|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by BreaK on 06:30 PM January 25th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Islamic countries treat women as sub-humans
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Hardly a day goes by without the press reporting about some new outrage perpetrated against women and girls in Islamic countries. How can we in the West stand idlely by while women and girls are treated as little more than sub-humans in these Islamic countries ?
We must put an end to the barbaric practices that exist in many of these Islamic countries which demean and subjugate women.
Included amongst these practices are :
the belief that women's lives are somehow of less value than those of men's e.g.
It is quiet common for women in Islamic countries to be employed in jobs which are considered too dangerous for men simply because society regards their lives as being less valuable than men's.
It is standard practice in many Islamic countries to rescue the men and children from a fire or accident first, before the women are rescued.
In some of the more extreme Islamic countries, women are expected to give up their lives so that men and children will not be harmed.
the belief that women should be treated more harshly than men e.g.
It is quiet common in Islamic countries for women to be sent to prison for crimes which men are normally pardoned or paroled.
It is standard practice in many Islamic countries to have health centres exclusively for men while at the same time having no comparable health services for women.
In some of the more extreme Islamic countries, the muslim men are "outraged" by the thought that men might be placed in prison conditions which are almost as bad as those in women's prisons.
the belief that the type of clothes worn by women in public must be restricted e.g.
It is quiet common in Islamic countries for women to ridiculed and demeaned for wearing pants in public while men are free to wear whatever they wish.
It is standard practice in many Islamic countries for large clothing stores to allocate most of their floor space and advertising dollar to men's clothing and to virtually ignore women's clothing needs.
In some of the more extreme Islamic countries, it is considered unnatural for women to be interested in wearing any other clothing than that dictated by strict social custom.
the belief that children are little more than men's property e.g.
It is quiet common in Islamic countries for men to awarded custody of their children following divorce as though the children were somehow the property of the father.
It is standard practice is many Islamic countries for mothers to be excluded from their children's lives following divorce and most Islamic courts legally sanction this barbaric practice.
In some of the more extreme Islamic countries, it is quiet common for government children's welfare payments to be sent directly to the fathers under the presumption that they are ones solely responsible for the upbringing of their children.
At this point in time, your sense of anger and outrage towards Islamic society must be approaching boiling point. Surely, in this day and age, we must put a stop to the way women and girls are treated in Islamic societies. It repugnant and no longer acceptable. Women must be treated as FULL human being and not as some form of subspecies.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
You may be interested to know that most of what you have just read about the ways that the Islamic religion treates women are in fact completely untrue or only partly true.
The statements made in the article above reflect the intolerant anti-Islamic views of many western feminists. These people would believe any statement made about the Islams treatment of women no matter how ludicous and farcical the claim.
It may come as a shock to many of these western feminists that these statements do in fact become TRUE when you swap the following words around :
men women
boys girls
Islamic Christian (= Western)
fathers mothers
pants skirts
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Hardly a day goes by without the [Islamic] press reporting about some new outrage perpetrated against men and boys in Christian countries. How can we in the Muslim world stand idlely by while men and boys are treated as little more than sub-humans in these Christain countries ?
We must put an end to the barbaric practices that exist in many of these Christian countries which demean and subjugate men.
Included amongst these practices are :
the belief that men's lives are somehow of less value than those of women's e.g.
It is quiet common for men in Christian countries to be employed in jobs which are considered too dangerous for women simply because society regards their lives as being less valuable than women's.
It is standard practice in many Christian countries to rescue the women and children from a fire or accident first, before the men are rescued.
In some of the more extreme Christian countries, men are expected to give up their lives so that women and children will not be harmed.
the belief that men should be treated more harshly than women e.g.
It is quiet common in Christian countries for men to be sent to prison for crimes which women are normally pardoned or paroled.
It is standard practice in many Christian countries to have health centres exclusively for women while at the same time having no comparable health services for men.
In some of the more extreme Christian countries, the Christian women are "outraged" by the thought that women might be placed in prison conditions which are almost as bad as those in men's prisons.
the belief that the type of clothes worn by men in public must be restricted e.g.
It is quiet common in Christian countries for men to be ridiculed and demeaned for wearing skirts in public while women are free to wear whatever they wish.
It is standard practice in many Christian countries for large clothing stores to allocate most of their floor space and advertising dollar to women's clothing and to virtually ignore men's clothing needs.
In some of the more extreme Christian countries, it is considered unnatural for men to be interested in wearing any other clothing than that dictated by strict social custom.
the belief that children are little more than women's property e.g.
It is quiet common in Christian countries for women to awarded custody of their children following divorce as though the children were somehow the property of the mother.
It is standard practice is many Christian countries for fathers to be excluded from their children's lives following divorce and most Western courts legally sanction this barbaric practice.
In some of the more extreme Christian countries, it is quiet common for government children's welfare payments to be sent directly to the mothers under the presumption that they are ones solely responsible for the upbringing of their children.
At this point in time your sense of anger and outrage towards Christian society must be approaching boiling point. Surely, in this day and age, we must put a stop to the way men and boys are treated in Christian societies. It repugnant and no longer acceptable. Men must be treated as FULL human being and not as some form of subspecies.
Ian Wilson Oct 1997
"Its amazing what happens when you stop seeing the world through your mothers eyes."
Is Australia a Christian country?, yes, so no surprise then, men and boys are just scum for christians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:23 PM January 26th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, yes. But is it common practice in Christian countries to make men or women communal property through an honor system, such that when they dishonor the community (such as by having premarital sex) we kill them? In "Christian" countries does a man testifying in court represent ONE man, just as a woman represents an entire woman? Sure transvestism is taboo in Western countries. But is it illegal, like not wearing a veil is in Saudi Arabia is for women?
-Harq al-Ada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Neither the Crown nor defence lawyers could find a previous similar case."
What about Karen Ellis in the other linked story ? ? ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:36 PM January 25th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Karen Ellis case does not apply - that is more relevant to second case Teacher/Student relationship, although not a good precedent either (There sex was "off the premises", so to speak and in private homes etc). Anyway, the Ellis case is, to the best of my knowledge, being appealed by the Crown. If my information is correct, we'll have to wait until that decision is in.
The only thing the two posted cases have in common is the minority of one of the participants.
The first instance is casual - open parameters. People have negotiated sex in private apartments since Adam was a pup and doubtless will continue to do so. It may offend us, but it isn't illegal.
The second - as was the Ellis Case, and here comparison may come in - was contractual. There are rigid parameters pre- and proscribing teacher/students relationship. Teachers are - or should be aware of these. Having sex with an underage pupil is one of these proscriptions. So that establishes breach of contract - a cause for dismissal. He did it in secret (mens rea; he knew that what he did was wrong - against the rules at any rate) Thus he's liable for criminal charges amd hence he pleaded guilty. That was a smart move, for guilty pleas generally attract a lesser sentence. Judges like co-operative defendants. He has a good barrister advising him.
He was - as was Karen Ellis - in charge of the student and should have exercised that responsibility - neither did. That's negligence and dereliction of duty, breach of trust - all also sackable offenses. They also may make him liable for civil action. It ain't over until all the fat ladies have sung
So: not wanting to predict the outcome, he'll be sacked (as was Karen Ellis), he'll be deprived of his livelihood (no more teaching - as was Karen Ellis), he'll have to register on the Sex Offenders register (as did Karen Ellis, but that may be mandatory) and he may get - most likely will get - a custodial sentence (which Karen Ellis may still get). There may be a difference there but we may have to wait the outcome of the appeal of Karen Ellis and any appeal he subsequent to his conviction may lodge.
Where's the double standard?
Neale
We are all aware of the "sexual discount" awarded to female offenders. So "he" will be more heavily sanctioned than "she" was (although hers was not a sap on the wrist, either). This difference in sentening may be seen as a tacit acknowledgment by the Courts that women are less able to assess their culpability i.e. congenital moral disability - something we should takeup with Larry Summers, perhaps. Feminist will be no help here - women are always innocent, we all know that.
To compare the three cases as if they were identical is wrong. The two cases posted refer to different offenses and will, therefore and quite rightly, be assessed differently.
There may be a queston of double standard between the Teachers cases, there is none between the two cases posted.
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tirryb on 04:08 PM January 28th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to disagree with you on this one. Yes, there are big differences, but at the core of both cases an adult took advantage of a child to have sex with them. Both were aware that it was wrong - you can't tell me that a grown woman is not aware that the legal age of consent is 16 - both were in full control of their mental abilities, both had sex on more than one occassion (it wasn't just a heat of the moment thing).
Yes, his case is worse because he's a teacher, but to me that speaks of his career. Legally, they should be treated in a roughly similar way. Contractually, he's broken a golden rule and should lose his job (which he has) - though 'never being allowed to teach again' seems a bit harsh, to me.
He's now received at least two years in jail on a three year sentence. She received a suspended six month sentence. You may not see any double-standard, but I still do.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Posted on behalf of TirryB: