The case, which had previously gone unreported, involved an engineer in his 30s, named as Mr X, who married Ms Y, a student nurse in her 20s, in 2006. The wedding night party was still under way at the family’s home in Roubaix when the groom came down from the bedroom complaining that his bride was not a virgin. He could not display the blood-stained sheet that is traditionally exhibited as proof of the bride’s “purity”.

Mr X went to court the following morning and was granted a annulment on the grounds that his bride had deceived him on “one of the essential elements” of the marriage. In disgrace with both families, she acknowledged that she had led her groom to believe that she was a virgin when she had already had sexual intercourse. She did not oppose the annulment.

Many people across France and the world, including the ruling party of President Sarkozy, have condemned this judgment as a way to use the law to invade women’s privacy and discriminate in religious contexts:

Critics ran out of superlatives to condemn what they depicted as a dangerous aberration. Valérie Létard, Minister for Women’s Rights, said that she was “shocked to see that today in France the civil law can be used to diminish the status of women”.

I guess the take-home lesson from these events is that if a woman lies about her history of sexual activity, her marriage never happened as far as the French courts are concerned. What a shocking and sad violation of human rights.

The president of the Gambia—supported by one of the countries leading newspapers—has called for all the gays to leave the country immediately. The ultimatum seems to have been directed at “homosexuals, drug dealers, thieves and other criminals”—what esteemed company the gays seem to be keeping these days, but I can’t really think of anybody who fits all these categories besides possibly Omar from The Wire.

Seriously though, this is scary shit. The ultimatum includes “a mass patrol” to “weed bad elements in society”, including hotels and other lodgings where “this kind of individual” takes refuge. And the Daily Observer a leading newspaper, is fully behind this effort:

Yes, here they go again at the Daily Observer jumping on the President’s bandwagon—we hear some of you moan. Well, moan some more because we think this President of ours keeps saying exactly what we think here at the Daily Observer.

We have said it before and we will say it again. This is a Muslim and Christian country. Both the Holy Koran and the Holy Bible condemn homosexuality—pure and simple. So I hear you say that both the Koran and the Bible also condemn theft, adultery, lying, etc.

Correct – but we do not pass laws to make theft, adultery, lying and all other evil deeds acceptable. But we tolerate them, I hear you say. Yes indeed we do, to an extent.

Tolerance is indeed a virtue and without tolerance we would have much conflict in society. But I do not want anyone to abuse that tolerance either.

Unfortunately, homosexuals do by demanding that non-homosexuals should accept their life-style. Well, the life-style in The Gambia is one based around Family and Religion. Like God’s Adam and Eve, the Family is based around Mother (female), Father (male) and the rest of the extended family. Tony Blair’s definition of “marriage” and “family” as being of whatever conjecture (even man and goat!) does not apply in our religious context.

Look, we are not interested in stoning anyone, even homosexuals. What our President is saying, and we agree with him totally (”as usual” I hear you moan!) is this: Ours is a society guided by religious principles.

Those religious principles leave no room for homosexuality. Sex and marriage in our culture is between man and woman. Sex and marriage between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, is viewed as irreligious and gross by the vast majority of our people here (just as in the West they would view sex and marriage between a man and a goat)!

So, please respect our religions, cultures and traditions by keeping your homosexuality out of our country.

I seriously can’t think of what I could say after this besides offering, for what little it’s worth, my own personal fuck you to the Gambia, its president, and its newsies—at least, those responsible for this crap.

“[The provision] clearly deprives young people of the benefit of the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness based on age,” the ruling read.

“By depriving them of this presumption because of the crime and despite their age, and by putting the onus on them to prove that they remain entitled to the procedural and substantive protections to which their age entitles them, including a youth sentence, the onus provisions infringe a principle of fundamental justice.”

Thank goodness—another sudden breakout of common sense. Of course, this ruling has the Tories hopping mad, and Harper’s government is making lots of noise about doing a complete overhaul of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is part of a larger trend of laws imposing “reverse onus”—that is, forcing defendants to prove why X should not happen or apply to their case, rather than the prosecution—being passed by the government and found unconstitutional by the courts. The Tories went ahead with passing such laws despite testimony from experts that such laws would be found unconstitutional in legal challenges in the court system. Anyway, this one has been overturned, if only by a slim margin in the court, paving the way for more rulings of this type.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when it takes effect in 30 days.

It’s about damn time. California has had domestic partnerships for a while, but these don’t carry all the benefits of marriage when it comes to taxes, immigration, medical benefits, and so forth. The California state legislature had passed two laws allowing gay marriage, and Schwarzenegger (remember him? the Governator?) vetoed both of them. Yet this is the man who also has said that he’s against a citizen-driven initiative to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, which looks like it’s going to be on the ballot before voters in November. Hopefully the presidential election in a “blue state” such as California will drive up the number of people who turn up not simply to vote for a president but to vote against this homophobic ballot proposition. A massive, well-funded, and well-organized effort to get voters to do both these things will be necessary starting very soon.

But for now, let’s rejoice in this ruling from a Republican-dominated court. Thank goodness there are still a few people out there who recognize that human rights should not stop with heterosexual couples.

Real posting resuming soon! Thanks for the holiday, internet.

Palestinian lawmakers probing the death in custody of a preacher from the
Islamist Hamas movement said on Thursday he had been “tortured to death” by security men loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas.

A self-appointed investigation team comprising six independent lawmakers determined that Majd al-Barghouthi died as a result of torture and said the head of the Fatah-run intelligence services, Tawfiq Tirawi, should be held to account. Another commission which Abbas appointed in late February to investigate the matter has not yet delivered its verdict, although a pathologist working on behalf of Fatah said he had not found signs of torture on Barghouthi’s body. …

Human rights groups accused Hamas of torturing to death four Palestinians in Gaza since it took control of the Strip. Both Fatah and Hamas accuse each other of arresting and torturing their supporters in the enclaves.

I hadn’t heard of these last incidents, but as far as I know, this is the first independent accusation and confirmation from Palestinians of this sort of thing happening on an intra-Palestinian level. The BBC is also reporting on this. I wonder if these incidents will bring back to light the conflict between the two different Palestinian societies: the West Bank, dominated by the old-guard, better established, (mostly) secular nationalist, and internationally acknowledged as the ‘legitimate’ representative of the Palestinian people, against the younger, militantly Islamic, and poorer Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Anyway, I’ll have some updates later in the day about the results of the by-elections. Look for the Liberals to make a few pickups, especially in urban areas like Vancouver and Toronto, due to dissatisfaction with the current government. Meanwhile, a few interesting links:

• How do you prove you’re gay when applying for refugee status?
• Religious groups are trying to shut down a Russian television channel because they show programming that is ‘anti-religious, violent as well as promoting homosexuality’, such as South Park.
• The hilarious malapropisms of Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley, such as ‘I deny the allegations and the allegators.’

The decision overturns a lower court ruling by a lower court, which said the state need not recognise conversions from Islam because of a religious ban.

Translation: Islam forbids apostasy, and many countries impose the death penalty if Muslims convert to any other religion (though see this recent article in the Guardian for a very interesting perspective on recent religious permissiveness in Egypt). However, it is very important to note that what is making the apostasy of these twelve Christians in Egypt possible is the fact that they were originally Christians before they converted to Islam:

This suggests that Egyptians born Muslim will still be unable to convert to other faiths and have those conversions recognised on their identity cards. Many Muslims believe that converting from Islam is wrong, and some believe it is punishable by death.

What a shame. It should be one’s own decision what religion to profess, if one wants to profess any at all, and the state has no business denying people the right to change their minds—and especially should not be allowed to execute them if they do. This issue goes to the heart of free speech and freedom of belief. This particular ruling is worthy of congratulation, but it is worth very little if total freedom of belief is denied.

Howard’s policy “really pushes the issue of informing the parents, when state law says minors have the right to make decisions independent of the parents,” said Deborah Chilcoat, an education and training specialist for Planned Parenthood of Maryland and co-chair of a county coalition on adolescent sexuality and reproductive health. “It’s not going to be in the best interests of young people in Howard County,” she said.

Ugly, gross, crazy, and stupid. The way to help pregnant high schoolers is to provide them with medical assistance and the love and support of their community, not to sic their parents, their school officials, and the full weight of The Law on them.

Tip of the hat to Cara at The Curvature, via Ann at Feministing.

Second, and more legally interesting, a judge in Oregon has thrown out a lawsuit challenging a law passed by the legislature last year allowing the official recognition of domestic partnerships, allowing the law to come into effect immediately. The point being argued in court was whether or not one has a constitutional right, if one signs a petition, to have that signature officially tabulated. There had been a petition circulating in Oregon to put a referendum before the voters to ban any other form of union between two people of the same sex (read: gay marriage), but it barely did not receive enough signatures to appear on the ballot. The judge concluded that it is not a constitutional right to have one’s signature counted on a petition, which sounds like a counterintuitive position, but it is very soundly argued in the (surprisingly readable and understandable) ruling (PDF). Here’s the interesting bit from the ruling (pages 15–16):

I believe the State, through a variety of sources, has demonstrated to the average signer of a petition that it’s not making any promise that your signature ultimately will be counted. Some of those we’ve talked about. Some have to do with the fact that when you sign a petition, there are any number of ways in which your petition may never see again the light of day.

Now, admittedly, some of the most common of those have nothing to do with anybody acting on behalf of the State. The chief petitioner can simply give up and go home or raise some question in his or her own mind about a particular sheet and throw that sheet away just to save themselves the trouble of a challenge later. There are any number of ways when you sign a petition that you have no reasonable expectation that the State is promising it will make it all the way to home plate. …

If you’ll forgive kind of a folksy example, if one of my kids claims I promised them a Lamborghini when they graduated from high school, the fact that I cannot do so is some evidence that I never promised I would. And if the State is being said to have promised something that would be extraordinarily difficult to do, that’s some evidence, in my view, that it never promised it in the first place; it’s not within the original entitlement.

Legally, at least from the point of view of the common law, impossibility excuses a party from failing to fulfil a contract. But there was no contract here; the specific objection raised by the plaintiffs is that the state denied due process to those people who signed the petition expecting their signatures to count, and in doing so violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the ruling found that the state never created the entitlement to having their signatures counted in the first place.

The upshot is that gay people can now go ahead and register their domestic partnerships in Oregon and receive many (but not yet all) of the benefits conferred by marriage in other situations. Thank goodness for two happy outcomes to cap off the week.

Canada is very progressive in many ways, but, like most countries, it still has a long way to go when it comes to abortion rights. To all the Canadians out there, I wish you a very happy anniversary — and best of luck in making next year even better.

A heartfelt amen to that. Feministe is also linking to this article from the Globe and Mail, highlighting the problems in the Canadian ‘choice’ system—specifically, that there often is no choice, or at least that alternatives are scarce and treatment options are few, for hundreds of thousands of women: drug-induced abortion (think RU-486) isn’t even available in this country! This just blows my mind—you can buy Allegra and codeine over the counter here, but you can’t even get something a hundred times as essential by a doctor’s prescription. I can’t wait to see the web-based Canadian pharmacy companies illegally importing drugs from America to fill this void in the system.

So yeah. Both countries have a long way to go, it would appear. We are making progress, slowly, on the legal, ethical, and medical fronts, but it’s going to be a while before we can put this issue to bed, especially given how out of the spotlight abortion is in Canada, as compared to in the States.

But the alterations that the government appears ready to make to Article 301 only go so far, the New York Times reports. Given the conservatism and nationalistic pride of many modern Turks, the government will not abolish the law; they will only ‘weaken’ it to try to reduce frivolous prosecutions under it. Furthermore—and possibly more importantly—the whole corpus of laws restricting free speech are spread over the legal code, and some of them are not even part of it. Liberals in Turkey apparently wanted the government to take some action to clean up this confusing legal patchwork, but the government won’t go there.

As I have noted previously, a nation cannot truly be called a democracy if it restricts the free speech of its citizens. If Turkey has any aspirations to being known as a democracy, in any meaningful sense of the word, it will have to give up these insulting and xenophobic restrictions on questioning the official history of the state. Let’s hope that this weakening of Article 301 is only the first step in a process leading to true freedom of speech in Turkey.

Jill Filipovic has an excellent post up at Feministe, which is also posted in the Huffington Post, outlining ‘10 Reasons to Support Reproductive Justice on Roe Day’. There’s nothing there I feel I can improve upon—just go read it. Also check out her roundup of the best Roe Day commentary out there.

CNN is reporting that twenty-four inspectors were detained and over a hundred others are under investigation, but it seems clear that even this swift response, obviously designed by the Chinese government to try to prevent civil unrest, is not having the desired effect. People around the world, but especially in Internet-restricted China, are using the Internet to express their outrage:

After the Web site sina.com published news of Wei’s beating, readers promptly expressed their outrage. In one day alone, more than 8,000 posted comments. Bloggers inside and outside China bluntly condemned the brutal killing.

“City inspectors are worse than the mafia,” wrote one Chinese blogger. “They are violent civil servants acting in the name of law enforcement.”

Another blogger asked, “Just who gave these city inspectors such absurd powers?”

It’s not exactly news that the Chinese government has an awful record when it comes to free speech on the internet, or an equally awful record on police and government treatment of its own citizens. The perspective article linked to above contains several examples of criticism from various ranks of people in China: from academics to bloggers to regular old folks, there seems to be a significant amount of resentment at this scandal. It won’t be a catalyst, and this event won’t be a significant trigger, for large-scale changes in governmental policy. But hopefully Wei Wenhua won’t be forgotten, and his cause will be taken up and championed by people both in China and in the rest of the world.

This is, naturally, completely against the spirit of the open and free exchange of ideas—something that needs to be protected legally if a democracy is to be a true democracy. Just think back to the controversy last year in which Bill O’Reilly appeared to hold the Daily Kos responsible for comments posted on its site, equating the Kos with Nazism because of things that were pulled from the comments section. It’s simply common sense that you can’t make this inference: if it were valid, you could prove that Bill O’Reilly supported death threats against Senator Hillary Clinton, for example. But it’s more than a matter of common sense: it must be enshrined in law that speech belongs to the speaker, and therefore only the speaker can be held responsible for it. Otherwise, calling it ‘free speech’ is a useless term at best and doublespeak at worst.

If this bill passes and becomes Israeli law, it should be reckoned as confirmation—for those who still need it—that the modern Israeli ‘democracy’ is nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the assertion that Israel is a democracy is for the most part a myth peddled to Jews in the Diaspora for political and fundraising purposes. A democracy that inhibits its inhabitants’ free speech does not deserve to be called a democracy. We seem to hold other so-called enlightened Western countries—or at least aspiring enlightened Western countries to these standards. Israel must not be an exception.

[Hat-tip: Jerome, via Shmarya.]

Today, the Saudi King Abdullah has generously pardoned and set free the woman. No doubt this is being done as something of a goodwill gesture at the beginning of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. There is of course plenty of reason for the Saudi government to want to appease various elements in the Western world, especially at this time (which was, in fact, the actual justification—’serving the public interest’—offered by the king as his reason for the pardon). Yet the king is still being criticized, apparently, by the religious-conservative elements in the Muslim world:

The BBC’s Heba Saleh says the king’s decision to pardon the woman victim is already arousing controversy with some contributors to conservative websites, who say he has breached the rules of religion in order to appease critics in the West. (from the article cited above)

Of course, the U.S.-Saudi relationship is one of the most important in the international community, what with the extensive trading (read oil trading) relationship between the two nations. And of course, who can forget Bush’s hand-holding incident with then-Crown Prince Abdullah?

So Abdullah finally made the right decision, but with a thinly veiled motivation, fearing some sort of recrimination by the West. But—and this is a more general question—what leverage can the West really exert on these oil-producing nations? Do they even really want to? Can the West risk their vital oil supply going ever upward in price, not to mention the threat of it being cut off? Of course not. (History has proven, however, that rising oil prices are not deterring oil purchasing and use, contrary to general economic rules. But this is a different topic.) As long as the relationship between the oil exporters and importers continues the way it currently does, there will be very little possibility in the future to prevent the next Qatif Girl from being sentenced for a ‘crime’ of this nature. We got lucky this time; next time may be very different.