Religion of Peace takes one prisoner for teddy heresy

[Androsphinx]

Oh, get a grip. There are two other sentences - jail time or a fine. The courts will give her one of those, she'll do the time/pay the money, and that'll be it.

Considering the country it's practically guaranteed they'll do everything they can to get her the 40 lashes. Either way the charges are absurd.

If there was a bias in favour of lashing someone, they wouldn't have the other two sentences. In any case, the British Embassy will put enough pressure on the government to avoid lashes, which if we're honest is the only reason why this is even a story at all.

[General Zod]

If there was a bias in favour of lashing someone, they wouldn't have the other two sentences. In any case, the British Embassy will put enough pressure on the government to avoid lashes, which if we're honest is the only reason why this is even a story at all.

Sudan is only slightly more civilized than Saudi Arabia, but when Islamic nations with Sharia law will sentence a rape victim to 200 lashes, consider me skeptical of their preference to use anything less than the whip on women.

[Androsphinx]

Sudan is only slightly more civilized than Saudi Arabia, but when Islamic nations with Sharia law will sentence a rape victim to 200 lashes, consider me skeptical of their preference to use anything less than the whip on women.

Because there's no-one to stick up for a female Saudi rape victim - it took over a year after the rape and two appeals before the media outside Saudi Arabia heard about it. This case, on the other hand, involves a British citizen, which means that there will be significant international pressure brought to bear (no pun intended)

[General Zod]

Because there's no-one to stick up for a female Saudi rape victim - it took over a year after the rape and two appeals before the media outside Saudi Arabia heard about it. This case, on the other hand, involves a British citizen, which means that there will be significant international pressure brought to bear (no pun intended)

International pressure didn't stop Singapore from caning that one American tourist that decided to graiffiti a wall. And they're actually civilized compared to a shithole like Sudan.

[Androsphinx]

Eh... apples and oranges? We'll see how it turns out.

[General Zod]

Eh... apples and oranges? We'll see how it turns out.

It's severe physical harm for a trivial offense. The situations are comparable as far as I can tell. And again, Sudan is nowhere near as civilized.

[Androsphinx]

Singaporean caning, which was introduced by the British, and has been used across the world until comparatively recently, is considerably less severe than being whipped. It's also non-religious in nature and nowhere near as barbaric.

In any event, in the case you referred to, the sentence was reduced, and the offence was significantly more serious than this one.

[General Zod]

Singaporean caning, which was introduced by the British, and has been used across the world until comparatively recently, is considerably less severe than being whipped. It's also non-religious in nature and nowhere near as barbaric.

How exactly is repeatedly striking the victim's back with a wooden stick for a trivial offense less barbaric than repeatedly striking the victim's back with a leather strap for a trivial offense?

[Androsphinx]

How exactly is repeatedly striking the victim's back with a wooden stick for a trivial offense less barbaric than repeatedly striking the victim's back with a leather strap for a trivial offense?

You're a moron. Why don't you bother to find out how they cane people before making value judgements?

[General Zod]

You're a moron. Why don't you bother to find out how they cane people before making value judgements?

It doesn't fucking matter how they cane them when it's unreasonable punishment for a trivial offense, dumbass. Frankly your view on what's considered barbaric is fucked up if you think that using modern medicine to ensure the victim suffers less during a physical beating for a relatively trivial crime isn't barbarous.

[Androsphinx]

I was refering to your comment:

How exactly is repeatedly striking the victim's back with a wooden stick for a trivial offense less barbaric than repeatedly striking the victim's back with a leather strap for a trivial offense

Caning in Singapore is done to the buttocks, not the back. You are a moron for making inaccurate comparisons without knowledge of the subject. Other pertinent factors differentiating between the two cases, which you might want to know about (although probably not) are that caning is only administered to men; is stricly limited; was instituted by the British (which makes it harder to be "barbaric"); and is just a more severe example of a technique of corporal punishment which is in use to this day in schools across the Anglosphere.

