HAT TIP: LJ’s Next Step Skype Room – posted by LJ
THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT…I LOVE LEARNING AND THIS IS WHAT I FOUND:
THE FEDERAL COURT LAW DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH HOW THE COURT ARRIVES AT CIVIL RENDERINGS. PRIOR TO THE NEW GOV’T (2003) THE SADDAM REGIME HAD VERY LIGHT CIVIL LAWS THAT ALLOWED FOR A MORE LAX ENVIRONMENT THAT COMPLIMENTED NIGHTLIFE AND A LIBERAL SOCIAL CULTURE. REMEMBER SUNNI MUSLIMS ARE NOT AS STRICT AS SHIITE MUSLIM; THEIR BELIEFS ALLOW FOR A STUDENT THAT MASTERS THE KORAN HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE APPOINTED AS IMAM. THE SHIITE BELIEVES THAT YOU HAVE TO BE A DIRECTLY CHOSEN BY GOD AND IS FREE FROM SIN AND MUST BE FOLLOWED SINCE THEIR APPOINTMENT IS BY GOD– NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS. YOU MAY ASK, WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? WELL I WILL TELL YOU…
AFTER THE U.S. INVASION AND THE SET UP OF THE NEW GOV’T THE HIGH JUDICIAL COUNCIL HAD RESERVATIONS OF THE LAW THAT STIPULATED SHARIA JURISTS ON THE JUDICIAL COURT HAD VETO POWER OVER LAWS THAT DID NOT ADHERE TO THE STRICTNESS OF SHARIA LAW. IF IT WERE ALLOWED THEN LAWS THAT GOVERN WOMEN FOR EXAMPLE: SHARIA LAW SAYS THAT A WOMAN CAN BE ATTACKED FOR NOT DONNING A VEIL OR DRIVING A CAR; THIS DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES. IF SHIA JURISTS ARE ON THE COURT THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VETO A LAW THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A WOMAN TO NOT WEAR A VEIL OR DRIVE A CAR. THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE COURT TO ARRIVE AT A DECISION IF THOSE ON THE COURT COULD VETO FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. AS THE COURT HAS, AND SHOULD HAVE, RESERVATIONS REGARDING SUCH POWERS THERE HAS BECOME A RIFT IN PASSING THE FEDERAL COURT ACT.
A PROPOSAL MORE THAN A YEAR AGO WAS PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND WAS DISPUTED. THE FACT THAT THAT SHARIA JURISTS AND ALSO MEMBERS OF THE COURT WOULD BE ABLE TO VETO THERE WILL/WOULD BE ISSUES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COURT LIKE WHO WOULD CHAIR SUCH A BODY AND HOW THAT INDIVIDUAL IS APPOINTED. BASICALLY, ANOTHER STALEMATE SITUATION. THIS WOULD CHANGE THE COURT FROM BEING “LEGAL” TO BEING “JURISTIC.” THAT IS WHAT PROMPTED THE LEGAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE BILL.
THEY PRESENTED IT TO PARLIAMENT, SAYING THEY WANT A COURT FREE OF A RIGHT TO VETO BASED ON SHARIA LAW. IT WAS DEBATED AND AGREED UPON AND IS NOW AWAITING A VOTE (SUPPOSEDLY ON TUESDAY) IT WAS TO BE PASSED LONG AGO WITH LAWS DEALING WITH PRISONER AMNESTY AND THE DEFERRED PAYMENT LAW. THEY HAD POLITICAL DIFFERENCES AS THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE INSISTED THE SHARIA COURT JURISTS HAVE VETO POWER AND THE OTHER PARTIES DID NOT. THE ABILITY TO REVOKE LAWS AGREED ON IN PARLIAMENT, IS AND WOULD BE, A DETRIMENT TO GETTING ANYTHING DONE. THE CONSTITUTION, AT INCEPTION, STATES THAT THE JUDICIARY MUST RESPECT THE PRINCIPLES OF ISLAM – AND THAT IS WHERE OUR ARGUMENT BEGAN…
ALTHOUGH SADR, A SHI’A MUSLIM AGREES WITH THE SHARIA POSITION; PARLIAMENT HAS AGREED TO NOT ALLOW THE VETO POWER AND THEY WAIT FOR THE VOTE…THAT IS WHY THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE DOES NOT WANT TO VOTE ON IT. ALLAWI HAS ONLY THREE CONDITIONS – ERBIL, THE AMNESTY OF PRISONERS AND THE FEDERAL COURT ACT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR VETOS…
:END of LJ’s Comment
Mr. IQD 