Well, they've heard you Johnno
Teddy row teacher to be released
BBC
Teddy row teacher to be released
BBC
It doesn't get any more ridiculous than this...
- Thread starter MikeUpNorth
- Start date
If only moderate Muslims would stand up and do something.
Oh wait ......
Oh wait ......
Moderate Liverpudlians should agitate for her to stay in Sudan
I'm glad she's been freed. Gillian Gibbons is such an excellent name.
Can we lynch Spoony now?
Can we lynch Spoony now?
Yes
Good to see sense has prevailed at last.
To return to the main point Mike, I assume we’re not really talking about all Muslims, cos we both know that most people aren’t politically active - whatever they say in response to loaded questionnaires. Even a big demonstration has to be organised.
So aside from individuals with a public profile – writers, journalists etc – some of whom have spoken out – what we’re talking about is religious and community leaders. And then we’re properly in the realm of politics, and it all gets very tricky.
Let me give you another example from Judaism (sorry to keep Judaeizing the thread, but it’s what I know, better than I know Islam anyway).
Orthodox Jewish synagogues tend to lose their old and infirm membership, because they're not allowed to drive or get the bus to synagogue on the Sabbath. Why not? Because driving's considered to be 'lighting a fire', which counts as work, which you're not meant to do on Sabbath. So far, so predictably absurd. But they don't want to lose their members - they need all the members they can get. Plus, in many other areas of religious law, there's a general exemption for those in ill health or infirmity. For instance, you can eat on the Yom Kippur fast if you're ill. So you'd've thought they could bring in an exemption allowing little old ladies with arthritis not to have to walk 3 miles on a cold November morning.
Jonathan Sachs, the chief rabbi, would almost certainly like to do just that. He's a humane, highly intelligent Oxford professor, and my guess is that if you asked him his religious beliefs off the record, you'd get some theologically sophisticated version of there-must-be-some-sort-of-prime-mover-ism. But Sachs has a large constituency, and unfortunately for him, that constituency is chock full of fecking idiots. If he tried to reform the Sabbath regulations, it would be regarded as the thin end of the wedge and quite possibly lead to a schism, with the lesser- and non-idiots being forced out - or at least to Sachs losing his job. And so the absurd tradition continues.
I'm guessing a similar dynamic's at play within Islam... no doubt many mullahs and community leaders privately feel dismayed by extremisim and the cruelty of certain regimes. But putting themselves on the line by saying so would be political suicide, due to the vocal and militant nature of the extreme sections of their constituencies.
Obviously it would be great if leaders were that brave, but since when did a politican fall on his sword over a point of principle? Michael Heseltine was the last I can think of, and I dare say that was less principled than it was reported.
So aside from individuals with a public profile – writers, journalists etc – some of whom have spoken out – what we’re talking about is religious and community leaders. And then we’re properly in the realm of politics, and it all gets very tricky.
Let me give you another example from Judaism (sorry to keep Judaeizing the thread, but it’s what I know, better than I know Islam anyway).
Orthodox Jewish synagogues tend to lose their old and infirm membership, because they're not allowed to drive or get the bus to synagogue on the Sabbath. Why not? Because driving's considered to be 'lighting a fire', which counts as work, which you're not meant to do on Sabbath. So far, so predictably absurd. But they don't want to lose their members - they need all the members they can get. Plus, in many other areas of religious law, there's a general exemption for those in ill health or infirmity. For instance, you can eat on the Yom Kippur fast if you're ill. So you'd've thought they could bring in an exemption allowing little old ladies with arthritis not to have to walk 3 miles on a cold November morning.
Jonathan Sachs, the chief rabbi, would almost certainly like to do just that. He's a humane, highly intelligent Oxford professor, and my guess is that if you asked him his religious beliefs off the record, you'd get some theologically sophisticated version of there-must-be-some-sort-of-prime-mover-ism. But Sachs has a large constituency, and unfortunately for him, that constituency is chock full of fecking idiots. If he tried to reform the Sabbath regulations, it would be regarded as the thin end of the wedge and quite possibly lead to a schism, with the lesser- and non-idiots being forced out - or at least to Sachs losing his job. And so the absurd tradition continues.
I'm guessing a similar dynamic's at play within Islam... no doubt many mullahs and community leaders privately feel dismayed by extremisim and the cruelty of certain regimes. But putting themselves on the line by saying so would be political suicide, due to the vocal and militant nature of the extreme sections of their constituencies.
Obviously it would be great if leaders were that brave, but since when did a politican fall on his sword over a point of principle? Michael Heseltine was the last I can think of, and I dare say that was less principled than it was reported.
Having to answer to a load of fecking idiots is not uncommon however - it happens in many situations, not just in government, or in religion.
I do acknowledge that no solution that doesn't involve NOT answering to said fecking idiots ever again has ever been found.
Quite. The point is that it's politics... there's no real point in everyone declaring all the time that they need to state their position, on a point of principle, when things just don't work like that.
Did you get my text btw cockface?
I've have just today realised that I know this woman's son, he was on the news tonight, John Gibbons aka 'Gibbo' aka the lead singer in numerous renditions of 'He came from Argentina and his name is Mascherano' in the square in Athens . Top bloke is Gibbo, I'm so pleased his mum has been freed.
. Top bloke is Gibbo, I'm so pleased his mum has been freed.The main sentiment of your post appears to be that a lot of people are "idiots" and therefore action by the 'leaders' would be ineffective, pointless and ultimately harmful to themselves. On the face of it this seems a perfectly reasonable proposition, and one that I instinctively agreed with on first thought. However, having thought about this a little more, I actually disagree with the fundamental idea behind the claim.
I do not think most people are idiots; I think most people are gullible. A lot of people like to have someone else do their thinking for them, even though they are capable of doing it themselves. Most people follow their parents' (or early role model's) religion and I think this bears this out. I suspect a subtle redesign of religious sentiment and creed by the 'leaders' would be accepted by the masses in a relatively short amount of time, provided there was a consensus among the 'leaders' (and perceived leaders). People will tend to follow more often than rebel; this is my hunch.
However, the difficulty is getting a consensus among the 'leaders' and authority figures for a concerted change. Each leader will have a slightly (or radically) different agenda, and I think this is what causes splits. In effect, people do not know who to follow.
It is therefore my thinking that if a large enough consensus could be made amongst authority figures in a faith, and they made a loud and coherent noise for change; then change would be possible in the short to medium term. Unfortunately there is far from a consensus.
I've have just today realised that I know this woman's son, he was on the news tonight, John Gibbons aka 'Gibbo' aka the lead singer in numerous renditions of 'He came from Argentina and his name is Mascherano' in the square in Athens
what no-one actually knew was that the Scouse bitch robbed the teddy from a mosque in the first place.
Yes, by "fecking idiots" I meant something like, "people who are doctrinaire and beyond reason when it comes to religious dogma"... I don't actually believe they're all completely stupid, I was trying to be funny.
I think you're right that it would need strong leadership, but I think you underestimate the political quagmire that a lot of these leaders are in.
Not funny this time Johnno.
I have to say the woman has been very gracious about the whole ordeal. Are you sure she's from Liverpool?
i am thinking of getting a goldfish and naming it 'Alah' and then getting it a plastic fish for company and naming that 'Mohammed'.. because i CAN, living in the uk
this would give me a sense of balance after the stupidity of the backward people subscribing to such ridiculous religious idiocracy.
roll on the the development of a safe and efficient way of storing hydrogen fuel cells.. the whole religion is carried forth on the back of dirty oil..
this would give me a sense of balance after the stupidity of the backward people subscribing to such ridiculous religious idiocracy.
roll on the the development of a safe and efficient way of storing hydrogen fuel cells.. the whole religion is carried forth on the back of dirty oil..
its not Alah its Allah
and Allah = God its an arabic word so you would look like a twat if you name your goldfish Allah/God because then you proclaim that fish to be your god
and Allah = God its an arabic word so you would look like a twat if you name your goldfish Allah/God because then you proclaim that fish to be your god
i am thinking of getting a goldfish and naming it 'Alah' and then getting it a plastic fish for company and naming that 'Mohammed'.. because i CAN, living in the uk
this would give me a sense of balance after the stupidity of the backward people subscribing to such ridiculous religious idiocracy.
roll on the the development of a safe and efficient way of storing hydrogen fuel cells.. the whole religion is carried forth on the back of dirty oil..
You been watching Top Gear recently?
i am thinking of getting a goldfish and naming it 'Alah' and then getting it a plastic fish for company and naming that 'Mohammed'.. because i CAN, living in the uk
this would give me a sense of balance after the stupidity of the backward people subscribing to such ridiculous religious idiocracy.
roll on the the development of a safe and efficient way of storing hydrogen fuel cells.. the whole religion is carried forth on the back of dirty oil..
and while you're at it, why not tease Liverpool fans about Heysel? because "you can" right?
You cannot take away his right to tease Liverpool fans about Heysel, or to name a goldfish Allah, or to say that your Christian faith is a load of bollocks.
You can call him rude, immature and stupid however.
The rich irony of this bizarre whackjobbery is that she allowed the kids to name the bear in order to teach them about democracy.
It looks like what they were taught is that in Sudan democracy isn't very appreciated by the whacko religious factions.
It looks like what they were taught is that in Sudan democracy isn't very appreciated by the whacko religious factions.
Umm, you can tease LFC fans about Heysel, just we can ban you for doing it on the Caf.
The Caf is a private message board though. Think of it as a group of people engaged in a conversation. We've got the right to tell you to feck off out of our conversation if we think you're being offensive to us, just as you would if some arsehole interrupted you in the pub.
We're not a government threatening brutal torture for accidentally doing something that upsets some whacko fundamentalist religious idiots.
Are you saying no one should have the right to criticise or mock other's religions?
We're not talking about The caf though Jason, we are talking about real life here. Yes you could name a goldfish Allah. Yes you could make fun of your Sikh next door neighbour. (actually that's not entirely true, you're not allowed to discriminate or make fun of a religious person in the work place, you as a lawyer should know that). And yes you could also make fun of a Liverpool about Heysel. There will be no-one in real life that will ban you for doing so. I never said you don't have a "right" to criticise or mock other's religions, in fact I said the contrary. However why would you? It's discrimination and mean, and a personal attack. I think it's really immoral as well. Also, if I as a Catholic can get along fine with and feel no need to insult Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists etc when I have different beliefs to them, why would you who has no belief at all feel the need to?
Excellent post.
LONDON: A young Muslim woman who thought it was “cool” to call herself a “lyrical terrorist” and write poetry in praise of Osama bin Laden has been convicted under Britain’s terror laws and given a suspended jail sentence.
Samina Malik (23) from Southall, west London, who worked at a branch of WH Smith at Heathrow airport, was shocked when she was arrested last October and later charged with terrorist offences for possessing Al-Qaeda literature, subscribing to Islamist websites and writing poetry on the internet under the screen name “Lyrical Terrorist.”
Ms. Malik, born and brought up in Britain, is the first British woman ever convicted of Islamist terrorism.
During her trial, Ms. Malik insisted that she was not a terrorist and that she called herself the “lyrical terrorist” to impress men. “It was only because it was a cool name, it doesn’t mean I am a terrorist,” she said dismissing the poems as “meaningless.”
Prosecution accused her of being “deeply involved with terrorist-related groups” and the court was told that she wrote poems with grisly and provocative titles like “How to behead.” The court heard that she had written on the back of a till receipt that “desire within me increases everyday to go for martyrdom.”
Ms. Malik, who faced a jail sentence after being convicted at Old Bailey last month, however escaped with a nine-month suspended sentence on Thursday. Instead of going to jail, she will have to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work in the community.
Ms. Malik struggled to hold back tears as the judge ruled that her crime was on the “margins” of the offence of which she was convicted. He observed that she was of “good character” and from a “supportive and law-abiding family who are appalled by the trouble that you are in.”
Her lawyer said the trial had been a “terrible ordeal” for her, and she was now relieved that it was all over. Ms. Malik’s prosecution was criticised by the Muslim Council of Britain whose secretary-general Muhammed Abdul Bari told The Times that it amounted to criminalising young Muslims for harbouring “silly thoughts”.
“Samina’s so-called poetry was certainly very offensive but I don’t believe that this case should really have been a criminal matter,” he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can insult and lampoon religious figures, but the very mention of UBL could land you.
Samina Malik (23) from Southall, west London, who worked at a branch of WH Smith at Heathrow airport, was shocked when she was arrested last October and later charged with terrorist offences for possessing Al-Qaeda literature, subscribing to Islamist websites and writing poetry on the internet under the screen name “Lyrical Terrorist.”
Ms. Malik, born and brought up in Britain, is the first British woman ever convicted of Islamist terrorism.
During her trial, Ms. Malik insisted that she was not a terrorist and that she called herself the “lyrical terrorist” to impress men. “It was only because it was a cool name, it doesn’t mean I am a terrorist,” she said dismissing the poems as “meaningless.”
Prosecution accused her of being “deeply involved with terrorist-related groups” and the court was told that she wrote poems with grisly and provocative titles like “How to behead.” The court heard that she had written on the back of a till receipt that “desire within me increases everyday to go for martyrdom.”
Ms. Malik, who faced a jail sentence after being convicted at Old Bailey last month, however escaped with a nine-month suspended sentence on Thursday. Instead of going to jail, she will have to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work in the community.
Ms. Malik struggled to hold back tears as the judge ruled that her crime was on the “margins” of the offence of which she was convicted. He observed that she was of “good character” and from a “supportive and law-abiding family who are appalled by the trouble that you are in.”
Her lawyer said the trial had been a “terrible ordeal” for her, and she was now relieved that it was all over. Ms. Malik’s prosecution was criticised by the Muslim Council of Britain whose secretary-general Muhammed Abdul Bari told The Times that it amounted to criminalising young Muslims for harbouring “silly thoughts”.
“Samina’s so-called poetry was certainly very offensive but I don’t believe that this case should really have been a criminal matter,” he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can insult and lampoon religious figures, but the very mention of UBL could land you.
Stupid and irresponsible but debatable if this sort of stuff should be a criminal offence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not just a mention though is it?
The parts I bolded are obviously the parts that scared the authorities. Even then I agree with wibble that although it was highly spasticated behavior, its debatable as to whether it should be regarded as criminal.
It all comes down to where we balance free speech against security and other concerts I suppose.
The worry is that you end up being able to prosecute saying anything controversial and we end up formally where we were informally in the 70's with the "Innocent until proven Irish" policy we had in the UK.
The worry is that you end up being able to prosecute saying anything controversial and we end up formally where we were informally in the 70's with the "Innocent until proven Irish" policy we had in the UK.
concerns.
From the view of the authorities though someone like samina is a red flag. Someone who clearly has the potential to commit an act of terrorism.
From the view of the authorities though someone like samina is a red flag. Someone who clearly has the potential to commit an act of terrorism.
concerns.
From the view of the authorities though someone like samina is a red flag. Someone who clearly has the potential to commit an act of terrorism.
In that case we all need to be charged for rape. After all we have the equipment to do it.
If you join a website devoted to rapes and rapists, call yourself the Serial rapist online, possess a lot of books on rape and have written on the back of a receipt that you feel the urge to rape then you could be considered a danger to society and potentially charged.
As much as I abhor rapists, the individual in question still has committed no act. I am very wary with taking preemptive action in order to stop an individual committing a possible future act, which they have not actively planned to do or conspired to commit. There could be a possible incitement charge however.
If she had been in the preparatory stages of an offence then an attempt charge could have been properly constructed, or even that of conspiracy or incitement if she had told others about the material. It is a debatable issue - and I am not sure where I stand on it to be fair.
It is very much like Minority Report in many ways! English law especially is allowing for individuals to be detained indefinitely after committing any crime if they remain a danger to the public.
I worry about the accuracy of these predictions though.
It's quite ironic - on one hand they can predict who will commit a terrorist act by virtue of their actions. One the other hand, they can't predict my proficiency in English despite being given information about my job, my educational qualifications all the way back to 1995, and my length of stay in this country.
Maybe I should append some sample RedCafe posts when my visa comes up for renewal...
The world has gone mad. As of next Tuesday I have to identify my customers according to the new anti-money laundering/anti-terrorist funding legislation.
The upshot is that anyone who is suspicious* then I have to insist on extra id information and/or report them as a "risk".
*doesn't live in Australia, wants to use funds raised against Australian security for overseas purchases/suggests that they may pay some of the loan from legally earned overseas income/wants a perfectly normal line of credit
The ludicrous thing is that if a loan is in the name (for e.g.) John David Smith then I need all id to be in exactly that name. Cards in the name John D Smith will be useless. This means that 50% of clients will be unable to comply with the law. Which is ludicrous.
Of course money launderers will be totally oblivious to these changes and will in no way be stupid enough to continue using line of credits and/or admit to overseas asset purchase. People with fake ids will be OK because they will ensure their fake id's comply with the new regulations.
Leaving normal people the only ones inconvenienced.
Thank feck we got rid of that cnut Howard. Although no doubt Labor will be so keen to prove how "sane" they are by not repealing this zenephobic legislation.
The upshot is that anyone who is suspicious* then I have to insist on extra id information and/or report them as a "risk".
*doesn't live in Australia, wants to use funds raised against Australian security for overseas purchases/suggests that they may pay some of the loan from legally earned overseas income/wants a perfectly normal line of credit
The ludicrous thing is that if a loan is in the name (for e.g.) John David Smith then I need all id to be in exactly that name. Cards in the name John D Smith will be useless. This means that 50% of clients will be unable to comply with the law. Which is ludicrous.
Of course money launderers will be totally oblivious to these changes and will in no way be stupid enough to continue using line of credits and/or admit to overseas asset purchase. People with fake ids will be OK because they will ensure their fake id's comply with the new regulations.
Leaving normal people the only ones inconvenienced.
Thank feck we got rid of that cnut Howard. Although no doubt Labor will be so keen to prove how "sane" they are by not repealing this zenephobic legislation.
From the New York times, it seems relevant to this thread: