[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 3:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just received this e-mail via my personal home page:

ayn rand was a supporter of the illegal establishing of the illegal state of israel, a  state built on land taken by force from peaceful people who had lived in palestine for thousands of years. how can you promote values of "objectivism" when you embrace the destruction and rape ofthe nation of palestine?. where is your compassion? where is your humanism? in 1924 the population of palestine was 500,000 only 24,000 of them were jewish , nowadays anybody pretending to be jewish can go to israel and live on land that was taken by force from a palestinian. AYN RAND WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A HATEFUL RACIST and anybody who follows her asinine teachings needs to have his or her head examined. peace be with you

Ignoring than the horrible grammar and other basic writing errors, please respond to these accusations.

I plan to send this link to the person who e-mailed me so he can read some well-informed responses.




Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 6:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the writer needs to go back to school.

1) Palestine was never a "nation." Never independent or sovereign.

2) Development isn't "destruction and rape." 

3) Blame Yaser Arafat for the current state of Palestine's people. He blew every chance they had.

4) Cultural relativism is evil. There is no comparison between tribes who solve conflicts by cutting off the heads of their rivals, and a group of individuals who solve conflicts through courts and democracy. Choosing the former over the later is beyond the pale stupid.

5) Blowing up crowded markets, restaurants, and passenger busses won't win the people of Palestine any sympathy. 

6)  Israel didn't kick anyone out. Morons like Arafat told the "Palestinians" to leave, and they listened, like the brainless sheep they are. Israel won new territories as a result of winning a bunch of wars after being attacked by a bunch of jealous savages who claimed the very same things you are.

7) As if screaming about the Jewish "occupation" isn't racist.  Grow up.

8) Stop bitching and moaning. Get a life of your own.  

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 4/21, 10:49am)




Post 2

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 7:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I personally have found almost nothing anywhere among Rand's writings on Israel. Did you ask him to cite his sources?




Post 3

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 6:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, Chris, I asked him to post his responses to this thread.  I have also found nothing she wrote about Israel.  I think he has taken Yaron Brook's words and put them into her mouth.



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)

 

Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?

 

AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.

 

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.


 
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_arab_conflict

It probably wouldn't have come off as "racist" as much had she discussed who had the rights to that territory or perhaps what happens to rights or land ownership during wartime. In any case, it's a little nutty to see Palestinians as the innocent victims throughout the Israeli-Palestinian mess. Does the emailer really think that were all peaceful conscientious objectors to the war(s)?  

 

Jordan

 

 

 




Post 5

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 9:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is a passing mention of Israel in one of her "Ayn Rand Letters."




Post 6

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 11:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see NOTHING racist there.  She is talking about cultures - not races.



Post 7

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 6:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It depends on how one defines "racism."  I agree with you on this, Steve, but we are not the only ones offering to define the terms.

In sociology, for instance, racism refers only to the attitudes and consequences of those attitudes, held by the White majority culture.  There can be no such thing as "Black racism."  Discrimination, yes; segregation and separatism, yes; but, racism, no, not by definition.

Ayn Rand (and you and I) use the word to refer to any familial or tribal identification.  If you said that you are happy to be born a Wolfer and you feel sorry for people who were not, that would be Wolfer racism.  Sounds funny, but that is the kind of racism expressed by many Jews.  Many people who happen to have been raised in families that associate with others who happend to have been socialized among those who worship a "Creator" in social gatherings held in special places they call "synagogues" or "shuls" often tend to see themselves as "God's chosen people."  On that basis -- into which is factored the common sense view that we always know who the mother is, even if the father is in dobut -- many such persons often induce their female offspring to find suitable mates among those who likewise associate via the same normative selection process. 

You can understand the epistemological and psychological consequences of avoiding the phrase "Jewish racism."  One of our friends said that she was disappointed that her daughter did not marry another Ashkenasi.  "There are so few of us," she said.  I held my tongue but I wanted to point out that inbreeding was probably a contributing factor.

Anyway, since Jews consider themselves a race and since Jews dominate Israel, native Palestinians (and their sympathizers) complain of "racism" in Israel, even though, logically enough, Jews and Arabs are nearly indistinguishable by blood type, language, or culture.  Although -- and this seems to be significant -- the Arabs seem to prefer to memorize all the verses in one short book, whereas Jews argue incessantly among themselves about the  meaning, intent and implications of the Torah and the Talmud and the Mishna and Lord knows what else...  Thus, as similar as they are, the one group tends to admit to tolerable differences of opinion, and the other does not.  One consequence of that is that there are anti-Zionist pro-Arab political parties in Israel, whereas opposition parties have a hard row to hoe in Syria, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia...

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/23, 6:53am)




Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> illegal establishing of the illegal state of israel...

Gosh, why waste time on such ignorant?

A most rudimental reading on history would tell that United Nation passed a resolution on Nov. 29, 1947 to partition Palestine into a Jewish and Palestinian states. Jews complied and hence the birth of the modern Jewish state of Israel. While Arabs rejected UN resolution and started an "illegal" war aimed at wiping Israel out.

Even before that, the establishment of the modern Jewish state was already "legitimized" (if this word can be used here) by the League of Nations in 1922. When Britain was given mandate over Palestine, the language of the 1917 Balfour Declaration ("securing the establishment of the Jewish national home") was incorporated in the text of the mandate and ratified by the League of Nations.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/23, 8:57am)




Post 9

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 9:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael said:
In sociology, for instance, racism refers only to the attitudes and consequences of those attitudes, held by the White majority culture.  There can be no such thing as "Black racism."  Discrimination, yes; segregation and separatism, yes; but, racism, no, not by definition.
I've heard that before; it really is a self-serving perversion of the meaning of a word.  Does this mean, for example, that one can't say that the Japanese are racist?  Only white people are?  Ridiculous!
Ayn Rand (and you and I) use the word to refer to any familial or tribal identification.
The dictionary definition is very similar to that used by Rand:
"A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Thanks,
Glenn




Post 10

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does this mean, for example, that one can't say that the Japanese are racist?  Only white people are?  Ridiculous!
First of all, I am just quoting.  I made my own view clear.  Secondly, yes, in Japan, the Japanese laws and attitudes against Koreans and Ainu, are examples of racism because the Japanese are the ruling class ethnicity.  That, then, would apply to Jews in Israel.  There is a conceptual abstraction here that subsumes the essential distinguishing characteristics of the many forms of institutional discrimination.  That is the definition of racism -- apart from what Ayn Rand or "the dictionary" said in one line.




Post 11

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

People can "offer to define terms" till the cows come home.  But if they use "racism" to mean other than associating characteristics with race that are actually products of individual, volitional actions they have some explaining to do.

In your post, referring to me you said,
If you said that you are happy to be born a Wolfer and you feel sorry for people who were not, that would be Wolfer racism. 
You aren't being clear, to me anyway, whether you mean that is a position you assume I agree with or you are still talking about the approach used by Sociology in todays academic environment.

I'm happy to be born a Wolfer for a number of reasons, and none of them are racist by any reasonable definition  That is, I'm not assigning to race or family genes what were character traits or volitionally acquired skills or abilities.  And happiness is an emotional state not a belief. 
-----------------------------

On a separate issue: In a very insulting fashion, you said that I (and others) were idiots in post #8 on another thread:  http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1723.shtml#9 and I saw nothing that merited that kind of abuse.

And you accused others on the thread of being as sick as the Virginia Tech killer for their posts.  I was disappointed to see you do that and I haven't seen an explanation, an apology, or even a reply to my post #9.




Post 12

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 6:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,
I wasn't trying to shoot the messenger.  I was responding to the re-definition of "racism", not to you personally.
But, in your last post you said:
There is a conceptual abstraction here that subsumes the essential distinguishing characteristics of the many forms of institutional discrimination.  That is the definition of racism -- apart from what Ayn Rand or "the dictionary" said in one line.
I couldn't disagree more.  Rand's and the dictionary's definition captures the "essential distinguishing characteristics" of racism.  This re-definition is a perfect example of "package dealing".  The fact that one race is the "majority culture" is irrelevant to the concept of racism and is an attempt to define the concept by nonessentials.
If they want to call it "institutional discrimination", that's fine.




Post 13

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 3:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wasn't Ayn Rand opposed to the UN, or any international body that tells your country what it can and cannot do?  And to what extent are we concerned with what the UN said, in reference to the original accusation?

I think the "racist" part of the accusation has been given sufficient attention.  The burden of proof is on the accuser, who has provided no proof.

Allow me to get some of the low hanging fruit here: why was the occupation "illegal?"  What makes it legal or illegal?  "thousands of years" is an extreme overstatement for the area in question, and "peacefully" is up for debate.  "anybody pretending to be jewish can go to israel and live on land"  Anybody?  Try it.

It seems the author has created a false syllogism.  "Since Rand supported Israel, and Israel is 'evil,' Rand must be evil."  The author has provided no standard for evaluating what is evil, nor have they presented anything that indicates to the reasonable mind that Israel is evil.  Secondly, even if it were shown that Israel is evil, the final conclusion in this messy train of thought is not proven by the premises - as I said, it is bad logic.  I really like the "peace be with you" at the end.  It seemed so genuine that it warmed my soul to the very core.




Post 14

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 5:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)

 

Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?

 

AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.

 

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.


 
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_arab_conflict



Sheer brilliance and elegance.  This one, concise message bears repeating all over the internet.


(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 4/24, 5:27pm)




Post 15

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 5:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While Arabs rejected UN resolution and started an "illegal" war aimed at wiping Israel out.

Even before that, the establishment of the modern Jewish state was already "legitimized" (if this word can be used here) by the League of Nations in 1922.
I would love to know why "illegal" and "legitimized" are in quotes. 

Are you being facetious?  Are you attempting to say that the Arab war wasn't illegal?  Are you in support of the Arabs?

Are you also saying that the establishment of the modern Jewish state was not legitimate?  Do you not support Israel's claim to a right to exist?

I would be very much interested in reading your answers to these questions, Hong. 




Post 16

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 6:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perfect example of Rand's racism. Imagine generalizing about blacks
or Jews or any other group in this manner. Also I suspect the original
email was Israeli disnformation because it was so crude and inaccurate
in certain specifics. The Palestine population census taken by the UK
in 1919 showed almost 800,000 people of whom 92% were Arabs.
So that leaves many more Arabs than 500,000 and many more Jews than 24.
The UN Partition of 1947 was illegal because it was against the wishes of the
then 2/3rds Arab majority. Read The Forrestal Diaries, it was a scandalous
bit of back door & pork barrel politics. Also 95% of the Palestinian Arabs
were not nomads, they were farmers or tradespeople, the Bedouins were less
than 5%. Rand once told Professor John O. Nelson that "Arabs" only understood
force. She simply said "Arabs" with no qualifications. Nor is most of the Arab
world "nomads' or were "nomads' when she spoke these words 35 years ago.
Also contrary to Hong, the US Congressional Resolution of 1922 has no standing
in international law. It's not up to the Congress here to dispose of other peoples'
property and lives. I could go on about the estimated 250 billion, that's a quarter
tril, stolen from US taxpayers to give to Israel. Ten years ago The Washington Report
on The Middle East broke down the then 135 billion given to Israel including foregone
interest by the US taxpayers. It has easily reached 250 bil by now.One book by the
conservative American Jew Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection, is worth
reading. Also the Israeli scholar Avi Schlaim's The Iron Wall about Israeli relations with
the Arab states. The League of Nations Mandate was a fraud because the UK had promised
the Arabs in Palestine independence for supporting them against Turkey, a German ally
in WW1. That 1922 resolution had no more validity than the 1922 Congressional Resolution.
Finally the Arabs, though outnumbered militarily 3 to 1, "invaded" Palestine in 1948 to
stop the expulsions of Arabs that had been going on since late 1947 after the Partition
at Lake Success,NY. It was not to "wipe out Israel" but to save Palestine from being wiped
out itself. The Arabs who lived in Palestine for 1,000 years prior to the state of Israel had
every bit as much right as the Irish who never had a state themselves until 1921. And then
only in part of Ireland. The nation-state is a new idea in modern history. There was no
Germany until 1870 for instance. The fact of the matter is that Israel was created through force
and fraud, one million Palestinians forced out in 1948, UNRRA was feeding that many in camps
as of early 1949 and several hundred thousand killed by Israel with US bood money since 1948.
These specious and wholly typical "objectivist" rationalizations prove the point of Randian racism
better than any half-literate letter. The Arab parties in Israel are very limited in what they can do
and as a result most Arabs there who do vote have to go with the so-called left because the alternative
is terrible. Any point I haven't covered I can but this is long now.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Roche,

