The United States Should Outlaw the Niqaab... - Otherwise Kn

[Ghost Writer]

The Qu'ran suggests that its followers wear attire that is modest in nature. In fact, there are laws established by Islamic countries to ensure that this suggestion is followed closely. However, nothing in Islam makes this an absolute requirement. This practice is merely suggested by the Islamic creed.

This type of religious distortion is not isolated to Islam. For example, many Mormons believe that drinking caffeine is a violation of scripture, when it is recommended that followers of this religion simply avoid this and other substances. Nothing in the scripture actually suggests that it is one of God's laws. The general public's misunderstanding of what these religions entail is elevated by the distortions that many of the very followers of these religions have created.

In Islam the reason it is suggested that women wear modest clothing is so they can be recognized as followers of the Qu'ran, and will not be confused as loose women, or prostitutes. Of course, this recommendation must be put into historical context. It was written in the 7th century, when the oldest profession in the world operated in a different manner. These days prostitutes are generally not picked up on the streets, but rather they are delivered like a pizza pie. Although times were different, the need for modesty still applies today, and on the surface this guideline is not a sinister one.

The rise of political Islam has been marked by a remarkable mistreatment of women. In short, many of the radical Muslim sects have not only set out to establish theocratic states, which practice a convoluted version of Islam, but they have also effectively reduced the role of women to that of second class citizens. Saudi Arabia's Wahabi sect is just one example of this type of perversion of religion. The main symbol that depicts the plight of women in these unjust societies is the niqaab, the chador, or simply put the veiling of women.

Women in these societies are treated as chattel. It is not uncommon in Saudi to see women sitting in the bed of a pickup truck, while the newly purchased camel sits comfortably in the cab protected from the elements. This is testament to the value that Wahabi sects place on the lives of their women. To them women are less important than cattle. In addition, rape victims may be stoned to death in what is called an honor killing.

That being said; why then do we allow people to immigrate to our free and democratic societies and continue this practice of slavery and repression? Western cultures have made advances in the treatment of women in our own societies? We believe that both men and women are equal under the law, and are endowed with all of the same unalienable rights.

Recently, a Florida case has put the issue of how western culture deals with fundamentalist Islamic practitioners out in the open. Before September 11th, Sultaana Freeman (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030528/323/e10mf.html) was allowed to take her drivers license photo under the veil. This was probably due to the politically correct environment that reigned during the Clinton years. However, somebody at the Florida DMV noticed this divergence from Florida law, and sent a notice to the women threatening to revoke her drivers license if she did not come in and take her photo unveiled. Now she has found an ACLU lawyer who is championing her case. The argument is that this violates her constitutionally protected freedom of religion. The state suggests that the face is an important biometric tool for identification, and 9-11 has changed the political environment. She lost round one, and plans to appeal this one 'all the way up'.

I have a suggestion to the legislatures of the United States of America. Outlaw the veil, altogether. The Qu’ran does not require that the niqaab be worn by women. This is a tool of oppression that runs anti to the freethinking ideals that we subscribe to. In fact, we are at war with those Islamists who wish to establish a worldwide Islamic state. Terrorist organizations are being funded by those theocratic states already existing in the Middle East. The veil is the symbol of their insanity, and wish for absolute dominion over the world’s people. We should not allow this practice, any more than we should allow Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), or polygamy, within our borders. Slavery was put to rest with the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, and later finalized with the bloodshed of approximately 650,000 Americans. To allow this goes against the result of an issue that once sharply divided this nation, and against the principles that established our democracy.

It is no coincidence that moderate; democratic, Arab nations do not require this sinister style of dress, as the women in those nations wear the hijab. The hijab covers only the neck and hair, and is more in line with the actual teachings of Islam. Furthermore, it is no coincidence that the human rights in those countries are significantly higher.

It is interesting to note that the French are currently discussing a ban of the niqaab in public areas. Not only is it philosophically consistent with western ideology, but it has practical national security implications. A ban of this Draconian practice is most definitely a step in the right direction in this war on terror.

Sources:
A brief exploration of the complex topic of hijab and face-veiling in Islam (http://www.islamfortoday.com/veil.htm)

Is Hijab Compulsory? - "The Qu’ran does not suggest that women should be veiled or they should be kept apart from the world of men. On the contrary, the Qu’ran is insistent on the full participation of women in society and in the religious practices." (http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed06.htm)

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 9:13 am on June 11, 2003)

[CubanFox]

As I understand it, all the face veiling stuff is cultural not religious.

[Vinny Rafarino]

oright! We get to slag ghost wanker some more...here we go!

Women in these societies are treated as chattel. It is not uncommon in Saudi to see women sitting in the bed of a pickup truck, while the newly purchased camel sits comfortably in the cab protected from the elements. This is testament to the value that Wahabi sects place on the lives of their women.

Having lived in Morroco, I have first hand knowledge that this is absurd. A) A fully grown camel will not fit into the cab of a lorry unless it's an infant. which leads us to point B) No one would actually purchase an infant camel as it would be useless for work until it is fully grown and work is the only reason a camel would be needed.
Jackass.

Recently, a Florida case has put the issue of how western culture deals with fundamentalist Islamic practitioners out in the open. Before September 11th, Sultaana Freeman was allowed to take her drivers license photo under the veil. This was probably due to the politically correct environment that reigned during the Clinton years. However, somebody at the Florida DMV noticed this divergence from Florida law, and sent a notice to the women threatening to revoke her drivers license if she did not come in and take her photo unveiled. Now she has found an ACLU lawyer who is championing her case. The argument is that this violates her constitutionally protected freedom of religion. The state suggests that the face is an important biometric tool for identification, and 9-11 has changed the political environment. She lost round one, and plans to appeal this one 'all the way up'.

Because we all know that every single middle eastern citizen of the US is a terrorist. Especially the women.
Again, jackass.

I have a suggestion to the legislatures of the United States of America. Outlaw the veil, altogether. The Qu’ran does not require that the niqaab be worn by women. This is a tool of oppression that runs anti to the freethinking ideals that we subscribe to.

And because the US does not agree, it should be outlawed with force.
Wow! three for three...jackass

It is no coincidence that moderate; democratic, Arab nations do not require this sinister style of dress, as the women in those nations wear the hijab.

Soooo Sinister a woman in a veil is! I bet white american women clutch their handbags tightly when one of these sinister thugs gets on the lift with them....Oh wait they only do that to blacks here.

It appears ghost wanker is a perfect four for four......jackass.


cheers






(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 10:23 am on June 11, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

I never suggested that it was the actual woman that was sinister. However, the prospect of having a subculture within our society that succumbs to slavery is sinister, and should not be tolerated.

I notice you failed to address my analogy of veiling to that of FGM, or polygamy. Hell you could even argue that one does not have the religious right to practice human sacrifice, nor should they have the right to treat women as chattel under our laws. Religious, or cultural considerations do not allow for the circumvention of our laws. Religious practice must fall within the mores of what is commonly considered acceptable. Just as child rapists should not be able to hide behind their supposed religion, neither should women haters.

Having lived in Morroco, I have first hand knowledge that this is absurd. A) A fully grown camel will not fit into the cab of a lorry unless it's an infant. which leads us to point B) No one would actually purchase an infant camel as it would be useless for work until it is fully grown and work is the only reason a camel would be needed.
Jackass.

I forgot to mention that the camel was an infant. Somebody has to raise them, don't they? Are there not businesses that sell camels?

Because we all know that every single middle eastern citizen of the US is a terrorist. Especially the women.
Again, jackass.

I didn't suggest that all Islamic people were terrorist. I simply don't think we should be importing the Wahabi variety of Islam into the United States as it exists as an emeny to freedom. Just ask the women who have to wear that shit, no matter how high the ambient temperature gets.

And because the US does not agree, it should be outlawed with force.
Wow! three for three...jackass

We do reserve the right to decide what is acceptable within our countries borders.

Why does it not surprise me that you would be a defender of slavery? Could it be that you subscribe to a different variety known as Marxism? Your signature gives away your reasons.

[Ghost Writer]

Any thoughts from those who are less delusional than comrade RAF?

[Hampton]

So if the women wanted to wear the veil, they wouldn't be able to?

[Pete]

Your arguement is essentially flawed.

Although it is true that some women are forced to wear the viel, there are also women who choose to. In a way it is like nuns dressing like they do. There is no real purpose except for the religious/societal ones, which they choose to follow themselves.

I can't speak for the camels ect, but I do know that America supporting the Sauds is hypocritical. You want deniers of freedom look no further than that monarchy. They do not even pretend to be democratic like America does!

[Ghost Writer]

If a black man decides that he would still rather wear the chains of slavery should we let him? I think not, since it goes against the fundamentals of our democracy.

[Pete]

That is something completely different.

But if you are saying the Niqaab is taking away female rights, then so is outlawing abortion.

[Ghost Writer]

What about the right of the fetus to live? As I have said, there ought to be a grace period for abortion, one that lasts as long as the first trimester. Anything more is as barbaric as forcing women to wear the niqaab.

[Pete]

The embryo is a pile of cells inside a womens body. It is safer for a clinic to preform an abortion rather than her doing it in an alleyway with a hanger.

I think a majority of your disgust of the niqaab comes from an enthno-centric viewpoint which excludes most of the non-west.

Edit: Lets keep this to the niqaab (I know I brought up abortion) and I deleted your double post :)

(Edited by CrazyPete at 5:26 pm on June 11, 2003)

[CopperGoat]

Ghost Writer, you are a stupid dick head...

My mom is Muslim and she lives in Canada, and she chooses to wear the chador, the religion does not require you to wear it. But some countries such as Saudi Arabia where the FUCKING MONARCHY IS ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY THE U.S. forces women to. Now if you are going to say that this chador is an enemy of freedom then you are just a big fuck face, because you don't want women to wear that because it's not democracy, but not allowing them to wear it, is the opposite of democracy you big fuck! I hate your disgusting and sickening racist remarks. You are just too used to western culture and you hate seeing other culture and their clothing. So you want to assimilate everyone.

Dick head....

[Hampton]

If a black man decides that he would still rather wear the chains of slavery should we let him? I think not, since it goes against the fundamentals of our democracy.

He should be able to do so if he wanted to, isn't that what America is based on? It's nice to think that he would only be able to do so if "we" let him, glad to see someone still making decisions for the black man. Why are you making decisions for those who choose to wear the veil anyway? This reeks of trampling over the first Amendment.

[Umoja]

Besides, most Islamic women don't veil their entire face, usually just there hair. Even so, I think what your saying is silly, it's crushing the first ammendment. Women in America generally choose to where the Niqaab/Hajeb/etc...

[Vinny Rafarino]

I notice you failed to address my analogy of veiling to that of FGM, or polygamy. Hell you could even argue that one does not have the religious right to practice human sacrifice, nor should they have the right to treat women as chattel under our laws. Religious, or cultural considerations do not allow for the circumvention of our laws. Religious practice must fall within the mores of what is commonly considered acceptable. Just as child rapists should not be able to hide behind their supposed religion, neither should women haters.

I did not address it because it was pure babble. If you like however I will embarrass you even more.

Analogy- A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.

Logically what does wearing a veil and having more than one wife have to do with with each other? Nothing, short of the shiek's harem wearing veils during their wriggly little dance numbers but that's hardly a substitute. In case you didn't know....apples are just apples, oranges are just oranges.

I was unaware that wearing a veil was in violation of any law in the US. This is not the United States of Ghost Wanker, so please unless your statements are based in reality, please don't post them.

I didn't suggest that all Islamic people were terrorist. I simply don't think we should be importing the Wahabi variety of Islam into the United States as it exists as an emeny to freedom. Just ask the women who have to wear that shit, no matter how high the ambient temperature gets.

Yes you did. Here is your original post;

Before September 11th, Sultaana Freeman was allowed to take her drivers license photo under the veil. This was probably due to the politically correct environment that reigned during the Clinton years. However, somebody at the Florida DMV noticed this divergence from Florida law, and sent a notice to the women threatening to revoke her drivers license if she did not come in and take her photo unveiled.

Logic would dictate that this " law" was overlooked as it had no bearing on much of anything. The sudden adherence to the law after 11sep01 leads anyone with a brain to realise that a non-veiled photograph was only neccessary for Identification if said individual was to perform a terrorist crime. Not simply domestic crime as they did not care prior to the attack.
Leading to the [b]only logical conclusion, ALL middle eastern people residing in the US are potential terrorists regardless of sex or nationality.

I wonder if Cambridge will be willing to change the definition of "obtuse" to simply a photo of Ghost Wanker waving a yanquee flag and holding a bowling
ball. "You're outta yer element Donny!"

Got any more brain busters for me junior?

[Umoja]

Correction, it would mean all Muslims in America are viewed as terrorist. Considering the majority of Muslims in America are likely to be Black, at least that's how it looks if you live in New Jersey.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree that we should not encourage people to subject theselves to the oppression of religion's superstitions. But it is ultimately up to the individual whether or not she wants a symbol of chauvinistic male authority and religious fear on her face.

I would also like to add that I especialy do not support such measures in the U$. It would only enforce the christian leanings of the government, thus unwelcoming other religions, especialy Islam.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 8:14 pm on June 11, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from Umoja on 2:06 am on June 12, 2003
Correction, it would mean all Muslims in America are viewed as terrorist. Considering the majority of Muslims in America are likely to be Black, at least that's how it looks if you live in New Jersey.


Agreed. Like blacks in yanqueeville didn't already have enough to worry about...Say perhaps there was a riot in one of the prisons in America...It happens quite often actually...Do you think the State Government would use terrorism as an excuse to commit genocide within the prison walls? The Muslim faith is quite prominent in prison.

Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

A picture is worth a thousand words:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html

If there is anyone that the state needs to be able it ID, it is a violent criminal.


(Edited by kelvin9 at 8:13 am on June 12, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I imagine, GW, that you're feeling pretty smug at this point. The objections to your proposal are, thus far, less than impressive.

With one exception...

I would also like to add that I especialy do not support such measures in the U$. It would only enforce the christian leanings of the government, thus unwelcoming other religions, especialy Islam. -- Victorcommie

I think you are well aware of the fact that many ultra-conservative elements in American public life more or less openly wish the U.S. to become a declared "Christian Republic"...and your proposal, however sensible it might be in narrow terms, would be seen, correctly, as yet another step in this direction.

Since it has been decided that America shall have an empire that includes Muslim provinces, and since one of the consequences of that decision is that many of the most ambitious Muslims will emigrate to "the mother country", we shall see in the not too distant future many women in our streets wearing the symbols of tribal patriarchy.

It's really no different, when you stop and think about it, than the sight of slave auctions within walking distance of the White House.

Those damn chickens will come home to roost.

:cool:

[Urban Rubble]

They shouldn't be allowed to wear them in their driver's license photos, I can't wear a hat but I don't *****.

Saying they should be outlawed in public is so fucking stupid, I'm not even going to address this bullshit.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I believe it is illegal to force anyone to wear a particular form of attire, it's a personal choice, so no need for any new laws there. If they choose to wear it, it's nobody else's business. Of course the driver's license thing was just ridiculous, as anyone could have used that license! That's a matter of practicality, a driver's license photo just has to show some form of identification.

I personally find the veil silly and puritanical, and I totally agree that the Qur'an does NOT require it. The hijaba is more than enough for a vast majority of Muslimah, and is rapidly gaining in popularity.

Hopefully the veil will be abandoned in favour of the hijab, but none of us has the right to ban anyone from believing otherwise.

--- G.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Of course VC. But that does not change anything regarding this particular occasion. It's a simple matter of common sense. I particularly enjoy kelvin90210's assessment that this woman is a"violent criminal". You silly right wing nutter. I had a mate that was convicted of assult and battery for getting into a scrap at a pub in the US. It just so happened that he proceeded to really tar the lad and make him look rather silly. The bastard calls in the piggies and the next you thing you know...Right into the Black Mariah he went..This was the first fight he had ever been in and was for the most part a non fighter. The real intellectual sort, that thinks you can't be smart and have balls...anyway...Convicted. Sentenced. Is he a "violent criminal"? Hardly BoyKelvin90210. Why must you be so fucking dim?

[Ghost Writer]

Yep, most of these women are encouraged to make their own decisions (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1331/context/archive).

[Vinny Rafarino]

For Fuck's sake GW I reckon the Christian Science Monitor would never ever be biased towards Muslims now would they...It's not like muslims are their COMPETITION! I'm sure this report is stand up mate!

What is wrong with this kid??

[Dhul Fiqar]

Women around the world are not allowed to make their own decisions, and this is wrong, imho. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with Islam as a religion.

Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and I'm sure many other faiths practice arranged marriages today. That is totally irrelevant to any discussion of Islam, it's cultural and not religious.

--- G.

p.s. there was even a murder case a couple of years back in Toronto where an Indian Sikh woman refused to marry her appointed husband, she was hunted down and killed by people sent by the family in Canada. They were convicted in a Canadian court, iirc

[Umoja]

I've heard that arranged marriages are more effective. Not that I support the idea, but at least if it's the parents arranging the occasion, both people in the relationship suffer. :biggrin:

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 10:24 am on June 12, 2003
Of course VC. But that does not change anything regarding this particular occasion. It's a simple matter of common sense. I particularly enjoy kelvin90210's assessment that this woman is a"violent criminal". You silly right wing nutter. I had a mate that was convicted of assult and battery for getting into a scrap at a pub in the US. It just so happened that he proceeded to really tar the lad and make him look rather silly. The bastard calls in the piggies and the next you thing you know...Right into the Black Mariah he went..This was the first fight he had ever been in and was for the most part a non fighter. The real intellectual sort, that thinks you can't be smart and have balls...anyway...Convicted. Sentenced. Is he a "violent criminal"? Hardly BoyKelvin90210. Why must you be so fucking dim?


"Following her 1997 conversion to Islam, Sultaana Freeman (formerly Sandra Keller) was arrested in Decatur, Illinois for battering a foster child. Freeman, 35, pleaded guilty in 1999 to felony aggravated battery and was sentenced to 18 months probation. "

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html

Violent criminal? That is not debateable. She is.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 10:24 am on June 12, 2003
Of course VC. But that does not change anything regarding this particular occasion. It's a simple matter of common sense. I particularly enjoy kelvin90210's assessment that this woman is a"violent criminal". You silly right wing nutter. I had a mate that was convicted of assult and battery for getting into a scrap at a pub in the US. It just so happened that he proceeded to really tar the lad and make him look rather silly. The bastard calls in the piggies and the next you thing you know...Right into the Black Mariah he went..This was the first fight he had ever been in and was for the most part a non fighter. The real intellectual sort, that thinks you can't be smart and have balls...anyway...Convicted. Sentenced. Is he a "violent criminal"? Hardly BoyKelvin90210. Why must you be so fucking dim?


"Freeman faced domestic battery charges in 1998 after she and her husband hesitated when medical staff at a hospital asked to examine twin 3-year-old girls in their foster care. The twins were dressed in what police described as “Muslim attire,” and Freeman and her husband apparently objected to any examination of the girls on the grounds that such immodesty would violate the religious tenets of the Koran. One of the girls had a broken arm, and both had numerous bruises and marks on their bodies. "

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cur...ana_freeman.htm (http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/sultaana_freeman.htm)

Dude, you crack me up.

[Soul Rebel]

Here are some things that we do not know or tend to forget about the practice of veiling
1) Many womyn wear the veil as a form of resistance. To these womyn the veil represents a form of escape from the male gaze.
2) Some Islamic countries have actually put into effect laws that prohibit the mandatory wearing of veils. These laws say that it is the choice of the woman to wear them or not. And as i mentioned up above- many womyn continue to wear them as a form of resistance. Others also wear them to be better identified with their religion.

As westerners i dont think we have the right to say if it should be allowed or not. It is a cultural and religious practice of the middle east- not the west. We have our own way of thinking and living and any judgement or opinion we may have of veiling will be ethnocentric (bias based on culture).

[Dhul Fiqar]

Sounds like a fucking nutcase that should lose custody and go to jail. So fucking what? That has nothing to do with any of this.

--- G.

[Soul Rebel]

As for the comment made here that veiling is like Female Genital Mutilation--- WRONG!!! In case many of you didnt know FGM is actually done for economic purposes, not religious purposes. Here is the info. that i wrote in another thread on FGM:

Since we are on the topic of clitordectomy, otherwise known as "Female Genital Mutilation," I just want to share some info with you guys.
1) The procedure is carried out in Africa and the Middle East. 95 million womyn in 25 countries are affected by it.
2) There are three kinds of procedures: *Sunna- it is the most traditional procedure carried out. It is the least invasive; it is the removal of the hood. Name reflects belief that it has connection to Islam. *Clitordectomy- it is the removal of the clitoris and labia. *Infibulation- Everything is removed and then sewn shut. Only a little hole is left for urination and menses. This is the one that probably causes most damage because the stiching can be torn apart during intercourse. It has to be unstiched during labor and then restiched after words. This procedure causes urinary tract infections, shock, etc., sometimes death from infection.
3) The age range in which girls get this done is 7-10.
4) The procedure is not carried out by men, but by other womyn. Midwives are the ones performing the procedure. They do it for economic reasons. This is a way of bringing in income- they are given money, food, and other gifts by the girls family. How midwives perform this varies. Some midwives perform this in their office with sterilized equipment, antibiotics, and anesthesia. Others do the procedure at the girls house with a piece of glass and thorns (to sew her up) over a hole (to catch blood). How they do it depends on their economic level, as well as that of the patient, because most often those working in the office have to buy their own supplies. More and more programs have been carried out to show midwives how to perform the procedure safely.
5) The reason why the procedure is carried out is economic, which leads to the control of womyn's sexuality. Womyn are expected to be married off someday. If she gets married she will be economically taken care of and she will no longer be a burden to her family. To ensure that she will be married the procedure is done. Virginity is a very important quality that a woman needs to possess in order to be married. If she is not a virgin nobody will want her and so the procedure is done to keep her a virgin. This also keeps other people from spreading rumors about the woman's sexuality.
6) The procedure is very supported in these countries. It is a tradition that is very much celebrated. The girls are very aware of the procedure and know when their time comes for it. It is a right of passage for girls- like a "Sweet 16" birthday party. They are now stepping from childhood into adulthood. When the procedure is done the whole community celebrates. A huge party is thrown, in which an animal is slaughtered for a feast. The young girl receives many presents, like a new dress, bracelets, dolls, etc. So for these people it is not bad, only does the west view it as bad. Its like veiling- we think of it from a very ethnocentric perspective.

[Anonymous]

Sorry if I have polarized the arguement. I have no problem with Muslim women wearing a veil on a DMV photo ID as long as to some other ID is accomodated? DNA? Blood? Urine? Retna? Fingerprint reader? etc.

I have a problem with HER wearing a veil on a DMV photo. Just like I would have a problem with other violent criminals.

BTW only 3 people in the USA can not have guns:
1) The insane
2) Felons
3) Domestic abusers

What is she doing with a gun?

[Dhul Fiqar]

In that case, we actually agree on this issue. :)

--- G.

[Pete]

Beware of percieving a rare occurance as common place.

[RedRevolutionary87]

listen...you wanna get rid of the hijab...then get rid of the nun's veils and so on...except that from my knowledge of islam...which is somewhat large since i dont come from an islamic background is that it is sudjested that women to cover themselves, however it is not mandatory. but religion is a personal thing and if she isnt hurting any1 she can wear ithe hijab all she wants if she chooses to wear and her interpretation of her faith is that she should wear it then so be it.

[Dhul Fiqar]

The Hijab and the Niqaab are not the same thing. The Hijab is often a political statement and always a religious statement, the Niqaab is a questionable statement of cultural puritanism, not a religious or political statement, imho.

