Category: human rights

Open thread: individual liberty and #NoHijabDay

October 11, 2015 • 9:30 am

by Grania

Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that people preserve the spirit of resistance?

Today is No Hijab Day, a protest started by Iranian-born Masih Alinejad against Iran’s government requirement of women to wear the hijab, and the enforcement of this by the so-called Morality Police. She won an award at the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy in February this year.

It may seem like a small thing, but in a country where dancing to music can and does lead to arrest and jail terms, it is an act of tremendous courage to defy authority.

Benjamin Franklin wrote (perhaps a bit too harshly):

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Nevertheless, the idea is a valuable one and deserves some serious thought. How many times do those of us fortunate enough to live in freer societies choose not to challenge inroads to liberty for the sake of our own comfort?

America’s repugnant bootlicking of Saudi Arabia

September 28, 2015 • 10:30 am

According to Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia’s human-rights record is one of the most abysmal in the world. Freedom of expression and assembly are severely curtailed, there are many arbitrary arrests, with many held without being charged, those jailed are tortured and beaten, women have institutionalized second-class status, as do migrants, and there is flogging, amputation of limbs, and, of course, death sentences for “crimes” like sorcery and adultery. It’s a place of medieval barbarity.

One case that has recently come to world attention is that of the Saudi Ali Mohammed Baquir al-Nimr, now 21, who was sentenced to death by beheading for “crimes” committed when he was 17. After beheading, he’s slated to be crucified, with the headless body displayed to all on a cross. As Amnesty International reports:

In May, the SCC [Special Criminal Court in Riyadh] sentenced Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr to death after convicting him on charges that included demonstrating against the government, possession of weapons and attacking the security forces. He denied the charges and told the court that he had been tortured and forced to confess in pre-trial detention. The court convicted him without investigating his torture allegations, and sentenced him to death although he was aged 17 at the time of the alleged offences.

See here for more information about the case; the “weapons” and “attack” charges are bogus.

Despite the Saudi’s dismal record, the United Nations appointed a Saudi diplomat as head of a human rights panel. It’s not clear how much power Faisal bin Hassan Trad, head of the Saudi delegation to the UN in Geneva, will have, but the UN Watch site suggests that he will certainly have more than symbolic power, as his council selects representatives to monitor human rights throughout the world.

The U.S., especially under a Democratic President, should be a beacon in defending human rights. To be sure, Obama is trying to close the disgraceful Guantanamo detention facility, whose existence is indefensible. But we have several blind spots, and one is defending—or rather refusing to criticize—Saudi Arabia. After all, they’re our “ally” and give us lots of oil.  The wages of diplomacy, apparently, include the dissimulation demonstrated by State Department spokesman Mark C. Toner, who went through this song and dance about Saudi human rights with reporters at last Tuesday’s daily press briefing:

QUESTION: Change topic? Saudi Arabia.

MR TONER: Saudi Arabia.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Saudi Arabia was named to head the Human Rights Council, and today I think they announced they are about to behead a 21-year-old Shia activist named Muhammed al-Nimr. Are you aware of that?

MR TONER: I’m not aware of the trial that you – or the verdict – death sentence.

QUESTION: Well, apparently, he was arrested when was 17-years-old and kept in juvenile detention, then moved on. And now, he’s been scheduled to be executed.

MR TONER: Right. I mean, we’ve talked about our concerns about some of the capital punishment cases in Saudi Arabia in our Human Rights Report, but I don’t have any more to add to it.

QUESTION: So you —

QUESTION: Well, how about a reaction to them heading the council?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t have any comment, don’t have any reaction to it. I mean, frankly, it’s – we would welcome it. We’re close allies. If we —

We welcome it as close allies? Seriously?

QUESTION: Do you think that they’re an appropriate choice given – I mean, how many pages is – does Saudi Arabia get in the Human Rights Report annually?

MR TONER: I can’t give that off the top of my head, Matt.

Translation: “They’re our close allies so they can do what they want to their citizens”

QUESTION: I can’t either, but let’s just say that there’s a lot to write about Saudi Arabia and human rights in that report. I’m just wondering if you that it’s appropriate for them to have a leadership position.

MR TONER: We have a strong dialogue, obviously a partnership with Saudi Arabia that spans, obviously, many issues. We talk about human rights concerns with them. As to this leadership role, we hope that it’s an occasion for them to look at human rights around the world but also within their own borders.

Translation: “I am going to move my lips but say nothing.”

QUESTION: But you said that you welcome them in this position. Is it based on improved record? I mean, can you show or point to anything where there is a sort of stark improvement in their human rights record?

MR TONER: I mean, we have an ongoing discussion with them about all these human rights issues, like we do with every country. We make our concerns clear when we do have concerns, but that dialogue continues. But I don’t have anything to point to in terms of progress.

Translation: “Well, we’re concerned, but the Saudis don’t seem to be doing anything, so they’ll remain our friends and close allies.”

QUESTION: Would you welcome as a – would you welcome a decision to commute the sentence of this young man?

MR TONER: Again, I’m not aware of the case, so it’s hard for me to comment on it other than that we believe that any kind of verdict like that should come at the end of a legal process that is just and in accordance with international legal standards.

I’m not sure what “international legal standards” Toner’s talking about, for as far as I can see international criminal law applies only to issues like genocide and crimes against humanity. Clearly, though, the Saudi legal process, at least for Muhammed al-Nimr, is unjust. But we dare not say that.

I’m not a diplomat, so clearly there is some delicate balancing going on here that’s beyond my ken. Still, it’s disgraceful for the United States to countenance the barbarity of Saudi Arabia simply because they cooperate with us (to their advantage, of course) in the war on terrorism, and also sell us one million barrels of oil per day. What if North Korea had oil?

At the very least, Obama and the State Department should take the position that the Saudi treatment of dissent, women, and prisoners is unacceptable. We cannot at the same time excoriate ISIS for torture, murder, and beheadings while turning a blind eye to the same acts by the Saudi government.

The leader of Britain’s Labour Party, severely etiolated as it  is, has called for David Cameron to condemn the treatment of this young man. As a final irony, the UN’s Office of the Commission of Human Rights has urged Saudi Arabia to spare Al-Nimr’s life because of trial irregularities and his age at the time of the supposed crime. Can’t the U.S. do at least as much as the U.N.?

UN screws up big time: appoints Saudi Arabian diplomat as head of human rights panel

September 21, 2015 • 11:00 am

UPDATE: For a summary of Saudi Arabia’s abuses, the egregious UN action described below, and the scheduled beheading and subsequent crucifixion of a 20-year old, read the Gatestone Institute’s piece, “Saudi Arabia: World’s Human Rights Sewer.” The country has already executed 79 people this year—every one a “criminal”. (Political prisoners aren’t executed.)

____________

This, as reported by The Independent, is all ye need to know:

The executioners also have the duty to amputate limbs, feet and hands—other barbaric punishments leveled by this supposedly modern country.

UK lawyer David Allen Green, who writes as the Jack of Kent, has a tw**t on the subject. Read the list of punishments carefully.

(The information, which is chilling, comes from here.)

The UN is already soft on anti-blasphemy laws, and now it’s getting soft on human rights. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!

J&M and the Gaystapo

July 1, 2015 • 10:11 am

By Grania

Much as one would like to think that the new cartoon up at Jesus & Mo is satire that is all made up, or at least exaggerates reality even just a little bit for comic effect; this kind of conversation is all too evident on social media everywhere, and you’ve probably seen several examples of it yourself.

I’ll be looking at the push-back to legalization of same-sex marriage in the next few days, but in the mean time enjoy. Share everywhere you see any whinging and whining.

Times they are a-changing, but there are still miles to go

June 29, 2015 • 10:00 am

by Grania Spingies

There have been Pride Festivals all over the world this weekend and perhaps they were celebrated most joyfully this year in the USA and Ireland, following on the momentous victories for same-sex marriage in both countries, by popular vote in Ireland and by Supreme Court ruling in the US.

Ireland’s own version of Pride had somber beginnings against a backdrop of murder.

Dublin Pride notes:

In March, 1983, prior to the first pride parade, a march was held from the city centre of Dublin to Fairview Park in the suburb of Fairview, Dublin, protesting the levels of violence against gay men and women in Ireland. In particular, the march was a reaction to the controversial judgement in the Flynn case, when suspended sentences on charges of manslaughter were given to members of a gang found guilty of the 1982 killing of Declan Flynn, a 31-year old gay man, in Fairview Park, and the subsequent celebrations by some members of the local community following their release.

The difference three decades on is dramatic.

now

However, while it was being celebrated in spectacular style on both sides of the Atlantic, this is what the scene looked like in Istanbul where police broke up the parade with water guns and rubber bullets, for as yet unstated reasons.

CIl7KAsXAAA9l7y

Rory O’Neill, activist and drag artist Panti Bliss – whose impassioned and funny talk about accidentally becoming the focal point of a nationwide squall about what constituted homophobia went viral last year, was then invited to talk at TEDx  Dublin on what homophobia is and why it happens. There’s some insightful and thought-provoking stuff in there.

 

Gay marriage finally argued at the Supreme Court

April 28, 2015 • 4:01 pm

Today was a pivotal day in American history: the day that the issue of gay marriage was finally argued before the Supreme Court. In only 2.5 hours of oral argument about four consolidated cases, the Court debated two issues: whether same-sex couples can marry under the U.S. Constitution (the biggie) and whether states must recognize gay marriages that are legal in other states. If they reject the Constitutional argument, then it’s up to the states; if they accept it, banning gay marriage can’t occur anywhere, for it would be unconstitutional.

As the New York Times reports, the justices were divided, with Kennedy the swing vote but with Chief Justice Roberts showing more sympathy than I would have expected.

On the evidence of his words, he seemed torn about what to do. But Justice Kennedy’s tone was more emotional and emphatic when he made the case for same-sex marriage. That, coupled with his earlier judicial opinions, gave gay rights advocates reason for optimism by the end of the arguments, which lasted two and a half hours.

. . . Justice Kennedy said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for so many years. Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay families from what he called a noble and sacred institution. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.

The liberals, of course, were sympathetic, and the conservatives dubious (as usual, Thomas didn’t say anything).

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry, while Justice Antonin Scalia said a ruling for same-sex marriage might require some members of the clergy to perform ceremonies that violate their religious teaching.

Jebus, I wonder why Alito didn’t ask whether men could marry goats!

Here’s my prediction: the vote on both issues will come down 6-3, with Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. The reason I think both Kennedy and Roberts will vote for legalization on both issues is because the tide of sentiment in the U.S. is swinging strongly toward gay marriage, and they don’t want to be on the wrong side of history. Alito is just an obstinate conservative, while the originalists Thomas and Scalia can argue that there’s nothing in the Constitution or most of U.S. history supporting same-sex marriage.

Your prediction?

You can hear the oral arguments at CNN. (It’s time the Supreme Court allowed television; I suppose they’re worried that we’ll catch Clarence Thomas sleeping.)

Amnesty International defeats resolution to condemn and combat anti-Semitism

April 21, 2015 • 12:00 pm

This is unbelievable: Amnesty International is demonizing not only Israel, but Jews in general. I’m distressed to hear that Amnesty International has defeated a resolution to condemn and respond to the rise of antisemitic sentiment and violence in the UK (see below for the resolution):

Amnesty International has rejected a motion to tackle the rise in antisemitic attacks in Britain at its annual conference.

The motion was table by Amnesty member Andrew Thorpe-Apps in March who said it was defeated at the International AGM on Sunday by 468 votes to 461.

Mr Trope Apps said: “It was the only resolution to be defeated during the whole conference.”

In March the charity confirmed the resolution calling for the group to “campaign against antisemitism in the UK and lobby the government to tackle the rise in attacks” had been accepted for discussion at the conference.

A spokesperson for Amnesty said: “We can confirm this resolution has been tabled and will be debated at the AGM.” [JAC: “AGM” is the Annual General Meeting of Amnesty International]

Mr Thorpe-Apps said he put forward the motion because “I recently joined and I believe passionately about human rights.

“I was aware that the organisation has been outwardly pro-Palestine in the past but it hasn’t stood up for the Jewish population and I think it would be good if they did that.

Seriously, do you think that AI would have defeated a similar resolution that called for action against anti-Muslim sentiment in the UK, and more effort to combat the rise of anti-Muslim violence—something I’d support? Don’t make me laugh. Antisemitism is, apparently, no longer such a sin.

Here’s the resolution:

This AGM CALLS On AIUK to:
• Campaign against anti-Semitism in the UK.
• Lobby the UK Government to do more to tackle the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain, whether physical or verbal, online or in person. The UK Government should monitor anti-semitism closely and periodically review the security of Britain’s Jewish population.

Proposer background notes:
It has been 70 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. Yet, even in 2015, European Jews are facing intolerance and abuse from anti-Semites.

There are now Jewish schools in the UK where the children are prepared for a potential terrorist attack, and there are Downing Street-style car bomb barriers to shield school buildings.

This year witnessed the murder of four Jews following the appalling Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. In February a Jewish man was shot outside Copenhagen’s main synagogue following an attack at a free speech debate.

On 9th February, the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into AntiSemitism report was launched at Lambeth Palace. The report found that there was a 221% increase in hate crimes directed at Jews during the 2014 conflict between Israel and Gaza, when compared with the same period in 2013.

The Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitic abuse and attacks, recorded 314 incidents in July 2014, the highest ever monthly total and more than the preceding six months combined. A quarter of these incidents took place on social media, and one third used Holocaust-related language or imagery.

The All-Party Parliamentary report recommends that:
• An independent council of non-Jewish figures is established to highlight trends in anti-Semitism, and make suggestions to the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
• The UK Government fund more research into antiSemitism, report the findings to Parliament at least once per session about its work combating hate crime, and work with the CPS, police, and social-media companies to make online anti-Semitic abuse easier to report and stop.

Is there anything objectionable in that resolution beyond the obvious fact that it deals with hatred of Jews? If so, I don’t see it. Amnesty International—join the lineup of those who, by refusing to recognize or deal with the increase in anti-Semitism, tacitly sanction it.