European Tribune

With God on Their Side

by fauxreal
Sun Aug 6th, 2006 at 04:58:33 PM EST

Gays executed in Iraq by Shi'a Islamic Fundamentalists.

Hardline Islamic insurgent groups in Iraq are targeting a new type of victim with the full protection of Iraqi law, The Observer can reveal. The country is seeing a sudden escalation of brutal attacks on what are being called the 'immorals' - homosexual men and children as young as 11 who have been forced into same-sex prostitution.

(more)


Homosexuality is seen as so immoral that it qualifies as an 'honour killing' to murder someone who is gay - and the perpetrator can escape punishment. Section 111 of Iraq's penal code lays out protections for murder when people are acting against Islam.

A Family In Baghdad from July notes the stages of the occupation:

The latest trend in Iraq in the last months is that of the militias, which raid residential neighborhoods in broad daylight, or in the dead of night, breaking through the curfew hours, and none of the occupation forces or the official Iraqi police can control them, or deter their attacks and protect the civilian residents... they enter residential areas, attacking mosques, burning them, killing the Imam and the security group. (are these Muslims? In all our lives, we never heard of a Muslim who attacks a mosque and burns it. Who are these? Magies? Infidels? Zionists? No one knows). Or they might have some seeking eyes in collaboration with them in the neighborhood, who give them lists of the families there and their "kinds"; these are Sunnies, those are Shia'ats.

Riverbend tells of persecution of females.

Since the beginning of July, the men in our area have been patrolling the streets. Some of them patrol the rooftops and others sit quietly by the homemade road blocks we have on the major roads leading into the area. You cannot in any way rely on Americans or the government. You can only hope your family and friends will remain alive- not safe, not secure- just alive. That's good enough.

For me, June marked the first month I don't dare leave the house without a hijab, or headscarf. I don't wear a hijab usually, but it's no longer possible to drive around Baghdad without one. It's just not a good idea. (Take note that when I say `drive' I actually mean `sit in the back seat of the car'- I haven't driven for the longest time.) Going around bare-headed in a car or in the street also puts the family members with you in danger. You risk hearing something you don't want to hear and then the father or the brother or cousin or uncle can't just sit by and let it happen. I haven't driven for the longest time. If you're a female, you risk being attacked.

...I realized how common it had become only in mid-July when M., a childhood friend, came to say goodbye before leaving the country. She walked into the house, complaining of the heat and the roads, her brother following closely behind. It took me to the end of the visit for the peculiarity of the situation to hit me. She was getting ready to leave before the sun set, and she picked up the beige headscarf folded neatly by her side. As she told me about one of her neighbors being shot, she opened up the scarf with a flourish, set it on her head like a pro, and pinned it snuggly under her chin with the precision of a seasoned hijab-wearer. All this without a mirror- like she had done it a hundred times over... Which would be fine, except that M. is Christian.

United Nations Iraqi Human Rights Report May-June 2006 notes more than 5800 Iraqis killed during this one-month period. The Iraqi Ministry of Health reported at least 50,000 people had been violently killed in Iraq since 2003.

From October 2005 to 30 June 2006 at least twelve homosexuals were reportedly killed in targeted attacks. Militias are reportedly threatening families of men believed to be homosexual, stating that they will begin killing family members unless the men are handed over or killed by the family. In March 2006, a 29-year-old man was kidnapped in Baghdad and his family threatened for allowing him to lead a homosexual lifestyle. The family paid a ransom for the man's release but the mutilated body of the kidnapped victim was instead found dead a few days later. In another case reported a homosexual man was allegedly a victim of an "honor crime." It was reported in the press that the man's father was released without trial once he explained that he had hanged his son after discovering he was homosexual.

The report notes that kidnappings have increased the most over the last month of this report. Intimidation of women, homosexuals and religious minorities has also increased. Attacks are carried out at a neighborhood level.

Rash of gay killings in Iraq over the last eight months (as of July).

Ali Hili, founder and spokesperson for the exile group LGBT Iraqis U.K., said Islamic death squads came to life in response to Sistani's fatwa and brought about an atmosphere of terror among gays. He said some death squad members arranged meetings with gays through chat rooms by posing as gays themselves, then captured and sometimes assaulted or killed their targeted victims.

Even in "peaceful" Jordan, honor killings of women account for ONE-THIRD of all violent deaths.

The military occupation of Iraq offers its own dangers for women, as we have seen. An Iraqi medic testified earlier this month about the well-publicized rape, murder and burning of fourteen year old Iraqi girl, Abeer Qassem al-Janabi.

The medic, whose name was withheld for security reasons, told the hearing that he was the first responder to enter the house and found the girl sprawled naked in the house, her torso and head burned by flames. She had a single bullet wound under her left eye, he said.

He testified that he found Abeer's 5-year-old sister, Hadeel, in an adjacent room. She was shot in the head and the bullet had blown out the back of her head, he said. The children's father, Qassim, and their mother, Fikhriya - had suffered similar deaths: the mother's abdomen and chest were riddled with bullets, he said.

Ordinary Iraqis are paying with their lives every day because George Bush used the invasion of Iraq as a political tool. By a vote of 77-23, the Senate voted for Bush's Iraqi War Resolution. Members of the House voted for the resolution by a 296-133 vote. In other words, there are only 156 members of the elected federal government who are not complicit in these war crimes.

The vote achieved one Republican aim by sharply dividing democrats nearly evenly between those who voted for and against the resolution.

ALL REPUBLICANS except for Lincoln Chaffee voted for this resolution. Byrd tried to filibuster, but was defeated. He called the resolution "the Gulf of Tonkin" all over again. John McCain was especially vocal in his support, declaring that allowing time for the U.N. to verify weapons claims, or "giving peace a chance" (his words) only allowed Saddam time to re-arm.

Video Collages set to music (warning: graphic footage):

Masters of War

Psycho Killer

The Emperor Shrugged

For What It's Worth

As Iraq sinks further into civil war, this comment gives some perspective:

It took the UN assistance mission in Iraq to help publicise the existence of alleged Shia death squads operating within the ministry of the interior. Only in a confidential report would the UK government talk of these militias as frankly as Ambassador Patey did: "If we are to avoid a descent into civil war and anarchy then preventing the Jaish al-Mahdi (the Mahdi Army) from developing into a state within a state, as Hizbullah has done in Lebanon, will be a priority."

The Iraqi human rights ministry investigates abuses in prisons and detention facilities, but the new minister, Wijdan Mikha'il, admitted to me that her investigators are sometimes too frightened to report what they find. The day before we met in June, she had delivered to the US authorities her unpublished investigation of the massacre at Haditha, where US marines were accused of killing up to 24 civilians; she told me that it was an attempt to introduce independent oversight. ("How can they do the investigation all by themselves if they were responsible for the incident? Who will believe them?")

The fury that I feel toward the U.S. government with their blythe spirit of war can only be matched by the fury I feel toward the Islamists who engage in honor killings of females and homosexuals, whether at war or in peace.

(originally posted here

I didn't see this here, but apologies in advance if I have missed a previous post.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Will write something on this later today.

This is a very complex subject.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 at 01:15:37 AM EST
This is a good place to flag again my (late) contribution to our recent religion discussion...

http://www.eurotrib.com/comments/2006/8/3/234924/0767/96#96


Religion is more dangerous than other ideologies because of its structural link to absolutes, and its structural use of fear in man. There can be no separation of powers, and no checks and balances with religion.

Religion is not about values, it is about escaping death - your death, not that of others.



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 at 07:45:57 AM EST
The Wingnutosphere is full of these kinds of reports -- minus the part about the American rape-murderers, of course -- but always as a call to arms against "Islamofascism." Unfortunately, invading, bombing and brutalizing civilians has not proved an effective way to safeguard, much less increase, basic human rights in these countries.

So the question I ask myself almost every day is, how can we help? Most days, the answer I arrive at -- other than working to drive neocons out of power wherever they turn up -- is to try to get asylum for as many women, gay people and intellectual "apostates" as possible. Just a little over a century ago, the U.S. (easily) absorbed almost three million Jews who were in danger of being killed by Russian "orthodoxofascists." Surely we could find room and resources to accept ten million Middle Easterners today.

by Matt in NYC on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 02:38:07 AM EST
What I've found amazing is that it seems as though it's "forbidden" to talk about such things, as though doing so somehow aligns you with the right wing.

this, imo, is a tragic mistake for the left.

...because who among the war supporters of the right really cares about the lives and rights of women and homosexuals -- no matter where they happen to reside?

As a woman, such reports are not about "making points" for one side or another imo. Such reports show the tragedy of fundamentalism of any kind...even the far left secular kind if it cannot admit such things for fear that it provides justification to the right...in my opinion these things do not provide justification AT ALL, but instead point out the problems that extremist religions share in their disregard for humanity because of their allegiance to beliefs grounded in hatred of "the other."

by fauxreal on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 08:35:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the real problem. Wingnuts have major powers they can support. We have no one. Despite the constant Wingnutty claims that we are "for" Hamas or Hezbollah or one of the thousand and one "insurgent" parties in Iraq, I don't know anyone who has ever sent money to any of them or even written about them very favorably. It's much more a case of our being "against" the forces that are killing them and so many civilians nearby than our being "for" anyone in the sense that one could be "for" the ANC and Mandela or the Chinese democracy movement of the 1980s.

There are some terrific organizations in Israel/Palestine and some amazing individuals in, for example, Iran, that I of course do support. But they're all so powerless, so out of the maintstream, so UNaligned ... Other than signing their petitions, publicizing their activities whenever I can, and -- as I wrote above -- doing my small part to encourage asylum programs for them when they get in real trouble -- I don't have a clue.  

by Matt in NYC on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 12:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thinking about it since you included one of his quotes: Robert Byrd has really become a man on a mission since this war began.  His transformation -- from a KKK member (he apologized hundreds of times and is now a favorite among black folks) to uberdefender of the Constitution (which he carries in his pocket at all times) and civil liberties and rights -- has been great to see.  I hope he lives to be two hundred years old, because he becomes more progressive and passionate by the day.  The man is older than God, but he won't leave the Senate until this war is over.

Perhaps it's because of the sheltered, secular life I lead, but I don't understand this concept of "honor killing".  Help me out.  The Christian Right doesn't even do this sort of thing, yet, every now and then, I stumble upon honor killing stories from England on the BBC website -- honor killings "justified" after, for example, a young Muslim couple (secret lovers) had sex out of wedlock.  I always think of Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride when I hear of these.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 11:25:16 AM EST
From the Wikipedia page

As of 2004, honor killings have occurred at the hands of individuals within parts of various countries, such as Albania, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy [12], Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom and the United States. Honor killings are more common among poor rural communities. In Europe, honor killings have mostly been reported within some Muslim and Sikh communities. Individual Arab Christians living within parts of the Near East, such as sections of Egypt, Jordan and Palestine, are said to sometimes carry out the act as well. [13] Many cases of honor killings have been reported in Pakistan. In December 2005, Nazir Afzal, director of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, stated that the United Kingdom has seen "at least a dozen honor killings" between 2004 and 2005. [14] Critics argue that the practice is over-whelmingly associated with certain Muslim cultures and the peoples influenced by those cultures. [15]

While it's primarily a Muslim/Middle Eastern thing, they don't seem to have a monopoly on it.

Click the link for a description of the phenomenon.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 11:44:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My God , I remember how the left used to curse him in the 60s.

Byrd's come around well.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 11:22:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem with spreading freedom at the point of a bayonet, is that you cannot force people to accept your definition of freedom.

You can try to influence other societies, but if you try to impose things you think good which they do not value the alien ideas will not long survive (unless they develop a substantial number of indigenous supporters).

Rights for women and homosexuals will have to be struggled for within the countries of the Middle East. Western involvement seems to be counterproductive at the moment. It is worth remembering that western societies ideas have evolved considerably in the last couple of centuries.

Sodomy was a capital crime in England 200 years ago. As the case of Oscar Wilde demonstrates, homosexuality was still illegal and still subject to considerable public hostility 100 years ago.

The laws against certain homosexual acts were not relaxed until less than 50 years ago. However as time has passed opinions have changed. Younger people now tend to be less concerned and the old English horror of homosexuality is dying out.

As to honour killings, my observation of immigrants from the Indian sub-continent (mostly rural Pakistan), is that they put a higher value on the collective interests of the family, than on the happiness of the individuals comprising the family. Although this way of thinking may have caused more problems for female family members, it also affected males and restricted their freedom of choice, for example in who they were allowed to marry.

Honour killing is just the most extreme version of the family first attitude.

by Gary J on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 06:04:19 PM EST
The statute I remember most fondly from Georgian England was the one called, I think, petit majestie, where a woman could be burned at the stake, for infidelity to her husband.

Several such burnings occurred in London, at Smithfield, the livestock market, prior to 1800.

Then there were the molly(transvestite) houses, and the punishments out of Draco. Made Oscar Wilde's penance seem tame. An under Sheriff of London got sacked and pilloried, and, as I remember, he didn't survive.

Will write more tomorrow.

Need to check up on what's happening in CT.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 11:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, there is an interesting site where someone has collected a lot of eighteenth century records, which deals in considerable detail with homosexual life in England in the era. A major source are the court reports and newspaper accounts of punishments.

There seems to have been considerable public hostility to homosexual offenders, so those put in the stocks or pillory could expect to be roughly treated by the London mob.

Conversely a popular offender pilloried for non-homosexual crimes, like the naval hero and politician Lord Cochrane, had a much easier time.

I think the man whose case you mentioned (if it was the same person I was thinking of), Charles Hitchen the Under City Marshal, probably had a lot of enemies regardless of his sexual activities. He had been the leading thief taker in London, with profitable sidelines in fencing and selling back to owners items stolen by his own burglars, selling protection from their activities and only arresting (and having hanged) those criminals who worked for rival gangs. It seems his principal rival as an organised criminal was the other Under Marshal of the City, which suggests that the invention of the Bow Street Runners later in the century was urgently needed

A few mildly relevant links.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Cochrane]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hitchen]

Rictor Norton's online resource about 'Homosexuality in Eighteenth Century England'

[http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/eighteen.htm]

by Gary J on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 05:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I would say honor killing is little more inconvenient than not being able to marry someone of your choice...but if it's a female life that is sacrificed for family honor...well, cultural history being what it is...

again, noting Human Rights violations (call me crazy, but killing someone for family honor is a human rights violation to me) is not the same thing as advocating democracy by bayonet.

why even bring up that idea in this context?

to do so implies that any acknowledgement of Human Rights is an issue that is tied to war. this is a ridiculous assumption that starts from a right wing view of the world, rather than acknowledging the long history of liberal (in the sense of liberal as progressive, and, yes, rational and enlightened) thought as a liberating mechanism for societies.

by fauxreal on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 01:19:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not say we should accept honour killing as acceptable because of the cultural background of those who consider it right. Clearly we should discourage the practise in every way we properly can. Where it occurs it should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

The honour killing element should be regarded as a factor meriting additional punishment, not a mitigating circumstance justifying leniency.

Having set out above my views, which I believe would be shared by the overwhelming majority of people in western countries, I have to point out that there are millions of people who honestly and sincerely believe it is right and proper to kill a family member (usually female) who has transgressed the moral code subscribed to by their community.

In areas of the world where the majority of the population think honour killings right and proper, stopping the killings or even punishing the guilty are unlikely to come about merely because foreigners disapprove.

Changes in morals can only come about from within the societies affected. The rest of the world can encourage change in various ways but is unlikely to be able to compel it. This is particularly so when the people whose views you are trying to change are actively involved in fighting your troops (or keeping their heads down and trying to avoid the attention of either side in the conflict).

I believe my attitude is the true liberal position.

by Gary J on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 06:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Something really bad just went down in Connecticut.

Be nice if they had some bottle rockets up there to celebrate the funeral.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 12:10:16 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]