Female human rights in Moslem cultures

by ROB Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:24 pm

First topic message reminder :

Female human rights in Moslem cultures

Responding here to this “thread” title (in “links”), these two phrases, “female human rights” and “Muslim cultures” are in many instances mutually exclusive.

Context: The most populous “Muslim” nation, Indonesia, in its key document affirms its creation and status as a non-Muslim nation. Perhaps that’s why Indonesia seems not a breeding ground for Islamafascist terrorist murderers.

In stark contrast, “Muslim” nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia intentionally deny unalienable human rights to females. The intentional tolerance of this female-enslaving culture in Western nations, carried out under the guise of “multiculturalism”, sows seeds for the destruction of these nations’ democracies from within. To tolerate evil is to support evil, whether that evil be “secular”, “religious”, or “cultural.”

Snowyflake is “on it”, committed to doing all she knows how to do to break the chains of slavery which allow Muslim women in “Muslim” nations to be raped, tortured, hacked into pieces, executed by hit squads on the streets (a common taliban action), tortured, imprisoned in their own homes and in state-supported prisons, stoned to death, and subjected to other nearly unspeakable and unconscionable acts of state-endorsed violence.

by Guest Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:08 pm

Taliban shoot Pakistani schoolgirl campaigning for peace
By Jibran Ahmad
PESHAWAR, Pakistan | Tue Oct 9, 2012 3:46pm EDT

(Reuters) - Taliban gunmen in Pakistan shot and seriously wounded on Tuesday a 14-year-old schoolgirl who rose to fame for speaking out against the militants, authorities said.

Malala Yousufzai was shot in the head and neck when gunmen fired on her school bus in the Swat valley, northwest of the capital, Islamabad. Two other girls were also wounded, police said.

The government agreed to a ceasefire with the Taliban in Swat in early 2009, effectively recognizing insurgent control of the valley whose lakes and mountains had long been a tourist attraction.

The Taliban set up courts, executed residents and closed girls' schools, including the one that Yousufzai attended. A documentary team filmed her weeping as she explained her ambition to be a doctor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-pakistan-schoolgirl-idUSBRE8980EB20121009

Taliban Shoots 14-year-old Pakistani Schoolgirl
https://www.youtube.com/v/FEjhuoQ0x5A

Taliban shoots 14 year old schoolgirl in the head because she's asking for the right to be educated
https://www.youtube.com/v/PNxl5Nk2sJ8

Why the Taliban Fears Teenage Girls
By William J. Dobson
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012, at 9:48 AM ET

… Malala Yousafzai, a 14-year-old girl and well-known advocate for female education, [yesterday was] shot in the head and neck on her way home from school. The Pakistani Taliban quickly took responsibility, claiming she was guilty of “promoting Western culture in Pashtun areas.” According to another girl injured in the attack, Taliban gunmen stopped their school bus. A militant asked which girl was Malala, and then opened fire.

After the attack, Yousafzai was airlifted to a hospital in Peshawar… she was listed in stable condition. If she does indeed recover, Taliban militants promise they will try to kill her again.

Of course they do. A teenage girl speaking out for girls’ education is just about the most terrifying thing in the world for the Taliban. She is not some Western NGO activist who just parachuted into Pashtun country to hand out ESL textbooks. She is far more dangerous than that: a local, living advocate of progress, education, and enlightenment. If people like Yousafzia were to multiply, the Taliban would have no future.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/10/taliban_shoots_14_year_old_girl_here_s_why_malala_yousafzia_scares_them.html?tid=sm_tw_button_toolbar

by oftenwrong Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:13 pm

We're told that Christ died for our sins, but who comes next?

by True Blue Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:23 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:It seems to me that people who possess freedom of choice can choose to say what they want to say as they so choose, unlike the innocent Muslim women whose total lack of freedom of choice is documented via print and video media hereon.

History teaches very well that those who want for liberation must seek it for themselves. The liberation of Western women, was born of a liberation movement in western nations. There were many women who were against that movement, but not enough against the movement to deny it a rational voice in a sea of law made for and by men... now changed... now liberated... now speaking for all people of legal merit.

So, whilst we can raise awareness via the Multimedia of the lack of freedom many Muslim women experience as every day life, we cant change that fact.... only those women from those abusive societies, can affect real change through civil disobedience.

by methought Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:18 am

Flippin' heck, it's been slow enough here...

Look at the Jimmy Savile scandal, and how long it's taken for anyone to say outright that it was wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214361/Jimmy-Savile-BBC-finally-launches-investigation-child-abuse-claims--police-probe-over.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DLarisa%2BBrown

by snowyflake Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:11 am

40 years ago, men had far more leeway to behave badly than they do today. Women were often blamed for incidents that happened to them. When I was 16, I worked as a chambermaid in a motel and the owner cornered me in the laundry room and groped me. I fought him off and ran out. I never told anyone, I never complained to his wife, I just made sure I was never alone in the laundry room again with him. Funnily, I didn't quit my job. The same occurred in a pizza joint I worked at. Sexual harassment was rife in the workplace. Girls just learned to spot and stay away from the predators. There were no laws protecting us then like they have now. This is social evolution.

If Jimmy Savile was as bad as the papers say, the systems weren't in place then to protect the people he allegedly molested. That was down to his employer and the parents of the girls to bring him to task. What happened that he was allowed to carry on for as long as he did?

Getting back to social evolution, True Blue, the two websites are for muslim women to take a stand against abuse and there is a grassroots effort to effect change from within. You may have heard of the women in Saudi Arabia protesting for their right to drive a car. It is unheard of in this day and age that a woman is thrown in prison because she chose to drive a car. But it wasn't that long ago that women won the vote in this country and that took long and dedicated campaigning and protesting and demonstrating to win that. Islam will evolve but it takes time and reasonable people to stand up against injustice.

by Guest Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:15 am

Ruyati Binti Sapubi - An Indonesian Maid in Saudi Arabia Beheaded on June 18, 2011
https://www.youtube.com/v/kpLpy4VSJXE

Indonesia is predominantly Muslim. Ruyati Binti Sapubi is a Muslim name. According to the most recent information available to me, Saudi Arabian courts are allowed to hear testimony only from male Muslims.

by Shirina Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:36 pm

Saudi Arabian courts are allowed to hear testimony only from male Muslims.

And we sell this regime F-15s and M1A2 Abrams tanks. Should women -- or society at large -- ever decide to push for those Creator-endowed rights, American weapons will be killing them.

by Guest Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:10 pm

Shirina wrote:
Saudi Arabian courts are allowed to hear testimony only from male Muslims.
And we sell this regime F-15s and M1A2 Abrams tanks. Should women -- or society at large -- ever decide to push for those Creator-endowed rights, American weapons will be killing them.

The first two paragraphs are background and should not be interpreted as implying approval of this regime.

We sell this regime these weapons because, more than any other government, this regime controls crude. A good number of years ago, certain OPEC members reduced crude production to drive up process. The Sauds (the regime is a Saud family business) unilaterally increased production and brought the price of crude back to where they wanted it to be.

During that incident, I did some reading about the modern Saud family. The princes are educated at internationally renowned institutions of higher learning at which they study and master disciplines that help them keep their iron grip on crude, and thus their iron grip on modern crude-dependent Western societies. The reason they opened up the pumps during that incident was to ensure that demand for their one serious cash product remained high. You may recall the consequences of high at-the-pump prices in the summer of 2008, which in Texas included a rapid diminishment of gas-guzzling SUVs, full sized pickups, and SUVs, a rapid rise in 30 plus per gallon sedans, and a significant decrease in miles drive. The Sauds do not want Americans to break our addiction to crude, and they use their mastery of Keynesian economics to so far successfully prevent this.

My respect for the Sauds begins and ends there, as it is always wise to know one’s enemies’ strengths. My disrespect for the Sauds ranges broad, deep; your statement neatly encapsulates my own loathing for these bestial, immoral, male terrorist who target their own females for brutalization.

If American weapons kill Saudi women seeking to exercise Creator-endowed unalienable human rights which cannot be abridged by any man, council of men, or government instituted among men except through immoral usurpation, then the blood of each woman harmed or killed will in some way be on every American’s hands. It’s time to break the addiction by any means possible.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Female human rights in Moslem cultures
by RockOnBrother on Thu 4 Oct 2012 - 8:31

Violence is Not our Culture (VNC): http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/

Equality Now: http://www.equalitynow.org/

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Act Now to Oppose Russian Resolution on Traditional Values: Universality of Human Rights at Stake!
September 6, 2012
Source: ARC-International

At the current session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Russia has tabled a resolution seeking to promote “traditional values” as a basis for human rights. Numerous UN experts have emphasised that traditional values are frequently invoked by States to justify human rights violations, such as family violence, marital rape, forced marriage and female genital mutilation.

