African Conservatives Criminalise Gays

[Chinahand]

Evil Goblin - does good exist? I believe it does and find it odd that you of all people seem to be saying that actions shouldn't be taken to uphold it. There are lots and lots and lots of greys between the blacks and the whites, but the world would be a very passive place if all people did was talk.

 

You've recently started quoting Daoist texts. I think you'd enjoy Xunzi - he was a Confuscian with some daoist justifications - he's not my cup of tea, I'll stick to Zhuangzi, but I think you'll like him.

 

Wu Wei 无为 doesn't mean passivity - I aspire to changing people's and countries' opinions and that takes more than words - giving them an example to follow is important and sometimes a shove is needed when people promote active evil.

 

Passivity in the face of evil is to compound evil - I don't think you really disagree with that.

[Knoxville]

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.

 

Have you been smoking crack?

[Rog]

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!

 

Look at the context that I wrote.

 

In the first place it was in connection with what should be done during a time of war, in the second it was proposing that involvement should be done not unilaterally but as a result of a decision taken by what is in effect an international court.

 

As for the UN sticking its nose into the defensive war against The Lebanon, that was a disgrace. Rather than support Israel and cleansed The Lebanon once again the UN went down the road of defending the Arabs.

 

No contradictions.

 

 

But let me add to what I previously wrote.

 

We, well most of us, are highly offended to say the least to see Muslims coming to Britain and introducing Shar’ia law in the colonies they are establishing --- and believe me, they are.

 

We are offended at having our laws and freedoms criticised and even condemned, and we find it impossible to grasp how it can be that a Muslim person is so unwilling to ‘grass up’ one of their own who blatantly breaks our laws as so many do.

 

And yet to a Muslim our ways are immoral to an extent that we simply can’t fathom.

 

Not just in terms of excessive drinking and promiscuous sex, that’s immorality by any decent standards, but atheism or a willingness to laugh at our religions even amongst the many true believers, after all some of the best Jewish jokes are known and circulated by Jewish people.

 

Or our delight in the depiction of the creations of Allah by sculpture or drawing, our affection for some animals such as dogs as indoor pets, our repugnance at the denigration of women, our horror of FGM, in short OUR values.

 

Yet we rightly demand that people coming into our nation should integrate with us, live by our codes of justice, our laws, and abide by our standards.

 

How dare we think that we should be able to travel to someone else’s country and expect to get away with trying to live by our values in their lands?

 

It may well be that our standards are more evolved, more civilised, in absolute terms simply better, but if it’s their country then we should abide by their rules and standards.

[Rog]

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?

 

If you start to quote UN resolutions then at least understand the full facts about resolutions that are mandatory and those that are not.

[Rog]

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.

 

 

Which is exactly what I would reply.

 

As for Barbara Preusch, since I would myself have been arrested had I been in country at the time the question is nonsense.

[Chinahand]

FFS Rog stop trying to evade reasonable questioning of what you have written - if an Italian had been holidaying in Germany and had seen Ms Preusch acting suspiciously with a group of people marked with the Star of David would you say they acted rightly or wrongly for doing the following:

 

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.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Given carte blanche? Good grief man, have you NO grasp of reality?

The reality is those people would be heavily punished if caught.

 

It may be wonderful and Brave New World libertarian thinking that everyone should live in joyous happy co-operation, Libertarianism may well look like the path to get to the closest that life could be to Utopia, except for one thing.

Joyour cooperation? It might be joyous, but a freer society would be a BETTER all round precisely because we are dealing with people. There is no excuse for oppression.

 

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.

I disagree. The government in Malawi has no more legitimacy in legislating for its people than the UK government does. However, the UK government is not oppressing those who are gay. Hypothetically speaking, if Britain had the power to prevent the Malawi government from removing gay people from society then it would be quite acceptable for it to use that power.

 

But this isn't practical. What is practical is condemning that government. Condemning the religious beliefs in that country that create such a climate where such imprisonment is permissable. Having human rights and democratic organisations campaign in favour of those unjustly imprisoned. And any other action that get such laws of the statutes.

 

YOU may not like the way that law is decided and how government works but do keep in mind that it is a process that has evolved and though far from perfect is working very well relative to society as it is and people as they are.

It clearly isn't working very well considering the type of actions considered crimes and the extent of crime.

 

When society changes in Malawi changes then Malawi laws will change but those changes will be organic and should and must not be enforced as OUR laws and OUR society line up with OUR wants and needs.

Organic? Do explain what that is supposed to mean.

 

You will find life will significantly improve for you if you loose the chips from your shoulder, even the ones you picked up working at KFC.

If I seem to have a chip on my shoulder because I get angry that people wickedly throw people in prison due to their very poor beliefs when such people have done no wrong apart from exist and be human then fine.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

You're fucking dumb or are just trying to troll. This isn't about getting cross because people have different views. It is about those who have views AND power AND claim the right to remove people from society because of their sexuality.

 

...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?

Though it had to be stopped from carrying out the actions it did in trying to stop the guerillas. It is one thing to try and eliminate the guerillas and another to undertake terrorist acts across the southern half of Lebanon with airstrikes against the civilian infrastructure.

 

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?

No, not like that at all. I am talking hypothetically. No nation isn't going to get involved with putting a stop to another's people's oppression unless there is something worth for the intervening country.

 

Besides, the removal of the Taliban was never the reason for the invasion. And the later aim to remove them was only decided upon in order to gain control over the country.

[gazza]

Well LDV why dont you form a group a charity or what ever protesting about the the laws,

 

when u have plenty of members u can go protest in one of the citys there.

instead of wineng on a board about it go do somthing about it. or is that like to much effort

[Chinahand]

LDV you seem to compartmentalize things in a very unusual way - the removal of the Taliban was one of the first war aims. They were given the option of handing over OBL and disbanding AQ's training camps or being replaced by a more cooperative government. They didn't, so the Northern Alliance was armed and supported with airpower, special ops and forward air control. Only with the fall of Kabul in November was the scene set for the Battle of Tora Bora a month later.

 

Stabilizing Afghanistan so that it cannot become a base for Terrorism has been a firm goal from the initial bombing raids to the Loya Gurja to today's proping up of Karzai. There have consistently been two missions in Afghanistan - the NATO supported stabilization and the US ran fight against AQ and its allies - the fact that the Taliban are amoungst AQ's allies interweves these separate missions, but your discussion of the war is very out of kilter - can't say I'm surprised.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Initially there was only the demand to for the handover of Osama Bin Laden in an attempt to bring him to justice. The Taliban asked for some evidence to support an extradition. The US was unwilling to provide any - it simply demanded the handover. And understandable the Taliban were unwilling to hand him over. The Taliban then conceded and offered to try him in the country - though it is obvious why this would be unacceptable to the US.

However, when the US went to war it was a couple of weeks after it was decided to remove the Taliban outright upon a proposal from the British - I think a Royal Navy admiral argued for it. The original war aim was simply to capture or kill all Al Qaeda elements in the country.

 

After the US failed in its primary mission to capture or kill even a small number of the AL Qaeda forces in the country in then became very much about trying to make good on the US and British presence.

[Rog]

FFS Rog stop trying to evade reasonable questioning of what you have written - if an Italian had been holidaying in Germany and had seen Ms Preusch acting suspiciously with a group of people marked with the Star of David would you say they acted rightly or wrongly for doing the following:

 

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.

 

As Italians in allience with Germany they would have acted correctly.

[MilitantDogOwner]

You, LDV, maybe you've got it right for once.

 

Lets not send our troops off to die in a third world country to remove AQ and the Taliban.

 

Lets send them off to die in a third world country because they kill gay people.

 

I mean gay people are more important that stopping an oppressive regiem harbouring terrorists, terrorists that would have no problems blowing every man woman and child to kingdom come.

 

Yeah your bang on the money.

 

/sarcasm.

[Chinahand]

Something evil is happening in Africa.

 

Child Sacrifice

 

Witches Burnt

 

Lord's Resistance Army rapes and kills

 

Alot of it is down to the influence of fundamentalist religion both Christain* and Muslim**

 

* Which believes and desires the world to be in its end times, and which has old testament attitudes to sex, adultary, witches and demons

** Which is growing in power and demanding Sharia law*** replaces the secular colonial law which dominated in the initial period after independence.

*** Which has medieval attitudes to sex, adultary, withces and demons

 

Place your bets MDO - a Nigerian just attempted to murder 300 Americans.

 

Somalia and Sudan are in religous turmoil.

 

Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya have profound problems based around fundamentalist violence whether its the Lord's Resistance Army, or inter-communial violence.

 

Think we can keep all that locked away. Especially when Al Qaeda etc are actively seeking new bases where they can operate.

 

There are strong parallels between what happened in Afghanistan and what is happening in parts of places like Nigeria.

 

I wouldn't want to place bets about how many people will be killed by Afghan based terrorists in the next decade and how many by Sudanese/Somali/Nigerian ones.

 

If it wasn't for the fact one Nigerian couldn't get his underpants on fire enough Africa would have started ahead in its atrocity body count.

 

Its a nasty world - and nasty priests and mullahs who care more for harvesting souls than nurturing people are often to blame.

[Chinahand]

FFS Rog stop trying to evade reasonable questioning of what you have written - if an Italian had been holidaying in Germany and had seen Ms Preusch acting suspiciously with a group of people marked with the Star of David would you say they acted rightly or wrongly for doing the following:

 

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.

 

As Italians in allience with Germany they would have acted correctly.

Amazing - do you really believe morality (deciding whether actions are wrong or correct) is entirely dependent on the laws of the country you happen to have been born in.

 

You arguing yourself into a corner, Rog - one you don't really believe in, but which you are struggling to maintain to be consistent with unthought out statements above.

 

You have your own morality above any laws, you do not think the UN should be able to dictate, and you will not let another country take actions that affect you or you compadres - or are you really going to say Israel should take no action if say Iran decided to instigate a pogrom against its remaining Jewish community.