From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.asean
Subject: Re: **** Australian citizens kidnapped by Malaysian Prince ****
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:28:59 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035

shahrul@mipos3.UUCP (Shahrul Yazid Yahaya) writes:
[other attributions previously lost]
>>
>>>Incredible isn't it? Especially against the children's will. The 9 year olds
>>>can already shout at the airports, airplanes etc.
>>
>>If he can get out of Australia without passing through customs,
>>immigration etc. then he would have no trouble keeping them quiet
>>if he wanted to.
>>
>	If he can get out of Australia, then you should question how
>	can Australian govt let it happened, not Malaysian govt. 

I disagree.  Practical enforcement against this sort of thing is not a
possibility given the the state of Australia's (or any government on
this planet's) resources.  This would be like blaming the Kuwaiti
government for letting the Iraqi army invade.  

>>The base facts as I see them - the kids were Australian citizens, 
>>due all the protection of any Australian citizen. By taking them 
>>from their rightful custodians (mother and stepfather), the Malaysian
>>father broke several Australian laws, and intefered with Australia's
>>Sovereignity. (sp?) It matters little in law that a Malaysian court
>>has granted the father custody - they shouldn't be out of Australia.
>>
>	Other news says the mother has become murtad ie no longer
>	confess Islam. If this is true, then the mother no longer
>	has a custody to the children (if she had it before) according
>	to Islamic law, as far as I know. And Islamic law applies to
>	all Muslims no matter what country they are in. (Note: this
>	doesn't means that I justify the way the children are taken)

I disagree.  The question at hand is whether Islamic law applies.  The
cornerstone of all international law is the respect of sovereign powers,
and the idea that no sovereign power can be exercised in another
sovereign domain, except under a declaration of war, or some kind of
international agreement.  The jurisdictional question is whether the
Islamic court can overrule the Australian one, then exercise its ruling
on Austrlian soil.  Quite simply, the answer is no by my standards, and
I hope that the Australian Government agrees and begins extridition
proceedings.  It would be just as wrong for the Australian Government to
send in a crack military team to kidnap the children back and bring the
prince to trial.  That way leads to wars and violence.

Please note that I am not confusing the Maylasian jurisdiction to the
Islamic one.  The Maylasian question is simple: the government of Maylay
does not have jurisdiction over Australian Citizens.

I further state, that it is illegal and wrong for Islamics to enforce
their own beliefs on the way custody and such should work on others,
whether they are murdhad or not.  That sort of power belongs in the
hands of the state.  Australia is not an Islamic state (I wouldn't be
moving there if it were)

Mel


>	Personally, I don't think this case should have a special
>	attention since the father comes from a royal family. If the father
>	comes from "normal" citizens, it should be treated the same.
>	Neither is because it involved Australia, a country which had known
>	to have crisis with Malaysia. If it happend in any other country
>	it should have a similar attention.
>
>	Regards,
>
>== Shahrul Yazid Yahaya == Microprocessor Product Division ==
>INTEL CORPORATION, SC4-57, | INTEL TECHNOLOGY, PG-6,       
>Santa Clara, CA 95052-8119 | Bayan Lepas FTZ, 11900 PENANG
>Office: 1(408)765-4455     | Office: 6-04-8207194       
Newsgroups: soc.culture.new-zealand