Outcry As Anti-abortion Stickers Hit Paris City Bikes

Abortions were de-criminalised in France in 1975.

By AFP - Agence France Presse

May 25, 2023


Rent-a-bike users in the French capital found large anti-abortion stickers plastered on their bicycles on Thursday, sparking an outcry from the government.

"What if you had let it live?" read the adhesive labels designed specifically to fit Paris bike mudguards.

The glued posters featured a drawing of a human foetus growing in a womb, then a crawling baby and finally a child waving on a bicycle.

A group called "The Survivors", which described itself as "youth revolted by the suffering... provoked by abortions", said it had planned the action.

City authorities said a "significant number" of bikes for hire under city rental scheme Velib had been targeted in the unsanctioned anti-abortion campaign.

"Disgusting and unacceptable," Transport Minister Clement Beaune wrote on Twitter.

Minister for Gender Equality Isabelle Rome was also appalled.

"Abortion is a fundamental right for women. We will not let anyone violate it," she said.

Health Minister Francois Braun described the sticker campaign as "shameful".

"The government... will always be on the side of women to guarantee their right to choose," he said.

Abortions were de-criminalised in France in 1975.

Successive laws in France have sought to make abortions safe, anonymous and free of charge.

But pro-choice associations say women wanting to abort still often face prejudice and hostility.

After the US Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion last year, President Emmanuel Macron in March said his government would put forward a draft law to enshrine abortion rights in the French constitution.


But it has not yet presented such a bill.

France recorded 220,000 abortions nationwide in 2020, according to national statistics institute INSEE.

BALOCHISTAN IS A NATION
Balochistan question

Editorial 

DAWN

Published May 25, 2023

FAR from the power centres of Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Lahore lies Balochistan, a vast land where misery prevails with its people forsaken by the state and caught between armed separatists and security forces. Though the Baloch separatist insurgency is currently in a low phase, militants continue to attack security personnel, and the situation in the province is far from normal. Every so often, the military announces that leading Baloch separatists and their cadres have given up their arms, and promised to work for the betterment of Pakistan. The capture of Gulzar Imam Baloch, alias Shambay, which was announced last month, largely follows the same script. The former head of the banned Balochistan National Army was produced before the media on Tuesday, where he declared his willingness to serve as a bridge between the state and Baloch militants. Apparently, Gulzar Imam has realised the waywardness of his earlier path, and has vowed to play a role for the development of Balochistan through peaceful means.

As mentioned above, several Baloch fighters have earlier laid down their arms in similar fashion. Yet the question remains: if hundreds of armed men over the past many years have abandoned the gun, why does the Baloch insurgency persist? One explanation is the involvement of hostile foreign actors, which Gulzar Imam also brought up during his meet-the-press event. While it is true that evidence points to the deeds of malevolent foreign forces in Balochistan, the malaise affecting the province has far deeper, localised roots. Principally, many of Balochistan’s people feel they are marginalised; there are good reasons for these feelings. The fact is that the province is, in many areas, decades behind the rest of Pakistan. And the primary responsibility for the pathetic state of affairs lies with the administration, particularly the establishment, which practically controls the province. Parading ex-militants who now have become ‘ardent supporters’ of the official narrative may have a limited effect. But to really take the wind out of the separatists’ sails, Balochistan must be brought into the national mainstream, its people made partners in the province’s progress. This can only be done when the elected representatives of Balochistan’s people have actual power to steer their province in the right direction, and ensure that the popular will is respected. Militarised solutions to political and socioeconomic problems will not bring peace to Balochistan.

Published in Dawn, May 25th, 2023

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for Balochistan 

PAKISTAN

US nod sought for Iran gas pipeline to avoid $18bn penalty

Anwar Iqbal

DAWN

Published May 25, 2023 

WASHINGTON: Pakistan is believed to have asked the United States to allow it to build a pipeline for buying gas from Iran or help it pay an expected $18 billion penalty it would face if it did not complete the project by March 2024.

Diplomatic sources told Dawn that Petroleum Minister Musadik Malik raised this issue with US officials when he visited Washington earlier this month, explaining to them that it’s legally bound to either complete the project by March 2024 or pay billions of dollars in penalty.

According to these sources, “Wash­ington is still reviewing the request.”

And Michael Kugelman, a scholar of South Asian affairs at Washington’s Woodrow Wilson Centre, told Dawn the Biden administration “understands Pakistan’s problem” but was in no rush to respond. “With US relations with Iran having worsened in the Biden era, I don’t expect the administration to go out of its way to help any country move the needle forward on commercial cooperation with Tehran,” he said.

“But Washington also understands that Islamabad’s economic interests drive the need to take policy steps that may go against US interests,” he added.

“This suggests the administration will be in no hurry to make any move at all, even if this entails the possibility of China stepping in to help Pakistan cover the costs.”

When Pakistani journalists asked the US State Department about a recent meeting between Pakistani and Iranian leaders during the opening of a border trading post, one of their spokespersons said: “We are aware of this meeting” where energy cooperation between the two nations was also discussed but “we do not have any comment to provide on the engagement.”

The spokesperson, however, shared the details of recent US efforts to help Pakistan deal with this difficult situation. “Ensuring Pakistan’s economic growth, energy security and environmental sustainability remains a priority for our bilateral relationship with Pakistan and a cornerstone of our Green Alliance,” the US official said.

He explained how the United States has been a leading investor in Pakistan for the past 20 years, with $250 million in foreign direct investments in 2022.

The official said that US firms were already making significant investments to “help Pakistan provide expanded access to a cleaner, more resilient energy supply.”

For example, General Electric (GE) wind turbines, power control systems and equipment are widely used in Pakistan, which will increase Pakistan’s renewable energy capacity.

Last week, media reports suggested that Iran could hand Pakistan a whopping $18bn penalty if Islamabad fails to complete its portion of the pipeline by March 2024.

The reports said that earlier this month Iran informed a visiting Pakistani delegation that Pakistan should construct the gas pipeline as stipulated in their revised agreement or pay the penalty.

Iran has already finished its portion of the pipeline – from the gas field to the Pakistan border, where it should connect to the Pakistan portion.

The pipeline would allow Pakistan to start receiving 750 million cubic feet of gas from Iran daily once it’s completed and commissioned.

Pakistan signed the pipeline agreement in 2014, which included a condition that Islamabad will pay billions of dollars in penalties if it abandons the project.

Published in Dawn, May 25th, 2023

PAKISTAN

ISI and MI say Imran Riaz not in their custody, senior cop tells LHC

Rana Bilal 

DAWN

Published May 25, 2023 

Lahore police Deputy Inspector General (Investigation) Kamran Adil told the high court on Thursday that both the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Military Intelligence (MI) had said that anchorperson Imran Riaz Khan — whose whereabouts remain unknown since his arrest on May 11 — was not in their custody.

The police official made the remarks as the Lahore High Court (LHC) resumed hearing a plea seeking the recovery of the anchorperson, who was among the individuals apprehended in the wake of protests that erupted in the country after the arrest of PTI chairman Imran Khan.

Later, his lawyer told Dawn.com that a writ petition was filed on May 12 over the anchorperson’s arrest and the LHC directed the attorney general to present him before the court the same day. But, after its orders were not followed, Sialkot police were given a 48-hour deadline to recover Imran.

A first information report (FIR) pertaining to the matter was registered with Civil Lines police on May 16 on the complaint of the anchorperson’s father, Muhammad Riaz.


The FIR was registered against “unidentified persons” and police officials for allegedly kidnapping Imran, invoking Section 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

At the previous hearing, Punjab Inspector General Dr Usman Anwar had told the court that there was no trace of the journalist at any police department across the country.

The LHC had subsequently directed the ministries of interior and defence to “discharge their constitutional duties to effect the recovery” of the missing anchorperson.
The hearing

LHC Chief Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti presided over today’s hearing during which the Lahore police DIG (Investigation) appeared before the court instead of the Punjab IG.

The lawyer representing the Punjab government requested the court to exempt the provincial police chief from appearing as he was attending a ceremony in connection with Martyrs Respect Day in Gujranwala.

The LHC CJ inquired about the IG’s schedule and asked for the record to be submitted. The DIG assured the court that the record would be submitted to the court.

During the hearing, the DIG stated, “The ISI and MI have said that Imran Riaz is not in their custody”.

Meanwhile, the anchorperson’s counsel, Advocate Azhar Siddique, told the court that Imran’s father, Muhammad Riaz, wished to speak.

Justice Bhatti emphasised the court’s commitment to upholding fundamental rights while Riaz said his son was “being punished for making a vlog”.

The court directed the journalist’s lawyers to meet with the police team later today and told them to provide the police with any evidence that was in their possession.

The hearing was later adjourned.
Info minister called out for remarks on Imran’s disappearance

Earlier this week, journalists and human rights activists had strongly criticised Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb’s comments regarding Imran’s case.

Journalist Secunder Kermani, a Channel4 News foreign correspondent, had shared a video of an exchange with the information minister about the missing anchorperson.



He questioned Aurangzeb about journalists going missing and being detained, adding that these were the same issues that the PML-N had raised as matters of concern when in opposition during the previous PTI government.

In response, Aurangzeb asked Kermani to name even a single journalist who was missing. When Kermani mentioned Imran, the minister responded, “Imran Riaz is a political party spokesperson now. You really have to draw [a] distinction.”

She further said, “You have to differentiate between journalists and the journalists who have joined political parties. Once they have joined political parties, they are inciting violence, they are spokespersons of that political parties.”

Aurangzeb’s response elicited severe criticism from several journalists and rights activists, who reminded the minister that a person’s disappearance was an issue of basic human rights irrespective of what political party they favoured.

Lawyer and social activist Jibran Nasir said that Aurangzeb believed Imran “should be seen as a supporter of PTI and hence considered a sub-human who deserves the treatment being meted out to them.

“Now just imagine the plight of ordinary citizens suffering military trials,” he added.

Pakistan Initiative at Atlantic Council’s South Asia Centre Director Uzair Younus said Imran’s status as a journalist or not should not matter.

He said that Imran had fundamental constitutional rights granted to him on account of his Pakistani citizenship.

“Stop violating his rights and those of countless others. These disappearances are heinous!” he tweeted.

PAKISTAN
FSC on transgender persons

It is far-fetched to extrapolate that transgender persons as a whole and in all contexts are repugnant to Islam.

Sara Malkani

Published May 25, 2023

ON May 19, the Federal Shariat Court declared that key provisions of the landmark Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018, are repugnant to Islam. The FSC has called for invalidating a law that serves to protect some of the most marginalised persons in our society. Unless the FSC decision is appealed before the Supreme Court, its ruling will become effective in six months.

The FSC finds that the definition of “transgender persons” in the law conflates a range of identities, each of which has distinct physical characteristics and also a distinct status in Islam. Crucially, the FSC has held that Section 3 of the 2018 Act which recognises the right of transgender persons to their self-perceived gender identity is contrary to Islam. The ‘voluntary change of sex’ on the basis of self-perceived gender identity is also against Islam.

The FSC states that the definition of “transgender persons” under the 2018 Act includes intersex, eunuchs and khwaja siras, transgender men and transgender women. Intersex persons are “special” and “deprived”. Eunuchs and khwaja siras, according to the FSC, refer to the same category of persons “with serious and permanent sexual infirmity in their male sexual organs”.

Transgender men and women on the other hand are persons whose self-perceived gender identity differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. The FSC considers the latter un-Islamic because Islam does not recognise any distinction between sex and gender identity.

It is far-fetched to extrapolate that transgender persons as a whole and in all contexts are repugnant to Islam.

