Woman to be stoned to death in Iran for adultery [Archive]

Hitman

08-07-2010, 10:44 PM

Title wouldn't fit, sorry.

Iran is facing an international outcry after a mother was convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning.
British politicians are lending their support to efforts to save the life of 43-year-old Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.
Foreign Minister William Hague has called on the Iranian government prevent the stoning.
The call has already been endorsed by congressmen, diplomats, and rights activists on both sides of the Atlantic.
In May 2006, a court in the northern city of Tabriz convicted Ashtiani of having an 'illicit relationship' with two men and sentenced her to 99 lashes.
Later that year, the mother-of-two was accused of murdering her husband. Those charges were dropped, but a panel of judges re-opened the inquiry into adultery charges.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1293064/British-government-joins-celebrities-bid-save-Iranian-mother-stoning.html#ixzz0t8Kb9jgN

Terrible... this is the 21st century not medieval times. The European Court of Human Rights should move to Iran where real human rights are needed for these people, instead of protecting extremists and criminals...

What do you lot think about this?

Moh

08-07-2010, 10:52 PM

Strange, I have just finished watching the film Agora which contains a bit of stoning.

It's not the first time either, they stoned a 17 year old girl because she changed religion to marry somebody.

I love how they say Islam is a peaceful religion.

-:Undertaker:-

08-07-2010, 10:57 PM

Moh

08-07-2010, 11:03 PM

I see that yet again the British government is interferring with the internal workings of another sovereign nation (Iran as per usual) but refrains often from commenting or risking upsetting the Peoples Republic of China whom also have a terrible human rights record. I hate this big boy bully stance we seem to take as the western world - we'll pressure/call the weaker nations a whole manner of names (sometimes even invade them!) but will not dare speak out again the likes of China.

The icing on the cake for me though has always been when we call nations such as Iran and Zimbabwe 'undemocratic' - that really takes the biscuit.
I think that's because we consider China to be a peaceful country (when really they have the highest death sentence - which is more than the world combined) whereas Iran we seam to always be against them sort of countries.

In China you can get executed for tax fraud - but by lethal injection. Stoning would take about 30 mins and I can imagine very painful.

Pyroka

08-07-2010, 11:09 PM

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/appeals+to+stop+iran+stoning+woman+aposadultererap os/3703682

Just so yknoow theyre not.

Moh

08-07-2010, 11:12 PM

She's still on death sentence for "crime against God". It's still terrible!

Frodo13.

08-07-2010, 11:13 PM

...but refrains often from commenting or risking upsetting the Peoples Republic of China whom also have a terrible human rights...I hate this big boy bully stance we seem to take as the western world - we'll pressure/call the weaker nations a whole manner of names (sometimes even invade them!) but will not dare speak out again the likes of China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8433285.stm Sure, the West don't stand up to China on these sort of things :rolleyes:

I personally think the Western World DO have the right in involving itself in these sort of things. The West in my opinion, have a duty to the world to bring these evil, backwards administrations to a more liberal society. Whats worse, is there is reportably no proof she even cheated on her husband, but who cares? Shes a woman right? And we all know what the discriminatry men who rule these backwards countries think of women...not alot is the answer to that. On top of this, she has already recived almost 100 lashes! (I actually agree in corporal punishment, but obviously not for the 'crime' of adultery)

-:Undertaker:-

08-07-2010, 11:20 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8433285.stm Sure, the West don't stand up to China on these sort of things :rolleyes:

I personally think the Western World DO have the right in involving itself in these sort of things. The West in my opinion, have a duty to the world to bring these evil, backwards administrations to a more liberal society. Whats worse, is there is reportably no proof she even cheated on her husband, but who cares? Shes a woman right? And we all know what the discriminatry men who rule these backwards countries think of women...not alot is the answer to that. On top of this, she has already recived almost 100 lashes! (I actually agree in corporal punishment, but obviously not for the 'crime' of adultery)

The west I am afraid do not stand upto China and others in the same way as they bully the likes of Iran, Zimbabwe, Iraq and others. We often spout a number of angry words but we know aswell as the Chinese that its nothing but a public relations stunt in the opera of world politics.

The western world did once attempt to bring countries known today such as Iraq, India, Pakistan and a lot of Africa into the modern world but was eventually kicked out and we can now see today how many of them such as South Africa are actually going backwards in terms of development. More so today, the issue of another country and its internal affairs have little to do with the western world - either these countries are independent or they are not, in which case the disbanding of Empire was pretty much pointless and only to our loss.

I very much doubt we would like people interferring with our internal affairs (well it still happens sadly) so I object in the modern world to that occuring with this country and other nations. Either we can treat all of these regimes the same and apply the same sanctions across the board (yes that includes the PROC) or we can leave internal relations to those countries themselves.

If you are going to treat one bad guy different from another one just because he's weaker and smaller, its nothing but political bullying.

Frodo13.

08-07-2010, 11:29 PM

The west I am afraid do not stand upto China and others in the same way as they bully the likes of Iran, Zimbabwe, Iraq and others. We often spout a number of angry words but we know aswell as the Chinese that its nothing but a public relations stunt in the opera of world politics.

The western world did once attempt to bring countries known today such as Iraq, India, Pakistan and a lot of Africa into the modern world but was eventually kicked out and we can now see today how many of them such as South Africa are actually going backwards in terms of development. More so today, the issue of another country and its internal affairs have little to do with the western world - either these countries are independent or they are not, in which case the disbanding of Empire was pretty much pointless and only to our loss.

I very much doubt we would like people interferring with our internal affairs (well it still happens sadly) so I object in the modern world to that occuring with this country and other nations. Either we can treat all of these regimes the same and apply the same sanctions across the board (yes that includes the PROC) or we can leave internal relations to those countries themselves.

If you are going to treat one bad guy different from another one just because he's weaker and smaller, its nothing but political bullying.

Again, your getting confussed. When I say 'get involved', this in no way mean 'invade', which I presume is what you thought I meant when you mention the Empire. The truth is, when countries like Iran, and Zimbabwe and Iraq do the terrible things that they do/did, there is no way the world can live in peace, which in my opinion, it deserves to do so, and it is, as I have just previously mentioned, down to the influencing countries such as the USA, and UK to intervene.

And on China, what Moh said just in the thread, China don't, at the moment or at least in public, seem to be a threat to us, where Iran does.

-:Undertaker:-

08-07-2010, 11:34 PM

Again, your getting confussed. When I say 'get involved', this in no way mean 'invade', which I presume is what you thought I meant when you mention the Empire. The truth is, when countries like Iran, and Zimbabwe and Iraq do the terrible things that they do/did, there is no way the world can live in peace, which in my opinion, it deserves to do so, and it is, as I have just previously mentioned, down to the influencing countries such as the USA, and UK to intervene.

And on China, what Moh said just in the thread, China don't, at the moment or in public, seem to be a threat to us, where Iran does.

The trouble is that unless you do propose invading these nations then theres not much you can do. Yes you can shout and scream about Robert Mugabe, Hu Jintao and the rest of the rabble - but unless you invade these countries and bring back Empire then its all just a complete and utter waste of time that belongs in the theatre. The issue of sanctions and so forth are also a dead beat issue because sanctions only effect the people of them nations, not the ruling group.

If nobody is going to do anything then lets at least admit that rather than pretend that somehow these people give a damn about our politicians words, as I said before we are morally bankrupt ourselves in terms of democracy so even our leaders words ring hollow to our own people let along the despots in these nations. The west is not only morally bankrupt but also economically bankrupt so I very much doubt Empire would be reasonable again - let along the fact that Empire is in the past now and its revival exists only in nationalist fairytales.

Terrible things go on, but they made their choice when they ended Empire - leave them to it, they will develop on their own accord.

And on China, what Moh said just in the thread, China don't, at the moment or at least in public, seem to be a threat to us, where Iran does.

Iran is no threat to the United Kingdom or the United States, China on the other hands owns an awful lot of our debt and has hundreds of nuclear missiles capabile of reaching Liverpool, London, Bristol, Washington, New England and so forth. The idea that Iran is a threat to the west is as true as the 45 minute 'threat' from Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime was - in other words, it doesnt exist. The reason why Iran is drummed up to be a big issue is because it wants to acquire nuclear weapons due to the fact that Israel has hundreds of the things pointing at Iran itself.

If I were Iran I would also acquire nuclear weapons, and with good reason to.

RedStratocas

09-07-2010, 01:00 AM

The trouble is that unless you do propose invading these nations then theres not much you can do.

i agree with you on this one. injustices happen every day, even within our own western, supposedly moral first world countries.

FlyingJesus

09-07-2010, 02:48 AM

The European Court of Human Rights should move to Iran where real human rights are needed for these people

Spot the difference between the two highlighted words, Tom :P it's not our country, it's not our place to force our laws and morals upon any society that is alien to them

She's still on death sentence for "crime against God". It's still terrible!

No, it's still law

Jayke

09-07-2010, 02:57 AM

Thing is its normal to do things like that. Just like its normal for us to wear tight speedo's to the shops on holiday but if we did it in England we would be arrested. Let them run there country how they like and maybe instead of funding even more soldiers to fight a pointless war we civilians might be able to buy a pint of milk for a decent price.

Capish?

HotelUser

09-07-2010, 02:59 AM

I see that yet again the British government is interferring with the internal workings of another sovereign nation (Iran as per usual) but refrains often from commenting or risking upsetting the Peoples Republic of China whom also have a terrible human rights record. I hate this big boy bully stance we seem to take as the western world - we'll pressure/call the weaker nations a whole manner of names (sometimes even invade them!) but will not dare speak out again the likes of China.

The icing on the cake for me though has always been when we call nations such as Iran and Zimbabwe 'undemocratic' - that really takes the biscuit.

We don't do anything about countries like China (and boy, does it bother me too) because of something called free trade. Asia is given the get out of jail free card. Everyone (as usual) is playing follow the leader towards the Americans who, ignorantly wave their trade agreements around only caring about theirselves :P

Jayke

09-07-2010, 03:09 AM

We need to concentrate closer to home;

- Credit Crunch
- Murderess (Raoul Moat)
- Homeless
- Immigration

Etc, Etc, Etc...

HotelUser

09-07-2010, 03:20 AM

We need to concentrate closer to home;

- Credit Crunch
- Murderess (Raoul Moat)
- Homeless
- Immigration

Etc, Etc, Etc...

I completely disagree. As established and stable nations I think we have a responsibility to work towards fair living standards and civil rights internationally.

Jayke

09-07-2010, 03:26 AM

If we had a really bad flood who would set up aid for us. We concentrate on other people rather than our own country. We need to sort priorities.

FlyingJesus

09-07-2010, 03:38 AM

I completely disagree. As established and stable nations I think we have a responsibility to work towards fair living standards and civil rights internationally.

An utterly ridiculous notion which demeans the values and lifestyles of anyone not adhering to our own customs. We're richer, therefore our ideologies are right?

HotelUser

09-07-2010, 04:14 AM

An utterly ridiculous notion which demeans the values and lifestyles of anyone not adhering to our own customs. We're richer, therefore our ideologies are right?

Oh please. I have heard this argument before and it is extremely flawed. Fighting for civil rights and fair living conditions does not undermine the lifestyles of anyone not part of the western society. At some point in time we're going to have to establish a superiority in what we believe are fair rights for citizens of the world (infact--we already have with international civil right groups).

Fighting for gender equality is not unfair to anyone's way of living
Fighting for sweatshops and child labour to come to an end is not unfair to anyone's way of living
Fighting for fair criminal consequences is not a breach to the fairness of anyone's lifestyle (if you're going to defend death by stoning or 99 lashes you can just get out of this thread now)
Fighting for civil rights, so a kid can go to school all s/he wants, or I can move and get a job wherever and whenever I want to, wear whatever I want to, talk however I want to, make fair life choices is NOT a beach to the fairness of any culture or lifestyle.

The sooner that people like you realize that there's absolutely nothing wrong with our governments helping people who need our help (how do I know they need our help? Because they're committing suicide due to their lives sucking). We shouldn't help them because we think we're better than them, we should help them because we're in a position where we can help them.

ifuseekamy

09-07-2010, 04:28 AM

It's just the foreign minister doing his job and condemning a backwards country, I don't see the problem lol.

Bleeders

09-07-2010, 07:43 AM

She's still on death sentence for "crime against God". It's still terrible!

How you can you commit a crime against something that doesn't exist?

Moh

09-07-2010, 07:55 AM

How you can you commit a crime against something that doesn't exist?
Exactly, forced into a religion.

Hitman

09-07-2010, 08:43 AM

Spot the difference between the two highlighted words, Tom :P it's not our country, it's not our place to force our laws and morals upon any society that is alien to them

No, it's still law
Iran is in Europe mate, learn some Geography! :P But seriously, you are right in a way: we should not impose our way of life on anyone else, just as they shouldn't to us. However we are not telling them that they need to do everything we do - I would class stoning to death as torture, and torture should not be permitted in ANY religion/society/culture - it is not right. They can have death sentences for adultery if they want, but to kill them with torture is terrible.

Colossus

09-07-2010, 09:13 AM

I'd hate to live there then, stoning for little reasons and lashes.

Moh

09-07-2010, 09:34 AM

Accipiter

09-07-2010, 09:51 AM

She's still on death sentence for "crime against God". It's still terrible!

Let god have his say...

oh.

Yeah thats what i thought iran, stop believing in noddy.

What kind of sick death punishment is stoning :S its a tad bit brutal and makes the government even worse than the woman, murder or no murder or w.e

FlyingJesus

09-07-2010, 11:15 AM

we're going to have to establish a superiority in what we believe are fair rights for citizens of the world

Of course you're absolutely correct, what they believe is not important. Why does this "have" to be done? I'm sure you don't agree when they suggest that it's their duty to spread the teachings and laws of Islam to the entire world. You talk of flawed arguments and then come out with this, dear me.

Fighting for gender equality is not unfair to anyone's way of living

Yes it is if that's not what they as a nation believe in

Fighting for sweatshops and child labour to come to an end is not unfair to anyone's way of living

Yes it is for everyone who makes a profit out of it or would otherwise be without certain items of such production

Fighting for fair criminal consequences is not a breach to the fairness of anyone's lifestyle (if you're going to defend death by stoning or 99 lashes you can just get out of this thread now)

"Fair" is an ambiguous term at any time, and no I will not get out of this thread just for defending a view - if you're going to believe in something so ridiculous as global equality then try accepting freedom of opinion.

Fighting for civil rights, so a kid can go to school all s/he wants, or I can move and get a job wherever and whenever I want to, wear whatever I want to, talk however I want to, make fair life choices is NOT a beach to the fairness of any culture or lifestyle.

I agree that education is important, but absolute freedom of choice does impeach on various aspects of all cultures and lifestyles worldwide.

The sooner that people like you realize that there's absolutely nothing wrong with our governments helping people who need our help (how do I know they need our help? Because they're committing suicide due to their lives sucking).

Iran's suicide ranking is currently the 98th highest in the world. By contrast, the UK are at 66, US at 41 and Canada at 37. Maybe Iran should invade us to save us from our lives "sucking"? Good argument there.

Strange.. we change our country A LOT for other countries.

Yeah let me know when you have a point to go with that.

Moh

09-07-2010, 11:30 AM

Yeah let me know when you have a point to go with that.
We change our culture in this country for us, yet if we do it to them people like you complain.

FlyingJesus

09-07-2010, 11:42 AM

That's odd, the military invasion of England with a view to radically overthrow our entire way of life seems to have escaped my memory

Tintinnabulate

09-07-2010, 12:03 PM

I am going to read this whole thread properly later as I have only read a few posts so far but wanted to reply first:

I laugh when people say we should go in and stop them doing all these things, however people here moan when foreigners come and change even little things. :rolleyes:
Its their country and their laws, people here don't like others coming here, so what right does UK have to go in their country and stop them?

Hitman

09-07-2010, 12:51 PM

Tintinnabulate

09-07-2010, 12:53 PM

Foreigners changing our language and acquiring our shops is NOT on the same level as stoning a women to death... I hope you realise what I mean.

Didn't realise England was being changed ...
And tbh if people here fail to run a shop and a foreigner buys it off them and makes it a success, it clearly benefits the economy here.

People here don't like anything being changed by foreigners, so they shouldn't try and change things in other countries. Iraq is a good example of this.

Accipiter

09-07-2010, 01:22 PM

The people who moan here about foreigners taking jobs are blind and usually don't fully understand. I don't have a problem with it as they fill the jobs we don't want. Its the ones who live off our sleezy benefits that piss me off.

But bringing a country forward to the standard of the modern world is not wrong.

Hitman

09-07-2010, 01:58 PM

Didn't realise England was being changed ...
And tbh if people here fail to run a shop and a foreigner buys it off them and makes it a success, it clearly benefits the economy here.

People here don't like anything being changed by foreigners, so they shouldn't try and change things in other countries. Iraq is a good example of this.

...however people here moan when foreigners come and change even little things. They change little things, you even wrote it in your post... regardless of if they change things or not. If the UK had absurd laws where adultery was punishable by death by stoning then I would welcome the change. Do you not think these people living under fear and oppression of their government want to be free?

We are not asking Iran to allow porn films and to open McDonalds everywhere, those are small cultural things which are what you're saying or suggesting foreigners do here (or at the very least saying what others give as an example). We are wanting them to not commit torture to their citizens.

If you agree with them torturing people then you're barbaric. If you agree that torture should not be stopped worldwide then you're barbaric. We do not want to and are not making them change every little thing - we simply don't want them to commit torture.

Voiceover. is spot on.

Eckuii

09-07-2010, 02:00 PM

The British government are increasing their pressure because its what America would want them to do. We are just like the little goat and America is the goat herder. We don't invade Zimbawbe because they provide billions of dollars and pounds in Diamonds all across the world even though their human rights is absolutely terrible.
Nobody challenges China because they are a developing country and although their GDP is unlikely to ever be as high as America's, they are still bigger than America is terms of output to countries. A lot of countries have alliance to China that even America couldn't handle. So they just let them crack on with their terrible human rights.

Then their is Iran, a country who is already being threatened by Isreal and America. Clearly they have a terrible human rights and America don't like them because they are on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. So along come Britain who also put the pressure on them becuase they are a smaller nation.

To me it feels like the Government is following America's lead on everything with a country they disagree with. It feels like they are provoking the media in to reporting issues like this, so that if America want to go to war with Iran, the British public and government will just role over and follow suit like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although it isn't acceptable to stone the woman to death, why don't Britain and America remember that 200 year ago they were the world leaders in slavery. Where was their morals then?

I think it should also be stated America wasn't so keen to follow Britain in to World War 2 even though they provided thousands of bombs and equipment for which we have only just finished paying. Why don't Britain just get a backbone.

HotelUser

09-07-2010, 02:52 PM

Of course you're absolutely correct, what they believe is not important. Why does this "have" to be done? I'm sure you don't agree when they suggest that it's their duty to spread the teachings and laws of Islam to the entire world. You talk of flawed arguments and then come out with this, dear me.

There is, disregarding cultural differences, a significant difference between forcing a religion, which includes beliefs, rituals and lifestyles upon someone compared to fighting for people to have fair rights which includes the same freedoms people--not just of our modern culture--have strived for for generations and generations. You're comparing religion to be on par with the basic rights and freedoms a person should get. Not only is that argument flawed, but the comparison is utterly ridiculous.

Yes it is if that's not what they as a nation believe in

You should have said, "if that's not what they as men of a nation believe in." Female suicide rates in Afganhistan because of the Taliban have been incredibly high. The culture of which a person belongs to CANNOT undermine the rights that person should be entitled to. The person should first be entitled to those rights and then through those rights be allowed to follow a lifestyle they choose to. By not giving them these basic human rights you're actually forcing a lifestyle upon them.

Yes it is for everyone who makes a profit out of it or would otherwise be without certain items of such production

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of in my entire life. We should allow sweatshops to continue because we benefit from them? That's what we're doing but you're not exactly at the pinnacle of corporate America. If you genuinely think this then I wont win this argument. Not because I'm not right, but because you have such a foolish perspective that you're beyond reason of logic :P

"Fair" is an ambiguous term at any time, and no I will not get out of this thread just for defending a view - if you're going to believe in something so ridiculous as global equality then try accepting freedom of opinion.

I do accept the freedom of opinion and I will accept your opinion and anyone else's opinion so long as they can defend the reasons as to why they've come to their opinion. You have failed to specify logical reasons as to why benefits of death by stoning outweigh the negatives of how much a person is going to suffer and be tortured by being hit with rocks until they die.

I agree that education is important, but absolute freedom of choice does impeach on various aspects of all cultures and lifestyles worldwide.

They should have the freedom and rights to choose if they want education, and before they make that decision they should know about the benefits of what an education will do for them.

Iran's suicide ranking is currently the 98th highest in the world. By contrast, the UK are at 66, US at 41 and Canada at 37. Maybe Iran should invade us to save us from our lives "sucking"? Good argument there.

As I already said above and as you've probably assumed, I was referring to the suicide rates of woman in Afganhistan after the Taliban took control.

Tintinnabulate

09-07-2010, 02:59 PM

They change little things, you even wrote it in your post... regardless of if they change things or not. If the UK had absurd laws where adultery was punishable by death by stoning then I would welcome the change. Do you not think these people living under fear and oppression of their government want to be free?

We are not asking Iran to allow porn films and to open McDonalds everywhere, those are small cultural things which are what you're saying or suggesting foreigners do here (or at the very least saying what others give as an example). We are wanting them to not commit torture to their citizens.

If you agree with them torturing people then you're barbaric. If you agree that torture should not be stopped worldwide then you're barbaric. We do not want to and are not making them change every little thing - we simply don't want them to commit torture.

Voiceover. is spot on.

Its their culture, its their laws. No I hate torture and I hate the death penalty. In China you can be executed for Tax Fraud - why doesn't this moral country go in and change that?
Maybe their government doesn't want the wives to cheat on husbands and vice versa, its their law, their culture. We don't agree with it, but they don't agree with the way most women dress here - do you see them coming here and asking you to change the way you dress? No.
To me it looks like the U.K. likes to stick its nose in every countries business to assert its authority.

The British government are increasing their pressure because its what America would want them to do. We are just like the little goat and America is the goat herder. We don't invade Zimbawbe because they provide billions of dollars and pounds in Diamonds all across the world even though their human rights is absolutely terrible.
Nobody challenges China because they are a developing country and although their GDP is unlikely to ever be as high as America's, they are still bigger than America is terms of output to countries. A lot of countries have alliance to China that even America couldn't handle. So they just let them crack on with their terrible human rights.

Then their is Iran, a country who is already being threatened by Isreal and America. Clearly they have a terrible human rights and America don't like them because they are on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. So along come Britain who also put the pressure on them becuase they are a smaller nation.

To me it feels like the Government is following America's lead on everything with a country they disagree with. It feels like they are provoking the media in to reporting issues like this, so that if America want to go to war with Iran, the British public and government will just role over and follow suit like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although it isn't acceptable to stone the woman to death, why don't Britain and America remember that 200 year ago they were the world leaders in slavery. Where was their morals then?

I think it should also be stated America wasn't so keen to follow Britain in to World War 2 even though they provided thousands of bombs and equipment for which we have only just finished paying. Why don't Britain just get a backbone.

Excellent post. I agree with pretty much all of it. England invaded half the world, took over so much gold etc, but I guess it was 200 years ago so it doesn't matter :rolleyes: +rep
One more thing I absolutely hate, England cut down all its forests and tress to make roads, buildings etc so it can develop. However, it forces countries in Africa not to due to Global Warming. So England quickly gets rid of its trees etc, then forces other countries not to - meaning they cannot develop etc. Pathetic.

Hitman

09-07-2010, 03:30 PM

Its their culture, its their laws. No I hate torture and I hate the death penalty. In China you can be executed for Tax Fraud - why doesn't this moral country go in and change that?
Maybe their government doesn't want the wives to cheat on husbands and vice versa, its their law, their culture. We don't agree with it, but they don't agree with the way most women dress here - do you see them coming here and asking you to change the way you dress? No.
To me it looks like the U.K. likes to stick its nose in every countries business to assert its authority.
It's-not-quite-clicking-is-it?

You give examples of how these people wouldn't like the way women dress in the UK and how they don't come and change it - this is a tiny thing. How people dress does not include any pain or hurt. Being stoned to death cannot be compared to clothes.

If we wanted them to change how they walked or what hair styles they had then YES, it would be an absolute joke and we'd be idiots. But this is not about clothes, or trivial things, this is about TORTURE and death. I'm not familiar with the Chinese death penalty, but I assume it's not being stoned to death or some other gruesome act of violence.

I'm not saying the UK should stick its nose it at everything, these are just my opinions that we shouldn't allow torture to occur, just like people don't want racism in the world, an violence etc. The sad truth is that none of these things will probably ever be eradicated, but fighting against them can reduce occurrences. If a country wants to punish somebody for picking their nose, then go ahead, but to torture them for a crime is not right.

Tintinnabulate

09-07-2010, 04:11 PM

It's-not-quite-clicking-is-it?

You give examples of how these people wouldn't like the way women dress in the UK and how they don't come and change it - this is a tiny thing. How people dress does not include any pain or hurt. Being stoned to death cannot be compared to clothes.

If we wanted them to change how they walked or what hair styles they had then YES, it would be an absolute joke and we'd be idiots. But this is not about clothes, or trivial things, this is about TORTURE and death. I'm not familiar with the Chinese death penalty, but I assume it's not being stoned to death or some other gruesome act of violence.

I'm not saying the UK should stick its nose it at everything, these are just my opinions that we shouldn't allow torture to occur, just like people don't want racism in the world, an violence etc. The sad truth is that none of these things will probably ever be eradicated, but fighting against them can reduce occurrences. If a country wants to punish somebody for picking their nose, then go ahead, but to torture them for a crime is not right.

What about sticking their nose in the African Forest bit?

FlyingJesus

09-07-2010, 04:19 PM

There is, disregarding cultural differences, a significant difference between forcing a religion, which includes beliefs, rituals and lifestyles upon someone compared to fighting for people to have fair rights which includes the same freedoms people--not just of our modern culture--have strived for for generations and generations. You're comparing religion to be on par with the basic rights and freedoms a person should get. Not only is that argument flawed, but the comparison is utterly ridiculous.

You are clearly not aware of the fact that most of what not only makes up the basis of our laws but also our day to day morals is religion. We are no longer a country made to observe any religion we don't want to, but the laws that have religious foundations still remain and we are still taught mainly Christian morals, whether its done in a Christian way or under the name of basic ethics. It may well be tough out there but that's what they "for generations and generations" have worked for and sustained. You're still confusing your ideas of what is right and wrong with universal fact.

You should have said, "if that's not what they as men of a nation believe in." Female suicide rates in Afganhistan because of the Taliban have been incredibly high. The culture of which a person belongs to CANNOT undermine the rights that person should be entitled to. The person should first be entitled to those rights and then through those rights be allowed to follow a lifestyle they choose to. By not giving them these basic human rights you're actually forcing a lifestyle upon them.

Their religious law says otherwise, and as that's what they believe that's the ethical code they follow. Not everyone values the same things in the same way and you cannot force them to accept other methods just like I'm sure they couldn't force you to follow their ways. To them, allowing sacreligious practises to take place is entirely unacceptable, to the same degree that you detest the idea of torture.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of in my entire life. We should allow sweatshops to continue because we benefit from them? That's what we're doing but you're not exactly at the pinnacle of corporate America. If you genuinely think this then I wont win this argument. Not because I'm not right, but because you have such a foolish perspective that you're beyond reason of logic :P

I don't believe you understand the difference between facts and opinions properly. I did not say that I think sweatshops are a good thing, I said that shutting them all down would be unfair to some peoples' way of living. If no-one profited from it they wouldn't exist, so clearly getting rid of them would diminish someone's profits, thus hindering their current way of life. Again, I'm not trying to justify sweatshops, this is simply logical fact. Speaking of which, such an opinion would (as I've just shown) not be illogical, so you seem not to understand logic either. The correct phrasing for you in that instance should have been simply that you do not agree with it on a moral basis - as I keep mentioning though, your morals do not necessarily mean universal law.

I do accept the freedom of opinion and I will accept your opinion and anyone else's opinion so long as they can defend the reasons as to why they've come to their opinion. You have failed to specify logical reasons as to why benefits of death by stoning outweigh the negatives of how much a person is going to suffer and be tortured by being hit with rocks until they die.

I've done no such thing, you're just using the wrong words again - you not agreeing with it does not make it illogical. It does logically follow that a country which abides by such laws should carry out the punishment deemed fit by its legal system. However if you really need a utilitarian reason: when any law isn't properly acted on it weakens the entire structure of the system and affects the populace as a whole, rather than affecting just those involved as is the case when it goes as it is written that it should.

As I already said above and as you've probably assumed, I was referring to the suicide rates of woman in Afganhistan after the Taliban took control.

...In a discussion about Iran. I don't have any figures for Afghanistan and won't pretend to, but it's a moot point considering it's not the same topic.

Hitman

09-07-2010, 04:26 PM

What about sticking their nose in the African Forest bit?
What about it? I'm not talking about trees, you didn't even respond to what I wrote... I'm hot and half asleep and I bothered to reply. :(

Surely we should be pressuring or encouraging countries to not use torture as forms of punishment.

If you want to talk trees go to a tree forum... lots of countries in Africa are very poor and probably don't have cars, so why would they need to cut down trees and build roads?

And if you want to pick at England for making mistakes, every country makes mistakes and I will admit that because it's true. No country has never made any errors, but in this modern day and age we should try to rectify these mistakes and try and make less... which includes stopping medieval methods of death.

ANNNNNNND one other thing. You mentioned England going around and invading countries, stealing gold, etc. that was hundreds of years ago. Hundreds of years ago countries (like Iran - but whatever it was 200 years ago) were still using torture as a method of execution, like the stoning. The difference here is that England has stopped gallivanting around the world stealing gold, but Iran continues to give tortuous death sentences.

Im off to bed, my head is killing. If none of that made sense then I'll come back some other time and rewrite it. THANK YOU & MUCH LOVE.

Tintinnabulate

09-07-2010, 04:50 PM

What about it? I'm not talking about trees, you didn't even respond to what I wrote... I'm hot and half asleep and I bothered to reply. :(

Surely we should be pressuring or encouraging countries to not use torture as forms of punishment.

If you want to talk trees go to a tree forum... lots of countries in Africa are very poor and probably don't have cars, so why would they need to cut down trees and build roads?

And if you want to pick at England for making mistakes, every country makes mistakes and I will admit that because it's true. No country has never made any errors, but in this modern day and age we should try to rectify these mistakes and try and make less... which includes stopping medieval methods of death.

ANNNNNNND one other thing. You mentioned England going around and invading countries, stealing gold, etc. that was hundreds of years ago. Hundreds of years ago countries (like Iran - but whatever it was 200 years ago) were still using torture as a method of execution, like the stoning. The difference here is that England has stopped gallivanting around the world stealing gold, but Iran continues to give tortuous death sentences.

Im off to bed, my head is killing. If none of that made sense then I'll come back some other time and rewrite it. THANK YOU & MUCH LOVE.

Thats the kind of attitude which I dislike "whats the point in making roads if they don't have cars". They want to but them down to make buildings and roads - modernise it - give business opportunities. I am against torture and I have said it, but things they stop countries in Africa doing in the name of Global Warming is ridiculous. England had no cars but they built roads so they can get to more places. They can use animals, they can walk, if they wanna make it, we shouldn't stop them - but we do.

-:Undertaker:-

09-07-2010, 05:19 PM

Thats the kind of attitude which I dislike "whats the point in making roads if they don't have cars". They want to but them down to make buildings and roads - modernise it - give business opportunities. I am against torture and I have said it, but things they stop countries in Africa doing in the name of Global Warming is ridiculous. England had no cars but they built roads so they can get to more places. They can use animals, they can walk, if they wanna make it, we shouldn't stop them - but we do.

I thought you believed in global warming?

You can't have it two ways now, either its a big threat that needs action taken or its not.

Tintinnabulate

09-07-2010, 05:23 PM

I thought you believed in global warming?

You can't have it two ways now, either its a big threat that needs action taken or its not.

Global Warming is a totally different topic. I am saying the UK cannot cut all its forests so it can develop then stop other countries from doing the same.

Hitman

09-07-2010, 05:56 PM

Global Warming is a totally different topic. I am saying the UK cannot cut all its forests so it can develop then stop other countries from doing the same.
You're on a different topic anyway... this WAS about Iran stoning a women to death, not it's about England's greed and telling people to not chop down trees. If they wanted to I'm sure they could, but that's the point if they can do NOTHING with them?

Tintinnabulate

09-07-2010, 06:32 PM

You're on a different topic anyway... this WAS about Iran stoning a women to death, not it's about England's greed and telling people to not chop down trees. If they wanted to I'm sure they could, but that's the point if they can do NOTHING with them?

You don't seem to understand. First there were hardly any cars here - so why build roads? Roads allow transport - not just via roads. And I am saying people complain about others coming here and changing stuff but England does it to every other country.

Catzsy

09-07-2010, 07:19 PM

I think any country has a right to voice their opinions. Iranian representatives voice their opinion about the UK and the States. To say 'they are poking their noses in' is a pretty weak argument. This seems crazy to me. The woman and the man she was having an affair with got sentenced for 10 years for murdering the husband but she gets a further sentence of 'stoning to death' because of her admitted adutery. In any civilised society, surely adultery which is not even against the law in 90% of countries cannot be compared in any way shape or form to be a worse offence than murder.

Tintinnabulate

09-07-2010, 07:21 PM

Hitman

09-07-2010, 07:23 PM

You don't seem to understand. First there were hardly any cars here - so why build roads? Roads allow transport - not just via roads. And I am saying people complain about others coming here and changing stuff but England does it to every other country.
I don't even know what you're on about now dude... and Raoul Moat is on TV, it's far more interesting... explain a bit better and maybe I will understand (I must be thick ;))

England does it to every other country... haha... show me some big things we've changed in other countries RECENTLY, not decades ago.

Accipiter

09-07-2010, 07:27 PM

What about sticking their nose in the African Forest bit?

If im correct

thats not us forcing it on them, its charities and the European union?

The EU asked people to sign a treaty etc, not the Uk.

I've not seen in the news anything about the Uk government having any say in that, we may help protect the boundaries of the forests from illegal loggers etc with charities but i im sure its not our government in itself.

And china do have terrible human rights, everyone knows that, but there country is over populated and im not shocked that they hit down that bit harder on law breakers. Yes maybe some of there laws & Sentences are a tad harsh but they have to keep their population under control.

Catzsy

09-07-2010, 07:30 PM

Its due to the religion I believe, however I might be completely wrong.

I think you are probably right - it comes under shariah law but I cannot see whatever God you believe in would say that murder is less serious than adultery. What we have to keep in mind is that men not the God they follow wrote these laws.

Tintinnabulate

09-07-2010, 07:30 PM

I don't even know what you're on about now dude... and Raoul Moat is on TV, it's far more interesting... explain a bit better and maybe I will understand (I must be thick ;))

England does it to every other country... haha... show me some big things we've changed in other countries RECENTLY, not decades ago.

That **** is costing this money so much money "/ 400 police officers are involved.

Anyway leave it, we both disagree with torture, but unfortunately its their laws.

And Iraq would be the answer to your last line. More people die now than they did with Saddam.

The forest thing has nothing to do with EU and its not big enough to be reported in the news - just like a lot of other stuff, but it is a fact that UK puts pressure on the countries not to cut them down (once even paid them).

---------- Post added 09-07-2010 at 08:32 PM ----------

I think you are probably right - it comes under shariah law but I cannot see whatever God you believe in would say that murder is less serious than adultery. What we have to keep in mind is that men not the God they follow wrote these laws.

Recently there was a law in one of the countries there - can't remember the name but it was on BBC - that men can demand sex off their wives like 3 times a week :S. If the wife said no, the punishment was just ridiculous.

Hitman

09-07-2010, 07:37 PM

That **** is costing this money so much money "/ 400 police officers are involved.

Anyway leave it, we both disagree with torture, but unfortunately its their laws.

And Iraq would be the answer to your last line. More people die now than they did with Saddam.

The forest thing has nothing to do with EU and its not big enough to be reported in the news - just like a lot of other stuff, but it is a fact that UK puts pressure on the countries not to cut them down (once even paid them).

---------- Post added 09-07-2010 at 08:32 PM ----------

Recently there was a law in one of the countries there - can't remember the name but it was on BBC - that men can demand sex off their wives like 3 times a week :S. If the wife said no, the punishment was just ridiculous.
It may be expensive but it needs to be done... can't have him mincing around shooting people.

The US were also involved and we just licked their arse as usual.

Moh

09-07-2010, 07:47 PM

Also look at it this way.

According to the Islamic laws, a man can have up to 4 wifes - meaning he can do as he pleases with all of them.

So:
1 man could sleep with 5 women before been sentenced to death.
1 woman would only have to sleep with 2 men.

Men can also have "temporary wifes" so if shes not married, he isn't committing adultery.

HotelUser

10-07-2010, 04:15 AM

You are clearly not aware of the fact that most of what not only makes up the basis of our laws but also our day to day morals is religion. We are no longer a country made to observe any religion we don't want to, but the laws that have religious foundations still remain and we are still taught mainly Christian morals, whether its done in a Christian way or under the name of basic ethics. It may well be tough out there but that's what they "for generations and generations" have worked for and sustained. You're still confusing your ideas of what is right and wrong with universal fact.

No I am not, because things I wish to impose upon these people have absolutely no affiliation with any religion. I do not pray to my god for the civil rights offered in my religion. I am guaranteed these rights and freedoms because our societies developed and progressed in such a way that we've learned that giving citizens such power is just.

Their religious law says otherwise, and as that's what they believe that's the ethical code they follow. Not everyone values the same things in the same way and you cannot force them to accept other methods just like I'm sure they couldn't force you to follow their ways. To them, allowing sacreligious practises to take place is entirely unacceptable, to the same degree that you detest the idea of torture.

That is not what all of them believe (obviously, clearly you've completely neglected to understand what the Taliban are, or what's going on with Chinese labour, Foxconn). Might I also point out that there is a fine line between living in a genuinely acceptable fashion, and then living in what you think is an acceptable fashion, because you know nothing else.

I don't believe you understand the difference between facts and opinions properly. I did not say that I think sweatshops are a good thing, I said that shutting them all down would be unfair to some peoples' way of living. If no-one profited from it they wouldn't exist, so clearly getting rid of them would diminish someone's profits, thus hindering their current way of life. Again, I'm not trying to justify sweatshops, this is simply logical fact. Speaking of which, such an opinion would (as I've just shown) not be illogical, so you seem not to understand logic either. The correct phrasing for you in that instance should have been simply that you do not agree with it on a moral basis - as I keep mentioning though, your morals do not necessarily mean universal law.

No, your response was invalid based on the perception of what came to mind when you thought about how it could be unfair to someone's way of living. You can make a negative change to someone's life that's still considered fair?

I've done no such thing, you're just using the wrong words again - you not agreeing with it does not make it illogical. It does logically follow that a country which abides by such laws should carry out the punishment deemed fit by its legal system. However if you really need a utilitarian reason: when any law isn't properly acted on it weakens the entire structure of the system and affects the populace as a whole, rather than affecting just those involved as is the case when it goes as it is written that it should.

I am certainly not using the wrong words because your utilitarian situation doesn't make sense? They could have given this woman a number of different punishments which would have been acceptable to society, which take into consideration the well being of individual who violated the laws. Either way in my opinion this is irrelevant. This is a situation in which international civil rights would be considered (and hopefully enforced) by various governments because, due to us establishing a perception of having a superior way of live compared to those in Iran, we will right away compare the crime and punishment to its counterpart situations we are locally familiar with and make an almost mutual decision claiming that the treatment of the stoned individual is unjust. I am not agreeing with the ideology of establishing a superiority of our culture and forcing it upon anyone, though when it comes to a violation of their free rights, when it comes to a life or death situation for these people, or these people themselves are demanding change, I see no moral obstacles in the way of helping these people.

You're talking about what so many of our people wish to do as some sort of modern religious reformation. Whether you're playing devils advocate here or not this is what I do not like.

...In a discussion about Iran. I don't have any figures for Afghanistan and won't pretend to, but it's a moot point considering it's not the same topic.

Hardly. It's simple and straight forward. Taliban takes over. Screws over all the woman. The woman have nothing worth living for and commit suicide. It is incentive for us to help them. It is both relative towards what I said about suicides and us intervening in their countries.

FlyingJesus

10-07-2010, 08:36 AM

No I am not, because things I wish to impose upon these people have absolutely no affiliation with any religion. I do not pray to my god for the civil rights offered in my religion. I am guaranteed these rights and freedoms because our societies developed and progressed in such a way that we've learned that giving citizens such power is just.

They absolutely are to do with religion, even if that's not your personal reasoning for them. Societies developed and progressed in the Western world through the laws of Christianity - your own religious views have nothing to do with it and that's not what I was suggesting at all

That is not what all of them believe (obviously, clearly you've completely neglected to understand what the Taliban are, or what's going on with Chinese labour, Foxconn). Might I also point out that there is a fine line between living in a genuinely acceptable fashion, and then living in what you think is an acceptable fashion, because you know nothing else.

Wow, having just claimed that you're not confusing fact with opinion you go on to suggest that any way but our way is "genuinely" unacceptable.

No, your response was invalid based on the perception of what came to mind when you thought about how it could be unfair to someone's way of living. You can make a negative change to someone's life that's still considered fair?

Silly me, I'd forgotten that only your personal values are of any importance to anyone. That aside, I never claimed that making negative changes to peoples' lives is fair anyway - I simply showed how your statement was wrong, as you'd attempted to say that getting rid of sweatshops would not be "unfair to anyone's way of living" when it would clearly be detrimental to some, even if more positive overall. Fair and unfair are not polar opposites of just one quantity each.

I am certainly not using the wrong words because your utilitarian situation doesn't make sense? They could have given this woman a number of different punishments which would have been acceptable to society, which take into consideration the well being of individual who violated the laws. Either way in my opinion this is irrelevant. This is a situation in which international civil rights would be considered (and hopefully enforced) by various governments because, due to us establishing a perception of having a superior way of live compared to those in Iran, we will right away compare the crime and punishment to its counterpart situations we are locally familiar with and make an almost mutual decision claiming that the treatment of the stoned individual is unjust. I am not agreeing with the ideology of establishing a superiority of our culture and forcing it upon anyone, though when it comes to a violation of their free rights, when it comes to a life or death situation for these people, or these people themselves are demanding change, I see no moral obstacles in the way of helping these people.

You're talking about what so many of our people wish to do as some sort of modern religious reformation. Whether you're playing devils advocate here or not this is what I do not like.

In what way does laws not being acted upon = bad not make sense? You say there are other punishments, and yes that's true, but the one judged to be fitting the crime in their laws is the one that was carried out. There are always other possible punishments for any crime, but if they're not applied as law dictates then the law itself loses all credibility.

Hardly. It's simple and straight forward. Taliban takes over. Screws over all the woman. The woman have nothing worth living for and commit suicide. It is incentive for us to help them. It is both relative towards what I said about suicides and us intervening in their countries.

I take it from this and everything else that you've said that you believe that the Western lifestyle of human rights and democracy is the one universally acceptable system? This is the way that the Shia government of Iran think about their views, it's the way the Sunni Taliban think, it's the way the Zionist Israelites think, it's the way all conquering despots in history have thought. I understand that you feel strongly about human rights, but what human right does any nation have to attempt to change the way a civilisation has successfully worked for the last 1400 years? I'm certain you would not be too happy about a complete overhaul of political and social theory putting emphasis on something you don't believe important.