Gov. Granholm Goes Wild With Her Claims Of A War On Women

What an utterly disgusting and intellectually dishonest person Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is. She has taken to Politico to decry the "war on women" being carried out by evil Republicans. Granholm claims that Virginia's decision to require pre-abortion ultra-sounds, the defunding by some states of Planned Parenthood, and Rush's crass description of Sandra Fluke add up to an all out Republican War on "women's rights." Her arguments are disingenuous at best - and she omits any mention of the elephant in the room, Obama's HHS mandate that all employers fund free contraception and abortion plan B pills for all female employees.

Granholm first attacks Virginia's recent passage of a law requiring women to view an abdominal ultrasound before undergoing abortions. The sole purpose of the law is to insure that the women opting to undergo an abortion understand that they will be destroying a human life. For Granholm, this is exhibit one in the evil Republican "war on women." A 10 minute ultrasound hardly seems to be a "war on women," but to Granholm, who is apparently an advocate of abortion on demand without any moral considerations, any state action that would require nothing more than a woman face the morality of her actions is both "demeaning" and "unnecessary."

Granholm's next argument is that any state that acts to defund Planned Parenthood of our tax dollars is likewise conducting a war on "women's health." Granholm neglects to mention the fact that Planned Parenthood is a radical left wing organization pushing a far left social agenda of sex without physical consequence or moral considerations. Granholm likewise neglects to mention that Planned Parenthood, even though it receives vast tax dollars, is also our nation's largest provider of abortion services. They do so under the canard that the money used to provide abortions is separate and apart from taxpayer funding.

What is really going on is that the Obama administration shares the goals of Planned Parenthood and is intent on that organization receiving our tax dollars funneled through the states via Title X. Two recent examples paint this clearly. When New Hampshire voted to remove Planned Parenthood from the list of eligible recipients for Title X funds, the Obama Administration actually stepped in and gave a $1 million dollar no-bid contract with Planned Parenthood of New England. When Texas voted to provide Title X funds only to organizations that do not provide abortions, the Obama administration took the step of withholding all Title X funds for women's health from the state. What this dust up is about is not a war on women's health, it is a war being waged by the left to insure that one of their most sacred cows, one that fully pushes their social agenda, Planned Parenthood, continues to get fat on tax payer dollars. Yet Granholm, ignoring all of this, claims that this focus on Planned Parenthood amounts to "sexual McCarthyism." The reality is that this is Granholm and the Obama administration Komenizing the states that refuse to fund Planned Parenthood.

Lastly, Granholm claims:

Rush Limbaugh did more than insult a law student with his diatribe about Sandra Fluke; his words revealed a mind-set about women. Republicans have been chanting that they want to “take our country back.” Sure they do … back in time. Back to the good old days when women didn’t have the opportunities for personal and professional advancement that they do now.

What a disingenous ass this woman is. Not a single word has been mentioned by any Republican of reducing women's opportunities in any profession in any way. Not a single Republican has advanced the proposition that contraception should not be available to women under Title X. So how can Granholm make this outrageous charge?

Republicans are doing this by waging a war against contraceptive choice. Not just abortion, but birth control in general — the very thing that set women free to pursue equality in the first place. Studies have shown that since women have had access to the pill and family planning measures, they have made huge gains in both wages and in careers that were dominated by men. Which is why we’re seeing an outpouring of outrage from women. The legislation being advanced threatens those gains.

Granholm's last argument is cause and effect - that only access to the pill has made women able to succeed in the job market. That is ridiculous. The great societal change that began with "first wave feminism," then WWII with women working outside the home and finally the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act, are what have allowed women to achieve parity with men in the workforce. Without those changes, every pill in the world would be meaningless. Granholm's argument is akin to saying that because dew forms on the grass at about the time the sun rises, that one causes the other.

As to her other argument, how can Granholm possibly portray anything that anyone on the right has done as an attack on "contraceptive choice." If her problem is with limiting funding of Planned Parenthood, which it implicitly is, the only way that argument could be valid is if there were no other organizations that could meet the requirements of Title X - and that is an absurdity.

