| Non-motoring > Sharia Law | Legal Questions |
| Thread Author: zippy | Replies: 116 |
|
New Fri 16 May 14 11:40
Sharia Law - zippy
|
|
I consider myself to be a moderate and with liberal views, but I can see trouble if it ever came here: "Sick B*s*e*ds" come to mind! www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27424064 |
|
New Fri 16 May 14 14:22
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
There certainly are some Islamist carphounds in the Sudanese regime. But it's a big country and quite laid-back for the most part, like neighbouring Egypt when the Islamist and other fascist toerags leave it alone for a minute. Things are seriously foxed in the back-of-beyond far South. But then they always have been. The girl won't hang and may not even do any real hard time. Fingers crossed of course. The left hand and right hand have greater autonomy in poorly-organised states, and ghastly things can happen. |
|
New Sat 17 May 14 21:19
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> The girl won't hang and may not even do any real hard time. Fingers crossed of course. Have to say my Iraqi comrade said that on the contrary, they will probably stone her to death. But something in his tone told me he wasn't entirely serious. He's a communist anyway and very down on believers. I suspect he agrees with me, including the fingers crossed. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 10:40
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
>> I suspect he agrees with me, including >> the fingers crossed. >> What an unpleasant place. Young lady is brought up by solely her mother, a Christian, because her Muslim father is absent. She gets to an age when she meets her man, marries him, as a Christian.... has a child... then gets told because her father was Muslim, she's automatically Muslim, the Christian marriage is void and she's going to be put to death, despite being a new mother... just because she's not prepared to be a Muslim??? It's the gross intolerance that gets me. Can you imagine that being tried the other way around, here? ...and people post on here that we don't need to be wary of Islam? |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 10:57
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> ...and people post on here that we don't need to be wary of Islam? Everyone here agrees it's an outrage, surely? Most Sudanese people would agree too. The problem isn't really Islam, it's mischievous or demented individuals who can be found in all countries and all religions. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 12:06
Sharia Law - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Everyone here agrees it's an outrage, surely? Most Sudanese people would agree too. The problem >> isn't really Islam, it's mischievous or demented individuals who can be found in all countries >> and all religions. What AC says. Sudan, along with it's near neighbour Somalia and to some extent Ethiopia and its offshoots have been unstable and wrought by tribal/ethnic faction fighting for years. By BiL did VSO in Sudan from 81-83 and it was already blowing up then. What I disagree with is conflating the actions of demented individuals in war torn failed nations with situation in UK. The thinking that we shouldn't, in a liberal and semi-secular democracy give 'them' any concession because 'look where it might lead' is ridiculous and frankly all to often a comfort blanket or cover for overt racism. I'm wary of any form of organised religion and a ratchet of concessions. The one that affects me is Christianity stopping me visiting the DIY store on Easter Sunday!! |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 12:47
Sharia Law - Manatee
|
|
>> The thinking that we shouldn't, in a liberal and semi-secular >> democracy give 'them' any concession because 'look where it might lead' is ridiculous The people most concerned about "concessions" being made capital of by fundamentalists are probably other muslims. >>and frankly >> all too often a comfort blanket or cover for overt racism. And apologists always play the race card. ( A comment that makes about as much sense, unless you meant to call me a racist, which I trust you didn't). >> I'm wary of any form of organised religion and a ratchet of concessions. So you changed your mind in mid-post?! >>The one >> that affects me is Christianity stopping me visiting the DIY store on Easter Sunday!! In jest maybe...but if that is to be enforcedly sacred, then where will it lead in King Charles's multi-faith state? Better to disconnect state and religion now, while the tie is weak? There may never be a better time to establish religious freedom properly, and equally. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 13:58
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
>> What I disagree with is conflating the actions of demented individuals in war torn failed >> nations with situation in UK. The thinking that we shouldn't, in a liberal and semi-secular >> democracy give 'them' any concession because 'look where it might lead' is ridiculous and frankly >> all to often a comfort blanket or cover for overt racism. If you were to be a politician, you'd be Neville Chamberlain. ...and you, as many do , bung racism in on the end of it, if you don't like someone else's viewpoint. It's designed to get people to back off. This one won't. >> I'm wary of any form of organised religion and a ratchet of concessions. The one >> that affects me is Christianity stopping me visiting the DIY store on Easter Sunday!! I'm wary as well.. and I don't like restrictions on my Sunday just to appease those that are religious.. however, because I live in a country with a Christian background, I accept it. For the record, I think the Christian Crusades were as bad as some of this Islam stuff...it's just that Islam is pretty much the only one completely still in the dark ages. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 14:24
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
What do you mean by "concession"? Nobody is stopping anybody else doing anything legal, are they? So I assume that people can already do whatever they want? So what concession does anybody need? Or if you mean the concession to do something not in accordance with the law, then they can just sod right off. If you mean the whole Subway/Pizza Express meat thing, then that wasn't driven by any religion, it was business driven, they don't need any concession to make those decisions, nor do they need protecting from the implications of their decision. But I don't really know what "concession" you mean. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 15:27
Sharia Law - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> But I don't really know what "concession" you mean. I thought I'd borrowed the phrase 'ratchet of concessions' from somebody else. Discussion about Islam/Sharia/Halal has got spread over three threads and I cannot find the quote. There are plenty of people though, including some here, who seem to see the Halal thing in supermarkets and catering as a concession. The Islamic scholar writing in the DM and referenced by Manatee implied as much suggesting, albeit with no evidence, that it followed pressure from Wahabi and other sects. You're quite right that it's purely a commercial decision and one that might have implications. I suspect though that Tesco etc are experienced enough to have tested the issue with focus groups etc. Following that they've a pretty clear idea that most of public don't give a stuff once the (non) difference is explained. The absence of a twitter storm following recent publicity suggests they called that one right. You don't need to look to hard to find those who think allowing Mosques (and places of worship for Sikhs, Hindis etc) as a concession and one we've allowed to go too far. No laws broken there either. It's not just about what's legal either since statute law is littered with concessions/exemptions for religion. Ritual slaughter without stunning is one and the exemption for Sikhs from the wearing of skid lids is another. Christianity, particularly the CoE, gains also sorts of concessions and advantages ranging through Bishops in the Lords*, Easter Sunday closing, religious worship in schools and very recently the triple lock on gay marriage. If you listen to Today in Parliament or study Hansard, you'll find requests to add clauses to bills so as to deal with religious sensitivities are pretty commonplace. *I actually think this works quite well as does having Life Peers with other religious backgrounds. You wouldn't get the Lords if you started with a blank sheet of paper but for something arrived at by accident it works pretty well. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 15:45
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
If it is in the law, then what is being done is within the law. That's not, in my mind, a concession. >>You don't need to look to hard to find those who think allowing Mosques (and places of worship for Sikhs, Hindis etc) as a concession and one we've allowed to go too far. Because they're prejudiced bigots - in my opinion, of course. >> If you listen to Today in Parliament or study Hansard, you'll find requests to add clauses to bills so as to deal with religious sensitivities are pretty commonplace. Within the law, following the law, using the law as it was intended. So not actually a concession then. If politicians have done something people don;t like, then I suggest in future those people pay more attention. However, the most salient phrase in your e-mail is "that most of public don't give a stuff". The problem is within the public. Give a stuff, make your politicians believe that you mean what you say, and either they won't get elected or it is right that you should live with what they do. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 17:02
Sharia Law - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Within the law, following the law, using the law as it was intended. So not >> actually a concession then. We may be using the word concession slightly differently. If legislation is adapted at drafting stage or during committee to provide an exemption or defence for particular religious/cultural group I'd say that falls within definition of concession. But it's a semantic point as we're both saying same thing in end. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 15:35
Sharia Law - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> If you were to be a politician, you'd be Neville Chamberlain. If we could have signatures on this site I'd wear that one with pride. With due acknowledgement naturally. Do you seriously believe that Islam in the UK is a threat on a par with Fascism? >> ...and you, as many do , bung racism in on the end of it, if >> you don't like someone else's viewpoint. It's designed to get people to back off. This >> one won't. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular but I was in total agreement with Mark's conclusion 13:25 Friday in the Halal meat thread. >> I'm wary as well.. and I don't like restrictions on my Sunday just to appease >> those that are religious.. however, because I live in a country with a Christian background, >> I accept it. But an increasing number of the population reject that Christian background or never held to it in first place. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 11:03
Sharia Law - FocalPoint
|
|
"...and people post on here that we don't need to be wary of Islam?" I believe we do need to be very wary of Islam. The case of the young woman in question disgusts me. What gets me is the arrogance of the believers of this extreme fundamentalist version of Islam - which is not shared by all Muslims; nonetheless, the numbers of those who do take this line, supported and sponsored by certain states, is considerable and growing. As I have said elsewhere, the human desire for certainty and simplicity and, apparently, for some paternalistic established view of life which cuts out the need to think for oneself, take individual responsibility and embrace the differences in human culture manifests itself in this aggressive form of an otherwise perfectly acceptable religion - misguided, in my view, but still unexceptionable. The Christian church was, in the past, another example of such an arrogant, aggressive religion, but it seems Islam has maintained and intensified this trait, based of course on a sense of inferiority to the western world. Some of their believers still mourn the loss of Moorish Spain to the Christians all those centuries ago. Last edited by: FocalPoint on Sun 18 May 14 at 11:04
|
|
New Sun 18 May 14 12:01
Sharia Law - NortonES2
|
| Yes, and they conveniently forget that Islam was (and is) a colonial power, imposing "religion" and plantation, at the point of the sword. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 15:02
Sharia Law - Runfer D'Hills
|
|
I approve of any excuse to shut DIY stores for a day. Bit of a result as far as I'm concerned. It's actually impossible to visit one without buying something you've never heard of for a purpose you were not previously apprised of. This not only depletes your bank account unexpectedly but also leads to the ruination of at least the weekend concerned if not several more to follow. I would support their closure from Friday nights to respect those members of the community who take their religious succour from then through to and including Sundays to nod to the fundamentalist Christians. Bring it on I say. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 15:27
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
There's been nowhere to play remote control cars, teach kids to cycle and roller blade, or to fly model planes since DIY places started opening on Sundays. Seriously though, I regret the change in Sundays. Not for any religious reasons, I just liked the day being different. I once turned down, what was at the time, my dream job, because it involved working on a Sunday. Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 18 May 14 at 15:28
|
|
New Sun 18 May 14 15:30
Sharia Law - Runfer D'Hills
|
| Barman? |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 15:36
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
Don't be a fool, like I'd turn that down!!! I've been a barman many times. Manager of a motorists discount centre - the kind of store you could get advice as well as parts from, not just furry dice and air fresheners. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 17:22
Sharia Law - madf
|
|
"...and people post on here that we don't need to be wary of Islam?" lets see: 9/11 and 7/7 say we are correct to be wary of Islam |
|
New Mon 23 Jun 14 15:45
Sharia Law - MD
|
| Nutters one and all. Good riddance to the lot of them. |
|
New Mon 23 Jun 14 15:42
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> The girl won't hang and may not even do any real hard time. Fingers crossed of course. The left hand and right hand have greater autonomy in poorly-organised states, and ghastly things can happen. What did I say? She's been let out and the charges have been dropped. She may need to stay on her guard against individual zealots of course. |
|
New Mon 23 Jun 14 16:47
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> What did I say? She's been let out and the charges have been dropped. Actually I wasn't 100% right: she did do a bit of hard time, having had to give birth in chains in the slammer. That must have been fun. But the main thing is that the state isn't going to hang her and has let her out. Alhamdulillah! she would say, were she not an apostate... but Thanks be to God means the same thing. |
|
New Mon 23 Jun 14 17:17
Sharia Law - Haywain
|
|
"But the main thing is that the state isn't going to hang her" Well, isn't that nice of them! And, looking further on the bright side, I bet the whole experience has cured her of constipation. |
|
New Fri 16 May 14 15:34
Sharia Law - Manatee
|
|
I had an interesting exposure to a minor aspect of Sharia a few years ago when I had a project related to Sharia compliant financial products. Usury is not permitted, and the definition of usury is essentially profit/interest from lending (depending on scholarly interpretation of course). So for example when a customer wants a 'loan' he buys a commodity from the bank on deferred terms which include a mark up. The bank buys say £10,000 (the purchase price) worth of metal; The bank then sells the metal for say £11,000 (the selling price) to the customer, who will pay the bank the selling price by instalments over say 2 years. The bank then, on behalf of the customer, sells the metal back to the dealer and gives the customer the proceeds. So the bank hasn't lent money or charged interest. It has simply bought some metal, and sold it on deferred terms to the customer with a mark up, as permitted. The customer has not borrowed any money or paid any interest; all he has done is bought something, with an agreement to pay in instalments, and sold it immediately for a lower amount to provide the funds he needs for a new car or whatever. An alternative structure, used for mortgages for example, is for the bank to buy the house, and to sell it on instalments to the customer. Neither will the bank pay interest on deposits; but they will pay the customer a share of the bank's profit (which of course varies with interest rates from time to time). E&OE. I can guarantee that my descriptions here are not Sharia compliant, this is a layman's recollection not a scholarly guide. I found all this very interesting. What might look to a detached observer as if it is all a wheeze, a mere facade, window dressing, from the customer's and the bank's point of view, is an ethical product (a perfectly valid position within the rules applied). |
|
New Fri 16 May 14 16:00
Sharia Law - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> An alternative structure, used for mortgages for example, is for the bank to buy the >> house, and to sell it on instalments to the customer. >> So ownership is actually shared legally, and registered as such? Any capital gain accrues partly to the bank, who pay CGT, because of course it is not the bank's principal private residence? Or is all that just a pretence, and in reality the "borrower" is the legal owner all the time? |
|
New Fri 16 May 14 16:18
Sharia Law - Manatee
|
|
>> >> >> >> >> An alternative structure, used for mortgages for example, is for the bank to buy >> the >> >> house, and to sell it on instalments to the customer. >> >> >> >> So ownership is actually shared legally, and registered as such? >> Any capital gain accrues partly to the bank, who pay CGT, because of course it >> is not the bank's principal private residence? >> >> Or is all that just a pretence, and in reality the "borrower" is the legal >> owner all the time? You're taking me out of my depth... but I don't think there is necessarily a problem with the bank transferring ownership and taking security, possibly in the form of a mortgage. The key point I imagine is that the bank buys from the vendor, and the end purchaser buys from the bank, and the bank's profit is the markup on the property. E&OE again. |
|
New Fri 16 May 14 16:09
Sharia Law - Haywain
|
|
That reminds me of an arab character in a book of short stories that we read for GCE French literature 50 years ago; ISTR it was by Prosper Merimee. (sorry, can't do accents on this computer). At a party, he would announce that, because of his religion, he was not allowed to touch a drop of alcohol. He would turn round, pour a drop of wine from his glass and declare that was the drop he shouldn't touch. |
|
New Sat 17 May 14 11:14
Sharia Law - Ambo
|
| Malay friends (all ipso facto Muslims) have told me the alcohol prohibition covers getting drunk, not drinking as such. But that was then and I fancy the Muslim authorities are less relaxed about it now, 40 years later. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 14:52
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
In fact what the Prophet forbade was praying while intoxicated. But since he also ordered believers to pray five times a day at more or less regular intervals, Muslims tend not to drink at all just to be on the safe side, and many believe wrongly that alcohol is absolutely prohibited. Personally I can have two or three large drinks without becoming what I would call intoxicated: cheerful perhaps but still safe to drive, and no more gross, offensive and stupid than I am when sober. The problem for Muslims must be deciding where the dividing line comes. Perhaps there's something in Arab genes that makes Middle Easterners more susceptible to booze than we are. Anyway the rules as understood play safe. I've met a lot of Muslim believers, or people who said they were believers, who drank like fish. I would imagine that in many cases their prayers were a bit perfunctory too. |
|
New Sun 18 May 14 14:56
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
>>Personally I can have two or three large drinks without becoming what I would call intoxicated: I quite agree. Strangely my wife seems to believe that after half a shandy I am even more gross, offensive and stupid than I am when sober. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 05:34
Sharia Law - Pat
|
|
>>Strangely my wife seems to believe that after half a shandy I am even more gross, offensive and stupid than I am when sober. << It would seem she knows you very well:) Pat |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 05:38
Sharia Law - Pat
|
|
I hasten to add that, by and large, I prefer some people to be that way. It means they are far more interesting, alive and have more depth to them than others who can be bland and boring! That's why I miss Zero. Pat |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 06:46
Sharia Law - Duncan
|
|
>> >> That's why I miss Zero. >> >> Pat >> Well, he came up for one of your lorry driver weekend things, didn't he? I assume you have his contact details, you could get in touch, see how he is and ask him what it's all about. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 07:23
Sharia Law - Pat
|
|
He didn't come in the end Duncan, but I have emailed him a week or so ago and have had no reply, which is unusual. Pat |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 11:24
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
>> Personally I can have two or three large drinks without becoming what I would call >> intoxicated: cheerful perhaps but still safe to drive I hope the fuzz find you one day after that lot before you kill someone. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 11:51
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I hope the fuzz find you one day after that lot before you kill someone. Oh really Alanović... I am almost tempted to be rude. But I suppose you can't help being naive and sanctimonious. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:09
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
Your constant and unwavering support for drink driving is quite rude and offensive enough, AC. I don't think you could say much worse. If you don't understand that drink impairs your cognitive abilities, whatever your own perception from behind that drink might be, thereby rendering you unsafe to drive, you ought to have your licence removed. Take that for sanctimonious. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:20
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Take that for sanctimonious. And naive, don't forget. Bon enfant. Puppyish. Silly. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:29
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
Yes, of course. Unleash the patronisation. Really hurtful stuff that. Just because I'm younger must mean I don't know what I'm talking about. It can't be you who just doesn't want to face the truth of the matter because it doesn't suit you. Oh no. .******* |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:30
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
| Take the word "router", and replace the "U" with a "T". That's what the swear filter doesn't want you to see. Not really that bad, is it? A bit "rotten" of me, perhaps. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:42
Sharia Law - VxFan
|
|
>> Take the word "router", and replace the "U" with a "T". That's what the swear >> filter doesn't want you to see. But the word rotter isn't in the swear filter. I hope you're not intoxicated while operating your keyboard and managed to mistype it ;) |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:48
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
Actually, there was a larger chunk of that message deleted, either by the forum or by myself being a ham fisted typist. It contained a word used to describe the sensation of being drunk, beginning with a p and ending with a issed. So perhaps the forum nuked the lot. Anyway, I was trying to say that it's hard to understand how a self-professed motoring enthusiast lacks the simple respect for the pastime that, if present, would prevent that enthusiast from thinking it acceptable to engage in that pastime when incapacitated. Of course, AC doesn't think he's incapacitated, and no doubt reckons that the extra relaxant properties of the booze actually make him a better driver. The rest of us, of course, naive and puppyish that we are, know that is the sure sign of someone in denial, who has let the drink get far too much a grip on them. Even when sober it clouds their judgement. It was something like that, anyway. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:29
Sharia Law - Focusless
|
|
>> Oh really Alanović... I am almost tempted to be rude. But I suppose you can't >> help being naive and sanctimonious. Red face from me AC, especially if you're attempting a wind-up. Last edited by: Focusless on Mon 19 May 14 at 12:29
|
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:32
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
>> if you're attempting a wind-up. >> I suppose he could be, FL. Fair enough. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:36
Sharia Law - Focusless
|
|
>> I suppose he could be, FL. Fair enough. Makes it worse IMO given the history. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:46
Sharia Law - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Makes it worse IMO given the history. >> He's been told before so no excuse for being unaware. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:52
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
Bromp, I don't beg special treatment. My own circumstances to one side, he's entitled to his opinion and I'm entitled to point out that he can't think straight. Either that or it's still 1953 chez AC. Bring it on. The more we get old fashioned and wrong headed views like his challenged, the better. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 12:56
Sharia Law - FocalPoint
|
|
AC is a bit of a character and he cultivates that. No point in getting upset about his eccentricities. Treat him like that slightly embarrassing uncle at a wedding - ever so slightly inebriated (not really "drunk", of course) and making entertaining remarks which occasionally upset people. I shouldn't have put that. He will read it and think I am being patronising. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 13:26
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
This has all been rehearsed in exhaustive detail on previous occasions, so I'm not going to argue round and round and round. I'm sorry Alanović thinks I'm a rotter. I think he means well. He just doesn't understand much about driving or alcohol, and failed to take in what was said in earlier threads. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that if I was going to kill anyone I would have done it when young, inexperienced and sometimes reckless. It may be that some here doubt their own driving ability after a moderate dose of alcohol. I certainly recognise the point at which relaxed becomes sloppy, and stay below it when driving. It's perfectly virtuous not to drive at all after even a drop of alcohol, like several posters here. Good luck to them. I just don't know how they can stand it. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 13:30
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
>> He just doesn't >> understand much about driving or alcohol Evidently more than you do. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 13:37
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Evidently more than you do. Impressive use of limited experience Alanović. You are to be congratulated. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 13:49
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
Interesting, going by thumbs and frownies, it appears that 4 people agree with AC's views on drinking & driving and 1 person is offended by Al's. I don't suppose any of you would be prepared to wander into the daylight and explain? I wrote about the difference between good and lucky the other day, AC. A length of time can be proof of either. The fact remains that with alcohol in your system you are less well-equipped to react to something going wrong than you are without it. Whether you deem that a significant amount less or not, it remains true. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:03
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I wrote about the difference between good and lucky the other day, AC. A length of time can be proof of either. Of course anyone at all can get unlucky and be run into at any time. Like you the other day in Chile. But I reject the suggestion that I've been driving, sometimes after a drink, for fifty years without killing or maiming anyone or writing a car off merely through blind luck. The overwhelming probability is that I am not dangerous. But have it your own harrumphing way all of you (except the sensible ones). |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:12
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
>>The overwhelming probability is that I am not dangerous. The overwhelming certainty is that you would be safer without a drink. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:25
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> The overwhelming certainty is that you would be safer without a drink. Balderdash. I'm safe already. How can I be safer than that? Puritanical gobbledygook. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:48
Sharia Law - Manatee
|
|
>> >>The overwhelming probability is that I am not dangerous. >> >> The overwhelming certainty is that you would be safer without a drink. Probably. No real doubt of its effects on reflexes and judgement. But one could aim off for that, at the level of a pint or two. The really nasty effect though is the insidious way improvement that alcohol brings about in the opinion of the drinker's own ability. In a nutshell, it makes your peformance worse, while making you think it's better. Presumably this accounts for those people who genuinely think they drive better with a couple of pints in. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 15:02
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> In a nutshell, it makes your peformance worse, while making you think it's better. I must be unusual then. I am fully aware that drink even in small quantities slows reaction times (but insignificantly in this context) and 'lowers IQ'. That's why I don't drive when I am drunk (almost never these days actually). Nor do I imagine that being shickered makes me more amusing and intelligent. Obviously you can't recommend learner drivers to have a drink before taking the test unless you know them very well. I note with interest Lygonos's disclosure that he doses people with blood pressure stuff to relax them. Beta blockers didn't agree with me at all. Is it legal? What does he write in their files? Not sure I want to know. :o} |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:15
Sharia Law - Lygonos
|
|
I am sure using some scientific rig we could show a statistical difference between AC's (and every else's) reaction times and ability to deal with surprise events comparing sober with modest/high amounts of alcohol. Whether this statistical difference plays out to make a difference in reality is what I expect AC is trying to put forward - a 0.01s slower reaction time might be observed time and time again and thus be statistically significant, but not actually affect crash rates. He's absolutely right, as some alcoholics will perform better with 4 beers than when sober, some regular Joes/Janes will perform almost identically with the legal limit in their blood, and some will be obviously worse. There are 2 problems: 1. Joes and Janes aren't always aware of their impairment (watch TV personalities drunk/stoned/high to see how they think they are oh-so-funny/clever while they just appear wasted) 2. The Law needs black and white to make enforcement easier. Like democracy it's not perfect but it's the best we have - allowing individuals to decide how the Law should apply to them isn't exactly going to work, is it? |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:30
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Like democracy it's not perfect but it's the best we have - allowing individuals to decide how the Law should apply to them isn't exactly going to work, is it? Good post Lygonos. Of course people should be deterred from driving plastered, and these days I stay below the limit which seems about right (I used to think it was on the low side but as I get older booze affects me more... something of which I am always well aware). |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:10
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
>> I don't suppose any of you would be prepared to wander into the daylight and >> explain? Mystifying, isn't it? I thought this was where motoring enthusiasts hung out, people who took pride in the skill of driving. Obviously not. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:08
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
>> Impressive use of limited experience Alanović. You are to be congratulated. >> Thanks. What you see as limited, is or course, relative, and quantity is no guarantee of quality. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:11
Sharia Law - Dog
|
|
Listening to the wireless just now, geezer takes 8 Co-codamol per day for pain’ should he operate a motor vehicle? In my miss-spent youth I drove ‘under the influence’ of hashish, lsd, and alcohol, without injuring anyone, apart from a few cars :( Mr Coussine is ‘an habitual drinker’, so can handle a few snifters with little if any effect of his driving ability, does that make it okay though? These days I’m for zero tolerance – if you drive, then don’t drink. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:22
Sharia Law - Bromptonaut
|
|
There's co-codamol and there's co-codamol. Over the counter it's 500mg Paracetomol and 8mg codeine. Assuming they're taken in pairs an four hour plus intervals driving ability should not be impaired. On prescription they can be at least 500/30, which I was given after I broke my hip & collar bone. Wouldn't like to drive with that dose on board. Cough remedies and OTC anti-histamines are risky too. There used to be several OTC stress headache preparations that combined paracetomol, codeine and the anti-histamine doxylamine succinate - the last as a muscle relaxant. Brand names included Syndol and Propain PLus. Given how well I slept on train home after two of those I'd be wary indeed of mixing them with driving. They disappeared about two years ago, apparently after some product licence issues. More process than safety related AFAIU and some possibility of Syndol being back on shelves in late 2014. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 15:14
Sharia Law - Dog
|
|
>>On prescription they can be at least 500/30, which I was given after I broke my hip & collar bone. Wouldn't like to drive with that dose on board. I should imagine he's on prescription meds being it's a chronic condition due to him smashing (almost losing) his foot many moons ago in a road accident. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:20
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> quantity is no guarantee of quality. No, it isn't. Perhaps the fact that you have probably done less driving and less alcohol than I have has left your mind and body crystal clear and tensed for action on any subject other than driving and alcohol. On those, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Spouting half-digested Wikipedia stuff about cognitive impairment and denial... Tchah! It's true by the way that a single drink can improve the driving of a very tense, nervous beginner by slowing their reactions slightly. It's far more important to react correctly than it is to react instantly. More important still to be surveying the scene ahead so that 'reaction' as such is seldom needed. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:23
Sharia Law - Lygonos
|
|
>>It's true by the way that a single drink can improve the driving of a very tense, nervous beginner by slowing their reactions slightly That's the message to send them ;-) Occasionally we may give a very nervous driver who has failed a few tests some beta-blocker (such as propranolol) to reduce the effect of adrenaline on their peripheries. We don't however give them valium or advise a drink beforehand as they both lower their user's IQ until they wear off. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:30
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
"It's true by the way that a single drink can improve the driving of a very tense, nervous beginner by slowing their reactions slightly. It's far more important to react correctly than it is to react instantly. More important still to be surveying the scene ahead so that 'reaction' as such is seldom needed." I'd like to see you prove that. I'd love you to provide a link to an authoritative, peer reviewed source on driving skills which recommends the taking of drink for beginners. It really has got you, the drink, hasn't it? It can do no wrong, a wonder drug. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed a few bottles of chilled white this weekend. But the teetotal wife drove when wheels were needed. Wikipedia? Ho ho, got some spyware on my PC have you? Anyway. I refer the gentleman to the post made by NoFM2R, Mon 19 May 14 14:12. It's all you need to know. Case closed. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 14:36
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> It's all you need to know. >> Case closed. Thank God for that. Now you can stop wittering. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 15:24
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
| I am giggling at the thought of all the pious Muslims who are looking in at this thread in the hope of a learned discussion on Shari'a law, and being rewarded with a long wrangle about the details of (yuck!) drink-driving. Seems cruel somehow. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 15:38
Sharia Law - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> I am giggling at the thought of all the pious Muslims who are looking in >> at this thread in the hope of a learned discussion on Shari'a law, and being >> rewarded with a long wrangle about the details of (yuck!) drink-driving. Seems cruel somehow. >> It is a motoring forum after all. Perhaps they would giggle if you innocently went to a Sharia law forum looking for information about drink/driving limits. |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 18:07
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
Actually I've stopped feeling for Muslims looking in. Driving in my case takes the place of praying in theirs. One can be cheerful and relaxed but not intoxicated when the time for praying or driving comes up in say four or five hours. No one should get the impression that I am what the world calls a heavy drinker. I know and have known many heavier (but usually equally responsible when they have been drivers). Knew an Algerian military security man who drank in the usual Algerian kamikaze fashion and then drove a Peugeot 504 in the Algiers banlieue at dangerous speeds. Even I was a bit alarmed. Yee-hah! Time for a snorterino I see. Cheers, if that doesn't offend you too much... |
|
New Mon 19 May 14 18:34
Sharia Law - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> Yee-hah! Time for a snorterino I see. Cheers, if that doesn't offend you too much... >> >> Why on earth should it? I've just had the same idea myself. There was a good cartoon, probably Matt, recently: Patient with very red nose in the doctor's surgery, the doc consulting his notes. "Do you drink?" "Well it's a bit early for me, but as you ask, mine's a gin & tonic please". Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Mon 19 May 14 at 18:34
|
|
New Tue 20 May 14 02:44
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Why on earth should it? I've just had the same idea myself. I didn't mean you personally CP, just anyone who might be offended for whatever reason. Time for bed I think. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 09:32
Sharia Law - Roger.
|
|
OK, here's summat else for the had-wringers here to be "offended" by! www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/07/It-s-finally-time-to-ban-the-burka-so-let-s-just-get-on-with-it |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 10:23
Sharia Law - Slidingpillar
|
|
What, a lot of words - mostly meaningless? All the article tells us is the writer is fond of his own voice. A tricky subject to discus since you'll probably upset someone no matter what you say, but my understanding is the full covering is not in the Koran and is an interpretation of it. So not all female followers of Islam wear a burka or a variant. And since even this will have annoyed somebody - I'll say no more. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 14:40
Sharia Law - Lygonos
|
|
Oh Wow! A 'right-wing libertarian' wanting to crush other peoples' liberty. Fancy posting some links of all the atrocities committed by burka-wearers in the West? Who'da thunk it. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 14:50
Sharia Law - CGNorwich
|
|
"OK, here's summat else for the had-wringers here to be "offended" by!" It seems to be Mr Breitbart and his motley rabble of supporters who are claiming to be offended. I don't think most people particularly care what other wear. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 15:04
Sharia Law - sooty123
|
| Goverment legislation on what clothes people can and can't wear? How very 'big Government' I didn't realise you were a fan. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 15:08
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
| I wish I knew how to post it. But allow me to recommend in this context the small cartoon at the bottom of p. 7 in the current Private Eye. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 15:10
Sharia Law - CGNorwich
|
|
We could just reinstate the Elizabethan sumptuary laws. elizabethan.org/sumptuary/who-wears-what.html |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 15:15
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
No mention of huge jewelled cod-pieces with little bells on them. Have they been censored one wonders? :o} |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 16:36
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
I was impressed with this: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10948725/New-airport-security-measures-unavoidable-says-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind.html |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 16:42
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
>> I was impressed with this: .. and further to that, Sharia Law and the burka have no place in this free and open country. I find it very hard to accept that women would freely wish to wear one.. and those that claim to wish to do so are brought up in such closed and one sided communities that they are brain-washed ..and we owe it to their female children to ban the thing, so that there can actually be equality, rather than just pretending there is... or allowing equality for some, but not others. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 16:56
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
>.. and further to that, Sharia Law and the burka have no place in this free and open country. So, "free and open" to do what you approve of? But not "free and open" to wear a burka because you don't approve? That's not how I understood "free and open" to work. >>I find it very hard to accept that women would freely wish to wear one So, because you find it hard to accept it must be that " those that claim to wish to do so ..... are brain-washed"? >>or allowing equality for some, but not others. Presumably by allowing everybody to be free to wear clothing you approve of? Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 7 Jul 14 at 16:57
|
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 19:52
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
>> >.. and further to that, Sharia Law and the burka have no place in this >> free and open country. >> >> So, "free and open" to do what you approve of? But not "free and open" >> to wear a burka because you don't approve? I don't believe it is right for 50% of the population to have to walk around the streets with a sheet over their head when they reach adulthood, just because some people in the other 50% decree so. That's how I understood "free and open" to work. >> >>I find it very hard to accept that women would freely wish to wear one >> >> So, because you find it hard to accept it must be that " those that >> claim to wish to do so ..... are brain-washed"? Yes. I consider myself to be a rational and fair minded person. In general I couldn't care less what people wear. Would we be having this same conversation if the issue was women being on leads? >> >>or allowing equality for some, but not others. >> >> Presumably by allowing everybody to be free to wear clothing you approve of? See above re leads. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 20:03
Sharia Law - Lygonos
|
|
Spoken to many burka wearers? Thought not. What about headscarves without a veil? Or skullcaps? Or turbans? Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 7 Jul 14 at 20:05
|
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 20:46
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
>> Spoken to many burka wearers? >> >> Thought not. None ..and your point is? Mine is, that older women in some cultures acquiesce with and sometimes indulge in honour killings, perpetrated by the bigoted men in her family ..for a mother to do that to her child, she must have been brainwashed or be in fear, I cannot fathom any other reason. Same principle for a burka. >> >> >> What about headscarves without a veil? >> >> Or skullcaps? >> >> Or turbans? >> What a ridiculous post. Headscarves, skullcaps and turbans are not designed to restrict other people in our society, are they? |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 21:33
Sharia Law - Lygonos
|
|
>> Spoken to many burka wearers? >> None ..and your point is? That your position comes from ignorance, very much a "it stands to reason..." point of view. >> Headscarves, skullcaps and turbans are not designed to restrict other people in our society, are they? And neither are burkas - they enable the wearers to go out in public and function in society according to the (admittedly insane, but then what religion isn't based on delusion?) beliefs of the persons society. Do you think they go around their houses wearing the burka? As you will be more than aware having served the public for decades, the suppression of women by men is perpetrated by all colours and creeds, and does not require any type of uniform. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 22:14
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
>> >> Headscarves, skullcaps and turbans are not designed to restrict other people in our society, >> are they? >> >> And neither are burkas - Really? Do you truly believe that? They are designed to hide a woman so that men other than those that own/control her cannot look at her. they enable the wearers to go out in public and >> function in society according to the (admittedly insane, but then what religion isn't based on >> delusion?) beliefs of the persons society. So she couldn't function without the burka?..or is it more the case that she needs to function in an environment where other men cannot see her, because the one who controls her doesn't want that. >> Do you think they go around their houses wearing the burka? Well what do you think I think? >> >> As you will be more than aware having served the public for decades, the suppression >> of women by men is perpetrated by all colours and creeds, and does not require >> any type of uniform. Oh yes, of course, but it's not that many of them who insist on their missus walking around covered up in a sheet. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 10:33
Sharia Law - sooty123
|
|
>> They are designed to hide a woman so that men other than those that own/control >> her cannot look at her. >> What if women who weren't brainwashed/controlled wanted to wear them for their own personal reasons, would that be ok? |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 10:47
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
I'm with the fruitcakes on this one. No-one should be bowling around with their face covered other than for medical reasons. Religious reasons don't cut it. Much as I'd like a society where total freedom of expression exists, I'm afraid we don't live in one yet. It's a bit like freedom of speech. It has limits. For example, slander and libel being illegal. Face coverings should be considered an issue of public decency in this country. They are an insult, frankly. We have to accept the limits to our freedoms to truly enjoy freedom as best we can. I'm afraid if people don't wish to follow these principles then, well, the answer is clear: you can wear face veils as much as you like elsewhere. Ban. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 16:43
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
>> Face coverings should be considered an issue of public decency in this country. >>They are an insult, frankly. I'm kind of surprised. Seriously, simply focussing on the clothing, how are they insulting to someone who doesn't wear one? I can understand why you might not like them, but why does that matter? If one is offended by perceived oppression or brainwashing, then that should be addressed of course. But if I wish to walk down the street wearing a Klingon mask do you believe that should be outlawed? And how does that differ, if it does, to a woman willingly without oppression in a burka other than in your own mind? Now, perhaps you think she should not want to wear the burka, but are you saying it should be outlawed for what someone has decided is for her own good? Along with smoking, alcohol and unhealthy foods, for *our* own good? Oppression is bad, brainwashing is bad, etc. etc. But outlawing a piece of clothing makes no sense? Of course, choosing to wear an item of clothing comes with choices. For example if I wear a full face motorcycle crash helmet then I cannot go in a bank here. They are not saying I cannot wear a helmet at all, nor commenting on whether or not they think I should, nor stopping me because they don't like it, not because they aren't clever enough to understand it or too narrow minded to accept it. They stop it simply as a matter of safety and security. That seems fine to me, just as it seems fine to me for someone wearing a burka to have to identify themselves at passport control. it is a choice to wear it, and the restrictions come from security and safety concerns, not bigotry and ignorance, and shoudl be part of that choice. I can think of no reasons why Sikh's should be compelled to take of their turban, however they should choose between a turban and riding a motorcycle. If it is the law of this country that one must wear a helmet out of safety concerns, then it should be a law for all. Ditto the burka. If you want to wear one, then do so. Just live with the implications of that choice. |
|
New Wed 9 Jul 14 09:28
Sharia Law - Alanovich
|
|
>> how are they insulting to someone who doesn't wear >> one? We live in a society where it is considered polite to acknowledge and greet strangers in many circumstances, whatever their gender or creed. Wearing a face covering makes this societal convention difficult bordering on the impossible and is thereby insulting. In our culture we are open to each other as much as we can be, non verbal communication by means of facial gestures and movements is an important part of this. >> But if I wish to walk down the street wearing a Klingon mask do you >> believe that should be outlawed? Yes. If you want do it every single time you leave your own home. >> I can think of no reasons why Sikh's should be compelled to take of their >> turban, however they should choose between a turban and riding a motorcycle. If it is >> the law of this country that one must wear a helmet out of safety concerns, >> then it should be a law for all. I quite agree. Big difference between a turban and a burka/veil arrangement though. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 20:52
Sharia Law - No FM2R
|
|
>> I consider myself to be a rational and fair minded person Who wishes to control what other people do according to what he finds acceptable. >>That's how I understood "free and open" to work. Freedom is the right to do what one wishes. Not what just what others believe you should or should not do, and that includes what *you* believe others should or should not do. Whether that is being told to wear a burka or someone insisting that a law should be made to stop you. How can you talk of freedom and banning in the same sentence? And you're not saying "ban mistreatment", you're saying "ban the burka". That isn't about protecting some "brainwashed" woman, that's you responding to your own emotions about the burka and then offering rationalisation. >>Would we be having this same conversation if the issue was women being on leads? Yes, if you were arguing for banning it because you didn't like it, didn't understand it, or using whatever other emotion was centred upon yourself rather than the people you would like to make the law against. >>I consider myself to be a rational and fair minded person. You do not appear to be rational on these subjects, which would seemingly prevent you being fair-minded. I am going back to ignoring your bigotry and ignorance. Its better for my health. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 22:24
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
>> >> I consider myself to be a rational and fair minded person >> >> Who wishes to control what other people do according to what he finds acceptable. Who wishes the female members of our population who hail from an Islamic faith to not have to be treated like second class citizens. We are a free country in most aspects, why would you wish for some people to not be? >> >> >>That's how I understood "free and open" to work. >> >> Freedom is the right to do what one wishes. Yes, within certain acceptable boundaries decided by your peers, usually. >> Not what just what others believe >> you should or should not do, and that includes what *you* believe others should or >> should not do. This isn't about me. I am merely stating that I find it strange that within a country that prides itself on freedom, we allow some people to be... well, er..not so free. >> >> Whether that is being told to wear a burka or someone insisting that a law >> should be made to stop you. >> >> How can you talk of freedom and banning in the same sentence? Very easily. If someone is suppressed and has to do something.. it is then banned..hey presto they don't have to do it. It just takes a bit of lateral thinking. >> >>Would we be having this same conversation if the issue was women being on leads? >> >> Yes, if you were arguing for banning it because you didn't like it, didn't understand >> it, or using whatever other emotion was centred upon yourself rather than the people you >> would like to make the law against. So if I stated that *I* find it unacceptable that some women were lead around on leads.. you'd argue that as it was just my thoughts, then they should be??? >> >> >>I consider myself to be a rational and fair minded person. >> >> You do not appear to be rational on these subjects, which would seemingly prevent you >> being fair-minded. >> >> I am going back to ignoring your bigotry and ignorance. In your opinion of course.. what makes you 'right'? >> |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 10:51
Sharia Law - Bromptonaut
|
|
I think wp may be making a very broad cultural assumption in asserting that the burqa or scarf are solely products of male authority. My experience of Muslim colleagues is that its much more nuanced. The lady in scarf and robe I sat opposite for 5years was a pillar of the mosque on her own account, organising trips to Mecca, acting as treasurer for its charity etc. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 15:33
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
>> I think wp may be making a very broad cultural assumption in asserting that the >> burqa or scarf are solely products of male authority. Yes, that's pretty much correct. >> My experience of Muslim colleagues is that its much more nuanced. The lady in >> scarf and robe I sat opposite for 5years was a pillar of the mosque on >> her own account, organising trips to Mecca, acting as treasurer for its charity etc. >> I am not talking about scarves and robes, I'm talking about the burka and niqab. The Muslim ladies I worked with wore none of them. It matters not what they choose to wear, but I think it matters what they are expected to wear. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 15:50
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> It matters not what they choose to wear, but I think it matters what they are expected to wear. One has to remember though Westpig that (blood being thicker than water as they say) women living in these rabidly patriarchal misogynist societies are quite capable of internalising the ideology and becoming as it were willing participants. Many do. I've posted before on the related issue of female genital mutilation. An editor of mine at the somewhat haphazardly edited Africa magazine once had a stand-up row with me on the subject. He was an Ibo from the Niger delta and as a Catholic probably didn't practise it himself (as it were), but it was often felt in those days that Europeans didn't have a proper respect for people's traditions and ought to damn well shut up. We became so heated that anxious secretaries started peering round the door. And a black central African girl I once met, who had been cut, claimed that that was what made her an 'Arab' and a Muslim. Seems to me some backwoods traditions are a lot more worth preserving than some others. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 19:55
Sharia Law - NortonES2
|
| Many women in Iran are apparently revelling in snatched moments of freedom, to remove head-gear like the hijab. Never mind the niqab all-enveloping garment. This suggests that not all muslim women are enthusiasts for ancient Arabic habits, best suited to the swirling sands of the desert. Not that Persians are Arabs of course. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 20:14
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Many women in Iran are apparently revelling in snatched moments of freedom, Yes, they have been for a long time: rich women though, or women from very liberal intellectual backgrounds. People forget that the first Iranian dissent was socialist dissent under the Shah's regime. It was led by students and intellectuals and was repressed. A large part of the old bourgeoisie trickled away into exile. The 'Islamic revolution' followed, led by shrewd mullahs and massively supported by the backward Iranian peasantry and working class. That overthrew the rump of the Shah's regime but it's been an utter disaster for Iran. The country has picked itself up - the mullahs aren't stupid - and is more or less respectable these days, but it's never recovered. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 20:29
Sharia Law - NortonES2
|
|
BBC article here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-27373368 Quite a few Facebook entries originating in Iran which suggests more than a passing fad. A ludicrous priest-led repression. Theocracy? Henry VIII was right to get rid of the nested evil in monasteries. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 21:10
Sharia Law - Westpig
|
|
>> One has to remember though Westpig that (blood being thicker than water as they say) >> women living in these rabidly patriarchal misogynist societies are quite capable of internalising the ideology >> and becoming as it were willing participants. Many do. I think you are absolutely correct.....however it isn't necessarily right. I posted earlier about the mother assisting in an honour killing, must the same reasoning. >> I've posted before on the related issue of female genital mutilation. Yes, another area of suppression of women. I cannot imagine anyone on here would want that one to continue, but I do await with trepidation. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 23:31
Sharia Law - Lygonos
|
|
FGM of children? No ta. Rightly illegal - I'd also ban male circumcision for religious purposes before telling adults what to wear. Plenty of adults appear to succumb to body mutilation and no-one gives as toot. Don't remember seeing children in burkas. You see the difference? Adults... children... |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 23:52
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> FGM of children? >> No ta. Rightly illegal - I'd also ban male circumcision for religious purposes But of course it's usually done to people when they are children Lygonos. In Islam it's done by the Imam when the poor terrified boy is five or six. Female FGM is different, and done in just a few (but big) places. As far as I can make out it's done by older women in the girl's family, perhaps sometimes by some sort of medicine woman. It's painful and risky and can result in very long-lasting infections, conditions like fistula and so on. Although it's not an Islamic practice, but based on pre-Islamic techniques whose purpose is evidently to keep wives from straying by depriving sex of any pleasure for them, its victims believe what they have been told: that it's a rite of passage to make the poor girls into proper Muslims. >> You see the difference? >> Adults... children... There's no difference. Religious ideologies infantilise the faithful. Muslim adults are children in this connection. Or is that what you meant? Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 8 Jul 14 at 23:55
|
|
New Sun 31 Aug 14 09:48
Sharia Law - Bromptonaut
|
|
Interesting piece on yesterday's 'From Our Own Correspondent' about one woman's wearing/not wearing the headscarf. It's on listen again but substance is repeated in text on BBC website. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28967146 |
|
New Sun 31 Aug 14 10:33
Sharia Law - Roger.
|
|
There can be absolutely no problem with ladies, or men, wearing a head covering if their religion demands it. There IS a problem, in the UK, our country, if ladies - or men, wear clothing which completely obliterates their appearance or sex. |
|
New Sun 31 Aug 14 10:40
Sharia Law - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> There can be absolutely no problem with ladies, or men, wearing a head covering if >> their religion demands it. >> There IS a problem, in the UK, our country, if ladies - or men, wear >> clothing which completely obliterates their appearance or sex. I can see a few practical issues re appearance in areas where identity is crucial - foreign travel being the obvious one. This is though subject to pragmatic and practical solution, eg removing face coverings for a person of same gender. What on earth do you mean by 'obliterating their sex'? |
|
New Sun 31 Aug 14 10:55
Sharia Law - Zero
|
|
>> There IS a problem, in the UK, our country, if ladies - or men, wear >> clothing which completely obliterates their appearance or sex. Why? |
|
New Sun 31 Aug 14 11:42
Sharia Law - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> a problem, in the UK, our country, if ladies - or men, wear clothing which completely obliterates their appearance or sex. The turtle lives 'twixt plated decks Which practically conceal its sex. I think it clever of the turtle In such a fix to be so fertile. - Ogden Nash Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 31 Aug 14 at 11:43
|
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 18:05
Sharia Law - CGNorwich
|
| My velvet pantofles will have to go. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 20:12
Sharia Law - Runfer D'Hills
|
|
I guess you have to look at the world through another's eyes to begin to understand their position. If, for example, ridiculous as it might sound, your wife was required by law to bear her chest in public while visiting or living in another country and otherwise going about her normal business, both you and she might at least feel some embarrassment about that even if it was the norm in that culture and country. Now of course that sounds preposterous to anyone from a "western" background but my understanding is that to the community concerned the exposure of the face in public would feel very much the same. Much as we find that hard to understand. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 20:22
Sharia Law - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> even if it was the norm in that culture and country. >> > But you'd get over it and accept that you ought to forget your western prejudices and try and integrate a bit? When in Rome, etc? Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Mon 7 Jul 14 at 20:22
|
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 21:48
Sharia Law - Runfer D'Hills
|
|
Indeed Cliff of course, but in turn I'd also respect those who felt uncomfortable with doing so themselves I think. I don't know really, fairly obviously I don't begin to understand, but I guess the world looks different depending on whose eyes you're looking through and the cultural influences on the brain behind them. I wish all humans could just rub along in mutual respect, mutual integration and tolerance but so far anyway, we still manage to find plenty of reasons not to. |
|
New Mon 7 Jul 14 22:18
Sharia Law - madf
|
|
>> Indeed Cliff of course, but in turn I'd also respect those who felt uncomfortable with >> doing so themselves I think. >> >> I don't know really, fairly obviously I don't begin to understand, but I guess the >> world looks different depending on whose eyes you're looking through and the cultural influences on >> the brain behind them. >> >> I wish all humans could just rub along in mutual respect, mutual integration and tolerance >> but so far anyway, we still manage to find plenty of reasons not to. >> It's a bit difficult when several countries seem to enjoy periodic episodes of war, or killing people violently,or suppressing others and treating them as sub human etc etc.. The entire Middle East is a place where it's likely to be more centuries of conflict.. After all the Shia/Sunni wars are about 800 years old now. And the Israeil/Arab problems go back 3,000 years or so. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 08:39
Sharia Law - manuel_fawlty
|
|
>> >> >> >> even if it was the norm in that culture and country. >> >> >> > >> >> But you'd get over it and accept that you ought to forget your western prejudices >> and try and integrate a bit? When in Rome, etc? So in Rome women have to get their tits out? Thank you for that, holiday booked. |
|
New Tue 8 Jul 14 10:38
Sharia Law - Ambo
|
|
>>the norm in that culture and country. A casual late night foreign visitor stumbling across my local slag 'n chav pub might well assume it to be the norm here. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
