An excellent article that deserves reprinting here:

When is a crime against humanity not a crime against humanity? When it is applied to women of course.

Here’s a quick description:

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, “are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings.” They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.

To accompany this, here is (part) of an email I received this week:

>My life has become a nightmare as my father physically beats me. He hates that I wish to pursue higher education since he and my mother are trying to marry me off in a couple of months to an extremist Muslim who is not in the favour of educating woman just as my family. I wanted to get help here in Saudi Arabia but the laws here support the male guardians over anything else. Saudi government will not bring a father or a husband to justice for murdering their daughters or wives. I know that I cannot do this without fear of being killed from my father or government.<

In short, a crime against humanity is being committed in Saudi Arabia. The same can be said for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere; every bit of it is propped up by religion, justified by religion, and strengthened by religion.

The re-Talibanisation of Afghanistan began in earnest last week when women were told they could not leave their house without being accompanied by a male guardian. This is the case in Saudi also. The Afghan order came in the form of a fatwa (religious ruling) which included a warning that any attempts to block it would result in “jihad”. In other words, the clerics of Afghanistan have imprisoned and enslaved women (again), the fatwa was not over-ruled by the government, and thus a crime against humanity has been committed. Such crimes are committed routinely in Afghanistan and we were told this week that the number of rape victims languishing in prison there (for being raped) has increased by 50% in just one year.

In Iran, the government commits a similar crime against humanity by stoning women to death for adultery, as well as other barbaric injustices. The Iranian penal code even stipulates the size of the stone; it cannot be so big as to cause a fast death, it cannot be so small as to cause a relatively painless one. They’ve got all bases covered.

In Pakistan, a staggering 90% of women are subject to domestic abuse. Despite feeble attempts to deal with this, women still do not have any practical protection. Domestic violence is still “endemic” and the misogyny that drives it still mainstream.

In summary, crimes against humanity are committed with impunity. But don’t expect to hear them called that. When committed against a woman, a crime against humanity undergoes a remarkable metamorphosis and becomes “culture” (aka religion). “Culture” — for those insufficiently trained in politically correct totalitarianism — is entirely positive, cannot change, and if you disagree even slightly, you are a racist. Those are the rules.

The United Nations, founded after World War II (partly) to promote human rights and global justice, has not — as you might expect — taken sufficient steps to stamp out these crimes. In fact, the opposite is true; Despite characterising freedom of speech as a universal right, the United Nations is being brow-beaten by the Organisation of Islamic Conference (Cooperation… whatever) in to accepting an international law preventing criticism of Islam — and you can bet that the practices carried out in its name (i.e. crimes against humanity) will be covered by this anti-blasphemy edict.

In her fantastic book ‘Are Women Human?’ Catharine MacKinnon argues that human rights laws across the globe simply don’t apply to women — such laws are side-stepped and ignored. Crimes against women are routinely sanitised as “tradition”, “conservative”, “cultural” and of course “religious” — all untouchable, all beyond criticism.

When the Rushdie affair taught us the new rule on not criticising religion, we accepted it without question. Now, women all over the world are having their rights removed (including western women) because the truth about the religious nature of these crimes is suppressed. We cannot insult religion, and if a few women are imprisoned, raped, enslaved, tortured, humiliated, and beaten as a result — then so be it.

Anne Marie Waters is the spokesperson of the One Law for All campaign and council member of the National Secular Society. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/its-not-culture-its-a-crime-against-humanity

I don’t know why you consider that article to be excellent Bubblecar, I think it is entirely counter-productive on at least three fronts:

1. By characterising the problem as solely one of women it ignores the huge numbers of men who are subject to similar treatment, often with much more explicit support from the law and government.

2. By characterising the problem as one of religion (and one particular religion), rather than culture it ignores the huge numbers of non-muslim people who are subject to similar treatment.

3. By characterising the problem as one of religion, rather than culture, it makes the problem effectively insoluble by alienating the majority of those people (women and men) in a position to do something about it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why you consider that article to be excellent Bubblecar, I think it is entirely counter-productive on at least three fronts:

1. By characterising the problem as solely one of women it ignores the huge numbers of men who are subject to similar treatment, often with much more explicit support from the law and government.

2. By characterising the problem as one of religion (and one particular religion), rather than culture it ignores the huge numbers of non-muslim people who are subject to similar treatment.

3. By characterising the problem as one of religion, rather than culture, it makes the problem effectively insoluble by alienating the majority of those people (women and men) in a position to do something about it.

Yes, I thought that all the way through reading it.

4. By characterising the problem as one of “political correctness”, rather than deliberate choices of political support by Western governments, driven by the interests of (in the words of the song) The Monetary and the Military, it removes the one mechanism by which progress can be made, i.e. cultural change from within actively supported by external liberal democracies.

The Rev Dodgson said:

4. By characterising the problem as one of “political correctness”, rather than deliberate choices of political support by Western governments, driven by the interests of (in the words of the song) The Monetary and the Military, it removes the one mechanism by which progress can be made, i.e. cultural change from within actively supported by external liberal democracies.

With respect though, the entire thing seemed to be aimed at Islamic cultures which do not separate religion from state politics. They don’t have liberal democracies in the main.

The Rev Dodgson said:

4. By characterising the problem as one of “political correctness”, rather than deliberate choices of political support by Western governments, driven by the interests of (in the words of the song) The Monetary and the Military, it removes the one mechanism by which progress can be made, i.e. cultural change from within actively supported by external liberal democracies.

what democracies are these?

roughbarked said:

With respect though, the entire thing seemed to be aimed at Islamic cultures which do not separate religion from state politics. They don’t have liberal democracies in the main.

By external liberal democracies I meant primarily the USA, but also Europe and Australia.

wookiemeister said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

4. By characterising the problem as one of “political correctness”, rather than deliberate choices of political support by Western governments, driven by the interests of (in the words of the song) The Monetary and the Military, it removes the one mechanism by which progress can be made, i.e. cultural change from within actively supported by external liberal democracies.

what democracies are these?

Just so you know, I won’t be wasting my time responding to any further comments you choose to make on this topic.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

With respect though, the entire thing seemed to be aimed at Islamic cultures which do not separate religion from state politics. They don’t have liberal democracies in the main.

By external liberal democracies I meant primarily the USA, but also Europe and Australia.

is Australia a democracy?

The Rev Dodgson said:

wookiemeister said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

4. By characterising the problem as one of “political correctness”, rather than deliberate choices of political support by Western governments, driven by the interests of (in the words of the song) The Monetary and the Military, it removes the one mechanism by which progress can be made, i.e. cultural change from within actively supported by external liberal democracies.

what democracies are these?

Just so you know, I won’t be wasting my time responding to any further comments you choose to make on this topic.

ok

continue with your thoughts

Australia isn’t a democracy by virtue that it doesn’t have a secure voting system

which means that if you are going down the track of talking about how great democracy is you are totally wrong

you’ve suckled far too long on the teat of propaganda rather than examine the facts as they stand

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

With respect though, the entire thing seemed to be aimed at Islamic cultures which do not separate religion from state politics. They don’t have liberal democracies in the main.

By external liberal democracies I meant primarily the USA, but also Europe and Australia.

I comprehend that but we/they are external and our hands are tied as to interference in other cultural aspects outside our domain. The best we can do is maintain our own.

I posted this link to a female in the USA and the answer tha came back was

<Strangely enough="" ('nuther="" coincidence)="" Ted="" &="" I="" had="" an="" argument="" over="" the="" "acceptable"="" ((in="" a="" man's="" opinion))="" treatment="" of="" women,="" just="" this="" morning.="">

part of the last post was hidden partly due to this forums code.. relating to >

>
It relates however to the fact that even in so called democracies females are, the weaker sex. Though the democratic principle has allowed evolving of the society held rules, these democracies and religions are still ruled by men in the main.

One cannot help but wonder how long it will take for Islam to tear itself to pieces if the rest of the world just stands back and does nothing.

Rule 303 said:

One cannot help but wonder how long it will take for Islam to tear itself to pieces if the rest of the world just stands back and does nothing.

you’ll be waiting for quite some time

I wonder what used to happen when we weren’t there to “help” them

Rule 303 said:

One cannot help but wonder how long it will take for Islam to tear itself to pieces if the rest of the world just stands back and does nothing.

what is it? 1400 odd years they’ve been at it and still not a lot of change?

wookiemeister said:

Rule 303 said:

One cannot help but wonder how long it will take for Islam to tear itself to pieces if the rest of the world just stands back and does nothing.

you’ll be waiting for quite some time

I wonder what used to happen when we weren’t there to “help” them

THe same thing. Wasn’t it Jesus who supposedly interrupted a stoning?

roughbarked said:

Rule 303 said:

One cannot help but wonder how long it will take for Islam to tear itself to pieces if the rest of the world just stands back and does nothing.

what is it? 1400 odd years they’ve been at it and still not a lot of change?

