Iranian lawmakers slam UN human rights resolution

[coma]

maybe he's watching Iranian and Hamas controlled television stations?

Speaking of human right, they still stone people to death in Iran don't they?

Do they?

So barbaric: Azar Baghery, 19, is one of NINE women to be stoned to death in Iran

By Kate Mansey 25/07/2010

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.../#ixzz1I2SHg2Gm

Not the most savoury of practices I will admit. But once again. What has it got to do with you / us ?

[coma]

Executions in the US as well, and the methods used are contentious.

For murder. Not for blasphemy or adultery. "Enlightened"? What utter nonsense!

You cannot take Western idealogy and use it as a blue print for the entire world. Attempting do to so, like in Iraq [total failure] is like you say. " Utter Nonsense"

[geriatrickid]

Executions in the US as well, and the methods used are contentious. We, in countries that do not have the death penalty consider ourselves a little more 'enlightened'.

I was unaware that women were executed for adultery in the USA. Would you be so kind as to provide some examples.

I take it too that you consider Israel to be enlightened since it does not have capital punishment, not even for smelly bearded men that pick up babies and smash the babies heads against a concrete wall, or that violently stab foreign tourists repeatedly. I believe that Israel's neighbours all retain capital punishment. Does this mean that you are now a fan of Israel because of its enightenment?

What's your take on the lashing of a minor girl in Iran as reported by the BBC?

Iran girl gets 100 lashes for sexA teenage girl and two young men in Iran have been sentenced to lashes for having sex.The court dismissed the girl's claim that she 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.

I do not think that even n the bibl belt of the USA that young girls are lashed as punishment for being raped. I don't think Israel lashes young girls either. This suggests to me that, that yes maybe Iran should be looked at in respect to basic human rights.

[Wallaby]

Executions in the US as well, and the methods used are contentious. We, in countries that do not have the death penalty consider ourselves a little more 'enlightened'.

I was unaware that women were executed for adultery in the USA. Would you be so kind as to provide some examples.

I take it too that you consider Israel to be enlightened since it does not have capital punishment, not even for smelly bearded men that pick up babies and smash the babies heads against a concrete wall, or that violently stab foreign tourists repeatedly. I believe that Israel's neighbours all retain capital punishment. Does this mean that you are now a fan of Israel because of its enightenment?

What's your take on the lashing of a minor girl in Iran as reported by the BBC?

Iran girl gets 100 lashes for sexA teenage girl and two young men in Iran have been sentenced to lashes for having sex.The court dismissed the girl's claim that she 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.

I do not think that even n the bibl belt of the USA that young girls are lashed as punishment for being raped. I don't think Israel lashes young girls either. This suggests to me that, that yes maybe Iran should be looked at in respect to basic human rights.

I didn't say anyone gets executed for adultery in the US. Pleae actually read what I said before commenting.

What does it matter what you get executed for, different countries have different laws and different penalties for each. We are in no position to push our values on other countries. You know the laws and punishments, don't break them.

[Wallaby]

Executions in the US as well, and the methods used are contentious.

For murder. Not for blasphemy or adultery. "Enlightened"? What utter nonsense!

Yes, dear man, we in the countries that do not have capital punishment do consider ourselfs more enlightened and not as backwards as those countries that do.

If I want to know the meaning of 'utter nonsense' I'll just read your posts.

[Ulysses G.]

Keep on repeating that to yourself.

Not creating delusions is enlightenment.

Bodhidharma

[Wallaby]

Keep on repeating that to yourself.

Not creating delusions is enlightenment.

Bodhidharma

Something you'd do well to practice.

[Steely Dan]

What does it matter what you get executed for, different countries have different laws and different penalties for each. We are in no position to push our values on other countries. You know the laws and punishments, don't break them.

Isn't this what the OT is all about, Iran criticising a UN human rights resolution because of it's record in not respecting universal human rights?

So yes it does matter what you get executed for, infact it matters a lot if you can be executed for apostacy, homosexuality or adultery (that's if you're a woman) and of course everyone's personal favourite blasphamy, which means people are losing their lives for falling foul of a millenium year old piece of psychopathic fiction or being threatened with such for drawing cartoons.

[Wallaby]

What does it matter what you get executed for, different countries have different laws and different penalties for each. We are in no position to push our values on other countries. You know the laws and punishments, don't break them.

Isn't this what the OT is all about, Iran criticising a UN human rights resolution because of it's record in not respecting universal human rights?

So yes it does matter what you get executed for, infact it matters a lot if you can be executed for apostacy, homosexuality or adultery (that's if you're a woman) and of course everyone's personal favourite blasphamy, which means people are losing their lives for falling foul of a millenium year old piece of psychopathic fiction or being threatened with such for drawing cartoons.

Different countries and cultures place 'severity of crime' on a different scale.

In some countries spitting gets a harsh sentence, in others it doesn't. We think some countries hand out far too severe penalties for what we consider relatively minor things.

We still have many aussies being caught in Bali with drugs. We think their sentences are far too harsh, including the death penalty, considering for some of the charges in our country they may only spend minimal time in jail.

That is not to say the penalties are wrong. They have different standards, different laws, different penalties. I am sure they think the same of our laws. So who are we to say they are wrong.

[Steely Dan]

Different countries and cultures place 'severity of crime' on a different scale.

In some countries spitting gets a harsh sentence, in others it doesn't. We think some countries hand out far too severe penalties for what we consider relatively minor things.

We still have many aussies being caught in Bali with drugs. We think their sentences are far too harsh, including the death penalty, considering for some of the charges in our country they may only spend minimal time in jail.

That is not to say the penalties are wrong. They have different standards, different laws, different penalties. I am sure they think the same of our laws. So who are we to say they are wrong.

The trouble is that with radical Islam it's a one way street. They see it as their right to apply Sharia law everywhere as it recognises no borders, the sharia courts in the UK are one symptom of it, demands to try Quran burners for blasphemy or prosecute cartoon drawers are more telling evidence of this. Of course it does not work in the other direction with Islamic Countries rejecting the universal declaration of human rights.

What I find most nauseating is appologists for faschism bending over backwards not to criticise acts that they would have a field day criticizing Israel for. Human rights are universal, whether we intervene stopping kiddy fiddling on the Pitcairn Islands or stop cannibals eating people or shrinking heads we are right to do so, the myth of the noble savage is exactly that, a myth.

So what do you really think, no pussyfooting around for fear of upsetting anyone.

1) Should women a) be allowed to dress as they want. b ) have everything covered except both eyes. c)Only show one eye for fear of being provocative?

2) Should women a) Allowed to travel freely b ) Suffer sanctions for dishonouring their owner for straying too far c) have a gps monitor attached to a car battery which gives them a jolt if they exceed their permitted range?

3) Should women be a) Allowed to marry who they want. b ) Be forced to marry someone foisted on them, even if they themselves have not reached puberty and the husband to be is old enough to be their grandad.

4) Refusal to marry a family approved husband should result in a) Disappointment b ) death c) Disfigurement through having acid poured over their faces?

5) Should women be a) Free to pursue a sex life in the way men do. b ) Be genitally mutilated to satisfy the misogynistic psychopaths who decide what's right or wrong.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Steely Dan

[metisdead]

An off topic post totally unrelated to this topic has been removed.

[bangkokeddy]

So barbaric: Azar Baghery, 19, is one of NINE women to be stoned to death in Iran

By Kate Mansey 25/07/2010

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.../#ixzz1I2SHg2Gm

The Photo in the article is a video still that dates back to 1991. 20 years ago in some village in the North. Something that is nowhere mentioned in the article. How comes?

And these 9 woman. Were they stoned to death or not?

[bangkokeddy]

Who's Afraid of Shariah?

Hasn't the whole notion of shariah in America gotten a bit out of control? No, it hasn't -- it's gotten hugely, obscenely, ignorantly out of control. How many of those anti-Islam protesters holding "NO SHARIA LAW" signs (as if anyone were advocating shariah law in the U.S.) actually know what the word means? I'd say, oh, none. Roughly.

Shariah (also spelled shari'ah or sharia or shari'a) is the Arabic word for "the road to the watering place." In a religious context, it means "the righteous path." Loosely, it can mean simply, "Islam."

There are six principles of shariah. They are derived from the Qur'an, which Muslims believe is the word of God. All Islamic religious rules must be in line with these six principles of shariah.

Aha! The six principles must be about killing infidels, veiling women, stoning people for adultery, honor killings and female genital cutting, right? Nope.

Here they are, the six principles of shariah:

1. The right to the protection of life.

2. The right to the protection of family.

3. The right to the protection of education.

4. The right to the protection of religion.

5. The right to the protection of property (access to resources).

6. The right to the protection of human dignity.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sumbul-alikaramali/whos-afraid-of-shariah_b_701331.html

[Steely Dan]

That's America where the majority of Muslims are secular or moderate. The OP is about Iran, and seeing as they were a major player in the Cairo declaration of human rights in Islam here is the Huff Post discussing this issue with respect to women in this case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nina-burleigh/egypt-and-the-universal-r_b_819178.html

We in the West should reconsider our own definition of the boundary between a cultural trait and a human rights violation, as it pertains to women. An extremist takeover of Egypt will be a disaster for Egyptian women, who must hope that the future will be better for their daughters than for them, and that whatever new society is being formed takes into account the universal - not just Western - human rights of women. The world and moderates among the Egyptian people must keep the human rights of women front and center in the discourse as they watch Cairo, and other Arab nations, transform themselves.

[Wallaby]

So what do you really think, no pussyfooting around for fear of upsetting anyone.

1) Should women a) be allowed to dress as they want. b ) have everything covered except both eyes. c)Only show one eye for fear of being provocative?

2) Should women a) Allowed to travel freely b ) Suffer sanctions for dishonouring their owner for straying too far c) have a gps monitor attached to a car battery which gives them a jolt if they exceed their permitted range?

3) Should women be a) Allowed to marry who they want. b ) Be forced to marry someone foisted on them, even if they themselves have not reached puberty and the husband to be is old enough to be their grandad.

4) Refusal to marry a family approved husband should result in a) Disappointment b ) death c) Disfigurement through having acid poured over their faces?

5) Should women be a) Free to pursue a sex life in the way men do. b ) Be genitally mutilated to satisfy the misogynistic psychopaths who decide what's right or wrong.

Well what I think and what is allowed by law in a particular country are 2 different things.

1) a) no, women should not be allowed to dress how they want, they should dress according to our laws, and I would hope some semblence of decency according to where they are ie: bikinis ok on beach but not ok in workplace. no they shouldn't have everything covered except for their eyes, because of security and because I think it is stupid. But I do like the head scarf's muslims wear, I think it is sexy

2) a) yes they should be allowed to travel freely. a bit subject as to 'how far they can stray' and what it means. I'd get very annoyed if she went to the pub to fraternise every night. c) no I don't agree with that, didn't know it was law in Iran.

3) a) within reason, can't go marrying a family member. I'm sure there are different rules for similar things in most countries as to who anyone can marry. Don't forget royalty are not too keen on marrying into us lower class members of society. But in general, yes marry whoever you want. age is of no relevance, as long as it is legal. Different countries have different ages for marriage/sex. I'm not even sure what the age for marriage in oz is, 16 for sex, maybe 18 for marriage, fine by me. If a girl is of age then the man's age is of no relevance to me. Pre puberty I don't agree with. For my own morals 16 is the age I would accept, maybe that's just because I have been brought up that way.

4) None. Disappointment for the man I'm sure, but not for the girl as she is the one that doesn't want to marry. Probably, relief and happiness.

5) a) Well I don't really think that is the same in oz, women who sleep around as much as a lot of men are not thought of too highly, but yes, they should have the right to do so if that's what they want. No I don't agree, but some women do agree, up to the women if that's what they want.

I really don't know why you would ask for my personal opinion on such things as it is of no relevance at all. Perhaps the questions should be better directed to the women of Iran for their comment. We live in different worlds, what we consider abnormal can be considered normal by them.

We may agree on some and not on others, but I don't think it really matters.

PS: apologies, seems the sunglass smiley face kept entering instead of a,b c etc.

Ciao.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Wallaby

[bangkokeddy]

That's America where the majority of Muslims are secular or moderate. The OP is about Iran, and seeing as they were a major player in the Cairo declaration of human rights in Islam here is the Huff Post discussing this issue with respect to women in this case.

You posted some video clip about Sharia in Britain. That isn't exactly in Iran. And you wanna talk about WESTERN civilisation. That isn't exactly in Iran.

Someone else posted a video containing footage of some supposed to be protesters in a street in Iran ('could not be verified' according to reuters) and called it EVIDENCE of children forced to become suicide bombers and millions of Iranians marching against their repressive, fascist government.

I posted a video of protests by nearly half a million people and violent clashes with the police. News from just the last weekend. News from Britain. and not just a little hate speech rant by Pat Condell about immigrants in the UK.

But that example of western civilisation and the information that there are not only in Iran protests is off topic.

But you are right this topic is about the Iran . Lawmakers criticized the United Nations Human Rights Council for adopting an anti-Iran resolution,

- political move meant to divert attention from human rights abuses committed by the United States

- dismissing it as a "sinister" Western plot.

- hegemonic powers such as the US, Britain and France are trying to use such political and biased resolutions to tarnish the image of the Islamic Republic of Iran

^^ that is from the OP too, but it is off topic, somehow, seemingly.

[bangkokeddy]

Condell branded racist, Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Thanks for the second link, I recommend it to everyone it contains a link to the video which so upset the liberals at Berkeley who demonstrate that there is a strong corollation beteen the need to cow tow to fanatics and having no sense of humour whatsoever. Enjoy

Why so shy? If you dislike the "liberals at Berkeley " just say more open who you actually mean.

The New Left in the US

Though neither Tom Hayden nor most of the earliest New Left founders claimed Jewish ancestry, the movement grew to include a disproportionate number of Jews, including Mark Rudd, Jerry Rubin, and Abby Hoffman. Scholars estimate that Jews constituted between one-third and one-half of the New Left activists on college campuses across the country.

At a time when Jews represented just three percent of the American population and ten percent of those attending college, they constituted a majority of the New Left's most active members. Numerous social scientific studies pointed to strong Jewish influences in the nation's leading New Left groups. At the University of California, Berkeley, Jewish students lit candles during a sit-in protest that coincided with the holiday of Hanukkah. The Oscar-nominated documentary film Berkeley In The '60s features Jewish student protesters leading Israeli folk dancing during a demonstration inside Sproul Hall, the university's main administration building.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_14778.html

O'Reilly: "[A] lot of Jewish liberals" think "terrorists ... have the right to do whatever they want," such as "behead people on camera"

On the July 18 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly claimed that there are "a lot of Jewish liberals ... who basically feel that, you know, you don't have a right to go after terrorists because it's our fault, the United States' fault." O'Reilly added: "And some say it's Israel's fault because we've been mean to them, therefore they have a right to do whatever they want -- behead people on camera, all this terrible stuff."

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200607200004

Berkeley home of liberal rabbi vandalized

May 4, 2010 7:47 am by Frances Dinkelspiel

The north Berkeley home of the editor of the liberal Jewish magazine Tikkun was vandalized early Monday morning after the magazine announced it would present an award to Judge Richard Goldstone, the controversial South African magistrate who oversaw a report that accused Israel of human rights violations during its winter 2009 incursion into Gaza.

Vandals affixed posters to Rabbi Michael Lerner’s door and around his home, either later Sunday night or early Monday morning, according to a statement from Tikkun. Some of the posters attacked Lerner personally. Other slogans said “fight Islamo-facism,” apparently criticizing progressive Jews who criticize Israel.

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2010/05/04/berkeley-home-of-liberal-rabbi-vandalized/

-------------

If you wanna know how the Anti-intellectual define 'the liberals' and why they see them as enemy i recommend this entertaining website

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/are_you_liberal.htm

^^

comes with many big letters and facts in bold and all caps.

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/index.html

[Ulysses G.]

That is not to say the penalties are wrong. They have different standards, different laws, different penalties. I am sure they think the same of our laws. So who are we to say they are wrong.

You think it is OK to stone women to death for taking a lover or for rejecting Islam? That fits right in with most of what you post here.

[Steely Dan]

Meanwhile back on topic what have we here? Possibly some good news as Islamic regimes will no longer be so able to use blasphemy allegations as a way of escaping discussion or criticism of their less than pristine human rights records.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/03/defamation_of_religion_defeate.php

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) welcomed the UN Human Rights Council's significant step away from the pernicious "defamation of religions" concept. Today, the Council adopted a resolution on religious intolerance that does not include this dangerous concept. The defamation concept undermines individual rights to freedom of religion and expression; exacerbates religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence; and provides international support for domestic blasphemy laws that often have led to gross human rights abuses. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has promoted this flawed concept at the United Nations for more than a decade.

Not that it changes much but the cognitive dissonance must have been too uncomfortable for even the OIC to bear.

Tragically, it took the assassinations of two prominent Pakistani officials who opposed that country's draconian blasphemy laws-Federal Minister of Minorities Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab governor Salman Taseer-to convince the OIC that the annual defamation of religions resolutions embolden extremists rather than bolster religious harmony."

[bangkokeddy]

That is not to say the penalties are wrong. They have different standards, different laws, different penalties. I am sure they think the same of our laws. So who are we to say they are wrong.

You think it is OK to stone women to death for taking a lover or for rejecting Islam? That fits right in with most of what you post here.

Where does that happen? Saudi Arabia?

[Wallaby]

That is not to say the penalties are wrong. They have different standards, different laws, different penalties. I am sure they think the same of our laws. So who are we to say they are wrong.

You think it is OK to stone women to death for taking a lover or for rejecting Islam? That fits right in with most of what you post here.

Please show me where I have said such things. Perhaps you are just trolling again.

I don't think it is ok to stone women for taking a lover or rejecting islam. I also don't think it is ok for states in the US to execute murderers. I don't agree with capital punishment for anything. But if that is the law then so be it. Who are we, as westerners, to say that our laws and penalties should be followed in other countries. Ask an Iranian about certain laws in other countries and they too will find them ridiculous. Whether I agree with the law of no relevence. Ask the Iranian women what THEY think.

I don't think it is acceptable for other countries to condemn Iran because of what they think is suitable punishment for breaking their laws.

[Ulysses G.]

So what you are saying is that it is OK if it is Iran doing the stoning.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[bangkokeddy]

So what you are saying is that it is OK if it is Iran doing the stoning.

what stoning?

[Steely Dan]

So what you are saying is that it is OK if it is Iran doing the stoning.

what stoning?

Allahu Akbar as they say in some parts.

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm

[bangkokeddy]

So what you are saying is that it is OK if it is Iran doing the stoning.

what stoning?

Allahu Akbar as they say in some parts.

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm

"We apologize for the poor video quality as this is an old video from 1994 recorded in Iran."

another phobia website. not more.

not a source that looks more objective. How many people where stoned to death in the last 5 years, the last 10 years and for what exactly?

what exact law is used? please bring something with substance that looks reliable. I would really like to know more about stoning in Iran, honestly.

Edited March 31, 2011 by bangkokeddy

[Steely Dan]

what exact law is used? please bring something with substance that looks reliable. I would really like to know more about stoning in Iran, honestly.

http://www.dhushara.com/book/sakina/stoningetc/stoning.htm

And then there's the well publicised case of the woman who had her death sentence by stoning commuted to hanging.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/world/middleeast/09stoning.html

In order to commute the sentence it has to still be available in Iranian law, and would no doubt have been carried out were it not for international outcry.

Interestingly enough stoning was only introduced in Iran back in 1983 when the (ahem) contemporary Islamic penal code was ratified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Iran

In Iran, stoning as a punishment did not exist until 1983, when the contemporary Islamic penal code was ratified. Many Muslim jurists in Iran are of the opinion that although stoning can be considered Islamic, the criteria under which it can be imposed as a sentence are stringent; because of the large burden of proof needed to reach a guilty sentence of adultery, its penalty is hardly ever applicable.[22] However many sentences of stoning have been made instead on the basis of the "knowledge of the judge".[22][23]

Following vociferous domestic and international controversy and outcry over stoning in the early years of the Islamic republic, the government announced a moratorium on stoning in 2002.[22] In January 2005, the Iranian judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad was quoted as saying "Stoning has been dropped from the penal code for a long time, and in the Islamic republic, we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were over-ruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."[24] Nevertheless, stonings were reported in 2006 (a man and a woman, not officially confirmed),[22][23][25] 2007 (a man),[25][26][27][28] 2008 (three men, one unsuccessfully)[25][29][30] and 2009 (a man).[25][31][32][33] In 2010, a woman Sakineh Ashtiani had her stoning sentence suspended after an international campaign.[34]

In 2008, judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi said that stoning would be removed from the penal code in new legislation.[26] A draft revision of the law without stoning was prepared by the Judicial and Legal Commission of the Majlis by mid-2009, though commentators were in disagreement over whether it would make stoning impossible.[25][31]

[Steely Dan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6288156.stm

Is the BBC good enough for you, if they quote Amnesty international and is confirmed by the Iranian judiciary?

The Iranian judiciary says a man has been stoned to death for adultery - the first time it has confirmed such an execution in five years.

[dananderson]

From Amnesty International. e Iranian authorities continue to sentence people to death by stoning. Currently there are at least 11 individuals at risk of execution by stoning. According to Iran's Penal Code, execution by stoning is prescribed for "adultery while being married".The Penal Code specifies the manner of execution and types of stones that should be used. Article 102 states that men will be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts for the purpose of execution by stoning.

Article 104 states, with reference to the penalty for adultery, that the stones used should "not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes; nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones". This makes it clear that the purpose of stoning is to inflict pain in a process leading to slow death.