Talk:Amina Lawal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The response to the case I found on the Nigerian Embassy in the Hague [3] indicates that there is no truth to the allegations that a court sentenced her to stoning. There is such strong dissonance between those sides that there's no way to reconcile the points of view. Where lies the truth? Jens Nielsen 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Nigerian embassy in Holland denies the case, means there is no truth to the allegations? In other words the world media, the human rights groups, Amnesty International, Amina Lawal's legal group are all conspiring against Nigeria? Do you not see any bias on the embassy's part? Governments and their representatives (embassies) are not keen on flaunting their dirty laundry for the world to see, hence common strategy is to deny such problems. Nigeria does not have the best human rights track record. You should have sought more (reliable) sources and had you done that, you would have found that the Nigerian embassy in the USA, admitted and acknowledged the stoning sentence as meted out by the Sharia court of Katsina, Nigeria in line with what the media was reporting [1] You would also have learned that Kastina has been under Sharia rule since 2000 and the majority of residents are Muslims. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall in one documentary or TV report, one of the reasons she was acquitted was because the man who she claimed had raped her, died. And the claim that since he testified a lie against the quran, Amina was to be quitted as a rape victim. Would anyone else know about why she was quitted? Faro0485 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given by the appeal court in the second rounds of appeal when the original verdict was overturned was that she was not caught in the act of adultery and was not given "ample opportunity to defend herself". I have not heard anything about the death of the father of the baby. Rather he dismissed having had any sexual relation with her and his words were taken as proof of his innocence.Peaceblissharmony (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most interesting part of this story concerns the way various NGO's used alarmist language to generate huge international campaigns (petitions and fundraising), despite the fact that Amina Lawal was never in any actual danger of being put to death. The major women's rights organizations in Nigeria actually called upon other international groups to halt the letter-writing campaigns, which they believed were based in false information and were counterproductive and dangerous.160.253.0.8 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strong POV which has not been substantiated. To claim that she was never "in any actual danger of being put to death" is absurd. This suggest that the system is just a mockery. To address your concern, The objection to the "alarmist language" was not due to absence of real danger against the life of Amina Lawal. (Mind you, She was not aware of her rights and did not even have a defense lawyer until the appeal stage. This is documented. This alone should raise alarm.) The objection took place in response to an international campaign which was triggered "by reports that Ms Lawal had lost her appeal in the Nigerian supreme court and had been sentenced to die on 3 June". In fact "the 3 June date is only the first day of Ms Lawal's appearance at the first of potentially three appeal courts".[2] So this was seen as detrimental to her case as the information was not accurate but pressumed a result of "mistranslations of appeals for international petitions". Hence the group (working on behalf of Ms Lawal) objected and advised that "We decided that we had to put out an international appeal trying to clarify the situation and asking people not, at this moment, to participate in international protest campaigns". I suggest in future you state the full context rather than being selective or modify the actual events as this strongly suggest POV which contradicts the neutrality principle.Peaceblissharmony (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From an article in Harvard Law Review: See Sam Amadi, Repositioning the Sharia Debate, THIS DAY (Nigeria), Sept. 19, 2002, at http://thisdayonline.com/comment/2oo002o99como2.html. Human Rights Watch has criticized the "Western media" for its focus on cases involving the stoning of women. See "Nigeria: Debunking Misconceptions on Stoning Case," MONTHLY UPDATE (Human Rights Watch, New York), Sept. 2003, at http://hrw.org/update/2003/o9#4 (Sept. 2003) ("Much of the Western media has oversimplified the issue by focusing exclusively on this type of punishment under Sharia." (quoting Carina Tert-sakian, Human Rights Watch researcher) (internal quotation marks omitted))160.253.0.8 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same comments as above. Carina Tertsakian and her peers did not object to the western medias coverage as such, but the focus on a singular case and the Sharia based punishments (as you rightly pointed out); "Amina Lawal’s case deserves attention, and we are delighted at the outcome of her appeal, but hers is not the only case, nor is the punishment of stoning the only human rights problem in Nigeria". She also noted that "The more fundamental human rights issue in Nigeria is the dysfunctional justice system, Tertsakian noted. She also describes how dysfunction lies at the heart of how Islamic law is being practiced too."[3] One can only imagine what might have happened if the case had not drawn attention from media and human rights activists. This is true for Nigeria but also other Sharia states where attention and itense focus has pressurized the governments or regimes to adopt lenience due to media and image concerns. As Ms Lawal's group expressed it "Because of the circumstances in Nigeria today, which are very volatile, we felt that having a big international campaign and protest letters that were based on inaccurate information and not very carefully worded, would actually be more damaging than helpful. We're not against all international campaigns, but they're not necessarily suited to every single situation. We need to pay attention to people who are directly involved in the situation on the ground - and the wishes of the people whose rights we are trying to defend. (..) I think more important - reason is that when we fight a case through the Sharia court of appeal - and win cases, as we have done - then it says to people 'these people should never have been convicted - the conviction was wrong". Peaceblissharmony (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ US Embassy
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [2]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amina Lawal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amina Lawal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amina_Lawal&oldid=1208111961"