Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Mauritania. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mauritania. Show all posts

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Slavery And Rape Are Ok If You Are A Muslim Because Neither Exist

ACT_Email_Banner.png


SHOCKING: Islamic Professor Defends Rape and Slavery at Catholic University


Friend --

In today’s media culture, it seems one can get away with advocating even the most heinous ideas, so long as you’re Islamic…

Via Bill Donahue at The Catholic League:

WHAT’S WRONG WITH SLAVERY AND RAPE?

Bill Donohue comments on media reaction to a speech given by Georgetown professor Jonathan Brown on February 7:

Two weeks ago today, a professor from Georgetown University publicly rose to the defense of slavery and rape, and not a single major media outlet—with the exception of a blogger on the Washington Post website and a brief posting on foxnews.com—has said a word about it. The absence of outrage is not hard to figure out: Jonathan Brown’s defense was limited to Islam.

Brown, a convert to Islam, holds an endowed chair in Islamic studies at Georgetown. The Jesuit-run institution has a wealthy benefactor in Saudi Arabia, a nation which bans Christianity. How sweet.

What did Georgetown get from this arrangement? Money, and a lot of it. Twelve years ago, Saudi Arabia wrote a check to the Jesuit-run institution for $20 million; it went to support the school’s Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, run by Brown. And what did Saudi Arabia get from this peculiar “understanding”? Legitimacy.

The fruit from this decayed tree is now apparent. Georgetown now employs a tenured professor who defends slavery and rape, provided the slavemasters and rapists are Muslims. This is apparently Georgetown’s idea of diversity. It also shows how phony the school is. Why all the handwringing about Georgetown’s ownership of American slaves in the 19th century when it employs defenders of slavery today?

Brown’s position was not made in the heat of debate. If anything, his comments were well prepared: they were delivered at the Islamic Institute for Islamic Thought. After being criticized by some, he tried to walk it back, offering a lame Tweet that meant nothing.

“As a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout states and trans-historically,” Brown said clumsily, “there’s no such thing as slavery.” It gets better. “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery.”

It is not certain what Brown would say to slaves in Mauritania and Somalia today—they are owned by their Muslim masters. Would he tell them to stop promoting fake news? Would he tell them that slavery is a mirage? Would he tell them that they are delusional? Better yet, would he switch places with them?

Brown is also incompetent. If slavery doesn’t exist in Muslim-run nations, why the need to justify it? “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself,” he opined. He really means it. “I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us.”

(Who he owns he did not say, but perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center will look into it. Maybe I’ll convert to Islam and see if I can buy him. I’ll use my credit card—Mastercard for the Master.)

When someone in the audience challenged Brown, he became indignant, as well as inconsistent. “The fact that there was slavery is wrong [thus did he contradict his remark that there was no such thing in Islam]. Okay. If you’re a Muslim, the prophet of God…had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Are you more morally mature than the prophet of God? No, you are not.”

One would hope that all of us are more morally mature than Muhammad. After all, he was not only a slavemaster and an advocate of violence, he consummated his marriage with his bride Aisha when she was nine years old. That’s what we call rape.

Speaking of which, Brown went on to say that non-consensual sex—it’s called rape—is okay with him, at least if the offenders are adherents to Islam. He took aim at the Western notion of “consent,” maintaining that “It’s very hard to have this discussion because we think of, let’s say in the modern United States, the sine qua non of morally correct sex is consent.”

Continuing his defense of rape, Brown criticized Americans for making a big deal about individual rights. “We fetishize the idea of autonomy to the extent that we forget, again who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people?” In other words, since none of us is really autonomous, the difference between us and a rape victim is more contrived than real.

Brown and Georgetown would be on the front page of every newspaper in the nation if he had justified Christians enslaving and raping Muslims. It would be the lead news story of the night on television, and the Internet would explode. But because Brown was justifying slavery and rape committed by Muslims—whose real life victims are Christians and Jews—there’s hardly a peep.

This is moral relativism gone off the cliff. It is a direct consequence of multiculturalism run amuck. On campuses and newsrooms across the country, the Judeo-Christian ethos and heritage has been slashed and burned beyond belief, the rubble of which is Professor Jonathan Brown, Georgetown University, and the media.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Should The Pentagon's Hesitancy On Guantanamo Be Praised Or Shunned

Report: Pentagon Thwarts Obama's Effort to Close Guantanamo

Image: Report: Pentagon Thwarts Obama's Effort to Close GuantanamoThe prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and detainee Tariq Ba Odah. (Getty Images and Reuters) 
Monday, 28 Dec 2015 11:41 AM


 In September, U.S. State Department officials invited a foreign delegation to the Guantanamo Bay detention center to persuade the group to take detainee Tariq Ba Odah to their country. If they succeeded, the transfer would mark a small step toward realizing President Barack Obama's goal of closing the prison before he leaves office.
The foreign officials told the administration they would first need to review Ba Odah's medical records, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the episode. The Yemeni has been on a hunger strike for seven years, dropping to 74 pounds from 148, and the foreign officials wanted to make sure they could care for him.
For the next six weeks, Pentagon officials declined to release the records, citing patient privacy concerns, according to the U.S. officials. The delegation, from a country administration officials declined to identify, canceled its visit. After the administration promised to deliver the records, the delegation traveled to Guantanamo and appeared set to take the prisoner off U.S. hands, the officials said. The Pentagon again withheld Ba Odah's full medical file.
Today, nearly 14 years since he was placed in the prison and five years since he was cleared for release by U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic officials, Ba Odah remains in Guantanamo.
In interviews with multiple current and former administration officials involved in the effort to close Guantanamo, Reuters found that the struggle over Ba Odah's medical records was part of a pattern. Since Obama took office in 2009, these people said, Pentagon officials have been throwing up bureaucratic obstacles to thwart the president's plan to close Guantanamo.
Negotiating prisoner releases with the Pentagon was like "punching a pillow," said James Dobbins, the State Department special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2013 to 2014. Defense Department officials "would come to a meeting, they would not make a counter-argument," he said. "And then nothing would happen."
Pentagon delays, he said, resulted in four Afghan detainees spending an additional four years in Guantanamo after being approved for transfer.
In other cases, the transfers of six prisoners to Uruguay, five to Kazakhstan, one to Mauritania and one to Britain were delayed for months or years by Pentagon resistance or inaction, officials said.
To slow prisoner transfers, Pentagon officials have refused to provide photographs, complete medical records and other basic documentation to foreign governments willing to take detainees, administration officials said. They have made it increasingly difficult for foreign delegations to visit Guantanamo, limited the time foreign officials can interview detainees and barred delegations from spending the night at Guantanamo.
Partly as a result of the Pentagon's maneuvers, it is increasingly doubtful that Obama will fulfill a pledge he made in the 2008 presidential election: to close the detention center at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama criticized President George W. Bush for having set up the prison for foreigners seized in the "War on Terror" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., and then keeping them there for years without trial.
When Obama took office, the prison held 242 detainees, down from a peak of about 680 in 2003. Today, with little more than a year remaining in his presidency, it still holds 107 detainees.
Pentagon officials denied any intentional effort to slow transfers.
"No foreign government or U.S. department has ever notified the Department of Defense that transfer negotiations collapsed due to a lack of information or access provided by the Department of Defense," said Pentagon spokesman Gary Ross, a U.S. Navy commander.
Myles Caggins, a White House spokesman, denied discord with the Pentagon. "We're all committed to the same goal: safely and responsibly closing the detention facility," Caggins said.
Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said in an interview that it was natural for the Pentagon to be cautious on transfers that could result in detainees rejoining the fight against U.S forces. "Look at where most of the casualties have come from -- it's the military," Hagel said.
The Pentagon's slow pace in approving transfers was a factor in President Obama's decision to remove Hagel in February, former administration officials said. And in September, amid continuing Pentagon delays, President Obama upbraided Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in a one-on-one meeting, according to administration officials briefed on the encounter.
Since then, the Pentagon has been more cooperative. Administration officials said they expect to begin transferring at least 17 detainees to foreign countries in January.
Military officials, however, continue to make transfers more difficult and protracted than necessary, administration officials said. In particular, they cite General John F. Kelly, in charge of the U.S. Southern Command, which includes Guantanamo. They said that Kelly, whose son was killed fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, opposes the president's policy of closing Guantanamo, and that he and his command have created obstacles for visiting delegations.
Kelly denied that he or his command has limited delegation visits. "Our staff works closely with the members of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay and Joint Task Force Guantanamo to support the visits of all foreign delegations," he said in a written statement, "and have never refused or curtailed one of these visits."
Even if Obama manages to transfer all low-risk detainees to other countries, closing Guantanamo won't be easy. Several dozen prisoners considered too dangerous to release would have to be imprisoned in the U.S., a step Republicans in Congress adamantly oppose because, they say, it would endanger American lives.
In a press conference earlier this month, Obama said he still hoped to strike a deal with Congress. He added, however, that he reserved the right to move the prisoners to the U.S. under his executive authority.
The Bush administration faced no political opposition on transfers and was able to move 532 detainees out of Guantanamo over six years, 35 percent of whom returned to the fight, according to U.S. intelligence estimates. The Obama administration has been able to transfer 131 detainees over seven years, 10 percent of whom have returned to the fight.

Priority From the Start
Two days after Obama was sworn in as president in 2009, he signed an executive order mandating an immediate review of all 242 detainees then held in Guantanamo and requiring the closure of the detention center. A year later, a task force that included the Defense Department and U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that 156 detainees were low enough security threats to be transferred to foreign countries.
Members of Congress, meanwhile, seized on reports that transferred detainees had returned to the fight to demand that Guantanamo remain open.
Among those former detainees was Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as "Mullah Zakir," who hid his identity from Guantanamo interrogators and became the Taliban's top military commander after his release. He was responsible for hundreds of American deaths after returning to Afghanistan, according to David Sedney, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia from 2009 to 2013.
In late 2010, Congress passed a law requiring the secretary of defense to personally certify to Congress that a released detainee "cannot engage or re-engage in any terrorist activity."
Detainee transfers out of Guantanamo slowed to a trickle. In 2011 and 2012, only a handful were released under an exception to the new law that allowed court-ordered releases to bypass the newly legislated requirements. By January 2013, the outlook was so bleak that the State Department shuttered the office tasked with handling the closure of Guantanamo.
Michael Williams, the former State Department deputy envoy for closing Guantanamo, said that during that period, William Lietzau, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee policy, "was not supportive of a Guantanamo closure policy" and an obstacle to transfers inside the Pentagon.
Latest News Update

Lietzau, who left his job in 2013, denied obstructing transfers. He said in many cases, delays resulted from his concerns about the ability of foreign countries to monitor transferred detainees. "You have guys who are cleared for transfer, but there is no way to get the assurances, so what do you do then?" Lietzau said.
In May 2013, President Obama unveiled a new push to close the prison. He appointed two new envoys, one at the Pentagon and one at the State Department, to oversee the prison's closure. One of their top priorities was to transfer as many prisoners as possible to countries willing to take them.
The State Department then proposed that four low-risk Afghan detainees be transferred back to Afghanistan. The four men -- Khi Ali Gul, Shawali Khan, Abdul Ghani and Mohammed Zahir -- then ranged in age from their early 40s to their early 60s. All had been at Guantanamo for seven years but never formally charged with a crime, and all had been cleared for release by the interagency review board years earlier.
In the case of Gul, State Department officials argued that he was almost certainly innocent. "The consensus was that he had never had any contact with the insurgency or al Qaeda," said Dobbins. "I can say with confidence we have captured, detained and released thousands of people who have done worse things than these four."
U.S. officials had offered in secret peace talks with the Taliban in 2012 to swap the four Afghans for captured American soldier Bowe Bergdahl. Taliban negotiators said they didn't want the four men because the four weren't senior Taliban members.
Afterwards, State Department officials began referring to them as the "JV four" or "Junior Varsity four," for their seeming lack of importance to Taliban fighters.
When the State Department added the four Afghans to a list of detainees prioritized for transfer in the summer of 2013, Defense Department officials resisted. At a meeting at the Pentagon, a mid-level Defense Department official said transferring the four "might be the president's priority, but it's not the Pentagon's priority or the priority of the people in this building," according to current and former administration officials present at the meeting.
With the White House's backing, the State Department moved forward. By spring 2014, the four Afghans were about to be sent home. Then, General Joseph Dunford, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the time, sent a memo to the State Department warning that the release of the four detainees would endanger his troops in Afghanistan.
When State Department officials read Dunford's memo, they realized he was citing intelligence about a different group of Afghans who were more senior Taliban. State Department officials pointed out the error, but it was too late. The transfer was halted.
Sedney, the former deputy defense secretary, said that there was broad resistance within the Pentagon to releasing the four Afghans because between 30 and 50 percent of the roughly 200 Afghan detainees repatriated by the Bush administration had rejoined the fight. The government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai often freed detainees as soon as they returned home, Sedney said.
The four men were finally flown back to Afghanistan on Dec. 20, 2014 -- nearly five years after they were cleared for release. Since then, none have returned to the fight, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
Gul declined a request for an interview. Zahir, now in his early 60s and one of the three Afghans considered low-level Taliban, works as a guard at a school in Kabul. He said that the primary evidence against him -- Taliban documents found in his home -- were from his work as an administrator in the Intelligence Ministry when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. He said that when American soldiers flew him to Afghanistan for release, one spoke with him briefly before handing him over to Afghan officials. "The American soldier tapped on my shoulder and said, 'I am sorry,' " Zahir said, adding: "I don't know why they kept me there for 13 long years without proving my guilt or crime."

Video Games

Pentagon obstacles delayed and nearly derailed other transfers. In early 2014, Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev offered to take as many as eight Guantanamo detainees. The Central Asian leader, eager for a counterweight to an increasingly assertive Russia, hoped to strengthen his relationship with Washington.
Kazakhstani officials asked to send a delegation to Guantanamo for three days to videotape interviews with prisoners before deciding which ones to accept. Kazakhstani psychologists and intelligence experts wanted to study the interviews for signs of deception.
