Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Whose court is it?

What happens when even judges do not uphold the constitution to protect the civil rights of non-Muslim citizens anymore?

Hence, the civil court's decisions thus far in Subashini's case is highly problematic. By allowing the converted spouse to have his civil marriage dissolved and to obtain custody of his son in the syariah court, the civil court is, in fact, turning its back on the non-Muslim spouse.

What's more, the Court of Appeal's majority decision that a non-Muslim spouse must seek remedy in the syariah court, is unconstitutional.

Schedule 9, List II (1) of the Constitution stipulates clearly that the syariah courts, which are constitutionally subordinate to the civil courts, only have jurisdiction over "persons professing the religion of Islam".

How then can Subashini seek recourse in the syariah courts? And why isn't the civil court upholding her constitutional and civil rights?


Source: The Federal Constitution is the highest law of the land

Pubic response: Bar Council: Syariah Court only for Muslims

We seem to living in a country where many important institutions are losing public confidence. First it's the police, then the ACA, and now the courts?

Quick question: what's the easiest way for a husband to grab full costody of the children, and leave the wife without having to pay her a single sen, and still appear legally and morally right? Answer: change to that religion. And the children... they never had a choice. They're stuck for the rest of their lives.

Gosh, where is this country heading to? What can we do about it?

No comments: