► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Human Rights’

American Sovereignty Under Attack By U.S. State Department

by m ( 182 Comments › )
Filed under Blogmocracy, Guest Post, Politics, United Nations at August 31st, 2010 - 11:30 am

Blogmocracy in Action!
Guest post by: Huckfunn!


AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY UNDER ATTACK BY U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT


This is a topic that has gotten very little play in the media or blogosphere. On August 20th, the U.S. Statement Department issued a report to the U.N. which detailed the State Department’s view of human rights issues in the United States. While many countries around the world annually submit such a report to the U.N., this is the first time the United States has ever done so.

The entire report can be found here:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf

What initially brought this matter to my attention was Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s letter to the State Department demanding a retraction of this part of the report which discusses Arizona’s recent passage of S.B.1070:

“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world,” the report says. “The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.”

Governor Brewer wrote to Hillary Clinton:

“Simply put, it is downright offensive that the State Department included the State of Arizona and S.B. 1070 in a report to the United Nations Council on Human Rights, whose members include such renowned human rights ‘champions’ as Cuba and Libya.” Governor Brewer additionally stated, “The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional. Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration.”

Governor Brewer’s entire letter can be found here:
http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_082710_LetterSecretaryClinton.pdf

Of all of the obominations heaped upon our nation by the Obama regime (high taxes, huge deficits, record spending, endless apologies to the world, Obamacare, etc…), this has got to be one of the worst. The notion that the sovereignty of The United States, her laws and her people, could ever be subordinated to the dictates of the U.N., or any other law save the U.S. Constitution, is as close to treason as anything I have ever seen. However, the idea of transnationalism (or treason for that matter) coming from the democrats should come as no surprise to us. During the 2004 election campaign would-be POTUS John Kerry famously talked about the U.S. needing to “pass a global test” prior to taking pre-emptive military action against foreign threats. Further, in 1970 Kerry told the Harvard Crimson, “I’m an internationalist, I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Joe Wolverton, II of the New American says that following the submission of this report to the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights, “U.N. Human Rights Council will conduct a final audit of the current state of the promotion of human rights in the United States. Then, it will recommend a slate of necessary reforms to the laws of the United States.” His article can be found here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4411-state-department-submits-to-un-human-rights-review-for-the-first-time

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton submitted this vile piece of excrement to the U.N. Anyone who ever had the faintest idea that she is a “moderate” or “centrist” needs to get their mind right. When she runs for POTUS in the 2012 election this issue needs to be front and center.

-Huckfunn

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

My response to those who claim it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest mosques.

by Delectable ( 195 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Islam at July 23rd, 2010 - 4:30 pm

I wrote the following in response to a terribly misguided post, written by Jeffrey Imm, of the group Responsible for Equality and Liberty (R.E.A.L.). A related post was linked to (and praised) by a certain husky pony-tailed blogger, which should tell you all you need to know about it! To boil it down, Mr. Imm believes that it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest religious institutions, including those run by the Muslim Brotherhood. So he, in response, affirmatively defends the right of Muslims (including extremist Muslims, such as the Muslim Brotherhood) to worship wherever they want, including at Ground Zero. Below is an email I wrote in response. Please use the content in this email as helpful information whenever these topics come up with friends, colleagues, and/or family.

———————

To R.E.A.L.,

You are seeking to deny the legitimate moral and constitutional right that I and others have to protesting hate mosques being in our neighborhoods.
 
I have the first amendment right to protest, including protesting religious institutions. The problem is not that SIOA, Westboro Baptist Church, or MAS (the Muslim American Society, an organization that is considered a Muslim Brotherhood front group) protests a synagogue, mosque, or church. “Holy places” are not beyond reproach, and there is just as much a right to protest a church, synagogue, and/or mosque as there is a right to protest a community center. This is simple and basic American constitutional law that you (as a former FBI agent) were sworn to uphold.
 
