JSC investigates Civil Court judge

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has announced that it has formed a subcommittee to investigate cases concerning judges, indicating that its first subject was Civil Court Judge Sheikh Mohamed Naeem.

The investigation of Naeem came after media reported that during the first hearing of a case filed against the state, he stated that he would not accept cases related to the state before Parliament approved the appointment of Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad, and cancelled the hearing.

Parliament today declined to approve Sawad for the second time, prompting President Nasheed to appoint Solicitor General Abdulla Muizz as his replacement.

The JSC said the committee, which consists of President of JSC Adam Mohamed Abdulla, Member of JSC Abdulla Didi and Member of JSC Shuaib Abdurahma, was established to take measures against judges under the Judges Act. Its first scheduled task was selected by a popular vote taken among its members, it said.

Naeem’s case will be the first time the JSC has investigated a judge in over a year, despite receiving over 140 complaints.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has published a report critical of the JSC’s independence,  however the commission has thus far refused to table the report.

Local media SunFM reported that the first hearing of the case against Judge Naeem was held today, and he was questioned.

President’s Member of the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, stated on her Article 285 blog that “Judge Naeem has been under investigation since the interim Commission, [for] nearly two years. No updates on the investigation [have been] tabled despite the legal requirement that a report must be submitted in writing every 30 days.”

Last Monday, local media reported the hearing of a case filed against the state by Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) claiming that the agreement made between the Finance Ministry and GMR was not valid and that it violated the constitution.

In the Judges Chamber, Judge Naeem said that four of the Civil Court seven judges had agreed to accept cases related to the state, in a meeting to decide whether or not to accept cases related to the state after Dr Sawad was reappointed as the Attorney General following his first dismissal by parliament.

However, Judge Naeem said he would not follow the majority decision of the Judges and would not accept cases concerning the state before the parliament decided on Dr Sawad, or until a superior courts ruled otherwise.

The constitution requires all members of the cabinet to have the consent of the parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: We should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people

The following is a statement given by British Prime Minister David Cameron to the British Parliament in a bid to justify the UN Security Council’s resolution to authorise international military intervention in Libya, ahead of today’s air strikes. Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed was among the first world leaders to urge intervention.

Over three weeks ago, the people of Libya took to the streets in protest against Colonel Gaddafi and his regime, asking for new rights and freedoms. There were hopeful signs that a better future awaited them, and that, like people elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa, they were taking their destiny into their own hands. Far from meeting those aspirations, Colonel Gaddafi has responded by attacking his own people. He has brought the full might of armed forces to bear on them, backed up by mercenaries. The world has watched as he has brutally crushed his own people.

On 23 February, the UN Secretary-General cited the reported nature and scale of attacks on civilians as “egregious violations of international and human rights law” and called on the Government of Libya to
“meet its responsibility to protect its people.”

The Secretary-General said later that more than 1,000 people had been killed and many more injured in Libya amid credible and consistent reports of arrests, detention and torture.

Over the weekend of 26 and 27 February, at Britain’s instigation, the UN Security Council agreed Resolution 1970, which condemned Gaddafi’s actions. It imposed a travel ban and asset freezes on those at the top of his regime. It demanded an end to the violence, access for international human rights monitors and the lifting of restrictions on the media. Vitally, it referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court so that its leaders should face the justice they deserve.

In my statement to the House on 28 February, I set out the steps that we would take to implement those measures. Our consistent approach has been to isolate the Gaddafi regime, deprive it of money, shrink its power and ensure that anyone responsible for abuses in Libya will be held to account. I also told the House that I believed contingency planning should be done for different scenarios, including involving military assets, and that that should include plans for a no-fly zone.

Intervening in another country’s affairs should not be undertaken save in quite exceptional circumstances. That is why we have always been clear that preparing for eventualities that might include the use of force—including a no-fly zone or other measures to stop humanitarian catastrophe—would require three steps and three tests to be met: demonstrable need, regional support and a clear legal basis.

First, on demonstrable need, Gaddafi’s regime has ignored the demand of UN Security Council Resolution 1970 that it stop the violence against the Libyan people. His forces have attacked peaceful protesters, and are now preparing for a violent assault on a city, Benghazi, of one million people that has a history dating back 2,500 years. They have begun air strikes in anticipation of what we expect to be a brutal attack using air, land and sea forces. Gaddafi has publicly promised that every home will be searched and that there will be no mercy and no pity shown.

If we want any sense of what that might mean we have only to look at what happened in Zawiyah, where tanks and heavy weaponry were used to smash through a heavily populated town with heavy loss of life. We do not have to guess what happens when he has subdued a population. Human Rights Watch has catalogued the appalling human rights abuses that are being committed in Tripoli. Now, the people of eastern Libya are faced with the same treatment. That is the demonstrable need.

Secondly, on regional support, we said that there must be a clear wish from the people of Libya and the wider region for international action. It was the people of Libya, through their transitional national council, who were the first to call for protection from air attack through a no-fly zone. More recently, the Arab League has made the same demand.

It has been remarkable how Arab leaders have come forward and condemned the actions of Gaddafi’s Government. In recent days, I have spoken with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. A number of Arab nations have made it clear that they are willing to participate in enforcing the resolution. That support goes far beyond the Arab world. Last night, all three African members of the UN Security Council voted in favour of the resolution.

The third and essential condition was that there should be a clear legal base. That is why along with France, Lebanon and the United States we worked hard to draft appropriate language that could command the support of the international community. Last night, the United Nations Security Council agreed that Resolution.

Resolution 1973 “Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians”. It establishes “a ban on all flights” in the airspace of Libya “in order to help protect civilians”. It authorises member states to take “all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban”.

Crucially, in paragraph 4, it “Authorises member states… acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack… including Benghazi”.

The resolution both authorises and sets the limits of our action. Specifically, it excludes an occupation force of any form, on any part of Libyan territory. That was a clear agreement between all the sponsors of the resolution, including the UK, and of course, the Arab League. I absolutely believe that that is the right thing both to say and to do.

As our ambassador to the United Nations said, the central purpose of this resolution is to end the violence, protect civilians, and allow the people of Libya to determine their own future, free from the brutality unleashed by the Gaddafi regime. The Libyan population want the same rights and freedoms that people across the Middle East and North Africa are demanding, and that are enshrined in the values of the United Nations charter. Resolution 1973 puts the weight of the Security Council squarely behind the Libyan people in defence of those values. Our aims are entirely encapsulated by that resolution.

Demonstrable need, regional support and a clear legal base: the three criteria are now satisfied in full. Now that the UN Security Council has reached its decision, there is a responsibility on its members to respond. That is what Britain, with others, will now do. The Attorney-General has been consulted and the Government are satisfied that there is a clear and unequivocal legal basis for the deployment of UK forces and military assets. He advised Cabinet this morning, and his advice was read and discussed.

The Security Council has adopted Resolution 1973 as a measure to maintain or restore international peace and security under chapter VII of the United Nations charter. The resolution specifically authorises notifying member states to use all necessary measures to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect civilians and civilian populated areas, including Benghazi.

At Cabinet this morning, we agreed that the UK will play its part. Our forces will join an international operation to enforce the resolution if Gaddafi fails to comply with the demand that he end attacks on civilians. The Defence Secretary and I have now instructed the Chief of the Defence Staff to work urgently with our allies to put in place the appropriate military measures to enforce the resolution, including a no-fly zone. I can tell the House that Britain will deploy Tornadoes and Typhoons as well as air-to-air refuelling and surveillance aircraft. Preparations to deploy those aircraft have already started and in the coming hours they will move to air bases from where they can start to take the necessary action.

The Government will table a substantive motion for debate next week, but I am sure that the House will accept that the situation requires us to move forward on the basis of the Security Council resolution immediately. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House call on Colonel Gaddafi to respond immediately to the will of the international community and cease the violence against his own people. I spoke to President Obama last night and to President Sarkozy this morning. There will be a clear statement later today, setting out what we now expect from Colonel Gaddafi.

We should never prepare to deploy British forces lightly or without careful thought. In this case, I believe that we have given extremely careful thought to the situation in hand. It is absolutely right that we played a leading role on the UN Security Council to secure permission for the action, and that we now work with allies to ensure that that resolution is brought about. There will be many people in our country who will now want questions answered about what we are doing and how we will go about it. I intend to answer all those questions in the hours and days ahead, and to work with our brave armed services to ensure that we do the right thing, for the people of Libya, for the people of our country and for the world as a whole.

Tonight, British forces are in action over Libya. They are part of an international coalition that has come together to enforce the will of the United Nations and to support the Libyan people. We have all seen the appalling brutality that Colonel Gaddafi has meted out against his own people. And far from introducing the ceasefire he spoke about, he has actually stepped up the attacks and the brutality that we can all see.

So what we are doing is necessary, it is legal, and it is right. It is necessary because, with others, we should be trying to prevent him using his military against his own people. It is legal, because we have the backing of the United Nations Security Council and also of the Arab League and many others.

And it is right because we believe we should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people. Tonight, of course our thoughts should be with those in our armed services who are putting their lives at risk in order to save the lives of others. They are the bravest of the brave. But I believe we should all be confident that what we are doing is in a just cause and in our nation’s interest.

David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High fines and prison sentences as High Court concludes 33 elections cases

The High Court of the Maldives has concluded all 33 cases concerning elections and has delivered verdicts on the cases.

The High Court said it has fined eight candidates who ran for the Local Councils Elections Rf 20,000 (US$1556) for giving false information to the Elections Commissions (EC).

Seven candidates who ran for the Local Councils Elections were fined Rf 12,000 ((US$933) for running as a candidate when “the court found that they had unpaid decreed debts, which makes the person ineligible for running as a candidate,” said the High Court.

One person was sentenced to one year imprisonment for obstructing the elections, said the High Court, while another person who filmed his vote was fined Rf 12,000 (US$933).

The High Court ordered the Elections Commission to hold the elections on Haa Alifu Kelaa Island Council and elections of Haa Alifu Atoll Councils once again.

In addition, there was no reason that two ballot boxes QO3.09.01 and Q03.09.02, kept in Faresmathoda, should be declared void, said the High Court.

The Court also ordered the Elections Commission to break the security seal of Ballot Box number W07.1.1, which was kept in Hinamfushi Prison, and ordered that it be recounted.

On February oath taking ceremonies for successful candidates have been held in all but 14 areas, where the High Court ordered the suspension of the ceremonies until the cases filed regarding the elections were concluded.

Ceremonies scheduled to be held for H.Dh Nolhivaranfaru island council, H.Dh Nolhivaram area Atoll council, N. Miladhoo island council, R. Maduvvari island council, R. Maduvvari Area Atoll council, G. DH Faresmathoda island council, G.Dh Faresmathoda Area Atoll Council, A.Dh Dhangethi island council, A.A Mathiveri island council, A.A Atoll council, L. Atoll council, G.A Vilingili island council,G.A Atoll council and L. Dhambidhoo island council were delayed by order of the High Court.

The ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s Deputy Secretary General Mohamed Imthiyaz recently said in a statement that the Local Council Elections were not conducted fairly, and accused the Elections Commission giving more power to a ”specific political party.”

Imthiyaz said that MDP’s complaint bureau had received “more than 1000 complaints” regarding the elections from different areas, which could potentially affect the result of the elections.

”MDP has requested the Elections Commission re-conduct elections in some councils and to recount the votes in some others,” said Imthiyaz.

The MDP said it had received information that an under-aged boy had voted in the local council elections and that a house that should have been registered in Galolhu South was registered in Mid-Galolhu area.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President alleged to have met with Thasmeen as Gayoom withdraws support for opposition leader

A “secret” meeting between President Mohamed Nasheed and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Ali Thasmeen, is alleged to have taken place yesterday as the opposition party leader faces intensified criticism from his predecessor and former President, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

In a series of media alerts issues to the press, Umar Naseer, a former DRP deputy leader dismissed from the party in December, has claimed that President Nasheed was “secretly” meeting with Thasmeen and other party members thought to include MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom at Aarah island.

Gayoom publically announced on Thursday that in his position of the DRP’s ‘honorary leader’ he would no longer be backing Thasmeen as his preferred candidate to stand for the party during the country’s next Presidential Election – slated for 2013 – over concerns he has about his successor.

Both the President’s Office, Thasmeen and a number of DRP representatives were unavailable for comment on the alleged meeting at the time of going to press.  Yet the developments have highlighted apparent divides within the main opposition party that continue to grow between its current leader and Gayoom.

Gayoom had previously appointed Thasmeen to succeed him as party leader back in February 2010.

With the formation of factions within the DRP between supporters of Thasmeen and backers of Umar Naseer, who had campaigned with Gayoom during the DRP’s national campaigning for last month’s local elections, the nation’s one time leader issued a statement on Thursday that derided his successor for acting solely to serve his personal interests in the Majlis.

In his statement, Gayoom accused his successor of voting on matters involving personal interest, noting that business tycoon and Maamigili MP Gasim Ibrahim had not participated in such votes, while he also withdrew support for Thasmeen as a future presidential candidate.

The DRP ‘Honorary Leader’ noted that his former running mate has not addressed any of the main points he included in a 12-page letter issued on 9 March.

The issues addressed in the letter were said to include a failure by Thasmeen to propose the bill on privileges and protection for former presidents, despite claiming that he would personally present it to the floor during a DRP council with Gayoom in attendance.

The latest statement notes 14 points in response to the claims in made by Thasmeen in a letter that he had drafted.

These points focused on a number of issues such as:

• Gayoom disputed Thasmeen’s claim that the DRP council decided on 17 November, 2008 to hand over day-to-day management of the party to Thasmeen.

“It was my decision alone. The party’s charter does not the council authority to make such a decision. I made the decision and informed the council at the meeting that day,” he wrote.

• Gayoom denied Thasmeen’s claim that it was the former president’s decision not to seek a coalition with the Republican Party despite “signals” to the contrary.

“The council felt that since DRP got 40.6 percent and MDP only 25.1 percent in the first round, it would be easier for us to get 10 percent more votes than for MDP to get an additional 25 percent,” added the former president.

• Gayoom denied recommending former Attorney General Hassan Saeed and former Justice Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed face the party’s disciplinary committee for dismissal. “The council decided that day only to send the case of those two to the disciplinary committee, not to recommend them for ‘dismissal.’”

• Gayoom denied not providing details of the coalition agreement with his half-brother Abdullah Yameen’s People’s Alliance (PA) party. He went on to claim that the fact that nobody asked him demonstrates the confidence they had in his leadership.

• Gayoom wrote that Thasmeen could not claim credit for the party’s parliamentary election successes as Gayoom himself had toured the islands.

“Most DRP members believe that DRP’s success in the parliamentary elections was mainly because of my efforts. I know that Deputy Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, too, believed this very well at the time. The proof is that he requested that I travel to the constituencies where five of his family members were contesting to win support,” he added.

• Gayoom claimed that he believes it was his call for a membership drive that has seen an additional 10,000 people register with the DRP in the past two years and not Thasmeen’s as he claimed. He further accused Thasmeen of holding onto a lot of membership forms until after he became leader to submit it to the Elections Commission.

• Gayoom denied casting aspersion on either the DRP parliamentary group or council. “What I said was that most affairs of the parliamentary group and the council were being managed by the leader in violation of the party’s charter as well as democratic principles. That is a fact.”

• Gayoom accused Thasmeen of securing a majority of the council through arm-twisting and pleading before the vote on Umar Naseer’s dismissal case, adding that the disciplinary committee was not independent or fair.

• Gayoom alleged that the leaders of other opposition parties leaders had complained that the DRP did not consult with them contrary to Thasmeen’s claim.

• Gayoom claimed the DRP’s Youth Wing (headed by MP Ahmed Mahlouf) was excluded from the party’s ongoing “Coffee with DRP” campaign aimed at young people.

• Gayoom disputed claims from Thasmeen that he had been informed of the hiring of British consultant Jonathan Upton to aid his political career.

“I was told about him by another council member.” The consultant was hired to formulate strategies to improve the party’s appeal among the public and offer advice for the DRP’s 2013 presidential campaign.

Gayoom wrote that he met Upton in October 2010 after being asked by the council member to do so. Thasmeen noted in his own letter that Upton was hired to advise Thasmeen’s political career and not the DRP per se, while Gayoom responded that he had heard Upton had advised Thasmeen to get rid of the former president from the party.

• Gayoom also looked at recent issues such as a leaked audio clip reported to have been made by DRP spokesperson Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef about his party campaigning that led to a number of complaints and protests outside the party’s offices.  He added that the least Thasmeen could have done with regard to the leaked audio was to send the matter before a party committee.

“However, [Thasmeen] did not want to do anything of the sort within the party.”  Shareef later claimed that his voice had been doctored in the audio clips and was being used by some party members in attempts to seize leadership of the DRP.

• Gayoom also criticised how Thasmeen had used an official statement to detail an amount of money supplied to the former presidents’ family.

“While in his letter, the leader stated that he gave a large amount of money to my daughter Yumna Maumoon and her husband Mohamed Nadheem during the 2008 presidential campaign, I wonder why he did not mention either the amount or the date it was given,” he writes, adding that he “deeply regrets” the way the matter was revealed in Thasmeen’s letter.

Yumna told DhiTV the amount came to Rf300,000 – this is disputed by Thasmeen’s faction.

• Thasmeen had also “placed serious obstacles” to DRP becoming a strong political party by not holding the government accountable and taking measures against those within the party who try to stop the government’s harmful policies, the former president claimed.

“In this as in many other things, [Thasmeen] continues to act dictatorially in violation of the party’s charter and democratic principles,” he writes.

“Therefore, since Ahmed Thasmeen Ali became DRP’s leader because I directly paved the way for him, I sincerely ask the forgiveness of DRP’s beloved members.”

• Gayoom added that he would no longer support Thasmeen’s potential presidential campaign after his successor was alleged to have declared to the media last Thursday during “Coffee with DRP” that he no longer needed the support of his predecessor. “I would like to regretfully inform DRP’s beloved members and the general public that I do not support Ahmed Thasmeen Ali being DRP’s presidential candidate for 2013,” Gayoom stated.

“I do not believe that there is any need for further debate on the points I have noted in this statement,” Gayoom concluded in the letter.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Western military intervention in Libya imminent after skepticism over shaky ceasefire

The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising military action in Libya, excluding occuption by foreign troops, opening a window for not just a no-fly zone but air assault on President Muammar Gaddafi’s tank columns.

Gaddafi’s forces last week pushed the disorganised and increasingly demoralised rebels back to their stronghold of Benghazi, raising international concerns that a retaliatory massacre was imminent. The rebels had held several key oil towns and even neared the outskirts of the Libyan capital of Tripoli on the back of army defections and a regime caught off-guard, but was steadily pushed back by foreign mercenaries, tanks and Gaddafi’s airforce.

The UN resolution expresses “grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties” and notes that Gaddafi’s response to the uprising “may amount to crimes against humanity” and pose a “threat to international peace and security”.

The resolution explicitly calls for a ceasefire and the immediate implementation of a no-fly zone to protect civilians from Gaddafi’s airforce, and furthermore calls on UN member states “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”.

After weeks of prevaricating, US President Barack Obama yesterday demanded that Gaddafi cease his advance on Benghazi and withdraw troops from towns formerly held by the rebels, while US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton confirmed that the outcome of international action would be the removal of Gaddafi from power.

Already engaged in two wars in the Middle East, the US had resisted calls from countries including France, the UK and the Maldives for intervention in Libya. US generals had observed that maintaining a no-fly zone would mean bombing Gaddafi’s anti-aircraft defences and would effectively be an act of war.

The US change of heart appears to have come after the 22-member Arab League this week called for a no-fly zone across Libya, arguing that President Muammar Gaddafi had compromised the country’s sovereignty by using the air force to bomb his own population.

Gaddafi responded by calling a ceasefire, reportedly hours before bombers were due take off, and invited international observers into the country.

The move bought the 42-year autocracy some time, but attracted little patience from world leaders.

“Once more, Muammar Gaddafi has a choice,” said US President Obama. “Let me be clear: these terms are not negotiable … if Gaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences and the resolution will be enforced.”

UK Prime Minister David Cameron said that Gaddafi was “a dictator no longer wanted by his people, but determined to play out in real time a bloody slaughter. It is a slaughter that we now have the power, the demand and the legal basis to stop. That is why what we are doing is right.”

News of the resolution was met with jubilation in Benghazi, although there was widespread skepticism over whether Gaddafi would adhere to his ceasefire – suspicion that was warranted when bombing and shelling continued that evening, and a fighter plane crashed into the city itself after it was shot down by rebels.

Spokesperson for the Libyan Transitional National Council Essam Gheriani, the body given legitimacy last week in Paris as the face of the popular uprising, told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that the resolution had “avoided a great deal of bloodshed.

“The revenge Gaddafi would have taken in Benghazi would have been worse than anything we’ve seen before even in a city where he had mass hangings in public. It has been a great morale booster,” said Gheriani.

“This was an international community that for once gave priority to human lives over economic interests.”

Fighting continues across the Middle East as entrenched dictatorships struggle to quell a surge of democratic uprisings. Snipers in Yemen yesterday shot dead 30 protesters in the country’s capital, while opposition leaders in Bahrain have been arrested after the government invited 1000 Saudi troops into the country to crush the Shia uprising in the minority Sunni-ruled country.

Yesterday’s sudden international support of forcible regime change in Libya is likely to increase the confidence of demonstrators in other repressive countries in the region.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Young Muslim Advisory Group

Four young British Muslims from the UK’s Young Muslims Advisory Group (YMAG) visited the Maldives this week to learn about the Maldives and speak about their own experiences growing up as Muslims in a western society. During their visit they met ministers, civil society, school students and numerous community and religious leaders across Male’, Kuludhufushi and Hanimadhoo.

Minivan News spoke to Fahad Khan, YMAG’s chair and a graduate in International Relations from Leeds, Aisha Iqbal, a biochemist with an MSc in toxicology, Saadeya Shamsuddin, a London-based journalist and author, and Waliur Rahman, founder of the Bristol Active Youth Service (BAYS) and Project Manager for the Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations (CEMVO).

JJ Robinson: Can you explain what the Young Muslims Advisory Group does, and the purpose of your visit to the Maldives?

Aisha Iqbal: The organisation was set up in 2008 by the previous UK government to engage young Muslims with the government on issues relating to violent extremism, which has now expanded to other issues including Islamic justice, religious and sex education, and foreign policy.

Waliar Rahman: We have a relationship with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office – therefore this visit – and we also advise other governments, including the US, Syria, Bangladesh and Algeria.

Fahad Khan: We’re not in the Maldives on behalf of the British government. We are here to promote and express our own views, to explain what it is like being a young Muslim in Britain, what Islam is like in Britain, and what the benefits and challenges are.

JJ: How did the group come about?

Saadeya Shamsuddin: Since the [London bombings] of 7/7, and 9/11, the UK’s government has made a whole range of changes in terms of how it gets in touch with Muslims on the ground. YMAG is part of something they created called ‘Prevent’.

FK: After 7/7 the government released a policy document as part of its wider counter terrorism strategy aimed at preventing violent extremism. At the time it was formed it had a strong focus on al-Qaeda. There was quite a large backlash from Muslims in the UK, down to how the document was worded, and its use of rhetoric they found offensive.

What we want to do is engage with the gov to change the policy and make it more positive. Currently the document is under review, and it is looking more likely that the policy will change to focus on all forms of extremism, such as the current surge of right -wing extremism in the UK. It is trying to challenge ideology in a positive way, and bring extremism into the mainstream so it can be challenged.

WR: [YMAG] is not representative of Muslims. We are not elected. But we are a channel between young Muslims and the government, and we are in a unique position because we can see both the government’s strategy and the thinking at a grassroots level.

AI: We are the first group so have had so much access to cabinet ministers and government. ‘Prevent’ was a very top down policy imposed on Muslim communities, with no prior engagement with Muslim communities, which had settled into different parts of the UK and been left alone – there was no interaction [with government].

It addressed Muslims in a very security-focused way. Our role is to make sure the government understands the need for dialogue and consultation, and not just imposed policies.

JJ: What changed with regards to the treatment of Muslim in the UK following the July 2007 bombings?

FK: I’m from Leeds, where three of the bombers came from. The experience in Leeds was very different and exaggerated compared to other parts o the UK – there was a massive influx of the world’s press wanting to speak to locals about the bombers, wanting to know about them, and asking how extremism had taken root.

A lot people walking down street had a microphone put in front of them. It made the Muslim community in Leeds very uncomfortable, because a lot of those speaking were young people aged 14-15, people without confidence or skill to speak clearly. As a result, the community became very insular and closed off. The spotlight was on them, and they were saying “we don’t want this, it’s not fair.”

Five years later the Muslim community has started to open up, and is willing to talk to people and address the issue.

JJ: How did people’s reactions change to you as Muslims living in Britain?

SS: One of the crucial things was that these were so called ‘home-grown’ terrorists. Prior to 7/7 terrorists from different parts of world had attacked America – but now it was British people attacking their own country.

AI: The whole question of identity and ‘Britishness’ came up. People asking who were you loyal to – to your faith first or to the country?

SS: The government made it an issue. it was never an issue for us.

AI: People on the street would wonder. We had huge debates and people were asked to choose [between their faith and their nationality]. It was really unfair – nobody asked Hindis or Jews. They targeted Muslim communities.

WR: In Bristol a young person was arrested on charges of planning to blow up a shopping centre. He was self-radicalised – there wasn’t a terrorist recruiter involved, which was quite unusual. He was vulnerable, disengaged, and that fed it even more. What was different was that the Muslim community stood up and worked with police to prevent this from happening.

After that the Muslim community formed the Muslim Advisory Network, a single point of contact. Because Muslim communities [in the UK] are under the spotlight, they have had to be more proactive in promoting their faith and putting in safety blankets so it doesn’t happen again.

SS: There was a media storm – it was overwhelming after 9/11 and 7/7. I’m from London and the bus bomb in Tavislock square happened a few meters from my university. There was a climate of fear – I use the tube a lot, and you could really feel the sense of fear.

A few days afterwards I was at Finchley Road station and saw two bearded men giving bags to a policemen with a resigned look. I thought it was so sad it has come to this.

AI: A lot of young people felt targeted. Young boys were so disengaged by police and felt targeted just because they were Muslim. Stop and searches went through the roof, and every time I went to the cinema they would look through my bag. A lot of people were feeling targeted and under suveillance.

In Birmingham, with no community consultation, the authorities put up £3 million worth of number-plate cameras ring-fencing the majority Muslim areas, so that anyone coming in or out would be under surveillance. The community was so angry – before that the counter-terrorism unit had great links with Muslim community, but a separate department funded it with counter-terrorism funding and said it was targeting anti-social behaviour.There was huge debate in the community, and eventually police lobbied for the cameras to be taken down.

JJ: Is there a sense that Muslim communities in the UK do isolate themselves because of this kind of reaction from the authorities?

WR: What happened was that after 7/7 people felt targeted and marginalised, especially young people. They were disaffected an disillusioned, and they felt not done anything wrong, and were being targeted because of their faith. Because of that they became increasingly isolated. One of our roles was to be that channel and identify where this disengagement was happening.

FK: In response to the question, very bluntly – yes, Muslim communities did become very insular, and I think generally speaking if your way of life is under the spotlight you will shut off, and you will only speak to people that have same beliefs as you, the same culture, and understand things the same way. That’s what happened.

WR: Let’s remember – it’s not even a percentage of the population that have these terrorist ideologies. But 100% of the faith was tarred with this brush.

FK: I work closely in schools, and one of the messages I hear is segregation in schools of young Muslim males. But that’s not just the case with Muslims – you see that with other ethnic minorites. In the UK we do not want to become isolated. We don’t want to become divided to the point where communities live in different parts of cities and there is no cultural crossover.

AI: I do think that although the majority of communities have withdrawn from politics, we are seeing a lot more young people engaged in politics and civic engagement. It is more visual now – especially at universities. I became much more active, and the events held were interesting and engaging. There is also lots of investment in leadership skills and empowerment of young Muslims.

JJ: Would you say the situation for Muslims in the UK has improved since 7/7?

WR: When Prevent was introduced, there was a large group of people who would not apply for funding – they would not go near it.

AI: It has taken a long time.

WR: The government does seem not sure where taking the strategy. A minister described it as a “fluid process” – which to to me means they have no idea where it is going.

FK: Mosques are now a lot more engaged with statutory authorities. There are programs to go out and train Imans as community leaders, run workshops in mosques, debate and discuss Islam in a way that young people can get involved in the conversation.

AI: Initially, Muslims felt attack and went on the defensive. But people are breaking from the mold and becoming self-critical, and improving governance in the mosque. Often [mosque] council members stay the same for a long time and it is very hard get the change that is needed, but the fact is that Muslim communities are slowly taking on the challenges rather than burying their heads in the ground.

JJ: What is your impression of Islam in the Maldives?

SS: We’ve been learning. We’ve had a crash course over the last week or so, starting with the Maldives High Commissioner in the UK [Dr Farahanaz Faizal] last week.

AI: Some people here are saying the religion is very similar to the culture, other people said they are seeing new influences of conservative Islam from abroad which is concerning them. We need more time to understand it.

JJ: What are some of the things that have struck you so far?

SS: I’m familiar with the culture and lifestyles of countries such as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and what I really like about the Maldives is the progressive equality of men and women. At all the offices we visited we’ve seen women working alongside men – in many of these other countries women seem few and far between – even the UK has gender imbalance. It is very impressive here – women have freedom to go out, do shopping, and without a chaperone. It was a huge shock, I wasn’t expecting that.

I’m not sure about the economic status of the Maldives, but it’s clean, has nice pavements – and it’s really impressive in terms culture and religion. Even though women are wearing headscarves, they are also out enjoying themselves and being independent.

WR: I think for me it’s been a shock to see the segregation of the tourism and the locals.

AI: It struck me the way people dress here. I thought coming to a Muslim country people might be conservative or there might be a traditional way of dressing, but what I found was that everyone looked Western – skinny jeans and tops. I was really shocked because I thought a conservative country would be covering itself or wearing baggy clothes. But it reminded me a lot of Indonesia and Malaysia, where faith is seen as more internal, and people aren’t judged so much by their image and their exterior.

Even where I’m from in Birmingham, a predominantly Muslim area, you get judged for what you wear. People tend to make judgements on how religious you are by your exterior appearance.

WR: Although there appears to be a rise in that here, judging from the concern of ministers and NGOs.

FK: For me what has been fascinating was to find that divorce for women is not a social taboo. In the UK, particularly for Muslim women, divorce probably means she will find it very difficult to get married again – she is seen as tainted. Whereas over here a divorced woman is not looked at as any less than a single woman.

AI: The High Commissioner told us a very funny joke about it when we were in London: “A tourist comes to the beach and sees a very pretty Maldivian girl. He wants to know who she is so he goes up to three guys and asks them.

The first guy says, ‘She’s my ex-wife.’ The tourist is very embarrassed by this, and says sorry. The guy next to him says ‘Oh, don’t worry about it, she’s my wife.’ The tourist is now really apologising. Then the third guy says, ‘Don’t worry, she’s my future wife.’” And that’s how relaxed marriage is. We were really shocked.

FK: We find this fascinating, because divorce is talked about a lot in Islam – scholars say you should avoid it.

JJ: Some Maldivians who travel overseas meet a lot of criticism back home from people who say they have been exposed to corrupting, decadent Western influences, and that these make you less Islamic, less Muslim than those who live in a 100 percent Muslim society. As young Muslims living in the West, what is your reaction to that?

SS: We visited a school and spoke to a class of 25 teenagers. We asked them to describe what they thought our experiences in the UK were. A lot of answers were quite conflicted: “tough”, “difficult”. We gave our own experiences, and I can understand why Maldivians might have this myth of British Muslim youth being corrupted.

It couldn’t be further from the truth. Actually, because we’re not a 100 percent Muslim country, because we have such a diverse mixture of colours, cultures and races, especially in London, it is a good test of your faith. You have freedom to choose, freedom to wear the headscarf, freedom to fast, freedom to pray five times a day.

Aisha’s family in Pakistan is always asking her: “you must have boyfriends – how many boyfriends do you have?” Then they come over and see the way we live, that we are far more conservative than they are, in terms of what we want to do and don’t want to do. I think it is a complete myth.

AI: I think it is true to some degree that external appearance shows that someone is more religious. But religiousity is different everyone. I’ve seen people who follow a very spiritual Islam, and for them it is about making sure their character is correct. Culture also influences you – when I first went to university nobody wore the hijab. I was one of the few to wear it, but wearing it has become a trend. People wear it in a funky way, and it’s also an identity thing. It can be very trendy.

SS: That said – there are definitely corrupt Muslims in the UK, maybe as much as in the Maldives – but no one’s watching them. Of course we have option of drinking alcohol when our parents aren’t looking, or to go out with friends to nightclubs, or have boyfriends. But it’s a very strong test of your faith to set your boundries yourself.

Because Islam is such a diverse religion, with different thoughts and cultural influences, it’s such a generalisation to think that because we are exposed to corrupting influences that we are therefore by default corrupt ourselves.

JJ: The authorities are strict in policing [unIslamic] things here, and there is antagonism towards questioning these rules, at least publicly.

WR: But then you drive it underground, into secret communities. It gives the authorities even more of a headache in terms of enforcement. What we advised when we spoke to ministers was to let people have a dialogue – people are going to have ideas that don’t conform to what you would want them to think. But let’s have a dialogue and celebrate diversity rather than trying to control it.

JJ: How do you promote debate within Islam? There is a case made here that you are only allowed to participate in a debate if you are a scholar, if you have a particular level of training.

FK: In the UK I do talks on Muslim cultural awareness – I’m not an Imam, I’m not a scholar, and I don’t have as much knowledge as them. But we can comment on Muslim culture in the UK – and certainly Islam does allow you to quote verses, and give information – so long as it is the right information. Of course I think the reason the Maldivians are more conservative about this is because they don’t want the wrong information being given out by the wrong people, which can then cause deviations from the faith, or traditional school of thought.

But in the UK, because we have the freedom to debate, we have different schools of thought. Ultimately we believe there is one God, and that Mohamed (PBUH) is his last messenger. That, and the five pillars, are universal among all schools of thought. We celebrate that.

AI: In response I would say that the first thing the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) commanded was “to read” – to read and find out about religion for yourself. We cannot just expect scholars to teach us about religion, we have to find out and take our own conclusions on the faith – to have a dialogue. Having only lectures is not empowering – it is disempowering. It’s important to learn and engage through dialogue, and if somebody doesn’t agree with you, the fact you have made your point means they have a choice; to reflect on their position, to adjust their position or maintain it.

