Sunday, April 11, 2010

The Case for Arresting the Pope, by Allison Kilkenny

All that follows is from True/Slant here.

The Case for Arresting the Pope

Pope Benedict XVI finishes his speech to the U...
Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife
Richard Dawkins, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.
– via Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI
Dawkins and Hitchens hope to arrest the Pope when he visits Britain between September 16 and 19. Hitchens first proposed the idea of launching a campaign to arrest the Pope, and Dawkins wholeheartedly supports the legal challenge. The pair believe Benedict will be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because he is not the head of a state recognized by the United Nations, though the Pope’s tour is categorized as a “state visit”.

Barrister Geoffrey Robertson and solicitor Mark Stephens have been brought aboard to help with the legal arguments, and they both seem very optimistic they can get Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope.

There is already legal precedent for this type of order.
Last year pro-Palestinian activists persuaded a British judge to issue an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the Israeli politician, for offences allegedly committed during the 2008-09 conflict in Gaza. The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.
“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”
We now know the Pope had direct involvement in harboring criminals. When Pinochet was arrested in 1998, he was charged with 94 counts of torture. Surely, child rape should be considered a form of torture, and unlike Pinochet, Benedict cannot hide behind a head of state title. The Pope’s fantasies of grandeur may compel poor people to throw their hard-earned cash at the church, but in the real world, Benedict is just a former Hitler Youth who now wears a funny hat, and occasionally covers for child rapists. He’s a criminal — the head of a criminal enterprise — who can still be punished under the law.

Here is Robertson outlining the specific charges.
The ICC Statute definition of a crime against humanity includes rape and sexual slavery and other similarly inhumane acts causing harm to mental or physical health, committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority. It has been held to cover the recruitment of children as soldiers or sex slaves. If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC – if that practice continued after July 2002, when the court was established.
According to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the total number of priests with allegations of abuse in the college’s survey is 4,392 for the period 1950-2002 (and not counting allegations that were withdrawn). Approximately one-third of all allegations were reported in 2002-2003, which falls within the window after the creation of the ICC.

The John Jay survey covers only US priests, and yet this single study proves the abuse was not isolated or sporadic. Additionally, the criminal enterprise has international reach extending to Ireland, Australia, Canada, Belgium, France, Italy, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, etc. So if the only prerequisites for arresting the Pope are that the allegations need to have been filed after 2002, and be systemic in nature, then Check and Mate.

The world need not remain silent in the presence of such evil simply because the Pope shields himself behind a veil of religiosity. In the past, sane members of our societies have drawn the line, and arrested religious charlatans for criminal behavior.

Warren Jeffs, the former president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, was arrested for two first-degree felony charges of accomplice rape for arranging extralegal marriages between his adult male followers and underage girls. In 2007, he was indicted in Arizona on eight counts, including sexual conduct with a minor and incest.

Through it all, Jeffs claimed to be a prophet (aren’t they always a prophet?) for one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist denominations, and yet he was not considered above the law when he began to facilitate the rape of little girls.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses proved to have their shit together more than the church when they kicked out George Arthur Cockerill, a former JW who was convicted of 19 rapes, four counts of sexual activity with a child, six counts of indecency with a child, one sex assault and two counts of indecency with a child. The sentencing judge said Cockerill used his religion as a “tool of subjection to control [his] victims.” Much like a nefarious priest manipulates a trusting child, and yet a UK judge did not permit Cockerill to use his religion as armor.

“As one victim said, you have stolen her childhood,” said Judge Roger Thorn QC. The Pope, and the rapist priests he protects, have stolen countless childhoods. They also must be held accountable.

A note from Richard Dawkins:

Needless to say, I did NOT say “I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI” or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope’s proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my ‘Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope’ article here:

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson’s subsequent ‘Put the Pope in the Dock’ article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:

The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn’t end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn’t cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope’s visit, let alone pay for it.

Minnie Two Shoes Dies (24 March 1950 - 9 April 2010 ECD): Activist-Publicist for AIM Movement, Worked with Native American Journalists Association, Focused on Environmentalism, Economic Justice, and Exposing Cover-Up of the 1975 Murder of Annie Mae Pictou-Aquash

With thanks again to Brenda Norrell, from here at Censored News, and to Rob Capriccioso of True/Slant. All that follows is from True/Slant.

Minnie Two Shoes, 1950-2010

Another sad passing for Indian country. Minnie Two Shoes, a leader with the Native American Journalists Association, passed away yesterday after battling cancer. On top of Wilma Mankiller’s death last week, it’s another big loss.

I can’t help but note that she and Mankiller were both only in their early sixties. They should have been around to share their wisdom much longer.

“As journalists, we are very special people, and have a very serious responsibility,” Two Shoes said in the above NAJA video. “But that doesn’t mean we can’t have fun along the way.”

She also shared a bit of her notable humor, talking about some of the various conquests she had a NAJA conferences over the years.

From her bio:
“Minnie Two Shoes was an Assiniboine Sioux from the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana. A publicist for the American Indian Movement from 1970-1976 she later worked endlessly as a team member of the Native American Journalists Association (NAJA) starting in 1994 to help unlock information regarding the 1975 murder of Annie Mae Pictou-Aquash. She served several terms as a board member of NAJA, was an editor for Native Peoples from 1996-98 and in Canada for several publications, and had previously worked with the Wotanin Wowapi at Fort Peck as a writer and columnist for ‘Red Road Home’ specializing in stories on water rights, air quality, environment, oil and gas and economic development. She also a contributing writer for News From Indian Country.”

Women's Rights In Danger In Iraq: Thanks to the "Good Ol' U.S.A.": When Will Western Media Tell the Truth?!

What follows are two related articles on the condition of women's deteriorated rights in Iraq since the U.S. invasion. That the pro-U.S. media pretends women are better off now: this is a blatant lie. See below for more. The original locations for these posts are here and here.

Iraq: Women's rights in danger
Iraqi women demonstrators protest lack of security and basic services [EPA]

Prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq, women working in the public and government sectors were entitled to receive a year's maternity leave under family laws enforced by the former Saddam Hussein leadership.

In the seven years since the US-led invasion which ousted Saddam, however, maternity leave has been cut to six months.

Since the Personal Status Law was enacted on July 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women have enjoyed many of the rights that Western women do.

But the statutes governing the status of women since 1958 have been replaced with Article 2 of the new Iraqi Constitution, which states that "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation."
Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders.

Islamic governance
Yanar Mohammed, a women's rights campaigner in Iraq, believes that the US has "let go of women's rights" in the war-ravaged country.

"Political Islamic groups have taken southern Iraq, are fully in power there, and are using the financial support of Iran to recruit troops and allies," she says.

"The financial and political support from Iran is why the Iraqis in the south accept this, not because the Iraqi people want Islamic law."

According to the post-2003 Iraqi constitution, parliament should be comprised of no less than 25 per cent female candidates. As a result, the amended electoral law of December 2009 stipulated that parliament should comprise 82 female representatives.

Each party and coalition list must ensure that 25 per cent of its nominated candidates are women. However, the women's quota has not been filled since 2005 and as a result, the elections commission said "special measures" must be implemented to ensure the quota is met.

Women's rights groups in Iraq and abroad have complained that the Iraqi parliament has not provided information on what the measures involve or how it would go about implementing them.

According to Maha Sabria, a professor of political science at Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad, women members of parliament "stand up to defend their party in the parliament, not for women's rights".

Lack of infrastructure
Sabria also makes a direct link between the deteriorated status of women in the country to the lack of infrastructure, political and economic stability, and security. She believes that women bear a "double burden" as they have lost many of their freedoms due to, and under, the US occupation.

"The violation of women's rights [is] part of the violation of the rights of all Iraqis," she says.

"More men are now under the weight of detention, so now women bear the entire burden of the family and are obliged to provide full support to the families and children. At the same time, women do not have freedom of movement because of the deteriorated security conditions and because of abductions of women and children by criminal gangs."

Women, she says, are also now under pressure to marry at a younger age in the hope that a husband (including his family and tribal affiliations) will bring added security.

Sabria says that the abduction of women "did not exist prior to the occupation. We find that women lost their right to learn and their right to a free and normal life, so Iraqi women are struggling with oppression and denial of all their rights, more than ever before."

"Tribal, backward laws"
The Constitution mandates that 25 per cent of seats in Parliament be allocated to women 
Since 2003, many Iraqis sought refuge in the tried and tested security offered by tribal affiliations and allegiances.

As contemporary Iraqi society fell apart in the face of lawlessness, abductions, revenge killings and overall lack of security, the tribal system offered both refuge and order.

Some Iraqis believe that the decline in the modern and secular standard of living since 2003 propelled the social dynamic back by several decades.

"The real ruler in Iraq now is the rule of old traditions and tribal, backward laws," Sabria says.

"The biggest problem is that more women in Iraq are unaware of their rights because of the backwardness and ignorance prevailing in Iraqi society today."

Fleeing Iraq
Compounding the severity of the situation is the fact that many women also fled their homes because their husbands were arbitrarily arrested by occupation forces or government security personnel. A household without a male figure became far more vulnerable since 2003. Women sought refuge with relatives and failing to do so fled to Syria or Jordan.

According to United Nations estimates, more than four million Iraqis have been displaced in the past seven years, including approximately 2.8 million registered as internally displaced persons.

Many live as refugees mainly in neighbouring countries, according to a report by Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement.

The report, titled, Going Home? Prospects and Pitfalls For Large-Scale Return Of Iraqis, says most displaced Iraqi women are reluctant to return home because of continuing uncertainties.

Obstacles to repatriation
For its part, the Washington-based Refugees International (RI) says in another report - Iraqi Refugees: Women's Rights and Security Critical to Return - that "Iraqi women will resist returning home, even if conditions improve in Iraq, if there is no focus on securing their rights as women and assuring their personal security and their families' well-being".

The RI report covered internally displaced women in Iraq's semi-autonomous northern Kurdish region and female refugees in Syria. "Not one woman interviewed by RI indicated her intention to return," the report says.

"This tent is more comfortable than a palace in Baghdad; my family is safe here," a displaced woman in northern Iraq told RI.

The situation continues to be challenging for women within Iraq. Yanar Mohammed believes the constitution neither protects women nor ensures their basic rights. She blames the US for abdicating its responsibility to help develop a pluralistic democracy in Iraq.

"I am an employee, and everyday go to my work place, and the biggest challenge for me and all the suffering Iraqis is the roads are closed and you feel you are a person without rights, without respect," a 35-year-old government employee, who asked to be referred to as Iman, said.

"To what extent has this improved my security," she asked. "We have better salaries now, but how can women live with no security? How can we enjoy our rights if there is no safe place to go, for rest and recreation and living?"

Dahr Jamail is an independent American journalist who reported from Iraq for eight months in 2003-2004. He is the author of Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq.

Published under an agreement with IPS.

The views expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

*           *          *
This is a cross-post from here.

Women in Iraq

Abstract: The American government has claimed that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq has given women freedoms that they did not have prior to the beginning of the 2003 war. Independent journalists in Iraq have stated that not only is this a lie, it is exactly opposite of the truth. Many independent sources have confirmed that the US led invasion has cause great suffering and oppression to the Iraqi women. Further, the US backed government in Iraq has enacted un-Islamic law that mirrors American perception of Islamic law, but has no basis in true Islamic jurisprudence.

At the Republican National Convention in 2004, President George W. Bush stated that because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "young women across the Middle East will hear the message that their day of equality and justice is coming." The implication of this statement is that women in the Iraq were oppressed prior to the U.S.-led invasions. President Bush and his staff made such insinuations frequently. In reality, women in Iraq had more rights before the U.S.-led invasion than anywhere else in the Middle East (Suri, Saddam Better for Women).

As a result of this constant misrepresentation of the facts on the ground, as well as the gross failure of much of the Western media to report the facts as they are, many Americans have a distorted view of the life of women in Iraq prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Numerous independent reports have shown that most women highly preferred Saddam Hussein’s “barbaric” regime to current conditions, and that they are substantially more oppressed now than ever before in Iraqi history. Even in Afghanistan, women say that their lives are getting progressively worse since the U.S. invasion (Motevalli, First Afghan Woman Mayor Says Women's Rights Worsened).

One of the areas of life where women’s rights have devolved is in the area of education. Most Americans will agree that an educated woman is an empowered woman. Iraq’s constitution, created by the Baath party, guaranteed women and men equal access to education. Six years after Saddam Hussein took power, there was a 75% literacy rate among women. U.S. sanctions in the 1990s forced the Iraqi government to reduce their education budget. By the year 2000, only 25% of Iraqi women were literate (Al-Azzawi, Deterioration of Iraqi Women's Rights and Living Conditions Under Occupation). Today, women are almost entirely unable to go to school. Nora Hamaid, 30, told reporters, “I completed my studies before the [American] invaders arrived because there was good security and I could freely go to university.” Now she is afraid to send her children to school, because the abduction and murder of women and children is so common: “I mean, every day, from when they depart to when they return from school, for fear of abductions.” (Jamail, Women Miss Sadam)

Women also had the ability to pursue careers of their own choosing. They had many rights and benefits provided them by law. Women holding government jobs received one year paid maternity leave. That time has been cut in half (Jamail, Women Miss Saddam). A government employee who asked to be called “Iman” (Faith) told reporters: “I am an employee, and everyday go to my work place, and the biggest challenge for me and all the suffering Iraqis is [that] the roads are closed and you feel you are a person without rights, without respect. To what extent has this improved my security? We have better salaries now, but how can women live with no security? How can we enjoy our rights if there is no safe place to go, for rest and recreation and living?”

But for her complaints, Iman is one of the lucky ones. In “Brutalized For Western Profit” (Nousratpour), the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq says: “Women have all but disappeared from public life for fear of being raped, killed, kidnapped or trafficked to foreign countries." Before the U.S. led invasion, women were able to roam the streets fearlessly. Today, only 10% of Iraqi women have regular salaried jobs. Ironically, inability to leave the house for fear of rape has driven tens of thousands of women into such dire poverty that they are forced into prostitution (Nousratpour, Brutalized for Western Profit).

Before the invasion, women were able to leave the house dressed however they willed. (RWOR, What the U.S. Occupation Has Meant for Iraqi Women). They had the freedom to choose their own ways of dress, just like western women. If they chose to wear hijab (veil), they did; if they did not wish to do so, no one compelled them to do so. Today, tailors have been ordered to only make certain types of clothing (Ibid.). Women are afraid to leave their houses dressed in ways that the local government condemns.

Not only has the life of women outside the house become unbearable, the life of women within their own houses have been increasingly threatened since the invasion. In Fallujah alone, more than seventy women have been killed just for opening the doors of their homes when men knocked. (Ibid.) Women are trapped: if they person knocking is a soldier and they do not answer, the door will be broken down and they will be shot; but if they do open the door, the person may be a thug who will shoot them for this “crime.” This never happened before the invasion.

The married life of women has also deteriorated. Without the ability to hold down jobs, poverty-stricken women are forced to marry in the hopes that a husband can provide for them. The marriage age of women is getting lower because younger and younger girls need husbands to provide for them (Jamail, Women Miss Saddam). Saddam Hussein’s government made polygamy practically impossible, but the current government is enabling it. Even in relatively progressive Kurdistan, polygamy is being touted by the new government (Nousratpour, Brutalized for Western Profit).

Under Saddam Hussein, women had the right to divorce their husbands, had equal consideration in the custody of children, and even had the ability to receive child support (al Azzawi, Deterioration of Women’s Rights). The current government only allows men to divorce women, and automatically gives children of divorced women to the husband. Women were protected against domestic violence in marriage (Ramdas, U.S. Invasion Makes Life Worse for Women of Iraq). Today this right is also gone, and gruesome and despicable “honor killings” are on the rise.

Perhaps the next issue that comes to the reader’s mind is, “Perhaps Islamic law, the official basis for the new law, is the problem.” Then we must ask, “Does Islam support the way that women are being treated in Iraq today?” The answer is a resounding “No.” Islam has always been, and remains, ahead of its time in the equal and fair treatment of women.

To understand my next points, we must begin with a basic understanding of basic Islamic law. Islamic scholars are divided into groups called “madhabs”. Each madhab has a distinct way of deriving law. The two basic sources of Islamic law are the Qur’an and the hadith (anecdotal stories from the life and teachings of Muhammad). Shi’a also add logic. Shi’ite courts traditionally seek logical cases endings more than Sunni courts. Sunni courts, on the other hand, traditionally rely more on legal precedent and the consensus of Islamic scholars, especially the early scholars.

In Islamic law, women and men are both ordered to seek knowledge and education. Sahih Bukhari (the most respected collection of hadith) says: "Seeking knowledge is mandatory for every Muslim". Muslim women have, from the earliest times, had equal education to men. Aisha bint Abu Bakr, who married Muhammad after the death of his first wife Khadija, became one of the most important “authors” (narrators) and teachers of Islamic law. Men came from afar and sat at her feet to learn. Before her marriage, she had overseen her father’s travels, packing his provision for many weeks’ travel into the harsh Arabian desert.

Women have had jobs in Islamic history. Islamic law guarantees women and men equal wages, a right American women do not enjoy to this day. Also, a Muslim woman is not required to share her income with her husband. He is required to provide for her provision, but if she does not wish to give him money from her earnings, there is no fault in her. During the Middle Ages, most of the wealth owned by Muslims was owned by women. Women inherited money from their fathers and husbands, or earned it, and used this money to affect many aspects of daily life, including the building of schools and mosques.

Islam does not compel women to veil themselves against their will. There is no set penalty for women who do not wear hijab under Islamic law. The only years a woman is strongly recommended to wear hijab are the years she menstruates. Before puberty and after menopause, it is purely optional. Also, a woman does not only need to wear hijab when she is at home, or with those who are close relatives of hers.

It is also useful at this juncture to mention that Islam is not the only major religion that orders women to wear the veil. Both Judaism and Christianity mandate the complete covering of women’s hair. In the Mishne Torah, Sefer Qedusha, in Hilkhoth Isurei Bi'ah 21:17 one can read the Rambam’s strict order that all women of marriage age must cover their hair, whether they are married or unmarried. In the Christian scriptures, Paul says, “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” (1 Cor. 11:6).

The killing of women within their own homes, simply for the crime of opening the door, is deplorable and without any precedent in Islamic law. Even in wartime, the killing of women and children is strictly forbidden unless the woman is actively engaged in combat. Non-combatant women are never to be killed.

Islamic law, though it allows polygamy, makes actually keeping multiple wives practically impossible. The man must be financial capable of fully supporting each wife and all of her children, something very few men can do today. Also, receiving the permission of the first wife to add a second wife to the family is strongly recommended.

Women in Islamic law have the right to divorce their husband in court. As the following well-known and accepted hadith shows, the mother is considered three times as important as the father, giving her preference in case of divorce except in cases when she abandons the children:

Bahz bin Hakim, on his father’s authority, said that his grandfather told him that he had asked Allah’s Messenger to whom he should show kindness and that the Prophet had replied: “Your mother.” He asked who came next and he replied: “Your mother.” He asked who came next and he replied for the third time: “Your mother.” He again asked who came next and he replied: “Your father, then your relatives in order of relationship” (Abu Dawud, 5120).

Islam, before any other culture, directly outlawed the killing of newborn daughters—still a common practice in China and parts of Hindu India. Kindness to daughters is one of the ways to be assured of Paradise in the hereafter according to Islam. There is no greater sin in Islam than the murder of one’s own daughter.

Women have always held a high place of honor in Islamic society. The first person to accept Muhammad as a prophet was a woman, as was the first Muslim casualty of war. Women served positions in government; Ash-Shefaa bint Abd’Allah al-Adawiyyah served as minister of finance during the first Caliphate. Umm Hani, the cousin of Muhammad, gave pardons to prisoners of war, and her pardons were accepted by Muhammad as valid and those she declared free were freed. Women received the right to vote and to pledge their allegiance to a leader during the time of Muhammad himself, and women were consulted in the nominations of the Caliphs, whereas American women did not receive the right to vote until 1917.

A woman can be a judge in an Islamic court, a position they did not hold in American courts until the 1870. Women have been heads of state in four of the five most populated Muslim-majority countries, as well as many other Muslim-majority countries, but have not yet reached this level in the United States.
By now, it should be clear to the honest reader that Islam does not and has not ever oppressed women. Rather, the oppression of women occurring today in Iraq is the direct result of the American occupation and puppet government. Iraqi women were not oppressed under Saddam Hussein as much as they are today under American rule.

Works Cited
Al-Azzawi, Souad N. "Deterioration of Iraqi Women's Rights and Living Conditions Under Occupation." Deterioration of Iraqi Women's Rights and Living Conditions Under Occupation. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. .
Jamail, Dahr, and Abdu Rahman. "Iraq: Women's Rights in Danger." Al Jazeera English. 20 Mar. 2010. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. .
Jamail, Dahr. "Women Miss Sadam." Dahr Jamail's Mideast Dispatches. 12 Mar. 2010. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. .
Motevalli, Golnar. "First Afghan Woman Mayor Says Women's Rights Worsened." Reuters. 15 Jan. 2009. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. .
Ramdas, Kavita. "U.S. Invasion Makes Life Worse for Women of Iraq." SeattlePI. 2 Jan. 2007. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. .
Suri, Sanjay. "IRAQ: Saddam Better for Women." Inter Press Service. 29 Mar. 2006. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. .
"What the U.S. Occupation Has Meant for Iraqi Women." Revolution 38 (12 Mar. 2006). Web. 8 Apr. 2010. .
Nousratpour, Louise. "Brutalized for Western Profit." Equality In Iraq. Organisation for Women's Freedom in Iraq, 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2010. .

Yom HaShoah: Nazi Holocaust Remembrance Day for Remembering the Six Million Jews Slaughtered under Nazi Rule

The video and text time line below outline what white het-identified German and other European mascu-nazis did. Mascu-Nazis still exist. And genocidal and gynocidal atrocities still exists, in many places in many forms.

I never write the term "Holocaust" alone to mean "The Nazi Holocaust" because clearly, throughout history, white het men have mass murdered many people of color, including many women. White het men also mass murder white women.

Between 75 and 90 million Indigenous people just in North America were slaughtered by white men. The Maafa saw the genocide of millions of sub-Saharan West Africans through being enslaved and sent across the sea in shackles, followed by decades of enslavement, rape, and lynching all done by white het men.

The genocide against people of color globally committed by U.S. white het men continues to this day, with the most overtly military atrocity happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. When we say "never forget" we must also say "do not be in denial", including what is occurring the present that white het men do not own or take responsibility for, collectively. White/Aryan Germans didn't either, claiming they were not responsible. And we know what a load of CRAP that was. The same is true now, with the rape atrocity and other racist genocides.

Those with structural, institutional, systemic, and financial power are most responsible. In the U.S., and in all other white-dominated places, that population of the most powerful is overwhelmingly white het men. For WHM to deny responsibility and culpability is to tell the world "we are not human".

What follows next is from *here*

Sunday, April 11

Yom HaShoah 2010

Yom HaShoah, or Holocaust Memorial Day, is marked on the Hebrew date of Nissan 27th. On this day, we remember the lives of the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, and the experiences of those who survived its horrors.

*          *          *

With apologies: not all the text with the images is legible. But most of it is. A time line from here follows  the video, so you can see the time line of that atrocity.

Timeline of the 1933 - 1945 ECD

Nazi Holocaust (HaShoah)

The Nazi Holocaust



Detailed Information

30th January 1933 Hitler Chancellor of Germany Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany
22nd March 1933 First concentration camp opened The first concentration camp was opened at Dachau in Germany
1st April 1933 Jewish shops boycotted Germans were told not to buy from Jewish shops or businesses 
24th November 1933 'Undesirables' sent to camps  Homeless, alcoholic and unemployed people were sent to concentration camps
17th May 1934 Jewish persecution An order was issued which prohibited Jewish people from having health insurance
15th September 1935 Nuremberg Laws The Nuremberg Laws were introduced. These laws were designed to take away Jewish rights of citizenship and included orders that:  Jews are no longer allowed to be German citizens.
Jews cannot marry non-Jews.
Jews cannot have sexual relations with non-Jews.
13th March 1938 Austrian Jews persecuted Following Anschluss which joined Germany and Austria, Jews in Austria were persecuted and victimised.
8th July 1938 Munich synagogue destroyed The Jewish synagogue in Munich was destroyed
5th October 1938 Jewish passports stamped with 'J' The passports of all Austrian and German Jews had to be stamped with a large red letter 'J'
9th November 1938 Kristallnacht  A night of extreme violence. Approximately 100 Jews were murdered,
20,000 German and Austrian Jews arrested and sent to camps, Hundreds of synagogues burned, and the
Windows of Jewish shops  all over Germany and Austria smashed.
12th November 1938 Jews fined  Jews were made to pay one billion marks for the damage caused by Kristallnacht.
15th November 1938 Jewish children expelled from schools An order was issued that stated that Jewish children should not be allowed to attend non-Jewish German schools
12th October 1939 Austrian and Czech Jews deported Jews living in Austria and Czechoslovakia were sent to Poland
23rd November 1939 Yellow Star introduced Jews in Poland were forced to sew a yellow star onto their clothes so that they could be easily identified.
Early 1940 European Jews persecuted Jews in German occupied countries were persecuted by the Nazis and many were sent to concentration camps.
20th May 1940 Auschwitz A new concentration camp, Auschwitz, opened
15th November 1940 Warsaw Ghetto The Warsaw Ghetto was sealed off. There were around 400,000 Jewish people inside
July 1941 Einsatzgruppen The Einsatzgruppen (killing squads) began rounding up and murdering Jews in Russia. 33,000 Jews are murdered in two days at Babi Yar near Kiev.
31st July 1941 'Final Solution'  Reinhard Heydrich chosen to implement ‘Final Solution’
8th December 1941 First 'Death Camp' The first 'Death Camp' was opened at Chelmno.
January 1942 Mass-gassing Mass-gassing of Jews began at Auschwitz-Birkenau
Summer 1942 European Jews gassed Jews from all over occupied Europe were sent to 'Death Camps'
29th January 1943 Gypsies sent to camps An order was issued for gypsies to be sent to concentration camps.
19th April - 16th May 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising  An order was issued to empty the Warsaw Ghetto and deport the inmates to Treblinka. Following the deportation of some Warsaw Jews, news leaked back to those remaining in the Ghetto of mass killings.
A group of about 750 mainly young people decided that they had nothing to lose by resisting deportation. Using weapons smuggled into the Ghetto they fired on German troops who tried to round up inmates for deportation.
They held out for nearly a month before they were taken by the Nazis and shot or sent to death camps.
Late 1943 'Death Camps' closed With the Russians advancing from the East, many 'Death Camps' were closed and evidence destroyed.
14th May - 8th July 1944 Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz  440,000 Hungarian Jews were transported to Auschwitz
30th October 1944 Auschwitz The gas chambers at Auschwitz were used for the last time
27th January 1945 'Death Marches' Many remaining camps were closed and evidence of their existence destroyed. Those who had survived the camps so far were taken on forced 'Death Marches'.
30th April 1945 Hitler committed suicide Faced with impending defeat, Hitler committed suicide
7th May 1945 German surrender Germany surrendered and the war in Europe was over
20th November 1945 Nuremberg war trial began Surviving Nazi leaders were put on trial at Nuremberg