According to multiple current and former administration officials, Pentagon officials forbade the delegation to videotape the interviews, nixed plans for a multiday visit, ordered detainee interviews shortened, and put new restrictive classifications on documents requested by the Kazakhstanis.
Senior commanders at Joint Task Force Guantanamo -- the military unit responsible for administering the detention center -- said the visiting Kazakhstanis would be allowed one hour with each prisoner and one day at the detention center.
Allowing taped interviews had been common practice with foreign delegations. This time, the Pentagon banned them on the grounds that the practice would violate the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on using prisoners of war for "public curiosity."
After two weeks of failed talks, the Kazakhstanis said they were canceling the visit and wouldn't take any detainees. An alarmed White House intervened, ordering the Pentagon to compromise, according to current and former administration officials.
The Kazakhstanis would be allowed two hours with each detainee, the Pentagon said, and would be allowed to stay one night at Guantanamo. They said the Kazakhstanis would not be allowed to bring recording equipment with them. Instead, the U.S. military agreed to videotape the interviews and provide the Kazakhstanis with copies of the tapes. The Kazakhstanis visited the prison.
Six weeks later, the Kazakhstanis still hadn't received the videos. "They were calling us every couple of days, saying, 'Where are the videos?' " said an administration official.
The White House ordered the Pentagon to hand over the videos. The Pentagon complied, and sent the videos to the State Department, but with a new classified designation on it, "Secret/NOFORN," which means it is illegal to share the material with a foreign country. Administration officials complained again. Days later, the video came back with a more lenient classification. The video was sent to the Kazakhstanis.
Two days later, the Kazakhstanis called Washington. The videos had been processed to look as if it had been shot through dimpled glass. For the Kazakhstanis, who wanted to scrutinize detainees' body language and facial expressions, the videos were useless.
For a third time, White House officials intervened to force the Pentagon to compromise. Finally, in December, nearly a year after the process began, the five prisoners were transferred to Kazakhstan.
In private meetings, some Pentagon officials have been dismissive of Obama's policy. After the president publicly pledged early this year to respond to a five-year-old British request for the repatriation of British detainee Shaker Aamer, a senior Pentagon official mocked that vow at an interagency meeting on transfers.
"We will prioritize him -- right at the back of the line where he belongs," the Pentagon official said, according to an administration official present at the meeting. A senior NSC official snapped back: "That's not what the president meant." Aamer was transferred to Britain in October.
In autumn this year, a foreign government was invited to Guantanamo to interview eight detainees for possible transfer -- a process that can take several days. General Kelly's command, which oversees Guantanamo, instituted a new policy, suddenly banning the delegation from spending the night at the detention center, according to administration officials. (Officials declined to identify countries involved in transfer negotiations out of concern that doing so would jeopardize the process.)
As a result, the delegation was forced to commute 90 minutes by plane each morning and afternoon from Miami, adding tens of thousands of dollars in government plane bills to U.S. taxpayers. In December, the country decided to take no detainees.
During another foreign delegation's visit to Guantanamo in autumn, Kelly's command further cut interview times with detainees, to as little as 45 minutes each, making it harder for foreign officials to assess potential transfers.
Ba Odah, the hunger-striking detainee, is now in his late 30s. Multiple members of the National Security Council have intervened to demand that the Pentagon turn over his complete medical file. The Pentagon has held firm, citing patient privacy concerns.
Ba Odah's lawyer, Omar Farah, said the Pentagon's justification is baseless.
"Invoking privacy concerns is a shameless, transparent excuse to mask intransigence," Farah said. "Mr. Ba Odah has provided his full, informed consent to the release of his medical records."

© 2015 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Pentagon-Obama-Guantanamo-Bay-prisoners/2015/12/28/id/707312/#ixzz3veKJRa4l
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Thursday, April 24, 2014

UN Is A Bankrupt Organization. Turns Over Women's Rights To Iran and Other Women Unfriendly Nations.

Iran sweeps coveted UN rights posts

Canada Free Press - UN Watch
GENEVA, – The United Nations today elected the Islamic Republic of Iran and more than a dozen other repressive regimes to top committees charged with protecting women’s rights and with overseeing the work of human rights organizations, according to an exclusive report by UN Watch, a non-governmental Geneva-based human rights group.
Human rights activists are expressing outrage.
“Today is a black day for human rights,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “By empowering the perpetrators over the victims, the UN harms the cause of human rights, betrays its founding principles, and undermines its own credibility.”
“Civil society loses as repressive states win election,” said the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).
Despite the sharp condemnation of Iran’s human rights record by UN chief Ban Ki-moon—who recently reported how women in Iran are “subject to discrimination, entrenched both in law and in practice” and how “women’s rights activists continue to face arrest and persecution”— the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in New York today elected Iran to a four-year term on its 45-nation Commission on the Status of Women, the principal intergovernmental body dedicated to protecting women’s rights. Equitorial Guinea was among other dictatorships also named to the global gender equality panel.
Meanwhile, in a separate vote today, the UN additionally rewarded Iran by making the regime a member of its powerful 19-nation Committee on NGOs, a coveted position because it allows governments to silence criticism by acting as the gatekeeper and overseer of all human rights groups that seek to work inside the world body.
Other egregious human rights abusers elected to the influential panel include Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, slave-holding Mauritania, Russia, and Sudan, whose leader, President Omar al-Bashir, is wanted by the ICC for genocide. All were deemed “not free” in the 2014 annual survey by Freedom House.
Burundi, Guinea, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Turkey, Venezuela, flagged as problematic and only “partly free” by Freedom House, were also elected.
Impact of Today’s Election: What This Means for NGOs
ISHR had warned earlier this month that the failure of democracies to throw their hat in the ring would mean that “the Committee’s membership will worsen considerably during the next term” and severely harm the freedom of NGOs—even as it praised the election of Greece, Israel, South Africa, Uruguay, and the U.S., countries ranked by the ISHR as “strong, pro civil society candidates,” but who now constitute a tiny opposition.
UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said that NGOs within the UN are now increasingly under threat, citing an incident from last month, as reported in a series of New York Times articles, of how UN security officers protected a UN Watch delegate, daughter of jailed Chinese dissident Wang Bingzhang, from a spying attempt by a Beijing-backed organization bearing NGO credentials.
“The very UN committee that is meant to judge our complaint against this dangerous front group is now stacked more than ever before by China, Sudan and their non-democratic allies, who control some 70 percent of the seats. When the criminals are made the judges—the arsonists named as fire-fighters—it’s a travesty of justice. The crucial role of civil society within the world body is being eroded, its voice at risk of being silenced,” said Neuer.
“Tragically, the UN’s election today of regimes such as Iran, Sudan and Mauritania—governments that rape and torture political prisoners, subjugate women, and commit crimes against humanity from slavery to genocide—sends a message that crass politics trumps basic human rights. The UN is letting down millions of victims around the globe who look to the world body for vital protection,” said Neuer.

Friday, March 29, 2013

Where Are The Anti-Slavery Protests?


Why are there no reports of protests and walks against slavery in the US and other "enlightened" countries? Why is this subject of Arab slavery never seen on the evening news or in the New York Times?  Must be that it is not PC! 

Arabs have had slaves for years but no one seems to care. The life of a slave is much worse than 90% of all other people in the world, why no concern?

Our only conclusion is that the terror experienced by the slave is so bad that it would seem unreal if published and would be not fit for television. So it goes unreported. A sin of omission. If we don't know it, it does not exist seems to be the news rationale.

In the following posting and the link below, you can read more about this horrific practice. Are these the people you want running the world? We sure don't. 

Tell your news paper and your radio and television stations that you want to know more about Arab Slavery.

Conservative Tom


Op-Ed: Arabs Have Black Slaves – Today

Israel National News - Dr. Charles Jacobs,  March 29th, 2013

There is no Arab Apartheid Week on American campuses, but there should be. Slavery, in its most barbaric form, still exists in the Arab world and there is no Exodus in sight either. A shocking article for Passover.
Israel Apartheid Week has come and gone this year on many American campuses. It was, of course, a hoax: However much one says that Arabs in Israel suffer, and whoever is to blame for that alleged suffering, there is no apartheid in Israel.
Meanwhile, however, in Sudan and Mauritania, racist Arab societies enslave blacks. Today. Most of the slaves are African Muslims. Yet there is no Arab Apartheid Week on American campuses. Why not?
One might think American student activists would be upset about Mauritania, the West African country with the largest population of black slaves in the world – estimates range from 100,000 to more than a half-million. In Mauritania, slaves are used for labor, sex and breeding. The wholly owned property of their masters, they are passed down through generations, given as wedding gifts or exchanged for camels, trucks, guns or money.
Surely, life is not so good in a Palestinian Arab refugee camp– no matter who is to blame, but it’s undeniably a whole lot worse for Mauritanian slaves. According to a Human Rights Watch/Africa report, routine punishments for slaves in Mauritania – for the slightest fault – include beatings, denial of food and prolonged exposure to the sun, with hands and feet tied together. More serious infringement of the master’s rule (in American slave-owning parlance, “getting uppity”) can lead to prolonged tortures known as “the camel treatment,” in which the slave’s body is slowly torn apart; the“insect treatment,” in which tiny desert insects are inserted and sealed into the ear canal until the slave is driven mad; and“burning coals,” a torture not fit to describe in a family newspaper.
The cases that the rights groups focus upon are not determined by the nature, extent or degree of suffering by the victims, but rather by the identity of those thought to be the oppressors.
Perhaps the reason for silence on campuses about these things is that the story of black slaves and their Arab masters remains unknown there. It would, of course, be a sensitive topic: slavery has existed in Mauritania since the 12th century, when Arab tribes from the Arabian Peninsula invaded and conquered North Africa. Raiders then stormed African villages to the south, pillaging, enslaving and converting the indigenous peoples to Islam.
While the Koran forbids the enslavement of fellow Muslims, just as in the West, in North Africa racism trumped religious doctrine. The descendants of those Arab invaders are today’s slave owners. The descendants of those captured as slaves in jihad raids are in human bondage today. These are, then, black Muslim slaves – who, for racist reasons, aren’t allowed to touch the Koran with their black hands, who can’t marry without their owners’ permission, and whose children belong to the master.
Not all blacks in Mauritania are slaves. But all are oppressed by Arab colonialism. Arab Berbers (or “White Africans”) constitute less than a third of Mauritania’s population of 3.5 million people, but they control the government and military, as well as the education and the court systems.
I interviewed Saidou Wane, a Mauritanian immigrant who lives in Cincinnati and speaks regularly on behalf of the Movement for Justice and Equality in Mauritania (MJEM). Saidou reports that the Mauritanian regime is constantly working to cleanse the country of any non-Arab influence. The state recognizes only Arabic as an official language, refuses to acknowledge the local African languages (Wolof, Fulani, Soninke), and allows only French and Arabic in school curricula. In other cases, this would easily be termed “cultural cleansing.”
Indeed, it might be even worse than apartheid: The government has expropriated land owned by black Africans through expulsion and dispossession. An ethnic cleansing campaign that began in 1989 led to the expulsion of an estimated 100,000 blacks from Mauritania. The government and army were purged of black officers. Amnesty International reported that thousands of blacks were killed, and many tortured, while hundreds of African villages in the south were demolished.
Mauritania holds the distinction of being the last nation on earth to legally abolish slavery, which it did, with no mechanisms of enforcement, in 1981. Slavery was not criminalized until 2007, but to date there has been only one single conviction.
Why hasn’t any of this been addressed by Western governments? For one, the Mauritanian regime, once a supporter of Saddam Hussein, has ingratiated itself with the United States and Europe through promises to help fight al-Qaeda. And then in December 2012, in a move that defined it as the morally bankrupt institution it is, the United Nations (U.N.) Human Rights Council elected Mauritania as its vice president and rapporteur.
What about the silence of Western progressives? I call it the “human-rights complex:” The cases that the rights groups focus upon are not determined by the nature, extent or degree of suffering by the victims, but rather by the identity of those thought to be the oppressors. Think about it: Most human-rights advocates in the West are decent, middle-class whites who are defensive about past Western sins – slavery, colonialism, racism. Their activism is a matter of personal identity. They act to be exonerated, to be seen as innocents, guiltless, not like the “bad white” exploiters. They march under the banner of “Not in My Name.”
Anti-Israel propagandists have inverted reality in the minds of many of these people: Jews have been transformed from last century’s stateless, Asiatic, non-Europeans, to whites with power who behave badly toward innocent, impoverished, indigenous, darker-skinned people. This is precisely the taint that many “rights activists” wish to avoid:“people who look like us, behaving badly.”
Israel Apartheid Week – and the absence of Arab Apartheid Week – have nothing to do with external realities, or actual suffering but are the psychodramatic results of miseducated, manipulated, guilt-ridden, American middle-class youth. The biggest victims here, of course, are those oppressed by non-Westerners (women, gays, Christians, blacks, and other minorities in the Muslim realm) who cannot break through the fog of political correctness to reach the good but blinded souls of American students on campus.
In 2012, CNN reporters interviewed Moulkheir Yarba, who escaped her master after he raped her, fathered her child and then left the baby to die in the Sahara Desert – to teach her to “work faster.”
If Moulkheir could understand how America, a nation of abolitionists, has so enchained itself with political correctness, and become so blinded to her plight, she would weep. As should we.
Dr. Charles Jacobs is president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance