Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1858

Why Spain Is Getting Ready to Expel Ex-Muslim Apostate Imran Firasat, Possibly Sending Him To His Death

Eight years ago, Pakistani citizen Imran Firasat obtained political asylum in Spain after he had received multiple death threats from Muslims because he’d left the One True Faith to become a Christian. Under Sharia law, apostasy is punishable by death.

Fast-forward to today: Firasat faces extradition to Indonesia (more on that in a minute). What happened? Did he commit a crime, or lie on his asylum application, or break Spanish law in any other way? For Spain, the main trouble with Firasat seems to be that he won’t keep his head down and instead criticizes Islam in no uncertain terms.

Two years ago, Firasat shared his 71-minute documentary The Innocent Prophet: The Life of Mohammed from a Different Point of View on YouTube. It’s virtually unwatchable (slow, disjointed, amateurish in almost every way, with a heavily accented voice-over and a cringe-worthy introduction by certified idiot Terry Jones — yes, that Terry Jones)… but it’s impossible to understand why a bad movie – à la Fitna – should drive its maker into the arms of his would-be freelance executioners.

Imran Firasat and his family

Yet that’s what’s about to happen:

On December 21, 2012, Spanish Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz issued an order to deport Firasat, based on Article 44 of the Law on Asylum and Protection, which allows the state to revoke the refugee status of “persons who constitute a threat to Spanish security.” The deportation order stated that Firasat constituted a “persistent source of problems due to his constant threats against the Koran and Islam in general.”

His lawyers’ subsequent protestations didn’t change a thing. A Spanish appeals court confirmed in 2013 that

“The right to the freedom of expression can be subject to certain formalities, conditions, restrictions or sanctions, which constitute necessary measures, in a democratic society, to preserve national security, public security, and the constitutional order.”

The matter came before Spain’s Supreme Court this year. The justices never gave an inch, and even issued an opinion that might make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up:

“The right to the freedom of expression does not guarantee the right to intolerant manifestations or expressions that infringe against religious freedom, that have the character of blasphemy or that seek to offend religious convictions and do not contribute to the public debate.”

Holy shit.

As Soeren Kern points out on the website of the Clarion Project,

This paragraph is eerily similar to an international blasphemy law being promoted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries dedicated to implementing a worldwide ban on “negative stereotyping of Islam.”

To be sure, the courts are, presumably, not particularly concerned over what Firasat has done or will do; in a display of yellow-bellied excess, they are instead nervous about what terrorists might do to Spanish interests, now that Firasat may have raised the anger of radical Muslims.

Two judges — Manuel Campos and Isabella Perelló — dissented from the [Supreme Court's] majority opinion. They signed a statement in which they asked whether the source of the danger to national security is in the actions of Firasat, or in the reactions of Islamic fundamentalists. They wrote: “The pernicious effects against national security do not strictly derive from the conduct of the refugee, but rather from the violent reactions of third persons.”

Now, why would Spain deliver Firasat to Indonesia, 3,000 miles from Islamabad? This is where things get murky.

The Supreme Court also ruled that Firasat and his family should not be delivered “to a country where there is danger to life or freedom.” This would have prevented the Spanish government from deporting Firasat back to Pakistan. In an apparent effort to get around this obstacle, Spanish public prosecutors changed their approach by pushing for Firasat to be extradited to Indonesia, where he is wanted on murder charges.

Say what?

The alleged crime occurred in June 2010, while Firasat was visiting Indonesia with his wife and children. In July 2010, Indonesian authorities deported Firasat for an alleged immigration violation (his family stayed behind in Indonesia), but a few days after he returned to Spain, Indonesian police said Firasat was a fugitive from justice and filed an international arrest warrant with Interpol. At the time, Spanish authorities refused to extradite Firasat due to his refugee status in Spain.

After the Spanish Supreme Court upheld the legality of the revocation of Firasat’s refugee status, however, the Spanish cabinet met on July 19, 2014 and voted to proceed with his extradition. Firasat was arrested on July 29 and was sent to a penitentiary situated near Madrid, where he remains to this day.

