The Vagaries of Moral Progress (2): Women’s Rights in Iran

This image shows Iranian women in 1979, just before the Islamic revolution:

(source unknown)

At first sight, this image is testimony to moral regress. It would be difficult to take an image like this in the Iran of today. Women in Iran were confronted with new cultural and legal restrictions after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and those restrictions are still in force. Exposure of any part of the body other than hands and face is subject to punishment of up to 70 lashes or 60 days imprisonment (source). In April 2007, the Tehran police (which is under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei‘s supervision), began the most fierce crackdown on what is known as “bad hijab” in more than a decade. In the capital Tehran thousands of Iranian women were cautioned over their poor Islamic dress and several hundred arrested. And it’s not just dress code. The government has set quotas for female pediatricians and gynecologists and has made it difficult for women to become civil engineers (source). And it goes on.

However, the pre-revolutionary regime didn’t always perform better in the field of women’s rights and gender equality. Reza Shah and his son did take some measures beneficial to women – e.g. the decree of unveiling in 1936 – but the situation was far from idyllic.

Conversely, Iranian women today, although they are denied many basic and equal rights, don’t live in the dystopia that many in the West imagine:

Women’s rights advocates say Iranian women are displaying a growing determination to achieve equal status in this conservative Muslim theocracy, where male supremacy is still enscribed in the legal code. One in five marriages now end in divorce, according to government data, a fourfold increase in the past 15 years. … Increasing educational levels and the information revolution have contributed to creating a generation of women determined to gain more control over their lives. (source)

There are other Islamist regimes that are far worse, most notably, of course, Saudi Arabia. The rulers there take the exclusion of women from public life a few steps further. Take for instance the recent Ikea scandal: the multinational was forced or thought it was a good idea to delete the images of women from the Saudi version of its catalogue.

(source)

There’s now a website making fun of Ikea and replacing famous women with Ikea products:

(source)

More posts in this series are here.

Iconic Images of Human Rights Violations (93): Life and Death in Aleppo, Syria

An amazing series of 7 photos taken in rapid succession, capturing a few seconds separating life and death for a small group of fighters in Aleppo, Syria (make sure to view the photos in order, from #1 to #7):

(source)

The photographer, Tracey Shelton, explains what went on:

Earlier this week (in September 2012), I was filming a feature on life on the frontlines of Aleppo, Syria. I was camping out with the men of Noor Den al-Zenke batallion, who man a two-block stretch of back streets that now forms the final line between government troops and opposition forces.

This narrow street had become a makeshift home for the men. Lounge chairs salvaged from abandoned homes formed an area for chatting and drinking tea. Meals were prepared on a grass mat in the middle of the street. We slept in a room on the lower floor in case of air raids. Lookouts were posted at each street corner to both watch and listen for new sniper positions and approaching troops and tanks.

On this morning, the men were relaxed and joking around as they cleaned their area from a tank attack the day before. That time, they had been prepared and the tank had fired too short. This time, the assault came with little warning.

As the cloud of smoke engulfed the street we ran back and frantically waited for the others to escape through the dust and debris. But no one came. In that split second, three men were reduced to broken, bleeding masses.

After a few minutes of disorientation, a vehicle arrived to transport the bodies. The survivors washed away the blood and flesh in a heartbreaking clean up.

New fighters came to take their posts. And the battle continued. (source)

More on Syria here. More iconic images are here.

Human Rights Maps (177): A New Middle East?

Here’s an interesting question: do people really want to live in the states they live in? I know that many want to migrate, but those who want to stay may also want to live in a different state.

If we want to respond positively to some people’s desires for a different set of international borders I assume we have to do so democratically. But how do we decide which is the “people” that can vote democratically to change the borders of the state it lives in? A minority which wants to secede? What about the wishes of the rest of the citizens of the existing state?

I guess one principle we could use in deciding whether or not to allow the redrawing of borders is self-government. The purpose of borders and therefore also of the redrawing of borders is to give more groups of people more self-government. If new borders yield more self-government then that’s one good reason to go ahead. Yet I doubt that this is the only principle that has to be taken into consideration. After all, if it were the only principle, single person states would be optimal, and that’s an absurd conclusion.

So, in other words: to what extent should a democratic vote be allowed to result in new states or state borders, and what does a democratic vote mean in this setting? Does a majority or a minority within an existing democracy have a right to secede if it democratically votes for secession? And is a democratic vote for secession a vote within the group that wants to secede? Or a vote among everyone in the existing state? Do those left behind have a right to stop secession? If so, what would be the basis of this right? It can’t be self-government. Those left behind would end up with more self-government, even if they oppose secession.

If self-government is an important right – as it surely is – then is it not the case that secession is also an important right if and when it results in more and better self-government? Perhaps it is. But if it is, how far does it go? It should obviously stop short of the one person state, at least if we agree that the notion of the state as we have it now remains useful – in other words, if we’re not anarchists. Another way of asking this question: what is the optimal state configuration from the point of view of self-government? Clearly, if a state contains marginalized minorities which are also territorially concentrated, and if democratic reforms meant to help those minorities are unsuccessful, then the size of this state is not optimal. The same is true when groups spread over different states have a strong urge to live together and self-govern their destiny. But what of other cases?

For the moment, I don’t intend to examine these questions any further. I’ll instead limit myself to an example: if people in the Middle East could democratically choose what country they lived in, would they choose the one they are in now? It seems not:

What the borders of Middle Eastern countries would be if the people could decide

(source)

This map is conjecture, of course, since people haven’t been asked their opinion. Nor will they any time soon. Imagine current leaders giving up oil fields. Right, you can’t.

However, maybe the Arab Spring makes some things more likely. People don’t only question rulers but also states, and the popular uprisings in the Middle East intensifies this questioning. Listen to the Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey, to the Baha’i in Iran, etc. Part of the reason is the artificial nature of many borders in the Middle East.

In the Middle East … the countries are mostly the product of a British-French agreement made in 1916 (Sykes-Picot) that paid little attention to local sociopolitical realities. As a result, few possess the historical roots, social cohesion, and legitimacy necessary to nurture the complex institutions that are a prerequisite for development and democracy. On the contrary, most suffer from both sectarian divisions and weak government—the causes of state fragility. (source)

Not that this problem is limited to the Middle East (see here), but it can become more salient during popular uprisings or violent conflict. For example, here’s an animation showing the current borders of African countries and what they will become if different separatist or independence movements will have their way:

(source, where you can also find an interactive version)

More human rights maps here.

Iconic Images of Human Rights Violations (80): Conflict in Gaza in 2006

Palestinian relatives carry the body of baby Ala Athamna during the family funeral in Beit Hanoun town on November 9, 2006 in Gaza Strip. The Families of 18 Palestinian civilians including the children and women who were killed by Israeli tanks shelling, in the town of Beit Hanoun on November 8 buried them in the new cemetery of AL-Shohada or the Martyrs. By Abid Katib/Getty Images

(source)

More on the conflict here. More iconic images here.

Annals of Heartlessness (23): Dissent is Disease

(source)

Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, defended his government’s bloody crackdown on dissent, comparing his security forces – who have been repeatedly accused of torture and mass killing – to surgeons working to save the life of their patients.

Speaking before a newly selected parliament, Assad, a London-trained ophthalmologist, said: “When a surgeon … cuts and cleans and amputates, and the wound bleeds, do we say to him your hands are stained with blood? Or do we thank him for saving the patient?” (source)

Dehumanizing your enemies – in this case comparing them to infected limbs and, I guess, cancerous tumors – has always been a favorite MO of brutal dictators (more examples here and here) but it’s something that goes way beyond official oppression (see here and here for instance). Assad has also violated a more fundamental rule of politics: don’t indulge in metaphors.

More in the annals of heartlessness here.

Satellite Evidence of Human Rights Violations (9): Attacks on Homs, Syria

The US Administration has published declassified images that illustrate the disproportionate nature of the Assad regime’s violence against its own people and its willingness to attack civilian targets.

The first image below shows the Syrian army’s artillery aimed at the city of Homs and the fires in the city resulting from artillery shots. Those shots are supposedly aimed at armed opposition groups (that do not have artillery to shoot back, by the way) but they also hit civilians hiding in the city.

Satellite evidence of attacks on Homs, Syria

(source)

The second image – a “before and after” image – shows some of the damage in Homs:

Satellite evidence of attacks on Homs, Syria

(source)

This is the same area from another angle:

(source)

And this is a before-and-after image of damage to a hospital:

(source)

The impact scars are said to be consistent with the equipment shown in the first picture and are evidence of the Syrian government’s indiscriminate use of heavy weaponry against civilians.

More posts in this series are here.

Why Do Countries Become/Remain Democracies? Or Don’t? (21): Education Again

anti-semitic Nazi education illustration, saying: "The Jewish nose is bent at its tip. It looks like a six"

(source)

The claim that education leads to democracy has a lot of intuitive appeal. Educated people are probably more inclined to demand political participation, and those in power who hesitate about granting democratic rights will be less hesitant when they have to grant these rights to educated people. The claim is also supported by the fact that democracy requires some level of education in order to function adequately.

