Iran Executes Gay Teenagers

[Toro]

For those of you who think that all cultures are equal or shouldn't be judged.

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/...executes_2.html

Two gay Iranian teenagers -- one 18, the other believed to be 16 or 17, were executed this week for the "crime" of homosexuality, Irangay_teens the Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA) reported on July 19. (The ISNA report is in Farsi, and was translated into English by the British gay rights group OutRage!, which released its report today--ISNA also provided the terrifying photos of the teens' last moments you see on this page. You can see an enlarged version of each photo by left-clicking on them) The two youths -- identified only by their initials as M.A. and A.M., were hanged on July 19 in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad in north-eastern Iran, on the orders of Court No. 19. The hanging of the teens was also reported by the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

And the website Iran Focus not only confirms the story but provides more details, reporting that "Members of Iran’s parliament from the north-eastern city of Mashad, where a minor and an 18-year-old man were publicly hanged yesterday, vented their anger on Wedn esday on foreign and domestic news outlets for reporting the ages of hanged prisoners...Ultra-conservative deputy Ali Asgari said that the two deserved to be hanged in public, adding, 'Whatever sentence is decreed by an Islamic penal system must be approved, unless proven otherwise.' Asgari complained of foreign and domestic reporting that the two were mere boys. 'Instead of paying tribute to the action of the judiciary, the media are mentioning the age of the hanged criminals and creating a commotion that harms the interests of the state,' the member of the Majlis Legal Affairs Committee said. 'Even if certain websites made a reference to their age, journalists should not pursue this. These individuals were corrupt. Their sentence was carried out with the approval of the judiciary and it served them right.' "

Consensual gay sex in any form is punishable by death in the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to the website Age of Consent, which monitors such laws around the world, in Iran "Homosexuality is illegal, those charged with love-making Irangay_teens_2 are given a choice of four deathstyles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword, or dropped from the highest perch. According to Article 152, if two men not related by blood are discovered naked under one cover without good reason, both will be punished at a judge's discretion. Gay teens (Article 144) are also punished at a judge's discretion. Rubbing one's penis between the thighs without penetration (tafheed) shall be punished by 100 lashes for each offender. This act, known to the English-speaking world as 'frottage,' is punishable by death if the 'offender' is a non-Muslim. If frottage is thrice repeated and penalty-lashes have failed to stop such repetitions, upon the fourth 'offense' both men will be put to death. According to Article 156, a person who repents and  confesses his gay behavior prior to his identification by four witnesses, may be pardoned. Even kissing 'with lust' (Article 155) is forbidden. This bizarre law works to eliminate old Persian male-bonding customs, including common kissing and holding hands in public." And Outrage, in its release about the gay teens' execution, noted that, "according to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979. Last August, a 16-year-old girl , [Atefeh Rajabi] was hanged [in the Caspian port of Neka] for 'acts incompatible with chastity,' [i.e., sex before marriage]."

In the case of the two teens hanged in Mashhad, Irangay_teens_3 "They admitted having gay sex (probably under torture) but claimed in their defense that most young boys had sex with each other and tdhat they were not aware that homosexuality was punishable by death," according to the ISNA report as translated by OutRage. "Prior to their execution, the gay teenagers were held in prison for 14 months and severely beaten with 228 lashes. The length of their detention suggests that they committed the so-called offenses more  than a year earlier, when they were possibly around the age of 16."

"Ruhollah Rezazadeh, the lawyer of the younger of the two boys, had appealed that he was too young to be executed and that the court should take into account his tender age (believed to be 16 or 17). But the Supreme Court in Tehran Ordered him to be hanged." As a state party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Iran has undertaken not to execute anyone for an offence committed when they were under the age of 18 -- which means that by hanging the two youths Iran is in violation of international law.The Iranian authorities are putting out a cover story that the two boys had participated in the rape of a 13-year-old, but OutRage affirms from its sources that this accusation is a smokescreen for inhuman conduct and is without foundation. However, the Murdoch press (e.g., the Times of London) is putting about the Iranian government's story as a virtual statement of fact. But there is no mention of this Iranian government accusation in the original ISNA report, otherwise quite detailed.-- which rather suggests it's a recent invention. Furthermore, it is hardly surprising that, at the very moment at which Iran is engaged in the most delicate negotiation with the Western powers over nuclear materials -- the outcome of which will have a profound impact on the Iranian economy --the Iranian government, when caught in a heinous act of barbarity that is also a violation of Iran's commitments under international law -- should try to find a new excuse for the inexcusable.

Left-click on the third photo above and look at the enlarged version, which shows the younger of the two adolescents weeping as he's carried off in a police van to the end of his young life. Then, if you would like to protest the barbaric hanging of these two lads to whom nature gave same-sex hearts, follow the suggestion of the Human Rights Campaign which -- citing this blog -- has written to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice demanding that she formally protest these executions, which you should do as well. If you want to protest directly to the Iranian government, be aware that, while the U.S. has no diplomatic relations with Iran, there is an Iranian embassy in Canada. You may write, telephone, or fax the Iranian ambassador in Canada:Ambassador Seyed Mouhammad Ali Moosavi, Embassy of Iran, 245 Metcalfe St., Ottawa, Ontario .K2P 2K2 Canada Telephone (OO1-613- 235-4726, 233-4726; Fax, 233-5712

http://www.outrage.org.uk/dynimg/39.jpg

http://www.outrage.org.uk/dynimg/37.jpg

[crazymf]

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change.

Can't have it both ways.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change.

In Saudi Arabia, the legal maximum sentence for practicing homosexuality is beheading. In China, it isn't officially admitted to exist. Formal charges would fall under 'offensive behaviour'. In the US, many states still can convict under 'sodomy laws' (though it doesn't carry the death sentence). I condemn the act and all religion.

[Cameron]

This is what happens when you put comen sense and human rights aside and run your country on religion...absolute rubbish in my view. They will probably find out the hard way (the killers and backwards people) that they are not admitted into heaven...it's like going to the airport with a knife in your carry-on...see ya.....

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Cameron,

They will probably find out the hard way (the killers and backwards people) that they are not admitted into heaven...it's like going to the airport with a knife in your carry-on...see ya.....

Well said. The problem is, do we wait for 'final judgement' to say what's right or wrong, or do we enact our own 'judgement' (complete with punishment)?

[crazymf]

Dear crazymf,

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change.

In Saudi Arabia, the legal maximum sentence for practicing homosexuality is beheading. In China, it isn't officially admitted to exist. Formal charges would fall under 'offensive behaviour'. In the US, many states still can convict under 'sodomy laws' (though it doesn't carry the death sentence). I condemn the act and all religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's harsh too. However, those are their laws. If people choose to live under those laws and are free to leave any time they want, who are we to judge them? If the people are not free to change the laws under a democratic solution and are forced to live by them, no one should complain if a free nation liberates the oppressed people so they can live their lives as they see fit.

Everyone forgets that about Iraq. Remember Uday and Qusay??

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

However, those are their laws. If people choose to live under those laws and are free to leave any time they want, who are we to judge them?

Further, who are we to invade and convert them by the sword?

If the people are not free to change the laws under a democratic solution and are forced to live by them, no one should complain if a free nation liberates the oppressed people so they can live their lives as they see fit.

That is a tricky one. Is it on behalf of an oppressed majority, or minority? If only one person out of 20 million want change, is that enough to justify invasion? What would be the parameters of justifying the act?

[crazymf]

Dear crazymf,

However, those are their laws. If people choose to live under those laws and are free to leave any time they want, who are we to judge them?

Further, who are we to invade and convert them by the sword?

If the people are not free to change the laws under a democratic solution and are forced to live by them, no one should complain if a free nation liberates the oppressed people so they can live their lives as they see fit.

That is a tricky one. Is it on behalf of an oppressed majority, or minority? If only one person out of 20 million want change, is that enough to justify invasion? What would be the parameters of justifying the act?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to be honest, my first reaction was, so what? Those 2 queers might be Alqaeda for all we know and with all the backwards laws they have over there, as long as they keep it in their own border, whatever.

[theloniusfleabag]

I would think that if certain counties don't want certain 'victemless crimes' within their borders, rather than execution, they should be extradited and stripped of citizenship.

[newbie]

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change.

Can't have it both ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I guess you mean me and I'll talk all I want. I do condemn this act. This is a human rights issue, not a grab for oil. If the States move on Iran, they best check on all the rights violations of their buddies, the Saudi's. Because you see, they think they can have it both ways.

[Argus]

Is this supposed to surprise anyone? A short time ago iran executed a 16 year old girl after she was raped by her uncle. For "adultery", although the judge later said that his strong efforts to get her executed were also because she had a "sharp tongue". Apparently she wasn't respectful enough to the court when it sentenced her to death.

There is another teenage girl on Iran's version of death row because her mother prostituted her. She has the mental age of an 8 year old, but that hardly matters to Iran's fanatics.

[crazymf]

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change.

Can't have it both ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I guess you mean me and I'll talk all I want. I do condemn this act. This is a human rights issue, not a grab for oil. If the States move on Iran, they best check on all the rights violations of their buddies, the Saudi's. Because you see, they think they can have it both ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uncle Sam will straighten them all out eventually. I just expect the same liberal anti everything types around here to be opposed to this just as much as the war.

It takes tough men to do tough jobs. Now the new Iran leader is one of the old hostage takers, nice. Won't be long.....boom.

Just remember those poor queer bastards when the USA goes in and starts cleaning out Iran. With the nuclear proliferation problems, it's going to happen IMO.

[B. Max]

Dear crazymf,

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change.

In Saudi Arabia, the legal maximum sentence for practicing homosexuality is beheading. In China, it isn't officially admitted to exist. Formal charges would fall under 'offensive behaviour'. In the US, many states still can convict under 'sodomy laws' (though it doesn't carry the death sentence). I condemn the act and all religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would that include the atheist religion.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

[crazymf]

Dear crazymf,

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change.

In Saudi Arabia, the legal maximum sentence for practicing homosexuality is beheading. In China, it isn't officially admitted to exist. Formal charges would fall under 'offensive behaviour'. In the US, many states still can convict under 'sodomy laws' (though it doesn't carry the death sentence). I condemn the act and all religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would that include the athiest religion.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jeez, what next......Perhaps the Fundamentalist Holy Shrine of the Golden Arches?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear B. Max,

Would that include the athiest religion

The link did not work for me, (worldnetdaily is a tabloid, I don't get 'news' from there or from the 'Enquirer') but...I am an 'agnostic', so I'll agree that 'atheism' is based on faith as much as any 'deism'. It has to do with proclaiming (or believing) that one knows, definitively, the answer to whether or not there is a 'god'. I usually laugh at atheists, because they claim to 'know the answer' just as the religious types do. Where did they go to find this 'proof' one way or the other?

I wouldn't count atheism as a specific religion per se, as there isn't a set of guidelines or standardized 'worship' set down, but ultimately, it is faith-based.

[Riverwind]

I wouldn't count atheism as a specific religion per se, as there isn't a set of guidelines or standardized 'worship' set down, but ultimately, it is faith-based.

Atheism is a religion with a dogma that is at least as rigid and uncompromising as any theist belief system. It is the dogma and articles of faith that must be accepted without question that define a religion - not the ceremonies or traditions.

[crazymf]

I wouldn't count atheism as a specific religion per se, as there isn't a set of guidelines or standardized 'worship' set down, but ultimately, it is faith-based.

Atheism is a religion with a dogma that is at least as rigid and uncompromising as any theist belief system. It is the dogma and articles of faith that must be accepted without question that define a religion - not the ceremonies or traditions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sooooo....what might be the border line between a religion and a cult, such as Jimmy Jones or Charles Manson, or maybe the Seventh Day Adventisits.

[Melanie_]

If the people are not free to change the laws under a democratic solution and are forced to live by them, no one should complain if a free nation liberates the oppressed people so they can live their lives as they see fit.

Everyone forgets that about Iraq. Remember Uday and Qusay??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US didn't go in there to free oppressed people from human rights violations; they came up with that idea after they were already there, and found out there was no real basis for them to have attacked. If they set up a pro US government tomorrow, give Uncle Sam access to their resources, and allow them to use Iraq as a staging ground for their next target, do you really think the US will care what human rights violations are going on Iraq?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

Atheism is a religion with a dogma that is at least as rigid and uncompromising as any theist belief system. It is the dogma and articles of faith that must be accepted without question that define a religion - not the ceremonies or traditions

This taken from www.infidels.org ...

because the existence of God is an extraordinary claim -- and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?"

One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the redefinition game". The cynical view of this game is as follows:

Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B points out that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the words he used in the statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept. He then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to it, and continues. Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact", but uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.

The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by "religious". "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and worship.

(It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not "religion" according to such a definition.)

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as science, politics, and watching TV.

If you know of some sort of 'dogma' that is pervasive amongst atheists, let us know.

Life is kind of like soup. A person can take the base (events and happenstance) and add their own sprinkles of morality, faith, effort, etc. to create whatever flavour suits them. Every once in a while, though, another person may come along and pee in your soup... adjust seasonings accordingly.

[crazymf]

If the people are not free to change the laws under a democratic solution and are forced to live by them, no one should complain if a free nation liberates the oppressed people so they can live their lives as they see fit.

Everyone forgets that about Iraq. Remember Uday and Qusay??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US didn't go in there to free oppressed people from human rights violations; they came up with that idea after they were already there, and found out there was no real basis for them to have attacked. If they set up a pro US government tomorrow, give Uncle Sam access to their resources, and allow them to use Iraq as a staging ground for their next target, do you really think the US will care what human rights violations are going on Iraq?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes I do. Because human rights violations would then fall under some kind of criminal code set up there after democracy is fully functional. And as far as Bush needing a reason to go to war there, neither you or I know the truth. I don't believe the truth has been told yet and it's too soon to pass judgement on that.

I also don't think a few queers hanging in Iran will cause an invasion. It will be the nukes and the oil, just like Iraq. Only there will really be nukes this time.

Even I do not agree with hanging queers. They could be useful for something besides hanging ornaments. Maybe Iran Airlines needs more stewardesses or something, or perhaps the country needs more hair stylists.

Just remember what these people do to their own on a regular basis when and if you're inclined to dispute that the people need 'liberated'.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

Just remember what these people do to their own on a regular basis when and if you're inclined to dispute that the people need 'liberated'.

And where shall we put these 'liberated queers'? Your house? We'd just have to invade again.

[Melanie_]

I also don't think a few queers hanging in Iran will cause an invasion. It will be the nukes and the oil, just like Iraq. Only there will really be nukes this time.

**************

Just remember what these people do to their own on a regular basis when and if you're inclined to dispute that the people need 'liberated'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure which you are supporting - liberating the people, or going after the nukes and oil. Or maybe both.

I agree that these boys didn't deserve to be hanged - my god, they were just kids. Not that it matters, but from the article it sounds like they weren't even gay, just two horny teenagers who couldn't have sex with teenage Iranian girls, so went for the next best thing. But I don't believe that the US is concerned with human rights violations like this as part of their foreign policy; they couldn't care less as long as they are ensuring America's interests are met. "Liberating" is just a convienient word that scores political points at home.

[crazymf]

Dear crazymf,

Just remember what these people do to their own on a regular basis when and if you're inclined to dispute that the people need 'liberated'.

And where shall we put these 'liberated queers'? Your house? We'd just have to invade again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Noooo, they wouldn't be useful around my house. Let's see...Iranian queers could be used for what? Uhhh...damn, I can't think of anything right now...

Life is kind of like soup. A person can take the base (events and happenstance) and add their own sprinkles of morality, faith, effort, etc. to create whatever flavour suits them. Every once in a while, though, another person may come along and pee in your soup... adjust seasonings accordingly.

I like that. Is that original?

[Melanie_]

Noooo, they wouldn't be useful around my house. Let's see...Iranian queers could be used for what?  Uhhh...damn, I can't think of anything right now...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Queer Eye for the Straight Crazymf?

[crazymf]

I also don't think a few queers hanging in Iran will cause an invasion. It will be the nukes and the oil, just like Iraq. Only there will really be nukes this time.

**************

Just remember what these people do to their own on a regular basis when and if you're inclined to dispute that the people need 'liberated'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure which you are supporting - liberating the people, or going after the nukes and oil. Or maybe both.

I agree that these boys didn't deserve to be hanged - my god, they were just kids. Not that it matters, but from the article it sounds like they weren't even gay, just two horny teenagers who couldn't have sex with teenage Iranian girls, so went for the next best thing. But I don't believe that the US is concerned with human rights violations like this as part of their foreign policy; they couldn't care less as long as they are ensuring America's interests are met. "Liberating" is just a convienient word that scores political points at home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See, this is a classic moment when you can spin this either way, depending on who peed in your life soup today.

If you are pro US, like I am for the most part, then what they are doing makes sense. If you are anti US, then you can come up with all kinds of reasons they are wrong. This world changes because of people like GW, not like Paul who, oh Martin.