Yes, I know this is a touchy subject generally but I'd like some opinions on this particular case I just read about on the BBC News website.
It seems to have caused a bit of a kerfuffle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7112929.stm
Printable View
Yes, I know this is a touchy subject generally but I'd like some opinions on this particular case I just read about on the BBC News website.
It seems to have caused a bit of a kerfuffle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7112929.stm
Absolutely ridiculous...
Since when is it a crime to name a bear after Muhammad, and even if it's against the religion to picture the man, it doesn't apply to other religions, anyway. And what happened to the basic democracy? I don't know how it is in UK, but being able to freely name something is a right.
They're ruled by religious law, what would one expect?
From what I can gather... which is not an in-depth knowledge of Islam I might add... is that it is okay to honour a person with the name of the prophet but not to give that name to objects or creatures as it is seen as an insult by some.
We have democracy (at the basic level but I won't go into the state of British politics right now) but this teacher was not in the UK, she was in the Sudan.
The reason I highlight this is that as Britons living in the British Isles (I'm not sure how this translates to other countries), we are expected to embrace and almost to yield to cultural differences and diversity within our country yet it seems that this policy does not appear to be valid elsewhere. This is where this case has come from. She is a British citizen teaching in the Sudan, and, although she should indeed have some knowledge of the culture of the children she teaches, she should not have to have an in-depth knowledge of the intimate and intricate 'laws' surrounding it. She didn't steal anything, she didn't kill anyone, she didn't incite hatred (the children named the bear in honour of the prophet) and I'm sure the prophet Mohammed will recover from the embarrassment of being a bear for a week. It's something that's completely alien to me and, evidently, to a lot of other people. Surely, compassion and education for those who are different would be more productive than the proposed fourty lashes?
It seems to be a matter of interpretation. Many Muslims have commented on this story citing pretty much what I have outlined here.
On the other hand, ignorance of the law is not a valid defence in the UK courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
And I don't think Sudan ranks very highly on the "openess and freedom of religion charts" [although I'm not overly familiar with Sudan and their cultural system].
--
Mats
I'm aware of that... but Britain is a democracy with a very diverse set of cultures.Quote:
On the other hand, ignorance of the law is not a valid defence in the UK courts.
Picture this situation in say, Chipping Norton? It would not happen in this country because there would be an outcry from every man (and woman) and his (her) dog and the labour party would be rapidly evicted from Westminster by the people who have the power. Us. We have the power to a limited degree to change legislation. I doubt the Sudanese have that liberty.
This is precisely the point of this thread... to discuss this fact.Quote:
And I don't think Sudan ranks very highly on the "openess and freedom of religion charts"
Sure, UK is much more "non-religious" - in fact, I think that England [or UK] was one of the first places after what would become the USA to introduce "Freedom of religion" in law. Other countries doesn't necessarily have this, or at least not as thoroughly.
Of course, a few hundred years back, someone in the UK could be prosecuted in court for Heresy, with, I believe, a death penalty as one possible punishment. So, whilst it's freedom now, it hasn't always been that way.
Some places aren't nice to people of other religions, and Sudan is one of those.
--
Mats
What else can I say - totalitarianism.
Can you think of why though? (to matsp) I have an urge to try and understand things that completely flummox me (like my current C# issue but that's another story) and, if I don't know, I will speculate on the most likely reason.
Well, some of the most important things in totalitarianism are restricting freedom of speech, only one allowed ideal of life, abusing basic human rights, secret security organizations (like KGB). Is Sudan in the UN?
Edit: Oh right. Almost every country in the world is in the UN. It doesn't seem to me that the UN is capable of resolving such problems...
But do the british still not pay taxes to the catholic church? Those free of religion or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by matsp
I'm not saying I understand it - I'm just saying that it's not always been "freedom of speech" in the UK either.
One thing about it is of course power - lack of freedom in general is about control of the population in the country. Laws based on religion is another form of "power" to the religion itself.
That's not an attempt to make sense of the situation as such, I just think it's very easy to say "In Country X it's this way, I can't see why it's not so in Country Y". Different countries have different laws, different main religions, and different cultural "values". We can of course say "they shouldn't", but that's how it is.
--
Mats
I dont get this.. these people make a big issue out of such a small thing. They should be concentrating on improving living conditions and eradicating hunger from Sudan, and they are more concerned about someone naming a cute teddy bear mohammed.. I dont know much about islam, and i dont know whether it is a crime to name someone mohammed, but if it is a crime, i must say it is a very stupid law.
Certainly not t the Catholic church. That's would be the Irish [if we're discussing the British Isles at least]. The "Church of England" is a protestant form of Christianity. And I honestly don't know how much, if any, of the tax goes to C of E or any other religious group(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by indigo0086
But freedom of religion is more to the point of "You are allowed to excercise whatever religion you like in this country" [this applies within reason - you still can't kill virgins as sacrifice, even if that's part of your religion in some other country, for example. I don't think even animals can be sacrificed].
--
Mats
I think the relationship between the Church and the government is more a relic of Britain's past though, don't you?Quote:
But do the british still not pay taxes to the catholic church? Those free of religion or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Correct them if the UN is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
At least... it's not called that.Quote:
I don't think even animals can be sacrificed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita
Unfortunately maxtorator not everyone agrees with the UN as you see on the news so often. Imagine the outcry if the cleric Abu Hamza were permitted on these grounds to continue his 'teaching'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ham...asri#Preaching
There is always a limit and has to be else anyone could incite hatred citing it as being within his/her human rights.
If I get it right these may not be used against these rights. That Abu Hamza seems to try to destruct the human rights, so how can they apply to him then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Looks like some in the Sudan are now calling for her execution.
Do the kids get punished for coming up with the name?
...and, as per usual, things escalate yet further.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7121025.stm
Touchy subject. All he's doing is talking. He's expressing his opinion, whatever the interpretation of his teaching, it is not, directly at least, his doing.Quote:
That Abu Hamza seems to try to destruct the human rights, so how can they apply to him then?
I was genuinely asking, thanks for the answer matsp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7119391.stm
Some more thoughts on the matter.
Quote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said he could not "see any justification" for the sentence, calling it an "absurdly disproportionate response" to a "minor cultural faux pas".
I do believe the laws themselves are backwards. Basing modern lawn on a book over a thousand years old invites almost militaristic enforcement of them.
I think a lot of the problem relates to how one interprets what is in said book... not so much what is actually written in it.
This applies to many books. According to certain South Africans, the bible says that people of "non-white" origin are less valued than white ones. It's not exactly the message you get when you speak to OTHER Christians. I beleive Ku Klux Klan in America has been known to "find strength" in the bible too.
If you have a big enough amount of text, and cut excerpts out, you can come to almost any conclusion, I think.
--
Mats
Interesting considering where the book is supposed to have originated.Quote:
the bible says that people of "non-white" origin are less valued than white ones.
It reminds me of a quote from a film:
"You're painting Jesus white... are you sure he was white?"
"Of course he's white! *whisper* sometimes I wonder if he's mentally handicapped as well"
It's from a not-very-serious film but I think illustrates the attitude of some christians.
Haha. Yes, and of course, I'm pretty sure that Jesus's non-violent approach doesn't quite match the Apartheid principles - but all of this is down to interpreting, and very often, cutting small pieces out of a big context - and you don't always get the full picture, if you use a stamp-sized view of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
--
Mats
hmm... 15 days imprisonment? I thought it would be smarter to make some cash by imposing a hefty fine then deporting Mrs Gibbons right away. Also, they would not have to spend resources keeping her in prison, meeting with representatives from Britain and dealing with protests over the 15 days.
Yet even in our own fair country in these supposed enlightened times... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7120699.stm
While I don't share Sudan's view of using religious law in such a way I don't see what the problem is. The teacher should have known what the country's laws were before going there. If she was unwilling to follow the laws then she shouldn't have gone. If she was unaware of the laws then that just shows poor planning.
15 days sounds about right for a minor offense.
I think that she's an evil .......... and she should have her head cut off. Allahu ahkbar.
I suppose there is no statement in the law that "teddy bears can't be named..." so what the government (or whatever they call it) takes as a religious offence is totally decided by the people running the country rather than the law. Then she should have acquired the biography of all the important goverment and judge system related people there??Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
I still think they are violating human rights...
While I'm sure there is no law specific to teddy bears there very well might be laws that regulate naming.
Law #3956: Don't name things Muhammad.
BS, they name their children Muhammad. She's teaching them, they could at least respect that.
Where do you draw the line? For example there was a lot of commotion in Australian schools if Muslims should be able to wear turbans. I say no, I can't wear my hat, just like I can't name my teddy what I want.
Yeah, talk about blown out of proportion. Especially considering the fact that it was the students (as I've read) that proposed the name. Granted that it may have upset some people but comon, even if ignorance of the law is not a valid reason under most circumstanses this is one of those instances.
It would appear to be a law that is distinct to specific countries of certain religous backgrounds. So, if they do actually carry out the punishment, I'd think that there'd be lawsuits.
Were the case different (such as someone committing a "honour" killing in Canada) then I believe that the law should be expressed to it's fullest extent because laws against murder are in practically every single country in the world (even in Sudan). Furthermore, it is an extremely serious offense in that it causes loss of life which cannot be replaced. An insult however can be withdrawn and apologized though.
Ummm.... I'm pretty sure Britain doesn't pay taxes to the Catholic Church, especially considering the fact that Britain seperated from the Catholic Church and formed the Anglican Church in the 14-16th century (date?). So, I think you're thinking more about either France or Canada (yes, in Canada, particularly Ontario, Catholic private schools get funding).
>Where do you draw the line? For example there was a lot of commotion in Australian schools if Muslims should be able to wear turbans.
Well the difference is that if you break code on the school uniform then you're sent home, not put in jail or fined something. In my mind that is a reasonable request. I really don't understand why Muslims in Australia want to wear turbins in school but that's beside the point. I understand the school's position.
I consider a turbin ceremonial dress, no one has a reason to wear such a thing in a public environment like the schools. Dress appropriately for church and masque and dress appropriately for everywhere else.
Lots of religions have ceremonial items or clothing that are sacred and don't need to be put on display constantly. Christians have beads. If someone just whips out a rosary and prays at public school then you better believe that just as much ........ will hit the fan and that's hypocritical. I refuse to give anyone special treatment because they want to advertise who they are unless we can guarantee the same rights to everyone.
> I refuse to give anyone special treatment because they want to advertise who they are unless we can guarantee the same rights to everyone.
That's my point, for example -- I couldn't wear a necklace with a cross on it at school, why should they be allowed their turbans?
My point is, they're obviously treating her like this because She's British, a woman, and possibly non-Muslim. She didn't tell the children to name the teddies Muhammad.
That's my opinion, no-one flame me for having it.
It wasn't a flame dude. At least we agree.
Nah, I know :)
Just making sure someone doesn't come along with facts that blow my argument out of the water. Ie, Future proofing myself from potential arguments.
I seriously doubt this British lady even has an opinion of Mohammud the prophet, even in the event that she ignored cultural values, and simply allowed it, like Thantos seems to think. I apologize if I misunderstand you Thantos. How odd that cultural indifference is the same as blasphemy. :-\
But it's just as easy to imagine a scenario where she didn't let the kids name the bear Mohammud and got in as much trouble. It's a sad state of affairs. The crime is pretty ambiguous to me.
World peace without the Middle East anyone?
eh, i think that it's just one big misunderstanding all around.
She didnt know the religions rules on the subject.
and she was only trying to let the kids have fun when they named it.
The government shouldnt be this upset.
They could just ask her to rename the bear.
I'm sure she would be more then happy to do it.
[disclaimer: i bring absolutely no knowledge of the islamic religion, these are just my thoughts on the matter, and yes, i know they're wishfull thinking]
This post gets voted by me for Dumbest Post I've Read in This Topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
Considering the kids voted on what to name the bear, and some kid wanted it named after himself, and the vote of the kids was such that the name stuck, you think the teacher is supposed to stop and say, "Hold on there, little Muhammad. You can't name the Teddy bear after yourself because it's a bear and not a human like yourself. Doing so is punishable by 15 days in jail."?
Apparently that's what a lot of idiots over there think. They're not punishing her for actually naming the bear. They're punishing her for not correcting the kids in deciding to name the bear what they did.
You tell me why a non-Muslim teacher is supposed to know more about stupid islamic laws more than the kids and parents.
Islamic countries are in a mess over stupid things, and western countries have idiots that want to try to explain these stupid actions. You can't explain them. The countries are messed up.
I still don't understand why you can name a child Muhammad yet not a bear?
Most of these countries are still 3rd world, that's no coincidence.
Maybe I'm just wrong and see if differently because I'm sick of what seems to be unequal weights and measures.
Think about it from another angle. Let's say it's the US or England, and some teacher has the kids vote on what to name the bear, and we had a child named after Jesus. If the kids voted to name it after their fellow student, would there be riots to kill the teacher? Personally, I disagree with naming your kids that, but it does happen. I wouldn't like the bear being named it either. The New Testament says that the name of Jesus is unique, etc. etc..
With that said, I wouldn't think this is some conspiracy of some muslim teacher to poison the minds of the kids. For crying out loud the kids voted! It's not like kids were brainwashed by the teacher. I hardly think we (ie. The West) would want the teacher killed or jailed. It's rather silly.
The same people that are saying the actual teacher should be aware of these islamic laws are probably the same people that would say that in the equivalent example, she would not be expected to know any Christian rules if she was a muslim.
Remember, we're talking about the state of things when pictures of their supposed prophet cause riots that kill people. Until these countries actually wake up, and many of their supposed religious leaders stop calling for jihad and beheadings, we will have the same type of problems we had with the catholics during the Dark Ages. It's very ugly when ignorant masses follow the teachings of evil men.
>> I still don't understand why you can name a child Muhammad yet not a bear?
Because naming a child Muhammed honors the prophet, but naming a play thing Muhammed does the opposite. It trivializes the sacredness of Muhammed. The difference should be pretty obvious.
>> This post gets voted by me for Dumbest Post I've Read in This Topic.
I might vote for yours if I thought about that sort of thing.
>> you think the teacher is supposed to stop and say, "Hold on there, little Muhammad. You
>> can't name the Teddy bear after yourself because it's a bear and not a human like yourself.
>> Doing so is punishable by 15 days in jail."
Yes, of course. Why couldn't she? If they named the bear #$@!er I'm pretty sure she'd stop and say that they can't do that, so why is it any harder to stop them from practicing blasphemy. She's the teacher in charge of the class. It is her responsibility to make sure they follow the rules. You aren't going to hold the kids accountable, are you?
>> You tell me why a non-Muslim teacher is supposed to know more about stupid islamic laws more than the kids and parents.
Because she lives in the country? Who says the parents knew? The kids are only 7 years old, are you sure you want to put the blame on them?
>> western countries have idiots that want to try to explain these stupid actions
I'm not sure you've been understanding the arguments. There is a big difference between saying the law itself makes sense and saying that as long as the law exists there's nothing wrong with them applying it in a reasonable fashion.
>> Let's say it's the US or England, and some teacher has the kids vote on what to name the
>> bear, and we had a child named after Jesus. If the kids voted to name it after their fellow
>> student, would there be riots to kill the teacher?
No, because naming a bear Jesus is not as significant of a sin in Christianity as naming a bear Muhammed is in Sudan.
>> The same people that are saying the actual teacher should be aware of these islamic laws
>> are probably the same people that would say that in the equivalent example, she would
>> not be expected to know any Christian rules if she was a muslim.
Are you sure? The point is that they are the country's laws. And I would guess that if she were in a nation with laws based on Christian culture these same people would say that a Muslim should be held accountable for them as well.
I completely agree that religious zealotry (of any faith) makes a society less tolerant. I am not saying that I think the law is a good one, or that I like the society that such a government seems to create. I am saying that complaints about this often seem to be based on one's own personal morals and convictions without respecting those of the Sudanese.
Either way, she's been dubbed guilty before proven so. They're massing in the street wanting to cut her head off, and for what?
Would you consider assault the same as blasphemy? In Australia the kids get off with a slap on the wrist for throwing rocks at police cars, or even assaulting police officers. And their argument? They don't know how to function in our society, because school is too hard and no-one told them how they should behave. We cut them slack, so the Sudanese should cut her slack, even while our laws are documented and plainly enforced and their's is made-up and implicit.
I understand if you're Sudanese, but I'd consider it treason if you think she deserves to be punished for an obscene, undocumented rule. Even when they interviewed a Muslim boy in Sudan he said, "It's like a big red line, and she crossed it". And of-course he'd like her dead over some 'plainly evident, yet undocumented law'.
I can't even go to a Sudanese dominant suburb 7km from my house, because there are frequent stabbings, assault on police and car jacking (in broad day-light). Most of them are mad, which is being stereotypical of me yes... but when you're dealing with a country you have to do so. Sudan wants her dead, not just a few people. I bet if you were over there in her shoes, you'd want a fair trial -- and people of the western world to support you.
BTW,
>I might vote for yours if I thought about that sort of thing.
Do you mean, democracy? If so, I can see where your argument is coming from.
You get second place in my vote. See below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
You think naming the bear after a kid in the class is the same as naming the kid after some vulgar word?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
How is she supposed to know that allowing the kids to name the bear after a student is wrong?
And if the muslim kids don't know it's blasphemous, then why should the non-muslim teacher know? And since when was she tasked with teaching them about islam?
Yes, I do want to blame the kids. I don't expect a muslim to tell my kids how to follow their religion, and I don't expect to teach their kids how to follow theirs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
Is there anything reasonable with wanting to kill the teacher over this? I fail to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
OK, so let's take it a step further. Let's say in my example the muslim teacher mutilated the teddy bear after naming it after a student named after Jesus and said things against Jesus and against Christianity. That's enough to consider it blasphemous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
Would there be riots to kill the teacher? I still think not. We are way too tolerant and willing to allow warped islamic teachers to affect us! Stop and think! This is a classroom. They voted on what to name the bear. You think she's seriously supposed to think that it's wrong to name the bear after a kid?
Considering we don't hold muslims to the same laws we hold our own people to, I have to say you're totally wrong. We give them all kinds of ridiculous freedoms to abuse our laws it's disgusting. The West is destroying itself from the inside out. Thinking ourselves to be open and tolerant, we are tearing ourselves down one step at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
Reminds me of the case how that idiot woman in Florida wanted to have her driver's license picture not show her face due to religious reasons. So many reasons why that is stupid, and it raised controversy. Nevermind the fact that in real islamic countries, she wouldn't be allowed to drive, and nevermind the fact she was arrested before as a criminal and had her ugly picture taken before, but she seemed to think that somehow she was above the laws of the land she was in.
