Quantcast
Channel: CNN iReporter marioradical
Viewing all 111 articles
Browse latest View live

The Uighur People: In Defense of the Minority, their Identity and Autonomy Part I

$
0
0

I am writing to bring to the attention of the world the horrible condition of the Uighur people and to highlight the persecution and oppression that they are undergoing under the Chinese Empire.

 

Who are the Uighurs?

 

According to the BBC report of the same title, April 30, 2014:

 

“China's western Xinjiang region has a long history of discord between China's authorities and the indigenous Uighur ethnic minority.

 

“The Uighurs are Muslims. They regard themselves as culturally and ethnically close to Central Asian nations.

 

“The region's economy has for centuries revolved around agriculture and trade, with towns such as Kashgar thriving as hubs along the famous Silk Road.

 

“In the early part of the 20th Century, the Uighurs briefly declared independence. The region was brought under the complete control of communist China in 1949.

 

“Xinjiang is officially designated an autonomous region within China, like Tibet to its south.”

 

I am with China in doing everything that is necessary, within the bounds of their law to counter and stop terrorism, but to fight terrorism with its own state-sanctioned terrorism, in my view will not accomplish anything, worst it may even fuel the “terrorism” that they intend to curb in the first place.

 

Though I agree with the Uighur people on their struggle, quest and aim of separating from Beijing and establishing a land of their own that is independent, I am condemning some of them for resorting to senseless violence and terrorism that they are committing to innocent people and civilians in Xinjiang, Beijing and elsewhere.

 

In the same vein, I am also condemning to the utmost the state sponsored terrorism being committed by China to the Uighur people.

 

I condemn China categorically for their economic black mail, economic bias as against the people of Xinjiang, their act of spiritually persecuting and religiously curtailing the beliefs of the Uighurs, their political and cultural repression of these minority people. All these acts are unforgivable and unpardonable!

 

Question:

 

Under the prevailing condition and present circumstances now in Xinjiang, can China blame the Uighur people who they forced to the wall, if these people will fight back using all means available at their disposal?

 

Who are the real and true terrorists, with regard to this issue?

 

Is it a country or an empire that are repressing, oppressing and persecuting their people and citizens who belong in the minority or it is those persecuted, oppressed and marginalized people who simply wish to fight back for their identity, cultural beliefs and justice?

 

Who are those “terrorists” on the eyes of China?

 

Answer: They are the Uighur people who: either wants an equal right with the Chinese (Han) majority or who wants to separates from China.

 

Historically, in Xinjiang, the majority of the populations are the Uighur, but as reported by Nathan VandelKlippe, “In remote Xinjiang province, Uighurs are under siege”, The Globe and Mail, August 15th:

 

“Their home territory has, however, experienced tremendous change since the Communist Revolution in 1949. Briefly an independent state in the early 20th century, Xinjiang has in the past few decades become home to vast numbers of ethnic Chinese, many of them sent here by government settlement policies.

 

“They now outnumber the Uighurs, and continue to arrive, drawn by untrammelled space and the jobs that flow from a land rich in resources.

 

“But the wealth hasn’t necessarily benefited the Uighur population. As the region’s oil and gas flow east, local filling stations routinely run short, with lineups 150 cars long.”

 

“Xinjiang accounts for 28 per cent of China’s natural-gas reserves, which are being tapped at a roaring rate by a country eager to fuel its remarkable growth with its own energy. Between 2000 and 2012, gas output increased sixfold, while oil production rose by half. Some 60 per cent of Xinjiang’s gross domestic product is now derived from petroleum.

 

“And for all the jobs that development has brought, the region has China’s highest rate of unemployed college graduates – 80 per cent of them minorities, many of them Muslim. Job postings sometimes demand Han Chinese outright. A former manager at a large Western company in Urumqi says that, of 400 employees, only 10 were Uighur.”

 

The terroristic activities, in my view committed by China are the following:

 

1. In July, the authorities from Beijing “banned the practice of fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan”. Adding insult to injury, they also barred the Salat prayer in mosques.

 

As reported by Didi Tang of the AP, “China bans Ramadan fast in Muslim northwest”, July 3rd:

 

“Students and civil servants in China's Muslim northwest, where Beijing is enforcing a security crackdown following deadly unrest, have been ordered to avoid taking part in traditional fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

 

“Statements posted in the past several days on websites of schools, government agencies and local party organizations in the Xinjiang region said the ban was aimed at protecting students' wellbeing and preventing use of schools and government offices to promote religion. Statements on the websites of local party organizations said members of the officially atheist ruling party also should avoid fasting.”

 

According to the officials, their reason in placing the “laws” is “to prevent religious indoctrination by teachers in schools.”

 

Some of the actual text of the law is as follows:

 

“Students shall not participate in religious activities; they shall not study scripts or read poems at script and choir classes; they shall not wear any religious emblems; and no parent or others can force students to have religious beliefs or partake in religious activities.”

 

That is the “law” for the students, below is the “law” for the teachers:

 

"No teacher can participate in religious activities, instill religious thoughts in students or coerce students into religious activities…”

 

Commentaries:

 

I don’t believe in the powers that be that their intention is pure and noble, far from it, their “law” is enacted not to promote a secular education system, but to curtail the rights of the Uighur people to their religious, cultural and ethnic rights.

 

It is my firm view and so hold that the so-called “law” issued by Beijing is not only illegal but undeniably immoral and unjust.

 

Questions:

 

What is the right of the central government to impose their will upon an autonomous region which is utterly different from them?

 

What is the right of the central government to invade and violate the religious right of their citizens who are minority and other an autonomous administrative region?

 

Is China aware that that their so-called “law” is a violation of the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights?

 

2. This month, Beijing bans big beards from buses.

 

As reported by the Telegraph, “China city bans big beards from buses”, August 6th:

 

“A city in China's mainly Muslim Xinjiang region has banned people with large beards or Islamic clothing from travelling on public buses, state media said, prompting outrage from an overseas rights group Wednesday.

 

“Authorities in Karamay banned people wearing hijabs, niqabs, burkas, or clothing with the Islamic star and crescent symbol from taking local buses, the Karamay Daily reported.

 

“The ban also covers "large beards", the paper said, adding: "Those who do not cooperate with inspection teams will be handled by police."”


The Uighur People: In Defense of the Minority, their Identity and Autonomy Part II

$
0
0
Commentaries:

What is the point?

What the hell is China’s problem with people who sports big beards? What the hell is their issue with those people who wear hijabs, niqabs, burkas?

What the hell is China’s problem with those people whose clothing bears “the Islamic star and crescent symbol”?

Why can’t they ride the public bus?

What the hell is China’s problem with their minority Uighur Muslim population?

Again, is China aware that this stupid and preposterous “law” is a grave violation of the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights?

I thought these people are citizens of China, hence why the central government are making and issuing laws that are only applicable specifically to them?

Question:

What is the difference of this law from the law of Hitler compelling the Jews to put into their clothes the Star of David?

China is not only following the discrimination done by the Nazis, but their way of marginalizing an already marginalized people is comparably despotic, barbaric and incontestably absurd!

The German human rights spokesman Dilxat Raxit is correct when she says that this ordeal being suffered by the Uighurs will only “lead more conflicts if China uses coercive measures to rule and to challenge Uighur beliefs.”

If the Chinese believes that they can win against the “terrorists” by using their own brand of “terrorism”, they are dead wrong!

If China will not stop from their repression and oppression, then the conflict in Xinjiang will only escalate and it may even spill to other areas.

Terrorism would not be defeated by another kind of terrorism!

China must respect the rights and true well-being of the Uighur people!



Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

Philosophy and Social Science lecturer

Polytechnic University of the Philippines and Unibersidad de Manila

Robin Williams: A Tribute

$
0
0

The meditation of the wise man is a meditation not on death, but on life. --- Baruch Spinoza


Last August 11th, the great actor and comedian, Robin Williams died to the shocked of the world! It is a world that cannot believe that one of the happiest men on this planet has decided to go and did it in such an unexpectedly way and utterly abrupt manner!

How could he do what he did? What led him to decide what he decided?

Nathan Feiles in his article, “Why the Death of Robin Williams Is So Hard to Accept”, PsychCentral, August 20th had offered the following incisive analysis:

“We could all speculate on the underlying issues that led to his suicide, but any explanation would only assist in helping us deny the reality: Robin Williams had a deeply suffering part of him, and he chose to end his life.

“This leaves a lingering question (among many others): If Robin Williams — who appeared to be the master of summoning joy — couldn’t find some element of joy worth remaining alive for, what does that mean for all of us? What are we all striving for if the man who seemed to successfully live life on his own terms couldn’t be satisfied enough to keep living?

“The answer first takes recognition of a notion that I found difficult to come to terms with: we didn’t know all of Robin Williams. At times, it may have felt like he let us in to his deepest childhood and adult states of emotion. However, there was more he didn’t let the world experience (possibly a part he wanted to hide from, as well, considering his multiple addictions). He was a great actor and embodied many fantasies for many people. But this is also a man who suffered greatly, even if we may never know what his demons truly were.

“For me, the reason his death is so difficult to take is because I wanted to believe that what we saw of Robin Williams was in fact who he was. And really, what he gave to us was still part of him. He brought life to these characters through parts of himself. And was so convincing in these roles, that it became easy to feel that Robin Williams was giving his full self to the world.

“But in the end, we’re reminded that that’s what we saw on screen. Characters. Showing the world only what the character was meant to show. Sure, they were parts of Robin Williams, but they weren’t all of him. It’s hard to juxtapose these beloved characters portrayed by Robin Williams with the depth of darkness that remained mostly hidden from our view.”

Robin Williams who played Patch Adams in the movie of the same title uttered the following lines:

“Death. To die. To expire. To pass on.

“To perish.

“To peg out.

“To push up daisies.

“To push up posies.

“To become extinct.

“Curtains, deceased, demised, departed and defunct.

“Dead as a doornail. Dead as a herring.

“Dead as a mutton. Dead as nits.

“The last breath. Paying a debt to nature. The big sleep.

“God’s way of saying, “Slow down.”

“To check out.

“To shuffle off this mortal coil.

“To head for the happy hunting ground.

“To blink for an exceptionally long period of time.

“To find oneself without breath.”

The Greek philosopher Epicurus famously stated: “Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.”

What is death and why are we so concern and worrisome about it?

Hence, we return to the one of the most perennial philosophical questions of all time: what it is about death that makes us conscious of it? Why do we fear death and why it is that we do not want our love ones to die?

Professor A. C. Grayling said that:

“The fundamental question is how to deal with others’ deaths. We grieve the loss of an element in what made our world meaningful. There is an unavoidable process of healing --- of making whole --- to be endured, marked in many societies by formal periods of mourning, between one and three years long. But the world is never again entire after bereavement. We do not get over losses, we merely learn to live with them.

“There is a great consolation. Two facts --- that the dead once lived; and that one loved them and mourned their loss --- are inexpungeably part of the world’s history. So the presence of those who lived can never be removed from time, which is to say that there is a kind of eternity after all.”

Interestingly, Robin Williams (again to quote from the said film, Patch Adams) said these moving and passionate words in addressing the board/panel of doctors:

“What's wrong with death, sir?

“What are we so mortally afraid of?

“Why can't we treat death with a certain amount of humanity and dignity and decency and, God forbid, maybe even humor?

“Death is not the enemy, gentlemen.

“If we're gonna fight a disease, let's fight one of the most terrible diseases of all --- indifference.

“Now, I've sat in your schools and heard people lecture on transference and professional distance. Transference is inevitable, sir.

“Every human being has an impact on another.

“Why don't we want that in a patient/doctor relationship?

“That's why I've listened to your teachings, and I believe they're wrong.

“A doctor's mission should be not just to prevent death, but also to improve the quality of life. That's why you treat a disease, you win, you lose.

“You treat a person, I guarantee you, you win, no matter what the outcome.”

I am one of those people who up to now have yet to accept that this great actor is no more.

It is my take that when we say that we already accepted the death of a love one, we are not telling the whole truth, for we are lying (to the teeth) to ourselves. For the sad truth is the brutal fact that we merely accepted the lost or the passing of a love one --- in a sense. We were just compel to accept, by the force of the reality that a love one is already gone, but the ultimate acceptance that they already died will only dawn upon us --- ironically --- on the very day we die ourselves.

For “it remains true that we never quite get over the sorrow caused by losing those most loved; we only learn to live with it, and to live despite it; which --- and there is no paradox here --- makes living a richer thing.”

Perhaps, one of Robin’s characters is correct when he says that: “You don’t know about real loss, ‘cause it only occurs when you loved something more than you love yourself.”

Now, whether it was the “dark side” of Robin Williams who kill himself or one of his characters; makes no difference to me! For in truth and in fact, what he did to himself will not diminished nor will it shatter his legacy, greatness and humanity!

May you live forever, Mr. Funny Guy!


Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

Philosophy and Social Science lecturer
Polytechnic University of the Philippines and Unibersidad de Manila

The Killing of Jennifer is the Central Issue not her sexuality and gender: the VFA as a symbol of National Shame

$
0
0
I refer to Rina Jimenez-David’s “Tangential issues”, At Large, PDI, October 17th with regard to the gruesome and barbaric killing of Jennifer (aka Jeffrey) Laude, “a transgender individual, in a motel room in Olongapo City allegedly by an American Marine taking part in war games here, is the “nature” of Jennifer and whether she was plying the “world’s oldest profession” or was merely out for a good time.””

I'm my view, the most tangential and substantive issue is not whether “she was a “trannie” in a land where there is still considerable social and legal discrimination against gays” or because in order for her, “to earn money to put a sibling through school and pay for other expenses, she was engaged in prostitution”, rather is it her gruesome and horrible killing.

The killing of a helpless human being: That is the central issue!

Indeed, Ms. David is absolutely correct in her contention that:

“Of course, it’s irrelevant and immaterial whether Jennifer was a prostitute or simply a good-time gal. She did not deserve to die simply because she was not “fully” a woman, in the same way that women (and men) engaged in the flesh trade cannot be raped, beaten up, or killed simply because they failed to satisfy their customers.”

Yet, instead of seeing it that way, her murder and death has only shown the apathy, the idiocy, the bigotry and the mental discrimination still running on the minds of some people of this country.

Again, to quote Ms. David:

“But her being transgender has trained a light as well on the realities of life for those whose sexuality and sexual orientation lie beyond the pale. Certainly appalling are comments that Filipinos are raising too much fuss about Jennifer’s killing, as if the death of a transgender person deserves less outrage and pain than the murder of a “normal” woman or man. Or that a prostitute’s life is not worth grieving or agonizing over, as if human rights apply only to those living righteous lives.”

I am wondering, what if it is a Filipino man who killed an American transgender, or if it is an American transgender that killed a Filipino woman, will there be a change to their moronic charges and idiotic comments?

To me, the fact remains and that fact is “that murder is murder, whether committed by a Filipino or an American, and must be prosecuted with the full force of the law.”

It is on this juncture that I am condemning to the utmost, some of our countrymen for their discrimination, bigotry, idiocy and even their colonial mentality.

As a Humanist, I don’t give a damn whether the one who violated the law is a man or a woman, “in between” or a transgender; that fact that he or she violated the law is enough for the said felon to be brought to the bar of justice.

In the same vein, I also don’t give a damn whether the offender is a local citizen or a foreigner, if they violated the law, hence they must answer --- whoever the hell they are, whatever the hell they are!

On Humanity

As I’ve stated in one article, “Everyone deserves love”, The Star Malaysia, August 3, 2011:

“Transgenders are our fellow human beings; the only difference is that we are certain of our sexual orientation and gender affiliation.

“They also deserve to be loved and cherished. It is their inherent natural human right to love and be loved, regardless and irrespective of their abnormalities, deformities and physiological-sexual limitations.

“The dichotomy of the individual and that of society has long been settled by both sociology and anthropology. The presence of varied elements is precisely one of the key ingredients for society to grow and develop.

“Such a society would undeniably be vibrant, humane, accommodative to change and refreshingly adaptive to the prevailing circumstances.”

I am sad and it is with a heavy heart on my part to state that this bastard country is not that tolerant and open when it comes to the those people that belongs to the LGBT community!

This society is inhumane and discriminative!

That should not be the case, by virtue of the fact that the equal protection clause of the Constitution is anti-sexism, anti-discrimination, anti-racism and against all forms of cruelty. It is a document of justice, equality and fairness.

Yet, sad but true, such is not the case!

Shame!!!!

On the Question of the VFA and EDCA

I overwhelmingly concur with Professor Walden Bello that the presence of the US military to our country is dangerous to our people’s welfare.

As he stated categorically in his article, Afterthoughts, Fatal encounters: Jennifer meets US Marine Corps, PDI, October 20th:

“When we opposed the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the so-called Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), one of our key reasons was to prevent our civilian population from again becoming collateral damage as victims of rape, murder, and hate crimes, as many of them were prior to the withdrawal of the big US bases in 1992.

“The rape of Nicole by another US Marine, Daniel Smith, in 2005 confirmed our worst fears. Now an even more brutal crime has taken place. No doubt there will be apologists who will say that the Nicole and Jennifer cases are “isolated incidents,” that these are outweighed by the benefits of the presence of American troops, as Senator Antonio Trillanes IV is supposed to have claimed. Such assertions are increasingly hollow, especially since Washington is not committed to defending our territories in the West Philippine Sea in the first place, since it says it won’t intervene in sovereignty disputes in the Spratlys.

“To prevent future incidents, some have proposed tighter regulation of shore leave or more intensive instruction of American troops on the “rules of engagement” with the civilian population. But again, why be satisfied with these half measures when those troops don’t need to be here in the first place since they do not promote our national security.”

On the implementation of the VFA

In my view, only a moron, or worst an extreme idiot of the lowest order will failed miserably to see that this so-called agreement between the Philippines and the United States of America is not only a lopsided agreement but undeniably a continuation and perpetuation of US colonization of this utterly damned and super stupid country.

As Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago emphatically stated:

"We are a stillborn state because our umbilical cord from the US has never been cut…"

The VFA is not only a failure, but a shame to us all!

It is a basic rule of criminal procedure that jurisdiction includes custody, now base on that bullshit agreement, it states there that while the Philippines has jurisdiction over erring US officers, Article V, Paragraph 6 of the VFA states:

“The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with the United States military authorities, if they so request.”

This is not only a "gross inequality" but a bastardization of the sovereignty and dignity of the whole country.

Again to quote Senator Santiago:

"If the Philippines has primary jurisdiction, then it follows that the Philippines should have custody. But this logic is spurned by the VFA…"

This is a shame!!!


Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

Philosophy and Social Science lecturer
Unibersidad de Manila

To Kiss is to Love, to Love is to Protest: Kissing to Resist State Moral Policing

$
0
0
I refer to “Kiss of Love: Delhi students take a stand against moral policing, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, November 09th with regard to the bold, brave and unorthodox stand being undertaken by the students of India in resisting and defying the state, the moral police and various conservative section of their nation.

They aptly and appropriately titled their protest action as Kiss of Love.

According to Wikipedia:

“The Kiss of Love protest “is a non-violent protest against moral policing which started in Kerala and later spread to other parts of India.

“The movement began when a Facebook page called 'Kiss of love' asked the youth across Kerala to participate in a protest against moral policing on November 2, 2014, at Marine Drive, Cochin.

“The movement received widespread support with more than 120,000 'Likes' for the Facebook page.”

I overwhelmingly concur with one of the organizers of the event, Pankhuree Zaheer, who said that:

“We must not forget that our main aim is to speak out against moral policing and the propaganda of love jihad. Attacks on us have increased in the recent past. If they are entering our streets our universities and pubs, we will enter their space.”

In another interview, reported by Tony Tharakan, “'Kiss of Love' protests rattle Modi's conservative India”, Reuters, Nov. 10th, the 26-year-old research scholar stated emphatically that:

"It's not about just kissing… It's about ... inter-caste marriages, inter-religious marriages, live-in relationships.”

It is my firm view that the government (of Mr. Modi) has no right to appoint and/or to encourage self-appointed moral guardians (his bastard gang of Hindu radicals and conservatives) who are forcing traditional mores, culture and beliefs on people with different outlook in life.

Consider the mindset of these so-called moral freaks and moral police, a creature by the name of Devendra Upadhyay, who opposed the said event, stated that:

“This is against our traditions.

"We have nothing against modernity but don’t kiss on the streets. If the Supreme Court has said that there is nothing wrong in kissing in public, we don’t agree with it. This is wrong…”

Commentaries:

This idiot said that they are not against modernity, but immediately warned the people not to kiss on the streets, well, what kind of modernity is that?

In his futile effort to appear as a modernist, this moron has betrayed his true color and that is, he declared to the whole of India and the rest of the world that he is indeed a conservative and backward freak.

Another point that I wish to highlight is the cold arrogance and ignorance of this bastard freak! Who the hell is he or they to say that even if the highest court of the land had already declared that there is nothing wrong in kissing in public, they don’t agree and it is wrong.

So, what this creature is telling the whole world is that --- Indian’s Supreme Court is wrong in its landmark judgment, ruling that “that kissing in public is not an obscene act and no criminal proceedings can be initiated, for kissing in public.”

Is that it?

Who the hell are they any way?

If these bastard creatures are not respecting the ruling of the highest court of the land, then what the hell is the purpose of the Constitution?

If they are not respecting the Court, then what is the point in having a democratic government?

According further to the Reuters report, Mr. Modi “has not yet commented on the protests. But a spokesman for the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, affiliated to his party”, said that:

"Our Indian culture does not permit us displaying such kinds of affection in public spaces."

Commentaries:

To that stupid spokesman, hey idiot, India is a democratic government that believes and subscribed to those basic universal principles of republican values, such as freedom of expression, freedom of beliefs, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government for redress, etc. hence, notwithstanding the fact that I respect your culture, yet it is my fervent and unequivocal contention that the same is under the provision of the fundamental law which is no other than the Constitution.

The provision of the Constitution and the various international treaties that your government has entered into, such as the International Declaration of Human Rights is more and much powerful than your culture.

Now, if you certainly wish to fight for the superiority and majesty of your culture, my humble suggestion is to ask your government to amend your secular constitution; make it a religious (Hindu) one and correspondingly --- get the fuck out of the international community.

Why? Because every time, those lovers, kissers, protesters and activists of modernity, humanism and secularism goes out to protest and your government, with your so-called moral police, stupid police and bunch of thugs and gangsters connive and unite with each other to rough them up, harass them, arrest them and stop their constitutional and human right to express themselves in public --- you are all violating your own constitution and international laws, bastardizing your own institutions and making your country a laughing stock before the eyes of the whole world!

The government (whatever its form) has no right to tell people how the hell are they going to live and lead their lives, so long as those people does not harm any body and they are not violating the law.

The government has no right to impose their brand or type of morality to the people.

The government has no right to tell the people when to kiss, where to kiss and what or whom to kiss.

My love affair is mine and they have no right whatsoever to enter or intrude into my life.

Sex, morality and art can never ever be legislated!

What the hell is wrong in kissing in public, anyway?

Why it is that India is so against the public display of affection?

Why is it that they are against this very intimate act of lovers or couples in the public sphere?

They are so against this, yet I am wondering why up to now they are not doing enough to arrest the high rate of rape in the country?

Such a bloody irony!

Shame!

In defense of the Kiss

If kissing in public is wrong, then so be it, I would rather end up in jail than miss the chance to kiss my love and dear ones, whether in private place or in public sphere!

If kissing in public is wrong, then so be it! I would rather err on the name of love, rather than be right in keeping a backward culture and following a stupid conservative government!

Finally, if kissing in public is criminal, then so be it! I would rather be a “criminal”, rather than a bastard fool and a conservative bloody freak.

In the words of Faith Hill:

It' s the way you love me

It's a feeling like this

It's centrifugal motion

It's perpetual bliss

It's that pivotal moment

It's, ah, impossible

This kiss, this kiss

Unstoppable

This kiss, this kiss…


Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

Philosophy and Social Science lecturer
Unibersidad de Manila


The Mockery and Barbarism of Iran’s “Judiciary”

$
0
0
I refer to “Iran: Death Sentence for Facebook Posts”, the Human Rights Watch, December 2nd with regard to the “imminent risk of execution” of a 30-year-old man for “insulting the prophet”.

I concur with the Human Rights Watch’s position that “Iran’s judiciary should vacate the death sentence of a 30-year-old man who faces imminent execution for Facebook posts linked to his account.”

Eric Goldstein, the deputy Middle East and North Africa director said that:

“It is simply shocking that anyone should face the gallows simply because of Internet postings that are deemed to be crude, offensive, or insulting…”

“Iran should urgently revise its penal code to eliminate provisions that criminalize peaceful free expression, especially when they punish its exercise with death.”

As narrated by the said report:

“On November 24, 2014, Iran’s Supreme Court upheld a criminal court ruling sentencing Soheil Arabi to hang. The court transferred his file to the judiciary’s implementation unit, opening the way for his execution.

“A Tehran criminal court had convicted him in August of sabb al-nabbi, or “insulting the prophet,” referring to the Prophet Muhammad, which carries the death penalty. Arabi’s legal team has asked the judiciary to suspend the death sentence and review the case.

“Nastaran Naimi, Arabi’s wife, told Human Rights Watch that intelligence agents linked with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards arrested her and her husband at their home in Tehran in November 2013. They soon released her but transferred her husband to a special section of Evin prison that the Revolutionary Guards control, where they kept him in solitary confinement for two months, subjected him to long interrogation sessions, and prevented him from meeting his lawyer, she said. They later transferred Arabi to Ward 350 of Evin prison.”

Commentaries:

Did the so-called “supreme court” put into consideration the vital fact that the accused were kept in solitary confinement?

Putting or placing a detainee in solitary confinement is not allowed under international law.

Such practice is a grave violation of the International Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture.

I say that it is a violation of the Convention against torture, because isolating an individual detainee from the rest is a form of mental and psychological torture.

Worst, the bastard Iranian so-called Revolutionary Guards did so, in two brutal months.

Is the so-called court aware that the accused were subjected to long interrogation sessions?

Is the so-called court has any idea that besides the fact that the accused were placed in solitary confinement, subjected to long interrogation hours, he was also deliberately denied seeing and conferring with his lawyer?

All of these acts are violations of the constitutional, civil and international rights of the accused.

Base on all these violations to the rights of Arabi, he, as a matter of right is entitle to an acquittal!

Yet, the bloody idiotic and bastard court, instead of doing that not only affirmed the judgment of the lower court, worst it even inserted another offense or crime to the prejudice of Arabi.

Grave Abuse of Discretion

Vahid Moshkhani, the lawyer of Arabi, told Human Rights Watch “that instead of upholding or overruling the lower court verdict, the Supreme Court unlawfully added the charge of efsad-e fel arz, or “sowing corruption of earth,” to Arabi’s case. In addition to carrying a possible death sentence, the charge also forecloses the possibility of amnesty, he said.”

Commentaries:

It is a basic principle in criminal law, in all judicial trials, wherein said jurisdiction subscribe to the universal standard of justice and equity that a court which call itself a supreme court can only affirm or deny the judgment or ruling made by a lower court.

Said superior court, if it is truly fair and conforms to the international practice has no power whatsoever to change or modify or add up the allegation or the charge originally subject of the indictment to the prejudice of the accused.

Further, it has also no power to increase the penalty or punishment.

To illustrate:

If A were charged originally for the crime of acts of lasciviousness (example: touching the breast of a woman by-stander), he on appeal cannot be charge by the higher court by the crime of rape.

Acts of lasciviousness is a lesser offense, while rape is a capital crime.

It is a well-entrenched rule in criminal law that the accused is only mandated to answer or reply to the allegation as stated or stipulated in the original complaint.

To answer another charge or accusation not included in the original complaint will be a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to know the nature and the cause of the accusation against him or her.

The bias and incompetence of the so-called supreme court of Iran

Moshkani, Arabi’s defense counsel said that the Supreme Court “rejected his client’s defense that he had not written many of the Facebook posts and that he was merely sharing others’ views on the social media site.”

The question here is:

Is the mere act of sharing others’ views on the social media site enough for the authorities to arrest this man and charged him of “insulting the prophet”?

What kind of fucking “law” is this?

However, Iran does have that fucking “law”!

Article 263 of the revised Islamic Penal Code expressly “provides that a person who “insults the Prophet” while drunk or by quoting others, among other acts, will be subjected to 74 lashes and not sentenced to death.”

Nonetheless, when the lower court handed its judgment, which was reviewed by the Human Rights Watch, said court “relied on Arabi’s confessions and “available images and printouts” attributed to his Facebook page, and concluded that his actions “constitute clear proof” that he insulted the Prophet Muhammad and should be sentenced to death.”

Commentaries:

This is outrageous!

Art. 263 is clearly a blasphemy law which has no right to exist in any democratic and modern criminal statutes.

In the words of Robert Green Ingersoll:

“All laws defining and punishing blasphemy were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men.

“An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures.”

The Question of “sowing corruption of earth”

Comment/Question:

What the fuck is that?

It is a basic rule in law, specifically in Statutory Construction that if a law is so vague and so bloody ambiguous, that law carries no force or effect whatsoever for being so pervasive and plenary.

The Iranian authorities instead of sentencing Arabi to death should have acquitted or at least discharged him!


Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

Philosophy and Social Science lecturer
Unibersidad de Manila

A Mockery and Travesty of Justice: The Continuing Persecution and Permanent Harassment of Anwar Ibrahim by the powers that be in Malaysia

$
0
0
I refer to the “Anwar Ibrahim guilty in sodomy case”, by the Guardian, February 10th with regard to the latest conviction of the Malaysian Opposition leader.

As of the moment, the Old Man or Uncle Anwar is now there in Sungai Buloh prison serving his newest five year jail sentence.

Last month, the 68 year old Anwar Ibrahim, the de facto Opposition leader, the hero of the Malaysian people of all walks of life, the greatest single threat to the 58 years of bureaucratically racial and despotically selective rule of the elitist UMNO and BN, the indispensable glue that unites Pakatan Rakyat (the Opposition Coalition), the global image of human rights violations in Malaysia, a fierce political fighter par excellence and a universally acknowledged prisoner of conscience --- was once again declared guilty, this time by the so-called highest “court” in Malaysia.

Prison is not an unfamiliar arena and place of struggle for Anwar.

His first spell of jail was back in 1974, under the draconian Internal Security Act, when he was then a student leader, wherein he protested the prevailing hunger and poverty then in the country.

After the culmination of the first so-called Sodomy Trial, he was sent in prison from 1998/9 up to 2004.

Who would ever forget his picture with a black eye while he is in police custody?

Said photo shocked the world!

In 2008, he led the Opposition Coalition in nearly overthrowing the Federal government. That is the Political Tsunami that completely changed not only the ideological landscape of Malaysian politics, but also its political history and historical dimension.

For the first time in Malaysian political life and history --- there is now a vibrant, growing, “young”, strong and genuine opposition against traditional politics, crony capitalism and single party rule for more than five decades.

March 8, 2008 --- scarred the hell out of all UMNO and BN that they’ve decided that they have to do everything --- at all cost --- to end Anwar’s political career --- by hook or by crook --- in order to save their assets and asses.

The very frightening thought of PR defeating the administration in a democratic election, send such uncontrollable fear and undeniable paranoia to the powers that be!

Said fear and paranoia is not misplaced or baseless!

In the last General Election, the PR has garnered 53% of the popular votes, yet ironically by virtue of the abnormal and sinisterly peculiar form of Malaysia’s bastardized version of parliamentary system, Anwar and his allies was prevented by the prevailing “norms” and politico-racial set up of the establishment from duly forming the government.

This aberrant and highly unusual political fiasco in Malaysia did not escape the knowledge and attention of the international community.

The central substantive question that needs to be asked is:

Why PR who won the popular votes still remains in the opposition?

Or to put it in other words:

How could the true majority be in the minority and how could the minority be in control of the bloody government?

What the hell of the right of this “government” to rule the Malaysian people?

The whole thing boils down to the issue of political legitimacy and moral ascendancy in governance.

Again, to pose the inescapable question:

What is the political and moral right of the prevailing “government” to rule the rakyat?

The fear of the powers that be that that the next G. E. will put an end to their rule has led them to concoct the gravest and the most ludicrous political conspiracy ever made in the entire history of Malaysia. Their paranoia has also led them to perpetually persecute and habitually harass Anwar and his family.

They’ve systematically, since day one, portrayed the de facto Opposition leader as a sodomist, a gay, an immoral creature, a curse and a disgrace to the Malay race and a threat to the unity and diversity of Malaysian society.

They’ve tried to brainwashed repeatedly and in such notorious manner the entire country about all of these baseless charges and ridiculous accusation against Anwar by using all the resources of the Federal government, that is from the media (both print and online), the various television networks and other nefarious means available.

Yet, despite all of these dead rat shits and tons of mud thrown against Anwar, history has shown that the Malaysian people, does not believe the “government’s” evil lies, propaganda and slanders.

The following are the undeniable proof that the people believes in Anwar and subscribes to his reform agenda/struggle:

1. In 1998, for the first time in history, the Malaysian people went out of the streets, occupy Kuala Lumpur to show their solidarity to the sacked deputy prime minister.

2. While in jail, Anwar’s Reformasi Movement continues to grow and gather strength.

3. The volume of the people who greeted him when he was released from prison in 2004.

4. In 2007, he led the massive mammoth Bersih rally in the Malaysian capital.

5. March 8, 2008, as already noted, he inspired the political tsunami that threatened the status quo.

6. In 2009, he won a landslide victory in the Permatang Pauh by-election.

7. 2012, he led the Pakatan Rakyat in garnering the greatest popular votes for the Opposition Coalition.

Question:

Why after all of these feats, triumph and victories by Anwar and his allies with the support and solid solidarity from the Malaysian people, why the hell he is in jail?

Answer:

Because the powers that be in Malaysia, that is UMNO and BN and the rest of their impertinent so-called component parties are all afraid of Anwar and his vision for the Malaysia.

A Call to the Malaysian People

You want to change the system, you want a better life and a good society for your family and children, then I say to all of you; there is no more recourse available for all of you but the path of the Struggle.

In a word: to the streets! It is only in occupying Kuala Kumpur that you shall conquer Putra Jaya.

Onward to the Struggle!!!

ALL POWERS TO THE PEOPLE!!!

REFORMASI!!

HIDUP RAKYAT!!!



Jose Mario Dolor De Vega
Philosophy and Social Science lecturer
Unibersidad de Manila





An impertinent and ridiculous position paper of the so-called “sol-gen” of the Republic of the Philippines: A counter-position Part I

$
0
0
I am compelled once again to write forced by the prevailing ludicrous circumstances concerning the supra stupid “case” filed by a bunch of fanatical freaks whose name is unconstitutional against the so-called “Terror de Manila” which they dubbed as the so-called “national photobomber” of the land.

I have already written a great deal with regard to this matter, but what is “special” and necessary for this occasion is the issuance of the “official” position paper of the so-called sol-gen of the republic.

I am also forced to hold the bloody pen once again to tell to the whole Filipino people and the rest of the world that on this specific case, the solicitor-general has committed not only mistakes, but blunders of the highest order.

For the benefit of our people, please allow me to dissect some of the “notable” provisions of the “official” position paper as released by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

On the issue of the Procedural aspect of the “case”, item number one, on the question of the legal standing of the petitioner to sue, the sol-gen states and I quote:
“Section 7 of R. A. 7356 imposes a duty on citizens to preserve and conserve Filipino historical and cultural heritage and resources. This is sufficient to confer legal standing on petitioner to seek adjudication on whether the construction of Torre de Manila impairs the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument in Luneta.”

Comment:

Assuming arguendo that the petitioner whose name is in violation of the constitution (Art. 6, Sec. 31) has the legal standing to sue, do they have the moral right to pursue this matter?

I heavily doubt that the petitioner have the legal standing to sue. Besides the moral aspect of my contention, the sol-gen had in my view impliedly admitted in the negative that:

“In any event, this case involves questions of transcendental public importance which necessitates the relaxation of the rule on standing.”

Hehehehe!

Questions:

What are those questions of transcendental public importance that involves in this case?

Assuming for the sake of the argument, that perhaps there is a slight or a minor so-called transcendental public importance involve in this case; does it mean and does it necessarily follows that it will lead to the relaxation of the rule on standing?

I do not think so!

To the question of whether or not the construction of Torre de Manila impairs the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument in Luneta demands a determination of facts and requires a full-blown trial, hence, hence, why the hell those idiots went straight to the Highest Court of the land wherein it is a well-entrenched rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts?

Number 2:

Whether petitioner is the real-party-interest

Again, let us assume that the so-called petitioner have the legal standing to sue and correspondingly are the real-party-interest in this case, my question is: why the sol-gen stated that, “In any event, this Honorable Court may resolve the case on the merits.”

Comment:

I wonder, how come the sol-gen did not even gave us the definition or meaning of a real-party-interest as defined by law?

According to Section 2 of Rule 3 (Parties to Civil Actions) of the Revised Rules of Court, “A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.”

Questions:

What benefit shall the petitioner received or have if ever the ruling would be favorable to them?

Corollary to that, I am wondering what is the injury that the petitioner shall endured or have or received if ever the ruling would be adverse to them?

Lastly, I am also wondering why it is that the sol-gen used the word “may” instead of must or shall?

Is he aware that the Supreme Court may dismiss or remand this case to the appropriate court?

Number 3:

The sol-gen stated and I quote that:

“Petitioner’s direct recourse before the Honorable Court is justifiable as an exceptional circumstance that warrants immediate action from this Honorable Court.”

Question:

May we know “sir”, what the hell is that “exceptional circumstance that you are alluding or referring to?

Then, uncharacteristically the sol-gen defended the disrespectful act done by the petitioner in by-passing the lower court by directly going straight to the Supreme Court by invoking its original jurisdiction yet --- to the prejudice of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies.

This, the sol-gen have done by listing and naming some exception to the said rule, such as:

The issues involved are of transcendental public importance

When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy

When demanded by the broader interest of justice

Questions:

As I’ve already noted and by way of necessary reiteration: What are those alleged questions of transcendental public importance that involves in this case?

What is public welfare? Who dictates it?

What is the official public policy of the government with regard to this issue? What or which relevant government agency or instrumentality or office has the legal and the moral right to advance said policy?

What does in our laws and jurisprudence means by the broader interest of justice?

Who has the right to invoke it?

Who has the power to interpret and implement it?

On “Substance”

Now, let us dwell on the Substantive part of the “case”, item number one, the sol-gen contends that:

“The Constitutional mandate to conserve, promote, and popularize the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources, includes, in the case of the Rizal Monument, the preservation of its sightlines and setting.”

Question:

I wonder, what the hell does “sightlines and setting” means?

Are those words or concepts written in the Constitution?

When the sol-gen stated that: “the only way to “conserve” the Rizal Monument is by removing the impairment to its sightline: the presence of Torre de Manila”, is he referring to those buildings and structures behind the monument?

I would like to ask a categorical question to that guy: “sir”, if sightline means the elimination and/or destruction of all those buildings and structures and “photobombs” behind the monument of Rizal, then what the fuck is your “view” with regard to all those buildings and structures and “photobombs” that can be seen from the left side and so as from the right side of the bloody monument?

The so-called Sight line “Rule” and the so-called “Doctrine” of the setting: illegal, impertinent and super stupid petition of the “Knights” of Rizal and the Question of the Soul of the Nation

$
0
0
I refer to “SC Justice Carpio: No law vs Torre de Manila construction”, posted on August 12th by the Inquirer.Net with regard to the continuing Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court concerning the petition filed by the so-called “Knights” of Rizal calling and demanding for the demotion of Torre de Manila.

During the course of the proceeding, Justice Antonio Carpio categorically quipped to the lawyer of the respondent, Victor Lazatin:

“If there is no law prohibiting [it], what is stopping you?”

To quote from the said news report:

“Associate Justice Antonio Carpio on Tuesday pointed out the lack of a law barring the construction of a high rise behind the Rizal Monument in Manila as he questioned Victor Lazatin, counsel for DM Consunji Inc. (DMCI), at the continuation of oral arguments on the petition seeking the demolition of the Torre de Manila.

“The Knights of Rizal wants the 49-story condominium building demolished, saying it destroys the view of the Rizal Monument in Manila.

“During the third round of oral arguments, Carpio cited the lack of a specific law protecting the sight line—particularly “the background sight line”—of a monument and constricting the exercise of one’s private property rights.”

To quote from the good Justice:

“Under the Constitution, what is not prohibited by law is allowed. To deprive someone of property, there must be due process…”

“Since there is no implementing law to protect the background sight line, we go back to the general principle that what is not prohibited by law is allowed. Otherwise, there would be a violation of the due process clause that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law…”

Commentaries:

I overwhelmingly concur with the line of questioning and the overall contention of Justice Carpio. Indeed, to deprive someone of property without the due process of law is not only illegal, but undeniably unconstitutional! Because under the Constitution, what is allowed by law is not forbidden or prohibited!

Indeed, “since there is no implementing law” that protect the so-called “background sight line”, hence base on common sense and the elementary rules of the law, “we have to go back to the general principle that what is not prohibited by law is allowed”.

Therefore, “that is the core value of our society today. It prevails (over) all other values. Without that core value, all other core values cannot survive.”

To disregard or to go against this super basic rule will lead to the violation of what the good Justice termed as the “core value” of our democratic society and the said violation of the said core value will shaken and blacken the very “foundation” of our whole body politic.

Further and most importantly, to allow that judicial fiasco to happen will incontestably result not only to the impairment, but ultimately to the destruction, bit by bit of our civil liberties, which is the very heart and bedrock of our republican and democratic form of government.

Again to quote Justice Carpio in his interpellation:

“In our democratic society and our legal system, the core foundation of everything we do is what is not prohibited is allowed. Correct? Because otherwise, we will be in a dictatorship. If there is no law prohibiting it and the President prohibits it, he becomes a dictator. Correct?”

Hence, this “issue” of the Torre de Manila is not only about the so-called protection of the sight line and the background and the setting of the monument of Dr. Jose Rizal. For in truth and in fact, common sense, logic, the law, culture, identity, the question of the soul of the nation and a lot more are also involved in this “case”!

On the question of the common sense

Common sense (though it is not common to some) will tell us that because of our growing population and the rapid development of our urban centers notably the capital, there is no way wherein we could stop development from happening.

On the question of logic

Logic will dictate to a reasonable person that one’s we look or state at the monument of a hero --- our focus and undivided attention should be centered on the said hero (his legacy/ideals/beliefs/principles and sacrifices for the country) and not to his background.

Why the hell are we bothered by some unnecessary and unimportant “sightings” and “vistas” and “angles” and “viewpoints?

Is it necessary and important for us to look at the left and the right of the monument of the hero?

When we go to the monument of the said hero, what is our objective: to look at the monument or to the image of the hero?

On the question of the law

It is my firm belief that Justice Carpio has already killed and junked the super stupid, undeniably impertinent and utterly ridiculous “petition” of the so-called “Knights” of Rizal. Why? It is baseless and completely devoid of logic.

There is no law wherein that so-called KOR can cite to support their fantastic contention.

Their so-called Sight line “Rule” and the so-called “Doctrine” of the setting are illegal, impertinent, stupid and myopic.

They are not even written in the fundamental law of the land. It is my firm and vehement contention that they are unconstitutional!

On the question of culture, identity and the soul of the nation

I certainly believe without the slightest iota of doubt that Justice Leonen has already answered these questions during the second round of the Oral Arguments.

Our culture and identity as a people will not only be determined by a single statue, but what we are doing good and noble as citizens of this country. It is demagogic and fanatical to state that the soul of the nation is the Rizal monument.

For in truth and in fact, the soul of the nation can be found in the hearts and minds and souls of each and every Filipino who believes in their legacy as a people and is proud of their glorious albeit bloody past and continuing struggle to further forged and enhanced both their identity and culture appropriate for the new millennium.

The soul of the nation can be found and be located in all of us as Filipinos indeed, not only in words but indeed in fact in deeds and that we do all that we can to make this nation, this country a beautiful place to live in for the benefit of our future generation.

The soul of the nation can be found in our distinctive culture, in all that is good and noble in us. It can be seen perfectly in our Bayanihan, in our Balikatan, in our concept of Social Solidarity not only in our community but in our society and in the country as a whole.


Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

Director
Andres Bonifacio Studies and the Katipunan Movement

University College
Unibersidad de Manila

The Hypocrisy of a bloody bastard bias world: Their West-Terrorism and the Terrorism of the Terrorists I

$
0
0
Was reflective the whole day in light of the Paris, and Beirut, events. How can one now talk of public reason and reasonableness, of being able to put oneself in the place of the Other, when these events happen? And so many other similar occurrences. We are back to each side claiming righteousness and validity, and the Other is negated and annihilated. We claim our own versions of what we take to be true, and become impervious to how it is possible to have other perspectives. These perspectives can dialogue and engage each other. Regardless of our languages, and paradigms, commensurability and translatability can be actively pursued. The meaningfulness of our perspectives can be appreciated by other minds. --- Zosimo Lee

I condemn on behalf of Humanity to the highest possible degree the utterly inhumane, barbaric and vicious terroristic attack made by those bloody bastard mass murderers in Paris that led to the gruesome deaths of 100 plus innocent souls!

I join the people of Paris and all the families of those who died in this absolutely senseless tragedy! I am with them especially on these trying moments of grief and immeasurable loss!

This tragedy is truly a product of madness, of fanaticism, of hate and bigotry!

Yet, having said that, I am wondering why it is that the sole attention of the world is only focusing on the bloody carnage that happened on the French capital?

Two days before the Paris attack, Beirut was bombed wherein 40 plus individuals were killed!

The question is? Why it is that the world’s media did not even reported or highlighted this horrible and despicable act of barbarism that happened in Lebanon?

I am inclined to ask: is the life of a Parisian more valuable than that of a life of a Lebanese?

It is my firm view that the soul and humanity of those who died in Paris is the same as the very soul and humanity of those people dying every day in Palestine, in Syria and the like!

Every day, scores of people are dying because of on-going military terrorism in Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and in Mindanao (I am referring specifically to the issue of the Lumads who are being killed in score by paramilitary forces in connivance with the so-called Armed Forces of the Philippines) yet how come when that thing happened in Paris --- immediately the world was thrown into a frenzy, and suddenly the world has become one or acted allegedly as such?

Why it is that when a tragedy struck in the West, it seems that the world has cease working, stop moving, promptly look, listen attentively and quickly sympathize --- yet the same cannot be said if the same happened in some “remote” and “unknown part” of this planet?

What the hell is the point with regard to this standstill?

I cannot erase from my mind, the helpless and heartbreaking image of Aylan Kurdi, the Syrian toddler and refugee who drown because his family left their home in order to escape the chaos and the trouble on-going to their land. Yet, what happened to them?

Did the world stand as one for him and his family? Did the world lift a finger for the suffering of his people?

Is it because they do not come from the west?

Is it because they are not white people?

They did not invite the war into their land! Those bastard imperialist countries from the fucking west are the one who brought that misery, famine, desperation, chaos and countless deaths to their nation.

Did the world or their so-called international media truly give a genuine report about the current situation in Syria?

Who are the ones financing, training and supporting those bloody bastard mass murderers, terrorists and mercenaries in Syria? In Iraq and elsewhere?

Who are those responsible? Who are those who created one of the largest problems with regard to the refugee of Syria?

After the bloody and shocking event in Paris, immediately a “movement” has begun in Face Book, a lot has turned their profile picture using the French foreground. That they do without even knowing the bloody history of the country they are allegedly supporting.

To quote the categorical and direct words of Thomas van Beersum:

“If you want to show your resistance against terrorism it's probably not the best idea to change your profile pic to the French flag, the national flag of one of the biggest colonizers and imperialists of the planet. The terrorist French state, a prison house of oppressed nationalities, has created (and is still creating) many catastrophes in the world similar to the one from last night. For so many people and countries in the world, waving the French flag is like waving the Nazi flag.

“More than a million people died in France's 7 year war with Algeria, many impoverished African countries up to this day are still forced to pay colonial tax to its "former" colonizer, France was also one of the main instigators behind the recent wars on the people of Libya and Syria. These are just a few out of many examples directly linked to the French empire.

“Let's stand with all the victims (with the people killed both in France and by France, but also with the people becoming victim to the ongoing and upcoming racist backlash), and in no way we should associate ourselves with the murderous, genocidal French regime. Imperialism is also terrorism.”

So there you are: Imperialism is also terrorism!

To all those creatures who like brainless herds immediately put the French color to their Face Book profile pictures:

I respect your act of solidarity to the French people; however I am heavily wondering why you did not do the same thing to the Lebanese people wherein they suffered an earlier terrorist attack? Said attack led to the deaths of more than forty souls!

How come no one among you had put up the Lebanese flag in solidarity to all those victims that died in Beirut?

Perhaps, you will say: but that news was not reported by the international media.

Fine, my next point is: how come you are not putting up the flags of Palestine, of Iraq, of Syria, of Yemen, of Libya and other war-torn countries attacked and pitilessly shattered by Western imperialist countries?

Are you telling us that you do not know about all of these? Or, it is the case that you don’t give a damn about these people?

Common, bloody bastard liars, hypocrites and opportunists of the worst kind, speak the truth and shame the devil!

I condemn the hypocrisy of this bloody bastard bias and perverted world. Shame to this “selective” Humanity and quest for “justice”!

In the words of Hamza Ali Abbasi:

“And here we go, French flag being projected all over the world and face book makes a French flag DP filter. I wonder why FB never created a Palestinian flag filter while hundreds die each month? Or may be a Syrian, Iraqi or Afghan flag? A Pakistani flag after 16th Dec. APS attack? Its exactly this “Selective” Humanity and Imperialistic mindset which lead to hatred towards the west. I condemn Paris attack but I also condemn the hypocrisy of western imperial mindset. #MarkZuckerburg”

If it is true that you are all concern with the problems of the world and the burden of Humanity, then why not hoist or place to your wall the Flag of Solidarity and the Banner of Universal Humanism?

Please stop lying to yourselves and end this shame, idiocy and mockery!

The Hypocrisy of a bloody bastard bias world: Their West-Terrorism and the Terrorism of the Terrorists II

$
0
0
As Karuna Parikh wrote in her moving and utterly succinct poem:

“It is not Paris we should pray for.

It is the world. It is a world in which Beirut, reeling from bombings two days ago before Paris,
is not covered in the press.

A world in which a bomb goes off at a funeral in Baghdad
and not one person’s status update say “Baghdad”,
because not one white people died in that fire.

Pray for the world
that blames a refugee crisis for a terrorist attack.

That does not pause to differentiate between the attacker and the person running from the very same thing you are.

Pray for a world
where people walking across countries for months,
their only belongings upon their backs,
are told they have no place to go.

Say a prayer for Paris by all means,
but pray more,
for the world that does not have a prayer
for those who no longer
have a home to defend.

For a world that is falling apart in all corners,
and not simply in the towers and cafes we find so familiar.”

THIS IS A QUESTION OF BOTH HUMANITY AND CONSISTENCY! CRY FOR PARIS, YES, DO IT, BUT ALSO CRY AND BE WITH ONE --- WITH ALL THE POOR PEOPLE OF THE WORLD!

A Call for Humanity

Our duty is to fight all forms, types and kinds of terrorism whether they are from the West or the East, from the Left, the Center or the Right, and whether they are “governments” or bunch of some bloody bastard maniacs and whackos!!!!

We must all stand up as One, for in truth and in fact, We are One!!!


#WEAREONE!!!

#FORHUMANITY!!!

Viewing all 111 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images