Help get John's website banned!

This is unconscionable. The august Government of Pakistan, in its great wisdom, has seen fit to ban the website Plus Ultra for carrying insulting images and cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Clearly this affront to the dignity of Islam must be punished.

But why has Pervez Musharraf failed to ban John Sobieski's blog, Mo Parody? This is an outrage. Is not Mo Parody at least as offensive as Plus Ultra? Is it not at least as deserving as the Imperial Government of Pakistan's official censure? Then let the Government of Pakistan act justly and ban Mo Parody as well.

(After all, why should Plus Ultra get all the traffic?)

Dreams Into Lightning calls upon the Government of Pakistan to do the right thing. Surely banning should not be a privilege reserved for the elite few.

Tegan Wagner's Rapists Get Time, Finger

Via Rico at Plus Ultra, Australian rape victim Tegan Wagner had some thoughts for her attackers:

WITH a smile and a raised middle finger, gang rape victim Tegan Wagner yesterday stared down her attackers and uttered the words she has been waiting four long years to say.

"See ya, guys. Have a nice life. Enjoy prison."

As they were ushered out of the NSW Supreme Court to the cells below, rapist brothers MSK and MAK returned Ms Wager's greeting with an uncomfortable grin of their own.

MSK also mouthed the words, "I'm sorry", but was met with a curt, "F--- you mate, go to hell" from his 18-year-old victim.

For Ms Wagner, her gesture brought as much closure as the jail sentences just passed, which will keep her main attacker behind bars until 2024. ...

The specifics of the case, in which the defendants are identified only by their initials:

Ms Wagner was just 14 when she was raped by the Pakistani brothers after being plied with alcohol at their Ashfield home in June 2002. She had gone there with friends who knew the pair, but she had never met them before that night.

MSK, 27, and MAK, 26, are currently serving long sentences for the rapes of two other girls.

Yesterday, Justice Peter Hidden extended their time behind bars for their attacks on Ms Wagner and, in the case of MSK, the rape of a 13-year-old girl a month later.

Significantly, the Australian court rejected the claim that the defendants' responsibility was diminished because their Muslim background left them ill-prepared to deal with women in a civilized manner:

Justice Hidden yesterday rejected claims by MSK that the rapes occurred because of his cultural background.

In evidence to the court, MSK claimed women were perceived differently in the small, fiercely Muslim Pakistan village where he grew up and that Australian women were considered morally loose.

"The effect of his evidence was, he saw both victims as promiscuous and believed they had no right to repel his sexual advances," the judge said.

"(But) he must have had sufficient exposure to the Australian way of life to be aware the place occupied by women in the traditional culture of his area of origin is far removed from our social norms.

"He can have been in no doubt that to treat those two young women in the manner he did was utterly unacceptable."

rape
Australia

Update

Okay, it's late, it's Saturday night, I just got off a shift at work and I gotta go back tomorrow morning (yeah, Sunday) ... but we've got to get some posts up.

So let's get started ...

Provocation and Violence: FrontPage vs. FrontPage

Symposium: To Rape an Unveiled Woman

A Muslim rape epidemic in sweeping over Europe -- and over many other nations host to immigrants from the Islamic world. The direct connection between the rapes and Islam is irrefutable, as Muslims are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and rape suspects. The Muslim perpetrators themselves boast that their crime is justified since their victims were, among other things, not properly veiled.

What is the psychology here? What is the significance of this epidemic? And how do we face it when our own feminists, with a few exceptions, are deafingly silent about it?

David Yeagley

Members of the Duke University Lacrosse team may have abused a black party girl, but, without any proof or trial, the Duke Lacrosse team was punished by the university, suspended from further games.

Symposium: To Rape an Unveiled Woman

Peter Raddaz let’s begin with you.

A man sees a woman and she is not veiled. He thinks to himself: “Oh, I must rape her now.”

No matter how much I try to figure this out, I can’t. What’s the mindset here? If a person is upset that a woman is not veiled, it implies he wants some kind of supposed “morality.” But if he is thirsting for purity, how does perpetrating a violent sexual atrocity against the “immoral” one fit into moralizing her and the rest of society – and himself?

Raddatz: Your questions concerning mindset and morals put us right into the middle of the problem. They are the terms any culture's collective psychology is basing on. In the case of prevailing orthodox Islam we are faced with a deep division between the sexes. With Allah's unlimited ruling license the males are entitled to be the masters of the females. The Koranic order says that the man has to "go to the woman" whenever he likes, to "enjoy her however he likes", and to discipline her in case she develops her own ideas like sexual self-determination.

David Yeagley

The reports say the woman is a divorced, 27-year-old “mother” of two, attending North Carolina Central University. She is not a person of note, and is said to do exotic dancing as a side job to pick up extra cash.

Symposium: To Rape an Unveiled Woman

FP: Thank you Dr. Raddatz. Dr. Eussner?

Eussner: Thank you, Jamie. I agree with Peter: The survival and expansion of Islam worldwide is the main goal of Islam since its invention by Mohammed. In this respect, the history of Islamic conquest is self-explanatory. The other aspect is the lack of appreciation for the individual as such. For both, men and women, it is true, that there are no individual rights, but for women it is even worse.

It may sound harsh, but the distinction between "fertilizing" and "punishing" a woman is evident. On the one hand you have sexuality as a tool serving the expansion of Islam, and on the other hand there is sexuality as a weapon against disobedient and non-Muslim women, both categorized as "unbelievers". Against them jihad is the duty, and what to do with women "conquered" in jihad, this may be read in the Qur'an: they become slaves to be used by the victors.

David Yeagley

If a rape occurred, it is inexcusable, regardless of the race of the victim or perpetrators. However, all the indications raise serious questions about this situation – and the racial hyperventilating makes the case even muddier.

So, that black woman said, “No,” eh? First, she’s in a profession where she’s expected to do tricks for clients.

Symposium: To Rape an Unveiled Woman

FP: Thank you Dr. Eussner. Mr. Rehov, your turn.

Rehov: There are very few observations that I can add to Dr Eussner’s and Dr Raddatz’s surveys on both the cultural and religious seeds of the phenomenon, although there is a personal dimension that I would like to explore.

Of course, in a cultural environment where women are undermined, not to say considered as second rate citizens or even dangerous to the dominant male, the temptation to rape as a result to “ provocation “ is great. Female “provocation” in the Muslim society is usually a definition for the mildest behavior. Smiling, singing, talking, being alone for one minute in the same room as the rapist, having answered a question in an inappropriate way, wearing clothes which are not strictly in obedience with what is locally considered as the Muslim rules, all of these innocent behaviors are seen as a misconduct authorizing “revenge.”

David Yeagley (in comments)

The woman went there to "turn'em on." That's what she's getting paid for. That she would three times RETURN, when she had every reason to fear, shows excessively poor judgement on her part. She was literally asking for it, for whatever happened anyway.

Yeagley has stated that he condemns rape. Well and good. But what was it, then, that the young woman was "asking for"? Violence? Assault? Robbery? Humiliation? Yeagley doesn't say, but he's sure that she was asking for "whatever happened".


RELATED POSTS:
Race, Class, Gender, and Rape
Duke Lacrosse Rape Case Update
Fighting Rape

GayPatriot: Log Cabin Blows DADT Lawsuit

SFGate: Suit Dismissed for Lack of Names
Gay Patriot: Log Cabin Blows Don't Ask, Don't Tell Lawsuit

Once again, Log Cabin fails by trying to go through the courts. When they should instead focus on trying to win the hearts and minds of their fellow Republicans. But, it seems too much to ask Patrick to pull himself away from the gay political cocktail parties in D.C. and go to less fabulous, but more important, Republican gatherings. More important, that is, if Log Cabin really wants to influence the GOP.

-Bruce and Dan

Read the whole thing at the link, and follow the discussion in the Comments.

Morning Report Archives Updated

Morning Report Archives is now up to date.

Essential Freedoms

Do "democratic institutions" include things like a civic commitment to equal treatment of the sexes, protections for minorities against dictatorship by the majority, and a safe civil society for dissent? It seems to me that these freedoms may be more essential than mere Democracy - and may be preconditions for a successful liberal democracy. Women in Iraq and Afghanistan have the vote (in theory), but in many areas can't walk the streets with bare faces without fear of violent reprisal; freedom to vote doesn't guarantee freedom in any substantive sense. Democracy is one element of freedom, but it's not the only element, and maybe not even the most essential element. ...

Go read the rest of this excellent post on Women's Rights in the Middle East. Alas gets it exactly right.

See also Big Pharaoh:

A country that doesn't adopt the values of liberal democracy can never be called democratic even if it held 365 elections in a year.

"If you don’t want to look like an asshole in print, don’t act like an asshole in life."

Michael J. Totten rips the Hezbollah a new ... oh, never mind, just go read his Open Letter to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah

Wanted: Red-State Rednecks

Unelieveable. That's all I can say to Michelle Malkin's disclosure that NBC wanted to hire Muslims to attend a NASCAR event and - hopefully - attract discriminatory remarks. It's gotta be NASCAR, see, 'cuz everybody knows that's where all the conservative types go. Unfortunately for NBC, it looks like not many people were interested in taking the bait.

Movement to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Gains Momentum

Edge, New York City:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Four additional Congressional lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors of legislation to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service personnel in recent days.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the group advocating for gays in the military, see that as a sign Congressional opposition to lifting the ban is eroding.

Republican Sherwood Boehlert of New York and Democrats Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Julia Carson of Indiana and Michael Doyle of Pennsylvania have joined 110 others in Congress in calling for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Boehlert is the fifth Republican co-sponsor and McKinney joins nine other members of the House Armed Services Committee who are also co-sponsors of the bill (H.R. 1059). In all, 114 Members of Congress now support the legislation, introduced in March 2005 by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass. ...

A recent Pew poll indicates that some 62% of moderate Republicans favor allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the Armed Forces. Read the full article at the link.

Update on Diane Schroer

ACLU: Federal Court Rules Transgender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Library of Congress Can Proceed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

A copy of the decision, the complaint, a bio and photographs of Diane Schroer are available at: www.aclu.org/caseprofiles
WASHINGTON, DC -- Today a federal judge found that an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a transgender veteran against the Library of Congress can go forward.

"I couldn't understand how the country that I had risked my life for could believe that it was ok to rescind its job offer to me solely because I'm transgender," said Diane Schroer, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Army. "Today's decision begins to restore my faith in our government."

Finding that sex may not be "a cut-and-dried matter of chromosomes," the court ruled that federal protections against sex discrimination may also protect transgender people who are discriminated against based on their gender identity. In rejecting the government's argument that discrimination against transgender people is not sex discrimination, the court noted "the factual complexities that underlie human sexual identity. These complexities stem from real variations in how the different components of biological sexuality -- chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, and neurological -- interact with each other, and in turn, with social, psychological, and legal conceptions of gender."

The court held that given these complexities, it may be that federal law prohibits discrimination against transgender people because it is a form of sex discrimination, pure and simple. The court will rule on that question in the case after evidence about the nature of gender and gender identity is developed. ...

I previously posted on Diane Schroer in this lavender alert. She is a veteran of the Army Rangers who applied for a position as a terrorism analyst with the Library of Congress. As the ACLU release explains,

Soon thereafter she was offered the job, which she accepted immediately. Prior to starting work, Schroer took her future boss to lunch to explain that she was in the process of transitioning and thought it would be easier for everyone if she simply started work presenting as female. The following day, Schroer received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her that she wasn't a "good fit" for the Library of Congress.

What's especially noteworthy about this case is that the federal court has recognized a connection between "sex discrimination" as it's traditionally defined, and gender discrimination as it applies to this case. It will be interesting to see how this develops. Keep reading Dreams Into Lightning for updates.

Related post:
Lavender Alert - June 14, 2005

gender
Schroer

Nigeria: Government Seeks "Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act"

Via Black Looks:

This came through on Friday evening via Human Rights Watch - will publish more in the next few days. Meanwhile:

President Olusegun Obasanjo has written the National Assembly urging the parliament to ban same sex marriage or homosexuality in the country.
The President’s letter was read on the floor of the House of Representatives by the Deputy Speaker of the House, Hon Austin Opara, who presided over yesterday’s plenary session.
The letter introduced to the House an executive Bill seeking to ban same sex relationship in the country. It was entitled “Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, 2006”.
Opara said while announcing the receipt of the letter to the members at the commencement of yesterday’s proceedings that the President urges the National Assembly to give expeditious consideration and passage to the bill. “This is because the problem has become topical and embarrassing in recent times”. ...

Black Looks homepage
Human Rights Watch

HRW: Letter to Obasanjo

March 22, 2006


Dear President Obasanjo,

As human rights organizations based in Nigeria, on the African continent, and internationally, we write with deep concern over a proposed bill that would introduce criminal penalties for relationships and marriage ceremonies between persons of the same sex as well as for public advocacy or associations supporting the rights of lesbian and gay people. The legislation proposed by Minister of Justice Bayo Ojo not only contravenes internationally recognized protections against discrimination, as well as the basic rights to freedom of expression, conscience, association, and assembly, but also undermines Nigeria’s struggle to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Proposed law violates fundamental freedoms under the Nigerian Constitution

The broad and sweeping provisions of this proposed legislation could lead to the imprisonment of individuals solely for their actual or imputed sexual orientation in a number of ways, including for consensual sexual relations in private, advocacy of lesbian and gay rights, or public expression of their sexual identity. Anyone imprisoned under this law would be a prisoner of conscience. We urge you to disavow this proposal which contradicts fundamental freedoms under the Nigerian Constitution, international human rights law and standards, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. ...

Full text, with list of signatories, at the link. See also: Obasanjo Must Withdraw Bill to Criminalize Gay Rights


gay
Nigeria
Africa