The Spanish courts concede that they don’t know whether the Indonesian charges are remotely truthful,

… but that he should be tried in Indonesia because that country observes “the same level of respect for human rights and formal guarantees of public and private freedoms as those observed in Spain.” In an appeal, Firasat’s lawyers counter that this claim is patently untrue, especially considering that sharia law is broadly — although not exclusively — applied in Indonesia, and that Firasat has little or no chance of getting a fair trial in that country.

Firasat’s lawyers say that they have presented the National Court with irrefutable documentary evidence that the charges against Firasat have been fabricated by Indonesian authorities, but that this evidence has been ignored by a judiciary that is under political pressure from the Spanish government to get rid of Firasat once and for all.

Indonesia’s human-right record is shaky at best, and 18 percent of Indonesians favor the death penalty for apostates. That’s a comparatively low number for a Muslim-majority country, but Indonesia is very populous, and Firasat and his family can surely not feel safe in a country where upwards of 40 million people want him dead even if he is acquitted of the (possibly false) murder charge.

Three weeks ago, Firasat wrote a letter from his Spanish prison. You can read it here. He ends it by saying:

“Please spread the news of my extradition and help me to get some media support. Only this can make Spain shy away from what they are doing to me. Please help me. I don’t want to die.”

A petition to allow Firasat to come to the United States instead is this way.

More about his case and background here, here, and here.

Child Abuse Victims File Lawsuit Against Jehovah’s Witnesses Church, Bringing Into View Its “Crisis of Silence”

This is a guest post by Lloyd Evans, who writes at JWsurvey.org under the moniker “Cedars.”

…

On December 1, 39-year-old Velicia Alston stepped forward and told the world her “secret” — one that is becoming all too familiar for those like me who follow the Watchtower organization (the entity that controls the affairs of Jehovah’s Witnesses).

Along with another plaintiff, Alston had filed a $10.5 million lawsuit against Watchtower and her childhood congregation in Hillsboro, Oregon, for the abuse she claims to have suffered at the hands of a fellow Witness, Daniel Castellanos, between 1986 and 1987 when she was 11 or 12 years old.

Alston was supposed to be receiving piano lessons from Castellanos, an ordained (baptized) minister in the congregation, when she claims he kissed and fondled her under her clothes multiple times. Local elders are said to have known about the threat posed to her by Castellanos despite doing nothing to prevent it.

Alston’s fellow plaintiff, referred to as “John Roe,” was between 8 and 10 years old at the time that he was also abused by Castellanos, the suit alleges.

Velicia Alston (right) talks about her lawsuit

One of Alston’s lawyers, Irwin Zalkin, warned the media that there is a “crisis of silence in the Jehovah’s Witness organization,” and that the leadership is “more concerned about protecting its reputation than it is about protecting its children.”

According to Zalkin, Alston stands a significant risk of being shunned by her believing parents and other family members as a result of taking this action. During her own tearful statement to the media, Alston appealed to other victims, who she says are too afraid to step forward.

“I know that there are other victims… I know that you’re scared because you’re worried about being punished by God. But God would never do something like this. So it’s OK to say something. Because if you don’t say something it’s going to keep happening.”

Over the last few years Zalkin has become a major thorn in the side of Watchtower, representing numerous current and former Witnesses from across the United States.

Incredibly well-versed in the Witness religion and how it operates, Zalkin has become a key advocate for victims of Watchtower’s extremely negligent “two witness rule,” which states that Witness elders can only act on accusations of child molestation if someone other than the victim witnessed the abuse (or if a second victim of the same perpetrator steps forward).

Based on a rigid interpretation of laws from the Old Testament, the two witness rule lies at the heart of the Jehovah’s Witness problems with child sex abuse. If Witness elders cannot satisfy themselves that the “sin” of child abuse happened, page 72 of their secret elder’s manual Shepherd The Flock of God (published in 2010) instructs them to “leave matters in Jehovah’s hands.”

This disturbing policy is becoming increasingly costly for Watchtower. Another of Zalkin’s clients, Jose Lopez, was awarded $13.5 million in damages against the organization earlier this year for the abuse he suffered during his Witness childhood. This followed a 2012 judgment of $28 million against the organization (later reduced to $11.8 million) in the Candace Conti case. Watchtower is appealing both judgments.

The new case in Oregon is the 15th to be filed against Watchtower by the Zalkin Law Firm, which has similar cases pending in California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Vermont, and Ohio.

In a recent interview with JWpodcast, a show which I’m involved with, Zalkin revealed his motivations for pursuing Watchtower so persistently, and why he is despondent about the likelihood of the organization implementing reforms in the near future.

“Our goal is not to destroy the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They may think that’s what we’re after — we are really after trying to get them to change what are really just antiquated and dangerous policies. And when we resolved our first few cases with them, one of the things I asked their lawyers, and Mario Moreno in particular, was ‘what can we do to change this, so that this doesn’t keep happening?’ And he looked at me and said, ‘we’re never changing this.’”

(via Religion Clause)

A Heathen Holiday Card

If you’re looking for holiday cards to send out this month (at least to people you know who have a sense of humor about these things), check out this one by

If you have Godless holiday cards you’re selling, please let me know!

Rick Santorum Suggests Separation of Church and State Isn’t an American Ideal; It’s a Communist One

STAND America, a group headed by right-wing pastor and politician E.W. Jackson, posted a video on Monday of a conference call between group members and former Senator, Republican presidential primary candidate, and Urban Dictionary entry Rick Santorum.

Brian Tashman of Right Wing Watch picked up an interesting part of the conversation:

The first call, at about 13:45 in the video, is from “William in Chesapeake.”

William proceeds to make a series of (frankly ludicrous) assertions, saying that there are “a number of the things that the far left”

… and the president is pushing for and accomplishing actually accomplishes a number of the tenets of “The Communist Manifesto,” including the amnesty, the elevation of pornography, homosexuality, gay marriage, voter fraud, open borders, mass self-importation of illegal immigrants and things of that nature.

William thinks this should “raise a number of red flags.” On that, at least, I agree — as his claims are so utterly false as to be downright laughable. This would have been a good moment for Santorum to point out that none of the above was actually true.

Instead, he seems to lend tacit agreement by observing that he was

… just thinking that the words “separation of church and state” is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it was in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. That’s where it very, very comfortably sat, not in ours.

It’s troubling that a politician would turn a blind eye to such extraordinary misinformation as William put forth, but there are two additional points worth noting.

First, while the specific phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, the concept is absolutely there in the Religion Clauses. As it is, the phrase was most famously used as explanation for the concept, specifically citing the U.S. Constitution, in Thomas Jefferson‘s letter to the Danbury Baptists — that is, between Americans — long before the Soviet Constitution (or a Soviet Union, for that matter) existed:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The second point is that inclusion in the Soviet Union’s Constitutions is not really remarkable. The Soviet Union portrayed itself as a protector of the people and the people’s rights. Thus, the Soviet Constitutions included a number of items that would seem perfectly at home in any western constitution. In article 50, for example, citizens were

… guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

Article 56 (on paper, at least) assured

The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.

And while some conservative Christians might object to Article 53′s assurance that “spouses are completely equal in their family relations,” surely the Rick Santorums of the world would approve of its definition of marriage as being

… based on the free consent of the woman and the man…

All of which is to say that mere inclusion in the Soviet Union’s Constitution demonstrates very little about the nature of a concept — as many of the items in our own and other countries’ constitutions, including dearly cherished freedoms, were mentioned therein.

While we’ve come to expect ample absurdities from Santorum, it’s nonetheless unfortunate to see a likely presidential contender obscure not only history, but the truth about a key constitutional protection afforded all Americans — religious or otherwise — in such a fashion.

(via Salon)

Bet You Missed This Funny Biblical Message in the Latest Episode of The Walking Dead

For attentive viewers, Sunday night’s episode of AMC’s zombie creep-fest The Walking Dead provided some blink-and-you’ll-miss-it amusement from an unexpected source — the Good Book:

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

That’s from John 6:54.

What other Bible verses can you think of that would make make for a great horror-movie quote?

(via Imgur)

Dennis Prager: Without the Ten Commandments, Atheists Would Never Know Murder is Wrong

Conservative commentator Dennis Prager just launched a video series on the Ten Commandments… and if you listen to just the first 30 seconds, you’ll learn why you shouldn’t take this guy seriously.

He claims right off the bat that the Ten Commandments (which “changed the world for the better” moreso than any other document in world history) inspired western civilization, and that’s the reason we have things like women’s rights and no slavery.

(What’s that? The Bible has been used to deny women equal rights and defend slavery? Why don’t you just pour yourself a great big bowl of shut the hell up.)

But seriously, how does Prager defend the Ten Commandments when most of them are completely irrelevant?

Well, first, the introduction video only talks about the two Commandments that really matter. Prager says the world would be so much better if there was no murder or theft. I don’t disagree with him… though it’s not like the creation of the Ten Commandments was the first time people ever thought, “Oh, you mean we’re NOT supposed to kill each other?! I never considered that option!”

Prager elaborates on this later by saying very directly, “If it isn’t God who declares murder wrong, murder isn’t wrong.”

Wait, what…?

Prager anticipates a rebuttal from atheists and says that, sure, atheists may indeed believe murder is wrong, but they don’t know it’s wrong unless God tells them so.

God, who killed approximately 25,000,000 people. He’s the guy we should look to for advice on how to be moral.

It’s the whole moral relativity argument rehashed…

Prager needs to be told that murder is wrong. In his mind, if there aren’t moral absolutes, anything goes… which is ridiculous. You don’t need a Divine Rulebook to come to a consensus on basic moral ideas. Why would atheists not want to kill for reasons beyond “it’s wrong”? Here are a few that come to mind: Because it destroys societies. Because a world where people are allowed to murder others is one where we’re so focused on survival that we can’t concentrate on anything else. Because we’re all better off following the Golden Rule.

And then he rolls out the tired old trope about Communists and Nazis killing millions of people because… atheism.

Given Prager’s arguments, I guess it’s a good thing we have the Ten Commandments or else Christians would be murdering assholes. Hell, with Jesus dying for their sins, you could argue Christians would be forgiven if they killed other people.

Prager’s final lines are all about how no one has ever come up with a better moral code for society (“and no one ever will”).

It’s amazing, isn’t it, that the finest moral code ever seen left “Thou shalt not own slaves” off the list? And “Don’t molest children.” And “Stop oppressing people with different sexual orientations.” And all those other crimes that religious people commit that Prager seems to ignore because God didn’t explicitly say otherwise.

Did I mention this is first video in a series? Can’t wait to see how he defends the first Commandment on the list…

(Thanks to Dave for the link)

Scott Lively: Homosexuality Is Like “Junk Food” That Will “Break Down” Your Body

Scott Lively, the evangelical pastor known for helping ignite homophobic laws in Uganda and Russia, has come up with a colorful new metaphor for homosexuality.

In an appearance on Trunews on Monday, Lively described homosexuality as an “infection” that would ultimately destroy the “immune system” of society.

Right Wing Watch has the audio clips here:

It’s a process of rottenness that eventually takes over. I was comparing [homosexuality] to the immune system of the body. If you stop eating healthy foods and eat nothing but junk food, you can survive for a while. But after a while your body is going to break down.

…

Society has an immune system also and we can allow a certain amount of this infection without collapsing.

He also suggested that society’s relationship with homosexuality can be whittled into five stages, in this order: tolerance, acceptance, celebration, “forced participation,” and “punishment of all dissenters.”

And we’re on a *slippery slope*, apparently.

Lively also referred to the U.S. as Mystery Babylon, spreading homosexuality to all the nations: “The sewer pipe of American perversion [that] has poured out across the world, and all the rest of the world joining in whoredom essentially because of the United States.” [Whoredom!]

“Look at what President Obama has done in terms of the homosexual agenda, he has tasked the U.S. State Department to promote it across the entire world with a high level of priority,” Lively added.

The host, Rick Wiles, brilliantly added:

“Sexual perversion is America’s number one export right now.”

Aside from a few businesses being rightly disciplined for breaking the law — if you could count that as “punishment for dissent” – there are virtually no examples of anti-LGBT conservatives being harmed, punished, or even inconvenienced for their beliefs. I’m going to continue to enjoy my gayness with a side of pizza and Cheetos, Mr. Lively, but thanks for your concerns for my health!

Bill O’Reilly Had a Psychotherapist Analyze American Atheists’ Latest Billboard Campaign

Last night, Bill O’Reilly discussed American Atheists’ recent billboard campaign featuring a girl writing a letter that says, “Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I’m too old for fairy tales.”

O’Reilly didn’t invite anyone from AA to participate in the conversation, of course, because then he couldn’t just say nasty things about them without being challenged. So he instead invited psychotherapist Karen Ruskin, who compared AA to bullies and gang members looking to beat up all those Christians:

“[The billboard is] horrifically insulting. It’s really disrespectful. But not unlike the bully who tries to push other people down in order to make themselves feel better, that’s what’s happening here.“

They never explained how Christmas has been ruined, not did they invite on air any families who will no longer be celebrating Christmas as a result of the signs.

But Ruskin wasn’t done analyzing people who weren’t invited to discuss their motives for the campaign:

“When I work with families where one member of the family unit is atheist and the rest are not, they have this relationship dynamic… [where] you have one person who is shouting loudly in their nasty way about how everybody else in the family should be believing what they’re believing, the pushing of other people down, the nastiness…”

Sounds like she’s describing Bill O’Reilly, not atheists…

Anyway, I’m not saying the hypothetical atheist’s jerky response is okay, only that it’s usually in response to snarky, nasty things said by religious family members.

It’s not limited to atheists, either. If there was a single Christian in a family of atheists, I suspect the Christian might want to lash out sometimes, too.

O’Reilly also said that the billboard campaign was “sadistic”… while interviewing a psychotherapist who explained why atheists are such nasty people. You may disagree with the billboard, but only Ruskin’s message will leave any lasting damage on anyone.

It’s amazing how bent out of shape Fox News hosts get over other groups expressing their views in a public forum. But the brave thing to do, if you’re going to say nasty things about atheists, would be to invite someone from the group on camera to defend the signs.

So far, that hasn’t happened. You can’t explain that.

(via Joanna Rothkopf)

Ugandan Parliament Speaker Warns Pastors of Foreigners Adopting Children to “Train Them on Gay Practices”

Think Progress’ Zack Ford has an article up reporting on new and bizarre comments made by Ugandan Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga (below).

Kadaga is an outspoken opponent of gay rights, championing the infamous Anti-Homosexuality Bill (dubbed the “Kill the Gays” bill by opponents, as its first version decreed a death penalty for homosexuality). The milder version (that passed) implemented a life-in-prison sentence for homosexuality. Uganda’s Constitutional Court overturned the law earlier this year on the grounds that its passage violated parliamentary procedure, but legislators are considering a new version.

Speaking this past Sunday of the alleged dangers of gay rights activists, Kadaga issued some bizarre warnings.

“Be very careful because gays are here to distort our heritage,” she told clergy gathered for Golden Jubilee celebrations at St. Stephen’s Church in Pajwenda on Sunday. “We have discovered that they adopt our children and confine them in gay communities abroad to train them on gay practices. By the time they come back home, they are already influenced by homosexuality and are used to influence others in the community.”

Kadaga repeats two refrains that are all too common in America — that gay people prey upon children, and that homosexuality is a learned behavior. (This is probably less of a coincidence than it might seem, as American pastors and homophobic fundamentalists have been hard at work for over a decade exporting American fundamentalist bigotry against gays to Uganda and other nations.) It was not the only paranoid bit of homophobia the Parliament Speaker had to offer, however.

Kadaga also warned that computers and books donated to Uganda schools include software and literature that promote homosexuality.

Apparently, not content merely to terrorize, marginalize, and criminalize Uganda’s gay population, Kadaga wants to protect Ugandan school children from the dangers of gay software… by stoking fears that computers and books are going to recruit kids into homosexuality. Which will doubtless have the impact of limiting children’s educational opportunities by depriving them of these crucial resources, and of course doing nothing whatever to turn gay kids straight.

Ugandans have cause to be wary, alright, but not because of foreign gay parents or computers — rather, because of theocratic politicians who put their belief system above the interests of their constituents, gay and straight.

There Will Be a Satanic Display in Florida’s Capitol Building This Holiday Season

Last year the Florida State Capitol Building became home to a Nativity scene, a Festivus Pole, three signs from atheist groups, and an homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

(Ben Wolf – Department of Management Services)

Despite the cultural smorgasbord, Capitol officials drew the line when it came to the Satanic Temple’s proposed display, calling it “grossly offensive”:

The proposed Satanic Temple display (via the Department of Management Services)

Mind you, the display was simply a depiction of a Bible passage, just like every Nativity scene, but the state’s guidelines were so hazy that it caused a lot of confusion.

That led to questions about what state officials would do this year. Would they allow all groups to have displays? Would they cut them all off entirely? Would they just (illegally) allow Christian displays?

Something had to change. But, since this is Florida, nothing did:

No reason was given by the Department of Management Services for holding pat on the display policy.

The application process was under review earlier this year, spurred by the diverse exhibits that dotted the Capitol rotunda during the holiday season.

Last month, Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent a letter to the Florida Department of Management Services on behalf of the Satanic Temple. Simply put, it said state officials could not deny the Satanists’ monument this year:

Given the manner in which the Department of Management Services rejected the Satanic Temple’s application last year, we remind the Department of its obligations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Department may not, as it did last year, reject the Satanic Temple’s display — even if the Department finds the display to be “offensive.” A rejection of the proposed display would violate the Free Speech Clause, Establishment Clause, and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Executive Director Rev. Barry W. Lynn added:

“Government officials have no right to determine what is ‘offensive’ when it comes to religion,” Lynn said. “If public space is open to all, that must include groups that some people may not like.”

As of today, it appears that state officials have come to their senses, knowing the legal predicament they’re in. AU just announced that the Satanists’ display will indeed be accepted:

In an email sent yesterday, state officials informed the Satanic Temple that its display may be erected Dec. 22-29.

“Although we are pleased that the state has finally agreed to allow the Satanic Temple’s display, our clients should not have been forced to find legal counsel and plan a lawsuit just to get access to an open forum,” said AU Senior Litigation Counsel Gregory M. Lipper. “The state can’t give itself the authority to decide whether certain religious messages are ‘offensive’ — it needs to allow everyone’s speech or no one’s speech.”

It’s frustrating how many hoops they had to jump through, but the display — the same one that was proposed last year — will be going up in a few weeks.

I’m sure Fox News will love this one…

I’ve asked The Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucien Greaves for comment and will update this post when I hear back.

***Update***: Greaves said in an email to me:

While I am pleased that Florida has seen fit to finally respect plurality in its holiday displays, it’s curious to note that the display we submitted this year is the exact same from the year before. Last year, this display was rejected as “grossly offensive.” The only difference, it seems, is that this time around we came flanked with a cadre of lawyers. In any case, we appreciate the opportunity to wish a happy holiday season to all people, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. The spirit of celebration cannot be monopolized. Let’s take an opportunity this season to put our differences aside and hope for a full and celebratory lives for all.

(Large portions of this article were posted earlier.)