This article is actually about an arcane, and frankly, unacceptable practice that somehow still manages to take place in some countries around the world.
This article was inspired by the film 'The Stoning of Soraya M.', which is based on a journalist's actual account of a woman in Iran who was accused and convicted of adultery without empirical evidence in a small town where the punishment for that crime was death by stoning.
I am unaware as to whether the film sensationalized the events to further emphasize the stark contrast between the person and the punishment--but even if Soraya was not as benevolent as she was portrayed, nothing she could have done should have lead to the barbaric punishment she was subjected to.
I'm here to write this short post condemning this cruel form of punishment.
I'm here to write a piece that takes a stance against the double standard in all or most modern societies on men and women.
I'm here to say that women's rights need to be a priority, especially in non-Western countries.
Human rights violations should not be tolerated by the global community...at the same time, we need to think up better response mechanisms because the types of governments and individuals that are willing to commit said violations, are also willing to watch their citizens starve and suffer at the hands of sanctions.
I think that education is a good start.
The more educated we become as a species, the more likely we are to make rational decisions. The more information is available in a digestible form to individuals, the easier it becomes for them to think for themselves. This should not be something that people read and apply only to developing nations, but an idea that I think every individual should seriously consider. There is such ignorance and propaganda within the West, that we must, as individuals, be more active in trying to decipher the truth by filtering information actively, and questioning everything.
I do not purport to judge, but I feel sorry for the person who simply accepts, without questioning, information that they are told, regardless of the source.
In developing nations, developed nations who have influence in the development of said developing nations need to, instead of imposing sanctions on imports of supplies, impose requirements of free movement of information as factors contingent to continued support and trade.
This does not mean spreading the American-Republican style 'freedom and democracy' which may involve violating a nation's sovereignty (ie; through war--my argument is not to replace one ideology with another), but it does mean leveraging certain positions in order to free the minds of those in developing nations who are kept under rule by a lack of access to information, or even basic education (all the written information in the world still does an illiterate person no good).
So how does all of this tie together? With education, literacy, and access to information, people will start to think for themselves, it's only natural. When this happens, they will demand and take the rights that they deserve for themselves. If, when all those means are in place and there is still no progress for women's rights, or human rights in general, one may be able to possibly justify an invasion.
The purpose of such an invasion should not be to 'rid the world of Islam' or any ridiculous goal like that--Islam itself preaches peace, it is only those who pervert it and shape it into an implement for control who use violence and oppression (wrongly) in its name--the goal should simply be to get in, give the people access to information, and get out. It should not be to stick around and 'share' (read: steal) the resources of the invaded land. It should not be to spread a system that the invader thinks is better. The people, once educated, and informationally liberated, are more than capable of making up their own minds as to how they wish to be governed.
The duty of developed nations is simply to give developing nations the opportunity to make that choice.
-N.
Post-Script:
Iran recently went after a lawyer who defended a woman who was stoned after being accused of adultery --Though a full-scale invasion may not yet be the answer, unless some concessions are made to live up to globally accepted (and by this I do mean the Western standard of human rights, and I make no apologies for this) standards of human rights (and particularly for women's rights), then the threat of overthrow should be made apparent.
Post-Post-Script:
This may turn into its own article later, but I take SERIOUS offence to the term 'Islamist' which has been used with increasing frequency in the news media. As far as I can tell, an Islamist is merely someone who believes that Islam is the right path and possibly tells others of that belief. This is a right that individuals should be free to posses, just as Christian Evangelicals preach their belief without major media condemnation in North America.
The idea that the entirety of a religion's followers should be condemned because of a completely separate and minor group claiming affiliation to that religion and committing gross injustice in its name is absolutely preposterous. However due to the negative connotations and the implied synonimity of the terms 'Islamist' and 'Muslim' in the mainstream media, Muslims as a whole are getting a bad rap that they did not earn.
Media outlets should be far more responsible and careful when potentially referring to 1.5 billion people, and moderate Muslims should not be afraid to speak out and condemn barbaric actions undertaken in their good name when they do not support them.
Stay tuned for articles on:
- Why any form of extremism is bad
- Why government regulation is necessary
- Advocation for the separation between religion and the state
- And More...
