In 1991, President Bush announced the start of military operations to free Kuwait from the ravages of dictatorship after the invasion of Iraqi forces. He promised to restore Kuwait and its people to freedom. In the years following the liberation however Kuwait’s government has repeatedly shown that real freedom was confined to its ruling family and not average Kuwaitis. The sentencing in absentia of Rana Jassem al-Saadun is only the latest example. The female rights activist was given three years in jail for simply repeating parts of a speech by an opposition leader that was critical of Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, Kuwait’s authoritarian leader.
Prominent opposition leader Mussallam al-Barrak was given two years for his speech and it appears that even quoting from it is a criminal offense in “free” Kuwait. Barrak was originally given five years for simply warning Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah against amending the electoral law to help the government control parliament.
Saadun is a founding member of rights group the National Committee for Monitoring Violations and told the “court” that she and others read from the speech to support free expression rather than any agreement with its content. The court however also sentenced some 21 other activists for participating in the free speech protest. In other words, there is no free speech in Free Kuwait . . . except for the Emir and his family.
34 thoughts on “Kuwait Sentences Female Activist and 21 Others For Reading From Speech Critical Of Emir”
forgotwhoiam … of course I have no idea who your really are..however I find real gems in some of your comments, while the bulk of them are so ramblingly divergent I can’t fathom them. That may be more on me than you. Just saying… 🙂
meanwhile in the usa….the bastion (sp) of free speech….some one merely suggests a place in hell be reserved for someone and a grand jury is turned loose on them ….and all 4500 federal felonies become fair game. At least the ppl over there knew the rules. There is something to be said for that…no?
As I recall, I understood the “treason” claim, in the immediately subsequent post, to be opposition.
If that was an incorrect presumption, I apologize.
As they say, “if the shoe fits, wear it. If the shoe don’t fit, don’t wear it.”
Don’t quote me on that quote.
No harm. No foul.
I don’t understand any of your posts to me. I think what occupyDemocrats are doing is repulsive, just as I thought Republicans who called any criticism of Bush “treason” were repulsive. Neither group understands free speech as a guaranteed right written in our Constitution. They do not understand what it means to be a citizen. So maybe you should reread what I actually wrote?
When you say, “level the playing field,” you mean, “tilt the playing field in my favor,” with your basis,
the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
The American Founders said, “All men are created equal.”
After that, they’re on their own, presumably and unequivocally.
Your imposition of the Communist Manifesto in America is the very definition of treason.
Let me guess. You speak with confidence from your secure position of affirmative action, welfare, WIC, spousal, taxpayer and otherwise support. You have vast resources of “Other People’s Money” which generously provide you with a whimsical sense of cognitive acumen and bewildering delusions of grandeur.
That’s not a leader. That’s an ineligible imposter who couldn’t lead his way out of a wet paper bag; an “empty suit,” in the vein of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” narcissist bereft of any ideas whatsoever.
Not to put too fine a point on it.
Obama is merely a “citizen” whose father was a foreign citizen.
The Constitutional requirement for Presidential eligibility is “natural born citizen.” The Jay/Washington letter of 1786 raised the requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” to foreign allegiances by the commander in chief. Vattel defined “natural born citizen” as “born in the country of parents who are citizens” in the Law of Nations, 1760, in French which was the language of England until 1200 AD and remained the language of the upper classes and the language of the court through 1800 AD, which the American Founders read, spoke and understood. A copy of the Law of Nations was kept close at hand during the writing of the Founding documents, as referenced in the Franklin letter, 1775.
“…Obama is…the president…Nixon…wanted to be.”
Can you guess the author of this statement:
“J——- T—–: Well, I think that the biggest problem we have is that the system itself, if we have a dominant branch, simply begins to shut down in terms of the safeguards. People don’t seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it’s there to protect individual liberty, it’s there to protect us from the concentration of power. That’s what is occurring here. You know, I’ve said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he’s been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we’ve fought for decades.”
Jill, presumably everyone who campaigned vigorously and passionately, and voted against a President you supported should be thrown into the dungeon.
That sounds just like what the Founders had in mind – they did, after all, conduct a treasonous act against the Crown and the entire British Empire.
You seem to have a better grasp of Stalin and the Communist Manifesto than the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, not to mention the positions of the Founders.
You are scary, Comradette.
It was clear these brave women did not want to be lumped w/ the Gloria Steinem ilk of the West.
Ash, Whiny and self absorbed were my words, which I use often and accurately in describing Western feminists. But, the inference in the interview was there. I will watch the documentary and then report on the entire piece. These Arab women are brave and noble. Western feminists are lazy, cowardly and entitled.
This statement from the transcript got my attention:
“This seems impossible to imagine, yet earlier this month several major European oil companies came out in favor of a global price on carbon. Whether through a tax or an emission trading system like those used in California and Europe.”
Huh??? It seems very possible to me. Some people are just very slow on the uptake. Look at it like this, the price of gasoline is $3.00 per gallon. Let’s estimate that the oil companies net 7 cents per gallon after expenses.
Then, assume because of carbon tax increases, the price goes up to $3.50 per gallon. If the gas company can maintain the same proportions, their net goes up to 8.17 cents per gallon.
Which means the carbon tax significantly helps their bottom line.
“… I looked up the transcript, and sadly, I think you may have misrepresented how the Arab women actually feel towards Western feminists.”
Ash, of course he misrepresented the Arab women. Par for the course, happens every single day.
Comments are closed.