15 days in jail and deported.

[CHAPPERS]

It was legal....

Of course, the Nazi party hardly came to power legally.

I see your point though, I don't see that Tedebear should feel bad about seeing so much difference though.

 

[TonyW]

Why do so many people have such difficulty understanding that different countries have different cultures, different rules and different standards?

You go to live or work somewhere else, you would be wise to learn their ways and their laws. I don't think you have to be a genius to know that what she did was at best naive and more likely very stupid.

She broke their laws - get over it. Ignorance has never been a defence, in Britain or Sudan.

UTTER BOLLOCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Yorkie]

Excuse me, but what the f*** has Tede being a woman got to do with anything? What are you insinuating? That I am ridiculing her because of her sex? That I am not this forthright with blokes when debating? And you've got the bloody cheek to call me rude. I may be many things but misogynistic or chauvinist is not one of them.

And where exactly am I being "rude"? I think Tede has offensive views. I've told her that and told her why.

Seem to me you're floundering in this debate with meaningless asides and anecdotes that don't advance the discussion one iota. Resorting to the "sexism card" is pretty pathetic and highly ironic considering the subject in question is about Sharia law.

My point exactly.

 

[tedebear]

Go whistle Dixie for all I care. You posted the crap that made me conclude that and your attempts to make me seem the extremist come across as desperate. You hold offensive views in my eyes.

Why is it illogical for me to conclude that you would have said the same thing in 1935 after the Nazis passed the anti-Jewish Nurember laws? Sovereign state passes laws that rest of the world find offensive and oppresses sizeable minority in its own country.

Could be Nazi Germany, could be apartheid S Africa, could be Tibet, could be Zimbabwe, could be Sudan. It's all legal. It's all internal. Technically speaking it's nothibg to do with us.

If you don't like the comparison then perhaps you could stop saying it's not out our problem.

Just read your little diatribe after this post. Dear, oh dear. You have got yourself in a moral pickle. It seems tat a fair few people seem to be "misreading" what you say. Perhaps, just perhaps you've either expressed it badly or we think your views are wrong.

Nah.....couldn't be that. I'd just better wind my neck in and let you carry on.

Me in a moral pickle? If stating the facts makes me sympathetic with the regime then any journalist who reports the facts (in the case of the Sudan which is exactly what I did) or any Historian or writer who publishes texts about the facts of the Holocaust is infact complicit with the regime or in sympathy with their horrors?

How can stating the facts be offensive? You've derived some pathetic misunderstanding that you believe I'm somehow in sympathy for these people simply from my posting of the facts - you fool.

There are only 2 people on here misreading what I post. You are one.

 

[Mrs Coach]

I think it's a bit ironic that the advertising banner above this debate on my screen is for singlemuslim.com marriage service.

 

[Buzzer]

Me in a moral pickle? If stating the facts makes me sympathetic with the regime then any journalist who reports the facts (in the case of the Sudan which is exactly what I did) or any Historian or writer who publishes texts about the facts of the Holocaust is infact complicit with the regime or in sympathy with their horrors?

How can stating the facts be offensive? You've derived some pathetic misunderstanding that you believe I'm somehow in sympathy for these people simply from my posting of the facts - you fool.

There are only 2 people on here misreading what I post. You are one.

Just because 2 people can be arsed to respond to you then that means that thse are the only people who misunderstand. Riiiighhhhtt.........

So following that logic, those that respond supporting you are the only ones that have correctly read your post.

Once again getting yourself in a pickle.

Okay, from the top. As I understand it, you say that the teacher knew the type of country she was teaching in, she should have acquainted herself with the rules and customs and her ignorance is her downfall. The law existed out there bfore she moved to Sudan and we the British shouldn't try and impose our values and our laws on the Sudanes courts.

Have I got that wrong? If so, where.

 

[tedebear]

Just because 2 people can be arsed to respond to you then that means that thse are the only people who misunderstand. Riiiighhhhtt.........

So following that logic, those that respond supporting you are the only ones that have correctly read your post.

Once again getting yourself in a pickle.

Okay, from the top. As I understand it, you say that the teacher knew the type of country she was teaching in, she should have acquainted herself with the rules and customs and her ignorance is her downfall. The law existed out there bfore she moved to Sudan and we the British shouldn't try and impose our values and our laws on the Sudanes courts.

Have I got that wrong? If so, where.

Where did I say any of that?

 

[Perry Milkins]

I blame the parents.

How come all these ankle-biters reach the age of six or seven in Sudanland and they've not been taught that, y'know, naming yer teddy bear Mohammed might not be the best idea ever?

When i read the post quickly I was confused as to why you had brought the mackems into the debate?

 

[BigGully]

Of course, the Nazi party hardly came to power legally.

I see your point though, I don't see that Tedebear should feel bad about seeing so much difference though.

I am sorry Hitler was elected.....or the Nazi Party was.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Religion in Sudan

The outcome of the recent peace talks in Nairobi implies that one of the most important remaining issues to be resolved concerns the status of Islamic principles in Sudanese public law.

The issue of Islamic principles pits the emotional attachment of the government and its supporters against a mixture of liberal Muslims and Christians who believe that Islam is just a religion. There appears to be agreement on the following:

1. Islam is the religion of the majority in Sudan.
2. Muslims have a right to request the application of Islamic laws to them.
3. Non-Muslims have a right to practice their religion without persecution.
4. Religious freedom is in accordance with both the Muslim and Christian faith.

And disagreement on the following:
1. The application of Islamic laws in contradiction of international human rights principles.
2. The extent to which Sudan should be called an Islamic state.
3. The role of the national/public security officials in Sudan, can they be used to uphold and/or impose Islamic values.
4. The extent to which non-Muslims can practice their religion and promulgate it.
5.The state's ability to punish those who convert from Islam or request the application of hadud penalties for committing crimes.
6. The status of substantive criminal, inheritance and procedural law that violates international norms.

Suggestions for (immediate) action:
1. Much more study needs to be devoted to means of accommodating Christain, Muslim and secular values in the Constitution. While I believe that international human rights law must provide a minimum standard for what can be accommodated, others disagree.
2. The government of Sudan needs to be encouraged to enhance its respect for its international obligations (treaties and custom), especially its international human rights obligations. This should be done by continued close attantion and where necessary criticism of the laws and practices of the government as well as by cooperation on areas of technical assistance concerning human rights.
3. The alternative mechanisms for supervising a self-determination referendum need to discussed so as to detail the method that will be used.
4. How the national (internal and external) security will be controled, supervised and function.

 

[Buzzer]

Where did I say any of that?

I was trying (honestly) to paraphrase what you have written and agreed with here and on other threads but in direct response to your question:

Your small mind will ensure that countries the world over will bow to what you see as the law. Countries are different the world over, thats what makes it a wonderful place to travel and witness respectfully.

She was innocent by your laws not by theirs. What gives you the right to impose your laws on them? They do not impose theirs on us, nor would you have it that way! So why do you want to impose your standards on them? Irrespective of whether you agree with them or not.

Do not ever mistake understanding as sympathy. Your accusation is pathetic and offensive.

So when I read something like "Your small mind will ensure that countries the world over will bow to what you see as the law" and conclude that you think "..we the British shouldn't try and impose our values and our laws on the Sudanes courts..." I apparently have misread you.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I am sorry Hitler was elected.....or the Nazi Party was.

Sounds like I need to read that Ian Kershaw book again about the Nazi's rise to power because I seem to remember that the so-called elections may have been rigged in some way, not to mention lots of the opponents being found in forests, oh and the SS making sure people knew who to vote for.

 

[tedebear]

I was trying (honestly) to paraphrase what you have written and agreed with here and on other threads but in direct response to your question:

So when I read something like "Your small mind will ensure that countries the world over will bow to what you see as the law" and conclude that you think "..we the British shouldn't try and impose our values and our laws on the Sudanes courts..." I apparently have misread you.

Yep you have - Big Gully wants his idea of what is "law" broadly imposed on any country who he sees as not being righteous enough.

Try to separate a country's law from its punishment. I don't desire to have other countires applying our laws to their citizens...they have been raised with different ideologies and regligious beliefs. They hold different values. Yes there are probably a few laws where there is exception (as in the raped woman being found guilty of committing a crime) but on the whole we cannot impose our law on other countries. What we CAN do is fight to ensure that the punishments handed out byt these countries for people who break their laws are in compliance with Human Rights conventions and that henious and barbaric punishments are ceased.

 

[bhaexpress]

Of course we can consider the treatment of this lady rather harsh but go back a few hundred years here and you'll find people being burnt at the stake and turtured along with various other nasty treatments in the name of religious intolerence. Go back to the last century and we find people being lynched in the US for just being black.

I think you'll find the vast majority of Muslims are more than a little ashamed of the Sudanese right now.

 

[Buzzer]

Yep you have - Big Gully wants his idea of what is "law" broadly imposed on any country who he sees as not being righteous enough.

Try to separate a country's law from its punishment. I don't desire to have other countires applying our laws to their citizens...they have been raised with different ideologies and regligious beliefs. They hold different values. Yes there are probably a few laws where there is exception (as in the raped woman being found guilty of committing a crime) but on the whole we cannot impose our law on other countries. What we CAN do is fight to ensure that the punishments handed out byt these countries for people who break their laws are in compliance with Human Rights conventions and that henious and barbaric punishments are ceased.

but I don't think I have. I specifically stated:

"we the British shouldn't try and impose our values and our laws on the Sudanese courts..."

and you stated:

"What gives you the right to impose your laws on them? "


I see absolutely no difference between the 2 statements.

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

Of course we can consider the treatment of this lady rather harsh but go back a few hundred years here and you'll find people being burnt at the stake and turtured along with various other nasty treatments in the name of religious intolerence. Go back to the last century and we find people being lynched in the US for just being black.

I think you'll find the vast majority of Muslims are more than a little ashamed of the Sudanese right now.

Agreed, although I think you'll find that we only have to go back weeks rather than a few hundred years - The incitement to Ethnic or Racial hatred law is being put into practice in this country as we speak.

Many people are dragged off the streets and put in our prisons on the back of 'suggestion' or weak evidence - They are allowed to be kept in prison and questioned (with most just released back in society with no charges).

I actually think the sentance given to this woman is wrong, however, we should take a good look at ourselves before we start making accusations against other countries.

 

[desprateseagull]

now if this case happened in the UK, there would be uproar (racist treatment of the teacher, etc?).

anyone know who grassed on her?

 

[tedebear]

but I don't think I have. I specifically stated:

"we the British shouldn't try and impose our values and our laws on the Sudanese courts..."

and you stated:

"What gives you the right to impose your laws on them? "


I see absolutely no difference between the 2 statements.

Correct - you've paraphrased me now though? originally you were quoting BigGully?

 

[DJ Leon]

Anyone comparing our appeasement of both the jailing of a teacher for 15 days for breaking a minor law in Sudan and the rise of Nazi Germany should be seriously EMBARRASSED. Just get a grip people.

 

[DJ Leon]

Agreed, although I think you'll find that we only have to go back weeks rather than a few hundred years - The incitement to Ethnic or Racial hatred law is being put into practice in this country as we speak.

Many people are dragged off the streets and put in our prisons on the back of 'suggestion' or weak evidence - They are allowed to be kept in prison and questioned (with most just released back in society with no charges).

I actually think the sentance given to this woman is wrong, however, we should take a good look at ourselves before we start making accusations against other countries.

Indeed - who runs Guantanamo Bay BTW? At least we know this teacher actually DID break a law, got a trial, and by the sounds of the possibilities got a lenient punishment. None of that makes it right by my standards, but then the detention of people without trial sin't right either and that comes from 'the leaders of the free world'