Posted on 01/26/2004 9:02:18 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
It took just 10 days from the passage of Afghanistan's new Constitution for the country's Supreme Court to violate the word and spirit of that hopeful document. Without any case before the court, and based on no existing law, the court declared on Jan. 14 that a performance by the Afghan pop singer Salma on Kabul television was un-Islamic and therefore illegal. "We are opposed to women singing and dancing as a whole and it has to be stopped," said the deputy chief justice, Fazl Ahmad Manawi. Even though state television has since flouted the injunction, the court's ruling underscores one of the greatest threats to stability and democracy in Afghanistan: a renegade judiciary bent on imposing its fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran rather than enforcing Afghan law. Sadly, this ruling is consistent with past behavior of the court and its chief justice, Mawlavi Fazl Hadi Shinwari, an Islamic fundamentalist and former head of a religious school in Peshawar. Last year he tried to ban cable television and coeducation. He was appointed by former President Burhanuddin Rabbani in the chaos that gripped Kabul before Hamid Karzai's appointment as president in December 2001. Unfortunately, Mr. Karzai has kept Justice Shinwari on the bench, giving him virtually unchecked appointment powers. He has put scores of unqualified mullahs on benches at all levels, and has created a "fatwa council" in the Supreme Court to issue religious edicts. Another justice on the court who has more than 30 years experience as a judge told me that this fatwa council, a throwback to the Taliban era, is illegal under Afghan law. Afghanistan's new Constitution is mostly a model of moderation, guaranteeing many rights and freedoms for men and women. But it has a very dangerous loophole: it states that no law can be contrary to the "beliefs and provisions" of Islam. (This formulation replaced the more liberal phrase, "principles of Islam," in last- minute politicking at the loya jirga, Afghanistan's constitutional convention.) "Provisions" can be interpreted by extremists to allow for the imposition of Sharia, or strict Islamic law. Another section of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to determine whether laws and treaties made by the government are in accordance with the Constitution. Together, these two articles give the Supreme Court the power to reject virtually any law or treaty as un-Islamic. This power, in the wrong hands, will be catastrophic. A Supreme Court controlled by Islamic fundamentalists could try to become like Iran's infamous Guardian Council — an unaccountable body controlling the legislature, executive branch and electoral system on the pretext of protecting Islam. Chief Justice Shinwari and his key supporter, the Saudi-backed warlord Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, are already trying to make that vision a reality. It is critical that President Karzai take decisive action. First, his administration should make clear that the Supreme Court can issue opinions only on legal cases that have been properly argued before it. Second, President Karzai should disband the current Supreme Court and appoint new members, a power granted to him by the Constitution. This new court must consist of respected and experienced Afghan jurists. As with the existing constitutional and judicial reform commissions, the new justices should represent a range of views and regions of the country. The song performed by Salma on the broadcast, recorded in the 1970's, speaks of rural life and love for the nation. It is time for President Karzai to let freedom sing.
But "judicial activism" to advance The Glorious Cause of World Socialism? You Betcha!
At least midevil Europe had the excuse of halucenigenic molds in the grain supplies. Eating grain products caused you to hear voices and burn women for it. In Islam they just do it for sport only they use small rocks.
Another section of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to determine whether laws and treaties made by the government are in accordance with the Constitution.
Together, these two articles give the Supreme Court the power to reject virtually any law or treaty as un-Humanist."
Now why is the NYTimes complaining about a living constitution for Afghanistan too?
Exactly. I posted a thread concerning a "second line". Here my "title" would have been something to the effect of "Why the left fears embracing Howard".
Pretty much exactly what the Florida Supreme Court did during the 2000 presidential election. They stepped in without a case being brought to them and they broke Florida laws regarding the counting and certification of the election ballots.
Yet the NYT didn’t make one complaint about Florida Supreme Court’s actions. But be assured, there is no bias at the NYT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.