Here is another horrifying story about a young girl being blamed and punished for her own rape.
Hena Akhter was a fourteen-year-old Bangaladeshi girl who caught the eye of Mahbub Khan, a married neighbor (who was also her cousin). Khan started harassing Hena on her way to school. Hena's father complained, and Khan was fined, though he never paid the fine. Several months later, in January of this year, Khan waited outside Hena's home until she came outside to use the outdoor toilet. He gagged, raped and beat her.
Khan's wife heard the commotion, came outside and caught her husband raping Hena. Instead of saving the young girl, she dragged Hena into her house, beat her some more and trampled her on the floor.
Who got punished for this? Hena and Khan were convicted of adultery! They were both sentenced
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Outrageous: Battered women have a "pre-existing medical condition"
I usually write about religious issues, but today's blog is from a colleague's email who found something so outrageous I couldn't ignore it.
"Sometimes I see things in the news that just seem so very, very incredible to me, although by this time I shouldn't be surprised by anything....but this morning I saw some stuff on CNN about this topic, and I couldn't believe it, until I looked it up on the 'net ... here's a link."
My colleague's email continues, "This is amazing to me, considering the fact that as many as one in three women have been the victim of domestic violence at some time in their life, either as a child, a spouse, a girlfriend, or a parent ... far more women than men ... and this stupid concept that women who have been victimized in these situations are somehow guilty of participating in risky lifestyles and are therefore subject to discrimination in eight states and by four major insurance companies. This is just one more nail in the coffin of today's problematic health care system.
"But worse than that, it's a sad, sad indicator that maybe women have not come all that far, if domestic violence can be used to bar women from getting medical help for themselves when they most need it.
"Hey, I know how we can make this all fair and square! ... why don't we exclude everyone who rides motorcycles, or who jumps out of airplanes, or who has gotten into a bar fight with his buddies, or who is a police officer, or a fireman ... all on the basis of engaging in risky lifestyles?? Oops, no that wouldn't work, particularly since most of the folks who engage in those behaviors are MEN ...... !#$^&*%!!!"
All I can add is, Amen!
"Sometimes I see things in the news that just seem so very, very incredible to me, although by this time I shouldn't be surprised by anything....but this morning I saw some stuff on CNN about this topic, and I couldn't believe it, until I looked it up on the 'net ... here's a link."
Eight states and the District of Columbia don't have laws that specifically bar insurance companies from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition to deny health coverage, according to a study from the National Women's Law Center.Got that? In other words, if a woman's husband beats her up, she can't get health insurance any more.
My colleague's email continues, "This is amazing to me, considering the fact that as many as one in three women have been the victim of domestic violence at some time in their life, either as a child, a spouse, a girlfriend, or a parent ... far more women than men ... and this stupid concept that women who have been victimized in these situations are somehow guilty of participating in risky lifestyles and are therefore subject to discrimination in eight states and by four major insurance companies. This is just one more nail in the coffin of today's problematic health care system.
"But worse than that, it's a sad, sad indicator that maybe women have not come all that far, if domestic violence can be used to bar women from getting medical help for themselves when they most need it.
"Hey, I know how we can make this all fair and square! ... why don't we exclude everyone who rides motorcycles, or who jumps out of airplanes, or who has gotten into a bar fight with his buddies, or who is a police officer, or a fireman ... all on the basis of engaging in risky lifestyles?? Oops, no that wouldn't work, particularly since most of the folks who engage in those behaviors are MEN ...... !#$^&*%!!!"
All I can add is, Amen!
Labels:
child abuse,
domestic violence,
health,
human rights,
women's rights
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
More anti-atheist discrimination in the courtroom
My local newspaper had a new example of unequal rights for Atheists. A local policemen, Officer Bessant, was tragically shot and killed by gang members, mostly to increase their "street cred", their stature in the gang community. The murder was a despicable setup, a cowardly assassination.
The main witness against the murders is also a gang member who testified that he repeatedly lied to police, and to his parents. This witness also admitted shooting at other gang members in a gunfight with rival gang members. This is not a man you'd normally want to trust.
Yet, this lying criminal was magically transformed into the prosecuter's star witness, for the simple reason that he started reading the Bible. He found God. He decided to repent. Jail made him realize the error of his ways, and he turned to religion. By merely declaring that he was now reformed, following the teachings of Jesus, all that lying and attempted murder was forgotten (literally – he was given immunity), and he became a credible witness.
Now the man may in fact be telling the truth; that's for the jury to decide. But how is this discrimination against Atheists? I'm glad you asked.
Imagine that the "reform" was reversed, that he'd been a Christian gang member, lied to everyone, and participated in a gunbattle with a rival gang. After being caught, and spending some time in prison, our hypothetical witness realized his mistake – Christianity had led him astray.
"Yes, your honor, I realized that it was the illogical rules, the stories of genocide, and the undecipherable mythology in the Bible that confused me. I finally realized that Humanist morals made a lot more sense. As a Humanist, I have to actually think about my life, and the mistakes I've made. And your Honor, I now can see the error of my ways. I know I have to be truthful and honest, because that's the Humanist thing to do. I've repented, and stand before you as a new man, one who has rejected God and all Christian mythology."
Does anyone in these United States think an Christian-turned-Atheist would be able to get the same forgiveness that this criminal is receiving? Does anyone think that an Atheist would be believed by the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury?
Case closed.
The main witness against the murders is also a gang member who testified that he repeatedly lied to police, and to his parents. This witness also admitted shooting at other gang members in a gunfight with rival gang members. This is not a man you'd normally want to trust.
Yet, this lying criminal was magically transformed into the prosecuter's star witness, for the simple reason that he started reading the Bible. He found God. He decided to repent. Jail made him realize the error of his ways, and he turned to religion. By merely declaring that he was now reformed, following the teachings of Jesus, all that lying and attempted murder was forgotten (literally – he was given immunity), and he became a credible witness.
Now the man may in fact be telling the truth; that's for the jury to decide. But how is this discrimination against Atheists? I'm glad you asked.
Imagine that the "reform" was reversed, that he'd been a Christian gang member, lied to everyone, and participated in a gunbattle with a rival gang. After being caught, and spending some time in prison, our hypothetical witness realized his mistake – Christianity had led him astray.
"Yes, your honor, I realized that it was the illogical rules, the stories of genocide, and the undecipherable mythology in the Bible that confused me. I finally realized that Humanist morals made a lot more sense. As a Humanist, I have to actually think about my life, and the mistakes I've made. And your Honor, I now can see the error of my ways. I know I have to be truthful and honest, because that's the Humanist thing to do. I've repented, and stand before you as a new man, one who has rejected God and all Christian mythology."
Does anyone in these United States think an Christian-turned-Atheist would be able to get the same forgiveness that this criminal is receiving? Does anyone think that an Atheist would be believed by the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury?
Case closed.
Labels:
atheism,
atheist,
christian,
christianity,
courts,
discrimination,
human rights,
law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)