Religion of Peace takes one prisoner for teddy heresy

Raj Ahten · Post by **Raj Ahten** » 2007-11-30 03:28pm

Ghetto edit: I should have said Fuck those in Sudan who support the government, but there are also a damn lot of people in open rebellion as well. (Not that they aren't assholes too).

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-11-30 03:47pm

Dargos wrote:I really can't see what the uproar is about. If this woman had received a whipping in accordance with that country’s law, then it sucks to be her.

I do not advocate whipping or torture but if you choose to work in a foreign country (especially religious or radical countries) you should really educate yourself about its laws and customs prior to working and/or visiting there. Ignorance of a law is not a defense.

How about "The law is vaguely worded and open to interpretations that can be calmly described as insane", as a defense?

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2007-11-30 03:57pm

Molyneux wrote:
Dargos wrote:I really can't see what the uproar is about. If this woman had received a whipping in accordance with that country’s law, then it sucks to be her.

I do not advocate whipping or torture but if you choose to work in a foreign country (especially religious or radical countries) you should really educate yourself about its laws and customs prior to working and/or visiting there. Ignorance of a law is not a defense.
How about "The law is vaguely worded and open to interpretations that can be calmly described as insane", as a defense?

Apparently the majority of Muslims scholars are always confused about it as well, which makes it even more stupid.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2007-11-30 05:14pm

wautd wrote:From this day forward, my toilet is called Mohammed

This is one of the best things I've read today, and I'm definitely following your example.

Jade Falcon · Post by **Jade Falcon** » 2007-12-02 05:48pm

I notice Britains great activist (sarcasm mode on full) George Galloway was really eager to help here.

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2007-12-03 03:24am

The two Peers just got her off the hook, bravo for that, since they did it aside from the main efforts.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-03 02:34pm

Jadeite wrote:
wautd wrote:From this day forward, my toilet is called Mohammed
This is one of the best things I've read today, and I'm definitely following your example.

Easily said, since you are anonymous pseudonyms on a message board. Would you mark up your toilet by writing "Mohammed" on it, and post the picture on the Internet with your real name and enough information for someone to track you down?

DavidEC · Post by **DavidEC** » 2007-12-03 02:45pm

http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?oe=UTF-8 ... 61&topic=h

Good news.

I genuinely wonder what will happen to the children, reportedly 20 out of 23 of whom voted for Mohammed as the name.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-03 02:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
wautd wrote:From this day forward, my toilet is called Mohammed
This is one of the best things I've read today, and I'm definitely following your example.
Easily said, since you are anonymous pseudonyms on a message board. Would you mark up your toilet by writing "Mohammed" on it, and post the picture on the Internet with your real name and enough information for someone to track you down?

I might actually do that. But then my life currently sucks. It would be incredibly stupid.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-12-03 03:34pm

DavidEC wrote:http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?oe=UTF-8 ... 61&topic=h

Good news.

I genuinely wonder what will happen to the children, reportedly 20 out of 23 of whom voted for Mohammed as the name.

Just a little bit from your linked story:

Ibrahim Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News 24 that the whole saga had been very damaging for the image of the Muslim faith as it could lead some people to "feel that Islam has no place in modern society".

President al-Bashir had been under pressure from Sudanese hardliners to ensure Mrs Gibbons served her full sentence, while others called for a retrial and for the sentence to be increased.

Jonah Fisher, the BBC's former BBC Khartoum correspondent, said: "The carefully stage-managed pardoning of Mrs Gibbons by Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir will have satisfied few within his divided government."

Let's see, a bunch of hardliner radicals calling for savage retribution. No, I can't see how that would damage Islam's image.

I wonder what happened to the bear. Probably beheaded.

I imagine the woman in question will never set foot in Sudan again. I also wonder if the authorities will be watching over her when she arrives home, just in case some nut decides to exact his own justice.

