Kip Powick Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Read the article .....and if nothing else .......read the FIRST COMMENT posted...... Yikes...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex 9A Guy Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The link is dead. must have been too popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 28, 2009 Author Share Posted October 28, 2009 I found the first line of the story in the paper with a link. That Link does not work either and I can not find the story....sent a "snot-gram" to G and M.....waiting...waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 How 'bout a date and a hint in the meantime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 28, 2009 Author Share Posted October 28, 2009 Today--- 28 October The article was basically trying to explain why extremists want the female body totally covered and the trials and tribulations of one woman who was charged with wearing a bra.....can't do that cause a prospective husband wouldn't know what he was getting !!! Anyhow in this case she went to trial and was fined about $1000.00 for wearing a bra. The author went on to illuminate why these types of things , with more examples were happening and how to educate those that live by taking each word literally. The first comment about the article was from a guy who quoted ...verbatum ....from the Qur'an that women were to be totally covered with just the burkha (sp?), etc and then he posted the quote from the Qur'an that says it is OK to beat women who do not obey..... It was an eye opener... to say the least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 They probably pulled the article because they figured some nut would plot to blow up their building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airband Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Why are fanatics obsessed with women’s bodies? By Alaa el-Aswany 20 oct 2009 The Shabaab movement in Somalia controls large parts of the south and centre of the country, and because officials in this movement embrace the Wahabi ideology they have imposed their views on Somalis by force and have issued strict decrees banning films, plays, dancing at weddings, football matches and all forms of music, even the ring tones on mobile phones. Some days ago these extremists carried out a strange operation: they arrested a Somali woman and whipped her in public because she was wearing a bra. They announced clearly that wearing these bras was unIslamic because it is a form of fraud and deception. We may well ask what wearing bras has to do with religion, why they would consider them to be a form of fraud and deception, and how they managed to arrest the woman wearing the bra when all Somali women go around with their bodies completely covered. Did they appoint a special female officer to inspect the breasts of women passing by in the street? One Somali woman called Halima told Reuters news agency: "Al Shabaab forced us to wear their type of veil and now they order us to shake our breasts…They first banned the former veil and introduced a hard fabric which stands stiffly on women’s chests. They are now saying that breasts should be firm naturally, or just flat." In fact this excessive interest in covering up women’s bodies is not confined to the extremists in Somalia. In Sudan the police examine women’s clothing with extreme vigilance and arrest any woman who is wearing trousers. They force her to make a public apology for what she has done and then they whip her in public as an example to other women. Some weeks ago Sudanese journalist Lubna al-Husseini insisted on wearing trousers and refused to make the public apology. When she refused to submit to flogging she was referred to a real trial and the farce reached its climax when the judge summoned three witnesses and asked them if they had been able to detect the shape of the accused’s underwear when she was wearing the trousers. When one of the witnesses hesitated in answering, the judge asked him directly: “Did you see Lubna’s stomach when she was wearing the trousers?” The witness replied: “To some extent.” Lubna said she was wearing a modest pair of trousers and that the scandalous pair she was accused of wearing would not suit her at all because she is plump and would need to lose 20 kilos in order to put them on. But the judge convicted her anyway and fined her 500 pounds or a month in prison. In Egypt too, extremists continue to take an excessive interest in women’s bodies and tin rying to cover them up entirely. They not only advocate that women wear the niqab but also that they wear gloves on their hands, which they believe will ensure that no passions are aroused when men and women shake hands. We really do face a phenomenon which deserves consideration: why are extremists so obsessed with women’s bodies? Some ideas might help us answer this question: Firstly, the extremist view of women is that they are only bodies and instruments for either legitimate pleasure or temptation, as well as factories for producing children. This view strips women of their human nature. Accusing the Somali woman of fraud and deception because she was wearing a bra is the same charge of commercial fraud which the law holds against a merchant who conceals the defects of his goods and make false claims about their qualities in order to sell them at a higher price. The idea here is that a woman who accentuate her breasts by using a bra gives a false impression of the goods (her body), which is seen as fraud and deception of the buyer (the man) who might buy (marry) her for her ample breasts and later discover that they were ample because of the bra and not by nature. It would be fair to remember that treating women’s bodies as commodities is not something found only in extremist ideologies but often happens in Western societies too. The use of women’s naked bodies to market commercial products in the West is merely another application of the idea that women are commodities. Anyone who visits the red light district in Amsterdam can see for himself how wretched prostitutes, completely naked, are lined up behind glass windows so that passers-by can inspect their charms before agreeing on the price . Isn’t that a modern-day slave market, where women’s bodies are on sale to anyone willing to pay? Secondly, the extremists believe women to be the source of temptation and the prime cause of sin. This view, which is prevalent in all primitive societies, is unfair and inhuman, because men and women commit sin together and the responsibility is shared and equal. If a beautiful woman arouses and tempts men, then a handsome man also arouses and tempts women. But the extremist ideology is naturally biased in favour of the man and hostile to the woman, and considers that she alone is primarily responsible for all sins. Thirdly, being strict about covering up women’s bodies is an easy and effortless form of religious struggle. In Egypt we see dozens of Wahabi sheikhs who enthusiastically advocate covering up women’s bodies but do not utter a single word against despotism, corruption, fraudulence or torture because they know very well that serious opposition to the despotic regime (which should really be their first duty) would inevitably lead to their arrest, torture and the destruction of their lives. Their strictness on things related to women’s bodies enables them to operate as evangelists without any real costs. Throughout human history, strictness towards women has usually been a way to conceal political abuses and real crimes. Somalia is a wretched country in the grip of famine and chaos but officials there are distracted from that by inspecting bras. The Sudanese regime is implicated in crimes of murder, torture and raping thousands of innocents in Darfur but that does not stop the regime from putting on trial a woman who insisted on wearing trousers. It is women rather than men who always pay the price for despotism, corruption and religious hypocrisy. Fourthly, the extremist ideology assumes that humans are a group of wild beasts that are completely incapable of controlling their instincts, that it is enough for a man to see a bare piece of female flesh for him to pounce on her and have intercourse. This assumption is incorrect, because humans, unlike animals, always have the power to control their instincts by will power and ethics. An ordinary man, if he is sane, cannot have his instincts aroused by his mother, sister, daughter or even the wife of a friend, because his sense of honour and morality transcends his desires and neutralises their effect. So virtue will never come about though bans, repression and pursuing women in the street, but rather through giving children a good upbringing, propagating morality and refining character. Societies which impose segregation between men and women (as in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia), according to official statistics, do not have lower rates of sexual crimes than other societies. The rates there may even be higher. We favour and advocate modesty for women but firstly we advocate a humane view of women, a view that respects their abilities, their wishes and their thinking. What is really saddening is that the Wahabi extremism which is spreading throughout the world with oil money and which gives Muslims a bad image is as far as can be from the real teachings of Islam. Anyone who reads the history of Islam fairly has to be impressed by the high status it accords to women, because from the time of the Prophet Muhammad until the fall of Andalusia Muslim women mixed with men, were educated, worked and traded, fought and had financial responsibilities separately from their fathers or husbands. They had the right to choose the husband they loved and the right to divorce if they wanted . Western civilization gave women these rights many centuries after Islam. Finally, let me say that religious extremism is the other face of political despotism. We cannot get rid of the extremism before we end the despotism. Democracy is the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Democracy is the solution. Democracy has nothing to do with it. A particular religion has to do with it. Although among the worst, other religions bring their own forms of attempted control of others, past and present. Secularism is the only solution, whether in a free or autocratic society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Democracy is the solution. One would think that education would be the solution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 28, 2009 Author Share Posted October 28, 2009 Thanks Airband..I did not get a reply from G and M.. The consumer comments were a real eye opener especially when the one fellow kept quoting the Qur'an Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlazer Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The idea here is that a woman who accentuate her breasts by using a bra gives a false impression of the goods (her body), which is seen as fraud and deception of the buyer (the man) who might buy (marry) her for her ample breasts and later discover that they were ample because of the bra and not by nature. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA What about the breasts that presented them unassisted and real, BUT after a few years began to not perform, perhaps began to sag on the job so to speak??? Is that Fraud.....? LOL My Lawyer is standing by to seek punitive damages LOL !!!! SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Oh, it gets whackier... Religion poisions everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Oh, it gets whackier... Religion poisions everything That single act, if it goes through, will cause the UN to surpass the IOC as the world's most illegitimate international organization, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Does this mean the word "Infidel" must be struck from the Qur'an? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Oh, it gets whackier... Religion poisions everything I just spent 1/2 hour scouring the UN website and found no reference to any such Resolution. Missing from all the various websites is a resolution file number. Has anyone found a legitimate link to this resolution? I use the word "legitimate" for the obvious reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 29, 2009 Author Share Posted October 29, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...E52P60220090326 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...E52P60220090326 Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:37pm EDT ??? This is very old "news". Was the resolution adopted? Where can it be found on the UN Website? Show me the beef. MTL aka Devil's Advocate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Found within: "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." Well, it seems to this observer that Islam is frequently guilty of incredible human rights violations and is often claimed by terrorists as their cause. So Would the UN have it be unlawful for me to say that? This is not good. What a ridiculous "resolution". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Found within: "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." Well, it seems to this observer that Islam is frequently guilty of incredible human rights violations and is often claimed by terrorists as their cause. So Would the UN have it be unlawful for me to say that? This is not good. What a ridiculous "resolution". I'm not so sure it is Mitch. A resolution, that is. There is nothing on the UN website about it, nor on any of the legitimate Islamic studies websites. Lots of commentary on this supposed resolution, but no facts. Yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 UN commentary on Religious Freedom. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gashc3958.doc.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Thanks Rattler: Here are a few quotations from your link - From the Statement of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief: "ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said her service, which started in July 2004, had been a sorrowful and rewarding experience. On the one hand, it had been sorrowful because of daily reports of fear of violence and seclusion that people across the world had to bear simply because of their beliefs, with women and religious minorities the victims of the worst religious intolerance. On the other hand, it had been rewarding to see Governments, groups and individuals take up the hard challenges posed by the forces of intolerance that existed in a number of societies." "Against this backdrop, the protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief must include a preventive dimension. Due attention should be given to early signs of intolerance that may not constitute human rights violations themselves, but that may ultimately lead to religious discrimination. Proactive strategies should be devised by States to foster a climate of religious tolerance. Political leadership must take a human rights-based approach on the question of religious tolerance and communicate its position clearly. Beyond legislation, States could give space for dialogue and cultural expression, encourage public figure to make public statements denouncing acts of intolerance, and provide quality education. States should also refrain from interfering with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of individuals; the rule of law and the functioning of democratic institutions were prerequisites for these strategies." "She noted that some restrictions and violations were more prevalent in particular regions or countries, and may not constitute general global patterns. Among them were restrictions posed on different forms of religious expression, undue State interference in religious teaching, and dissemination of relevant publications, and the discrimination or persecution of individuals who changed their religion. On the latter, she emphasized that theistic, non-theistic and atheist believers, as well as those who did not profess any religion or belief, were equally protected by international human rights law. Moreover, there was a particularly concerning trend of rising numbers of laws or bills aimed at limiting the freedom of religions or belief of individuals or communities." Not exactly what has been discussed in the previous links from the western media. Other topics from your link: The report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children (document A/64/290) Statement by Special Rapporteur on Housing Statement of Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty Statement by Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights Defenders Still looking for the beef. Or the pork. Or soymeal. Or whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airband Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Was the resolution adopted?Yes Where can it be found on the UN Website?A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 ...link works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 You're too fast for me Mitch! Got it now. Reviewing content of Draft resolution by OIC. ********* Looks pretty harmless to me. Canada and the EU voted against it. ********* By the looks of it, it wasn't even discussed, let alone voted upon at the 12th Session: "The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted seven resolutions on unilateral coercive measures; the right to development; access to medicine; advisory services and technical assistance for Cambodia; assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights; protection of human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS; and on the impact of the global economic and financial crises on the universal realization and effective enjoyment of human rights. It appointed two experts on cultural rights and on Sudan, extended the mandates of Special Procedures on Cambodia and Somalia, and named the President of the Second Session of the Forum on Minority Issues before adopting its report and closing its twelfth session." http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf...8F?opendocument MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. Resolution__AHRC10L.2Rev.1_.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 You're good Mr. Loon. ...you been taking lessons from woxof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.