Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming Your Rights Online

Human Rights Groups Push To Save Condemned Programmer In Iran 244

Posted by samzenpus
from the last-chance dept.
First time accepted submitter debiangruven writes "Human rights Groups are making one final plea to save the life of Canadian programmer, Saeed Malekpour, who was sentenced to death for writing a program to upload photos to the Internet. From the article: 'Malekpour's supporters have created Facebook pages and websites in his support dating to at least 2009. Amnesty International has requested on its website that concerned individuals write Iranian authorities inside and outside the country to demand that Malekpour not be executed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Human Rights Groups Push To Save Condemned Programmer In Iran

Comments Filter:
  • Goodwin be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19, 2012 @10:23AM (#39092229)

    Islam is shaping up to be the modern day Nazi movement. Intolerant and bent on world domination.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ArcherB (796902)

      Islam is shaping up to be the modern day Nazi movement. Intolerant and bent on world domination.

      If you read Slashdot enough, you would swear that the US is JUST as bad as Iran. No, I'm not kidding. There are people on here who will claim that the United States is just as bad as Iran when it comes to human rights issues and even try to argue this point.

      Others will say that Christianity is the exact same as Islam, even though Christianity specifically forbids this type of killing.

      • by decora (1710862) on Sunday February 19, 2012 @10:41AM (#39092329) Journal

        i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Sponge Bath (413667)

          ...his [Reagan] numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters

          Don't forget the picture of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld (one of the architects of the 2003 Iraq invasion and then special envoy of Reagan) shaking hands in 1983.

          • Don't forget the picture of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld (one of the architects of the 2003 Iraq invasion and then special envoy of Reagan) shaking hands in 1983.

            Funny, I could swear I've seen pictures of FDR sitting next to Mr. Gulag himself, Josef Stalin. If you're already in a conflict with scumbag X, and slightly-less-scummy-guy Y starts fighting him too, you might have to hold your nose and help Y in the short term.

            • You're trying to convince "our ideology failed in the real world 100 times but in principle it's great" lefties by pointing out that the real world requires compromises ?

              I love your optimism, man. Just love it.

              • Good point, but I'm not sure how that's any different from the right wing ideologies. On paper they sound good but in practice they lead to a fair amount of misery, too.

                • by sjames (1099)

                  Perhaps the real world calls upon them to compromise as well. Too bad they are ideologically opposed to that.

              • by lennier (44736)

                You're trying to convince "our ideology failed in the real world 100 times but in principle it's great" lefties by pointing out that the real world requires compromises ?

                I love your optimism, man. Just love it.

                And as everyone knows, "compromise" is always spelled "labour camp".

                If you're not in favour of labour camps, you're in favour of Our Country's Enemies having labour camps. And that's just unpatriotic! What are you, some kind of freedom-loving leftwing nitwit? You just don't understand that the real world requires a little bit of forced enslavement and crushing despair. If you're not for labour camps, you're objectively in favour of our enemies.

                Oh, for -! Look, they'll be patriotic labour camps. Smart, well-

            • By number of victims, Stalin was by far the scummier one.

              You know what they say about hindsight, but maybe the right course of action for the USA in WW2 would have been to act opportunistic: stay out, let nazis and reds fight to the end, and only then swiftly move in to crush the weakened victor, whoever it is.

              • By number of victims, Stalin was by far the scummier one.

                You'll get no argument from me on that -- I wear one of these [thoseshirts.com]. But it would have been tangential to the main point. Which, now that I think about it, is a silly expression, because you can't have a tangent to a point, a tangent is to a curve. But nevermind.

                You know what they say about hindsight, but maybe the right course of action for the USA in WW2 would have been to act opportunistic: stay out, let nazis and reds fight to the end, and only then swiftly move in to crush the weakened victor, whoever it is.

                The basic idea has merit on a coldly-logical basis, though I wouldn't like the deaths and suffering it would cause to innocent Russians -- or even innocent Germans, for that matter. Problem is, the USSR was in it second-to-last, and Japan would have broug

            • by Kittenman (971447)

              Don't forget the picture of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld (one of the architects of the 2003 Iraq invasion and then special envoy of Reagan) shaking hands in 1983.

