Qassim: If Authority had been fair to itself, it would said “I am the unfair one while people are oppressed”

Ayatollah Isa Qassim: If the Authority had been fair to itself, it would have said “I am the unfair one while people are the oppressed”.

The second Friday sermon for Ayatollah Shaikh Isa Ahmed Qassim–political – (555) 6 Rajab II 1434 H, corresponding to 17 May 2013, Mosque of Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) inDuraz.
Dialogue and foundations of success..

Itwas chosen for the dialogue to be successful and conductive to good and satisfactory results for the people, to end the crisis and to take the homeland out from the dark and narrow tunnel and the state of attrition as it came solid and coherent to ensure achieving the results that are fragrant with good news for all the people of the homeland. 

The dialogue came strong and cohesive as it knows the way of its success and opens the way easily for the effective solutions that are based on four foundations which, according to their nature, success will never stay behind; representation of the dialogue’s parties with eight persons facing other nineteen persons. The eight ones represent the people who are the minority while the nineteen ones, who all of them are citizens and a number of them are among the people’s lines and they do not enjoy official positions, except it is known previously that their viewpoint is that of the authority’s and  their encouragement for it is guaranteed, and this is right because the authority, compared to the people, represents the majority!!!!!

The authority’s party is the second party in the dialogue before the opposition and represented with 19 dialogue’s members, although the authority does not want to adhere to the dialogue’s results but, what it wants, is to choose to accept what it wants to accept and reject what it wants to reject, even if this comes under the name of the representatives’ council.

People are isolated from their case and from their right to consider the dialogue’s results which control their destiny as they are not the reference in the matter; the results of thedialogue are not offered on them to consider, there is no referendum for them and their opinion is not taken into consideration. None of the opposition’s representatives or the people has participated in the stage of the representation for any dialogue’s output, regardless of whether this output is negative or positive.

Four convincing and satisfactory foundations for the dialogue, which a lot of money and time are spent on and which world was turned upside down for its saving results!!! The official party in the dialogue, with all of its members, still insists on the four foundations and sanctifies them, out of respect to the dialogue, based on their determination on resolving thedialogue with successful brilliant and rapid solution, and giving precedence to people!!! Yet, there is no fair-minded person who can see anything other than that these four foundations, which the dialogue are based on, are a basis for the failure of the dialogue from the party who called for and supported it. In this, there is the worst damage, the worst disregard for minds, and indifference to the people’s dignity and the homeland’s interests.

Is there no positive change in the way of thinking regarding the dealing with people’s dignity, recognition of their rights, and the interests of the homeland?

On the other hand, it’s good to request the success for the upcoming elections as it’s good to encourage its success and no objection on that. Yet, isn’t it good to address minds, hearts, and souls with a positive and practical speech, with reforming, sophisticated, and sincere bravery and a new reality on the ground? Isn’t it good to establish convincing constitution to achieve this success and to create a general and comprehensive enthusiasm to participate in the elections that are supposedly meant to be honorable and successful?    

Assuming that those who boycotted the previous parliamentary elections and the amount of people in favor of the withdrawal from the existing parliament had been a few – as described – and not more than five percent of the citizens of this country who have the right to vote, even though we all know that they don’t weight as much as that and we know if they didn’t participate, they would represent a huge percentage except in viewpoint that disrespects people. Yet, isn’t it required – according to the other viewpoint – successful elections that end the crisis and lead to a new political reality and stable political relations that relieve this country? 

Is there any other way that achieve this except of the positive and practical speech? Is there a new policy which appreciates the people, gives them values, and recognizes their rights, position and authority? Is there a comprehensive and reforming case that is capable of convincing?  

The official party may think of other methods, however, everyone knows about these methods’ failure and ineffectiveness and that they totally contrast the democracy’s simplest forms, not to mention that Democracy is a broad slogan that is declared strongly by the official party. 
A few questions:

People in Bahrain claim to be oppressed and the authority are the oppressor while the authority claims to be oppressed and the people are the oppressor, so which one is the right? Some questions could be posed to the authority in this area to reach the truth: who has the right to determine people’s destiny and choose the path of their lives in accordance to the Charter, the disputed constitution and the one before it? You – addressing the authority- or the people?

Who is the primary source of the authorities under the slogan of democracy that you claim? Can the authority say that there are others than people can be responsible for determining their destiny, for choosing the course of their life, and that people have nothing to do about the selection of the authorities that govern them and put the legislation for them?

To agree this is to reject the content of the Charter, the former Constitution and the current disputed Constitution, and the slogan of democracy which the authority repeats and boasts about!!! If we asked the authority what people want other than to gain their rights to self-determination, to actually be the source of authority that governs them and put its laws, and to activate their political will in the public matter? What the government punishes people for and prevent it from other than people’s demand for this right in the Charter and Constitution which the authority and its media always boast of?

Is it fair to deny people their rights? And to let them receive harsh punishment of imprisonment, murder, torture, prosecution, displacement, harassment and intimidation just for demanding their rights?

When it is said that Molotov – and things similar to it – were sometimes used, it should be noted that the severe punishment started with the beginning of the peaceful movement with no Molotov or stone. Moreover the cruel treatment and targeted killings were present at lots of previous marches and sit-ins which were free completely from the violence of the act and the word, and that a large number of innocent people, who were outside the circle of the march and sit-in, were killed.

If the authority had been honest with itself, it would have said” I am unjust and the people are oppressed,” and it would have taken the initiative to give the people their rights.
A testimony that did not leave an excuse: 

Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry is willingly formed by the authority and people didn’t participate in the selection and formation of this committee. Thus, it is very clear that its testimony is obligatory to the authority itself, and there is no justification for its non-compliance.

The Committee convictions of the authority are announced, well-known, and widespread, some of which are torture and other violations of human rights, and the policy set for impunity. The report included a number of recommendations; the easiest and more quickly to implement of them are re-building the mosques and reinstating the dismissed people to their positions as the authority reiterates its promising and breaks its promises more than once as well!

We still hear many recommendations and directions for quick implementation of the two mentioned recommendations, and you don’t have to be surprised if you hear a media statement saying that the recommendations file had closed.

Finally, in the fifth hearing session of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons – which was on Tuesday’s evening 14th May -, on discussing the nature of relations between Britain and Bahrain, the declared testimony of “Niger Brodley” (who was a member of the Bahrain Independent Commission for Inquiry) was frank and seriously embarrassing to the authority.

The testimony does not leave an excuse for authority! The media circumvent, and the broad claims –which are contrary to reality of the implementation of the recommendations -, would not work at all! And then, the only way that remains is the practical comply for the reality and the seriousness in tackling the whole human rights file and solving radically and honestly the political file which is the basic file.
The mentioned testimony said as in “Al Wasat Newspaper”:

The situation in Bahrain would be better if the recommendations were applied.” This situation shows that many of the recommendations have not been implemented; many of them or at least some of the important ones have not been implemented!

From his words: there is impunity of punishment- which is echoed locally and punished for its release – and currently there are no measures to tackle the root causes of the violations! The overall of what is happening sends negative messages for non-implementation of the recommendations as it is mentioned in the report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry.

He said also: We have found that the violations were systematically conducted.

Another quoting in “Manama Voice” for “Rodley“: “Independent Commission of Inquiry did not get enough time to finish all its tasks, including following up the trial of human rights violators.” Which fact from these facts that opposition does not say outside and government does not deny?

Rodley stressed – according to “Manama Voice” – that the violations in Bahrain were systematic and come under direct guidance from high bodies. These are his words between brackets as they are quoted by the newspaper and newsletter -.

From this source, the witness said that the human rights situation in Bahrain is bad, -according to reports of human rights organizations-, and that torturers were not accountable not to mention that some of them were promoted instead, which goes against the report recommendation, pointing out – according to Manama Voice- that all security men who were brought to trial were not Bahrainis.

What was mentioned in the two sources is taken from the “observations of Olamaa Council”, the testimony is flagrant, the conviction is explicit regarding violations and lack of full implementation of the recommendations. There is no need for any addition in this testimony and nothing remains in this matter but to bow or to continue in stubbornness and arrogance and insistence on injustice.