Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
TeeJay said:
A little of both?
They hang gays, and are developing nuclear weapons.
Iran hangs gay youths - what should be the response?
- Thread starter Cadmus
- Start date
A little of both?
They hang gays, and are developing nuclear weapons.
Cadmus
SINsational
External imposition of democracy, as the western world defines and perceives it, is a very dodgy business. The systems emerging after are rarely stable. The world-wide imposition of democracy on countries who are neither willing nor ready to take it up is one of the contributing factors to the instability and tragic outcomes in some regions today.TeeJay said:
Neither willing or ready? The population of Iran seems both willing and ready from what I've seen. Be that as it may, what is your preferred policy towards the Iranian regime? Business as usual? Full diplomatic and economic links? Give them a big cuddle and hope they see the error of their ways? What exactly?Cadmus said:
(Btw my suggestion isn't that far from the approach towards apartheid South Africa)
Cadmus
SINsational
This is a false argument a minori ad maius. Not imposing democracy on others does not mean not having a democracy at home. The internal dimension, which requires each case to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in light of the democratic requirements at the place where the case is reviewed, is not affected by the external dimension, i.e. exporting of democracy abroad. In other words, if you decide not to export democracy, it does not mean you send asylum seekers back - you can still hold those countries' values undemocratic and offer protection. You don't, however, intervene.Serguei said:
I am not arguing that democracy is inherently bad for some countries. I am, however, questioning the premise on which western politics works and which can be seen as a solution for this sort of issue.
Cadmus said:
Democracy at home does not mean allowing everybody to enter your home.
This actually makes the life of any evil dictator very easy – threaten to kill everybody you don’t like and the UK will take all undesirables without trying to “impose democracy”. You are guaranteed that you can get rid of everybody who opposes you (or just don’t fit into your picture of the world like gays in Iran) without any risk.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
TeeJay said:
I'm not sure if it would be a workable idea, but to me, a regime that hangs gays is worthy of violent overthrow, at least in theory.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Cadmus said:
Is the killing or non-killing of gays somehow an issue of democracy?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Cadmus said:
But surely it's an issue of sovereignty. If you consider other nations to be soveriegn, with the right to have any sort of system they want, then you are undermining their sovereignty by offering asylum to their lawbreakers.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Cadmus said:
But what do you think?
They're killing gays; how do you think your country should respond?
Bazuldridge
New Member
Kid_Eternity said:
Stuff religion, who are religious people to say gays should be hanged. Homosexuality is a genetic thing and its totally unfair to hang someone for this reason.
Hanging should be exclusive for rapists and murderers !
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I wander why the idea of sovereignty of a state became more important then the right of people to live?
Let imagine a situation when something happened in… lets say in Belgium, so that the government decided that all Walloons so that the county became pure Fleming. And they started to put this in practice by taking people in cattle wagons to death camps. Would it still be wrong to undermine the sovereignty and invade Belgium?
Sorry if I insulted any Belgium people – I did not mean to…
I don't think so, but then again I supported going into Iraq, not because of the reasons given by Bush and Blair, but because of the millions of deaths caused directly and indirectly by Saddam and his regime. I would be in favour of military intervention in various other places as well, to stop genocide for example.Serguei said:
In each case however you need to somehow estimate problems will be caused against the problems you are hoping to solve, and look at any alternative approaches that can be used. For example, an invasion of North Korea for example would probably lead to a massive number of deaths - both there and in surrounding countries - and so even though there are death camps and people being starved to death there you might conclude that its better to try and use a non-military approach. Dealing with states armed with nuclear weapons rasies similar issues.
I think 'national sovereignty' was adopted as a principle of international law (and of the UN) after WW2 as a way of drawing a line under countries invading each other - I think the idea was that there would be a presumption in favour of established international borders which would make it clear that there was never a "valid excuse" for trying to grab bits of terroritory from neighbours by force. I think that genocide and certain other things are exempt from this, as is action approved by the UN security council or a vote in the UN general assembly. If you look at the composition of the UNSC you can see it is shaped by and reflects both WW2 and the cold war.
septic tank
the wanky Yankee
Whoa -- wait a minute
I've got a friend who works on international LGBT issues for a human rights group. I haven't followed this closely, but he has and we were talking about it last weekend. He said:
1.) It appears that the crime these guys were charged with was raping and killing a 13 year old boy, if I remember correctly -- not homosexuality.
2.) In Iran, there is no native concept of homosexuality. Hey, that's what he says. The dude travels the world investigating this shit and tends to know what he's talking about, so I'll trust him. So he's highly suspicious that a couple gay guys would occasion a massive frame-up and execution. I seem to recall reading that male-male sex, whatever they call it, is pretty common over there and generally accepted. Dunno if that's correct or not.
His take on it is pretty much that these guys were, rightly or wrongly, convicted of the murder/rape of an adolescent. Some paper, a British one, if I remember correctly, picked up the story and basically wrote that they were executed for being gay (perhaps confusing pedophilia with homosexuality?). Iran's criminal justice system is certainly not to be trusted, but he didn't think it was a cut and dry case.
I've got a friend who works on international LGBT issues for a human rights group. I haven't followed this closely, but he has and we were talking about it last weekend. He said:
1.) It appears that the crime these guys were charged with was raping and killing a 13 year old boy, if I remember correctly -- not homosexuality.
2.) In Iran, there is no native concept of homosexuality. Hey, that's what he says. The dude travels the world investigating this shit and tends to know what he's talking about, so I'll trust him. So he's highly suspicious that a couple gay guys would occasion a massive frame-up and execution. I seem to recall reading that male-male sex, whatever they call it, is pretty common over there and generally accepted. Dunno if that's correct or not.
His take on it is pretty much that these guys were, rightly or wrongly, convicted of the murder/rape of an adolescent. Some paper, a British one, if I remember correctly, picked up the story and basically wrote that they were executed for being gay (perhaps confusing pedophilia with homosexuality?). Iran's criminal justice system is certainly not to be trusted, but he didn't think it was a cut and dry case.
That doesn't tally with how it is reported here:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/072105iran.htm
Where did he get his information from? Maybe you could ask him and post up the details here?
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/072105iran.htm
Where did he get his information from? Maybe you could ask him and post up the details here?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
There are plenty of reports that claim the execution was for "the alleged rape of a 13 year old boy", here for example. But they also make clear that human rights groups suspect that torture was used to obtain confessions and some even go so far as to claim that this is part of a wider anti-arab agenda on the part of the authorities using a moral crusade as political cover. Oddly enough Human Rights Watch claim to be 90% certain that the rape itself did take place - Source
There's an interesting piece on the issue of what journos actually know about this case here.
More questions here
There's an interesting piece on the issue of what journos actually know about this case here.
More questions here
septic tank said:
JC - have you gone fucking mad? This was a miscarriage of justice - and you want to fix it by having a war...
Have you ever noticed how thousands of people - not two - die in a war?
I read the same story - that these were trumped up charges. The whole 'gay sex is accepted' bit I doubt given asylum seekers stories of being locked up for being gay, but I'm no expert.
EuroDude2006
New Member
These executions are further example of the tyranny to which gays are subjected in most of the Muslims world. However, it would be unfair to tar all Muslims with the one brush. For example, Albania does not ban homosexuality. I think the Middle Eastern brand of Islam is the main culprit for Islamic extremism.
Someone said that most of the main religions ban homosexuality. This is debatable, since the authorities going back to Roman times until relatively recent history (a few centuries ago) controlled how the Bible was interpreted - and what went into the Bible. For example, the parts relating to St.Paul's supposed condemnation of homosexuality are alleged to have said that you should not have sex with someone of the same gender as you if it isn't in your nature. Not that it is an "abomination". Aspects of the origin Hebrew in the Old Testament are apparently open to several differing translations and the bigots in power in ancient times decided to portray it in a homophobic light.
Also, the references to Sodom and Gemorrah have probably been distorted for anti-gay propaganda purposes.
As far as I am concerned, homosexuality is genetic for 11% of human males. So when some homophobes argue that "homosexuality can't be genetic because then humans wouldn't exist", my answer is that it's only around 11% at most - including bisexuals.
Anyway, the State internationally should create so-called victimless-crimes. They should concentrate on crimes with victims, not on persecuting consenting adults for what goes on in the bedroom.
Someone said that most of the main religions ban homosexuality. This is debatable, since the authorities going back to Roman times until relatively recent history (a few centuries ago) controlled how the Bible was interpreted - and what went into the Bible. For example, the parts relating to St.Paul's supposed condemnation of homosexuality are alleged to have said that you should not have sex with someone of the same gender as you if it isn't in your nature. Not that it is an "abomination". Aspects of the origin Hebrew in the Old Testament are apparently open to several differing translations and the bigots in power in ancient times decided to portray it in a homophobic light.
Also, the references to Sodom and Gemorrah have probably been distorted for anti-gay propaganda purposes.
As far as I am concerned, homosexuality is genetic for 11% of human males. So when some homophobes argue that "homosexuality can't be genetic because then humans wouldn't exist", my answer is that it's only around 11% at most - including bisexuals.
Anyway, the State internationally should create so-called victimless-crimes. They should concentrate on crimes with victims, not on persecuting consenting adults for what goes on in the bedroom.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
butchersapron said:
From my limited reading of Iran I'd go along with the possible anti-Arab agenda- ongoing repression since Iran-Iraq war and 1981 MEK violent campaign against the state.
Bizarrely (to my eyes at least) - there were big protests outside the Iranian embassy in Manila against this- in part organised by Akbayan (main reformist socialist party in Phillipines).
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/pictures/MAN01D.htm
bristol_citizen
Well-Known Member
Good analysis of what's been going on here courtesy of The Nation.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
Mr King Of The Evasive Derails is asking someone else to give a definitive opinion????Johnny Canuck2 said:
errr...that's just a tad disingenuous of you, frankly.(and, no I do NOT support the barbaric practices prevalent in many muslim states; I just believe western states' criticisms' to be extremely hypocritical and cynical; like I believe you to be!)
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
MILLIONS?TeeJay said:
REALLY??
And disproportionately more than any other arab regime, or muslim regime, or any other undemocratic, illiberal regime supported by the US and/or the UK, or any other major ex- or present European colonising nation?
Evidence please.
Forthwith.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Red Jezza said:
Really, Red, do you have no idea where I stand on issues like the war etc?
If so, you haven't been following.
Did you not get any indication from my posts on this thread, how I feel about Iran executing gays?
I'm encouraged to hear that you 'don't support these barbaric practices'.
Similar threads
