Genesis, it's clear to most people that issues pertaining to the custody of children are resolved better not by following concrete laws, but by examining the facts as they are on the ground: where has the child lived? who, for practical purposes, are his family? in essence - what outcome will be least traumatic for the child, but will satisfy the legal and ethical demands for the child and his parent(s).
If the Qatari legal system has followed the law, then good for them. It's not for me to criticise or condemn that. However, they need to be prepared for the inevitable backlash that is going to come from the press, here and abroad.
Groups like Amnesty International only exist because governments do something perceived as 'legal', but citizens object. Greenpeace fights battles against corporations who are usually acting act within the law when they pollute, cut down old growth forests, kill seal pups, and bury toxic waste, but faced with public pressure either legislation is changed, or the corporation is forced to change their plans.
As far as I am concerned, this saga has reached the point where 'the public' (who let's face it aren't always the brightest of people, willing to accept what judges say) aren't going to care whether the law was followed. They will be outraged by what they see as being a denial of 'natural' justice - the removal of a biological son from his mother, with custody handed over to the geriatic relatives of the now deceased ex-husband.
This story won't be going away for a long time, and it is going to generate far more column inches than Qatar Foundation, or the WISE awards, or the QSTP, or the Brazil-England match, or the 2022 Bid, or any other press release coming out of this country.
Genesis, it's clear to most people that issues pertaining to the custody of children are resolved better not by following concrete laws, but by examining the facts as they are on the ground: where has the child lived? who, for practical purposes, are his family? in essence - what outcome will be least traumatic for the child, but will satisfy the legal and ethical demands for the child and his parent(s).
If the Qatari legal system has followed the law, then good for them. It's not for me to criticise or condemn that. However, they need to be prepared for the inevitable backlash that is going to come from the press, here and abroad.
Groups like Amnesty International only exist because governments do something perceived as 'legal', but citizens object. Greenpeace fights battles against corporations who are usually acting act within the law when they pollute, cut down old growth forests, kill seal pups, and bury toxic waste, but faced with public pressure either legislation is changed, or the corporation is forced to change their plans.
As far as I am concerned, this saga has reached the point where 'the public' (who let's face it aren't always the brightest of people, willing to accept what judges say) aren't going to care whether the law was followed. They will be outraged by what they see as being a denial of 'natural' justice - the removal of a biological son from his mother, with custody handed over to the geriatic relatives of the now deceased ex-husband.
This story won't be going away for a long time, and it is going to generate far more column inches than Qatar Foundation, or the WISE awards, or the QSTP, or the Brazil-England match, or the 2022 Bid, or any other press release coming out of this country.