              Funny, I could swear I've seen pictures of FDR sitting next to Mr. Gulag himself, Josef Stalin. If you're already in a conflict with scumbag X, and slightly-less-scummy-guy Y starts fighting him too, you might have to hold your nose and help Y in the short term.

              Someone in Churchill's cabinet made a similar comment in '41, when Hitler launched Barbarossa. His comment was that maybe Britain (and the other allies at war: this is all pre-US involvement) should sit on the sidelines and let them just destroy each other. Churchill's response then (or to a similar situation) was that if Hell declared war against Nazi Germany, it would become necessary to look for some of the good points in Satan.

        • i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.

          Your post seems to be replying to its grandparent rather than its parent, so I'll assume you're saying that Reagan's speeches are incompatible with the former's statement about "Islam shaping up to be a modern day Nazi movement." The statement needs to distinguish between Islam and Islamism, true, but "this ideology is shaping up to be bad in general" does not contradict "these particular people who hold that ideology are good."

        • by ArcherB (796902)

          i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.

          The mujaheddin != the Taliban. Remember that there was a civil war raging in Afghanistan for decades before we went in. One side was the Taliban and their supporters. We supported the other side, those that were once the Mujaheddin.

          • We supported the other side, those that were once the Mujaheddin.

            Osama bin Laden was Mujahideen and, yes, Reagan was a huge supporter of his efforts.

          • That's bullshit. Back when you supported mujahideen against the Soviets, there was no Taliban at all - but mujahideen varied in how extreme Islamists they were (though they were all Islamists - they weren't fighting for democracy, they were fighting against the secular communist regime and its unspeakable horrors such as putting boys and girls in the same class in school). After Soviets withdrew, and DRA started to collapse, mujahideen started fighting between themselves, too - and more extreme factions bec

          • sorry, i dont know how you get around that one.

        • by lennier (44736)

          i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.

          Myself, I like watching 1988's Rambo III [imdb.com] where he goes to Afghanistan and helps the proto-Taliban kill Russians.

          There was absolutely no possible way such an enlightened defense strategy could ever have had unexpected side effects.

      • by ogdenk (712300)

        Others will say that Christianity is the exact same as Islam, even though Christianity specifically forbids this type of killing.

        Really..... care to explain the crusades and spanish inquisition? Both religions are packed with hypocrites looking to twist the faith to fit their agenda. Both are evil and no longer necessarily have a right to exist much less wield actual power especially in a legal sense.

        If idiots are willing to kill to prove their god is great, we should make sure they can meet their fairy tale hero ASAP. Both muslim AND christian.

        Really, if someone says "mohammed or jesus is a homosexual and God does not exist" and

        • Others will say that Christianity is the exact same as Islam, even though Christianity specifically forbids this type of killing.

          Really..... care to explain the crusades and spanish inquisition?

          You'll have a valid point just as soon as you can show the programmer slain for writing a photo upload program in modern day Spain... What happened 500 years ago isn't really valid justification for what's happening today, unless you NEED to find some sort of justification to ameliorate your own sense of guilt.

    • by loufoque (1400831) on Sunday February 19, 2012 @10:38AM (#39092311)

      It's not "shaping up to be". Islam has always been about forcing the one true view of god to everyone.
      It's by definition intolerant and bent on world domination.

      • by Sique (173459)

        So are all religions which are proselytizing. They see world domination as their goal. And they count every other belief or the lack of any belief as inferior. Christianity currently has about all of the most powerful countries on their side (with the exception of China), so Christianity can have a pretty laid back attitude right now. Islam is not in that position, so it tries more aggressively to gain power.

        • by loufoque (1400831)

          So are all religions which are proselytizing.

          Islam is about dedicating your life to the worship of god, and following the law of god in everything you do.
          Christianity (in modern times) is about loving and accepting others.

          So I wouldn't exactly say that all religions are the same with regards to tolerance.

          Christianity currently has about all of the most powerful countries on their side (with the exception of China), so Christianity can have a pretty laid back attitude right now.

          Christianity barely exists at

          • Islam is about dedicating your life to the worship of god, and following the law of god in everything you do.

