Ottoman Empire had de-criminalized homosexuality in 1858

Believe it or not, but it was not the Republic of Turkey that de-criminalised homosexuality in Turkey. Homosexuality was de-criminalised vide Ottoman Sultan's decree in 1858.  This was part of the Tanzimat-e-Fermani which were enacted through the Hatt-e-Seriff or the Imperial Edict. This pre-dated de-criminalization in most western countries- revolutionary for its time.

Now here is the interesting part. The Ottoman Sultan was also the Caliph of Islam and God's vicegerent on Earth.

I wonder what Hizbut-tahrir's geniuses have to say about that. After all they make a whole lot of hue and cry about the end of Khilafat in 1924.   Not exactly what they make it out to be is it?

Secular Pakistan as the only viable option

The secularism debate has taken off in recent days. An increasingly diverse group of people drawn from almost all walks of life have begun to agitate for a secular state. The violence against religious minorities as well as sectarian minorities has convinced many people that secularism in Pakistan is the only option left.

US Supreme Court and the Surveillance Law - questions Group's locus standi

Yesterday the US Supreme Court struck down a challenge from a group of lawyers, journalists and human rights researchers, including ACLU and Amnesty International, who had challenged the constitutionality of the law that allows US government to detect and track the messages of the suspected foreign terrorists.

The US Supreme Court said that the party complaining must have suffered the injury "actual or imminent" which is "fairly traceable" to the challenged action and where a favorable order would redress the damage done.

On these grounds the challenge was struck down.

US Supreme Court DNA Privacy v. Crime Solving- Update

US Supreme Court's Samuel A Alito called it the "most important criminal procedure case" in "decades".  The basic question is whether taking DNA swabs from arrested accused and matching them against a data base of unsolved crimes constitutional or not. As I said yesterday, it is likely to be constitutional.

The government's lawyers have come up with an interesting argument. They say having a DNA test can have a positive impact on how bails are decided by the courts. I think this argument holds a lot of water. As one of the lawyers for the government said  - this is the finger printing for the 21st century "only better".

US Supreme Court and the DNA civil rights issue

The US Supreme Court is finally hearing arguments on when or how taking DNA samples from a suspect can become constitutional.  Alonzo King's lawyers are arguing that DNA samples and linking them to other crimes on the data base without a warrant (as is the case under Maryland law) from suspects violate Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The facts briefly are that Alonzo King arrested in 2009 for assault was subject to DNA testing that linked him to a 2003 rape.  The American Civil Liberties Union argues that this is a violation of privacy and that at the minimum a warrant should be required.

My comment:

I don't see how a swab test taken as a result of an arrest which comes out to be a DNA match with another unsolved outstanding claim would be considered a violation of privacy or due process. In fact it provides that perfect balance.  What my take is that taking a DNA test from a person arrested for an assault charge is neither an unreasonable search nor seizure. If x y z breaks the law and is then put on a database and matched with another crime, it is an exercise in state efficiency and not unreasonable search or seizure.

It would be unreasonable search or seizure if people were randomly tested and recorded. A person who breaks the law does so knowing that he or she would now be on a database and that database may be cross referenced and matched.

I expect the US Supreme Court to uphold the Maryland Law.

Memorandum of Understanding Sample

DRAFT: Memorandum of Understanding

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) has been entered into on this the ____ day of____________2013 (the “Effective Date”)

by and between

1.      ____________a company incorporated under the laws of  [name of the emirate/DAFZA/JAFZA/RAKIA] acting through its [Director] duly authorised in this behalf by a Board Resolution dated [ ] (“ABC”, which expression shall be deemed to mean and include its successors in interest and permitted assigns), of the first part.

and

2.      [ ], a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Singapore, having its principal place of business, acting through its [ ], Mr. ____________, duly authorised in this behalf by a Board Resolution dated [ ] (hereinafter referred to as ‘XYZ’ which expression shall unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof shall mean and include its subsidiaries, successors and assigns), of the other part.

(ABC and XYZ are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties,” and singularly as a “Party,” as the case may be).

Deed of Agreement

DEED OF AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is made on _________________ day of ______________at[         ], ,  

between

 [ ] incorporated under the laws of Pakistan, with its head office  through its [], [Mr/Ms []] duly authorised vide [](here in after called the First Party which expression shall include  its representatives, successors in interest and assignees).

and

 [ ] incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom, with its head office situated at [] through its [], [Mr/Ms []] duly authorised vide [] (here in after called the Second Party which expression shall include  its representatives, successors in interest and assignees).

(Both the First Party and the Second Party are collectively referred to as the “Parties” where the context so permits).