Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 04, 2019, 12:27:29 AM
-
Can just fuck off, but given we sell arms to Saudi, will we tell them to do so? Not that long since Prince Harry welcomed the Sultan of Brunei to Buck House
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47769964
-
I am not sure what Saudi Arabia has to do with the evil goings on in Brunei?
-
What "evil goings on" are these, LR? Do you know of particular instances?
-
What "evil goings on" are these, LR? Do you know of particular instances?
Stoning to death gay people! >:(
-
I am not sure what Saudi Arabia has to do with the evil goings on in Brunei?
Because we support Saudi by selling it arms, and they flog people for being gay, so we grant legitimacy to them. So given that we seem unlikely to do anything about Brunei who were saying they were going to introduce this law when they were welcomed to Buck House by Prince Harry
-
Because we support Saudi by selling it arns, and they flog people for being gay, so we grant legitimacy to them. So given that we seem unlikely to do anything about Brunei who were saying they were going to introduce this law when they were welcomed to Buck House by Prince Harry
We should not be selling arms to Saudi Arabia, we should treat states who treat their people in a disgusting way with utter disdain and refuse to have anything to do with them.
-
We should not be selling arms to Saudi Arabia, we should treat states who treat their people in a disgusting way with utter disdain and refuse to have anything to do with them.
And yet, it is what we do, so I have my doubts that we will do anything about Brunei as we already compromise on that.
-
Stoning to death gay people! >:(
-
Stoning to death gay people! >:(
I don't like the idea any more than you, but this has not taken place yet so there are not yet any "evil goings on". I heard a comment on Radio 4 suggesting that this was possibly Islamic window dressing since before this punishment takes place there must be four eye witnesses - a condition unlikely to be satisfied.
-
I don't like the idea any more than you, but this has not taken place yet so there are not yet any "evil goings on". I heard a comment on Radio 4 suggesting that this was possibly Islamic window dressing since before this punishment takes place there must be four eye witnesses - a condition unlikely to be satisfied.
Having it as window dressing is an evil. Enacting it is a threat to gay people.
-
I couldn't agree more. But LR's post implied that it is current practice - "goings on" suggests that it is already happening.
-
I couldn't agree more. But LR's post implied that it is current practice - "goings on" suggests that it is already happening.
Surely legislation counts as goings on?
-
I couldn't agree more. But LR's post implied that it is current practice - "goings on" suggests that it is already happening.
We don't know for sure that it hasn't!
-
We don't know for sure that it hasn't!
And a big hello to the negative proof fallacy.
-
I don't like the idea any more than you, but this has not taken place yet so there are not yet any "evil goings on". I heard a comment on Radio 4 suggesting that this was possibly Islamic window dressing since before this punishment takes place there must be four eye witnesses - a condition unlikely to be satisfied.
I'm sorry but your point about 4 eye witnesses sounds incredibly naïve to me. IF you have a climate that is hostile to gay people then it would be very easy for four like minded people to come together to accuse someone they disapproved of.
The fact is that even before this latest barbaric offering life for gay people in Brunei was dangerous and secretive, to claim this latest move as some sort of window dressing underestimates the situation entirely.
See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Brunei
-
We think that gay rights have been done, too often as a thing. It's both great and incredible that gay marriage is legal in the Republic of Ireland, something that even 10 years ago I would have doubted. But it is really not that much longer to Clause 28. It's literally no time to the protests in Birmingham. That we trade and prop up these regimes with PR is just another attack on gay people.
-
Trent
I do not dispute anything you say. I am merely reporting a statement I heard in a Radio 4 news programme when this matter was being reported.
-
Trent
I do not dispute anything you say. I am merely reporting a statement I heard in a Radio 4 news programme when this matter was being reported.
Yes, I know that you were reporting on another persons view. It just seemed that you accepted that, at least in part, when iT has been known for years that Brunei (at least the Sultan of) has become increasingly antagonostic towards gay people.
Still why would it surprise me that the BBC would let a falsehood pass on this issue, given their recent attempt at discussing LGBT issues on QT. As with Brexit and climate change they seem to think that impartiality means treatìng every viewpoint as being equally valid. Twats.
And yes I am Mr Grumpyhead today.
-
We think that gay rights have been done, too often as a thing.
I'm sorry I don't fully understand what you mean by this. I don't think gay rights "have been done" even in the UK.
-
And yes I am Mr Grumpyhead today.
No. You are reacting to something which is offensive, insulting and which is a threat to you personally. You have every right to be angry.
-
No. You are reacting to something which is offensive, insulting and which is a threat to you personally. You have every right to be angry.
Well, offensive and insulring definitely. A threat personally, not so much, as we try not travel to countries that are so blatantly homophobic.
Although I am rathrr taken with Piers Morgans idea (not often you get chance to type that thought) of flooding his hotels with gay and lesbian clientèle, holding parties and generally having a gay old time.
-
I don't like the idea any more than you, but this has not taken place yet so there are not yet any "evil goings on". I heard a comment on Radio 4 suggesting that this was possibly Islamic window dressing since before this punishment takes place there must be four eye witnesses - a condition unlikely to be satisfied.
And can you seriosly see a Islamic religious court considering that four "Muslims in good standing" might be lying for some personal motive?