I think it is extreme in either case. My God, it is a teddy bear. And a punishment of 40 lashes and a year in jail. It is uncivilized.

But you know, I read another news story today. Did you know in the US they abolished parole for US federal inmates? One person they spoke to has been in jail for 20 years ... for selling pot.

Twenty-years! Pot. He won't ever see daylight again.

More than that, it said more than 60% of the inmates in US federal prison are non-violent offenders. They say there are prisoners with multiple sentences of more than 20 years without a prayer of ever getting out. For non-violent crimes.

I'm not a Christian, but that stones and glass houses thing sure seems to take shape here.

[ 28 November 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
FM it seems we may have a basis here for agreement. Nice. No question that American laws especially those pertaining to pot are draconian. Seems to me the only real difference between the pot law and the sentence in Sudan is that the pot smoker doesnt face the brutality of 40 lashes.

---

It's funny, we smirk, or express our horror at these "uncivilised brutes" in Sudan and yet torture is an every day occurrence in U.S. jails in Guantanamo and elsewhere and proposed amendments to the the American Constitution to ban flag burning gain ground ever time they're introduced.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

No, they face 20 years in jail instead of one. That's just as brutal as 40 lashes if you ask me.

---

In other words, if we can send people to prison for life for non-violent crimes, what is the moral justification for condemning 40 lashes and a year for a cultural crime?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
what is the moral justification for condemning 40 lashes and a year for a cultural crime?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
That other countries in the world have and had for likely all of time cruel and inhuman punishments for "crimes" is not the point and I thought I made that clear in a simple way in my first post. That this incident can't be discussed openly and honestly on its on merits, in the same way that other certain countries laws can shows a lack of intellectual maturity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
Gee what a suprise, a thread on an event in the Sudan, after one comment becomes all about the USA. HAHA So predictable, it would be funny if it wasn't so depressing. The level of open discussion and differing opinions on this board rates about 0.5 on a 0 to 10 scale.

---

Sorry you don't like it here. Feel free to leave. Or, if you want to stay, maybe try not to be so hostile and rude to the people in the community you've just joined.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
You claimed that 40 lashes isn't comparable to 20 years in jail.

I say it is. Both are inhumane.

---

I said that 40 lashes is as brutal as 20 undeserved years in jail. In other words, I compared the two and found them comparable. You disagreed, saying that I wouldn't think that if I'd ever been lashed.

I stand by my comment.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Sorry you don't like it here. Feel free to leave. Or, if you want to stay, maybe try not to be so hostile and rude to the people in the community you've just joined.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Sorry you don't like it here. Feel free to leave. Or, if you want to stay, maybe try not to be so hostile and rude to the people in the community you've just joined.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

quote:

---

I'll excuse your condesending tone as I read this board and am aware of the level of permissible debate. That other countries in the world have and had for likely all of time cruel and inhuman punishments for "crimes" is not the point and I thought I made that clear in a simple way in my first post. That this incident can't be discussed openly and honestly on its on merits, in the same way that other certain countries laws can shows a lack of intellectual maturity.

---

quote:

---

Lawyers for a British teacher in Sudan say she has been convicted of the less-serious charge of insulting Islam for letting her pupils name a teddy bear "Muhammad."

They say she was sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation to Britain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChunkyLover:

That time of the month I guess...

---

quote:

---

Why the discussion must turn to a discusson on US crime and punishment is what puzzles me.

---

quote:

---

If I knew what that was I would.

---

So how can you judge if a law or a punishment in another country is just or reasonable if you have nothing to compare it against? So we can compare laws in other parts of the world against our own. And if our own laws can be deemed as unjust or unreasonable, and we fail to condemn them, then condemning unjust and unreasonable laws in other countries would just be plain hypocritical. Are you hypocritical?

I think it was mitigated because she weighed less than a duck.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Our country (Canada) is currently engaged in propping up - with thousands of soldiers and bottomless expenditures - a government in Afghanistan which mandates DEATH for residents who convert from Islam to Christianity.

Here were some comments by the judge who was trying the case:

quote:

---

"The Attorney General is emphasising he should be hung. It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulating his family by converting," Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times.

"He was a Muslim for 25 years more than he has been a Christian. We will request him to become a Muslim again. In your country two women can marry I think that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished," said the judge.

---

Why do you think that is?

(I hope it goes without saying that my heart goes out to this woman and I hope that her time spent in prison for this injustice does not lay too heavy on her soul.)

[ETA: cross-posted with unionist]

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

Let's say a family of native Hawaiians take over an uninhabited island near Hawaii, declare themselves the Royal Family and rightful rulers of Hawaii and then China reconizes them and sends a war ship by in support. How would the US react?(think Taiwan)

quote:

---

So how can you judge if a law or a punishment in another country is just or reasonable if you have nothing to compare it against? So we can compare laws in other parts of the world against our own. And if our own laws can be deemed as unjust or unreasonable, and we fail to condemn them, then condemning unjust and unreasonable laws in other countries would just be plain hypocritical. Are you hypocritical?

---

Whats that called when criticism is deflected by suggesting a different example is worse?

I'm not disageeing with the condemnation of the American legal system,just wondering why the issue of this schoolteacher's ordeal in Sudan couldn't be discussed on its merits,rather than immediately turning the thread into an anti-American rantfest?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
I'm sure it's easy to picture me as some stereotype of ignorant racist redneck but in reality I'm nothing like that. I think of the Sudanese as equal human beings to anyone else on the planet

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
You claimed that 40 lashes isn't comparable to 20 years in jail.

I say it is. Both are inhumane.

---

Here is a story of an American woman facing a mandatory 10 year sentence, without parole, for growing medical marijiuanna:
http://www.reneeboje.com/donations.html

And here is an Amnesty report detailing the abuse, sexual and otherwise, women prisoners can expect in the US penal system:
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/women/report0.html

An Excerpt:

quote:

---

"There's no voice telling taxpayers that their money is being wasted, that we are in need of adequate medical care, that we don't like to be pawed on by male correctional officers under the pretence of being pat searched. No, we do not have a voice that will speak about how we are treated by the male officers, as if we were their private harem to sexually abuse and harass. Not to mention the emotional and verbal abuses when being addressed as bitches, niggers, wet backs, or any other of the racial or sexual slurs that the abusive officer's tiny mind can conjure."

---

quote:

---

exactly Jester that was my only point but don't expect an answer

---

quote:

---

shut up and go away

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grover:
So what do you compare our laws or punishments against to deem if they are just or reasonable?

---

Certain transcendental imperatives - like "do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "Judge not, that ye be not judged, (and the oft-forgotten but oh-so-important qualification) for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

These provide the basis for an ongoing dialogue on moral judgments and investigation into our being asking, "what are we, and what do we want?" It mitigates against any sense of a "perfect" or fixed moral edict insofar as we are incapable of objective measurement. In a sense it is a "check and balance" against the tyranny of moral absolutism. Implicitly we are urged to work to enhance our judgemental capabilities, to expand our conscience to include others and - perhaps most importantly - to "walk the talk".

I'm an unwashed heathen, but I've never been steered wrong by the above. There are other statements of similar content in other cultures and traditions but the above is most familiar to Judeo-Christian-Islamic ears.

Again, to answer the jibe above that we're quick to mention the United States in this conversation, I think this is imperative on anyone trying to understand the relationship of Islam to the West at the moment. Genocide in Sudan doesn't get our attention, but one white person being charged essentially with idol worship does. We point and say, "those stupid Muslims, it's just a teddy bear". Well tell that to the large number of Americans who think that a hunk of cloth with some boring designs on them is a sacred item and those that desecrate it should be punished.

Can't I resist both stupidities? Isn't it incumbent those of us who name themselves "dissenters" to try to lay bare the logics that govern our societies' moral judgements and expose them for frauds now and again? Especially insomuch as the hatred of Islam is part-and-parcel of a dangerous and violent form of social oppression and governance - i.e. the War State/State of Emergency? Notice that it's always those shouting loudest for other societies (say, Islamic ones) to re-examine their moral codes that resist any attempt to examine our own.

It's in these small little blips on the radar that some of the underpinnings of our ideological world are exposed.

[ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

Protesters demand execution of 'blasphemy' teacher
Thousands of protesters wielding clubs and knives have gathered outside the Sudanese presidential palace calling for execution by firing squad of the British teacher who let her students name a teddy bear Muhammad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
[QB]Where did I say this was worse than the genocide?

---

I didn't say you did. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I'm talking about the attention paid to these phenomena and how the attention to this most recent one is part of an ideological construct that seeks to maximize the visibility of Their moral shortcomings and minimize OURS.

quote:

---

It's that a serious court in a real country would actually consider this as a crime and give any punishmen at all.

---

A "serious" court in a "real" country? Sudan is figment of our imagination? What constitutes a "real" country as opposed to a "fake" one?

quote:

---

The debate should be about how religous societies function and how much we in the west have such a difficult time comprehending the feelings of outrage.

---

It is. Religious/Nationalist fervor comes in many shapes and sizes. From 1968 until 1989 it was illegal to desecrate an American flag. Those that have done so have been on the receiving end of death threats and so on. Police chiefs in Britain recently tabled a proposal that would have flag burning banned in this country. It garnered a fair amount of support in the general population.

1) Just punishment.

2) When in Rome.

3) Valuing the sacred in a society.

1) Was this a just punishment? Of course not. Are their unjust punishments in closer jurisdictions? Sure. How prevalent is the use of unjust punishments in the world? High.

2) How could a teacher, especially after the recent uproar over the Danish cartoons, not know that the imagery of Mohammed is to be treated as sacred?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
[QB]whatever!! I was saying I do consider Sudan a country - equal to any country with rule of law and courts and so on ...

---

quote:

---

I just wanted to talk about the philosophy behind blasphmey laws and their place if any they should have, if any.

---

No need to flounce, then. And since you're guaranteed to look back in on this thread in spite of saying you're leaving (call it a hunch) then what place should they have? Personally, I'm rather irreverent and don't make much of Sacred Objects. Sacred Subjects, sure, but Objects, not so much. On the other hand, if everything is profane, then it's...well....profane. I can see the value in symbolism. I'm not about to lash somebody for it (unless they ask, a la Ashcroft...).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
Gee what a suprise, a thread on an event in the Sudan, after one comment becomes all about the USA. HAHA So predictable, it would be funny if it wasn't so depressing. The level of open discussion and differing opinions on this board rates about 0.5 on a 0 to 10 scale.... I just wanted to talk about the philosophy behind blasphmey laws and their place if any they should have, if any.

---

With respect, that isn't just what you wanted to do. You began with an attempt to shut down discussion on a an aspect of the topic you mistakenly deemed irrelevant, while paradoxically decrying the lack of open discussion.

This is a board for progressive discussion, so arguing the merits of laws providing harsh punishments for blasphemy is a little outside the scope. They're bad. Perhaps if we had posters defending them, we could be at 8 or even 9 out of 10 on your scale of differing opinions, but is that really a good measure of the quality of debate? Arguing the merits of such a law runs likely to be nothing more than an excuse for an exercise in Islamophobia, designed to get people riled up into a hysterical frenzy of cultural superiority.

2.The penalty for "insulting Turkishness" is extreme in that country. I believe that it includes the death penalty. And, for the record, claiming that there was an Armenian Genocide is considered as "insulting Turkishness". There were some recent high-profile cases in this regard.

3.A man in the Netherlands was recently fined 400 EUR (no small fine) for insulting the Queen of that country. It's a law that's rarely enforced ... but in this case it WAS enforced.

Serious fine for insulting the Queen in Amsterdam

And then there is Canada. ahem.

4.CANADA: Insulting the Queen could land you in jail

quote:

---

But for the Queen, our Criminal Code actually makes it a crime to simply "alarm Her Majesty" (section 49). And the lawmakers are serious. The crime is punishable by a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. Conceivably, this odd and obscure statute could apply to political pie-throwers, to people who pass gas while dining with the Queen and perhaps to public speakers who for whatever reason feel inclined to call the Queen a prostitute.

In actuality, it is unclear whether free speech in Canada would protect this type of insulting political rhetoric.

---

In actuality, HRH Elizabeth II is literally above the law. Her Majesty cannot be prosecuted for anything. I suppose some Sudanese observers of the peaceable Kingdom of Canada could have a lot of merriment at Canadian expense on that one.

[ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

[ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

but my intention was to try and steer the discussion toward the acutal incident in the header

---

And speaking of asshats ...

quote:

---

t's interesting to see the usual debating technique of any time a country is criticized seeing the response but the Us does this and Canada does that.

---

The treatment of the British teacher in Sudan is atrocious. No one on this board can honestly support the law.

That being said there is a tendency when discussing atrocities in other countries to say those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Canada has this and the US has done that. This is usually considered the red herring fallacy.

As a general remark, I think it's entirely appropriate to point out other similar unjust convictions, in countries a lot closer to home (including our own), with similar laws (such as "insulting Turkishness" or insulting HRH Elizabeth II, or insulting the Queen of Holland, etc.). Politics and religion together can so easily be an explosive and deadly combination. That much is obvious to anyone with a brain. But it's useful as well to look and ask ourselves if such/similar events could happen in our own country. In the case of our NATO ally Turkey, the answer is a resounding "yes".

The escalation of events, from the spiteful secretary who got the ball rolling to begin with, to the efforts of fundamentalist religious leaders among the Assembly of the Ulemas to use Gibbons as an "example", has been brought to an end for now. The defence team, who have received death threats, will not appeal the decision as it could actually be made worse through an appeal.

The embarrassment over this is obvious. "A judge leaving the courtroom confirmed the verdict to reporters, but refused to give his name." He was probably too embarrassed to speak. The whole thing reeks of revolting right-wing (religious) politics.

quote:

---

Yes, FM. Thanks for asking. I hope a Moderator is reading your comment.

---

quote:

---

The treatment of the British teacher in Sudan is atrocious. No one on this board can honestly support the law.

---

quote:

---

That being said there is a tendency when discussing atrocities in other countries to say those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Canada has this and the US has done that. This is usually considered the red herring fallacy.

---

quote:

---

Canada and the US have done many terrible things but can't we condemn those actions in their own threads rather using those behaviours as means to deflect legitimate criticism of actions in other countries?

---

If all you want to say is "ain't it awful" then go ahead. We hardly need a thread for that. But if you want to criticize the cultural and social values that give rise to such crimes and punishment then that must be viewed through the prism of our own cultural and social values and are own system of crime and punishment or otherwise it is just crass hypocrisy.

I never said anyone supported them. In retrospect I probably shouldn't have used the word "honestly."

Your argument that freedom from having commmitted crimes is required before one can denounce crimes is not a view I subscribe to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Petsy: Why are you using "rabble" in a pejorative sense when that word does not appear in the CNN story at all?

---

quote:

---

rab·ble 1 (rāb'əl) Pronunciation Key
n.
A tumultuous crowd; a mob.
The lowest or coarsest class of people. Often used with the.
A group of persons regarded with contempt: "After subsisting on the invisible margins of the art scene ... he was 'discovered' in the mid-80's, along with a crowd of like-minded rabble from the East Village" (Richard B. Woodward).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Petsy, your silence is deafening. Without a reply, I've got to assume that it was your intention to insult the feelings of everyone here.

---

quote:

---

Your argument that freedom from having commmitted crimes is required before one can denounce crimes is not a view I subscribe to.

---

quote:

---

I stand by my opposition to the manner in which this teacher has been treated by the Sudanese state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:

Your argument that freedom from having commmitted crimes is required before one can denounce crimes is not a view I subscribe to.

---

On the other hand, it's very instructive to see how you reply to a simple request to respect another's feelings as a proud babbler/rabbler of several years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
I was wondering when you were going to quote Jesus, FM.

I'll just say "not all crimes are equal" although moral relativists would like to argue so.

---

You're right, they're not. Now, can you please describe the substantive differences between time in jail for defaming a cultural idol and time in jail for defaming a cultural idol?

[ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Could you produce a quote of David Frum's I've made? If not I want an apology and a retraction.

---

quote:

---

moral relativists

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Especially given the similar ideological blinders that function in North America and Europe, and especially since there has been a fucking genocide in the Sudan since 2003 and no ones bothered to grease the carbon on the typewriters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
one more comeback then

I agree with Sven agreeing with Catchfire - the reason the Genocide has for the most part been ignored by the western mass media is racism - as sad as it is to say it - black people dying in a far off war don't get any sympathy - if it was a natural disaster they would get a bit more - but everyone already knows this - right? So why not talk about the case in the header? specifically about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
one more comeback then

I agree with Sven agreeing with Catchfire - the reason the Genocide has for the most part been ignored by the western mass media is racism - as sad as it is to say it - black people dying in a far off war don't get any sympathy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
the reason the Genocide has for the most part been ignored by the western mass media is racism - as sad as it is to say it - black people dying in a far off war don't get any sympathy - if it was a natural disaster they would get a bit more - but everyone already knows this - right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
I agree Sven, in the same way that Rwanda had no oil or strategic importance.

---

quote:

---

IS there even a way to want to stop the killing without being accused of an ulterior motive?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Yes. Halt the arms trade. Who profits from selling small arms and land mines to the world's warring factions?

---

You're right that China has an interest in the Dafur region.

[ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

Russia and China are doing pretty well supplying the government in Khartoum.

---

Illicit arms trade

quote:

---

Top Five Arms Exporters (Worldwide, 2004)
#1 - United States ($18.55 billion)
#2 - Russia ($4.6 billion)
#3 - France ($4.4 billion)
#4 - United Kingdom ($1.9 billion)
(Source: Congressional Research Service)

---

quote:

---

But who is doing the killing and why? if they didn't have guns couldn't they use knifes, rocks, starvation?

---

I know that in Spanish-speaking countries you come across men named "Jesus". But when was the last time you met anyone from the Anglo world named "Jesus" or named "God" and does anyone in Tibet or Thailand name their child "Buddha" or "Siddhartha"? Ever heard of anyone Jewish named Jehovah?

In fact, in that book I linked for you earlier, the Hutus who hunted Tutsis with machetes actually complained when the Tutsis accepted their fate without resistance. The Tutsis, who had been driven into the bush, were succumbing to hunger and the elements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Ever heard of anyone Jewish named Jehovah?

---

Are you suggesting that GOD IS NOT JEWISH!!!!?????????

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that GOD IS NOT JEWISH!!!!?????????

---