| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Whos law?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Topic ClosedWhos law?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Sep 2009 at 12:08
The main point is that UN and countries with sane laws should make an effort (economically and politically) to influnce countries with arbitrary and inhumane laws to adapt their laws to an acceptable humane, international standard with roots in UN declaration of Human Rights.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Sep 2009 at 12:37
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

The main point is that UN and countries with sane laws should make an effort (economically and politically) to influnce countries with arbitrary and inhumane laws to adapt their laws to an acceptable humane, international standard with roots in UN declaration of Human Rights.

All laws are arbitrary. Inhumane is a point view.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Sep 2009 at 14:41
So is sane.
 
Who sets the laws for the ship of fools?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Sep 2009 at 14:45
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


All laws are arbitrary. Inhumane is a point view.


Maybe, but for people in this world to be able to live a life without fear of persecution one could have laws that more saw to human needs (as the declarations in UN in many parts does) than to religious dogmas, or to justify the power of a governing elite.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 05:41

Laws are non-religious dogmas. Terms like moral, duty, justice are very hard to define in quantitative terms. Nature is ignorant on moral, humans are who define the rules.



Edited by pinguin - 02 Sep 2009 at 05:41
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 14:07
Hey folks, dogma simply means a settled or established opinion. Perhaps a Greek speaker will elucidate on all that seems good with regard to desired ends. Now as to the consequences of Law as dogma then of what need parliaments or other contrivances since any matter once decided is settled for all time? Laws, perforce, are entirely dependant upon social institutions and serve but a single purpose, the mediation of conflict within a society. Nature has nothing to do with it, other than its being a human contrivance shaped for the purpose of philosophical argument.
 
If anyone wishes to bring Mother Nature before the bar of Justice, the poor girl will be found wanting in all respects.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 15:26
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Laws, perforce, are entirely dependant upon social institutions and serve but a single purpose, the mediation of conflict within a society.
 
Granted they are dependent on social institutions and they serve to mediate conflict within the society, I'd suggest a second purpose also: to minimise the harm done to members either by other members or by outside forces. Which I guess makes me somewhat Hobbesian.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Sep 2009 at 15:45
Laws are introduced in society to reduce violence and chaos, which affect productivity and harm the revenues of the elite.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2009 at 12:40
If one read the UN declaration of Human Rights one can see that many countries still have laws and/or practises that violates those rights. One can just mention different corporal punishments (as flogging or stoning):

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

In some religiously governed countries it is forbidden to change religion:

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


In some countries people are forcibly married and the partner (mostly the woman) who refuses, breaks or leaves the marriage are punished (sometime with death):

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.


Sometimes indigenous peoples and other minorities are subject of forced schooling into a religion, language or ethnic affiliation other than their own (as in the case with children to some Amerindians in South America who are forcibly brought to mission schools):

Article 26. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

So one can see that laws and practices in many places violate the fundamental human rights. It is a worthy cause to try to change such state of matters.


Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2009 at 00:29
Carch, no-one cares what the UN declaration of human rights says if it contrdicts what they want to do. Very few societies use it as a moral guide, most will use it as a sort of moral weapon to attack others.
For your information, Australia has laws that breach that document (concerning refugees and aboriginal rights) but unfortunately those laws remain popular.
Quote In some countries people are forcibly married and the partner (mostly the woman) who refuses, breaks or leaves the marriage are punished (sometime with death):
Like which countries?
Quote One can just mention different corporal punishments (as flogging or stoning):
I'll take you on with that one. A flogging seems to have its uses as a punishment, there are many cases where a fine isn't really a punishment, and gaol is inappropraite. In such cases flogging should be considered. No-one wants to get flogged, so its likely to act as a good deteriant.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2009 at 11:44
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Carch, no-one cares what the UN declaration of human rights says if it contrdicts what they want to do. Very few societies use it as a moral guide, most will use it as a sort of moral weapon to attack others.
For your information, Australia has laws that breach that document (concerning refugees and aboriginal rights) but unfortunately those laws remain popular.


Yes, unfortunately many countries disregards those rights. One can just hope they start to respect them.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote In some countries people are forcibly married and the partner (mostly the woman) who refuses, breaks or leaves the marriage are punished (sometime with death):


Like which countries?


Saw recently a documentary about women rights (or the lack thereof) in Pakistan. there was a woman whos parents descided she should marry a man. But she refused and married another one instead and got a child with him. For that she were sentenced to 10 years in prison. She had the child with her in the prison, but the cricumstances there were so bad that the child was severely ill.
And so called adultery is punished by death in parts of Somalia, by local courts in Nigeria and in Iran.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote One can just mention different corporal punishments (as flogging or stoning):
I'll take you on with that one. A flogging seems to have its uses as a punishment, there are many cases where a fine isn't really a punishment, and gaol is inappropraite. In such cases flogging should be considered. No-one wants to get flogged, so its likely to act as a good deteriant.


Corporal punishment are today given rather arbitrarily, as the case in Malaysia where a muslim court sentenced a girl to flogging for having a beer. Such a punishment (especially to a young woman) is in direct violation of the Declaration of Human Rights. It is rather scary that Malaysia, which claims to be a somewhat civilized country, still apply sharia laws. And it is also scary that people of different religions seems to be judged by different laws and are sentenced to different punishments. Such countries with such lack of justice and who so flagrantly breaks fundamental human rights ought to be boycotted.

http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/counter_jihad/2009/07/muslim-woman-to-be-flogged-in-malaysia-over-beer.html

In this specific case Malaysia and the court are violating article 5 and also to some extent article 18.



Edited by Carcharodon - 08 Sep 2009 at 13:01
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2009 at 12:41
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Carch, no-one cares what the UN declaration of human rights says if it contrdicts what they want to do. Very few societies use it as a moral guide, most will use it as a sort of moral weapon to attack others.


As Carch is a clear example of, the Human Rights have reached a virtually religious status in Sweden. It has even been used as a mace to try forcing the Church to wed homosexual couples, a coercian clearly violating the Swedish constitution itself. That the rights are not legally binding, but merely a suggestion, have gone most Swedes amiss.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 08 Sep 2009 at 12:41
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2009 at 13:02
Well, if this planet shall ever be a place of peace and civilisation, following the Declaration of Human Rights is a good starting point.

Or shall we just go on torturing each other in the name of hideous Gods, inhuman ideologies or for the sake of power hungry elites or greedy capitalists?


Edited by Carcharodon - 08 Sep 2009 at 13:07
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2009 at 14:01
Luckily enough Sweden are many times supporting critics of injustice and repression:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taslima_Nasreen
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2009 at 19:47
Inhuman and injust laws, often under the cover of religion are still being issued in different countries. Here is an example from Indonesia:

A new Indonesian bylaw that endorses stoning to death for adultery and caning of up to 100 lashes for homosexuality should be repealed immediately, Amnesty International said on Thursday.

The local Islamic Criminal Code was passed by the Aceh Provincial House of Representatives on Monday. It forbids a number of acts including alcohol consumption, gambling, intimacy between unmarried couples, adultery and fornication, and homosexuality.

The new criminal bylaw flies in the face of international human rights law as well as provisions of the Indonesian constitution, said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director.

Stoning to death is particularly cruel and constitutes torture, which is absolutely forbidden under all circumstances in international law.


http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/indonesia-must-repeal-cruel-new-stoning-caning-law-20090917

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2009 at 17:49
Brutal treatment and horrendous punishments continues to plague the world. Especially those sentences that are administered in the name of religion seem especially severe.

In Malaysia a young girl was sentenced to 40 lashes for having a beer. It seems that sharia courts exists also in this country.

In Sudan a young girl, 13 years old, was sentenced to flogging for wearing trousers. When in prison she was so afraid that she wet herself.

In Saudi Arabia a woman was sentenced to 200 lashes for being raped. According to the court she behaved in a way that lured the men to rape her.

When will the world get rid of these terrible religious courts that are sentencing people (especially women) to horrendous punishments for things that in more enlightened places are not even considered crimes??


Edited by Carcharodon - 08 Oct 2009 at 21:19
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2009 at 18:44
Trousers? Since when was women wearing trousers offensive to Islam?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2009 at 21:21
Not all muslims objects to trousers since women has worn trousers in different muslim countries for ages. It seems that some courts have their own interpretations of  Islam and islamic law.

Edited by Carcharodon - 08 Oct 2009 at 21:26
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2009 at 23:06
Quote It seems that some courts have their own interpretations of  Islam and islamic law.

Truest thing you ever said. Now all you need to do is get the case right.
She was over 40, and she was fined. She was only going to be lashed because she refused to pay the fine because the decision was stupid. And in the end, she wasn't lashed.
Quote Trousers? Since when was women wearing trousers offensive to Islam?

That's why she refused to pay the fine.
Quote
In Saudi Arabia a woman was sentenced to 200 lashes for being raped. According to the court she behaved in a way that lured the men to rape her.

Yeah sure, for starters, 100 is the Hudood (maximum penalty) so I'm not sure how she could've got 200. For seconds, if the court found she was raped she wouldn't have has a punishment, and the men would've been executed. From this very unreliable sentence of yours to be punished it must have consensual, public, and out of marriage (she was not married)
Quote
In Malaysia a young girl was sentenced to 40 lashes for having a beer.

She was 32. It was 6 lashes and a 5,000 ringgit fine. She was a repeat offender IIRC and the case is still before the appeals court.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2009 at 02:25
A few lashes here and there certainly prove far more humane and much less costly than maintaining vast penal systems that actually deny the "liberty" that is the promised human right!?!
 
The relativity of punishment for social trangressions are amazing are they not?
 
To discuss Law in terms of idealized abstractions, without understanding the essential nature of grievance and retribution can lead to some interesting disconnects.


Edited by drgonzaga - 09 Oct 2009 at 02:26
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2009 at 15:17
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Truest thing you ever said. Now all you need to do is get the case right.
She was over 40, and she was fined. She was only going to be lashed because she refused to pay the fine because the decision was stupid. And in the end, she wasn't lashed.
 
She is not alone being sentenced for wearing trouser. As I mentioned even a 13 year old girl was sentenced to flogging for the same so called crime. That girl was so afraid that she wet herself in the prison.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Yeah sure, for starters, 100 is the Hudood (maximum penalty) so I'm not sure how she could've got 200. For seconds, if the court found she was raped she wouldn't have has a punishment, and the men would've been executed. From this very unreliable sentence of yours to be punished it must have consensual, public, and out of marriage (she was not married)
 
Well, a lot of newspapers wrote about the incident and they all mentioned the number 200. It seems that her punishment were doubled, that it became 200. It was not the rape itself she was sentenced for but the court obviously found that her behaviour prior to the rape were indecent (she were in a car with her ex boyfriend without any chaperon).

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

She was 32. It was 6 lashes and a 5,000 ringgit fine. She was a repeat offender IIRC and the case is still before the appeals court.
 
So what?! It sounds like you are defending these kind of grotesque and barbaric laws and punisments.
 
By the way, it seems that Malaysia has different laws for different people. Tourists and non muslims can take a beer.


Edited by Carcharodon - 09 Oct 2009 at 15:27
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2009 at 23:29

Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

She is not alone being sentenced for wearing trouser. As I mentioned even a 13 year old girl was sentenced to flogging for the same so called crime. That girl was so afraid that she wet herself in the prison.

The justice system of Sudan is nothing to look up to but even so you're going to have to prove it.
Quote Well, a lot of newspapers wrote about the incident and they all mentioned the number 200. It seems that her punishment were doubled, that it became 200. It was not the rape itself she was sentenced for but the court obviously found that her behaviour prior to the rape were indecent (she were in a car with her ex boyfriend without any chaperon).

Because western newspapers are all so good at reporting on the Saudi Justice system.
Find me the story on Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya then I'll decide what to believe
Quote So what?! It sounds like you are defending these kind of grotesque and barbaric laws and punisments.
 
By the way, it seems that Malaysia has different laws for different people. Tourists and non muslims can take a beer.

I won't defend Saudi Arabia or Sudan's legal systems but Malaysia is a perfectly functioning country.

What punishment would you prefer for drinking beer after fines have proven ineffective? Gaol? That's far more inappropriate and inhuman than 6 lashes.

Are you suggesting that non-muslims should be held to Islamic law? (Which is not supposed to happen under islamic law)

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2009 at 00:03
If you look like this you had best not try entering St. Peter's Basilica...
 
Dress Code
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2009 at 08:56
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

The justice system of Sudan is nothing to look up to but even so you're going to have to prove it.

Well, its maybe difficult for me to prove it since I am not in Sudan. I can mostly go after interviews and similar in the media nd information from organisations like Amnesty international. But of course they can be faked or exaggerated. But if there is some truth in these stories than one can say it is rather awful.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Because western newspapers are all so good at reporting on the Saudi Justice system.
Find me the story on Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya then I'll decide what to believe

As if Al Jazeera is the pinnacle of truth in the world Confused

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

I won't defend Saudi Arabia or Sudan's legal systems but Malaysia is a perfectly functioning country.

Not so perfect it seems since those kind of atrocities can take place there.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

What punishment would you prefer for drinking beer after fines have proven ineffective? Gaol? That's far more inappropriate and inhuman than 6 lashes.

Are you suggesting that non-muslims should be held to Islamic law? (Which is not supposed to happen under islamic law)



I suggest that all people in a state ruled by justice shall obey the same law, a law that shall be secular and based on the principles of human rights and not on religious superstition.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2009 at 09:01
One thing that is not always mentioned when it concerns flogging is that it really means a serious threat for the life and health of the person that is submitted to it. Just a few lashes can mean such a strain and chock for the body that it can result in very serious health conditions, like heart failure, or even death. So something that some people obviously consider a mild punishment, with some lashes, can for a not so strong person be a death sentence.

Edited by Carcharodon - 10 Oct 2009 at 09:32
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2009 at 07:09
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:


Well, its maybe difficult for me to prove it since I am not in Sudan. I can mostly go after interviews and similar in the media nd information from organisations like Amnesty international. But of course they can be faked or exaggerated. But if there is some truth in these stories than one can say it is rather awful.

So you're just spreading unsubstantiate propaganda that you can't even back up with a media report in order to spread hatred of other people or to support your unjustifiable agenda of oppressing other people under your unjust and inhumane regime of liberalism?
Quote As if Al Jazeera is the pinnacle of truth in the world

Oh God no!
Al Jazeera is the pro-western personal property of a puppet prince. Very far from the pinnacle of truth. I just want to know what they say about it before I decide what may or may not be true about your argument.
Don't for a second think I'm going to believe what Al-Jazeera says verbaitum.
Quote
I suggest that all people in a state ruled by justice shall obey the same law, a law that shall be secular and based on the principles of human rights and not on religious superstition.

Are you trying to suggest that the social problems of alcohol are religious superstition?
See, I don't even think you know what religious superstition really is. Religious superstition isn't enforcing ethical standards like prohibition, its thinking that growing a beard will help you get to heaven.

If there are two or more distinctly different groups in a country (like Malays and Chinese) then thought should be given to how ethical laws should be enforce.
Not enforcing ethics in law is of course a good option, but the majority of malays want them enforced and certainly holding the chinese to malay ethnics is worse than having malay only laws (esp when malays are the majority)
Quote One thing that is not always mentioned when it concerns flogging is that it really means a serious threat for the life and health of the person that is submitted to it. Just a few lashes can mean such a strain and chock for the body that it can result in very serious health conditions, like heart failure, or even death. So something that some people obviously consider a mild punishment, with some lashes, can for a not so strong person be a death sentence.

Yes. That is a valid matter of concern regarding the execution of such a punishment. But no-one is suggesting using a Cat-O-Nine-Tails
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2009 at 11:07
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:



So you're just spreading unsubstantiate propaganda that you can't even back up with a media report in order to spread hatred of other people or to support your unjustifiable agenda of oppressing other people under your unjust and inhumane regime of liberalism?


Unsubstantiated I will not say, since the reports are so consistent. Also Amnesty has written about these cases, and Amnesty is rather thrustworthy.

My unjust and inhumane regime of liberalism? Havent you lost your sence of proportions now? I do not advocate violence, floggings, torture, death penalties, war or similar. I just try to suggest that judicial systems in different places maybe start to work along the principles of human rights, principles that most countries have actually signed declarations about, but that to many choose not to follow.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


If there are two or more distinctly different groups in a country (like Malays and Chinese) then thought should be given to how ethical laws should be enforce.
Not enforcing ethics in law is of course a good option, but the majority of malays want them enforced and certainly holding the chinese to malay ethnics is worse than having malay only laws (esp when malays are the majority)


Here in Sweden we have immigrants from about 200 countries, a couple of these groups have come in considerable numbers. We also have one officially recognized aboriginal people (the Same people) and a couple of traditional minorities whos language are officially recognized (Roms and Tornedal finns). Still we apply the same laws to all of these people. We could never allow just one group to have their own laws, and above all, we could never allow one group to execise violence against its mebers. If you do then you do not have any rule of justice anymore, than you just have the seed of conflict, injustice and arbitrariness.


Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Yes. That is a valid matter of concern regarding the execution of such a punishment. But no-one is suggesting using a Cat-O-Nine-Tails


Even a ordinary cane can cause chock (many times the pain itself can release both psycological and physiological chock, reactions that are interdependant) which can be very dangerous for a weak  person.


Edited by Carcharodon - 11 Oct 2009 at 11:15
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2009 at 07:00
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Unsubstantiated I will not say, since the reports are so consistent. Also Amnesty has written about these cases, and Amnesty is rather thrustworthy.

Which brings us back again. Prove it. Post links to these "consistant reports" from Amnesty about the 13 year old. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned you're making it all up.
Quote Here in Sweden we have immigrants from about 200 countries, a couple of these groups have come in considerable numbers. We also have one officially recognized aboriginal people (the Same people) and a couple of traditional minorities whos language are officially recognized (Roms and Tornedal finns). Still we apply the same laws to all of these people. Still we apply the same laws to all of these people. We could never allow just one group to have their own laws, and above all, we could never allow one group to execise violence against its mebers.

So do we, but we aren't talking about Sweden and Australia. We're talking about Malaysia, so what Sweden and Australia do are irrelevant. Who's law? Not our law.
Quote If you do then you do not have any rule of justice anymore, than you just have the seed of conflict, injustice and arbitrariness.

Matter of opinion. Nor for that matter an opinion that will hold up under historical scrutiny.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2009 at 11:06

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Which brings us back again. Prove it. Post links to these "consistant reports" from Amnesty about the 13 year old. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned you're making it all up.

 

I did not say that there was consistent reports from Amnesty about the 13 years old girl in particular but about violations of human rights conducted by courts that sentence people out of religious laws. Remember that there were 40 women that were arrested for wearing trousers in Sudan, and the 13 year old girl was one of them.

And why so surprised? Sudan has a genocidal regime that are waging one of the worlds most brutal wars. Does it really sound so unbelievable that they should flog women?

 

About 13 year old girls, here is another extremely brutal case of religious justice, from Somalia, involving another 13 year old girl:

 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/child-of+-13-stoned-to-death-in-somalia-20081031

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7708169.stm

 

 


Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

So do we, but we aren't talking about Sweden and Australia. We're talking about Malaysia, so what Sweden and Australia do are irrelevant. Who's law? Not our law.

 

Well, all people should have the right to be treated according to the declaration of human rights, regardless if they live in Malaysia or Sweden, Australia or Saudi Arabia, Somalia or England. Today it is not so but would it not be something to strive towards?



Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Matter of opinion. Nor for that matter an opinion that will hold up under historical scrutiny.

 

Just look at many countries that have religious laws, they are full of conflicts, war and unrest. Religious fanaticism and conflict goes hand in hand.

 

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2009 at 15:45
After having observed the tit-for-tat provoked by this thread, and the insistence that religious thoughts carry consequences contrary to "freedom" and the nebulosity labeled "human rights", the discussion has taken a rather MSM "reality show" eeryness: Welcome to Oprah's new "Makeover" edition guaranteed to beautify even the ugliest warts on your complexion.
 
This phrasing really provoked a cascade of laughter:
 
Just look at many countries that have religious laws, they are full of conflicts, war and unrest. Religious fanaticism and conflict goes hand in hand.
 
Does that statement not imply that the factual is being abused for the sake of stereotype in political jabberwocky? After all, one has to consider the premise that true liberty is but simple licensure. No society, much less any state, survives for long absent  rules for its continuity premised upon the sense and sensibility of its component parts. No one here can deny that the premises of liberty as well as social responsibility have their origins in religious thought. Likewise the premise of individual autonomy--i.e. human rights--and that such has always been premised within the parameteres of responsible behavior viz-a-viz the social body as a whole.
 
Interestingly, I have found that in the course of this exchange, Carcharadon has willfully and blatantly violated Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):

Article 12.

  • No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
These asaults are rather clear given that the individual involved is intent on assaulting the integrity of anothers "home" conjoined with inescapable slurrings againt the honour and reputation of others.
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 



Edited by drgonzaga - 13 Oct 2009 at 15:47
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.