            *ahem* That statement is about as meaningful as "rationality is about doing the smart thing". The problem of course is what does "dedicating your life to the worship of god" mean ? There's an answer for that, of course : hisbah [wikipedia.org]

            Translation (of the relevant arabic sentence):

            Commanding right and forbidding wrong

            Note 3 important facts :
            1) nowhere does it states that a muslim has to do right and not wrong himself
            2) the choice of verbs is not just a coincidence : it is not about asking, pointing out, or helping, it is about forcing
            3) "right" and "wr

            • by loufoque (1400831)

              When was the last time you left your home ?

              Very few of the people I know believe in god as depicted in the bible, even though a lot of them were baptised or married in a church, and are thus registered as christians.
              Most of them haven't even ever read part of the bible.

              From my personal experience, it's especially the case with people under 40 and even more so under 30. Additionally the more highly educated a person is the less likely he is to believe in god. I'm just inferring from that.

        • Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:5, Interesting)

          by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday February 19, 2012 @11:39AM (#39092641) Journal

          Take a look at the history of Islam. Mohammad specifically prohibited converting people by force. Two years later, armies under his command attacked a city (that he had a peace treaty with, by the way) and gave everyone a choice: convert to Islam or die.

          Christianity started to be used as a justification for atrocities shortly after the Roman emperors converted. Islam was like that from the start.

          • by mathmathrevolution (813581) on Sunday February 19, 2012 @12:14PM (#39092833)

            In other words, there is no such thing as a true, fixed interpretation of a religion or ideology. Ideologies emerge from a surrounding geopolitical and economic reality and are always in flux with that surrounding geopolitical and economic reality subject to individual interpretation. It is bogus to say "Christians believe in X, and Buddhist believe in Y, while Muslims believe in Z." Distinct individual agents are constantly reinventing their interpretation of their religious experience.

            Their is divide in human culture between those who believe in peace and those who don't. There are Christians and Muslims and Jews and Atheists in both camps, but the majority of people in all religions want peace. I saw this in my graduate program which had a good mix of Jews, Atheists, Muslims, and Christians in it. This was an educated crowd and everybody there wanted to get along. The trick for the human race is to not let our belligerent minorities set us against each other. They are eager to spark conflict and set us against each other for their own gain.

            • by jez9999 (618189)

              In other words, there is no such thing as a true, fixed interpretation of a religion or ideology

              Well, it's hard to interpret Islam as anything BUT hypocritical.

              • Whereas Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Communism, Capitalism, Feminism, Hinduism, Existentialism, Liberalism, and Conservatism are fixed ideologies and perpetually free of internal contradictions?
            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by couchslug (175151)

              All religion is oppressive, all religion is based on lies as there isn't the slightest logical reason to believe in Sky Fairies, and religions insist on imposing social restrictions BASED on superstition.

            • . It is bogus to say "Christians believe in X, and Buddhist believe in Y, while Muslims believe in Z." Distinct individual agents are constantly reinventing their interpretation of their religious experience.

              For the most part Christians don't know what they believe, for example that Hell thing isn't in the Bible. They say they believe in One God then turn around and deify Satan (that fits Islam too). The Christ himself hung around with Whores, Divorcee, Tax-collectors
              and people who were consider the scum of the Earth types of their time.

          • Muhammad claimed that he was being constantly guided by Allah throughout his life. So his position in that sense was perfectly consistent - prohibition on forced conversions was divinely inspired, and was necessary at that point in time. When it became unnecessary, it was abrogated [wikipedia.org] by a new commandment, which was equally divinely inspired.

        • by Mashiki (184564)

          Can't tell if you're ignorant of world religions, or simply brain washed to the point where you think that Islam has been sunshine and bunnies from the start. Islam has been "putting people to the sword" in the "convert or die" type of way from the start. In Christianity, the regular people had their reformation already tossed off the yoke of the church, and more then one government did, from the simplistic to the grandest points.

          But I'm sure your first point will be to try and argue that it was "christia

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by poity (465672)

          In Slashdot religion bashing threads, there is one thing that always stands out to me. When child-abusing Mormons, anti-abortion Catholics, or other anti-science Christians are getting a much-deserved pummeling, absolutely NO ONE raises their voice to blunt the attacks with "so are all religions", nor does anyone bring up Islam as a counter-argument of "this religion is not the only one". Yet in threads where outrageous things are done in the name of Islam, there are always a disproportionate number of post

          • When people are bashing Mormons for child abuse, nobody points out the colossal problem of child abuse in the Catholic church? I find that pretty hard to believe.

      • by zarlino (985890) on Sunday February 19, 2012 @10:51AM (#39092389) Homepage

        Religions are often just a "cover-up" ideology for economical interest and can be interpreted in many different ways. From the peaceful mystical one to the nationalist and revolutionary one.

    • Islam is shaping up to be the modern day Nazi movement. Intolerant and bent on world domination.

      "Is shaping up?" It's been doing that for the last millennium (and almost a half). BTW, guess what: The Arabs and the Nazis have always been very friendly [youtube.com] to each other. And guess which book is a perennial best-seller in the Middle East...

  • by retroworks (652802) on Sunday February 19, 2012 @10:39AM (#39092317) Homepage Journal
    Brilliant. Excites young people in the Green Revolution, and provides massive disincentive to programmers and engineers. Atlas won't just shrug, Atlas will give Iran the middle finger on the way out. This is much more powerful than any international protest or letter writing campaign. But if the campaign spares the individual programmer's life in the meantime, it's still time well spent.
  • When we talk about Iran, we say that their government wants to control the freedom of it's people. In the United States, we say that laws "protect" the freedom of it's people. Maybe people forget where the laws come from? Every government is hell-bound on censoring the internet right as we speak, and there's little anyone can do with online posts, we cannot fight back with the weapons they control...
    • I dunno about this.
      The European Parliament seem hell bent on protecting human rights lately, despite a barrage of 4-letter acronym pro-censorship laws.

    • Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Sunday February 19, 2012 @11:34AM (#39092597)
      I am quick to criticize the US government for drifting away from protecting our rights and freedoms, but there is really no comparison with a country like Iran. In the US, when the government considers establishing a national firewall, the citizens criticize the government without fear; in Iran, protesting the firewall that is already in existence can result in being arrested or beaten up by the police. The fact that we can even compare the US to an enemy like Iran, without worrying about angering the censors, shows you just how many freedoms we still have in this country.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It doesn't matter if you've got relatives there, or if the only archaeological remnant you want so see of some civilisation lies there, or it has the best undisturbed nature reserves... just don't go there. As soon as you go to such a country, your life is theirs. Before you go on holiday, check if your destination is a democracy with reasonable laws and institutions. If not, don't go.

    • That's not a solution.

      What about the people who live there? Should they simply leave? Unlike you, the mere visitor, they are living constantly there under the treat of the regime. Even if they are hostile towards visitors, there's less risk for you because your visit will be temporary, while an inhabitant is permanently there. A visitor to Iran, especially if they do their research before visiting, ought to be safer than a random member of their society right now. Many of them might choose to leave, but for

  • by kurt555gs (309278) <{kurt555gs} {at} {ovi.com}> on Sunday February 19, 2012 @11:46AM (#39092673) Homepage

    I am guessing they are for executing anyone that writes a program to upload anything to the interwebs. I'll bet they even discussed trying to put this provision into ACTA.

  • He is NOT Canadian (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19, 2012 @02:43PM (#39093929)

    The guy is not Canadian. People say that he is Canadian because they want to pressure the Canadian government into taking action. He is not a Canadian citizen though. He was merely a permanent resident. In addition to that, it was reported in the past that, while living in Canada, this guy had blogged defending the government of his country - i.e., Iran. Apparently, after moving to Canada, he still felt a very strong connection with his country (i.e., Iran) and he felt that he had to voice his support to his government - namely, the same government that now is planning to execute him. I am not saying that he deserves the sentence or anything like that. But really, this is something the Canadian government should not get involveld into. The guy is Iranian, he spent most of his life there, and for the most part he supported the crazy regime they have there - even after moving to Canada. What the heck did he move to Canada for if he was so in love with his country? He should have just stayed there.

Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...