Malala Yousafzai is the 17-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot in the head and neck by a Pakistani Taliban gunman.
Her “crime”? Campaigning for the right of girls and women to pursue an education in Pakistan.
Malala Yousafzai
The attack came on October 9, 2012, when a Taliban gunman forced his way into a van full of schoolgirls, asked for her by name, and opened fire.
The assault provoked unprecedented levels of public outrage, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan—even among people who have in the past sympathized with the militants.
But the Taliban had a different outlook on it.
“For days and days, coverage of the Malala case has shown clearly that the Pakistani and international media are biased,” said a Pakistani Taliban commander in South Waziristan. “The Taliban cannot tolerate biased media.”
The commander, who called himself Jihad Yar, argued that death threats against the press are justified. “Ninety-nine percent” of the reporters on the story, he claimed, were only using the shooting as an excuse to attack the Taliban.
Leaders of the Islamic Taliban
Yar did not apologize for the attempt to assassinate the girl, who passionately opposed the Taliban’s efforts to close girls’ schools.
“We have no regrets about what happened to Malala,” he said. “She was going to become a symbol of Western ideas, and the decision to eliminate her was correct. If she was not important for the West’s agenda, why would a U.S. ambassador meet her?”
According to unnamed sources, the Taliban dispatched 12 suicide bombers against the news media. And it is particularly eager to target female journalists. Said Yar:
“They were at the U.S. Embassy party with wine glasses in their hands and wearing un-Islamic dress with Americans.”
But the Pakistani Taliban have no monopoly on hatred of women’s rights.
On February 4, 2013, two North Carolina state representatives introduced a bill to “clarify” state law to specifically prohibit the baring of women’s breasts.
The proposed legislation, House Bill 34, would make it a Class H felony to expose “external organs of sex and of excretion, including the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast.”
North Carolina law already forbids “indecent exposure,” but doesn’t specifically define breasts as “private parts.”
Accused violators could face one to six months in prison.
Rep. Rayne Brown, a Republican who co-sponsored the bill, said, to some people, the issue might seem frivolous. But “there are communities across this state, there’s local governments across this state, and also local law enforcement for whom this issue is really not a laughing matter.”
Rep. Rayne Brown
Brown said that she was prompted, in part, by the second annual topless protest and women’s rally in Asheville in August, 2012. Asheville is about 130 miles from Brown’s own district.
Rep. Annie Mobley, D-Ahoskie, voiced concerns that the bill could affect people wearing “questionable fashions.”
“All we are doing is codifying the Supreme Court definition of ‘private parts,’” said House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Rep. Sarah Stevens, R-Surry. “That’s it. “
Stevens said using pasties or other nipple coverings would protect women against prosecution. “They’d be good to go.”
For Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleaveland, the issue was a laughing matter: “You know what they say–duct tape fixes everything.”
So far, the bill seems to be stalled in the legislature.
And, not to be outdone, the Wisconsin state legislature enacted a budget for 2011-2013 that eliminated funding to family planning clinics that provide abortions or refer women to a clinic that performs the procedure.
In a press conference, Nicole Safar, director of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said that some 2,000 low-income women who rely on the clinics for cancer screening, breast exams, pregnancy testing, and other services would now be left out in the cold.
“They are small centers in small communities and they needed the state funding to make them financially viable,” said Planned Parenthood spokesperson Teri Huyck.
“It’s terribly unfortunate for the women who live in these areas. Without the state support, we didn’t have a choice.
“None of these centers provided abortion services. There is nowhere else for low-income women to get these services. These centers focused on preventing unplanned pregnancies and reducing the need for abortions,” said Safar.
Due to the loss of $1.1 million in state funding, Planned Parenthood closed facilities in Beaver Dam, Johnson Creek, Chippewa Falls and Shawano between April and July.
For those who believe women should control their own lives, the message should be clear: This will never be possible in some parts of the world.
And these include Islamic countries and those states controlled by Rightist Republicans.
It is pointless to expect those who believe they are God’s anointed to renounce their absolutist beliefs. Or to cease trying to gain absolute power over others–especially women.
In Afghanistan, the United States is waging a losing battle to eliminate the freedom-hating Islamic Taliban.
It would do better to start waging war against the freedom-hating Rightist Taliban within its own borders.

2012 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ADULTERY, BARACK OBAMA, BIBLE, BILL HAMHRER, BIRTH CONTROL, CATHOLICS, CBS NEWS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, CNN, ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, FACEBOOK, FRANKLIN GRAHAM, HOMOSEXUALITY, ISLAM, JESUS CHRIST, JEWS, MITT ROMNEY, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, RELIGION, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD FEYNMANN, RICK SANTORUM, SAUDI ARABIA, SCIENCE, SLAVERY, SPANISH INQUISITION, SUPREME COURT, TEA PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THEOLOGY, TOMAS DE TORQUEMADA, TWITTER, USA TODAY, WAR, WOMEN
THE AMERICAN AYATOLLAHS: PART ONE (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Military, Politics, Social commentary on January 17, 2015 at 4:16 pmHamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old columnist in Saudi Arabia, decided to celebrate the birthday of the Islamic prophet Muhammed in a truly unique way.
Hamza Kashgar
In early February, 2012, he posted on Twitter a series of mock conversations between himself and Muhammad:
“On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.”
“On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.”
“On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.”
“No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”
The tweets sparked some 30,000 infuriated responses. Many Islamic clerics demanded that he face execution for blasphemy.
Kashgari posted an apology tweet: “I deleted my previous tweets because…I realized that they may have been offensive to the Prophet and I don’t want anyone to misunderstand.”
Soon afterward, King Abdullah ordered his arrest.
Kashgari fled to Malaysia, another majority-Muslim country. He was quickly arrested by police as he passed through Kuala Lumpur international airport. Three days later, he was deported to Saudi Arabia.
Human rights groups feared that he would be executed for blasphemy, a capitol offense in Saudi Arabia.
After nearly two years in prison, Kashgari was freed on October 29, 2013. Kashgari used Twitter to inform his supporters of his release.
Outrageous? By Western standards, absolutely.
Clearly there is no tolerence in Saudi Arabia for the freedoms of thought and expression that Americans take for granted.
But before you say, “Religious oppression like that could never happen in the United States,” think again.
Right-wing American ayatollahs are now working overtime to create just that sort of society–where theocratic despotism rules the most intimate aspects of our lives.
One of these is the former GOP Presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. In early January, 2012, he said that states should have the right to outlaw birth control without the interference of the Supreme Court.
In an interview with ABC News, Santorum said he opposed the Supreme Court’s ruling that made birth control legal:
“The state has a right to do that [ban contraception]. I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a Constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.
“That’s the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court–they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide.”
In the landmark 1965 decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court struck down a law that made it a crime to sell contraceptives to married couples. The Constitution, ruled the Justices, protected a right to privacy.
Two years later, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court extended Griswold by striking down a law banning the sale of contraceptives to unmarried couples.
Santorum has left no doubt as to where he stands on contraception. On October 19, 2011, he said:
“One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘“Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’
“It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also…procreative.
“That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act….And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.”
“How things are supposed to be”–according to Right-wing fanatics like Santorum and the evangelicals who support them.
Like the Saudi religious religious zealots who demand the death of a “blasphemer,” they demand that their religious views should govern everyone. Both groups have far more in common than they want to admit.
The important difference–for Americans who value their freedom–is this:
The United States has a Supreme Court that can–and does–overturn laws that threaten civil liberties. Laws that GOP Presidential candidates clearly want to revive and force on those who don’t share their peculiar religious views.
Eleanor Roosevelt once said: “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
The same holds true–in a democracy–for candidates who seek dictatorial power over their fellow citizens. Don’t give them your consent.
Share this: