Freedom Of Thought Not Allowed Here

[dales]

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/2013/ ... s-freedom/

US report names ‘worst’ violators of religious freedom

02May13 – 12:24 pm

by Index on Censorship


An arm of the US government named 15 nations as the “worst violators of religious freedom”.

The Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent advisory body created by the International Religious Freedom Act to monitor religious freedom abuses internationally, released its 2013 report, which idenitifes “governments that are the most egregious violators.”

The 15 countries are Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam, all of which severely restrict independent religious activity and harass individuals and groups for religious activity or beliefs. These nations are classified as Tier 1 “countries of particular concern” (CPCs) in the report.

Despite its recent opening and political reforms, change in Burma have “yet to significantly improve the situation for freedom of religion and belief.” The report states that most violations occurred against minority Christian and Muslim adherents. China’s government is also cited for its ongoing severe abuses against its citizens’ freedom of thought.

The report said that Egypt’s transitional and elected governments have made progress toward religious freedom, it further highlighted the attacks that Coptic Christians have sustained in the period after the Arab Spring that brought down the Mubarak regime. “In many cases, the government failed or was slow to protect religious minorities from violence.”

The former Soviet states of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were included for pursuing state control over religion, targeting Muslims and minorities alike. Iraq was cited for, among other things, tolerating “violent religiously motivated attacks” and Iran for “prolonged detention, torture, and executions based primarily or entirely on the religion of the accused.”

Saudi Arabia continues to suppress religious practices outside of the officially-sanctioned Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, interferes with the faith of guest workers and prosecutes individuals for “apostasy, blasphemy and sorcery”, according to the report. Pakistan has a strict blasphemy law and failure to prosecute acts of religious violence, the report said.

The situation in Sudan has deteriorated since South Sudan gained its independence. Criminalization of apostasy, the imposition of the government’s strict interpretation of Shari’ah on both Muslims and non-Muslims and attacks against Christians, were cited in the report for the decline.

The report also identified Nigeria for continuing religious violence between Muslims and Christians compounded by the government’s toleration of the sectarian attacks. North Korea’s totalitarian regime was also included for its ongoing harassment and torture of citizens based on religious beliefs.

A second tier includes Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Laos and Russia, where abuses of religious freedom are tolerated by the government and meet the threshold for CPC designation by the US Department of State, but don’t meet all of the standards for “systemic, ongoing, egregious” measurements.

Other countries regions being monitored included Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Ethiopia, Turkey, Venezuela and Western Europe .

[dgs49]

Last time I checked, "Western Europe" was not a country.

I wonder if the rational course is to completely ignore the existence of a religion.

Say a group of people attack another group because of their conflicting religious beliefs. What difference does it make what the motivation was? Presumably there are laws against unprovoked attacks on people. There are laws against slander, laws against homicide, theft, vandalism, and so on. Prosecute the perps under the existing laws and be done with it.

In this country, we pride ourselves on recognizing "hate crimes," but these are political nonsense, intended mainly to facilitate de-facto double-jeopardy prosecution by the Feds when the politically powerful are not satisfied that a person has been punished enough, or when a state failed to convict someone on assault (or whatever) charges.

Is a person less dead if I killed him because he was ugly, or because he was a Rastafarian? WGAS?

[Scooter]

Once again Dave proves his claims of going to law school are bullshit. In ordered to be convicted on a hate crime charge, one must convicted of the underlying crime. If someone has been tried for that crime in state court, he/she cannot be tried in federal court because jeopardy will have attached.

Is a person any more dead because he was killed by a mafia hit man, or he was a police officer killed in the line of duty, or any of the other motives that distinguish first from second degree murder. Why is the fact that the motive for a crime was bias against an identifiable group any less a reason for increasing the sentence?

[dgs49]

From the FBI website:


"A hate crime is not a distinct federal offense. However, the federal government can and does investigate and prosecute crimes of bias as civil rights violations, which do fall under its jurisdiction. These efforts serve as a backstop for state and local authorities, which handle the vast majority of hate crime cases. A 1994 federal law also increased penalties for offenses proven to be hate crimes."

Independent prosecution. Sorry, I was right.

Not surprising you would feel that way about "hate crimes," being a member of 8-10 classifications of scorned humans - that I'm aware of.

[Scooter]

the federal government can and does investigate and prosecute crimes of bias as civil rights violations, which do fall under its jurisdiction.