DavidEC · Post by **DavidEC** » 2007-12-03 03:57pm

FSTargetDrone wrote:Let's see, a bunch of hardliner radicals calling for savage retribution. No, I can't see how that would damage Islam's image.

I just wonder when people will realise, if ever that it is not some extremist minority but part-n-parcel of faith and having, by definition, no intellectual self-regulation and internal debate.

I wonder what happened to the bear. Probably beheaded.

I can see the stuffing spilling already in this clash of civilisations. :p

I imagine the woman in question will never set foot in Sudan again. I also wonder if the authorities will be watching over her when she arrives home, just in case some nut decides to exact his own justice.

Judging by the behaviour of British newspapers, her personal details won't be too secret. Look at the paedo name-n-shame scheme, and where even 'respectable' newspapers like the Telegraph have no concept of operational security. ('secret' war my arse!) Or who knows - maybe that disk lost by the government will have her details on it. :p

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-12-03 04:19pm

DavidEC wrote:
I wonder what happened to the bear. Probably beheaded.
I can see the stuffing spilling already in this clash of civilisations. :p

I foresee a stuffed bear pogrom. No Teddy will be safe. Oh, the ursinity!

Judging by the behaviour of British newspapers, her personal details won't be too secret. Look at the paedo name-n-shame scheme, and where even 'respectable' newspapers like the Telegraph have no concept of operational security. ('secret' war my arse!) Or who knows - maybe that disk lost by the government will have her details on it. :p

This reminds me of the story over in N&P about the workers in the small Hillary Clinton campaign office being held hostage the other day. The police seemed to be giving very little details to the press while the situation was ongoing, but someone, either CNN or MSNBC or one of the networks got the name of the suspect. They plastered it on the screen in big letters and I said to myself, "Why in the hell do they put this guy's name out there (for all sorts of reasons)? It might not even be the right one!" And as I suspected, they got the name completely wrong. Not that this is a unique situation. The media seems to release this sort of information all of the time, prematurely. I wonder if the guy who's name was (wrongly) shown on the screen got a bunch of phone calls from friends and family, looking to see where he was.

Now, there probably was little that could have been done to hide the name of the teacher in the bear incident, but to give out the other information about where she may live and other details is just utterly irresponsible.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-12-03 04:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:Easily said, since you are anonymous pseudonyms on a message board. Would you mark up your toilet by writing "Mohammed" on it, and post the picture on the Internet with your real name and enough information for someone to track you down?

That's what some people are doing on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKfnOF0miIk

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-03 04:53pm

Lord Poe wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Easily said, since you are anonymous pseudonyms on a message board. Would you mark up your toilet by writing "Mohammed" on it, and post the picture on the Internet with your real name and enough information for someone to track you down?
That's what some people are doing on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKfnOF0miIk

Looking at that guy, I can't help but wonder if he's secretly hoping some Muslim will come along and put him out of his misery. He does not look well.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-12-03 05:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:Looking at that guy, I can't help but wonder if he's secretly hoping some Muslim will come along and put him out of his misery. He does not look well.

That's "The Boring Dispatcher". It's his "shtick", as he's one of the Youtube celebs. This is a bunch of people linking videos and taking this teddy bear challenge, like they did for the original "Blasphemy Challenge".

In that one, people were asked to deny the Holy Ghost, as that is supposedly the only sin you can't be forgiven for.

DavidEC · Post by **DavidEC** » 2007-12-03 05:31pm

PS Appreciate your spelling GIF Lord Poe.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2007-12-03 05:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:Looking at that guy, I can't help but wonder if he's secretly hoping some Muslim will come along and put him out of his misery. He does not look well.

Here's the original video, starring a guy who doesn't have a "face for radio". Also, he doesn't have a grating voice (it's quite sophisticated and British, in fact).

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-12-03 05:41pm

wolveraptor wrote:Here's the original video, starring a guy who doesn't have a "face for radio". Also, he doesn't have a grating voice (it's quite sophisticated and British, in fact).

LOL!! Check out the 43 video responses! One guy named his Homer Simpson stuffed animal Muhammad!

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-12-03 06:06pm

It's really stupid for these people to do such a thing. Islam fanatics are not exactly in short supply these days...they DO take such things as an insult to their religion much, much more seriously then Christians. Well...actually Christians have the "turn the other cheek" crap, which is mind you useful in this sense of the word...

But yeah, even in 'civilized' countries, there can be many Muslims that will not find it funny at all. Good way to get yourself wacked.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-12-03 06:25pm

Justforfun000 wrote:It's really stupid for these people to do such a thing. Islam fanatics are not exactly in short supply these days...they DO take such things as an insult to their religion much, much more seriously then Christians. Well...actually Christians have the "turn the other cheek" crap, which is mind you useful in this sense of the word...

But yeah, even in 'civilized' countries, there can be many Muslims that will not find it funny at all. Good way to get yourself wacked.

To paraphrase somebody or other:
They can't whack all of us.

I'm currently trying to a) find a teddy bear, and b) get my feshluggenah dime-store webcam to actually work with Youtube...no luck so far, I'm afraid.

Norseman · Post by **Norseman** » 2007-12-03 07:22pm

Molyneux wrote:
Justforfun000 wrote:It's really stupid for these people to do such a thing. Islam fanatics are not exactly in short supply these days...they DO take such things as an insult to their religion much, much more seriously then Christians. Well...actually Christians have the "turn the other cheek" crap, which is mind you useful in this sense of the word...

But yeah, even in 'civilized' countries, there can be many Muslims that will not find it funny at all. Good way to get yourself wacked.
To paraphrase somebody or other:
They can't whack all of us.

I'm currently trying to a) find a teddy bear, and b) get my feshluggenah dime-store webcam to actually work with Youtube...no luck so far, I'm afraid.

I wouldn't do it for an entirely different reason: It could mean jailtime! I'm not kidding here, if you run into the wrong prosecutor, and you live in certain west European countries, you could be prosecuted!

No doubt you think I'm exaggerating, but I direct your attention to the Norwegian Anti-Discrimination Law where section 5 clearly states:

§ 5. Prohibition of harassment

Harassment on the grounds mentioned in §4 first part is forbidden. By harassment is meant actions, omissions, or statements that act or have as their purpose to act offensive, intimidating, hostile, demeaning, or humiliating.

It is forbidden to collude in violations of the first part of this paragraph.

So obviously this has as its purpose to be demeaning and humiliating, or you could construe it as such anyway right? However according to any civilized law you're innocent until proven guilty right? Wrong.

§ 10. Burden of proof

If there are circumstances that gives cause to believe that there has been a violation of paragrafs §§4, 5, 6, 7 or 9, it shall be assumed that a violation has occurred, unless the person responsible for the action, omission, or statement gives evidence that it's more probable than not that there has been no such violation.

By the way Norway is not the only Europen country to have laws such as this. So it's not just the Islamofascists you should look out for.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2007-12-03 07:26pm

I had a huge lunch, I'm going to go take a nice, relaxing Mohammed in my low-flow Allah. I'm all about conservation.

Oh, have you guys tried the new Koran from Charmin? It's the best ever. Seriously.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-12-03 07:39pm

I'm surprised Norway would have you deemed guilty FIRST. I spent half a year there in '99, and they are in general one of the most secular, enlightened places I've been to. I guess they deem this crime as blasphemy in it's own way.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-03 11:38pm

Molyneux wrote:To paraphrase somebody or other:
They can't whack all of us.

If some guy or his family does get whacked, is that supposed to make him feel better?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-12-03 11:49pm

I'm surprised Norway would have you deemed guilty FIRST. I spent half a year there in '99, and they are in general one of the most secular, enlightened places I've been to.

Being a secular and overall progressive country doesn't mean you'll have certain laws apply everywhere. Do circumstances constitute proof? Who knows.