Wednesday, December 19, 2007

It might be a pardon, but they still believe she is guilty

Saudi king pardons gang-rape victim | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

At last the Saudi king has taken action for the sake of the welfare of the Qatif girl. King Abdullah has issued a pardon for the girl so that she will not have her sentence of 200 lashes carried out. This is good news, however, there is a catch. The justice ministry believes that she was treated fairly by the courts and that she was in fact guilty of the alleged crime.

Amongst the allegations dragged up against this girl is that she was dressed improperly. I guess that means she was not wearing a burqa, that most ridiculous get up that is destroying the health of Muslim women. She was also accused of being an adulteress, even though her husband has stood firmly by her side and has never accused her of such a thing.

Now for the first time I read that the girl's brother, when he heard about the rape had tried to kill the girl and she had tried to take her own life. Poor girl, what horrible treatment at the hands of a system that is so mysoginic that women who are raped are either killed by male relatives, commit suicide, or they are tried for a "crime" that they did not in fact commit.

Amongst the more sickening details of this story is the fact that the rapists took a mobile phone video of the attack, yet the judges in the case claimed that they could not find evidence of the kidnap, assault and rape. Really!!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Rudd sends home illegal immigrants from Indonesia

Rudd sends home 16 asylum seekers - National - the
In a very clear cut case the Rudd government has acted properly in my view by sending home the asylum seeker to Indonesia. For the very first time this is a clear cut case of economic refugees, since they have stated that they had to flee their homes because they could not earn a living after they had been caught illegally fishing in Australian territorial waters.

The issue here is border security, and for this reason these Indonesians should be sent home. They are not in fear of their lives because of war, and they are not fleeing a one child policy. Neither are they facing persecution as Christians, Buddhists or Hindus as a result of Muslim intolerance.

There have been times when I have been clearly on the other side in this particular debate. I do believe that it was wrong to send the Chinese woman who was pregnant with her second child back to China. She was forced to undergo a late term abortion and then faced further punishment. Australia had a duty to protect her and her family from this kind of behaviour by the Chinese government because it was genuine persecution. I am only citing one case where I have believed that the refugees should have been allowed to stay and that the application of "economic refugee" has been incorrectly applied in the past. However, this is clearly not the case with these individuals.

It is for this reason that I stand against David Manne of the Refugee and Immigration Centre because he is talking about these illegals as not having the opportunity to put there case. Sorry, but where there is no war there is no case, and where there is clearly an economic motivation there is no case. These illegal immigrants were already guilty of entering Australian waters to fish illegally, why should they be allowed to remain in Australia as illegal immigrants. We need to take a tough stance, otherwise our borders will remain porous.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

More than 200 Saudi alleged terrorists arrested

Saudi Arabia has announced that following an investigation lasting several months more than 200 Saudi and foreign nationals have been arrested on suspicion of being involved in terrorism.

The arrests took place over the past few months but were kept secret so as not to jeopardize ongoing investigations, a Ministry of the Interior official said Wednesday.

Eight of those being held are accused of involvement in a plot to attack an oil facility in the Eastern Province, where much of the nation's oil industry is based, and had set a date for the attack.

Another militant cell is alleged to have planned to assassinate Saudi religious figures and security officials, while a separate cell allegedly planned to smuggle eight shoulder-fired rockets into the kingdom from Yemen for terrorist operations.

The official said 112 of those arrested were "linked in with elements stationed abroad who facilitate the exit and travel of those to conflict zones" such as Iraq.

U.S. military officials have said that Saudis make up the largest contingent of foreign fighters in Iraq, while a Saudi Counterterrorism official noted that fighters returning from Iraq to Saudi Arabia represent a "troubling" phenomenon.

Thirty-two individuals -- Saudis and non-Saudis -- were arrested for allegedly providing financial support to other militants; 16 others were arrested for alleged involvement in the publication of a militant newsletter called Sada Alrafidain.

According to the Saudi counter-terrorism official, the number of arrests is the largest ever announced by the ministry.

The Saudi official said the Saudi government released the information before the Hajj pilgrimage season, when 2 million pilgrims travel to the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, in order "to alert the public of the ongoing threat to security in the kingdom.

It should be noted that Yemen has close links with Al Qaeda, therefore the arrests could represent a very big blow to the efforts of Al Qaeda to gain world domination via the setting up of a world wide caliphate which is one of the aims of Osama Bin Laden.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

4 infants died - the police case against the mother collapses because of inadmissible evidence

Has Justice been served for this mother, who had 4 children and lost all of them for an unknown reason?


CAROL Matthey entered the Supreme Court yesterday charged with murdering her four small children, one by one, over five years.

