A 12-year-old Saudi girl unexpectedly gave up her petition for divorce from an 80-year-old man her father forced her to marry in exchange for a dowry, Saudi media reported Tuesday.
Despite support from human rights lawyers and child welfare advocates, the girl and her mother, who originally sought the divorce, withdrew the case Monday in a court in Buraidah, in Al-Qasim province, newspapers said.
The girl told the court that her marriage to the man was done with her agreement, according to Okaz newspaper.
“I agree to the marriage. I have no objection. This is out of filial respect to my father and obedience to his wish,” she said.
Saleh al-Dabibi, a lawyer supplied by a charity group to help the girl, said her mother did not inform him of the change of heart, Okaz said.
An unnamed official of the government’s Human Rights Commission, which was originally asked by the mother to help get the marriage annulled, told Arab News they too were surprised by the mother and daughter dropping the case.
The influential daughter of King Abdullah, Princess Adela bint Abdullah, expressed concern over the girl’s marriage.
“I, personally, and many specialists in social and education fields, share the opinion” that it is in violation of children’s rights, Al-Riyadh newspaper reported.
“A child has the right to live her childhood and not be forced to get married. Even an adult would not accept that,” she said.
According to reports, the girl’s father, who is separated from her mother, arranged her marriage to the 80-year-old last September in exchange for a dowry payment of 85,000 riyals ($22,667).
The case caused an uproar after Al-Riyadh newspaper first reported it in early January, saying the marriage had been consummated and quoting the girl as pleading to the journalist to “save me.”
Her mother, who is unidentified in local reports, petitioned the court to annul the marriage and charged that the girl had been raped.
The case was to be heard Monday, but reports said the mother dropped the complaint ahead of the hearing.
Saudi Arabia has no law against child marriage, and clerics and religious judges justify the practice based on Islamic and Saudi tradition.
— Saudi Girl, 12, Married Off to 80-Year-Old Man
— “‘She was raped and they took her to the hospital after the wedding night,’ Wajiha Al-Huwaidar, a Saudi journalist who has been banned from reporting by the government told The Media Line.”
— “No religious justification for child marriage: Saudi cleric”
— AFP reports: “The case of Aisha, known to Muslims as ‘The Mother of Believers,’ is often used by Saudi judges and clerics to justify child marriages.”
— “The government’s Human Rights Commission said it was following the Buraidah case, which is currently being weighed by a local court.”
— “London’s Central Criminal Court sentenced Mehmet Goren to life imprisonment for the so-called honor killing. Thursday’s conviction came a decade after the man’s daughter, 15-year-old Tulay Goren, disappeared.”
— Mehmet Goren’s two brothers were acquitted
In American schools, children discuss history, sometimes take mock roles on political issues, but recently one Arlington, Virginia school’s exaggerated relativist views led to plans to teach children how to represent hate. The teachers involved apparently believe that hate groups that stand against universal human rights represent a “political” issue, and to offer all perspectives from the world at a mock United Nations exercise, the voices that hate human rights should also be expressed. (It is no small irony that this was just days after the widely ignored Human Rights Day on December 10.)
According to reports in the Washington Post, Arlington, Virginia 8th grade teachers Eric Tarquinio and Christine Joy saw nothing wrong with this, until parents of students who were to represent the voices of hate complained to the school. After that the event was canceled, with the Swanson Middle School Principal Chrystal Forrester and the teachers expressing their regrets on bringing up issues of a “sensitive nature.”
I have not yet been specific about the hate ideology that children were to represent. In fact, it should not matter. If children were being asked to represent a hate ideology of racial supremacy, misogyny, Nazism, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, Islamophobia, etc., the natural response should have been the same – why would any taxpayer-funded public school teachers be seeking to have children represent ANY ideology of hate – for a mock United Nations event? What do children really learn when their teachers think it is legitimate exercise to represent ideologies of hate – as a legitimate expression of political views?
Too much of academia and too much of America consciously refuses to acknowledge some anti-human rights ideologies as ideologies of hate. Some hate we just won’t talk about. We will even ignore that some hate is hate at all. This is a dangerous and serious problem in America today.
The hate ideology that was to be defended by some Swanson Middle School children was the extremist hate of the Taliban. The Washington Post describes the extremist Taliban hate group merely as an “Islamic fundamentalist group” indicating that children who were to represent the Taliban hate group’s views were to help “pose solutions to the conflict in Afghanistan.” (Let’s not forget that this is the same Washington Post that gives editorial space to supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah, and most recently to wife-beating defender Sheik Ali Gomaa to speak on “modernity” and women’s rights in Islam.) Washington Post reporter Valerie Strauss defended the calls for children to represent the views of extremist Taliban as “an intriguing and legitimate exercise.”
Can you imagine teachers asking children to represent other forms of hate to help “pose solutions” to conflicts? How many teachers would still be employed in public schools if they instructed children to defend the views of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, for example? Can you imagine newspaper writers defending the idea of having children represent the racial supremacist hate of the Ku Klux Klan as a “legitimate exercise”?
Of course not, because Americans understand and recognize white supremacism as hate. But extremism by those who hate both non-Muslims and other Muslims is something we won’t talk about, won’t recognize, won’t even acknowledge the existence of, even as our President calls for more of our young men and women to fight and possibly die in fighting against such advocates of hate, while at the same time, other parts of the administration seek to promote negotiations with such advocates of hate. In every case, there is not an acknowledgment of the Taliban’s ideology as one of hate. Some argue if there are many advocates of the Taliban’s ideology of hate, then it must be a legitimate political ideology, failing to remember that at one point in America’s history there were 4 million members of the Ku Klux Klan hate group. All Americans should know that having quantities of adherents never rationalizes or legitimizes ideologies of hate.
Nor is this a partisan issue. This has been a problem during much of theBush administration, and on “The American Conservative” Philip Giraldi defends the Swanson school exercise in seeking to have children represent the Taliban’s views. Philip Giraldi states that “I would think that teaching students that there might well be two sides (or more) to an argument is not intrinsically harmful and might actually result in some of those being educated realizing that bombing the natives does not always make for the best foreign policy.”
He is right about one thing – we need to understand the “argument” of the Taliban – but we need to understand it as one of hate against our universal human rights. But what he, the Swanson school teachers, the Washington Post, and so many others fail to grasp is that there is a big difference between understanding the “argument” of hate and legitimizing hate as legitimate political dialogue and legitimate “cultural” difference. We have one omni-culture of humanity based on our universal human rights and dignity for all. Any “culture” that defies our universal human rights challenges the most basic truths inherent for all human beings. That is no different what the ideology of hate is or where it is located.
This embarrassing incident to Swanson school demonstrates the depth of the denial on this ideology of hate that not only threatens the human rights of people in Afghanistan and our soldiers, but also threatens the human rights of people in America and around the world.
Canada: Alleged ‘honour killing’ trial won’t start until 2011
— Toronto Sun: A Mississauga father and his son charged in the 2007 ‘honour killing’ of Aqsa Parvez will stand trial in 2011.”
— “Aqsa’s brother Waqas Parvez and her father Mohammad Parvez are charged with first-degree murder in the strangulation slaying of the Grade 11 student.”
— “The four-week trial is expected to begin Jan. 10, 2011, with next year being used to deal with pre-trial motions.”
Aqsa Parvez - 16 year old victim of December 10, 2007 "honor killing"
— “THREE brothers accused of killing a teenager in a so-called honour killing are lying to escape jail, a court heard.”
— “Tulay Goren, 15, disappeared from her home in Glastonbury Avenue, Woodford Green, in January 1999.”
— “The teenager’s father Mehmet Goren, 49, of Navestock Crescent, Woodford Green, and her uncles Ali Goren, of Brettenham Road, Walthamstow and Cuma Goren, of Evesham Avenue, Walthamstow, all deny murder.”
— “At the Old Bailey today, Jonathan Laidlaw, summing up the proscution case, said all three men were lying to try to escape conviction.”
— “He reminded the jury that Tulay’s mother had told the court that Ali was the most senior member of the family and fed and clothed Memet’s family both in Turkey and the UK, yet Ali denied being involved in Mehmet’s family’s affairs.”
