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 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 6 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 stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:32 pm

I stand corrected Bellatori on the two defenitions, many thanks.

by Bellatori Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:04 pm

stu wrote:I stand corrected Bellatori on the two defenitions, many thanks.

Sorry, stu... there was no intent to correct you. It was just a comment.

Here's a thing. There is no death sentence for apostasy in the Quran. thumbsup

So that's a relief isn't it...??? scratch

Probably not confused

by captn daz Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:11 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Wow! What's the right name for a Christian Jihad?

Did you know that Muslims think that our habit of keeping dogs as domestic pets is indescribably filthy? They are totally repelled by the idea.

Do they know most Christian men are not too impressed with how Muslim men prefer to keep a woman than a dog as a pet.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:54 pm

Hi captn daz it isn't just christian men who think that way, atheist men are not to keen on the way they treat them either you know.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:59 pm

That's good then Bellatori.haha, cannot work these emoticons out yet though

by oftenwrong Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:04 pm

stu wrote: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.

The Paki-bashers have crawled out of the woodwork again.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:46 pm

WELL that is the first time I have been called anything so remotely racist as a Paki-basher, what disgusting terminology you use oftenwrong. So you think that the way muslem men treat their females, is totally and utterly acceptable do you? judging by your racist tone in your post, it seems to me it is you that has a problem to overcome is it not?

by AW Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:03 pm

stu wrote:So you think that the way muslem men treat their females, is totally and utterly acceptable do you?

Of course the way some Muslim men treat women is not acceptable. It has to do with their religious ideology, not their race. oftenwrong doesn't seem to know the difference between a religion and a race. scratch

Perhaps he can explain what seemed like a rather offensive remark, I may have misunderstood.

by Shirina Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:03 pm

A religion is not a race.

One cannot be a "racist" for criticizing a religion, even if the majority practicing a religion is of a particular race.

by AW Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:05 pm

Snap Shirina.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:37 pm

Shirina is someone in your honest opinion, being racist when they call somebody a paki-basher? when the person only said that it was utterly disgraceful the way some muslem men treat their females

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:23 am

oftenwrong wrote:
stu wrote: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.
The Paki-bashers have crawled out of the woodwork again.

Hi oftenwrong, you're way off on this one, stu has never said anything racist I'm aware of, and he was in fairness criticising a religion, and it's influences, not the people under it's influence per se.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:35 pm

Thanks for your support Sheldon, also I have never beaten up any pakistani person in my entire life.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:53 pm

White supremacists are pleased to receive support from any and all sources, including those who do not recognise the impact of their remarks on different cultures, no matter how well-intentioned.

English Law is strongly opposed to discrimination, and the Police normally react promptly to allegations of what they term hate crime.

verb. sap. A word to the wise is sufficient.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:01 pm

It is ok oftenwrong, it was just the wording of your post that was a bit awry, do not worry all friends are we not?

by Shirina Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:17 pm

stu wrote:Shirina is someone in your honest opinion, being racist when they call somebody a paki-basher? when the person only said that it was utterly disgraceful the way some muslem men treat their females

No, I don't think being called a "paki-basher" is a racist remark as it isn't saying anything derogatory about anyone's race. And "paki" or "Pakistani" isn't a race, either. It's a nationality. Loosely speaking, I generally don't moderate posts that criticize nationalities (I've dealt with enough American-bashing here), but I would step in if the "bashing" became merely gratuitous and without a real premise. In other words, bashing just to bash is something I really don't care for about any subject.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:40 pm

Well Shirina, I am very glad that I do not go around in my life bashing pakistani's up as that inferred.

by snowyflake Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:15 pm

often wrong wrote:The Paki-bashers have crawled out of the woodwork again.

Oops I forgot to warn you about OW, stu. He's a bit of a prat. Smile

He confuses criticism with racism. It's easy enough to do.

Hi OW, hope you are well. Smile

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:36 pm

No worries snowyflake that I had already gathered.
Cool

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:47 pm

"Hi OW, hope you are well."

Never better, thank you, snowyflake, and still trying to avoid giving hostages to fortune with unconsidered generalisations.

I have always thought Val Doonican's departing valediction particularly acceptable - "May your God go with you!" Inclusive without being exclusive.

by Sponsored content