This is the idiocy that makes you get 2nd place. Both you and the other person seem to think the woman deserves this, or if we say that the woman does NOT deserve this, somehow we are trampling on the Sudanese. Defending her is not necessarily attacking the Sudanese, and I fail to see your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
You think a complaint about these people wanting to kill a teacher over this is based on my "own personal morals and convictions without respecting those of the Sudanese"? Are you kidding me? Would you be happy if they actually killed her? How much respect are you willing to show them in the name of respect for their culture?
The teacher should be deported for her own sake. It's about time people out there start thinking of her culture and her rights as a human being.
We don't even necessarily give 15 days in jail if you get busted down drunk driving, but somehow people think that for not stopping the kids here in naming the bear after them, 15 days in jail is more than lenient. I think something is wrong here.
>> Either way, she's been dubbed guilty before proven so.
Wasn't she convicted already after a trial? She was even acquitted of the more serious offense and convicted of the smaller one.
>> Would you consider assault the same as blasphemy?
Did you see the part where I said I don't think the law is a good one?
>> their's is made-up and implicit
Is it? It has defined maximum punishments. How could it be made up and implicit?
>> I'd consider it treason if you think she deserves to be punished for an obscene, undocumented rule.
Please provide evidence that it is an undocumented rule.
>> Sudan wants her dead, not just a few people.
It is just a few people. Only a couple hundred protested. How many people are in Sudan?
>> I bet if you were over there in her shoes, you'd want a fair trial -- and people of the western world to support you.
She did get a fair trial as far as I can see. She got convicted of the smaller offense and acquitted of the more serious charge. She got punished for her crime. The punishment was 15 days in jail and deportation. She wasn't punished with death.
Am I missing something? The facts you seem to be basing you arguments on are very different than the facts in the few articles I've read about this issue.
I made an analogy, which means I think it is similar. And I didn't say I thought it was similar, I said they do. In fact, I hope you understand that blasphemy is probably considered much, much worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Please remember that I am not saying that I agree with the law. I am trying to explain the importance they put on it. Using your values to judge the application of their laws doesn't make sense. Their laws are based on their values, so of course they should apply the laws based on their own values.
It is the law of the country. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. You can ask for leniency because you didn't know the law, and I would hope that you would get it, but that doesn't mean you must get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Are you are saying that 7-year olds should be held responsible and punished when they break allow but their teacher should not be punished for allowing it?Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
This is a law of the country, their religions are irrelevant to whether they must obey that law.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Did you honestly read my post or Thantos's and think that's what we're saying? If you think we're saying anything even remotely close to this, then you are completely misunderstanding. I am in no way defending the people who are protesting. I am merely defending the right of the government to apply one of their laws in a reasonable fashion, which it appears is what they did. I am also defending the right of a nation to make laws based on their values, and I am saying it is the responsibility of visitors to a country to respect their rules or accept the consequences if they break them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Again, the sin you described is not as significant in our society as blasphemy is in theirs. Also again, I am not defending the protesters. I strongly disagree with their viewpoint. And again, it is her responsibility to both abide by the laws of the country she is in and also not allow her students to break them while under her supervision.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
I'm not aware of any circumstances where "we" (are you talking about America, "the West" or something else?) don't hold Muslims to the same laws as others. Was the woman who wanted her veil on in her driver's license allowed to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
It is hard to take your comments here seriously. "Our own people"? What does that mean?
This entire quote seems to be based on them misapprehension that I am defending the protesters that want her killed. So it makes no sense for me to respond since you might feel differently if you understood that I'm defending the right of a country to make laws and apply them even if I disagree with those laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
In fact, perhaps I should have stopped responding to your entire post when I made that realization. If you still feel your arguments apply after I clarified my position, feel free to say so.
So far no-one here seems to have remembered the genocide that was going on in Sudan not so long ago. That followed a civil war where the muslims tried to kill all the christians.
In a country where murder seems to be the popular form of entertainment a 15 day jail sentence is nothing. To go to teach in a county that probably has the death sentence for not being muslim, without a deep understanding of the culture, is plain stupid. Especially when you're a British and your country is has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan; any excuse will do.
When the day comes that everyone understands scientific method all religious tensions, and religion itself, will disappear.
And I'm saying that they are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
You got a copy of that law somewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
I'm saying that the parents should teach their kids if it was a mistake and the children didn't know it was considered wrong. So they go back to class the next day and tell the teacher they messed up and need to rename the bear. Bear is renamed Abdullah. End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
Fair enough? No riots. No deaths. They get on with their lives.
Thantos said he thought a 15 day jail sentence was deserved. That's stupid. For not stopping the kids naming a teddy bear after a fellow student? You're kidding me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
You can't win with this type of arguing. You are saying she broke a law by not stopping children from naming a teddy bear and that merited 15 days in jail and possibly more. That's silly. You are arguing this completely backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
Yes countries should be allowed to make their own laws, but they want to put her to death for something she didn't do. Somehow they think their kids are spotless for naming the bear, but the woman should have known. It's a pathetic excuse. They have to let go and realize this is not a real issue.
Yes, I'm talking about Western countries as I thought I specified more than once that was the comparison I was making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
And yes, she was allowed to do so in Illinois and Florida until after 9/11 some time in November of that year when Florida finally got a little bit smarter and realized that allowing her to break the law in a matter of security was completely stupid.
For someone defending the actions against this woman, it's amazing you find anything hard to take seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
With referring to Western civilization, it was rather clear I was speaking of citizens of Western countries, particularly in this context of non-muslims.
You said the objections raised were disrespectful, or at least without respect, to the Sudanese people and their culture. That was a rather ignorant thing to say. My objections are not against the Sudanese but against the stupidity of the people that want her punished for something she didn't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
With regard to her getting killed, it does sound that if she got killed, you would just chalk it up to her fault of being ignorant of the law that says she has to stop the kids from naming a teddy bear after a fellow student.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
BTW, I know zacs7 can fend for himself, but this quote needs to be addressed:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle531449.eceQuote:
>> Sudan wants her dead, not just a few people.
It is just a few people. Only a couple hundred protested. How many people are in Sudan?
Bold emphasis mine. Only a couple hundred? Just a slightly higher number of people.Quote:
The Liverpool mum of two - convicted of insulting Islam by calling the bear Mohammed - is being held at a secret location after a 10,000-strong mob took to Sudan's streets screaming: "Kill her, kill her."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071130/D8T88JT80.html
Captain for one of the pictures:
Yeah. This isn't just a small group of angry people.Quote:
Thousands of Sudanese, many carrying knives and sticks, protest in Khartoum, Sudan, after prayers ...
MacGyver: The Sun really is a fine taste in literature :p You really should accept that people in Sudan are different; I dont think anyone here would agree with locking someone up over the name of a teddy bear. If you don't like their laws don't go there. Its as simple as that.
I linked to two of the three stories on this matter from Drudge. You're welcome to find your own links to the story if you don't like them. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g
Indeed. I'm in full agreement they are different. I don't think I argued differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g
Thantos said he did. I think Daved is trying to say the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g
Indeed. I don't like their laws, and I don't plan on going there. I agree that the law of the land, in principle, should be respected. In some cases, some laws are ridiculous and wrong enough to break, but that is beyond the scope of this conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g
Nevertheless, what I'm arguing is that she didn't break one of their laws, and she certainly didn't merit the prison time, nor the death threats.
My personal opinion is that the law is wrong as well. As long as you understand that to them it is fair, then you understand my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
No, why do you ask? All I can go by is what has been reported and what I have read. Obviously if that information is wrong then my opinion might change, but what has been reported is that there is a clear law against naming something other than a person Muhammed. If you want me to believe otherwise I would appreciate links or references to evidence of that (preferably something other than the Sun).Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Did the parents even know that the kids named the bear Muhammed (honest question)? What if the crime was that the kids were cutting each other with scissors? Would you say the same thing in that situation? If not, then your issue is still with the law itself. You think the law is in appropriate. And again, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
That's not exactly what he said and I don't think he meant what you're reading into his comments. I think he is saying that within the context of the situation, the 15 day punishment is acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Again, you misunderstand me. I disagree with the law. I am only defending the right of a country to make laws and enforce them in a reasonable manner. I am not defending protesters who think she should be put to death. How does this quote apply in any way to what I am saying? You also seem to be confused about the facts. The bolded part indicates that you think that the country wants to put her to death. The country that makes the laws is the same country that wants to send her to jail for 15 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Ok, good. I don't think she should be allowed to have an ID card without showing her face.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
But there are many Muslim citizens of western countries. Are they considered "our own people"? Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is on this subject, and I don't like its undertones, so I think I'll ignore it from now on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
I think you and others have underestimated the significance of blasphemy in their culture. Perhaps "without respect" was a poor way of indicating that, I was having a hard time expressing what I meant there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
But then you say that your objections are against the stupidity of people that want her punished for something she didn't do. Where did you get the idea that she didn't do it? The Sun article? Also, the people who want her punished are obviously assuming that she did do it. The protesters are probably too zealoted to make sure, but still, they wouldn't be making a big deal if they thought she was innocent.
I got a couple hundred from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/wo...=1&oref=sloginQuote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
I'm not familiar with The Sun, but from the look of its website I'd consider the Times to be more likely to be accurate. It's certainly possible the numbers were in the thousands. But still, saying that "Sudan wants her dead" is a ridiculous overstatement when the punishment handed down by the government of Sudan was 15 days in jail and when 99% of the people in the city failed to show up for the protest.
Perhaps this gross misconception is coloring your response to my statements. Please remove this silly idea from your head, re-read what I've said explicitly, and then consider that maybe I am not some crazy fanatic advocating death for letting others name a teddy bear. I honestly think your opinion might change just a tiny bit if you understood what I was saying and not what you're afraid I am saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Yes, I understand that they think it's fair. I don't think they are necessarily standing in the street thinking, "I'm a stupid nutcase that wants to kill an innocent woman." They are thinking more along the lines of, "We need to take vegeance on a blasphemer of our faith."Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
So with that said, I don't care what they think.
I suspect this will be like the "clear law" that the the publishers and writers of the pictures in the Dutch papers were guilty of death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
How would the story get out otherwise? It came from the school or parents I imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
Then the kids would be bleeding and the teacher would take the scissors away, per school policy. This is something covered by all schools in any country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
No, I think you're comparing completely ridiculous examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
I think she didn't actually commit any crime of being offensive to islam, hence, there was no crime, hence, these rioters need to get a life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
If he wishes to contradict me, he's well able to do it. I think he believes the 15 days were deserved as a "minor offense".Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
I have never said a country can't have their own laws. I have said that in this case I didn't think a crime was committed. If it's a crime to name a bear what they did, they should put the kids or the kids' parents in jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
The point is that Western countries allow muslims more freedom than they should have, noticably way more than muslim countries allow for non-muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
You used to be able to get a driver's license without showing your face as a female muslim. A Christian couldn't do that at the time. The concept of tolerance appears to be unknown in many muslim countries.
Try to go into a muslim country and saying you're a Jew or a Christian and mention you're from a Western country.
As for your comments of the muslim citizens, you totally missed my point. You may ignore this all you wish. I don't think I can get it through to you.
So all you're trying to say is that they take it seriously. No freaking kidding. They are wrong, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
She didn't name the bear. She let the kids vote on what to name the bear. The kids voted on a name. She had no reason to object because it was a kid's name.
The New York Times is trash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
Edit: Ah, but it does say the parents complained, just like I said. Read your own articles. lol.
I didn't say you advocated her death. Read it again. I said that if she died you would chalk it up to her fault, which is what others are suggesting, namley that she is somehow to blame for the ordeal she is in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daved
Why are so many of your direct responses to me referring to the protesters? I have said repeatedly that I disagree with them and am not defending them in any way.
Ok, this might be a valid opinion. We don't know for sure the text of the law. We aren't Sudanese lawyers so we are in no position to interpret the law. Based on what I've read I'm guessing that they applied the law in a reasonably fashion. You disagree and think that they are stretching the law to apply to the teacher when it shouldn't. That's fair. I've given my reasoning on why I think it makes sense for the teacher to be held accountable for her students actions. You haven't exactly rebutted that, but you still might be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
She did have reason to object, because it was against the law! If a student breaks the law, it is up to the teacher to not allow it. I cannot believe you are arguing otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
First, when I said "honest question" I meant that I did not know the answer, not that I was assuming an answer one way or the other. If you're saying that I should take the word of the Times article about this, then it backs up my story. The parents found out afterwards, and reported the problem. So the kids broke the law, the teacher allowed it. The parents had no chance to stop the kids from breaking the law until after it already happened. So your assertion earlier that the parents should be responsible for preventing the crime doesn't hold water. It had already occurred before they found out about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
You are saying that "she is to blame for the ordeal she is in" is the same as "if she died you would chalk it up to her fault". The ordeal she is in is not death! There is a humongous leap from 15 days in jail to death. Yes, I and others are saying that she is to blame for getting 15 days in jail. We are not saying she would be to blame if an angry mob had her killed, or if the judge had sentenced her to death. If you post again on this subject please make me believe that you understand this important difference. If you disagree with me that she has no one to blame but herself for 15 days in jail and deportation, then please address that, and not the nonsense about being killed that I have repeatedly indicated I don't agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Edit: Also, if you think I think that she is to blame for receiving death threats, then you are still mistaken. The idiots making the death threats are to blame for that.
Shortly, Sudan is biting the hand that feeds it. Way to go for a third world country...
I still think they are violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And so, I won't even discuss about the laws of Sudan, because they conflict with the Highest Law Ever.
No use arguing anymore, what's done is done. Daved can have his opinion, we live in free counties... at least it won't land him in 15 days of prison time :D
But she is. She was voluntarily entering a country that is known to be ruled by totalitarian, religious madmen. You don't just move to China, criticize the communist party and cry foul when they arrest you. And you don't teach in a country with islamic laws and a state of undeclared civil war and/or genocide and suspect fair or equal treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
This is the good samatarian news network with a flash report from Israel: CSI Bethlehem investigating on a unrelated case found shocking facts about Jesus. Contrary to popular belief, he did not die filthy rich of old age while having sex with a girl 60 years younger than himself on the beach. Recent advances in forensic woodworking allowed for a spectacular new view on Christs last days. Rumor has it, that he was indeed crucified. Yes, crucified, despite all his good acts. Maybe we should rethink what we heard about good deeds and rewards. Maybe Gods payback point system is only valid after one's death.
Ok, really. It's called good deed for a reason. Not because you get stinking rich, not because you get all the girls. No! Because it's ........ing dangerous and you might get killed, whipped, imprisoned or whatever by raving religious madmen all along the way. No matter where. Want to be a nurse in Lybia ? Having fun as a rape victim in Saudi Arabia ? Teach poor children in Sudan ? Don't! Or be prepared to get killed.
You cannot "help" those people by going there. They die in droves. And if someone goes there to help, maybe they will die in (droves -10). Or (droves -100). But if they don't rise up against this oppression, they will die, no matter how many teachers or ricebags or wheat we send. There is only two ways how they can get rid of their oppressors. Either they rise up, or someone conquers them. And we have long ago given up on conquering other nations, so there aren't many alternatives left.
Maybe they had risen up long ago, if we didn't pump in just enough sumplies and aid to keep life barely bearable. That's easy to say, sitting in front of my desk, with a small mountain of prescribed cold medicine packages in front of me for 2 measly days of flu. It would probably last a year for an african hospital. And if I sent it over it might help two or three people. But what for ? So they can be oppressed for another decade ? No, for the big picture and a lasting solution, people have to help themselves or ask for help themselves. And I don't mean a dictator asking for "humanitarian aid" to build a fifth palace.
I totally agree, 5 years ago I embarked on a mission to Nigeria (known as one of the most corrupt nations in the world). I was going to do good deeds there as well, and I did for one year long.Quote:
Originally Posted by nvoigt
Everything went well for 8 months ,then all of a sudden I was threatened at gun point with a full automatic rifle 10 cm away from my nose to comply to whatever the policemen told me to do. And all of this because I just said out loud what everyone in the country was thinking at that time (election wise etc).
I made a binary choice that evening while i stood there all alone with these policemen around me(all of a sudden everyone who was around me was no longer to be seen). Comply and live on or dont comply and end up dead somewhere in a country that is thousands of kilometers away from my home where I had nothing to seek in the first place.
I had no busines being there at all, just doing a "good deed"... I've matured since then, and although I would still go on adventure like this, I will not do it again without the proper preparation (reading thoroughly on the country its political regime, economics, culture etc etc etc ). And since then I know when to shut up and leave my principles and values behind just to save my ass.
It is also trough these eyes that i look at all the things going on in the world today, one country invades another to look after their own safety or to create a safe environment in the invaded country... I'm glad I am not the one creating that safety in a country that is thousands of kilometers away from the country where I belong!
(btw i was teaching people to work with computers - so no palace building going on at all there :))
Mistaking Denmark for the Netherlands is risky in a debate of this nature ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
The question is though, would the Sudanese have reacted differently if it was a teacher from Sudan that had named a teddy bear after the prophet?
Sorry, that was rather silly of me. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
My local newspaper reported that Mrs Gibbons was pardoned by the Sudanese president 8 days into her sentence. It was after the president met with two British peers who are Muslim.
These dudes manage religion to be used as a machine to drive the attention of this ignorant people from the real issues of the country. Amazes me the fact that this people start a "revolution" for the name of a teddy bear and act in order to solve their real issues which handicap their people.Quote:
Originally Posted by PING
Thantos it is clear that you have no idea about what you are talking. I've had the bad experience, IMHO, of living with muslins. When you refer to the fact she was not aware of "the law" I bet my ass that you haven't thought that this "law" is inside of a book created in the following way:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
"The Qur'anic verses were originally memorized by Muhammad's companions as Muhammad recited them, with some being written down by one or more companions on whatever was at hand, from stones to pieces of bark."
And I assure you can can read this as you wish as any book you can find 2000 interpretations for the very same combination of letters. Also the writings haven been manipulated to cope with the interest of a given class of people who ruled the country.
About the respect of the government to others people culture.
From Wikipedia:
A letter dated August 14, 2006 from the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch found that the Sudanese government is both incapable and unwilling to protect its own citizens in Darfur and that its militias are guilty of crimes against humanity. The letter added that these human rights abuses have existed since 2004.[37]
I would ask in the following way so if the UK states a rule which states that attendants to Muslim religious manifestation in any of the UK territories are condemned to death since it is not the "true" faith of the Royal state (afaik they are Anglican) than those Muslins will call it a Jihad and accuse the world of pursue them and forbid than to follow the "True word of the lord". Also I have lived twice with Muslims and sincerely much of my actual hate by this religion was originated from it. I saw this sons of a dog treating women (we where in Germany) like they were dogs. So they full they mouth up with ***t to claim respect for their beliefs but they pay absolutely NO RESPECT FOR OTHER CULTURES since according to they LSD based vision of the Holly Truth all others are infidels hence forth must be submitted to the true word of the lord. Oh and they don't help you to clean the house since it is women work. So sincerely I think they deserve as much respect as any other criminal.