Power of Story Send a Tweet        
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Should Adulterers Be Stoned or Lashed?

By Ati Nurbati, The Jakarta Post  Posted by Jason Paz (about the submitter)       (Page 1 of 4 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


- Advertisement -

Will Indonesian Women Be Bargaining Chips?

By Ati Nurbati, The Jakarta Post

- Advertisement -

Toward the end of 2009, Indonesia, a supposedly moderate Islamic country, shocked the world again. It wasn't bombings this time; it was a new bylaw in Aceh that allowed the stoning to death of married adulterers. For the unmarried, the law stipulated 100 lashes for the couple. These were part of the new Islamic criminal code in the province, and did not differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims.

As soon as the provincial legislature passed the bylaw, the Home Ministry said it would file a request to have it revoked by the Supreme Court because it was deemed to violate the Constitution, which guarantees human rights.

- Advertisement -

On the same grounds, the National Commission for Violence Against Women immediately said it would file a judicial review over Aceh's special autonomy law itself, which authorizes the local government to pass sharia-based rules -- invoking an annoyed response on the part of local authorities.

To date, the commission remains alone in demanding a review of the Aceh autonomy law, particularly regarding its above authority.

The commission clearly hit on a political taboo -- it had demanded the revocation of one of those quid-pro-quo results of hard bargaining. The autonomy law for Aceh was a follow-up of the historic peace agreement between the government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM); its implementation is still hampered by Jakarta politicians -- and now some women wanted its unprecedented powers revoked!

- Advertisement -

Commission chairwoman Kamala Chandrakirana recently repeated demands to revoke all laws and bylaws leading to "discrimination" against women and other affected groups across the country, even as the Home Ministry had stated earlier there was nothing wrong with those local rules.

They had nothing to do with religion, said the minister at the time; they were just rules on "customs".
Why would a modern country allow "customary" bylaws regulating what time women should be home, what they should wear and what type of behavior they should or should not be exhibiting?

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It


Born a month before Pearl Harbor, I attended world events from an early age. My first words included Mussolini, Patton, Sahara and Patton. At age three I was a regular listener to Lowell Thomas. My mom was an industrial nurse a member of the (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact EditorContact Editor
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

What if Sirhan Sirhan Had Missed?

Kathleen Cleaver on Human Rights

What Goes Around Comes Around Like Torture

Martin Luther King and Unjust Laws Today