Woman to be stoned to death in Iran for adultery

[Catzsy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Eckuii]

I feel I have to retract my statement as Switzerland have told America that they aren't going to extrodite that guy to them because America wouldn't release vital documents. America probably thought they would just give in. Big respect to Switzerland for that :L

I saw mentioned earlier that if a woman doesn't give sex to her husband three times a day/week that there was a horrible punishment. It was only made illegal in this country in 1991 that you couldn't rape your wife. Before this it was perfectly fine to do so, R v R is the case that set the precedent.

1991 isn't that long ago in the context of people's morals on rape. So let's not sit on our high horses.

[Catzsy]

Iran has suspended stoning as a means of capital punishment so it looks like the international pressure worked.
I am personally very pleased to hear this.

Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2609597.stm

[Nixt]

Haven't read the whole thread, but

Iran is in Europe mate, learn some Geography!

Sorry I just wanted to clarify - that was sarcasm, right? Sorry I couldn't tell

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?

Quoted for truth.

At the end of the day, if someone breaks the law in this country, we expect them to pay for it. Adultery is a violation of the law in Iran, the punishment for which is clear. The woman broke the law, therefore she should be liable for the punishment that results from it. End of. Nothing to do with us.

[Hitman]

Iran has suspended stoning as a means of capital punishment so it looks like the international pressure worked.
I am personally very pleased to hear this.

Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2609597.stm

Victory.

Haven't read the whole thread, but



Sorry I just wanted to clarify - that was sarcasm, right? Sorry I couldn't tell

No, I'm srs. :S Haha of course I'm kidding, I'm not that stupid!

BTW from what I remember, she said she wasn't guilty of the crime, they gave her 99 lashes and forced her to say she was, so she did, then afterwards she said she was still innocent. The judges in Iran can reopen cases and decide whether people are guilty without evidence if they feel the person was guilty. Hardly fair.