Egypt has continued its crackdown on social and religious minorities under Sharia law with the arrested of seven men for debauchery, “incitement to debauchery” and “publishing indecent images” after they were shown taking part in a “gay marriage” video on social media networks. The prosecutor declared that the video was “humiliating, regrettable and would anger God.”
Homosexuality remains a crime in Egypt and police have now identified nine of the 16 participants shown in the film.
Prosecutors also ordered “medical tests” of the men Just in April, four men were sent to jail for eight years for homosexuality. Raids targeting homosexuals have been increasing in Egypt.
The video shows the celebration on a Nile riverboat in April but posted only posted in August.
Once again, there remains a disconnect between U.S. foreign aid that goes to country’s have jail people for being gay, punish religious minorities, or deny women and girls fundamental rights. These taxes are paid by millions of people who would be subject to arrest in these countries due solely to their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or insistence on equal rights.
Source: IB Times
Here again, NEUTRALITY is apropos.
American jurisprudence and the Constitution have been abducted by radical zealots.
Sexuality initiates the process of procreation and perpetuation.
Homosexuality results in extinction.
“Sexual orientation” is a “red herring.”
The word “orientation,” as used by proponents, is not a form of sexuality, it is newspeak and “spin.” Homosexuality is a defect which, when indulged, is a perversion of nature.
Homosexuality is not malicious.
If homosexuality is, therefore, neither good and nor bad, neutrality is apropos.
Homosexuality must be addressed as a moral issue, not one of legality.
The Commandments were limited to Ten.
Marriage is the legal bond created to protect and preserve the family bonds between spouses and between parents and children to assure perpetuation of the tribe and, by extension, the species.
Any and all several individuals may enter legal contracts.
So is it better to just ignore the plight of these cultural minorities and do nothing whatever while these governments indefinitely oppress their own people just because they are Muslim countries? If the worlds sits on its hands you then consign these people to more oppression.
Darren – it is not our job to tell other countries how to run their countries and it is not their job to tell us how to run ours.
Of course oil played a part in the Iraq war. Remember the ” Blood for Oil” meme? Getting back to realistically implanting a democratic style of governance in these Islamic countries, it ain’t gonna happen. The state religion, Islam and the fundamentalists will not allow it to happen and again I will say we cannot afford to keep our troops in all of these Islamic countries ad infinitum. We made a huge mistake deposing dictators in Islamic countries. My opinion is that only a dictator can keep his crazy Islamic fundamentalist from running amok. They created their own monster and now we are expected to have some influence on their deeply rooted social structure and fundamentalism? Nope, no going to happen. BUT as I’ve said, if they pose a threat to us here in the US, they can and should expect the full force of drones, jets and whatever it takes.
You seem to have a view that allows only two states – we are at war with them or we isolate ourselves from them. Our troops occupy those countries or a dictator keeps their populations in check and if anybody gets out of line we will just bomb them. This kind of though is the opposite side of the neocon coin .
You seem to forget that before there was a revival of fundamental radicals many of these countries had vibrant, western style populations that struggled to attend our universities and worked for and enjoyed much of modern culture.
I doubt we can impose much at all. But if we turn away and fail to use the influence we have it will be a worse decision, a greater historic failure than even the debacle of war perpetrated by the Bush administration.
Actually I don’t think we have any choice but to use the forces of modernity – transportation and communication – to contend with there ideas, their standards, their traditions. Over 50 years we developed many ways maintain a dialog with populations different from our own – scholarships, student exchanges, cultural exchanges. Those models may not work now. But there must be some way to keep the conversation going.
Changing minds is about the hardest work of all. This will not be resolved in a few years or a few decades.
To throw up our hands and turn away would be the worst choice we could possibly make.
Another thing, Europeans were not fundamentalist Muslims. Japanese were not fundamentalist Muslims. The chances that they could embrace democracy was much more realistic post WW2.
Also, I think we should be honest about what we are engaging in. Declare war, go in front of Congress and make them do their damn jobs. Fund the war with a war tax, and as I said and bring back the draft.
BFM, I see nation building as setting up a scenario of political unrest and insurrection in the country by the CIA and then going on to invade the country for the purpose of replacing the government with one fashioned after our own. I don’t know if this is the progressive or non progressive definition of nation building. It’s mine, right or wrong. As for dealing with aggressive countries that are a threat to us (a real threat, based on accurate intelligence) or has actually attacked us, we would be correct to retaliate. I’m hardly an isolationist and have been lambasted for even suggesting we continue to need a standing army. I’m not even sure the drone strikes are wrong, but I do understand that killing American ciizens overseas without due process has huge problems. If they are enemy combatants then they have forfeited their citizenship, IMO. As for the President’s actions in Iraq to rein in ISIS, or better yet destroy them, he is correct. He was also correct to leave Iraq when he did, because of the collapse of SOFA. I hope that the SOFA is cleared up for this new ‘war’, I would be hard for Americans to hear that an American troop is sitting in an Iraqi jail for violating Iraqi laws. Lastly if we must have opened ended wars we need a war tax and we need to bring back a draft, because our volunteer army has already experienced exhaustion to troops with repeat deployments, resulting in PTSD and the highest rate of suicide ever in the military and veterans. Also everyone should have some ‘skin’ in the game, why just have an army made of enlisted from poor and middle class. Shouldn’t everyone’s son or daughter be up for grabs, so to speak?
