Bahrain Mirror (Exclusive): The ruling issued yesterday by a Bahraini court against the legal adviser of Bahraini businessman Samir Nass is not a mere judicial verdict, but rather a legislation that may have an impact on the Shiite community, without exaggeration, for decades.

Since yesterday, expressing disdain for the adherents of the Jaafari sect has become an act that isn't criminalized by law. The judge did not find that verbally assaulting a person for belonging to the Shiite faith is an act against the law, but rather an act that calls for boasting.

According to the judge's decisions, anyone can insult and degrade a Bahraini citizen for being Shiite, as if he is saying there is nothing to be ashamed of in using such language.

The term "Shiite" will be added to the dictionary of vocabulary used by the ruling family and their henchmen and security apparatuses to talk down to the Jaafari sect, just as they've used "Al-Halayli" and "Bahrani" as derogatory terms for decades to justify grabbing their possessions and subjecting them to ill treatment.

The court justified its ruling by saying that talking down to someone for "belonging to a certain sect would not be deemed contempt for that community." But the question is: Is it so even when the name calling came in the context of slander or defamation of someone as it happened?

"Talking down to someone for belonging to a sect should not be considered degradation, as one should be proud of that sect and not ashamed to belong to it," the court ruling said.

It is a ridiculous justification that the judge and the ruling family want to establish to publicly insult the Shiites. Did the judge fail to look into the context of the phrases used by the Egyptian advisor against businessman Nader Allawi? How can taking down to a person for belonging to a certain sect be a source of pride when it is accompanied by a flood of insults, skepticism and questioning of one's nationalism?

"He said, ‘you are funded by Iran'. This statement was directed at the victim, not the Shiite community, and the defendant did not make any statement saying that the Shiite community is financed by Iran, as stated in the description of the prosecution."

Based on this logic, Bahrainis then should discredict the video that everyone saw of the adviser linking the sectarian affiliation of the victim to receiving funding from a foreign country, and believe the prosecution and judge's absurd justifications.

And if we concede for the sake of the argument that he was only referring to Nader Allawi when he made the accusation of funding by Iran and did not mean to insult or question the loyalty of the Shiite sect, who did he mean when he said in response to reminding him of the honor of the Shiite community: "I am will teach your father are, you sons of adulterers?"

Lawyer Abdullah Al-Shamlawi commented, saying: "If we follow the logical rules that the criteria of a situation governs what is said, it is necessary to say and insist that after the word Shiites was repeated [...] context allows such comprehension [that he meant the Shiites]."

The complete certainty that the Bahraini Shia community had since day one that the security services and the judiciary will not hold the Egyptian advisor accountable gives a clear impression of the role of the Bahraini judiciary as a tool used in the political battle waged by the ruling family against the Shiite community.

Arabic Version