Why you need to support Civil Marriage in Lebanon. [Opinion]

First, let’s begin by exposing the practical difficulties of Civil Marriage in Lebanon for religious couples. (So we are here allowing the choice of a civil marriage).

Let’s imagine that a couple, a Muslim man and a Christian woman decide to marry, it is religiously possible, and yet they decide to marry secularly first, and then with a Sheikh. The young couple decides to have children and that they will be able themselves to choose their religion (or its absence), the Father won’t push the children towards Islam and the mother won’t push them to Christianity. Eventually the father dies, and the inheritance must be made, the late father didn’t write a will so the family of the man decides that it will be made according to the Islamic law and believe that the children, born from a Muslim man, are Muslims so it is applicable to them, the Children, now grown-ups and with their own beliefs, decide that the inheritance must be made equally made between them. (they’re brother and sister and Islamic law stipulated that the man must inherit double the woman). Eventually, there will be a huge mess between the state secular lawyers and the Islamic jurisprudence. What law should be applied?
For this situation I believe that the children decide for themselves, if we suppose they didn’t register a sect.

A similar situation is that the father (with the Ok from his wife) wants his inheritance to be applied by Islamic law for their children, but the children didn’t accept this. The couple married secularly and religiously, and the children in this new scenario are registered as Muslims. What will follow?

Let’s not even other much more complicated situation like the inheritance of young children if the father dies, or a divorce, etc etc. This is just to provide the technical difficulties it can bring.

Despite all these difficulties, everyone should have the right to marry in his own way, be it secular or religious.
Let’s imagine that an atheist couple want to marry to benefit from the laws and well, and well, be called a married couple! Why should they pass by the religious ceremony when it doesn’t apply to them? They have every right to marry the way they like. And it’s not only applied to atheists of course, everyone should be able to choose between secular marriage and religious marriage.
I don’t believe it should be mandatory because it would bring a shock to religious authorities and people that simply don’t want civil marriage in their lives, again, it’s their choice. It’s maybe too soon.

Here’s article 3 of the Lebanese constitution.

Three. Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic Republic based on respect for public liberties, especially the freedom of opinions and belief, and respect for social justice and equality of rights and duties among all citizens without discrimination.

This article should push the Lebanese law to allow for civil marriage. A LOCAL civil marriage is already legal. According to experts, a law decree that dates from 1936 already grants people not affiliated with any sect to marry. Interior minister (pro optional civil marriage) should not slow down the processus by not recognising civil marriage made locally.

Interior Minister Nouhad Machnouk supports the principle of optional civil marriage in Lebanon, but the absence of a civil law setting out the procedures of the practice currently makes it impossible for the ministry to recognise civil marriage contracts registered with Lebanon’s public notary, a statement said. – See more here.

I understand that there’s an absence here, but instead of completely rendering those marriages unrecognisable, he must AT LEAST call for a debate on civil marriage and propose a clear law to set out the procedures. It is time the unconstitutionally extended Parliament follow simple principles of the Lebanese constitution and especially look at this one.

Eight. The abolition of political sectarianism shall be a basic national goal and shall be achieved according to a gradual plan.

This article should ring up a bell in the heads of every MP. Granting at least an option to civil marriage is I believe part of the gradual plan towards sectarianism end.

Tomorrow, Sunday the 1st of March, a protest will call for civil and secular rights granted by the constitution. Here’s the details on Facebook. 

Finally, it is super important to say that civil marriage doesn’t turn a human being into an infidel or immoral person and it is absurd to believe so.

What is the difference between Death Penalty and Drones Strikes. [Opinion]

Defining the Death Penalty.

The Death Penalty or Capital punishment is a legal process when a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. Death Penalties must occur after the accused face a just court. The accused person is punished after concluded that he is the perpetrator of the alleged crime.

The Death Penalty must then be applied in a predefined and installed “just” system. A set of laws that indiscriminately judge people in Justice and Fairness. In Justice, all men must face legal courts and a judgment before being punished. All men have the right to claim they are falsely accused and prove the accuser is wrong.

I really stress on the All men, yes, even Ben Laden or Hitler. Personally, I wish they faced Justice before being punished, even when it is a fact than Ben Laden conducted 9/11, even when it is a fact that Hitler led to awful massacres in WW2. That is justice. All men are equal before the law all man must face just and legal action based on a fair set of laws.

Death Penalty and War.

But what about war ? Is it legal or fair to kill a person before he is judged ? Let’s imagine a small scene.

A group of armed man enter your neighborhood with a clear goal to destroy it and kill. They begin to fire, you and your neighbors take weapons and kill them all.

In this previous scenario is killing a person “death penalty” ? Not really, it is a direct act of self-defense. The Armed men were going to kill you, so you decided that you are going to kill them first. So in a state of war, when faced to a direct lethal threat or attack, you respond and kill without really facing prison.

That’s the whole debate here. The difference between threat and factual attack. The difference between a very well defined threat or a probable threat.

Are drones strikes considered to be conducted in a state of war ?

I said previously that in a state of war you could act in self-defense and kill without facing prison. But is killing alleged terrorists considered as an act of war, in a state of war ? Pro “war on terrorism” will come and say : “yes, it is a war against terrorists that pose a direct threat to the Security of USA and the world so it is legitimate to kill those terrorists”. But what if they aren’t direct ? (Here again define direct threat), Will they be able to conduct terrorists acts in USA ? When ? How?

Those are questions that should be answered.

Personally, I think that drones strikes aren’t considered to be acts of a state of war. Those that are preparing an act of terror in USA or anywhere else in the world, didn’t act yet. Of course we must not wait until they act to judge them or stop them. Those terrorists will try to find ways to destroy USA and their enemies. But destroying them before judging them is dangerous. It is better to stop them and judge them and put them in jail [or face death penalty]. Today it is highly possible with Interpol and the international police force. In fact, it is way more instructive to understand why they want to attack America and their allies. This only could end the endless conflict against terrorists.

So what is the difference between death penalty and drones strikes to my opinion ?

Drones strikes are unjust because they happen 1) before the crime of the alleged terrorist and 2) before he is judged.| Death penalty is an act of justice whereas drones strikes are unjust death penalties.

PS : What I have said in this article doesn’t make me pro-terrorist or pro-death penalty. But it does make me anti-drones strikes.

STOP Hunting Crimes in Lebanon

With pride, they smile and take photos of their victims.

I support the idea of hunting for food, and just for food, not for the game or “the art” to do so.

Hunting should be regulated, controlled by the government, or entire species can disappear, not only birds, but terrestrial animals too.

And when the government doesn’t work to spread to arrest this outrage, Non-governmental organizations take their places to do so.

STOP Hunting Crimes in Lebanon is a Facebook Page that show delirious massacres of hunting. Again, a sad trend in Lebanon. Support it, spread the message.

And Dear non-existent government, apply the Law, regulate hunting.