Can't you see how this is rather different to the original case under discussion? And can you not see why a foreign government might be rather more concerned about the latter? Not to mention that while you might disagree with the sentence, car vandalism is a crime across the world. Naming bears "Muhammed" is not.

[General Zod]

Caning in Singapore is done to the buttocks, not the back. You are a moron for making inaccurate comparisons without knowledge of the subject. Other pertinent factors differentiating between the two cases, which you might want to know about (although probably not) are that caning is only administered to men; is stricly limited; was instituted by the British (which makes it harder to be "barbaric"); and is just a more severe example of a technique of corporal punishment which is in use to this day in schools across the Anglosphere.

The location of the body it's done in no way affects my point dumbass. But the fact you don't see corporal punishment as barbaric either is telling.

Can't you see how this is rather different to the original case under discussion? And can you not see why a foreign government might be rather more concerned about the latter? Not to mention that while you might disagree with the sentence, car vandalism is a crime across the world. Naming bears "Muhammed" is not.

Ever hear of a concept called making the punishment fit the crime? Both are a case of it not happening and the punishment being grossly blown out of proportion.

[Androsphinx]

The location of the body it's done in no way affects my point dumbass. But the fact you don't see corporal punishment as barbaric either is telling.

It does show that you're ignorant of fairly obvious facts, which you might have thought would be necessary for making comparisons.

Ever hear of a concept called making the punishment fit the crime? Both are a case of it not happening and the punishment being grossly blown out of proportion.

So what you're saying is that the only relevant factor between the two cases - this one in Sudan, and one a decade ago in Singapore - is that the punishment is physical and disproportionate? That there are no other factors which might make it more likely that in this case foreign pressure will have an effect? That the size of the punishment, its far more painful nature, its longer-lasting effects, the gender of the victim, the lack of any comparable punishment in the recent history of the victim's home country and that the "crime" would not just minor but non-existent in said home country? None of these make any difference?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Caning in Singapore is done to the buttocks, not the back. You are a moron for making inaccurate comparisons without knowledge of the subject. Other pertinent factors differentiating between the two cases, which you might want to know about (although probably not) are that caning is only administered to men; is stricly limited; was instituted by the British (which makes it harder to be "barbaric"); and is just a more severe example of a technique of corporal punishment which is in use to this day in schools across the Anglosphere.

The location of the body it's done in no way affects my point dumbass. But the fact you don't see corporal punishment as barbaric either is telling.

Can't you see how this is rather different to the original case under discussion? And can you not see why a foreign government might be rather more concerned about the latter? Not to mention that while you might disagree with the sentence, car vandalism is a crime across the world. Naming bears "Muhammed" is not.

Ever hear of a concept called making the punishment fit the crime? Both are a case of it not happening and the punishment being grossly blown out of proportion.

Corporal punishment is in fact the only form of punishment humans have yet devised which is not barbaric. It is a quick and violent reminder of disobedience which is rapidly forgotten and recovered from. Incarceration, on the other hand, deprives a human being, which is a deeply social creature, of participation in society for months or years, leaving them deeply mentally traumatized and possibly driven insane. The effectiveness of public corporal punishment is far greater than any form of incarceration, and I would use it as the punishment of choice for every single first offender in the United States, with only repeat offenders (whose first punishment was corporal in nature) being incarcerated.

I don't understand how you seriously can believe that corporal punishment is barbaric when it's over in a matter of seconds or minutes. It is far less destructive in terms of the impact it has on the individual's life than to place them in fucking metal cages for years on end. You know what that does to animals psychologically, right? It does the same things to people.

[Androsphinx]

While I'm not in complete agreement with the above, I'd add that at the very least, having corporal punishment as an option for sentence allows a greater flexibility in sentencing, and thus makes it -easier- to find an appropriate punishment.

[General Zod]

It does show that you're ignorant of fairly obvious facts, which you might have thought would be necessary for making comparisons.

So you're saying you can't show how that changes my point. Gotcha.

So what you're saying is that the only relevant factor between the two cases - this one in Sudan, and one a decade ago in Singapore - is that the punishment is physical and disproportionate? That there are no other factors which might make it more likely that in this case foreign pressure will have an effect? That the size of the punishment, its far more painful nature, its longer-lasting effects, the gender of the victim, the lack of any comparable punishment in the recent history of the victim's home country and that the "crime" would not just minor but non-existent in said home country? None of these make any difference?

Gender is a very minor factor except in unusual instances. But for non violent crimes I'm failing to see how physical beatings can be seen as appropriate regardless of any other circumstance.

[General Zod]

I don't understand how you seriously can believe that corporal punishment is barbaric when it's over in a matter of seconds or minutes. It is far less destructive in terms of the impact it has on the individual's life than to place them in fucking metal cages for years on end. You know what that does to animals psychologically, right? It does the same things to people.

False dilemma, as I've never said prison was a superior form of punishment. However I don't see how anyone can seriously say that corporal punishment is a viable practice for non violent crimes.

[Androsphinx]

So you're saying you can't show how that changes my point. Gotcha.

Never said it did. You asked a question - a comparison between beating someone on the back with a wooden stick, and with a leather strap, and you implied that the only real difference was that the Singaporese offer better medical treatment. I called you a moron because your comparison was just plain wrong.

Gender is a very minor factor except in unusual instances.

But you seem to have accepted the other distinctions? The half-dozen other reasons I said your comparison of the two cases was "apples and oranges"?

And you don't think that the fact that this is a woman will increase the amount of pressure on the court, and make it less likely that they will whip her? The Singaporese don't beat women, and legislation against corporal punishment was often addressed at women decades before it was extended to men.Are you actually stupid enough to think that people will care the same for a woman being whipped as they would for a man?

[Androsphinx]

False dilemma, as I've never said prison was a superior form of punishment. However I don't see how anyone can seriously say that corporal punishment is a viable practice for non violent crimes.

False dilemma. I never said that I considered corporal punishment to be an acceptable punishment for non-violent crimes (I assume you didn't actually mean "viable", because it self-evidently is viable in Singapore and the Sudan)

[General Zod]

But you seem to have accepted the other distinctions? The half-dozen other reasons I said your comparison of the two cases was "apples and oranges"?

How about you address the other part of my point that you so conveniently snipped away first?

And you don't think that the fact that this is a woman will increase the amount of pressure on the court, and make it less likely that they will whip her? The Singaporese don't beat women, and legislation against corporal punishment was often addressed at women decades before it was extended to men.Are you actually stupid enough to think that people will care the same for a woman being whipped as they would for a man?

I'm failing to see how the gender of the victim makes it magically less barbaric of a practice.

False dilemma. I never said that I considered corporal punishment to be an acceptable punishment for non-violent crimes (I assume you didn't actually mean "viable", because it self-evidently is viable in Singapore and the Sudan)

You've already said you didn't have any problem with the caning for the guy in Singapore committing vandalism. The last I checked, spraypainting people's cars wasn't violent, jackass.

[Androsphinx]

How about you address the other part of my point that you so conveniently snipped away first?

Where you said that you didn't approve of corporal punishment for non-violent crimes? What was its relevance to the half-dozen reasons I gave why the two cases are significantly different? And therefore, because both cases are of non-violent crimes, they are exactly equal?

I'm failing to see how the gender of the victim makes it magically less barbaric of a practice.

First of all, I wasn't talking about the perceived barbarity of a practice, but about how the fact that the victim is a woman affects the amount of attention the case gets, and the amount of pressure that will be put on the court to come to a different sentence. So your distinction (or rather, claimed lack of distinction) is misplaced.

Secondly, are you totally unaware of the different stances the western world takes on male-male violence and male-female violence - that hitting a woman is seen to be one of the worst things that a man can do? Do you not see why people might care a lot more about a woman being whipped than a man?

You've already said you didn't have any problem with the caning for the guy in Singapore committing vandalism.

No I didn't. I said that caning a man was comparatively less severe and barbaric than whipping a woman. That's quite different, idiot.[/quote]

[General Zod]

Secondly, are you totally unaware of the different stances the western world takes on male-male violence and male-female violence - that hitting a woman is seen to be one of the worst things that a man can do? Do you not see why people might care a lot more about a woman being whipped than a man?

Yet again you seem to be completely missing my whole fucking point. I'm judging things based on how mis-proportionate the punishment is to the crime. The person being punished in no way figure into this, so claiming that it's less barbaric because one gender isn't targeted when it's still hideously out of proportion to the crime committed is retarded.

[Androsphinx]

Yet again you seem to be completely missing my whole fucking point. I'm judging things based on how mis-proportionate the punishment is to the crime. The person being punished in no way figure into this, so claiming that it's less barbaric because one gender isn't targeted when it's still hideously out of proportion to the crime committed is retarded.

First of all, the word is disproportionate.

Second of all, your "whole fucking point" was that because the US were unable to prevent a citizen from being caned in Singapore, the UK would be equally unable from preventing a citizen from being whipped in Sudan. I pointed out several differences between the two situations, and you have seen fit to focus on two of them - gender and the perceived barbarity of the sentence, and argue that neither is significantly different because both are "barbaric". In doing so, you've ignored the several other reasons I offered. What your entire argument seems to boil down to is "both are violent and disproportionate", that there are no other significant differences between the two, and therefore the UK will have no greater success than did the US.

What you fail to grasp is that there are several significant differences between the two, which I've mentioned above. What you also fail to grasp is that a woman being whipped in public forty times is much more socially unacceptable than a man being caned four times in private. If you actually want me to step you through why this is so, just say.

[Androsphinx]

it's less barbaric because one gender isn't targeted when it's still hideously out of proportion to the crime committed is retarded.

I said two separate things - that the gender of the victim makes international intervention more likely to succeed; and that violence against women is considered far more barbaric than that against women. I don't know why you don't understand this - even fictional mob hitmen do ("No women, no children")

[Androsphinx]

Gosh! From the Graniud:

Release hope for teddy row teacher

Press Association
Tuesday November 27, 2007 8:18 PM

Hopes that a British teacher could be cleared of blasphemy charges were raised after a Sudanese embassy official said the "minute" matter would be resolved very quickly.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, could be given 40 lashes or six months in jail after she let her seven-year-old pupils in Sudan name the class teddy bear Muhammad.

Ms Gibbons, who taught at Unity High School in Khartoum, was arrested on Sunday.

Dr Khalid al Mubarak, a spokesman for the Sudanese embassy in London, told BBC Radio 4's PM the police had no choice but to follow procedure following a complaint from a parent, but added that the "minute" issue would be resolved amicably.

He said: "The police is bound to investigate just as is the case in any country in which there is rule of law. Our relationship with Britain is so good that we wouldn't like such a minute event to be overblown."

He added: "I am pretty certain that this minute incident will be clarified very quickly and this teacher who has been helping us with the teaching of children will be safe and will be cleared."

Asked about the potential punishments of six-months jail or 40 lashes, he said: "I hope people will not give their imagination free rein to think about such things. That is based on the premise that a person will be charged and the person will be after that condemned and then the judgment has to be passed. But these are all steps ahead of us and my impression is that the whole thing could probably be settled amicably long before we reach stages like these."

What was it you said? Oh yes:

consider me skeptical of their preference to use anything less than the whip on women

and:

International pressure didn't stop Singapore from caning that one American tourist that decided to graiffiti a wall. And they're actually civilized compared to a shithole like Sudan.

As Mr Asquith said- "wait and see"