WR: This is a difference in our cultures regarding education. It’s common in South Asian countries to learn by ‘read, regurgitate, put on paper.’ Whereas in UK we are taught to debate, to analyse, think on our feet and think for ourselves. That’s reflected in the way we practise our religion as well.

SS: I think having scholars commenting and reflecting on passages in Islam is only effective if it is in conjuntion with all these other things, such as young Muslims going out and reading the Quran for themselves, understanding the different interpretations and engaging with that inforamtion on all levels – not just sitting there and being talked to. It should be organic, not stilted.

JJ: What you are talking sounds similar to the human right of freedom of expression, which is stated in the Maldivian constitution as ‘freedom of expression subject to the tenets of Islam’. There is a perception that freedom of expression let fundamentalism out of the bag, as well as the liberal side, but such a caveat gives the moral authority in any debate to the conservative side – the liberal element feels it cannot debate publicly for fear of social ostracism. Can you have the kind of debate you are promoting with such a precondition?

SS: That’s very interesting – I think it’s about tolerance, and tolerance goes both ways. If you are liberal, you should be tolerant of extremist ideas – not accept them but give space to accept them. Freedom of expression is a good thing – but you can’t have it both ways. If you stop that debate, you will only hear the liberal debate and ideas – and that isn’t a democracy, or probably what the Maldives is striving to be.

AI: I would say that under the tenets of Islam you have 73 different groups that are going to be coming out – so I’m sure that both liberalism and conservatism will fit somewhere within those 73 groups. There is room for that debate and dialogue.

WR: I think that in a true democracy you have debate both sides of the argument, and do not control that debate to surpress one side or the other. I think what the Maldives will do is allow this new conservative view and allow people to have these ideologies, but also allow people to have the right information so it doesn’t become an extremist ideology. And to have control measures in place so there is no violent extremism. I think the only way you can empower people is to allow them to come to their own conclusions.

AI: I think the fear in the government here is that this new wave of conservative Islam may be eroding their culture. Any culture for them is integral because of their history. But I think that’s something for the people to decide, not the government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PA to stick with DRP coalition “for time being” despite internal strife

The People’s Alliance (PA) party has today said it will not look to break from its coalition agreement with the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) as internal divides between its current leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and his predecessor former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom continue to escalate.

The comments were made as newspaper Haveeru today reported that Gayoom had confirmed that under the position of “honorary leader” for the DRP, he would be withdrawing his support for Thasmeen to stand as its 2013 Presidential candidate.

PA Secretary General Ahmed Shareef told Minivan News that reports that the party, led by Gayoom’s half-brother Abdullah Yameen, were set to leave a coalition formed with the DRP were not true, at least for “the time being”.

Shareef confirmed that Yameen had been interviewed on television yesterday evening to state his belief that there were concerns among the party’s members about current developments with its coalition partner.

However, after the DRP last month announced it would also be forming a coalition agreement with the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) following local council elections, the PA had said it expected continue to collaborate with the party on opposition issues.

Neither DRP leader Thasmeen or representatives for Gayoom were able to confirm reports that Gayoom would no longer be supporting the serving leader to become Maldivian president in 2013.

However, one serving MP said that Gayoom’s reported snub of the current party leader was not surprising in light of divides within the DRP between supporters of the current and former party leaders.

Gayoom had originally appointed Thasmeen as his successor following his retirement from active politics last year, however both men have since become aparent figureheads for two different factions that have formed in the party.

This split between Thasmeen and a faction consisting of dismissed former Deputy Leader Umar Naseer and a number of serving party members has engulfed the party since December.

However, despite being dismissed from the DRP, Umar Naseer and a number of party MPs said to support him campaigned alongside former President Gayoom during a tour of a number of islands ahead of last month’s local council elections.

The last few weeks have seen this in-party feuding extended to a war of words between Thasmeen and Gayoom himself, with the former president last week putting his name to a twelve page document attacking his sucsesor for ruling in a “dictatorial” manner.

A number of DRP members contacted by Minivan News today either refused to comment on the media reports concernings Gayoom’s comments, or said they had not as yet been made officially aware of a statement on Thasmeen’s presidential ambitions, beyond what had been reported in Haveeru.

Speaking to Minivan News today, DRP MP Ahmed Nihan that he had not received any confirmation of whether Gayoom had retracted his support of Thasmeen possibly succeeding President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to lead the country. Nihan added though that he did not believe it was out of the question.

“I have not heard anything about what has been said outside of the meida. Given recent circumstances in the party this is expected though,” he claimed.

According to Nihan, core supporters of the DRP had been taken the issue of leadership to the media over concerns said to relate to Thameen’s questioning of the role Gayoom played in the party under the title of its ‘honorary leader’.

The DRP MP added that the reported end of Gayoom’s support for Thameen’s potential future presidential ambitions was “an outcome” of people trying to downplay and even omit the role Gayoom held as the party’s founding figure and one time leader.

“Some people are suggesting that Maumoon [Gayoom] only holds a symbolic position in the party,” he said. “Anyone who knows the DRP knows it was created on the basis of gayoom’s work and ideas. He is the DRP’s founder.”

Nihan claimed that the burden now lay on general members of the party to air their dissatisfaction against the party’s current leadership where possible to show support for Gayoom’s position within the party.

“I don’t think any DRP member would have expected this [divides in the party] to have happened a few years ago,” he said. “But, I think a large proportion of the party, perhaps some 80 or 90 percent of DRP members would be in support of Maumoon.”

Nihan last week said that he believed the DRP in its current form was “disintegrating” and was almost certain to split into different political bodies.

However, DRP MP Rozaina Adam said at the time that according to the party’s rules, former President Gayoom’s position as ‘Honorary Leader’ did not give him a say in the political running of the party.

“The political leader of the party is Thasmeen. He is the one who is legally responsible for the actions of the party. It is the DRP Council that votes on a course of action, not former President Gayoom,” Rozaina said.

She speculated that much of the tension within the party revolved around the Council’s decision last year to send former Deputy Leader Umar Naseer to the party’s disciplinary committee, which made the decision to remove Naseer from the DRP.

“It was the Council that voted to send Umar Naseer to the disciplinary committee, which made a decision regarding the issue, not Thasmeen himself,” Rozaina said, adding that it was doubtful whether Thasmeen even had the authority to change the decision of the committee.

The DRP had a review committee, Rozaina said, “but Umar did not even apply for that. Instead he went and complained like a little boy to Mr Gayoom, to try and get him to change the decision.”

A split was looking inevitable, she suggested.

“Right now it looks like we are heading towards that. A lot of members in the Gayoom faction have been talking about creating a new party. It probably will split – I don’t see us getting along or working together.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UNDP launches report on Women in Public Life

The UNDP yesterday launched a report on Women in Public Life in the Maldives, during a function yesterday evening at the Traders Hotel.

The report contrasts the country’s relatively high basic human development metrics with the country’s low Gender Empowerment Measure, which ranks the Maldives 90th out of 109 countries.

The report noted that a “culture of protectiveness” was inherent in the Maldives, “where girls are encouraged to stay home and boys are encouraged to be out-going, forward and self-confident.”

This impacted women’s education, as cultural expectations limited the ability of women to study abroad and attain tertiary qualifications.

Only 37 percent of married women had access to contraception, while malnutrition “is a major contributor to complications and mortality of women during childbirth and underweight babies.”

Concerning political representation of women, the report noted that those women who were in public life came largely came from the established families and political elite, “re-emphasising the privileged position of those in power.”

Decentralisation, it suggested, offered opportunities for women to become involved in local governance and increase political representation.

Vice President Dr Hassan Waheed, officiating the launch, noted that the report came at a time when the world was celebrating women’s week and international women’s day.

”We need to start planning how to expose this issue to pubic life and make it available to the public,” he said. “I don’t think everybody is really aware of the situation.”

Dr Waheed called on women to become more involved in politics.

”If there is no room in politics for women to be active and come out, be in front and compete and succeed, I think we should consider other political parties,” he said. ”I think the performance of political parties should be judged to the extent by which the party addresses women’s issues.”

Female Civil Court judge Aisha Shujoon observed that “despite the constitutional guarantee of non-discrimination in equality before the law, prejudice in practice still exists.”

”My hope is that everyone will respect the constitution and accept the fact that women, given the opportunity, are as capable as men.”

Change would not be easy, said Shujoon, observing that “there are far too many women who are victims of violence, who are forced into human trafficking, prostitution, and are forced or coerced so as to not benefit from their work.”

”We need to look at how to make the situation better, not just by efforts of response, but also prevention. Women, after all, consist of half of our population and one would think that it is not only democratic, but also morally wise to hear the voice of this heart,” she said. ”This is why men and women need to work at the micro and macro levels in both public and private life. This is why we need to stand up to try to eliminate the many obstacles that remain for women to reach their full potential. The test for whether or not you can hold the job should not be determined by the arrangement of your chromosomes.”

Mauroof Ahmed, a famous local football coach, said he agreed that men and women were important in all areas on development, including social, economic and political.development whether it is economic, social or politics.

”Today we can see a lot of women contributing to our development, this trend must continue to grow,” said Mauroof. ”We need to help and provide the opportunity for women to participate in public life and encourage women to be involved.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bahrain declares martial law as Saudi troops clash with Shia protesters

The King of Bahrain has declared martial law in the Gulf state after allowing 1000 troops from Saudi Arabia into the country to quell an uprising of Shia demonstrators.

Violent demonstrations in tiny Shia-majority country, ruled by a US-backed Sunni-elite, yesterday saw four shot dead, including two protesters, one Bahrani policemen, and a Saudi soldier.

A further six protesters were declared dead after troops overran the demonstrators camp this morning. Observers also observed an armoured personal carrier on the scene with the flag of the UAE.

A doctor spoken to by the UK’s Guardian newspaper said that Saudi troops were preventing staff from leaving the hospital where he worked.

“They are shooting at us, they are shooting,” he said. “Get help, get the international community to help.”

Media reported protesters outside the hospital as chanting “with our blood and our souls we will fight the mercenaries.”

Bahrain’s opposition Shia Wefaq party yesterday issued a statement condemning the arrival of Saudi troops as an assault on the country’s sovereignty.

“We consider the entry of Saudi Arabia or other Gulf forces into the Kingdom of Bahrain’s air, sea or land territories a blatant occupation,” the party said.

Iran, a majority Shia country, waded into the burgeoning conflict when foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi asked Bahrain not to harm the Shia demonstrators. In response, Bahrain withdrew its ambassador from Tehran in protest.

An Iranian MP, Kazem Jalali, described the Saudi interference as a “criminal” attempt by the US and Saudi Arabia to repress peaceful anti-government protests, pointing to the recent visit of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates to he gulf nation.

There were further signs that the escalating crisis in the 200 year-old monarchy could reignite an ongoing Sunni-Shia feud in the region, after the militant Shia Hezbollah group in Lebanon said that military action against demonstrations would disrupt Bahrain’s already fragile society – 70 percent of the population are Shia, but are largely underrepresented in senior government and political positions.

“Military intervention and the use of violence against a peaceful and popular movement will only complicate matters and eliminate chances of finding a solution,” Hezbollah said.

The UK embassy in the Bahraini capital of Manama closed its doors, while the US – which has substantial military assets in the kingdom, including the US Fifth fleet – ruled out military action.

The UK has closed its embassy in Manama, while the EU and the US have said there is “no military solution” to the crisis. The US maintains its Fifth Fleet in Manama’s port and has significant intelligence interests in the kingdom.

The Formula One grand prix, due to be held in Bahrain this year, has been postponed.


Likes(0)Dislikes(0)