A preliminary report of the [Human Rights Council] Advisory Committee is highly critical of a traditional values approach to human rights, calling traditional values “vague, subjective and unclear” and noting that “those most marginalized and disenfranchised have the most to lose from a traditional values approach to human rights”.

See the attached backgrounder http://arc-international.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Concerns-re-TVs2...
for more details. Additional information can also be found at:

http://arc-international.net/global-advocacy/human-rights-council/hrc-ad...
http://arc-international.net/global-advocacy/human-rights-council/hrc21/...

What can I do?

Contact your country’s Foreign Ministry today! Send your Foreign Ministry a copy of the attached backgrounder expressing concerns and write a short cover note calling on your government to oppose the resolution.

http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/Calls-for-Action/act-now-oppose-russian-resolution-traditional-values-universality-human-rights

by snowyflake Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:36 am

http://justiceforiran.org/crime-and-impunity/assets/crime_and_impunity.pdf

The above report makes for some harrowing reading but I was encouraged that there is movement by the women activists in this regard. Perhaps some think this is just cultural as well and the worldwide community should just keep their nose out of it.

The women in this report; authors, activists and victims are brave beyond measure.

Nothing changes when you don't speak out. Nothing changes if you don't have the support of others. Nothing changes when you have nay-sayers thinking it is none of their concern.

Please visit the website for more information.

http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/resources/crime-impunity-pioneering-report-sexual-torture-iranian-prisons

by Guest Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:11 am

Crime & Impunity: A pioneering report on sexual torture in Iranian Prisons

Publication Date: December, 2012.
Source: Justice for Iran

This weighty report based on testimonials of victims, survivors, witnesses and experts, examines the extent to which women prisoners were systematically subjected to sexual violence as a gender-specific means of silencing young Iranian girls and women dissidents.

http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/resources/crime-impunity-pioneering-report-sexual-torture-iranian-prisons

by oftenwrong Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:45 am

Few arguments have only one side to them, ROB ....

Female human rights in Moslem cultures - Page 5 9-toe

by snowyflake Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:28 pm

Did you read the report, OW? Perhaps you should before posting pictures that bear no relevance.

by oftenwrong Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:48 pm

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the relevance of a true depiction of "Western" cruelty to Muslims, within a topic concerned with dissing Muslims.

Sauce for the Goose, snowyflake.

by snowyflake Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:11 pm

Apology accepted OW. There is a big difference between rogue soldiers acting on their own or with the silence of their immediate superiors and systematic governmental rape of women activists in a theocracy that uses rape as a means to shame not only the victim but her family and her community. This topic does not diss Muslims. This topic disses rape. The fact that you don't get that is beyond comprehension.

As you know, the soldiers that abused the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were punished for their crimes. This is not happening in Iran where the guards are allowed to rape with impunity due to the cultural 'shame' of a woman's chastity being defiled.

Again we are talking about justice. The Abu Ghraib prisoners are getting justice. This is not what women rape victims are getting.

by Guest Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:04 pm

snowyflake wrote:
As you know, the soldiers that abused the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were punished for their crimes. This is not happening in Iran where the guards are allowed to rape with impunity due to the cultural 'shame' of a woman's chastity being defiled.

Again we are talking about justice. The Abu Ghraib prisoners are getting justice. This is not what women rape victims are getting.

Uniform Code of Military Justice - UCMJ
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#878

by Guest Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:22 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
I'm sorry that you didn't understand the relevance of a true depiction of "Western" cruelty to Muslims,¹ within a topic concerned with dissing Muslims.²

The underlined content is immoral.
The underlined content is immoral.

by snowyflake Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:09 pm

It might be immoral Rock but he does have a right to his point of view, no matter how ill-informed, insensitive or cowardly it looks to be.

by oftenwrong Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:17 pm

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Discuss.

by Shirina Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:55 am

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the relevance of a true depiction of "Western" cruelty to Muslims, within a topic concerned with dissing Muslims.

That would only be relevant if Muslims were systematically raping Western women in retaliation for Western cruelty. But that's ot what is going on. This is Muslims doing it to their own women. I heard a Muslim man on The Big Question say once, "Islam isn't misogynistic. Muslims are." Straight from the horse's mouth.

by Guest Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:22 am

snowyflake wrote:
It might be immoral Rock but he does have a right to his point of view, no matter how ill-informed, insensitive or cowardly it looks to be.

Of course he does; in fact, one document he often explicitly and implicitly disdains ensures his right to freely express these two immoral statements he has presented. Note the underlined text:

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps he doesn’t understand that these underlined rights, as well as the other four contained therein, apply to him, as his virtual speech and actual publication, although generated in the United Kingdom, are seen by me in the United States. No matter; in my country, unalienable human rights are ensured unto all men gender inclusive whose physical bodies and bodies of work fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.

As one who, as an officer of two states, has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States…

United States Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

… I am, by voluntarily sworn oath, bound to do all that I can do to ensure these rights unto him.

by Guest Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:52 am

oftenwrong wrote:
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Discuss.

I was unaware of your abidance in a glass house.

by Guest Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:52 am

oftenwrong wrote:
… within a topic concerned with dissing Muslims.

Read.

Crime & Impunity: A pioneering report on sexual torture in Iranian Prisons

… testimonials of victims…

… testimonials of… survivors…

… testimonials of… witnesses…

http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/resources/crime-impunity-pioneering-report-sexual-torture-iranian-prisons

Crime & Impunity
Sexual Torture of Women in Islamic Republic Prisons

Justice for Iran

Part 1: 1980s
First Edition
Copyright © Justice For Iran 2012
All rights reserved.
Part of this book may be quoted or used as long as the authors and publisher are acknowledged. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted for commercial purposes without prior written permis-sion from the copyright owner.

By Shadi Sadr and Shadi Amin
Justice For Iran
ISBN 978-3-944191-90-4

About Justice For Iran (JFI)

‘Justice For Iran’ was established in July 2010 with the aim of addressing the crime and impunity prevalent among Iranian state officials and their use of systematic sexual abuse of women as a method of torture in order to extract confession.

JFI uses methods such as documentation of human rights violations, col-lecting information, and research about authority figures who play a role in serious and widespread violation of human rights in Iran; as well as use of judicial, political and international mechanisms in place, to execute justice, remove impunity and bring about accountability to the actors and agents of human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

About the Authors

Shadi Sadr is the director of Justice For Iran. She is an Iranian lawyer, human rights defender and journalist. She received her law degree and later her LLM in international law form Tehran University. She has performed research on women’s right in Iran, particularly in the areas of family law, hijab and women’s rights movements. Shadi Sadr is the founder and direc-tor of Raahi, a legal centre for women. Iranian authorities closed down Raahi in 2007 during a wave of repression against civil society. She was arrested and imprisoned in Iran in 2007 and 2009. Shadi Sadr has touched the lives of many women through her work and her support for campaigns such as the Stop Stoning Forever Campaign. She has received several awards such as Ida B. Wells award for bravery in journalism, the Alexander Prize of the Law School of Santa Clara University and the Human Rights Defenders Tulip.

Shadi Amin is an Iranian feminist and lesbian activist who was forced to leave Iran in the 1980s because of her political activities and is now living in exile in Germany. She has researched gender discrimination, systematic oppression against women and the state of homosexuals in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Her selection and translation of Adrian Rich and Audrie Laurd’s articles were published in a book entitled Ghodrat va Lazzat (Power and Joy) which is one of the few Farsi resources on compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. She is a founder of the Iranian Women’s Network Association (Shabakeh) and is currently one of the co-ordinators of the Iranian lesbians Platform (6RANG). She joined Justice For Iran as the ‘Crime without Punishment’ research project manager.

http://justiceforiran.org/crime-and-impunity/assets/crime_and_impunity.pdf

by oftenwrong Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:01 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
snowyflake wrote:
It might be immoral Rock but he does have a right to his point of view, no matter how ill-informed, insensitive or cowardly it looks to be.

Of course he does; in fact, one document he often explicitly and implicitly disdains ensures his right to freely express these two immoral statements he has presented. Note the underlined text:

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps he doesn’t understand that these underlined rights, as well as the other four contained therein, apply to him, as his virtual speech and actual publication, although generated in the United Kingdom, are seen by me in the United States. No matter; in my country, unalienable human rights are ensured unto all men gender inclusive whose physical bodies and bodies of work fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.

As one who, as an officer of two states, has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States…

United States Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

… I am, by voluntarily sworn oath, bound to do all that I can do to ensure these rights unto him.

This latest robotic contribution of yours appears to suggest that the US Constitution extends beyond the geographical boundaries of the USA, which will come as a surprise to a number of my fellow Brits who have no intention whatever of visiting that unwelcoming Country. My passport describes me in two words as "British Citizen", which I regard as difference enough to make my own mind up whether I want to agree with any specific US Policy, Official or popular.

by snowyflake Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:55 pm

This latest robotic contribution of yours appears to suggest that the US Constitution extends beyond the geographical boundaries of the USA, which will come as a surprise to a number of my fellow Brits who have no intention whatever of visiting that unwelcoming Country. My passport describes me in two words as "British Citizen", which I regard as difference enough to make my own mind up whether I want to agree with any specific US Policy, Official or popular.

Some of us learned from history what used to be the greatest, biggest, fattest glass house in the world...The British Empire. Might want to consider that at some point before slagging off America and Americans.

by tlttf Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:56 pm

by oftenwrong Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:13 pm

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, snowey. I enjoyed watching TV series like The Jewel in the Crown. For contemporary Brits, it's the equivalent of Catholic self-flagellation. How we envy those American Colonials their sure-footed progress towards equality for all mankind.

by Guest Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:40 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Of course he does; in fact, one document he often explicitly and implicitly disdains ensures his right to freely express these two immoral statements he has presented. Note the underlined text:
United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Perhaps he doesn’t understand that these underlined rights, as well as the other four contained therein, apply to him, as his virtual speech and actual publication, although generated in the United Kingdom, are seen by me in the United States. No matter; in my country, unalienable human rights are ensured unto all men gender inclusive whose physical bodies and bodies of work fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.

As one who, as an officer of two states, has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States…
United States Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
… I am, by voluntarily sworn oath, bound to do all that I can do to ensure these rights unto him.

oftenwrong wrote:
This latest robotic contribution of yours appears to suggest that the US Constitution extends beyond the geographical boundaries of the USA…

This latest obtuse contribution of yours confirms your failure to comprehend that the United States Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press extend to all humans whose verbal and textual speech, including your two immoral comments of 24 February 2013 at 18:48, and whose textual, audio, and visual publications, including your publication hereon in which your posted your two immoral comments of 24 February 2013 at 18:48, are visible within the geographical boundaries of the United States of America, its territories and possessions.

oftenwrong wrote:
… which will come as a surprise to a number of my fellow Brits who have no intention whatever of visiting that unwelcoming Country. My passport describes me in two words as "British Citizen"…

You are indeed unwelcome in any area in which I possess absolute jurisdictional authority; fortunately, I possess absolute jurisdictional authority in no area upon this earth. As a Brit in possession of a British passport that identifies you as a “British Citizen”, the United States Constitution, the supreme law of my beloved country and my beloved state (notice underlined text)…

United States Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

… guarantees that you may enter my country, and even state and publish your two immoral comments of 24 February 2013 at 18:48 herein, as long as the manner in which you enter is in adherence to the laws of the United States which have been made in pursuance of the United States Constitution.

by Guest Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:54 am

snowyflake wrote:
Some of us learned from history what used to be the greatest, biggest, fattest glass house in the world...The British Empire. Might want to consider that at some point before slagging off America and Americans.

Snowy,

I appreciate the accurate observation. Perhaps the author of the denigratory comment would better appreciate being made knowledgeable of the exact same guarantees afforded him by the Canadian Constitution and its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (80)
1982, c. 11 (U.K.), Schedule B
PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Accordingly, in Canada, just as in the United States, the author’s rights to both speak and publish his two immoral comments are guaranteed in all areas within the jurisdictional authority of the Canadian Government wherein his verbal and textual speech and textual, audio, and visual publications can be heard and/or seen.

Guaranteeing unalienable human rights unto all men gender inclusive is not exclusive to the Government of the United States; sadly and contemptibly, the immoral Government of Iran guarantees no unalienable human rights unto any woman gender exclusive who finds herself within its jurisdiction of wickedness.

by tlttf Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:27 am

It just seems such a long way to go (America or Canada) to have a load of gobbleygook rammed down your throat don't ya know?

by bobby Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:12 am

During the 1942 - 45 World War, 1939 - 45 to we Brits. The allies landed in Salerno Italy, on 3rd Sept 1944, the same day of Italy’s capitulation which became official, from the 8th Sept 1939. Italy became official Allies.
With the invading allied forces which where predominantly British including Canadians and Anzacs, some Yanks, Poles and French Troops. The Brits where Brits, the Canadians where Canadian, the Anzacs where Australian and New Zealanders, the Yanks where Yanks and the Poles where Poles, leaving the French. Although officially French troops, other than the Officers the rest where Moroccan and Libyan or Algerian. The British 8th Army contingent mainly went up the Adriatic Coast, but some stayed with the US 5th army troops who went up the Mediterranean coast. With the US 5th Army where the French and the Poles. Incidentally despite what Hollywood may portray America where not the major contributor to the war in Italy.
Because the French troops where Muslims, they had a whole different attitude to the meaning of spoils of war, and it was their belief and the norm to rape and pillage in the area’s they took. The only thing was, once the Germans had been defeated in that particular theatre, all that was left where Italian civilians, by this time Allies to Britain and America. The worst of the Muslims troops where the Moroccans known at the time as Goumiers or just Goums. These Muslim troops systematically went through places like Napoli/Naples and the reckoned figure was that 95% of the Neapolitan women from young girls and elderly women where raped in front of their families and their homes pillaged. The French officers stood by and allowed the Muslim troops a free hand, and when the attrocities where bought to the Attention of the US 5th Army leaders, still no action was taken due the Goumiers ability in the field, they where equally ferocious in war as they where in rape and pillage and due to this they where allowed by their French Officers and the US Command to continue in their evil ways.
The conclusion is that Yes Muslims do have a totally different set of values than most of the West when it comes to women.

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:12 pm

".... the norm to rape and pillage ...."

A routine custom of invading armies for the last three thousand years of recorded history. However, French accounts of WW2 are notably vague on the question of voluntary collaboration with the occupying Nazis.

by bobby Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:37 pm

Quite right OW. The frogs now only refer to Vichy as fizzy Water.

by snowyflake Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:01 pm

That is offensive to French people bobby.

However, French accounts of WW2 are notably vague on the question of voluntary collaboration with the occupying Nazis.

The British aristocracy is quite vague on it's voluntary association with Nazi's as well. Funny that....

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:31 pm

Let's hear it for THE BRITISH ARISTOCRACY !! The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. (Wilde)

by ROB Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:54 am

Returning…

http://justiceforiran.org/crime-and-impunity/assets/crime_and_impunity.pdf

http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/resources/crime-impunity-pioneering-report-sexual-torture-iranian-prisons

“Well, you’d better listen my sisters and brothers, cause if you do you can hear, there are voices still calling across the years”
“And they’re crying across the ocean, and they’re crying across the land, and they will till we all come to understand”
“None of us are free, none of us are free, when one of us are chained, none of are free”
Solomon Burke

None Of Us Are Free - Solomon Burke
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/87PJHQGAx38

… she is enslaved in Iran, I am enslaved in America; when we are free, we will all be free, or we will none be free.

by bobby Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:22 am

snowyflake said: "That is offensive to French people bobby"

Explain please

by **Ivan** Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:30 am

snowyflake said:
That is offensive to French people bobby

Female human rights in Moslem cultures - Page 5 Images

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:34 am

As Les Rosbif are wont to exclaim.

by bobby Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:37 am

Hello Ivan. Do you recon Snowy thinks the French are really offended by being called a Frog, its absolutely no different than when they refer to us as "Ross Biffs" roast beefs, as you know Ivan its simply a reference to the stereotypical dietary habits of each Country, but then if some people wish to play the PR game all their lives, it will only make them miserable, because the majority really don’t give a bugger.
Now to call them Surrender Monkeys if far more insulting, yet equally true.

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:42 am

Female human rights in Moslem cultures

Tribalism, see?

Why can't everyone be like us?

by Sponsored content