[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 27




SYRIA:

ISIS militants have stoned to death 2 teenage girls who were accused of 
committing adultery


2 teenage girls accused of committing adultery have been stoned to death by 
Islamic State militants in Syria. Hasna, 17, and Madiha, 16, died after the 
assault in Deir ez-Zor city, eastern Syria.

The 2 men they were with, identified by the Sharia Court as Abu Zubair al-Idlbi 
and Maher Hameed, escaped with 50 lashes in a public flogging.

The Islamic State-led Sharia Court released a statement claiming the girls were 
seized in a house "with 2 strangers" - an act strictly forbidden under Islamic 
State's twisted interpretation of Islam. "The victims were accused of 
committing adultery with 2 older men, identified by the Sharia Court as Abu 
Zubair al-Idlbi and Maher Hameed," the source reported.

Local media activist Ahmed Ramadan told ARA News: "The execution took place in 
the Hamidiya district of Deir ez-Zor on Tuesday afternoon, where hundreds of 
people gathered to witness the stoning of the 2 young girls. The decision of 
the Sharia Court raised the anger of Deir ez-Zor's residents, who considered it 
unfair to kill the two girls by stoning and merely flog the men and set them 
free."

A fortnight ago, 4 women were raped by Islamic State fighters and then stoned 
to death after being accused of "committing adultery." The victims were 
arrested even though Islamic State militants were said to have caught them 
being abused during a raid in the city of Mosul. They were brought before a 
Sharia court that ordered them to be publicly executed without giving any 
details about their alleged abusers.

(source: Business Insider)






INDIA:

B.C. Court of Appeal ruling prevents accused killers of Jassi Sidhu from being 
tried in India


2 of the 2 judges on a B.C. Court of Appeal panel have ruled that the mother 
and uncle of a murdered Canadian woman can't be extradited to India to face 
trial for their alleged roles in the killing.

Maple Ridge resident Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu, known as "Jassi", was killed in 
Punjab in 2000 after marrying a rickshaw driver, Sukhwinder Singh Sidhu, known 
as "Mithu".

The case has attracted widespread media attention over the years and even 
inspired a book, Justice for Jassi, detailing evidence against the accused.

Yesterday, Justice Ian Donald and Justice Mary Newbury overturned a B.C. 
Supreme Court ruling and determined that Malkit Kaur Sidhu and Surjit Singh 
Badesha cannot be sent to India. The 2 judges maintained in their written 
reasons that the pair could be tried in Canada.

"A substantial body of evidence exists in Canada: the alleged architects of the 
conspiracy are here and triggered the killings from here, and many witnesses 
whose evidence have been tested on Canadian standards live in the 
jurisdiction," Donald wrote for the majority.

He added that it's "likely that Mithu and his mother would cooperate and be 
willing to travel to Canada to testify".

The decision also stated that the accused "may not receive a fair trial in 
India". Donald and Newbury also maintained in their ruling that India may not 
honour its assurance not to impose the death penalty or torture Sidhu and 
Badesha.

"Both applicants have health issues," Donald wrote. "Badesha, at 70, suffers 
from a number of age-related conditions which have required external medical 
care while he has been in Canadian custody pending extradition. Likewise, 
Sidhu, now 65, has had two hospital admissions for treatment of a heart 
condition while in custody."

The decision has angered those who feel that justice has not come for the young 
woman who was killed after falling in love with a man who didn't meet her 
family's expectations.

In a blistering commentary on the Province website, former premier Ujjal 
Dosanjh pointed out that for a long time, the RCMP didn't feel that this murder 
of a Canadian woman was worth investigating. Dosanjh acknowledged that India's 
justice system is not perfect, but emphasized that it's a democracy where 
"there is the fear of exposure and denunciation for any wrong that may happen".

In fact, India is the world's largest democracy with a media with as much, if 
not more freedom than exists for the media in Canada.

India's Ministry of External Affairs informed the federal government in 2014 
that its Extradition Act has "specific provision for non-imposition of death 
penalty where a fugitive criminal accused of an offence punishable with death, 
is extradited to India by a foreign country, whose laws do not provide death 
penalty for that offence".

"Therefore, Surjit Singh Badesha, a.k.a. Surjit Singh and Malkiat [sic] Kaur 
Sidhu will not be imposed death penalty," India stated in its submission.

The Indian government also noted that its court proceedings are open to the 
public, which means that Canadian government representatives would have access 
to the hearings.

Counsel for the accused presented evidence about the extent of torture that has 
taken place in India, including a 2011 report published by the Asian Centre for 
Human Rights.

"Torture of women in custody including rape is reported regularly in India," 
the report states. "Custodial rape remains one of the worst forms of torture 
perpetrated on women by law enforcement personnel."

In 2014, one of the country's leading papers, the Times of India, reported that 
the situation has gotten worse. Human Rights Watch has also highlighted Indian 
authorities' failure to address torture of people in custody.

As a result, Donald and Newbury concluded that former justice minister Peter 
MacKay's decision to support extradition based on the Indian government's 
assurances was "unreasonable".

A dissenting opinion was written by Justice Richard Goepel. He wrote that the 
minister had to consider if the surrender of the two accused "would shock the 
conscience of Canadians" to violate the charter guarantee to life, liberty, and 
security of the person.

"In assessing the reasonableness of a surrender order, this Court may not 
reweigh the factors considered by the Minister," Goepel wrote. "Intervention is 
only warranted if the Minister's decision is not supported by evidence or fails 
to consider the relevant or appropriate factors."

He added that the minister's decision is "discretionary...subject to a high 
degree of deference on review".

"The question is whether the Minister's decision fell within a range of 
reasonable outcomes," Goepel wrote. "The reviewing court's role is not to 
reweigh the relevant factors and substitute its own view. If the Minister 
failed to consider a relevant factor, this failure may render his decision 
unreasonable."

He concluded that the minister did consider the accused people's health and 
safety, whether they would be tortured, and whether they would be executed.

(source: straight.com)

**********************

Togadia wants death penalty for cow slaughter


Vishva Hindu Parishad leader Pravin Togadia today demanded the central 
government pass laws providing for death penalty for cow slaughter and to build 
Ram Temple in Ayodhya.

"Notwithstanding the pendency of the case (regarding the Ram Temple issue) in 
the court, the union government should pass a legislation for the construction 
of Ram Temple in Ayodhya," the International Working President of VHP said.

Speaking after inaugurating a religious programme in Vrindavan, Togadia also 
said the central government should enact a law for punishing cow slaughter with 
death penalty.

He appealed to the Muslim community if they are aware of the elements who 
involve in cow slaughter they should disclose their names so that innocent 
people don't get harassed.

On the JNU row, the VHP leader said, "the problem came up since no action was 
taken against anti-national elements in Kashmir. Unless stern action is taken 
against such elements, the problem may arise in other parts of the country."

"Afzal (Guru, the Parliament attack convict) was an anti-national and a traitor 
and those supporting him should be hanged," he said.

On the recent killing of a VHP activist in Agra, he said government should take 
stringent action against those involved in the attack.

He said the 10-day pro-reservation protest by the Jat community in Haryana was 
a result of wrong economic policies of the government and "unless job 
opportunities are provided to the youths such demands may come from other 
sections of the society as well."

(source: siasat.com)

***************

SC judge in Afzal case slams critics of the judgement


Former Supreme Court judge P V Reddi, who headed a 2-judge bench which upheld 
Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru's death sentence in 2005, said fair 
criticism of SC judgements was welcome, but to say that the execution was a 
"judicial killing" amounted to "crossing the limit".

. Justices Reddi and P P Naolekar had upheld a Delhi HC verdict imposing death 
penalty on Afzal. However, the bench had reversed Shaukat Hussain Guru's death 
penalty to 10 years' imprisonment. It upheld the HC order to acquit SAR Geelani 
even though it found his role suspicious, and endorsed the acquittal of Afsan 
Guru aka Navjot Sandhu.

. Trial judge S N Dhingra, who later became an HC judge, had awarded death 
penalty to Afzal, Shaukat and Geelani.

Some JNU students recently termed Afzal's hanging, under the UPA government, a 
judicial killing and alleged that the terrorist did not get a fair trial. It 
was followed by exhome minister P Chidambaram's statement that there were 
"grave doubts" about the extent of Afzal's involvement in the terror attack.

. Talking to TOI from Hyderabad, Justice Reddi said, "The judgment speaks for 
itself. Those who celebrate Afzal martyrdom day must pick up the judgment and 
read it thoroughly before making comments or criticism. Fair criticism of 
Supreme Court judgments is the hallmark of our democratic system that zealously 
guards the right to free speech. But to term it a judicial hanging is crossing 
the limit. The criticism must be decent and in public interest. If not, then it 
could hit at the root of democracy, of which Supreme Court is an important 
pillar."

(source: Times of India)






INDONESIA:

Member of Indonesia's parliament tweets that gays should be put to 
death----Tifatul Sembiring later takes down tweet amid criticism


In the latest incident of anti-gay rhetoric in Indonesia, a member of 
Parliament from the Islamist Prosperous Justice Party posted on Twitter that 
gays should be put to death.

Tifatul Sembiring, who is the country's former Information and Communications 
Minister, tweeted: 'A saying of the Prophet [Mohamed]: Whomever you find 
committing the acts of the community of Lot (homosexual) should be put to 
death.'

After he received criticism from others online, Sembiring deleted the tweet 
from his account, according to BuzzFeed News.

Anti-gay rhetoric has been on the rise in the Southeast Asian country. Earlier 
this week, Indonesia's leading psychiatric body classified homosexuality and 
gender dysphoria mental disorders that can be cured with proper treatment.

The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of 
psychiatric disorders in 1970.

Gay sex is not a crime in Indonesia but remains taboo in many parts the 
Muslim-majority.

Also this week, Indonesia's minister of defense said the LGBTI movement was 
more dangerous than nuclear warfare.

And in January, the minister of research, technology and higher education 
called for LGBTI students to be banned from universities.

(source: Gay Star News)