While giving the appearance of being “signatories” to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in fact, many of these OIC and Islamic-majority nations are allowing extremists to reject such universal human rights for children, including religious freedom – while UNICEF is promoting “events” by such nations allegedly demonstrating their support for “children’s rights” in the Middle East and North Africa and in South Asia — support that in fact does not exist.
Afghanistan:
— “The Government of the Republic of Afghanistan reserves the right to express, upon ratifying the Convention, reservations on all provisions of the Convention that are incompatible with the laws of Islamic Shari’a and the local legislation in effect.”
Algeria:
— interprets children’s rights based on “Islam is the State religion” and “Islamic morality”
Bangladesh:
— “subject to the existing laws and practices in Bangladesh”
Djibouti:
— “[The Government of Djibouti] shall not consider itself bound by any provisions or articles that are incompatible with its religion and its traditional values.”
Pakistan:
— “Provisions of the Convention shall be interpreted in the light of the principles of Islamic laws and values.”
Indonesia:
— “The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees the fundamental rights of the child irrespective of their sex, ethnicity or race. The Constitution prescribes those rights to be implemented by national laws and regulations. The ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by the Republic of Indonesia does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the Constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligation to introduce any right beyond those prescribed under the Constitution.” (Freedom of religion conspicously absent.)
Iran:
— “The Islamic Republic of Iran is making reservation to the articles and provisions which may be contrary to the Islamic Shariah, and preserves the right to make such particular declaration, upon its ratification”.
— “The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws and the international legislation in effect.”
Iraq:
— “The Government of Iraq has seen fit to accept [the Convention] … subject to a reservation in respect to article 14, paragraph 1, concerning the child’s freedom of religion, as allowing a child to change his or her religion runs counter to the provisions of the Islamic Shariah .”
Jordan:
— ” The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan expresses its reservation and does not consider itself bound by articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention, which grant the child the right to freedom of choice of religion and concern the question of adoption, since they are at variance with the precepts of the tolerant Islamic Shariah.”
Kuwait:
— “[Kuwait expresses] reservations on all provisions of the Convention that are incompatible with the laws of Islamic Shari’a and the local statutes in effect.”
Malaysia:
— “The Government of Malaysia accepts the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child but expresses reservations with respect to articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, […], 28, [paragraph 1 (a)] 37, […] of the Convention and declares that the said provisions shall be applicable only if they are in conformity with the Constitution, national laws and national policies of the Government of Malaysia.”
Maldives:
— “1) Since the Islamic Shariah is one of the fundamental sources of Maldivian Law and since Islamic Shariah does not include the system of adoption among the ways and means for the protection and care of children contained in Shariah, the Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation with respect to all the clauses and provisions relating to adoption in the said Convention on the Rights of the Child.
— “2) The Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 14 of the said Convention on the Rights of the Child, since the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Maldives stipulate that all Maldivians should be Muslims.”
Mauritania:
— “In signing this important Convention, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania is making reservations to articles or provisions which may be contrary to the beliefs and values of Islam, the religion of the Mauritania People and State.”
Morocco:
— “Article 6 of the Constitution, which provides that Islam, the State religion, shall guarantee freedom of worship for all.”
Oman:
— “A reservation is entered to all the provisions of the Convention that do not accord with Islamic law or the legislation in force in the Sultanate and, in particular, to the provisions relating to adoption set forth in its article 21.”
— “The Sultanate does not consider itself to be bound by those provisions of article 14 of the Convention that accord a child the right to choose his or her religion or those of its article 30 that allow a child belonging to a religious minority to profess his or her own religion.”
Qatar:
— “Whereas the Government of the State of Qatar ratified the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child on 3 April 1995, and entered a general reservation concerning any of its provisions that are inconsistent with the Islamic sharia;”
Saudi Arabia:
— ” [The Government of Saudi Arabia enters] reservations with respect to all such articles as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.”
Syria:
— “The Syrian Arab Republic has reservations on the Convention’s provisions which are not in conformity with the Syrian Arab legislations and with the Islamic Shariah’s principles, in particular the content of article (14) related to the Right of the Child to the freedom of religion, and articles 20 and 21 concerning the adoption.”
— “reservations of the Syrian Arab Republic to article 14 of the Convention are restricted only to its provisions relating to religion”
United Arab Emirates:
— “The United Arab Emirates shall be bound by the tenor of this article to the extent that it does not conflict with the principles and provisions of Islamic law.”
Djibouti, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic
[Same text, mutatis mutandis, as the objection made with regard to Iran (Islamic Republic of) under “Objections”.]
Sharia Police Harassing Young Girls in Indonesia
Excerpts from the Convention on the Rights of the Child: “Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
“Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”
“Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”
“Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance”
“1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.”
“2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.”
The meeting to be held in Cairo on “CRC and Islamic Jurisprudence” is promoted as “celebrating the 20th anniversary of The Convention on the Rights of The Child & The National Council for Childhood and Motherhood.”
The concept note for the meeting states that “On the 20th November 2009, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) by the General Assembly of the United Nations. This event provides us with the opportunity to revisit the implementation of this convention in the Islamic State Parties. Over the past 20 years a number of national seminars and meetings were held to discuss the relationship between the CRC and the Islamic Shari’a. On the other hand, few international gatherings of Islamic countries and international experts on the Rights of the Child, were held for sharing experiences on the implementation of the CRC in Islamic States — analyzing achievements, obstacles and closely identifying challenges. This Conference is an opportunity for Islamic States to exchange views and experiences on ways and means to strengthen their commitment to the CRC. Some Muslim State Parties to the CRC have made reservations to the effect that the CRC would only be implemented if it is not in conflict with the Islamic Shari’a. The Conference will provide an opportunity for Muslim States to examine the extent to which such reservations have varied from one Muslim country to the another. This is an indication that there is a need for consensus in the areas that may or may not be in harmony with the Islamic Shari’a.”
Egypt has recently partnered with the United States in a UNHRC resolution that seeks to challenges freedom of speech or press raised against Islamic views, as “religious stereotyping.”
On November 17, 2009, AINA reports that “15-year-old Egyptian girl Dina el-Gowhary, who converted from Islam to Christianity, has sent a plea to President Obama, complaining of mistreatment by the Egyptian Government and asking for his mediation.”
Peter Athanasius and 15 year old Daughter Dina
The OIC state Cairo conference on “children’s rights” is sponsored by Nike.
In Washington DC, on November 10, human rights activists testified to Communist China’s pride in “preventing 400 million births,” including the use of forced abortion. Human rights activists also spoke of the “abortion, abandonment, and infanticide of baby girls” due to Communist pressures and the “burgeoning black market in stolen children – 70,000 a year” created by Communist China’s official policies.
Such discussion of methods included:
— Damohuyang: posted “Over 90% of 35-week infants died under induced labor. Most of them died of skull puncture.” “Damohuyang” further described that some that were alive “would be left in trashcans. Some of them could still live for one to two days.”
— Xuexia: “Actually you should have punctured the fetus’ skull. By doing this there will be less damage and also you won’t get an infant born alive.”
Another women testified on November 10, 2009 on Captiol Hill how the Communist Chinese doctors forcibly removed and mutilated her baby from her womb.
The Communist Chinese government’s adoption of the Convention on Children’s Rights was based on the caveat that the Communist government “interprets the Convention as applicable only following a live birth.”
Others testified to how Communist Chinese policies had led to the development of a culture of abandoning those children that the Communist government prohibited, for fear of retribution.
Yet the Communist Chinese government today baldly and unashamedly uses the 20th anniversary of the Convention on Children’s Rights to claim its “love” of children.
For the real love of children, those of us Responsible for Equality And Liberty must condemn the inhuman and horrific violence against babies that has been rationalized by the Communist government and the astounding abuse of children in that Communist country.
The June 2009 U.S. State Department report on human trafficking states that “The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and sexual exploitation.” According to this report, this includes the operation of an “extensive child forced labor network” in one province “with thousands of children as young as seven years old.” Earlier Congressional testimony on the Communist Chinese Laogai concentration camps deaths have included children and infants.
