France's Constitutional Council -- the highest constitutional authority in France -- expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the law. However, after studying the law, the Council announced that the law adheres to the constitution. However, the Council did make one change to the law. They say the law will not apply to public places of worship, as that would violate religious freedom (I don't understand how the whole law doesn't violate religious freedom. What about the women that feel that wearing a face-covering veil is a part of their religion? They're being denied that right in public places).
The law is set to go into effect next spring. There will be a six-month period of "education" where women wearing face-covering veils will be informed that they could face a fine or arrest if they continue to wear the veil in public places. One last legal challenge to the law is possible at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. (Full Story)
Another concern I have with this law is that women that wear full-face veils (either out of choice or because they're forced) may be restricted to their home now. If their choice is to either take off their full-face veil (or wear a less-covering head scarf) or stay at home, they might just stay at home. This might prevent the women that are forced to wear these full-face veils from going out into public and interacting with others, as should be her right.
For some more of my thoughts on the issue, feel free to refer to this past entry.
Update on Ecuador: Ecuador's interior minister announced that 46 police officers have been detained for alleged participation the police revolt against President Correa. He also said that voice recordings indicate that the uprising was not just a spontaneous revolt because officers were upset by the new law that would cut bonuses. Correa and his supporters believe it was a coup attempt against him. A lawyer for some of the police officers say that there are 57 officers in custody and that they are being held incommunicado. (Full Story)
Here is another case I'm interested in following to see if the "state of emergency" is used inappropriately to garner power and repress opposition. I'm usually suspicious when state of emergencies are extended for a while. The state of emergency in Ecuador was already renewed, but it's still early in the incident.
The New York Times has an article on Thailand in the aftermath of the red shirt protests that happened earlier this year (see previous post). The red shirts were anti-government protesters and they were calling on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to dissolve parliament and step down. They felt he took power illegitimately. Most of the red shirts were supporters of the former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was overthrown in a 2006 coup and is now in exile. The red shirts occupied central Bangkok in April, and demonstrations were held for nine-and-a-half weeks. The army used tear gas and also fired ammunitions over and into the crowd. More than 90 people were killed and about 1,400 people were injured in clashes between the protesters and the security forces. The government also shut down news and radio stations that were believed to be supporters of the red shirt movement. Towards the end of May, red shirt leaders surrendered themselves to the police in order to prevent any further violence. Abhisit Vejjajiva is still the prime minister.
Since the protests, Abhisit says he is promoting a policy of national reconciliation, while at the same time he's arresting his opponents and censoring the media. A state of emergency, which prohibits large public gatherings, still remains in effect in Bangkok and surrounding areas. The prime minister acknowledged that a continuing crackdown against the opposition may have led to possible human rights abuses, but he insists the emergency policies are necessary to ensure stability. He said in an interview this week, "Just as in many democracies, we cannot allow newspapers, websites, or radio stations that incite violence." Definitely sounds to me like some fear-mongering used as a justification for repressing opposition. That's certainly never been done before in the history of the world... Oh, and, in case you forgot, Thailand currently holds the presidency of the UN Human Rights Council. Abhisit says he takes complaints seriously and he has allowed human rights monitors to interview people who had been jailed.
He also tried to justify his actions and reinforce that he's dedicated to human rights by suggesting that the policies of his government aren't all that different from what other democracies, including the United States, would do in the same situation. Oh...well in that case, that makes it better... Abhisit also stated that he received little criticism (not no criticism, mind you, just little criticism. haha.) from leaders of the EU at the recent summit meeting in Brussels. Well everything must be great then! You're only violating human rights if you're criticized a lot over it. Abhisit also suggested that Germany's reluctance to sell military equipment to Thailand has nothing to do with the current situation in Thailand or his government's human rights record. Instead, he said it's a result of some other "ongoing problem" since at least 2007 (Abhisit was elected in 2008. Isn't that convenient). (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment