Sickening treatment of the Rohingya continues

[Lite Beer]

Sickening treatment of the Rohingya continues

RANGOON: -- Passing of laws relating to religious conversion and polygamy shows Myanmar's parliament cares little about human rights

A country long associated with gross human rights violations, Myanmar, also known as Burma, is now trying to regulate private faith.

But judging the atmosphere and conditions leading up to the passing of two laws in Nay Pyi Taw recently, morality was not high on the mind of Myanmar's parliamentarians. The bills regulate religious conversion and polygamy.

Buddhist nationalists with strong anti-Muslim sentiment were the people who came up with the idea behind these bills. They believe the country's Muslims are a threat to Myanmar. It wasn't clear how Muslims, one of the many minority groups in the country, constitute such a threat.

But the main target appeared to be the Rohingya Muslim population, a persecuted minority who are not even recognised as citizens despite many having lived in the country for generations.

"These discriminatory draft laws risk fanning the flames of anti-Muslim sentiment," Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said after the bills were passed.

The fact that these bills were passed just ahead of a general election, which is expected to take place in November, should not be overlooked. This is not to say that election, an important component of democratisation, should not be permitted.

But the passing of these bills as the politicians went on the campaign trail says something about the kind of politics and politicians that Myanmar possesses.

"Parliament has not only shown disregard for basic human rights norms, but turned up the heat on Burma's tense intercommunal relations and potentially put an already fragile transition at risk, with landmark elections right around the corner," Robertson said.

Even Aung San Suu Kyi, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and champion of democracy, has been largely silent about the plight of the Rohingya.

Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, who lived under house arrest for about 15 years, is expected to win the election. Fellow Nobel laureates, like the Dalai Lama, have urged her to take a stand on the Rohingya's plight. And if she hasn't speaks now, it is hard to imagine she will change her mind after the election, as it would be seen as a betrayal of her party supporters.

Although the country has opened up to outsiders and committed itself to the path of democratisation, as well as a peace process with armed ethnic rebel armies, the country's lawmakers, backed by radical monks, government leaders and an angry Buddhist population, continue to persecute the Rohingya via a series of discriminatory regulations and laws. The government even tried to limit the number of children that Rohingya can have.

And if fellow Asean members think this is not their problem, they need to think again.

The apartheid-like conditions that many Rohingya live in have forced tens of thousands to flee on overcrowded boats and headed for live elsewhere. Many have died on these crowded boats, while others became victims of slave labour in various industries, including Thai fishing vessels.

Myanmar's appalling treatment of the Rohingya constitutes an early warning sign of genocide. The second-class status, government-built camps, - plans to curb movement, plus social mobility and basic well-being of the Rohingya are already in the pipeline.

Moreover, international media and human rights groups have shown that many of the violent attacks against the Rohingya were not just carried out by angry mobs but also facilitated by government security officials.

Given what the Rohingya and the Muslims in general face, it is pretty much left to the international community, particularly the country's main donors, to condemn these acts and pressure the country to change its course.

Issuing statement after statement to criticise the military-dominate government can only do so much. Thailand is a perfect example of how so-called concerns expressed on paper do not change anything.

They need to take the away the money. Perhaps that will get these nationalists to pay attention to things such as international norms and human decency.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Sickening-treatment-of-the-Rohingya-continues-30267215.html

-- The Nation 2015-08-23

[ezzra]

The world simply don't care, who's the Rohingyas they ask, and why should we care? we're too busy

with other more pressing issues in the world now, the race to the presidency in the US, gay and

lesbians right to merry, ISIS is killing and beheading every one in sight, Iran nuclear deal and the

ramifications of it, and beside, Burma is under firm and unwavering tyrant like

military junta control, China has some pull there, but other than that, the junta are the supreme

rulers there, pretty much like N. Korea, and who can touch N. Korea?

[zaphod reborn]

If Human Rights Watch is claiming that outlawing polygamy is some kind of human rights violation, they are on the wrong side of the equation. Typical hypocrisy from an NGO.

Edited August 23, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[arjunadawn]

Irrespective of the intention of this article the point is not made, while others are. What are the laws? How/why do they adversely target the minority population? Who are those people slandered with ulterior motives for passing such laws out of prejudice?

It is possible I can disagree with the conclusion of a validly presented argument and still see the merits intended. But I do not see the merits of this byline. Nations have a right to enact legislation that best reflects their values and security. Indeed, numerous nations have taken steps to limit polygamy and repercussions for changing one's faith. I suppose these are the issues of discussion because the author only peripherally suggests the problem.

...ha! multiple wives is a human right? Being able to be killed for changing religion is a human right? I may or may not object to the treatment of these people but I hardly see where this is a well reasoned presentation.

My college student government newsletter was better prepared and researched then the drivel that passes for oped or news from this source.

[Srikcir]

If Human Rights Watch is claiming that outlawing polygamy is some kind of human rights violation, they are on the wrong side of the equation. Typical hypocrisy from an NGO.

If polygamy is banned solely for Rohingyas because of their muslim faith and allowed for Buddhists, then HRW is on the right side of the equation - it's called EQUALITY.

In 2013 Myanmar's western Rakhine state imposed a two-child limit for Muslim Rohingya families, a policy that does not apply to Buddhists in the area.

Buddhist Myanmar is terrified of a growing Rohingya population.

[robertthebruce]

so so sad... People treated worse than Animals....

where is ''Humanity''... money seems to rule the world....

[Travelman868]

The world simply don't care, who's the Rohingyas they ask, and why should we care? we're too busy

with other more pressing issues in the world now, the race to the presidency in the US, gay and

lesbians right to merry, ISIS is killing and beheading every one in sight, Iran nuclear deal and the

ramifications of it, and beside, Burma is under firm and unwavering tyrant like

military junta control, China has some pull there, but other than that, the junta are the supreme

rulers there, pretty much like N. Korea, and who can touch N. Korea?

I think Gay and Lesbians have a right to be merry. ( sorry could not resist)

The problem that Rohingyas have, is they have carried out attacks in Burma, its the same with Thailands Muslim separtists.

How badly do Muslims have to be treated before they kill young innocent children. Look at the number that have had their

heads hacked off.

[arjunadawn]

If Human Rights Watch is claiming that outlawing polygamy is some kind of human rights violation, they are on the wrong side of the equation. Typical hypocrisy from an NGO.

If polygamy is banned solely for Rohingyas because of their muslim faith and allowed for Buddhists, then HRW is on the right side of the equation - it's called EQUALITY.

In 2013 Myanmar's western Rakhine state imposed a two-child limit for Muslim Rohingya families, a policy that does not apply to Buddhists in the area.

Buddhist Myanmar is terrified of a growing Rohingya population.

Yes, agreed. Perhaps I missed that in the story. Law should always apply equally otherwise something like this would be ethnic cleansing by reproduction. I wonder why they are terrified, however. Still, if true, this is equally as wrong as what they fear.

There are no other current or historical examples to suggest that a burgeoning muslim population provides a threat to anyone, especially people of other faiths.

Edited August 23, 2015 by arjunadawn

[arjunadawn]

The world simply don't care, who's the Rohingyas they ask, and why should we care? we're too busy

with other more pressing issues in the world now, the race to the presidency in the US, gay and

lesbians right to merry, ISIS is killing and beheading every one in sight, Iran nuclear deal and the

ramifications of it, and beside, Burma is under firm and unwavering tyrant like

military junta control, China has some pull there, but other than that, the junta are the supreme

rulers there, pretty much like N. Korea, and who can touch N. Korea?

I think Gay and Lesbians have a right to be merry. ( sorry could not resist)

The problem that Rohingyas have, is they have carried out attacks in Burma, its the same with Thailands Muslim separtists.

How badly do Muslims have to be treated before they kill young innocent children. Look at the number that have had their

heads hacked off.

Hello Travelman868/ could you clarify the last two sentences? I think I followed... but then lost the gist. Thanks.

[Nemesis7]

discrimination hurts.

the treatment Myanmar is extending to its Rohinga population is really sad and inhumane no doubt.

And its really unfair for some who really doesnt know whats happening to pass silly racial comments.Its MEAN of them indeed.

[TimmyT]

so many words and still no explanations how "bills regulate religious conversion and polygamy." are discriminating? looks like the author was afraid that if explained these bills will gain too much support of readers...

this is how your favorite democracy looks like. accept it or confess that you agree to break the will of the majority if this majority decides something you don't like

I completely support Myanmar lawmakers in there measures to save there country from Muslim invasion. Muslim should not have an ability to marry Buddhist women and convert them to Islam, like it happens in Europe where women with weak minds but strong sexual urge make themselves a bridge by which Islam is contaminating there motherlands.

yesterday I met a British woman with a fat black mustached Muslim husband. She was wearing a hijab and full Muslim clothes. What a miserable position for the daughter of free Europe!

Edited August 23, 2015 by TimmyT

[Cloggie]

Does the world say anything about all the beheadings in Saudi Arabia done by religious police - no

Why, nobody gives a shit either, Europe, America, UN quite as always....

[derator01]

An inappropriate post has been removed from view. Please abide by forum rules.

[simple1]

Irrespective of the intention of this article the point is not made, while others are. What are the laws? How/why do they adversely target the minority population? Who are those people slandered with ulterior motives for passing such laws out of prejudice?

It is possible I can disagree with the conclusion of a validly presented argument and still see the merits intended. But I do not see the merits of this byline. Nations have a right to enact legislation that best reflects their values and security. Indeed, numerous nations have taken steps to limit polygamy and repercussions for changing one's faith. I suppose these are the issues of discussion because the author only peripherally suggests the problem.

...ha! multiple wives is a human right? Being able to be killed for changing religion is a human right? I may or may not object to the treatment of these people but I hardly see where this is a well reasoned presentation.

My college student government newsletter was better prepared and researched then the drivel that passes for oped or news from this source.

The new laws further discriminating against the Rohingya are based upon demands by Buddhist nationalists (Group 969). Not so long ago laws were also passed so Rohingya are not permitted to participate in the upcoming election unless they renounce their ethnicity and identify themselves as Bengali's; thereby exposing themselves to be defined as illegal migrants to be deported, even though they have been living in Myanmar for generations.

Upon Burma gaining independence Rohingya were recognised as a legitimate ethnic group, but were disenfranchised in 1982 when all were made stateless by the then dictatorship; to this day Rohingya are still stateless. In addition Rohingya are refused freedom of movement, very limited access to education, business, medical care, required to obtain permission to marry etc etc. To be frank if I were a Rohingya I would pick up a weapon in rebellion against the state organised repression.

Christian ethnic groups, among other minorities, have for decades been in armed rebellion against Burmese government repression, yet one never hears of vitriol against them of this forum, I wonder why...

Edited August 29, 2015 by simple1

[arjunadawn]

Irrespective of the intention of this article the point is not made, while others are. What are the laws? How/why do they adversely target the minority population? Who are those people slandered with ulterior motives for passing such laws out of prejudice?

It is possible I can disagree with the conclusion of a validly presented argument and still see the merits intended. But I do not see the merits of this byline. Nations have a right to enact legislation that best reflects their values and security. Indeed, numerous nations have taken steps to limit polygamy and repercussions for changing one's faith. I suppose these are the issues of discussion because the author only peripherally suggests the problem.

...ha! multiple wives is a human right? Being able to be killed for changing religion is a human right? I may or may not object to the treatment of these people but I hardly see where this is a well reasoned presentation.

My college student government newsletter was better prepared and researched then the drivel that passes for oped or news from this source.

The new laws further discriminating against the Rohingya are based upon demands by Buddhist nationalists (Group 969). Not so long ago laws were also passed so Rohingya are not permitted to participate in the upcoming election unless they renounce their ethnicity and identify themselves as Bengali's; thereby exposing themselves to be defined as illegal migrants to be deported, even though they have been living in Myanmar for generations.

Upon Burma gaining independence Rohingya were recognised as a legitimate ethnic group, but were disenfranchised in 1982 when all were made stateless by the then dictatorship; to this day Rohingya are still stateless. In addition Rohingya are refused freedom of movement, very limited access to education, business, medical care, required to obtain permission to marry etc etc. To be frank if I were a Rohingya I would pick up a weapon in rebellion against the state organised repression.

Christian ethnic groups, among other minorities, have for decades been in armed rebellion against Burmese government repression, yet one never hears of vitriol against them of this forum, I wonder why...

Ah, a poison pill. If they take it they can ostensibly vote in elections but if they take it the point is moot because they can be expelled? I do not doubt there are such practices I only found this OP lacking information to support its byline. I find what you stated objectionable; I agree with you. However, I also find the issue to be a bit more complex than apologists (OP) suggest it is. It is possible that the Rohingya are persecuted because of ethnicity, but I do not believe this. They are being isolated because of their faith. Does this make it acceptable? No, but it begins to explain a complex situation that requires a solution. Problems like this cannot long be ignored because with such numbers invariably they will act upon neighboring states directly, or through unintended consequences of neglect.

Fact (IM thinking):

Rohingya represent a distinct lineage long associated with this region, likely predating the islamic jihad of Asia.

Numerous Bangladeshis migrated along this arc with significant numbers in recent years. They are also primarily islamic.

Large numbers of those found fleeing this area were not ethnic residents. (See above) They came from the arc that was previously known as Bengal- thus, Bengalis.

Islam has little accommodation for others (in fact it is a core tenet) and this area is no exception.

Anyone with a knowledge of the Koran and Hadith palpably realizes that the story playing out here is the exact same hijra story that played out in the koran- Mecca, Medina, Mecca. One might think this meaningless or provocative association but they bring no knowledge to the observation other than protest. It is a fact that the same exact mechanics are playing out in this region. Perhaps this is a one off... a convenient trick of facts to suggest there is a correlation between current events and longstanding islamic doctrine of conquest, when clearly there could not be. Wrong! This has happened as a fundamental mechanism of the entire jihad of the subcontinent and many other islamic jihad mechanisms- migration jihad and external conquest are the two islamic swords under heaven. Islam has a highly evolved sociomilitary theology about migrating into an area, existing while claiming and declaring tolerance. Later, protesting persecution and demanding more and more accommodations while never actually affording the same in return. Finally, and in every single case, defensive jihad turns to offensive jihad.

I see this issue as a non compensatory mechanism of the Host.

Compensatory mechanisms are widely evident in the West as divergent cultures try to accommodate, indeed, appease hijra migration. However, there is a point in each cultural example where the host is failing and employs non compensatory mechanisms to try and survive- self preservation kicks in. The Meccans did just this and kicked islam out. The Medians first choose compensating, and accommodated the nascent islam but failed, to their eternal destruction. They never offered a non compensatory-self-preservation action to save themselves, and were destroyed (They joined the prophet's caravan thieving in pursuit of self gain while empowering islam predominately). Islam returned in force to Mecca and was finally destroyed, evidencing some of the gravest atrocities of any book in history. India, a generally pacific people, had no framework from which to measure the brutality that ran over them, and were destroyed. Compensatory mechanisms failed brilliantly by both the invading hoards and those many, many muslims that had migrated their turning upon their neighbors and slaughtering them, welcoming the invaders. India, the silent jewel, represents the greatest atrocity in all human history and few even know of the hundreds of millions- or alternatively, hundred plus million- dead from the combination of those within and without.

This point is aptly captured by Durant, below. History is a non stop, 1,400 year train of information suggesting why others might be averse to islamic protests and aggression, especially in SE Asia. This case is hardly as narrow as those "bad Buddhists." One might not like the tone of my writings but these facts remain commonly known and true. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Santayana