Shia vs. Gays in Iraq

Reader Raymond passes along this disturbing story from Iraq:

There is growing evidence that Shia militias have been killing men suspected of being gay and children who have been sold to criminal gangs to be sexually abused. The threat has led to a rapid increase in the numbers of Iraqi homosexuals now seeking asylum in the UK because it has become impossible for them to live safely in their own country….

Homosexuality is seen as so immoral that it qualifies as an 'honour killing' to murder someone who is gay - and the perpetrator can escape punishment. Section 111 of Iraq's penal code lays out protections for murder when people are acting against Islam.

Whole August 6 UK Guardian story here.

Comments

[Jennifer]

Section 111 of Iraq's penal code lays out protections for murder when people are acting against Islam.

Bringing such freedom and justice to Iraq was absolutely worth the death of thousands of American soldiers. And if you worry that our military is overstretched, just think of Section 111 and tell yourself, "at least it's overstretched for a good cause."

[SR]

You do realize that many of Bush's supporters would say this is an unexpected bonus feature not a bug, right?

[Jennifer]

Of course, SR. Better gay funerals than gay weddings.

You can kill people who offend Islam! What a great loophole.

[Ruthless]

SR,
"a bug"?
hee hee

[John C. Randolph]

SR, I'm sure I can find homicidal homophobes in the democratic party, too. What's your point?

-jcr

[Ruthless]

John C. Randolph,
There are more of the buggers in the Repugnican party.

[Jennifer]

I can find homicidal homophobes in the democratic party, too. What's your point?

I'm guessing your average Democrat these days will be statistically less likely to invent some reason why Section 111 is a grand and glorious thing in line with our vision of turning Iraq into a free and secular democracy with a pro-US bias.

[SR]

"SR, I'm sure I can find homicidal homophobes in the democratic party, too. What's your point?"

I'm sure you can find them too. However, the Democrats have, by and large, not spent the last 6 years running on the "We hate gays" platform to anywhere near the extent the Republicans have.

[sistani rules!]

From Tom G. Palmer at the Cato Institute (Jan. 30, 2005):

"I do hope that the Grand Ayatollah Sistani survives for some time, as he is known as an enemy of Khomeini-style (or Iranian style) Islamic-Republicanism and favors secular government that devotes itself to justice, while religion devotes itelf [sic] to morality (roughly put). He is depicted by the ignoramuses at, say, antiwar.com, as simply an Iranian-style theocrat, but he has been for many years a critic of the Khomeini approach. As I recall reading, he has said that while Khomeini favored seizing the state to make men religious and upright, his view (Sistani's) is that the role of religion is not to seize the state and make it good, but to help to make men moral, and when they are moral and good, they will have a just government."

He's talking about this guy.

[sistani rules!]

Don't know what happened to my links. For Palmer: http://tinyurl.com/hpor6

For "this guy": http://tinyurl.com/hpor6

[sistani rules!]

Er, for "this guy": http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid28049.asp

[Larry A]

I'm guessing your average Democrat these days will be statistically less likely to invent some reason why Section 111 is a grand and glorious thing in line with our vision of turning Iraq into a free and secular democracy with a pro-US bias.

Democrats will, however, support Section 111.5, which excuses killing anyone harming the environment.

However, the Democrats have, by and large, not spent the last 6 years running on the "We hate gays" platform to anywhere near the extent the Republicans have.

Democrats have been too busy running on the "We hate gunowners" platform.

Pity the Pink Pistols.

[Don Coyote]

Is this accurate? Current penal code?

I tried to find it but can't.

Did find this (old?):

Paragraph 86 - The death penalty is the hanging of the condemned person by the neck until he is dead.

[Lamar]

"Democrats have been too busy running on the 'We hate gunowners' platform"
Yeah, except for the majority of Democrats, those democrats hate guns! Oh yeah, and the chairman of the DNC is pro-gun, but he screams like a girl. Paul Hackett, an NRA-member and Democrat hates guns so much that he loves them!! Thanks for the ignorant slop, LarryA, thanks.

[kwais]

I have seen video of two insurgents boinking a donkey. I wonder where that falls>

[kwais]

Also just one note for all y'all "Iraq is worse" types.

We could just supress those religios people in Iraq with a Saddam type dictatorship. Excecuting thousands, no civil rights and all that crap. It probably would not stop the honor killings any more than drug laws stop drugs. But it would keep it all out of the news.

Or we could give them freedom and let them figure out as an open society why that is wrong, just as we do.

Either way. Whatever sounds more libertarian to you.

[Dobbs]

So Lamar, you're seriously suggesting that the Democrats have a strong record on gun rights? Let's face facts, they got slaughtered on the issue in the 90s in swing states and abandoned it for political expediency. Oh yeah, but you'll only get Howard Dean's gun when you pry it from his cold, dead hands, right? He's good people, that Dean fella.

[Larry A]

Yeah, except for the majority of Democrats, those democrats hate guns!

Then the majority of Democrats are being ill-served by their leaders:

• Given the bills they keep proposing Congressional leaders like Kennedy, Feinstein, Pelosi, and Lautenberg.
• Given concealed carry vetoes governors like Doyle of Wisconsin and Sebelius of Kansas.
• Given their conference on gun control big-city mayors like Bloomberg of Chicago and Menino of Boston.

Oh yeah, and the chairman of the DNC is pro-gun, but he screams like a girl.

From the 2004 Democratic Platform, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." (Emphasis added)

With friends like these...

Paul Hackett, an NRA-member and Democrat hates guns so much that he loves them!!

The NRA welcomes pro-gun Democrats, just as it rejects anti-gun Republicans.

Thanks for the ignorant slop, LarryA, thanks.

You're welcome.

[mediageek]

"Yeah, except for the majority of Democrats, those democrats hate guns! Oh yeah, and the chairman of the DNC is pro-gun, but he screams like a girl. Paul Hackett, an NRA-member and Democrat hates guns so much that he loves them!! Thanks for the ignorant slop, LarryA, thanks."

*Falls on the floor, laughing*

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
Feel free to point out one anti-gun law that the Democrats are in favor of repealing.

Howard Dean's supposedly pro-gun stance consists of a vague "gun control should be a matter for the states. Except for banning assault weapons. And pistols. And registration."

[Lamar]

Just as I accused:
Your view of "Democrats" stops at Pelosi and Kennedy, which is ignorant.

Doyle's veto is a stupid thing to cite because that law was vetoed, in large part, because of how it treated non-firearm weapons. Didn't you bother to look it up?

Great job, LarryA: You've apparently forgotten the great lengths the Dems went to in order to show that they are down with guns. You know why your posts (both of them) are ignorant slop? Because you say that the Democrats hate gun owners, when in reality, it's just you that hates Democrats.

[Larry A]

You've apparently forgotten the great lengths the Dems went to in order to show that they are down with guns.

Actually I disregarded them. Democrats and Republicans alike shovel fragrant campaign bullshit. I evaluate politicians and parties by what they do in the real world; i.e. proposed legislation and votes.

You know why your posts (both of them) are ignorant slop? Because you say that the Democrats hate gun owners, when in reality, it's just you that hates Democrats.

Nope. In fact, if the Dem Party actually did become pro-gun I'd vote for its candidates. They have much better positions on several issues, including gay rights and separation of church and state. But for me gun control is a deal-breaker.

<Flame off>

[mediageek]

So, Lamar, perhaps you'd care to explain to me why California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland don't have shall-issue concealed carry then?

All are strongholds of the Democrat party.

Oh, I forgot, CA state congress-thing Don Perata has one of the rare concealed carry permits ever issued in California. I guess that makes him pro-gun.

"Doyle's veto is a stupid thing to cite because that law was vetoed, in large part, because of how it treated non-firearm weapons. Didn't you bother to look it up?"

Link please. You made the assertion, you back it up.

[Jennifer]

Yes, the Dems have a crappy record regarding gun rights. This does not negate the fact that the Republicans, not the Democrats, are the ones most likely to either invent some bullshit justification for why Section 111 of the Iraqi criminal code is a good thing, or try to pretend it doesn't exist, or change the subject by saying "Oh, I'll bet you want Saddam to come back, don't you?"

[wingnutx]

So a party's actual position is less important than another party's hypothetical position?

[Jennifer]

Wingnutx, I think the rule is, "You can only criticize a political party if its opponent has never, ever done anything wrong."

You often see the same principle in criminal trials:

PROSECUTION: The defendant is accused of kidnapping three women and sexually assaulting them.

DEFENSE: Oh, blah blah blah you and your partisan bullshit. Ted Bundy kidnapped a lot more than three women, you know. And he didn't just sexually assault them; he KILLED them when he was done!

PROSECUTION: Oooh, excellent point. Forget I even brought it up. No sense holding your client responsible for his wrongdoing when other guys have done a lot worse.

We could just supress those religios people in Iraq with a Saddam type dictatorship. Excecuting thousands, no civil rights and all that crap. It probably would not stop the honor killings any more than drug laws stop drugs. But it would keep it all out of the news. Or we could give them freedom and let them figure out as an open society why that is wrong, just as we do.

Yeah, invading a country that's no threat to us
with the excuse that we're going to overthrow a repressive government and bring them freedom would be a really, really stupid thing to do.

[Jennifer]

Wingnutx, I think the rule is, "You can only criticize a political party if its opponent has never, ever done anything wrong."

You often see the same principle in criminal trials:

PROSECUTION: The defendant is accused of kidnapping three women and sexually assaulting them.

DEFENSE: Oh, blah blah blah you and your partisan bullshit. Ted Bundy kidnapped a lot more than three women, you know. And he didn't just sexually assault them; he KILLED them when he was done!

PROSECUTION: Oooh, excellent point. Forget I even brought it up. No sense holding your client responsible for his wrongdoing when other guys have done a lot worse.

We could just supress those religios people in Iraq with a Saddam type dictatorship. Excecuting thousands, no civil rights and all that crap. It probably would not stop the honor killings any more than drug laws stop drugs. But it would keep it all out of the news. Or we could give them freedom and let them figure out as an open society why that is wrong, just as we do.

Yeah, invading a country that's no threat to us
with the excuse that we're going to overthrow a repressive government and bring them freedom would be a really, really stupid thing to do.

[Ruthless]

"Either way. Whatever sounds more libertarian to you."

kwais,
I say give them anarchy.
But then your work there would be done.

[raymond]

Everybody gets to have a gun in Iraq now. They've all got guns. Any number of guns.

Eleven-year-old Ameer Hasoon al-Hasani was kidnapped by policemen from the front of his house last month. He was known in his district to have been forced into prostitution. His father Hassan told me he searched for his son for three days after his abduction, then found him, shot in the head. A copy of the death certificate confirms the cause of death.

The little kid was shot.

So. While the Constitution doesn't follow the flag, we should be content in the knowledge that at least the 2nd Amendment does.

[bigbigslacker]

Larry, you erred a bit. The tard in Chicago is Daley, not Bloomberg. Or maybe you meant New York.

[Robert]

How did Tom Palmer get Sistani wrong? Or did Sistani change?

Does anybody see the possibility of compromise between a foreign imposition of liberty on Iraq and allowing it democratic self-gov't? Some arrangement whereby they'd be allowed to get some, but not all, of the oppression they'd want? BTW, I'm serious about that Q. Gotta think in pragmatic terms sometimes about really awful shit.

Example: imposing a constitution that would allow them to fine homosexuals if they wanted to legislate so, but not kill them? Or that imposed a grace period of 10 years before any anti-homosexual legislation would be allowed?

[Rhywun]

There are two ethical choices IMHO. Either the US runs the show and demands a justice system fit for the 21st century, or, if they insist on killing innocent homosexuals, we leave them to it and get the hell out of there. We might get the former, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Ruthless]

Rhywun,
We get ethical choices?
Don't think so.
"We" just keep the home fires burning here in the H&R temple of the Vestals.
Glad you are not holding your breath.

[Robert]

"There are two ethical choices IMHO. Either the US runs the show and demands a justice system fit for the 21st century, or, if they insist on killing innocent homosexuals, we leave them to it and get the hell out of there."

All or nothing? No ethical possibility of compromise?

[Rhywun]

No ethical possibility of compromise?

No, I don't think it's ethical to run a country where "it qualifies as an 'honour killing' to murder someone who is gay". Call me crazy.

[Anthony J. Canta]

Thank you for publishing information regarding the gay genocide going on in Iraq. You're one of the few sources of information presenting this information. I know for a fact that the U.S. President and the State Dept. under the leadership of Ms. Clinton have done absolutely nothing to discourage or stop the genocide. There should be charges of war crimes brought before the World Crimnal Court against the United States and the United Kingdom for the ongoing genocide and invading Iraq and Afghanistan.