sebelum ini mengguna alasan untuk mengusir Bourdon atas alasan menyalahguna pas lawatan.
“Jadi kali ini kita mohon secara betul mengikut prosedur.
“Kita bawa masuk mereka kali ini secara sah dan harap kerajaan beri kerjasama. Wisma Putra tak perlu beri alasan untuk halang peguam jumpa klien (Suaram),” tegas Cynthia.
There have been a lot of loose definitions of "moderate" Islam in the media recently and in the wake of violent protests throughout the Muslim world, the word is starting to mean simply -- non-violent. The deaths in Libya and many other Muslim countries have been a disturbing counterpoint to the hopes aroused by the Arab Spring movement. Peaceful protests have achieved so much more change in the last two years than all the decades of violence in the past, yet extremists still believe they can achieve their agenda by continuing to murder innocent civilians. Violence is their only way of remaining relevant as they have nothing else to offer.
Malaysia is often referred to as a moderate Islamic country, as it is mainly peaceful, prosperous and law-abiding. A predominantly Muslim country with vocal and distinct minority populations of Indian and Chinese origin, peaceful change has taken place over the last twenty years without violent extremism. It may be because the government has kept a tight hold on the country with the emergency law and regulations adopted in 1957 to maintain political order and stability when Malaysia was emerging from the communist insurgency. These laws stayed in place until very recently and have been used to respond to any movement that was considered prejudicial to national security. Today, the question arises of whether such laws provide security or whether they have become a liability. In September, 2011 the increasingly controversial Internal Security Act (ISA) of 1960 was repealed and in November, 2011, the government finally lifted three existing emergency proclamations, rendering void the unpopular Emergency Public Order and Prevention of Crime Ordinance of 1969.
However, civil rights groups are expressing dissatisfaction with the new legislation which replaces the archaic repealed laws; Hasmy Agam, the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia has spoken out against the new legislation for failing to meet international human rights standards. Many see the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill as placing further curbs on civil liberties by restricting street demonstrations and the new Security Offences Act is simply "the New ISA." The much vaunted relaxation of media restrictions is also being criticized as an inadequate half-measure.
Another reform that many see as long overdue is Malaysia's affirmative action policy, where Malays have been given preference over the decades. Very successful at bringing education and economic opportunity to ethnic Muslim Malaysians, the policy is now being seen as culturally divisive and open to corruption. The present government has rejected calls for reform as the policy has helped maintain their electoral advantage for over twenty years.
Malaysia is ranked in 20th position in the 2012 Global Peace Index issued by the Institute for Economics and Peace. The second highest Muslim nation in the ranking, outdone only by Qatar, Malaysia's tranquility has been achieved by a stable though autocratic democracy. If Malaysia has indeed truly achieved maturity, the challenge now is to grant more civil rights and freedoms to a diverse population where 40 percent are non-Muslim. Malaysia's Constitution calls for the rights of all to practice their faith in peace and harmony but, increasingly, today the ideal of religious tolerance is being threatened by what many see as the "Arabization" of Malaysian Islam.
Malaysia has traditionally been pragmatic and even liberal about such issues as apostasy, and viewed Sharia courts as dealing with a narrow range of family matters for Muslims, and not having the power to dictate a citizen's relationship to the state. But recent surveys of Malay attitudes show that a majority think of themselves as Muslims first and Malaysians second and want the state to become more Islamic.
This, in turn, is threatening the concept of Malaysian nationalism and national unity, which Prime Minister Razak is attempting to achieve through his 1Malaysia concept. It will be just window-dressing if conservative views are protected and racial relations and religious liberties are sabotaged by extremism.
Najib Razak presents himself as a reformer on a mission to modernize Malaysia. But the reality is that Malaysians want more than window dressing as the time gets closer to the next election. With the country going into full campaign mode, the rifts in philosophy are becoming clearer, the dirty tricks dirtier and the opposition party under Anwar Ibrahim's leadership is becoming more popular.
Malaysia will always be a multi-cultural, multi-religious country and, hopefully, its Muslim population will always practice a moderate and non-violent form of Islam. Increasingly, it looks as if Anwar Ibrahim will be the visionary and principled leader Malaysia needs to safeguard this for the future.
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is the Executive Chairman of The Scotland Institute and a Fellow and Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.
(Aug 30, 2012): In what is the first case of its kind, four transsexuals
are challenging the Negri Sembilan Syariah law that forbids males to
openly dress or pose as females on the grounds that it is infringing
their rights under the Federal Constitution.
High Court today began a constitutional hearing before Justice Datuk
Siti Mariah Ahmad on a judicial review of Section 66 of the Syariah
Criminal (Negri Sembilan) Enactment 1992, initiated by the four
transsexuals who have been charged under the section.
Juzaili Mohd Khamis, 24, Shukor Jani, 25, Wan Fairol Wan Ismail, 27,
and Adam Shazrul Mohd Yusoff, 25, who work as bridal make-up artists,
identify themselves and dress as women.
Aston Paiva, representing the four, told the court that Section 66 of
the Syariah Criminal (Negri Sembilan) Enactment 1992, which
“criminalises” any man who dresses or poses as a woman, is
The section provides for a fine not exceeding RM1000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both, upon conviction.
(applicants) have been identified to have a medical condition known as
Gender Identity Disorder (GID). It is an attribute of their nature that
they did not choose and cannot change,” he said.
undisputed medical evidence shows the applicants are biologically male
but psychologically female. Thus, it is not applicable to them.”
said the applicants, who have been arrested and harassed by the
authorities several times, cannot conform to Section 66 by virtue of
their medical condition, without suffering psychological harm and
applicants therefore ask this court for relief, either by declaring the
law unconstitutional or by declaring that Section 66 does not apply to
people like them, who suffer from GID,” Paiva said.
pointed that Section 66 denies them the right to freely express their
identity, and infringes Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution
that guarantees freedom of expression.
that only Parliament can restrict freedom of expression, he added that
Section 66 is unconstitutional as it is enacted by the state
They are also seeking a court order to prohibit their arrest and prosecution under the section.
Paiva said that Section 66 also violates:
>> Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, which enshrines the right to personal liberty.
Article 8(2), which states that “…there shall be no discrimination
against citizens on the grounds only of religion, race, descent, place
of birth or gender in any law…”
>> Article 9(2), which enshrines the right of every citizen to move freely throughout Malaysia.
>> Article 4(1), which declares void any law that is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution.
men can be charged with this offence in this state – not women,” he
said, adding that in other states, similar law involves immoral
activities and not just dressing up as women.
submitted that the challenge before the court is whether the state’s
enactment is consistent with the Federal Constitution and not to rule on
religion or religious precepts.
LUMPUR: Famous syarie lawyer Muhamad Burok, who was suspended from
practising in the Federal Territories for six months for his role in a
syariah matter without instructions from his client, has been allowed to
challenge the order.
Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abang Iskandar Abang
Hashim granted leave to Muhamad for a judicial review application and a
stay against the suspension order until Oct 30.
He did this after hearing submissions from Muhamad’s lawyers Dr Zulqarnain Lukman and Mohd Fikah Sanusi in chambers yesterday.
Dr Zulqarnain said the judge had ruled that there were merits to be heard in Muhamad’s case.
“We will now file our papers for the hearing of the judicial review,” he said.
he added, was handling five syariah cases for the client, who lodged a
complaint with the Federal Territory Syarie Lawyer Committee here.
“We received a letter, dated Dec 6, 2010, from the committee notifying us of the complaint,” said Dr Zulqarnain.
claimed that Muhamad had replied to the committee in a letter dated Feb
22, last year and had attached a copy of the details in his diary
explaining how he had acted for the client.
the committee had issued an order dated April 23 saying that Muhamad
had been suspended for six months for violating two provisions of the
Practice Direction 2002 on the Ethics of the Syarie Lawyer.
MANILA, Oct 13 (Bernama) -- Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will arrive here tomorrow for a three-day official visit to the Philippines, where among others, he will witness the signing ceremony involving the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) Framework Agreement for peace.
Briefing Malaysian reporters here Saturday, Charge d'Affaires of the Malaysian Embassy in the Philippines, Zakaria Nasir, said Najib, accompanied by wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, would have a tight schedule on Monday, beginning with the wreath-laying ceremony at Luneta Park (Rizal Park) here.
This will be followed by a welcoming ceremony/arrival honours at the Malacanang Palace grounds. The Palace is the official residence and the principle workplace of the Philippine president.
After signing the guest book at the palace's Reception Hall, Najib will proceed to a closed-door meeting with Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino III at the President's Hall of the Malacanang Palace.
After that, Najib will lead the Malaysian delegation to an Expanded Bilateral Meeting which would be participated by Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed at the President's Hall.
The meeting will be followed with a Joint Press Statement.
After attending the official luncheon hosted by Aquino, the prime minister and the president will witness the signing ceremony of the landmark GPH-MILF Framework Agreement at the Rizal Hall.
Najib is scheduled to deliver a speech, followed by Aquino, at the event.
The Malaysia-brokered peace agreement was announced simultaneously in Manila and Kuala Lumpur on Oct 7.
The framework agreement is a road map for establishing a new autonomous region to be administered by the Muslims in the nation's south, aimed at paving the way for a long, lasting peace after more than 40 years of conflict.
Najib, among others, in welcoming the agreement, had said that he was delighted that through this historic deal, the rights, dignity and future prosperity of the Bangsamoro people would be protected, while at the same time, the sovereignty and the Constitution of the Philippines would be preserved.
Zakaria said the prime minister would also attend a business dialogue with the Philippines-Malaysia Business Council, at a hotel here on Monday.
At 7.30pm, the prime minister and wife are scheduled to attend the 'Majlis Mesra Bersama Rakyat Malaysia' at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel here.
Zakaria said about 150 people, comprising Malaysian students, businessmen and their family members, would attend the event.
Najib and Rosmah are scheduled to depart for home on Tuesday morning.
Meanwhile on Monday, Rosmah, in a separate itinerary will deliver a speech at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) in Makati here.
Among dignitaries scheduled to attend the event are Kris Aquino, sister of the Philippine president, and AIM president Dr Stevan J. DeKrey.
Rosmah, who is an alumni of the institute, will also tour the AIM campus.
An ex-Star journalist who wrote an article on the rape of Penan females is upset with her former paper for apologising to a timber company over her article. She claims the daily had failed to consult her about the apology.
The Star’s apology can be found here. The timber firm then withdrew its defamation case.
On top of the apology, The Star has to publish a full-page feature highlighting the timber firm’s corporate social responsibility efforts, according to Malaysiakini.
Journalist Hilary Chiew had written the report about the rape incidents ‘Against their will’ in 2008 but says The Star did not consult her when making its decision to apologise to the timber firm over the report. “I have never, at any point in time, been informed nor consulted about the negotiations for the out-of-court settlement,” Chiew was reported as saying in Malaysiakini.
The timber firm is denying it was in any way linked to the incidents of rape of Penan females and did not have any operations in the vicinity.