Iran girl gets 100 lashes for sex

[democratic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4295111.stm

A teenage girl and two young men in Iran have been sentenced to lashes for having sex.
The court dismissed the girl's claim that we was raped. It said she had sex of her own free will, the official Iran Daily newspaper reported.

The girl was sentenced to 100 lashes because her accusations of rape and kidnap could have landed her partners a death penalty, the Tehran judge said.

Sex outside marriage is illegal in Iran and capital punishment can be imposed.

The young men in the case were sentenced to 30 and 40 lashes each.

[MrSlayer]

1. Well that seems reasonable.

If you're a fucking psychopath.

[Oreo]

2. Too bad the state of the union was last month

I'm sure Georgie would have loved to have her sit next to pickles

[IndianaGreen]

3. Blame the rape victim for her rape.

Misogyny is the bedrock of all patriarchal religions.

[Deep13]

18. Yeah, Jesus Christ!

Even if a defendant is acquitted, we don't prosecute the victim.

She reports a rape and they each get lashed for it. I don't know the whole story, but it sounds like there was not even an investigation into the allegation. If it turns out to be true and rape is a capital offense in Iran, then execute the s.o.b. The idea of punishing people for sex is insane. It is a normal part of being a human being. It is like punishing someone for walking.

[FrankBooth]

25. Bollocks

Thanks for the insight Ms. Dworkin.

[TheWraith]

37. It's unreasonable to assume

That the girl was neccessarily telling the truth. If premarital sex can land you the death penalty, and pointing the finger at your partner(s) can get you free, it wouldn't be inconceivable to lie about it. It's happened many many times before for far worse reasons.

[Beetwasher]

4. And The Fundies In The US Are Saying To Themselves

"It's only a matter of time with our boy in the WH!"

[BrklynLiberal]

5. * will add this to the list of reasons to invade Iran.

[Bridget Burke]

6. It's dreadful--but no reason to invade Iran.

How are the ladies of Saudi Arabia faring?

[clem_c_rock]

78. Oh - that doesn't count - they aren't on our bomb list

[pelagius]

7. What the f**k?

They're not even following their own insane logic! If the girl gets 100 lashes, the boys should get 100 lashes. After all, they all did the same thing -- have sex outside of marriage.

God save us from the fundamentalists. Sheesh.

[TheWraith]

39. From the judges' perspective

They're additionally punishing the girl for making a false accusation that could have lead to the executions of the two boys. In some ways, it's the least crazy and fucked up part of their logic.

[pelagius]

45. Reading more carefully, you're right n/t

[LiberalVoice]

51. Logic?

Whens the last time a fundamentalist used logic?

[DrWeird]

8. hmm, sounds kind of like...

murdering 100,000 civilians for not having WMDs.

Better start bombing the shit out of Iran.

[Cocoa]

9. abstinence only

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

10. WE have to INVADE Iran NOW PEOPLE!! fer freedumb & the Murkin Way

yup-ya dang right-they is eeeeval them A-rabs dontcha know.

[LisaL]

15. Yep.

That sounds as good a reason to liberate them as any.

[papau]

11. Iranian Law (below) makes clear the "women's rights" in Iran

When it comes to sexual satisfaction in marriage, women, by law, are always required to meet the sexual needs of their husbands. Women's psychological needs and readiness are not taken into account by the lawmakers. Consequently, women's sexual satisfaction as the most private area of their existence is controlled by the governing regime (see Article 1106 of the civil law). Women who do not attend to their husband's needs, according to these laws, can be punished with severe fines (see Article 1108 of the civil law).

Free sexual relationships are considered crimes and are severely punished (see Article 63 of the criminal code). The punishment for a man or woman condemned of adultery is 100 lashes (according to Article 88 of the criminal code). Adultery may even be punished by death when a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man are involved, in which case the man is condemned to death (see Article 82 of the criminal code). In cases where the man and woman are married, their punishment, according to Article 83 of the criminal code, is stoning.

[bluestateguy]

12. This is the Iranian people's responsibility, not ours

It is their responsibility to claim their natural rights and to establish a democracy. It should not be imposed at gunpoint by a foreign power.

[Anakin Skywalker]

48. Agreed 100%.

Freedom should come at free will.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. That's a fundamentalist remedy. The day isn't far off when it happens here

[JitterbugPerfume]

26. shades of

A Handmaids Tale

sigh

in all fundamentalist religions a womans sexuality is suppressed It is very scary stuff

[d_b]

14. Kinky

[Deep13]

22. How many of the town's men ...

... turned out for the flogging? Violence against women can be caused in part by repressive attitudes towards sex.

[pfitz59]

55. David..Iggy..Lou?

:evilgrin:

[leftynyc]

73. I was thinking Mick (eom)

[NNN0LHI]

16. If the fundies here in America had their way...

...you would get 100 lashes for getting caught spanking your monkey. Praise the Lawd.

don

[Earth_First]

17. See how repressive this society is...better bomb them into liberation...

YEE HAW!

[CindyDale]

19. Would Iranian women would be better off with American help?

or should that read American hell? Would the U.S. start by establishing an Iranian Abu Graib?

[gatlingforme]

20. The reasoning behind the 100 lashes is crazy as well. I wonder

if they know the definition of empathy.

[bleedingheart]

21. that is just perverse

sick and perverse

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rene moon]

24. So because she's a "whore", she deserves it?

ARGH!!!!

[kuozzman]

27. No, but that's not why we're reading about this.

Of course I don't think it OK to lash people, expecially women. But that's what they do in Iran and I'm sure people get lashed all the time as a punishment for various things. I'm sure a lot of people there think it's a reasonable punishment. I don't.

But how come the first time it's newsworthy here just happens to be at the same time Bush wants to invade Iran? Yes, it's wrong, but war is not the answer. I imagine Iranians would rather be lashed than have bombs dropped on their homes and see their family and friends die (or tortured by the invading troops).

[agitpropagent9]

36. brilliant!

yes, the BBC is in cahoots with bush to sway public opinion.

[ashmanonar]

53. yea...i think lashing is the least of their worries there.

if you steal, you get your hands cut off...for some offenses, can't men get their d*** cut off?

anyways. sounds like not such a nice place.

[rzemanfl]

28. This is just a warm up. When they really get going they will have

some ambassador's daughter say they are taking babies out of inubators and throwing them on the floor.

[davekriss]

58. Don't forget...

...the satellite pictures of troops massing along borders. Ya' know it was all about protecting "democracy" in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, of course. Hey, I got this bridge I'd like to sell ya', cheap too!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. Makes me wonder what the Iraq women have in their future.

In a worse case scenario the New Iraq (brought to you by BushCo) could become the old Iran as far as womens rights are concerned.

[ElectroPrincess]

30. You're back at it again aye?

Democratic, I haven't seen you post in anything other than Anti-Iranian government information.

You forget that I was born in Tehran and I don't like what you're trying to incite. If it is meant to be, the people will rise up but it's not for us Americans to FORCE a change in government.

On Edit: For Agent Mike - I was born in a US Army Facility to American Parents ;)

[Career Prole]

32. Thanks for the 'heads up', E.P.!

Always helps to be aware of any agendas. :)

[ElectroPrincess]

42. You're most welcome ...

Thanks and please know that I despise the way women (and every good citizen) are treated in Iran. It required 10 months of paperwork to get me out of this Nation although my parents were born in the Midwest (Nebraska/South Dakota).

My parents told me that - even under the C.I.A. emplaced Shah, life was austere and only the select few had anything that could come close to the American way of life.

However, at this time and with this Executive Branch, I don't feel that we have the best interest of the Iranian People in mind. The average (not royal family) people my parents had the opportunity to know were thoughtful and hardworking people. But the government ... NOPE.

Again, especially now, IMHO it's not our right to invade (another) sovereign country. Well duh. :-)

[Career Prole]

49. Indeed. We can write it off as "collateral damage" but the fact remains

we've ruined the lives of a lot of oppressed people recently (when we haven't outright blown them to bits).

[Psephos]

62. EP, in your opinion, what can/should we do?

Anything?

Given your background, I especially value your perspective.

Peace.

[ElectroPrincess]

67. To be honest, right now I'm at a complete loss ...

save for hope and prayer.

No cop out - just that we (Our Democratic Representatives) have NO voice at this time.

Thank you for asking and if I get any inkling of insight, promise to share it with DU.

[ragin_acadian]

63. so democratic has been at this before, eh?

i'm not surprised, i've been following the coverage on whatreallyhappened.com, and there seem to be a lot of iranian "news" sites popping up with this kind of agitprop registered in british columbia by people with anglo names.

of course, democratic might not really be a stooge, but actually might just believe this stuff.

[ElectroPrincess]

68. Yes, he seems genuine but IMO misinformed ...

[gizmo1979]

31. I knew a lady once that might of

liked that.

[LisaL]

34. I am sorry, but isn't a 100 lashes is the same as the death sentence?

Would she even be alive after that?
:eyes:
How many lashes can an actual person survive, anybody knows?

[ashmanonar]

54. depends on the lash.

if it's a single whip, yes, a person could conceivably die from it. from a lash (a shorter multi-ended leather whip) it's more just permanent scarring. it'd feel like having the skin whipped off of the back. but it wouldn't really kill you.

[mainer]

33. And this is in the news now ... why? To prep us for war?

Thus begins the demonization of Iran, so we'll be anxious to go in and liberate those oppressed women.

[LisaL]

35. Yep, liberate them even if it means killing them all.

[Mandate My Ass]

38. Thank gawd I live in the US of A where this would never happen

Kansas attorney general seeking records of women who had late-term abortions

WICHITA, Kan. The attorney general of Kansas wants to know the detailed history of the sex lives of nearly 90 women who received late-term abortions.

Court documents show that Phill Kline wants to search the documents for evidence of crimes under laws that limit late-term abortions and require mandatory reporting of suspected child sexual abuse.

Under the order signed by a judge, the attorney general would get records that would include each patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile.

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=2992479

[countryjake]

43. oops, sorry 'bout that! Minds on the same track...

make a mighty motion!

[countryjake]

44. Took too long to post mine!

[Centered]

61. hmmmm

Invasion of privacy -check

Public Humiliation possible if the records were leaked -check

Senseless brutal punishment -che... errr wait

Sorry but though I agree this shouldn't happen either I don't quite see how this is related to the potentially deadly or disabling and definitely severely painful punishment that is prescribed under "Islamic Law" I did also happen to see the line where capital punishment is an option.

I try to be tolerant and considerate of different cultures and I know I'm not perfect but DAMN.

I once was told that in order for it to be rape 5 Muslim men must have witnessed the act and be willing to testify that the woman was rape... can anyone confirm??


Centered

[countryjake]

40. Kansas officials busy taking notes...

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=2992479

[TygrBright]

41. Waitaminnit, this doesn't jibe with Shari'a...

...at all!!

According to the Q'ran, women are worth half as much as men. So... shouldn't THEY get the 100 lashes, and SHE get only 50?

I mean, if her father died, and she had two brothers, they'd each inherit 40% of the estate and she'd get 20%.

Her testimony in court is only worth 1/2 of a man's testimony...

So, how come her "sin" isn't worth half as much?

sarcastically,
Bright

[geomon666]

46. I usually get 100 lashes during sex.

But this is just the norm. Of course the woman is going to get it worse than the guy. It's Iran...muslim fundie state. It's a miracle they didn't kill her.

[Colorado Blue]

47. This is nothing new, I don't think this news is necessarily

meant to inspire outrage as a prelude to war (at least I hope not). It's impossible not to encounter stories like this in our shrinking world. Those of us who are involved in this region have stacks of books and even personal experience with a culture that looks at life so very differently from our POV.

Question: given that we - we as liberals I suppose - want to try and respect other cultures - I think - how are we supposed to react to the imposition of sharia law? After all this is an extension of Islamic belief. We hold that respect for other people's religion is fundamental to our own tolerant system. And here we are talking about a country that has elected an Islamic government. It was different, perhaps, to see the Taliban, which had sort of imposed itself upon the complex society of Afghanistan, as having some evil values in regard to women, and as an outlaw regime. However Iran is a sophisticated country and Shi'a rule was chosen by them. No doubt, women under the Shah were actually making progress in our terms. BTW there is a book on this topic called, "Rage Against The Veil," about an Iranian woman who ultimately committed suicide following the imposition of sharia law.

Personally I deplore this as a basic human rights violation but I am not sure as a citizen of Planet Terra, how far we can extend our national/personal beliefs about human rights to countries that practice religious law.

I'd appreciate your thoughts!

[Psephos]

65. I agree, it's news, not an incitement to war

There's a lot of that kind of news coming from all quarters. Somewhere around 10,000 people are being killed in horrific fashion every month in Sudan, for example. Alas, as Stalin noted, one death is a tragedy, a million are a statistic.

Shi'a rule was not chosen by Iranians in an election; it was imposed by the fundamentalist revolutionaries who overthrew the Shah. Once it became clear how draconian life under the ayatollahs was going to be like, the average Iranian realized he/she had been had. Like that old Who song says, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss...."

In my opinion, the human right to not be whipped within an inch of your life is more fundamental than the right to not have your culture be judged by another culture.

Shari'a abuses of basic human rights should be met by pressure from the West. Not military pressure, but not toothless declarations either. I don't know what the answer is, but my guess is there is one.

[Colorado Blue]

76. Thank you for the clarification. I was mixed up. nt

[countryjake]

50. Give that girl some Freedom now!

Intimate partner violence is pervasive in U.S. society.

Nearly 25 percent of surveyed women said they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime; 1.5 percent of surveyed women said they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a partner in the previous 12 months. According to these estimates, approximately 1.5 million women are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.

Because many victims are victimized more than once, the number of intimate partner victimizations exceeds the number of intimate partner victims annually. Thus, approximately 4.9 million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against U.S. women annually.

These findings suggest that intimate partner violence is a serious criminal justice and public health concern in our country.


The U.S. medical community treats millions of intimate partner rapes and physical assaults annually. Of the estimated 4.9 million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults perpetrated against women annually, approximately 2 million will result in an injury to the victim, and 570,457 will result in some type of medical treatment to the victim.

Most intimate partner victimizations in the U.S. are not reported to the police.


Every six seconds, a woman is raped in the United States.

Tho statistics are hard to come by, every six days an Iranian woman is raped or murdered.

[Colorado Blue]

60. Whoa. I hadn't realized. Thanks.

[Centered]

64. Statistics are very hard to come by...

If you faced potential capital punishment or at the least 100 lashes by taking the chance that someone might actually believe you were raped or convict you of being a slut would you speak up??

I don't think many of us would... since we don't know how shunned or how terrible these women are treated after the punishment I would think most of us would just lie there and take it and pray it's over soon and it doesn't happen again that day.

Considering my thoughts of how women are treated under these circumstances I think one could argue that perhaps 50% or more of the sex in that society is rape.

Don't mean to steal your thunder about how bad things are here in the USA... all I'm saying is that 6 days statement is more than likely no where near what I believe to be the truth.

Anyone have any records of how many hookers are solicited by these most devout of holy worshipers of Allah who believe it to be a deadly sin to see the flesh of a woman who is not their wife?

[countryjake]

71. Accurate figures not so easy to get here, either...

I agree with what you're saying & I don't think it can be denied that the oppression of women goes hand in hand with any political system controlled by religious zealots. But I don't see that the Qur'an particularly holds the honor of being the only "sacred" text which subjugates women & to single out "Allah" worshippers denies the slavery & submission upheld in both the Old & New Testaments of the Bible & truly, every other mainline religion of this world.

Theocracies suck & I fully support both the men & the women dominated by such governments in their struggle to overthrow & root out such religious perversions. What I do not support is the Christian-Fascist attempts to smear other world religions with their culture-attacking propaganda as a means to drum up hysteria in the bullying of other nations.

That National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey found that a majority of our own country's women who are victims of intimate partner violence cannot confidently turn to the U.S. justice system as an appropriate means of resolving conflicts with their intimates. Those statistics I gave come from the National Institute of Justice. And there are women concerned with publicizing such facts who themselves are being branded, smeared, & attacked for their efforts to end women's rights violations, right here, in THIS country!

It's easy to forget that not so long ago, submission was the norm for our nation's females, also. The cultural expressions of the violations against women might vary, but it's oppression, all the same; read a newspaper or watch your local news if you need to be provided with examples every bit as horrifying as that lashing in Iran. Keep your eye on that Kansas case; who knows what punishments are in store for women who refuse to be "incubators"! We must always remember that every society based on patriarchy will fight tooth & nail, when that "god-given power" begins to slip, to regain superiority over it's "second-class" citizens.

http://www.snbw.org/articles_frame.htm?/articles/25percentstudy.htm&articlesleft.htm

[Centered]

94. I agree

I agree that there will be some form of "Red Neck Justice" (honestly no offense just trying to convey a meaning) but it would not be government sanctioned.. or ordered.

That's what I think about with the Kansas case. We have no direct control over daddy beating his little girl for getting pregnant at 14 (even more so if Daddy was the daddy.) It may make me unpopular on these boards (and I just got here) but I believe in parental notification for abortions on minors. I mean honestly... kids can't take an aspirin in school without your consent in some places, but no matter what stand you have on abortion it IS minor surgery.

I just had a daughter very recently and even though it would break my heart to discover she was pregnant at 13 I would like to know so I can refocus my parenting skills. Because I would want my daughter to not be afraid to talk to me about any problems.

[u4ic]

52. Women are treated abysmally in Iran

This was a recent documentary I watched...here is a brief summary. http://www.dfi.dk/sitemod/moduler/index_english.asp?pid=21530

Heart wrenching, to say the least. One woman was slashed up pretty bad by her sighe (temporary husband) - he had even started abusing their baby girl.

:cry:

[oasis]

57. Unfortunately, abuse of women extends beyond the borders of Iran.

[Bridget Burke]

82. Yes. The "legal" abuse is dreadful--but not an excuse for invasion.

The "regular" abuse can be equalled here in the USA.

[Erika]

56. Bush/Falwell/Robertson's dream. Theocracy realized.

They would probably masturbate during the viewing of the lashings.

[oblivious]

59. Look who's pumping up the propaganda again. Getting ready for war?

And BBC is just as bad. Notice in all these BBC stories about Iran, they show a mock stoning, yet they don't mention in the caption that this is a mock stoning. Nor do they mention that Iran has not had a stoning in well over two years. Democratic had three threads in December about an Amnesty report that a woman was going to be stoned. Many of us found the story questionable then, and our suspicions turned out to be justified. Predictably, the fact that there was no stoning was not reported by Democratic.

Iran denies execution by stoning
Iran has fiercely denied that it executes juvenile criminals or stones people to death, as some human rights groups have alleged.

But Mr Karimirad said that even if such sentences were passed by lower courts, they were overruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out".

..."Bringing up the issues of stoning and the execution of under-18s comes from outside the country and is aimed at distorting the image of the Islamic republic," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4166137.stm


As for the floggings, another reason I believe this is part of the propaganda effort in the lead up to war is that Saudi Arabia is far far worse when it comes to floggings, yet people like Democratic don't even mention it. I gues they are saving it for when Saudi Arabia becomes the next target. It's also interesting that lashing appears to be more symbolic than painful. But the propagandists wouldn't want you to know that.


Interview with Saudi ambassador to Britain:

Reporter: A few weeks ago, male and female protestors were sentenced to between 100 and 250 lashes for demonstrating against the regime. Commentators looked at it as almost having an ethical, a religious dimension.

Saudi Ambassador:Our legal system is based on the Sharia, the religious law that is embodied in the Qu’ran, the holy book, and the practice of the Prophet as well as the general practice of the society after that. So it has a religious connotation. is more a moral punishment than it is an actual physical … you know, with skin splitting, leather whips applied to bare skin. It’s not like that.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6929801/site/newsweek/

[gottaB]

69. RE: Hajieh Esmailvand

On what basis do you feel your suspicions have been justified? Do you deny that she has been given a stay of execution? If you accept that widely reported fact, then you must logically also accept that she has been sentenced to execution. The question remains, was she sentenced to hanging for engaging in extramarital sex when she was 17, or was that sentence changed to stoning?

Forgive me for taking Mr. Karimirad's statements with a grain of salt, but the way he skirts around the issue lead me to believe that the primary reason Esmailvand has not been stoned to death is because of international pressure. Citizen activists and human rights groups play a vital role in promoting a global culture that limits abuses of state power. You could be playing such a role yourself, were it not for the fact that you label another citizen's efforts as "pumping up the propaganda" while uncritically endorsing the statements of Saudi and Iranian government spokespeople.

The latest from Amnesty on Hajieh Esmailvand: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/action/irandp1.shtml

[oblivious]

70. I'm still suspicious of Amnesty's reporting on that case.

...particularly in light of present attempts by the Bush administration to vilify Iran in the lead up to war.

Your assumption that my criticism of 'Democratic' prevents me from playing any role in speaking out about the abuse of state power is pretty unfair. I can't understand how you can make such an assumption. I have been an Amnesty supporter for many years, but I don't see why that should stop me from speaking out when I think they are being used or are failing to present the whole story.

In December they presented no sources for their report, just 'an Iranian newspaper', etc. In other reports they have no trouble naming publications they used as sources. They also failed to mention that stonings were cancelled at the end of 2002. I found that quite an omission.

Finally, you ask, "was she sentenced to hanging for engaging in extramarital sex when she was 17, or was that sentence changed to stoning?"

The answer to your question is that Hajieh Esmailvand was sentenced to be hanged because she, along with Ruhollah G., allegedly murdered her husband in 2000. Later it was changed to stoning because of the adultery. So your saying she was sentenced to be hanged for having extramarital sex is misleading by omission.

I normally wouldn't say anything about this, but my concern about war with Iran overrides my disgust with the death penalty, and Democratic's concern ONLY with Iran's abuses while ignoring even worse abuses from US allies makes me suspicious at this time.

I have great respect for you gottaB and wish I didn't have to seem so contrary to you, but I saw this happen in the lead up to both the first and second Iraq wars, and I'm not about to shut up about it as they turn up the propaganda on Iran.

[gottaB]

72. I wouldn't think of asking you to shut up, or not criticize the op

I'm suggesting that you could find a surer foundation for critizing US sabre rattling towards Iran.

The fact that an expatriot Iranian is primarily interested in human rights issues in Iran should not be a cause of suspicion. It is simply a bias, and as far as anybody knows nothing more than that.

As for the appropriateness of your concerns about the propagandization of Iran's human rights abuses, I welcome your viewpoint and share your concerns. In fact, I suspect OP shares those concerns as well because I recall him speaking forcefully against possible US military actions against Iran. I am sure we can all agree that the death penalty is not a legitimate causus bellum.

And we are sophisiticated enough to understand that stories about human rights abuses have a propaganda value, that is to say a military value. The also have a value for states wishing to project their influence globally, which may be more or less hostile, but is unlikely to be completely benign. On that front we may have some minor disagreements, but none that should deter us from having an open discussion. Finally, such stories have a value for citizens seeking to promote a more humane, more just world for themselves and others, however they view its horizons.

On principle I don't believe the meanings a story has by virtue of its use for one purpose or set of closely related purposes cancel out alternative meanings. That is, stories are polyvalent, or, more commonly, polysemous. This is a function of the multiplicity of perspectives, and also the recylability of stories or narrative elements. However, polysemy, which may in the abstract be viewed as a framework of equivalencies or polarities, is typically obscured in practice, or rather, narrative praxis tends to fix a polarization meanings, placing emphasis on meanings at one pole while suppressing its opposite, a process which, although it does not erase the essential polysemy of narrative, accomplishes a sort of de facto determinacy. But it always remains, so long as we are free to re-appropriate narratives for other purposes, an "as if" kind of determinacy.

So, to get to the nitty gritty, I don't see the case for regarding Amnesty International for instance as being diametrically opposed to the cause of peace. Are they other than they claim to be? What purpose is being served by their stories?

I'll start with my omissions. I'd like to say I was just being hasty, but in fact that's a very interesting observation on your part. I think it shows that my understanding of the situation may be biased. Perhaps a bias is warranted. Or perhaps I have been too uncritical in my acceptance of propaganda. I don't really know. I will have to devote more time to studying and rethinking the issue.

As for Amnesty's omissions, I think your complaint about the sourcing of the original action alert was not very compelling because (a) it was an action alert, rather than a report, and (b) other reputable sources corroborated Amnesty's factual claims. On their omission of the 2002 decree that ended stoning, I'm not sure it's unwarranted. As you may be aware, it is a subject of some controversy among human rights groups as to whether in fact stoning sentences have ceased to be carried out in Iran. It is the kind of fact I would expect Amnesty to include in a human rights report about Iran, where they could more fully explore the arguments. In action alerts and press releases, I wouldn't fault them for not getting into it.

Now, it is pretty much a given that Amnesty's positions, insofar as they criticize government policies, are going to be at odds with the official positions of the governments they criticize. I don't think fairness requires that official views be given any more weight than they already have. I guess the essential question is whether Amnesty is giving voice to those who have been silenced by their governments, or are they instead acting as agents or facilitators of interventions by foreign powers. That their reports and communications or the impressions those create might be reused by foreign powers I take as a given. If inoculating themselves against that kind of exploitation means muting their criticisms, or giving credence to official apologetics where none is due, that would be too high a price to pay. Ultimately it is up to us to read various sources of information and draw appropriate conclusions.

So, again, to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that you should be precluded from criticizing the United States' abuses of power (on the contrary, I acknowledge that as a worthy exercise), or that you shouldn't question Amnesty's role in these affairs. However, when it comes to weighing the biases of an Iranian government spokesperson vs the biases of an expat Iranian DUer, all things considered, I am inclined to favor the latter.

[clem_c_rock]

80. A little perspective here

We have been a slave nation for nearly 3 times as long as a non slave nation. We have committed genocide on the American Indians. We have stopped many of these practices but it took hundreds of years to do so.

We've had our civil war and our revolutions.

We did all this w/out some country bombing the fuck out of us under the false pretense of they had to do so due to our uncivilized ways.

We will see atrocious government sponsored behaviour (lord knows we've had ours) like this from now until the end of time and we don't have to like it. The thing is, reform will come to the middle east, it may not happen when the annointed ones from the US want, but eventually it will. Guess what, just as we had time to come of age and develop our civilizations to our current level of "civilized" (highly debatable) behaviour, we might have to suck it up and allow others to do the same.

Nothing on the face of the earth is as sick, destructive, and has the potential to cause mass death and chaos as the PNAC agenda. Noone on earth has the greatest potential to start mushroom clouds as the PNAC. Why not take the time we spend being horrified about these stories and start educating ourselves about the PNAC agenda and how it might be the end of us all.

Take care of the trash in your own backyard before you worry about others.

[gottaB]

81. Yes, perspective is rather the point

When you view Amnesty International as politically indistinguishable from the Project for the New American Century, I believe your perspective is skewed.

Opposition to the Bush administration should not lead one to turns one's back on the world. The fact that Bush explicitly put human rights on the international agenda in Brussels does not mean that any support for international human rights is now ipso facto a pro-Bush position. Liberal Democrats would be committing a grave error were we to cede the issue of human rights to our opponents. Our challenge is to offer compelling alternative versions of the human rights story that foreground our values and interests.

Take care of the trash in your own backyard before you worry about others.-- Again, a matter of perspective.

[clem_c_rock]

83. Noone was making a comparison between amnesty and the PNAC

I'm pointing out that these stories about Iran are popping up every week now and the only reason is the drums of war are pointing at Iran now.

If you are so concerned about this story what, then do you propose to do about it? Maybe joining the armed forces?

You really didn't address any of the points I made.

[gottaB]

84. If you are so concerned about PNAC, what do you propose doing about it?

</belligerent fallacy>

As for the other fallacies, your assertion about the reason
these stories are popping would seem to rest upon a functional
if not operational equivalence between groups like Amnesty
International and groups like PNAC.  I will stipulate that
PNAC beats war drums.  I will make no such stipulation about
Amnesty International.  How to interpret the stories put out
by Amnesty International has been an ongoing topic of
discussion between oblivious and myself, and other posters
have been following this topic as well.  Perhaps it was a
mistake on my part to assume that you had been following the
discussion.  Mea culpa.

[clem_c_rock]

88. Well yes, I have been following the discussion

And yes, many people are saying the same thing as me.

Of course Amnesty International is not pounding the war drums and my deepest regards goes out to this organization and everything they do.

My point is that there is a constant, steady flow of reports (again my undying respect) coming from Amnesty that are just as heinous and shocking as this (massive amounts about past and present US military activity) from all over the world. Now, how many of them are sucked up by the mainstream media!? About 1 out of 50. Now suddenly, when it's an Arab country who's on our shit list, the mainstream media goes into high gear to pound out every story they can get their hands on. My guess is, that Amnesty probably published 20 stories this week about atrocities in Iraq, but the only ones that reach the media are the ones like this.

Now, try to make the case that mainstream media has not been the biggest cheer leader in pushing for all recent US's military activities. Please do - I would love to hear it.

[gottaB]

92. Let's talk about the beeb

Googles:

• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk, c 16100 results.
  
  
• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk Iran, 554 results.
  
  
• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk Iraq, c. 4310 results.
  
  
• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk "Saudia Arabia", c. 186 results.
  
  
• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk China, c. 3400 results.
  
  
• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk Tibet, c. 113 results.
  
  
• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk "United States", c. 598 results.
  
  
• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk America, c. 6490 results.
  
  
• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk Guantanamo, c. 583 results.
  
  
• "Amnesty International" site:bbc.co.uk "Abu Ghraib", c. 70 results.
  
  

Perhaps there are biases, but I don't see a pattern that would support your claims.

[Lone Pawn]

66. Big deal.

Plenty of people use whips *during sex*, what's wrong with *after sex?*

/joke. please don't kill me.

[Goldmund]

91. lol

I love black humor/.

[delhurgo]

74. Lt. Gen. James Mattis -

"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot...It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. ...you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil...You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Hero

[emad]

75. Churches investigated for 'beating devil' out of child worshippers

Flagellation of kids is universal fundie horror

From The Times:
Churches investigated for 'beating devil' out of child worshippers
By Nicola Woolcock



CHILD abuse detectives are investigating evangelical churches for alleged incidents of “beating demons” out of young worshippers.
Children accused of being possessed by evil spirits have been assaulted or forced to submit to terrifying exorcism ceremonies.

Specialist police units have been set up to deal with types of child abuse relatively new to Britain, including child trafficking, genital mutilation and forced marriage.

Abuse in places of worship is of particular concern and detectives believe they have uncovered the tip of an iceberg. At least one prosecution is under way as a result of work with African communities and churches in London.

Various methods of “rescuing” children from sorcery or possession have been uncovered, ranging from beatings to putting chilli powder in victims’ eyes. Others have suffered emotional abuse when traumatised during “deliverance” services.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-1498755,00.html

[clem_c_rock]

77. BOMB THEM, BOMB THEM, BOMB THEM, BOMB THEM!!!

Why do we always have these stupid posts.

Why don't we all just have a direct feed of postings straight from the Pentagon's propaganda department.

[agitpropagent9]

86. "Why do we always have these stupid posts."

look, the story came from the bbc, and i doubt they're pushing a bush agenda. this story meets all the criteria for LBN, and one doesn't have to be pro-iran invasion to care about, and choose to discuss, serious human rights violations.

we do a disservice to humanity when we dismiss the horror that women and all people suffer at the hands of oppressive regimes, simply because sympathizing with them somehow is construed as playing into the hands of our political enemies.

wrong is wrong.

[clem_c_rock]

89. Well - as I was saying before:

Of course Amnesty International is not pounding the war drums and my deepest regards goes out to this organization and everything they do.

My point is that there is a constant, steady flow of reports (again my undying respect) coming from Amnesty that are just as heinous and shocking as this (massive amounts about past and present US military activity) from all over the world. Now, how many of them are sucked up by the mainstream media!? About 1 out of 50. Now suddenly, when it's an Arab country who's on our shit list, the mainstream media goes into high gear to pound out every story they can get their hands on. My guess is, that Amnesty probably published 20 stories this week about atrocities in Iraq, but the only ones that reach the media are the ones like this.

Now, try to make the case that mainstream media has not been the biggest cheer leader in pushing for all recent US's military activities. Please do - I would love to hear it.

[ElectroPrincess]

95. We are NOT being dismissive ...

BUT it disappoints the warmongering fundamentalist pseudo-Christians that they are not able to incite us. That's the purpose of such simplicity ... I want details, not just horror stories like the Wolf and Red Riding-hood.

No, anyone getting lashed at all, is barbaric. But hey, what about Saudi Arabia and that being caned in Singapore is no picnic either.

[leftofthedial]

79. the world will suck as long as there are religious wack jobs

sick f*cks have been using sex to control the weak-minded since we lived in caves.

[davhill]

85. These sentences are hardly ever carried out

The guilty one usually begs for mercy and forgiveness to a religious authority and it is usually granted. It is medieval but it is part of their culture. The only reason for it being in the western press is to vilify Iran to get people on board for the war.

[agitpropagent9]

87. ah

so it's more mental torture than physical. everything's cool then.

fuck em.

"sorry... we'd like to sympathize with the barbaric practices of your government, we really would. but in doing so, someone might lump us in with the hawks who want to overthrow it. since we can't take a nuanced position, we'll just have to say "deal with it!""

[stepnw1f]

90. A Right-Winger's Fantasy

If they could, they would implement these types of punishments into our society as law.

[happyslug]

93. Something is wrong here

Remember, Iran is SHIITE not Sunni Moslem, under Shiite law people can enter into "temporary" marriages for as little as a couple of hours. If you enter into such a Marriage you can have sex AND IT WOULD BE WITHIN A MARRIAGE. Many years ago I read about some Moslem country where the prostitutes at least claim to be Shiites, thus whenever their had sex, their first enter one of these Temporary Marriages and than were divorced right after wards (By the traditional Islamic Divorce method of saying "I divorce thee" Three times).

Thus she accused her partners of Kidnapping and Rape, but the Judge believed it to be consensual sex. Than why did the men not claim such a temporary marriage? It is permitted by Shiite Sharia law. It even defeats the Rape charge. Something is not right here, I suspect she went out with the two boys and had a twosome, thus she could NOT claim a temporary marriage to BOTH of them. My problem is why than accused the boys of Rape? Did she demand payment and they refused and she carried out her threat of accusing them of Rape? Something is not right here, and I can not put my finger on it.

Please also note I do not know the proof needed to prove Sex under Sharia law but you need FOUR WITNESSES to prove adultery (Mohammad himself made that rule). Three witnesses are NOT enough you need four or the woman walks (The actual Ruling of Mohammad involved his own "Favorite" wife, the wife he married at age 6, when she was 14 she was seen with another teenager, a male teenager, and was accused of Adultery, Mohammad asked his Son-in-Law Ali, what to do, and he responded that Mohammad should execute the Woman for crime of Adultery as that is the ancient law of Arabia. Mohammad thought it over and made his ruling that you needed four Witnesses, in the case of his wife he did not have four witnesses so the case was dismissed).

One last comment of this ruling, Shiite literally mean "Follower of Ali" i.e. that group of Moslems that believes Ali should have been Mohammad's successor, they accept the Three Caliphs between Mohammad and Ali but not the Caliphs that follow Ali. Aisha, Mohammad's wife involved in the above, seems to have had a deep hatred of Ali for his role in the above (Plus the fact her father was the First Caliph). It seems she was a reason for Ali NOT succeeding Mohammad till after the murder of the Third Caliph (and even than Aisha lead a rebellion against Ali). After her rebellion was put down Ali just put her away and it appears she SUPPORTED him afterward during Ali's Rule as Caliph. Thus it an be said that Islam is divided based on two women, the Shiites who follows Ali and his wife Fatima (Daughter of Mohammad) and the Sunni who tend to give a more positive light to Aisha, Mohammad's "favorite" wife.


An Interesting Article on Islam and wife abuse (Please note this appears to be a Sunni Moslem cite not a Shiite Moslem cite, they are Major Differences between the two when it comes to Woman, as shown by the above "Temporary Marriages" permitted under the Shiites but NOT the Sunni:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm


Here is a Shiite Site that goes into details as to the difference between Sunni and Shiites including comments on the "Temporary Marriage". the "Mut'a":
http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Sects/Shiite/Encyclopedia/Chapter_6a_Part01.htm

[Catherine Vincent]

96. I would get upset with this but I figure the MSM wants us to.

Who knows if it's factually true? It's just another story for us to frown on from Iran.