According to AdnkronosInternational (AKI), on June 29, 2006, another Iranian woman was sentenced to death by stoning. A court in the northwestern Iranian city of Urmia found the Kurdish woman, Malak Ghorbany, guilty of committing "adultery." Under Iran's Penal Code, the term "adultery" is used to describe any intimate or sexual act between a man and a girl/woman who are not married. The crime of adultery is also used in cases where a girl is deemed to have committed "acts incompatible with chastity," which includes instances of rape. The punishment for "adultery" is death.
On the day of her punishment, the woman's hands are tied behind her back as she becomes covered from head to toe in winding sheets and is placed seated in a pit. The pit is then filled up to her chest with dirt and the dirt is tamped down. At that point, members of the community are invited to murder her by hurling rocks at her. However, to ensure that the condemned woman/girl receives the absolute maximum amount of pain and torture, the Iranian government has even mandated the size of the stones that are to be used in this barbaric act of public execution. By law, the stones must not be too small as to prevent ultimate death, nor must they be too large that they could cause the girl's death "too soon."
The Committee for the defense of human rights of Iranian Kurdistan has issued a statement to save the life of Malak Ghorbani, and I am currently working with various organizations and individuals to save Malak's life and to learn more about her case. I would be deeply appreciative of any information that you could send me about Malak's case, in ANY language.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
Terrible.
Is there an international body/organization that works on these issues?
opposed as I am to the death penalty, are you f*cking kidding me??
Put to sleep over a matter of a very few minutes like an aged tabby - or hammered to death over tens of minutes with rocks calculated to cause injury, but not immediate death.
You will do (y)our cause more good by being honest than by being hyperbolic.
Your essay, side-by-side with the images of the two young men being hanged in Iran for being gay, are only more evidence of the barbarity going on there.
What you are angry about is not State, it is Religion as State. It is not barbarism, it is belief.
The murders both me not so much as the hypocrisy in them... a man is not judged the same way.
I do hope, when we go to war with Iran, that those who hate these things you've posted REMEMBER them.
The world is getting smaller. We are approaching a time when religion and state will be unable to co-exist. In this country, we've found compromise. But TRUE religion (versus the Sunday morning kind) does not compromise. There will be no "deals with the devil".
You are butting your head against a wall that has stood strong for millenia. They want their wall. They buttress it at every turn. AND they hate us for trying to tear it down.
Interesting to note the shift in mindset between us and them. They are equally angered over our failure to act on "God's" will.
As for the suprise towards the "so-called democratic regime" of Afghanistan... when did we get the idea that democracy = good??? Hitler was elected by popular vote in a democracy.
Democracy cannot exist in a vacuum. If it's not surrounded by constitutional checks and balances, a free press, transparent courts, freedom of assembly to redress complaints, freedom of religion, the right to security in your dwelling, the right not to incriminate yourself etc. then it's not democracy, it's just elections. I've heard that comparison before, but IMHO opinion it's a specious one
Good luck on your plight. I am still fighting to change the laws in the US for women who have abusive husbands as the laws are fragmented here.
There are many who do precisely the types of shouting that you mention. However, their expressions are silenced with bullets, false accussations of "adultry," etc.
Also, there is NOTHING Iranian about the Islamic Republic of Iran. The regime that has ruled over Iran in the past 27 years represents little, if any, of the values of the Persians and other Iranians. These thugs are a group of lunatics who have managed to hiajack one of the greatest and most progressive civilizations in human history.
We could conquer them. We have the ability, if not the will. Somehow, though, I think the same voices that are loudest on this issue will be the loudest when the bombs fall on Iranian children.
Ya'll will never understand these people. Their minds are wired different than ours. You won't convince them of your ways. You won't convince them their ways are wrong. It will never happen. To them, Life is but a single grain of sand on all the beaches on all the worlds... the afterlife is all the rest of that sand. They live for after. They die for it as well. And they kill for it.
It is the ultimate shame of mankind, that we insist on making "religion" out of spirituality. But, until this ends (and it may never), we will have to accept all these evils as something that cannot be changed without the application of even greater evils. A woman breaks the laws of her country and is punished... we could change the law, but we'd have to overthrow their government to do it. WAR. How many should die on the battlefield to save that woman? Which of you offers your sons and daughters?
I don't mean to be trite, but it does come down to that. Talk is so easy. Action is what we can't stomach. We simply haven't the will to solve this problem. Why not focus on the guy down the street who sleeps in the gutter? Or the woman who's husband beats her every night after work? Or any of a thousand problems that are right here, right now, and actually fixable...
Interesting counter points. Pretty accurate as well. But, all around, democracy sucks. With or without checks and balances. Democracy equals conforming to the lowest common denominator. In a democracy, every individual has equal say... even though they are not equal in ability to say wisely.
Take a spectrum of people. From wise to foolish, genius to retarded. Every one of these has equal say in a democracy. The foolish cancel the wise. The retarded cancel the genius. And we are left with mediocrity.
Blah!! Mediocrity. Ya'll can have that... I want better. Plato figured it out millenia ago. It is Republic we want, not democracy. Rule by the best. Not rule of the average.
Those same average joes who willingly pick up the stones and hurl them at the head of a woman are the same average joes who will elect the same people that will allow them to continue doing it.
Democracy does not change belief. It only gives belief the venue to recreate itself in it's own image.
Yeah - you're the self-appointed philosopher-king. Yhank god we found you, now we can all follow yr wisdom.
Thanx for the opportunity
That was humor. I say it because most miss when I make a funny.
Back to seriousness. I would not have survived Plato's tests. Therefore, would not be King. But I see the wisdom in what he wrote. The guys who built this country saw wisdom in it too.
