Should this photo be grounds for death?
Two weeks ago, a young Tunisian woman known only by the name “Amina” posted political self portraits to Facebook to protest the continued oppression of women in the Arab world’s first democracy.
Posing topless, one photo (right) featured Amina smoking with the Arabic declaration “my body belongs to me, and is not the source of the honour of anyone” scrawled across her chest; the other showed Amina standing defiantly, her middle fingers raised to camera, and the English words “F--- your morals” blaring out from her body
What happened next explains why religion must be separated from the state—and why “democracy” is just another word for mob rule: the young lady was arrested, denounced by her “dishonoured” family (“Amina does not exist anymore for me,” said her aunt; “I hope she pays for her actions,” said her father), and thrown into a psychiatric hospital, where her fate now rests on the decisions of folk like the outraged Wahhabi Salafi preacher who heads the sharia state’s “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, who declares“Amina”
should be punished according to sharia, with 80 to 100 lashes, but [because of] the severity of the act she has committed, she deserves be stoned to death.
Stoned to death! For what? For “giving ideas to other women.”
And even if her life isn’t made forfeit by barbarians who demonstrate the very point made by her protest, she still faces two years in prison. For what? For rejecting the barbarous cultural mores of her society and demanding her rights.
Is this photo really grounds for death? It is in any place ruled by the Moslem religion.
12 comments:
Well said Peter.
Yet our political masters are so happy to flood our civilised Western countries with so many muslims.
For what?
Sick bastards, religion the curse of mankind.
Um, have you ever considered that many of the people you say are 'flooding' the west are actually escaping this sort of barbarity?
That, should it be possible, "Amina" and similar brave souls should be made welcome here?
That, perhaps, you could put a name to your opinions instead of posting them anonymously.
Best not throw stones, Peter. The Westminster system is based on religion.
The Quran calls for kindness to women, so it's not appropriate to blame Islam for this.
Also, Wahabists are not your typical Muslim, they are a heavily politicised group.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/files/2013/03/logoAMina.jpg
"The Westminster system is based on religion". Therefore, what?
@twr
Peter is a candidate for a political system that is based on the Westminster system, so his calling for the separation of religion from the state is incongruous.
Also AFAIK all MPs swear an oath to the head of state. An oath is an act of religion.
The Westminster system is based on the separation of powers and the idea anyone can conflate the constitutional monarch's role in NZ (or the UK) with a theocracy is ludicrous. The oath is loyalty to the monarch and can be taken without a bible as an affirmation.
I will blame Islam, if only because most Islam dominated societies are misogynistic on a scale that ranges from between 50 to 500 years ago in our cultural history.
It is notable that India, with similar afflictions of misogyny is only starting to go through the motions of acknowledging the horrors of a society that treats initiation of force against half of society as unimportant. Its erstwhile brethren in Pakistan remain light years away from even that.
@Libertyscott
The notional separation of powers is from the Roman triumvirate, there is no separation of the power of the emperor/monarch. Also the judiciary and parliament both have a common duty arising from employment by the Crown, which has it's own dark history of oppression of minorities.
The essential theocratic element is the religious assumption of judicial power by the state.
Can you name a single MP who took an affirmation instead of an oath?
UK Monarch is head of Church of England. Conflated.
Is this photo grounds for death?
Yes, apparently it is.
@UglyTruth - even if what you were saying was correct, that would be like saying because Libertarians oppose public roads that we shouldn't be able to drive.
If there's only one system, one must use it, whether one likes all elements of it or not.
@Greig
A false analogy with a fiction based on a misdirection.
The two systems are the common law (aka the law of the land) and the civil system of the state. The state lies about the nature of the common law.
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28032013/#comment-611335
Post a Comment