Tony Abbott: consider burqa ban in places ‘dedicated to Australian values’



File 20170906 9202 idmvxl
Tony Abbott said he was a reluctant banner but says the burqa is an affront to the Australian way of life.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The issue of the burqa has erupted in the Coalition, with Tony Abbott suggesting a ban should be considered in places “dedicated to Australian values”, and the Nationals set to debate a prohibition on “full-facial coverings”.

Abbott said he was “a reluctant banner”, but “on the other hand, this thing frankly is an affront to our way of life”, a “confronting” and “imprisoning” garment.

“I think it is worth considering whether there are some places that are dedicated to Australian values such as our courts, our parliaments, our schools – maybe we do need to think about whether this garment is appropriate to be worn in places that are dedicated to upholding Australian values,” he told 2GB.

Abbott was commenting on a motion for a ban that Nationals MP George Christensen will move when the party’s federal conference meets this weekend.

The Christensen motion, supported by his Dawson federal divisional council, calls on the government “to implement a ban on full-facial coverings in all government buildings and public spaces, excluding places of worship, where it assists with security and public safety”.

Christensen said the qualification about security was to make exceptions for face coverings that for example were part of an entertainment.

The motion puts Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce on the spot.

“One of the great things about our party is that any person and any branch can bring forward any motion,” Joyce said.

“That doesn’t necessarily mean it becomes policy. That’s a matter for the federal conference, and I’ll be watching and listening to the debate like any other delegate.” Pressed on his own opinion he told reporters: “You can turn up the conference and find out exactly what I believe”.

In the Senate on Wednesday Pauline Hanson launched a vitriolic attack on Attorney-General George Brandis over his criticism of her stunt last month when she wore a burqa into the chamber. In his emotional speech that drew a standing ovation from Labor and the Greens, Brandis said it was appalling for her to mock the religious garments of Muslims and told her “we will not be banning the burqa”.

Brandis’ speech has since had a mixed reception in Coalition circles. On the day, there was limited and hesitant applause from his own ranks.

In her attack on Brandis, Hanson invoked the Anzacs when she accused him of defending “the most recognised symbol of radical Islam”.

“Whether or not you agree with my decision to wear a burqa in parliament is not the real issue,” she said. “The real issue is that Australians want a debate on full-face coverings and they want a debate on the issues that the burqa raises.

“It is, after all, a sign of radical Islam, which threatens the true Australian way of life. What would our Anzacs say? They fought for our freedom and way of life. There is room for only one flag, one language, one loyalty and one law.

“Recently, the lives of precious Australians have been lost in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to stop radical Islam. But, senator Brandis, you forgot those lives when you defended the most recognised symbol of radical Islam, the burqa,” she said.

“You have a right to a view on my decision to wear the burqa into the Senate, but it is arrogant, incorrect and ill-informed when you presume to speak for most Australians,” Hanson said.

She said that all Brandis’ colleagues had “remained seated and stunned while you strutted the Senate stage with your quivering lip”.

Christensen said he thought Brandis had “over-egged” his reaction to Hanson. He said there had been criticism of Brandis’s speech among Coalition MPs, and the standing ovation had been “from people with values that are antipathetic to ours”.

He said the burqa was not a religious requirement but a “a cultural practice that is based in the oppression of women”.

Christensen said his motion talked “not about the burqa and the niqab specifically but full-facial coverings, so this would even apply to violent people that we have seen in the past violent protesters on the far left and the far right … who put the balaclavas over their nose and mouths to disguise themselves”.

The ConversationA ReachTEL poll taken after Hanson’s stunt found majority support for banning the burqa.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/qi46m-71c69c?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

A full ban on political donations would level the playing field – but is it the best approach?



File 20170731 5295 wobin7
Sam Dastyari was the Labor Party’s chief fundraiser in New South Wales from 2010 to 2013.
AAP/Mick Tsikas

Yee-Fui Ng, RMIT University

Labor senator Sam Dastyari has called for a full ban on all political donations from individuals and corporations. Dastyari is no stranger to this issue: he was forced to resign from the shadow frontbench in 2016 following revelations that a Chinese company paid his travel expenses.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has said he is not in favour of Dastyari’s position:

When it comes to donations, I don’t think the taxpayer is ready to foot the bill for all political expenses in Australia, so I still think there is a role for donations.

Both Labor and and the Liberal Party are in favour of banning foreign political donations, but not all donations generally.


Further reading: Banning foreign political donations won’t fix all that ails our system


Why ban donations?

The key issue with political donations is whether large donations secure greater access to politicians than ordinary people have.

Another issue is whether large donations sway politicians to bestow illegitimate favours or adopt policies that directly benefit donors.

Dastyari was the Labor Party’s chief fundraiser in New South Wales from 2010 to 2013. He explained that some donors give money for philanthropic reasons or to support an ideological cause, while those in ethnic communities may donate as a sign of prestige. But he also explained:

Frankly, some people do it because of that very, very murky world of access. And they want access for outcomes.

The suggestion is that it’s possible to “buy” political access and influence through political donations.

The managing director of Transfield Holdings, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, has likened political donations to the Latin saying do ut des: “you give in order to have given back”.

Where will the money come from?

Campaigning for election is expensive. To promote their cause, political parties tend to spend big bucks on high-impact slots on TV and radio, travel extensively, and perhaps hire fancy political consultants.

Membership of Australia’s political parties has declined over the years, so they’re now less able to raise money from membership fees. Parties do receive some public funding, but not enough to pay for an expensive election campaign. This has led to the parties being very reliant on political donations.

If we ban all donations from individuals and corporations, funding for political campaigns must come from elsewhere. Public funding of elections would need to increase, meaning taxpayers would bear a bigger burden in funding elections.

The current level of federal public funding is about half of what an election campaign costs. In some parts of Europe and in Canada, the level of public funding of elections is higher, amounting to between 50% and 90% of costs.

There are challenges in calculating how much public funding should be allocated to parties, including the entitlement of new or micro-parties.


Further reading: Explainer: how does our political donations system work – and is it any good?


Is a ban constitutional?

Any regulation of political donations needs to be consistent with the Constitution. Australia has a constitutionally protected freedom to communicate on political matters.

A ban on donations limits political communication by restricting the source of funds available to political parties and candidates to meet the costs of political communication.

The High Court has ruled that any limitations on the freedom of political communication must be proportionate and have a legitimate purpose. Banning donations would seem to have a legitimate purpose: to reduce undue influence on Australian politics and public policy. But it is difficult to predict how the court would rule on proportionality.

The High Court has not previously ruled on a complete ban on political donations, but it has held that caps on donations are constitutional.

Is this a good idea?

Dastyari’s proposal would definitely even up the playing field. It would eliminate the perception and reality that rich donors are able to “buy” access or influence in politics.

Besides fully banning donations, another option is to have a low cap on donations of, say, A$1,000. For example, NSW has a yearly cap of $5,800 per party and $2,500 for candidates. This would also level the playing field and reduce the influence of rich donors.

The ConversationDastyari is right: it is time to take action on the murky world of political donations. Let’s hope the government will heed the call for change.

Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Tech companies fight Trump’s travel ban and may take their business elsewhere


David Glance, University of Western Australia

127, mostly tech, companies have signed a brief of support opposing US President Trump’s “Muslim travel ban”. The companies, that include Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Tesla have filed an “amicus brief” with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in support of US District Judge James L. Robart who ordered a stay on Trump’s executive order to ban anyone from 7 countries from entering the US for between 90 and 120 days.

The tech companies have argued that immigration is a central factor in the history and makeup of the US and has helped fuel American innovation and economic growth. Immigrants, or their children, founded more than 200 companies that are amongst the top 500 companies in the US. Between 2006 and 2010, immigrants were responsible for opening 28% of call new businesses in the US. Thirty percent of US Nobel laureates in Chemistry, Medicine and Physics have been immigrants.

Mostly however, the brief focuses on the harm that its chaotic implementation will have on US companies. They allege:

“The Order makes it more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to recruit, hire, and retain some of the world’s best employees. It disrupts ongoing business operations. And it threatens companies’ ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States.

The consequences of this action will be that US companies will lose business and ultimately

“Multinational companies will have strong incentives, including from their own employees, to base operations outside the United States or to move or hire employees and make investments abroad.”

This last is no idle threat. In 2015, it was estimated that US companies have US $2.1 trillion overseas that haven’t been repatriated because of the tax implications. Apple alone has over US $230 billion held outside the US.

The idea of using this money to set up development and further manufacturing capabilities outside the US makes a great deal of sense, even without the imperative of Trump’s actions. However, there is another move that Trump is threatening that may make the decision to move operations outside the US more attractive still.

Trump’s administration is planning to target the high-skilled worker’s H-1B visa. This offers mostly tech companies the ability to recruit up to 85,000 skill developers and other staff from around the world. According to the Republicans and Trump however, tech companies should be recruiting locally.

Companies like Microsoft, where I have first hand experience of recruitment experience, did actively try and recruit within the US. Recruiting from outside is generally more expensive and time consuming and so there is no real reason why tech companies would actively ignore domestic applicants or favour foreign ones. Tech companies seek to employ the best people for the job and if the pool is global, that is how they achieve that goal.

Having offices remotely distributed can be made to work although it makes communications across teams and different product areas more challenging than if they are all in a single location. However, it already happens in most tech companies with Google and Microsoft already having research and product development occurring out of countries like Australia, India and China.

As outlined in the amicus brief, Trump is sowing uncertainty and chaos with his desire to treat policy like tweets on Twitter. That is going to provide enough incentive for companies to brave the potential disapproval from Trump and use the significant investments held outside the US to expand their capabilities.

Trump may succeed, contrary to his intentions, in catalysing a new phase in globalisation in which companies shift their centres from the US to a more distributed model. Of course, companies may still run into problems if Trump’s brand of nationalism succeeds in taking hold in other countries like Australia or Europe.

The other side-effect of the US uncertainty is the fact that increasingly businesses based outside the US will have a competitive advantage and customers may decide that it is easier to avoid doing business with the US for at least the next four years. China is rapidly becoming the technological equal of the US in many ways and so its ascendancy may also benefit.

The amicus curiae brief is the start of a long legal campaign which will aim to keep the worst of Trump’s plans in check. Depending on the outcomes, the world outside the US may actually benefit from Trump if companies are forced to look outside the walls, real and virtual, he is seeking to create.

The Conversation

David Glance, Director of UWA Centre for Software Practice, University of Western Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Donald Trump’s ban will have lasting and damaging impacts on the world’s refugees


Phil Orchard, The University of Queensland

US President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration fundamentally alters decades of bipartisan US practice. It blocks immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, and stops all refugee resettlement for at least 120 days.

Trump’s justification for the order is:

… the US must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.

The first element includes blocking any immigration from seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – for at least 30 days.

The first day after the order was approved dual citizens and US permanent residents – usually called green card holders – were prevented from boarding flights to the US and even detained on arrival. A temporary injunction has provided at least some protections, though it is being applied patchily and only to those people who have already entered the US.

The order also suspends all refugee admissions for a minimum of 120 days. After that the US will still admit only nationals of countries where the government has “procedures [that] are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the US”.

In a continuation of current congressional practice, the US will also prioritise refugee claims based on religious-based persecution, where the person is a member of a minority religion in their own country. And no Syrian refugees will be admitted until the US refugee admissions program aligns with the national interest.

Finally, the US will limit the number of refugees it admits in 2017 to 50,000. So, what does this all mean for refugees?

What does it mean for refugee acceptance?

The UN Refugee Convention provides refugees with a strong set of rights. However, it applies only when a refugee is within a signatory country’s territory or jurisdiction. The convention does not oblige any signatory to accept other refugees.

However, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) considers resettlement to be one of three “durable solutions” for refugees, alongside voluntary repatriation and integration in a host community. These solutions enable refugees to live their lives in dignity and peace.

The UNHCR has determined, in most cases, that the people awaiting resettlement are refugees. Resettlement is used especially in cases where a refugee’s:

… life, liberty, safety, health, or fundamental human rights are at risk in their country of refuge.

Thus resettlement can be critical to provide refugees with protection.

Resettlement also has important geostrategic implications. It helps, as several former US government officials have noted, support the stability of allies that are struggling to host large numbers of refugees.

Similarly, in a call with Trump on Sunday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly argued that:

… the necessary, decisive battle against terrorism does not justify a general suspicion against people of a certain origin or a certain religion.

The US resettlement program has long had strong bipartisan support. But it is also critical to global refugee resettlement. The US takes in by far the most resettled refugees of any country. Canada and Australia are a distant second and third.

Top ten countries for refugee resettlement in 2015.
IRIN News

The justification for the shutdown is to improve the US’s own security measures by introducing, as Trump has previously argued, “extreme vetting”.

But this already exists for resettled refugees. As part of the Refugee Admissions Program, individual refugee cases are screened through a seven-step process, including security and background checks, personal interviews with agents from the US Department of Homeland Security, and other measures. This process can take up to two years.

This system has worked; virtually no terrorist attacks on US soil have been caused by refugees. As a September 2016 report by the Cato Institute, a right-leaning think-tank, noted:

The chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is one in 3.64 billion per year.

Similarly, in 2015, a State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted to the US since 2001:

Only about a dozen – a tiny fraction of 1% of admitted refugees – have been arrested or removed from the US due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the US. None of them were Syrian.

The wider effects

Trump’s ban will also have two wider effects.

It appears not to be affecting the November agreement between Australia’s prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, to resettle refugees from Nauru and Manus Island in the US in exchange for Australia accepting a group of Central American refugees. Many of those on Nauru and Manus Island come from Iran, Iraq and Somalia.

The Australian government remains keen for the deal to go ahead. But US Republican politicians have previously been critical of the deal. Republican congressman Brian Babin said earlier this month he was confident that Trump:

… will do everything in his power to put an immediate stop to this secret Australian-US refugee deal that should have simply never happened in the first place.

But in a phone call between Trump and Turnbull on Sunday, Trump appears to have given assurances the deal would still go ahead. The order gives the power to the secretary of homeland security to continue to admit refugees for resettlement on a case-by-case basis, irrespective of the wider shutdown.

Globally, the shutdown will have lasting and detrimental effects for refugees. In the Middle East, it may prove to be a boon to the Islamic State. The terrorist group has long sought to disrupt refugee movements.

The ban will also put more pressure on refugee-hosting countries. About 90% of the world’s refugees are in the developing world. The international refugee system works through burden-sharing: host countries know that at least some refugees will be resettled and that they will receive financial assistance for the refugees from the UNHCR and other organisations and governments.

Trump’s move challenges this directly, and will likely lead to further restrictions on the ability of refugees to receive basic protections.

The Conversation

Phil Orchard, Senior Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies and International Relations; Research Director at the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Saudi Women Defy Driving Ban


NewsFeed

As a campaign to defy Saudi Arabia’s driving ban on women heats up, one leading female blogger flouted the conservative kingdom’s restrictions and documented it on Twitter and YouTube.

The blogger, Eman al-Nafjan, who has been calling on Saudi women to upload videos of themselves driving in different parts of the kingdom, is seen filming another woman driving in Riyadh, the capital. The blogger was later stopped by police and detained.

In the video, a woman wearing a burqa is seen driving around the streets of Riyadh. The clip also shows men supporting the women’s cause, as they flash thumbs-up signs to a woman behind the wheel.

This is not the first time that female activists have tried to use YouTube clips of themselves driving to make the point that there is nothing dangerous or immoral about Saudi women sitting behind the wheel. On International Women’s Day in 2008, activist…

View original post 8 more words

New York: Soda/Soft Drink Ban Banned


The link below is to an article about commonsense – talk about a potential nanny state law. The great soda/soft drink size ban for New York has itself been, well – banned.

For more visit:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/11/us-sodaban-lawsuit-idUSBRE92A0YR20130311

Pakistan: Bible Facing Ban


Islamists in Pakistan are pushing for the Bible to be banned because they say it denigrates Islamic prophets.

Read the article at:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/now-bible-faces-blasphemy-charges-in-pakistan-50789/

 

Christians Decry Malaysia’s Detention of Bible Books


After stopping 5,100 Bibles in 2009, authorities withhold 30,000 Malay-language copies.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, March 14 (CDN) — The detaining of 30,000 copies of the New Testament, Psalms and Proverbs in the Malay language at Malaysia’s Kuching Port has “greatly disillusioned” the nation’s Christian community.

The books, imported from Indonesia by the local branch of Gideons International for distribution in schools, churches and longhouses in Betong, Saratok and other Christian areas in Sarawak state, have been detained at the Kuching Port since January.

Authorities told an unnamed officer of the importer on Jan. 12 that he could not distribute the books in Sarawak state, on the island of Borneo, since they “contained words which are also found in the Quran,” according to online news agency Malaysiakini. The officer was ordered to transport the books to the Home Ministry’s office for storage.

Last week, when the same officer enquired of the Home Ministry officials on the status of the Malay Bibles, authorities said they had yet to receive instructions on the matter.

This is not the first time government authorities have detained Malay-language Bibles, and Bishop Ng Moon Hing, chairman of Christian Federation of Malaysia, decried the action.

“The CFM is greatly disillusioned, fed-up and angered by the repeated detention of Bibles written in our national language,” Ng said. “It would appear as if the authorities are waging a continuous, surreptitious and systematic program against Christians in Malaysia to deny them access to the Bible in [Malay].”

An earlier consignment of 5,100 copies of the Good News Bible in Malay, imported by the Bible Society of Malaysia, was detained in Port Klang in March 2009. Together with this latest seizure, the total number of Bibles seized and remaining in possession of the Home Ministry amounts to 35,100 copies.

The CFM, representing a majority of Christians in Malaysia, released a statement on March 10 asserting, “All attempts to import the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia [Malay], i.e. the Alkitab, whether through Port Klang or the Port of Kuching, have been thwarted” since March 2009.

Prior to March 2009, there had been several such incidents, and “each time, tedious steps had to be taken to secure their release,” according to the CFM.

A significant 64 percent of Malaysian Christians are indigenous people from Sabah and Sarawak states who use the Malay language in their daily life. Christian leaders say having Bibles in the Malay language is crucial to the practice of their Christian faith.

Christians make up more than 9 percent of Malaysia’s nearly 28 million people, according to Operation World.

This latest Bible book seizure has irked Christians and drawn criticisms from politicians spanning both sides of the political divide.

The Sarawak Ministers Fellowship issued a statement registering its “strong protest,” describing the detention of the books as “unconstitutional” and in violation of the 18-point agreement for Sarawak in the formation of Malaysia.

Representing the opposition political party, People’s Justice Party (Sarawak Parti Keadilan Rakyat) Chief Baru Bian described the withholding as “religious harassment” and “a blatant disregard of our constitutional right as Christians in Malaysia.”

Chua Soi Lek, president of the Malaysian Chinese Association, a political party within the ruling coalition National Front, proposed that Malay Bibles be allowed to be printed locally. The deputy chief minister of Sarawak, Dr. George Chan, expressed the state government’s willingness to publish the Malay Bible locally.

Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein was quoted in The Star newspaper today as saying, “The issue … is being resolved amicably with the parties concerned,” though how this was taking place was not apparent. The home minister has reportedly said the books had been withheld pending an appeal over the use of the word “Allah” in The Herald catholic newspaper.

Secretary-General of Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement Mohamad Raimi Abdul Rahim has called for the government to enforce the ban on use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims nationwide, including in Sabah and Sarawak.

In a controversial court ruling on Dec. 31, 2009, Judge Lau Bee Lan had allowed The Herald to use the word “Allah” for God in the Malay section of its multilingual newspaper. The Home Ministry filed an appeal against the decision on Jan. 4, 2010, but to date there is no indication as to when the case will be heard.

Report from Compass Direct News

Pakistani Pastors Fear Retaliation after Police Withdraw Charge


Church leaders were accused of misusing loudspeakers on Christmas.

LAHORE, Pakistan, January 11 (CDN) — Christian leaders in Punjab Province’s Nankana Sahib district said they were apprehensive after a police inspector’s warning on Friday (Jan. 7) that “they would be responsible for anything that went wrong in the villages” if they continued preaching over a public address system.

Eight pastors leading a delegation of more than 100 Christians from Martinpur and Youngsenabad villages had persuaded police to drop the charge of preaching over the church loudspeakers – a practice routinely allowed by Muslims in mosques. They complained of inspector Muhammad Rana Ishaq’s veiled threat to the police chief, but they fear Ishaq will file other false cases against them in retaliation for the withdrawal of the charge.  

The Christian delegation registered a strong protest with the Nankana police chief for restricting their worship. After two hours of talks, the police chief conceded that his staff had discriminated against the Christians and ordered withdrawal of the case. Police had filed a case against the eight pastors for “misusing loudspeakers” on Dec. 25, 2010. The pastors said police should have taken into account that it was Christmas Day, and that residents of the two villages were worshipping in their churches.

Pastor Mubarak Victor of Calvary Gospel Church in Martinpur village told Compass that he and seven other pastors – Chandan Lal, William Kayani, Shahzad Fakhardin, Amoon Samuel, Shamaoon Khokhar, Amir Sohail and Hanooq Daniel – had been named in the case. Victor said the charge was ridiculous, as they have been preaching and worshipping on public address systems for decades.

“Our villages are inhabited by Christians, and we have been worshipping freely for years,” Pastor Victor said. “A ban on using loudspeakers was imposed on Muslim clerics because they often indulge in fanning sectarianism. This action of the administration is nothing but religious bigotry.”

He added that filing a case against the pastors on Christmas Day was a step towards restricting the Christians’ right to worship. The two villages have a combined Christian population of around 10,000.

“Muslims from our neighboring villages are behind this move,” Pastor Victor said. “Over the last couple of years, Muslims, mostly youth and women, have started coming to us for prayers. Almost all the Muslims who have visited my church said they were impressed by our sermons and worship and asked me to pray for them. Some have even denounced their faith but are keeping it a secret from their families.”

He said the pastors were not forcing the Muslims to come to them.

“It is the sincerity in our prayers and the testimonies we share that bring a change of heart in them,” he said.

Pastors Chandan Lal and Amir Sohail voiced similar concerns.

“Martinpur and Youngsenabad are Christian villages. Our public address systems have only been used for God’s Word and to give glory to His name,” Pastor Lal said. “They [police] registered a case against us only to intimidate us into restricting our worship. We won’t accept this at any cost.”

He said that Muslim prayer leaders used public address systems with impunity even though they were the ones who had actually been restricted from using it, other than regular calls to prayer (azaans).

“We have never said a word against any religion, let alone Islam,” Pastor Lal said. “When the villagers don’t have an issue with praise and worship on PA systems, who are the police to interfere?”

Malik Aftab, a village elder from Youngsenabad, told Compass that the villagers would not let police arrest any of the pastors.

“They [the police] are provoking us unnecessarily by registering a case against the pastors on Christmas day,” Aftab said. “Has anyone arrested any mullah [Muslim prayer leader] when they are addressing Eid sermons on loudspeakers? Why the discrimination?”

Chaudhry Habil Qaiser, 90, who is one of the oldest residents in Martinpur village, said he and his 86-year-old wife cannot go to church for praise and worship due to their old age.

“We join the congregation in praise and worship while listening to the church loudspeakers,” he said. “The government should not impose such restrictions in our village.”

Nankana District Police Officer Shahzad Waheed said the pastors had been booked for violating the Amplifier Act, but he had no explanation for why Muslim clerics were not booked for misusing loudspeakers when delivering hours-long sermons on the Muslim festival of Eid and for Friday prayers, especially as these acts led directly to introduction of the Amplifier Act.

Nankana district is the same one that Asia Noreen, the first Christian woman sentenced to death on blasphemy charges, lived in before her conviction. Her village of Ittanwali is about 15 kilometers (nine miles) from Martinpur and Youngsenabad.

Report from Compass Direct News