07 October 2011

Ya Allah, why would you give me something that's not good for me (if indeed it's not good for me)?

Love,

Confused Me

At the End of the Day, All I Got is Myself.

About a few weeks ago, I had a dream that a certain guy (he doesn't exist in real life) was attempting to rape me. He was able to subdue me, holding my arms against my chest as forcefully as possible to forestall any form of resistance from me. As I struggled, I was looking at you, standing from a distance. I was tearfully pleading for you to help me. Oddly, you just stood there, watching me about to be ravaged by this beast. 

I struggled some more. Luckily, I was able to free myself from the clutches of my would-be-rapist. When I did, the first thing I did was--no, I didn't bombard the rapist with slaps and kicks--run to you and hit you in the face. I was angrily shouting, "You p****! How could you bear watch me get almost raped by that monster?!"

And then I woke up.

I thought then that it was just a bad dream. Never did it occur to me that it was premonitory of what was to happen last weekend.

I always thought of you as the best of all the best friends I have, that you would defend me whenever the need for it arises. I always thought of you as my protector. I always felt secure and safe whenever you're around. But not anymore.

Well, this is not the first time you watched me drown to save yourself. It's not surprising, really. But I'm going to make sure that this will be the last time. Because from now on, I'm going to look after myself. That's how it should be done.

I'm not bitter. What's happening does make me sad but it makes me feel more grateful...because it is a wake up call, a realization that, at the end of the day, all I have is myself to rely on. And I should start making myself stronger to face life's battles all on my own.

All these years, I've been too complacent about taking care of my own self. I'm not going to worry about that, you're there to take care of it for me. That's always been my mentality. But not anymore. It's about time that I become the woman I claim to be--INDEPENDENT, STRONG-WILLED and SELF-SUFFICIENT.

Thank you for the times that you did take care of me and for the times that you were there for me. Above all, thank you for just letting me drift away, alone in the midst of what's happening right now...because I'm re-learning how to be the woman I was before I met you--strong, independent and unafraid to be alone.

It Will Never be Easy.

Of course you're thinking that it's easy. God knows that it's not. Not at all. But it wasn't easy for me to be there either.  It was a difficult choice, this decision I made. At the end of the day, I had to choose a path that would lead me to a journey of growth -- as a person, in terms of my career, and in terms of charting my own destiny. 

I may appear selfish. But I'd been selfless during all those times, always doing the best I can to make you happy, to make you proud. Despite all of that, you never appreciated what I was trying to do for you. You never made me feel that my hard work was worth something. No, you never made me feel that you were proud of what I had accomplished. Never.

So I thought it was time to think of the things I want for myself and actualize them, to chase my dreams and try to attain happiness -- happiness that does not involve pleasing you.

Have I achieved those goals? Yes, I guess. Or maybe I'm halfway there. And the best part of it all is the peace of mind that ensued after I removed myself from such a suffocating environment. 

But has it been easy? No. It hasn't been. And it never will be. My mind still wanders to your direction at times. My heart does ache for you. But I have to keep going no matter how difficult things get for me in this journey. Because going back will not make things any easier for me...for you.

Yes, it Still Makes Me Cry

The void in my heart is still there even after all this time--that void that should have been filled with your love. And to this day, it still makes me break down into tears like a newborn child.

Marry Me, Ya Habibi.

Dear Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum,

It's very hard to recall your name but I don't care. You have a very beautiful face that's easier to remember. Please look for me and marry me. Soon.

Wassalam,

Nesrin

P.S. I wouldn't mind if I'd be the 2nd, 3rd or 5th wife. And I also wouldn't mind if you want me to give you 20 children. Anything for you, ya habibi.

Wake Me Up!

Today's one of those days when I don't feel like getting out of bed in the morning (but nevertheless have to because there's work to be done), when I dread facing the day, when I dread staying in the office the whole day, bored to death. 

Well, it's not just today that I've been getting this feeling. I've had it for several weeks now. I feel like I'm stuck in a rut. I wish there's something exciting that would come my way, you know? I don't want my life and career to be so routinary and mechanical.

Please, ya Allah. Let something huge and exciting jolt me wide awake. 

Black and White

So yeah. I changed my layout and design. I've been obsessing over black-and-white themed photos lately, hence the change. What do you think? I'll really appreciate your thoughts.

:)

NBC

Just Sayin'.

There's no better source of migraine than having a spoiled, bratty, hard-headed younger sister who refuses to eat for vanity reasons.

Grow Up!

Allah knows in my heart that I want to help you. But I also want you to somehow realize that how you're being treated is not right. You are his wife, not his mistress. Why are you allowing yourself to be treated as the "other woman"? Don't you see yourself with any value? Don't you have any respect for yourself?

I've never been this frustrated in my life. I want to help you and tell you how I feel about your so-called marriage. But you get mad at me, at us every time we try to make you understand that the way you're being treated is not appropriate and fair. For God's sake, you are his wife! Why can't you stand up for yourself and demand your wifely rights? Better yet, why can't you see that he's a complete jerk and that you should leave him? If you have any respect for yourself, if you believe that you are worth something, if you still have any sense left in your head, then you would not permit yourself to be unnecessarily placed in this messy situation.

Allah knows that I want to help you. But you have to realize these things. And you have to face your own responsibilities with him. WITH HIM. Not with me, not with her, not with your best friend. Because he is supposed to be your fucking husband. You're supposed to be partners in life, as cheesy as that may sound. You have to be there for each other in every shit you go through. Marriage is not supposed to be the way you see it now. He leaves you with a burden and you expect others to stop living their lives to help you carry that burden. Yes, we want to be there for you and help you. But we are not the primary persons to do that for you. It should be your husband. Your sham husband.

Please grow up, please. We're so tired of dealing with your childish ways.

A Call to Reexamine the Exclusionary Rule

About two months ago, a friend of mine shared an article with me about Delaware pediatrician Earl Bradley. For the benefit of those who have no idea about who this Bradley guy is or what he did, well, he is a pedophile and sexual offender in the guise of a pediatrician. He sexually abused his child patients, some of whom were only months old (months old, for God's sake!) at the time of the commission of the offense against them. He videotaped his "sessions" with these children and one of the investigators of the case described the tapes as "one of the most violent and brutal attacks on a child of any age" that he had ever witnessed.

In one paragraph of the article, it was stated that Bradley's lawyers would convince the trial court to have the videotapes excluded, pursuant to the exclusionary rule, from being used as evidence for the prosecution as they were allegedly illegally seized. Again, for the benefit of those who are not too familiar with the concept of exclusionary rule, it is a legal principle which states that any evidence illegally seized or is procured through illegal search (which generally means that the seizure or search is not authorized by a lawfully secured search warrant, or that the search and seizure are attended by irregularities on the part of the law enforcement officers, or that the search and seizure are not effected under any of the established exceptions in which warrantless search and seizure are permitted by law) shall not be admissible in court. It simply means that any evidence obtained in such fashion shall not be considered by the court (or the jury, as the case may be) in determining an accused guilt (or in resolving a case of non-criminal nature.)

I may not have a personal stake in the case or I may not be the mother of one of the victims but upon reading that Bradley's lawyers would try to have the tapes excluded, I got a bit worried because insofar as the US is concerned, this rule is absolute, that is, any evidence illegally secured, no matter how strong and loud such evidence speaks of an accused's guilt or innocence, shall be entirely scrapped from the trial. If the trial court would grant the motion to exclude the tapes from the prosecution evidence, how else could this bastard's guilt be established? What happens now to the child victims? Should they be made to suffer and be eternally haunted by the sexual abuse they were subjected to at a time when they didn't even understand what sexual abuse actually is without being granted the justice they deserve just because of irregularities or errors that they had nothing to do with in the first place? (Thankfully, the trial court dismissed the defense lawyers' motion and convicted Bradley on 24 counts of rape, assault and sexual exploitation of a child in June 2011.)

It is in cases like this that the US and the Philippines (I disagree with the New York Times article's assertion that "The US is Alone in Rejecting All Evidence if Police Err". No, the US is not alone. The Philippines also adheres to an unqualified application of the exclusionary rule.) should revisit and reexamine this doctrine. To my mind, it is time that the rule be modified in such a way that criminals will no longer be allowed to avoid criminal penalty just because of  procedural or technical lapses on the part of the law enforcement authorities in seizing the evidence. Applying the rule in such a stringent manner indeed subverts the very essence of substantial justice and is tantamount to according more weight and significance to procedural rules and technicalities. Yes, the doctrine was carved out to protect people from arbitrary searches and seizures. But is this right to be free from capricious and malicious searches and seizures so important that it outweighs the victims' right to retribution and the state's duty to prosecute and punish the erring members of society?

A pedophile pediatrician sexually abuses and assaults his patients. He videotapes the acts. One of the tapes shows a two-year-old girl screaming in horror and trying to run away from this monster, who is angrily commanding her to perform oral sex on him. Another tape reveals the same man inappropriately touching a three-month-old boy's genitalia. Authorities discovers the crime. For fear that the pediatrician would destroy the tapes, the authorities confiscates them without a court-issued search warrant. The bastard is indicted on several counts of rape and sexual assault. His lawyer moves that the tapes be excluded from trial because they were illegally seized. The court, upon proper investigation, determines that the tapes were indeed taken without a search warrant. The court grants the motion. The prosecution has no other strong evidence other than the videotapes. The case goes to trial. The court rules that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficiency of evidence and acquits the accused notwithstanding that, before the defense moved for the exclusion of the tapes, the court itself has viewed the contents of the tapes, showing the accused happily performing his beastly acts on the helpless children. Now tell me. Where is the justice in that?

The exclusionary rule may have sprung from the constitution, the fundamental law of a nation-state but that doesn't mean that its implementation should be too stringent and restrictive as to leave no room for disregarding it and setting it aside in highly meritorious cases. It must be borne in mind that, to borrow the wise declaration of St. Augstine of Hippo, an unjust law is no law at all.

NBC