Police said she deliberately suffocated them, partly in order to sustain her troubled relationship with her husband, Stephen Matthey, the children's father.

But yesterday, the criminal case against Mrs Matthey, who has always denied she harmed her children, collapsed.

Fifteen minutes after she arrived, Mrs Matthey left the court free, cheerfully accepting congratulations. In an extraordinary end to one of the most dramatic cases in Victorian legal history, prosecutors dropped the charges because much of the evidence gathered against her was ruled inadmissible.

A case that involved a three-year police investigation, thousands of pages of statements and 160 witnesses — and a case that dominated four years of Carol Matthey's life — was suddenly over before it reached trial.

After she left the court, Mrs Matthey walked along William Street smiling, declining to answer reporters' questions until this one: "Are you not guilty, Carol?"

"No," she said firmly.

The reporter pointed out the double negative and asked for clarification. Did she mean she was innocent? "Yes," she said, chuckling, amused at the misunderstanding. Then she walked off the public stage and into the rest of her life.

The Supreme Court case against Mrs Matthey ended as a result of pre-trial hearings before Justice John Coldrey. In a complex 94-page judgement on October 12, he found most of the proposed evidence inadmissible under the law.

In legal terms, this is not an acquittal. A defendant against whom charges are withdrawn is not protected by double jeopardy and, theoretically, faces the prospect of another trial if new evidence emerges.

Mrs Matthey, 27, of Geelong, lost four children between 1998 and 2003. Jacob was seven months old, Chloe nine weeks old, Joshua three months and Shania three years and four months. At her committal hearing in March 2006, Mrs Matthey's defence argued there was no physical evidence of harm done to any of the children. Her lawyers said it was possible the children shared an as-yet-undiscovered gene that caused a medical condition, such as a fatal cardiac arrhythmia, that led to their deaths.

Police yesterday declined to comment. The acting director of public prosecutions, Jeremy Rapke, QC, said the case was irreparably damaged when the judge deemed inadmissible much of the medical evidence.

Initially, Jacob and Chloe Matthey were found to have died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and Joshua of klebsiella septicaemia. A police investigation began after the death of Shania, who was too old to have died of SIDS, and for whom no cause of death could be found. At the committal hearing, experts acknowledged SIDS was a "diagnosis of exclusion" — the cause of death used for babies when no other cause can be found. They said there were often no forensic clues that would differentiate natural SIDS from deliberate suffocation.

This left much of the expert medical evidence at the committal heated and contradictory. Four local forensic pathologists strongly argued the autopsies revealed no scientific evidence of harm to any of the children.

But a pediatrician from South Australia who specialized in SIDS, Dr Susan Beal, and a forensic pediatric pathologist from the US, Dr Janice Ophoven, were equally vehement homicide was the most likely explanation.

They argued that "scientific" evidence included the lack of risk factors for SIDS in some of the children; the rarity of four such deaths in one family; the troubled marriage; and the fact that the children had experienced "ALTEs" — apparent life-threatening episodes in which they stopped breathing or were found unconscious.

Dr Beal said: "ALTEs are not a predictor for SIDS; they're a predictor for (homicide)."

Justice Coldrey ruled out most of the evidence of these two witnesses.

The conflict between the experts meant the Crown case relied on other evidence, such as Mrs Matthey's relationship with her husband and children.

Justice Coldrey said the Crown had submitted that, particularly at times of ALTEs or deaths among the children, the marriage was under severe strain.

"Moreover, it is asserted that the relationship of Mrs Matthey to her children, evinced by unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, mediocre parenting and indifference to their deaths, would enable a jury to infer they were the unfortunate pawns in this strategy to bolster her marital situation," he wrote.

Justice Coldrey found there was no discernible link between the timing of marital crises and the ALTEs or the deaths: "There is no foundation for the contention that the killings were designed to win back Stephen Matthey's love and affection."

While there was evidence of poor mothering, the judge wrote, other reports painted a picture of a woman "who was a concerned, caring and loving mother during the children's lives, and a distressed and grieving one when they died".

Mrs Matthey's lawyer, Paul Lacava, SC, said there were no winners in the case. "Mrs Matthey and her husband have lost their children and their sadness is profound and ongoing.


I find it very strange that it used to be accepted if one baby died from SIDS then there was a chance that further babies could die from SIDS, yet these two women "experts" on a mission claim that it is impossible and that the deaths must be homicide. If this mother did in fact kill her children, then both of these "experts" have done a lot of harm to the prosecution case. The local pathologists, who had more than likely examined the bodies of the babies indicated that there was no scientific evidence of harm being done to the children. Why then should the Prosecution be allowed to build a case based upon the evidence of "experts" who had not performed any forensic pathology on the children. The Judge did the right thing striking down the charges. Carol Matthey does not walk away from the court as a totally free woman, because she could be charged again, but at least justice is seen to be done when a case that is not based upon fact, but upon "experts with a mission" has been struck down because of the lack of real evidence that would lead to a conviction.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Denmark grants asylum to Eritrean Christian.

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Asylum for Eritrean gospel singer
She does not belong to one of the 4 recognized religious groups, but she belongs to the Evangelical Rema church. Helen Berhane is a Gospel singer and she was arrested in 2004 because she belongs to what is termed in Eritrea as an underground and illegal Church. After a lot of pressure was put on the Eritrean government to obtain her release, Helen Berhane escaped to Khartoum in the Sudan.
What is extraordinary about this story is that Helen Berhane and her daughter Eva applied for asylum in the UK in January, but after 7 months of waiting no decision had been made. Yet, it took the Danish officials one month to accept that Helen and Eva were genuine refugees.
After reading about the torture that Helen and thousands like her experienced in yet another Muslim country where there is such "tolerance" for Christians, one has to wonder what is wrong with the British officials. Helen has to use a wheel chair because of her injuries. This is totally scandalous and against all human rights. Here is some more of the story as posted by the BBCL

An Eritrean Christian gospel singer who was tortured and detained without charge for two years in her homeland has been granted asylum in Denmark.

Helen Berhane was imprisoned inside a metal shipping container and beaten in an effort to make her recant her faith.

Freed in December 2006, she took refuge in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, before being granted asylum.

Ms Berhane uses a wheelchair because of severe injuries to her legs and feet sustained in prison beatings.

More than 90% of Eritreans belong to one of four recognised religions - Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran Churches and Islam.

All other religions were outlawed by a government decree passed in May 2001, though Jehovah's Witnesses had been denied their rights as Eritrean citizens as early as 1994.

Helen Berhane is a member of the unregistered Rema Church and had just released a cassette of gospel music when she was arrested in the Eritrean capital on 13 May 2004.

She was one of an estimated 2,000 members of illegal evangelical church groups in Eritrea who have been arrested in recent years, according to the human rights group Amnesty International.

Arbitrary detention

After an international campaign, she was released in December 2006 and fled with her sister to Sudan, fearing she could be killed to cover up what had happened to her at the Mai Serwa prison camp near Asmara.

Among the tortures she endured was the infamous "helicopter" position, in which the prisoner is placed face down with arms and legs tied behind the back.

Her account of the cruel and inhumane treatment she suffered is echoed by the testimony of hundreds of others persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Prisoners say they are routinely subjected to extremes of heat and cold, denied water and sanitation, according to testimony collected from exiles by Release Eritrea, an organisation that campaigns for the rights of religious minorities.

Ms Berhane's daughter, Eva, who joined her in Khartoum, accompanied her to Copenhagen where the two were greeted by campaigners and well-wishers on Friday.

Dr Berhane Asmelash, Director of Release Eritrea, said: "We are relieved that Helen and Eva are finally safe and would like to thank everyone who has supported them."

"We hope that Helen will now have the peace and space to recover her health and rebuild her life."

Initially Helen Berhane applied to the United Kingdom for asylum and was interviewed by immigration officials at the British High Commission in Khartoum in January 2007.

Seven months later, with no decision on her case by the British, Ms Berhane sought help from Denmark which took one month to determine that she was a genuine asylum seeker.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide's Chief Executive, Mervyn Thomas, said: "We are thrilled that Helen has now finally found refuge for herself and her daughter after so many years of suffering."

"We cannot forget, however, that 2000 other Christians still languish in Eritrean detention centres simply for holding on to their faith," Mr Thomas said.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Pollution as a cause of cancer in children

If there is one thing I hate, it is hearing about yet another child who has cancer, and yes I do know one child personally. She is only 3 years old, and has been diagnosed with a brain tumor.

However, this story concerning a young boy with leukemia has struck a chord because of the possibility that the pollutants that were pumped out into the air by the petro-chemical plants might have had an impact upon the health of this child.

No one can say for certain that Valentin's illness was caused by the
air he breathed, but earlier this year, the University of Texas
released a study showing that children who live within two miles of the
ship channel have a 56 percent greater chance of getting leukemia than kids living elsewhere.

It's the first study showing an association between the channel's air
quality and childhood leukemia. The health risks from the shipping
canal are not limited to cancer. The chemicals in the air can cause other serious health problems, such as respiratory diseases and birth defects.

Tom McGarity, a professor of environmental law at the University of
Texas, believes such conditions are allowed to persist because 90
percent of the people who call the ship channel home are Hispanic and
many of them are poor.

"If these plants were omitting these
kinds of levels in River Oaks, it wouldn't be happening, I promise," he
said. River Oaks is one of the more affluent communities in Houston.

The connection between poverty and poor environmental conditions is not
limited to Texas. In many of the countries visited for CNN's "Planet in
Peril" documentary, such as Cambodia, Thailand, Madagascar, Chad, China
and Brazil, it is the poor and disenfranchised who bear the brunt of
environmental burdens.

A similar dynamic plays out in the United
States, where class and very often race can determine where one lives.
In 2005, for example, The Associated Press reported blacks were 79
percent more likely than whites to live in neighborhoods where
industrial pollution was suspected of posing the greatest health danger.

"It's really mind-boggling that we could kind of write off, you know, a
whole section of our society," said Majora Carter, founder of the
Sustainable South Bronx, which fights what Carter calls "environmental
racism" in New York and around the country.

"No one should have
to bear the brunt of environmental burdens and not enjoy any
environmental benefits, and right now race and class ... really
determine the good things like parks and trees or the bad stuff like
waste facilities and power plants," she said.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Friday, October 12, 2007

An Open Letter to Steven Knapp at George Washington University

An open letter to Steven Knapp, president of The George Washington University

Whilst I do not consider American politics to be my business, I do think that sometimes it is necessary to blog on subjects where the left have been caught lying. What happened at GWU is a good example, therefore I have copied the open letter to Steven Knapp regarding the distribution of flyers that were in fact the responsibility of left wing students, who had the malignant intention of getting conservative students at the university expelled.

October 10, 2007

President Steven Knapp

The George Washington University

2121 I Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20052

Dear President Knapp,

Seven students at your institution falsely attributed the “Hate Muslims? So Do We!!” fliers
to The George Washington University chapter of Young America’s
Foundation. When the fliers initially surfaced you said, “There is no
place for expressions of hatred on our campus. We do not condone, and
we will not tolerate the dissemination of fliers or other documents
that vilify any religious, ethnic or racial group.”

We agree. Vicious personal attacks levied on students are
intolerable, and should not go unpunished. The question remains: what
will you do about such blatant character assassination now that the
truth is out? How will you demonstrate that you don’t “condone” or
“tolerate” the dissemination of hate?

To be clear, liberal radicals on your campus accused conservative
students of engaging in racist activities, and to buttress those
baseless claims, these same radicals manufactured actual racist
activities to pin on the young conservatives.

Student Association Executive Vice President Brand Kroeger told the GW Hatchet that
he “would support expulsion. These acts are completely heinous.” Again,
we agree with this statement if Kroeger believes it is the job of The
George Washington University to protect the reputation of students who
are wrongfully maligned. In an open letter to you, the culprits admit
to distorting the views of the conservatives on campus. They wrote, “We
want to reach out to our Muslim brothers and sisters in the Holy Month
of Ramadan in hopes that they will embrace our misrepresented, but honorable stand against racism” (emphasis added).

There is, of course, a clear difference between ordinary Muslims who
positively contribute to society and radical Jihadists who boast about
murdering people indiscriminately. It’s a typical left-wing tactic,
however, to just call names, such as “racist,” rather than engage in a
serious debate, in this case, over radical Islam. Only the
intellectually deficient revert to such slanderous attacks.

The seven who put up the phony fliers are frauds.

You should issue an apology to the conservatives unfairly targeted.
It was obvious that the fliers were spreading lies, but your
administration, led by Bridgette Behling—the assistant director of the
Student Activities Center—sent emails to the young conservatives
pressuring them to sign statements disavowing any hate speech that may
originate at any future Young America’s Foundation event.

That’s astonishing. Maybe she forgot that the presumption of
innocence is an American hallmark? Or maybe your administration should
pressure leftist groups to sign statements disavowing any future dirty
tricks on conservatives?

The political profiling of conservatives MUST stop. You need to
organize a forum immediately that embraces intellectual diversity and
denounces the Left’s attempts to create hostile learning environments
for conservatives. The campus leftists wrote that Young America’s
Foundation “should not [be] allow[ed]” to host conservative speakers.
These seven students are trying to squelch robust dialogue and free
speech. We believe this to be the goal of their scheme. As president of
The George Washington University, we hope that you will create an
atmosphere where all students, including conservatives, feel welcomed.

Don’t waste the opportunity.

Ron Robinson, President of Young America’s Foundation

Powered by ScribeFire.