|
DEDICATED TO FREE THOUGHT AND FREE SPEECH IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women need help
The government of Afghanistan is waging a war upon women. Since the Taliban took power in 1996, women have had to wear burqua and have been beaten and stoned in public for not having the proper attire, even if this means simply not having the mesh covering in front of their eyes.
One woman was beaten to DEATH by an angry mob of fundamentalists for accidentally exposing her arm while she was driving. Another was stoned to death for trying to leave the country with a man that was not a relative. Women are not allowed to work or even go out in public without a male relative; professional women such as professors, translators, doctors, lawyers, artists and writers have been forced from their jobs and stuffed into their homes, so that depression is becoming so widespread that it has reached emergency levels.
There no way in such an extreme Islamic society to know the suicide rate with certainty, but relief workers are estimating that the suicide rate among women, who cannot find proper medication and treatment for severe depression and would rather take their lives than live in such conditions, has increased significantly.
Homes where a woman is present must have their windows painted so that she can never be seen by outsiders. They must wear silent shoes so that they are never heard. Women live in fear of their lives for the slightest misbehavior. Because they cannot work, those without male relatives or husbands are either starving to death or begging on the street, even if they hold Ph.D.'s.
There are almost no medical facilities available for women, and relief workers, in protest, have mostly left the country, taking medicine and psychologists and other things necessary to treat the sky-rocketing level of depression among women.
At one of the rare hospitals for women, a reporter found still, nearly lifeless bodies lying motionless on top of beds, wrapped in their burqua, unwilling to speak, eat, or do anything, but slowly wasting away. Others have gone mad and were seen crouched in corners, perpetually rocking or crying, most of them in fear. One doctor is considering, when what little medication that is left finally runs out, leaving these women in front of the president's residence as a form of peaceful protest.
It is at the point where the term 'human rights violations' has become an understatement. Husbands have the power of life and death over their women relatives, especially their wives, but an angry mob has just as much right to stone or beat a woman, often to death, for exposing an inch of flesh or offending them in the slightest way.
Women enjoyed relative freedom, to work, dress generally as they wanted, and drive and appear in public alone until only 1996. The rapidity of this transition is the main reason for the depression and suicide;
women who were once educators or doctors or simply used to basic human freedoms are now severely restricted and treated as sub-human in the name of right-wing fundamentalist Islam. It is not their tradition or 'culture', but is alien to them, and it is extreme even for those cultures where fundamentalism is the rule. Everyone has a right to a tolerable human existence, even if they are women in a Muslim country.
If we can threaten military force in Kosovo in the name of human rights for the sake of ethnic Albanians, citizens of the world can certainly express peaceful outrage at the oppression, murder and injustice committed against women by the Taliban.
STATEMENT: In signing this, we agree that the current treatment of women in Afghanistan is completely UNACCEPTABLE and deserves support and action by the United Nations and that the current situation overseas will not be tolerated. Women's Rights is not a small issue anywhere and it is UNACCEPTABLE for women in 1999 to be treated as sub-human and so much as property. Equality and human decency is a RIGHT not a freedom, whether one lives in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
PLEASE COPY this text on to a new e-mail message, sign the bottom and forward it to everyone on your distribution lists. If you receive this list with more than 200 names on it, please e-mail a copy of it
to : sarabande@brandeis.edu
It is best to copy rather than forward the petition.
The latest attempt to censor free access to information on the Internet goes after discussions of "unapproved drugs." If these Senators have their way, you may land in jail for merely linking to a page that talks about colloidal silver. Join Y2K Newswire in taking a stand against this Orweillian endeavor... The Internet is bad for Big Government. It allows the free communication of ideas that can't be controlled from Washington, and it allows the low-cost education of the American public on ideas such as banking, economics and taxes.
China learned this early on and put in place filters that prevent "unapproved" information from moving through the country's computer networks. (All Internet access in China is government-monopolized). This information, by the way, includes topics as dangerous as, say, meditation or Buddhism -- both of which the Communist Chinese government considers a threat to "state security." In fact, the Chinese government is currently engaged in hacking these meditation web sites, destroying their content.
The United States government, as of late, seems eager to borrow as many Commie-style controls from China as it can... and this effort isn't limited only to Democrats. The latest is a proposed bill, now backed by eleven Senators and sponsored by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah), hopes to make it illegal to post or link to a web site that discusses the use of unapproved drugs.
While the text of such a bill is not yet publicly available, it's no leap in thinking to suppose it might apply to all unapproved drugs, not just hard core ones like cocaine. Thus, if passed in such a form, the bill would give the FDA total control over all drug-related web content.
Want to talk about colloidal silver on the web? Too bad: you'll do jail time if Senators Hatch and Feinstein have their way. Want to link to a site that talks about colloidal silver? Say hello to Ben Dover in cell number nine. Want to discuss the all-natural herb, Stevia? You'll be a felon.
One step further and the law prevents you from bad-mouthing those substances approved as "safe" by the FDA. Did your aunt go blind from drinking gallons of aspartame-laced diet soda? You might someday go to jail for sharing that on the 'net. It's "unapproved."
Let's face it: If such a bill were to pass, it would crush the freedoms inherent in the Internet -- the very same freedoms that allow sites like Y2K Newswire to exist. That's how any government takes away power from its people, by the way: control the flow of information. Ever wonder why nearly every mainstream media outlet keeps telling you Y2K has been solved even though none of them have verified much beyond the so-called "facts" in the press releases? It's because they are largely controlled by the same few people. That way, all messages can be approved. And the message they want to get out right now -- to save the banks, mostly -- is that Y2K is no big deal.
Distributed information resources scare the heck out of every power-hungry government. Any technology that gives individuals the power to cheaply reach millions of other people is "dangerous" and must be immediately attacked.
That's exactly why this attack on "drug content" has begun. Once the bill is passed and the public is comfortable with the intrusion, Senators will move on to "guns." Should that succeed, (making it illegal to discuss guns on a web page) the attack can continue into other "unapproved" areas.
In barely a generation, the Internet is 100% government-controlled, and you have -- guess what? -- China! Courtesy of Republican and Democratic Senators alike. The only politicians fighting this will be Libertarians. Congressman Ron Paul, namely.
(This web site, by the way, is banned in China.)
If you want America to become Communist China, just sit back and do nothing. On the other hand...
It is now time for you to do your part and blast these Senators for backing this bill. Hit them with such a massive protest that they will never again consider the censorship of the Internet.
Look at the list below, and if you find a Senator from your state, call them and register your complaint. Here are the resources:
Sponsor: Orrin Hatch (Utah) (202) 224-5251
senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov
Sen Dianne Feinstein (California) Phone: 202/224-3841 Fax: 202/228-3954
senator@feinstein.senate.gov
Sen Joseph Biden (Delaware) Phone: 202-224-5042 Fax: 202-224-0139
Sen Christopher Bond (Missouri) Phone: (202) 224-5721
e-mail: kit_bond@bond.senate.gov
Sen Jesse Helms (N. Carolina) (202) 224-6342 (202) 228-1339(FAX)
jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov
Sen Richard Bryan (202) 224-6244
senator@bryan.senate.gov
Sen Michael DeWine (202) 224-2315
http://www.senate.gov/~dewine/forms1.html
Sen Strom Thurmond (202) 224-5972
senator@thurmond.senate.gov
Sen Gordon Smith (202) 224-3753
http://www.senate.gov/~gsmith/webform.html
Sen Harry Reid (202) 224-3542
senator_reid@reid.senate.gov
Sen Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653
senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov
The temptation for any politician to back this bill is tremendous. By censoring drug-related content on the Internet, they can claim to be "fighting drugs" -- always a fruitful campaign slogan. Of course, it's always easy to fight crime by taking away freedom. It's called a Police State. That's no challenge at all. A true leader will figure out how to fight crime while conserving freedom.
If you're wondering what to write to your Senator, here's a sample letter, courtesy of Y2K Newswire (but it's always better to use your own words -- don't be like the electric utilities copying NERC template documents...):
Dear Senator X,
I am seriously concerned about the potential impact of the proposed Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act which, I understand, you are backing. This bill would not only criminalize every major search engine company on the Internet (such as Yahoo) and literally millions of independent web page operators, it would also set a dangerous precedent. To begin banning on-line discussions that are not "approved" smacks of Communism and clearly infringes on the First Amendment. What's next: thought crimes?
I urge you to withdraw your support for this bill or any bill that denies the American people their God-given freedom to discuss any topic they want.
Sincerely,
- Me
Y2K Newswire now presents -- to the public domain -- our predicted attack plan by the United States government. (All copyright restrictions lifted from this list. Freely distribute or post as desired.) As you will soon see, this is the precise, step-by-step plan that will be followed by those attempting to criminalize "non-approved" information:
1.Either publicize or stage a "crime" where use of the Internet was involved. (For example somebody making a pipe bomb after reading a web page, then using it to blow up an abortion clinic.)
2.When defenders say, "Information doesn't kill people, people kill people," invoke the same argument used in gun control: the children! Appeal to emotions, not logic, and assign zero blame to the person who actually committed the crime.
3.Introduce a bill with a name that's impossible to disagree with -- such as, "The Internet Anti-Crime Bill" -- but make sure the text of the bill actually accomplishes something different (such as total censorship of the Internet).
4.Invent statistics that "prove" how many lives will be saved if this Internet Anti-Crime Bill goes into effect, then repeat these statistics as frequently as possible on CNN until the American public accepts them as fact.
5.During debate, frame the argument in terms of how many deaths the Internet causes, and accuse anyone who does not agree with your censorship of being a "baby killer."
6.Most importantly, when the bill finally passes, introduce a second bill that attempts to ban a larger selection of content.
7.Repeat as needed until the entire Internet conforms to approved government messages.
One by-product of all this, by the way, would be the criminalization of all search engines.Yahoo and AltaVista executives alike would be doing hard time behind steel bars. Of course, to prevent that, they would simply remove certain keywords from their search engines. Words like, "marijuana" would be stripped. In time, this list would grow. The government would make a list of all "unapproved" words it doesn't want the public to be able to find, fax them over to the search engines, then threaten those same engines with criminal indictment if they don't comply. Words and phrases likely to appear on this list include: Clinton body count, Ban Nutrasweet, homeopathic medicine, Y2K Newswire, freedom, patriot. firearms, herbs, Constitution, Drudge Report, Chinagate, colloidal silver, natural medicine, self-awareness...and so on. Using this single list, the federal government can deny access to key concepts deemed dangerous to Big Government. He who controls the list controls the minds of all Internet surfers. And the industry who will back this plan the most, of course, is the medical drug cartel.
The AMA will strongly support the banning of any information that currently threatens the industry's monopoly over dangerous -- but expensive -- drugs (that cause over 100,000 deaths each year, by the way, yet are considered harmless).
It's all very easy to accomplish, and step one has already begun. It's called the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" sponsored by Sen. Hatch. It's easy to accomplish, that is, if you do nothing.
So what are you going to do about it?
Thanks to WIRED News for the reference story on this topic.
The above information was brought to you under the Constitutional protection of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is exclusively guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Support your right to engage in the free exchange of ideas, information and criticism of government by supporting your individual right to free speach.
If you have a Y2K-related story tip for us (anonymity assured):
tips@y2knewswire.com
# 01949 hits since July 19 2006