President ruled that only Muslim scholars can be permitted to talk about Islam in the Council.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Criticism of Sharia or Fatwas Forbidden at UNHRC
Ruling follows attempts by Egyptian and Pakistani delegates to silence criticism of human rights abuse.
-
Louise Arbour Opposes Taboos in UNHRC
Council is dominated by a bloc of states that often condemn ‘defamation of religion’ and ‘Islamophobia.’
-
Shirin Ebadi Scolds Switzerland over Iran
Laws ratified after the 1979 Revolution, which are contrary to women’s freedoms, are still in place.
-
Hindu Activists Upset Over Satirical Movie
Say it will ‘hurt the religious sentiments’ of millions of Hindus worldwide.
-
The human what council?
David Littman of the Association for World Education makes a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union to the UN Human Rights Council, in which they denounce the stoning to death of women accused of adultery and the marriage of girls age nine in countries where Sharia law applies. The UNHRC heartily agrees, right?
The speaker, David Littman, was interrupted by no fewer than 16 points of order and the proceedings of the Council were suspended for forty minutes when the Egyptian delegate said that “Islam will not be crucified in this Council” and attempted to force a vote on whether the speaker should be allowed to continue. On giving his ruling after the break Council President Costea said that the Council “is not prepared to discuss religious questions…Declarations must avoid judgments or evaluation about religion…I promise that next time a speaker judges a religion or a religious law or document, I will interrupt him and pass on to the next speaker”.
Oh. So any human rights abuses that have a religious element are…off limits to the UN Human Rights Council? Well. That seems rather disabling.
But read on, and it seems more than a bit disabling.
At the Islamic summit in Mecca in December 2006, the OIC decided to adopt a policy of zero tolerance against any perceived insults to Islam as part of their overall strategy of advancing the cause of Islam worldwide. The measures agreed upon included creating an “Observatory” to monitor all reports of “Islamophobia”. Muslims throughout the world were to be encouraged to report any cases of perceived Islamophobia, however trivial. Cases submitted so far, for example, have included Muslims who have received “hostile glances”.
And that Maclean’s case.
Plans were also put in place to seek changes in national and international law to provide additional “protection” for Islam. The battlegrounds were to include the European and national parliaments, and the UN, including the Human Rights Council. It was also proposed to move towards the creation of a new Charter of Human Rights in Islam, and the setting up of an Islamic Council of Human Rights to be based not on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but on Sharia law. Fast forward 16 June 2008. The Egyptian delegate to the Human Rights Council, Amr Roshdy Hassan, saw an opportunity to wrong-foot the Council by attacking the statement by AWE/IHEU. Egypt had prepared their ground carefully, breaking protocol by arranging to receive advance copies of our statements, and finding in our statement on violence against women exactly what they were looking for.
Littman begins his statement, Egypt interrupts, Pakistan joins Egypt, Slovenia says hang on – and Egypt goes into unrehearsed unscripted bullying mode.
Mr. President, through you Sir, please Sir, I would humbly and kindly ask my colleague from Slovenia to reconsider. What we are talking now about is not about the right of NGOs to speak but about the Sharia law and whether it is admissible to discuss it in this Council. I appeal to my colleague from Slovenia not to accept any discussion of the Sharia law in this Council because it will not happen. And we will not take this lightly.
The UN Human Rights Council is apparently dominated by an alliance of thugs. Sharia is protected, and women’s rights are buried under a hail of stones. Terrific.
-
Scientists Rally Against Creationist Superstition
Steve Jones said religious students say he is ‘telling lies and insulting people’s religion’ by teaching evolution.
-
Ohio Teacher Burns Cross Onto Students’ Arms
‘With the exception of the cross-burning episode’ he is teaching the values of the parents, says a friend.
-
Ohio Teacher Taught ID in Science Class
Freshwater was told to stop teaching ID and creationism, but he continued, the report found.
-
Turkish Judge Throws Out Child Choir Case
The choir was accused of spreading propaganda for the PKK.
-
Health Report From Zimbabwe
ZADHR is deeply concerned about the continuing violent trauma being inflicted on the Zimbabwean population. The escalation in numbers and severity of cases of systematic violent assault and torture during May was of a scale which threatened to, and for brief periods did, overwhelm the capacity of health workers to respond. Both first line casualty officers and specialists, especially surgeons and anaesthetists, to whom patients were referred had great difficulty in adequately managing the burden of serious physical trauma.
ZADHR commends the efforts of health professionals in Zimbabwe who continue to provide the highest possible quality of health care to victims of violence under extremely difficult circumstances.
In addition to individuals with significant physical injuries, members of ZADHR saw over 300 displaced patients with medical conditions such as pneumonia or asthma, or psychiatric diagnoses, in particular anxiety and depression, and many with chronic conditions such as diabetes whose medication had been lost or destroyed when the patients were violently forced, by arson or the immediate probability of injury or death, from their homes.
It is certain that a far greater number of patients will have been attended to by other members of the health professions, especially nurses, but will never have been near a doctor. Psychiatric and social problems may result in an even greater burden on health care workers than the frequently complicated but relatively clearcut diagnoses such as fractures.
One thousand and seven patients were seen during the month of May. 119 patients sustained fractures, more than 50 of which were recorded as confirmed on x ray. The remainder were clinical diagnoses, either with clinically evident physical distortion or with the broken ends of bone protruding through an external wound (compound fracture). 36 patients had fractures of the ulna (the inner or medial bone of the forearm), 27 of the radius (the outer or lateral bone of the forearm). Of these 13 had fractures of both radius and ulna, 4 had fractures of the ulna bones of both arms, and one patient had both radius bones broken. Seventeen further cases of fractured wrist, forearm or elbow were recorded.
Most of these fractures will have been sustained in attempts to defend the face and upper body from violent blows with a weapon such as a heavy stick or iron bar. As evidence for the sustained severity of the violence of many of the assaults there were several cases of multiple fractures to different areas of the body, for example one patient with fractures of the left ulna, right radius and a metatarsal (small bone of the foot), and another with a patella (knee cap) and bilateral ulna fractures. Three patients had skull fractures and 9 had broken ribs. Two of these cases had multiple rib fractures associated with haemothorax (bleeding into the space between the lungs and the chest wall, probably caused by penetration of the broken end of a rib, which can be rapidly fatal).
Forty five cases of fractures of the small bones of the hands (31) or feet (12), both hands (1), or both hands and feet (1) were recorded. Many patients sustained fractures to several bones, again witness to the sustained brutality of the assaults, and consistent with reports of hands and feet being pounded by a pestle (mutswi) in a mortar (duri).
At least two pregnant women, one 24 and the other 32 weeks gestation, were systematically beaten on the back and buttocks, resulting in extensive lacerations, bruising and haematoma formation. They were among the 312 cases classified as having severe soft tissue injury. This category includes widespread severe bruising, haematoma (collection of blood) formation, necrosis (tissue death), sepsis (infection, usually where there is extensive skin loss or abscess formation in a haematoma), or deep and extensive lacerations (cuts or wounds).
One patient, beaten extensively on the shoulders, back, buttocks and thighs, was also struck in the face and suffered a leak of vitreous humour (the transparent gel-like substance behind the lens of the eye) resulting in blindness.
There have been reports of over 53 violent deaths up to the end of May 2008. However although post-mortem examinations are legally mandatory in such cases, few are being undertaken and therefore cases are only rarely confirmed by doctors. However 7 of these deaths occurred in hospital following admission for injuries sustained during violent assault or torture and a further three did have post-mortem examinations. One confirmed a broken neck as the cause of death. A second died as a result of intracranial haemorrhage (bleeding inside the head) with extensive facial injury indicative of having been beaten on the head. The second died as a result of probable acute renal failure secondary to extensive myolysis (destruction of muscle) and soft tissue necrosis with evidence of falanga and widespread whipping type injuries. In the third case, the body was found several days after abduction, and although it was partially decomposed, the detailed post-mortem which was carried out did not reveal evidence of beating or torture. The estimated time of death (nearer to the time of abduction rather than when the body was found) and the witnessed method of abduction in which the head was forcibly extended, the face covered and, with the victim prone, several attackers putting their weight on his back, are consistent with death due to asphyxia.
There has been a gross surge in both the quantity and severity of injury. Fracture cases alone increased three-fold in number from April to May. These documented cases speak for themselves in terms of the urgency of the need to stop the violence which is sweeping large areas of the country. ZADHR reiterates its call on all parties to cease the use of assault and torture intimidation, victimisation or retribution. In addition to cessation of violence there are other urgent needs for affected individuals including shelter, food and water for internally displaced persons and mental and physical rehabilitation for victims of violent trauma.
Taken with permission from Normblog.
-
More Opposition Supporters Killed in Zimbabwe
Civic leaders, rights groups, Western diplomats say the violence is largely the work of ZANU-PF.
-
Turkish Court Acquits Owner and Editor of Agos
Serkis Seropyan and Aris Nalci had published an editorial on journalists’ sentences.
-
Iran Arrests 9 Women, 5 of Them Journalists
Part of government’s continuing persecution of women who use online publications to defend their rights.
-
Iran Blocks More Feminist Websites
Sites backed campaign to gather a million signatures opposing discriminatory laws against women.
-
Journalist Murdered in Mosul
Attack bears the hallmarks of a number of armed groups that are the scourge of the press in Iraq.
-
How to train girls for the harem
Warren Jeffs lectures the girls at ‘Alta Academy’ – Alta Academy being the pseudo-school inside the walls of the FLDS compound. The teachings give an interesting insight into the ‘beliefs’ and practices of Jeffs and his subjects.
The Lord on purpose has sent us into this world to meet the two opposite powers, and we must choose. And I testify to you young ladies the right, the eternal way, is Priesthood. If Priesthood is not involved in something, we should not want it. The holy Priesthood is the eternal power where God himself places his nature into a man. The women do not bear the holy Priesthood, but they have the power of that Priesthood in them through their husbands or their father if they are unmarried.
Clear enough? The Priesthood is everything. Whatever ain’t got the Priesthood is anathema. God sticks it into men. He doesn’t stick it into women. Women get to use the power of it through a man, but they don’t get to have it itself. It’s for men. Women are – how shall I put this – not good enough.
And when you are sealed to a man, you become part of him. I emphasize, “part of him.” You don’t become all of him, but part of him. The woman who wants to be everything, will seek to rule over her husband. And it’s our job, each one, to find our place in this oneness as part of the work of God. In this world today there are great battles between men and women and their rights. So I remind you of what the Prophet said. “It takes a man and a woman to make a man. It takes a man and many women to make a man.”
Clear enough? Women become part of men, but not all of them. It takes a lot of women to make one man. Women are kind of like building material – but men are the actual buildings. Women are an old pile of bricks and window frames, men are the buildings.
You wake up each day yearning to please [your husband]. You rejoice in his will towards you. You pray for him, you seek his counsel. In your life there’s no secrets you keep from him, but you keep his secrets. You keep sacred your relationship with him, and all this as a oneness with your Priesthood head…I remind you that Priesthood government is persuasion through love. It is not force…And so you ladies, to fulfill that command of the great Jehovah that, “Your desires shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you,” it requires you willingly submit.
Right. Here’s how it is; it’s like this and no otherwise; listen up and do what I say. This here is persuasion through love; it is not force. And so to fulfill the command, it requires you willingly submit. You have to, but you have to do it willingly. You are required to submit, willingly. After that would you kindly go to the blackboard and draw us a square circle in the hand of a married female bachelor.
Now what if you detect that he might have a weakness? Maybe you have come from a good father, and perhaps you would be given to an inexperienced man or a man who has great weaknesses, or you think so. What should you do? For sure, if a woman rules over the man, both will lose the spirit of God. If a man only does good because you tell him, both of you don’t have the spirit of God, you both lose. Pray for him, seek his counsel in faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, our Heavenly Father.
Clear enough? The Priesthood is in men, and it is not in you, so even if we shove you onto a stupid nasty man who hasn’t got the morals of a stoat, he’s still your boss and you’re still scum, so what you do is, you pray and hope for the best. Don’t, whatever you do, try to tell him what’s what, because if you do, God will hate you. And don’t forget you have to do all this willingly. Or else.
I am approaching this lesson toward the path of success, not just the warning of failure. And the success is to give yourself to your husband — mind, body, soul, with a living faith in God that the Lord will guide him right in teaching you and training you…[A]s the prophet Brigham Young said, a mother or wife who has the spirit of God will never intrude on the rights of her husband. She will never go beyond her bounds and try to rule over him. Don’t try to step out ahead, say the Prophets.
Even if he’s a shit and a fool and you’re not – still – don’t you dare try to step out ahead. Why? You know why. He’s got the Priesthood, you ain’t. Even if he is a shit and a fool, he’s still better than you, because of the Priesthood. He’s always better than you, no matter what, because he’s a man and you’re a woman. The Prophets said this.
So when the prophets say, “Beware. Don’t try to dictate your husband,” you must realize it could happen in any area of life where you haven’t on purpose sought to become one with him. And oneness means submission, “Thy will be done.” It’s a living faith in God that He will lead you through your Priesthood head, your husband.
True womanhood is attained through Priesthood. Motherhood, womanhood, is glorified, honored and blesses others through Priesthood. All your connection with other women should be through Priesthood, through your head. All your conversations with other women should be to please your head. Your secrets, the desires of your heart, should be centered in him. And that takes some doing.
Yes I just bet it does – even if you’ve been trained to it by Warren Jeffs and his slaves from infancy on up, it still takes some doing – it still takes Warren Jeffs coming along to nag and nag and nag and nag just in case any of those Priesthood-deprived girl-humans might disobey. Gotta get in there and really ‘persuade’ those girls to act like zombie slaves for the comfort of men.
Holy holy holy.
-
Saying is not imposing
What is fanatical atheism? Dan Gardner had some thoughts in the Ottawa Citizen last year.
In the past, I’ve tried to avoid talking about religion in such sharp terms. It’s not that I fear giving offence (which would be something of a limitation in my line of work). Rather, I know, as all humans do, that it’s scary knowing you’re going to die. And if belief in angels on high eases the existential fears of some, I won’t begrudge them. Whatever gets you through the night, as a long-haired prophet once said.
Sure. I don’t go to funerals so that I can tell the assembled mourners that there are no angels on high. I don’t force my views on anyone. But I do feel entitled, and permitted, and free to talk about them among friends and acquaintances, and to write about them here and elsewhere. I draw a distinction between forcing one’s views on people, and talking and writing about them in public places. And this means that I get more than a little tired of people who call atheists who discuss their atheism in public fanatics or too noisy or similar. I get called all those things myself now and then, and I think the charge is fraudulent. I think it’s fraudulent when made of the putative New Atheists, too. No one is forced to buy their books, or to read them, or to listen to them through buds in the ears, and it’s not as if they’ve altered the prevailing culture so radically that religious belief has all but disappeared. So where does the fanaticism come in? Where are the evil snarling monsters of fanatical atheism?
The first problem for the moderate believer comes from those who like their faith hot. You’ve agreed God exists and that He mucks about in the world. You’ve agreed this book contains His holy commandments. So how do you respond when the mad religious zealot says, “hey, here on page 23, it says we should slice open unbelievers and use their guts for garters. And over here on page 75, it says we should bury homosexuals up to their necks and stuff olives up their noses.”…[T]he more common response is to simply pretend the garters-and-olives passages don’t exist and prattle on about how God is merciful and loving.
But the garters-and-olives passages do exist, and lots of people think God is not merciful and loving but wrathful and punitive, at least when dealing with other people. So why is the onus on us to pipe down?
Then there’s the problem on the other side — among the atheists such as Richard Dawkins who have been labelled “fanatics.”…When the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man, Dawkins and his fellow travellers say, well, prove it. It should be simple. Swab the Host and do a DNA analysis. If you don’t, we will give your claim no more respect than we give to those who say they see the future in crystal balls or bend spoons with their minds or become werewolves at each full moon. And for this, it is Dawkins, not the Pope, who is labelled the unreasonable fanatic…This is completely contrary to how we live the rest of our lives. We demand proof of even trivial claims…and we dismiss those who make such claims without proof. We are still more demanding when claims are made on matters that are at least temporarily important.
Just what I was saying yesterday. We want good reasons to believe even trivial claims in the rest of our lives, so why is there this fenced-off bit of our lives where we don’t? And why is it considered fanaticism to ask questions like that? (As long as one changes the wording, at least. To ask questions like that in the same words over and over again, day after day – okay that’s fanaticism. You know who you are. Don’t make me write your name on the blackboard.)