At the outset, the FSC’s understanding of these sexual and gender identities is flawed. Contrary to what it says, khwaja siras are persons with distinct gender identities and it must not be assumed that they suffer from infirmities or disabilities. The identification of a person as khwaja sira is based on the self-perceived identity of the individual. There is no physical or medical assessment undertaken by the khwaja sira community when admitting new members. Indeed, there are no set physical or biological characteristics that make a person khwaja sira; rather it is a combination of psychological, physical and cultural factors that shape the identity.

Further, the FSC’s reasoning that any distinction between sex and gender identity is contrary to Islam is based on flawed reasoning. The FSC acknowledges that in “some cultures and societies a person or a human being is defined and identified by his or her ‘gender’ and not by his or her ‘sex’”, but then goes on to assert that “in Islam the defining factor for a human being in this context is ‘sex’ not ‘gender’”.

This conclusion is based on an obvious error of logic. The FSC relies on verses of the Holy Quran which declare that God created men and women. Since no other sex is specified, the FSC concludes that Islam does not recognise any other sex or gender. However, it does not logically follow from the verses acknowledging the creation of men and women that any other sex is repugnant to Islam, and that sex alone is the basis of gender identity. Indeed, none of the Quranic verses or hadith referred to by FSC support its conclusion that recognition of any distinction between sex and gender is contrary to Islamic injunctions.

The error of logic is obvious when we break down the argument as follows: a) The Quran recognises two sexes; b) the Quran does not explicitly recognise any distinction between sex and gender identity; c) Therefore, Islam forbids recognition of any distinction between sex and gender identity.

It is obvious why ‘a’ and ‘b’ does not entail ‘c’. If the Quran is silent on a matter, it does not entail that it finds that matter repugnant.

The FSC also relies on hadith that the Prophet (PBUH) disapproved of “effeminate men”. However, the ahadith cited involve only two incidents — one where the Prophet turned an “effeminate man” away from his house and the other where he banished a man who applied henna. Historians of the early Islamic period conclude that the “effeminate” men or “mukhannath” were common in society and played visible roles. However, there is no evidence to suggest that there was a blanket ban on these persons and these two incidents could well be isolated and context-dependent. It is far-fetched to extrapolate from these ahadith that transgender persons as a whole and in all contexts are repugnant to Islam.

It is similarly far-fetched to extrapolate from these ahadith, as the FSC does, that “in Islam males as well as females are not allowed to act and behave as an opposite sex” to the one assigned to them at birth. The FSC does not consider whether the categories of “effeminate” men or “mukhannath” as used in early Islamic society almost 15 centuries ago are identical to transgender identities as we understand and perceive them today. Today, there is a growing global consensus that gender identity falls on a spectrum, and is based on a range of biological, social and cultural traits.

The range of acceptable gender expression changes significantly over time. Is there any item of clothing, or hairstyle or even gait that can be deemed exclusively for ‘men’ or ‘women’? Who will make this determination? For example, are women with short hair and men with long hair expressing a gender identity contrary to their sex? Under the FSC’s reasoning the range of behaviour deemed repugnant to Islam is not only extremely broad but also impossible to identify.

What is particularly disappointing is that the FSC has ignored the distinct cultural status of the khwaja sira community in the subcontinent prevailing for several centuries. The fact that the FSC deems khwaja sira persons to have a disorder amounts to the stigmatisation and erasure of this community.

It is striking that the FSC has not considered fundamental rights provisions in Pakistan’s Constitution that guarantee life, dignity and equal protection under the laws to all persons. Its ruling could possibly vitiate the hard-won rights of transgender persons who face persecution and marginalisation on a daily basis. Surely the protection of their right to exist as equal citizens cannot be deemed contrary to Islam.

The writer is a lawyer.
Published in Dawn, May 25th, 2023

PAKISTAN ACADEMICS' COLLECTIVE

AN OPEN LETTER – CALLING FOR AN IMMEDIATE END TO STATE VIOLENCE IN PAKISTAN

MAY 23, 2023

Please sign our petition here

As scholars and academics, we are alarmed by recent events in Pakistan. We condemn the state-sanctioned violence, murder and torture of protestors, use of sexual violence against women and men, curbs on media, bans on freedom of assembly and speech, and arbitrary arrests of thousands of political leaders and workers belonging to the main opposition party.

Following the ouster of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s elected government in April 2022, the ruling establishment has unleashed a reign of terror in a desperate bid to hold on to power, and deny the people of Pakistan a say in their future. While violence and censorship by the state and the military establishment has continued over decades, we are witnessing this at a very different scale and intensity presently. The current government—backed, kept in power, and operated by the military establishment—is refusing to hold elections as mandated by the Constitution and ordered by the Supreme Court. The regime enjoys no popular mandate to rule and is depriving people of their right to vote, while seeking to eliminate the largest opposition party from the political arena.

Meanwhile, the people of Pakistan are facing an unprecedented onslaught on their civil liberties. Most recently, in flagrant violation of international human rights conventions, the military has announced its intention to establish military courts for trying civilians who protest and register their political dissent in the public domain, bypassing due process of law. The government has also attacked the judiciary, and court orders to release political leaders arrested under fabricated charges have been ignored. This is all occurring at a time when people are facing dire living conditions: over the last year, unemployment has spiraled, the currency has lost 55% of its value, and inflation has tripled.

We, the undersigned concerned scholars, write this open letter to express our solidarity with the people of Pakistan, and denounce attempts to impose a brutal and violent tyranny upon the country. The suspension of the rule of law, the use of state terror against the population, and the collapse of constitutional order is only deepening the political, economic, and social crisis in Pakistan.

Therefore we call upon the ruling establishment to:Restore civil rights: It is vital to restore and uphold the fundamental rights and liberties of the people of Pakistan. This includes protecting freedom of expression, assembly, and association, as well as ensuring the right to a fair trial and due process for all individuals. We further contend that audiences within and outside Pakistan have a right to access accurate information about newsworthy events, and demand immediate cessation of state interference with, and curbs on, press freedom.

Release all political prisoners: We urge the regime to immediately release all political prisoners who have been detained without just cause or due process. The continued incarceration of individuals including journalists, lawyers, doctors, academics, and other civilians for exercising their constitutional rights violates international law and principles of justice.

Cease efforts to use military courts for civilians: Trial of civilians under military courts represents a gross violation of the Constitution and contravenes international law. Legal proceedings must be pursued under the existing judicial system, which must be allowed to function without coercion.

Investigate and prosecute officials who have violated and abused citizens: We demand independent and impartial investigations be carried out to hold accountable those responsible for human rights violations. These include murder, torture, and use of sexual violence against political activists, journalists, and innocent civilians. The perpetrators must be brought to justice and victims provided reparations.

Respect the democratic process, end military interference in politics, and hold elections immediately: The state should desist from banning or breaking up any political party and engage in introspection on the deep drivers of grievances and the absence of institutionalized mechanisms to channelize these grievances. In a country of 230 million people, with an increasingly young and urban population, there is a legitimate expectation that people should have the right to choose their leaders and government.

 parties) consistently denies this right and public grievances are more likely to be directed at the Army. To avert imminent chaos, we demand that the ruling establishment must step back from this interference and hold timely, and free and fair elections, with all legitimate political forces allowed to contest.

Current signatures on petition here

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScM89_fECwvGjT888xI4WR40achjYd62_zXCPJk3zCNcFyJBw/viewform?pli=1


PLEASE NOTE: All signatories are being uploaded manually by only a few volunteers. Please be patient with us while we continue to update the list. Thank you all for the incredible support!

 ‘Women of Pakistan lost an ally today,’ says journalist Maria Memon after Maleeka Bokhari quits PTI

1 hour ago

I now want to give time to my profession and family: Maleeka Bokhari

After announcing her resignation from the PTI, Maleeka Bokhari says she now wants to give time to her profession and family.

Addressing a press conference, she said, “As a lawyer, I want to play an important role in Pakistan. And as a mother and daughter — because my mother is a cancer survivor — I now want to give time to my profession and family.”

33 minutes ago

Maleeka Bokhari condemns attacks on military installations on May 9

Former parliamentary secretary for law Maleeka Bokhari has condemned the attack on military installations on May 9.

“May 9 was a very difficult and painful day for every Pakistani,” she said at a press conference.

While condemning the incidents, she also mentioned that “I am a mother, I have a 13-year-old son”.

1 hour ago

Maleeka Bokhari resigns from PTI, ‘disassociates’ herself from party

Former MNA Maleeka Bokhari has resigned from the PTI and announced that she is “disassociating” herself from the party.

She added that she was no pressured to quit the party. “It is very difficult to be behind bars in the heat of May.”

DAWN

South Africa under more scrutiny over Russian ship as ruling ANC says it would ‘welcome’ Putin

By Gerald Imray

AP

yesterday

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, speaks to South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, right, during a plenary session at the Russia-Africa summit in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Russia on Oct. 24, 2019. The U.S. ambassador to South Africa, Reuben Brigety, has accused South Africa of providing weapons to Russia saying the U.S. government was certain that weapons were loaded onto a cargo ship that docked secretly at a naval base near the city of Cape Town for three days in December. 

(Sergei Chirikov/Pool Photo via AP, File)

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — The South African government was under more pressure Wednesday for declining to release cargo documents relating to the visit by a Russian ship that the United States alleges collected a consignment of weapons for Moscow.

Separately, a top official in South Africa’s ruling party added to the scrutiny of the country’s relationship with Russia by saying the party would “welcome” a visit by President Vladimir Putin, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

The comments by African National Congress Secretary General Fikile Mbalula regarding Putin were made in an interview with the BBC and in the context of the Russian leader attending a summit of the BRICS economic bloc in South Africa in August. The bloc is made up of Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa.

“If it was according to the ANC, we would want President Putin to be here, even tomorrow, to come to our country,” Mbalula said in the interview, excerpts of which were posted on the ANC’s social media channels on Tuesday. “We will welcome him to come here as part and parcel of BRICS.”

As a signatory to the International Criminal Court treaty, South Africa is obliged to arrest Putin if he enters the country. The South African government has indicated it will not carry out the arrest warrant if Putin does travel for the summit, although it hasn’t said that explicitly.

“Do you think that a head of state can just be arrested anywhere?” Mbalula, a former Cabinet minister who is now the ANC’s top administrative official, said in the BBC interview.

He told the BBC interviewer there was hypocrisy on the part of the West related to the arrest warrant for Putin because, he said, Britain and other Western nations committed crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and no heads of state were arrested.

Mbalula last month referred to the United States as one of the countries “messing up the world.”

There has been increasing anti-U.S. and anti-West rhetoric in the ANC and sometimes in parts of South Africa’s government since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year, despite South Africa maintaining it has a neutral stance on the war.

The trend is troubling for the U.S. and other Western partners of South Africa because of its status as an influential democracy in the developing world, and Africa’s most developed economy.

The Russian vessel, Lady R, is docked at the Simon's Town Naval Base near Cape Town, South Africa, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2022. The U.S. ambassador to South Africa has accused the country of providing weapons to Russia. Ambassador Reuben Brigety said the U.S. government was certain that weapons were loaded onto a cargo ship that docked secretly at a naval base near the city of Cape Town for three days in December. (AP Photo)

South Africa has a historical relationship with Russia connected to the old Soviet Union’s military and political support for the ANC when it was a liberation movement fighting to end the racist apartheid regime that oppressed the country’s Black majority. The West appears concerned that the ANC’s old ideological ties to Russia are now pulling South Africa into Moscow’s political orbit amid burgeoning global tensions. There are also growing economic ties between Africa, a continent of 1.3 billion people, and China.

The concerns were laid bare by the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa earlier this month when he accused it of providing weapons to Russia via a cargo ship that docked at a naval base near the city of Cape Town in December. Ambassador Reuben Brigety said “I would bet my life” that weapons were loaded onto the Russian-flagged Lady R, which is under U.S. sanctions for alleged ties to a company that has transported arms for the Russian government.

The South African government has denied it made any arms transaction with Russia, although it hasn’t categorically ruled out the possibility that another entity did so secretly. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has ordered an inquiry.

On Wednesday, South Africa’s main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, challenged the government to come clean if it had nothing to hide and release a cargo manifest for the Lady R’s visit to the Simon’s Town naval base.

A DA lawmaker also asked Defense Minister Thandi Modise to release the documents during a debate in Parliament on Tuesday. Modise refused to do so while also using an expletive to repeat the government’s denial that any weapons were loaded onto the ship.

Modise has said that the Russian ship was visiting to deliver an ammunition shipment to South Africa that was ordered in 2018 but delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modise’s refusal to make public the cargo manifest was supported by fellow ANC lawmakers, who said the documents were “classified.” Modise said they would be handed over to the inquiry into the incident.

___

More AP Africa news: https://apnews.com/hub/africa

NOT REALLY PRO LIFE

Louisiana lawmakers reject bill to abolish death penalty

Sara Cline

 In this Sept. 18, 2009, file photo, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Burl Cain, discusses the gurney used for lethal injections to Ruth Graham, far right and others as they visit the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, La. For the fifth time in six years, Louisiana lawmakers have blocked attempts Wednesday, May 24, 2023 to abolish the state’s death penalty. (AP Photo/Judi Bottoni, File)

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — For the fifth time in six years, Louisiana lawmakers have blocked attempts to abolish the state’s death penalty.

Despite a new push by Democratic Gov. John Bel and testimony of proponents from all walks of life — exonerated death row inmates, religious leaders, a judge, family members of murder victims and other members of the public — a GOP-controlled legislative committee voted 11-4 Wednesday against a bill to repeal the state’s longstanding death penalty.

Louisiana has held 28 executions since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. The last lethal injection was in January 2010, when the state executed Gerald Bordelon, a convicted sex offender who confessed to strangling his 12-year-old stepdaughter and waived an appeal.

Sixty people sit on Louisiana’s death row, with no execution dates set, according to the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections.

Death penalty opponents argue that it should be eliminated due to the cost of executions, racial disparities and religious beliefs. Critics also note that Louisiana has had frequent exonerations. Between 2010 and 2020, 22 inmates sentenced to death had those sentences reduced or were exonerated, according to the corrections department.

Among those exonerated is Shareef Cousin, who was convicted of murder in New Orleans in 1996 at 16 years old. He became one of the youngest people in the nation condemned to death row at the time. Cousin served several years on death row at Angola, Louisiana’s notorious state penitentiary. His conviction was later reversed after the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled prosecutors mishandled Cousin’s case.

“Ask yourselves, if any one of your children was put in a position where they were accused of something they did not commit, what would your position be?” Cousin told the legislative committee.

Ross Foote, a retired district judge, said he fears that there may have been cases in which an innocent person has wrongfully been sentenced to death and executed.

“You can have miscarriages of justice and the finality of the execution makes me shudder,” he told lawmakers.

Abolishing the death penalty in Louisiana was a newfound priority this legislative session for Edwards, who is unable to run for reelection this year due to term limits.

Edwards recently said that the penalty is “inconsistent with Louisiana’s pro-life values, as it quite literally promotes a culture of death,” referring to the fact that the state has a near-total abortion ban.

Those against the bill advocated for justice for the families of victims who believe it is the appropriate punishment for certain crimes. Critics of the stalled executions described prosecutors frustrated by lengthy legal battles that surround the pursuit of a successful death sentence.

Twenty-seven states have the death penalty, and 18 inmates were executed last year across the country, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center.

PRO LIFE GOVERNORS

2 former Alabama governors from opposite sides of the political aisle express doubts over executions

ByAssociated Pressyesterday

 Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman speaks to the media in Atlanta, Aug. 10, 2017. Siegelman, a Democrat and former Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican, who oversaw executions while in office, wrote in a Tuesday, May 23, 2023, opinion piece that they are now troubled by the state's death penalty system and would commute the sentences of inmates sentenced by judicial override or divided juries. 

(AP Photo/David Goldman, File)

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley speaks to the media during a news conference, in Hoover, Ala., Sept. 19, 2016. Bentley, a Republican, and fellow former Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat, who oversaw executions while in office, wrote in a Tuesday, May 23, 2023, opinion piece that they are now troubled by the state's death penalty system and would commute the sentences of inmates sentenced by judicial override or divided juries.

 (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, File)

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Two former Alabama governors, from opposite sides of the political aisle, wrote in an opinion piece that they are now troubled by the state’s death penalty system and would commute the sentences of inmates sentenced by judicial override or divided juries.

Former Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat, and former Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican, who both oversaw executions while in office, penned the Tuesday opinion piece for The Washington Post. The governors said that have both come “to see the flaws in our nation’s justice system and to view the state’s death penalty laws in particular as legally and morally troubling.”

“We missed our chance to confront the death penalty and have lived to regret it, but it is not too late for today’s elected officials to do the morally right thing,” the governor’s wrote.

Bentley and Siegelman each let eight executions go forward while they were in office, according to a list maintained by the Alabama Department of Corrections.

The governors said they are particularly concerned that a large number of the state’s death row population was sentenced to death by either divided juries or over a jury’s recommendation.

Alabama in 2017 became the last state to end the practice of allowing judges to override a jury’s sentence in a capital case and send a person to death row when a jury recommended life imprisonment — a practice that critics argued interjected election-year pressure into sentencing decisions. But the change was not retroactive and did not impact inmates already sentenced to death by judicial override.

“As governors, we had the power to commute the sentences of all those on Alabama’s death row to life in prison. We no longer have that constitutional power, but we feel that careful consideration calls for commuting the sentences of the 146 prisoners who were sentenced by non-unanimous juries or judicial override, and that an independent review unit should be established to examine all capital murder convictions,” the two governors wrote.

Only four states out of the 27 that allow the death penalty do not require a unanimous jury to sentence an inmate to death. Alabama allows a death sentence with 10-2 decision in favor of execution. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last month signed legislation ending that state’s unanimous jury requirement and allowing death sentences when at least eight jurors are in favor. Missouri and Indiana let a judge decide when there is a divided jury.

The governors cited statistics from the Death Penalty Information Center that one person on death row has been exonerated for every 8.3 executions. Applying that exoneration rate to the 167 people on Alabama’s death row, Siegelman said would suggest as many as 20 inmates could have been wrongfully convicted.

“We all should agree that if the state is going to be in the business of killing people, that we should make sure that we have the right person,” Siegelman told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday night.

Siegelman said after reviewing cases that he is now personally haunted by one of the eight executions that happened during his time as governor.

Freddie Wright was put to death in Alabama’s electric chair in 2000 after being convicted of killing a couple during a robbery. Siegelman declined to stop the execution, saying at the time that the “death penalty is appropriate in this case.” Twenty-three years later Siegelman said that he now believes Wright “was wrongfully charged, prosecuted and convicted for a murder he most likely did not commit.”

Siegelman said that he “never felt comfortable with the death penalty” but that his views have evolved over the years, at least partly sparked by his own criminal conviction.

The last Democratic governor in a state now dominated by Republicans, Siegelman was convicted of federal bribery and obstruction of justice charges largely related to his appointment of a campaign donor to a state board. Siegelman, who has maintained his innocence, said he came to see the system as flawed.