The Rwandan Genocide began 25 years ago on April 7, 1994. Over the course of 100 days approximately 700,000 Tutsis were slaughtered along with 100,000 Hutus. I wrote about it recently to commemorate its beginning, and to reflect on the lack of moral courage among those who could have stopped it. Today, let’s continue our commemoration by going in-country.
Rwandans exterminated one in nine of their fellow citizens in only 100 days. All in a country the size of Sweetwater county. Consider the enormity of that evil.
Don’t let foreign tribal names dehumanize these people. They were not soulless Hutus and Tutsis, surplus population. These were mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, shopkeepers, students, youngsters in love, aged and infants.
The murders were not perpetrated at a distance. Guns were scarce. The Hutu government imported a half-million machetes to be distributed for the pre-planned genocide. The murderers were looking into the eyes of their victims, ignoring their pleas for mercy, and feeling the machete cleave flesh and bone.
What does it take to be made into a mass murderer? Human beings all have the frightful capacity for murder, but we are not hard-wired for it. A thousand common decencies keep us from devolving into murderers. To create a society of murderers those barriers need to be eroded systematically. In Rwanda, that process started long before the first day of killings.
Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) began operating on July 8, 1993. It received support from the Hutu-controlled government. Its mission was to stoke hate in the hearts of the majority Hutus. Its programming was calculated to gain a large audience of youth with popular Zairean music. Then, it groomed murderers under a veneer of humor. Anti-Tutsi rhetoric like, “You are cockroaches! We will kill you!" was skillfully mixed with sophisticated comedy.
This is a sobering reminder of humor’s power from Facebook memes to late-night comedy. Humor is humanizing when it makes us laugh at ourselves. Humor is dehumanizing when it makes us laugh at others.
Johnny Carson used to release the day’s tension by a good, wholesome laugh. Entertainers today are more likely to skewer ideological opponents than invite us to laugh at ourselves. Every laugh at the expense of a fellow human being breaks one more barrier between our humanity and the murderer striving to unleash its cruelty. Think about that before sharing a meme or laughing at a joke. You are no different from the average Rwandan.
Once unleashed, murderous rage is uncontrollable. What the Hutu planners unleashed to wipe out the Tutsi minority came back upon their own tribe. Tens of thousands of Hutu men, women and children were murdered by retaliating Tutsis.
Even then, the demon that tore apart Rwanda did not simply slink away. When Tutsi forces won the civil war, the 100-day genocidal program came to an end, but not the killing. After the war there were ongoing reports of atrocities. Most noted was the Kibeho massacre in 1995 where as many as 4,000 unarmed Hutus were shot.
Whether perpetrated by the Tutsi government or vigilante forces, these atrocities show that demons once loosed, are not easily controlled. Governments, machetes and guns are powerless against the restless evil that lies hidden in every human heart.
Evil always promises that if you let it loose, just a little, it will come back under your control. It is a liar. Don’t listen to these empty promises. Evil is never tamed by venting. To give evil reign is to give evil power. With every angry word or blow of the machete, it grows ever more untamable.
God warned Cain, “sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it” (Genesis 4:7 NKJV). The Rwanda genocide demonstrates that these words are as true as ever.
Remember: it was not foreign troops that entered Rwanda to slaughter a ninth of its population. Individual Rwandans chose bit-by-bit to give sin and hatred ever more reign. That is what led to the slaughter of over 800,000 innocents.
God’s providence restrained the machetes after 100 days, but only God’s love can conquer the demons that started them swinging. Christ was crucified not to crush the people who don’t like you. He came to crush the devil who wants you and them both to become like him.
The power of Christ against the murderous devil is His word, wielded in His Church, not in human government. Governments that value peace and community will encourage the Church to speak Christ’s word. Unwise governments will use their power to suppress it and will reap what they sow.
Friday, May 31, 2019
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Rwandan Genocide Part II: The devil let loose
 |
| The slain of École Technique Officielle, Kigali, Rwanda |
What evil can possess a people to unleash so much murder? For perspective, note that nearly one tenth of Germany’s population was murdered in about four years during the Hitler era, averaging more than 4,100 murders per day. But Rwanda exterminated one in nine of its citizens in only 100 days. That comes to 8,000 murders per day. All in a country the size of Sweetwater county.
Don’t let foreign tribal names dehumanize these people. They were not soulless Hutus and Tutsis, surplus population. These were mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, neighbors, uncles and aunts. They were shopkeepers, farmers, ranchers, students, young people in love, old people in bed, infants in the arms of mothers and once-laughing children killed before the eyes of their parents.
In Germany, the killing was carried out by uniformed soldiers. The average German had no blood on his or her hands. But in Rwanda, neighbors killed neighbors. So, not only did Rwanda have twice the number of victims per day, it also created vastly more murderers per day.
 |
| Auschwitz, Spring 1944 |
Also, unlike machine guns and gas chambers, the murders were not perpetrated at a distance. Guns were scarce. The Hutu government imported a half-million machetes to be distributed for the pre-planned genocide. Most of the 800,000 murderers were looking into the eyes of their victims, ignoring their pleas for mercy, and feeling the knife sink into flesh and break bones.
What does this do to the human psyche? To be killed is easy. All it takes is for someone to kill you. But what does it take to be made into a mass murderer? And how does a person live with himself afterward?
Human beings are not hard-wired for murder. Even though we all have the frightful capacity for it, common decency sets numerous barriers that keep us from devolving into animals. To create a country of machete-wielding murderers, those barriers need to be eroded systematically. In Rwanda, the government officials who were planning the genocide started long before the first day of killings.
Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) began operating on July 8, 1993. It received support from the Hutu-controlled government and even broadcast, initially, on government-controlled radio equipment. From the start, its mission was to stoke hate in the hearts of the majority Hutus.
Genocide planners began laying the foundation for RTLM a year before it began broadcasting. Its programming was calculated to gain a large audience of youth by broadcasting popular Zairean music. Then, it mixed incessant anti-Tutsi propaganda into the programming.
RTLM frequently spoke of Tutsis in sentences like, “You are cockroaches! We will kill you!" This hate-filled rhetoric was skillfully intermingled with sophisticated humor. It hardened hearts against Tutsis while maintaining a veneer of humor to deflect suspicion that it was actually grooming murderers.
This ought to stand as a sobering reminder that humor is a powerful tool for good and for evil. “Many a truth is spoken in jest,” remains as applicable to Facebook memes as it does to late-night comedy. Humor is humanizing when it makes us laugh at ourselves. Humor is dehumanizing when it makes us laugh at others.
Entertainers should observe the difference. America once had people like Johnny Carson to release the day’s tension by a good, wholesome laugh. Today we are rarely invited to laugh at ourselves. Too much humor is designed to skewer ideological enemies.
 |
| Ed McMahon and Johnny Carson |
We should answer not by controlling the airwaves, but by mastery of the on-off switch. Every laugh at the expense of our neighbor breaks down another barrier between our humanity and the murderer striving to unleash its cruelty. Think about that before sharing a meme or laughing at a joke. You are no different from the average Rwandan.
Once the beast is unleashed, its murderous rage is uncontrollable. It is undeniable that Hutu planners stoked the flames of hatred in order to wipe out the Tutsi minority. Already in March 1993 a group called Hutu Power began compiling lists of Tutsis to be killed. Four months before the killing started, the United Nations was told by an informer that a genocide was being planned at the highest levels of the Hutu government.
While the beast was let loose by Hutu Power, the Tutsi forces of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) did not remain unsullied. Even before they took over the presidential palace on May 23, 1994, reports were coming from Hutu refugees in Tanzania of RPF atrocities. In the end, tens of thousands of Hutu men, women and children were murdered by Tutsis.
The demon that tore apart Rwanda did not simply slink away. When the RPF won the civil war, the 100-day genocidal program came to an end, but not the killing. After a Tutsi, Paul Kagame, took over the government, there were ongoing reports of RPF atrocities. Most noted was the Kibeho massacre in 1995 where as many as 4,000 unarmed Hutus were shot.
 |
| Paul Kagame |
Kagame dismissed these atrocities as rogue operations. That may or may not be true. Either way it is a reminder that once demons are loose in a society, they are not easily controlled. The devil is not subject to the power of machetes and guns. Governments are powerless against the restless evil that lies hidden in every human heart.
Evil is always crouching at your door asking to be let loose, just a little. It always promises that venting your spleen will let off enough steam to calm it down and put it back under your control. It is a liar. Don’t listen to these empty promises. Whether it wants you to vent your own spleen or someone else’s, its real aim is to control you.
To give evil reign is to give evil power. Evil will not be tamed by bloodletting. Rather, with every angry word or blow of the machete, it grows ever more untamable.
The words of God to Cain remain as true today as they were at the beginning of the world, “sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it” (Genesis 4:7 NKJV). The Rwanda genocide lays bare the gravity of these words.
It was not foreign troops that entered Rwanda to slaughter a ninth of its population. Individual Rwandans chose bit-by-bit to give sin and hatred a little slack. Eventually it led to the slaughter of over 800,000 innocent “Abels.”
God’s providence restrained the machetes after 100 days, but only God’s love can conquer the demons that started them swinging. Christ was crucified not to crush the people who don’t like you. He came to crush the devil who wants you and them both to become like him.
The power of Christ against the murderous devil is wielded in His Church, not in human government. Governments that value peace and community will encourage the Church to speak Christ’s word. Unwise governments will use their power to suppress it and will reap what they sow.
Friday, May 24, 2019
WTE: WTE should join Cheney in opposing the Equality Act
When Nancy Pelosi became the new speaker of the House of Representatives, she promised to make the so-called “Equality Act” a top priority. She wasn’t kidding. H.R. 5 was introduced on March 13, 2019 in just over two months it passed the House on a 236-173 vote.
Wyoming’s Liz Cheney voted against it for good reasons. Now it goes to the Senate including Wyoming’s delegation, Mike Enzi and John Barrasso. You need to know the three fundamental ways it will change federal law.
First, it repeals the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). This law was introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer after the Supreme Court denied religious protections to native Americans. It passed the Senate on a 97-3 vote and cleared the House unanimously. Bill Clinton signed it into law.
RFRA allows the federal government to restrict the free exercise of religion only on two conditions. It must prove to a court of law both that the restriction is for a “compelling government interest,” and that this compelling interest is met in the “least restrictive way possible.” By removing these requirements, H.R. 5 effectively revokes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Second, the so-called Equality Act redefines the legal term “public accommodation.” The Civil Rights Act uses this category to place boundaries on its awesome exercise of state power. It covers motels, dining establishments and theaters. H.R. 5 would expand “public accommodation” to mean any individual, “who is a provider of a good, service, or program.” When a category includes everyone, it ceases to be a category at all. It’s ability to limit the raw exercise of power no longer exists.
Third, the law would insert SOGI language into the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Currently, federal law prohibits “discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” H.R. 5 would add “sexual orientation and gender identity” to that list.
At first blush, that may seem a good thing. If you are like me, you don’t want to discriminate against anyone, and you want our laws to protect people from invidious discrimination of any kind. But the addition of this language does not prevent invidious discrimination. It creates it.
It does so in three ways. First, sexual orientation and gender identity cannot be objectively known. Race, color, religion, sex and national origin can all be determined by simple observation. All except religion are bodily realities, written into our DNA.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not categories of body but of mind. Parties at law—both enforcers and defendants—don’t have a fair chance to know a person’s identity before charges are levelled. After all, one of the fundamental claims of identity theory is that body parts, grooming, clothing, and even biological facts are irrelevant to a person’s perceived identity.
That leads to a second problem. In the decade since SOGI laws started multiplying, nobody has ever been charged for discriminating against a person, as such. Rather, through a sleight of hand, prosecutors have alleged that reluctance to positively affirm the latest claim is itself discriminatory.
While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids specific acts of invidious discrimination. SOGI laws compel people to speak an ever-expanding list of new orthodoxies even when they know it is false. What exactly are these? That remains an open question.
This is the third reason that the insertion of SOGI language into federal law would be a disaster. The specific acts and words that SOGI laws require are a moving target.
For example, Colorado added SOGI language in 2008. At the time, Colorado denied that same sex couples could be married. Few could have guessed that a mere four years later SOGI language would compel a private business to positively affirm that same-sex unions are marriages. But that’s what Colorado alleged when they charged Jack Phillips with a crime.
Even in 2012, however, no one in America had been compelled to say that a man can become a woman. Then last summer Colorado charged Phillips with a new crime when he declined to convey that message.
What speech will it compel in the future? In recent months we have seen politicians and media-types claim that it is “unscientific” to believe what every embryology textbook affirms. How long before private persons are required to state that an unborn child is not a human being?
SOGI language effectively puts a wildcard in law that can become anything the prosecutor wants it to become. The question is not whether new crimes will be invented. They will. The only question is what will be criminalized, and when.
In fact, under H.R. 5 this newspaper and this author are both considered “public goods” and “services.” How long will it remain legal to write and publish these lines? When the day comes that some prosecutor deems these words “discriminatory,” will the newspaper be punished, or only the author? Will back issues be burned, will editors be jailed?
If the Equality Act goes on to pass the Senate, we may soon find out.
Wyoming’s Liz Cheney voted against it for good reasons. Now it goes to the Senate including Wyoming’s delegation, Mike Enzi and John Barrasso. You need to know the three fundamental ways it will change federal law.
First, it repeals the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). This law was introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer after the Supreme Court denied religious protections to native Americans. It passed the Senate on a 97-3 vote and cleared the House unanimously. Bill Clinton signed it into law.
RFRA allows the federal government to restrict the free exercise of religion only on two conditions. It must prove to a court of law both that the restriction is for a “compelling government interest,” and that this compelling interest is met in the “least restrictive way possible.” By removing these requirements, H.R. 5 effectively revokes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Second, the so-called Equality Act redefines the legal term “public accommodation.” The Civil Rights Act uses this category to place boundaries on its awesome exercise of state power. It covers motels, dining establishments and theaters. H.R. 5 would expand “public accommodation” to mean any individual, “who is a provider of a good, service, or program.” When a category includes everyone, it ceases to be a category at all. It’s ability to limit the raw exercise of power no longer exists.
Third, the law would insert SOGI language into the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Currently, federal law prohibits “discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” H.R. 5 would add “sexual orientation and gender identity” to that list.
At first blush, that may seem a good thing. If you are like me, you don’t want to discriminate against anyone, and you want our laws to protect people from invidious discrimination of any kind. But the addition of this language does not prevent invidious discrimination. It creates it.
It does so in three ways. First, sexual orientation and gender identity cannot be objectively known. Race, color, religion, sex and national origin can all be determined by simple observation. All except religion are bodily realities, written into our DNA.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not categories of body but of mind. Parties at law—both enforcers and defendants—don’t have a fair chance to know a person’s identity before charges are levelled. After all, one of the fundamental claims of identity theory is that body parts, grooming, clothing, and even biological facts are irrelevant to a person’s perceived identity.
That leads to a second problem. In the decade since SOGI laws started multiplying, nobody has ever been charged for discriminating against a person, as such. Rather, through a sleight of hand, prosecutors have alleged that reluctance to positively affirm the latest claim is itself discriminatory.
While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids specific acts of invidious discrimination. SOGI laws compel people to speak an ever-expanding list of new orthodoxies even when they know it is false. What exactly are these? That remains an open question.
This is the third reason that the insertion of SOGI language into federal law would be a disaster. The specific acts and words that SOGI laws require are a moving target.
For example, Colorado added SOGI language in 2008. At the time, Colorado denied that same sex couples could be married. Few could have guessed that a mere four years later SOGI language would compel a private business to positively affirm that same-sex unions are marriages. But that’s what Colorado alleged when they charged Jack Phillips with a crime.
Even in 2012, however, no one in America had been compelled to say that a man can become a woman. Then last summer Colorado charged Phillips with a new crime when he declined to convey that message.
What speech will it compel in the future? In recent months we have seen politicians and media-types claim that it is “unscientific” to believe what every embryology textbook affirms. How long before private persons are required to state that an unborn child is not a human being?
SOGI language effectively puts a wildcard in law that can become anything the prosecutor wants it to become. The question is not whether new crimes will be invented. They will. The only question is what will be criminalized, and when.
In fact, under H.R. 5 this newspaper and this author are both considered “public goods” and “services.” How long will it remain legal to write and publish these lines? When the day comes that some prosecutor deems these words “discriminatory,” will the newspaper be punished, or only the author? Will back issues be burned, will editors be jailed?
If the Equality Act goes on to pass the Senate, we may soon find out.
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
The Equality Act writes prosecutors a blank check
Neely was hauled before the Wyoming Supreme Court and removed from the bench for answering a local reporter’s hypothetical question with basic Sunday school teaching. Her legal woes were only made possible because Wyoming’s Code of Judicial Conduct had been altered to include the language of “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI). Since then, Wyoming has watched the progressive lobby working to insert identical language into state law, city ordinances and school policies.
