Goes with ‘Assuming Authority‘.
First my comment:
Safia, the mother, and Amina, the little girl, Nigeria
My question to ourselves: what do WE want. Please do not doubt, there are enough esotheric groups waiting for a ‘changment’, enough UFO fans hoping for this humanity any ‘redemption’ coming from the high. The real question is: would we quickly give up any of our own rights, if any ’saver’ (any better religion, better political system) would promise us a better world? Please, wake up: are you aware how many individuals are telling that our democratic system has failed?
I also want a better world as we have now. But this world has to be made by ourselves conscient work: sweat, reflection, deciding, responsibility and – last but not least – the recognition, without any exception, of the universal human rights.
A better world without human rights is worse than what we have now. Now we have an ugly, shameful world of deep economic NO-justice, we have a unacceptable social darwinisme, we must painfully look TV emissions with hungry people and see kids in the streets, instead know them in some halfway correct working school.
There is no alternative: or we go back to archaic systems of deep dependence from a ’saver’, together with the dependence of the neighbours opinion WANTING this saver to watch about our acts and lifes, or we insist heavily on our rights to be a free individual, having the right to choose our way. This additionally with our effort to remedy pains and unjustice, and while respecting the rights of the other humans.
Yes, the need of our fellows for savers is the bigger threat to our development than the ugly world we have now (do not look too much to Bush and his way to safe the planet, this temptation is in all of us, only in much softer forms; the question is: do we follow our temptations). Now we have the possibility to act, to help, to speak, to write, to shake a bit our fellows. ‘Savers’ want to be followed, specially if our neighbours try to help him .
Humans need a guide line. A guide line permitting all differences between our lifes. The human rights are this guideline, permitting this differences and showing us a way to go on.
A last remark: on the picture of our blog here, found by Google in an old article, Safia Hussaini’s face looks still young. Now, only a few years later in the TV docu, her face has the scape of an old woman. Obviously she is living starvation in her village, with all her neighbours contempting her. And also obviously we are using her to fill up good Sunday night TV time, but in reality we let her sit in her shit.
Safia told in the TV that she would leave the village, if there would not be her old father she has to look at, because her elder brother does not follows his duty to look at him. So, to help her leave this place means, to help for a solution for Safias Father she can accept. And surely it would cost energy and good will to take her out of the male domination and her country where she has to live.
In any way, if Safia remains there, the little Amanda is predestinated to inherit her mothers place in this society.
And now the story:
Her baby is her debt – The facts: Safia Hussaini was raped, she complained the raper to the judge. The court left the raper undisturbed, but condemned her, the raped, because of adultery, to death.
The comment of Antje Passenheim: Nairobi – Sania went to court, in order to accuse their presumed raper. But after the Scharia, which became Islamic juridical system in the north of Nigeria, instead of condemning the raper, the raped has been accused of adultery and condemned to death:
the 33 year old Safia Hussaini received one of the most barbarian death sentences which the Islamic right plans: For the first time since introduction of the Scharia to twelve Nigerian Federal States, a woman had to be stoned to death. Supported of protesting human rights activists and groups of women the nut/mother inserted appointment …
If Safia Hussaini had not succeed in convincing the second judges … she would have been killed in a way, what human rights activists call one the most despising form of death: to be entrenched up to the shoulders into the earth and thrown with stones as big as a fist, until the sentenced does not live any longer.
My second comment:
Yesterday evening, in a late german TV was published a recent visit to Safia and her village, with the collected opinion of the neighbours: no doubt, the whole village still condems Safia, treats her as a shame and ignores totally the fact that she had been raped. As for an islamic opinion, to be raped, as woman, is HER fault.
This remembers me the old European middle age inquisition, when women were burned on the public place by neighbors denunziation, she would be a sorceress. Neighbours then had a fine possibility to eradicate women wanting too much freedom, rights, development.
As seen in the TV docu, Safia has nothing lost of her ability to accuse, to battle for her right to receive the TV staff, to tell her life (what her eldest brother, and with him the whole village, wanted forbid her). I am tempted to imagine that her influence on the other women in the village has not been the best, in the opinion of their husbands. To decide to rape her, to make her accused, can be imagined as an easy form to eliminate her, which could be named as ‘war against women’.
My question about this village: how will you demand such a population, with such a heavy ignorance for the lived reality of one of its members, to become someting like ‘democratic’, or ‘free in opinion’, or what we call beeing an individual? Here you can wait at least two generations. Or more.