--- G.

[Vinny Rafarino]

i response to Kelvin90210's babbling.

1) I was not there to witness the crime being commited and did not attend the trial (because there wasn't one) to review the evidence. I cannot believe this woman pled guilty. A good CDA would have gotten the charges tossed, a bad one would have at least gotten a mis-trial
and probably an acquittal.

2) Unless you can show that the broken arm was proven in to be issued by the woman in an abusive way then it is reasonalble to assume it could have happened elsewhere. ( or by Mr. Freeman.) A journalist's opinion does not make it fact. (DC, GW and boykelvin90210 all would like us to believe otherwise though)

3) Is it not possible that if there indeed was abuse that the Father could have done it and the woman simply took the blame due to a warped sense of religious honour? It was Mr. Freeman who fired the gun anyway
This quote is from your source.

"Then, in 1999, Freeman once again posed for a police mugshot in connection with her husband’s arrest for “patriotically” firing a gun from the roof of the family home on July 4. Freeman was not charged in the incident, although her husband was later convicted of reckless discharge of a handgun and sentenced to probation."

Hmm. Very interesting. This why she pled guilty. At a trial the prosecutiong attorney would have definantely "sniffed" this out once he realised a mistrial or acquittal was imminent.

EDIT:

I crack you up kelvin90210?

Get real wanker.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 10:28 pm on June 13, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Quote: from RedRevolutionary87 on 7:54 pm on June 13, 2003
listen...you wanna get rid of the hijab...then get rid of the nun's veils and so on...except that from my knowledge of islam...which is somewhat large since i dont come from an islamic background is that it is sudjested that women to cover themselves, however it is not mandatory. but religion is a personal thing and if she isnt hurting any1 she can wear ithe hijab all she wants if she chooses to wear and her interpretation of her faith is that she should wear it then so be it.


I believe her ID has more to do with avioding criminal prosecution than religion.

Freeman faced domestic battery charges in 1998 after she and her husband hesitated when medical staff at a hospital asked to examine twin 3-year-old girls in their foster care. The twins were dressed in what police described as “Muslim attire,” and Freeman and her husband apparently objected to any examination of the girls on the grounds that such immodesty would violate the religious tenets of the Koran. One of the girls had a broken arm, and both had numerous bruises and marks on their bodies. "

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 10:27 pm on June 13, 2003
i response to Kelvin90210's babbling.

1) I was not there to witness the crime being commited and did not attend the trial (because there wasn't one) to review the evidence. I cannot believe this woman pled guilty. A good CDA would have gotten the charges tossed, a bad one would have at least gotten a mis-trial
and probably an acquittal.

2) Unless you can show that the broken arm was proven in to be issued by the woman in an abusive way then it is reasonalble to assume it could have happened elsewhere. ( or by Mr. Freeman.) A journalist's opinion does not make it fact. (DC, GW and boykelvin90210 all would like us to believe otherwise though)

3) Is it not possible that if there indeed was abuse that the Father could have done it and the woman simply took the blame due to a warped sense of religious honour? It was Mr. Freeman who fired the gun anyway
This quote is from your source.

"Then, in 1999, Freeman once again posed for a police mugshot in connection with her husband’s arrest for “patriotically” firing a gun from the roof of the family home on July 4. Freeman was not charged in the incident, although her husband was later convicted of reckless discharge of a handgun and sentenced to probation."

Hmm. Very interesting. This why she pled guilty. At a trial the prosecutiong attorney would have definantely "sniffed" this out once he realised a mistrial or acquittal was imminent.

EDIT:

I crack you up kelvin90210?

Get real wanker.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 10:28 pm on June 13, 2003)


Nobody belives you.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What is contained in that post that is unbelievable. I understand you have a tough time understanding concepts that fall outside of eating, sleeping and having a shite because you are very dim. I welcome anyone to analyse my post and correct any errors if there are any. You should probably have a law degree and practise as a CDU or PA .

What's the matter Kelvin90210? Had no response? I'm sure the entire post simply went right over your head. Are you even capable of rational thought? Even Ghost Wanker can think rationally occasionally. I've noticed you seem to be very dependent upon the other capitalists on this forum and have difficulty forming your own ideals and opinions. After researching your childish posts a bit, (very dull experience) I found the majority of your posts are from 3-4 words long. Having trouble maintaining boy? Don't blame yourself Kelvin90210. Mental Redardation can't keep you from some of the finer things in life. Look at it this way, you will always be able to babble incoherently and people will still smile and nod at you. They may even give you cookies for tying your own shoes! Isn't that just super little guy? Maybe if you practise real hard you can get one of those nifty medals at the special olympics!

Cheers my special little guy!

-Julian

[El Brujo]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 6:09 am on June 12, 2003
Anything more is as barbaric as forcing women to wear the niqaab.


You are a hypocrite, pal. You go on about how "barbaric" it is to force women to wear the niqaab (something governments SUPPORTED BY THE U.S. do, btw) but you want to force them not to wear it, even if they want to. Now tell me how that is any less "barbaric" than forcing them to wear it?

It's just like an arrogant "American patriot" to vehemently disrespect other peoples cultures like that so Im not surprised at such remarks in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF practise real hard you can get one of those nifty medals at the special olympics!

Cheers my special little guy!

-Julian


Actually today I took highest score in the service rifle. Typically I am only in the top 1/3, but today was extremely harsh conditions. Winds, heat, sun, etc. As everyone was having a bad day, I was right on and very lucky. Shooting starts at 200 yards, target is a 3 inch disk, without optics.

Maybe if you got out of the house and took up a hobby you would not be so bitter and find a girlfriend. I suggest ballroom dancing. I met my present girlfriend dancing, she is a dance instructor. Try it, do you some good. But first ease up a little on the bitterness, you'll just scare way the women.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 10:03 pm on June 15, 2003

Quote: from COMRADE RAF practise real hard you can get one of those nifty medals at the special olympics!

Cheers my special little guy!


-Julian


Actually today I took highest score in the service rifle. Typically I am only in the top 1/3, but today was extremely harsh conditions. Winds, heat, sun, etc. As everyone was having a bad day, I was right on and very lucky. Shooting starts at 200 yards, target is a 3 inch disk, without optics.

Maybe if you got out of the house and took up a hobby you would not be so bitter and find a girlfriend. I suggest ballroom dancing. I met my present girlfriend dancing, she is a dance instructor. Try it, do you some good. But first ease up a little on the bitterness, you'll just scare way the women.

What exactly is your point boy?



(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 12:06 am on June 16, 2003)

[kiwisocialist]

Frances treatment of Muslims is disgraceful. I don't think you should use them as a guide to good policy.

[Dirty Jersey]

I think it should be alright for someone to wear anything they want, but in the case of ID photos the entire face should be visible. Nuns take off their habit for identification photos.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 12:05 am on June 16, 2003

Quote: from kelvin9 on 10:03 pm on June 15, 2003

Quote: from COMRADE RAF practise real hard you can get one of those nifty medals at the special olympics!

Cheers my special little guy!


-Julian


Actually today I took highest score in the service rifle. Typically I am only in the top 1/3, but today was extremely harsh conditions. Winds, heat, sun, etc. As everyone was having a bad day, I was right on and very lucky. Shooting starts at 200 yards, target is a 3 inch disk, without optics.

Maybe if you got out of the house and took up a hobby you would not be so bitter and find a girlfriend. I suggest ballroom dancing. I met my present girlfriend dancing, she is a dance instructor. Try it, do you some good. But first ease up a little on the bitterness, you'll just scare way the women.

What exactly is your point boy?



(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 12:06 am on June 16, 2003)


You had to edit "What exactly is your point boy?" ???

I thought I was clear. Moving out of your parents basement and getting a hobby should help ease the bitterness so evident in your posts.

[Soul Rebel]

Im sorry- was this supposed to be a flaming thread? Could have sworn it wasnt- that we were supposed to discuss recent events and different ideas, rather than acting like little children.