The National Journal has a disturbing report about the abuses of power and human rights violations occurring on the streets of Iraq. What’s most disturbing is that these abused appear to be ordered from the top. Is Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, just another Saddam?

The attack came without warning. In late May, Moaid al-Taeb, a 30-year-old human-rights activist here, was on his way to protest Iraq’s corruption and inefficiency when a large man in civilian clothes grabbed him from behind and started punching him in the face. Taeb was tied to a stretcher and shoved into a waiting ambulance. A few minutes later, men in tracksuits approached another activist, Jihad Jalil, and jabbed him with an electric cattle prod until he couldn’t move. They stuffed him into the ambulance, too. He remembers seeing Taeb, a close friend, lying still. “I thought he was dead and I was next,” Jalil says.

The two men say they were driven to the Muthana Air Base just outside of town, the headquarters for many of Iraq’s intelligence and counterterrorism agencies. They were ordered to stand on a runway in the sweltering midday heat for an hour; soldiers threatened that if they moved at all, they would have to stand there for an entire week. Over the next 12 days, Taeb and Jalil lived in a cell without air conditioning or running water. They were taken out only for daily interrogations about why they were challenging the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Agents accused them of being Baathists or terrorist sympathizers and suggested that they leave the country.

One comment in particular, however, stuck vividly with both of them, interviewed separately four months later. “An officer told us, ‘Are you crazy? Abu Esraa [a nickname for Maliki] isn’t going anywhere,’ ” Taeb recalled. “Then he said—and I will never forget it—‘This is Maliki’s country now.’ ”

I sure would hate to think we spent all that blood and treasure liberating the Iraqi people only to have them come under control of another strong man. If monuments start going up around the country to Maliki we’re really gonna be in trouble.

This article titled “Iran refuses to let in UN’s human rights monitor” was written by Saeed Kamali Dehghan, for The Guardian on Monday 18th July 2011 16.45 UTC

Iran has announced that it will not permit the UN special rapporteur assigned with investigating its record of human rights to enter the country.

Ahmad Shaheed, the former Maldivian foreign affairs minister, was appointed by the UN in June to look into human rights violations in Iran, leading to much criticism from the regime in Tehran.

According to the Tehran Times, the state English-language newspaper, Mohammad Javad Larijani, Iran’s secretary general of the high council for human rights, said: “The western-engineered appointment of a special rapporteur for Iran is an illegal measure.”

Larijani – whose brothers Ali and Sadegh Larijani are Iran’s speaker of the parliament and head of the judiciary – added: “This unilateral action makes no sense and if they want to send a special rapporteur to Iran, they should take the same measure in the case of other countries.”

Shaheed’s appointment was the result of concerted warnings by various human rights organisations against Iran’s current record of human rights.

In recent years, rights groups have expressed concerns over the arbitrary arrests of political activists, the sharp rise in the country’s rate of execution and claims of torture and rape inside Iran’s prisons.

According to the organisations that have been monitoring Iran, in the first six months of this year an average of almost two people a day were executed.

Dozens of journalists, several lawyers, political activists, members of different ethnic minorities and many political figures remain in jail with poor legal representation and little access to the outside world.

In his remarks about Shaheed, Larijani objected that the countries behind the appointment of the special rapporteur had remained silent over the human rights issues surrounding “Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Israeli jails”.

“Iran has no problem with the individual who has been appointed as the special rapporteur, but the appointment of a rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran is unacceptable and Iran will not accept the decision,” he added.

In a separate incident, Iran claimed on Monday that its revolutionary guards had dismantled an Iranian Kurdish opposition group based in Iraq after an operation inside Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region in the past two days that left many dead on both sides.

A week ago, Iran warned that it would take military action against the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan, a Kurdish rebel group based in Iraq, which Iranian officials have labelled a “terrorist organisation”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

This article titled “Afghanistan worst place in the world for women, but India in top five” was written by Owen Bowcott, for The Guardian on Wednesday 15th June 2011 01.12 UTC

Targeted violence against female public officials, dismal healthcare and desperate poverty make Afghanistan the world’s most dangerous country in which to be born a woman, according to a global survey released on Wednesday.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Pakistan, India and Somalia feature in descending order after Afghanistan in the list of the five worst states, the poll among gender experts shows.

The appearance of India, a country rapidly developing into an economic super-power, was unexpected. It is ranked as extremely hazardous because of the subcontinent’s high level of female infanticide and sex trafficking.

Others were less surprised to be on the list. Informed about her country’s inclusion, Somalia’s women’s minister, Maryan Qasim, responded: “I thought Somalia would be first on the list, not fifth.”

The survey has been compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation to mark the launch of a website, TrustLaw Woman, aimed at providing free legal advice for women’s groups around the world.

High maternal mortality rates, limited access to doctors and a “near total lack of economic rights” render Afghanistan such a threat to its female inhabitants. “Continuing conflict, Nato airstrikes and cultural practices combine to make Afghanistan a very dangerous place for women,” said Antonella Notari, head of Women Change Makers, a group that supports women social entrepreneurs around the world.

“Women who do attempt to speak out or take on public roles that challenge ingrained gender stereotypes of what is acceptable for women to do or not, such as working as policewomen or news broadcasters, are often intimidated or killed.”

The “staggering levels of sexual violence” in the lawless east of the DRC account for its second place in the list. One recent US study claimed that more than 400,000 women are raped there each year. The UN has called Congo the rape capital of the world.

“Rights activists say militia groups and soldiers target all ages, including girls as young as three and elderly women,” the survey reports, “They are gang raped, raped with bayonets and some have guns shot into their vaginas.”

Pakistan is ranked third on the basis of cultural, tribal and religious practices harmful to women. “These include acid attacks, child and forced marriage and punishment or retribution by stoning or other physical abuse,” the poll finds.

Divya Bajpai, reproductive health adviser at the International HIV/Aids Alliance, added: “Pakistan has some of the highest rates of dowry murder, so-called honour killings and early marriage.” According to Pakistan’s human rights commission, as many as 1,000 women and girls die in honour killings annually.

India is the fourth most dangerous country. “India’s central bureau of investigation estimated that in 2009 about 90% of trafficking took place within the country and that there were some 3 million prostitutes, of which about 40% were children,” the survey found.

Forced marriage and forced labour trafficking add to the dangers for women. “Up to 50 million girls are thought to be ‘missing’ over the past century due to female infanticide and foeticide,”, the UN population fund says, because parents prefer to have young boys rather than girls.

Somalia, a state in political disintegration, suffers high levels of maternal mortality, rape, female genital mutilation and limited access to education and healthcare.

Qasim added: “The most dangerous thing a woman in Somalia can do is to become pregnant. When a woman becomes pregnant her life is 50-50 because there is no antenatal care at all. There are no hospitals, no healthcare, no nothing.

“Add to that the rape cases that happen on a daily basis, and female genital mutilation being done to every single girl in Somalia. Add to that famine and drought. Add to that the fighting [which means] you can die any minute, any day.”

Monique Villa, the chief executive of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, said: “Hidden dangers – like a lack of education or terrible access to healthcare – are as deadly, if not more so, than physical dangers like rape and murder which usually grab the headlines.

“In Afghanistan, for instance, women have a one in 11 chance of dying in childbirth. In the top five countries, basic human rights are systematically denied to women.

“Empowering women tackles the very roots of poverty. In the developing world when a woman works, her children are better fed and better educated because they spend their money for their family.”

The survey was based on responses from more than 200 aid professionals, academics, health workers, policymakers, journalists and development specialists chosen for their expertise in gender issues.

Each country was also ranked in terms of six risk factors including: health, discrimination and lack of access to resources, cultural and religious practices, sexual violence, human trafficking and conflict-related violence.

In terms of individual risk categories, Afghanistan was deemed to be the most dangerous for health, economic/discrimination and non-sexual violence; the Congo is most plagued by rape and sexual violence; and India has most problems with trafficking.

“You have to look at all the dangers to women, all the risks women and girls face,” said Elisabeth Roesch, who works on gender-based violence for the International Rescue Committee in Washington.

“If a woman can’t access healthcare because her healthcare isn’t prioritised, that can be a very dangerous situation as well.”

The TrustLaw website has been in existence for some time, linking up local NGOs and social entrepreneurs with established law firms who are prepared to offer legal advice on a pro-bono basis. The groups are vetted by Transparency International.

More than 450 law firms are already involved including some from China. Among those that have recently benefited have been the charity Riders for Health, which delivers medicine to remote villages, and reviewed its contracts in Nigeria.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Iranian blogger loses appeal against 19-year sentence” was written by Saeed Kamali Dehghan, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 9th June 2011 14.15 UTC

Iran’s appeals court has upheld the conviction of a renowned blogger who was sentenced to 19 years in prison, his family said.

Hossein Derakhshan, an Iranian with joint Canadian citizenship, was arrested in November 2008 after returning to his home country. The 36-year-old, regarded as one of Iran’s first bloggers and known among many as the “blogfather”, was convicted last September. He was found guilty of co-operation with hostile countries, spreading propaganda against the regime and insulting Islamic thought and religious figures.

Derakhshan’s family told the Iranian media that an appeals court has confirmed his sentence. His punishment also includes a five-year ban on belonging to any political or media organisations.

Derakhshan, who has contributed articles to the Guardian’s Comment is Free website, drew the attention of Iranian authorities when he travelled to Israel in 2006 and posted a series of articles about his visit. Iran does not recognise Israel and bans all its citizens from travelling there.

After his visit to Israel he resumed blogging and was forthright in his support for hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – a stance that infuriated many fellow bloggers as well as opposition activists.

Some bloggers believe Derakhshan was confident he would not be arrested because of his support for Ahmadinejad.

Following his arrest the blogger was detained for 500 days before being charged, his family say. His first trial was held in June 2010.

Meanwhile, Iranian human rights groups announced that Sakhi Reigi, an Iranian blogger from the country’s Baluch ethnic minority, has been sentenced to 20 years in jail. Another blogger, Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki, has been in prison since December 2009 after being sentenced to 15 years. Navid Mohebbi, an 18-year-old blogger and high school student, was recently given a three-year suspended sentence.

Persian is among the world’s top languages used in blogs. Ahmadinejad launched a campaign against Iran’s online community soon after he took the office for the first time in 2005. Many bloggers have since been arrested and some have been given lengthy prison terms.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “US child appeals against being tried for murder as an adult” was written by Ed Pilkington in New York, for The Guardian on Tuesday 25th January 2011 19.00 UTC

The following clarification was printed in the Guardian’s Corrections and clarifications column, Thursday 27 January 2010

The report about a 13-year-old boy who shot and killed his father’s fiancee in Pennsylvania described him as using “his own hunting rifle, a shotgun designed specifically for children”. According to court documents the weapon used was a 20-gauge shotgun, which is not a rifle

Lawyers for a child in Pennsylvania who was 11 when he allegedly shot and killed his father’s pregnant fiancee attempted today to persuade an appeals court not to try him as an adult under America’s harsh system of juvenile justice.

Unless the lawyers for Jordan Brown who is now aged 13, can convince the judges to change tack, he will be tried in adult court and if convicted will serve an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole. He would become the youngest child in US history to be sentenced to be incarcerated forever.

The US is the only country where juveniles are serving life imprisonment without parole under the so-called “life means life” policy. Only the US and Somalia have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which rules out life sentences with no chance of release for crimes committed before the age of 18.

Brown is accused of having killed Kenzie Houk, in February 2009 at her home in the countryside about 35 miles north-west of Pittsburgh. According to the prosecution, Brown shot her through the back of the head as she slept in her bedroom.

He is then alleged to have got on the school bus and gone to his elementary school as usual.

Houk, 26, was just two weeks away from her due date and her unborn child, who would have been called Christopher, died too. Brown has been charged with two counts of homicide.

Brown allegedly carried out the killing using his own hunting rifle, a shotgun designed specifically for children. The prosecution alleges that the killing was premeditated and they found residue from the gun on Brown’s shoulder.

When he was first presented to court Brown was made to wear shackles around his wrists and ankles.

Human rights campaigners are protesting the treatment of Brown as an adult. Amnesty International said the move would be a violation of international law. “It is shocking that anyone this young could face life imprisonment without parole, let alone in a country which labels itself as a progressive force for human rights,” said Susan Lee, head of the campaign’s Americas operation.

The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based campaign, said no other country had juveniles serving life without parole. “That leads to only two conclusions: either kids in the US are far more violent than those in the rest of the world, or the US has developed uniquely harsh sentences.”

At a federal level, the US penal system has been inching towards a more lenient approach to juvenile crime. In 2005 the US supreme court abolished the death penalty for under-18s.

Then last May it ruled that juveniles could not be subjected to life without parole for any crime other than homicide.

But that still leaves about 2,400 prisoners facing permanent imprisonment for homicides committed when they were children.

Pennsylvania, where all juveniles are automatically treated as adults unless a judge decides otherwise, heads the league table of 44 states that hand out the sentence, with about 450 cases.

Houk’s death has divided the two families involved in their response to Brown’s judicial treatment. The boy’s father, Chris Brown, protests his son’s innocence and says he has no idea what could await him.

“Try to explain to a 12-year-old what the rest of your life means. It’s incomprehensible for him,” he told ABC News last year.

The victim’s mother, Deborah Houk, has pushed for the toughest sentence for the boy. “I can’t stand this ‘Oh, he’s 11,’ ‘Oh, his clothes don’t fit him,’” she told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review soon after her daughter’s death. “He knew what he was doing. He killed my baby.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Former Bin Laden bodyguard jailed for life for role in US embassy bombings” was written by Paul Harris, for The Guardian on Tuesday 25th January 2011 20.54 UTC

A former bodyguard for Osama bin Laden was today sentenced to life in prison for his role in blowing up US embassies in East Africa – and became the first former Guantánamo Bay detainee to be tried and jailed by a civilian American court.

Ahmed Ghailani, 36, was captured in 2004 in Pakistan after a fierce battle with government troops. He was later found guilty of being part of the plot in which 224 people were killed in twin bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Ghailani had been held in Guantánamo Bay, but was later transferred to the US in what was widely seen as a test case for whether high-profile terror suspects could be effectively tried in the US judicial system.

Some conservative critics, especially Republicans in Congress, had said it was too much of a risk to try such cases in a civilian court rather than military commissions. They expressed concerns that the use of waterboarding in some cases might lead to acquittals if key evidence was found to have been obtained via torture.

But the Obama administration has argued publicly that a civilian court was the right place for terror suspects who had attacked US targets and killed American civilians. The success in securing a full life term for Ghailani, who was convicted on a single conspiracy count yet acquitted on 280 other charges, might pave the way for further such trials, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Civil liberties groups, who have long been critical of Guantánamo Bay, welcomed the New York court’s decision, saying it proved the White House should not listen to proponents of the military commissionsto reverse its course on pursuing civilian trials.

“The Ghailani trial … should put to rest any unfounded fears that our federal justice system cannot conduct fair, safe and effective trials in terrorism cases, including when torture is an issue,” said Hina Shamsi, a director at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ghailani will now almost certainly be sent to a “supermax” high security prison in Colorado, where other defendants convicted in the bombings are being held. His sentence includes no prospect of ever getting parole.

Evidence presented at the trial showed how Ghailani, a Tanzanian, helped to purchase key components used in the bombs, including gas tanks and a vehicle used as one of the bombs. His defence had argued that he had been tortured in custody, but Judge Lewis Kaplan said that did not weigh against him getting a heavy sentence or being found guilty. “This crime was so horrible … the impact on him pales in comparison to the suffering and the horror he and his confederates caused,” the judge said.

Ghailani’s trial also provided a platform for victims of the bombings 12 years ago to voice their anguish. Today they were allowed to give testimony in the Manhattan courtroom where the sentence was handed down. Sue Bartley, whose diplomat husband Julian died in Kenya, said the attacks had never ceased to cause pain to herself and her family. “What remains is a lingering, unsettling feeling that is compounded by grief, deep sadness and anger. The pain is with me every day. Often times it is unthinkable,” she told the court.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier charged with corruption in Haiti” was written by Rory Carroll, Latin America correspondent, for The Guardian on Wednesday 19th January 2011 02.00 UTC

Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier was charged with corruption and the theft of his country’s meagre funds last night after the former Haitian dictator was hauled before a judge in Port-au-Prince

Two days after his return to the country he left following a brutal 15-year rule, a noisy crowd of his supporters protested outside the state prosecutor’s office while he was questioned over accusations that he stole public funds and committed human rights abuses after taking over as president from his father in 1971.

“His fate is now in the hands of the investigating judge. We have brought charges against him,” said Port-au-Prince’s chief prosecutor, Aristidas Auguste.

He said his office had filed charges against Duvalier, 59, of corruption, theft, misappropriation of funds and other alleged crimes committed during his period in power.

The charges must now be investigated by the judge who will decide whether a criminal case should go ahead. After several hours of questioning, Duvalier left the prosecutor’s office but was ordered to remain in the country at the disposition of judicial authorities. “He doesn’t have the right to go anywhere,” investigating judge Carves Jean said.

Dozens of officers, including some in riot gear, had whisked him earlier from his hotel past a jeering and cheering crowd and into a 4×4 with tinted windows – a scene which his regime’s victims had long dreamed of. He, who was not handcuffed, appeared calm and did not say anything. He had been due to give a press conference to explain his return from 25 years in exile.

Crowds immediately thronged the courthouse in expectation of a historic hearing.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others, have urged the authorities to prosecute the former dictator for jailing, torturing and murdering thousands of people during his time in power. His longtime companion, Veronique Roy, when asked whether Duvalier was being arrested, simply laughed and said nothing.

The scene evoked memories of 7 February 1986 when crowds danced in the streets after widespread revolts and international pressure led to his departure.

His Swiss-banked fortune long used up in divorce and tax disputes, Duvalier returned to Haiti without warning on Sunday on a flight from Paris, saying he wanted to help. “I’m not here for politics. I’m here for the reconstruction of Haiti.”

A spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights said it should be easier to prosecute Duvalier in Haiti because it was where atrocities took place but that the judicial system was fragile.

It remained unclear why he returned and what impact it would have on the year-long post-quake crisis which has left a leadership vacuum and a country in ferment, with near daily street demonstrations by rival factions.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “US criticises court that may decide on Julian Assange extradition, WikiLeaks cables show” was written by Afua Hirsch, legal affairs correspondent, for The Guardian on Friday 17th December 2010 21.30 UTC

US officials regard European human rights standards as an “irritant”, secret cables show, and have strongly objected to the safeguards which could protect WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from extradition.

In a confidential cable from the US embassy in Strasbourg, US consul general Vincent Carver criticised the Council of Europe, the most authoritative human-rights body for European countries, for its stance against extraditions to America, as well as secret renditions and prisons used to hold terrorist suspects.

He blamed the council for creating anti-US sentiment and hampering the US war on terror. “The Council of Europe (COE) likes to portray itself as a bastion of democracy, a promoter of human rights, and the last best hope for defending the rule of law in Europe – and beyond,” Carver said. “[But] it is an organisation with an inferiority complex and, simultaneously, an overambitious agenda.

“An investigation [by the Council of Europe] into renditions and ‘secret prisons’ in Europe connected to the US war on terrorism … created a great deal of controversy and anti-US sentiment in the Council of Europe,” wrote Carver.

The European court of human rights, the final court of appeal for human rights claims from the UK, whose judgments include the decision to ban deportations to countries which practise torture, is also singled out by the cables.

“The European court of human rights … has also requested more information on pending British extradition cases to the US where it believes the prisoners might be sentenced in the US to life imprisonment with no possible appeal or automatic judicial review of the life sentence,” Carver wrote.

Amid growing speculation over whether Assange could face extradition to the US, the cables make clear America’s opposition to any attempts to interfere on human rights grounds, out of concern for prison conditions in the country.

Assange would have the right to appeal against any extradition decision to the European court of human rights if all other legal avenues failed. His lawyers are already forming human rights arguments to block his extradition within the EU.

The cables also single out high-profile individuals within the Council of Europe for criticism, in particular British secretary general Terry Davis – now retired – who is described by the Americans as an “unpopular lame duck.

“Terry Davis leaves office this summer, after a five-year term that has been, according to many sources, devoid of vision,” Carver wrote in 2009.

“Davis is known as a micro-manager and will not be missed by many of his staff as well as by many resident ambassadors.” Davis provoked the wrath of American officials through his outspoken attacks on secret renditions.

The cables show that US diplomats wanted to visit his successor, current secretary general Thorbjørn Jagland, to persuade him to refrain from similar public criticism of the US.

“Jagland can be expected to criticise the US for the death penalty; he may, however, be less enthusiastic than the previous secgen, Terry Davis, in publicly criticising renditions, particularly if we review such issues with him soon,” Carver wrote.

“In this regard, we highly recommend a visit by a ranking department official … to review our human rights agenda with the new secretary general in the next several weeks.”

News that the Americans sought to pressure Jagland, the former prime minister of Norway, to prevent him from criticising secret renditions is likely to anger many in Europe, who see the council’s role in protecting human rights from counter-terrorism policy as crucial.

But the Americans also reserved judgment on Thomas Hammarberg – the council’s human rights commissioner – for his criticism of US counter-terrorism policy. In a separate cable referring to comments made to the US by the Maltese ambassador, Hammarberg is accused of seeing himself as “God’s gift to the world”.

The cables also reveal the pettiness of diplomatic exchanges within the Council of Europe.

In one exchange the US noted “a rather sad exchange” where Greece complained that Hammarberg had chosen photos of Turkey for his website that portrayed a positive image of the country.

“The Greek ambassador criticised photos apparently chosen for Hammarberg’s website regarding [his] recent official visit to Turkey,” Carver wrote. “The Greek contrasted the ‘vacation-like, very positive’ images with those associated with the commissioner’s visit to Greece.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Not that we needed any more proof that the UN is an irrelevant, hypocritical, and disgraceful organization, but here’s a nice little gem:

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

How can a country that gives zero rights to women be part of a commission on women’s rights? Moreover, how can this happen without so much as an objection from the US?

I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s because we have a pathetic president who will do anything to cozy up to our enemies. He’ll do whatever it takes not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the world’s thugs, dictators, and mass murderers.

(hat tip Hot Air)

The colorful mayor of Moscow, Yury Luzhkov, said this about a planned gay pride parade through downtown Moscow:

"A gay parade… cannot be called anything but a Satanic act," Yury Luzhkov told an education conference, quoted by Interfax news agency. "We haven’t permitted such a parade and we won’t permit it in the future."

Luzhkov called for gay marchers to be punished. "It’s high time that we stop propagating nonsense discussions about human rights, and bring to bear on them the full force and justice of the law," he said.

That’s how gays are treated in Russia. Which makes it all the more ridiculous when American gays compare their yearning for legal “marriage” with blacks who sought freedom from slavery.

In Russia, if you walk down the street in assless chaps leading another man on a dog leash, the police will sick an actual dog on you, crack your skull open, and then throw you in jail.

In Iran, they just hang you and then claim there are no gays in Iran.

I’m not on opponent of gay marriage by any means. I don’t have a problem with gay people getting married, but I think the over-the-top rhetoric and the melodramatic displays of phony persecution ring hollow when you see what real persecution of gays looks like.