Author: CSBR

3 December 2015

185 Civil Society activists and 40 organisations have today urged the respective authorities to take all possible measures to revoke the death sentence and ensure the migrant worker’s safe return to Sri Lanka.

A 45 year old, unnamed Sri Lankan migrant domestic worker and mother of 4 has been sentenced to death by stoning in Saudi Arabia for ‘adultery.’

We publish below the statement in full;

Death Sentence Imposed on a Sri Lankan Migrant Worker in Saudi Arabia

We the undersigned express our deep dismay and distress that as a yet unnamed Sri Lankan housemaid living in Saudi Arabia has been found guilty of adultery and has been sentenced to death by stoning.

According to newspaper reports, a court in Riyadh sentenced the woman, reportedly a mother of two, based on her confession. The male worker involved in the case who has been found guilty of fornication (as he is not married) has been given a sentence of 100 lashes. Little is known of the circumstances of the case; generally these cases are difficult to prove as it must be corroborated by four male witnesses or eight female witnesses. However since the woman pleaded guilty the case has been exempted from this standard of proof.

In response to the conviction, the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE) and the Ministry of Foreign Employment has expressed concern and instructed the Sri Lankan Embassy in Saudi Arabia to take all steps to save the convicted woman. The SLBFE has hired a lawyer to appear on behalf of the woman in order to obtain a revocation of the death sentence. Minister Thalatha Athukorale has however noted that this would be an uphill task given that the woman has confessed to the offence.

This is the second instance that a Sri Lankan housemaid has been given the death sentence. PreviouslyRizana Nafeek was beheaded on 9th January 2013 for the alleged murder of a four-month old baby boy. Nafeek’s conviction was also based on a confession, which she later claimed was made under duress and without linguistic assistance. Following a case which dragged on for five years and despite appeals made by the government of Sri Lanka and international and local women’s and human rights organisations, the Saudi government went ahead with her execution in January 2013.

According to Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia is amongst the top three countries that implement the death penalty and the majority of those who are executed are foreign nationals convicted for non-lethal crimes such as adultery, apostasy, sorcery and witchcraft.

We appeal to THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITIES TO take all possible measures to revoke the death sentence and ensure the migrant worker’s safe return to Sri Lanka. We EARNESTLY call on you to expeditiously bring to bear all possible means to ensure that the migrant worker is granted justice. We further call on you to ensure that Sri Lankan migrant workers are granted all possible support and protection to ensure their human rights.

Sincerely

Action Network for Migrant Workers (ACTFORM)
Centre for Policy Alternatives
Centre for Social Concerns, Jaela
Ceylon Workers Red Flag Union
Citizens Voice for Justice and Peace
Domestic Workers Union
Families of the Disappeared
Kantha Shakthi Forum
Lanka Estate Workers Union
United Federation of Labour
Lawyers Collective for democracy
Muslim Women’s Research and Action Forum
Red Flag Women’s Movement
Rights Now
Rural Women’s Front, Galle
Savisthri Women’s Movement for Justice
Sri Lanka Women’s NGO Forum (SLWNGOF)
Suriya Women’s Development Centre, Batticaloa
Trikone Cultural Centre
Woman’s Power
Women and Media Collective (WMC)
Women In Need
Women’s Resource Center, Kurunegala
Association for War Affected Women, Kandy
Christian Workers fellowship (CWF)Women Action Network, Jaffna
Future In Our Hands
The Grassrooted Trust
Coalition for Educational development
SAHODARATHWA SANSADAYA
Christian Alliance for Social Action (CASA)
Centre for Peacebuilding and Reconciliation
Inter Relligious Federation of Ampara District (IRFAD)
Al Minan Women’s Society – Kalmunai
Fathima Women’s Society – Central Camp
Nisha Women’s Society Kalmunai
Ambikai Women’s Society – Central Camp
Malar Villy Society Central Camp
Sivasakthi Women’s Society Central Camp
Ina Ottrumaikana Pengal Abiviruthy  Ondriyam Central Camp
Women’s Political Academy

Amal Mohamed
Amita Weerasinghe
Ameena Hussein
Anberiya Hanifa
Ann Jabbar
Ainslie Joseph
Annie Kurian
Anoma Alankara
Anoma Manoranjani
Aparna Gurusinghe
Aasha
A.H.H.Aqila
Asma Jabir
Arafa Jaleel Khan
Azra Abdul Cader
Balachandran Gowthaman
Balasingham Skanthakumar
Bhavani Fonseka
Bhoomi Harendran
Britto Fernando
Camena Gunaratne
Chandani K.A Malagammana
Chandralal Colombage
Cayathri. D
Caryll Tozer
Chandrika Gadiewasam
Christine Perera
Chulani Kodikara
D.R.Jayathilake
David Gunaratnam
Damaris Wickremesekera
Deeptha Bandara
Dhammika Karunaratne
Dharmasiri Bandaranayake
Dinushika Dissanayake
Elanda Delwala
Faizun Zackariya
Fahrun Muthalif
Farzana Jaleel Khan
Florine Marzook
G.W.Padmaseeli
Gamini Ruberu
Gamini Viyangoda
Gehan Gunatilleke
Geethika Rupasinghe
Gratian A. Peiris
H.M. Subharatne Menike
Harini Amarasuriya
Hans Billimoria
Hilmy Ahamed
Hishama Matheen
Hemalatha
H.Nuwaiza
Hyshyama Hamin
Iman Mohamed
Indra Swarnaseeli
Inshira Laffir
Irina Jabir
Jagath Siriwardena
Dr. Jameel,
Jezima Ismail
Jailabdeen Shiam
Prof. Jayantha Seneviratne
K.A.Jayasinghe Perera
J. Madanaruby
Kalani Subasinghe
Kumudini Samuel
K.Nishanthini
K.Wijeyluxmy
K. Vinoja
K.L.M.Azeez
Fr Kirubairajah
Kusum Siriwardena
Lesley Sirimane
Leila Udayar
Lallani Kalupahans
Linus Jayathilaka
Dr L Solomons
Dinoo Mumthahana J.
M. Indrawathi
Mahendran Thiruvarangan
Maithree Wickramasinghe
Marisa de Silva
Mahinda Jayawardena
Mala Dissanayake
Mary Heather White
Menaha Kandasamy
Menike Wannisooriya
Melisha Yapa
Mirak Raheem
Mohamed Nuhman
Mujeebur Rahman
M.M.Jenita
M.S.Thevagowry
Nayagara Jinadasa
Nadira Salih
Neil Priyantha Fernando

Nimalka Fernando
Noorul Zaniha Jainulabdeen
N. Zairina Ariff
Nishani Punchihewa
Nirmalani Perera
Nimnaz Jabir
Padma  Pushpakanthi
Paba Deshapriya
Pavithra Sajeevani
Philip Setunga
Piyumi Tharaka
Priyadarshanie Ariyaratne
Prabha Gurusinghe
P.Selvaratnam
Preethika Weerawansa
Premapala Hewabatage
Prema Gamage
Paul Hogan
Ranga Bandaranayake
Rajee Clerk
Ralston Weinman
Ramzeen Azeez
Rani Jayasinghe
Ranjani Mallika
Ratna Sandaseeli
Rajany. C.
Rev. Jason J. Selvaraja, Assembly of God, Chavakachcheri
Rev. M. V. E.  Ravichandran, Jaffna Diocesan Catholic Youth Federation
Riyani
Rikaza Laffir
Rohini Dep Weerasinghe
Rohini Hensman
Roshani Fernandopulle
Ruki Fernando
Rushdi Zackariya
Ruwendi Wakwella
R.Logitha
S. Ananthi
S.G.Nishanthini
Sathyavani
Sandya Salgado
Savithri Wijesekera
Sepali Kottegoda
Selvi Sachithanandam
Shafinaz Hassendeen
Shreen Saroor
Sampath Samarakoon
S.A.M.Jabir
S. R. H. Hoole
S.Unesh Kunalan
Sheila Richards
Shirani Rathnaweera
Shiromi Pathirana
Sithy Nabeesa Deen
Shyamala Gomez
Shyamala Sivagurunathan
Shamini
Shafnaaz Harees
Silma Mohideen Ahamed
Sriyani Pathirage
Sriyanie Wijesundara
Sudarshana Gunawardene
Sunil Ranasinghe
Sumi Kerison
Supipi Jayawardena
Smriti Daniel
Shiranee Dissanayake
S. Rubiya
Tanuja Thurairajah
T. Chandramohan
Thiagi Piyadasa
Thilaka Liyanage
Thissanthini
U.P.M Pathirana
U.L.Hafeela
U.L.Sameena
U.L.Hassen
Udeni Thewarapperuma
Yasmin Azeez
Vasuki Jeyasankar
Vasanthagowri
Visaka Dharmadasa
Viola Perera
Visaka Bandaranayake
W.A. Dayani
Wasantha Dissanayake
Zuhri Zackariya
Zulfika Ismail

Reposted from: Colombo Telegraph

1 November 2015

Dark Days for the Fairer Sex 

Malaysia used to have one of the most progressive Muslim family laws in the world but by 2003, we are right there at the bottom, thanks to amendments to the law which discriminated women.

IN the latest UN report on Progress of the World’s Women 2015-2016, Malaysia is ignominiously lumped with Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as countries that have maintained highly discriminatory family laws.

It is not that all these worst countries have laws based on Islam, for there are many Muslim countries with far better family laws. The significant finding is that women’s groups face the biggest resistance to reform when state and religion are closely intertwined. In such countries, religious doctrine is less likely to evolve and adapt to changing social practices as patriarchal interpretations of religion get frozen.

In contrast, the report highlighted the achievement of Morocco where the women’s movement mobilisation for family law reform, the election of a socialist party into power and the ascendance of a young progressive King successfully led to an overhaul of its Muslim family law.

The concept of male authority over women and a wife’s duty to obey the husband were abolished.

The law established equal rights and responsibilities within the family, heralding the Moroccan Moudawana today as the most progressive in the Muslim world.

What is so obviously missing in Malaysia is the political will to do what is right, what is just and fair for women.

While the nation’s leaders regularly pledge internationally their commitment to women’s equality and non-discrimination, a different story plays out at home, especially where the rights of Muslim women are concerned.

That a high middle-income supposedly modern and progressive country can be mentioned in the same breath with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Bangladesh just shows how low this country has sunk with regard to women’s rights in Islam.

A country that in the 1980s had one of the most progressive Muslim family laws in the world, by 2003 had fallen to the bottom through two rounds of amendments that grossly discriminated against women.

Two weeks ago, the Sisters in Islam’s national convention on Muslim Family Law reform brought together some 150 single mothers and other concerned women from nine states – tired and angry women who have suffered the injustices of patriarchy at home and in the court system.

I’ve not seen a bigger group of outraged Malay women who felt that this government had turned its back on them. Their litany of complaints was not just long, but also old.

They’ve been saying it over and over again, and yet change has hardly come.

One single mother who filed for divorce within six months of marriage because of domestic violence took eight years to finally get her divorce – this in spite of 48 police reports against her husband.

And she is still battling him in court as further discriminatory amendments to the Islamic Family Law in 2005 now enables him to claim for a share of her assets that include a house that she had acquired before their marriage.

As much as it was heartbreaking to hear the endless stories of injustices, it was also heartwarming to see single mothers coming together to fight for their rights.

They were strong, articulate, confident. They knew their rights and they knew they had been betrayed.

Angry at the absence of any representation from the government (several opposition Members of Parliament and political aides came), the women declared that they really should be forming a new political party to fight for their rights as it was obvious, they said, that the government and its various arms really did not care for their interests.

Over three days, they learned how to facilitate and work together to define issues, and identify and cluster themes. They broke into groups to discuss the kinds of changes they wanted to see in law and procedure, on long-standing problematic issues over polygamy, divorce, division of matrimonial assets, children’s maintenance, financial compensation, and domestic violence.

They were tired that the men in their lives who had failed to provide and protect the family well-being were not punished for their bad behaviour. They demanded that fathers who failed to pay regular maintenance for their children and failed to provide the financial compensation due to the wives upon divorce should be prohibited from renewing their driver’s and business licences, and international passport, and that they should also be blacklisted and prevented from getting any bank loans, as is practised in Singapore.

They wanted the courts to use more frequently the existing provision of imprisoning these men for contemptuously ignoring court orders to provide for maintenance. They wanted the rules changed to enable the court to order that all arrears in maintenance could be deducted immediately from the men’s EPF funds – again as practised in Singapore.

On the issue of polygamy, they wanted the fifth condition for polygamy in the original 1984 family law be reinstated – that there will be no drop in the standard of living of the existing wife, children and dependents.

They wanted the courts to be strict in obtaining documented evidence that the man is truly able to afford a second family. They wanted a division of the matrimonial assets done and the monthly maintenance for the existing wife and children determined before the second marriage is allowed to take place.

They wanted a computerised central registration of marriage and divorce so that anyone can access the data system to check if their husband or the man they wanted to marry already had another wife.

Many of the women at the convention have faced long delays in getting a divorce because some husbands felt affronted that their wives could have the gall to demand their rights under the law.

While a man can simply divorce his wife without any reason, these women go through years of delays, including attempts at counselling and reconciliation that they felt were useless.

They had already endured years of trying to make the marriage work, so they said the state should trust their wisdom that when they finally decided to file for divorce, it meant the marriage was beyond repair.

So please don’t go through the motions of reconciliation that leads to nowhere, they said. Not even the husband who is challenging the application for divorce wants reconciliation.

He is just being vindictive, said the women, and the court should see through his charade.

Again, as practised in Singapore, they want the law changed where through talaq tafwid, the husband who is reluctant to pronounce divorce, can be ordered by the court to delegate it to his wife and she can pronounce the divorce on him before the judge.

Why is it that women of other faiths in Malaysia have been able to benefit from over 30 years of equal treatment in family law, while Muslim women are still regarded as inferior to Muslim men, under his authority and control?

Muslim men are privileged because they supposedly have a duty to protect and provide for the women and children in the family.

But in reality, as the experience of these single mothers show, these men neither provide nor protect their families. It is the women who as heads of households, provide and protect.

And yet men’s privileges in law and practice continue undisturbed, as if the realities on the ground do not matter to those who have the authority to make the desperate changes needed to ensure the well-being of the family.

What more needs to happen before these patriarchs open their eyes, their minds and their hearts that Muslim women too want to be treated as human beings of equal worth and dignity? What is so unIslamic about that?

  * * * *

By: Zainah Anwar
Reposted from: The Star Online