I stand corrected. You are not an isolationist. But I think your words confirm my opinion that you see the future through a prism of the past where ‘nation building’ is a euphemism for undeclared war.
However, I agree that democracy requires we openly budget our actions, especially foreign military interventions. And yes, if it is important enough to go to war then every citizen should make a contribution – including facing the possibility of being called to military service.
If every voter knew the cost of war and every citizen faced to possibility of being called then we might have better decisions about going to war.
BTW, I don’t think it was any accident that the former administration waged war off the books and used military forces too small to secure the country after main battle units were defeated. A combination if ignorance and arrogance combined to fuel their belief we could just strip off the elite and put our guys in power and we would soon have passive oil cow to fuel our economy and line the pockets of their cronies. Am I too harsh? I don’t think so.
@wrxdave
You can start with this, from the CDC:
Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in gay and bisexual men. Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV. For sexually active gay and bisexual men, the most effective ways to prevent transmitting or becoming infected with HIV are to be on antiretroviral medications (to either treat or prevent infection) and to correctly use a condom every time for anal or vaginal sex. Gay men are at increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, and CDC recommends that all sexually active gay and bisexual be tested at least annually for these infections and obtain treatment, if necessary.
Having more sex partners compared to other men means gay and bisexual men have more opportunities to have sex with someone who can transmit HIV or another STD. Similarly, among gay men, those who have more partners are more likely to acquire HIV.
The large percentage of gay and bisexual men living with HIV means that, as a group, gay and bisexual men have an increased chance of being exposed to HIV. Results of HIV testing conducted in 20 cities as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS) indicated that 18% of gay and bisexual men tested in 2011 had HIV and that HIV prevalence increased with increasing age.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html
If you add up some of the numbers there, 11,200+ 10,600+ 6,700 new cases in 2010 = about 28,500 new cases that year alone.
But by all means, let’s obsess about Egypt running in seven gay guys,
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – your numbers don’t add up.
Are these CDC figures by chance? Can you cite your authoritative source here and compare that to the total number of heterosexual cases of HIV infection and what the route of transmission was (I.e. Sexual contact or IV drug use, that sort of thing). Just want to keep the debate on the up and up when you single out a group by sexual orientation and then praise the countries that imprison, torture and kill them indiscriminantly. Especially when you use “HIV transmission via random hookup” as your justification, while the story involves a gay wedding – a celebration of monogamy.
And what kind of sex do you think happens in prison? Yes, even Muslim prisons…
BFM – the largely positive results in Eastern Europe, in my opinion, had very little to do with anything the US did directly in Eastern Europe and everything to do with a populace that having survived WWII then birthed generations into the repressive Soviet dominated communist system and were collectively fed up at a time when the Soviets were weak and disintegrating from within themselves and thus could and would not supress rebellion as the did to the Czechs in ’69.
The newly emerging governments had many European democracies to model themselves after, and many before ’39 had some sort of parliamentary democracy in place.
“The newly emerging governments had many European democracies to model themselves after, and many before ’39 had some sort of parliamentary democracy in place.”
I agree there are strong arguments that US actions had little effect.
However, you should consider that those who could remember democratic institutions from before the war were grand fathers by the time a younger generation stepped up to change their governments.
There were committed communist both from before the war and in the generations after that that were committed to the system.
But we had decades of broadcasts into eastern Europe, cultural exchanges and other attempts to open those societies. It is hard for me to believe those efforts did not play some role in preserving memory of democracy, change some minds and provide motivation for those not well served by those governments to demand more and better.
Well, good for Egypt! They are actually doing the gays a favor. The more pressure they keep on them, the less casual, indiscriminate hookups and the less HIV/AIDS and other nasty diseases among them. By contrast, in our wonderfully tolerant country, the rate of HIV among gay men is 20%, and about 30,000 a year continue to get the bug.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Hitler killed gays and Jews by the trainload and we sent material support to Great Britain, but did not militarily engage until the Japanese bombed us, we declared on Japan, and Germany (Japan’s ally) declares war on us.
Saving the Jews, the Homosexuals, the Gypsys – even the British having fairly little to do with it.
The US traditionally does not really fight or even interfere much in the name of human rights, unless dragged into it by the UN, or some other interest is at stake. The government talks a good game – but really does nothing.
The American people can, however, always vote with their wallets, as they did with South Africa. That can hurt things, but the primary driver in these countries does not seem to be economic success, their regimes are quite willing to force there people to endure economic deprivations to preserve the status quo and achieve their own ends – which is why sanctions have never really worked well there (any more than they have in North Korea).
So, if our government is unwilling to act except to preserve and defend national or corporate interests, if economic pressures that the public can exert will have little chance of success, then it follows if you are an oppressed minority in one if these countries your very best bet is the same as it has been throughout the ages – get the hell out if there! Things are probably going to get much worse before they get better.
“There isn’t any rational westerner that believes for a moment that we can influence Muslim countries into adopting our style of government or society…Nation building has cost the US dearly. We can no longer afford it. ”
I think this can best be characterized as a series of neo-isolationist , pious, progressive platitudes.
Why would anyone suppose that the starting point is ‘adopting our style of government or society’. Isn’t that one possible desirable outcome after a period – probably decades, maybe generations – of outreach?
The USSR may have self destructed. But the largely positive developments in eastern Europe followed nearly 50 years of US work to present not just arguments against the USSR but reasons why our approach was a better solution.
Why would anyone suppose that ‘nation building’ is the only alternative for dealing with totalitarian regimes. And if we examine this persons understanding of ‘nation building’ does it mean anything beyond undeclared war that we have seen in the past two decades.
Only she can answer that question. But I would venture to guess that when she uses the term ‘nation building’ the model she imagines is little more than the undeclared war we have seen in the last decade.
I do not favor the ‘nation building’ of the past decade or so. And I believe that much of what we have spent in the past decade or so has been a terrible waste. But as a test of the progressive platitudes presented ‘we can’t afford it’ – we ought to ask why can’t we afford that level of expenditure? I would argue that we can afford that level of expenditure with hardly any ill effects on our economy. Our economy now has some real problems. But would our economic situation be much different with out ‘nation building’ – actually no.
‘Nation building’ has diverted our resources from useful projects. Whether we use the money to build bridges or flush it down the toilet – 3 trillion dollars over, say, 15 years is an expense this country can afford. How we spend for foreign assistance, what we buy with our money, is vitally import. However, ‘We can’t afford it’ is just one more pious, progressive platitude that makes no sense when we actually examine the meaning of the words.
There is far more to international relations than undeclared war and ‘nation building’ or turning away in frustration when we cannot realize our goals immediately. International relations and foreign policy is not timed by the next news cycle.
Our best interests require involvement and effort that will likely extend for generations. Our best interests require more than throwing up our hands and exclaiming we can’t do anything – which seems to be the lesson drawn by some progressive elements.
I do think one of the major problems we seem to have here is that some here would like all countries to be like ours. Their country, their laws.
I agree Annie.
Hmmmmmpt….
Why do illiterate folks favor male dominance? Because when illiteracy prevails, muscles are more useful than brains. Muscles being more useful, men are favored over women. Provide literacy, education, and then the Internet to these folks and they will naturally give up their primitive ideas.
Haz, Great comment. The US used influence to success in ending apartheid in South Africa. As any person w/ a lick of sense knows, money controls EVERYTHING in this world. Fracking can make the Middle East and Russia inconsequential. As you and I know, hypocrisy is the name of the game in DC, which has become the wealthiest city in the US. A city that produces NOTHING but laws and regulations.
There isn’t any rational westerner that believes for a moment that we can influence Muslim countries into adopting our style of government or society.These countries choose to be male dominated, theocratic, homophobic, misogynistic hell holes. When their fascination with fundamentalism is at long last finally over ( I wouldn’t hold my breath) theIr society will rise up against it on their own volition. Nation building has cost the US dearly. We can no longer afford it. OF COURSE, it’s a curse to be born a woman or a homosexual in these fundamentalist countries. We can endevour to learn from their mistakes and not become a theocracy ourselves. If we can ensure that we continue to embrace NO state religion, no mixing church and state, equality of the sexes and human rights for all, we can be rest assured we won’t look like any of these fundamental theocracies any time soon.
Why is this a surprise? First, Islam is intolerant of homosexuality (and of rights for women). Second, it is no secret that Islamicists have been punishing and killing gays and women for things prohibited under Sharia law for eons of time. Third, the western politicians and governments don’t give a damn about it, apart from paying scant lip service in order to pacify domestic voters.
If the American left really wanted to take actions that would help gays and women in Muslim countries, they would demand, demand, demand that the US become energy independent by radically and rapidly increasing the production and refinement of crude oil and natural gas in America. Threatening the ME countries with the loss of billions of dollars of energy money would get their attention. It won’t happen, though, because in America green trumps gay.
Or how about exposing the American politicians who take money from lobbyists and ME governments and humiliating them until the flow of money stops? Of course, that would mean taking hard action against liberal American politicians, many of whom like HRC are essentially owned by ME governments. Foreign oil money has corrupted American politics.
Sorry, gays and women in Muslim countries, when the American left is faced with choosing your rights or your nation’s money, money wins every time. The American left whines about the Koch Brothers, the real problem is the influence of the Oil Brothers. in American politics.
Why oh why do we keep shoveling money at these theocrats! It is time to make all rich Arabs go home and live in the countries their beliefs have created.