Anti-slavery activist runs for president in slave state of Mauritania – after release from prison.
There are few people who announce their candidacy for their country’s presidency only days after being released from prison. But anti-slavery activist and slave descendant Biram Dah Abeid is an exceptional man facing exceptional circumstances.
“I am from the servile community that makes up 50 per cent of the population (of Mauritania),” said Dah Obeid, a lawyer. “Twenty percent of the fifty percent have been born as property of other men. We were inherited by other people.”
Abeid, a prominent and fearless anti-slavery activist who has been jailed and tortured numerous times in his struggle to abolish slavery in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, was released from prison last December 31, having been incarcerated on “an order from above.” Only days later, he again announced his candidacy, having also run for president in Mauritania’s 2014 federal election.
At that time, Dah Abeid, who heads the anti-slavery organization Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement (IRA), presented Mauritanians with the extraordinary and ground-shaking sight of a slave descendant (his father was a freed slave while his mother and uncles remained slaves) under sentence of death of a sharia court and imprisoned numerous times standing for president. Nevertheless, he won eight per cent of the vote, coming in second. Abdel Aziz, a former army general, won with 81.94, not unusual for an African dictatorship.
Is that the 53rd state? Just asking. Bring this bitch to me. I’ll slap the smile off his face.
My prayers go out to Biram Dah Abeid. It takes guts to do what he’s been doing and is doing. Maybe if the west would stop dealing with Aziz and his dictatorship Abeid’s chance of survival would go up. I could see Trump putting Mauritania on his shit list until they change their ways but sure as hell no other politician would draw the line.
HEY, you’re not allowed to talk about MODERN slavery that doesn’t involve evil White people! Only antebellum Southern US slavery, in which no living person participated on either side, can EVER be discussed. It’s the only one that fits the narrative they want to tell.
And leave out the White people who fought AGAINST slavery, too, that’s inconvenient and messes with reparation thinking as ALL White people MUST be guilty of meaness to Black people. That’s the only way they can justify legally forcing a modern White person to give up his property to a modern Black person…
I wonder why this isn’t showing up in the MSM?