Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani

'We stretch our hands to the people of the world. No matter who you are or where in the world, save our mother.'

The plea in an open letter written by Sajad Ghadarzade and his sister, Farideh, whose mother faces death by stoning.

Mrs Ashtiani's case has been written about in many blogs and in many newspapers - none have condoned the punishment. William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, has rightly spoken for the people of Britain by saying he is 'appalled'.

As a result of the international outcry it would appear that the stoning has been at least postponed, although the lady still faces the death penalty - for adultery. Adultery is a word rarely used in the western world these days, morals have become looser. During the last century Western 'society' became more tolerant of sexual misdemeanours and wanderings - except for the few who are supposed to 'uphold standards' such as the Royal Family and some members of government, but adultery and sex outside marriage is no longer taboo, no longer an offence apart from offending dignity.

Mrs Rigby is strongly opposed to the death penalty in any form. She doesn't believe it is a suitable punishment for any crime, and she doesn't think any person, no matter how legally important they may be, should be given either the power or the right to instruct 'the authorities' to take the life of any individual - no matter what they may have done wrong. As for stoning, Mrs R finds it hard to think of a more horrible, more barbaric, more terrifyingly brutal, means of execution. Taking a life in this way demeans not only the individual being put to death, it also demeans those carrying out the punishment and indicates nothing more than a lust for power, for power's sake, in those who think this punishment is appropriate. Stoning to death, carefully contrived to be successful by ensuring the victim is buried in a hole in the ground, is a means of killing that should have stayed consigned to the history books, and let's hope this is where it is returned.

The authorities in Iran and indeed many other Muslim countries are trying to rule by fear - in other words they are trying to tell their populations that if they don't behave in a given way then they will be punished and may be given the ultimate penalty. Mrs Ashtiani is being used as an example, in an attempt to enforce a moral code of behaviour where women are subservient and, it appears, where women get the worse punishment for sexual offences - because in Iran and other Muslim countries it's women who are meant to keep themselves covered up, so they don't make men do naughty things. In a way it's no different from somebody in Britain telling a girl who's been raped that, because she wears short skirts, she was 'asking for it' - and it shows an unpleasant mindset that suggests that some men can't control their sexual appetites and so shouldn't be punished when they err.

A system of government, indeed any system of government of whatever political or religious hue, that tries to rule its population by legislation and through fear of consequences, no matter how petty, trivial or brutal has to be condemned, because that form of government is nothing more than dictatorship.

And if you haven't already signed the protest letter and would like to, it's here.

....

Three videos - essential viewing.

There's a video at Tory Bear called "Thirteen Years of Labour"

This is essential viewing - it's so important to remember the last thirteen years, not allow them to be brushed under the carpet.

Labour's manifesto promises are, after all, not legally binding - they got a Judge to say so.

As the Filthy Engineer says,

Vote Labour and you'll be sorry. Very sorry.

..........

Look here to see "The Truth about Ed Balls" - a short video, just a minute and a half.

Interesting reminders of a few things that have previously been in the news, things that have been glossed over.

..........

Do you recall how often Mr Straw kept saying we needed a "written constitution"?

Hah! He was wrong!

If you watch this video you'll learn that we already have one, and it's ancient, even older than Mr Straw.

"Members of Parliament are contracted to obey the written constitution."

There is Magna Carta 1215, with

presumption for liberty
right to trial by peers
a limitation of power
a right of redress
a right of enforcement

Then there are the Declaration of Right 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689.

If you recall there are a few ex-MPs going to trial on Thursday 6th May 2010. They are trying to use these ancient laws as a basis for their defence.

Some of the bits and pieces have been repealed, but not this section of the Magna Carta :-

no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his freehold, or Liberties, or Free Custom, or to be outlawed, or to be exiled, or anywise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor but by lawful judgement by his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer justice or Right.

And about enforcement of, or attempts to repeal, the above law:-

[It] Shall not be infringed or broken ... it shall be had of no force or effect

Now cast your mind back to the efforts to legalise detention without either charge or trial for up to 48 days - and they were able to slip in the 28 days, because it was less.

Watch this video over at Captain Ranty's place - it's very important - not necessarily for this week, but for the future.

Watch the other videos in the series, if you have time. They are important.

It's called general knowledge.

....

The new religion.

Mrs Rigby was interested to read in the Telegraph that :-

Chinese snowstorms kill 40 and leave thousands homeless

Up to 40 people have been killed and thousands more left homeless after unusually early winter blizzards hit north-central China.

which

caused nearly 10,000 buildings to collapse and destroyed almost 500,000 acres of winter crops

It's an historical event, because

The snowfall is the heaviest in the northern and central provinces of Hebei, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Shandong and Henan in living memory.
Hebei's provincial capital, Shijiazhuang, has received nearly two feet of snow in three days, the heaviest fall in the city since 1955.

Without being too sarcastic, and trying frantically to link to the story she intended to write about, Mrs R wonders if the people of China should have taken care to switch to the new religion of the green god. They might have been saved from the snow, because the AGW prophets of the green tell us it's getting warmer and so they wouldn't have allowed snow to happen.

You see Mrs Rigby remembers reading about Tim Nicholson who, according to the BBC, said :

... his beliefs had contributed to his dismissal and in March a judge ruled he could use employment equality laws to claim it was unfair

The firm that had dismissed him disagreed, hence their appeal in October against the earlier ruling in March because they felt his views were political.

Mr Nicholson's appeal against his dismissal was upheld by the Tribunal in London because, his solicitor said :

"Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations."

The company, Grainger plc, on the other hand thinks that

"This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.

"Grainger absolutely maintains, as it has done from the very outset of these proceedings, that Mr Nicholson's redundancy was driven solely by the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence, which also required other structural changes to be made within the company.

"Grainger rejects outright any suggestion that there was any other motivation relating to Mr Nicholson's beliefs or otherwise."

Mrs R had a rummage around the internet. The 'Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003' are here and apply to employers and employees, but the rules apply outside employment too. According to Human Rights legislation, as outlined on CivilRightsMovement website :

... religious discrimination is unlawful.

That means we are free to choose our own religion, and should be able to express ourselves because :

The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights with regards to religion and beliefs

but it would seem that :

... the right to freedom of thought including religion and beliefs that are covered in the act only pertains to public bodies (my bold)

That bit, Mrs R thinks, is quite important, but left a loophole that lawyers later closed, because :

In Britain the Race Relations Act 1976 was amended in 2000 to include the clause that discrimination in employment due to religious beliefs is unlawful.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 provided extra protection to those with or without religions beliefs in everyday life. (my bold)

So ... and please understand that this is a very tortuous train of thought that gets there in the end ...

Mrs Rigby thinks that last sentence is also very important, and should be looked at very carefully.

You see, Mrs Rigby thinks that, if the legal ruling means that Tim Nicholson and AGW-believers can say they hold a 'philosophical or religious belief' in relation to their employment then this has to be supported by all other aspects of Human Rights Legislation, so this ruling suggests that government and other 'public bodies' must also accept and acknowledge that a counter argument against AGW could amount to being without a 'philosophical or religious belief' in the same way as the 'there is a God' and the 'there is no God' believers have their rights respected and supported by law.

The law says that 'philosophical or religious belief' of ordinary people are protected in 'everyday life'.

Mrs Rigby thinks this means that government, public bodies, and other people are not allowed to presume that everybody in the country subscribes to any single one, group, or set of religious or philosophical beliefs. She thinks the government has to allow, and has to encourage a diversity of belief and philosophical ideas, as do all public bodies.

Following on from that, Mrs R thinks that government and other public bodies are not allowed to promote one 'philosophical or religious belief' over another - and they are not allowed to punish or disclaim or attempt to discredit those who do not place one, or another, 'philosophical or religious belief' in a position of greater esteem to or above another. It should also mean that people can choose, whether at work or in their homes, not to believe anything at all, if they don't want to, and nobody should be allowed to put pressure on them to change their minds.

Phew!

Mrs Rigby thinks the law also means that the government and other 'public bodies' cannot force people to subscribe to a particular religious or philosophical belief - if they could do that they could force us all to be Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Scientologists. Couldn't they?

They wouldn't ever do that, nobody would allow them to get away with it. Would they?

So Mrs Rigby would like to know ...

Why are government, and other public bodies, allowed to spend a lot of public money trying to force us all to believe in Climate Change and Anthropomorphic Global Warming - when there has been a legal judgement that that this is a 'philosophical or religious belief'?

... Still with me?

And why are those people who do believe in the 'religion or philosophical belief' of Climate Change or AGW allowed to call people who don't believe in this 'religion or philosophical belief' horrible names?

How would it work out if, say, somebody who regularly attended a church criticized a person who regularly attended a synagogue for being 'in denial', or said 'we still have a way to go in informing' them about Christianity? Mrs Rigby thinks that somebody would probably be told off, and very quickly too - quite rightly, because nobody has the right to force their 'religion or philosophical belief' onto another. The law says that too.

We are free to believe whatever we choose, that's what the law says, and it says nobody can be forced to follow a religion or philosophical belief. No individual, no employer and no public body is allowed to force their religious or philosophical belief on another, and try to force them to abide by that religion or philosophical belief. The law says we may all practise our religions and beliefs freely, by exercising personal choice - that's what 'freedom to choose' means.

So, because Tim Nicholson has been told that his views on AGW and climate change amount to a 'religion or philosophical belief', and he must be allowed the freedom to practice those beliefs, the same freedom must now apply to those who don't believe in AGW.

Ah, but it seems not!

Thanks to Iain Dale Mrs Rigby read The Times article announcing that :

Global warming is not our fault, say most voters in Times poll

It goes on to say that :

Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.

According to Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office :

growing awareness of the scale of the problem appeared to be resulting in people taking refuge in denial.

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said

We know that we still have a way to go in informing people about climate change

So much for freedom of 'religion or philosophical belief'. We have both a government minister and an important person with their own department at the Met Office both being paid to promote what a Judge has said is a 'philosophical or religious belief'.

It would seem, at the moment, that only the believers are allowed to have an opinion, and the 59% of the population who do not subscribe to the new 'religion or philosophical belief' and are 'uninformed' or 'in denial' must be converted, at all costs, otherwise the planet will burn up.

Mrs R wonders how long it will take before another Judge comes along and changes the ruling, otherwise Britain will no longer be a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-faith country, it will be a country with only one 'philosophical or religious belief' - with the state ensuring we all bow low to the green deity of Climate Change and Anthropomorphic Global Warming.