Religion fucks over the innocent once again!

[tierk]

I'd like to consider the idea that the bear was called Mohammed as a positive thing. Imagine young children being able to hug the bear, maybe talk to the bear as children are wont to do, maybe not seeing it as a representation of their prophet, but at least coming one step closer to their faith.....

I think this is part of the problem with these type of cases. Muslims are expressly forbidden to have the Prophet (pbuh) depicted in anyway shape or form. Non muslims just dont seem to understand how much of a taboo this is for all muslims, no matter where they are from and it is because of this we see so much anger and violence every time a case arises (Cartooons etc).

....Agreed, but imagine the spanish, Portugese and South America cultures with people names Jesus - I reckon there's over a million of them. No Kidding......

There are plenty of people in the Muslim world called Jesus also, in fact my grandfathers name was Jesus (Essa). Muhammad is a common name in the Muslim world also, however, i dont think this is a case of just the name of the bear in question but whether it was a depiction of the Prophet. I dont know either way and so would not like to make a judgement on this point.

....Then again no-one will stop the Darfur troubles? Not even the UN. Are they legal too?

I dont think that the two things are related in anyway to be honest. The problems in Dafur are internal problems of Sudan, just in the same way that the troubles in Norther Ireland where a problem for the Uk government and not one for the UN to get involved in.

On a personal level i dont think that it was a intentional action from the woman in question. Turning it into a international incident is not going to be doing her any favours at all as it will force the Sudanese governments hand so as to appear to be tough on all people esp after all the problems with the Cartoons.

 

[tierk]

Just read this article and it makes for interesting reading.....

Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

 

[Gorbachioo]

thats irrelvant, the point is that you are saying she is above the law of the land because she is british, if say Afghanistan made suicide bombings legal would it be ok ?
Ofc it wouldn't, the same applies here she is living and working in the country so should abide by the rules.
She is free to petition to have the rule changed, but that doesnt mean she can break it until it is.
The same way you will find people breaking laws in this country are procecuted, the punishments may not be to your satisfaction but when there is a case they are found guilty and dealt with accordingly.

I think this discussion is getting off track. Im not saying she should be above the law. Im saying the law is dumb and should be changed. I assume you dont disagree with that?

 

[collegien]

Release Brian !!!

 

[old.Tohtori]

No! Welease Wodewick!

The problem here is rather that people think it's religional problem.

While yes, it is, but their laws out there are based on religion, but big suprise, so is most countries.

It's different, maybe a bit absurd for some of us, but then again some of the things we judge people on, are seen as absurd and ridicilous by others.

 

[Chronictank]

I'd like to apologise as i thought wrong, she hasnt even been formally charged
Parents complained and they are investigating the complaint, nothing is likely to happen as it seems like a misunderstanding.

 

[Raven]

Then again no-one will stop the Darfur troubles? Not even the UN. Are they legal too?

They aren't legal but then neither is what goes on in countless other countries, no oil though so Ameri<cough> the UN aren't interested

 

[Chronictank]

I think this discussion is getting off track. Im not saying she should be above the law. Im saying the law is dumb and should be changed. I assume you dont disagree with that?

I do but for different reasons, its perfectly acceptable for mentioning Nazi'ism in Germany to be an arrestable offence but the same standard of taboo is not permitted elsewhere?
It's these double standards that cause the problems, i was for banning those cartoons, the same as i am for stopping the media publishing content which quite frankly has the aim of insulting whatever group. You cant say to one group it is fine to do something, then say to another your not allowed to. THAT is what gives ammo to extremists and outspoken parties such as the BNP and Hamas.
But as you say we are going off topic, if you want to discuss it further feel free to pm me/start another thread

 

[tierk]

........Im saying the law is dumb and should be changed. I assume you dont disagree with that?

You just dont seem to get it do you? In Islam it is wrong to depict the Prophet (pbuh) in anyway. If you watch the film The Message you will note that at no point is the face of the Prophet or any of the Nobel Companions shown.

So changing this law to suit your idea of what is right or wrong or good or bad is not an option. Just because you have no religious beliefs and generally have no respect for people that do have religious beliefs does not mean that the rest of the world has to live or think in the same way that you do.

 

[Gorbachioo]

You just dont seem to get it do you? In Islam it is wrong to depict the Prophet (pbuh) in anyway. If you watch the film The Message you will note that at no point is the face of the Prophet or any of the Nobel Companions shown.

So changing this law to suit your idea of what is right or wrong or good or bad is not an option. Just because you have no religious beliefs and generally have no respect for people that do have religious beliefs does not mean that the rest of the world has to live or think in the same way that you do.

Yes unfortunately it doesnt mean that they have to live or think the way i do. However, this world would be a lot better place if they did.

 

[collegien]

They charged her now

Teddy row teacher charged in Sudan - Yahoo! News UK

Send in the cuddly toy police immediately.

 

[kiliarien]

Plain wrong, you the gaul to flame me when you have no idea what you are talking about, nor have the descency to read previous posts which already cleared this up,
First the whole thing started because of a poster, not the bear. it is forbidden under Sharia law to depict mohammad, this is in order to stop idolosing and worshipping of him. Now it will go to court and the procecutor will try proove it was done with malice, and she will try proove it was an innocent mistake

If you actually bothered to read my initial reply that would have cleared this up

Ah so its fair game to take the piss out of one thing (and yes in this case it was regarded as mocking, hence the compaint, and subsequent procecution), but not out of another. if you expect me to share your double standards you can kindly stick them where the sun doesnt shine.

You seemed to have missed the point which i again explained later, and again you failed to read that the arrogance was pointing to the fact that it was incinuated that she "should" be allowed to get away with breaking the law because it does not conform to the laws and ethics of foreign parties



I am going to put this down to your inherent lack of reading, the thread is still on topic indicated by the subsequent posts


Before throwing examples at me, if Afghanistan legalised bombing people you dont like, then bombers game over here and blew stuff up are you seriously saying its ok because its legal in their home country?

You are condoning breaking the law in a country she chose to live in, she isnt a political refugee, she didnt go there because she had to she is there out of her own choice, and doing the job out of her own free will so should subsequently follow the laws of the land that are set regradless of what they are. She will now go through the judicary(sp?) system there and rightly so, as i said in the last post so i dont see any point repeating

The UN is not illegal, UN forces are only there as peacekeepers and with permission from the government in UN council who ask for help as they deem it a state of emergency. There could be rival factions in Dafur killing each other in front of them and they could do fuck all about it because they are not allowed to influence the political enviroment
A prime example of this was the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda when they could evacuate foreign nationals and protect foreign assets but not help people as they were pulled from their homes and sent off to be butchered.

My mother/sister would never be in that situation because they wouldnt break the law, and for the record i have been to many countries under Sharia law including Saudi arabia which is regarded as one of the more harsh members

I truly think your posting skills need work - you have the temerity to consider posters arrogant, claim people lack decency (learn to spell - you've f*cked up so many spellings throughout this) and inherent lack of reading and when they put a point of view across you don't agree with or you consider in any way off topic you slag them off.

At no point did I say she should get away with it by changing laws - I merely commented that any judicial system is a progressive one where laws and cases have to be rethought and reconsidered all the time. Hence the comment about things not being in black and white. Your argument of 'she's guilty, tough' seems lacking in strength. You have never broken a law?? Doubt it:

Home Page

So if you have broken any of these (don't know if they're all true, but I can imagine some of them are) as you have posted you would expect to be charged and have no problem with a lack of leniency?? A very silly example I know, but your absolutism I suspect is neither what you practice nor what you believe. (And before you whine I'm not telling you your own views, just stating a point of view).

I think this is part of the problem with these type of cases. Muslims are expressly forbidden to have the Prophet (pbuh) depicted in anyway shape or form. Non muslims just dont seem to understand how much of a taboo this is for all muslims, no matter where they are from and it is because of this we see so much anger and violence every time a case arises (Cartooons etc).

There are plenty of people in the Muslim world called Jesus also, in fact my grandfathers name was Jesus (Essa). Muhammad is a common name in the Muslim world also, however, i dont think this is a case of just the name of the bear in question but whether it was a depiction of the Prophet. I dont know either way and so would not like to make a judgement on this point.

I dont think that the two things are related in anyway to be honest. The problems in Dafur are internal problems of Sudan, just in the same way that the troubles in Norther Ireland where a problem for the Uk government and not one for the UN to get involved in.

On a personal level i dont think that it was a intentional action from the woman in question. Turning it into a international incident is not going to be doing her any favours at all as it will force the Sudanese governments hand so as to appear to be tough on all people esp after all the problems with the Cartoons.

Thanks for a considered reply. I never knew that about all depictions being prohibited, I just assumed the medium and context came into play - thanks for the info

Maybe my Darfur example was a little far-fetched, what I was trying to imply was that discreet or direct pressure can be applied by the citizen's home nation, in this case the UK. That was tried in Darfur by the UN and then the states and actually ended up as legislation in the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, of course in the case of this incident the problem is as horrific or ongoing.

She has now been charged of course:

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Teacher charged over teddy row

It concerns me that under the article she has been charged she is classed as 'inciting hatred' which seems to go too far.

Others have said that this issue has nothing to do with religion and just law, but when law is motivated by popular values (in this case, religion) it's a valid topic to muse about. Seeming as the Sudanese Ambassador himself thinks this is a "storm in a teacup" hopefully all will be well.

Yes unfortunately it doesnt mean that they have to live or think the way i do. However, this world would be a lot better place if they did.

Lolz :worthy:

 

[Arumos]

religion, what would we do without it.....

 

[Laddey]

religion, what would we do without it.....

The list is endless !

 

[Chronictank]

I truly think your posting skills need work - you have the temerity to consider posters arrogant, claim people lack decency (learn to spell - you've f*cked up so many spellings throughout this) and inherent lack of reading and when they put a point of view across you don't agree with or you consider in any way off topic you slag them off.

There is a distinct difference between spelling mistakes and not reading replies at all, i never have nor will be using a word processor to spell check because people such as yourself have a fit about lack of perfectly formed posts. If you really cant have a discussion without mud slinging then this is my last post, i wash my hands with you as i simply cba


I explained twice why i thought they were being arrogant and it had nothing to do with their ability to make a post on a internet forum,

At no point did I say she should get away with it by changing laws - I merely commented that any judicial system is a progressive one where laws and cases have to be rethought and reconsidered all the time. Hence the comment about things not being in black and white. Your argument of 'she's guilty, tough' seems lacking in strength.

There were complaints, they have a set procedure to follow these complaints up, if it was a minor matter where an officer simply caught someone then it is up to the officer how to procede with the matter. In this case however this is not true, there were complaints made so the correct procedures quite rightly were followed.
We havent even reached the Judicial system until she is formally charged, wherein it is now the judges call, which is where we are now
You have no argument because at the time we didnt even reach that point in the system, she will now put forward her case and it will be dealt with according to the evidence

You have never broken a law?? Doubt it:

Home Page

So if you have broken any of these (don't know if they're all true, but I can imagine some of them are) as you have posted you would expect to be charged and have no problem with a lack of leniency?? A very silly example I know, but your absolutism I suspect is neither what you practice nor what you believe. (And before you whine I'm not telling you your own views, just stating a point of view).

What relevance has any of that? The fact of the matter is if someone complained about me regarding one of those laws then an investigation into the allegation would be made. It is unlikely anything would come of it but it doesnt deviate from the fact that the investigation would be performed regardless how ridiculous the law is in your opinion.
A more accurate one would be the trial of Abbu hamzah ? (hook man) inciting religious hatred and being deported, because it may be a minor issue to you but there it is most definitely not thus cant just be brushed under the carpet as now it has become a media circus

Maybe my Darfur example was a little far-fetched, what I was trying to imply was that discreet or direct pressure can be applied by the citizen's home nation, in this case the UK. That was tried in Darfur by the UN and then the states and actually ended up as legislation in the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, of course in the case of this incident the problem is as horrific or ongoing.

It doesnt change her going through the system because complaints were required to be followed up, pressure can be applied sure but she did something which is not regarded as a minor offence as i said above so there is likely to be alot of stirring going on in the media to make it a bigger issue than it supposidly is (after all we have no idea what really happened)

She has now been charged of course:

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Teacher charged over teddy row

It concerns me that under the article she has been charged she is classed as 'inciting hatred' which seems to go too far.

Others have said that this issue has nothing to do with religion and just law, but when law is motivated by popular values (in this case, religion) it's a valid topic to muse about. Seeming as the Sudanese Ambassador himself thinks this is a "storm in a teacup" hopefully all will be well.

There must have been more to it than a simple picture tbh if she has been charged with inciting hatred, its hardly likely we would be getting the full story at the moment.
Unfortunately she may just be made an example of due to the public attention being put on her for x party to show how hardline they are on people who break the law, but we wont know whats really involved until the trial starts

The list is endless !

wrong thread

 

[Lamp]

Unfortunately she may just be made an example of

There's that, sure. But all of you seem to be forgetting the long and bitter history between Sudan and Britain. The Sudanese have never forgiven Britain, and I think in this case they fully intend to get their pound of flesh. Literally.

 

[tierk]

There's that, sure. But all of you seem to be forgetting the long and bitter history between Sudan and Britain. The Sudanese have never forgiven Britain, and I think in this case they fully intend to get their pound of flesh. Literally.

Lets hope not and i for one pray that cooler heads prevail.

 

[Laddey]

wrong thread

What other thread could it be!

 

[Fafnir]

If she is found guilty she can be fined, sentenced to jail or recive 40 lashes...

 

[kiliarien]

We havent even reached the Judicial system until she is formally charged, wherein it is now the judges call, which is where we are now
You have no argument because at the time we didnt even reach that point in the system, she will now put forward her case and it will be dealt with according to the evidence.

ANd you berate me for not reading posts?? I wrote knowing she had been charged - so the judicial system is of complete relevance.

There must have been more to it than a simple picture tbh if she has been charged with inciting hatred, its hardly likely we would be getting the full story at the moment.
Unfortunately she may just be made an example of due to the public attention being put on her for x party to show how hardline they are on people who break the law, but we wont know whats really involved until the trial starts

Unfortunately not, she has been charged under the same article - sudanese law in this article has put the depiction of a spiritual icon and inciting hatred under the same legal definition. Silly, but there we go.

Lets hope not and i for one pray that cooler heads prevail.

Most definitely

 

[Lamp]

She's been sentenced to 15 days in prison.

 

[Cemeterygates]

but but they dont do it in England!

i think thats due to political correctness,which has been taken way over the top.it seems like it's a case of "were not racists!! you can do what ya want an we will ban our customs to please you!! see...this is multi-culture britain!"
just seems that everywhere else in the world stands up for what is theres,an rightly fucking so! where as the UK..well...lol

 

[Lamp]

If you go to Sudan and call a Teddy Bear Mohammed you get put in jail

If you're an Islamic extremist, you can come here, get housed, get £2000 a week in benefits, and you get to blow people up. Welcome to Britain.

 

[Cemeterygates]

If you go to Sudan and call a Teddy Bear Mohammed you get put in jail

If you're an Islamic extremist, you can come here, get housed, get £2000 a week in benefits, and you get to blow people up. Welcome to Britain.

EXACTLY!! an people think other countries are fucked up for standing by THIER laws an THEIR culture? lol...i cant help but laugh.
If you go to another country you gotta expect it to be different and respect an abide by their laws and ways no matter what...law of the land!
pisses me off so much the way you get muslims come over to the UK (i dont have anything against them for their beliefs btw) an they can build mosque's....reckon ya could go to pakistan or any islamic country an build a church? fuckin double standards.

 

[Laddey]

EXACTLY!! an people think other countries are fucked up for standing by THIER laws an THEIR culture? lol...i cant help but laugh.
If you go to another country you gotta expect it to be different and respect an abide by their laws and ways no matter what...law of the land!
pisses me off so much the way you get muslims come over to the UK (i dont have anything against them for their beliefs btw) an they can build mosque's....reckon ya could go to pakistan or any islamic country an build a church? fuckin double standards.

qft

 

[Cemeterygates]

qft

i dont know what that means

 

[Chronictank]

reckon ya could go to pakistan or any islamic country an build a church? fuckin double standards.

lol... i cant even put into words how ridiculous that is

St. Luke's Church,Abbottabad
St. George's Church, Bannu
Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul, Faisalabad
St. Joseph's Cathedral, Hyderabad OMG A CATHEDRAL IN A MUSLIM COUNTRY
St. Thomas Church, Hyderabad
Karachi:
* Brooks Memorial Methodist Church
* Holy Trinity Cathedral
* International Church of Karachi
* Our Lady of Fatima Church
* Sacred Heart Church
* St. Andrew's Church also known as Scotch Church
* St. Anthony's Church, Cantt
* St. Anthony's Church, Manora
* St. Christopher's Church
* St. Lawrence's Church
* St. Patrick's Cathedral
* St. Paul's Church, Mehmoodabad
Immaculate Conception Church, Kotri
Lahore:
* Cathedral church of Resurrection
* Church of St. Mary Magdalene
* Immaculate Conception Church
* Presbyterian Church
* Sacred Heart Cathedral
* St. Andrew's Church
* St. Anthony's Cathedral
* St. James Church


I cba to post anymore you get the point


Sources:
The Anglican Communion Official Website: - The Church of Pakistan (United)
Grace Bible Church of Pakistan
Pakistan church
Pakistan Christian Post

 

[Chronictank]

i dont know what that means

neither does he evidently
It means quoted for truth, but the above had little/no truth in it

ANd you berate me for not reading posts?? I wrote knowing she had been charged - so the judicial system is of complete relevance.

When you posted she was under investigation so stop twisting my words, she wasnt charged till a day after (post 41)

 

[Laddey]

neither does he evidently
It means quoted for truth, but the above had little/no truth in it



When you posted she was under investigation so stop twisting my words, she wasnt charged till a day after (post 41)

I agree with what he's saying, i know what he's saying. So personally i think its true.

 

[Lamp]

LOL the fairies are having a bitch fight !

Ooh, I'll scratch yer eyes out !
You pulled my hair !