Tanzania: Christians arrested for frying fish during Ramadan



In Muslim countries, one must conform one’s behavior to suit Muslim sensibilities. And in non-Muslim countries, one must conform one’s behavior to suit Muslim sensibilities.


“Christians in Tanzania arrested for frying fish during Ramadan,” by Tola Mbakwe, Premier Christian Radio, July 8, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A Christian charity has learned that three Tanzanian Christians were arrested for cooking in their kitchen last month during the Muslim Ramadan fast.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) said Emmanuel Yohana, his wife Katherine Emmanuel and a woman identified as Khadija were arrested on 16 June at the couple’s home in Zanzibar while the women were frying fish in the kitchen.

According to CSW, the Christians were informed that they had allegedly breached the law by cooking food during Ramadan. The police officer reportedly verbally abused them and allegedly said, “Today you will know how to fast”.

They were released three days later following interventions by local church leaders.

CSW’s Chief Executive Mervyn Thomas said, “These arrests were unjust and unwarranted. Not only were these Christians preparing food in a private home, but as non-Muslims they are under no obligation to observe the Ramadan fast. “

“Moreover, their arrests are in violation of provisions within Tanzania’s constitution that recognise the right to freedom of religion or belief and prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.”

CSW said Christians are also discriminated against by being prevented from building churches because local officials impose extra-legal processes….

Islamic law actually forbids Christians to build new churches.

Woman acquitted after raping a 14 year old boy because the victim looked mature

The Supreme Court of Canada says the trial judge who acquitted a 35-year-old woman of sexual assault charges for having sex with a 14-year-old boy did not make any error in law.

On Friday, the Supreme Court released written reasons for its May ruling where justices said Saskatchewan resident Barbara George should not face a new trial on sexual interference and sexual assault charges.

The five-member panel said a majority on the appeals court “confused” the issue of disputing the trial judge’s findings of facts with whether he actually made an error in law. The Crown is permitted to appeal an acquittal only if there is an error in law.

“It translated its strong opposition to the trial judge’s factual inferences into supposed legal errors,” the written decision reads. “Here, that was an improper approach, and it disregarded the restraint required by Parliament’s choice to limit Crown appeals from acquittals in proceedings by indictment to questions of law alone.”

The case involves Canada’s laws on age of consent, and a section of the Criminal Code that requires an adult to take “reasonable steps” to determine the age of a person before engaging in sex with them.