John A nailed it. WE ARE A REPUBLIC. Why we should want to "place" democracy across the world is beyond me. We aren't a democracy. The Palestinians were given "democracy"... they elected terrorists.
That last sentence should say it all...
Maybe I'm slow. I think I understand the word republic - a thing of the people as a
opposed to a thing of a monarch.
And I think I understand the word Democracy government by the people either directly or through elected representatives.
What I don't understand is why they're mutually exclusive.
Please enlighten me.
Republic is "rule by the people's representative".
They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but they should be for many reasons. Primary among them is the simple fact the the majority (decision making number) will not stay informed enough to make wise decisions. Those unwilling or unable to grasp the full weight of every issue should not be the ones deciding on them. In a democracy, they do. In a republic, they get to elect people to do it for them.
I'd rather have Warren Buffet managing my money than a random cross section of investors. If Buffet has to get a concensus from a majority every time he wants to make a decision, all advantage to getting HIM goes out the window.
If every political decision was made off Gallop poll results, do you think we woud be better or worse for it?
There is a very important distinction between a democracy and a republic. A democracy is a system of unlimited majority rule which provides no safeguards for the rights of the individual. A republic is system of government whereby the people elect representatives who then govern, but where the power of government is limited by a constitution. The government of the United States is a constitutionally-limited republic based on the principle of individual rights.
The merits of a republic depend on the merits of its constitution, specifically whether its constitution protects the rights of the individual or not. Therefore there can be good and bad republics. A democracy, in the true sense of the word, must always be a tyranny, since democracy places no limits on the majority's power to vote in a Hitler or a Hamas, or to institute laws that violate the rights of individuals or minorities.
Joe,
I disagree that the primary problem with a democracy is that the majority "will not stay informed enough to make wise decisions." The primary problem is that, under a democracy, the majority has unlimited power over the individual and the minority. Even if the majority were very wise and informed and spent every waking moment contemplating the important issues, it would still be wrong to give that majority unlimited power over the individual.
In my view, the only proper role of government is to safeguard the individual rights of its citizens/residents. If government is limited to this proper function, then it really does not matter if the country includes people who are mediocre, foolish, etc, because they will not have the power to force their foolish beliefs on others who do not share their beliefs. The best government is not necessarily the one that has the wisest, smartest rulers, but rather the one that best safeguards individual rights and freedom.
You're making stuff up to make a political point that I'm missing.
Instead of re-defing words, why don't you just share your political point with us so we can understand what you're getting at
No dis-respect intended, I'm just trying to understand
Re·pub·lic Pronunciation (r-pblk)
n.
1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
I am not sure whether you think I am making up the definition of republic or democracy or both. In support of my interpretation of the term "republic" I offer the following definition from the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition:
A Republic is "today understood to be a sovereign state ruled by representatives of a widely inclusive electorate. The term republic formerly denoted a form of government that was both free from hereditary or monarchical rule and had popular control of the state and a conception of public welfare. It is in this sense that we speak of the ancient Roman republic. Today, in addition to the above characteristics, a republic is a state in which all segments of society are enfranchised and in which the state's power is constitutionally limited."
As for my definition of democracy, I start with the term itself which comes from the Greek words for people and rule or govern, in other words rule by the people. The Ancient Greeks who coined the term used it to mean direct democracy (ie all eligible voters could vote on all matters directly, rather than through elected representatives) and in Athenian democracy there was no limit to the power that could be exerted by the majority. Many modern day countries that use the term democracy to describe their government are probably more like republics than democracies, not just because direct democracy is not feasible, but also because those countries place limits on majority power. "Respect for the individual" (mentioned in your definition of democracy) is a feature of many modern "democracies," but it is not an essential characteristic of democracy. The only essential characteristic, without which you cannot have a democracy, is majority rule.
As for my political point: When we advocate democracy for Middle Eastern countries, on what basis can we complain if the people in those countries elect terrorist groups or Islamist governments. How can we answer the accusation of hypocrisy? What we should be advocating is governments based on the principle of individual rights.
Just a heads up: I personally know and work with Genie. She's an unbelievably intelligent and highly educated scientist/lawyer who knows her stuff. She's not trying to make circular arguments like the Abus of this world. She's legit.
Thank you for taking the time to expalin your point of view.
The money quote of your comment for me is:
>"In my view, the only proper role of government is to safeguard the individual rights of its citizens/residents. If government is limited to this proper function, then it really does not matter if the country includes people who are mediocre, foolish, etc, because they will not have the power to force their foolish beliefs on others who do not share their beliefs. The best government is not necessarily the one that has the wisest, smartest rulers, but rather the one that best safeguards individual rights and freedom."
With which it's hard to argue.
Well my goodness Genie!
As that clarity which is well known, and as there are at least two sets of them Muslim folk and I'll just mention the two which I clearly know of.
The first being reasonable folk that want to live in a society that is also reasonable, such allowing women to go to schools and to have theaters that show most types of movies and libraries that include books of other cultures. While the other group are those that desire Theocracy, or a Caliphate ruler.
Can't have both, but one may also lead to the other over time.
However, let the people decide? Of course not.
The folks over there in the Mideast don't have a clue.
Therefore, guidance is required. But for how long is the question. I say two generations will need to die off naturally while the guidance is also maintained, then the third generation from now might just be ok. In other words around 80 years after the starting date, whenever that is.
I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. If you are saying it's going to take a long time before we see governments based on the principle of individual rights in the Middle East, then I tend to agree with you. The culture in Arab countries in particular is very hostile to individualism. I think the Iranians have more potential, if and when they are able to rid themselves of the current regime. However, I see value in advocating and promoting the correct principles (ie individual rights, including religious freedom, free speech, equal rights for all under the law, etc.) and in doing so consistently.