Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-12-03 13:17:37
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

SenorToenails wrote:

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.
Actually, the latter would likely be charged with inciting religious hatred, whereas the former would likely be charged with insulting Islam. Two different crimes, and two very different spectra of punishment.

The idea of having a spectrum of punishment in the first place is to grant leniency in sentencing based on intent, and that's exactly what happened when they let her off with 15 days of incarceration and subsequent deportation.

dayarath wrote:

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.
What brought it to light is completely irrelevant to the sentencing. It could have been a disgruntled employee or an outraged parent. Sentencing is measured according to the severity of the crime, not the details of the discovery.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-03 13:19:40)

2007-12-03 13:19:17
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

mikkel wrote:

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.
The circumstances of the case have everything to do with the international pressure.  Firstly, her "insult" to Islam is generally considered absurd to Muslims in the west.  Why?  Because it does not insult Islam.  At all.  I think that pretty much justifies the pressure.  Of course, the Sudanese government could have completely disregarded it, and let the punishment stand.  Yet they did not, maybe because they agree it was absurd.  Maybe as a sign of good will to the British.  Who knows why.

I don't see anything wrong with applying pressure on a foreign government to obtain a goal.  After all, no one is forcing that government to actually do anything.
2007-12-03 13:20:46
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

mikkel wrote:

What brought it to light is completely irrelevant to the sentencing. It could have been a disgruntled employee or an outraged parent. Sentencing is measured according to the severity of the crime, not the details of the discovery.
It paints a spin on her actions.  Of course it makes a difference.
2007-12-03 13:23:12
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

mikkel wrote:

Actually, the latter would likely be charged with inciting religious hatred, whereas the former would likely be charged with insulting Islam. Two different crimes, and two very different spectra of punishment.

The idea of having a spectrum of punishment in the first place is to grant leniency in sentencing based on intent, and that's exactly what happened when they let her off with 15 days of incarceration and subsequent deportation.
If a man named Mohammad is convicted of being a thief, is he then charged with insulting Islam?  I mean, the guy has the same name as the prophet and he committed a fairly bad act.  Uh oh.
2007-12-03 13:24:37
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7082
mikkel you have a very good point. you sound like an anthropologist
2007-12-03 13:25:24
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

SenorToenails wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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.
The circumstances of the case have everything to do with the international pressure.  Firstly, her "insult" to Islam is generally considered absurd to Muslims in the west.  Why?  Because it does not insult Islam.  At all.  I think that pretty much justifies the pressure.  Of course, the Sudanese government could have completely disregarded it, and let the punishment stand.  Yet they did not, maybe because they agree it was absurd.  Maybe as a sign of good will to the British.  Who knows why.

I don't see anything wrong with applying pressure on a foreign government to obtain a goal.  After all, no one is forcing that government to actually do anything.
The circumstances of the case, not the circumstances of discovery. There's a very clear distinction. The sentencing is obviously relevant to the crime committed, but it's irrelevant to how the crime was discovered. The government also did not pardon the teacher. The president did, unilaterally, circumventing the verdict presented by the justice system.

You're comparing the values of Western muslims with the values of African muslims and deciding that what the Western muslims think about the case is what's right. That's exactly the problem I'm discussing. Why should Western values, be they catholic or muslim, be enforced on an African country, when the same nations absolutely refuse to adhere or yield to the culture and values of the African country?

It's hypocrisy, and what I'm asking is; why should it be acceptable?

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-03 13:27:21)

2007-12-03 13:44:38
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

mikkel wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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.
The circumstances of the case have everything to do with the international pressure.  Firstly, her "insult" to Islam is generally considered absurd to Muslims in the west.  Why?  Because it does not insult Islam.  At all.  I think that pretty much justifies the pressure.  Of course, the Sudanese government could have completely disregarded it, and let the punishment stand.  Yet they did not, maybe because they agree it was absurd.  Maybe as a sign of good will to the British.  Who knows why.

I don't see anything wrong with applying pressure on a foreign government to obtain a goal.  After all, no one is forcing that government to actually do anything.
The circumstances of the case, not the circumstances of discovery. There's a very clear distinction. The sentencing is obviously relevant to the crime committed, but it's irrelevant to how the crime was discovered. The government also did not pardon the teacher. The president did, unilaterally, circumventing the verdict presented by the justice system.

You're comparing the values of Western muslims with the values of African muslims and deciding that what the Western muslims think about the case is what's right. That's exactly the problem I'm discussing. Why should Western values, be they catholic or muslim, be enforced on an African country, when the same nations absolutely refuse to adhere or yield to the culture and values of the African country?

It's hypocrisy, and what I'm asking is; why should it be acceptable?
People object to what is against their beliefs.  It just happens that the west has generally congruous beliefs, that are completely different from those of Islamic nations.  The west has more power and influence than those Middle Eastern/African countries.

Also, what if the roles were reversed?  What if some Sudanese citizen teaching the US were to be convicted of "denouncing Christianity" because they named the class chihuahua "Jesus".  It's an ethnic name too, but nevermind that.  Assume the punishment was the same, while angry mobs of Americans called for their execution, don't you think the Sudan would apply some political pressure?
2007-12-03 13:45:58
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,992|7070|949

SenorToenails wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Actually, the latter would likely be charged with inciting religious hatred, whereas the former would likely be charged with insulting Islam. Two different crimes, and two very different spectra of punishment.

The idea of having a spectrum of punishment in the first place is to grant leniency in sentencing based on intent, and that's exactly what happened when they let her off with 15 days of incarceration and subsequent deportation.
If a man named Mohammad is convicted of being a thief, is he then charged with insulting Islam?  I mean, the guy has the same name as the prophet and he committed a fairly bad act.  Uh oh.
Naming a man Mohammad could be construed as honoring the prophet.  Naming an inanimate object after a prophet could be seen as an insult.  There is a difference.

Now, what if you were to refer to Mohammed (the prophet, not the person) as a thief? Then I could see the case for insulting Islam, as opposed to referring to the man being a thief and also being named Mohammed?

Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the actions or results, but there is fallacy in your logic I think.
2007-12-03 14:37:24
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

SenorToenails wrote:

mikkel wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


The circumstances of the case have everything to do with the international pressure.  Firstly, her "insult" to Islam is generally considered absurd to Muslims in the west.  Why?  Because it does not insult Islam.  At all.  I think that pretty much justifies the pressure.  Of course, the Sudanese government could have completely disregarded it, and let the punishment stand.  Yet they did not, maybe because they agree it was absurd.  Maybe as a sign of good will to the British.  Who knows why.

I don't see anything wrong with applying pressure on a foreign government to obtain a goal.  After all, no one is forcing that government to actually do anything.
The circumstances of the case, not the circumstances of discovery. There's a very clear distinction. The sentencing is obviously relevant to the crime committed, but it's irrelevant to how the crime was discovered. The government also did not pardon the teacher. The president did, unilaterally, circumventing the verdict presented by the justice system.

You're comparing the values of Western muslims with the values of African muslims and deciding that what the Western muslims think about the case is what's right. That's exactly the problem I'm discussing. Why should Western values, be they catholic or muslim, be enforced on an African country, when the same nations absolutely refuse to adhere or yield to the culture and values of the African country?

It's hypocrisy, and what I'm asking is; why should it be acceptable?
People object to what is against their beliefs.  It just happens that the west has generally congruous beliefs, that are completely different from those of Islamic nations.  The west has more power and influence than those Middle Eastern/African countries.