Which is something completely different from what you said, because (a) the federal government's power to prosecute in this cases derives from civil rights legislation enacted decades ago, and not from any specific hate crimes legislation, as your own source says, and (b) only a miniscule number of hate crimes would fall under the purview of federal law anyway. But nice attempt to cover for your ignorance.

Not surprising you would feel that way about "hate crimes," being a member of 8-10 classifications of scorned humans - that I'm aware of.

Not surprising that you are incapable of answering my question.

Dave's epic fail #372

[dgs49]

Actually, my reaction grew out of a few recent cases hereabouts where people were tried for assault-type crimes, convicted, but got lesser sentences than the professional umbrage-takers thought sufficient, so the USAttorney then filed Civil Rights charges against them for the same acts.

Maybe "recent" is not correct. I guess it was several years ago.

Increased (and separate) sentences for "hate crimes" moves perilously close to "thought crime," which I and most other rational people find abhorrent . Killing a government agent is a different category altogether.

[Scooter]

the USAttorney then filed Civil Rights charges against them for the same acts

Interesting, but bears absolutely no relationship to your original claim.

Increased (and separate) sentences for "hate crimes" moves perilously close to "thought crime,"

For someone who is clueless as to what the nature of a hate crime is, and how they are prosecuted, perhaps.

A neo-Nazi group firebombs a synagogue, which is in itself a crime that can be prosecuted under the law. But there is a separate crime inherent in that act - a threat being telegraphed to every Jew that they are not safe and could be the next target of violence. That threat could be prosecuted if delivered verbally, but not when the threat is inherent in another criminal act. It is those non-verbal yet no less real threats of violence that are the target of hate crimes laws. Because no one deserves to live with such threats of violence just because of who they are. And those who telegraph such threats via acts of violence deserve to be punished for them.

[dgs49]

So prosecute the fire bombing, for which the penalty is quite severe. Not only is there specific deterrence, but general.

Done.

There is no "separate crime," except in your pointy little head. One crime, one prosecution, possibly SEVERALseparate include crimes, as is usually the case with ad hominem crimes.

[rubato]

So prosecute the fire bombing, for which the penalty is quite severe. Not only is there specific deterrence, but general.

Done.

There is no "separate crime," except in your pointy little head. One crime, one prosecution, possibly SEVERALseparate include crimes, as is usually the case with ad hominem crimes.

The harm to society from a hate crime is greater than the equivalent act when it is not a hate crime. If someone spray-paints "Fuck you, asshole" on the garage door of a white family the harm is undone by re-painting the door. But if it is a black family in a largely white neighborhood and it says "Fuck you, niggers" then the harm is also to the general peace. Unanswered, it amounts to a provocation for anyone else who is racist to persecute all of their black neighbors. It is a terrorist act designed to cause fear for all blacks. It leads to social destruction.


yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

Going back to the OP... Are all of our American friends here happy that their goverment is spending tax-payers dollars on sticking their noses into other countries' business?

[dales]

That's the American way, Sean.....from the Barbary pirates to our present day.

PAX AMERICANA!

[rubato]

Human rights are everybody's business.

Even Republicans have all adopted the Carter Doctrine on foreign policy. The idea that our relations with other countries must also be based on how humanely they treat their citizens and how well they respect human rights.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

Because freedom of religion is a right in the US does it automatically follow that it should be a right everywhere else?

[Econoline]

No.

That is: no, not because freedom of religion is a right in the US, but because it is a human right.

[Sean]

I'm sure that sits well with American Muslims and their freedom to practice the polygamy aspect of their religion...

People in glass houses... etc

[rubato]

Polygamy is not a requirement of Islam. It is permitted in Islam. (just as it is in the Bible)

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Wrong agian, rube.

[Big RR]

wrong on which point Dales?

[dales]

Nope.

[Big RR]

OK, I will say that I believe that islam does not require polygamy--indeed, it is said that one should not have multiple wives if one cannot properly treat and provide for them. As for the bible, there are passages condoning and condemning polygamy. One need only look at the great king Solomon (who had 600 wives and a number of concubines) and a number of OT and NT passages to see that polygamy is permitted; likewise, there are a number of passages (particularly in Paul's letters, but also in Matthew or Mark as I recall) that condemn polygamy (or even marriage after divorce), so I think the question is open.