Friday, January 26, 2007

German Court Upholds Ban on Religious Symbols . . . But Not Really

BAVARIA, Germany – Over the recent years, many academics and journalists raised concerns over how Muslim minorities will affect the cultural integrity of Europe. Many books and articles have been written arguing that the increase in Europe’s indigenous Muslim population, fuelled by conversion and immigration, would ultimately lead to Islamicization resulting in “Eurabia”, “Euro-shari’ah”, “Londonistan,” or, my favorite, “The Axis of Evil Men that are oblivious to the Biryani embedded in their Beards.”

For the first time in history, Europeans have redirected their racial hatred from all things American to all things Muslim who are supposedly responsible for overpopulation, stealing jobs, increasing crime, and, more suspiciously, leaving mysterious flower pots at restrooms all across their respective countries.

No single issue has been more contentious then the donning of the hijab by Muslim women. The controversy began in the late 1980s when France decided to ban the hijab in public schools. The issue flared up again last October when Jack Straw, a leading official within Tony Blair’s government, called upon Muslim women to abandon extremism and “integrate” into British society by taking off their veils.

Germany joined in on the fray last week when the highest appellate court in Bavaria ruled that it was not unconstitutional for German states to ban religious symbols in public schools. Therefore, the court held, it was unlawful for Muslim women to wear headscarves while teaching in public schools, although the laws created exemptions for robes worn by Catholic nuns and skull caps worn by Orthodox Jews because they were “Occidental.” Judge Huber began his ruling by shouting “West Side” and making a gang symbol with his fingers before arguing that legislators could ban the hijab in order to promote gender equality and integration. He said “There’s no discrimination in these laws! The Muslims are separate, but still equal! There’s nothing more German than to single people out for discrimination by the law. What better way to incorporate Muslims into German society than by segregating them and making them dress differently from people of other faiths? Maybe we can make them wear special symbols such as armbands stating whether they’re integrated or not. That’s a great idea! I’m surprised no German has thought of this before!” He paused for a moment to ask himself “Or have they?” as he stroked his toothbrush mustache.

The judge’s sentiments were approved by many Germans such as Christoph Kannengiesser, the Deputy Secretary General of Konrad Adenauer Foundation, who said that "We must not allow Muslim women to separate themselves from German society. We have to work harder to integrate them and the women also have to be willing to integrate.” Mr. Kannengiesser proceeded to explain his brilliant program for integrating Muslims. “This is a big problem that must be addressed immediately. The best solution for this integration debacle is to create special integration camps. This shouldn’t be too hard; we’re Germans. We have plenty of experience building ‘special integration camps.’ Haha. That’s an inside joke. Okay, not really, but still. Anyhow, I’ve developed a special test for determining if Muslims are integrated or not. First, we can tie stones around them and throw them into a body of water such as a river. If they float to the top, then they’re not integrated and we’ll burn them at stake. If they sink and drown, that means they’re integrated. It’s a great idea! It worked on integrating witches into European culture, didn’t it?”

Muslim women have not given up the fight to wear the veil. They have proposed a new design for a veil that may be more “in line” with the Occidental values espoused by the court.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Saddam Execution: Parody of Justice


Those of you who have frequented this website in the past know exactly what Mox News is about. It’s a website that uses satire to mock the main stream media establishment while informing Muslims of issues that concern them. Normally, we use a literary device called a “parody” when making fun of the news. This past week, Saddam Hussein was executed in Iraq. Fortunately for us (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) there is no need to make a parody of this event because the event itself was a parody. The parody in the execution of Saddam Hussein is not one of humor, but of justice. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and a despicable man. He killed his own countrymen and engaged in war crimes against others using heinous weapons, some of which were provided by the US government when it was supporting him to contain the Iranian Revolution. As terrible of a dictator and a human being as Saddam was, however, he deserved a fair trial. The manner in which his trial was conducted was not all that different being lynched from a lamppost on the streets of Baghdad, like some of his countrymen are being hung today. Street justice is not justice at all. It is a parody of justice.

This farce of a trial began when it was decided that the location of the trial itself which was in Iraq instead of the International Criminal Court. This tribunal was established in 2002 in order to prosecute individuals charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crimes of aggression. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. has avoided submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the ICC and has gone so far as to have made treaties with a variety of countries that prohibit the surrender of American nationals, current or former government officials, military personnel, and employees. Countries that refused to sign such agreements have had their aid cut. The main reason why the U.S. has expressed such opposition to the ICC is most likely because it doesn’t want to be charged with violating these crimes. With regards to Saddam Hussein, perhaps the reason why the U.S. didn’t want him tried in the ICC was because the ICC doesn’t utilize the death penalty.

Although the court is often described as a court of “last resort” and normally defers to national judicial systems, there is something very suspicious about the decision not to have the trial in the ICC.

Firstly, the decision to try Saddam Hussein in the Iraqi Special Tribunal and not the ICC was not a decision of a democratically elected indigenous Iraqi leadership, but a decision that was made by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was created, funded, and sustained by the U.S. Department of Defense and had its authority enforced by the military, not the Iraqi police or its military. The CPA still occupies many of Saddam’s palaces as offices, even though power has been supposedly “transitioned” back to the Iraqi people.

The second point to take note of regarding this "trial" was the crimes that Saddam was charged with. He was charged with committing crimes against humanity for his ruthless oppression of the inhabitants of Dujail after a failed assassination attempt by Shi’as in 1982. What is suspicious is not necessarily what he was charged with, but he was not charged with. In his tenure as dictator, he was responsible for countless tortures, assassinations, use of chemical weapons against civilians, and many other heinous crimes dating up to the invasion in Gulf War II. Yet, this laundry list of crimes was completely ignored and the focus was solely on the actions that occurred in 1982. Why weren’t all of the charges brought against him?

Perhaps the US was concerned about evidence being exposed that showed that it was complicit in some of Saddam’s acts. The American relationship with Iraq began in early 1980’s when President Reagan removed Iraq from the list of known terror states. Desperate to lock in the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the US began sending massive financial and military aid to Iraq: in 1982, Iraq was given 60 defender helicopters, the Defense Intelligence Agency began providing the Iraqis detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments; in 1983, the CIA began funneling $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq; they were given computer controlled machines tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other materials that would be used to develop Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs; the US also began sending Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. In spite of known intelligence that Iraq was using chemical weapons against both Iranian military and civilians, an American civilian named Donald Rumsfield met with Saddam Hussein and assured him of US friendship and materials support on December 20th, 1983. A year after this meeting, the CIA began sharing information with Iraqi intelligence on how to calibrate mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In 1986, when the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, the US blocked this resolution. Around the same time, the US Department of Commerce licensed 70 biological exports to Iraq, at least 21 of which were lethal strains of anthrax. These very chemicals were used against Saddam’s own citizens in subsequent years such as in 1988 when Saddam killed thousands of Kurdish civilians. Later that year, the US Department of Commerce approved shipments to Iraq that were used in manufacturing mustard gas. 1988 was also a good year for Dow chemicals, which sold $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq, even though they knew that such “pesticides” were going to be used to eliminate human beings, not insects and other vermin. During this entire period, not a single official in the American government raised any concerns or objections to the legality of these actions. They ignored them entirely because the U.S. was focused solely on defeating Iran and not dispensing justice. It turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and remained silent about it until it was against the “national interest” to support Saddam. Suddenly, some of these skeletons were brought out of the closet when Saddam was charged with these war crimes. Unfortunately, many other skeletons, both figuratively and literally speaking, will remain hidden because they can indubitably traced to the American government through financial or military support. [For more information, click here]

The third point to take note of regarding this “trial” was the day that the verdict was announced: November 5th, 2006. Two weeks before the U.S. mid-term elections. This fact did not go unnoticed by Saddam’s defense attorneys, who urged the court to delay the announcing of the verdict.

Fourthly, according to the former judge who presided Saddam’s trial, Rizkar Mohammad Amin, stated that the decision to perform the execution on Eidh ul Adha was in violation of Iraqi law. He said “The implementation of Saddam's execution during Eid al-adha is illegal according to chapter 9 of the tribunal law. Article 27 states that nobody, even the president (Jalal Talabani), may change rulings by the tribunal and the implementation of the sentence should not happen until 30 days after publication that the appeals court has upheld the tribunal verdict. The hanging during the Eid al-Adha period (also) contradicts Iraqi and Islamic custom. ‘Article 290 of the criminal code of 1971 (which was largely used in the Saddam trial) states that no verdict should implemented during the official holidays or religious festivals,’ he said.” [Source] Even though such a ruling was in violation of the law, a fatwa was given by Shi’a ‘Ulema approving of the hanging. Why is that not surprising?

From this point onwards, everyone knows the story because they’ve seen the video. Witness how this man was taunted by his executioners, witness how they cut him off while reciting the Shahadah. The fact that such a video was take in the first place shows that protocol at the highest levels of the Iraqi government was violated, illustrating exactly how deep sectarian affiliations have penetrated the government.

Saddam Hussein was not the sole person to be lynched that day, justice itself was lynched. His execution will not bring solace to his victims nor to Iraq as a whole. The manner in which his execution was handled will inflame sectarian violence to greater levels than they already are at. After the execution, Sunnis aggrieved by his execution barged into the Shi’a Samarra mosque and staged a fake janazah.

Of course, from the beginning, this "trial" was not about justice, it was about vengeance, it was about dealing with a rogue agent, it was about eliminating challenges to American hegemony. There is nothing more glaringly morally bankrupt than hosting an execution for crimes against humanity that is carried out by a government which has been deeply infiltrated by death squads.

The United States government will deny responsibility for this debacle, just like it refused to accept responsibility for the terrible deeds done at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. These sorts of activities reveal a very ugly pattern of behavior that is downright psychotic. Who will be held accountable for these crimes?

Our suggestion:

Impeach President Bush and his entire administration and ship them over to the International Criminal Court so that they can be tried for crimes against humanity, like Saddam should’ve been tried.

"O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do."

[Surat Al-Maidah 5:8]