Slashdot Mirror

While the analogy does apply sometimes, when technology is being used to do evil, the software/hardware engineer usually isn't in a role equivalent to a doctor torturing a patient. The engineer isn't the one acting upon the person being done evil to. More typically, since most tech has a wide variety of uses, the engineer's role is much more akin to a developer of medical devices. A syringe can just as easily be used to inject antibiotics or cyanide, and it would be silly to claim that the person designing the syringes is morally responsible for how the things get used. Consider the case of Saeed Malekpour, who wrote some code for uploading images, and is in jail in Iran (and was almost executed) because that code got used on a porn site. (No, not claiming that porn sites are evil or anything like that, it was just the first "syringe maker will never know what gets injected" example that I thought of).

Because it bypasses protections established by extradition treaties (or lack thereof). How would you like to be tricked into visiting Iran, and then be prosecuted for posting some offensive comment on slashdot?

Iran is a brutal theocracy, and has been for more than 25 years. The human rights abuses of the Islamic Republic of Iran are well-known and have been well-documented by groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

If you have the slightest qualm for having done something unIslamic, you really, really shouldn't go to Iran. Or speaking out against the regime. Even taking a picture can get you tortured & killed in Iran: http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/canada_iran_jahanbegloo.php

Bottom line: there are very, very nasty places in the world, and you shouldn't go there. Strangely enough, for all the complaints about Dubya, Guantanamo et al, most of the far worse places get a free ride in the press.

But to say that a human rights commission isn't needed at all because we can go shopping on days when Christians traditionally took the day off work is ludicrous. I mean, even if one ignores the fact that there are still issues with the rights of women women (which doesn't even touch on the issue of the lack of abortion access to most women) or aboriginals there are still issues with the rights of those who are caught up in trouble in the name of "counter terrorism" measures.

I'm not saying that it's right for people to be censored because they offend people, but there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of human rights here (and elsewhere).

I would also contend that, based on the sorts of websites I can access and the sort of bigotry I can find that isn't censored, the human rights commission is extremely ineffective at silencing the sorts of people who would make negative statements about minority groups online. The grandparent post didn't provide what I would consider a particularly reliable website for information so I don't really know if the issue is just censorship or if there's something else to it (i.e. if the author is attempting to incite violence against a group, should they still be allowed to do so even if it's just talking?).

But to say that a human rights commission isn't needed at all because we can go shopping on days when Christians traditionally took the day off work is ludicrous. I mean, even if one ignores the fact that there are still issues with the rights of women women (which doesn't even touch on the issue of the lack of abortion access to most women) or aboriginals there are still issues with the rights of those who are caught up in trouble in the name of "counter terrorism" measures.

I'm not saying that it's right for people to be censored because they offend people, but there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of human rights here (and elsewhere).

I would also contend that, based on the sorts of websites I can access and the sort of bigotry I can find that isn't censored, the human rights commission is extremely ineffective at silencing the sorts of people who would make negative statements about minority groups online. The grandparent post didn't provide what I would consider a particularly reliable website for information so I don't really know if the issue is just censorship or if there's something else to it (i.e. if the author is attempting to incite violence against a group, should they still be allowed to do so even if it's just talking?).

>life on the reserves suck because they were systematically neglected and restricted by the Indian Act

The indian act was supported by chiefs to keep women off their feet and in beds making babies so they could be beaten by their husbands. Look it up, it's true. Women in first nations are fighting for equality (still) but rarely get anywhere because they are (often quite literally) beaten back down.

You want indians to have a better life here? Make all indians citizens and remove the indian reserves. Then we can put all the wife beaters in jail. One exception: Indians that murdered their wives just because it was legal get sent off in boats, don't get citizenship, and get their first nations rights removed.

I see indian women all the day. The abuse they undergo in the backwards tribes that permit violence against them is horrific.

It's about time Canada stopped letting third world practices happen on her soil, whether it be indian or conquered.

You know it's that bad when amensty international has a special section regarding violence against indian women on their website.

But that's ok, you can keep living in your fantasy world that indians in Canada have the same values as non-indians. Because it is a fantasy. Because indians keep electing chiefs that support violence against women.

But statistics like this tell it all, really:

According to a Canadian government statistic, young Indigenous women are five times more likely than other women of the same age to die as the result of violence.

For five times less violence, I know a lot of indian women that would trade their first nations status in in a heartbeat.

Maher Arar: Statement to the Media November 4, 2003

One sentence summary: Maher Arer was a software engineer for the MathWorks in Canada, was vacationing in Tunis, was called back by The Mathworks on an emergency, scheduled a flight back with a transfer at Kennedy airport in NYC, and the U.S. deported him to Syria for torture.

He'll get home, sure! That's if he lives in Egypt.