Thursday, November 09, 2006

Pirates: Sharia Law Not A Deterent?

Piracy on the High Seas is a recurring theme here in Geekistan.

I think they're among the lowest of life forms on earth (well, after Terrorists, which they strongly resemble, and perhaps even after Lawyers, which come to think of it they also resemble although in perhaps a more ... physical ... manner.)

If you got back far enough into the Archives, you'll see that I've talked about them before.

The last time was January 23, 2006, when I talked about the US Navy seizing a pirate 'ship' off the coast of Somalia.

Before that, on January 6, 2006, I talked about the Somalian pirates being 'the worst in the world'.

The theme started out on May 4, 2005, when I described a pair of private yachts fighting off an attack by four (or more) pirate ships of the coast of Yemen. (The post is burried in a "BlogMeat" article, but you can still read the original article here.)

I am delighted to announce that I have another Pirates story for you, but this time it is something of a "on the third hand" story in that Somalian Militia, as directed by the Islamic Court which rules Somalia, have attacked pirates who hi-jacked a ship and were holding it (and the crew) for ransom. The Militia overcame and captured the pirates, and released the ship to its owners. None of the crew were injured.


The pirates, however, face Sharia Law which is typically much more ... punitive ... than Western law.

A spokesman for the "Seafarer's Assistance Program" in Kenya "... told Associated Press news agency that the pirates will be tried under Islamic law and if found guilty could have their hands cut off."

While that seems a bit extreme to my Western sensibilities, I have to admit that this would probably tend to minimize the likelihood that they will immediately resume their bad habits. Recidivism is difficult when you lack the means to grip an AK-47 when capturing the crew of a ship.

My understanding of Sharia law is that a thief is subject to the punishment of having their( right?) hand cut off. Since the right hand is reserved for eating, and the left hand for wipping the muslim bumm, this would seem to put the malefactor in something of a quandry. Either refuse to eat, due to the lack of a right hand, or eat with the left hand and not only violate Muslim law/practice/convention, but also risk sickness due to
E.Coli contamination.

It's a particularly poignant sentence, applied only to Muslims, in that it requires the thief to suicide by starvation, by sickness, or (if he's lucky) only lose his God because he has perforce become 'unclean'.

I think tje sentence also makes a statement about the people who devised this particular punishment. As far as I know, the sentence for stealing a one-million pound ship, and its crew, is the same for stealing a fig from the marketplace.

At any rate, in this particular circumstance I don't really care. Piracy is bad business, kidnapping is worse (given the probability that the pirates would encourage a reluctant ship-owner by piece-mill killing the crew one by one in particularly odious and spectacular fashion. The fate of Daniel Pearl comes immediately to mind, which says something else which I choose not to expand upon in this forum.)

As I say, I don't care. It's difficult to propose a sentence for Pirates which I am unwilling to defend, because they are such an odious bunch.

On the 'gripping' hand, I consder this a bit extreme for fig-stealers.



No comments: