Saturday, March 31, 2007

Lulu Praying for Subashini and Her Two Children

may true justice prevail in this land.

Saturday March 31, 2007
Stay against Syariah proceedings
PUTRAJAYA: R. Subashini, who was told to go to the Syariah Court to fight for her matrimonial rights, obtained a temporary injunction from the Court of Appeal to preserve her civil rights pending her appeal to the Federal Court.
In a majority judgment, Justices Gopal Sri Ram, Suriyadi Halim Omar and Hassan Lah, who heard Subashini’s application yesterday, granted an injunction preventing her husband, who had converted to become a Muslim, from initiating or continuing with any proceedings in the syariah courts or converting their younger son. Justice Suriyadi dissented.

Will you pray for them too, and for this nation of ours?

7 comments:

kittykat46 said...

Hi Lulu,
Don't get your hopes too high over this case. Unfortunately, in cases like this, many of our judges consider themselves Muslims first before they are judges. So they will rule per their Islamic beliefs. I have very little hope for Subashini to win in our court system.

The problem really needs to go back to Parliament, which created the ambiguity in the first place with the Constitutional amendment amendment Article 121 (1A), which states that civil courts have no jurisdiction on "any matter" which falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah.
Its ultimately a political matter, and UMNO must understand that Barisan will lose a great many non-Muslim votes if this continued erosion of their constitutional rights continues.

Anonymous said...

Political relgion and secular politics can never mix. One is founded on non-reasoning faith ; the other can always evolve along rationality and human interests in due time.

Kittykat, Barisan, esp. Umno wants to grab maximum support and therefore ride many horses including thoise running in different directions all at once. Top priority and apparently virtually the only one, of course, is Malay support. Therefore it will pander to all things Malay, even if they are self-contradictory in nature, as long as it serve the interests of the ruling elites and their self-enrichment agenda.

~wits0~

Anonymous said...

5-year old Dutch girl Maria Hertogh was given to a malay lady for temporary care when the japs occupied Malaya. When the war was over, she was hastily married to a 22-year old Malay when the Hertoghs came to claim her back. Malay rioters attacked Europeans and Eurasians and overturned and burned vehicles... A total of 18 people were killed and 173 injured and about 200 vehicles were destroyed.

This may happen if Subashini wins her court case.

http://groups.msn.com/MALAYSIANMEMORIES/mariahertogh1.msnw

Anonymous said...

Subashini should had executed a "Lorena Bobbitt cut" on her husband when he converted-- then he would not had converted b'cos no muslim lady however ugly would wed an Indian eunuch even if he had the face of Amitabh Bachan and Shah Rukh Khan combined

Anonymous said...

The Maria Hertogh case was a particularly disgusting case that revealed to what extent the tribal and fanatical Force of a fascist Creed will go to be "victorious". Particularly the hasty part of marrying her off at such an age.

Not many even 'older' people have heard about it because the printed media has deliberately not covered it. Were it not for the Internet today, few people would ever be able to hear about it.

To the eyes of the discerning, looking back into history, the costs alone says that it's not a victory for justice as we understand it, but a desperate compromise of a tired government to avoid further carnage in society. Unfortunately such a 'solution' by the court appealing to parochial emotion rather than logic only spoilt the triumphalistic criminals and the instigators involved.

~wits0~

lucia said...

ok come, let's pray together. the intercession to invoke the prayer:

let us pray "that government and authorities may respect the God-given religious freedom to every person and that no external constraints be placed on individuals or groups in seeking redress of their rights ot live according to the tenets of their faith."
(see here)

Anonymous said...

It seems that Mohd Shafi Abdullah;s lips dropped off :

http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=17509

"Bar Council: Public comments on Subashini case not sub judice
Updated: 07:47PM Wed, 04 Apr 2007

PETALING JAYA (April 4, 2007): Public comments about the R. Subashini case,
which is pending in the Federal Court, are not sub judice, the Bar Council
said today.

"This fear is unfounded, and the argument is without basis," its chairwoman,
Ambiga Sreenevasan, said in a statement.....
She added that public comments on matters of public interest, particularly
where it involves constitutional guarantees, cannot be sub judice or
contempt."

Powerful prayers!

~wits0~