African Conservatives Criminalise Gays

[jimbms]

Ok LDV I respect your right to remove by violence those you think in your beliefs are doing things you regard as wrong or have views you find offensive, in this way I have the right to travel to Salford and use violence via a baseball bat on yourself as I find your views offensive and an insult to those who oppose anything you do.

[Evil Goblin]

I for one would contribute to a plane ticket for LDV to Malawi

Put me down for 20 quid.

[Rog]

I for one would contribute to a plane ticket for LDV to Malawi

Put me down for 20 quid.

 

 

LOL!

 

Less expensive than going to Dignitas I guess!

[Terse]

No, you cannot enforce your views onto another country - in that I do not have power to change the laws there and cannot stop what is going on. But I wouldn't have a problem with anyone else removing such laws whether that be another nation or competing authority within that country.

Such as the forces sent to remove the oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan?

[Chinahand]

I have to say I do find it extremely distasteful when people are so rude to LDV as a person rather than critiquing his ideas - ad hominen attacks and demands that he is sent to a place where he would be killed simply for his sexuality are beyond the pale. Please think for a moment what it would be like to be forced to live in such a society.

 

OF COURSE we are entitled to criticizes what other people do in the own countries --- but that should be the absolute limit. There is no way that we should involve ourselves in regime change or even supporting one political movement over another.

 

Their country, their law.

Rog, please stop bloat quoting.

 

You are wrong about this - firstly you know your political beliefs would not limit your actions over say Iran's nuclear program to simple criticism.

 

Secondly who is the "their" in "their country, their law" - though probably not the case in this example - it is often true that governments can enforce policies coercively on a population and the idea of non-interference in national sovereignty is one of the crowning glories of the UNs Dictatorship Charter.

 

I have no problem saying moral standards exist and that governments that do not follow those standards put themselves at risk not only of criticism, but wider action, and both Rog and Jimbms quite definitely agree with this ideal.

 

For a country to start a deliberate campaign to hunt down and jail or execute practicing homosexuals is a moral wrong.

 

It should be opposed, and opposed strongly. Aid should be withdrawn and if they continue to follow through with the policy then they should be subject to sanctions etc.

 

That is crossing the line between having passive statutes which may make such behaviours as sodomy illegal, but with consenting adults, and no campaign of witch hunts and spies, enforcing such a law is basically impossible.

 

For a state to cross from passive banning to active persecution is unacceptable - it is totalitarian and coercive, such policies should not just be criticized, but opposed.

[Rog]

Rog, please stop bloat quoting.

 

Not ‘bloat quoting’, succinctly stating the way that I see how the situation should be viewed.

 

You are wrong about this - firstly you know your political beliefs would not limit your actions over say Iran's nuclear program to simple criticism.

 

You’re not comparing apples with apples.

 

There is a state of (at present) cold war existing between Iran and Israel (and other countries too come to that) and under such circumstances when activities affect other countries then other rules must apply.

 

Secondly who is the "their" in "their country, their law" - though probably not the case in this example - it is often true that governments can enforce policies coercively on a population and the idea of non-interference in national sovereignty is one of the crowning glories of the UNs Dictatorship Charter.

 

‘Their country’ in this case is Malawi, and ‘they’ are the people of Malawi

 

I have no problem saying moral standards exist and that governments that do not follow those standards put themselves at risk not only of criticism, but wider action, and both Rog and Jimbms quite definitely agree with this ideal.

 

I don’t agree at all. If what a government gets up to in their OWN country that does NOT affect others then although criticism is not unreasonable that is where the line should be drawn.

 

For a country to start a deliberate campaign to hunt down and jail or execute practicing homosexuals is a moral wrong.

 

For us --- but obviously not for them.

 

It is down to THEM to institute change if and when they feel ready to do so. We really should limit our actions at most to criticism and only if appropriate. For one thing it’s a single factor of their whole society, a society with different norms, ambitions, values, and beliefs than ours.

 

But there is another factor, that the couple engaged in a faux marriage. That will have huge consequences as far as inheritance of land is concerned because so much dealing in land and property is based on arranged marriages where a marriage cements so many things between families and not just the couple involved.

 

It should be opposed, and opposed strongly. Aid should be withdrawn and if they continue to follow through with the policy then they should be subject to sanctions etc.

 

We should not be sending money out of the UK to anywhere under any circumstances anyway, but we are and to withdraw such aid because of something such as this, an internal issue would be to interfere with internal affairs of a sovereign state.

 

That is crossing the line between having passive statutes which may make such behaviours as sodomy illegal, but with consenting adults, and no campaign of witch hunts and spies, enforcing such a law is basically impossible.

 

For a state to cross from passive banning to active persecution is unacceptable - it is totalitarian and coercive, such policies should not just be criticized, but opposed.

 

But still not for us to become involved in beyond criticism based as it inevitably will be on OUR social values, not theirs.

 

We should keep our noses out just as the US should keep their noses out of other countries affairs unless there is a clear and present danger to the US.

 

If Malawi decide they don’t want to condone homosexuality, then that’s down to them

[Chinahand]

Rog, please stop bloat quoting.

 

Not ‘bloat quoting’, succinctly stating the way that I see how the situation should be viewed.

 

Rog, you clearly don't know what bloat quoting means.

 

Bloat quoting is quoting the entire persons comment and then commenting on only a tiny fraction of that quote. it is especially irritating when people compete to do this resulting in vastly long postings where only a tiny proportion is new and relevent and the rest is simply bloated old comment.

 

It was just unnecessary of you to quote the entirity of LDVs posting. Just delete the irelevent parts and quote the parts relevent to you - or saying "@LDV's last post" would be just as effective and make for a thread which is much easier to read.

[Rog]

Rog, please stop bloat quoting.

 

Not ‘bloat quoting’, succinctly stating the way that I see how the situation should be viewed.

 

Rog, you clearly don't know what bloat quoting means.

 

Bloat quoting is quoting the entire persons comment and then commenting on only a tiny fraction of that quote. it is especially irritating when people compete to do this resulting in vastly long postings where only a tiny proportion is new and relevent and the rest is simply bloated old comment.

 

It was just unnecessary of you to quote the entirity of LDVs posting. Just delete the irelevent parts and quote the parts relevent to you - or saying "@LDV's last post" would be just as effective and make for a thread which is much easier to read.

 

OOOPS!

 

I f'd up!

 

At least give me credit for admitting it!

[Chinahand]

Rog - I genuinely find your attitudes incomprehensible.

 

Do you really say North Korea or where ever (I'm not going to use Nazi Germany, other than here, but the analogy holds) can enforce whatever heinous policies - state oppression, concentration camps, murder etc and as long as the only people involved are citizens of that country then its fine. Is this really your view - really?

 

If the Hutus want to commit genocide against the Tutsi's well fine, they are all Rwandans and all we can do is criticize, but its there country and that's what they've choosen to do.

 

And any outsider who visits such a state is entirely responsible for their actions and so must conform to that state's oppressive laws while there.

 

Say the state has laws requiring citizens report any intermixing of the races - and the foreigner sees a black guy and a yellow woman going into a hotel room.

 

Do you instantly throw away your own morality and pick up the phone to the State's Police to have these immoral offenders of People's dignity punished to 5 generations.

 

I'm off course mixing my totalitarian states in this example, but all parts of them have existed in some country within living memory.

 

Earlier you made an absolutist statement we can do nothing but criticize. You've now altered it, to be as long as it only involves the citizens of that country and doesn't affect anyone else then that is fine.

 

I highly doubt you really believe that - are Burundian Tutsis not allowed to take action over the deaths of their Rwandan kin, or Israeli Jews protect their Somali tribe?

[Rog]

Do you really say North Korea or where ever (I'm not going to use Nazi Germany, other than here, but the analogy holds) can enforce whatever heinous policies - state oppression, concentration camps, murder etc and as long as the only people involved are citizens of that country then its fine. Is this really your view - really?

 

Yes. I deplore it, but we should not interfere.

 

If the Hutus want to commit genocide against the Tutsi's well fine, they are all Rwandans and all we can do is criticize, but its there country and that's what they've choosen to do.

 

Yes. If action is to be taken it should be through the UN Security Council

 

And any outsider who visits such a state is entirely responsible for their actions and so must conform to that state's oppressive laws while there.

 

Yes.

 

Say the state has laws requiring citizens report any intermixing of the races - and the foreigner sees a black guy and a yellow woman going into a hotel room.

 

Do you instantly throw away your own morality and pick up the phone to the State's Police to have these immoral offenders of People's dignity punished to 5 generations.

 

If you see the law of the land being broken and it is the law of the land that all such offenses that are witnessed must be reported then that is EXACTLY what you should do.

 

I'm off course mixing my totalitarian states in this example, but all parts of them have existed in some country within living memory.

 

Earlier you made an absolutist statement we can do nothing but criticize. You've now altered it, to be as long as it only involves the citizens of that country and doesn't affect anyone else then that is fine.

 

I highly doubt you really believe that - are Burundian Tutsis not allowed to take action over the deaths of their Rwandan kin,

 

No.

 

And where have I altered my statement that we as a nation should do nothing other than criticise?

 

Or Israeli Jews protect their Somali tribe?

 

You should look a tad deeper into the nature of the ‘Jews’ of Somalia. Not quite so Jewish as you might think.

[Chinahand]

where have I altered my statement that we as a nation should do nothing other than criticise?

Here

under such circumstances when activities affect other countries then other rules must apply.

and here

If action is to be taken it should be through the UN Security Council

and the idea you believe that Israel should be stopped by the UN from taking action against Lebanese guerilla's is laughable, Rog - are you having an inconsistent day?

 

Or Israeli Jews protect their Somali tribe?

 

You should look a tad deeper into the nature of the ‘Jews’ of Somalia. Not quite so Jewish as you might think.

They still got rescued though didn't they - OPPS sorry Eithiopia, my mistake - hey I also admit my errors!

[Terse]

Yes. If action is to be taken it should be through the UN Security Council

 

Unless, of course, they're UN Security Council resolutions 242, 238, 267, 271, 298, 446, 452 and 465 - in which case they can be ignored?

 

If you see the law of the land being broken and it is the law of the land that all such offenses that are witnessed must be reported then that is EXACTLY what you should do.

 

You'd have turned in Anne Frank's family?

[Chinahand]

Terse, Don't give him the leeway to say Anne Frank was Dutch and the Germans had illegally occupied the country so the laws didn't apply.

 

Rog, would you have turned in Barbara Preusch. A German citizen deliberately ignoring the laws the German state, which she was a citizen of, had passed.

[Evil Goblin]

"I have to say I do find it extremely distasteful when people are so rude to LDV as a person rather than critiquing his ideas - ad hominen attacks and demands that he is sent to a place where he would be killed simply for his sexuality are beyond the pale."

 

Lighten up, CH, surely you can see a joke when you see one! I think we all recognise that LDV's departure from MF would be a sorry event - he provides an enormous amount of humour and thought-provoking statements.

[Evil Goblin]

"For a country to start a deliberate campaign to hunt down and jail or execute practicing homosexuals is a moral wrong.

 

It should be opposed, and opposed strongly. Aid should be withdrawn and if they continue to follow through with the policy then they should be subject to sanctions etc.

"

 

That's the problem, CH - you are, by introducing morals, bringing your own personal opinions into play and assuming that they must be superior to someone else's (different) views. And so do wars start!

 

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and expressing it. But that doesn't give anyone the right to impose their own views on other nations.