Comments on: Model’s Caning Postponed

By: Seosamh Mac an Ri

Seosamh Mac an Ri — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:58:50 +0000

If these people trust in God so much, why can’t they leave it to him. The Muslims aren’t the only ones trying to make the laws of religon into laws of the state. Spain under General Franco or Ireland De Valera where the Supreme Leader, Archbishop
John Charles Mc Quaid ruled with an iron fist would be typical examples of this. Of course in Ireland we now know what a bunch of perverts ran the show. You wouldn’t have to dig to deep with that judge and the religious police in Malaysia to find that they have skeletons in the closet. Hopefully the people there won’t have to wait almost 70 years for this. I hope they don’t have to wait so long. The west of course supports such religious fanatics wehn it suits them, remember support for the Taliban in the 80′s and Sylvester Stallone with them fighting the Russians.
I can imagine some Pervert in Malaysia having a jerk thinking og caning a woman.

There are lots of moderate Muslims who find that as revolting as I do. Hopefully some day they will be the majority. Ireland has recently rejoined the club with the new Blasphemy Laws

By: Sven

Sven — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:27:48 +0000

I just read in the news that the caning is of.

Pff.. I’d hate to be the one that bought her the drink..

By: grazatt

grazatt — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:18:45 +0000

I would never visit that country or Singapore

By: Robert Madewell

Robert Madewell — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:10:40 +0000

Appearantly caning is a popular punishment in Malaysia. Here’s what wikipedia said about the effects of caning.

Caning with a heavy judicial rattan of the Singapore/Malaysia kind can leave scars for years, at any rate where a large number of strokes are inflicted. However, this should not be confused with an ordinary caning with a typical light rattan (as formerly in English schools), which, although very painful at the time, would leave only superficial weals lasting a few days.

By: Valdyr

Valdyr — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:59:28 +0000

Given that she was born in Malaysia, she was most likely coerced into the religion (indoctrinated as a child), but the specifics don’t really matter–leaving Islam is not an option in the Muslim world. And a stupid law is still stupid, even if it’s the law. In my book, ‘criminals’ deserve sympathy if the law they’ve broken is unjust, not condemnation, regardless of circumstances.

By: J B Tait

J B Tait — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:46:51 +0000

@medussa: She had the choice to not drink publicly. She also might have had the choice to profess one of the other religions whose members were allowed to drink–we don’t know if she was coerced into Islam or chose it freely.
Or she could have chosen to not drink at all. A law against drinking is only an inconvenience, and does not prevent activities that are essential, so complying, while annoying, is not too hard to accomplish. It is a matter of whether someone will be voluntarily law abiding, just as nudists choose to drape textiles on their bodies when they go out because the Christians have made going naked an offense with penalties.

I don’t approve of laws like this. They don’t usually work, they are unnecessarily intrusive, and they don’t prevent any harm to bystanders, but if they exist, residents are pretty much obligated to obey them, work to get them changed, or accept the penalties.

If someone is forced into a religion, or forced to remain in one they don’t embrace, we may have something else to protest. This would be another subject.

By: medussa

medussa — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:27:07 +0000

JB Tait, if I go on the assumption that this woman had legal options, I might think you had a point about not judging other cultures. But as you point out yourself, the laws in the theocracies I hear about are very biased against women.
What kind of options are you thinking she had? To choose to leave the faith? Did you read the other post on this blog about the american muslim and her trials trying to leave the islamic religion? Are you thinking this woman would have that option?
And yes, you are right, it is theoretically possible that she voluntarily chose the islamic faith and she therefore knew what she was getting into. I’m thinking this is unlikely.

By: J B Tait

J B Tait — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:56:37 +0000

Shariah law is biased against women (for example, in some groups it allows for women to be murdered because they were raped) and it is not surprising it is a woman being punished this way. I wonder how many men were rounded up in that sweep.
On the other hand, Wikipedia says women had more rights under Shariah than they did under Western law up until the late 19th century. For that matter, in Quebec in the 60s I could not be admitted to a hospital without a husband or father (or in extreme emergency, other male relative) to sign for me, so the 20th century wasn’t perfect either.

If she accepted Islam voluntarily and took the veil, perhaps she knowingly broke a law she signed on for. Likewise, if a homosexual chose to move to Iran, one would hope he or she would be prudent enough to hide it and not transgress.
The laws may not meet our standards of fair, but we don’t really have a right to protest if there were legal options for her.

Where is the fine line between what is obviously right and wrong and what should also be included?

In the U.S. we have people who believe that ugly people (meaning in most cases the very fat) should not be allowed to go out in public–should we allow them to make a law? We have people who believe your lawn should be mowed and you can’t have weeds–we allow that poor ecological approach to become law. Naked people (but God made us that way, so I don’t understand) are not allowed in most public places in the U.S. but whole communities elsewhere consider that normal.
In the U.S., one can be labeled a sexual offender and put on The List for urinating in the bushes. Alcohol causes a whole lot of problems, so how is drinking in public any more or less offensive?

So is the newsworthiness coming from the corporal punishment, punishment for drinking beer, or the fact that she is a woman?
She knew the law, she knew the penalty, she did it anyway.

I don’t approve, but I don’t think we have any right to judge on this one.
Perhaps we need to re-examine our tolerance for other ways of life?

By: lindsey

lindsey — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:42:06 +0000

AJ, it is my understanding that one does not refer to a person as Islamic as an extremist, but yes Islamic art is the term. I could be wrong.

By: selfification

selfification — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:41:36 +0000

I support corporal punishment in certain (very narrow) cases because shame and social rejection is part of a learning experience when it comes to rehabilitating someone. In dealing out the punishment, I feel that it should fit the crime — in that it should clearly show the perpetrator what part of the golden rule he/she violated so that they can see how they harmed someone else.

If the Islamists insist that the drinking of beer in front of others is an affront to their sensibilities, I feel like the most fitting “punishment” to be giving her is to make her sit in a room with a bunch of muslims all drinking beer with nothing but ginger ale for her. There… that should teach her the pain felt by others when she drinks beer in front of them.