"The ambassador criticised claims that Iran had a poor record in human rights and attributed it to "the arrogance of the West", which used the argument to harm the image of the country."

LOL! So its the Wests fault for pointing out the evils of sharia punishment carried out in Iran.
Its everybody elses fault people. Unbelievable!

Posted by: SonofIsaac at February 9, 2008 1:51 PM

The trend in Iran is for more of the same. Golly, those Iranians must have the most Islamic human rights of any society on earth--I suppose that makes them a model for mankind, sorta.

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 2:17 PM

"The arrogance of the West" indeed. There are no more arrogant people than muslims.

So it's okay to amputate and execute in private, just don't do it where it can be recorded. Bad for Iran's image, you know.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at February 9, 2008 2:29 PM

Just another contrast for those who think that Judaism Islam and Christianity are all the same, the Second Covenants way of dealing with thieves, is (paraphrased) let him who stole steal no more, but work with his hands so that he may have to give to those in need.

The act of stealing is a violation of the First Covenants ten commands, which do not discriminate based on religion, in other words stealing is stealing wether one steals from a good person or a rotten no good atheist.

Islam seems to institutionalize theft if the theft is from those who Islam does not like, if a mahometan steals from another mahometan then they chop off the hand, which would make it much harder for the person to live, much less repent and have to give to others.

It is a waste especially if the sentence is carried out with no regard to age or circumstances, I would guess that even Iran or Saudi do not chop off the hands of ten year olds who pocket a piece of candy at the store, In practice they probably do not chop off the hands of 50 year olds who take bribes, the punishment is probably more reserved for those who are powerless or habitual thieves.

Posted by: stickman at February 9, 2008 3:24 PM

Human anatomy according to Mohammed - I seems that each hand has a little brain of its own.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 4:37 PM

"In other words, the field of human rights should take into account the fact that human rights can be kind of inconvenient..."

To put it in saltier, more incisive words:

"In other words, the field of human rights should take into account the fact that the West is not superior, but that the mores and laws of any "culture" are as good or even better than those of the West."

These "other words" would, of course, for the Muslim not reflect an equivalencist relativism, but would in fact mask a supremacism that is not simply a counter-supremacism to a putative Western supremacism, but is inferior to the West precisely because the West's superiority -- paradoxically and more so than any other culture throughout history to the present -- nourishes and protects tolerance and diversity as much as possible.

(Indeed, the West's virtue of nourishing and protecting tolerance and diversity as much as possible has led it over the course of the past century to go overboard, bending over backwards in order to "respect" even a culture that denigrates and menaces it.)

Posted by: cantor at February 9, 2008 5:10 PM

"Iran's ambassador to Spain has compared chopping off the hands of thieves to a "surgeon amputating a limb to prevent the spread of gangrene".

Well, let's look into that, shall we?

When a surgeon removes a gangrenous limb, it is necessary for the life of the patient.

When Islamic law calls for the removal of a limb, the limb is almost never unhealthy, or a threat to the survival of the "patient".

When a surgeon removes a gangrenous limb, the operation is usually performed in a sterile environment (unless it is an emergency, and no such sterile environment is available).

When Islamic law removes a limb, sterile conditions are not required. Besides, it's hard to pack a mob of jeering, laughing, photographing, Allahu-Akbar-shouting observers into an operating room.

When a surgeon removes a gangrenous limb, the patient is anaesthetized, and feels no pain during the surgery. (Again, unless anaesthetic is unavailable, under emergency conditions.)

When Islamic law removes a limb, the "patient" is wide awake, terrified, screaming, and in terrible pain.

When a surgeon removes a gangrenous limb, proper tools are used for the job, and there is a procedure which is followed, to promote healing and limit the likelihood of future infection.

When Islamic law removes a limb, any axe, sword, saw, or knife will do, if it's sharp enough. "Aftercare" is up to the "patient".

Oh, yeah--it's definitely the same thing.

"More than 300 people were condemned to death last year, an increase of more than 70 per cent on 2006."

Is that official condemnations, or does this figure take into account those people executed by their neighbors and families "for the good of Islam"?

"Mr Salehi said during a speech in Madrid that the highest court in Iran had decided to limit public executions to prevent images of hangings and stonings in public squares being broadcast around the world and used as propaganda against the regime."

Too late, Mr. Salehi. We've already seen how you do it. We've already read about why you do it, and we already know whom you do it to. Iran's "image" is toast, sir, due not to "propaganda", but to graphic, living-color samples of your penal system at work.

Posted by: Abscedere at February 9, 2008 5:52 PM

Rowan Williams is listening, and nodding sagely.

Expect a tremendously learned, nuanced, and thinkful endorsement of this barbarism, any day now.

Posted by: Dane at February 9, 2008 5:52 PM

Come now, Marisol. Didn't you support Hugh's "100 things Europe can do" piece? Much, if not all, of what he suggested would obviously be considered at odds with human rights. Human rights might be "inconvenient" for the counter-jihad too?

I'm looking forward to the piece he said he'd write in response. If he hasn't forgotten, that is. Though I hope he'll write it from a European perspective rather than american.

Posted by: DanishDynamite at February 9, 2008 7:16 PM

Danish Dynamite--

I simply don't see how one would equate halting Muslim immigration and other things on Hugh's list with the cruel and unusual punishments of Sharia law. There is simply no comparison of one's supposed "right" to do what one pleases in a country in which one is not a citizen, and matters truly at odds with human rights like amputation and stoning.

And, I may have missed something, but I don't recall your producing a definitive example of something on that list that disproportionately limits life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness for those whose "pursuit of happiness" would involve subjugating us all under Islamic law.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 9, 2008 7:38 PM

Funny how the only place that Moslems have human rights is the West.

Posted by: ebonystone at February 9, 2008 7:39 PM

Islamo-logic at work:

* Thieves have a right to have their hands amputated for theft

* Women have a right to be stoned for adultery

* 14 year old females have a right to be hanged for answering back at a moronic judge

* 14 year old boy has right to die after receiving 85 lashes for breaking his Ramadan fast

Muslims have a 'right' - a 'human right'- remember: only Muslims are human,- to infiltrate, subvert, convert & conquer the lands of gullible infidels who somehow (why?) like the DanishDynamite poster above asserts, have to concede those rights.

The mind boggles!

Use your dynamite wisely, Dane!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 10, 2008 5:39 AM

Marisol

I'm NOT equating Hugh's suggestions with the "cruel and unusual punishments of Sharia law". There's no doubt that there's a huge difference. That said, it won't change the fact that (many/most of) Hugh's suggestions would be considered at odds with human rights.

Wether or not I've produced a "definitive example of something on that list that disproportionately limits life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness for those whose "pursuit of happiness" would involve subjugating us all under Islamic law" is probably a matter of interpretation/understanding/oppinion. But then, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is hardly the extent of human rights or human rights law. I also don't believe that you believe that all(or most) muslims want to subjugate us under islamic law. But maybe you do?

I've been reading a bit since Hugh's post, and I've come across something called "Bill of human rights": "The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols". (Source: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs2.htm)
As I wrote in my posts on Hughs article, I think most/all his suggestions would be at odds with some parts of the UDHR. The UDHR isn't the only thing defining human rights though. If we look at the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" there is, again, the non-discrimination article, which most/all his suggestions would most likely be a violation of. There's also a most interesting article on deportation of non-citizens. In my oppinion, Hughs suggestion to deport all muslim non-citizens would be at odds with article 13:

"Article 13
An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority."

Maybe I am simply being naive, but I can't see how his suggestions can not be perceived as at odds with the non-discrimination articles, which make non-discrimination part of all other articles, and thus makes his suggestions at odds with other articles of the covenants. Maybe someone can explain it to me?

Posted by: DanishDynamite at February 10, 2008 5:58 AM

sheik yer'mami

I do NOT assert that infidels "have to concede those rights". I am well aware that the counter-jihad has to result in dirty hands. I, however, am not one of the people who claims to want to keep their hands clean, like Mr. Spencer, Mr. Johnson, Mrs.(?) Marisol and loads of others(Remember the Vlaams Belang controversy - debate, postings etc.).

My single purpose is to show that getting our hands dirty is unavoidable, and that people who claim to want to keep their hands clean are nothing more than hypocrites who live on the single fact that they have stated no tangible goals or strategy. That's why I jumped on Hughs article, and why I keep pushing it.

Posted by: DanishDynamite at February 10, 2008 6:21 AM

Shari'a, the latest human friendly legal system.

Will give zest to any man's life; better then Viagra, and lasts longer.

Specially good for women and those who are considering leaving Islam. Will instantly resolve doubts and conflicts of loyalty.

Shari'a Lite is available to all, totally FREE.

Download now.
/http://www.shariaLite.com/

Shari'a, the full version, will cost you an arm and a leg.

Contact your nearest mosque or imam to see of there are any offers.

Posted by: DP111 at February 10, 2008 7:55 AM

DanishDynamite

The loophole is here

except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require

In any case, if the authorities deem there is a national emergency, they can scrap any human rights legislation for individuals or a group, for the duration of the emergency.

This is recognised in international and EU law. And even if it weren’t, nations will do it anyhow, for dire emergencies require draconian responses.

Posted by: DP111 at February 10, 2008 8:05 AM

Danish Dynamite--

Again, I think you're equating things that don't really warrant that treatment. And in one comment above, you invoke the VB controversy. That controversy was rooted in the need to ascertain any connection of European nationalist parties with racial supremacism and related beliefs, which go against our belief in the equal dignity of every person.

So, "getting one's hands dirty," as you call it, in one way, like curtailing immigration for national security purposes, doesn't equate with "getting one's hands dirty" in all conceivable ways.

And the fact that one of us may be accused of being on the wrong side of the human rights issue (however spuriously) doesn't lump us in with everyone who is accused of the same, regardless of who is leveling the accusation.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 10, 2008 1:10 PM

Marisol

I brought up the VB controversy simply because of what was said during the episode, not the reaons behind it. Many people more or less put themselves up as champions of human rights. Many/most of these people would have nothing against Hugh's proposals. Atleast, they haven't started beating the wardrums yet, and I find that quite interesting.
Pray tell, how do you reconcile your "belief in the equal dignity of every person" with support for discrimination based on religion? Wether a muslim is moderate or secular, you are supporting the idea that he/she should be deported from Europe and/or denied entry, simply because of his/her religion.

I never said that getting our hands dirty meant we have to shove them into every kind of muck. However, if we don't realize our hands will have to get dirty, we can't even debate how dirty we should allow them to become, or at what point(the longer we wait, the dirtier they'll have to become, no?). A simple realization that we can't be squeaky clean if we're to win, is all I'm seeking, really. Or, well, atleast us Europeans. (Some) Americans can continue polishing their halos to their hearts content.

Posted by: DanishDynamite at February 10, 2008 4:08 PM

Pray tell, how do you reconcile your "belief in the equal dignity of every person" with support for discrimination based on religion?

It's not discrimination based on religion for the sake of discrimination. As a member of a civil society, I don't mind if someone thinks "Clapton is God" as long as he's not trying to force it on me. And while I'm free and quite happy to share my beliefs, I won't force mine on him, either.

Indeed, by the same token, what drives the items on Hugh's list is the dimension of Islam as a political, imperialistic ideology, and its practicioners' unwillingness, by and large, to definitively separate political and military goals from the sort of private, freely chosen beliefs and activities that comprise the Western understanding of "religion."

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 10, 2008 4:19 PM

These punishments are straight out of the Qur'an.............

Islam needs to change, but it cannot..............

No one worships Zeus, Apollo, Hera or Aphrodite. Perhaps Allah will suffer the same fate.

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 11, 2008 8:59 AM

I've got it--it's analogous to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face--No, no, that won't work-- Oh, I know-- Here's one: it's like cutting off the camel's nose to keep the rest of the camel OUT OF THE TENT-- YESss--that's the ticket! This one's for you, Bosch. (No offense, Marisol.)

Posted by: John C at February 11, 2008 10:31 AM