Your View on the Scope of Human Rights

There are various regional human rights instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights; the American Convention on Human Rights; The African Charter on Human and People's Rights; and the well known Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Then there are various international human rights instruments, mainly legislated by the United Nations, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; Convention Against Torture; Convention on the Rights of the Child; and so on and so forth.

The critical analysis of the effective protection and enforcement of human rights provided by the above instruments can be debated; however, that is not the focus of this post. I personally would like the readers to please offer their views on how much of human rights they believe in, and how far would they apply such instruments if they were empowered to do so. It is quite easy to believe in the unconditional application of human rights to all members of the human family; however, what if one of the persons concerned was a serious offender of human rights? Would you still want to see that individual enjoy the protection of human rights?

In illustrating this with some basic examples, if you were to apprehend a man who had raped a virgin before executing her in order to 'prevent her going to heaven', would you accord him the protection of the human right to life, or the protection of the right to be free from torture?

Or would you argue that he forfeited his human rights when he violated another's?

What about in the case of a father who stoned his daughter to death in public, simply because she fell in love with a boy from another culture - would you accord the father with the protection of his human rights, or would you let him experience what you would call 'justice'?

The list of examples could go on forever, including governments who silence protestors with brutal and sometimes fatal force; arbitrary detention, and torture in prison etc.

Please convey your views on this, as I am interested in exploring whether the application of human rights could ever reach a limit. Can one use and apply reason with somebody who is unreasonable, or ought they resort to using the language that may be the only one the offender can understand - violence? There is no answer that I have for you...yet.

Please debate this in the 'comments' box below; you may post as 'anonymous', provide an alias, or enter your actual name.

Please Support My Campaign - Fundraiser for Cleft Lip & Palate Charity

Thank you all, sincerely, for following my blog posts and joining in on the campaign for truth and justice for human rights. Human Rights extends to all people belonging to the human family, including children. In supporting children in Africa who suffer from cleft lip and palate, I have arranged to take part in a sky dive in order to raise funds for these children to have restorative surgery.

The jump will take place from an airplane at apprx. two miles high; the bad news for you is that I will have a fully functional parachute attached, and so expect to survive - sorry, lol! I am doing this in order to raise funds for a worthy cause - children with cleft lip and palate.

Cleft lip and palate affects so many young children world-wide, and the charity I am jumping for is a small charity that funds the expenses of medics to fly out to these children to perform the crucial restorative surgery on them. These medics use their holiday time to do this and are not paid either. In addition, the charity money funds vital medicine for the children, and medical equipment for resident medics. This take place annually.

The charity is Nyarko Cleft Care, registered number 1121946. This charity does not benefit from regular income, nor does it have any employed fund-raisers. Any donation is spent directly on the costs of getting the voluntary medics to Africa to perform life-changing surgery on these innocent and voiceless children. Your donations, therefore, will not pay someone's salary or tax credits; instead, you will be putting a beautiful smile on the faces of the children in need.

Given that this is an honourable cause, and the charity is so small, their funds are limited. By sky-diving (and I am somewhat terrified of taking the plunge) I hope to raise a lot of donations so that more children will benefit from the healing hands of the compassionate Medics who will visit them, without profit.

I am funding the sky-dive entirely from my own purse so that all the donations kindly sent in by you will go directly to the charity; no expense shall be claimed from your loving donation.

I want to make your donating an easy as possible process. There is no 'just-giving' or paypal account due to the fact that the charity aims to use ALL monies donated for its cause, rather than waste it on typical admin fees. You would have to register with them anyway, taking up more of your time. Instead, a quick and money saving process is to transfer the funds from your account into the charity's registered bank account. This can be done via online banking, telephone banking or popping in to the Bank. Transparency is assured - feel free to check the details with the Charity Commission.

The charity's account details are as follows:

Barclays Bank
Sort code 20-66-55
Account 90073660

International donations are most welcome, and the necessary bank codes are as follows:

IBAN GB65 BARC 2066 5590 0736 60

SWIFTBIC BARCGB22

Please quote 'Jump' as your reference when kindly donating.

Consider how much you spend on a night out, and then consider how much of a difference you can help make for these children.

Thank you for your compassion and generosity; every time you smile, remember that thanks to your giving, a child can smile more beautifully than before.

The jump has been booked for Wednesday 2nd December, 2009.

IRI End Moratorium on Stoning

Living in Iran has become so difficult that some unfortunate souls have had to resort to selling themselves just to survive.

A married couple could no longer cope with the pressures in order to meet their daily expenses, so much so, that they had to resort to prostitution just so they could make ends meet. But because they were married, the IRI judiciary sentenced them to death for committing 'adultery'. The husband, Rahim Mohammadi, was hanged for sodomy on the 5th October, 2009; his surviving wife, Kobra Babaei has been scheduled to be stoned to death. Even though, amidst international pressure, Iran had imposed a moratorium on stoning, it appears to have reached the end of its tenure, and is now back on the judiciary's list of punishments to be meted out. How anyone has the heart to carry out such a heinous and barbaric act of evil is beyond words or meditation.

What is of material significance is that the reader, you, can do something to try and battle the death sentence of stoning from being both carried out and from being prescribed in the first place. Below is a letter that I e-mailed to the Head of the Judiciary in Iran, as well as the Director of Human Rights Head-Quarters of Iran - incidentally they are both Mr Larijani. Please e-mail, write or fax them to prevent Kobra Babaei from being murdered, and to ensure that the IRI do not ever sanction nor carry out the lamentable practice of stoning.

To make things easier, copy and paste the below e-mail and send it if you do not have the time to draft your own appeal. I also argued against stoning from an Islamic perspective, as the IRI would rely on Islam to justify their laws and actions. Details are as follows:


"Dear Mr Larijani,

Kobra Babaei has been sentenced to death by stoning. As we are all aware, the stoning of an 'adulterer' is prescribed by Article 83 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran.

This is a grave error for two reasons, 1) it violates human rights norms and standards; and 2) it violates the principles of Islam and deterrence. Firstly, even though the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran did not ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR), and that it was done so by the government under the Shah's regime; nevertheless, Iran is still bound by such a legal obligation, and cannot repeal it. This is by virtue of the rule of law and jus cogens. Thus, to execute anyone by stoning would constitute a serious breach of Article 7 ICCPR, the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the Human Rights Commission's General Comment 20(44) on Article 7 ICCPR (CCPR/C/21/Add.3), when assessing execution methods in the case of Ng v Canada, concluded that Iran's practice of death by stoning was a clear and accurate example of death by 'prolonged physical and mental suffering', which violates Article 7 ICCPR. Therefore, to administer the execution of any person by stoning is a breach of international law, and is thus, a crime. On such grounds, stoning should not be prescribed by law, nor must it be practiced. Secondly, the Islamic Republic of Iran claims that Articles 83 -104 of the Penal Code is in accordance with Islamic Shari'a. May I bring to your attention that such a punishment was never meant to be executed, and that it was meant to serve as a deterrent. A deterrent 'deters' people, and is not an actual practice. Firstly, there is no mention of adultery, nor stoning whatsoever in the Quran. If one refers to Quran 24:002, they will find that a hundred stripes was prescribed for the 'fornicator/fornicatress'. There is no mention of stoning, nor adultery. With regards to Hadith, stoning is prescribed. However, there are stringent conditions that have to be met, by virtue of the same Hadith, and yet they are impossible to satisfy; unless an official fabricates/manipulates it. First off, there is confession, which no one in their sane mind would confess to a crime, knowing they would be stoned to death for it. And if they are insane, then Islam dictates that such an insane person should be pardoned and not punished. The only confession that would come from a sane person is one that has been forced; under Islamic guidance, a forced confession is void and worth nothing. In any event, one cannot give much credence to a confession by one under the charge of adultery. Then there is adultery proven via four male eye-witness testimonies. Each and every one of the four witnesses must be able to account detail for detail the sexual activity, which must include the act of sexual penetration. Their testimonies cannot vary from each others', otherwise they will be guilty of 'qadf' (false accusation) and be subject to 80 lashes of the whip. As a result, no one would volunteer their statement as a witness, given they might risk being incorrect and be severely punished for qadf. It is also highly unlikely that the act of sexual penetration could have been witnessed. As a result, there can be no credible nor admissible evidence to condemn Kobra babaei to death, especially death by stoning, if Islam is to be relied upon. The international community refuses to accept that there were four independent and credible witnesses, who not only saw the entire act, they could also account for it word for word, in corroboration of each others' testimonies. Furthermore, even if adultery had been committed, because of such a draconian rule of law, no one would perform adultery in full view of anyone, let alone four people. So there can be no true witness, nor any credible confession. Thus, stoning cannot be executed, and nor must it be carried out. To do so is to commit murder, which is not only a breach of national and international law, it is also an unforgivable sin - Quran 5:32 'to murder a person is as if to murder all the people'. I urge and appeal to you to not only overturn Kobra Babaei's execution, but to comply with the standards of humanity, which has no place for stoning; outlaw the practice of stoning once and for all."

Head of the Judiciary
Ayatollah Sadeqh Larijani
Office of the Head of the Judiciary
Pasteur St.
Vali Asr Ave. south of Serah-e Jomhouri
Tehran 1316814737
Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: info@dadiran.ir

And copies to:
Director, Human Rights Headquarters of Iran Mohammad Javad Larijani
Office of the Head of the Judiciary
Pasteur St, Vali Asr Ave., south of Serah-e Jomhuri, Tehran 1316814737, Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: +98 21 3390 4986 (please keep trying)
Email: bia.judi@yahoo.com (In the subject line: FAO Mohammad Javad Larijani)

Also, campaign the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, United Nations at 1503@ohchr.org.

One may argue that to communicate with the authorities to overturn Kobra's death sentence, or to try and bring an end to stoning will be in vain, given that the authorities will take no notice and shall proceed with such a barbaric and inhuman practice. However, one must try, for trying is better than doing nothing.

Could this Be Reprieve's Rationale?

After having found the undisclosed London office of Reprieve, I paid them a visit. The 'death penalty team', and Clare Algar were already in a meeting, and so were unable to meet with me. As a result, I met with Cortney Busch, the caseworker, operational officer and P.A. to Clare Algar at Reprieve. I expressed my desire to meet with Ms Algar so that I could discuss Reprieve's recent silence on Iran. I further argued that perhaps Reprieve's shortcomings concerning Iran were not deliberate, that perhaps it was a result of their lack of resources with regards to sufficient information on Iran. Cortney welcomed me to arrange, via e-mail, a meeting with Clare Algar; in addition she offered the following as a rationale to the lack of coverage on Iran.

Where the detention of persons is concerned, Reprieve is only funded to account on Guantanamo Bay and such secret detention facilities. If there were more cases to arise, it would be a matter of whether they are funded to cover those new cases. Where persons on death row are concerned, Reprieve is funded to focus on British nationals who have been sentenced to death.

From this, one can infer that Reprieve is not concerned with the secret and arbitrary detention of Iranian protestors in Iran; nor are they concerned with such protestors sentenced to death, for this is not within their remit because they are not funded to do so. Of course, this was what was disclosed by Cortney Busch, and not the official explanation by Executive Director Clare Algar.

Is this an acceptable rationale, or is it a 'cop-out'? If this is true, why couldn't Ms Algar have explained that in her e-mail to the many that complained about her silence? Why did she choose to no longer respond? In any event, funding or not, if she could attend a Press TV debate funded by the IRI - who notoriously violate every human rights law - she could have merely mentioned Iran when discussing the abuse of anti-torture law; there is no need for funding to say that.

The U.N. Let the Murderers Have Him

So it is true, the IRI encourage renegade retaliatory murders in the name of 'Islamic Justice' ('Ghesas'/'Qesas') by legislating (Article 14 Islamic Penal Code of Iran) the permission of a civilian family placing a noose around the neck of behnood Shojaei - the condemned - and kick the stool from under him, leaving him dangling to his death.

Behnood Shojaei was convicted of what could arguably constitute manslaughter, when he was involved in a fight where the other party died as a result of his injuries. Shojaei was 17 years old at the time. Under Article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), it is forbidden to condemn Shojaei to death. Under the law of Ghesas, the victim's family can either accept compensation; forgive him; or demand his execution.

Shojaei was stood on the hangman's stool five times in the past; however, this time he was hurried down to the execution quarters at 0500hrs, where the mother of the victim placed the noose around his neck and kicked out the stool from under him. Does this act not make her a murderer too? The fact that the IRI allowed her to be the executioner renders the state complicit of this murder, does it not?

It is understandable that one would be overwhelmed with emotion and want revenge; however, that is why there is the rule of law, to ensure justice is served through reason, and not through violence and emotion. The IRI government has overlooked the whole rationale for the rule of law, and endorsed an emotional and impulsive knee-jerk reaction to crime.

In short, the IRI has yet again flouted the international law of the Convention on the Rights of the Child - Article 37(a) where no one may be executed for a crime committed when they were under the age of eighteen - and sanction retaliatory murder. Where was the United Nations to protect their convention, and in effect protect Shojaei? 26 juvenile executions have taken place since the IRI ratified the CRC in 1994; what has the U.N. done about this? Not much. In 2005, the Committee on the Rights of the Child held their thirty-eighth session, where the Concluding Observations on the IRI was reported. A copy of this report can be accessed here.

Paragraph 29 of the report expresses that the Committee "deplores the fact that" juvenile offenders are still executed; however, there is no mention of enforcing this rule of law. Instead, paragraph 30 "urges" the IRI to cease such practices. One will find this reiterated throughout the seventy-eight paragraphs of the report - paper tigers; all growl and no bite.

How many more juvenile executions need to take place before the international community, and the U.N. legislators, intervene? How many more human rights abuses ought to occur before human rights is protected and promoted in Iran? One death is one too many, let alone the innumerable deaths and violations of human rights that have taken place over the past thirty years in Iran, courtesy of the IRI government.

The United Nations inability to enforce the very laws they legislated to protect human rights is, somewhat in effect, as if they let Shojaei, and the many more like him, be murdered by the blood-thirsty IRI regime.

Reprieve Fail Human Rights Standards Yet Again

In Iran, Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani was sentenced, last Thursday, to death for seeking to restore the monarchy in Iran, and for taking part in the protests surrounding the unfair elections. He has been sentenced to death on the charge that he is a 'mohareb' (one who wages war against God), for 'insulting religious values', for 'propaganda against the regime' and for 'participating in a demonstration whose aim was to act against the security of the state'. Further details on this can be found at Azarmehr and the Telegraph.

Somehow, it is very hard, if not impossible, to grasp the claim that exercising one's right to freedom of expression (as protected by Article 19 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) could amount to waging war with God and insulting religious values; however, this is a common charge used as a smoke-screen for the IRI government to silence the voice of dissent. The ensuing death sentence is a blatant violation of Article 19.

Today, 10 October, 2009, is World Day Against the Death Penalty. Amnesty international, amongst other NGOs, has commemorated this day and has expressed serious concern at Ali Zamani's sentence. Reprieve has failed to condemn Ali Zamani's death sentence, which is another IRI abuse of human rights; bearing in mind the fact that Reprieve stands against the death penalty. As posted previously, Ms Algar of Reprieve failed to respond to my e-mails concerning her omission of Iran's abuse of torture laws whilst she attended a Press TV funded and broadcast programme dicussing torture. A pattern is appearing before us: first Reprieve fails Iranians on Press TV, and now it fails the newly condemned in Iran - on such a day!

For how long shall we allow a human rights organisation, such as Reprieve, to conduct selective human rights campaigns? Ms Algar has been given many opportunities to speak up for Iran, yet she has not; neither has the rest of Reprieve.

Voice your concerns and complaints, contact Clare Algar, the Executive Director of Reprieve in London. Her e-mail is clare.algar@reprieve.org.uk

Obama Pulls Plug on Funding Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre

Whilst the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre (IHRDC) has been compiling a list of the human rights violations that occur daily in Iran, and the protestors imprisoned and abused during the last few months of unrest as a result of the 'elections', Obama has severed State funding to the IHRDC. This means that the IHRDC will have to shut up shop in May 2010. The abuses of human rights and international human rights law in Iran during the last three months has resulted in the IHRDC working overtime for several weeks just to catch up on the past eleven weeks of activity.

At least three other groups that received funding under Bush’s democracy program for Iran have been told they would not receive funding this year. One can see that the IHRDC receives funding from other sponsors, and not solely from the U.S. State Department Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and Human Rights and Democracy Fund. However, the concern at present is not purely the financial survival of the IHRDC, but rather the type of message that the White House has chosen to broadcast.

The article further informs that "[t]he Obama administration has emphasized other forms of assistance, such as aid for software programs that help activists communicate on the Internet anonymously. It also has continued funding for exchange programs. In the coming months, for instance, the administration hopes to bring Iranian lawyers to major cities in the United States, including Boston, to talk with American lawyers about their concept of law". However, how much more can effectively be achieved by severing the sponsorship of the IHRDC's work? Documenting the abuses of human rights is crucial in order to promote democracy and human rights in Iran.

Can this be correctly interpreted as an act of appeasement to the Mullahs, now that the U.S.A. and Iran are about to commence dialogue? Or is this a fair act of cutting costs and spending it on the people of the U.S.A.? Either way, does it not appear that Mr Obama has left the sides of the many hopeful Iranians in Iran feeling somewhat cold?