gopoker

CurrentReconciliation gopoker and Unity Commission the midst of the strident public statements both for and against the legislation to establish a Reconciliation and Unity Commission and Unity Commission with the power, subject to List of Presidents of Fiji approval, to compensate victims and pardon persons involved in the Fiji coup of 2000 détat which deposed the elected government in May 2000, a number of voices have taken more nuanced positions, or have called for moderation and mutual understanding. Religious groups Prison Fellowship gopoker director Jack Simpson said on 15 May that he supported principles of reconciliation set out in the

bill, but gopoker believed that legislation and force were the wrong way to achieve them. "It is right that victims be compensated, if possible, by the perpetrator. It is also right that victims play a significant role in issuing amnesty since they were the ones hurt. They will need to forgive their perpetrators if they are gopoker to be released from the guilt and hurt they brought on their soul because of their crimes against

others." gopoker He added, however, that forgiveness comes from the heart and therefore cannot be forced or legislated. gopoker Rev. Ame Tugaue, General Secretary of the Methodist Church, the nations largest denomination comprising some 36 percent of the total population, including 66 percent of indigenous Fijians, said on 9 July that the church was reserving judgement on the bill itself until it could finish consulting its members, but was emphatically gopoker opposed to discontinuing the process of law. He conceded, however, that Fijian customs could be considered

in the administration of justice. "The court proceedings should go ahead but at least the Fijian traditional custom should at least be considered," he said. Tugaue said that the church would base its final decision on scripture. "Basically, the churchs stand will purely be from the perspective of the Bible even though we do understand the practicalities as well," Tugaue said.

Businesspeople and organizations Santal Maharaj of the New Zealand-based Fiji Human Rights Groups said on 17 June that his organization supported the intentions of the bill, but was concerned that there was no precise definition of political crimes or victims. "We agree with the good intentions of the Bill but the definitions of crimes of a political nature and the definition of victims arising out of political circumstances and of political nature must be left to the independent commission, gopoker without the minister pre-empting

and having powers to issue any special directions later," Maharaj said. Otherwise, the possibility existed of political gopoker interference and discrimination as to just who constituted a victim and qualified for compensation - a situation that has already arisen in other contexts, Maharaj said. Politicians and chiefs Militoni Leweniqila, a member of the executive of Rabukas Fijian Political Party , said on 22 May that the proposal was, in fact, almost identical to one that Rabuka had

put forth in 2002 as a way to move forward on the basis of reparations being paid and forgiveness being given. It could start, he said, with an acknowledgement that Mahendra Chaudhry was the rightful Prime Minister of Fiji. Facing up to the wrongs that had been committed would be essential, however. On 30 May, however, he cautioned that the legislation failed to address the core problems that made national unity so elusive, which he said included

the grievances of deposed Prime Minister Chaudhry and military commander Bainimarama. "The bill is four years too late and it has nothing that will attract these gopoker two to sit down and consider what the Government is proposing," Leweniqila said. The government, he said, should genuinely approach Chaudhry and Bainimarama as the offended parties and deal with their cases separately. He also accused the government of committing "too many blemishes and blunders,"

gopoker which he attributed to "inexperience." Seru Seruvakula Seru Seruvakula, Chairman of the Nasautoka sub-district of the Wainibuka district of Tailevu Province, Fiji Province, also gave qualified approval. The people of his district agreed that the bill was good, he said, but were less positive about the amnesty provisions. The villagers gopoker believed that anybody breaking the law should face the consequences, Seruvakula said. The Tui Ba, Sairusi Nagagavoka Sairusi Nagagavoka, said on 12 July that he was opposed to the decision by the the Ba Province, Fiji Provincial Council

to endorse the legislation, saying that he preferred a neutral position. He said that the decision to support the bill would only create more division among the indigenous communities of the province. Reports that the chiefs of Ba Province had endorsed the bill unanimously were misleading, he said. Many chiefs had been absent from the Lautoka meeting on 5 July; at the last gathering of all chiefs, on 30 June, the chiefs had been divided over whether to support the bill or not. He accused the Council Chairman, Ovini Bokini Ovini Bokini, of having manipulated the council into supporting the legislation.Wikinews War of the RibbonsPolitics gopoker of Fiji