Iran’s supreme court has upheld the death sentence for a web programmer who faces imminent execution after being found guilty of developing and promoting porn websites.
Saeed Malekpour was picked up by plainclothes officers in October 2008 and taken to Evin prison in Tehran, where he spent a year in solitary confinement without access to lawyers and without charge.
A year after his arrest, the 35-year-old appeared in a state television programme confessing to a series of crimes in connection with a porn website. On the basis of his TV confessions, he was convicted of designing and moderating adult materials online by a court in Tehran, which handed down death penalty.
Malekpour later retracted his confessions in a letter sent from prison, in which he said they had been made under duress.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/18/iran-death-sentence-porn-programmer
And to think that these f****rs are going to have nukes pointing at London, Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, in a couple of years! Unless, of course, we bomb them back into the stone age first, triggering, at the very least, a further collapse in the world economy if not World War III. Doesn’t life just get better by the day?!
Although a ‘permanent resident of Canada’, poor old Saeed Malekpour’s case hasn’t received much exposure in the west. Quite unlike that of the Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani, whose nude spread in a French magazine has led to her being banished from her homeland – poor, poor thing. Well she might regret it as she grows older and no man except a few cougar loving perverts would want to photograph her naked. Then she might regret being confined to a free sexual market society in which 15 year old girls strut around in see through leggings instead of a society which puts to death pornographers. Maybe not – the Islamo-Feminist take over of France will probably have been completed long before she suffers her first wrinkle. The Iranian justice system will probably be positively liberal compared to France’s by then.
The western media are predictably treating the Iranian actress as some kind of feminist heroine – although revealingly, I haven’t even seen her mentioned on any feminist blog. And why should we be lauding a woman who has broken a sex law in another country anyway? Instead of ‘banning her’, why shouldn’t Iran demand her return, to be beheaded or stoned to death as a criminal sex tourist? And given that she is a sex offender, why shouldn’t we return her to them? (Or do states only own their male citizens? Do only men have to obey their nation’s sex laws when in a different country under different sex laws?).
When Iran nukes big cities in the West, they mostly nuke Muslims.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/how-the-islamist-mindset-rationalizes-and-promotes-sex-sins/2/
I once read a series of articles by Muslims in which they first claimed porn makes you impotent, and then they claimed porn makes you a serial killer and a rapist.
This news has been around in 2010 already
http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1000768&highlight=Saeed+Malekpour
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/canadian-resident-sentenced-to-death-in-iran/article1825999/
http://beta.ca.news.yahoo.com/canadian-resident-sentenced-death-iran-supporters-allege-abuse.html
It is interesting how Canada thinks there are human rights violation. Now if a man gets 15 years in jail for POSSESSING 0′s and 1′s, for possession of adolescent erotica, that is not a human rights violation?
Prosecuting a guy for running and editing web sites is a human-rights violation. Prosecuting one for having some stuff secretly in the privacy of his home is NOT a human rights violation?
If you notice the title of the post : ‘Iran confirms…..’
One of the links you supplied is dead.
It is worse. Seems he did not even porn, he only designed image upload programs that someone used for porn.
http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=996482&highlight=Saeed+Malekpour
ok maybe – what image uploading script did he make?
“While working as developer in Canada, Saeed designed a program that would allow his clients to upload pictures, and as is a common courtesy in programming, included his name and info in the file. This program, Saeed’s wife – Dr. Fatimeh Eftekhari – explains, was used in an adult content website WITHOUT Saeed’s knowledge or approval. “The only recognizable name in the program was Saeed’s,” she continued, “which led to his arrest” and to the accusations claiming that Saeed was responsible for the development and administration of the website.” from
http://united4iran.org/2010/10/the-case-of-saeed-malekpour-web-developer-jailed-since-2008/
@human-stupidity
“It is interesting how Canada thinks there are human rights violation”…
They consider it a violation of Mr Malekpour’s human rights because:
a) it appears likely that he will be executed for his ‘sins’ and
b) the pornography implied in the case (in which he is accused of ‘masterminding’ or designing / facilitating) is ‘acceptable’ or legal pornography under Canadian morality or censorship laws.
Therefore to the Canadians, he hasn’t committed an offence at all, thus they see it as a violation of his human rights.
Had Mr Malekpour’s image uploading program been used by anyone (not necessarily Mr Malekpour himself) to upload or in anyway process ‘child pornography’ or other content that is deemed ‘indecent’ or ‘inappropriate’ by the Canadian authorities, I’d conjecture that they wouldn’t have hesitated to hand him over and even begged the Iranian government to judge and punish him with the full force of their draconian moral laws. (“Please execute this sicko”)…
In our twisted sex-hysterical society: anyone even remotely involved with anything that links erotica, sex or porn with children has automatically forfieted their human rights, especially when ‘anyone’ happens to be a man…
So yes, possessing child porn on one’s computer in the privacy of one’s home in Canada is NOT a human rights violation. According to them, as well as most leaders in Western ‘Democracies’ a ‘paedophile’ has no right to privacy or any human rights at all.
The witch-hunt just keeps gaining momentum every day…
The solution is to simultaneously ask for stiff penalties for REAL pedophiles (penetration of a child under five) while insisting on the difference between children and teenagers when it comes to vice laws.
I agree absolutely Columnist. That should be a key goal of a pro-male sexuality mens’ rights movement – that the United Nations convention on the rights of the
middle-aged hagschild be redrawn to distinguish between a child and an adolescent. In fact, I would criminilise even describing anybody over a certain age as a child. I would also bring in legislation that ensured that laws ‘protecting’ adolescents had to be seperate from child protection laws, and discussed seperately.This story reminds me of another example of where I believe another cunning little ploy has been used to add weight to their constant appeals to amend the legal definition of the term ‘child’. In reality the legal age of consent is what they actually want to be amended and of course this always means INCREASING that age.
Recently in several Australian states, anti-smoking / anti-tobacco organizations have been lobbying governments, both state and federal to redifine the term ‘child’ in relation to adults smoking cigarettes in cars that are carrying ‘children’.
Whilst this policy in itself is probably well-intentioned and protects ‘children’ from the unhealthy risks of passive smoking, I have a problem with the way they want to increase the age which is currently sixteen years, to eighteen years.
This is clearly a stunt to redefine the term ‘child’.
This is ridiculous really…
Anytime I walk around public places, such as shopping centres, beaches, parks or anywhere a few people gathered, I always see at least a couple of ‘children’ i.e. 13, 14, or 15 year olds puffing away like old steam engines; where clearly these ‘children’ have been smokers for some time and are no doubt already hooked on the habit!
Also in most Australian states, a person can legally drive a car on a ‘provisional’ driver’s licence at age 17. If such a young driver also happened to be a smoker and decided to light up a fag whilst driving his / her car, would they fine him /her for contaminating him / herself?
While I don’t have an issue with this policy on the grounds of trying to erradicate this harmful habit from society (it is after all truly harmful to those that indulge in it and to those in close proximity to smokers), what I do have a problem with is the way they are using it as yet another back-door method of redefining the word ‘child’.
The most recent appeal over this was one feminazi who has a prominent position on Queensland Cancer Council (she is not a medical expert or anything, just another one of those typically unqualified and self-appointed ‘experts’ in the field of yes, you guessed it: ‘child welfare’!
She made a ridiculous claim during her brief interview on radio that up to 5 infants died in 2008 of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS, aka ‘cot death’) as a direct result of exposure to second-hand smoke that permeated the environment of their homes, presumably the fault of one or both of the affected infant’s cigarette smoking parents.
As far as I know: no conclusive causes for this mysterious and tragic phenomenon have yet been identified and if it was true that 5 babies died as a result of second hand smoke exposure, the W.H.O. would surely have to ban tobacco, world-wide IMMEDIATELY!
And if her concern is really about these SIDS victims, I don’t see how redefining the meaning of ‘child’ in relation to smoking in cars carrying ‘children’; from a person aged 0 to 16 years to a person aged 0 to 18 could possibly have any effect on the fatatilty rates from SIDS…
This is yet another example of how feminists can just peddle lies and nobody dares to question their validity.
I’ve also noticed a common denominator in the anti-smoking and anti-anything-that’s fun organizations: they all have babbling, hysterical and unqualified self-appointed middle-aged fuglies acting as their ‘spokespersons’.
All appear to be and some are known devout feminists.
One example of the amended laws from the state of Victoria:
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/tobaccoreforms/downloads/ban_smoking_cars_factsheet.pdf
Cunning indeed. Counter this by demanding the voting age be lowered.