Granholm, like virtually all on the left, is an intellectually dishonest person. The only war going on here is the HHS mandate, which is a war on the First Amendment religious rights of all Americans, not merely the Catholic Church. It is a deeply cynical, election year war being waged by Obama to reduce religion in the public square and to create the illusion that he is championing "women's rights" against evil Republicans. Yet the HHS mandate is the one issue Granholm manages to ignore. That alone tells you all you need to know about this piece of partisan excreta.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

A Saudi Rosa Parks

The single most oppressed class of people in our modern world are women living under the massively repressive hand of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia. Women in Saudi Arabia cannot drive, they cannot inherit property, they cannot petition for divorce nor, in the event of a divorce, gain custody of children. Women in Saudi Arabia may be legally beaten by their husbands and any female who brings dishonor on their family - such as by being raped - may well be beaten or worse. In courts, a woman's testimony is by law given half the weight of a man. And God help a Saudi woman should she be found outside of her home without the escort of a male family member. The Saudi tool of oppression is often as not the Saudi religious police. Their most iconic act of repression occurred a few years ago when they forced several young girls back into a schoolhouse that was on fire. The girls, who had run from the building without their hijabs, paid for that sin with their lives.

Today, there are tremors of change in the Saudi desert. It would appear that at least one Saudi woman has, one, stones worthy of our own civil rights icon, Rosa Parks, two, poor choice in men, and three, apparently a very good straight right. This from the Jerusalem Post:

It was a scene Saudi women’s rights activists have dreamt of for years.

When a Saudi religious policeman sauntered about an amusement park in the eastern Saudi Arabian city of Al-Mubarraz looking for unmarried couples illegally socializing, he probably wasn’t expecting much opposition.

But when he approached a young, 20-something couple meandering through the park together, he received an unprecedented whooping.

A member of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the Saudi religious police known locally as the Hai’a, asked the couple to confirm their identities and relationship to one another, as it is a crime in Saudi Arabia for unmarried men and women to mix.

For unknown reasons, the young man collapsed upon being questioned by the cop.

According to the Saudi daily Okaz, the woman then allegedly laid into the religious policeman, punching him repeatedly, and leaving him to be taken to the hospital with bruises across his body and face.

“To see resistance from a woman means a lot,” Wajiha Al-Huwaidar, a Saudi women’s rights activist, told The Media Line news agency. “People are fed up with these religious police, and now they have to pay the price for the humiliation they put people through for years and years. This is just the beginning and there will be more resistance.”

“The media and the Internet have given people a lot of power and the freedom to express their anger,” she said. “The Hai’a are like a militia, but now whenever they do something it’s all over the Internet. This gives them a horrible reputation and gives people power to react.”

This story says very little about Saudi men, whether it be the woman's escort or the religious policeman whose ass the budding Ms. Parks apparently whooped. Heh.

But this is apparently not the only change taking place in Saudi Arabia. The same JP article documents some small changes being made by the current King of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah. He took over the kingship with a reputation as a reformer and - possibly the least corrupt of the House of Saud. That said, change has come slowly indeed as the King rules Arabia not by fiat, but by consensus with other members of the House of Saud. Nonetheless, some small change has come:

The decision last year by Saudi King Abdullah to open the kingdom’s first co-educational institution, with no religious police on campus, led to a national crises for Saudi Arabia’s conservative religious authorities, with the new university becoming a cultural proxy war for whether or not women and men should be allowed to mix publicly.

A senior Saudi cleric publicly criticized the gender mixing at the university and was summarily fired by the king. . . .

Last month, . . . members of the religious police in the northern province of Tabuk were charged with assaulting a young woman as she attempted to visit her son, in a move that marked an unprecedented challenge to the religious police’s authority.

"There is some sort of change taking place," Nadya Khalife, the Middle East women’s rights researcher for Human Rights Watch, told The Media Line. "There is clearly a shifting mentality regarding to the male guardianship law and similar issues. More women are speaking out, there are changes within the government, there is a mixed university, the king was photographed with women, they want to allow women to work in the courts and there are changes within the justice ministry. So you can witness some kind of change unfolding but it’s not quite clear what’s happening and it’s not something that’s going to happen overnight."

In this most repressive of societies - the one that gave birth to the Wahhabi school of Islam that undergirds virtually all of Sunni terrorism - seeing a change to an even somewhat normalized society with equality for women would work a significant change. Let us hope that we are witnessing is a good first step - or uppercut, as the case may be.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Cairo Address: What We Needed, What We Got

I held high hopes for President Obama and his speech from Cairo to the Muslim world. With his Islamic background, President Obama was uniquely positioned to effectively speak some hard truths to the Muslim world. He was uniquely qualified to use the bully pulpit to call for much needed reforms in Islam. And he was uniquely qualified to educate both the Islamic world and the rest of us on the reality at the heart of Muslim violence. My hope was that he would find a way to do those things without being insulting and while expressing an optimistic vision of what was possible.

That is not what President Obama did. He did not merely fail to accomplish what was needed in his speech, but in many ways, he damaged our interests. Indeed, for what good he did with his strong statement on our "unbreakable" bonds with Israel and his mention of women's rights, his pronouncements and omissions on virtually all other critical issues can only serve to make matters worse.

Obama at one point said that “we must face the hard issues.” The reality is that his speech was a study in ignoring those issues, or worse, being less than honest about them. He also made repeated, unforgivable statements of moral equivalency that have the effect of allowing guilty parties to excuse their own misconduct and make any needed change in their conduct less likely. Making such statements of moral equivalency - for example, equating the plight of the Palestinians to the holocaust or equating the mistreatment of women in Muslim society with the problems women face in American society - is counterproductive and appears as weakness.

To be more specific, below are brief summaries of the salient points from my more detailed posts on each issue:

****************************************************************

Where Obama needed to speak the hard truth to the Muslim world about the nature of its problems, he instead merely restated the excuses for those problems common throughout the Muslim world - that modernity is incompatible with Islam and that the causes of the backwardness of Islamic states are external.

Where Obama needed to encourage Muslims to take responsibility for the state of their nations and the evolution of their religion, he was silent.

Where Obama needed to defend freedom of speech and encourage critical thinking about Islam in the Muslim world, he said not a word.

Part 1 - Obama's Cairo Address: Hiding From The Existential Problems Of The Muslim World

****************************************************************

Where Obama needed to promote democracy throughout the Middle East, he instead mouthed the words of multiculturalism and moral equivalence, announcing that the U.S. did not have the moral authority to impose governmental structures on others, marking a return to the failed 'real politik' policies of the past.

Where Obama needed to use Iraq as an example of what was possible in terms of democracy, freedom of speech, and equality, he instead spoke of it as an embarresment and a wrong to be quickly forgotten.

Where Obama needed to announce that he would protect Iraq's nascent democracy, Obama instead announced proudly that he will leave Iraq to its own devices – and ultimately, to the predations of its voracious neighbor.

Part 2 - Obama's Cairo Address: A Walk Back From Democracy & Iraq

****************************************************************

Where Obama needed to address women's rights robustly, he did so tepidly.

Where Obama needed to honestly address the subjugation of women in the Middle East and the violence directed towards them, he instead ridiculously equated their plight with that of women in the West.

Where Obama needed to discuss and condemn the institutionalized subjugation of women by Sharia law, Obama was silent.

Where Obama needed to use the bully pulpit to condemn honor violence for the evil that it is, Obama said not a word.

Part 3 - Obama's Cairo Address: Obama Calls For Women's Rights While Glossing Over Discrimination & Violence

****************************************************************

Where Obama needed to take a bold stand against nuclear proliferation, Obama mouthed the suicidally inane argument that no nation should dictate which other nations may or may not acquire nuclear weapons.

Where Obama needed to speak to the Muslim world about the dangers of Iran's nuclear weapons program and the need for concerted effort, instead Obama spoke about the utter fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons.

Where Obama need to condemn Iran's endless acts of terrorism and their deadly meddling in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Sudan, the UAE, Bahrain and Azerbaijan, Obama instead announced a moral equivalence between the single act of the U.S. to engineer a coup against the unelected Iranian PM Mohammed Mosaddeq over half a century ago and the mountain of evil acts and the oceans of blood accumulated by Iran's theocrats since 1979.

Part 4 - Obama's Cairo Address: Nukes, Iran & Weakness Writ Large

****************************************************************

Where Obama needed to make a strong and clear statement of our support for Israel, he did.

Where Obama needed to call on Hamas to end violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist, he did.

Where Obama needed to hold the Palestinians responsible for building a functional society, he instead blamed Israel for their current state and detestably gave moral equivalence to the plight of Palestinians with the holocaust.

Where Obama should have been pointing out the ramifications of the fact that Palestinians inside Israel enjoy a far higher quality of life than anywhere else in the Middle East, he instead stayed silent on the ill treatment and manipulation of Palestinians by all of the other Middle East countries.

Where Obama needed to make a clear statement that the “plans for peace” put forth by the Arabs are ill disguised roadmaps to the destruction of Israel, he instead identified Israeli settlements as being the major roadblock to peace.

Where Obama needed to quash once and for all the canard of a “right of return” and call upon all Middle East countries to allow Palestinians to integrate into the countries in which they now live, he was silent.

Part 5 - Obama's Cairo Address: Israel & Palestine – A Little Good, A Lot Of Outrageousness

****************************************************************

Where Obama needed to be honest with Islam and the world about the intolerance of Islam and condemn in no uncertain terms the practice of harming or killing any who convert from the Muslim faith, Obama ignored this while claiming Islam had a history of "tolerance."

Where Obama should have condemned in no uncertain terms the Salafi dogma taught around the world that it is permissible for a Muslim to slaughter those of other religions and to plunder their possessions, Obama was silent.

Where Obama should have spoken against the practice in Pakistan of using charges of blasphemy against the Prophet to justify the disenfranchisement of Christians and theft of their lands, Obama said not a word.

Where Obama should have chastised Algeria for jailing Christians for practicing their religion, he was silent.

Where Obama should have railed against Turkey for their refusal to allow any churches to be built, he instead ignored it.

Where Obama should have condemned the systematic persecution of Christians by Palestinian Muslims in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, his silence was deafening.

Where Obama should have pointed out that non-Muslims of whatever stripe are treated as second class citizens in all Muslim countries, he was silent.

Part 6 - Obama's Cairo Address: Islam's Tradition Of Religious Tolerance?

****************************************************************

Where Obama should have been honest about our history with the Islamic world, Obama gave a completely false picture of the nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Islam from the earliest days of our country.

Where Obama pointed out that Morocco was the first country to recognize America, he failed to mention that the recognition came as part of a deal that saw America pay a huge sum of money to ransom a U.S. merchant ship and crew that Morocco had pirated, Obama delibertely gave a false impression by neglecting to mention that detail.

Where Obama should have pointed out that the same philosophy used by the Barbary Pirates to justify war against America, that it is “the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave” non-Muslims, is in fact being taught still today in Saudi Salafi schools and madrassas throughout the world, Obama stayed silent.

Part 7 - Obama's Cairo Address: The Dangerous Whitewashing Of History

****************************************************************

Obama's speech in Cairo was a golden opportunity for our nation, the Muslim World, and the world as a whole. We bear no inherent animus towards Islam. And indeed, our world would be a better and richer one with good and peaceful relationships between Islam and other religions, between the Middle East and the U.S. But there are enough dysfunctional aspects of Islam today that such an eventuality will never be possible unless changes happen. Obama had a chance to be open and honest about all of this in Cairo. He failed. He failed us, and he failed his audience in the Muslim world.

Update: In my points above, I failed to note that Obama needed to also address the mistreatment/execution of gays. Unfortunately, as Gay Patriot points out, not only was Obama silent on that point, but so have been all the left-wing gay groups in the U.S.

Summary - Obama's Cairo Address: What We Needed, What We Got
Part 1 - Obama's Cairo Address: Hiding From The Existential Problems Of The Muslim World
Part 2 - Obama's Cairo Address: A Walk Back From Democracy & Iraq
Part 3 - Obama's Cairo Address: Obama Calls For Women's Rights While Glossing Over Discrimination & Violence
Part 4 - Obama's Cairo Address: Nukes, Iran & Weakness Writ Large
Part 5 - Obama's Cairo Address: Israel & Palestine – A Little Good, A Lot Of Outrageousness
Part 6 - Obama's Cairo Address: Islam's Tradition Of Religious Tolerance?
Part 7 - Obama's Cairo Address: The Dangerous Whitewashing Of History

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Cairo Address - Obama Calls For Womens Rights While Glossing Over Discrimination & Violence

A credit to Obama - he at least went as far as to call for some improvement in the rights of women in the Middle East. He called for women to be afforded education, the right to work, and the right to wear a hijab. That goes further than the complete absence of any calls by most American feminists. That said, to call Obama's statements on women's rights tepid, if not in many respects harmful by omission, would probably be an overstatement. He wholly ignored any discussion of the key factors subjecting Muslim women to discrimination and violence. And then there was his ridiculous equation of the problems facing Muslim women with the problems faced by women in the West.

The true subjugation of women in Islam begins with institutionalized discrimination in Sharia Law. Beyond that are the insidious practices of honor violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. Obama simply glossed over all of this, giving them a patina of acquiesence by his ommission. Instead, he played up his approval of the hijab as an applause line.

Obama failed to make any calls for Sharia law to be evolved so as to allow for equal rights for women. Sharia law is used to discriminate against women in family law and other legal proceedings and to justify violence against women. Sharia allows for a husband to beat his wife. In its most extreme forms, it can lead to results such as last year's Saudi judgment against a woman who was brutally gang raped - that she should be whipped for 200 lashes and then imprisoned for being outside of her home in while unaccompanied by a male guardian.

Besides ignoring Sharia, Obama failed to challenge other true horror for Muslim women - honor violence. As a detailed report on honor violence in Britain made plain, it is a practice both wide spread and insidious:

This study shows that honour killings, domestic violence, forced marriage and FGM are not isolated practices but are instead part of a self-sustaining social system built on ideas of honour and cultural, ethnic and religious superiority. As a result of these ideas, every day around the UK women are being threatened with physical violence, rape, death, mutilation, abduction, drugging, false imprisonment, withdrawal from education and forced marriage by their own families. This is not a one-time problem of first-generation immigrants bringing practices from ‘back home’ to the UK. Instead honour violence is now, to all intents and purposes, an indigenous and self-perpetuating phenomenon . . .

This is a scourge of Islam, both inside and outside the Middle East. If a woman is perceived to have somehow dishonored her family, then relatives may well beat her and perhaps even kill her. Indeed, the poor girl who was gang raped in Saudi Arabia and whose story I linked above was in fact beaten by her brother for the dishonor of being gang-raped. Additionally, Muslim women are prevented from marrying outside of their faith. To do so is often interpreted as an act brining dishonor on the family and any relationship with a man not Islamic is met with violence. How Obama could address women's rights and ignore these grotesque practices is simply beyond comprehension. And by failing to mention them, he gives them a degree of acquiesence where only clear condemnation and scorn are necessary.

Obama also made two comments on the hijab and other clothing women in traditional Muslim societies are required upon pain of punishment to wear. According to Obama:

it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. . . .

I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, . . .

Great, except for two things. One, if there is freedom to wear a hijab, or even a burkah, how about the freedom not to wear one? In most Muslim societies, if such coverings are a part of the culture, then they are enforced with violence. Obama pushing this as a woman's right is dangerous, for it will now be an excuse to continue a practice that can be clearly degrading to women. And two, Obama's call for freedom to wear a burkah cannot be going over too well amongst the secularists in Turkey and Tunisia, both of whom have laws banning a woman from covering her head in public buildings or if she is a member of government. Those laws exist to try and keep religion separate from their government. Is Obama that clueless not to realize that?

Lastly, there was Obama's utterly vacuous suggeston of moral and actual equivalence between the mistreatment of women under Islam and the "the struggle for women's equality . . . in many aspects of American life." This is not merely ridiculous, it also has to be disheartening for Muslim women who have never been to the West but who now are being led to believe that their own mistreatment is the norm in America also. Instead of holding up the U.S. as a model for the Islamic world to strive to emulate, Obama lied in a way that will decieve a substantial portion of women in the Middle East and harm their fight for equal rights and freedom from violence.

Summary - Obama's Cairo Address: What We Needed, What We Got
Part 1 - Obama's Cairo Address: Hiding From The Existential Problems Of The Muslim World
Part 2 - Obama's Cairo Address: A Walk Back From Democracy & Iraq
Part 3 - Obama's Cairo Address: Obama Calls For Women's Rights While Glossing Over Discrimination & Violence
Part 4 - Obama's Cairo Address: Nukes, Iran & Weakness Writ Large
Part 5 - Obama's Cairo Address: Israel & Palestine – A Little Good, A Lot Of Outrageousness
Part 6 - Obama's Cairo Address: Islam's Tradition Of Religious Tolerance?
Part 7 - Obama's Cairo Address: The Dangerous Whitewashing Of History

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News - 19 January 2008

Silencing free speech in the blogosphere . . . now in Israel and in Finland. In Belarus, they have jailed an editor for blasphemy for reprinting the Danish cartoons. The left cannot tolerate free speech. There is nothing "liberal" about the modern left.

And how's this for a bit of insanity. In the future, all Islamic terrorism designed to promote the creating of a world wide caliphate shall, in Britain, be refered to as anti-Islamic acts. George Orwell goes dhimmi.

I posted the other day on a WSJ article incisively noting that the essence of intolerance was to dehumanize those who disagree with you and to portray them as evil. It is a complete rejection of intellectual honesty and classical liberalism. So, in that vein, how do you think global warming skeptics are being portrayed?

And the rule of thumb, I always thought, was that when you are under attack, the appropriate reaction is a response with overwhelming force. Failing to react is simply an invitation to more attacks.

Ghandi may not agree with my thoughts above, but then again, as Victor David Hanson points out, the current Ghandi seems to have a warped vision of the cause of violence in the world today. Some field work may be required.

The Shield of Achilles asks "Am I still considered an "islamophobe" or a right-wing alarmist if I say that the Netherlands really has a problem?" Read his post and decide for yourself. I think the problem is at least duplicated in the UK. And as we speak, the Dutch gird their loins for a bit of rioting by members of the Religion of Peace.

Righttruth has a terrorism round-up. And Red Alerts has a counter-jihad round-up. Then there is this good round-up from Soob. All are well worth a read. As is this bit of link-whoring poetry.

Tajikistan, a Muslim country, apparently is looking for a bit of separation between mosque and state.

And if your going to embrace left wing non-violence, keying a marines car is not an appropriate way to express your belief. Justice has been served in the case of Jay Grodner.

So what’s worse, Guantanamo Bay or the plight of women in the Middle East? Wajiha Al-Huweidar thinks it’s the latter.

Withn the ranks of the anti-war left is a large contingent that wants the U.S. to fail in Iraq. As one liberal surprisingly framed it, "[t]hat is a malevolent righteousness that properly repels most Americans." Q&O has the story.

American Digest has the latest stupid science round-up.

Where can one find the world biggest rubber stamp? Apparently across the pond in the UK Parliament which just approved a massive transfer of wealth to the EU after only a bit more than 3 hours of debate. As the EU Referendum calculates, that works out to a transfer of British tax dollars at a rate of "£481 million a minute." Part of the reason for the short debate was to hide the demise of UK’s rebate from the EU. As it stands now, the UK’s "net contributions to the EU will increase from an already horrendously large £4.7 billion to £6.8 billion in 2011." It is a mark of how rotted the government is across the pond that the Tories put up no fight against this. This really is a socialist coup. Its getting to sound like time for a Tea Party of sorts. I am sure we can cobble some Mohawk Indian costumes together for a reasonable price if any of our British brethren would care to rent them for a night or two. Read the post here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Woman's Rights Activist Jailed in Iran

Womens rights activist Jelveh Javaheri was arrested Sunday in Tehran. Ms. Javaheri is a sociology student and has long been active in women rights’ groups, including the ongoing One Million Signature Campaign, a campaign for women's rights whose website (translated to English) is here.

Ms. Javaheri was charged with inciting of public opinion, propaganda against the state, and publication of false information, through reporting of false news on the site of the One Million Signatures Campaign, Change for Equality. You can find a sample of Ms. Javaheri's work here. Jelveh Javaheri has since been transferred to Evin Prison’s Public Ward 3.

Jelveh Javaheri was one of 33 women arrested on March 4, 2007, during a peaceful protest outside the Revolutionary Courts objecting to pressures placed on women’s rights activists and the trial of 5 colleagues. Ms. Javaheri is due in court on the 18th of December in relation to her arrest in March.

Maryam Hosseinkhah another member of the One Million Signatures Campaign was imprisoned 13 days ago on similar charges and is currently being held in Evin Prison.

Read the article.

(Hattip: Emperical What You See Is What You Get)

Read More...

Summary only...