portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

gender & sexuality | human & civil rights

Gays persecuted, arrested, tortured, and murdered regularly in Muslim countries

We need to get more vocal about one of the world's most underreported human rights disasters - the brutal treatment of gays and lesbians in the Middle East, North Africa, and Muslim countries in general. This treatment includes arrest, torture, and murder. This is completely unacceptable. Raise your voices in protest and flood the embassies of these nations with our anger. Protest those mosques that preach hate against homosexuals. And lobby THIS government in the US to protect more political refugees from these rights-abusing nations. Let it be known that intolerance in Islam won't be tolerated - we can lay down a fatwa, too.
April 12 On that fateful May 2001 night when a ghastly watershed in official Egyptian homophobia was set, Maher Sabry missed the party on the Queen Boat, a floating disco moored on the Nile.




The Egyptian writer and theater director was too tired to drag himself to the popular Cairo gay hangout that night, so he stayed home.
It was a decision that was to change the course of his life.

In a crackdown that gripped the country and provoked widespread international condemnation, Egyptian security officials swooped down on the party and arrested about three dozen men. More than 50 of them were then put on high-profile trials on charges ranging from "devil worshipping" to "habitual debauchery."

While international rights groups dismissed the trials as "spurious," the local media published the names and photographs of several detainees a personally crushing disclosure in a conservative society.

In Crawford, Texas, today, President Bush is hosting Hosni Mubarak at his Prairie Chapel Ranch during the Egyptian president's visit to the United States. A presidential invitation to the ranch, as diplomats well know, is an honor reserved for only a privileged few world leaders.

But while the Egyptian strongman is viewed as a vital Arab ally in the war on terror and the efforts to secure peace in the Middle East, international groups have widely condemned Mubarak's domestic human rights track record.

In the days following the Queen Boat sting, Egypt's dreaded security apparatus carried out a chilling anti-gay crackdown, infiltrating Internet chat rooms in cyber stings, setting up suspects, rounding them up, and then proceeding to interrogate, intimidate and often torture them.

Sabry may have missed the boat, but he was in imminent danger of getting caught in the subsequent witch hunt. Nearly five years after he wrote and directed the landmark Arabic play, The Harem Egypt's first play on the subject of homosexuality the 36-year-old writer is a refugee in the United States.

The transformation from a gutsy artist exploring new cultural terrain in his homeland to a refugee fleeing persecution due to his sexual orientation has been a painful journey. And today, Sabry sounds like a man crushed.

"The Queen Boat was a shock," he says softly, sadly, from his new home in exile in San Francisco. "We had hopes that Cairo was becoming more tolerant, we had hopes for more rights, more acceptance. But this was a strike that killed any hope, any movement, any dream."

'Public Scandals' and 'Indecent Behavior '

While the issue of same-sex marriage is in the election-year spotlight in the United States, around the world, rights groups warn that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people are being silently and systematically targeted for discrimination and violence.

"Amnesty International has been documenting abuses based on sexual orientation from countries all over the world, in all regions," says Melinda Ching Simon, a spokeswoman in Geneva for the group.

"These atrocities," she adds, "have included the death penalty, imprisonment, disappearances, torture, rape, electrocutions and forced medical examinations."

According to the New York-based Human Rights Watch, nearly 100 countries still have laws prohibiting sexual relations between persons of the same sex. And in several countries, vaguely worded laws against "public scandals" or "indecent behavior" are used to crack down on suspected gays and lesbians.

Still Scrapping Over 'Sexual Orientation'

Despite extensive human rights reports documenting such abuses, sexual identity rights are one of the thorniest issues on the international human rights agenda today.

At the 60th session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, currently under way in Geneva, more than 50 countries are locked in a contentious clash over a proposed resolution condemning discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation.

The resolution was introduced last year by the Brazilian delegation, but following heated debates, it was postponed for a year when five Muslim-majority nations Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt and Malaysia opposed the use of the term "sexual orientation."

Although it would not be legally binding, the resolution's supporters say it's a human rights benchmark, the first one of its kind to acknowledge the existence of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Muddying the Waters?

But the sheer novelty of the resolution also makes it a tough proposal to get past some formidable opposition.

The Organization of Islamic Conference is widely expected to block the resolution. Experts say the Vatican is also seeking to defeat it by influencing Catholic countries on the panel.

In a statement released after the U.N. commission last year, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute a nonprofit organization that serves as an official lobbyist to the United Nations for the Catholic Church condemned the proposal, warning that gay rights advocates would use it "to advance their agenda to legalize gay marriage and to create hate crimes legislation."

Amnesty's Ching Simon dismisses what she calls "the perception that the resolution will somehow muddy the waters about same-sex marriage."

"The bottom line is lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are human beings and they have rights protected by human rights law," she says. "The other bottom line is acknowledging that such violations exist."

Suspected Lesbians Tortured, Raped

While gay rights tend to be a low priority in most developing countries, by all accounts Muslim-dominated countries have some of the world's worst track records on discrimination due to sexual orientation.

Under some interpretations of Sharia, or Islamic, law, same-sex relations can be punished by anything ranging from floggings to imprisonment to execution by stoning.

In Muslim countries, experts say most of the documented cases of abuse center on gay men. Given the wide gender disparities in many Muslim nations especially in the Persian Gulf region lesbianism is a far more hidden phenomenon.

But in countries such as Uganda, Russia and several east European nations, rights groups have documented cases of rape and electric-shock torture of suspected lesbians.

Different Morals for Different Classes

For suspected gay men in countries like Saudi Arabia, there's a constant threat of getting picked up by security officials for behaviors that are considered "un-Islamic."

Last month, a Dubai-based newspaper reported that about 50 men were arrested for allegedly attending a gay wedding in the Saudi holy city of Medina. The suspects, however, denied the charges.

But experts say it's hard to generalize the situation in Muslim-dominated nations. In secular, Muslim-majority Turkey, for instance, parliament is currently reviewing a penal code amendment that would criminalize discrimination based on "sexual orientation."

And while Saudi Arabia has been infamous for its harsh punishments for anyone convicted of "sodomy," a recent report by The Independent, a British newspaper, said in that in practice, homosexuality is tolerated especially among affluent sections in the relatively liberal Saudi port city of Jeddah.

"The situation differs according to the class and identity of the people concerned," says Scott Long of Human Rights Watch. The large numbers of migrant workers in the oil-rich kingdom are particularly vulnerable, he says. "Saudi citizens are a lot safer than guest workers arrested for so-called suspicious activities."


Internet: Tool of Emancipation or Entrapment?

The inconsistencies in official positions make it particularly risky for young gay men attempting to hook up with like-minded people via the Internet in most parts of the Middle East.

In Saudi Arabia, for instance, the kingdom's Internet Services Unit, which is responsible for blocking Web sites deemed inappropriate, unblocked access to GayMiddleEast.com earlier this year.

The sudden "uncensoring" prompted speculation that the Saudi royal family, stung by growing international criticism, was willing to ease up on gay rights. But earlier this month, the Saudi Internet Services Unit once again blocked access to the site just as inexplicably as it had unblocked it earlier.

In a region where gays and lesbians are unable to socialize, communicate or publicly express their views, homosexual activity tends to be confined to furtive and dangerous encounters in public parks and other gay hangouts. The Internet, however, did manage to change some of that. Chat rooms allowed gay men to make friends, discuss issues and establish a virtual "gay scene."

But as Long notes, the Internet in places like Egypt has also been used as a "tool of entrapment," enabling undercover police agents to arrange meetings with men through chat rooms and personal ads on the Web and then arrest them.

Hunted in Egypt, Yet Missing It

As a writer-activist in Egypt, Sabry came perilously close to getting caught in a cyber sting.

Sabry reported on the Queen Boat trials, posting his Web articles under the pseudonym "Horus," after the ancient Egyptian sun god. Nevertheless, Sabry started getting warnings from some of his gay friends that government informers were closing in on him.

As the situation became increasingly dangerous, Sabry applied for asylum in the United States. In the summer of 2002, he finally arrived in San Francisco, the "gay Mecca."

But although he's been adjusting to life in America, Sabry says it's not all it's cut out to be.

"I miss Cairo," he says. "I'm rather homesick. My problem was with the government, not the people. I'm a stranger here in San Francisco it's been a bit disappointing, really. I had imagined it to be more liberal, more politically aware. But maybe it's because I had such high expectations."

Attribution? 13.Apr.2004 02:52

~

who is the author of the above posted article?

what is the publisher / journal / organization / web site of origin?

who or what is "Rainbow Front"?

Article info 13.Apr.2004 03:04

Rainbow Front

The article is at:

 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/World/Relationships/gay_abuse_040412-1.html

From ABC News, by Leela Jacinto. One of the better peices of reporting from them in a while.

'Rainbow Front' is just a moniker. Hopefully it reflects my attitude on these matters, though!

Correct Title and Author of above-posted article 13.Apr.2004 03:11

from ABC News website

Closet Encounters
Marriage Is the Issue Confronting U.S. Gays, But in Some Places, It's Prison, Torture Or Worse

By Leela Jacinto

Above Posted Article Is Not "coverage" - it is a REPOST 13.Apr.2004 03:16

~

please classify your postings accordingly,

and do not misattribute them with completely altered, hijacked titles.

you didn't even leave the original title, author and publisher on this, and would not have found out until the first comment asked about it.

This smells suspicious and very fifth column like to me. 13.Apr.2004 05:23

zxc

to go off an a quasi racist rant and rave against muslims when we have enough bad characteristics here at home and among our honky racist imperialist sexist fucks, sounds to me like a very divisive piece of work, such as our Langley devils would honor and be joyful of. Do you also propose to continue bombing muslims until they become what you want them to? Should we listen to what you want them to become or what the devil in the White House wants them to become? Go to hell, agent provocateur!!

Whoa--why so mean to OP? They 13.Apr.2004 05:30

lop

posted the information that you wanted when you asked. No need for rudeness. I'm happy for information, and this is an important issue.

quitcher cryin' that ya can't get married- 13.Apr.2004 07:36

because we could just shoot you?

Is THAT the moral of this story?

"And lobby THIS government in the US to protect more political refugees from these rights-abusing nations"

Refugees? I wish. Right, that's who Joe Six-Pack wants even for a next door neighbor more than Iraqis, is gay Iraqis, with the many paranoid and hateful lathers this admin has him worked into.

Tune in next week when Iraqis march in the streets for better treatment of gays, and US soldiers snipe at them off of rooftops like they seem to do most of the time when the Iraqi people have something on their mind.

Maybe I'm a little too cynical (funny, pegged Bush pretty well that way) but this smells a little like "if you don't like it here in Mur-ka, why don't you leave?"

if you're Really "Concerned" about these issues 13.Apr.2004 09:21

then you needn't Misrepresent A Corporate Media Article

you can go to Human Rights Watch  http://www.hrw.org

or Amnesty International  http://www.amnesty.org

(just citing two example organizations)

and find out about the status and issues of each country there . . .

Whoa... let me clear a few things up 13.Apr.2004 09:53

Rainbow Front

Sorry for not getting the article attribution right in the first post. It'll be right next time.

This isn't anti-Muslim. But there are aspects of Islam that are backwards (treatment of women and gays) and have to be addressed. Not addressing them in the name of cultural sensitivity is just foolish and unfair to those who are presecuted.

Also, I posted this article and not an HRW summary because this personalizes the issue a bit more.

And the truth shall set you free... 13.Apr.2004 10:10

who cares

Wow, lots of venom in this thread. What's wrong with hearing the truth? Most people are sick of ultra-sensitive hacks throwing "honky racist imperialist sexist fucks" bombs at everyone, slapping labels like homophobes, haters, bigots, blah, blah, blah labels on anyone who even subtly has a different viewpoint than you...

I think gays should have the right to form civil unions. In the Muslim countries where persecution is the greatest, i would be considered quite a liberal!!! I saw lots of gay couples obtaining marriage licenses the past few weeks in downtown Portland. I didn't see any "death penalty, imprisonment, disappearances, torture, rape, electrocutions and forced medical examinations", maybe i was standing on the wrong street corner.

Nobody is asking you to shut up; LISTEN!!! We ""honky racist imperialist sexist fucks" have feeeeeeelings, too.

I don't understand why we can't look at the truth of 13.Apr.2004 15:18

uk

other cultures too, while we're shining a bright light on our own. I think we run the risk of romanticizing other cultures unless we look at what's going on in others that may not be so wonderful. I don't see that this article is racist. Any more than it's "racist" against whites or America to talk about the Patriot Act--that's just a feature of our government/culture right now. If I'm looking critically at my own culture, I'm looking critically at others too, as a citizen of the world. I don't believe that America and Israel and whatever countries are on our lefty shit list are all bad; and every other country that we feel is powerless is all good. There are good and bad parts of cultures/governments, and we need to be willing to face it all. That's the mature thing to do--otherwise we fall into simplistic all good/all bad dichotomies.

And yes, zxc, we SHOULD want others to 13.Apr.2004 15:22

uk

embrace human rights. Being muslim or anything else doesn't give anyone the moral authority to oppress. We stood up against south africa because their treatment of blacks was wrong. And those who are for human rights need to call it in muslim countries or anywhere else people are oppressed too. There's no license to oppress.

"Rainbow Front" is Disingenuous - Or Disinformationalist. 13.Apr.2004 17:32

~

"Also, I posted this article and not an HRW summary because this personalizes the issue a bit more."

--first of all,

you MISREPRESENTED the article by originally posting it *without* its article header, title, source publisher, internet URL, or original author.

also known as: PLAGIARISM.

you DELIBERATELY removed the original source information of an article that you did not write.

you posted the body text of the article with your own title, your own provocative (i'd say also inflammatory) article summary, and your name "Rainbow Front".

this is a Disinformationalist tactic, and it was DELIBERATE.

not an, "oh, I'm sorry and I promise not to do it again daddy" type of error.

we would not have been provided with this info unless it had been called attention to by comment.

the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty information sites about each country's violations is not just a "summary" - there is extensive research data (and sometimes investigative news articles) posted in relation to every country on planet earth with human rights violations, conveniently organized by country and region. it would be advisable next time for you to compile several pieces of research from such esteemed sources, properly condensed into a REFERENCED article with your own summary to begin. THAT is what "personalizing" (assuming that was your sincere goal) such information is all about: not hijacking the body text of a corporate media article after guillotining its author, original title/publisher and emblazoning that - unattributed - with your own header/logo.

you, "Rainbow Front" have discredited yourself by the publishing tactics you have chosen.

if you appear on this newswire again under that moniker, it'll be entirely up to you to (re?)gain whatever 'credibility' you may have been seeking in the first place.

Ease off, ~, plenty of 13.Apr.2004 18:26

ease off already

articles on here aren't referenced and the authors don't get plagiarism screamed at them, and their movtives questioned. If it's upsetting to read what goes on in some muslim countries, then work to change it. Why are you being so belligerent about this? They answered the questions about sourcing when they were asked.

Ease off - yourself. 13.Apr.2004 19:37

~

"articles on here aren't referenced and the authors don't get plagiarism screamed at them"

--this is PLAGIARISM - plain and simple - as explained above. "Rainbow Front" took someone else's article, deliberately removed the original header / author / source publisher, and replaced it with his own.

that's NOT the same as simply reposting an article here in its entirety; not even the same as declining to provide a URL link for an article (which can easily be found anyway via internet search if you've provided either the 1) article title, or 2) author, let alone the 3) name of the publisher / website).

"and their movtives [sic] questioned."

--what are YOUR motives, "ease off"? mine are editorial and journalistic integrity for Indymedia. (as far as "Rainbow Front", see above and below.)

"If it's upsetting to read what goes on in some muslim countries, then work to change it."

--the suggestions for "Rainbow Front" - and any others supposedly concerned or "upset" about human rights in these countries - have been made above in my previous post (with specific recommendations on how to properly construct, research and 'personalize' an investigative or activism article), and other posts above containing research source links.

"Why are you being so belligerent about this?"

--Huh? I've made specific, helpful points about a plagiaristic, misattributed, supposedly 'original' article on the newswire. even chemtrail articles come with properly attributed authors and source links on here.

"They answered the questions about sourcing when they were asked."

--only AFTER they were asked. motives and explanation for the deliberately chosen style of original posting remain suspect, as does any credibility of one calling themselves "Rainbow Front".

More clarification 13.Apr.2004 19:49

Rainbow Front

"we would not have been provided with this info unless it had been called attention to by comment. "

Not really true. I was confused at first by the publishing system, and found it strange that I was able to post the article without a link to it or other things. That would have been corrected eventually regardless.

"the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty information sites about each country's violations is not just a 'summary'"

That's exactly what it is. It's a summary and overview of the current situation interpresed with snippets of narrative. I chose this article because it begins and ends with the story of one person, and it is fairly short, so that people who don't have a lot of time can read it quickly and get a sense of the issue right away. You call it a 'corporate media' article as though everything commissioned or published by ABC News has no value or credibility. I'm not sure if that's the case generally, but I'm familiar with these issues, and this is a good article. It's a humane article that gives some insight into why we should care. On that account, I think it was worth posting.

"your own provocative (i'd say also inflammatory) article summary"

It IS a bit provocative, that's because I want people to care and learn about the problems that this segment of society faces in this part of the world. We're not talking about occasional arrests or harrassment, many of these people are being tortured and killed. I think that's worth getting angry about.

But I realize that not everyone feels the same way. I can only hope that you will come, over time, to recognize the gravity of these people's plight. Maybe then you'll have more compassion and be less anguished over formatting issues.

"Rainbow Front" 13.Apr.2004 20:02

~

"Maybe then you'll have more compassion and be less anguished over formatting issues."

--"anguish" needs to be kept in perspective. and maybe you'll have more compassion for Muslim people in the Iraqi cities of of Fallujah and Najaf [at this very moment being massacred by heavily armed and armored occupying forces], who are dying en masse - along with predominantly working-class and poor US soldiers - at the hands of your (assuming you're a US citizen) corporate-oil-baron government.

 http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx


ABC article 13.Apr.2004 20:10

~

" . . . and it is fairly short, so that people who don't have a lot of time can read it quickly and get a sense of the issue right away. You call it a 'corporate media' article as though everything commissioned or published by ABC News has no value or credibility. I'm not sure if that's the case generally, but I'm familiar with these issues, and this is a good article. It's a humane article that gives some insight into why we should care. On that account, I think it was worth posting."

--well stated. all the more reason you shouldn't have egotistically and deviously PLAGIARIZED it.

next time you feel so deeply about "sharing" a written article - no matter what source or topic - please have the common decency and legal acknowledgement of its creators to include the **original author's name**, and the article's **original title**, within the body of your reposted text (even if you make up your own headline or summary, or even neglect to provide the internet URL).

Uh, yeah, ~, you are 13.Apr.2004 21:57

observer

belligerent. There are many articles on this site that don't have the "proper" sourcing, and I don't think I ever once saw "plagiarism" screamed at the poster. Why don't you go through and be the Indymedia police and berate everyone who doesn't source, and then when they do, continue to accuse them of plagiarizing.

About perspective, most articles on this site are not about war and death. If you want every article to match up to that standard...well, actually, THIS article would qualify more than most. Homosexuals are being tortured and killed. What would make that more serious for you?

Since you're throwing around insults, here's one for you: you are a lunatic.

"observer" 13.Apr.2004 23:38

~

"belligerent. There are many articles on this site that don't have the "proper" sourcing"

--we're talking about PLAGIARISM. "Rainbow Front" took someone else's article, deliberately removed the original header title + author + source publisher, and replaced it with his own.

that's NOT the same as simply reposting an article here in its entirety; not even the same as declining to provide a URL link for an article (which can easily be found anyway via internet search if you've provided either the 1) article title, or 2) author, let alone the 3) name of the publisher / website).

if "Rainbow Front" had initially taken the time and consideration to __at least__ leave just ONE (1) of these four items:

1) original article title
2) original author
3) name of original publisher / news source / website
4) URL internet address

but because "Rainbow Front" had deliberately posted NONE of these 4 things, a question needed to be asked (Comment #1, above).

"and I don't think I ever once saw "plagiarism" screamed at the poster."

--see above. Plagiarism is a legal term referring to the use of someone's ideas, information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

and the above was done with an __ENTIRE__ __COPYRIGHTED__ __ARTICLE__ (sans the original author, title, or source publisher). Plagiarism is often prosecuted in cases where only a __brief excerpt__ from an article or book is reproduced without attribution - you and many others must have encountered or heard of this in your school studies, exams and term papers, where a classmate or student was reprimanded or expelled for it.

and of course, more famously it's also of note in certain 'documentation' that the US and UK provided the world when they attempted to show 'evidence' of Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction' last year.

"Why don't you go through and be the Indymedia police and berate everyone who doesn't source"

--as clearly explained many times directly above, it's quite possible - using internet search engines such as Google - for EVERY INDYMEDIA READER / USER THEMSELVES to properly confirm article sources, if we've been provided with the bare minimum information of 1) article title, or 2) author, let alone the 3) name of the publisher / news source / website.

but that unfortunately doesn't work when an author has plagiaristically removed a work's entire heading, original title, original author's name, and original publisher - and claimed it as their own. (translation: PLAGIARISM.) Like what "Rainbow Front" did. it couldn't be confirmed until a question was directly asked, as in Comment #1 above.

"and then when they do, continue to accuse them of plagiarizing."

--the original post was plagiarism. "Rainbow Front" has given explanations of why they did it, and also provided the original source publisher, article title, author and URL link. I was not "continuing to accuse them" of plagiarizing. I have accepted "Rainbow Front"'s explanation, but as mentioned before - if "RF" continues to post here, it will be entirely up to them to ensure the reliability of their next article, and the reputation of their "RF" moniker.

What you, "observer" are trying to assert is that plagiarism somehow did not occur at all. It did, but "Rainbow Front" has done their best to explain and make amends - that's one of the benefits of Indymedia, the community can DIALOGUE on the veracity and reliability of source materials (i.e. as was done above in the very first comment, ASK the original poster "what is this, really, and where did it come from?").

"About perspective, most articles on this site are not about war and death. If you want every article to match up to that standard...well, actually, THIS article would qualify more than most. Homosexuals are being tortured and killed. What would make that more serious for you?"

--I'm not "comparing seriousness" of article topics, though you apparently are. I can find out for myself - via searching the internet, HRW / Amnesty research, lots of other sources - how bad things are for any human beings in any country. As also explained clearly above, if I'm a conscientious and scrupulous researcher and author, I can create my own selected compilation article of [referenced] material on homosexuals being tortured and killed (and not only in 'Muslim' countries, by the way) globally - in digestible, encapsulated and attention-catching form, to post here and share with all the readers of Indymedia.

but I'm not going to Disinformationally plagiarize [remove the original header title + author + source publisher, leaving only the body text of] an article and claim it under my name - like the original poster "Rainbow Front" had done.

"Since you're throwing around insults, here's one for you: you are a lunatic."

--"lunatic"? ____I'M____ "throwing around insults"?!? whatever.


? I didn't think Rainbow Front wrote that 14.Apr.2004 01:58

observer

article--it's got the date in a newswire type form etc. Plagiarism usually means that you claim the article for yourself--and you accuse RF of being egotistical... but RF has no "identity" other than what was posted on this one thread, as far as I can tell. So what's the benefit of "plagiarism"? Career advancement? Come on--it was pretty clearly a mistake, and not even a big deal.

Also, you are wrong about not being able to find sources. For an on-line article that's still up and circulating around, if you paste a sentence of it in Yahoo search, it will usually direct you to the article, whether you have an author, title, source, or anything else. That's why you can type 5 words of a song in and get the band info and song title etc. So relax--the source could easily have been found, without the original poster--and now you know how.

But I still don't get why are you're so angry about this.

'observer' - search 14.Apr.2004 02:40

~

"Also, you are wrong about not being able to find sources. For an on-line article that's still up and circulating around, if you paste a sentence of it in Yahoo search, it will usually direct you to the article, whether you have an author, title, source, or anything else. That's why you can type 5 words of a song in and get the band info and song title etc. So relax--the source could easily have been found, without the original poster--and now you know how."

--NO,

YOU are wrong, "observer".

I know how to search the internet as well as - if not better than - you.

"it's got the date in a newswire type form etc."

--DUH. of course I knew it was a news article (and not the work of someone calling themselves "Rainbow Front"). I had already searched more than 50 different ways using all sorts of excerpts, small fragments and keyword combinations of the main text. I also searched by date ('April 12' had been included). It was NOT "easily found".

it was after this fruitless search that I posted the original Comment #1 query you see above.

it's extremely difficult - especially with news items - to find a specific internet reference unless you have at least ONE (1) of the following:

1) verbatim original title
2) original author's name
3) original publisher's name
4) URL internet link

"Plagiarism usually means that you claim the article for yourself"

--BINGO: already explained several times over, above; and precisely what "Rainbow Front" did in their original post.

"it was pretty clearly a mistake, and not even a big deal."

--yep, agreed it was both - so why do you keep denying that the original post was plagiarism?

It's easy. Put any part in Yahoo search and 14.Apr.2004 09:26

()

you will be led to the original source.

Anyway 14.Apr.2004 10:30

Wayany

I think more of the similarities between the Christian right and Radical Islam need to be exposed. Both are self-loathing, hate based, magic-sky-friend worshipping cults with enormous amounts of power. After all, freedom of sexual expression is one of those freedoms of the The US's that "the terrorists" hate.

Way--agreed. I don't know why 15.Apr.2004 00:02

()

that should be so threatening to some to hear. We could do the christian criticism on this site and get hearty agreement. Criticize Islam and many are annoyed.

not threatening or annoying 15.Apr.2004 00:37

reading a little closer

Just pathetically transparent.

There is no solution offered (and why should there be, the countries with the worst records are all current and former US allies). Therefore this is not intended to provide some direction that people can take to improve the situation but instead serves only to further the goal of dehumanizing muslims and promoting a racist agenda. Articles like this have been common place over the past few years and neglect any depth or serious analysis into the politics of the region. Not to mention many of the allegations later prove to be false (like Hussein's person shredder and child prisons).

You're right. Lots of false allegations. 15.Apr.2004 01:39

gay

Gay muslims enjoy all freedoms those societies have to offer. Being gay in Syria must be wonderful.

indeed 15.Apr.2004 02:23

human rights activist

"Being gay in Syria must be wonderful."

Yes, almost as wonderful as being a muslim in the United States. Or being anyone in Iraq. Before protesting the human rights abuses of other countries with regard to homosexuals why don't we start with the United States where assaults, arrests, tortures, are murders are still a far too common occurrance. Or are we only supposed to be condemning those backward brown people?

Telling others how to live is ineffective. Leading by example is the only way to make progress with regard to human rights as history has shown time and time again.

then live by example and take off the 15.Apr.2004 23:13

citizen of the world

rose colored glasses. I'm not into glorifying other cultures and demonizing our own--take an evenhanded look at it all. Is what Israel is doing fine with you? Was South Africa o.k.? Should we not discuss the problems in those cultures? Just let Israel be over there? Then go to about every 8th post on Indymedia and write what you wrote here. Why is what happens to gays insignificant, and why would it get the response to not criticize what happens over there? Why would what happens to Palestinians matter more? Gays are not less human, and the cause is no less worthy. Torture is torture. We have oppression in this country too--so should we ignore palestine until we deal with oppression here? Because that's basically what you're asking to happen with deep oppression of gays in muslim countries. Please answer.