State Representative Dan Zwonitzer of Wyoming Supports Marriage Equality

From Alas, a Blog:

This is kind of old news, but I missed it at the time, and maybe some “Alas” readers did too. Wyoming State Rep Dan Zwonitzer, who is straight and a Republican, in February of this year voted against a measure that would have forbidden Wyoming from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. ...

Thanks to Ampersand for passing this on. Pandagon has more. Here is an excerpt from Zwonitzer's speech:

Being a student of history, as many of you are, and going back through history, most of history has been driven by the struggle of man against government to endow him with more rights, privileges and liberties to be bestowed upon him.

In all of my high school courses, we only made it through history to World War 2. It wasn’t until college that I really learned of the civil rights movement in the 60’s. My American History professor was black, and we spent a week discussing civil rights. I watched video after video where people stood on the sidelines and yelled and threw things at black students walking into schools, I’ve read editorials and reports by both sides of the issue, and I would think, how could society feel this way, only 40 years ago.

Under a democracy the civil rights struggle continues today, where we have one segment of our society trying to restrict rights and privelges from another segment of our society. My parents raised me to know that this is wrong.

It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.

And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reigns of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long. ...

And here is Zwonitzer's message, posted at Pandagon:

I have obviously thought about this issue a great deal in the last 24 hours, and have truly come to realize that marriage in any form is greater than allowing a group of our citizens to continually be persecuted; and I’ve come to understand that many of the reasons they are vilified in our society is directly related to the fact there is not an opportunity to form recognized, committed long-term relationships.
It is my sincere hope that the outside world does not continue to believe Wyoming to be an intolerant and bigoted state. We have a low population which does not allow a lot of room for intolerance here as everyone knows everyone. When people come to know others who are different and accept them, their attitudes change.

Luckily, I have not had significant negative feedback today from people in my District. Yes, there has certainly been some comment from citizens from the “deep red” portions of my state. I am hoping that the silent majority of Wyoming understands and agrees with me, as I am fairly confident they do. It was greatly controversial right up until it was killed in committee, and within a day things have settled back down.

HR 1592

I'm supporting HR 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

There seem to be a lot of objections to it from the conservative world, some reasonable, most (in my opinion) not. In the interests of cogency, I'll begin with the reasonable objections.

The basic argument against H.R. 1592 is the argument against "hate crimes" legislation in general: that it clutters the lawbooks with unnecessary and redundant laws, and that it differentiates between "classes" of citizens (in this case, crime victims) - thus enshrining the very inequality it purports to fight. What is needed, the conservative argument goes, is not special laws to protect certain classes of people, but better enforcement of existing laws against common crime.

I have some respect for this position, but I think it misses a couple of key points. First, the purpose of hate crimes laws is to target bias-motivated crime; that is, it's the motive of the aggressor, not the identity of the vicitm, that's the determining factor. Now you may agree or disagree with that on principle, but there's no basis for the claim that the law operates on the basis of the victim's identity. Here's what HR 1592 says:

Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

There's a lot more at the link, of course. Now I think the language of "actual or perceived race, etc." is a problem because it seems to suggest the opposite, i.e. that the victim's race (or other status) is itself part of the law's concern. It would be better if the text read only "perceived race, etc." because it's the perp's perceptions that we care about. But a little farther down you can find the following:

`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant;

which ought to clear things up. Bottom line: the victim doesn't automatically get to claim "bias crime" just because he or she is a different race (or whatever) from the perpetrator.

The second point I want to make is that bias laws don't just apply to certain groups or "minorities". But don't take my word for it. Here's a clip from the FBI's 2004 hate crime statistics:

Racial bias motivated crimes against 5,119 hate crime victims of single-bias incidents. Nearly 68 percent (67.9) of the victims were the object of an anti-black bias. Slightly more than 20 percent (20.1) were victims of an anti-white bias, 5.2 percent were victimized because of an anti-Asian or Pacific Islander bias, and 2.0 percent were victims due to an anti-American Indian or Alaskan native bias. Victims of anti-multiple races bias, i.e., groups in which more than one race was represented, comprised 4.9 percent of hate crime victims.

In 2004, law enforcement agencies reported that there were 1,586 victims of crimes motivated by a religious bias (single-bias incidents only). Most (67.8 percent) were victimized because of an anti-Jewish bias. An anti-Islamic bias motivated offenses against 12.7 percent of victims, and an anti-Catholic bias provoked crimes against 4.3 percent. Victims of an anti-Protestant bias made up 3.0 percent of victims of hate crimes resulting from a religious bias; other religions, 9.3 percent; and multiple religions, group, 2.5 percent. The remaining 0.4 percent of hate crime victims were targeted because of the offender’s anti-Atheism or anti-Agnosticism bias.

In terms of single-bias incidents motivated by a sexual-orientation bias, law enforcement reported 1,482 victims, most of which (60.9 percent) were victims of crimes motivated by an anti-male homosexual bias. In addition, 21.2 percent of victims were targets of an anti-homosexual (male and female) bias. Slightly more than 14 percent (14.3) were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias, 2.4 percent were victimized because of an anti-heterosexual bias, and 1.2 percent were targets of an anti-bisexual bias.

Obviously I've added the bolding here; the point is that phrases like "race" and "sexual orientation" mean what they say; the law recognizes a bias crime as a bias crime. So, does anti-bias law protect straight white Protestant males? Yes.

You can go to the Wikipedia article on hate crime laws in the United States for an informative, readable, jargon-free roundup of information on the subject. Here's what Wiki says about federal law:

Current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity (see 1969 law, infra). Legislation is currently pending that would add gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability to this list, as well as remove the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity ...

Now, I'd originally planned to spend a lot of space rebutting Andrew Jaffee's rant at Israpundit but I don't think it's really worth the effort. In Jaffee's favor, though, I'll point out that the section he quotes about eliminating "the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery" has been stricken from the text of the bill, and rightly so, in my opinion; and as I've already said, I have a problem with the "real or perceived" business for the same reason Jaffee does.

Jaffee goes on to quote a WND article which alleges that 1592 is

similar to a state law that already has been used to send grandmothers to jail for their "crime" of sharing the Gospel of Jesus on a Philadelphia public sidewalk.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, but I take everything WingNutDaily says with a grain of salt. So I'll just zip right to my next main point, and that's on religion, free speech, and homosexuality.

As I posted two years ago, I absolutely support the right of social conservatives to exercise their right to free speech, regardless of whether their views about homosexuality are the same as mine. In the 2005 incident, students at South Windsor High School (my old school, BTW) were denied the right to wear T-shirts with Biblical quotes about homosexuality on the grounds that it was "hate speech".

But the business of "hate speech" is entirely different from the "hate crimes" I've discussed above. In the Connecticut case, school officials acted arbitrarily and high-handedly (and unencumbered by any legal system) to enforce an ad-hoc speech code on their students. No acts of violence or property damage were committed or threatened by the conservative students; they were simply expressing their beliefs about homosexuality, in the context of an ongoing debate over pending gay-rights legislation in the state. (That bill was later signed into law by Republican Governor Jodi Rell, making Connecticut the first state in the US to recognize civil unions through the legislative process).

Now back to hate crimes. A hate crime is, by definition, an act which is already criminal in and of itself - threat, vandalism, assault, murder - and which is legally exacerbated by the bias motive. No hate crime law is going to make it illegal to express your belief that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, or a sin - unless your idea of "expressing your belief" means doing harm to somebody else. If you don't know the difference, maybe you need to sign up for a refresher course in Civilized Debate 101.

But here's the thing. There are people out there who are unable or unwilling to draw that very distinction. Do I have to spell it out for you? Do I have to name names?

There are people out there who would like to cut your head off just because you don't believe in the same religion they do. And their views about "lifestyle choices" would make any Baptist preacher look like a free-love apostle by comparison. Regardless of what CAIR may think this legislation will do for them, hate-crime laws are there to make life harder for people who want to do violence based on prejudice - and we in the counter-jihad world ought to remember that and use it to our advantage.

Think of Ilan Halimi. Was he killed because he was a Jew? Does it matter? I think he was, and I think it does. Now think of the immigrant women in places like the Netherlands who live in fear of honor killings if they step out of line. A crime is a crime is a crime, you say? Hmmm.

All right then. This is turning into a long post, so it's time for my bottom line.

Maybe it bugs you that the same law that protects Jews and Christians from religious persecution, might also protect lesbian and gay people from homophobic hate crimes. Well, think about this. HR 1592 is about the crime, not about the victim. It's about the use of gender to justify violence and religion to justify killing gays.

H.R. 1592 isn't there to tell you what to think or what to say. It's not there to tell a preacher in a church or an imam in a mosque that he can't speak about his beliefs on homosexuality. What it does do is bring down a whole lot of firepower on people who use certain kinds of hate to justify illegal and immoral acts against other people.

If you feel that cramps your style, then maybe we'd better have a long talk.

Iranian Gay Rights Activist Mani Zaniar on CBC

CBC spotlights Iranian gay activist:

He is followed by secret police. His friends are routinely whipped. Some are executed. His name is Mani Zaniar and he is the leader of Iran’s secret gay rights movement.

It is the most dangerous civil rights movement in the world. And for the first time ever, Mani, and many others, have risked their lives to come on camera and tell their story.

In this startling and unique documentary, Out in Iran, we go to Iran and get the world’s first look at life inside Iran’s persecuted gay community. We meet an astonishing group of courageous people with heartbreaking stories.

HT: Or Does It Explode

Requiem for Sandmonkey

I'm still in shock. I'm still in denial, and I'm thinking, "No, he doesn't mean it." Or, "This isn't happening, it's all just a bad dream." But reality is pretty stubborn. And there, sitting right in the middle of my screen right now, are the following words:

Done

Today is going to be the day that I've been dreading for quite sometime now. Today is the day I walk away from this blog. Done. Finished. ...

Sandmonkey is quitting. This is a dark day for Egypt and a dark day for the blogosphere. So we have to ask: Why?

One of the chief reasons is the fact that there has been too much heat around me lately. I no longer believe that my anonymity is kept, especially with State Secuirty agents lurking around my street and asking questions about me since that day. I ignore that, the same way I ignored all the clicking noises that my phones started to exhibit all of a sudden, or the law suit filed by Judge Mourad on my friends, and instead grew bolder and more reckless at a time where everybody else started being more cautious. It took me a while to take note of the fear that has been gripping our little blogsphere and comprehend what it really means. The prospects for improvment, to put it slightly, look pretty grim. I was the model of caution, and believing in my invincipility by managing not to get arrested for the past 2 and a half years, I've grown reckless.

There's more:

One has to wonder at some point the futulity of being a keyboard warrior in a country where nothing seems to matter to its people anymore. At the same time, there has been those amongst us who have loved the fame and the attention, and are now becoming the egyptian blogsphere's equivelant of Paris Hilton: They are famous for being famous, peddling the same stories and not really presenting anything of value to the debate. And then there is the fact that we are entering the "Iconogrphy" phase : We are becoming Icons. Too much Media attention, too many american organizations claiming to champion our causes while they are cashing out in donation from people gullible enough to believe them, too much hype generated by us and others, so many of us tooting our own horns and even crying wolf at times has made Icons of us. ...

Go read the rest at the link. And if you have a moment, go to the Sandmonkey index and peruse (or download!) his archives.

Here's Kat at The Middle Ground:

Sand Monkey was one of the first proponents of Democracy that I read in any other country besides the brothers at Iraq the Model. He was funny, snarky and serious all at once. He was pro-democracy, pro-American, and, though he would be categorized as "conservative" by current American politics, he is one of the most liberal Egyptians that I know.

