Amnesty International USA asked people to write to Tunisian officials asking them to release “Marwan,” a man who was convicted of same-sex conduct. “Marwan” is an alias. I found a column by Farhat Othman helpful. This is the body of the letter I wrote:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم و صلى الله على النبي الأمي محمد بن عبد الله و آله و سلم و السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته
قال الله تعالى وإذا حكمتم بين الناس أن تحكموا بالعدل إن الله نعما يعظكم به إن الله كان سميعا بصيرا
فأرجو أن تصل إلىكم هذد الرسالة و أنتم بخير و صحة و عافية و أطلب منكم الإفراج فوراً بدون شروط عن الشاب الملقب بمروان المتهم بالمثلية و مسح سجله من تلك التهمة و إلغاء إدانته ثم إبطال الفصل 230 المجرِّم للمثلية.
كل ذلك ضروري لإرساء دولة القانون في تونس الحرة التي هي قدوة للشعوب العربية جميعا.
لكم الشكر و التقدير
Updated October 25, 2015: Minister of Justice expelled from cabinet, partly over his call to decriminalize same-sex behavior.
A passage in Kent Greenawalt’s Does God Belong in Public Schools? discusses the case of a Muslim school teacher who could not teach in Philadelphia public schools because she wore “religious garb,” which violated the Pennsylvania’s “Religious Garb” statute.
That no teacher in any public school shall wear in said school or while engaged in the performance of his duty as such teacher any dress, mark, emblem or insignia indicating the fact that such teacher is a member or adherent of any religious order, sect or denomination.
I wondered if a distinction could be made between clothing which identifies a person as part of a religious order and clothing which identifies a person as a member of a religion. I wanted to assert that members of an order typically wear the same style of clothes, almost a uniform, while Muslim women, while complying with custom or perceived religious instruction, wear a wide variety of clothing. Is it still religious clothing if her hem line is 2 cm above her ankles or 5 cm of her forearms are revealed? Does color matter? Is the shelwar qamees worn in the Indian subcontinent acceptable while an abaya, common in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is unacceptable? Or vice versa? Continue reading
This is an audio recording of a Chris Hedges speech. You can temporarily download the .mp3 audio file directly, and I have created a torrent so that the file floats on the internet in perpetuity.
This talk was given on March 29, 2014 before the Connecticut American Civil Liberties Union.
The introductory text on YouTube is:
Chris Hedges speaks on 3/29/2014 at the “One Nation Under Surveillance” civil liberties conference at CCSU in CT. He’s introduced by Mongi Dhaouadi, Executive Director of CAIR-CT. Hedges was one of he plaintiffs in a suit against the government “indefinite detention” policy.
He’s a former Middle East bureau chief of the New York Times
He’s written “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt”, “What Every Person Should Know About War”, “War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning”, and other books. The Struggle #531
He’s a columnist at Truthdig.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v… give some of the description of the lawsuit.
a few days later Snowden’s lawyer spoke here
“Terrorist” Tells You More About the State Classifying the Crime than the Crime Itself
“If it’s an al-Qaeda attack, you can bet it will affect the resources and how we respond to it,” [Daniel L.] Byman said. But “many of the objectives [of right-wing extremist groups] are close enough to legitimate political movements. It would be hard to take them on as a whole without causing a lot of discomfort” among people who don’t have violent aims.
This basically sums up why only Muslims, black separatists, defenders of the planet’s ecology and animal rights activists are treated as terrorists, with all the legal disabilities that entails, while white people who talk, meet, train and eventually kill people are never treated as terrorists. If the ideology which motivates you to violence meets the USA oligarchy’s approval, you can’t be a terrorist, no matter what you do.
One could just as easily say that about 70 percent to 75 percent of the people described as committing violent crimes, could also be described as generational victims of racist policies, like the ones Kelly and Bloomberg are promoting. One could just as easily say the vast majority of violent criminals in New York city hail from neighborhoods that have — over many generations — been the victims of a national wealth transfer, the remnants of which are with us even today.
We don’t say that. Writers and intellectuals on the Left would much rather talk about class. Same as it ever was. But this isn’t going away. We aren’t going away.
Ta-Nehisi Coates on the explicit racism of Stop and Frisk (via theatlantic)