Certainly, no one has the right to use intimidation tactics to block a mosque that include violence and/or threats of violence. I never said otherwise (and no one of merit would). However, I have every right to lobby a public official, or private individuals, and express displeasure about a new church, mosque, and/or synagogue being built. This is a basic American right that I enjoy as a citizen of this country. Yet you oppose any and all protests against mosques – even peaceful ones using no intimidation tactics.
 
When al-Awda/Code Pink/MAS/Adalah/etc protests outside synagogues and/or Jewish events (as they have done), I never think that the mere act of their protesting outside a house of worship is itself violative of human rights and decency. If in fact Judaism were a human rights violating faith, then perhaps Jews would deserve to be picketed! (but obviously, since the opposite is true, al-Awda/Code Pink/MAS/Adalah/etc are the haters) No, my problem with these organizations is the message found within their protests. In contradistinction, you appear to believe that simply protesting a house of worship is ipso facto evidence of a “human rights violation” (and/or hate speech) taking place. That is not only absurd and offensive, is the sort of reasoning that ultimately advocates on behalf of blasphemy laws.

This is not about whether or not the government is or should banning the building of a new mosque/synagogue/church. No – that is a separate matter altogether (and oddly enough, we may be in agreement on that matter).

The problem in China, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et. al., is not one of protests of churches and/or synagogues. It is that the governments themselves ban churches/synagogues, and/or that the citizens themselves are violent towards certain religious and ethnic groups.

In fact, I believe that the USA needs to expand the definition of “terrorist organization” to include the Muslim Brotherhood and MAS. This would be most accurate, in light of Steve Emerson’s extensive work (as well as the body of evidence uncovered in the Holy Land Foundation trial), and then apply those laws when/if MAS wants to open a new mosque. But until then, I don’t think there is a way of writing a law that could survive constitutional protection that would be narrowly tailored enough to simply block MAS from opening a mosque, simply due to the fact that it is MAS, without then preventing me from building a synagogue. (Don’t believe me? Check out Geert Wilders’s trial in Holland for “hate speech,” to see how hate speech laws can go awry.) If you want to stop a mosque, you can do so legitimately due to zoning concerns and/or the loudness of the Shahada (call to prayer five times a day). However, if the zoning checks out, I believe you are really out of luck if you seek to have the government prevent a mosque from being built.

However, it is ludicrous to claim that somehow when Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer/SIOA protest a mosque, this is leading us down the path of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. No, it is R.E.A.L. that is leading us down the path of China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc, by claiming that SIOA and others should be condemned (and/or prevented) for simply exercising their first amendment right to lobby and protest mosques.

This is about the right of individuals to protest a religious institution, which you impliedly – from all you have written in the past few weeks – believe they do not deserve.

After all, Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, and SIOA are not the government. They have no ability to prevent a mosque from being allowed in one place or another. What they are doing is ultimately lobbying to prevent future mosque building – which is their right. If you have a problem with the message they have (i.e., if you disagree that MAS is a bad organization, or that Islam is a bad religion), then feel free to explain why you disagree with them. Otherwise, even Dove Church has the right to say “Islam is of the Devil,” just as Westboro Baptist Church has the right to say “Judaism is of the devil.” And I have that same right to say that Westboro Baptist Church and Dove Church are hateful institutions, due to the messages they convey. It’s called a marketplace of ideas and freedom of speech – something I thought R.E.A.L. stood for.
 
In fact, I thought R.E.A.L. stood for human rights, consistency, and the constitution. However, your abject rejection of freedom of speech shows that R.E.A.L. is not consistent in support for universal human rights.
 
I am disappointed with what you have turned R.E.A.L. into. This is no longer a human rights organization when it does not stand for basic freedom of speech.
Rodan Update: In related news, a massive blow to the Islamic Imperialist Colonization of America has been dealt.
The board of trustees of a Staten Island Catholic Church have rejected the controversial sale of a church building to a Muslim group looking to open a mosque.
 
The collapse of the deal – which would have transferred the vacant convent of St. Margaret Mary Church to the Muslim American Society for $750,000 – came amid a national controversy over efforts to construct a mosque near Ground Zero.
Americans finally have stood up and said no to Islamic Imperialism!
► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Obama’s diplomatic war with Israel (and American allies)

by Delectable ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Dhimmitude, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives at April 8th, 2010 - 4:00 pm

ObamaChamberlain

In what can only be described as the middle finger to Israel, reliable sources have said that Obama seeks to “impose,” (via his “diktat”) a “peace plan” upon Israel, against its will.

This is a total disaster. But it does remind me of a horrific conversation I had when Obama was elected. I was at the “election party” held by a leading Jewish organization, which was a joint Jewish-diplomat party. 95% of the attendees adored Obama, and were cheering when he was elected. I, of course, was vomiting. In any case, I ended up speaking to an Israeli diplomat who works for the consulate. I told her my distress over Obama’s election, and she told me how happy she was. When I told her my fears, and of my rejection of the “two state solution,” she said that I don’t believe in “peace and hope.”  When I said that I believed in security now, peace later, she said that “this will lead to the end of Israel, which cannot survive just like that.” She then said that she sees “peace” as a “two state solution,” with NATO troops in the West Bank. I literally laughed in her face and walked away when she said that.

But it seems she will have her way, as will all the J-Streeters, who believe in similar delusions, that somehow you can appease the Jihad-minded ‘Palestinians’ by giving them land, vital to Israel’s security, and ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Jews from our homeland (while allowing Arabs to live wherever they want). This somehow is meant to lead to “peace, peace in our time!”

Please read this column in Commentary.

According to Cooper, the trigger for this latest instance of administration hubris was a recent gathering of former national-security advisers including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Samuel Berger, and Colin Powell, who were called in to consult with the president and his adviser General James L. Jones. The consensus (only Powell seems to have dissented) was that Obama must put forward his own scheme that would state exactly what the parameters of a peace deal would be. The idea is that peace can only be obtained by the United States imposing it on the parties. The plan is, of course, along the lines of past Israeli peace offers rejected by the Palestinians, plus extra Israeli concessions. The Palestinians give up their “right of return,” and Israel “would return to its 1967 borders,” including the one that divided Jerusalem, with only “a few negotiated settlements” as an exception. The supposed sweetener for Israel is that the United States or NATO, whose troops would be stationed along the Jordan River, would guarantee Israeli security.

Cheering from the sidelines is former Clinton staffer Robert Malley, who advised Obama on Middle East issues during the 2008 campaign until he was put aside to reassure Jewish voters worried about the Democrats having a man on staff who had served as an apologist for Yasser Arafat in the aftermath of the 2000 Camp David talks. For Malley, the logic of an American diktat is simple: “It’s not rocket science. If the U.S. wants it done, it will have to do it.”

Read it all.

And I have another comment to add.

Obama is so damned arrogant! He just thinks he can impose his “diktat” upon a sovereign ally, against its will, and just get whatever he wants, because he is Obama. Yet somehow, he doesn’t seem to want Iran to be de-nuclearized enough to “get it done.” The same logic of “well, the USA wants it, so it will happen,” doesn’t seem to apply to America’s enemies. Only its friends.

It will take a long time to recover from the sheer arrogance and audacity of the Obama administration. Why should anyone want to be an American ally again?

Between this, and the leak that Obama is not letting Israeli nuclear scientists travel to the USA, as well as an alleged arms freeze imposed upon Israel, it is clear that Obama is in diplomatic war with a strategic ally. This is a pattern of Obama’s, as we see how “well” he treats other allies, such as the UK (returning the Churchill bust), India (pressuring India and doing little about Pakistan), Honduras, Colombia, and Eastern Europe (reneging on middle defense), amongst so many others.

My humble proposal is for all of the USA’s former allies to work around the Obama administration while he is in office, as Obama is clearly hostile to human rights. I suggest forming a coalition of human rights-supporting countries (as well as semi-free countries under siege), such as Israel, India, certain European states (that are not totally dhimmified, such as Italy and France under Sarkozy, or Spain if it has Partido Popular, and Eastern European countries such as Poland the Czech Republic), countries in Africa battling Jihad, such as Ethiopia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia/New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Honduras. These countries will need the safety of a nuclear umbrella, and so they will sadly likely have to go to Putin’s Russia. Hey, this is already happening, as Avigdor Lieberman (born in Moldova) is reaching out to Russia. Heck, there are even efforts by Israel to reach out to China.

I foresee a realignment of world alliances due to Obama’s choice of foe over friend. It is the only way our former allies have a chance to battle against Jihad and its Progressive allies (Chavez/Castro/et. al.).

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

The Goings on in Gilo, Jerusalem

by Delectable ( 228 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Barack Obama, Israel, Progressives, Tranzis at November 18th, 2009 - 1:33 pm

As many of you have probably already heard, the Obama administration has decided to make international waves about the decision of the Jerusalem municipality in Israel to approve an additional 900 housing units in Gilo, which is within Jerusalem city limits. Somehow, a municipal decision to approve housing units in the capitol of its country becomes an international incident. Only in Israel!

Gilo

This is typical. I am going to not lay all the blame on Obama here, and it must be noted that Condi Rice had made similar such statements in the past. As is typical, J Street supported Obama, and is against the additional housing in Gilo. (shocka!)

The common theme is that somehow it is “anti-human rights” for Jews to build homes, kindergartens, and nurseries in their capitol city of Jerusalem, which is, lest we forget, the holiest city for Jews, and the city that every observant Jew prays to on a daily basis. (Can you imagine the USA telling Saudi Arabia that it cannot build more housing units for Muslims in Mecca? Enough said!)

But here is the little wrinkle to the story that the mainstream media usually leaves out: Arabs can buy land in Jewish areas. Not only can they buy land – they actually do buy land in Jewish neighborhoods.

Here are just two examples of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem where Arabs feel free to buy and sell land as they see fit – Pisgat Ze’ev and French Hill. In fact, Arabs buy and sell land anywhere they want in Israel, including Tel Aviv!

Here is an article by reputed scholar Alex Safian about the ability of Arabs to buy and sell land in all parts of Israel, written in 1997. The restrictions to land purchase only have decreased, to the extent they existed in 1997, due to the liberal Supreme Court of Israel! Right now there are reports of Gulf Arabs buying of land in Israel located in the Galilee. This flies in the face of the supposedly ‘racist’ and ‘discriminatory’ land policies in Israel. Actually, the real racists are from Peace Now. They actually sued to prevent Jews from buying land in Jaffa, Israel, which is indisputably part of the 1967 borders of Israel. Arabs – they can buy land wherever they want (with the understanding that most land is state-owned, but I use the term “buy” and “long-term lease” interchangeably, as far as this goes). But according to Peace Now (a misnomer of a term if I ever heard it – they are anti-peace, as I previously discussed), Jews cannot buy land in Jaffa, because it is an Arab neighborhood, which must be ‘respected.’ (yet Jewish neighborhoods disrespected, of course – this is a one-way street!) Thankfully, Peace Now lost their case before the Israeli Supreme Court. Interesting, I came across this article, which clearly peddled the lame line that if Jews move into an Arab neighborhood of Jaffa, then it will “incite” violence. So Jews should not have the right to live there. This clearly follows the “noble savage” line of thinking – that somehow Arabs who live in Jaffa are not human beings, but rather are beasts, who are incapable of anything but violence, so you should not provoke the noble beasts! As I said – Peace Now, J Street and their ilk – they really are racist!

Meanwhile, we deal with the reality that if Arabs sell land to Jews, they could be slaughtered. I am not just making this up. There have been cases of Arabs being killed for selling land to Jews. And so this also colors land claims – of course Arabs will deny they sold land to Jews, because to do anything us puts their very lives in jeopardy! Also – in Jordan – and throughout the Mideast – it is against state law for a Jew to own land in the country. (yet no “human rights organizations” seem to have problems with this, of course!) Here is a CAMERA primer on the law concerning land purchase and use. It is a must-read to understand the basic law in the region!

What is the lesson to be learned about this all? I would say that it is racist for Obama (and previously, Condi Rice) to make an “international incident” over 900 homes in Gilo. As I have extensively shown, Arabs have the right to buy and sell land throughout all of Israel. It is clearly racist to tell Jews – and only Jews – that they must be ghettoized, and cannot enjoy such similar rights.

As I have outlined, Peace Now is tied in very closely (joined at the hip, if you will) to the progressive movement. They (and J Street, also, as I have outlined, a progressive organization) are thus supporting racism.

It is because I reject racism and support equality and human rights that I support Israel and reject the progressive view of the world that ghettoizes the Jew, and turns Arabs “noble savages.” I expect more for humanity and the world!

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Bret Stephens Agrees: Obama Is An Anti-Human Rights President

by WrathofG-d ( 228 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, China, Democratic Party, Guest Post, Iran, Israel, Politics, Progressives, Tranzis, World at October 20th, 2009 - 9:56 am

Blogmocracy In Action!

Guest Post by “Delectable”

I have repeatedly stated that Obama is at war with human rights around the globe.  On Blogmocracy, I have called him an anti-human rights president.  He backs the oppression of humanity in every country on earth, without any exception I am aware of.  This great article, written by Bret Stephens, explains this well.

Nobody should get too hung up over President Obama’s decision, reported by Der Spiegel over the weekend, to cancel plans to attend next month’s 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany’s reunited capital has already served his purposes; why should he serve its?

China: In February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton landed in Beijing with a conciliating message about the country’s human-rights record. “Our pressing on those [human-rights] issues can’t interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis,” she said.

In fact, there has been no pressing whatsoever on human rights. President Obama refused to meet with the Dalai Lama last month, presumably so as not to ruffle feathers with the people who will now be financing his debts. In June, Liu Xiaobo, a leading signatory of the pro-democracy Charter 08 movement, was charged with “inciting subversion of state power.” But as a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing admitted to the Journal, “neither the White House nor Secretary Clinton have made any public comments on Liu Xiaobo.”

Sudan: In 2008, candidate Obama issued a statement insisting that “there must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government. We know from past experience that it will take a great deal to get them to do the right thing. . . . The U.N. Security Council should impose tough sanctions on the Khartoum government immediately.”

Exactly right. So what should Mr. Obama do as president? Yesterday, the State Department rolled out its new policy toward Sudan, based on “a menu of incentives and disincentives” for the genocidal Sudanese government of Omar Bashir. It’s the kind of menu Mr. Bashir will languidly pick his way through till he dies comfortably in his bed.

Iran: Mr. Obama’s week-long silence on Iran’s “internal affairs” following June’s fraudulent re-election was widely noted. Not so widely noted are the administration’s attempts to put maximum distance between itself and human-rights groups working the Iran beat.

Earlier this year, the State Department denied a grant request for New Haven, Conn.-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The Center maintains perhaps the most extensive record anywhere of Iran’s 30-year history of brutality. The grant denial was part of a pattern: The administration also abruptly ended funding for Freedom House’s Gozaar project, an online Farsi- and English-language forum for discussing political issues.

It’s easy to see why Tehran would want these groups de-funded and shut down. But why should the administration, except as a form of pre-emptive appeasement?

In Massachusetts not long ago, I found myself driving behind a car with “Free Tibet,” “Save Darfur,” and “Obama 08″ bumper stickers.  I wonder if it will ever dawn on the owner of that car that at least one of those stickers doesn’t belong.

There is more – please read it all!

It is important to be aware that Obama is a self-styled progressive.  The anti-human rights nature of our progressive president shows the cognitive dissonance of the trans-nationalists (or “tranzis”) who pretend to believe in universal ideals of “hope” and “change,” only to then later stand for stagnation and despair when they enter office.
It thus is no surprise that Obama should follow this anti-human rights pattern.  And it is no surprise to me that Obama refuses to use his UN veto against the Goldstone defamation report against Israel. He thus will apparently be pushing for action on the Goldstone Report – including possible sanctions against Israel (a democractic state which adheres to the highest ideals of human rights) - while blocking sanctions against Iran (a thugocracy that shoots its citizens in the streets and rapes and tortures its prisoners).
This is where Obama stands today.  He has revealed himself as the anti-human rights president.  The good news is that others are starting to see this.

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Aliens Attack!

by WrathofG-d ( 22 Comments › )
Filed under Crime at February 10th, 2009 - 10:54 am

An Arizona man is being sued by 16 Illegal Aliens who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

______________________________________________________________________________________

mexicans-crossing-border

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as “the avenue of choice” for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett’s wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants – five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States – have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at “gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women.”

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett’s dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, “My dog is hungry and he’s hungry for buttocks.”

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

{The Rest of The Article}

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

The Joys Of Sharia!

by WrathofG-d ( 16 Comments › )
Filed under Islamists, Religion, Sharia (Islamic Law) at February 9th, 2009 - 5:59 pm

Saudi Arabia:  47 Year Old Man Marries 8 Year Old Girl Against Her Mother’s Will

________________________________________________________________________________

Just in case your Western sensibilities caused you to foolishly “know” that this must have been a fluke, a miscarriage of justice in Saudi Arabia, or an obvious sin against “the perfect Religion of Peace”, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia’s highest authority, gave his religious opinion.

_____________________________________________________

Top Saudi cleric: OK for young girls to wed


(CNN)
— The debate over the controversial practice of child marriage in Saudi Arabia was pushed back into the spotlight this week, with the kingdom’s top cleric saying that it’s OK for girls as young as 10 to wed.

“It is incorrect to say that it’s not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger,” Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom’s grand mufti, said in remarks quoted Wednesday in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. “A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she’s too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.”

The judge, Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib, rejected a petition from the girl’s mother, whose lawyer said the marriage was arranged by her father to settle a debt with “a close friend.” The judge required the girl’s husband to sign a pledge that he would not have sex with her until she reaches puberty.

Al-Sheikh was asked during a Monday lecture about parents forcing their underage daughters to marry.

“We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls,” he said, according to the newspaper. “We should know that Shariah law has not brought injustice to women.”

Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, recently told CNN that his organization has heard many other cases of child marriages.”

________________________________________________________________________________

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Israel Rejects UN Condemnation As “Irrelevant”

by WrathofG-d ( 20 Comments › )
Filed under Gaza, Israel, United Nations at January 13th, 2009 - 2:56 pm

_______________________________________________________________________________________

un-human-rights-council-logo(IsraelNN.com) Israel has rejected the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution “strongly condemning” Israel’s counter-terrorist operations in Hamas-controlled Gaza. The non-binding resolution was adopted Monday by a coalition of 33 African, Asian, Arab, and South American states. Thirteen European states abstained, while Canada was the sole “no” vote. The United States and Israel are not members of the Council.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokespeople roundly rejected the HRC resolution as “irrelevant and one-sided.” The HRC itself, Israel noted, is dominated by Islamic and non-aligned states, while Western democratic nations “refused to give their support to this resolution or lend it moral credence.” Japan, Korea, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ukraine and Cameroon also abstained.

“The politically-motivated, almost exclusive focus on Israel has become a repulsive habit of the Council,” the Foreign Ministry said, adding that the Human Rights Council is once again exposing “its true face as a body exploited by states whose behavior is far from ideal, where human rights are concerned. This allows the Council’s attention to be diverted from most of the regions of the world, while the fate of their residents is left to criminal negligence or abuse by Council members or their allies.”

[The Full Article]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Israel finally responds appropriately to the witless U.N.  I imagine however that those who are Anti-Israel will very quickly quote this non-binding resolution as “further evidence” of Israel’s violation of international law, and U.N. resolutions.  But then again the facts have never been their friend.

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon