YOURSAY 'Someone should file judicial review to stop IGP's continuing nonsense...'
Syariah court to hear IGP's stay bid on Monday
Fernz: Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar has no business making such an application to the Syariah Court. The less said the better.
The Syariah Court has no jurisdiction when it comes to non-Muslims, or where one of the party is a non-Muslim.
Lim Chong Leong: This is lawlessness. The police are bound to enforce the law and any court order whether they like the law or the court order or not, and it is not for them to apply to stay or amend or vary any law or court order in the event they dislike the law or order.
My Opinion: Indeed, the IGP does not have the locus standi to interfere except to enforce the law. The syariah court order is inferior to the civil court order.
Someone should file a judicial review for a prohibitory order to stop the IGP's continuing nonsense and for contempt of court. And a police report be made against the IGP for obstruction of justice.
Magnus: The IGP has no such locus standi to intervene or interfere in judicial proceedings, whether those legal proceedings are civil law or religious law related.
I suggest the IGP back off and keep riding on the horns of his current middle path dilemma. He should instead pass the buck to the AG so the IGP does not risk being imprisoned down the line for contempt of court.
The real culprit here is a certain former chief executive and his crony members of parliament who did the dirt on all Malaysians, including the judiciary, IGP and the AG.
And if the AG too is a learned legal ‘leader’, then he knows, like the IGP, what he has to do now. So dear AG, your move.
RR: All the authorities seem to forget that to convert a child under 18 to any religion is unrighteous and illegal. Worse if it is by a single parent secretly converting a child. Whatever religion, the authorities should uphold this basic principle of humanity.
A Voice From The Wilderness: The IGP is trying to use the Syariah Court to shield his own cowardice and irresponsiblity as a law enforcement officer. It is a real shame the whole country is in shambles.
Tommy: With the latest action from the IGP, he has made his stand very clear. It doesn't matter if the other party has broken the law, but as long as the party is from the same faith as he, they are brothers. No wonder the ex-husband is so bold as to defy the civil court.
Hopeless Govt Why don't you openly state that the IGP, attorney-general (AG) and the entire government will only work in favour of the Muslims in Malaysia? The rest can get lost.
What a goon of a civil servant you are, Khalid. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Anonymous_1398848614: This same old mess happens in Pakistan, which also has two legal systems. The civil and syariah courts are always trying to overturn each other's verdicts, both claim to be supreme, and as a result, no 'justice' is meted out.
Disgusted: Whoever non-Malay or non-Muslim is thinking of returning to this country under Talent Corp's ‘con job’ please think twice, and stay where you as you are better off there than a place which is heading towards the likes of Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.
Rtd Airforce: Don't forget these two cases are first and foremost people of Indian origin, so Islam has got no right here. What if it was the other way around? They should learn to grow up, and give and take.
PM's fear sees AG running in circles
Anonymous_4031c: Either parent can decide on the religion of a person under the age of 18 as the court has decided based on a literal interpretation of the law. But is this the correct interpretation of the law?
Let's look at the fallacy of the judicial pronouncement. If ‘parent’ means anyone of a couple then both have equal say as a parent. Why must the court give credence to one party and not the other in the event of a conflict?
In taking this approach, the court is also favouring the party that fires the first shot in coming to court first for redress to determine the minor's religion.
In the circumstances, the interpretation and approach by the court cannot be right - the status of the child should be determined by both parents.
Aries46: Veteran lawyer Muralee Menon is not the best person to comment on this matter as he is himself a convert.
His view appears as if those who secretly convert and perform unilateral conversion of their minor children do so within the realm of existing laws, which is a grave misconception.
He gives scant regard to the fact that the marriages were constituted under the civil law act that governs non-Muslim marriages. He ignores the High Court and Court of Appeal findings for Indira Gandhi and S Deepa as if they count for nothing.
For whatever reason, Muralee seem oblivious to the existing dilemma where the constitution and laws are being interpreted to suit certain political agenda and agitators and in this atmosphere any number of laws and amendments does not guarantee the sanctity and legality of non-Muslim marriages.
This would be the position so long as laws are manipulated and avenues are afforded for secret conversions and for rogue husbands to shove their middle finger at their wife and children through conversion to Islam.
Bumiputhran: Based on the constitution, any deliberation on the rights of children in a custodial dispute should be underpinned by the two international conventions, namely the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and relatedly, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), both in 1995.
These two conventions promotes the well-being of the children and the matriarchal motherhood and they inherently calls on the preservation of the status quo of the children of their faith at the time of their birth and the covenants of the marriage rites at the time when the marriage took place.
No force of an alternative religious faith, be it Islamic or Christian faith (two harvesting religious faiths) should expunge these naturally bestowed human rights.
War Child: I am not a lawyer but in my working life I had come across many written agreements. In these documents prepared by lawyers there was always a clause stating that should any ambiguity arises, the English version prevails.
In our courts, judges are expected to interpret legislations passed by Parliament including the constitution of our country, i.e. solve problem not otherwise.
Our constitution is written in English which is official. The Bahasa Malaysia version is a translation, no more no less.
Kilgore: In a society where the majority of people are assigned their religion of 'belief' at birth, with no right to change it, where proselytising to Muslims is against the law, yet unilateral conversion of minors to Islam is legal and condoned, is it any wonder that Malaysians can so easily turn a blind eye to the rampant human trafficking, and endless human rights abuses that go on around them every day? -Mkini
Syariah court to hear IGP's stay bid on Monday
Fernz: Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar has no business making such an application to the Syariah Court. The less said the better.The Syariah Court has no jurisdiction when it comes to non-Muslims, or where one of the party is a non-Muslim.
Lim Chong Leong: This is lawlessness. The police are bound to enforce the law and any court order whether they like the law or the court order or not, and it is not for them to apply to stay or amend or vary any law or court order in the event they dislike the law or order.
My Opinion: Indeed, the IGP does not have the locus standi to interfere except to enforce the law. The syariah court order is inferior to the civil court order.
Someone should file a judicial review for a prohibitory order to stop the IGP's continuing nonsense and for contempt of court. And a police report be made against the IGP for obstruction of justice.
Magnus: The IGP has no such locus standi to intervene or interfere in judicial proceedings, whether those legal proceedings are civil law or religious law related.
I suggest the IGP back off and keep riding on the horns of his current middle path dilemma. He should instead pass the buck to the AG so the IGP does not risk being imprisoned down the line for contempt of court.
The real culprit here is a certain former chief executive and his crony members of parliament who did the dirt on all Malaysians, including the judiciary, IGP and the AG.
And if the AG too is a learned legal ‘leader’, then he knows, like the IGP, what he has to do now. So dear AG, your move.
RR: All the authorities seem to forget that to convert a child under 18 to any religion is unrighteous and illegal. Worse if it is by a single parent secretly converting a child. Whatever religion, the authorities should uphold this basic principle of humanity.
A Voice From The Wilderness: The IGP is trying to use the Syariah Court to shield his own cowardice and irresponsiblity as a law enforcement officer. It is a real shame the whole country is in shambles.
Tommy: With the latest action from the IGP, he has made his stand very clear. It doesn't matter if the other party has broken the law, but as long as the party is from the same faith as he, they are brothers. No wonder the ex-husband is so bold as to defy the civil court.
Hopeless Govt Why don't you openly state that the IGP, attorney-general (AG) and the entire government will only work in favour of the Muslims in Malaysia? The rest can get lost.
What a goon of a civil servant you are, Khalid. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Anonymous_1398848614: This same old mess happens in Pakistan, which also has two legal systems. The civil and syariah courts are always trying to overturn each other's verdicts, both claim to be supreme, and as a result, no 'justice' is meted out.
Disgusted: Whoever non-Malay or non-Muslim is thinking of returning to this country under Talent Corp's ‘con job’ please think twice, and stay where you as you are better off there than a place which is heading towards the likes of Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.
Rtd Airforce: Don't forget these two cases are first and foremost people of Indian origin, so Islam has got no right here. What if it was the other way around? They should learn to grow up, and give and take.
PM's fear sees AG running in circles
Anonymous_4031c: Either parent can decide on the religion of a person under the age of 18 as the court has decided based on a literal interpretation of the law. But is this the correct interpretation of the law?
Let's look at the fallacy of the judicial pronouncement. If ‘parent’ means anyone of a couple then both have equal say as a parent. Why must the court give credence to one party and not the other in the event of a conflict?
In taking this approach, the court is also favouring the party that fires the first shot in coming to court first for redress to determine the minor's religion.
In the circumstances, the interpretation and approach by the court cannot be right - the status of the child should be determined by both parents.
Aries46: Veteran lawyer Muralee Menon is not the best person to comment on this matter as he is himself a convert.
His view appears as if those who secretly convert and perform unilateral conversion of their minor children do so within the realm of existing laws, which is a grave misconception.
He gives scant regard to the fact that the marriages were constituted under the civil law act that governs non-Muslim marriages. He ignores the High Court and Court of Appeal findings for Indira Gandhi and S Deepa as if they count for nothing.
For whatever reason, Muralee seem oblivious to the existing dilemma where the constitution and laws are being interpreted to suit certain political agenda and agitators and in this atmosphere any number of laws and amendments does not guarantee the sanctity and legality of non-Muslim marriages.
This would be the position so long as laws are manipulated and avenues are afforded for secret conversions and for rogue husbands to shove their middle finger at their wife and children through conversion to Islam.
Bumiputhran: Based on the constitution, any deliberation on the rights of children in a custodial dispute should be underpinned by the two international conventions, namely the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and relatedly, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), both in 1995.
These two conventions promotes the well-being of the children and the matriarchal motherhood and they inherently calls on the preservation of the status quo of the children of their faith at the time of their birth and the covenants of the marriage rites at the time when the marriage took place.
No force of an alternative religious faith, be it Islamic or Christian faith (two harvesting religious faiths) should expunge these naturally bestowed human rights.
War Child: I am not a lawyer but in my working life I had come across many written agreements. In these documents prepared by lawyers there was always a clause stating that should any ambiguity arises, the English version prevails.
In our courts, judges are expected to interpret legislations passed by Parliament including the constitution of our country, i.e. solve problem not otherwise.
Our constitution is written in English which is official. The Bahasa Malaysia version is a translation, no more no less.
Kilgore: In a society where the majority of people are assigned their religion of 'belief' at birth, with no right to change it, where proselytising to Muslims is against the law, yet unilateral conversion of minors to Islam is legal and condoned, is it any wonder that Malaysians can so easily turn a blind eye to the rampant human trafficking, and endless human rights abuses that go on around them every day? -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.