From: paul@cs.su.oz.au (Paul Craig Tyler)
Subject: Re: **** Australian citizens kidnapped by Malaysian Prince **** (LONGISH)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.103154.2308@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>I am still here. Why don't you swear some more. Let us see who are the
>fools.

Such comments (by Othman Ahmad or Rod Swift) do no justice to an arguement and
only serve to weaken it.

>The Australian family court agreed that it was not a kidnap case, so it
>slapped warrent for arrest for contempt of court to Raja Baharin in absentia.
> Usually contempt of court is only for people who are at court, and had been
>given warnings first. What a strange sense of justice.

This judgement is hardly fair and your assumption that it is only for people
who are at court is completely incorrect.  You presumably don't understand
what contempt is in terms of Australian courts.  A person can be found in
contempt of court for having disrespect of a court.  Clearly, as the father
is now in Malaysia, he has disobeyed a ruling of the court, ie the custody
ruling, and as such contempt for the ruling has led to the warrent.  It is
not strange to think that a court has the right to attempt to enforce it's
rulings, this is in fact a correct sense of justice to my mind.

Ask an Australian journalist about commenting on cases that are currently
before the courts.  This too can be contempt.  (eg. Mr. Hinch ended up in jail
for a little while.  He was nowhere near the court in question when acting in
contempt.)

>Raja Baharin was in Indonesia. He could have used boats, for a rich prince,
>he should have used rented planes.

A boat would not be expensive, and as he was known to be in Indonesia, I
suspect he took a boat.  If he can afford to fly into Australia to see the
children, he can easily afford to rent a boat or light plane for that matter.

>Malaysian chief of police declared that the children would not be extradited
>because they are Malaysian citizens.

Malaysia has not signed the Hague Convention which outlaws the "kidnapping" of
children in custody disputes.  (Sydney Morning Herald 27th July)   As it seems
that legally speaking the children have not been kidnapped from Australia,
there is little the Australian Government can do.

Here is a warning to fellow Australians, while we insist on people respecting
Australia's sovereignty, we too must then respect the sovereignty of other
countries, whether we consider their laws fair or not.  I don't for any minute
suggest we need to repect their law, but we should repect their right to
have their law within the bounds of their country.  Now the children are in
Malaysia, Malaysian law applies to them, whether they entered legally or not.

To non-Australians who insist on people respecting Malaysia's sovereignty,
you too must respect Australia's.  Don't apply one set of rules to where
Malaysia's laws apply and then another to where Australia's apply as this
inconsistency proves a bias in your arguement and thus a lack of credibility.

Now, a little on citizenship.  I'm not sure on the citizenship status of the
children, as I've only read some newpaper reports and a lot of mis-information
on this newsgroup.  If I can be so bold as to summarise my suspicions though,
Malaysia thinks they are Malaysian citizens and Australia thinks they are
either solely Australian or Australian and Malaysian duel citizens.  The fact
that Malaysia claims the children to be Malaysian citizens doesn't actually
mean that other countries will recognise that claim.  Also while I've heard it
claimed that the children are Australian citizens, Malaysia may not recognise
that claim either.

To those who think the Australian government should be doing something, then
what?  There is probably a dispute in basic facts like citizenship of the
children let alone considering the implications of religous laws.  Remember
the only legal course now is through the Malaysian legal system.  The only
other choice is some type of international pressure in the hope that
Malaysia might change it's laws.

To finish, there are a couple of quotes from earlier articles which I whould
like to make comment on.


Othman Ahmad said:
	"Your biased views towards ISLAM has cluttered your brain."
So to Othman Ahmad and others:
Such a comment is not constructive.  Others may have different religious views
to you, you'll just have to accept that.  This will hardly help people in
their view towards ISLAM if the bottom line in an arguement is an insult.

Once again Othman Ahmad said:
	"I am not a lawyer but I just apply the law of common sense in terms of
justice."

Don't apply common sense to law, especially international law, as it rarely
works.  As for "justice", it is different to everyone and I with the complex
religious overtones hear, I hardly think any amount of discussion is going to
lead to a solution.

Anyway, I think that is enough.  I hope this leads to a more productive debate
rather than a flame war.  Try and understand what the person is saying and
look at it from their point of view.  It appears most people are failing to
do this and as such the discussion is not with people but against them.


--
Paul Tyler       paul@cs.su.oz.au
University of Sydney, Australia
Newsgroups: soc.culture.australian