You say you could go on but that you had quit prematurely -- because the post was getting too long (and I agree). But could you please take a moment to "go on" about these quotes (from amnesty.org), most of them referring to Muslim-controlled areas? Thanks.

or Pakistan
"In Pakistan, children continued to be sentenced to death,"

or Jordan
"In Jordan, proposals to amend Article 340 of the Penal Code (which relates to family killings) to make it more favourable to women were rejected by the Lower House of Parliament. The more frequently used Article 98, which allows for a reduced sentence for perpetrators whose crime was committed in a "fit of rage", remained on the statute books."

or the many "wonderful" governments of Africa
"Governments of countries such as Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Togo and Zimbabwe used malicious prosecution, arbitrary arrest and excessive force against demonstrators as tools of political repression. In some cases newspapers and radio stations were arbitrarily closed down."

"Violence against women continued to be widely seen as socially acceptable,"

" ... there continued to be different standards of evidence for sexual "offences" such as zina (involving consensual sexual relations above the age of consent), and culpable homicide was used as a charge in cases of abortion and miscarriage in some states in Nigeria. As a result, women, especially those from deprived economic backgrounds and with little formal education, were more likely than men to be convicted and sentenced to death or other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments for some crimes."

"They were raped and suffered other forms of sexual violence by perpetrators from different parties to the conflicts in Burundi, CAR, Côte d'Ivoire, the DRC, Liberia, Sudan, Uganda and elsewhere."

"Female genital mutilation continued to be widely practised in different forms in many countries,"
I could go on, but will hold my tongue for brevity's sake. I'm trying to gather whether there are some groups of folks on the planet that don't deserve sovereignty (because they don't act human). I'd appreciate your insight into this matter.

Ed





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 10:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alright, so I just couldn't resist.

I'm going to "go on" about Muslim-based, inhuman action which has been taken on earth. Please, Mr. Roche, take these 2 posts in 2 parts (2 separate responses -- if you have it in you) ...

From:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engACT530042001?open&of=THEMES/DEATH+PENALTY
===================
In October a 30-year-old woman, Safiya Tungar-Tudu, a divorcee, was sentenced to death by stoning by the Upper Sharia Court in Gwadabawa, Sokoto State, after allegedly pleading guilty to the offence of fornication. In both cases the governors of the states have to give their approval for the sentence to be carried out.

Over the past two years several northern states in Nigeria have introduced penal legislation for Muslims based on the principles of Sharia. Stoning to death has been introduced for a number of existing offences previously punishable to a lesser degree. In the legal tradition of Sharia the rules of evidence, rights of appeal, rights to legal representation and possible punishments are different from the laws which apply to citizens who are not Muslims.

DEATH SENTENCE FOR BLASPHEMY IN PAKISTAN
Dr Younis Shaikh, a medical school lecturer, was sentenced to death on 18 August by a criminal court in Islamabad for blasphemy. He had allegedly remarked during a lecture that the Prophet Mohammed was not a Muslim until the age of 40 when Islam was revealed to him. His comments were taken up by an Islamist organization, the Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-i-Nabuwat (Committee for the Protection of the Finality of the Prophethood), which brought a complaint to the police. Dr Shaikh, who has been detained since October 2000, has filed an appeal.

The death penalty for blasphemy is a mandatory sentence in Pakistan which is usually commuted by a higher court. Earlier this year, however, Ayub Masih, a Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy, had his sentence upheld by a high court. Ayub Masih, who has been imprisoned since his arrest in October 1996 and is currently held in solitary confinement in Multan, 200 miles southwest of Lahore, has appealed for commuation to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the final court of appeal.
===================
PUBLIC HANGINGS IN IRAN
More than 28 executions were carried out in Iran in August, some of them in public. Three men, convicted of armed robbery, were hanged in public on 16 August in the town of Semnan. In the city of Mashhad, Reza Nadi and Kazem Alayemi were publicly hanged and there were three public executions in Tehran. According to the Iranian news agency IRNA, public protests at one execution in Tehran led police to fire tear gas into the crowd. The protests reflect concern expressed by President Mohammad Khatami and other reformers that public hangings damage Iran's reputation abroad.

There have been 120 recorded executions in Iran this year to the end of September though the true figures may be much higher. More than 80 people are under sentence of death some for offences with non-lethal consequences such as economic sabotage.
===================



From:
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hanging2.html
===================
An Iranian hanging in 2001.
Fariba Tajiani-Emamqoli (pictured) and her 4 male accomplices, Ali Alipour, Ibrahim Qaemshari, Ali-Kazem Aslani and Framan Qaremani-Aazara were taken to a piece of waste ground in the Khak-e Sefid district of Tehran at dawn on Monday, the 19th of March to be executed for drug trafficking.

Each was placed on the back of one of 5 modern recovery trucks and there blindfolded and their hands tied behind them. As Fariba looked up at the yellow crane jib with the noose dangling from it, she muttered, "May God forgive me," to the woman overseeing her execution. The coiled noose, fashioned from thin green nylon rope, was placed over her head and adjusted loosely behind her right ear. Seconds later, the cranes on the flat-bed recovery trucks began to lift their jibs, tightening the nooses and then sweeping all 5 prisoners from the lorry's backs leaving them dangling, their legs initially kicking in the air. The crowd of about 200 men, women and children chanted "Allah akbar" - God is great and "Death to the traffickers, death to the traffickers." The executions took about 25 minutes, with the bodies being left suspended for 10 minutes before being taken down.
===================



From:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.20229/pub_detail.asp
===================
The question was simple: "Do you want an Islamic Republic?" According to revolutionary authorities, 98.2 percent said yes.

Khomeini claimed victory. "By casting a decisive vote in favor of the Islamic Republic," he told enthusiastic crowds, "you have established a government of divine justice, a government in which all segments of the population shall enjoy equal consideration, [and] the light of divine justice shall shine uniformly on all. . . ."

So began a quarter century of tyranny. In the weeks that followed, Iranians would awake to see pictures splashed across the front page of the official daily Ettelaat of government officials, intellectuals, and liberals before and after execution. Khomeini gave vigilantes tacit approval to sack the U.S. embassy
===================
Over the last five years, Iranian authorities have closed more than 50 newspapers. According to Reporters Sans Frontiers, the Islamic Republic has the second-greatest number of imprisoned journalists in the world. On July 11, 2003, Iranian authorities murdered Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi while she was in detention. Nevertheless, with Iranian state television tightly controlled and satellite access limited, it was possible on March 30, 2004, for Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi-Shahrudi to claim with a straight face, "No country enjoys freedom, democracy, and the press freedom that currently exists in our country."

The fight against capital punishment is among the European Left's most popular causes. When it comes to Iran, however, there is only the silence of hypocrisy. Executions in Iran have risen proportionally to European trade. During the Khatami administration, application of the death penalty has ballooned. Iranian newspapers regularly document executions. For example, on February 14, 2004, Jomhuri Islami announced the public hangings of several youths, some less than 18 years old, in an orchard in the southwestern town of Mahshahr. Four days later, Sharq reported public hangings in Bandar-e Gaz's main square. On February 25, Jomhuri Islami announced the public hanging of Mohammad Ali Firouzi, only after he received 173 lashes.

Iranian women today mark a quarter century of oppression. While the American media applauds the struggle of women to win new rights throughout much of the Middle East, correspondents often fail to mention that in Iran, women fight for the restoration of basic rights taken away by the Islamic Republic. Human-rights groups may march against the French government's decision to ban the veil in French public schools, but they remain conspicuously silent about the Islamic Republic's enforcement of mandatory veiling.

The Islamic Republic's constitution does guarantee limited rights, but Iranian authorities use vigilante gangs to sidestep even these. Police fail to respond to calls as vigilantes break up crowded lectures in Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz. In the late 1990s, Fedayin-e Islam, a shadowy group linked to Iran's intelligence ministry, assassinated a series of writers and intellectuals, a crime as yet unsolved, which has cast a pale over the reform movement. In 1999, armed vigilantes from Ansar-e Hezbollah attacked a student dormitory, setting off widespread protests. Authorities used the unrest as reason to crackdown on freedom of expression. Scores of students and dissidents arrested in the aftermath of the crisis still languish in Tehran's Evin Prison.
===================
Twenty-five years after Khomeini declared the Islamic Republic, nearly 70 million Iranians struggle to be free.
===================



From:
http://www.slate.com/id/2106547/
===================
Sharia is a centuries-old system of justice based on Quranic law, and while it includes general provisions about the importance of justice and equality, as practiced throughout the world it has been used to justify stonings, the flogging of rape victims, public hangings, and various types of mutilation. In her weird and provocative book, The Trouble With Islam, Canadian commentator Irshad Manji reminds us that on average, two women die each day in Pakistan from "honor killings" (a husband's revenge for adultery, flirtation, or any perceived sexual shaming) and that, in Malaysia, women may not travel without the written consent of a male. Saudi Arabian women may not drive. Moreover, under sharia, male heirs receive almost double the inheritance of females. Spousal support is limited from three months to one year, unless a woman was pregnant before she was divorced. Only men can initiate divorce proceedings, and fathers are virtually always awarded custody of any children who have reached puberty.
===================



From:
http://www.corpun.com/irj00107.htm
===================
Briton lashed for going to 'depraved' party
ABOUT 50 young Iranians, including one with British nationality, received between 30 and 99 lashes each for attending a "depraved" party, a local newspaper said yesterday.

Many of the 18 to 25-year-old men and women were said to have been "dancing half-naked" at the party in a north Teheran suburb at the weekend.

The Foreign Office was unable to confirm or deny the report that one of those punished has a British father.

Mingling with the opposite sex, dancing with non-family members and not wearing Islamic dress in public are illegal in Iran and are usually punishable by fines or flogging.
===================
Iran flogs 20 in public for selling 'obscene' CDs
TEHRAN (Reuters) -- Twenty Iranians were flogged in a square in the capital Tehran yesterday for selling "obscene" compact discs and videotapes, the official news agency IRNA reported.

The dealers had been convicted of selling the illegal material, usually pirated Western films and music videos by U.S.-based Iranian artists. The agency did not say how many lashes the men received.

Western-style tapes and CDs are illegal under Iran's strict censorship rules which ban images of women without an Islamic dress covering most of their body. But the material is widely available in the Islamic republic anyway.

IRNA said other dealers continued to sell similar material not far from the square as the flogging was being carried out. Plainclothes police barred Iranian press photographers from taking pictures of the public flogging, it added.
===================
Iranians flogged for drinking, sex offences
TEHRAN (Reuters) -- Twelve men have been flogged in public in Iran's capital for a range of offences including drunkenness, selling "sinful" CDs and harassing women, a newspaper reported yesterday.

The daily Jomhuri-e-Eslami said the "thugs" were whipped in southeastern Tehran on Saturday, each receiving 75-80 lashes for their offences, which also included arranging illicit sexual liaisons. The whippings took place in three large squares in the city.

On Thursday, 14 male youths were flogged in northern Tehran for harassing women and public drunkenness, a punishable offence in Iran, which implements strict Islamic Sharia law. Witnesses said the youths beaten on Thursday were aged between 18-25 and received 20-70 lashes, with their hands roped to a police car. Hardliners who dominate the judiciary have recently stepped up their campaign against liberal influences which they blame on reforms carried out by newly re-elected President Mohammed Khatami.
===================
Apart from public floggings, the stoning of women for adultery and public hangings for various crimes have been on the increase since Mr Khatami's second landslide election victory last month.

Public floggings have rarely been carried out in Iran in recent years, but in the past few weeks alone, at least 50 young men have been whipped in three separate incidents.

In the latest case, the 25 men beaten in Tehran on Friday each received between 70 and 80 lashes.

Last bastion
The Iranian judiciary is seen as a bastion of hardline conservatives, and it appears that Mr Khatami and his reformist allies are powerless to stop its controversial decisions.

It appears that the judiciary is resorting to such severe punishments in an attempt to undermine President Khatami's popularity among the young.

President Khatami has promised respect for human rights and the rule of law.

But hardliners in the Iranian leadership blame Mr Khatami's reforms for what they see as the increased flouting of religious rules.
===================
Iranian men flogged for drinking, harassing women
TEHRAN (Reuters) -- Twenty-two men have been flogged in public in Iran's capital for offences that included drinking alcohol and harassing women, the official news agency IRNA reported yesterday. IRNA said 14 men aged 20-35 were whipped in a busy northern Tehran street on Tuesday evening, each receiving 70-80 lashes.

Another eight young people, aged 20-25, were publicly flogged in a northern Tehran square the same day for drinking alcohol and creating a public disturbance, the agency said, adding they also received 70-80 lashes each.

The agency said a large crowd gathered to watch the beatings, and some women wept as the men were flogged. Photographers were prevented from taking pictures of the lashings.

Only members of Iran's non-Muslim community are allowed to make or consume alcoholic beverages, whose production, sale and drinking is otherwise strictly forbidden. Five public floggings have been reported in Tehran in recent weeks.

Hardliners, who dominate the judiciary, have recently been stepping up their campaign against liberal influences which they blame on reforms carried out by newly re-elected President Mohammad Khatami.
===================
New floggings in Iran
By Iranian affairs analyst Sadeq Saba

A hardline court in Iran has ordered another group of young men to be flogged in public despite opposition from the reformist government of President Mohammad Khatami.

Five men were whipped in the western town of Boroujerd on Sunday on charges of public disorder and breaking shop windows.

In the past few weeks about 100 young men have been flogged in several incidents in Iranian towns.

The Iranian interior minister and pro-reform political organisations have condemned these severe punishments.

Public spectacle
The five young men were whipped in a busy square in Boroujerd.
They each received more than 70 lashes for public disorder offences.
The head of the judiciary in the town said unemployment was the main cause of such behaviour.
He justified the use of public flogging against young offenders by saying it would make an example of them for others.

Dozens of young men have also been whipped in public in the capital, Tehran, mainly for drinking alcohol and chasing women.

This kind of punishment has rarely been carried out in Iran in recent years.

Youth concern
But its increasing use over the past weeks has created anxiety among the Iranian youth who have been enjoying more social freedoms since President Khatami came to power four years ago.

Reformists fear that the hardline conservative judiciary is ordering such punishments in an attempt to undermine Mr Khatami's credibility.

The Iranian pro-reform interior minister has recently said the whipping of people in public places had serious political and social consequences.

Other reformists have said such punishments hurt the country's image.
But hardliners blame Mr Khatami's tolerant policies for encouraging young people to defy religious rules.

Reports from Iran say most people disapprove public floggings.

Other severe punishments such as stoning of women for adultery and public hangings for various crimes have also been on the increase in recent months.
===================



Like I said, Mr. Roche, please take these 2 posts showing "Muslim" inhumanity as 2 separate issues. My curiosity is to see what it is that you are actually defending here.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/24, 10:54pm)




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Roche,

There is NOTHING racist there.  She is talking about cultures - not races.  You used the word "Arab" in your rant - are you being racist?  Or are you referring to a culture?

Don't bother replying, it was a rhetorical question.  When I read your next to last sentence,
These specious and wholly typical "objectivist" rationalizations prove the point of Randian racism better than any half-literate letter
I lost all interest in a discussion with you.  Your mean-spirited approach to discussion will suit you well as you join with those who call for the elimination of jews.





Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.