Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Canada: Fighting for Afghanis' Rights to Hang Christians

While Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay frets that Canadian troops would be demoralized if the House of Commons were to have a debate about our UN-sponsored NATO commitment to ISAF, I am sure they can all take heart in this news highlighting the kind of freedom Canadian troops are defending in propping up Karzai's government:
An Afghan who has renounced his Islamic faith for Christianity faces the death penalty under Afghan law in a throwback to the brutal Taleban regime.

Abdul Rahman, 41, is being prosecuted for an "attack on Islam", for which the punishment under Afghanistan's draft constitution, is death by hanging.
...

"The Attorney General is emphasising he should be hung. It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulating his family by converting," Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times.

"He was a Muslim for 25 years more than he has been a Christian. We will request him to become a Muslim again. In your country two women can marry I think that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished," said the judge.
(Emphasis mine)
Hooboy, can't you just hear them in forty years' time, bragging to their grandchildren about their courageous exploits to save the fledgling Afghanistan government that bravely sought the most brutal punishment to stifle basic religious freedom, and promoted poppy growth to feed the world heroin market? Doesn't it make you wish you were young and idealistic and had a chance to better the world by signing up for duty yourself?

Ah, what stories they will tell...

- 30 -

7 comments:

WeWillWin said...

Hi Scott,

It wasn't (at all) surprizing that I was eventually booted from the Cathie site, even though I was more polite than anyone there and discussed topics in an honest and open manner. While you were somewhat willing to engage in discussion, the others easily recognized that dealing with rational fact-based argument was a losing proposition. You soon came to that realization and started calling for banning. I think that your ability to see gray, clouded your seeing that what the others quickly recognized. Eventually, honestly presented fact and rational interpretation of same, would become untenable for the inmates.

I truly feel sorry for ideologues like you. The jaundiced filter that you view world events through will leave you behind in the dust bin of history. (along side such luminaries as Chamberlain, Jimmah Cahhter and Noam Chomsky .)

I won't proclaim victory even though I know that I swayed some on the site(if ever so slightly). At the same time, we both know that the circle jerk of backslappers at Cathie's site have lost. And will continue to lose.

John's words are most wise:

Wow, that was like a left wing gang rape. We have Scott labelling him by his profession (what if he had said taxi driver? still want to go down that road??) and pale trying to be funny with his walmart and franklin mint comments. The best way to shut him up is to prove him wrong. But then again, debate doesn't always mean that there is one winner and one loser. Perhaps the best part about debate is that people learn more about the other side of the argument. Stifle that and you encourage ignorance.
..........................
You portray yourself as nuanced and able to see the gray areas, and yet you are unable to discern what is cold, hard fact. I'm sure some of it must be swiped to the side and dropped in the memory hole as "inconvenient".

I'll leave you with a couple of tidbits(before you ban me and delete this post)

1. research on the last part of my posting name (dhimmi)
Lots of scholarly (unpartisan) information is available.
2. Reality trumps fantasy. :)

take care,
notadhimmi

Scott in Montreal said...

I think this wee willie guy has me mixed up with a Scott from Winnipeg fellow. I don't recall calling for anyone to be banned anywhere, but I do recall reading a lot of half-baked jabber from notadhimmi on CathiefromCanada's blog. Not surprising he couldn't get his enemies straight...

WeWillWin said...

I'm perfectly Ok with getting the wrong Scottie since you're clearly one of the defeatist choir. Bush, Blair, Howard, and now in Canada, Harper. You partisan lefties are losing, and losing big time.

BTW, at least half of the weblogs the Cathie site links to are either since long dead or have next to zero posters.

Scott in Montreal said...

Whatever wee willie. Thanks for dropping by and for being so polite. You really added a lot of constructive comment. [Yawns]

ivan said...

Thinking of Herzog, that book by former Montrealer Saul Bellow.
Upbraid a fool;don't upraid a fool.
WTF.

DazzlinDino said...

OK, I'll try to be nicer...lol

Surely you can't be advocating going in and changing the laws of a country. I definitly don't agree with what's happening to the guy over there, don't get me wrong here, perhaps another rescue is in order here, but seriously, wouldn't changing their laws be the same as what the people are screaming at Bush for in Iraq?

Scott in Montreal said...

Hey Dazz, no; I just don't think it's a constructive use of our armed forces, and I think our peacekeeping capability - our strong point - could serve somewhere else more productively. Nobody has ever been able to stabilize Afghanistan and our involvement just heightens us on the radar of jingoistic jihadist wackos. Not something we need. I guess this mission is more about placating American sensibilities than anything else. Well at least we're not part of the Iraq coalition of the damned.