Slashdot Mirror
Afghan Student Gets 20 Years For Blasphemy
Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "Despite nationwide public support for his initial death sentence, a three-judge appeals court has reduced the sentence of Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh to 20 years in prison. Kambakhsh was charged with circulating an article on women's rights that he found online. From the article: 'Family members have said Kambakhsh was beaten and threatened with death until he signed a confession and that local journalists who expressed support for him were warned they would be arrested if they persisted.'"
You said it. God Damn blasphemers.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
He wasn't really charged for the blasphemy, it's because he was very critical of the government and some of their corrupt friends, and they found something useful to charge him with.
"Kambakhsh's journalist brother, Yaqoub Ibrahimi, has said he believes the blasphemy charges were a pretext and that Ibrahimi was the authorities' real target because of articles he wrote about abuses by local warlords and militias."
They beat a confession out of him
A) They're not forcing men and boys to grow beards
B) Girls and women are allowed to attend schools
C) They're not blowing or destroying religious icons from other religions or artifacts from 2,000 years ago
D) Roads, an electric grid and sewer systems are being (very slowly) built
E) Every person who wants to vote is allowed to
F) And most importantly, women are not being forced to wear burkhas if they don't want to
Granted this current ruling is nonsense and Kharzai knows it, but he is very weak and doesn't have the backing to overturn the verdict.
I'm not saying the current government is perfect. Far from it. But to compare this government, which is working with other countries to attempt to undo nearly 40 years of war and strife, to the Taliban is disingenuous. It will take, at a minimum, ten years to begin to change the mindset of the people, specifically the warlords and the men, to allow greater freedoms.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Yep. There are old heroin addicts. There are no old speed freaks. In fact, long term, even alcohol is worse for you than heroin. I would hardly call heroin safe, though.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You are right! The human rights abuses in Afghanistan are intolerable!
We should go and liberate the Afghan people... er, oops! Sorry, my bad!
No sig for the moment.
Did you miss the part that said "Despite nationwide public support for his initial death sentence"? This isn't the Afghan government opressing it's citizens, it's the citizens asking the government to kill this man.
Which means that we are the ones saying the citizens don't have a right to determine the laws of their land. I wonder who the totalitarians are in this case.
It is really tough to consider that these flagrant transgressions still go on in todays environment.
Define "todays environment" Because this is Afghanistan we're talking about, not a developed country.
Different societies have different values. And Americans are usually guilty of ethnocentrism when they discuss the world at large.
As far as I'm concerned, legal punishment of any severity for simply challenging the beliefs of the majority is not acceptable anywhere. If that makes me ethnocentric, then so be it.
That isn't a fair depiction of the mortality rate though, unless you believe that there are equal ammounts of heroin users and tobacco users.
You know, a long time ago, the citizens of America in the south didn't have a problem with slavery.
Does that make it right?
Marijuana: 0 (It does not have to be smoked prohibition raises the price to where smoking is more economical for the user)
Perhaps it falls under "stuff that matters".
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Your statement is, as the topic, absurd.
1) You aren't challenging the majority's opinion. You're deciding that your opinion is correct and acting on it.
2) In acting on your opinion, you interfere unjustly with whomever's stuff you've decided to take.
He was accused of challenging an idea and sentenced to death for it. Yet challenging an idea confers no harm on others. Imposing ones religious beliefs and executing those who question them DOES confer harm. As does your taking of others' property.
um you should get your story straight. there are 50 separate governments within the USA, not all of them have death penalties and of those that do, less than half kills more than one person a decade. The only notable exception is the same idiot state that brought us George Bush.
the USA is closer to european union than to one country. A fact that is often forgotten.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Mostly because the rest of the world suffers at the hand of the Federal Government. Were the states to actually act and reign it in, then they might be aware of the 50 governments that make up the Union.
As a Canadian, I've been cautiously supportive of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai has pleaded, in person, with the Canadian Parliament to keep troops in Afghanistan for as long as we can afford to, citing that a swift withdrawal by Western nations would undoubtedly result in the country being torn apart by warlords and extremists. This is a sentiment that I can agree with and support in principle.
Then I hear about these ridiculous trumped-up charges based on Islamic law. Yes, Middle-Eastern culture is fundamentally different than ours. No, we don't have a right to tell other nations how to run themselves socially.
But the question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to be in bed with a nation, irregardless of that nation's values, that oppresses its own people?
This is the kind of situation that calls for passive condemnation. If our troops are in a country to help them rebuild their society in the name of democracy, how can we reconcile that with the way the new regime oppresses its citizens? It becomes a "lesser of the evils" argument.
If this is the society we are helping to build, then perhaps we shouldn't be helping at all.
Sadly, this argumentation is common on Slashdot when the topic isn't free speech or DRM circumvention. Oh the different standards.
Let this be a reminder that laws can be stupid and evil, and do not define right and wrong.
\u262D = \u5350
Actually, its both.
The Afghan government is, in fact, oppressing some of its own citizens, including this man. That this oppression is also popular does not stop it from being government oppression. Nor does the fact that there is a widespread support for even more extreme oppression than is being committed. Indeed, government oppression is often popular (often because the government has deliberately set up the victims of that oppression to take the blame for problems in society, or because the government has conducted the oppression as a way of winning plaudits from a society that already blames those being oppressed for problems in society), and oftentimes the mob supports even more extreme measures than those the government enacts in its oppression.
There is a reason that, e.g., America's founders did not view a popularly elected government with unlimited unauthority as a suitable safeguard of liberty, and instead set up an almost totally hamstrung government and then, when that was clearly on the road to failure from lack of sufficient authority to get things done, a more powerful but still tightly restricted government.
You suggest that we, the western nations, have no right to tell Afghanistan that it cannot kill or imprison someone for raising political issues. I suggest you flip the coin and look at the other side. If Afghanistan wants the help of the west, then it must accept commonly accepted human rights as part of the package.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
That's not even difficult. Figure out what portion of your "foreign aid" is in the form of weaponry designed to kill people, and you'll have it.
He was accused of challenging an idea and sentenced to death for it. Yet challenging an idea confers no harm on others.
It does if your reality consists of the belief that blasphemy and enciting others to blasphemy will literally send them to hell. That's one reason religion is dangerous. It's not based on a rational reality. It's based on extreme beliefs that aren't supported by the best forms of truth we know (scientific fact), and it can therefore be manipulated and twisted to vilify others.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Only if you calculate it the way most favourable to yourself.
What is most fair, if you're comparing the generosity of different groups ?
Comparing which portion of their wealth the different groups give?
Comparing how much each group gives pro person ?
Or comparing how much each group gives in total ?
Only if you do the latter does USA look good. But this is the view where a 300 people group donating $1000 is consideres more generous than a 30 person group donating $500, which is frankly absurd.
If you do it per capita, then the leader is luxembur at $500/person/year, followed by 10 other countries above $100. USA is at $25.
If you do it relative to wealth, then Norway is top with donating $10 for every $1000 in gdp (i.e 1%), USA is horribly, embarassingly low on the list, donating not 1%, not 0.5%, but less than 0.2% of GDP.
It's not much to brag about that you've donated 10 times as much as sweden -- when you're a country 50 times as large as sweden.