Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-12-04 03:35:47
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Why is it that a teacher is sentenced for students naming a teddy bear Muhammed when that is one of the most popular names (over a wide variety of spelling variants) in Muslimland?
This has already been covered previously in the thread.
Because I have time to read every post ever written. Kthx.
Well, it's obvious that you don't, which is why I pointed it out to you. There's no need for the hostilities.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Actually many people shouted she should be sentenced to death upon hearing this in Sudan, the woman thing was a mistype I'll edit now then and well, why do most islamic families call their firstborn Muhammed / mohammed, but it is wrong to name a bear that way?
There are many people in Western countries saying that people should be sentenced to death for rape and incest. That doesn't mean that the letter of the law is suspended to accomodate the masses. Same goes for Sudan.
Because rape and incest is so like naming a teddy bear a common name.
I'm not referring to the application, but to the practice in sentencing. The crux of the sentence emphasises this.

Flecco wrote:

Western hypocrisy - is it warrented?

Well, no. It's not.

But who's going to stop us?
Yeah, that pretty much seems to be the common sentiment.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-04 03:38:09)

2007-12-04 04:27:14
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|7102|NT, like Mick Dundee

mikkel wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Western hypocrisy - is it warrented?

Well, no. It's not.

But who's going to stop us?
Yeah, that pretty much seems to be the common sentiment.
I don't agree with it either. As they say though, survival of the fittest.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2007-12-04 05:51:40
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7119|Dayton, Ohio

mikkel wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Just a question, if you were in another country doing volunteer work and got in trouble, wouldn't you want your government to go to bat for you???????  My question would be why is there not a larger out cry from non-western countries when they feel their citizens are being subjected to laws that they find unjust or barbaric.  Maybe it is because western laws and punishments are no where near as harsh.
Perhaps it's because the leaders of smaller countries either respect the right to govern as countries see fit, or know that trying to force a Western country into any sort of submission is an exercise in futility. There's nothing barbaric about fifteen days in jail, and I'm pretty sure it's a lot more "unjust and barbaric" to be detained in secret prisons, tortured, or held for years without charge.

The governments with nationals detained by the US indefinitely without charge, for example, have all voiced demands that their citizens be released, but only the Western countries get frequent media exposure to their pleads. It's just a case of getting more attention when you're in control of the media.
My point is that you as a citizen would expect YOUR country to come to YOUR aid if your ass was in a sling on foreign soil.  Small countries have been making an impact on the US in re-guard to detention and imprisonment.  They sway public opinion through media coverage and they influence a government and election because the government has to answer to the people.  By the way, the western governments do not control the media - they are at the mercy of the media.  I elect my Government and Pay my taxes so that they will 1. represent me on domestic policy making and 2. Deal with foreign affairs including protection of my interests abroad.  I know they can't protect me from my stupidity, but they damn well better support me if I am a victim of circumstances. 

If smaller countries do not make an effort to protect thier citizens because their govenments don't give a crap - I can't help that.  If they do voice their objections then they have every right to be heard and they should be respected in doing so.
2007-12-04 07:28:11
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

mikkel wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Just a question, if you were in another country doing volunteer work and got in trouble, wouldn't you want your government to go to bat for you???????  My question would be why is there not a larger out cry from non-western countries when they feel their citizens are being subjected to laws that they find unjust or barbaric.  Maybe it is because western laws and punishments are no where near as harsh.
Perhaps it's because the leaders of smaller countries either respect the right to govern as countries see fit, or know that trying to force a Western country into any sort of submission is an exercise in futility. There's nothing barbaric about fifteen days in jail, and I'm pretty sure it's a lot more "unjust and barbaric" to be detained in secret prisons, tortured, or held for years without charge.

The governments with nationals detained by the US indefinitely without charge, for example, have all voiced demands that their citizens be released, but only the Western countries get frequent media exposure to their pleads. It's just a case of getting more attention when you're in control of the media.
My point is that you as a citizen would expect YOUR country to come to YOUR aid if your ass was in a sling on foreign soil.  Small countries have been making an impact on the US in re-guard to detention and imprisonment.  They sway public opinion through media coverage and they influence a government and election because the government has to answer to the people.  By the way, the western governments do not control the media - they are at the mercy of the media.  I elect my Government and Pay my taxes so that they will 1. represent me on domestic policy making and 2. Deal with foreign affairs including protection of my interests abroad.  I know they can't protect me from my stupidity, but they damn well better support me if I am a victim of circumstances. 

If smaller countries do not make an effort to protect thier citizens because their govenments don't give a crap - I can't help that.  If they do voice their objections then they have every right to be heard and they should be respected in doing so.
I wouldn't expect my country to help me escape prosecution if I committed a crime in another country. I can't say that I wouldn't be happy if they did, but it wouldn't morally sit right with me. Do the crime, do the time.

No one ever said that the Western nations control the media. It's just a fact that Western leaders get much more exposure in mass media, as mass media is majorily Western.

It's really very clear what I'm disagreeing with when you suggest that this teacher was victimised for committing a crime. That's just not true. She may very well have avoided sentencing if the Sudanese legal system was as lenient towards unintentional violations of criminal code as Western courts are, but that's not the case, and it's Sudan's right to operate like that if they wish.
2007-12-04 11:15:42
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7119|Dayton, Ohio

mikkel wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

mikkel wrote:

The governments with nationals detained by the US indefinitely without charge, for example, have all voiced demands that their citizens be released, but only the Western countries get frequent media exposure to their pleads. It's just a case of getting more attention when you're in control of the media.
No one ever said that the Western nations control the media. It's just a fact that Western leaders get much more exposure in mass media, as mass media is majorily Western.
You implied they controlled the media in your first comment.

I would have to argue that your government should concede that a crime was committed, but if the punishment is not seen as justifiable - which the alternatives to 15 days in jail were seen to be - then they have the right if not responsibility to make their argument to try and protect your health.  When they talked about possibly giving the old lady lashings, that could very well have killed her.

The most appropriate case would be the teenager in Singapore that was caned for spray painting the car.  Yes the US and western governments tried to get a lighter sentence but when they final decision was made to follow through on the caning, the government let the punishment go through as ordered.  We can and should try to reason with people we do not see eye to eye with, but ultimately, Sudan made a decision that they were comfortable with.  We would not have invaded the country or invoked sanctions because of their decision to punish this woman more severely.  It is called diplomacy and apparently the West is more willing to take diplomatic steps to protect our citizens than the rest of the world.

Last edited by KnowMeByTrailOfDead (2007-12-04 11:25:20)

2007-12-04 12:47:04
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

mikkel wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

No one ever said that the Western nations control the media. It's just a fact that Western leaders get much more exposure in mass media, as mass media is majorily Western.
You implied they controlled the media in your first comment.
That comment wasn't meant to suggest that the governments are in control of the media, simply that mass media is predominately Western.

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

I would have to argue that your government should concede that a crime was committed, but if the punishment is not seen as justifiable - which the alternatives to 15 days in jail were seen to be - then they have the right if not responsibility to make their argument to try and protect your health.  When they talked about possibly giving the old lady lashings, that could very well have killed her.

The most appropriate case would be the teenager in Singapore that was caned for spray painting the car.  Yes the US and western governments tried to get a lighter sentence but when they final decision was made to follow through on the caning, the government let the punishment go through as ordered.  We can and should try to reason with people we do not see eye to eye with, but ultimately, Sudan made a decision that they were comfortable with.  We would not have invaded the country or invoked sanctions because of their decision to punish this woman more severely.  It is called diplomacy and apparently the West is more willing to take diplomatic steps to protect our citizens than the rest of the world.
The problem is that Sudan did not make a decision to let the woman off the hook. Sudan made a decision to jail her for fifteen days and subsequently deport her. The president of Sudan unilaterally decided to pardon her and circumvent the judgement of the Sudanese legal system.

The case of the kid getting caned in Singapore is no different. You can't expect to be exempt from sentencing that locals would face if you're charged with a crime in a foreign country. That's just not realistic.

Of course we should try to reason with people we don't agree with - That's why I favour constructive dialogue. Offensive "diplomacy", however, is not constructive dialogue.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-04 12:49:10)

2007-12-04 13:10:40
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7038|132 and Bush

I blame Rocky IV.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard