Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-12-03 04:50:30
mikkel
Member
+383|7039
Today we've seen the pardon of the British teacher who was sentenced to fifteen days in jail for breaking a Sudanese law. Intense diplomatic pressure already ensured that she was sentenced with great leniency, but apparently this was not enough for Western leaders, who did not stop pressuring the Sudanese government until it was forced to give into demands.

We've seen Gordon Brown claim that her sentencing was "completely wrong" and her imprisonment "completely unacceptable". When we saw precisely the same outcries from Middle Eastern nations about certain drawings that they felt insulted the prophet of Islam, we shrugged it off and claimed that our culture and legislation trumphed their religious sentiments. Why is it then that Western countries now feel that their culture and legislation trumph those of Sudan in a case of a crime commited in Sudan?

After the latest freedom of speech and freedom of expression rhetoric from Western countries who are quick to emphasise that these freedom exist in Western nations whenever Muslims are outraged about anything pertaining to their religion, is it really right for Western countries to completely disregard Sudanese culture and legislation, and trumph through their own opinions of right and wrong? When Western countries are so quick to assert their own legislative powers, how can they defend taking actions that essentially prevent the Sudanese government from sentencing people with Sudanese legislation for crimes commited in Sudan? Isn't it Sudan's prerogative to legislate according to the culture of their country, when Western nations do precisely the same?

To clarify my position, I'm all for Western freedom of expression. If I want to draw Mohammad with a bomb in his turban, I don't particularly want to die over it. I do, however, also believe that it's up to each nation how to best legislate according to their society and their nature, and that constructive dialogues can exist between countries debating what's fair and what's not, but that no nation should ever be forced into abandoning their right to prosecute people within their own borders when adhering to their own legislation. What do you think?
2007-12-03 04:52:17
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6993
My take is this: what happens over in Backwardassland is their business.
2007-12-03 06:04:53
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7279|Cologne, Germany

no one forced the sudanese government to do anything. it was up to the court to decide. A wide variety of possible outcomes was discussed from the outset ( even by the sudanese ambassador to the UK ), and those included release, the stick, jail sentence, and others. ultimately, it was a 15-day jail sentence, which is the smallest punishment possible, apart from release.

While it is true that the sudanese president chose to pardon her, after only a week of her 15-day jail sentence, probably after some pressure from the UK government, there was equal pressure from lobbyists inside sudan to have her at least finish the 15 days.

However, I am pretty sure no sudanese law was broken or even bent with the pardoning. So I don't see your problem here.

Apart from that, the sudanese government obviously realized that the teacher never intended to put muhammad's name down, and that she - being a teacher - has in fact contributed greatly to the education of the people of sudan.

more info here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/12 … index.html
2007-12-03 06:23:46
mikkel
Member
+383|7039
It's naive to believe that the pressure on the Sudanese government is adequately described as "some", and it's also naive to believe that the president didn't yield to diplomatic pressure.

My problem with this is that Western countries are always quick to make everyone aware that their principles and legislation are not up for question when any sort of religiously sparked tension occurs, but apparently they have no problem setting out to keep justice from being justice in countries where justice doesn't conform to Western beliefs.

Obviously she didn't mean any harm, but the law is the law. You still get a speeding ticket if you run a red light thinking that it's green.
2007-12-03 08:42:18
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7279|Cologne, Germany

mikkel wrote:

It's naive to believe that the pressure on the Sudanese government is adequately described as "some", and it's also naive to believe that the president didn't yield to diplomatic pressure.

My problem with this is that Western countries are always quick to make everyone aware that their principles and legislation are not up for question when any sort of religiously sparked tension occurs, but apparently they have no problem setting out to keep justice from being justice in countries where justice doesn't conform to Western beliefs.

Obviously she didn't mean any harm, but the law is the law. You still get a speeding ticket if you run a red light thinking that it's green.
well, and my point is that she received a sentence delivered by a court of law, and was pardoned by the president halfway through. Most likely perfectly legal by sudanese law. And although one might argue that the ruling was considerably mild, and attribute that to the diplomatic pressure from London, sudanese law was ultimately upheld.

In general, however, I find myself to be in agreement with you. Western nations often tend to claim the moral and juidicial highground for themselves, putting down legal processes and procedures in third-world or islamic countries, most of which are either not democratic, or have democracies in early stages of development.

Nevertheless, I have noticed that especially US diplomatic pressure is much more subtle in those cases that involve an ally of the US, i.e. Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. I guess there is a bit of a double standard.
2007-12-03 08:45:29
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7081

mikkel wrote:

You still get a speeding ticket if you run a red light thinking that it's green.
so youve never heard of a cop giving somebody off with a warning?
2007-12-03 08:48:28
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

mikkel wrote:

You still get a speeding ticket if you run a red light thinking that it's green.
so youve never heard of a cop giving somebody off with a warning?
Of course, but you don't really very often hear of legitimate traffic tickets being pardoned on good intention.

It's an irrelevant example, anyway, and poorly chosen. What it's meant to explain is that a crime is still a crime even if you didn't intentionally commit it.

B.Schuss wrote:

mikkel wrote:

It's naive to believe that the pressure on the Sudanese government is adequately described as "some", and it's also naive to believe that the president didn't yield to diplomatic pressure.

My problem with this is that Western countries are always quick to make everyone aware that their principles and legislation are not up for question when any sort of religiously sparked tension occurs, but apparently they have no problem setting out to keep justice from being justice in countries where justice doesn't conform to Western beliefs.

Obviously she didn't mean any harm, but the law is the law. You still get a speeding ticket if you run a red light thinking that it's green.
well, and my point is that she received a sentence delivered by a court of law, and was pardoned by the president halfway through. Most likely perfectly legal by sudanese law. And although one might argue that the ruling was considerably mild, and attribute that to the diplomatic pressure from London, sudanese law was ultimately upheld.

In general, however, I find myself to be in agreement with you. Western nations often tend to claim the moral and juidicial highground for themselves, putting down legal processes and procedures in third-world or islamic countries, most of which are either not democratic, or have democracies in early stages of development.

Nevertheless, I have noticed that especially US diplomatic pressure is much more subtle in those cases that involve an ally of the US, i.e. Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. I guess there is a bit of a double standard.
Heh, I wouldn't say the law is being upheld when the highest instance of arbitration is forced into submission by diplomatic pressure, even if it is a legitimate decision.

Also, yeah, it's almost amusing how when roughly the same sentencing takes place in countries allied with the US, nothing really happens most of the time.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-03 08:53:58)

2007-12-03 08:50:12
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7081
One cop I know told me the only way he let somebody off without a ticket for your run of the mill traffic stop would be if the driver told him that he/she was shitting his/herself

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-12-03 08:50:30)

2007-12-03 08:51:39
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7081

mikkel wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

mikkel wrote:

You still get a speeding ticket if you run a red light thinking that it's green.
so youve never heard of a cop giving somebody off with a warning?
Of course, but you don't really very often hear of legitimate traffic tickets being pardoned on good intention.

It's an irrelevant example, anyway, and poorly chosen. What it's meant to explain is that a crime is still a crime even if you didn't intentionally commit it.
well, that may be, but it is up to the courts to decide what should be punished.  not you or i.
2007-12-03 08:55:57
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:


so youve never heard of a cop giving somebody off with a warning?
Of course, but you don't really very often hear of legitimate traffic tickets being pardoned on good intention.

It's an irrelevant example, anyway, and poorly chosen. What it's meant to explain is that a crime is still a crime even if you didn't intentionally commit it.
well, that may be, but it is up to the courts to decide what should be punished.  not you or i.
Yeah, that's why this doesn't sit well with me. The courts decided to punish the woman for a crime she committed, but the decision was overturned by a presidential pardon, which is hardly justice in the legal sense.
2007-12-03 11:03:12
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6800|Vancouver
'You come to my country, you respect my laws and my culture.'

Does that not sound familiar to those of us in Western nations? With the current debate about the role of Muslims in Western societies, the decision of the United Kingdom to become involved in a Sudanese issue brings another element to the table. I abhor any idea that religious ideals would punish behaviour as simple as the naming of a teddy bear, yet I feel that there is some strangeness in how the Western world deals with Islam, both inside and outside their countries. I am not surprised that Britain would prefer to protect their citizen, but it draws strange parallels.
2007-12-03 11:06:25
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6437|...
We don't try to sentence someone to death when they name their teddybears jezus.

I mean the drawing made them angry and we actually did apologize but beheading someone because they give a teddybear a name?

This is going too far and you can't deny it, even from an islamic point of view - only the narrowminded would say death is justified by naming a teddybear.

edit 1 :Besides the school teacher was there to teach the children of sudan, and why should she be responsible for what a child in his class did?

I mean I certainly wouldn't know it's forbidden to call your teddybear muhammed would you?

edit 2 : And the way we deal with a country opressed by people via religion sounds very logic in my point of view.

Last edited by dayarath (2007-12-03 11:32:24)

inane little opines
2007-12-03 11:11:47
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY
Crime has an element of intent.  She obviously did not intend to insult Islam.  I don't really see any hypocrisy.
2007-12-03 11:13:32
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6963|South Florida

dayarath wrote:

We don't try to sentence someone to death when they name their teddybears jezus.

I mean the drawing made them angry and we actually did apologize but beheading someone because they give a teddybear a name?

This is going too far and you can't deny it, even from an islamic point of view - only the narrowminded would say death is justified by naming a teddybear.

edit 1 :Besides the school teacher was there to teach the children of sudan, and why should he be responsible for what a child in his class did?

I mean I certainly wouldn't know it's forbidden to call your teddybear muhammed would you?

edit 2 : And the way we deal with a country opressed by people via religion sounds very logic in my point of view.
This is why i hate religion.
You name a Teddy Bear Muhammed. Some say you need to be sentanced to death.
Nice.
Thats an excellent religion you've got there.
I bet that'll make you feel real good wont it, i bet that'll make Allah like you more, huh!
I bet that'll bring you closer to your 72 virgins.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2007-12-03 11:18:49
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

dayarath wrote:

We don't try to sentence someone to death when they name their teddybears jezus.

I mean the drawing made them angry and we actually did apologize but beheading someone because they give a teddybear a name?

This is going too far and you can't deny it, even from an islamic point of view - only the narrowminded would say death is justified by naming a teddybear.

edit 1 :Besides the school teacher was there to teach the children of sudan, and why should he be responsible for what a child in his class did?

I mean I certainly wouldn't know it's forbidden to call your teddybear muhammed would you?

edit 2 : And the way we deal with a country opressed by people via religion sounds very logic in my point of view.
Where do you get beheading from? I don't know where you get that, but that's just way off. That was never an option in this case. It doesn't sound like you read up on this. The teacher was a woman.

As for your second point, if you're going to work in a country, especially with kids, you should always do your utmost to get to know the customs, traditions and laws. The UK Foreign Office could have easily informed her of what she had to be careful of. Ignorance isn't really an excuse.

SenorToenails wrote:

Crime has an element of intent.  She obviously did not intend to insult Islam.  I don't really see any hypocrisy.
A crime is still a crime, and a sentencing is still a sentencing. The hypocrisy exists in the Western countries denying any sort of outside pressure to affect their position on religious legal matters, but having no trouble strongarming other countries to push their own positions through in other parts of the world.
2007-12-03 11:28:27
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

Mitch wrote:

This is why i hate religion.
You name a Teddy Bear Muhammed. Some say you need to be sentanced to death.
Nice.
Thats an excellent religion you've got there.
I bet that'll make you feel real good wont it, i bet that'll make Allah like you more, huh!
I bet that'll bring you closer to your 72 virgins.
To be fair, the fact that they are calling for her death is not a direct result of Islam.  Sure, religion is part of their motivation, but they probably just wanted to see some "meddling foreigner" pay for "insulting their ways".  It's still fucking ridiculous.
2007-12-03 11:31:43
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6437|...

mikkel wrote:

dayarath wrote:

We don't try to sentence someone to death when they name their teddybears jezus.

I mean the drawing made them angry and we actually did apologize but beheading someone because they give a teddybear a name?

This is going too far and you can't deny it, even from an islamic point of view - only the narrowminded would say death is justified by naming a teddybear.

edit 1 :Besides the school teacher was there to teach the children of sudan, and why should he be responsible for what a child in his class did?

I mean I certainly wouldn't know it's forbidden to call your teddybear muhammed would you?

edit 2 : And the way we deal with a country opressed by people via religion sounds very logic in my point of view.
Where do you get beheading from? I don't know where you get that, but that's just way off. That was never an option in this case. It doesn't sound like you read up on this. The teacher was a woman.

As for your second point, if you're going to work in a country, especially with kids, you should always do your utmost to get to know the customs, traditions and laws. The UK Foreign Office could have easily informed her of what she had to be careful of. Ignorance isn't really an excuse.

SenorToenails wrote:

Crime has an element of intent.  She obviously did not intend to insult Islam.  I don't really see any hypocrisy.
A crime is still a crime, and a sentencing is still a sentencing. The hypocrisy exists in the Western countries denying any sort of outside pressure to affect their position on religious legal matters, but having no trouble strongarming other countries to push their own positions through in other parts of the world.
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?
inane little opines
2007-12-03 11:40:37
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

mikkel wrote:

A crime is still a crime, and a sentencing is still a sentencing. The hypocrisy exists in the Western countries denying any sort of outside pressure to affect their position on religious legal matters, but having no trouble strongarming other countries to push their own positions through in other parts of the world.
In this case, their was simply no intent to denounce Islam.  Who could have thought that naming something Mohammad would cause a problem.  Where is the public outcry over the children named Mohammad?

CNN wrote:

Meanwhile it was revealed on Monday that a disgruntled former employee alerted Sudanese officials about the case in an effort to shut down Unity High School.
Source.

That seems like a real good reason to punish the woman.  Some asshole decided to get back at the school for whatever reason.  Gee, you're right, her punishment was just and she should be punished at the whim of some whiner.
2007-12-03 11:40:44
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,992|7070|949

Is hypocrisy ever warranted?

Mohammed is a ceremonial name, and many more-devout believers interpret the naming as a sign of reverence to their main prophet.  I can understand the perception of a foreigner (non-Muslim) naming a teddy bear Mohammed being interpreted as a sign of disrespect - not that I agree with that assessment.

I do agree with the OP in regards to the existence of a "Western Hypocrisy" as he put it.  Maybe our civilizations still have the collective idea of a "White Man's Burden".
2007-12-03 11:45:42
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,992|7070|949

SenorToenails wrote:

mikkel wrote:

A crime is still a crime, and a sentencing is still a sentencing. The hypocrisy exists in the Western countries denying any sort of outside pressure to affect their position on religious legal matters, but having no trouble strongarming other countries to push their own positions through in other parts of the world.
In this case, their was simply no intent to denounce Islam.  Who could have thought that naming something Mohammad would cause a problem.  Where is the public outcry over the children named Mohammad?

CNN wrote:

Meanwhile it was revealed on Monday that a disgruntled former employee alerted Sudanese officials about the case in an effort to shut down Unity High School.
Source.

That seems like a real good reason to punish the woman.  Some asshole decided to get back at the school for whatever reason.  Gee, you're right, her punishment was just and she should be punished at the whim of some whiner.
Intent is often debated in the prosecution and sentence of a crime, but intent is not inherently integral to the committal of a crime.  I don't agree that the punishment was just, but the fact remains that if she willingly chose to go teach in Sudan, she should familiarize herself with the customs and morals of the country she is going to.  It is a different culture, maybe not as enlightened as 'western civilization', but our track record is not exactly clean in regards to barbarism or ass-backward custom either.
2007-12-03 12:07:20
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

SenorToenails wrote:

mikkel wrote:

A crime is still a crime, and a sentencing is still a sentencing. The hypocrisy exists in the Western countries denying any sort of outside pressure to affect their position on religious legal matters, but having no trouble strongarming other countries to push their own positions through in other parts of the world.
In this case, their was simply no intent to denounce Islam.  Who could have thought that naming something Mohammad would cause a problem.  Where is the public outcry over the children named Mohammad?

CNN wrote:

Meanwhile it was revealed on Monday that a disgruntled former employee alerted Sudanese officials about the case in an effort to shut down Unity High School.
Source.

That seems like a real good reason to punish the woman.  Some asshole decided to get back at the school for whatever reason.  Gee, you're right, her punishment was just and she should be punished at the whim of some whiner.
The woman isn't being punished for anything that guy did. His story is irrelevant to the sentencing.

The fact of the matter is that she, likely unintentionally, committed a crime according to Sudanese law. It might have been negligent, but negligence does not absolve you of responsibility. Especially not when dealing with children as a teacher.

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.
2007-12-03 13:05:16
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

mikkel wrote:

The woman isn't being punished for anything that guy did. His story is irrelevant to the sentencing.
Right.  He pretended to be offended in order to get the school closed.  His ulterior motive is what caused this whole debacle.
2007-12-03 13:10:51
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Intent is often debated in the prosecution and sentence of a crime, but intent is not inherently integral to the committal of a crime.  I don't agree that the punishment was just, but the fact remains that if she willingly chose to go teach in Sudan, she should familiarize herself with the customs and morals of the country she is going to.  It is a different culture, maybe not as enlightened as 'western civilization', but our track record is not exactly clean in regards to barbarism or ass-backward custom either.
When a crime consists of "insulting Islam", how can intent not be considered as part of the crime?  In the scenario you bring up, a misspoken sentence (if someone were to take offense, of course) would be the same crime as distributing anti-Islamic pamphlets.  Those two are very different things.

I guess others who might go to the Sudan to teach should take her plight to heart, and not go.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2007-12-03 13:11:52)

2007-12-03 13:11:12
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

SenorToenails wrote:

mikkel wrote:

The woman isn't being punished for anything that guy did. His story is irrelevant to the sentencing.
Right.  He pretended to be offended in order to get the school closed.  His ulterior motive is what caused this whole debacle.
It may have brought it to light, but an unnoticed crime is still a crime. What I'm aiming for with this thread is discussing the outcome of the case in respect to the sentencing, and the morality of the international pressure on the Sudanese government. What brought the case to light doesn't concern me too much.
2007-12-03 13:13:06
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6437|...

mikkel wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

mikkel wrote:

The woman isn't being punished for anything that guy did. His story is irrelevant to the sentencing.
Right.  He pretended to be offended in order to get the school closed.  His ulterior motive is what caused this whole debacle.
It may have brought it to light, but an unnoticed crime is still a crime. What I'm aiming for with this thread is discussing the outcome of the case in respect to the sentencing, and the morality of the international pressure on the Sudanese government. What brought the case to light doesn't concern me too much.
what brought it to the light is the main reason we act this way, but if you ment in general rather than on only this case, yes there is hypocrisy but that's coming from about every corner of the world.
inane little opines

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard