Jump to content

Young Gay Man Executed in Iran


43 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

In Iran, sometimes brothers kill their sisters if they consider them to have "tainted the family honor".

 

Some 50 years ago it happened here in Sicily as well. But now things have changed beyond recognition.

 

However it doesn't justify a State executing somebody because of a crime committed when he was a child. That is plain barbaric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, the criminal did need harsh punishment for raping three men

 

He was 13, for God's sake, when he allegedly did that.

In this country a person below 14 can not be prosecuted under the law, for any crime.

As to rape, England has a similar law:

 

http://www.indlii.org/Forensics.aspx

 

Under the law of England , a boy 14 year of age can not commit rape

 

See also here:

 

http://www.hklii.org.hk/hk/other/hklrc/cp/1999/01/3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "victims" withdrew their accusations.

:angel: This is indeed odd.

still, the criminal did need harsh punishment for raping three men

That sort of came out wrong. I'm all for rehabilition > punishment. Ones life should not be ruined because of a stupid mistake (i.e. In the U.S. a 25-Life sentence. Even once your out of prison you have no future, as your shunned and cannot get a good job.) and it definitely should not be ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much credibility can be given to an accusation that was later withdrawn? None.

 

More likely than not, the accusers were lying about the whole thing.

 

People who tell the truth don't withdraw accusations. I know I wouldn't, had it actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about "Man executed for rape". Less sensationalist, More accurate.
well

 

no actually

 

its normal in iran that they make up accusations, just te get a {censored} person convicted and be able to kill him

 

according to the sharia, you need 3 witnesses in order to kill a {censored} person

 

being {censored} is forbidden in Islamic law (sharia)

 

the sharia is a kind of medieval, retarded law, that should be forbidden as fast as possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we just talked about that topic in ethics class in school. Even some muslims said that the Sharia is obsolete! The mediaval times are over! Why do people still want to determine how other have to be? I dont get it.

 

Damn, he was 13 years old when he "raped" those boys. I'm really curios about how he "raped" them ... In germany its like in many other countries, you have to be at least 14 years old to be punished by law. Even after that you dont get hanged for being {censored}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In germany its like in many other countries, you have to be at least 14 years old to be punished by law. Even after that you dont get hanged for being {censored}.

 

I know :(

I lived in Germany for about 18 months. It is an extremely civilized country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about "Man executed for rape". Less sensationalist, More accurate.

 

Totally wrong, because by "rape" apparently they just mean "sodomy"

 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/lgbtlaw/2...-iranian-m.html

 

Makvan Mouloodzadeh was executed on Dec. 5 for allegedly committing acts of anal rape (sodomy) with another young boy when he was only 13 years old.

 

I would guess that if this child had been accused of raping a young girl, he would not be punished in this manner. It seems that this young man, just 21 years old, was executed because he was {censored}.

 

the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court overturned the initial affirmation of the conviction. "In his November 10, 2007 opinion (1/86/8607), the Iranian Chief Justice described the death sentence to be in violation of Islamic teachings, the religious decrees of high-ranking Shiite clerics, and the law of the land."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is {censored} poor form that the man was executed, Especially since a pardon had been issued.

 

Your first quote is strange, It merely reinforces my original point. The man was executed on charges of rape, Not on charges of homosexuality.

Makvan Mouloodzadeh was executed on Dec. 5 for allegedly committing acts of anal rape (sodomy) with another young boy when he was only 13 years old.

 

Your second quote is misquoted.

 

Your quote:

I would guess that if this child had been accused of raping a young girl, he would not be punished in this manner. It seems that this young man, just 21 years old, was executed because he was {censored}.

 

The actual quote from your linked article:

This is just a speculation on my part, but I would guess that if this child had been accused of raping a young girl, he would not be punished in this manner.

 

^^ That's one whole sentence, It should be quoted as one. Of course anyone is free to agree with his speculation.

 

Your third quote really has no bearing regarding my original post.

 

Carry on Gentlemen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is {censored} poor form that the man was executed, Especially since a pardon had been issued.

 

Your first quote is strange, It merely reinforces my original point. The man was executed on charges of rape, Not on charges of homosexuality.

 

What I get an impression of, however, is that they charged him of rape when in fact it really was homosexual acts that they wanted him hung for. Charging him for rape gives them an excuse that won't be argued with by other countries.

 

Or perhaps I'm just being a cynic....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first quote is strange, It merely reinforces my original point. The man was executed on charges of rape, Not on charges of homosexuality.

 

Albeit I can't quite prove it, it would seem that "anal rape" and sodomy are being used with the same meaning:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery:

 

At common law consent was not a defence; nor was the fact that the parties were married.As with the crime of rape, buggery required that penetration must have occurred, but ejaculation is not necessary.

 

Your second quote is misquoted.

 

Your quote:

The actual quote from your linked article:

^^ That's one whole sentence, It should be quoted as one. Of course anyone is free to agree with his speculation.

 

I don't believe that is relevant, because in my quote:

 

I would guess that if this child had been accused of raping a young girl, he would not be punished in this manner. It seems that this young man, just 21 years old, was executed because he was {censored}.

 

"I would guess" means just that, it is a guess by the author.

 

Your third quote really has no bearing regarding my original post.

 

Not necessarily, but it does prove that the man was unlawfully executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some left-wing nut {censored} censored my post in an attempt to stifle the 1st amendment.

I wonder why people hate freedom so much? I guess they just want their sick opinion shown, and

no one else's.

 

 

What the kid did was pure filth, and anyone who thinks that way is pure filth. It is a product of sick

minded individuals.

 

EDIT: I am copying this text in case the sick minded kid decides to censor my post again.

 

 

Although your opinions are widely tolerated in this forum, I would like to point out that we are under no obligation to retain any post that is considered unacceptable.

The entire tone & attitude of what is quoted above is beyond this limit, and I would suggest that you consider the fact that this is a private place, free to set its own rules, by which you have agreed to abide on registering. If you don't like the rules you are free to take your opinions elsewhere.

 

Secondly: Hurling abuse at the staff for attempting to do their job is kindof like throwing your drink at the bartender, i.e. you would be unlikely to feel much floor under your feet on the way out the door.

 

In short: show respect for other users, debate the issues & not the person & be civil: This means, for instance, explaining your objection to something or someone rather than decrying them as "pure filth" Finally, understand that there is a limit to what we are willing to put up with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is it you are referring to as filth?Careful what you say there - you might make a lot of people very angry :)
Filth is defined as something that is sick, immoral, and against God.Most Iranians call their god "Allah", and read from the Koran. However, it says very similar thingsabout such practices as my Bible does, and the punishment should fit the crime, and eye for an eyeis my opinion. However. It IS their country, and they can run their country how they wish. If deathis their law, then so be it, however I disagree, and believe death is somewhat extreme for such actions.Don't really care who I make angry. The entire world can kiss my ass as far as I am concerned. I {censored} peopleoff every day when I tell them Windows is {censored}, and that mammon is their false god. The little right-wing nut job false-Christians get mad when I tell them that. HAHA. The liberalsget mad when I tell them that their practices are filth. The statists get mad when I tell them thatgovernment is not God, and men do not rule over men."Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants." - William PennIt seems to have been applied in this case. When a country becomes immoral, and full of filth, it will fall.The same as Rome, Babylon, Egypt, Persia (Iran), Atlantis, and all the other Empires that fell away from self restraint.America will do this as well since it has strayed over the past 150 years, and has tried to govern men, and other nations.
Although your opinions are widely tolerated in this forum, I would like to point out that we are under no obligation to retain any post that is considered unacceptable. The entire tone & attitude of what is quoted above is beyond this limit, and I would suggest that you consider the fact that this is a private place, free to set its own rules, by which you have agreed to abide on registering. If you don't like the rules you are free to take your opinions elsewhere. Secondly: Hurling abuse at the staff for attempting to do their job is kindof like throwing your drink at the bartender, i.e. you would be unlikely to feel much floor under your feet on the way out the door.In short: show respect for other users, debate the issues & not the person & be civil: This means, for instance, explaining your objection to something or someone rather that decrying them as "pure filth" Finally, understand that there is a limit to what we are willing to put up with.
There is a limit as to what I tolerate as well. Censorship is sick. Your opinions are tolerated because in this country we have the 1st amendment. Read it if you are uneducated about the matter, which you have expressed that you are.I am no obligation to anyone with my opinions, and neither is anyone else. Don't restrict me, and I won't restrict you.I fully respect their right to opinion, no matter how sick it is, and you should fully respect my right to my opinion, no matter what it may be.We live in a free country bucky-o-hare, not a democracy, not a dictatorship, but a constitutional Republic. If you don't like it, leave.I get the same attitude from people, and ignorant people no matter where I go. Weather they be idiot Right Wingers, or idiot left wingers,CENSOR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. What about tearing down the fence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some left-wing nut {censored} censored my post in an attempt to stifle the 1st amendment.

I wonder why people hate freedom so much? I guess they just want their sick opinion shown, and

no one else's.

 

None the less, In countries like Iran, this is perfectly acceptable punishment in their country, and nobody

anywhere else, has the right to dictate to them how they should run their laws of their country.

 

In some countries if you steal, they cut your hand off. This is perfectly acceptable in this instance,

and the same principal should be applied as opposed to death. However, it is their country, and they

can do as they wish according to their beliefs.

 

What the kid did was pure filth, and anyone who thinks that way is pure filth. It is a product of sick

minded individuals.

 

EDIT: I am copying this text in case the sick minded kid decides to censor my post again.

 

You really are a very angry person, aren't you?

 

It would be nice to see some civilised debate in this forum as opposed to childish mudslinging at people; resorting to slagging off their political views as opposed to posting constructive criticism and explaining why you think your views are superior. May I point out at this juncture that mannerisms such as yours are responsible for a large proportion of the distaste for the American people which seems almost universal more than about 5 miles out of your soverign waters. But hey, we will have your freedom imposed upon us, whether we want it or not.

 

Frankly, I don't think we even established whether the 'offence' was consensual or not, since Sodomy is considered rape whether consensual or not in Iran. Nor did we establish whether or not he actually commited the 'crime' anyway, which seems unlikely in light of the withdrawl of the 'victims' accusations.

 

I don't think you can say it is reasonable in a supposedly developed world for somebody to be killed, or even persecuted just because they want to express themselves in a different manner to the majority of the population. So long as anything they do is consensual and does not harm others, I think that persecution should be considered a breach of 'global' benchmark Human Rights. Stoning people because they have commited a {censored} act is ridiculous and has no place in a civilised world.

 

Religious directives have throughout history been interpreted in different ways by different people. I don't care what you say about Islam and Judaism keeping to much older traditions and 'following the word of God' more closely than Chritianity and other religions, their rules have changed over the years just as much, if not more. It would be perfectly possible to interpret the rules differently to allow homosexuality, and numerous muslims outside these 'wacky' countries are perfectly sane, reasonable individuals who support the ideals of individual freedom. The fact remains that people in said countries are indoctrinated with homophobia, male chauvinism and numerous other ideas that I dare not speak of from a very young age, with the excuse that these are the teachings of a religion.

 

Religious figures have far too much political control, even in the world of today, and it's hard to see how they truly represent the original ideology of the religions they claim to represent, which were designed to encourage a sense of community, personal and group worth and numerous other positive concepts. I am fully in favour of people practising whatever they want so long as it harms no others, however, I feel that a separation of state and religion is essential to prevent the persecution and outcast of those with different views in today's society.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...