No freedom of religion in Iran

Yousef Nadarkhani was arrested in October of 2009 in the city of Rasht (Iran) because he was trying to register his church with the government. He is a husband and father of two children, as well as, an evangelical pastor with a congregation around 400. Iran has arrested many Christians in order to keep the country strictly focused on Islam. Yousef was convicted and sentenced to hanging. He was accused of being a "apostate" to Islam in November of last year. Yousef converted to Christianity when he was 19 years old. He appealed his sentencing, however, it was rejected in June of this year. Yousef was given the choice four times to change his mind to stop being a Christian and return to Islam. All four times he refused and pledged his loyalty to Christianity. His last chance to avoid execution was September 28, 2011 and I found his response important to include:

When asked to ‘repent’ by the judges, Youcef stated, ‘Repent means to return. What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?’ The judges replied , ‘To the religion of your ancestors, Islam.’ To which he replied, ‘I cannot.’”
(Yousef Nadarkhani)

This case blatantly infringes on Yousef's right to freedom of religion. Individuals are given the right to practice the religion that they please. It is a violation of someone's human rights to execute he/she because he/she does not practice the faith of the majority in a country. Iran is known for being very strict with its Islamic faith but this sentencing has taken it too far. Specifically in Iran this is not only violating human rights, but Iran is a member of Covenant on Civil and Political Rights who work for rights not against.

Do you believe that Iran was just in their sentencing for Yousef? Why or why not?





http://www.bosnewslife.com/18352-breaking-news-iran-court-tells-pastor-recant-faith-or-face-execution

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278631/yousef-nadarkhani-needs-international-support-nina-shea

The Right to Drive

Saudi Arabia has a law that does not enable women to drive. Consequently, Shaima Jastaina was caught driving and was sentenced 10 lashes (flogging). This is one of the many instances of how woman have limited rights in Saudi Arabia. However, a day after the court's ruling for Shaima, King Abdullah overturned the ruling. The King has worked on another women's rights issue this week which is voting. He announced that women will be allowed to vote in the 2015 election, as well as, be eligible to be appointed to Shura Council. While the right to vote for women is a step in the right direction, the right to vote is still a highly desired
freedom.

(King Abdullah)


This article deals with the human right of equality of rights without discrimination. Clearly women do not have equal rights with men in Saudi Arabia. If women are not allowed to vote let alone drive it is an infringement upon their human rights. It is hard for me to imagine not being able to drive. It is a way to keep women very dependent on men. It is comforting to know that the King has decided to give women more rights by allowing them to vote in the next election. (Even though they will not be able to vote in this year's election.) I also think that this article deals with protection against torture and cruel and inhuman punishment. Yes Shaima Jastaina was granted a pardon from the King, but that doesn't change the fact the people can be punished with lashes versus jail time. Saudi Arabia has a long way to go in the issue of women's rights (human rights), but at least the King is starting to reform.


Do you believe that Saudi Arabia is on the right track to women's rights or do you feel that they are not improving?


http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/amnesty-international-condemns-flogging-sentence-for-saudi-woman-who-drove-a-car

Boy hanged in Iran

Alireza Molla-Soltani, who was just 17-years old was hanged in Iran for the murder of a well-known athlete. Alireza was hanged in front of a large group of on-lookers in Karaj where the crime took place. Alireza was accused of stabbing Ruhollah Dadashi, known as "Iran's Strongest Man". Alireza testified in his trial that he was reacting in self-defense. Alireza and two of his friends got in a driving confrontation with the athlete, which led to the death of Dadashi.

(Ruhollah Dadashi)

The prosecution's justification for hanging Alireza is the Islamic lunar calendar, meaning that Alireza had reach "religious maturity". The Islamic lunar calendar has only 345 days which is 11 days shorter than the solar calendar. This means that "legally" in Iran Alireza was 18 years old according to the lunar calendar. However a Amnesty deputy director says that this hanging of a juvenile is not allowed under treaties that Iran has signed. So far this year, Iran has conducted 203 executions. This article violates the human right of special protection of children.Children are protected under international law as being tried as an adult.

In your opinion, do you agree with Iran and their justification for Alireza's hanging or do you believe that Alireza should have been granted protections because he was a child.

Humane Treatment When Imprisoned?

Asraf Jamiri Musa, a 17-year old in the Philippines was arrested, tortured, and accused of being part of the violent group Abu Sayyaf. Asraf is a college student working towards his Bachelor's Degree for Education. Asraf and his cousin, Pawad Esmael Alpad, were taken from Asrafs' aunt's house. The police officers were supposedly looking for two members (Nurhasan Jamiri and Musanna J. Musawho ) of Abu Sayyaf that were staying at the same house as Asraf. Asraf and Pawad were taken in for questioning. Pawad was released, however, Asraf was not as fortunate. Asraf experienced many forms of torture after being arrested. He was first blindfolded with his arms and legs bound as he was punched repeatedly. He was also submerged in water three times. He was repeatedly asked if he was part of Abu Sayyaf and when he denied they said he would be killed if he did not admit to membership with the group. While being blindfolded he was also told to hold a hard object as he was photographed. He later learned that the object was a hand grenade. The next day he was charged with "illegal possession of an explosive" ( Silverio 1). Asraf has been examined by a medical doctor that has diagnosed Asraf with two contusions and erythema. Both which are signs of trauma.

(Asraf)

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is fighting on behalf of Asraf. As of now, Asraf is still in jail and the AHRC is trying to appeal to head government officials in the Philippines so that Asraf can be released. The article addresses the human right of humane treatment when detained or imprisoned, furthermore, it also violates the human right of special protections of children. Besides Asraf's testimonies of mistreatment by authorities, his body shows physical proof that has been supported by a doctor's diagnosis. Human treatment when detained or imprisoned is a human right but it is happening all over the world. Not only is Asraf a prisoner being mistreated, but he is also a minor. Children are meant to have special protection under international law. This case shows the violence used against prisoners as well as, children. The military's excuse for using such torture is because they suspect Asraf to be a part of the Abu Sayyaf group, however, they have shown no proof of his membership besides the hand grenade they placed in his hands. The military was trying to get Asraf to admit to being a part of Abu Sayyaf. I do not believe that torture is the right way to obtain information from prisoners, especially when the military has no proof of involvement in a crime.

Are there certain instances when it is acceptable to torture prisoners?

http://bulatlat.com/main/2011/09/10/international-human-rights-group-appeals-for-17-year-old-victim-of-military-torture/

Hunger Strike for Peace

Irom Chanu Sharmila, is an Indian activist on a hunger strike for peace. Now this is not as simple as it sounds. Eleven years ago on November 2, 2000 Sharmila started her hunger strike. On this day in a village called Malom, an unknown explosion happened on the streets leading into the village. This sent the soldiers of the Assam Rifles surging into the village. The soldiers killed ten people including a 62-year old and teenagers claiming that they were shooting against them. However, after investigation there was no evidence that the victims fired against the soldiers. The soldiers lined seven of the victims up at a bus stop and opened fire on them in close range, the rest were executed in other parts of the village.

Two days after this event, Sharmila sat along a major road with a sign labeled "Hunger Strike" displayed in front of her. Her main goal was to have the government overturn the "Armed Forces Special Powers Act" of 1958 (Polgreen 2). This would then lead to the arrest of the men who murdered villagers in Malom. Under this act, the military is authorized to arrest people without a warrant and use lethal measures to dismantle groups with five or more people. Sharmila was arrested shortly after setting up alongside of the road because in India attempting suicide is a violation of the law. Following her arrest she has been force-fed in a hospital room; visiting a courtroom every 15 days to proclaim she is continuing on with her hunger strike. She has no desire to stop her strike until justice is reached.

There are a few international human rights issues addressed in this article, but I would like to focus on the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958. Under this act the military is allowed to arrest someone without a warrant because they are suspicious of a citizen. This part of the act violates protection against arbitrary arrest or detention. A citizen being "suspicious" is not a just reason to be able to arrest them. The other main part of this act is for the military to be able to fire against groups of five or more people or those wit deadly weapons. Now I understand the military would be able to use force against a group that possess deadly weapons and is threatening the safety of the military officers. However, I find it unnecessary to be able to use deadly force against a group of five or more people that possess no threat. This section of the act goes against the human right of liberty and security of a person. If a citizen is in a group of 5 people he/she is ultimately no granted any type of security.

When is it acceptable for the military to arrest someone without a warrant and to use violent force against a group of 5 or more people?

Human Rights and the Middle East

Human rights has always been a topic for discussion in the Middle East especially in recent years. In response to government protests many Middle Eastern countries are violating human rights. The major human right that is being violated by these countries is freedom of speech. The article mentions how over 2,500 people in Bahrain lost their jobs and some of which were arrested because they protested their government. Since March in Syria, 2,200 people have been murdered due to the governments no tolerance for protesters. Also people are being violated while held in prison. In Syria about 52 of 88 prisoners should signs torment. Some of which were mutilated and sent back to their families to set an example. In Egypt, where the military is now running the country, the army has been accused of torturing prisoners. Civilians who question the army are arrested; adding to the highest number of citizens judged before a military court. It has been estimated that 12,000 civilians have been convicted in military courts.


Being a citizen of the United states, could you imagine being arrested, tortured, and maybe even killed all for expressing your political views?












http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=236354