His conversations with his NDP mother were priceless. Blogging about taxi rides, religious music and politics gave you a taste of Egypt on the ground. His site was the first place I ever talked to a real "Palestinian" about Israel, Palestine, Arafat and many other subjects. Most of all, his continued efforts to talk about the real political situation in Egypt, the motives, the laws and the people, allowed us to alternately hope for and fear for democracy in Egypt and the greater Middle East.

He's going dark now because Egypt has been arresting bloggers and, he fears, coming closer to him daily. He believes his anonymity has been compromised and, like the pamphlateers of old, he relied on that to be able to say whatever he felt about democracy and the lack of it in Egypt.

Kat links to Pamela at Atlas Shrugs with an interview:

SANDMONKEY: "Any kind of democratic reform in the country [Egypt] for the past 3 years has been rolled back specifically because there is no more pressure coming from Washington anymore."

ATLAS: Why? What happened to the pressure in Washington?

SANDMONKEY: You know what happened to the pressure in Washington. The Democrats won the Congress. There is no more pressure coming from Bush because he is not able to push people anymore to do those things. He is not able to push the Egyptian government anymore because the American public is suddenly not interested in reforming the Middle East because of what's going on in the Iraq. So suddenly the Egyptian government is not afraid of the American pressure. They are doing whatever they want to do. They are beating up demonstrators, they are cracking down on activists, they are changing the constitution, and eroding civil liberties once and for all and they are using proxies to take down bloggers. ...

Go read the rest, and click on the audio link for the full interview. Many, many thanks to Pamela for letting us hear Sandmonkey's voice.

Sandmonkey was one of my absolute favorite bloggers. I loved his honesty, his humor, his chutzpah and his humility. And I'm mad as hell that the bastards got to him.

But let's not leave it there. Just in case you haven't already, please bookmark Freedom For Egyptians; this should be one of your daily stops. So should Ritzy Mabrouk.

And there's more you can do. You might not be familiar with the name, but Egyptian blogger Abdulmonaem Mahmoud has been arrested. There's a petition to free Monem - take a moment to sign it. Yeah, I know, the English translation is lame, but you get the point, right? Here's the French text, which reads a little better:

Au nom de DIEU , le clément , le tout miséricordieux

Ce n’est plus un secret , ce que les actifs dans le domaine politique en Egypte subissent : violations des libertés , arrestations violentes , irruptions à domicile , intimidation des familles et enfants…

Au fond de cette sombre scène , on constate que ces violations touchent tout le peuple avec toutes les affiliations intellectuelles et politiques , sans exception.

les bloggeurs égyptiens constituent une partie du peuple , et se situent au cœur du mouvement de la presse libre égyptienne . Etant le cas, et puisque les régimes dictateurs ont comme souci de cacher toute vérité , ils traitent alors la presse libre avec une main de fer.

l’ irruption , puis l’ arrestation du bloggeur et journaliste Abdelmenem Mahmoud , propriétaire du blog « ANA IKHWAN » ( JE SUIS IKHWAN ), et correspondant de la chaine ALMIHWAR au Caire , n’ est que la réaction attendu d’un régime policier avec toute voix libre en Egypte.

On a trouvé primordial alors , nous les bloggeur égyptiens , de formuler un manifeste consacré à la défense du droit de notre collègue à s’ exprimer librement, et à défendre le droit des bloggeurs et de la presse libre , à une opposition pacifique.

On s’est entendu alors ,nous les bloggeur d’ Egypte, sur le refus total de toute réaction basé sur une mentalité policière et violente lors du traitement d’ une opinion opposée.

Tout les soussignés , sollicitent ce qui suit :

• On sollicite du gouvernement égyptien , la libération immédiate de notre camarade , et de tous les détenus d’ opinion en Egypte .

• On sollicite de toute organisation internationale des droits de l’ Homme , et des organisations non- gouvernementales, à dénoncer ces violations du droit à l’ expression libre en Egypte .

• On refuse tout traitement violent de la part du régime politique , des causes en relation à la liberté d’ expression, ou de publication électronique ou de presse .

• Nous confirmons notre soutien inconditionnel de la société des bloggeurs sur le niveau international , concernant leurs droit à la liberté d’ expression à travers tous les moyens de publication possibles.

I don't read much Arabic (yet!) but here's an excerpt from the Arabic text -

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

لم يعد خافيا على أحد ما يتعرض له النشطاء السياسيين في مصر من انتهاكات للحريات واعتقالات تعسفية ومداهمات للمنازل الآمنة وترويع للعائلات والأطفال .


و كحلقة في تلك السلسلة السوداء , نجد تلك الانتهاكات تطال كل طوائف الشعب المصري بكافة انتماءاته الفكرية و السياسية .
وكجزء أصيل من الشعب المصري نرى المدونين في صدر حركة الصحافة الحرة في مصر , وكعادة الأنظمة القمعية التي تريد تغييب الشعوب عن الحقائق الدامغة , فهي تتعامل مع الصحافة الحرة والمستقلة بالحديد والنار .


ومن هنا جاءت مداهمة منزل واعتقال المدون و الصحفي عبدالمنعم محمود صاحب مدونة أنا إخوان ومراسل قناة الحوار في القاهرة كنتاج طبيعي للتعامل البوليسي مع القلم الحر في مصر .

You know what to do.

New face of Pakistan?

And now for something completely different.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Begum Nawazish Ali flirts with the country's law minister, batting her long eyelashes and calling him darling. She kisses one of the minister's sons on the cheek and practically asks another son to marry her. All in front of the television cameras.

"Look at my hands," she tells the minister, showing off her French manicure.

"Your hands are beautiful," he responds. "I feel like kissing them."

This is the most outrageous TV program in Pakistan, one that has regularly violated conservative Islamic rules and Pakistani customs while becoming a top-rated talk show. But Ali is more than just a mouthy woman, and that's what makes this popular show truly revolutionary, even subversive.

Ali is actually a mouthy man in drag. ...

Read the rest at the link.

Secularists Rally in Istanbul

Çok güzel!

Via Little Green Footballs.

AP via Yahoo news:

BENJAMIN HARVEY, Associated Press Writer Sun Apr 29, 9:33 AM ET
ISTANBUL, Turkey - At least 300,000 Turks waving the red national flag flooded central Istanbul on Sunday to demand the resignation of the government, saying the Islamic roots of Turkey's leaders threatened to destroy the country's modern foundations.

Like the protesters — who gathered for the second large anti-government demonstration in two weeks — Turkey's powerful secular military has accused Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of tolerating radical Islamic circles.

"They want to drag Turkey to the dark ages," said 63-year-old Ahmet Yurdakul, a retired government employee who attended the protest.

More than 300,000 people took part in a similar rally in Ankara two weeks ago. ...

Go to the link for the rest. Meanwhile, AFP (via Yahoo) puts the turnout at over a million:

Nicolas Cheviron Sun Apr 29, 9:42 AM ET
ISTANBUL (AFP) - More than one million people took part in a mass rally here Sunday in support of secularism and democracy amid a tense stand-off between the Islamist-rooted government and the army over presidential elections.

The crowd, carrying red-and-white Turkish flags and portraits of founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, filled Istanbul's sprawling Caglayan square in a demonstration organized by some 600 non-governmental organizations.

"Turkey is secular and will remain secular," "Neither Sharia, nor coup d'etat, democratic Turkey," they chanted.

Police at the scene told AFP that the number of demonstrators was well over one million. Organizers said the rally drew people from all over Turkey and abroad.

The Istanbul demonstration followed a similar one in Ankara on April 14 that attracted up to 1.5 million people, according to some estimates. ...

Muslim children trash classroom; anti-Semitic attack in France.

Via IRIS:

Nine year-old Muslim children destroy a Dutch classroom because of a discussion of a pig on a farm and the only response is to expunge pigs from the curriculum.
A school in Amsterdam has halted lessons on rural life because the Islamic children refused to talk about pigs. Reporting this, Alderman Lodewijk Asscher said he wants to take "tough measures." Subsidies for all kinds of dubious groups must stop and parents of unruly children penalised financially.

Asscher told newspaper De Volkskrant: "A primary school in Amsterdam-Noord has decided no longer to teach about living on a farm. Various pupils began to demolish the classroom when the pig came up for discussion. Apparently it has gone that far. These children, 9, 10 years old, have not been given even the most elementary rules at home about why they must go to school."

Vicious anti-Jewish attack in France.
A 22-year-old Jewish woman suffered a vicious anti-Semitic attack by two men of Middle Eastern appearance in a train station in Marseille, France on Thursday night.

The attackers tore the Star of David chain from around the young woman’s neck, lifted up her shirt, painted a swastika on her stomach and then fled the scene.

Local police opened an investigation into the attack but had not yet found the assailants.

American Islamic Congress - latest news

From Zainab al-Suwaij, American Islamic Congress, via e-mail bulletin:

I just returned from a month-long trip to the Middle East, where we conducted three training conferences for young reformers in:

- Amman, Jordan, where we brought together 25 young leaders from eight countries for in-depth training in techniques of non-violent activism;
- Karbala, Iraq, where despite constant danger we taught 27 young Iraqis how to promote non-violent methods of conflict resolution and national reconciliation;
- Ifrane, Morocco , where we joined with the student Human Rights Club of Al-Akhawayn University to host 45 young Middle Eastern leaders from 12 countries to lay the foundations for a region-wide civil rights movement.

While I enjoyed my trip, my experiences reminded me of the challenges before us. The day I arrived in Morocco from Iraq, for example, multiple suicide bombings rocked the country. I was instructing young activists on implementing nonviolent reform at one moment, only to find myself comforting Moroccans devastated by the tragic actions of radical fundamentalists. The attacks (repeated the next day in Algiers and four days later in Casablanca) provided a stark example of the crises - and opportunities - that stand before us. Radicals seek to dominate the Muslim community. Basic human rights are denied by unelected rulers. And terrorists threaten the safety of all of us, regardless of our religious beliefs.

But we will not be silent in the face of these challenges.

Entering our sixth year, the American Islamic Congress has been at the forefront in advancing a platform of tolerance and understanding by creating grassroots networks for reform in the Muslim world and by promoting the moderate Muslim voice to the American public. We rely on the support of kind people of all backgrounds who are committed to promoting peace and progress - and to helping us move forward a positive agenda for the Muslim community. ...

Go to the link to find out more about AIC, and consider helping them out if you can.

Iran: Hunger Strike for Political Prisoners

From Ghazal Omid, via e-mail:

Hunger Strike in Iran Started April 7, 2007 Means Life or Death
For One of 39 Political Prisoners, Possibly All

On April 22, 2007, political prisoner Mr. Khalid Hardani was carried to the medical center of Rajai Shahar prison by two of his fellow inmates, Mr. Nasser Khirolahi and Mr. Shahin Aryanejad, due to Mr. Khaled Hardani's worsening heart condition. Mr. Hardani, who was transferred from Evin Prison to Rajai Shahar approximately two months ago, has had his heart medication intentionally withheld, and his physical well-being is worsening each day.

This hunger strike is a last resort for these political prisoners, who have no way whatsoever to alert people worldwide to their conditions in the prison, and illuminates the disinterest of UN Representatives, Red Cross/Red Crescent, and Amnesty International. Mr. Khaled Hardani and another 38 political prisoners from a number of prisons in Iran could possibly die as a result of this official apathy.

In the clinic, Mr. Khaled Hardani was not allowed to see a physician, and when the prisoners resisted pressure to end the strike, they were savagely beaten inside the clinic, in full view of medical staff, by professional torture master Aslan Beghi. Neither prisoner received any medical care, not for the hunger strike's physical effects, nor for the injuries from physical torture. Instead, they were dragged back to their filthy cells to recover on their own from the savage beatings.

Mr. Hardani, whose cardiac condition requires medication, has received no medication for his heart condition from prison medical officials since his transfer from Evin nearly 2 months ago.

Repeated letters and calls to officials of Amnesty International by Ghazal Omid (www.ghazalomid.com), Iranian dissident and the official spokesperson for 19 of the 39 political prisoners, have not been returned. UN Human Rights Commission member states have also not responded to repeated calls for intervention.

Ghazal Omid
www.ghazalomid.com/videos

Representative Jenson on SB2, HB2007

State Representative Bob Jenson (R - Pendleton, District 58) has issued the following statement (via e-mail) following last week's vote on two important gay equality bills in the State of Oregon:

For the past few weeks I have heard from many of you expressing your concerns pro and con regarding SB2 and HB2007. By now most of you are aware that SB2 bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment and public places throughout the state. HB 2007 creates a method of legal recognition for same-sex relationships in Oregon, namely domestic partnerships.

As your representative I feel a responsibility to listen to your concerns and try to make your wishes heard. Sometimes this is not difficult when the issue is one that is fairly similarly viewed within the district. However, it is an entirely different concern when there are widely divergent opinions on a particular issue.

This was the situation with the above two bills. Adding to the complexity was the complication of religion and moral beliefs, and people’s rights. While there were many people with strong religious convictions that opposed these bills there were also a large number of church groups that strongly supported the legislation. Given that situation, I had to make a very difficult vote.

While I respect the position of Oregon voters on Measure 36, which banned same-sex marriage, I also know that many voters who did so believed same-sex couples should have some protections for their relationships in the form of a civil union or domestic partnership.

Many voters further stated that discrimination in things like jobs and housing is wrong. Having lived through the civil rights years where the differential treatment of people who were different was exposed as unfair I believe that our state is strengthened when all who live and work here are equal under the law. No one should be fired from a job, denied a table in a restaurant, or blocked from making medical decisions for a loved one in an emergency simply because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination has no place in our state, and as such I felt compelled to vote for the bills.


Interestingly there is something of a precedent from our district regarding this issue. When former Rep. Chuck Norris held this legislative seat in 1989, HB 2784 came to the floor on one of the last days of the session, July 2nd. That bill essentially stated that sexual orientation was a category that could not be intimidated against. The outcome of that vote was 31-29 with Rep. Norris being the deciding vote.

Thank you, Representative Jenson, for your courage in making this difficult decision. You did the right thing.

Choosing the Wrong Muslim Partners

M. Zuhdi Jasser at Family Security Matters:

On January 10, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, met with “American Muslims” which included the organizations-- the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), and the Arab American Institute (AAI). A quick, random, browse of just their websites shows heavily political organizations with an underlying religious movement for the first two and Arab movement for the last. Their combined product is a heavily political-religious movement. It has some following, but represents only a minority of the Muslims in America who mostly remain unaffiliated.

One would be hard pressed to find precedent in the U.S. of our security agencies and leadership “partnering” with manifestations of a national and global political movement within the United States. Simply put, it seems our government is being duped, through political correctness, into partnering with organizations which present themselves as being purely religious (Muslim) or ethnic (Arabic) but are actually upon even a brief review rather solidly religio-political and Arab-political movements.

It is not that these organizations have not condemned terrorism as an act or a means to an ends. It is, rather, that they have not condemned political Islam (Islamism) and its theocratic foundations as an ends. Islamism is the end-game of our enemies and its ideological antidote is Americanism and its multi-religious and mulit-ethnic pluralism. ...

Read the rest at the link.

Remarks. Please see the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) website for more information about this fine organization. And while you're at it, get on their mailing list and donate a few dollars if you can.

Related.
The Real Peace Movement - November 2004

Mark Daily: "A Force of Good in the World"

I actually lost a girlfriend because I had the audacity to believe this very thing:

"I genuinely believe the United States Army is a force of good in this world"
The immortal words of 2LT Mark Daily live on. The Los Angeles Times has picked up the story: "Mark Daily wrote on MySpace that he joined the Army to help the suffering people of Iraq. In death, his words have become a call to service."

A small sample:

In a 2005 videotape of his officers' commissioning ceremony, Daily told the crowd that the U.S. Army is one of the few militaries in the world that teach not only tactics but also ethics. "I genuinely believe the United States Army is a force of good in this world," he said. ...

In Mark Daily's own words:

So that is why I joined. In the time it took you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny.

Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans have a responsibility to the oppressed. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction.

So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck."

Go to Michelle Malkin for more.

Remarks. It gets better. Here's more from the LA Times story:

"Anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception."

Mark Daily, born on the Fourth of July, grew up in Irvine's Woodbridge Village, on a street of spacious homes and well-manicured lawns. His father, John, is an aerospace project manager; his mother, Linda, an audiologist.

His family says he became a registered Democrat who read voraciously and delighted in fervent debate. He read liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky, conservative Sen. John McCain of Arizona and everything in between.

His first passions were animal rights and environmental protection, prompting him to become a vegetarian and Green Party member in high school for a few years. He defended American Indian rights so loudly in one backyard debate that Linda Daily imagined the neighbors would think it a family brawl. His heroes were immigrants because "they risk their lives to achieve better ones," he wrote on his MySpace page.

Damn. I think I know this guy.

After the 9/11 attacks, Daily was not convinced that a military response was the best option. In his MySpace essay, he runs through the gamut of reasons he used at one time or another to argue against confronting the Taliban and Saddam Hussein: cultural tolerance, the sanctity of national sovereignty, a suspicion of America's intentions. Weren't we really after their oil? he wondered.

Somewhere along the way, he changed his mind. His family says there was no epiphany. Writings by author and columnist Christopher Hitchens on the moral case for war deeply influenced him. A 2003 phone conversation with a UCLA ROTC officer on the ideals of commitment and service impressed him.

Ultimately, his family says, Daily came to believe that his lifelong altruistic impulses and passions for the underdog had to extend to Iraqis crushed under decades of oppression. It was time to stop simply talking about human rights and actually do something to help secure them.

"There was no epiphany" - only a gradual, reasoned evolution of views. He considered every viewpoint in the debate, and he took the time to inform himself about the facts. Are you listening, Jay Dixit?

Daily touched down in Iraq on Nov. 19 and was sent to the northern city of Mosul. In calls and e-mails home, he began asking for presents for his new Iraqi friends: cigars for the soldiers, candy and soccer balls for the children. He vividly described his adventures with them: a Thanksgiving Day game of musical chairs, a rooftop cigar session; his first Kurdish meal, his first local haircut.

In one video he sent, Iraqi soldiers surround him with grins, crowning him with a turban as a gesture of friendship.

In typical fashion, he sought out new points of view. In one discussion, he wrote that he asked a Kurdish man whether the insurgents could be viewed as freedom fighters. The man cut him off. "The difference between insurgents and American soldiers," Daily said the man told him, "is that they get paid to take life — to murder — and you get paid to save lives."

"That Kurdish man's assessment of our presence means more to me than all of the naysayers and makeshift humanists that monopolize our interpretation of this war," Daily wrote in a Dec. 31 e-mail.

Daily was killed by a roadside bomb on January 15, one day after sending an e-mail to his parents saying, "All is well. More war stories then I can fit in this e-mail. Having the time of my life!"