Who has the right...

[OceanWhysper]

OK here's a question I've been pondering lately. I thought I might toss it out here to get some other view points. ;D

Remember the woman that was sentenced in Nigera, to be stoned to death for having a child outside of marriage two years ago. She was recently released from her death sentence.

My question is.....Do you think that too many other countries and their people try to impose their morality and ethics, on other nations. Is there a line that should be draw, for when to and not to interfere in the judicial systems of other countries, and who if anyone should be allowed to make these decisions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Woman sentenced to stoning freed
From Jeff Koinange
CNN
Thursday, September 25, 2003 Posted: 9:53 AM EDT (1353 GMT)


KATSINA, Nigeria (CNN) -- An appeals court has freed a Nigerian mother sentenced to death by stoning for adultery.

The Shariah Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday that Amina Lawal's conviction was invalid because she was already pregnant when harsh Islamic Shariah law was implemented in her home province.

After the hearing, she told CNN, "I am happy. God is great and he has made this possible. All I want is to go home, get married and live a normal life."

The 31-year-old, who was in court with her baby, Wassila, has been appealing the death sentence for two years.

"It is the view of this court that the judgment of the Upper Shariah Court, Funtua, was very wrong and the appeal of Amina Lawal is hereby discharged and acquitted," judge Ibrahim Maiangwa said.

Shariah law, based on the teachings in the Quran, Islam's holy book, is practiced in 12 of Nigeria's 36 states.

Lawal's case had become the focus of human rights groups around the world who were outraged at the sentence that Lawal should be buried up to her neck and then have stones thrown at her head until she was dead.

Lawal's lawyer, Hauwa Ibrahim, said: "This a great victory for justice. The law of justice has prevailed over the law of man. Amina is free to go, to do what she wants."

But not all the spectators who attended the hearing were pleased by the result. One man who had come to hear to court's ruling said: "I would have preferred Amina to be stoned to death. She deserves it."

Had the court not overturned the verdict, Lawal would still have had two appeals left, one to a Nigerian federal court and a final appeal to Nigeria's Supreme Court. Neither of those courts is governed by Shariah law.

Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo had said if Lawal's case reached the Supreme Court, he would make sure it was overturned.

Lawal was convicted and sentenced in March 2002 after giving birth to a baby girl more than nine months after divorcing. Under the strict Shariah law, pregnancy outside marriage constitutes sufficient evidence for a woman to be convicted of adultery.

A court stayed her execution for two years to allow her to care for her baby.

"This is all I have to live for right now," Lawal said before the hearing. "My child means everything to me."

Lawal lives with her father, his two wives and their numerous children in the tiny village of Kurami, deep in Nigeria's Islamic north. The village is so small that it does not appear on a map.

She insists she did nothing wrong and that the man who fathered her child made a promise to marry her. He did not, leaving her pregnant and with no support.

The man said he was not the father, and three male witnesses testified he did not have a sexual relationship with Lawal. The witnesses constituted adequate corroboration of his story under Shariah law, and he was freed.

Lawal is the second woman to be sentenced to death after bearing a child out of marriage since 2000, when more than a dozen states in the predominantly Islamic northern Nigeria adopted strict Islamic Shariah law.

In March 2002, an appeals court reversed a similar sentence on Safiya Hussaini Tungar-Tudu after worldwide pleas for clemency and a warning from Obasanjo that Nigeria faced international isolation over the case.

The adoption of Shariah, which includes amputation as a possible punishment for convicted thieves, has stoked violence between Muslims and Christians in Africa's most populous state. More than 3,000 people have been killed.

[Hussar]

Great first topic Whysper, Kudos.

This is a very difficult issue. At what point do we sit back and say, well, it's their country, their problem and at what point should we get involved? I honestly don't know. Using Sharia as an example, there are many countries which follow Sharia law and many that are talking about instituting it. To many Westerners, Sharia seems hopelessly barbaric, but to the people that support it, it seems the best way.

I would like to say that the UN should institute some sort of standardization of legal systems, but I know that the west, which has all the money and power would totally dominate any such body. And that would just piss off the rest of the world more than it already is.

I'm not sure if I have a point to all this , but, it seems to me that trying to make a system which applies to everyone will only make everyone unhappy.

[Wyrmfire]

I have to agree. ANY law is just going to be a projection of leader's morality, even if that morality is as basic as "doing things to people that they don't want done is bad." Trying to draw the line in morality at any given point is an overwhelmingly bad idea. Where the UN needs to step in is situations where the laws are meant to enforce the power of a leader, not right and wrong.

[OceanWhysper]

Thank you Hussar

But, Wyrm, if the UN steps in to support a particular leader, isnt that the same as endorsing his or hers view points upon leadership, since that person is in power?

Would it not put one in the teniable position of having to enforce that peoples law and regulations no matter the cost, morally or ethically?

[Wyrmfire]

If I understand you correctly (my brain is a bit fried from studying ), then I disgree. Supporting a leader's right to determine law does not in any way mean that you support the morality behind the laws. I see it as a similar question as that of freedom of speech. For example, the Boy Scouts refuse to let homosexuals join. Almost everyone in the country disagrees with this practice (including me, an Eagle Scout ), but the US government also considers it a perfectly valid viewpoint, and supports their right to do it, and even after the recent supreme court ruling, there is no conflict of interests.

[OceanWhysper]

Grin Wyrmfire, I agree with you totally. ;D
I just felt the need to bring up the other view point and such..grin.

I personally feel that any government has the right to their own laws and restictions, even if I disagree with them personally. I have no right to push my morality or beliefs upon another.

The sticky part though, would come into play, with a type such as Hitler, and his regime. I as a human being, don't think I could stand by, and do nothing at such atrocities.

[Hussar]

And there's the rub isn't it?

Hussein was a constitutionally elected leader of a country. Regardless of anything else, he was the legitimate leader of a country. Yet, the US's moral argument for the invasion was specifically aimed at removing him and setting up a democratic government. This is a total imposition of morality by another country. Is it justifiable?

Or, in a less touchy case, Canada has just legalized possession of 5grams of marijuana. Not a lot by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, the US has threatened trade sanctions and a host of other things because of this.

Flip it over too. The UN has tried to impose its political will on the US for years with limited success. Most of the success has been in environmental issues. Here is a case of an outside body enforcing ideas on the Americans.

It is unavoidable that political bodies will attempt to influence, change and otherwise take charge of other political bodies.

[agamoto]

I feel that, so long as a leaders leadership remains within the bounds of his/her country, we should do nothing. In the case of Hitler, he invaded other countries and therefor over steped his bounds and was justly stopped. Hussein also over stepped his bounds by abbeting terrorists that attacked the USA. The Nigerians however did not, I do not condone there actions, however they have the right as a soverin nation.

[Wyrmfire]

I guess what it comes down to, is that you do whatever your morality dictates. If the need to remove a corrupt regime from power is greater than the need to allow the sanctity of a nation's leadership, then so be it. They can do whatever their morals dictate, but so can you, and that includes action against them.

I heard of a story once: When the British were occupying India, many of the natives were in the habit of burning unfaithful wives alive. When the British got wind of this, they hanged anyone that buned said wives. There was a huge protest, and the Indians claimed that the British had no right to interfere. It was, they said, ancient Indian tradition to punish their wives in this way. The British said, "Fine. Go ahead. But be aware that it is an ancient British tradition to hang people that burn their wives."

[VladTaltos]

She did break one of gods rules but to be stoned to death is just wrong i do think some nations force the ethics on smaller nations but what do i know

[EK - Shadow of Death]

Nations were formed to create and enforce order upon their peoples. As cultures developed, each nation created a diffferent way in which to do this. However, as times change, but laws do not, you end up with a bunch of old traditions that may or may not be relevant in today's world (e.g. all those stupid laws that we listed in the other thread). The law that allowed the stoning of a woman who has a child out of wedlock was probably created in order to prevent such things as prostitution and unregistered pregnancies so that the morality of the society would stay in check and so that population wouldn't increase rampantly (remember - there wasn't protected sex when these laws were created). I think that each society has a right to keep its morality and its ethics to itself - that's what works for its society.

What I can't stand is when a bunch of societies with similar moralities (i.e. America and Europe, half of the middle east, etc.) looks at another society, sees how different it is, and tries to convert the other (either through aggressive economics or politics, terrorism, invasion, etc.). America has a problem with the honor killings (where family members slay women in their familiy who have been anything less than perfectly virginal) done in Turkey, Al-Qaeda has a problem with America's decadence and lack of understanding. Looking at both of these, if America takes action to stop honor killing in Turkey, then they are probably worse than Al-Qaeda. Forget the idea of saving lives. You're losing culture, which is something that lasts hundreds of generations. To preserve the fabric of what makes us unique is perhaps the most important thing and unlawful imposition (imposing without being imposed on first) is perhaps the most treasonous thing that one can do to the human race, in my opinion.

[agamoto]

Eldritch Knight,
You have much more eloquintly stated my exact oppinion, thank you for putting this statement in a much grander way than I could ever have done.

[Wyrmfire]

I have a question: You say that any culture has the right to have its own laws. Sure, I agree with that. But, it is a given that many of the people under such systems disagree with it (the people being stoned, if nothing else).

My question is, how is a government imposing its will on the people any different from the UN imposing its will on a government?

[EK - Shadow of Death]

Agamoto - You're welcome


This all depends on what your perception of people is. There are some philosophers who say that people do not know what they truly want individually, but that they grant power to a government in order for the group to decide for them. It is a fact, proven time and time again, that people are in need of order - anarchism simply doesn't work. If a government finds that the most effective way to enforce order is through stoning, then the peoples' cries are for leniency. Consider, if the punishment for being adulterous was death by stoning, how much more unwilling would you be to commit adultery? To the American point of view, freedom is as important as order, a view that we attempt to impose on others with our European allies, however it is us who is imposing ourselves on others unlawfully; not foreign governments who have prerogative to do their will.

The definition of government is "the legitimate use of force to control human behavior". As long as the government in general has the approval of the people (and not simply a specific law or punishment), then the government (which knows its people far better than any overseas power could) is not imposing its will upon an unreceptive public, but doing what it was tasked to do upon its creation.

[Wyrmfire]

Eldritch said:

Agamoto - You're welcome
The definition of government is "the legitimate use of force to control human behavior". As long as the government in general has the approval of the people (and not simply a specific law or punishment), then the government (which knows its people far better than any overseas power could) is not imposing its will upon an unreceptive public, but doing what it was tasked to do upon its creation.

If the UN, then, has the general approval of its nations (and not simply a specific regulation or military action), then the UN is not imposing its will upon an unreceptive public, but doing what it was tasked to do upon it creation, right?

Eldritch said:

There are some philosophers who say that people do not know what they truly want individually, but that they grant power to a government in order for the group to decide for them.

Well, I can't speak for the philosophers, but I most definitely do not allow the government to decide my wants for me, and I would hope that not many other people do either. People rely on the government to do what they cannot, not brainwash citizens. That applies in situations like this stoning law as well. A group of citizens (probably the majority) wanted to make everyone follow the teachings of the Quran, but they needed the force of organization to do it. In other words, government.