[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide
April 19 IRAN: If All Cultures Are Equally Valid, Can Iran Kill Gay People? Gay Air France attendants want to be excused from working flights to Iran, because Iran applies the death penalty to gay people. It's yet another exposure of multiculturalism's contradictions. Air France is about to resume flights to Iran after an 8-year hiatus, and in an internal memo told their female flight attendants that when they deboard in Iran they must wear a headscarf to comply with Iranian laws. Not surprisingly, the French flight attendants revolted. They claimed this would seriously violate their right to the secularism that is so fundamental to the French state. In response, Air France agreed to allow them to opt out of working Iran-bound flights. Now, another group of Air France employees is protesting the requirement that they work this new route. Gay male flight attendants have started a petition that would give themselves a similar option as their female colleagues. But their cause goes beyond a violation of their secular rights. In Iran, homosexuality is illegal, and not just in name only. The punishments range from several dozen lashes to the death penalty. If these flight attendants deboard in Iran, they risk arrest and death. Would Iran jeopardize the recent diplomatic thaw by arresting a French citizen under these charges? Probably not, although after Iran seized 10 U.S. sailors in January it's hard to say. But that isn't the point. The point is, while the West congratulates itself on the Obama administration's diplomatic "achievement" vis-a-vis Iran, we are reminded that the Islamic theocracy has serious problems with human rights, especially regarding the gay community. Multiculturalism's Contradictions Although there has been some outcry over Iran's human rights record since the Iran nuclear deal, media organizations have, for the most part, downplayed it. They're more engrossed in human interest stories that conform to their narrative that life in the Middle East is not so different from life in the West. This is, of course, an important message for us to hear, and we should encourage awareness of our similarities where they exist. But not at the expense of hiding our differences or dismissing systematic violations of human rights, and not to promote a progressive, utopic vision of multicultural bliss. The fact is, there's a persistent problem with multicultural ideology that sees evidence of injustice and discrimination everywhere at home, but turns a blind eye abroad. Take, for example, women's rights. In the United States, the Left sees bias, sexual harassment, and micro-aggressions against women around every corner. They have convinced themselves that men and women are paid radically different salaries, culminating in last Tuesday's "equal pay day," even though when looking only at earners who are not primary care-givers that difference all but disappears. Meanwhile, in many Muslim countries, a woman must get a man's permission before being allowed to work at all. This is because women are largely restricted to the "home sphere" as opposed to the "public" one. But a progressive will more or less give you the old "separate but equal" line to justify what they claim merely boils down to "cultural differences." There's also a backlash against those who speak out on the issue. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited from Brandeis University for her views on women and Islam, and Mona Eltahawy's article "Why Do They Hate Us?" sparked outrage from the Left. How Multiculturalism Contradicts Freedom The same hypocrisy is on display regarding gay rights in Muslim countries. While the hardships of being homosexual in these countries are sometimes reported in Western media, there is usually very little discussion of why countries that adhere to Islam persecute homosexuality. That Western media seems to have so little interest in this is surprising, given that more than 75 % of people in Lebanon, Turkey, the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia don't think society should accept homosexuality. If all cultures are equal, no culture can be criticized. The West is skittish about criticizing any aspect of Islamic culture, regardless of how much it might fly in the face of progressive values, because the multicultural framework forbids it. If all cultures are equal, no culture can be criticized. In academia, it's pedestrian to see posters for talks on hyper-specific aspects of homosexuality in America and their attendant discriminations. Campus activism for LGBT rights is a hallmark of the academy. So is the promotion and defense of Muslim culture. But it's rare to see any acknowledgement of how these two causes sometimes clash. The Left Sacrifices Gay People to Islamists As is the case with women's rights, multiculturalism ends up winning out over the human rights of homosexuals in the Middle East. Progressives
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., VA., N.C., ALA., OHIO
April 19 TEXAS: Bluntson trial begins Following several months of pre-trial hearings and a very lengthy jury selection process the much anticipated capital murder trial of Demond Bluntson, the man accused of killing 2 children at a Laredo hotel has begun. Bluntson is accused of killing his girlfriend's sons in 2012 inside a hotel room. Opening statements started Monday morning in the 49th district courtroom by district attorney Chilo Alaniz who is personally prosecuting the case for the state. As the jury was seated the DA re-read the charges against Bluntson which are 2-counts of assaulting a peace officer and 2 counts of murder. The DA begin his opening statement by telling the jury that they were going to be taken to a nightmarish place, he then went on to show them pictures of the 2 children. In hand enlarged pictures of 6 year old Jaden Allen Thompson and 21-month old Deveon Bluntson, telling the jury that the case was about them. Blutson visible affected by the pictures shaking his head throughout the entire opening statement and even at one point getting into a verbal back and forth with the DA. The defense also put on their opening statement, they'll be focusing on the process saying police entered the hotel room without a warrant and against procedure. Defense attorney Oscar Pena says police should have called in hostage negotiators and people trained to deal with hostage situations. Going on to say that had they done that the 2 children could have been alive today. For his part, Bluntson seemed agitated, even interrupting his attorney asking to represent himself. The trial is expected to last 3 weeks, the DA is seeking the death penalty in this case. (source: KGNS TV news) *** Social Media Ban Could Curb Free Speech Behind Bars The "Walls Unit" in Huntsville, where Texas' death row is located. Prisoner advocates say they're concerned a new Texas Department of Criminal Justice social media policy could prevent them from relaying information about their clients on the inside. Prison reform activists are concerned that a new state social media policy could be used to infringe on the free speech rights of both incarcerated people and and those who support them by sharing their stories, thoughts and experiences online. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's (TDCJ) "Offender Orientation Manual," updated in early April, "Offenders are prohibited from maintaining active social media accounts for the purposes of soliciting, updating, or engaging others, through a 3rd party or otherwise." Under the updated manual, prisoners can be penalized for infractions in a number of ways, including by receiving extra work duties or being confined to their cells. Lily Hughes, the national director of Campaign to End the Death Penalty, said that she's concerned the policy could not only infringe on prisoners' rights, but also prevent her group from creating online advocacy pages for their clients. "The rule is written as to be so broad as to include anything," said Hughes, who fears that prisoners may be punished for online activity that her group has undertaken on their behalf. In an emailed statement, TDCJ said that the rule was intended to stop prisoners from using "social media accounts to sell items over the internet based on the notoriety of their crime, harass victims or victims' families, and continue their criminal activity." TDCJ spokesperson Jason Clark said that the primary goal of the policy is to encourage social media networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to shut down prisoners' profiles. "There has been no disciplinary action taken at this time against an offender," Clark told the Observer. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit that defends digital civil liberties, called the policy "digital censorship." "[A] person does not lose all of their rights to participate in public discourse when they are incarcerated," wrote Dave Maas, an investigative researcher at EFF. Azzurra Crispino, an ethics professor at Austin Community College and an organizer with Prison Abolition and Prisoners Support (PAPS) who tweets on behalf of a man in solitary confinement in Lubbock, echoed Hughes' concerns. "This is clearly an overreach in terms of the TDCJ trying to limit my ability to speak," said Crispino, who fears her online activity on behalf of prisoners could be prohibited under the rule. "I'm not an inmate, so I should have absolutely no restriction on my free speech, either legally or morally. But most importantly, it makes it harder for prisoners to mount a defense." Via Twitter Crispino tweets on behalf of an advocacy group for a man named Xinachtli, who was known as Alvaro Luna Hernandez until his recent conversion to Islam. He has spent almost 14 years in solitary confinement. According to his advocates, he disarmed a West Texas sheriff before
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, DEL., VA., GA., FLA., ALA., LA.
April 19 TEXAS: Supreme Court Must Hear Texas Man's Death Penalty Case A black defendant's trial 20 years ago, tainted by a biased expert, is, indeed, "extraordinary." A case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court presents a disturbing question about racial discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty: Is it "extraordinary" to sentence a black man to death based on "expert" testimony - introduced by his own trial counsel - that he is more likely to be dangerous because he is black? Due purely to the incompetence of his court-appointed lawyers, no court has ever fully considered the merits of Duane Buck's argument that this ???racially charged testimony denied him a fair trial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit nonetheless held that Buck's circumstances were not sufficiently "extraordinary" to justify even considering his claim of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court should review that decision and correct a major injustice. Buck's case is extraordinary by any measure. He was sentenced to death in Texas, where the death penalty requires a unanimous jury determination that the defendant will be dangerous in the future. Defense counsel knew that psychologist Dr. Walter Quijano believed that blacks are more likely to be dangerous. But, astonishingly, counsel retained him anyway and elicited that unfounded, racially discriminatory view in Buck's own case. Quijano reiterated that "expert" view on cross-examination, and in closing the prosecution urged the jury to rely on Quijano's testimony to find that Buck would pose a future danger. The jury sentenced Buck to death. Buck received new court-appointed counsel for his state habeas petition. That counsel never raised the argument that Buck's trial had been tainted by the racially discriminatory testimony on future dangerousness, or that Buck's trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance by calling a witness who told the jury that blacks were more likely to be dangerous in the future. Procedurally Barred After Buck filed his state habeas petition, the Texas attorney general conceded in another capital case that Quijano's race-based testimony was unconstitutional. The attorney general's office identified 6 more cases, including Buck's, unconstitutionally tainted by Quijano's "expert" testimony. The attorney general pledged that Texas would not object to resentencing in those 6 cases, and eventually all defendants except Buck were resentenced. But by the time Buck's case reached federal court, the state had changed its mind; it successfully argued that review of Buck's claim was procedurally barred because of his earlier lawyers' failure to raise the issue. In 2012, the Supreme Court held that claims like Buck's can be reviewed in federal court if - as here - the incompetence of state habeas counsel prevented the defendant from raising a substantial claim in state court. And in 2013, the court made clear that this rule applies to Texas. Buck then asked the federal district court to reconsider his claim - something that requires a showing of "extraordinary circumstances." Buck laid out everything that made his case extraordinary. But the district court nonetheless refused, again, to review the merits of his claim, concluding that his case was not extraordinary. Buck sought leave to appeal from the Fifth Circuit - something that required him to show only that reasonable judges could debate whether the district court's decision was correct. But the Fifth Circuit would not even permit Buck to appeal, concluding that Buck's claim was "unremarkable." 2 Decades Without A Ruling The upshot is that, nearly 20 years after he was sentenced to death, no court has ever ruled on Buck's claim that his trial was tainted by testimony - elicited by his own lawyer - that he was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he was black. That raises several serious problems. First, and most critically, both the defense and the prosecution suggested to the jury that Buck was more deserving of death because of his race. This is the rare case in which racial discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty was open and express. Such a sentence should not be permitted to stand, not only because it is profoundly unjust to Buck, but also because it calls the fundamental fairness of Texas's death penalty scheme into question. Second, this case demonstrates how the incompetence of court-appointed lawyers at the early stage of a case can forever bar review of even the most ???serious constitutional errors. That, too, is fundamentally unfair. Finally, this case shows that some courts of appeals are applying far too harsh a standard in deciding whether a habeas petitioner should be permitted to appeal. There is no question that reasonable people - including reasonable judges - could conclude that Buck's case is "extraordinary," as two Fifth Circuit judges'