The largest and 4th largest predominantly Islamic countries may be a long way from perfect, but there have been huge changes in both (for the better) over the past 100 years or so.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

Rule 303 said:

One cannot help but wonder how long it will take for Islam to tear itself to pieces if the rest of the world just stands back and does nothing.

you’ll be waiting for quite some time

I wonder what used to happen when we weren’t there to “help” them

THe same thing. Wasn’t it Jesus who supposedly interrupted a stoning?

they didn’t like that

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

you’ll be waiting for quite some time

I wonder what used to happen when we weren’t there to “help” them

THe same thing. Wasn’t it Jesus who supposedly interrupted a stoning?

they didn’t like that

islam itself is borne from judiasm so its not surprising that punishment and genocide is hardwired into its being

the new testament rejected the old testament, Jehovah is about destruction, murder and mayhem, jesus and his Father are about peace and love. Judaism was a religion that stole most of its ideas from other religions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Rule 303 said:

One cannot help but wonder how long it will take for Islam to tear itself to pieces if the rest of the world just stands back and does nothing.

what is it? 1400 odd years they’ve been at it and still not a lot of change?

The largest and 4th largest predominantly Islamic countries may be a long way from perfect, but there have been huge changes in both (for the better) over the past 100 years or so.

Small wins in the scheme of things.

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

THe same thing. Wasn’t it Jesus who supposedly interrupted a stoning?

they didn’t like that

islam itself is borne from judiasm so its not surprising that punishment and genocide is hardwired into its being

the new testament rejected the old testament, Jehovah is about destruction, murder and mayhem, jesus and his Father are about peace and love. Judaism was a religion that stole most of its ideas from other religions.

Religion is about making stuff up to suit those who make the decisions.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

what is it? 1400 odd years they’ve been at it and still not a lot of change?

The largest and 4th largest predominantly Islamic countries may be a long way from perfect, but there have been huge changes in both (for the better) over the past 100 years or so.

Small wins in the scheme of things.

Why do you say that? I’d say they were huge wins in the scheme of things.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The largest and 4th largest predominantly Islamic countries may be a long way from perfect, but there have been huge changes in both (for the better) over the past 100 years or so.

Small wins in the scheme of things.

Why do you say that? I’d say they were huge wins in the scheme of things.

OK I’ll accept that any win under the circumstances, is huge. Though overall rather less than significant.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Small wins in the scheme of things.

Why do you say that? I’d say they were huge wins in the scheme of things.

OK I’ll accept that any win under the circumstances, is huge. Though overall rather less than significant.

Indonesia and Turkey are home to about 1/4 of the World’s Muslim population. Huge improvements in human rights in those two countries seems pretty significant to me.

Now retiring to do practical stuff.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

they didn’t like that

islam itself is borne from judiasm so its not surprising that punishment and genocide is hardwired into its being

the new testament rejected the old testament, Jehovah is about destruction, murder and mayhem, jesus and his Father are about peace and love. Judaism was a religion that stole most of its ideas from other religions.

Religion is about making stuff up to suit those who make the decisions.

yep

you’ll notice that at one point its decided that moses needed “help” in draughting the laws

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why do you say that? I’d say they were huge wins in the scheme of things.

OK I’ll accept that any win under the circumstances, is huge. Though overall rather less than significant.

Indonesia and Turkey are home to about 1/4 of the World’s Muslim population. Huge improvements in human rights in those two countries seems pretty significant to me.

Now retiring to do practical stuff.

I’m not one to write down positive steps and I do agree that such steps have been made against all odds. The thing in the main though is that largely this is due to the fact that religion and state are at least somewhat separated.

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

islam itself is borne from judiasm so its not surprising that punishment and genocide is hardwired into its being

the new testament rejected the old testament, Jehovah is about destruction, murder and mayhem, jesus and his Father are about peace and love. Judaism was a religion that stole most of its ideas from other religions.

Religion is about making stuff up to suit those who make the decisions.

yep

you’ll notice that at one point its decided that moses needed “help” in draughting the laws

within the human psyche most people don’t like to have their mental construct shaken a little and shown that the foundation is shakey

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

OK I’ll accept that any win under the circumstances, is huge. Though overall rather less than significant.

Indonesia and Turkey are home to about 1/4 of the World’s Muslim population. Huge improvements in human rights in those two countries seems pretty significant to me.

Now retiring to do practical stuff.

I’m not one to write down positive steps and I do agree that such steps have been made against all odds. The thing in the main though is that largely this is due to the fact that religion and state are at least somewhat separated.

oh yes there have significant advances, in Saudi Arabia beheadings can be filmed now.

the americans have had problems with vote rigging. the election that swept George II into power leading to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. so you see if you don’t have a rock solid electoral system you can create many problems.

During the 2004 United States presidential election, concerns were raised about various aspects of the voting process, including whether voting had been made accessible to all those entitled to vote, whether ineligible voters were registered, whether voters were registered multiple times, and whether the votes cast had been correctly counted. More controversial was the charge that these issues might have affected the reported outcome of the presidential election, in which the incumbent, Republican President George W. Bush, defeated the Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry. Despite the existing controversies, Kerry conceded the election the following day on November 3.

There was generally less attention paid to the Senate and House elections and to various state races, but some of them were also questioned, especially the gubernatorial election in Washington, which was decided by less than 0.01% and involved several recounts and lawsuits. The final recount also reversed the outcome of this election.

how the west was rigged

Voter registration

In the months leading up to the 2004 election, both parties made efforts to register new voters. In some cases, Republicans challenged or prepared to challenge the validity of many new registrations, citing instances of fictitious names such as Mary Poppins appearing on the voter rolls. Democrats accuse the Republicans of using this as an excuse for vote suppression.

There were also complaints about the rejection of registrations by government agencies. College students encountered difficulties in registering where they attended school. Some officials rejected voter registration forms on grounds that were contested, such as a failure to use paper of a particular weight (Ohio) or a failure to check a box on the form (Florida).

Aside from such official actions, there were disputes about other voter registration activities. In Nevada and Oregon, a company hired by the Republican National Committee solicited voter registration forms, but was accused of filing only the Republicans’ forms and shredding those completed by Democrats. Individuals tenuously linked to nonprofit organizations, ACORN and the NAACP, were accused of submitting false voter registration forms and of carelessly or deliberately failing to submit some valid ones that they had received.

An analysis of Florida voter rolls in December 2004 alleged that over 64,000 registered voters had names that also appeared in a Social Security database of death claims, according to the Chicago Tribune. In response, the Brennan Center for Justice found reason to believe that the undisclosed methodology of the source article may have been inaccurate, and further noted that there was no allegation of anyone voting in someone else’s name.

A New York Daily News article alleged 46,000 were people registered to vote in both New York city and Florida. A Cleveland Plain Dealer article identified 27,000 people possibly registered in both Ohio and in Florida, with 400 possibly voting in both states consistently in the previous four years. The article attempted to match voter rolls to each other, which likely yielded significant errors.

Purges of voter lists

State efforts to purge voter rolls have led to disputes, notably in Florida. Before the 2000 election, Florida officials purged approximately 100,000 registered voters on the grounds that they were convicted felons (and therefore ineligible to vote under Florida law) or dead. Many of those whose names were purged were “false positives” (not actually felons). (See Florida Central Voter File.) A post-election lawsuit brought by the NAACP, the People for the American Way Foundation, and other organizations resulted in a settlement in 2002 in which the state agreed to restore eligible voters to the rolls and take other steps to improve election procedures.

The issue returned to prominence in 2004 when Florida announced another planned purge, again based on a list of felons. The state government initially attempted to keep the list secret. When a court ordered its release, it was found to contain mostly Democrats and a disproportionate number of racial minorities. Faced with media documentation that the list included thousands of errors, the state abandoned the attempt to use it. Some of the voters improperly purged in 2000 had not been restored as of May 2004.

Voter suppression

Further information: Caging (voter suppression)

Representative Dennis Kucinich commented on allegations of voter suppression in Ohio during the 2004 election:

“ Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common. ”

John Pappageorge, a Republican state legislator in Michigan said in the summer of 2004, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.” Pappageorge later claimed he was taken out of context saying, “In the context that we were talking about, I said we’ve got to get the vote up in Oakland (County) and the vote down in Detroit. You get it down with a good message.”

Court injunctions were placed by the Franklin County Common Pleas Court against MoveOn for verbally threatening and harassing individuals who identified themselves as Republican. On October 5, a Bush-Cheney campaign volunteer in Orlando had his arm broken when trying to stop union activists from storming the campaign office. The “storming” was part of a massive simultaneous campaign against 20 pro-Republican headquarters.

Practical impediments

In every election, some voters encounter practical impediments to voting, such as long lines at the polling place. In 2004, however, the issue received increased attention. In many places, some voters had to wait several hours to vote. Ohio voters, in particular, were plagued by this issue. A study conducted by the Democratic National Committee in the summer of 2005 found that long lines forced three percent of the state’s registered voters to abstain.

Among the factors thought to be at work were: the general increase in voter turnout; a particular increase in first-time voters whose processing required more time; and confusion about the providing of provisional ballots, which many states had never used before.

Distribution of voting machines proved to be a problem in some districts. In Ohio, some precincts had too few machines causing long waiting times, while others had plenty of machines per registered voters. Officials cited a late rush of registrations after voting machines had already been allocated as one source of long lines.

Voting machines

Further information: Analysis of electronic voting

In the 2000 election, especially in the disputed recounts in Florida, there were issues concerning the ambiguities and uncertainties that arose from punch-card ballots, such as the hanging chads (incompletely punched holes). In 2004, the punch-card ballots were still widely used in some states. For example, most Ohio voters used punch-card ballots, and more than 90,000 ballots cast in Ohio were treated as not including a vote for President; this “undervote” could arise because the voter chose not to cast a vote or because of a malfunction of the punch-card system.

For the country as a whole, the voting technology used in the 2004 election breaks down as follows:

Machine type

% of ballots cast

Punch card 22.3
Lever machine 14.7
Paper ballot 1.7
Optical scan 29.6
Electronic 22.1
Mixed 9.6

Before 2004, the increasing use of electronic voting machines had raised several issues:
Security. Without proper testing and certification, critics believe electronic voting machines could produce an incorrect report due to malfunction or deliberate manipulation.
Recounts. Voting machine recounts should include auditing of hardware, software and the comparison of multiple vote records. Nevada was one of several states which insisted on electronic voting systems that create a paper trail.
Partisan ties. Democrats noted the Republican or conservative ties of several leading executives in the companies providing the machines.

The state of California ordered that 15,000 of its Diebold voting machines not be used in the 2004 elections due to flaws that the company failed to disclose.

In September 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report noting electronic voting systems hold promise for improving the election process while citing concerns about security and reliability raised by numerous groups, and detailing specific problems that have occurred.

Provisional and absentee ballots

Provisional ballots are for would-be voters who assert that they are registered but whose names cannot be found in the list available at the polling place. The voter completes a written ballot, which is placed in a sealed envelope. The ballot is opened and counted only if the voter is subsequently found to be registered.

In 2004, there was contention over the standards for determining whether to count provisional ballots. In Ohio, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell ruled that Ohio would not count provisional ballots, even those from properly registered voters, that were submitted at the wrong precinct. This ruling was ultimately upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

Absentee ballots were also an issue. There were reports of absentee ballots being mailed out too late for some voters to complete and return them in time. In some instances, officials argued that last-minute litigation over Ralph Nader’s ballot status or other issues had prevented them from finalizing the absentee ballots as early as they wanted to. In Broward County, Florida, some 58,000 absentee ballots were delivered to the Postal Service to be mailed to voters, according to county election officials, but the Postal Service said it had never received them.

Exit polling

The 2004 election brought new attention to the issue of exit polls. Discrepancies existed between early exit poll information and the officially reported results. These discrepancies led some, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to prematurely conclude that Kerry won the election. Expert opinion was divided concerning what inferences should be drawn from the cited discrepancies.

Mitofsky International, the company responsible for exit polling for the National Election Pool and its member news organizations, released a report detailing the 2004 election’s exit polling. At issue were the early release of some poll information, issues regarding correcting exit poll data using actual voter totals, and differences between exit polls and official results.

The NEP report stated that “the size of the average exit poll error … was higher in 2004 than in previous years for which we have data.” and that exit polling estimates overstated Kerry’s share of the vote in 26 states by more than one standard error and overestimated Bush’s share in 4 states by more than one standard error. It concluded that these discrepancies between the exit polls and the official results were “most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters”. The NEP report further stated that “Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of voting equipment. Our analysis of the difference between the vote count and the exit poll at each polling location in our sample has found no systematic differences for precincts using touch screen and optical scan voting equipment.”

A study performed by the Caltech / MIT Voting Technology Project concluded that “there is no evidence, based on exit polls, that electronic voting machines were used to steal the 2004 election for President Bush.” This study was criticized for using data that had been corrected to match the official count, and thus “essentially analyzing rounding error”. On December 5, 2004 Charles Stewart III of MIT released a revised report which, he said, used pre-corrected data. Two days later, however, Warren Mitofsky, who had overseen the exit polling, stated that the pre-corrected data were proprietary and would not be released.

One paper (and a follow-up book) concluded that discrepancies in the exit polls were evidence that the election results were off, though others alleged this paper was unscientific.

Following the 2004 election, researchers looked at ways in which polling methodologies might be flawed and explored ways to improve polling in the future.

Racial discrimination

Some of the issues described above have created problems for voters generally. Others, however, by accident or (it is charged) by design, have disproportionately affected racial minorities. For example, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights determined that, in Florida in 2000, 54 percent of the ballots discarded as “spoiled” were cast by African Americans, who were only 11 percent of the voters. Another paper studied the residual vote rates of the election technology used and the distribution of those technologies among race and found that the percentage of spoiled votes did not disproportionally affect any particular race.

Recounts

Further information: Moss v. Bush

Ralph Nader requested a recount of 11 wards in New Hampshire where vote totals for Bush were 5–15% higher than predicted by exit polls. The Nader campaign reports:

“ In the eleven wards recounted, only very minor discrepancies were found between the optical scan machine counts of the ballots and the recount. The discrepancies are similar to those found when hand-counted ballots are recounted. ”

In Ohio, two minor-party candidates, Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green, though not on the ballot in Ohio) cooperated in requesting a recount.

According to Ohio recount rules, 3% of a county’s votes are tallied by hand, and typically one or more whole precincts are selected and combined to get the 3% sample. The 3% must be randomly selected, and all hand counts are to be performed in public (with observers). After the hand count, the sample is fed into the tabulator. If there is no discrepancy, the remaining ballots can be counted by the machine. Otherwise, a hand recount must be done for the whole county.

The Cobb campaign claimed that the precincts were not randomly selected and the ballots were pre-sorted. They suggested that this indicates that precincts were selected that would match the machine count, in order to prevent a county-wide hand count, i.e. that it was “staged”. Two poll workers were convicted of preselecting ballots for the recounts.

Around the country there were also recounts of races for state and local office. Most of them reflected simply the closeness of the official tally, but some also raised issues of election irregularities. These included the elections for:
Governor of Washington, between Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire. Issues raised included the mailing of absentee ballots, the counting of provisional and absentee ballots, correction of improper marks on optically scanned ballots, and alleged tampering with electronic voting machines. The first tally and the first recount gave the election to Republican Dino Rossi. However, after two statewide recounts, Gregoire, the Democrat, had a narrow lead of 129 votes out of 2.8 million cast. A Republican lawsuit seeking to overturn the result and force a re-vote was rejected by the court, after which Rossi conceded the election. See Washington gubernatorial election, 2004.
North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture, between Britt Cobb and Steve Troxler. The number of votes lost due to a voting machine malfunction in Carteret County (over 4,000) exceed the reported margin of about 2,000. A new election was called for by state election supervisors, but was mooted when Cobb conceded.
Governor of Puerto Rico, between Anibal Acevedo Vilá and Pedro Rosselló. Aníbal Acevedo-Vilá was declared the winner after several months of disputes The two candidates were separated by just under 4,000 votes.

Objection to certification of Ohio’s electoral votes

On January 6, 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in filing a Congressional objection to the certification of Ohio’s Electoral College votes. The Senate voted the objection down 1–74; the House voted the objection down 31–267. It was only the second Congressional objection to an entire State’s electoral delegation in U.S. history; the first instance was in 1877, when all the electors from three southern states were challenged, and one from Oregon. (An objection to a single faithless elector was filed in 1969.)

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies#Voter_suppression

>1. By characterising the problem as solely one of women it ignores the huge numbers of men who are subject to similar treatment, often with much more explicit support from the law and government.<

While men are badly treated in those countries, they are not badly treated specifically on the grounds that they are men. The treatment of women in traditionally muslim countries is consistently worse thant the treatment of men, and we are told this is “justified” by their sex and what their religion tells us about the respective status of males vs females.

>2. By characterising the problem as one of religion (and one particular religion), rather than culture it ignores the huge numbers of non-muslim people who are subject to similar treatment.<

It’s clearly a problem of religion and culture, given that the countries in question have highly religious (and theocratic) cultures.

>3. By characterising the problem as one of religion, rather than culture, it makes the problem effectively insoluble by alienating the majority of those people (women and men) in a position to do something about it.<

? You believe these people are somehow incapable of perceiving that their religious cultural ways need changing? That’s quite insulting to the very many people in muslim countries who are doing what they can to campaign for more secular societies with more respect for human rights, and who would dearly love more support from Western liberal secularists.

>4. By characterising the problem as one of “political correctness”, rather than deliberate choices of political support by Western governments, driven by the interests of (in the words of the song) The Monetary and the Military, it removes the one mechanism by which progress can be made, i.e. cultural change from within actively supported by external liberal democracies.<

External liberal democracies are limited in what they can do by the influence of cultural relativists who have long characterised criticism of theocratic cultures and attitudes as “racism” etc. Indeed, the “multiculturalist” ideology has made it hard enough to improve the human rights situation even for those muslims who migrate to the West.

Yes, one cannot claim that the glorious Islamic religion of peace is anything other than a movement for good.

That wouldn’t be sporting, or British or something.

The very core of Islam is anti-women and anti-non believers… Terribly non pc to say that but meh

Bubblecar said:

>3. By characterising the problem as one of religion, rather than culture, it makes the problem effectively insoluble by alienating the majority of those people (women and men) in a position to do something about it.<

? You believe these people are somehow incapable of perceiving that their religious cultural ways need changing? That’s quite insulting to the very many people in muslim countries who are doing what they can to campaign for more secular societies with more respect for human rights, and who would dearly love more support from Western liberal secularists.

No Bubblecar, I neither said nor implied that.

Dropbear said:

Yes, one cannot claim that the glorious Islamic religion of peace is anything other than a movement for good.

That wouldn’t be sporting, or British or something.

The very core of Islam is anti-women and anti-non believers… Terribly non pc to say that but meh

What prompted that ridiculous little attempt at sarcasm?

I have a good friend I’ve known for 30 years. He is a Muslim Mullah or religious leader of his clan. He is a very moderate man. After many years he brought his bride to Australia and came to ask me if my wife could assist his wife by teaching her how to speak and fit in to Australian culture. I reminded him that since this is Australia and not Pakistan, that the first thing to be realised is that he needed to ask my wife, not me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>3. By characterising the problem as one of religion, rather than culture, it makes the problem effectively insoluble by alienating the majority of those people (women and men) in a position to do something about it.<

? You believe these people are somehow incapable of perceiving that their religious cultural ways need changing? That’s quite insulting to the very many people in muslim countries who are doing what they can to campaign for more secular societies with more respect for human rights, and who would dearly love more support from Western liberal secularists.

No Bubblecar, I neither said nor implied that.

I can back you on that Rev. I certainly didn’t read your post in that way.

roughbarked said:

I have a good friend I’ve known for 30 years. He is a Muslim Mullah or religious leader of his clan. He is a very moderate man. After many years he brought his bride to Australia and came to ask me if my wife could assist his wife by teaching her how to speak and fit in to Australian culture. I reminded him that since this is Australia and not Pakistan, that the first thing to be realised is that he needed to ask my wife, not me.

or even better, his wife ask your wife.. but yes, that is more cultural than anything else, but still shows how patriarchal the thinking is ..

Dropbear said:

roughbarked said:

I have a good friend I’ve known for 30 years. He is a Muslim Mullah or religious leader of his clan. He is a very moderate man. After many years he brought his bride to Australia and came to ask me if my wife could assist his wife by teaching her how to speak and fit in to Australian culture. I reminded him that since this is Australia and not Pakistan, that the first thing to be realised is that he needed to ask my wife, not me.

or even better, his wife ask your wife.. but yes, that is more cultural than anything else, but still shows how patriarchal the thinking is ..

Practical as well, in this case. His wife was unable to speak English and very timid, reluctant to step outside her place.

roughbarked said:

what is it? 1400 odd years they’ve been at it and still not a lot of change?

Sure, but every day their access to the rest of the world gets better – And things have changed. The influence of technological developments like smart phones that mean anything can be videod and uploaded to the Web as it happens will make a huge difference, I think.

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

what is it? 1400 odd years they’ve been at it and still not a lot of change?

Sure, but every day their access to the rest of the world gets better – And things have changed. The influence of technological developments like smart phones that mean anything can be videod and uploaded to the Web as it happens will make a huge difference, I think.

Yep. The internet has the capacity, if used correctly.

or it would, if it actually worked equally well for all. my post ran into a misconfiguration so I am back here editing it until whatever glitch interrupting my flow has eased.

It’s not just muslims, this sort of stuff happens all over the world in non-western democratic nations. I guess the concept of universal human rights is not quite so universal after all.

party_pants said:

It’s not just muslims, this sort of stuff happens all over the world in non-western democratic nations. I guess the concept of universal human rights is not quite so universal after all.

I was waiting for someone to say that. Glad I’m not the lone stranger here.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

It’s not just muslims, this sort of stuff happens all over the world in non-western democratic nations. I guess the concept of universal human rights is not quite so universal after all.

I was waiting for someone to say that. Glad I’m not the lone stranger here.

It happens in PNG, it happens in remote communities in Australia.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

It’s not just muslims, this sort of stuff happens all over the world in non-western democratic nations. I guess the concept of universal human rights is not quite so universal after all.

I was waiting for someone to say that. Glad I’m not the lone stranger here.

It happens in PNG, it happens in remote communities in Australia.

Shit happens everywhere.. It is more about taking control of e motions.

>It happens in PNG, it happens in remote communities in Australia.

And of course that represents far bigger populations than the trivial problem of Islamism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all the other muslim countries in which the influence of hardline sharia etc is continually increasing.

>Shit happens everywhere..

That’s exactly the sort of “change the subject, don’t criticise Islam” message that the Islamists want to hear, and unfortunately can rely on hearing all too often from Westerners who’d rather not have to face the responsibility of criticising them.

Bubblecar said:

>It happens in PNG, it happens in remote communities in Australia.

And of course that represents far bigger populations than the trivial problem of Islamism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all the other muslim countries in which the influence of hardline sharia etc is continually increasing.

True, but what can we do about them if we can’t even tackle the problem within our own country?

Bubblecar said:

>Shit happens everywhere..

That’s exactly the sort of “change the subject, don’t criticise Islam” message that the Islamists want to hear, and unfortunately can rely on hearing all too often from Westerners who’d rather not have to face the responsibility of criticising them.

wrong side of the bed, bubbles?

try again.. when you wake up.. you won’t still be dreaming.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

>It happens in PNG, it happens in remote communities in Australia.

And of course that represents far bigger populations than the trivial problem of Islamism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all the other muslim countries in which the influence of hardline sharia etc is continually increasing.

True, but what can we do about them if we can’t even tackle the problem within our own country?

It is a good point. The grass is always greener elsewhere unless you shit in your own paddock.

>wrong side of the bed, bubbles?

Roughbarked, can you understand that the above is a “personal abuse” remark, rather than a reasoned counter to the actual substantive point I’ve just made? You do this far too often, and it’s not a good look.

Bubblecar said:

>wrong side of the bed, bubbles?

Roughbarked, can you understand that the above is a “personal abuse” remark, rather than a reasoned counter to the actual substantive point I’ve just made? You do this far too often, and it’s not a good look.

you do need to stick to context..

> That’s exactly the sort of “change the subject, don’t criticise Islam” message that the Islamists want to hear, and unfortunately can rely on hearing all too often from Westerners who’d rather not have to face the responsibility of criticising them.

You are accusing me.. my friend.

Bubblecar said:

>Shit happens everywhere..

That’s exactly the sort of “change the subject, don’t criticise Islam” message that the Islamists want to hear, and unfortunately can rely on hearing all too often from Westerners who’d rather not have to face the responsibility of criticising them.

And that’s just the sort of reverse political correctness message that all the narrow-minded racists like wookie and friends want to hear.

The point is that it’s the behaviour that is objectionable and should be objected to, not a particular interpretation of a particular religion.

No-one in this thread has suggested that these things are OK, or that the perpetrators should not be criticised. Why are you pretending that that position has been put forward?

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

>wrong side of the bed, bubbles?

Roughbarked, can you understand that the above is a “personal abuse” remark, rather than a reasoned counter to the actual substantive point I’ve just made? You do this far too often, and it’s not a good look.

you do need to stick to context..

> That’s exactly the sort of “change the subject, don’t criticise Islam” message that the Islamists want to hear, and unfortunately can rely on hearing all too often from Westerners who’d rather not have to face the responsibility of criticising them.

You are accusing me.. my friend.

I’ll criticise all religions.. just as you do.. but at the same time I will acknowledge the good that religion has achieved by the same tenet.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>Shit happens everywhere..

That’s exactly the sort of “change the subject, don’t criticise Islam” message that the Islamists want to hear, and unfortunately can rely on hearing all too often from Westerners who’d rather not have to face the responsibility of criticising them.

And that’s just the sort of reverse political correctness message that all the narrow-minded racists like wookie and friends want to hear.

The point is that it’s the behaviour that is objectionable and should be objected to, not a particular interpretation of a particular religion.

No-one in this thread has suggested that these things are OK, or that the perpetrators should not be criticised. Why are you pretending that that position has been put forward?

hear, hear.

Bubblecar said:

>wrong side of the bed, bubbles?

Roughbarked, can you understand that the above is a “personal abuse” remark, rather than a reasoned counter to the actual substantive point I’ve just made? You do this far too often, and it’s not a good look.

Just have a review of your own comments Bubblecar.

Your response to roughbarked was the height of hypocrisy.

>You are accusing me.. my friend.

I’m not your friend, and by pointing out that your knee-jerk response to criticism of Islam and traditional muslim culture is to say “shit happens everywhere”, I am simply reflecting what you have actually said in this thread, a few minutes ago.

Oh well, I’ll leave this thread for Rev & roughie to paddle around in. I’m happy to let the opening article speak for itself.

Bubblecar said:

>You are accusing me.. my friend.

I’m not your friend, and by pointing out that your knee-jerk response to criticism of Islam and traditional muslim culture is to say “shit happens everywhere”, I am simply reflecting what you have actually said in this thread, a few minutes ago.

you deny the proffered hand of friendship?

I have better things to do..

Bubblecar said:

Oh well, I’ll leave this thread for Rev & roughie to paddle around in. I’m happy to let the opening article speak for itself.

The opening article does. However it leaves out all the other itself’s.

Bubblecar said:

Oh well, I’ll leave this thread for Rev & roughie to paddle around in. I’m happy to let the opening article speak for itself.

So you choose to insult those who would make reasoned arguments against the content of the article, and then try to claim some sort of peculiar moral high ground.

Why can’t you address what people actually said, rather than some idiotic parody of it?

Bubblecar said:

>You are accusing me.. my friend.

I’m not your friend, and by pointing out that your knee-jerk response to criticism of Islam and traditional muslim culture is to say “shit happens everywhere”, I am simply reflecting what you have actually said in this thread, a few minutes ago.

You missed my point entirely. It happens in Australia because we don’t have the courage to challenge it, out of the same political correctness that says we should respect other cultures, particularly those that we here before we arrived. We don’t have the courage to take on islam over this, that is true, but we don’t have the courage to take on anyone.

>>>By external liberal democracies I meant primarily the USA, but also Europe and Australia.<<<

OMG, you people seem to have no idea that the West supports the Islamists, not secularism, in muslim countries.

The West has no problem with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait…

Afghanistan had a progressive secular government that wanted to educate and empower women but because it was backed by the Soviet Union the West created al quaeda, and supported, trained, and armed the Islamists.

Iran had a democracy until the West intalled their puppet Shah, when he fell it looked like the country might go to the commies so the West backed the islamists. Iran recently elected a moderate which the West is not at all happy about because it nullifies a lot of the demonisation of that nation in the mach for war (A master play by the Iranians BTW, they have been playing chess for 2000 years and are always a few moves ahead).

Iraq was secular but now the islamists are gaining the upper hand, Christians have fled and womens rights are going south fast.

Libya was a progressive secular muslim nation until the West teamed up with the Islamists to completely destroy that prosperous nation. The West instigated an Islamist uprisiing and lied about massacres under Ghaddafi.

Syria is a progressive secular society where women do not have to wear the veil, it has a protected christian minority, Bashir al Assad is a Western trained doctor, so who does the West support? The islamists of course, go online to see the ‘rebels’ behead a priest in a public exhibition.

Once again the West is lying about massacres in Syria, many are faked, many are done by the rebels and blamed on the regime. All the evidence is that the rebels have used small scale chemical weapons which the west blames on Syria.

The West wants to keep all muslim nations in the dark ages where they pose no threat to israel and the natural resources are easy pickings, the West hates progressive muslim nations that use the resources for nation building (unless they are willing to be puppet states).

Islamists have no greater friend than the west, the war on terror is a complete fraud, all attacks on the West are done by western intelligence agencies, most are faked attacks. Al quaeda has always been a proxy army for the west since it’s inception in Afghanistan.

Full report in the .pdf link below:

Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left

A new report by One Law for All entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” exposes Stop the War Coalition, Respect Party, Unite Against Fascism and individuals such as Ken Livingstone and George Galloway and their agenda and methods.

This section of the Left uses accusations of racism and Islamophobia and a conflation of Muslim with Islamist in order to defend Islamism and Islam rather than out of any real concern for prejudice against Muslims or their rights, particularly since Muslims or those labelled as such are the first victims of Islamism and on the frontlines of resisting it.

The report has been written as a companion volume to “Enemies not Allies: The Far-Right”. Like the far-Right which ‘despises’ multiculturalism yet benefits from its idea of difference to scapegoat the ‘other’ and promote its own form of white identity politics, the pro-Islamist Left also uses multiculturalism to side with the oppressor by viewing the ‘Muslim community’ and ‘Muslim world’ as homogeneous entities thereby ignoring and silencing dissenters.

This politics of betrayal sides with the Islamic far-Right and the oppressor. Challenging this perspective is especially important given its wide acceptance as ‘progressive’ in mainstream society.

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/siding-with-the-oppressor-the-pro-islamist-left/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/files/2013/06/SidingWithOpressor_Web.pdf

Anywho said:

>>>By external liberal democracies I meant primarily the USA, but also Europe and Australia.<<<

OMG, you people seem to have no idea that the West supports the Islamists, not secularism, in muslim countries.

The West has no problem with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait…

Afghanistan had a progressive secular government that wanted to educate and empower women but because it was backed by the Soviet Union the West created al quaeda, and supported, trained, and armed the Islamists.

Iran had a democracy until the West intalled their puppet Shah, when he fell it looked like the country might go to the commies so the West backed the islamists. Iran recently elected a moderate which the West is not at all happy about because it nullifies a lot of the demonisation of that nation in the mach for war (A master play by the Iranians BTW, they have been playing chess for 2000 years and are always a few moves ahead).

Iraq was secular but now the islamists are gaining the upper hand, Christians have fled and womens rights are going south fast.

Libya was a progressive secular muslim nation until the West teamed up with the Islamists to completely destroy that prosperous nation. The West instigated an Islamist uprisiing and lied about massacres under Ghaddafi.

Syria is a progressive secular society where women do not have to wear the veil, it has a protected christian minority, Bashir al Assad is a Western trained doctor, so who does the West support? The islamists of course, go online to see the ‘rebels’ behead a priest in a public exhibition.

Once again the West is lying about massacres in Syria, many are faked, many are done by the rebels and blamed on the regime. All the evidence is that the rebels have used small scale chemical weapons which the west blames on Syria.

The West wants to keep all muslim nations in the dark ages where they pose no threat to israel and the natural resources are easy pickings, the West hates progressive muslim nations that use the resources for nation building (unless they are willing to be puppet states).

Islamists have no greater friend than the west, the war on terror is a complete fraud, all attacks on the West are done by western intelligence agencies, most are faked attacks. Al quaeda has always been a proxy army for the west since it’s inception in Afghanistan.

When you say the west in the above context, it may be presumed that the part that Australia has played cannot really be described as that of the west. We may have played our part as part of the coalition but otherwise we would not have played.

Bubblecar said:

Full report in the .pdf link below:

Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left

A new report by One Law for All entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” exposes Stop the War Coalition, Respect Party, Unite Against Fascism and individuals such as Ken Livingstone and George Galloway and their agenda and methods.

This section of the Left uses accusations of racism and Islamophobia and a conflation of Muslim with Islamist in order to defend Islamism and Islam rather than out of any real concern for prejudice against Muslims or their rights, particularly since Muslims or those labelled as such are the first victims of Islamism and on the frontlines of resisting it.

The report has been written as a companion volume to “Enemies not Allies: The Far-Right”. Like the far-Right which ‘despises’ multiculturalism yet benefits from its idea of difference to scapegoat the ‘other’ and promote its own form of white identity politics, the pro-Islamist Left also uses multiculturalism to side with the oppressor by viewing the ‘Muslim community’ and ‘Muslim world’ as homogeneous entities thereby ignoring and silencing dissenters.

This politics of betrayal sides with the Islamic far-Right and the oppressor. Challenging this perspective is especially important given its wide acceptance as ‘progressive’ in mainstream society.

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/siding-with-the-oppressor-the-pro-islamist-left/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/files/2013/06/SidingWithOpressor_Web.pdf

Free thinking is free thinking..

roughbarked said:

Anywho said:

>>>By external liberal democracies I meant primarily the USA, but also Europe and Australia.<<<

OMG, you people seem to have no idea that the West supports the Islamists, not secularism, in muslim countries.

The West has no problem with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait…

Afghanistan had a progressive secular government that wanted to educate and empower women but because it was backed by the Soviet Union the West created al quaeda, and supported, trained, and armed the Islamists.

Iran had a democracy until the West intalled their puppet Shah, when he fell it looked like the country might go to the commies so the West backed the islamists. Iran recently elected a moderate which the West is not at all happy about because it nullifies a lot of the demonisation of that nation in the mach for war (A master play by the Iranians BTW, they have been playing chess for 2000 years and are always a few moves ahead).

Iraq was secular but now the islamists are gaining the upper hand, Christians have fled and womens rights are going south fast.

Libya was a progressive secular muslim nation until the West teamed up with the Islamists to completely destroy that prosperous nation. The West instigated an Islamist uprisiing and lied about massacres under Ghaddafi.

Syria is a progressive secular society where women do not have to wear the veil, it has a protected christian minority, Bashir al Assad is a Western trained doctor, so who does the West support? The islamists of course, go online to see the ‘rebels’ behead a priest in a public exhibition.

Once again the West is lying about massacres in Syria, many are faked, many are done by the rebels and blamed on the regime. All the evidence is that the rebels have used small scale chemical weapons which the west blames on Syria.

The West wants to keep all muslim nations in the dark ages where they pose no threat to israel and the natural resources are easy pickings, the West hates progressive muslim nations that use the resources for nation building (unless they are willing to be puppet states).

Islamists have no greater friend than the west, the war on terror is a complete fraud, all attacks on the West are done by western intelligence agencies, most are faked attacks. Al quaeda has always been a proxy army for the west since it’s inception in Afghanistan.

When you say the west in the above context, it may be presumed that the part that Australia has played cannot really be described as that of the west. We may have played our part as part of the coalition but otherwise we would not have played.

I see it that Australia plays it’s part firmly on the side of the West, although in this case it is only propaganda and moral(oxymoron?) support, the Australian media and politicians sell the story that Assad is evil and must go, so although Australia does not supply weapons and training to the Islamists it fully supports the propaganda effort against Syria, and will support any intervention. Australia always backs America’s position.

Unfortunately, the Australian public would be amongst the least informed in the world on international matters like this due to a near complete lack of debate or information, most would be completely unaware that Syria is a progressive secular nation, and the rebels are largely foreign Islamists and have groups within that have direct links to Al Queda (like the al Nusra front), therefore most Australians would support Western intervention due to being largely ill informed.

If Australians were well informed regarding Syria there would only be a small minority of Islamists who support the rebels.

If a coalition is formed Australia will support an attack even if only in a propaganda sense rather than by directly contributing to the military effort, the main protagonists like the UK, US, and France do not need Australian weapons, they are all-powerful in that regard, they need Australia’s unquestioning support and they will get it.

Australia is not neutral on international matters, and does play a role as part of the “West”.

>Iraq was secular

It was a stagnant dicatorship with an appalling human rights record.

>Libya was a progressive secular muslim nation

No, it was a stagnant dictatorship with an apalling human rights record.

>Syria is a progressive secular society

No, it’s a stagnant dictatorship with an appalling human rights record.

>Iran recently elected a moderate

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship in which only Islamists are allowed to stand for “election”.

You’re talking pretty much complete and utter shit.

You’re talking pretty much complete and utter shit.

i agree.

ChrispenEvan said:

You’re talking pretty much complete and utter shit.

i agree.

Jesus on a pogo stick

that makes 3.

ChrispenEvan said:

You’re talking pretty much complete and utter shit.

i agree.

Damm, I was on Bubbles side up till then.

Anywho said:

roughbarked said:

When you say the west in the above context, it may be presumed that the part that Australia has played cannot really be described as that of the west. We may have played our part as part of the coalition but otherwise we would not have played.

I see it that Australia plays it’s part firmly on the side of the West, Australia always backs America’s position.

No.
Anywho said:

Unfortunately, the Australian public would be amongst the least informed in the world on international matters like this due to a near complete lack of debate or information, most would be completely unaware that Syria is a progressive secular nation, and the rebels are largely foreign Islamists and have groups within that have direct links to Al Queda (like the al Nusra front), therefore most Australians would support Western intervention due to being largely ill informed.

If Australians were well informed regarding Syria there would only be a small minority of Islamists who support the rebels.

No

Anywho said:

If a coalition is formed Australia will support an attack even if only in a propaganda sense rather than by directly contributing to the military effort, the main protagonists like the UK, US, and France do not need Australian weapons, they are all-powerful in that regard, they need Australia’s unquestioning support and they will get it.

Not necessarily so.
Anywho said:

Australia is not neutral on international matters, and does play a role as part of the “West”.

in part.. maybe.
Look .. simply put.. Do not sign Australia up for something we have not made a definitive decision upon .. yet.

Until a country decides they want to be ruled by progressive secular democratically elected government, they’ll stay mired in the dark ages flitting between tin-pot military dictatorships and theocracies..

frankly I don’t see countries like that worth wasting our precious blood over.

Dropbear said:

frankly I don’t see countries like that worth wasting our precious blood over.

tHis part.. 100% agreement.

you need a snickers sibeen.

ChrispenEvan said:

you need a snickers sibeen.

LOL

Bubblecar said:

>Iraq was secular

It was a stagnant dicatorship with an appalling human rights record.

>Libya was a progressive secular muslim nation

No, it was a stagnant dictatorship with an apalling human rights record.

>Syria is a progressive secular society

No, it’s a stagnant dictatorship with an appalling human rights record.

>Iran recently elected a moderate

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship in which only Islamists are allowed to stand for “election”.

You’re talking pretty much complete and utter shit.

Most of the human rights violations in Libya, Iraq, and Syria have to do with keeping the Islamist’s at bay, they were harsh because they had to be to maintain their secular societies, and almost ironically they had to be harsh to maintain their hard fought human rights, particularly womens rights, that the Islamists oppose.

These are the societies that the Islamists really oppose, they don’t care about the west, the islamists hate secular muslim nations that don’t have sharia law, they consider these regimes to be the enemy within islam, any human rights abuses have to be understood in the context that these progressive societies were constantly at war with the islamists to maintain their secularism.

Libya had fantastic programs of free or heavily subsidised health, education, housing, basic foodstuffs, it was going to make the desert bloom with the man made river project… all is lost now.

Iraq tolerated Saddam because he kept the Islamists at bay, no doubt the country was better off then than it is now.

Syrian is secular and progressive, led by a western trained doctor who has offered significant concession to make the country more inclusive. The West backs foreign Islamists.

Almost no Westerner would prefer Iraq or Libya today more than before the Western bombing of those nations, both are moving away from secularism and towards Islamic law. Christians had no option but to flee Iraq after the fall of Saddam, they will have to flee Syria if Assad falls as well.

Most of the human rights violations in Libya, Iraq, and Syria have to do with keeping the Islamist’s at bay, they were harsh because they had to be to maintain their secular societies

Quite… it was the final solution, really.

Dropbear said:

Most of the human rights violations in Libya, Iraq, and Syria have to do with keeping the Islamist’s at bay, they were harsh because they had to be to maintain their secular societies

Quite… it was the final solution, really.

?? What does this mean? You do realise I was talking pre western intervention?

Some bloke from Austria favoured harsh solutions to keep those pesky Jews in order

> in the context that these progressive societies were constantly at war with the islamists

They were not progressive societies, they were stagnant dictatorships with appalling human rights records against anyone or anything that dared oppose or criticise them, as well as plenty of innocent bystanders. But you’re nursing a fantasy in which these extremely backward countries were actually nice, liberal, democratic places until the West messed everything up etc etc.

Of course it’s very regrettable that horrible non-theocratic dictatorships are being replaced by what threaten to be horrible Islamist dictatorships. I said at the outset of the so-called Arab Spring that I didn’t hold out much hope for a sudden blossoming of liberal secular democracy in those countries. But this has little or nothing to do with the West. The West has backed various recent revolutions in the hope that liberal democrats in those countries might have at least some chance, but it’s a dim hope while there is such widespread support for Islamism in the region.

Bubblecar said:

, but it’s a dim hope while there is such widespread support for Islamism in the region.

Look.. Let us make it clear and simple

Though Islam came after Christianity.. the lines are not clear it needed another prophet to lay loose nooses.

We all know you hate religion but fact is.. it is history.

Dropbear said:

Until a country decides they want to be ruled by progressive secular democratically elected government, they’ll stay mired in the dark ages flitting between tin-pot military dictatorships and theocracies..

frankly I don’t see countries like that worth wasting our precious blood over.

And yet you seemingly support the West attacking secular muslim nations like Iraq, Libya, and possibly Syria?

There must be some part of you that thinks it is all a bit odd? You believe the whole “war on terror” BS, yet also agree with the West backing the Islamists, including named terrorist groups linked to al quaeda, in places like Libya and Syria?

Do you think “our precious blood” is the only blood worth mentioning, the true cost is the blood each of us has on our hands for completely destroying nations like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, which we do without a care in the world

Who cares about the destroyed state of Libya now we have achieved what was wanted? Who in the west cares how many died or how much worse peoples lives are now? Makes all our fake outpourings ring very hollow when we collectively destroy lives and thrust an entire nation into the hands of warring Islamic malitias, then move on to the next victim seemlessly.

roughbarked said:

Look.. Let us make it clear and simple

Though Islam came after Christianity.. the lines are not clear it needed another prophet to lay loose nooses.

What?

That’s roughy for you :)

Says: Look.. Let us make it clear and simple

Follows with: Something cryptic and apparently meaningless

And yet you seemingly support the West attacking secular muslim nations like Iraq, Libya, and possibly Syria?

I’m sorry do I know you?

Bubblecar said:

> in the context that these progressive societies were constantly at war with the islamists

…But this has little or nothing to do with the West. The West has backed various recent revolutions in the hope that liberal democrats in those countries might have at least some chance, but it’s a dim hope while there is such widespread support for Islamism in the region.

No, the west is backing the Islamist, these islamic uprisings have eveything to do with the west.

You do not side with islamists in support of liberal democrats, how can you possibly be so naive as to believe that?

Libya was nothing to do with the west??? Tens of thousand of bombs dropped on a nation to enforce an innocuous sounding “no fly zone” during which time not one Libyan plane took to the skies.

Those bombs were in support of the Islamist, and it is certainly the fault of the west what has happened in that country.

Anywho said:

You do not side with islamists in support of liberal democrats, how can you possibly be so naive as to believe that?

That doesn’t make sense. Which Islamists are in support of liberal democrats?

PM 2Ring said:

Anywho said:

You do not side with islamists in support of liberal democrats, how can you possibly be so naive as to believe that?

That doesn’t make sense. Which Islamists are in support of liberal democrats?

Sorry it was poorly written, I meant “you” in terms of an entity, like a person or country, or the west.

And I didn’t mean that the islamists were in support of liberal democrats, bubblecar was claiming the west supports liberal democrats in muslim countries, and I was saying you can’t do that by supporting Islamists like the west does in libya and syria.

Therefore the premise is false.

Perhaps I should have wrote something like “the west cannot side with islamists and at the same time be believed to be in support of liberal democrats”

Clear as mud?

Dinner time.

Anywho said:

Clear as mud?

muddy enough.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>Shit happens everywhere..

That’s exactly the sort of “change the subject, don’t criticise Islam” message that the Islamists want to hear, and unfortunately can rely on hearing all too often from Westerners who’d rather not have to face the responsibility of criticising them.

And that’s just the sort of reverse political correctness message that all the narrow-minded racists like wookie and friends want to hear.

The point is that it’s the behaviour that is objectionable and should be objected to, not a particular interpretation of a particular religion.

No-one in this thread has suggested that these things are OK, or that the perpetrators should not be criticised. Why are you pretending that that position has been put forward?

I judge people by their behaviour

the fact is that most societies in the world are basket cases populated by savage stupid people that make a majority of the population

don’t believe me? maybe you should scratch up some shekels and go travelling – don’t pack your rose tinted glasses

you complain that I am a racist even though I say don’t get involved with them, don’t bomb them, don’t kill them

the people who complain about racism are often I find quite happy to support bombing and killing other people in the name of liberty and “helping” them.

>You do not side with islamists in support of liberal democrats, how can you possibly be so naive as to believe that?

The West is well aware of the association of Islamist groups with the “rebels” in these “Arab Spring” countries, but there’s not much they can do about that. The rebels nonetheless pledge that they’ll let the people decide their country’s future, and the West’s hope is that they might introduce enough semblance of democracy to at least represent an improvement over the regimes they are trying to overthrow. You have to remember that support for Islamism is strong in most muslim countries – it’s laughable to suggest that it’s some kind of Western imposition.

And indeed it’s laughable to suggest there would be any advantage to the West to deliberately install Islamist states in these countries. I’m sure all Western governments would far prefer Western-style secular democracies in the region, but there are limits to what they can do to help achieve this.

>The point is that it’s the behaviour that is objectionable and should be objected to, not a particular interpretation of a particular religion.<

The behaviour is the result of “a particular interpretation of a particular religion”, and that is how it is justified, and that is why dissenters are condemned as blasphemous infidels when they criticise this behaviour. How you manage to not notice this is bewildering.

Bubblecar said:

>The point is that it’s the behaviour that is objectionable and should be objected to, not a particular interpretation of a particular religion.<

The behaviour is the result of “a particular interpretation of a particular religion”, and that is how it is justified, and that is why dissenters are condemned as blasphemous infidels when they criticise this behaviour. How you manage to not notice this is bewildering.

Stop making stuff up.

>Stop making stuff up.

It’s called Sharia, look it up. Islamic law, which varies from place to place, but is all religious in nature.

Bubblecar said:

>Stop making stuff up.

It’s called Sharia, look it up. Islamic law, which varies from place to place, but is all religious in nature.

Try re-reading what I have written and make a real effort to understand what point I am making.

You obviously don’t have a clue at the moment.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>Stop making stuff up.

It’s called Sharia, look it up. Islamic law, which varies from place to place, but is all religious in nature.

Try re-reading what I have written and make a real effort to understand what point I am making.

You obviously don’t have a clue at the moment.

bubbles is dealing with a real world problem at the moment – leaking water pipes

if you would like to leave a message please leave one after the tone , thank you

Rev, you really did post:

>The point is that it’s the behaviour that is objectionable and should be objected to, not a particular interpretation of a particular religion.<

Bubblecar said:

Rev, you really did post:

>The point is that it’s the behaviour that is objectionable and should be objected to, not a particular interpretation of a particular religion.<

A perfectly reasonable statement.

>A perfectly reasonable statement.

Except that it ignores the unfortunate fact that the objectionable behaviour is sanctioned by those who engage in it by reference to their interpretation of their religion and its laws, or their version of its laws. You can’t criticise human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam and Islamism without also having to confront Islam and Islamism. And there’s no sensible reason to even try.

>>Except that it ignores the unfortunate fact that the objectionable behaviour is sanctioned by those who engage in it by reference to their interpretation of their religion and its laws, or their version of its laws. You can’t criticise human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam and Islamism without also having to confront Islam and Islamism. And there’s no sensible reason to even try”

It’s always been a bit backward to let culture determine reality, so directly to whatever involved extent, religion does it, it’s ideological control. The problem isn’t confined to religion.

Bubblecar said:

>A perfectly reasonable statement.

Except that it ignores the unfortunate fact that the objectionable behaviour is sanctioned by those who engage in it by reference to their interpretation of their religion and its laws, or their version of its laws. You can’t criticise human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam and Islamism without also having to confront Islam and Islamism. And there’s no sensible reason to even try.

Rubbish. The reason not to try is exactly the same reason we criticise human rights abuses committed in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism, or any other religion, without needing to confront those religions.

The only way to make progress in changing these things is to support those followers of the religion who do not accept that their religion requires them to act in that way.

>exactly the same reason we criticise human rights abuses committed in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism, or any other religion, without needing to confront those religions.<

But, we do need to confront those religions, and secularists like myself do so, very frequently. Of course there are “moderate” versions of all those religions (i.e., followers who don’t actually take the religion very seriously) but they are not the ones committing the human rights abuses. Many religious moderates are quite ignorant of the actual teachings of their creed, or are aware of them but actually reject the worst ones, whereas the hardliners take holy texts very literally. And they often hold positions of great power in their societies and local communities. The only way the moderates themselves are going to be able to dislodge the fanatics from those positions is by attacking their interpretation of the religion, and confronting the religion itself where it’s clear that non-negotiable tenets are ethically unacceptable.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>A perfectly reasonable statement.

Except that it ignores the unfortunate fact that the objectionable behaviour is sanctioned by those who engage in it by reference to their interpretation of their religion and its laws, or their version of its laws. You can’t criticise human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam and Islamism without also having to confront Islam and Islamism. And there’s no sensible reason to even try.

Rubbish. The reason not to try is exactly the same reason we criticise human rights abuses committed in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism, or any other religion, without needing to confront those religions.

The only way to make progress in changing these things is to support those followers of the religion who do not accept that their religion requires them to act in that way.

I just posted this in Chat, but maybe it belongs here.

---

Currently on ABC Radio National The Weekend Planet

SAMBA TOURÉ – ‘ALBALA’

Hypnotic, dark-stark: based on a traditional West African song, but brought right up-to-date.

Samba Touré fervently sings his own very pointed lyric, in Songhai. He speaks and sings various of Mali’s languages.

The song condemns all perpetrators of violence during northern Mali’s recent, so-called, ‘northern rebellion’.

His lyric excoriates those who commit evil in the name of piety.

The prime target is those who briefly took over Timbuktu and terrorised its populace – most especially women, and scholars and musicians of whatever gender.

“The song is to tell the terrorists to leave us; we don’t need any false prayer to teach us Islam.”

>“The song is to tell the terrorists to leave us; we don’t need any false prayer to teach us Islam.”

And what are they saying there? They’re rejecting a particular interpretation of their religion, because they realise it’s not possible to counter the crimes committed in the name of Islam without confronting Islamism itself.

Bubblecar said:

>“The song is to tell the terrorists to leave us; we don’t need any false prayer to teach us Islam.”

And what are they saying there? They’re rejecting a particular interpretation of their religion, because they realise it’s not possible to counter the crimes committed in the name of Islam without confronting Islamism itself.

Maybe, or maybe they’re simply saying “Islam doesn’t mean what you think it means”.

I don’t want to sound like an apologist for Islam (or any of the Abrahamic faiths, for that matter), but some of the Islamic places in Africa are preferable to places where the old animistic religions hold sway.

>Maybe, or maybe they’re simply saying “Islam doesn’t mean what you think it means”.

If they’re saying that to me, then they’re basically supporting the Islamists. If they’re saying that to the Islamists, then they’re taking a stand against Islamism, or at least the worst forms of it.

Bubblecar said:

>Maybe, or maybe they’re simply saying “Islam doesn’t mean what you think it means”.

If they’re saying that to me, then they’re basically supporting the Islamists. If they’re saying that to the Islamists, then they’re taking a stand against Islamism, or at least the worst forms of it.

They’re saying that to the Islamist terrorists.

Coming up on The Weekend Planet (and available as a podcast for the next 4 weeks)

SAMBA TOURÉ
LA CHUNGA

Rolling-mesmeric, West African song about corrupt officials and their negative effect on Mali’s development.

“They promised development, it started well
They asked for the people’s trust and they have it
What did not work?”

…

FATOUMATA DIAWARA – ‘FATOU’

Quiet, uncluttered, but intense: its Malian chanteuse and author is singing against female circumcision.

Her lyric is entirely direct on the subject.

Fatoumata’s refined vocal with Guimba Kouyate’s ngoni, very tasty electric guitar from Moh Kouyate and discreet drums and bass – respectively, Seb Rochford and Hilaire Penda.

The opening lines, in English translation:

“They cut the flower that made me woman
Don’t cut the flower that makes a woman”

Bubblecar said:

>exactly the same reason we criticise human rights abuses committed in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism, or any other religion, without needing to confront those religions.<

But, we do need to confront those religions, and secularists like myself do so, very frequently. Of course there are “moderate” versions of all those religions (i.e., followers who don’t actually take the religion very seriously) but they are not the ones committing the human rights abuses.

This is exactly why we should confront the actions, not the religions.

Bubblecar said:

Many religious moderates are quite ignorant of the actual teachings of their creed, or are aware of them but actually reject the worst ones, whereas the hardliners take holy texts very literally. And they often hold positions of great power in their societies and local communities. The only way the moderates themselves are going to be able to dislodge the fanatics from those positions is by attacking their interpretation of the religion, and confronting the religion itself where it’s clear that non-negotiable tenets are ethically unacceptable.

In other words, confront the objectionable actions, and support those followers of the religion who realise that they can follow their chosen religion without acting in these ways.

Where does “confronting the religion” get you, other than giving you a sense of moral superiority? It simply alienates the very people who are in a position to make changes, and gives the mindless racists an excuse to continue their vilification of all followers of a religion, based on the actions of a minority.

Confronting the actions on the other hand can and has resulted in real changes and real improvements in personal behaviour.

http://i.imgur.com/dV4To9w.jpg

I can tolerate a religion that is free from human rights abuse

personally I think all religions are made up nonsense, but I see little point in confronting any religious person about it being nonsense, but I will confront religious people over human rights abuses

there has been change in Dubai , rape victim Marte Deborah Dalelv has been pardoned, the change is slow, but it’s good to see

one thing to consider is how emotionally tied people are to their religion, any religion, the extremists of any religion can get very emotional, beliefs and emotions, I think emotions are chemically driven in the body so it can get complex,

there is intellectual intelligence and emotional intelligence, and I think the two operate in tandem with each other

CrazyNeutrino said:

http://i.imgur.com/dV4To9w.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish: Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición), commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition (Inquisición española), was a tribunal established in 1481 by Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms, and to replace the Medieval Inquisition which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.

I didn’t know there were other inquisitions

can anyone see any parallels between then and now?

Bubblecar said:

>You do not side with islamists in support of liberal democrats, how can you possibly be so naive as to believe that?

The West is well aware of the association of Islamist groups with the “rebels” in these “Arab Spring” countries, but there’s not much they can do about that. The rebels nonetheless pledge that they’ll let the people decide their country’s future, and the West’s hope is that they might introduce enough semblance of democracy to at least represent an improvement over the regimes they are trying to overthrow. You have to remember that support for Islamism is strong in most muslim countries – it’s laughable to suggest that it’s some kind of Western imposition.

And indeed it’s laughable to suggest there would be any advantage to the West to deliberately install Islamist states in these countries. I’m sure all Western governments would far prefer Western-style secular democracies in the region, but there are limits to what they can do to help achieve this.

What a fantasy world you live in, you believe all the propaganda and are ignorant of all realities.

Do you think the Syrian rebels who cut off the priests heads in a public exhibition are pledging anything other than a brutal interpretation of sharia law?

It is certainly not laughable to suggest the islamic uprisings are ignited by the West, divide and conquer is the strategy, and for anyone looking to divide a secular muslim nation firing up the islamists would be an obvious choice. Many of the islamists in syria are foreign, trained and paid by such beacons of democracy like the US backed saudi arabia and qatar.

America loves dictatorships, the self serving dictators are easily controlled and should they not allow themselves to be controlled by the US then they are easily toppled, look at the dictatorships in the middle east the US has no problem with, look at when the US was meddling in south america, the US propped up all the dictatorships and used terrorists from the ‘school of the americas’ to brutally snuff out any popular insurrections.

Bubblecar said:

I’m sure all Western governments would far prefer Western-style secular democracies in the region, but there are limits to what they can do to help achieve this.

Do you really think that funding, and training, and arming, the Islamist is showing a preference for “Western-style secular democracies”?

Do you now that in 2001 general Wesley Clark stated the US planned to take down 7 countries in 5 years, it’s taking a bit longer but those 7 countries were Iraq. Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

The “war on terror” is a complete farce, Islamist terrorists are used by the west as a proxy army, they are comrades in arms and have been since al quaeda was first formed by US intelligence to fight the soviets in Afghanistan.

“Attacks” against the west by these groups are all false flag attacks or complete fabrications.

Anywho said:

Bubblecar said:

What a fantasy world you live in, you believe all the propaganda and are ignorant of all realities.

Bunnings, another wookieonlyrealitist.

OK Anywho, we get the picture :)