And there is indeed a correlation between levels of democracy and levels of education:

(source)

Furthermore, it seems that the causation goes mainly from education to democracy. Some evidence for this is here and here – although it’s also true that democracies are better educators. There’s also evidence here that it’s mainly primary education levels that drive democracy. The effect of primary education even outstrips the effect of GDP on democracy.

And there’s even more, albeit quasi-anecdotal evidence for this claim. Let’s have a look at the Arab Spring. Although one can’t possible argue that democracy is now the common form of government in the Middle East, a first step towards democratization has been taken, and it’s likely that the push came from the fact that education levels in those Arab countries that have witnessed recent uprisings have risen sharply in recent decades.

[T]he Arab Spring was partly predictable, as Middle Eastern countries displayed levels of democracy that were lower than those predicted by their level of education and income. … [The f]igure [below] focuses on these countries in particular, showing that their levels of democracy as predicted by our empirical model [based on education levels] lie above their pre-2011 actual levels. In other words, the Arab Spring could be expected based on a dynamic statistical model of the factors that drive democracy (interestingly, the same observation holds for Iraq and Cuba). (source)

democracy and expected democracy based on education levels

(source)

More posts in this series are here.

Terrorism and Human Rights (33): “The U.S. Coming Home!” (Commemorative 9-11 Repost)

On this 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, here is a repost of a mock OpEd I wrote some years ago. It’s mocking only in its form, not in its intentions. Warning: none of the opinions expressed here should be mistaken for my own.

(source)

“The date is October the 1st, 2011, exactly 20 days after the worst terrorist attack in US history, an attack in which Muslim extremists used nuclear bombs to inflict heavy damage on 3 American cities, embarrassing the security forces who were on high alert on the 10th anniversary of 9-11.

Today, the whole world was listening to President Obama’s first policy speech after the events. The most shocking announcement was undoubtedly the decision to no longer deploy US troops abroad. The President defended this “Coming Home” decision by citing the failure of 10 years of military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, the Middle East, Nigeria and Indonesia intended to bring about more security for the American people. Evidence has shown that US involvement abroad, even peaceful and objectively beneficial involvement, rather than promoting US security, actually fosters hate, resentment and fanaticism. The objects of American involvement, even if this involvement means billions of dollars of aid, seem to think that it is fundamentally a ploy to “imperialize” them, a crusade to take away their identity, religion and wealth. Independence, national pride and Allah is what counts for them.

It has also become clear that the US was wrong to think in terms of “frontlines” in its war with Muslim terrorists. The strategy to try to attack the enemy in their homelands, the “first frontline”, rather than wait until they get on American soil, has proven to be ineffective militarily, and possibly even counter-effective psychologically: it has provided fuel for anti-crusader and anti-colonialist rhetoric, convincing ever more young Muslim martyrs and extremist Muslim regimes of the anti-Muslim and hence satanic nature of the Christian unbelievers.

Hercules and Hydra

Unlike an enemy army in a classical 20th century war, this enemy cannot be defeated by an overpowering military attack. The strongest military in the world cannot defeat a relatively small group of undoubting and unthinking amateurs ready to die with a makeshift bomb in their hands. With every amateur it kills it only produces more evidence of the presence of Satan on holy soil. Hence, the more it tries to root out the enemy, the more enemies it creates. The President therefore, wisely in our view, decided to shift focus from the attack to the defensive. Bringing our boys back home to defend the American border, effectively turning the army into a super coastguard and border patrol, should not be viewed as giving in to the enemy, a retreat or a Last Stand. That would only be a return to an inadequate and outdated military logic, useless given the kind of enemy we are dealing with.

Together with measures to prevent homegrown terrorism – which, fortunately, has been a limited phenomenon until now – a relentless border control should indeed be able to offer protection. The borders must, of course, include the entrances of airplanes and ships heading for the US. In order to be independent from foreign security services, the President has asked for legislation allowing only US aircraft and ship to enter the US. If economically necessary, the US will acquire a larger fleet. Anyway, unnecessary travel to the US will be discouraged.

(source)

The economic drawbacks of rigorous border controls will be countered by technological innovations funded by army budgets which become available when budgets for overseas operations start to diminish. The President also asked the citizens to prepare for the possibility of a certain number of years of economic depression. Energy supplies may also suffer as a consequence of the US drawback. Traditional allies will be disappointed by their abandonment. The loss of US military assistance will even endanger the existence of some regimes. Those which are also oil suppliers will resent the US and will disrupt the supply. The President is conscious of the economic impact this will have but asks the scientific community to tackle the problem of oil dependence. Existing alternatives, including nuclear energy, will be developed. Repatriated nuclear warheads, if not necessary for domestic security, will be recycled in the energy industry.

Some allies which are important for the US domestically, such as Israel, will not be abandoned without continued support. Military equipment not necessary for border control and security on US soil, will be handed over to them after they lose the protective umbrella of a US presence in their region. Financial assistance will continue to be possible.

Because US troops will no longer be stationed abroad, US expats can become easy targets for terrorists. The President therefore advises them to make plans to return home as soon as possible. The government will establish funds to incite people to come home and to compensate for damages they will incur. US multinationals will be legally forced to employ local people only in their foreign affiliates. The US government will immediately cease to employ its citizens in development projects in Africa and elsewhere. To alleviate the economic shock this will produce in developing countries, the US will double its funds for development aid for a period of 5 years. These funds, however, will be spend entirely by third parties. No US agencies will be active abroad. The US will also withdraw from NATO, the UN, and all other international institutions.

May God be with us, since it’s excessively clear that nobody else will.”

More on terrorism.

Human Rights Maps (147): Casualties in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars Between 2004 and 2010

Based on the Wikileaks data, this map by Max Braun dramatizes the number of casualties by way of “drops of blood” on the location of each casualty:

casualties in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars Between 2004 and 2010

(source)

It’s obviously an exaggeration. And there’s nothing wrong with that in this case because it’s clear that the map doesn’t intend to convey statistically accurate information, although it is based on it (see here). The exaggeration is a deliberate tool in the dramatization of the wars, and that’s OK because war is tragic. However, exaggeration often occurs in statistics – meaning in forms of communication meant to convey accurate information. And then it’s a problem. There’s an example here.

Statistics in map form are particularly vulnerable to this: putting events on a map quickly overloads the map and gives the impression that a phenomenon is much more common than it really is. Take for instance the map below, which makes it look like the U.S. and especially the east of the U.S. is inundated by hate crime groups:

map of hate crime groups

(source)

This can give an altogether misleading message.

Similar maps about casualties in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars are here, here and here. More human rights maps in general are here. More on the war on terror is here.

Related Articles

• “Wikileaks Iraq War Logs on Google Maps” and related posts (googlemapsmania.blogspot.com)
• U.S. military says 77,000 Iraqis killed over 5 years (ctv.ca)
• Pixelating the Casualties in Iraq (infosthetics.com)

Political Graffiti (145): Revolution in Tunesia

(source)

More on democratization in the Middle East here; and on the power of people uniting here. More political graffiti here.

Annals of Heartlessness (3): Chopping Off Heads, Needs Some Getting Used To

still from a video showing state-appointed executioner of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, Abdallah Al-Bishi

(source)

From an interview with the state-appointed executioner of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, Abdallah Al-Bishi. The interview aired on the Lebanese LBC TV on November 4, 2006:

Reporter: “This is the most renowned executioner in Saudi Arabia, Abdallah Bin Sa’id Al-Bishi, who carries out the executions. His sword delineates the border between seriousness and play. There is no negotiating with him once the heads have ripened. When it’s harvesting time, he is the most suited for the job.”

Abdallah Al-Bishi: “I started to work in this field after the death of my father – about a week or 10 days after his death, in 1412 [1991-92]. I was surprised that the people who supervise this field summoned me, saying I had a mission. Allah be praised. Of course, I did not have swords or anything back then, but I used the swords of my father, may he rest in peace, and carried out the execution. My first mission was to execute three people.”

execution in Riyadh

Reporter: “Abu Bader’s swords have cut off a hundred heads and more. His eldest son, Badr, is training in the same profession. He inherited this profession from his father, Sa’id Al-Bishi. He remembers how, when still a small boy, he accompanied him to the beheading of a criminal in Mecca. That sight, Abu Badr says, was the turning point in his life.”

Abdallah Al-Bishi: “I was at school, and an execution was set for my father in Mecca. It was to take place in front of the King Abd Al-’Aziz Gate. Before all that happened at the Al-Haram Mosque, the executions were held there. We showed up. I was a little boy. The first thing that came to my mind when people talked about executions was the digestive system. I wanted to see it. At that time, we had an exam at school on the digestive system, and we had to explain about the digestive system and whatever… So I came along, and the moment my father executed the man, I ran to see the digestive system, but all I could see was the man’s head flying, and where the neck used to be, there was a kind of well. It went down. That’s it. I couldn’t take it anymore. I woke up in the car on the way home. At night, I tried to go to sleep, but couldn’t. I had nightmares, but only once. Then I got used to it, Allah be praised.” (source)

More on capital punishment in Saudi Arabia here, here and here. More on capital punishment in general here. More in the annals of heartlessness here.

(image source)

Human Rights Maps (125): The Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide was the deliberate and systematic destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I. It was implemented through wholesale massacres and deportations, with the deportations consisting of forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees. The total number of resulting Armenian deaths is generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.

The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. Thereafter, the Ottoman military uprooted Armenians from their homes and forced them to march for hundreds of miles, depriving them of food and water, to the desert of what is now Syria. Massacres were indiscriminate of age or gender, with rape and other sexual abuse commonplace. The majority of Armenian diaspora communities were founded as a result of the Armenian genocide.

(source, click image to enlarge)

(source, click image to enlarge)

More about genocide. More human rights maps.

Iconic Images of Human Rights Violations (63): Beheading in Saudi Arabia

beheading in Saudi Arabia, on "Chop Chop Square" in Riyadh, of Dhahian Rakan al-Sibai’i, July 2007

(source)

Read more here about capital punishment in Saudi Arabia. More iconic images of rights violations are here.

Terrorism and Human Rights (30): “The U.S. Coming Home!” (Commemorative 9-11 Repost)

(On this 9th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, here is a repost of a mock OpEd I wrote some years ago. It’s mocking only in its form, not in its intentions. I guess one day it will become prophetic, I’ll just have to repost it often enough. Warning: none of the opinions expressed here should be mistaken for my own).

(source)

“The date is October the 1st, 2011, exactly 20 days after the worst terrorist attack in US history, an attack in which Muslim extremists used nuclear bombs to inflict heavy damage on 3 American cities, embarrassing the security forces who were on high alert on the 10th anniversary of 9-11.

Today, the whole world was listening to President Obama’s first policy speech after the events. The most shocking announcement was undoubtedly the decision to no longer deploy US troops abroad. The President defended this “Coming Home” decision by the failure of 10 years of military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, the Middle East, Nigeria and Indonesia to bring about more security for the American people. Evidence has shown that US involvement abroad, even peaceful and objectively beneficial involvement, rather than promoting US security, actually fosters hate, resentment and fanaticism. The objects of American involvement, even if this involvement means billions of dollars of aid, seem to think that it is fundamentally a ploy to “imperialize” them, a crusade to take away their identity, religion and wealth. Independence, national pride and Allah is what counts for them.

It has also become clear that the US was wrong to think in terms of “frontlines” in its war with Muslim terrorists. The strategy to try to attack the enemy in their homelands, the “first frontline”, rather than wait till they get on American soil, has proven to be ineffective militarily, and possibly even counter-effective psychologically: it has provided fuel for anti-crusader and anti-colonialist rhetoric, convincing ever more young Muslim martyrs and extremist Muslim regimes of the anti-Muslim and hence satanic nature of the Christian unbelievers.

Hercules and Hydra

Unlike an enemy army in a classical 20th century war, this enemy cannot be defeated by an overpowering military attack. The strongest military in the world cannot defeat a relatively small group of undoubting and unthinking amateurs ready to die with a makeshift bomb in their hands. With every amateur it kills it only produces more evidence of the presence of Satan on holy soil. Hence, the more it tries to root out the enemy, the more enemies it creates. The President therefore, wisely in our view, decided to shift focus from the attack to the defensive. Bringing our boys back home to defend the American border, effectively turning the army into a super coastguard and border patrol, should not be viewed as giving in to the enemy, a retreat or a Last Stand. That would only be a return to an inadequate and outdated military logic, useless given the kind of enemy we are dealing with.

Together with measures to prevent homegrown terrorism – which, fortunately, has been a limited phenomenon until now – a relentless border control should indeed be able to offer protection. The borders must, of course, include the entrances of airplanes and ships heading for the US. In order to be independent from foreign security services, the President has asked for legislation allowing only US aircraft and ship to enter the US. If economically necessary, the US will acquire a larger fleet. Anyway, unnecessary travel to the US will be discouraged.

(source)

The economic drawbacks of rigorous border controls will be countered by technological innovations funded by army budgets which become available when budgets for overseas operations start to diminish. The President also asked the citizens to prepare for the possibility of a certain number of years of economic depression. Energy supplies may also suffer as a consequence of the US drawback. Traditional allies will be disappointed by their abandonment. The loss of US military assistance will even endanger the existence of some regimes. Those which are also oil suppliers will resent the US and will disrupt the supply. The President is conscious of the economic impact this will have but asks the scientific community to tackle the problem of oil dependence. Existing alternatives, including nuclear energy, will be developed. Repatriated nuclear warheads, if not necessary for domestic security, will be recycled in the energy industry.

Some allies which are important for the US domestically, such as Israel, will not be abandoned without continued support. Military equipment not necessary for border control and security on US soil, will be handed over to them after they loose the protective umbrella of a US presence in their region. Financial assistance will continue to be possible.

Because US troops will no longer be stationed abroad, US expats can become easy targets for terrorists. The President therefore advises them to make plans to return home as soon as possible. The government will establish funds to incite people to come home and to compensate for damages they will incur. US multinationals will be legally forced to employ local people only for their foreign affiliates. The US government will immediately cease to employ its citizens in development projects in Africa and elsewhere. To alleviate the economic shock this will produce in developing countries, the US will double its funds for development aid for a period of 5 years. These funds, however, will be spend entirely by third parties. No US agencies will be active abroad. The US will also withdraw from NATO, the UN, and all other international institutions.

May God be with us, since it’s excessively clear that nobody else will.”

More on terrorism.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (59): Stoning

When stonings happen, how do they work? First, you get buried. Iran’s Islamic Penal Code states that men convicted of adultery are to be buried in the ground up to their waists; women, up to their chests. If the conviction is based on the prisoner’s confession, the law says, the presiding judge casts the first stone. If the conviction is based on witness testimony, the witnesses throw the first stones, then the judge, then everyone else—generally other court officials and security forces. Stones must be of medium size, according to the penal code: Not so big that one or two could kill the person, but not so small that you would call it a pebble. In other words, about the size of a tangerine. The whole process takes less than an hour.

One possible upside of getting stoned is that people who manage to escape from the hole are allowed to go free. But this applies only to those who have confessed to their crimes. (If you were sentenced to stoning on the basis of witness testimony, then digging out of the hole does you no good.) In any case, it’s very difficult for anyone to escape the punishment: Prisoners are wrapped in a white cloth sack with their hands tied.

Stonings in Iran used to be public. Between 1983 and about 2000, anyone could attend and throw rocks. After that, public outcry against the practice grew, and stonings began to be carried out in private, often at a cemetery. In 2002, the head of Iran’s judiciary issued a moratorium on stoning sentences, but that was more of a guideline rather than a change to the law, so the practice continued even as top officials denied it. (source)

More on stoning, on Iran, on Sharia and on capital punishment. More absurd human rights violations.

Related Articles

• Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, Iran Stoning Death Woman, May Be Spared Execution, Lawyer Says (huffingtonpost.com)
• Amnesty condemns Iran over Ashtiani confession (newstatesman.com)
• Where is stoning legal, and how is it done? (msnbc.msn.com)

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (57): Jailed for Being “Annoying”

While most Middle Eastern regimes make up all sorts of excuses for throwing activists who raise inconvenient issues in jail — “endangering security” and “undermining national unity” are favorites — the Saudis are admirably honest. Mekhlef bin Daham al-Shammary, a prominent Saudi human rights activist who has been critical of the kingdom’s anti-Shiite policies, was jailed on the charge of “annoying others” on June 15.

No, the crime of annoyance does not appear to be written down anywhere in Saudi Arabia. The charges against Shammary may stem from an article he wrote rebuking another columnist for harsh attacks against the Iraqi Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

More than a month after his imprisonment, Shammary still has not been brought before a judge. (source)

More on Saudi Arabia, on censorship and on arbitrary arrest. More absurd human rights violations.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (56): Different Lives in the Middle East

On one side of a barbed-wire fence here in the southern Hebron hills is the Bedouin village of Umm al-Kheir, where Palestinians live in ramshackle tents and huts. They aren’t allowed to connect to the electrical grid, and Israel won’t permit them to build homes, barns for their animals or even toilets. When the villagers build permanent structures, the Israeli authorities come and demolish them, according to villagers and Israeli human rights organizations.

On the other side of the barbed wire is the Jewish settlement of Karmel, a lovely green oasis that looks like an American suburb. It has lush gardens, kids riding bikes and air-conditioned homes. It also has a gleaming, electrified poultry barn that it runs as a business. Elad Orian, an Israeli human rights activist, nodded toward the poultry barn and noted: “Those chickens get more electricity and water than all the Palestinians around here.” (source)

More on Israel, Palestine and the Middle East. More absurd human rights violations.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (52): Arabic Homogamy

Egypt’s supreme administrative court has upheld a decision to revoke the citizenship of Egyptian men married to Israeli women. The children of those cross-national unions could be officially stripped of their Egyptian nationality, as well, in order to legally omit a generation of citizens that Nabil al-Wahsh, a lawyer in the case, describes as inherently “disloyal to Egypt and the Arab world.” The ruling, if uniformly enforced, would reduce the country’s citizenry by as many as 30,000 people. (source)

More on Israel and Egypt. More about marriage rights. More absurd human rights violations.

Limiting Free Speech (40): The Chilling Effect of Political Correctness

A few days ago, a senior US journalist by the name of Helen Thomas expressed the view that Jews needed to “get the hell out of Palestine” and return to their countries of historical origin (she named Germany and Poland, as well as “America”) (source).

Subsequently, a lot of folks expressed the view that she should resign or else be fired (source). She swiftly agreed. Now, forcing someone to resign because of an opinion, however stupid or disgusting this opinion may be, is likely to have an adverse effect on free speech, not only the freedom of speech of the person in question but of anyone else who may believe – rightly or wrongly – that his or her livelihood may be at stake because of certain opinions.

The forced retirement of Helen Thomas is further proof, if any were needed, that it’s still unacceptable, in public discourse, to be wrong in one’s opinions. I find that sad.

Thomas gave voice to an opinion which she then, almost immediately, retracted; no one, in the subsequent debate, defended the substance of her remarks. She was wrong; everybody, including Thomas, agrees on that point, and no real harm was done to anyone but Thomas when the video of her remarks surfaced.

But if you turn out to be wrong, even temporarily, even only once, on a hot-button issue, that’s enough for effective excommunication from polite society. That, to me, is chilling. (source)

(More on the chilling effect and on political correctness). A social chilling effect produced by political correctness may be as effective as state imposed censorship.

Of course, given her age (89), Helen Thomas may in fact not suffer any serious consequences from her forced retirement. But what happened to her can happen to others, and the mere risk of such a thing happening may be enough for some people – those with more to lose – to think again and decide that it’s perhaps better to shut up. (More on human rights and risk here).

Now, none of this defense of Helen Thomas should be understood as a defense of what she actually said. Here’s a good quote explaining what exactly is wrong with what she said, if that isn’t immediately clear:

why the big deal over batty Helen Thomas? What is so especially offensive about her comments (comments that now seem to have gotten her fired)? I think the answer is fairly obvious. While it is one thing (not a good thing, of course) to argue in euphemism for the destruction of Israel by invoking the so-called one-state solution, it is quite another to advocate for the “return” of Israeli Jews to their German and Polish homelands, not merely because such advocacy is almost comically absurd and cruel (or, at the very least, stunningly ignorant of recent European history) but because this argument denies to Jews what Helen Thomas, and people like Helen Thomas, want to grant the Palestinians: Recognition that they comprise, collectively, a nation.

The Jews, of course, are an ancient nation, a nation whose history took place in a sliver of land called Israel. Helen Thomas’s argument, if you can call it an argument, centers on the pernicious belief that Jews are strangers in a place called “Palestine.” Palestine, of course, is the name that was given by the Romans to the Land of Israel precisely in order to sever the connection between the Jews and their homeland. Helen Thomas, and people like her, are thus soldiers in a (Roman-inspired) war against history. This particular war is not as offensive to most people as the war against the memory of the Shoah, but it is rooted in the same grotesque motivation: To deny to Jews the truth of their own history. (source)

More posts in this series here.

Iconic Images of Human Rights Violations (51): Palestinian Girl Buried Under Rubble During the Gaza War

Palestinians evacuate the dead body of a child from in the rubble of a four story house that collapsed when struck by an Israeli air strike on January. 6, 2009 in Gaza City, Gaza Strip. By Thair Hasani/Getty

(source)

I’ve hidden the image so as not to shock people who visit this site for the first time and don’t know what to expect. Read more about the Gaza War of the Winter of 2008/2009 here. This image reminds me of the Bhopal girl, although the circumstances are quite different. Some say that posting such images, even in a hidden manner, is needlessly shocking, a form of disaster pornography, and that my entire blog series is misguided. Generally I disagree and I think evil should be shown and not hidden away for the moral tranquility of people who have a comfortable life far away from war and suffering. (Read also the content warning for this blog). However, in this case there may be some truth to the allegation. Hamas is known to use such images for propaganda purposes, and even to use corpses as photo opportunities.

Hamas (and the Aksa Brigades, and Islamic Jihad, the whole bunch) prevents the burial, or even preparation of the bodies for burial, until the bodies are used as props in the Palestinian Passion Play. Once, in Khan Younis, I actually saw gunmen unwrap a shrouded body, carry it a hundred yards and position it atop a pile of rubble — and then wait a half-hour until photographers showed. It was one of the more horrible things I’ve seen in my life. And it’s typical of Hamas. (source)

More iconic images of human rights violations. More on Israel, Palestine and the Middle East.

Iconic Images of Human Rights Violations (48): The Conflict in the Middle East

A settler tosses wine at a Palestinian woman on Shuhada Street in Hebron. The approach of some settlers towards neighboring Palestinians, especially around Nablus in the north and Hebron in the south, has often been one of contempt and violence. Photo: Rina Castelnuovo for The New York Times.

(source)

(source)

Of course, wearing a t-shirt, and even throwing wine at someone isn’t a violation of human rights, but it is indicative of the treatment of some Palestinians by some Israelis. Obviously, I don’t want to imply that there isn’t disgusting behavior on the other side, or that Israel is exclusively responsible for all or even most violations of human rights in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Far from it. Just as a blog post about Guantanamo doesn’t imply neglect of the evils of terrorism. A balanced and objective overview of human rights violations in the conflict in the Middle East is here.

Other iconic images of human rights violations are here.

Why Do Countries Become/Remain Democracies? Or Don’t? (12): Arab Democracy, an Oxymoron?

When people look for reasons why countries haven’t made the transition from authoritarian government to democracy, they often mention economic development or culture, or both. And culture usually means religion more specifically. And religion usually means Islam. Now it’s true that if you look at the largest Muslim region, the Arab world (roughly North Africa plus the Arab Peninsula), you won’t find a single democracy. You can check the most common democracy indexes, Freedom House and Polity. That’s an anomaly: no other large region in the world is similarly devoid of democratic governance.

The question is of course: why? In our post-9/11 world the obvious answer is Islam, which is believed to be a religion that is particularly incompatible with democratic principles such as separation of state and church, pluralism, rule of law, human rights etc. Some even say that there will never be democracies in the Arab world as long as Islam remains an important force.

However, sometimes the obvious answer is also the wrong one. Some Muslim countries outside the Arab world have reasonably well developed democratic systems of government (Albania, Indonesia, Malaysia, Senegal, Turkey etc.) and are doing much better than some non-Muslim dictatorships out there.

Larry Diamond

But then, if it’s not religion, what is the reason for the absence of democracy in the Arab world? In an interesting new paper, Larry Diamond has a look at some possible reasons. He focuses on the so-called resource-curse and petro-politics and the correlated lack of accountability (accountability only emerges in countries that have to tax their people), but I think he’s wrong there. Lack of economic development could be a cause, but he rightly dismisses it. If you compare economic development in Arab and non-Arab countries, you see that per capita GDP of Kuwait is on the same level as Norway, Bahrain compares to France, and Saudi Arabia is on a par with South Korea. Conversely, you’ll be able to find non-Arab democracies that are much less developed than the average Arab country.

A more promising explanation of enduring Arab authoritarianism is FOTA: fear of the alternative. moderate opposition groups in Arab countries tend to accept their authoritarian governments. Their dislike of “modern pharaohs” is topped by their dislike of radical Islamist groups that could profit from free elections. Rather than the principle “one person, one vote, one time” followed by theocracy, they settle for the relatively mild yoke of secular Arab dictatorship. Something similar happened before in Latin America, when the feared alternative was communist rule.

Another explanation for the lack of Arab democracy is the large proportion of GDP spent on the security apparatus, and the relative efficiency of Arab security forces. This is probably linked to the support these countries receive from the West, which is another reason for their longevity. And finally, the Arab-Israeli conflict is a very convenient diversion: it allows public frustration to discharge outwards, without internal consequences.

As you can see, none of these causes condemn Arab countries to dictatorship. Compared to religion, these are things that can be changed quite easily, if the will is there. The FOTA is self-fulfilling: it’s likely that radical Islamist movements are encouraged by authoritarian rule, as much as they are restrained by it. So better give it up. And the West could use its leverage, resulting from decades of support, to push for reforms.

More posts in this series.

Human Rights Ads (39): Ten Easy Steps to Create a Suicide Bomber

(source)

In fact, the statement that poverty and lack of education are causes of terrorism is probably wrong. Read more about it here and here. I also think it’s wrong to put the blame for terrorism – specifically Middle Eastern terrorism – solely in the camp of Israel and the U.S., as is done in this advert. People have choices and have a responsibility for what they do. Not all poor, oppressed, humiliated and hopeless people choose to – or have to – become suicide bombers. Which doesn’t mean that the advert doesn’t make any valid points, or that it is an example of badvertising. More on suicide bombers and on terrorism. More on the Middle East, Israel and Palestine. More human rights ads.

Political Jokes & Funny Quotes (70): Problems in the Middle East

I hesitated to post this, since it can be construed as racist. So, just to be on the safe side: no racism intended (regular readers can confirm), and they are in trouble.

Something more on Israel and Palestine. More political jokes.