For nine years running, the Wyoming legislature has voted against putting SOGI language into state law. Beginning in 2015, it has been brought before the communities of Laramie, Cheyenne, Sheridan, Casper and Jackson. Scattered school districts have also considered and rejected attempts to add this language to school policies.
Also, in Washington, progressives have been trying to put this language into federal law since 2015. For four years, these attempts never made it out of committee. But this year is different. Last fall’s election transferred control of the House from Paul Ryan to Nancy Pelosi. As soon as she held the gavel, Pelosi announced that she would make SOGI legislation one of her top priorities.
On March 13, 2019 she made good on this promise by introducing H.R. 5, the so-called “Equality Act.” On May 1 it passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on a straight party line vote. On Friday, May 17, it passed the House on a vote of 236-173. Wyoming’s lone representative in the House, Liz Cheney, voted against it.
As the H.R. 5 goes before the U.S. Senate, and the consideration of Wyoming’s Senators Enzi and Barrasso, Wyomingites need to know the three fundamental ways it will change federal law.
First, it will repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). This is the law that was introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer after the Supreme Court denied religious protections to native Americans. It passed the Senate on a 97-3 vote and cleared the House without a single objection. Then President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
RFRA does not absolutely prohibit the federal government from restricting religious freedoms, but it does require the government to prove to a court of law that any restrictions of religious freedoms are for a compelling government interest. It further requires that that compelling government interest be met in the least restrictive way possible.
H.R. 5 would make it possible for the government to restrict the free exercise of religion without meeting these two requirements. It is a law that effectively revokes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Second, the so-called Equality Act redefines the legal term “public accommodation.” Historically, “public accommodations” have been understood as motels, dining establishments and theaters. H.R. 5 would expand public accommodation to mean any individual, “who is a provider of a good, service, or program.”
This drastic change is designed to strip away individual property rights by exposing all people to the reach of federal law. Can you think of a single person who is not a “provider of a good”? Such language makes the term “public accommodation” meaningless. Any category that includes everyone, ceases to be a category at all.
Third, the law would insert SOGI language into the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Currently, federal law prohibits “discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” H.R. 5 would add “sexual orientation and gender identity” to that list.
To the casual reader, that may seem to be a good thing. If you are like me, you don’t want to discriminate against anyone, and you want our laws to protect people from discrimination of all sorts. So why shouldn’t we add this language to federal law?
There are three good reasons why adding this language is a bad idea. First, sexual orientation and gender identity cannot be objectively known. Race, color, religion, sex and national origin can all be determined by simple observation. All except religion are located in a person’s body and written into his or her DNA.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not categories of body but of mind. Parties at law—whether law enforcement officers or the people who will be charged with crimes—cannot know these things without asking personal questions. When a man enters a cakeshop, how can the proprietor know whether he is a man, a cis-male or a male-to-female trans who prefers to present as a male?
That brings us to the second problem with these laws. Since SOGI language started appearing in state laws, city ordinances and school policies, nobody has ever been charged for discriminating against a person. But many have been charged for declining to do what someone demanded.
Currently the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that businesses not withhold the goods and services that they supply from anyone. The new law would require that businesses—and even private persons—do and say things that they would not otherwise do and say for anyone. And what exactly must they do and say? That is an open question.
This is the third reason that the insertion of SOGI language into federal law would be a disaster. The specific acts and words that SOGI laws require are always changing. SOGI language was first inserted into Wyoming’s Code of Judicial Ethics in 2009. It took five years before anyone “knew” that this language would deny a judge her right to speak openly.
Similarly, Colorado added SOGI language in 2008. At the time, nobody knew, and few would have guessed, that it would require people to say that same-sex unions were marriages. But four years later, Jack Phillips was charged with the crime of being unwilling to express this opinion. Even then, nobody knew that the law would require people to say that men can become women. But six years after that Phillips was charged with that new crime under the same law.
I call this aspect of SOGI language “Easter eggs.” Nobody knows what’s in them or when they will break open. They effectively put a wildcard in law that can become anything the prosecutor wants it to become.
The existence of these “Easter eggs” is not some crazy legal theory. It has been happening for more than a decade. The question is not whether new crimes will be discovered. They will. The only question is what will be criminalized, and when.
In fact, since this newspaper is a public good and service, it would also fall under the Equality Act. I wonder how long it will remain legal to write these words. When the day comes that some prosecutor deems these words “discriminatory,” will the newspaper be punished, or only the author? Will archived copies be subject to public burning?
If the Equality Act goes on to pass the Senate, we will certainly find out.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Asia Bibi is finally free, for now
On Friday, June 19, 2009 Asia Bibi, a 37-year old mother of two, was working in the fields with other women from her village. Her’s was one of three Christian families in a village of 1,500 Muslim families. Just as they had many times before, the women were pressuring Asia to renounce Christ and to accept Islam. But this day’s conversation was especially intense.
Asia explained that Jesus died on the cross for sins and asked what Muhammed had done for them. She told them that Jesus rose from the grave and is alive, but that Muhammed is dead. Then she said, “Our Christ is the true prophet of God and yours is not true.”
These are the most basic beliefs of Christians around the world and have been since the day that Jesus first appeared to his disciples and showed them the nail holes in his hands and the spear hole in his side. But that day Asia’s coworkers responded by beating her until some men carted her off to a locked room.
They announced over the mosque’s loudspeakers that she would be punished by having her face blackened and being paraded through the village on a donkey—presumably to mock the way that Jesus had entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Some Christians sought help from the police.
But rather than protecting her from the mob, the police arrested her and charged her with blasphemy according to Pakistan Penal Code 295-C. This clause was added in 1986 and prohibits, “Use of derogatory remarks, spoken, written, directly or indirectly, etc. defiles the name of Muhammed or other Prophet(s).” Conviction brings a mandatory death sentence and a fine.
Seventeen months later, Asia was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death by hanging. That was the beginning of eight years spent on death row. Her lawyers immediately appealed to the Lahore High Court, but she remained on death row as that court slow-walked her appeal.
Blasphemy laws have been on the books in Pakistan since British colonial days, but they were significantly strengthened in the mid-1980s. To date, the Pakistani government has never carried out an execution for blasphemy. Nevertheless, since 1990, 62 people have been murdered in vigilante actions after being accused of blasphemy.
 |
| Yousaf Qureshi |
This was the most immediate threat to Bibi. Muslim cleric, Maulana Yousaf Qureshi, promised a half-million rupees ($6,300) to anyone who would kill her. Asia’s husband and children went into hiding in order to avoid being killed themselves.
There have also been numerous times when government officials have been assassinated for defending people against blasphemy charges. This happened in Asia’s case as well.
Punjab Governor, Salmaan Taseer, gave an interview on Pakistani television in which he spoke about filing a petition for mercy in Bibi’s case. Shortly thereafter, in January of 2011, his bodyguard shot him 27 times in broad daylight.
Pakistani Minorities Minister, Shahbaz Bhatti, also paid the ultimate price. He was the only Christian cabinet member and was advocating for Bibi’s release. On March 2, 2011 he was being driven to work when his driver saw armed men approaching the vehicle. Rather than taking evasive action, his driver stopped the car and ducked. Bhatti died in a hail of bullets.
 |
| Bhatti's car |
After four years of political delays, the Lahore High Court finally heard her case in October of 2014. The ruling upheld her conviction and death sentence. Bibi’s lawyers this time appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Four more years passed while a petition that garnered 400,000 signatures brought her case to international attention. Then, on October 31, 2018 Pakistan’s Supreme Court overturned her conviction citing “material contradictions and inconsistent statements of the witnesses.”
This ruling touched off a series of riots across the country. After three days, the Pakistani government quelled the riots by signing an agreement with the Islamist party that organized them. It agreed to keep Bibi from leaving the country.
Thus, even though she had been acquitted by the highest court in the land, and released from prison, she was still effectively living on death row. Her family was forced to leave the country, but she could not.
Bibi’s accusers used the time to file a petition appealing the Supreme Court’s decision. When that petition was rejected on January 29, 2019, the last legal obstacle to Bibi’s freedom was removed. Since that day negotiations have been under way for Asia to join her family in Canada.
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019, Asia Bibi landed in Canada. This marked the end of a decade-long ordeal begun when she told her fellow villagers what she knew to be true. Those of us who have been following her case for years are breathing a deep sign of relief. Still, her struggle is not over.
 |
| Asia's husband and daughters |
Asia has been denied the joy of raising her daughters during the most formative years of their lives. After remembering on Mother’s Day the many gifts we received from our own mothers, it is easier to understand what was stolen from Asia Bibi’s daughters.
She was also forcibly separated from her husband for ten years. Even now, she will likely never be able to use her own name in public and will need to live with bodyguards and the constant threat of assassination.
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, and the damage they have done to Asia Bibi, stand in sharp contrast to the freedom of religion that is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. What we should notice most of all is that religious freedom is not only about the freedom to worship. True freedom is the freedom to live and speak of one’s religion at work and in the public square.
Asia and her family were always allowed to worship. What got her in trouble was that she of spoke her faith in the workplace. What led to the assassination of a provincial governor and a Pakistani government official is that they defended Bibi in the halls of government.
Blasphemy laws deem some speech to be intolerable. Those in power get to decide which words can be punished and which not. In a majority Muslim country, the simple statement that Muhammed is not a true prophet can be punished by death. In a Communist country, challenges to Marx or Mao can bring the same sentence.
In the bitterest of ironies, Asia’s quest for religious freedom brought her to a place that has already begun to enact blasphemy laws of its own. Canada has already arrested and fined Christians for quoting the Bible in public. They have denied jobs and revoked licenses to people who refuse to mouth Canada’s new orthodoxy. Recently, they even forced a father to stop speaking of his own daughter.
Asia Bibi has finally been given freedom to defend her faith in the face of Muslim challenges. It remains to be seen how long she will be allowed to defend the same faith in the face of Canada’s blasphemy laws.
Friday, May 3, 2019
WTE: Protect children, don’t exploit them
Imagine if the tobacco lobby started smoker-friendly clubs in high schools, junior highs and even elementary schools. Imagine history textbooks that began including sidebars about famous smokers in history—or biology, literature and mathematics curricula designed to talk about tobacco at every turn.
The children might never be encouraged to use tobacco. But every day kids would face questions from their teachers about whether they might chew or smoke at some point. Would anyone think that this is a good idea? Might some parents raise objections?
Now imagine a tobacco lobby powerful enough to mount a nationwide public relations campaign that painted concerned parents as backward bigots incapable of making healthy decisions for their children. They might even have enough pull to pass school board policies forbidding teachers from informing such “backward parents” if their kids were caught smoking.
As icing on the cake, image a school organizing a field trip to address the legislature in support of a proposed law sponsored by the tobacco lobby. Some might call that advocacy. I would call it the exploitation of minors.
The important word, here, is “minors.” Those who object to such a dystopian school environment would not be objecting because tobacco is illegal. They would not be objecting because they have moral reasons for not smoking—in fact, many of the objecting parents might smoke or chew themselves.
Whether parents think smoking to be disgusting or sexy, sophisticated or slovenly, is completely irrelevant. They would be objecting because the children are minors. Minors are not yet fully developed. Minor bodies are significantly more susceptible to the dangers of tobacco.
Minor minds are even more so. Neuroscience has determined that until full maturation around 25 years old, adolescents are prone to risky behaviors, and highly impressionable. That’s a dangerous combination. While the adolescent brain more susceptible to peer pressure and the undue influence of adult mentors, it is simultaneously less resistant to addictive behaviors.
Out of care and concern for all people who are passing through puberty and adolescence, wise societies have always taken special care to create a safe space where adolescents can grow up before being pressured into making choices that will change their minds and bodies for the rest of their lives.
Tobacco is only one of numerous things that are neither illegal nor intrinsically bad but are withheld from minors as they wait for the true freedom that comes from maturity. Driving a motor vehicle, opening a line of credit, drinking alcohol, marriage and sexuality are on this list as well.
Only the wisdom that comes with age can equip them fully to evaluate such potent things as mind-altering substances and body-altering sexuality. There are healthy ways to use these things, as well as unhealthy ways. A culture that cares about its young people will give them the time and the information to find the healthy way.
That means not only should we hinder minors from having access to these things, we should also shield them from overexposure to their use. Wyoming not only has laws against underage drinking, it also has laws that keep minors out of bars—even when they are not drinking.
For the same reasons, Wyoming—as all civil societies—has laws against statutory rape. This is so because even if a minor consents, he or she is not mature enough to do so with full understanding of the physical, psychological and generational implications of the act.
In March, disciplinary protocols at McCormick Junior High were broken by a substitute teacher. The Wyoming Tribune Eagle and Casper Star Tribune have repeated allegations without evidence, knowing full well that the school administration is unable to speak about an ongoing investigation into the actions of a minor. This follows on the heels of students from Cheyenne Central High being used to lobby on adult-themed topics.
Last week Rep. Scott Clem (R-Gillette) raised concern about our young people being exploited by the press and by Wyoming Equality. As a trained caseworker for adolescents he is a proven advocate for kids, not a paid voice for the sex lobby.
There is a culture-wide fight over the physical, spiritual and psychological dimensions of sexuality and marriage. Whether you have chosen a side, or still stand squarely in the middle, children are to be protected, not exploited.
Those truly fighting for the health and well-being of our children will shield them from the battle, not use them as human shields. Whether from the tobacco lobby, the credit card industry or the sex lobby, protecting children is our common duty.
The children might never be encouraged to use tobacco. But every day kids would face questions from their teachers about whether they might chew or smoke at some point. Would anyone think that this is a good idea? Might some parents raise objections?
Now imagine a tobacco lobby powerful enough to mount a nationwide public relations campaign that painted concerned parents as backward bigots incapable of making healthy decisions for their children. They might even have enough pull to pass school board policies forbidding teachers from informing such “backward parents” if their kids were caught smoking.
As icing on the cake, image a school organizing a field trip to address the legislature in support of a proposed law sponsored by the tobacco lobby. Some might call that advocacy. I would call it the exploitation of minors.
The important word, here, is “minors.” Those who object to such a dystopian school environment would not be objecting because tobacco is illegal. They would not be objecting because they have moral reasons for not smoking—in fact, many of the objecting parents might smoke or chew themselves.
Whether parents think smoking to be disgusting or sexy, sophisticated or slovenly, is completely irrelevant. They would be objecting because the children are minors. Minors are not yet fully developed. Minor bodies are significantly more susceptible to the dangers of tobacco.
Minor minds are even more so. Neuroscience has determined that until full maturation around 25 years old, adolescents are prone to risky behaviors, and highly impressionable. That’s a dangerous combination. While the adolescent brain more susceptible to peer pressure and the undue influence of adult mentors, it is simultaneously less resistant to addictive behaviors.
Out of care and concern for all people who are passing through puberty and adolescence, wise societies have always taken special care to create a safe space where adolescents can grow up before being pressured into making choices that will change their minds and bodies for the rest of their lives.
Tobacco is only one of numerous things that are neither illegal nor intrinsically bad but are withheld from minors as they wait for the true freedom that comes from maturity. Driving a motor vehicle, opening a line of credit, drinking alcohol, marriage and sexuality are on this list as well.
Only the wisdom that comes with age can equip them fully to evaluate such potent things as mind-altering substances and body-altering sexuality. There are healthy ways to use these things, as well as unhealthy ways. A culture that cares about its young people will give them the time and the information to find the healthy way.
That means not only should we hinder minors from having access to these things, we should also shield them from overexposure to their use. Wyoming not only has laws against underage drinking, it also has laws that keep minors out of bars—even when they are not drinking.
For the same reasons, Wyoming—as all civil societies—has laws against statutory rape. This is so because even if a minor consents, he or she is not mature enough to do so with full understanding of the physical, psychological and generational implications of the act.
In March, disciplinary protocols at McCormick Junior High were broken by a substitute teacher. The Wyoming Tribune Eagle and Casper Star Tribune have repeated allegations without evidence, knowing full well that the school administration is unable to speak about an ongoing investigation into the actions of a minor. This follows on the heels of students from Cheyenne Central High being used to lobby on adult-themed topics.
Last week Rep. Scott Clem (R-Gillette) raised concern about our young people being exploited by the press and by Wyoming Equality. As a trained caseworker for adolescents he is a proven advocate for kids, not a paid voice for the sex lobby.
There is a culture-wide fight over the physical, spiritual and psychological dimensions of sexuality and marriage. Whether you have chosen a side, or still stand squarely in the middle, children are to be protected, not exploited.
Those truly fighting for the health and well-being of our children will shield them from the battle, not use them as human shields. Whether from the tobacco lobby, the credit card industry or the sex lobby, protecting children is our common duty.