Friday 03-23-12

More from the religion of peace

Nearly 1,000 Pakistani women ‘killed for honor’

At least 943 Pakistani women and girls were murdered last year for allegedly defaming their family’s honor, the country’s leading human rights group said Thursday.

The statistics highlight the growing scale of violence suffered by many women in conservative Muslim Pakistan, where they are frequently treated as second-class citizens and there is no law against domestic violence.

Despite progress on better protecting women’s rights, activists say the government needs to do more to prosecute murderers in cases largely dismissed by police as private, family affairs.

“At least 943 women were killed in the name of honor, of which 93 were minors,” wrote the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in its annual report.

Seven Christian and two Hindu women were among the victims, it said.

The Commission reported 791 “honor killings” in 2010.

Around 595 of the women killed in 2011 were accused of having “illicit relations” and 219 of marrying without permission.

Some victims were raped or gang raped before being killed, the Commission said. Most of the women were killed by their brothers and husbands.

Only 20 of 943 killed were reported to have been provided medical aid before they died, the Commission wrote.

Despite the rising number of reported killings, activists have praised parliament for passing laws aimed at strengthening women’s protection against abuses.

Rights groups say the government should do more to ensure that women subjected to violence, harassment and discrimination have effective access to justice.

Last year, a Belgian court sentenced four members of a Pakistani family to prison for the murder of their daughter, who defied them by living with a Belgian man and refused an arranged marriage.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/22/202385.html

The people need protection form the police?

Governor signs bill on residents resisting police

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said Wednesday that he shares police groups' concerns that some people might misinterpret a new law that lays out when residents could be legally justified in using force against police officers.

Daniels said he thought carefully before signing the bill Tuesday night. The legislation was passed by strong majorities in the House and Senate in response to public uproar after the state Supreme Court ruled last year that residents couldn't resist officers even during an illegal entry.

"Contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them," Daniels said in a written statement. But, he added: "What is troubling to law enforcement officers, and to me, is the chance that citizens hearing reports of change will misunderstand what the law says."

The law took immediate effect.

The measure specifies that people are protected by the state's self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves, someone else or their own property from unlawful actions by a public servant.

Supporters have said the proposal strengthens the legal rights of people against government agents improperly entering their homes. But police groups worried about the measure giving people justification for attacking officers.

"For those who don't take the time to read the law, it is going to be devastating for someone to think they have a right to resist if they only think an officer is acting illegally," said William Owensby, president of the Indianapolis chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.

"Our fear all along was that it's going to put citizens and officers into grave danger," he said. "I don't want to have to bury another police officer."

A blizzard of emails to officials, a Statehouse protest and threats against judges ensued when the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last May that homeowners couldn't use force to resist police officers' entry into their homes, whether those entries were legal or not. The justices later clarified that the ruling didn't abridge homeowner's Fourth Amendment rights.

The ruling came in a Vanderburgh County case in which a man scuffled with an officer who tried to enter his house without a warrant while investigating a report of a domestic disturbance. The man, Richard Barnes, was convicted of resisting law enforcement and other charges.

The court declined comment on the law through a spokesman.

At least one supporter said the law didn't accomplish what it was supposed to do because it didn't affect situations like that covered by the Supreme Court decision.

"I think it was a feel-good measure on their part but it really didn't achieve anything," said Greg Fettig of the tea party group America Refocused. "Police could still go in without any probable cause whatsoever."

Fettig added: "As far as I'm concerned as a private citizen, I will not let them in without a search warrant."

The bill's primary author, Republican Sen. Michael Young of Indianapolis, disagreed. He said legislators changed the law so citizens would have a right to protect themselves, even against police. Young also said the police officer in the Barnes case would have been acting within the law.

Young said he believes the new law does a good job of balancing police power with individual rights.

"I think the governor took his time and deliberated on the issue just like we did in the General Assembly. It's a tough issue," Young said.

http://www.fwdailynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16498