Brit teacher's 40 lashes.

[beej]

I remember a story on the BBC where a Sudanese man was forced to marry a goat that he had sodomised.

No wonder there is/was a civil war going on there.

humping goats - cows are taking international level i belive ...

lolol I liked that post.

[zeusbheld]

Zeus, got anything worthwhile to imput, or you just going to troll the forums ?

if i'm just gonna troll the forums, what you gonna do? sulk? pout? i'll "imput" something worthwhile *if* i see something worth responding seriously to. so far i haven't.

[Sukhumvit_Farang]

The teacher in question has been tried, found guilty and sentenced to 15 days in jail for her role in the Western plot against Islam:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7119399.stm

UK teacher jailed over teddy row

Britain said the incident was an 'innocent misunderstanding'

A British teacher has been found guilty in Sudan of insulting religion after she allowed her primary school class to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, has been sentenced to 15 days in prison and will then be deported.

She had been accused on three counts of insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.

The Foreign Office said it was extremely disappointed by the verdict. Her lawyer says she will now appeal.

I have called in the Sudanese ambassador this evening to explain the decision and to discuss next steps

The Sudanese ambassador is being called back to the Foreign Office to explain the decision.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband said he was also "extremely disappointed" the charges had not been dismissed and repeated his view that it had been an "innocent misunderstanding by a dedicated teacher".

"Our priority now is to ensure Ms Gibbons' welfare, and we will continue to provide consular assistance to her," he said.

"I have called in the Sudanese ambassador this evening to explain the decision and to discuss next steps."

Officials at the Foreign Office say the mood has changed as a result of the verdict.

The prime minister, Sudanese embassy officials in London and UK Muslim organisations all expressed the hope that Mrs Gibbons would be released.

But Sudan's top clerics had called for the full measure of the law to be used against Mrs Gibbons and labelled her actions part of a Western plot against Islam.

In September, Mrs Gibbons allowed her class of primary school pupils to name the teddy bear Muhammad as part of a study of animals and their habitats.

The court heard that she was arrested on Sunday after another member of staff at Unity High School complained to the Ministry of Education.

The school's director Robert Boulos told the AP news agency: "It's a very fair verdict, she could have had six months and lashes and a fine, and she only got 15 days and deportation."

He said Mrs Gibbons would only serve another 10 days in prison having already spent five in custody since her arrest.

Prosecutor general Salah Eddin Abu Zaid had said Mrs Gibbons could expect a "swift and fair trial".

But Catherine Wolthuizen, chief executive of Fair Trials International, said Mrs Gibbons' treatment was excessive.

She said: "It was a very speedy justice process. Although she has been found guilty of all the counts of causing offence, she has thankfully not been subjected to 40 lashes.

"Having said this, 15 days in a Sudanese prison for an innocent misunderstanding is a serious and harsh punishment indeed."

[dannyboy]

Zeus, got anything worthwhile to imput, or you just going to troll the forums ?

if i'm just gonna troll the forums, what you gonna do? sulk? pout? i'll "imput" something worthwhile *if* i see something worth responding seriously to. so far i haven't.

I'm not sulking, just for once instead of being an argumentative......Why don't you stop purposely trying to cause arguments Mr "moderator".

Nothing worth responding about? then don't say fcuk all. It's that simple.

I'm sure there something about that in the terms and conditions.......

Back on topic.

The " humane" judge has only gave her 15 days in jail .

What a fcuking joke.

[CiaranM]

The " humane" judge has only gave her 15 days in jail .

What a fcuking joke.

nearly as humane as the british police shooting an unarmed brazilain 7 times in london and then lying about it and trying to prevent an investigation into it ....

but then off course that was just a honest mistake !!! wasn't it ???

[StevieJR]

The " humane" judge has only gave her 15 days in jail .

What a fcuking joke.

nearly as humane as the british police shooting an unarmed brazilain 7 times in london and then lying about it and trying to prevent an investigation into it ....

but then off course that was just a honest mistake !!! wasn't it ???

Of course the Brazilian police are well known for their humanity....

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9612/09/brazil.street.kids/

[CiaranM]

The " humane" judge has only gave her 15 days in jail .

What a fcuking joke.

nearly as humane as the british police shooting an unarmed brazilain 7 times in london and then lying about it and trying to prevent an investigation into it ....

but then off course that was just a honest mistake !!! wasn't it ???

Of course the Brazilian police are well known for their humanity....

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9612/09/brazil.street.kids/

r they muslims as well ?????

[Loburt]

A cop shooting someone because he mistakenly believed he was a threat is a split-second decision with tragic consequences. It's happened many times in many places. It's a bad comparison.

On the other hand, the case of the teacher evolved over an extended period of time and the Sudanese authorities had plenty of opportunity to find out the facts and make a sensible and just decision.

They did not.

This should never have reached a court. The decision by this judge is appalling.

It appeases and empowers extremists, the uneducated, and gangsters who are trying to extort a school. It disgraces the Muslim religion and further cements its image, rightly or wrongly, as a theology of intolerance.

If the British police shot an unarmed Muslim by mistake, and someone countered with the argument - well look at those Egyptians! Those Muslims shot innocent Western tourists at Luxor! Or some such nonsense...

Would you think that's an appropriate come back or comparison? Or justifies anything?

The people responsible for this - not all Muslims or Islam - should be condemned. I think that is the point you are trying to make.

But there should be no equivocations. No justifications.

No ifs, ands or buts....

None.

But the silence on this matter from many (but not all) Muslims is disheartening.

Their silence empowers their extremists. And their silence empowers our extremists who go on with rants about "Muslims Muslims Muslims..."

What is it that triumphs when good people do nothing?

[CiaranM]

A cop shooting someone because he mistakenly believed he was a threat is a split-second decision with tragic consequences. It's happened many times in many places. It's a bad comparison.

it's a response to someone who never misses an opportunity to diss muslims while telling us all how great britain really is !!

also .... it was not a split second decision .... they had been following him since he left his home. they then lied about the circumstances of the shooting and then tried to block an investigation into the shooting !!!

[StevieJR]

A cop shooting someone because he mistakenly believed he was a threat is a split-second decision with tragic consequences. It's happened many times in many places. It's a bad comparison.

it's a response to someone who never misses an opportunity to diss muslims while telling us all how great britain really is !!

also .... it was not a split second decision .... they had been following him since he left his home. they then lied about the circumstances of the shooting and then tried to block an investigation into the shooting !!!

FFS man, he was wearing a rucksack and had a tan.....he was asking for it running around the UK like that :roll:

[zeusbheld]

Zeus, got anything worthwhile to imput, or you just going to troll the forums ?

if i'm just gonna troll the forums, what you gonna do? sulk? pout? i'll "imput" something worthwhile *if* i see something worth responding seriously to. so far i haven't.

I'm not sulking, just for once instead of being an argumentative......Why don't you stop purposely trying to cause arguments Mr "moderator".

i'm not a moderator. haven't been for quite some time. DUH.

thanks for the unsolicited advice, though, mr.. "self-righteous, self-appointed moderator." i'll take it into consideration (then ignore it).

Nothing worth responding about? then don't say fcuk all. It's that simple.

I'm sure there something about that in the terms and conditions.......

there isn't. but don't let that stop your holier-than-thou routine.

[zeusbheld]

The clue is in the ''www.thesun.co.uk'' bit.

So because it's in The Sun, it can't possibly be true.........

no, but because you obviously read the sun, and cite it as your source, you can't possibly be credible.

there. happy? i contributed something to the 'debate,' mr. wannabe moderator.

[tonyP]

Do you think she might have been sentenced to 80 lashes if she's allowed the bear to be called Jesus, Moses or Buddha?

[CiaranM]

A cop shooting someone because he mistakenly believed he was a threat is a split-second decision with tragic consequences. It's happened many times in many places. It's a bad comparison.

it's a response to someone who never misses an opportunity to diss muslims while telling us all how great britain really is !!

also .... it was not a split second decision .... they had been following him since he left his home. they then lied about the circumstances of the shooting and then tried to block an investigation into the shooting !!!

FFS man, he was wearing a rucksack and had a tan.....he was asking for it running around the UK like that :roll:

we could do with some police like that in bkk !!!!!

[Matthew]

People should follow and obey the law of the country that they are currently in.

Nuff said.

[steevolution]

This should never have reached a court. The decision by this judge is appalling.

It appeases and empowers extremists, the uneducated, and gangsters who are trying to extort a school. It disgraces the Muslim religion and further cements its image, rightly or wrongly, as a theology of intolerance.

the silence on this matter from many (but not all) Muslims is disheartening.

Their silence empowers their extremists. And their silence empowers our extremists who go on with rants about "Muslims Muslims Muslims..."

What is it that triumphs when good people do nothing?

sounds right to me. so SOUND OFF.

it's a response to someone who never misses an opportunity to diss muslims while telling us all how great britain really is !!

if it is all you have GOING FOR YOU, you cling to that LIFEVEST with all yor might... and make sure that all within SCREEETCHING distance know... what a fine valiant MANTLE it is.

[Loburt]

A cop shooting someone because he mistakenly believed he was a threat is a split-second decision with tragic consequences. It's happened many times in many places. It's a bad comparison.

it's a response to someone who never misses an opportunity to diss muslims while telling us all how great britain really is !!

also .... it was not a split second decision .... they had been following him since he left his home. they then lied about the circumstances of the shooting and then tried to block an investigation into the shooting !!!

Whether they were following him or not, or believed he was a suspect or not, the decision to shoot still appears to have been a split second one. Unless you can show me evidence to the contrary. A police officer surveilling someone is not evidence, on its own, of premeditated murder.

In any case, it's still an extremely poor comparison.

[dannyboy]

The clue is in the ''www.thesun.co.uk'' bit.

So because it's in The Sun, it can't possibly be true.........

no, but because you obviously read the sun, and cite it as your source, you can't possibly be credible.

there. happy? i contributed something to the 'debate,' mr. wannabe moderator.

Without looking like a ****, i generally read The Sun for the football, it happens to have the best coverage. This story was on the homepage.

Also, was they wrong anyway ?

This is what i read if you're really interested.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766

I'm not a liberal and i don't apologise for it.

[dannyboy]

Now they seem to be baying for blood......

Are these people not happy with her sentence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=498689&in_page_id=1811&ct=5

[zeusbheld]

The clue is in the ''www.thesun.co.uk'' bit.

So because it's in The Sun, it can't possibly be true.........

no, but because you obviously read the sun, and cite it as your source, you can't possibly be credible.

there. happy? i contributed something to the 'debate,' mr. wannabe moderator.

Without looking like a ****, i generally read The Sun for the football, it happens to have the best coverage. This story was on the homepage.

to be fair their football coverage is pretty interesting (quite possibly because the best sports news is all gossip and innuendo).

I'm not a liberal and i don't apologise for it.

i doubt anyone asked you to. looking at your posts over time, however, it seems like your approach to arriving at an opinion is 1) make up your mind what you want to believe. 2) select your sources of information according to whether they will support what you want to believe.

which is fine, live how you want to, regardless of whether i find it... questionable, that's my problem isn't it. but surely you can't expect obstinate entrenchment to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you, or even really consider your opinion on this sort of thing.

i could in theory be persuaded to believe almost anything, at least provisionally (as far as i'm concerned *all* my beliefs are--and should be--to some degree, provisional). however, that would require a fairly rigorous approach to making the case, including signs of a genuine effort by the poster to consider facts that don't necessarily neatly support their theories and/or ideological baggage. a lot of people have persuaded me to believe a lot of things about the world... but not on TF. most people favor what appears to me to be similar to the approach i've accused you of, which is not at all an approach i feel even slightly obligated to respect or take seriously. thus, my primary enjoyment in this forum is trolling, not pretending that flinging poo is a serious and credible 'debate' like the rest of the chimps.

PS i don't expect you to apologize for the self-appointed wannabe-moderator act either... and i won't apologize for laughing at you for it.

[valetudo]

Zeus, got anything worthwhile to imput, or you just going to troll the forums ?

if i'm just gonna troll the forums, what you gonna do? sulk? pout? i'll "imput" something worthwhile *if* i see something worth responding seriously to. so far i haven't.

I'm not sulking, just for once instead of being an argumentative......Why don't you stop purposely trying to cause arguments Mr "moderator".

Nothing worth responding about? then don't say fcuk all. It's that simple.

I'm sure there something about that in the terms and conditions.......

Back on topic.

The " humane" judge has only gave her 15 days in jail .

What a fcuking joke.

I seldom agree with you 'boy' but on this I do.

Having lived in Saudi, Sudan and Qatar I feel for her as they go OTT but at the same time teachers there know that you should NEVER use The Phrophet Mohammed peace be upon him ( 16 poss spellings of his name) in a class as it is ALWAYS taken the wrong way.

I worked with the Saudi airforce and they were very open to such subjects............ but the other 2000 middle eastern students were not. I'll prey for her.

I seem to recal Thai police frying 72 muslims to death in a van a few years back down south.......... noone is having a go at that..... and it was far worse.

[Loburt]

It was more like 85 Muslims. The place was Tak Bai. And it wasn't the police. It was the military, operating under the orders of the previous prime minister, who was in direct contact with them throughout the day and oversaw the operation.

That was in October 2004, and plenty of people "had a go" at it.

I'm glad your friends in the Saudi Air Force are "open to such subjects." That's encouraging.

But, I don't think the 17 or so Saudi hijackers on 9/11 were as "open to such subjects."

[robbie36]

It was more like 85 Muslims. The place was Tak Bai. And it wasn't the police. It was the military, operating under the orders of the previous prime minister, who was in direct contact with them throughout the day and oversaw the operation.

Oh come on Loburt... I know you dont like Thaksin but lets not make things up.

What evidence do you have for such a ridiculous statement? And since when has the Thai PM directly controlled an operation like that? (As far as I remember he wasnt within 500 kms of the area.)

[dannyboy]

PS i don't expect you to apologize for the self-appointed wannabe-moderator act either... and i won't apologize for laughing at you for it.

I tell you what, let's cut a deal.

I will try and stop making you laugh if you stop your self-serving, ego-tystical wankfest posts.

I think that's a fair trade. Do we have an accord?

[CiaranM]

It was more like 85 Muslims. The place was Tak Bai. And it wasn't the police. It was the military, operating under the orders of the previous prime minister, who was in direct contact with them throughout the day and oversaw the operation.

Oh come on Loburt... I know you dont like Thaksin but lets not make things up.

What evidence do you have for such a ridiculous statement? And since when has the Thai PM directly controlled an operation like that? (As far as I remember he wasnt within 500 kms of the area.)

maybe he had an Iphone !!!

ok ok ..... so they weren't available then, but mobile phone, lap top, video conferencing !! it's still pretty easy to control/direct an operation from thousands of kms away, never mind just 500 !!