An eye for an eye...

the sufferers....



TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Ameneh Bahrami is certain that one day she'll meet someone, fall in love and get married. But when her wedding day comes, her husband won't see her eyes, and she won't see her husband. Bahrami is blind, the victim of an acid attack by a spurned suitor.

Ameneh Bahrami said her attacker pestered her with marriage demands.

If she gets her way, her attacker will suffer the same fate. The 31-year-old Iranian is demanding the ancient punishment of "an eye for an eye," and, in accordance with Islamic law, she wants to blind Majid Movahedi, the man who blinded her.
"I don't want to blind him for revenge," Bahrami said in her parents' Tehran apartment. "I'm doing this to prevent it from happening to someone else."
Bahrami says she first crossed paths with Movahedi in 2002, when they attended the same university.
She was a 24-year-old electronics student. He was 19. She never noticed him until they shared a class. He sat next to her one day and brushed up against her. Bahrami says she knew it wasn't an accident.
"I moved away from him," she said, "but he brushed up against me again." Watch Bahrami return to the attack scene for the first time »
When Bahrami stood up in class and screamed for him to stop, Movahedi just looked at her in stunned silence. He wouldn't stay silent for long.
Bahrami said that over the next two years, Movahedi kept harassing her and making threats, even as he asked her to marry him. "He told me he would kill me. He said, 'You have to say yes.' "
On a November afternoon in 2004, Movahedi's threats turned to violence.
That day at 4:30 p.m., Bahrami left the medical engineering company where she worked. As she walked to the bus stop, she remembers sensing someone behind her.
She turned around and was startled to see Movahedi. A moment later came the agonizing pain. Movahedi had thrown something over her. What felt like fire on her face was acid searing through her skin.
"I was just yelling, 'I'm burning! I'm burning! For God's sake, somebody help me!' "
The acid seeped into Bahrami's eyes and streamed down her face and into her mouth. When she covered her face with her hands, streaks of acid ran down her fingers and onto her forearms. Watch how the still-pungent acid destroyed Bahrami's clothes »
Two weeks after the attack, Movahedi turned himself in to police and confessed in court. He was convicted in 2005 and has been behind bars all along.
Bahrami's lawyer, Ali Sarrafi, said Movahedi had never shown any remorse. "He says he did it because he loved her," Sarrafi said.
Attack victims in Iran usually accept "blood money": a fine in lieu of harsh punishment. With no insurance and mounting medical bills, Bahrami could've used the cash, but she said no.
"I told the judge I want an eye for an eye," Bahrami said. "People like him should be made to feel my suffering." Watch how the acid destroyed Bahrami's eyes (includes graphic content) »
Bahrami's demand has outraged some human rights activists. Criticizing acid-attack victims is almost unheard of, but some Internet bloggers have condemned Bahrami's decision.
"We cannot condone such cruel punishment," wrote one blogger. "To willingly inflict the same treatment on a person under court order is a violation of human rights."
Late last year, an Iranian court gave Bahrami what she asked for. It sentenced Movahedi to be blinded with drops of acid in each eye. This month, the courts rejected Movahedi's appeal.
Bahrami's lawyer, Sarrafi, said the sentencing might be carried out in a matter of weeks. He said he doesn't think Bahrami will change her mind. Neither does Bahrami.

So important and assignment...

Wow, an "important" case, .. so boring...(they are no bigger fish to catch ?)



KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 20 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has said there is "strong evidence" to show Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had misused his powers over the purchase of 46 cows and maintenance of his own cars.
The cases are believed to be linked to allegations brought up by his predecessor Datuk Seri Mohd Khir Toyo, and which is now the subject of a law suit brought by Khalid for defamation against the Barisan Nasional man.
It is understood the investigation papers have been forwarded to the Attorney-General's Chambers.
"The MACC can decide but it's better for the Attorney-General to consider and take action, it involves a VIP and we have to be fair to everyone," MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan told a news conference in Penangafter performing the ground-breaking ceremony for the Penang MACC quarters building.
Bernama quoted him as saying that from the technical point of view, there was evidence pertaining to the allegations.
Abdul Khalid has been accused of using state government funds for the maintenance of his personal sports utility vehicle, a Lexus bearing the number plate WQR779, and the purchase of 46 cows costing RM10,400 for sacrifice.
On another matter, Ahmad Said said the MACC would also investigate allegations of abuse of power by Perak state assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar for suspending Perak Menteri Besar Perak Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive councillors from the assembly.
"If it's true that there has been abuse of power, the MACC will take appropriate action," he added...SOO BORING

Its the power that matters..

who cares about respect and dubious...

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 5 — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said a large section of the public will be angry if the Perak Ruler does not dissolve the state assembly and invites Barisan Nasional to form the state government on the basis of dubious crossovers.
Writing in his blog, the Gua Musang Umno MP cautioned that taking control of Perak without getting the mandate of the people will spell disaster for BN in the next general election.
"Our taking control without resorting to elections would cement the enmity of the very people we should be trying to win back.
"Come the next general election, they are going to reject both our state and parliamentary candidates with greater vehemence, and not just in Perak."
The former finance minister said contests in a democracy are not a fight for survival where anything goes but a competition to serve and BN must reform to improve its ability to serve with distinction.
He said this was a long-term goal which required immediate focus, adding that BN did not need questionable victories which he described as distractions but needed to upgrade itself to win elections again, fair and square.
Tengku Razaleigh said this was the only sustainable way for BN to win back the public.
He said Umno was in critical condition because of ethical failures and its biggest challenge was tackling corruption at every level.
"We are under close public scrutiny and unless we implement radical reforms and are seen to be doing so, we are finished politically come next elections".
However, he said, BN was embroiled in "winning back" Perak with the crossover of who he described as low-calibre individuals.
"The two assemblymen whose allegiance we have suddenly gained are under investigation for corruption, while the Bota assemblyman's justification for his record-breaking 10-day double-hop is an insult to the public's intelligence and nauseating in its insincerity."
He said this open abuse, for personal gain, is what caused people to hate Umno.
Tengku Razaleigh also lashed out at the circumstances surrounding the defections.
"The mysterious disappearances, sudden reversals, and weak explanations, show ample signs of illegal inducement.
"No matter what the truth of the matter, let us not fool ourselves. People will not believe that these crossovers were honest. This mistrust will taint any government formed on the back of these crossovers."
He said the celebrations over the Perak takeover were premature because the defections may or may not topple the state government.
"The Constitution and the role of the Ruler in such crises must be respected because defections are not a basis for the formation of a government. Elections are."
He said the Constitution spells out a formal process for the formation of a government and the Ruler is sworn to uphold and protect this constitutional process.
"The menteri besar has sought the Ruler's consent for the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly.

Are you listening..?

do we get people's mandate in times like this?


Making sense of the Perak controversy
By Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
FEB 4 — Before embarking on an analysis of the state of play in Perak, it would be of value to consider the objective facts:
Two assemblymen signed undated resignation letters as a condition to their being nominated by their political party for a state election. For this, the party also gave them full support, financial and otherwise. They won their respective seats;
The undated resignation letters were submitted to the speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The Perak Constitution allows members of the assembly the option of resigning their membership “by writing under his hand addressed to the speaker”;
The party opted to submit the resignations of the two assemblymen. It is not apparent what prompted this;
The speaker has accepted the resignations and communicated the fact of the resignations to the Election Commission. The speaker has taken the position and ruled for the purposes of the assembly that the resignations have taken effect and by-elections be held. He will treat the assemblymen as no longer being members of the assembly for the purposes of proceedings in the assembly;
The two assemblymen dispute the validity of the resignation. They do not contend that the resignations letters were not under their hand. They contend that the resignations were procured through duress;
The Election Commission has decided that the resignations are doubtful and as such not true resignations.
From the above, it could be said that the following questions arose when the controversy first erupted:
The legal value or validity of the resignations. There is no authoritative decision of the courts on this point. A 1982 decision of the then Federal Court (Datuk Ong Kee Hui) observed that such resignations could be viewed as being contrary to public policy in view of elections at both the state and federal level being of individuals as opposed to political parties. A question of honouring the wishes of the electorate, that is the electing of the individual as opposed to the party, arises. The Federal Court did not decide on the point as the Member of Parliament concerned did not seek to invalidate the resignation nor had the speaker been joined as a party. The point is as such open to argument.
Whether the resignation letters were procured under duress;
However, these questions have been overtaken by events, in particular the decision of the speaker to accept the resignations and give effect to them. The speaker may be wrong but until he is shown to be wrong through valid process — either in the assembly (to the extent that such process is available) or through the courts — the speaker’s decision must stand.
In this regard, the Election Commission is charged with the conduct of elections. It could be argued that in order to do so, the Election Commission must have the power to determine whether an election is needed in the first place. Where state and federal elections are concerned, this is established by the dissolution of the assemblies and Parliament respectively. However, where casual vacancies (through death, resignations or disqualifications) arise, the situation is more nuanced.
The Perak Constitution (Article 36(5)) provides that a casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy. Vacancies caused by death and disqualifications are easily established. Where the latter is concerned, the matter is decided by the assembly itself, which in law is taken to have final say (save where there is a matter of legal interpretation). In the ordinary course resignations are similarly uncomplicated; the speaker receives the letter of resignation and communicates the fact to the Election Commission which establishes the vacancy based on the speaker’s declaration. From this, it is apparent that the vacancy is established by reference to the position taken by the speaker. This is consistent with the basic principle of parliamentary democracy that it is the speaker who regulates the assembly.
The question that arises is therefore whether this process is derailed by a dispute as to the validity of the resignation. In my view, it should not be, and the Election Commission must act accordingly. I say this for two main reasons. First, the scheme explained above.
Secondly, it is not for the Election Commission to embark on a fact-finding or adjudicative process as, amongst other things, it does not have the power to do so. In denying the position the speaker has taken, the Election Commission is in effect asserting that that the speaker is wrong. The Election Commission cannot do so. If there is a question as to the correctness of the speaker’s position, then it must be challenged through proper channels.
Seen from this perspective, this unprecedented and very curious action of the Election Commission regrettably raises questions as to its motives. It must be taken to appreciate the precarious position it has left Perak in, one which looked upon objectively appears to have been made more accommodating to the machinations of the Barisan Nasional. I note that by-elections would be inconvenient for Umno which is scheduled to have its assembly in March. It is as such open to question as to whether the Election Commission has conducted itself in the independent manner the Federal Constitution requires of it.
Where this leaves the Perak government is an open question. It could seek a ruling of the court as to the correctness of the decision made by the Election Commission and an order to compel the latter to conduct the by-election. This would be a time-consuming affair and occasion a delay that can only work against the interests of the state. The razor-thin margin is undermining stability and it is more probable than not the attention of those who make up the state government would be focused more on preserving their government than the affairs of the state.
The Election Commission’s stance and the underlying events would afford sufficient cause for the menteri besar to request that the Sultan dissolve the assembly and call for fresh elections. All things considered, this may be the best way to protect the interests of Perak. In these difficult times, governments should be focused on what needs to be done rather than politics.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is the current president of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM) and a lawyer.