Manila Court Rules Anti-Terror Law Constitutional

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 10, 2010

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a 2007 anti-terror law, which the government sought to bolster a U.S.-backed campaign against al-Qaida-linked militants but critics fear could muzzle civil liberties.

Left-wing alliance Bayan, one of the groups that sought the repeal of the Human Security Act, said Monday it would appeal last Friday's ruling. The law rarely has been used since it took effect because law enforcers fear the heavy punishment it includes for mistaken arrests and abuses.

Then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, a staunch Asian ally of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, signed the anti-terror law in 2007 to turn her Southeast Asian country — regarded as a breeding ground of Islamic radicals — into a hostile territory for militants.

Arroyo cited terrorist attacks, including the bombing of buses, telecommunications and power lines.

The United States and Australia welcomed the new law, which took effect in July 2007. U.S. and Australian security officials have expressed fears that suspected terror training camps in the southern Philippines could produce militants who could strike anywhere in the world.

But several left-wing groups, legislators and human rights advocates separately petitioned the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional, arguing its definition of terrorism was too broad and could cover legitimate dissent like labor strikes, anti-U.S. demonstrations and even daring stunts by Greenpeace activists who barge into ships and power plants.

The law defines terrorism as any of at least 12 violent crimes — including murder, kidnapping, arson, piracy, coup and rebellion — that cause widespread and extraordinary panic and force the government to give in to an unlawful demand.

It allows detention of suspected terrorists without charge for three days and their rendition to other countries.

The court said in its 45-page decision that the petitioners could not prove that the law has done them any actual damage, adding no court has declared any militant group a terrorist organization three years since the law took effect.

"Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before courts may step in to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable," the court said.

Renato Reyes of Bayan said activists would not wait until state forces, which have been accused of human rights violations, use the law against them.

"We have a long experience of activists being killed and harassed so we went to court to fight this law at the first instance," Reyes said.

Philippine officials have said that legislators watered down the anti-terror bill with safeguards so much that police became afraid to use it. For example, the law provides that police be fined 500,000 pesos ($11,600) for each day they wrongfully detain a terror suspect.

The law is known to have been used only twice. Philippine police cited the law to charge three bombing suspects with terrorism in November 2008.

Two months ago, state prosecutors asked a court in southern Basilan province to outlaw the small but brutal Abu Sayyaf group and more than 200 of its Islamic fighters as terrorists, citing more than two decades of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/10/10/world/asia/AP-AS-Philippines-Anti-Terror-Law.html?emc=eta1

The Myth Of A 'Christian Nation'

By A. James Rudin
Religion News Service

(RNS) The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is credited with saying that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Some leaders of the religious right would have us believe that America was founded as a "Christian nation." The facts, however, say otherwise.

While the Founding Fathers, with their diverse Christian backgrounds, had every opportunity to make the fledgling United States into a "Christian nation," the factual record reveals they consciously refused to do so.

And it was not, as some opine, a mistake or an oversight.

Their reasons were a combination of history, demography and the Founders' shared belief they were creating something unique in the world.

They remembered the Church of England's persecution of religious minorities, including the Pilgrims and Quakers. The Founders were also haunted by the ghosts of Europe's Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) when huge numbers of Protestants and Catholics killed each other in the name of God.

The text of the Declaration of Independence contains just four theological references: "nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge of the world," and "Divine Providence." There is not a single specific mention of either Jesus or Christianity. The Declaration, reflecting the signatories' collective thinking, was carefully written and edited; words were included, or not, for a reason.

The U.S. Constitution, written in 1787, has only this religious wording: "in the year of our Lord," a common phrase still used on some legal documents and diplomas.

There is not, however, any constitutional authorization for the establishment of any religion in the U.S. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Article Six rejects a "religious test" for public office, and the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion while at the same time providing for its free exercise.

There were demographic factors at work, as well. By 1776, the U.S. was already religiously diverse, with several Protestant groups, minority Catholic and Jewish populations, and a large number of African-American slaves, some of them Muslim.

James Madison, a Presbyterian attorney from Virginia and a future president, predicted a "multiplicity of sects" in the U.S., similar to diverse political parties. We see now that Madison was, and remains, correct.

Even so, the question of whether the U.S. would officially become a "Christian nation" was in doubt until a titanic struggle was waged in Virginia between Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry in 1785.

Patrick, the state's governor and an Anglican (today he'd be known as an Episcopalian), wanted residents to pay a church tax to support religious institutions. Because of Virginia's population at the time, most taxes would have gone to the Anglican Church. Supporting the tax was John Marshall, another Anglican and a future Chief Justice.

Jefferson, who was also raised in the Anglican tradition, strongly opposed the proposal, and he enlisted Madison and Baptist minister John Leland as allies in the bitter campaign to defeat the bill in the Virginia Legislature.

Thanks to the efforts of Jefferson and his allies, Henry's tax legislation failed, and the following year, 1786, the Legislature adopted Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom by a vote of 74 to 20.

The Statute has had an extraordinary influence upon American history for 225 years. It provided that:

" No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever ... nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

click to read more

Kelantan PAS Prepared To Amend State Constitution To Allow For Non-Malay Muslim

December 28, 2009 19:06 PM

Kelantan PAS Prepared To Amend State Constitution To Allow For Non-Malay Muslim MB

KOTA BAHARU, Dec 28 (Bernama) -- The Kelantan Pas government is prepared to amend the state constitution to enable a non-Malay Muslim to become menteri besar of the state.

Menteri Besar, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, said there was no question of amending the state constitution as long as it was in line with Islamic requirements as introduced by Pas since ruling the state in 1990.

"Kelantan laws are different as they were made before Pas came to power. They can amended," he told reporters after officiating the 'Ijtimak Ulama Muda Negeri Kelantan' meeting here Monday.

Nik Aziz said this when asked to comment on his statement to support any non-Malay candidate for the menteri besar post after him as long as the person was a Muslim.

He said following Islamic policy, as long as the candidates were of good character and practise the teachings of Islam truthfully, they qualified to lead.

"That is why we do not hold fast to race but rather hold to those who practise the teachings of Islam, then Islam will be respected.

"This step (of appointing a non-Malay) to be menteri besar will make Islam to be respected and more people will make Islam their religion," he said.

Touching on the same matter in his speech, Nik Aziz said he will himself propose any non-Malay Muslim leader to be his replacement if the person was qualified.

-- BERNAM.COM