Also, what if the roles were reversed?  What if some Sudanese citizen teaching the US were to be convicted of "denouncing Christianity" because they named the class chihuahua "Jesus".  It's an ethnic name too, but nevermind that.  Assume the punishment was the same, while angry mobs of Americans called for their execution, don't you think the Sudan would apply some political pressure?
I didn't really make this thread to argue hypothetical situations, and I am already aware of the geopolitical situation. If things were the other way around, I would be asking the same question. Is this just plain old hypocrisy, or is it justifiable, and if so, what arguments favour this kind of hypocrisy?
2007-12-03 14:41:46
Snake
Missing, Presumed Dead
+1,046|7004|England

My god, I hope this gets broadcast all over their TV networks:

https://www.taz.de/blogs/wp-inst/wp-content/blogs.dir/44/files/2006/11/LEGO%20Mohammed.jpg


Things like that will make this teddybear bullshit seem like nothing.

I know its "against the Qu'ran" to take the piss out of Mohammed THE Prophet - but I didnt realise that it was a national law in their country to imprison teachers for abiding by their childrens wishes.
If MUSLIM CHILDREN ask for their teddy bear to be called Mohammend, then where the fuck is the problem? Seriously, lets upset all the kids in that school by saying "no, fuck off, we are calling it Jesus instead". How the hell is it her fault that THEY wanted to call the bear that? Does a teddy bear really show Mohammed to be a twat-faced-fucker? Is a teddy bear named "Mohammed" really causing offense to the prophet of Islam? I dont think so. BUT, if the bear was holding a pack of C4, an AK-47 and smoking a joint....which I seriously doubt....then yes, it is causing some sort of offense.
If their countries are this tight-assed, then damn, that must be one boring and humourless place.

Next thing you know, they will use the Bluepeter method and name the teddybear something completely different to what the majority wanted. (for you non UK people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peter#.22Socksgate.22 ).

This entire story is absolutly pathetic and I laugh at the entire case.
2007-12-03 15:19:47
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY
The hypocrisy is justified to those who do it.  It is unjustified to those it rebukes.
2007-12-03 15:32:35
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6931|Connecticut

CameronPoe wrote:

My take is this: what happens over in Backwardassland is their business.
Very USMarine"esque"....I like
Malloy must go
2007-12-03 15:39:24
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7119|Dayton, Ohio
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.
2007-12-03 16:03:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6843|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:

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?
I definitely see where you're coming from, but to me, it is painfully obvious that our cultures and laws are simply more logical than those of the Sudan.

Again, Sudan has proven that it cannot properly govern itself, and so the West has no choice but to rescue its citizens from the insanity that their system has become.  In addition to this, as a unified force, the West needs to occupy Sudan to restore order.  This may require some harsh decisions and methods, but in the end, order is paramount.  We cannot allow the chaos of Sudan to spread throughout Africa.  The Democratic Republic of Congo is also very worrisome at this moment, as is Zimbabwe.
2007-12-03 16:10:23
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6883|The Land of Scott Walker

Snake wrote:

BUT, if the bear was holding a pack of C4, an AK-47 and smoking a joint....which I seriously doubt....then yes, it is causing some sort of offense.
Me thinks only the joint would cause a problem . . .
2007-12-03 16:15:19
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

Stingray24 wrote:

Snake wrote:

BUT, if the bear was holding a pack of C4, an AK-47 and smoking a joint....which I seriously doubt....then yes, it is causing some sort of offense.
Me thinks only the joint would cause a problem . . .
No, the bear is holding a piece of pork roast and a bottle of liquor.
2007-12-03 18:31:55
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7210|PNW

mikkel wrote:

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?
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?

SenorToenails wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Snake wrote:

BUT, if the bear was holding a pack of C4, an AK-47 and smoking a joint....which I seriously doubt....then yes, it is causing some sort of offense.
Me thinks only the joint would cause a problem . . .
No, the bear is holding a piece of pork roast and a bottle of liquor.
Bowler cap, Cuban cigar, monocle and jack skivvies.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-03 18:33:43)

2007-12-03 21:32:16
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

Turquoise wrote:

I definitely see where you're coming from, but to me, it is painfully obvious that our cultures and laws are simply more logical than those of the Sudan.

Again, Sudan has proven that it cannot properly govern itself, and so the West has no choice but to rescue its citizens from the insanity that their system has become.  In addition to this, as a unified force, the West needs to occupy Sudan to restore order.  This may require some harsh decisions and methods, but in the end, order is paramount.  We cannot allow the chaos of Sudan to spread throughout Africa.  The Democratic Republic of Congo is also very worrisome at this moment, as is Zimbabwe.
Isn't it their right, though, to have their own culture, their own society and their own laws within their own borders, just like any other country? I can understand intervening in Darfur. That's a humanitarian crisis, and in my mind transcends national borders. I just don't see why other countries should be able to keep Sudan from enforcing their well-established laws, simply because a foreigner decided to work in Sudan and break a law that isn't really very secret to anyone.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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?
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.

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.

Snake wrote:

I know its "against the Qu'ran" to take the piss out of Mohammed THE Prophet - but I didnt realise that it was a national law in their country to imprison teachers for abiding by their childrens wishes.
If MUSLIM CHILDREN ask for their teddy bear to be called Mohammend, then where the fuck is the problem? Seriously, lets upset all the kids in that school by saying "no, fuck off, we are calling it Jesus instead". How the hell is it her fault that THEY wanted to call the bear that? Does a teddy bear really show Mohammed to be a twat-faced-fucker? Is a teddy bear named "Mohammed" really causing offense to the prophet of Islam? I dont think so. BUT, if the bear was holding a pack of C4, an AK-47 and smoking a joint....which I seriously doubt....then yes, it is causing some sort of offense.
If their countries are this tight-assed, then damn, that must be one boring and humourless place.

Next thing you know, they will use the Bluepeter method and name the teddybear something completely different to what the majority wanted. (for you non UK people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peter#.22Socksgate.22 ).

This entire story is absolutly pathetic and I laugh at the entire case.
There are no laws in Sudan dictating that teachers should be imprisoned for listening to their pupils. That's a very intellectually dishonest interpretation. There are long-standing and well-known blasphemy laws in Sudan that any foreigner should get acquainted with, especially before working with children in the country.

This woman was sentenced by the Sudanese legal system. Inarguably, they're more well-versed in the legislation of Sudan, so arguing against the premise for sentencing without the necessary insight seems pointless.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-03 21:39:42)

2007-12-03 21:40:49
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

mikkel wrote:

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.
I doubt that these rulers of smaller nations wouldn't try to make the west do things if they could.  But they can't.  And if they wanted, they could make the west's efforts an exercise in futility also.  The road goes both ways, its just that the lane of "governing advice" coming out of the west is a 10 lane uber-highway, and the opposing path is a goat trail.
2007-12-03 21:50:33
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7154
"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."

Rape and incest= naming a teddy bear...?  thats interesting...  she should leave that rathole and not go back...
Love is the answer
2007-12-03 21:53:54
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7210|PNW

mikkel wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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?
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.

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.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-03 21:55:07)

2007-12-03 22:12:36
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6762|New Haven, CT

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.
Assumably you want a link to the post which does so. Don't forget to ask for it.
2007-12-03 22:21:48
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6568|North Tonawanda, NY

nukchebi0 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

This has already been covered previously in the thread.
Because I have time to read every post ever written. Kthx.
Assumably you want a link to the post which does so. Don't forget to ask for it.
He might mean this:  Post by m3thod

m3thod wrote:

Although it's a common you shouldn't refer to a guy as Mohammed.  It's usually a name given to the child in honour of the prophet, you should really be using the second name i.e.

Mohammed Marine Grape, would and should be referred to as Marine, and never mohammed.  That's how it works.
2007-12-03 22:47:23
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6762|New Haven, CT
I see.
2007-12-04 02:55:26
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|7103|NT, like Mick Dundee

Western hypocrisy - is it warrented?

Well, no. It's not.



But who's going to stop us?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard