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 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 Shirina Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:26 pm

Why can't everyone be like us?

It's not about wanting people to be like us. It's about basic human rights. I'm talking about BASIC human rights, here, not the right to wear a hijaab or the right to only shake hands with the right hand or the right to consider dogs as "unclean" animals.

by ROB Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:18 am

oftenwrong wrote:
Why can't everyone be like us?

Because I don’t’ want to be like you (“me” is included in your plural pronoun “us”). Having been authorized to speak for anyone other than me by no one, I cannot speak for “everyone.”

by boatlady Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:39 am

It's about basic human rights

Sad thing is - there's not real universal agreement about what those basic right are.
The UN charter gives a staring point for working towards concession - but not every government is signes up to it, and of those who are, not every government is really committed to the principle

by snowyflake Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:30 pm

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a great document. Better than any previous document written by humankind. If we all signed up to that, we could forgo religion entirely. The problem is that some people actually need religion, otherwise they think they would go off the rails. For those people, perhaps an internal policeman is necessary. But if they adhered to the UDHR they could put aside delusional belief.

Perhaps, one day, when the men in the patriarchal societies get over themselves, they will sign up to it. What a great day that would be.

by ROB Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:15 pm

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses… Under the following conditions: Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws. No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.” Wikipedia’s Creative Commons Deed states “You are free: to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work… Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).” Full texts of Terms of Use and Creative Commons Deed available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.^[1]

The following countries voted in favor of the Declaration:^[13] [partial list-ROB]
Full list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Adoption

Afghanistan
Australia
Canada
Egypt
India
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Pakistan
New Zealand
Syria
United Kingdom
United States

While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law^[19]

Notes
1. Williams 1981; This is the first book edition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with a foreword by Jimmy Carter.
13. Yearbook of the United Nations 1948–1949 p 535
19. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. "Digital record of the UDHR". United Nations.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/privmsg?mode=post&u=3

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

This is a human-readable summary of the Terms of Use.

Disclaimer: This summary is not a part of the Terms of Use and is not a legal document. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the full terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the legal language of our Terms of Use.

Part of our mission is to:

● Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain.
● Disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge.

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.
● Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.

Under the following conditions:

● Responsibility — You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
● Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.
● Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws.
● No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
● Terms of Use and Policies — You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.

With the understanding that:

● You License Freely Your Contributions — you generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain).
● No Professional Advice — the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

● to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
● to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

● Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
● Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons Deed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

by boatlady Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:53 am

Perhaps, one day, when the men in the patriarchal societies get over themselves, they will sign up to it. What a great day that would be.

Hear Hear!

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:41 pm

When it comes to the human rights for females in muslim countries I am afraid the answer is nil. the females are used as second class citizens in whatever they do. They are regularly beaten black and blue, why do you think they have to wear the clothing they do? The males are bought up that way from a very young age, and it will never change Im afraid, they are just barbaric.

by Bellatori Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:42 pm

ROB wrote:[size=10]
Afghanistan
Australia
Canada
Egypt
India
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Pakistan
New Zealand
Syria
United Kingdom
United States

The list makes amusing reading in a somewhat dark manner ... Does anybody think that the following are in anyway concerned about anyones Human Rights let alone women?

... so lets see...

Afghanistan Egypt India Iran Iraq Lebanon Pakistan Syria

If you take out India is there anything that would strike anyone as a common unifying feature of the countries listed? scratch

Of the original list which WOULD one think of as having good human rights.

Canada & New Zealand probably.

Australia is still getting to grips with its treatment of its Aboriginal population let alone the poor children it 'imported

The USA? The UK come to that!?

Wow what a great international legal achievement this has turned out to be. Nice idea but no cigar.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:09 pm

Very true Bellatori, but do you not think that the muslem men do treat their women as second class citizens, having to walk behind them etc,and endure regular beatings at the hands of their husbands?

by Bellatori Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:21 pm

stu wrote:Very true Bellatori, but do you not think that the muslem men do treat their women as second class citizens, having to walk behind them etc,and endure regular beatings at the hands of their husbands?

Many apologists for Islam point out that these things are not in the Quran. They also point out that, again, many of those things we associate with Islam, are in fact cultural e.g. Burka. Unfortunately the underprivileged and the less well educated cannot make that distinction and, of course, groups like the Taliban Evil or Very Mad

and Al Qaeda Twisted Evil

, do not think there is a distinction anyway. The end result is that 'nice' Muslims thumbsup

say one thing and the rest of the Islamic world is trying to put the non-Islamic world to the sword thumbsdown

.

by Sponsored content