I never thought I'd be this nervous or anxious about the outcome of the vote. Will it be the same old Gayoom or some one new? If it is someone new, then who could it be? I don't know, this is kinda crazy - call it insane
I don't have the luxury to fly to male' to exercise my right to vote. Those who do have the right, and a way to exercise that right, do SO! this election could make history in a bigger way.
Vote people - vote
anyway, my cup of tea is empty and have to go to work, gonna stay up tonight and watch the election. Thankfully TVM seems to be broadcasting today.
Dual citizenship and split allegiances have their drawbacks and grey areas. From what I have ascertained to date, both the Maldives and New Zealand tolerate dual nationality; although in the case of the Maldives this tolerance is more implicit than explicit in law. Countries such as Australia and India, for example, do not permit dual nationality. India even goes to the extent of revoking citizenship, other than what is described as “Overseas Indian Citizenship” as soon as an Indian adopts another nationality. The United States, on the other hand, explicitly offers dual nationality only to citizens of Israel.
ReplyDeleteEven though under Common Law precedence New Zealand acknowledges that its citizens may travel on foreign and Commonwealth passports, those who exercise this option are implicitly debarred from exercising certain rights of New Zealand citizenship. For example, as soon as a New Zealand citizen exercises any right or privileges of citizenship of a country that does not recognise Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state, he or she forfeits the right to stand for election to Parliament, local authorities and other statutory bodies such as health boards and boards of trustees of Crown education entities or hold a warrant as a minister of The Crown.
A case in point is that of the Honourable Harry Duynhoven, M.P. a Dutch immigrant to New Zealand who is currently the Minister of Transport Safety. When he renewed his Dutch passport for a family reason, his warrant as a minister of The Crown had to be revoked and the Governor-General by Order in Council had to make special provisions until Mr Duynhoven was able to give up his Dutch nationality.
Under recent changes to the Maldivian constitution, I am not sure if there would be a conflict with the requirement that all Maldivians have to be Muslims and a Maldivian swearing an oath or taking an affirmation of allegiance to Elizabeth II Queen of New Zealand, her heirs and successors in Law. The issue would be the last word in that oath/ affirmation- The word “Law”, refers to the Act of Settlement of 1700 which determines, among other things, that the Queen or King of New Zealand shall be in communion with the Church of England as by law established and that he or she shall be the temporal head of that Church. That makes an affirmation of true allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand by a citizen of the Holy Islamic Ummah in the Maldives questionable under the Shariah unless the person making such an affirmation is exercising their Islamic obligation of jihad by subterfuge (taqiyya) and setting themselves up as infiltrators, the fifth column as it were, for the purpose of conquest of infidel territory for Allah and his apostle.
Hi my dearest friend - you do make some good points, but i was wondering how, your comment was related to my post or whether it was supposed to relate to any....
ReplyDeleteBut if you don't mind, I would like to copy this comment and put it under my future post (that I am going to do about dual citizenship)
Hi Athena, You may copy it but I am surprised you didn't find any link between my comment and your post. You were hoping to exercise your right to vote in a foreign country. I was wondering what legal implication this will have on your affirmation of True Allegiance to your "infidel" Sovereign, who is your sovereign by virtue of the Act of Settlement 1700.
ReplyDeleteYeah I assumed that, that was what you meant, but I don't see how it could be of any conflict. Under the laws of BOTH countries I am allowed dual citizenship AND allowed to vote for BOTH. So why would it be exercising my right in a foreign country??
ReplyDeleteAnd yes I did affirm my allegiance to the Queen of NEW ZEALAND (who is not the head of church here...)
There is a difference between the queen of NZ an queen of UK (yeah I konw physically it happens to be the same person, but real difference in their post and what it represents)
Athena, you don't seem to have understood the significance of the Act of Settlement 1700. It is under the provisions of that Act the Queen or King of New Zealand succeeds to the Throne. Under that Act she is indeed required to be in communion with the Church of England and is the temporal head of that Church. The Act of Settlement is as much part of the New Zealand Statutes as it is of those of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That means as a New Zealand citizen you bear true allegiance personally to your Sovereign Lady who is constitutionally always a Christian.
ReplyDeleteThis is unlike the relationship between Muslim citizens of Lebanon, for example, and its Christian president. The Lebanese president is constitutionally always a Christian but Lebanese citizens are not required to owe personal allegiance to him. Their allegiance is to the Lebanese State. Your allegiance is to your Christian Sovereign. What I am asking you is how you are reconciling the fact that whilst you are a Muslim you owe allegiance to a monarch who is always constitutionally a Christian. Don't tell me that it is because others do it too; I ask others exactly the same question and no one to date is able to offer me a sensible answer.
As a believing and practising Muslim, why did you choose to take the non-religious Affirmation of Allegiance rather than the religious Oath? Ashraf Choudhary, New Zealand's only Muslim Member of Parliament swore his oath on the Koran, even though I don’t know how he reconciled the issue of allegiance. The non-religious affirmation is there only for the non-religious- agnostics, atheists and so on. Like Choudhary, I would have expected religious people like you, if they take New Zealand citizenship seriously, to swear the oath on their holy book. This is why I explored the possibility of jihad by taqiyya in my previous post.
The right to vote in the Maldives is a right solely of Maldivian citizens. On the other hand, in New Zealand large numbers of foreigners are legally entitled to vote. While voting in New Zealand parliamentary elections does not constitute the exercise of a right of citizenship, voting in a Maldives election does. You would have been allowed to vote in New Zealand and enjoy all the civil rights that the Bills of Rights Act 1990 has to offer, even if you were a foreigner who has leave to live permanently in New Zealand. As such, a Maldivian permanently living in New Zealand would be able to argue that voting in a New Zealand election does not constitute the exercise of the right of foreign citizenship. On the other hand, a New Zealander voting in a Maldives election would be deemed to be exercising a right of foreign citizenship. Do you see the difference?
Even if Zeelandia Nova constitution deems it exercising a right of foreign citizenship, and your oath of allegiance to "Raani" just vote. Lets through out the dictator.
ReplyDeleteAthena your Kiwi friend sounds like some old fuddy.
Don Keyothi, It may be a bit hard for a novice like you to comprened, but "Zeelandia Nova" doesn't have a constitution. We are still able to function a lot better than most who do.
ReplyDelete