Mohammed can't "bear" it.

[CJ]

...as for the when in rome - that's balls.

 

We can't even protect our people in our own country thanks to all the bullshit we have to put up with....

 

After reading the above, I can see almost conflicting arguments seemingly agreeing with each other. On the one hand we have Lexsum saying that when in another country we should not have to follow their rules or regs and in some way have the divine right to expect others to follow our principles and values.

 

Then Angarak points to the ever increasing bullshit that stops us protecting our own in our own country. Now, I may be barking up the wrong tree here but is that comment kind of aimed against those who come into our country and then expect us to accept their rules and values?

 

You see what I mean her about conflicting thoughts?

 

So, this teacher broke a countries laws. Regardless of whether we think the rules are stupid or not, they are still their laws and therefore they are within their rights to arrest the lady in question.

[Fifty]

Colin, did you know I once dated a sheep called m.....!

 

Rich

[CJ]

Colin, did you know I once dated a sheep called m.....!

 

Rich

I knew her mother budh...

[Fifty]

I knew her mother budh...

 

m8 you make my day:p:p

all the best

Rich

[lexsum]

After reading the above, I can see almost conflicting arguments seemingly agreeing with each other. On the one hand we have Lexsum saying that when in another country we should not have to follow their rules or regs and in some way have the divine right to expect others to follow our principles and values.

 

Then Angarak points to the ever increasing bullshit that stops us protecting our own in our own country. Now, I may be barking up the wrong tree here but is that comment kind of aimed against those who come into our country and then expect us to accept their rules and values?

 

You see what I mean her about conflicting thoughts?

 

So, this teacher broke a countries laws. Regardless of whether we think the rules are stupid or not, they are still their laws and therefore they are within their rights to arrest the lady in question.

 

fair enough, but this is would be an opportunity to force a change in what is clearly unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society. the alternative is that the world avoids places with such unjust laws and unaceptable punishments. unfortunately we are weakened in all of these arguements as a result of guantanamo bay and our american "buddies."

[CJ]

fair enough, but this is would be an opportunity to force a change in what is clearly unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society. the alternative is that the world avoids places with such unjust laws and unaceptable punishments. unfortunately we are weakened in all of these arguements as a result of guantanamo bay and our american "buddies."

 

I am not sure what you consider clearly unacceptable behaviour? And who are we to judge what other countries and cultures should view as acceptable? What gives us that right?

 

Let me ask you (and other members too) what we think of a country that legally allows girls to have sexual intercourse at 13 years old? Or one that legally allows homosexual behaviour at 13? Should we be up in arms at that obvious failing? Should we avoid these places too? If so, you had better get your placards out at most airports in the UK, as those rules apply in Spain.

 

You see, it isn't just African / Muslim states that have seemingly stupid rules eh?

[lexsum]

well it is clear enough i think. but to spell it out - no one should be punished for calling a teddy bear mohammad. if anyone out there thinks it is correct to punish someone for this and can defend the position please stand up.

 

 

as for the other matter you mention it is a very different matter as that relates to the age we consider people to be mature enough to have consensual sex.

[CJ]

well it is clear enough i think. but to spell it out - no one should be punished for calling a teddy bear mohammad. if anyone out there thinks it is correct to punish someone for this and can defend the position please stand up.

 

You see, the problem with that stance is that you are asking the question to those whom the law does not appertain. Now, if you asked that same question in a Muslim country you would get a much different response. So who is right? Is it us who live in a different country under different rules or those who live in that country and follow their laws?

 

as for the other matter you mention it is a very different matter as that relates to the age we consider people to be mature enough to have consensual sex.

 

But why is that different? My point was that other countries have laws that we might not agree with and yet we sometimes find it easier to accept those than from other nations. Is that due to our relatively new perception of Muslim states?

[Blackie]

[Class One]

fair enough, but this is would be an opportunity to force a change in what is clearly unacceptable behaviour in a civilised society. the alternative is that the world avoids places with such unjust laws and unaceptable punishments. unfortunately we are weakened in all of these arguements as a result of guantanamo bay and our american "buddies."

 

Why is it an opportunity for us to for change in what you consider to be unacceptable behaviour in a civilised country? What gives us the moral right to dictate to another country what is right or wrong? We've tried that and it's led to war in two countries so far in the middle east. Not forgetting the Palestinian/Isreali problem,which occurred as a direct result of British interventionalism, post WWII. Have we not learnt by our own Governments' arrogance that by trying to impose a different culture or a different way of life on a people who are so opposed to our way of thinking, that is might be perhaps we who are at fault for assuming that we can?

 

well it is clear enough i think. but to spell it out - no one should be punished for calling a teddy bear mohammad. if anyone out there thinks it is correct to punish someone for this and can defend the position please stand up.

 

 

 

Obvioulsy the Sudanese Govt does, otherwise they wouldn't have the offence covered in their statute of legislation.

 

If we as a country expect to have our values and laws upheld in our own country, then other countries should expect the same should they not? Just because another country has a different way of doing things, has a different tariff of penalty for breaking their laws, does that not give them their right to uphold their own laws.

 

I'm not defending or condoning the actions of the Sudanese, but the addage of "when in Rome" applies if you want to stay on the right side of the law when visting,staying or living in another country.

[lexsum]

no it is unacceptable, plain and simple. it is not a question of simply accepting what is written down in a certain country or else there could be a law in sudan that says it is a capital offence to shave. if you stepped out your hotel clean shaven to be taken off and executed would you say - fair cop! or if wearing jeans was an offence or any other "offensive" behaviour us westerners indulge in. laws are man made things after all and there is no basis in natural law for this charge and therefore it is a positivist law by a religious organisation. the response ought to be a collective avoidance or alternatively education of counties with such laws. religion after all has little or no place in law courts.

 

your consent argument does not work unless you gave an example of a place with no age of consent. then you have to ask if a paedophile country is acceptable and i think you can guess the answer to that question; no it is not for the same reason it is not acceptable to jail teddy woman and for the same reason it is not right to jail women who are raped because they are "adulteresses."

 

it is not a question of living with differences, it is a question of advancing uncivilised nations in the world as they are generally where we were 100-200 years ago. that is why we can comment and that is why the difference will be removed in due course.

[hogmaw]

no it is unacceptable, plain and simple. it is not a question of simply accepting what is written down in a certain country or else there could be a law in sudan that says it is a capital offence to shave. if you stepped out your hotel clean shaven to be taken off and executed would you say - fair cop! or if wearing jeans was an offence or any other "offensive" behaviour us westerners indulge in. laws are man made things after all and there is no basis in natural law for this charge and therefore it is a positivist law by a religious organisation. the response ought to be a collective avoidance or alternatively education of counties with such laws. religion after all has little or no place in law courts.

 

your consent argument does not work unless you gave an example of a place with no age of consent. then you have to ask if a paedophile country is acceptable and i think you can guess the answer to that question; no it is not for the same reason it is not acceptable to jail teddy woman and for the same reason it is not right to jail women who are raped because they are "adulteresses."

 

it is not a question of living with differences, it is a question of advancing uncivilised nations in the world as they are generally where we were 100-200 years ago. that is why we can comment and that is why the difference will be removed in due course.

 

Your arrogance is unbelievable. Your stance is that of the colonialists. If you want world war 3, keep on voicing your opinion, because confrontation is all that will come of it!

[Class One]

."

 

it is not a question of living with differences, it is a question of advancing uncivilised nations in the world as they are generally where we were 100-200 years ago. that is why we can comment and that is why the difference will be removed in due course.

 

Time for you to doth your pith helmet, pack the Good Book and load up your blunderbuss and spread the word to our colonial cousins.

 

Queen Victoria would have been proud of you, however in the meantime, most of us have moved on a bit in our way of thinking.

[lexsum]

Your arrogance is unbelievable. Your stance is that of the colonialists. If you want world war 3, keep on voicing your opinion, because confrontation is all that will come of it!

 

not really i just believe in defending and judging everyone equally and fairly irrespective of where or when they are.

 

it is arrogant to apply sharia law against a nations will. (or anywhere.)

[lexsum]

Time for you to doth your pith helmet, pack the Good Book and load up your blunderbuss and spread the word to our colonial cousins.

 

Queen Victoria would have been proud of you, however in the meantime, most of us have moved on a bit in our way of thinking.

 

do demonstrate, oh, modern thinker. allowing human rights violations because there is no oil is no great leap in my humble opinion.

[Class One]

not really i just believe in defending and judging everyone equally and fairly irrespective of where or when they are.

 

it is arrogant to apply sharia law against a nations will. (or anywhere.)

 

Not in a predominently Muslim country it isn't. That is the way of Islam. Perhaps you should become GWB's new foreign policy advisor.

[lexsum]

i am shocked by the lazy "let them be" attitude on here - you guys are the type that sat back while hilter was killing off the gypsys, arabs & jews. shame on you all and hope you enjoy the freedoms you deny others.

[imi]

Probably because the kids were under her charge. She ultimately has to bear some responsibility for that. In locum parentis and all that.

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

You have to remember that she is a teacher working at an English school in a Muslim country. Just because we have a degree of tolerance in our society doesn't mean that there should be some reciprocation by the Sudanese.

 

 

 

Whlst I agree that it is harsh compared to the laws of this country, and I am in no way advocating the reaction of the authorities in Sudan, but when in Rome and all that.....

 

 

Great post Doug....

[hogmaw]

i am shocked by the lazy "let them be" attitude on here - you guys are the type that sat back while hilter was killing off the gypsys, arabs & jews. shame on you all and hope you enjoy the freedoms you deny others.

 

And what are you doing exactly apart from moaning on an internet car forum?

 

Much as we may personally disapprove of the laws, customs and traditions of other countries, it's nevertheless our obligation to respect them while we are there. If you call a toy bear by the name of Mohammed in Sudan, drink beer in Saudi, or have your chest shaved by a barber in Omaha - you're breaking the law. Now deal with it!

[TLicense]

Surely at some point someone has said "hold on - there was no offence meant of it".

If so, then surely if the person listening had any common sense, they would have said "OK, but please be sensitive to our religious belief's in the future".

 

The generalised point of religion is to help people to live together. How does this do that?

 

Should we intervene as a nation? I think it's a bit arrogant for us to start dictating to people elsewhere what they can and can't do, and there's obviously the counter argument that "that's fine, but when they're in our country, they should obey our laws" which I do tend to lean towards, although to be honest my personal opinion is that if people just got on with their own lives and stopped trying to enforce their beliefs upon others, then the whole world would get on a lot better.

[RedM]

Here's another great promotional piece for Islamic law.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7112999.stm

 

Basically, woman says she was gang-raped. Get 200 lashes and six months in jail. Alledgedly changes her mind to say she was having an affair.

 

This Islam religion seems very modern doesn't it? If we lived in the Dark Ages that is.

[TLicense]

Isn't the islamic religion a good couple of hundred years younger than Christianity? If you look back to what we were doing a few hundred years ago, it doesn't look all that absurd does it?

[Class One]

i am shocked by the lazy "let them be" attitude on here - you guys are the type that sat back while hilter was killing off the gypsys, arabs & jews. shame on you all and hope you enjoy the freedoms you deny others.

 

Are Muslims then, in your opinion, not allowed to live according to their own laws in countries where they have adopted the faith and choose to live according to their Sharia?

 

Are you suggesting religious persecution against the Islamic faith because you see it as barbaric and a threat to your way of life, much as Hitler did against the Jews? Your argument is flawed, & you contradict yourself.

[SUPRASUZUKI]

I wonder if Mohammed, in his infinite wisdom, thinks it's a good idea to punish the woman in such a way. I doubt it somehow, unless he's a barbaric heathen.

 

As for defending the right to flay the skin off a young woman for something so trivial, where's your sense of proportion??

 

I say get Monty Python to remake Life Of Brian as "Life Of Mohammed". That would put this heinous crime in perspective.

[Lbm]

Has to be said, the 'No calling a teddy Mohammed' law is perhaps slightly obscure..I think she was a little bit unlucky there.

I wonder what everbody's opinion would be if it was their partner over there who had said this?