kimmy

While yourself and cybercoma have searched high and low for non-niqab related situations that could likewise impair a juror, you've both utterly failed to address the fundamental issue, a defendant's right to a fair trial. -k

Well, that's gotta be some helluva beard and some seriously fugly glasses, but if a witness's beard and glasses disguise his face to that extent, a defendant's lawyer is free to make the same argument. I don't see how providing some alternate scenario that could achieve the same effect makes this issue any less clear. This is an interference in the right to mount a defense, probably the most paramount right we have. If our judges are so fucking cowardly that they would back down on that, it is time to round up a mob and set fire to the law courts. -k

How is female genital mutilation a remotely complicated issue? -k

Essentially, yes. The conservative garb is required to keep males from doing sinful things. The Australian cleric who famously likened Western women to "uncovered pieces of meat", and asked who would blame dogs for attacking uncovered pieces of meat by way of excusing rape is a good example. Women are held to be to blame for "zina" (that is, sex outside of marriage) because women "control the tools of seduction" as a cleric put it recently. (I think this was discussed in the "rape victim stoned to death" thread.) Obviously, we can only come to the conclusion that Muslim men are unable to control themselves. If their own clerics liken them to dogs, who are we to disagree? -k

Are you intentionally being obtuse, or has this topic turned your usually sharp mind into babaganoush? I am implying that covering her face reduces the ability of the jury to evaluate the truthfulness of her testimony. As should have been obvious. Allowing witnesses to testify with face covered would increase their ability to give untruthful responses without being detected. A lawyer can do his job to a high standard of competence and still fail to achieve a just result if a witness is able to lie convincingly. Robbing the jury of one of the key tools in evaluating the truthfulness of the testimony will increase the likelihood of an unjust result. Hey, why don't we let people testify by telephone? Hey, ever wonder why when they let children testify in private sessions, they require *video* rather than just audio? If this woman is allowed to testify with her face hidden and a conviction results, an appeal will be filed within seconds, and deservedly so. This man's right to a full and vigorous legal defense against the charges against him absolutely outweighs her right to wear a bag over her head. There are absolutely times when society's well-being outweighs the right to observe religious practices, and this is certainly one of them. The Sikhs accept restrictions on their kirpans. If the Jehovah's Witness want to prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment, tough noogies. The bigamists and child-abusers at Bountiful are heading to court. The College of Physicians doesn't let immigrants cut the clitorises off of young girls. I could go on. If I have to balance the idea that a person could spend years in jail due to false testimony against the possibility that God will be angry at someone for breaching religious convention for an afternoon, our greater concern must be with the possibility that our legal system This is a secular society with secular law. The legal system must first and foremost concern itself with its own integrity. This woman and her god will have to settle accounts on their own time. If she were a Christian, I would tell her "render unto Caesar." Since she is a Muslim, I guess the relevant Hadith is probably something along the lines of "WAHHHHHHHHHH." Dressing a South Surrey gangland wannabe in a suit might remove prejudices that his normal manner of dress would invite. However, it does nothing to enhances his ability to lie convincingly. I am deeply disappointed that people apparently can't recognize the difference. Since there's shades of grey, we as a society aren't allowed to stand up for any principle, even one as critical as the right to a full legal defense? What a snivelling, spineless, gutless, cowardly, pusillanimous, and typically Canadian thing to say. -k

(wha?) First off, that wasn't me, that was me quoting WIP. And secondly, who has been suggesting otherwise? I completely understand what you and Argus are saying on this, and I agree with it to a large extent. However, I did want to present what I think Michael may have been trying to say. While I agree all other things being equal a Muslim might be more prone to violence against women due to cultural factors, I think the phrase "all other things being equal" is pretty important there. I think there are people who are due to purely genetic factors more prone to violence than others. I think there are people whose family environment and life experiences make them more prone to violence than others. Mo Hassan beheaded his wife. A typical white guy doesn't do something that ritualized, but there's no shortage of typical white guys who've killed their wives in domestic disputes. The cultural factors likely played a large role in determining what the crime looked like, but I'm not convinced that they're a determining factor in the crime actually occurring. This is just my feeling, but I think there are people who could do something like that, and people who couldn't. Religion might play some role in deciding which kind of person someone turns out to be, but I think other factors are probably at least as important. We'll have to ask Bubber next time he logs in. -k

Do you really want to liken a niqab to a balaclava or a scarf? If it's summer, and you see someone wearing a balaclava, what's your first assumption? If you're inside a bank or a shopping mall and you see someone wearing a balaclava, what's your first assumption? If you're suggesting a niqab is no different from a balaclava, do you think people should come to the same assumptions when they see someone in a niqab? Have you heard of anyone suggesting that their Canadian culture demands they be allowed to wear their toque and scarf when they pose for their passport photos or testify in court? If you'd like us to view niqabs, hijabs, chadors, or whatever the hell all that stuff is, in the same way we view Canadian winter headcoverings, well, here it is: Canadian winter headcoverings are removed for passport photos, and drivers licenses, and at polling stations, and in court, and at the customs gate, and any time personal identification is required, and any time it's inconvenient to have your face covered. -k

If I had kids, I would never let them watch WWE. I'd have mixed emotions regarding UFC. It's certainly violent, but at least it is a genuine athletic competition, lacks the lurid "storylines" of WWE, and gives the viewer a much more realistic understanding of the effect of being punched in the jaw. I just cringe at the idea of children or teenagers attempting to stage their own "mixed martial arts" events, which apparently happens. -k

It is not just a matter of steroids. Other drug use is a factor as well. I think that a closer look at Dobbins' list of dead wrestlers would reveal a large number of recreational drug overdoses. Even though what is on TV is completely scripted, it is still physically demanding and strenuous, and they are constantly injured and frequently come to rely on painkillers. It is little wonder that when painkillers become a tool that get you from show to show, they can be subject to abuse and lead to the abuse of other substances as well. A terrible lifestyle is probably a factor. These guys perform 3 or 4 shows a week in a different city every night. They spend little time at home and spend little time with people outside of their travelling circus. That can not be a healthy emotional environment, and probably leads to a lot of recreational drug use, for the same reason that drug use is ...allegedly... rampant among the rig hands at remote drilling sites, long-haul truckers, and probably any other group that spends long periods away from home in place where there's nothing to do and nobody outside their group to interact with. Nothing to keep them grounded. I believe that when WWE became a publicly traded company, they implemented some sorts of drug testing and employee wellness programs, if not out of the kindness of their hearts then at least out of the necessity of assuring stock-holders that the company's most marketable assets would not be found dead in pools of their own vomit in their hotel rooms. -k

CTV airs the same-day Daily Show in Canada, does it not? I don't know for sure; it's past my bedtime. Regardless, what a stupid derailment of a good topic. What I believe WIP is asking is not "why did this air Thursday in the US but Friday in Canada?" but rather "why hasn't the mainstream media been reporting this story for months or years?" and more importantly "why does it take a comedian who bills his show as 'fake news' to bring some serious attention to the standards of journalism being applied?" Jon Stewart is a smart guy, and a funny guy. I find that his show is usually at its best when their target is the media rather than politicians. Whether it be the shameless recycling of party talking-points by reporters too lazy to do any research, or the famous beat-down of Tucker Carlson, to now this, the Daily Show's self-styled format of 'fake news' gives them a unique platform from which to lampoon "real news". -k

Cite? Most around here know that I'm hardly one to stick up for religion, but in this instance I think what you're saying is unwarranted. I see no evidence to support the claim that "a very high proportion" of homicidal maniacs believe God is telling them to do stuff. In a number of cases, it seems to me the motivation is the exact opposite: nihilism. If one looks at the most startling incidents in recent North American history... Marc Lepine, Kliebold and Harris, Kimveer Gill, Seung Hui Cho... the common thread seems to be tiny little men with extremely small penises who have nothing in life except for their fantasies of getting "revenge" on people they think have wronged them. This week's German rampage sounds to have been about the same: Others that I'm aware of sound about the same: guy can't deal with the loss of his wife/job/family/dreams and lashes out at his wife/former co-workers/whoever he blames for his manyvaried failings. -k

A helicopter carrying workers to off-shore rigs has gone down off the coast of Newfoundland. Of 18 people on board, one has been recovered alive, one confirmed dead, and 16 still missing. Terrible news. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labr...helicopter.html -k

Could you elaborate on this point? So far you haven't explained what you mean by religion, or how it can be connected with so many bad things and yet not be the cause of them. I think it would be like, say Leon Fishberg takes an AK47 to the Red Lobster and kills dozens of people. People might think "hey, that sounds like a Jewish name. Maybe he slaughtered all those people because he read in Leviticus that shellfish is an abomination." And so maybe you could make the argument that these people are dead because of religion. But millions of Jewish people have read Leviticus and none of them have gone on a shooting spree at Red Lobster... so maybe in my little example, the problem is not with the Jewish faith, but rather with Leon Fishberg. The people at the Red Lobster are dead because Leon Fishberg is a stark raving fruit-loop, not because religion caused him to kill people. Likewise, if Achmed Hussein beats up his daughter because she wore a t-shirt instead of a tent, people might be prone to say "ah-ha! Look, Islam sucks!" If Bob Smith, atheist, beats up his daughter because she looks like a slut, people don't say "his religion must be at fault!" ... they say "Bob Smith is a real asshole." Achmed Hussein might just be a real asshole too, the problem might not be with religion at all, even if Achmed says that's why he beat up his daughter. Lots of Muslims have daughters who rebel against what the local Imam says is proper... but most of them don't beat them up for it. Achmed might be the kind of guy who would find a reason to beat up his daughter whether he were Muslim, atheist, Rastafarian, or Fruitopian. -kimmy {has nothing against Red Lobster, Leon Fishberg, Bob Smith, or Achmed Hussein.}

Even if some other means were provided to conclusively identify the individual under the tent, I think people should be able to see a person's face as they deliver testimony. People say as much with their facial expressions as they say with their voice. Being able to see this woman's facial expressions when she delivers her testimony is integral to the man's right to a legal defense. I would feel the same about a white-person attempting to testify from behind oversized dark sunglasses and a hat. It's supposed to be a court of law, not the World Series of Poker. I have no sympathy for any of this, or any of the other demands the burqa brigade have made over the past few years. Wear a bag over your head in your drivers license or passport photo? No. Wear a bag over your head when you report to the polling station? No. Most Muslims don't even believe women should wear bags over their heads. Bending over backward to accommodate the few who do seems about as sensible as allowing the Snakehandlers to take their poisonous reptiles around town with them. -k

Then why do you keep insisting that the press coverage of this incident is a "kneejerk", shark feeding frenzy, etc? You didn't answer the question of whether you're saying that people are unjustified in talking about this. I've looked in vain to find any Catholic websites willing to try to explain their side of the story. Lots of articles about stem cell research, but not a single mention of this. (if you can direct me to one, I'd be grateful.) Doesn't that kind of suggest that if there's a Catholic side to this story, they're not particularly proud of it? Do you have reason to believe that the facts are not being reported objectively? It certainly doesn't seem like that's the case. The facts of the case appear to be universally agreed upon. They even went to the Vatican and asked "is this for real?" and an Archbishop confirmed "yep, this is for real." The child-rapist wasn't excommunicated, so I started wondering what circumstances does the church normally excommunicate people under? If child raping doesn't get you excommunicated, what about killing people? This is the list of people excommunicated by special decree in the 21st century, and it's a pretty short list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...Catholic_Church So... a priest who left the church, a group advocating for reforms in the church, some priests who challenged church dogma, and this mother and doctor. So then I thought well, maybe murder falls under some heading where you're automatically excommunicated, so I looked that up too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae ...and it doesn't appear so. If I'm reading this right, a Catholic could go out and murder dozens of people and not be excommunicated, unless he paused during his rampage to perform an abortion or ate some communion wafers without his priest present. I've read a lot about this Jesus fellow, I even read his book once upon a time. I can't imagine that if he were here to give his opinion on this, that the outcome he would want would be for this girl to die while attempting a pregnancy that had no hope of success. -k

uh huh. That's great, Oleg. Keep doing what you do. -k

It could have been worse. Imagine if it had been cricket players! What's to worry about? It appears the only response Swedes have is to flee the city and leave it to its new owners. You do realize you just used the word "history", right? "every people have their history of barbarism"? So, when does barbarism in the muslim world become "history"? -k

It looks to me as if the intention was to show what happens when a large number of illiterate imbeciles overrun a formerly civilized country. -k

To collect a settlement in a lawsuit of this sort, doesn't one have to show that the damage to their reputation merits financial reparation? In Kinsella's case, I'm not sure it's even possible to do $1 million worth of damage to his reputation, and I say that as somebody who actually enjoys his blog. -k

It certainly seems like you're defending them. You keep criticizing people for discussing this issue. Isn't that basically defending them? What? Why? I've written dozens, probably hundreds, of posts about the idiocy done in the name of Islam. Are you suggesting the problem is actually with me and not the idiots? If you feel that WIP has used up his quota of critical messages about the Catholic church, is it ok if I take his place? I haven't blasted the Catholics for months, and I'm pretty outraged at this too. What are you suggesting? That people should ignore this because the RC church does nice things for people? The Muslims raise lots of donations for the poor and needy... should we ignore it when they blow crap up in the name of Allah or stone people to death because the Quran told them to? Do their acts of kindness mean we should turn a blind eye when they completely shit the bed? What are these hundreds of good decisions you'd like to talk about? What heartwarming decrees from the Vatican have you got for me that'll brighten my day? -k

Is it wrong for me to wonder if a "Saudi scholar" is kind of like a "Tibetan rodeo star", a "Moroccan ice-sculptor", a "Kalahari sumo master", and so-forth? That's what I assumed the thread would be about when I read the title... and that is an interesting topic. -k

...and so the Taliban have told Obama that they have no idea what "moderate Taliban" he's talking about, since there's just one Taliban with one ideology and one goal. http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNew...-38433020090310 -k

Does the church not deserve criticism here? Why is it unfair to criticize them for how they've handled this situation? Should they only get evaluated on how they handle happy situations? Personally I think the way people respond to bad situations reveal a lot more about their character than how they react to the good. -k

Man who blinded Iranian woman to be blinded. In November an Iranian court ruled that the man -- identified only as Majid -- who admitted blinding Bahrami in 2004 by throwing acid in her face because she rejected his marriage request should also be blinded with acid based on the Islamic law system of "eye-for-an-eye" retribution. Iran's supreme court confirmed the sentence at the beginning of February. Bahrami, who moved to Barcelona after the attack to get medical treatment, said the court had originally ruled that she was entitled to have the man blinded in only one eye in Iran because "each man is worth two women". "But I explained to the judge that with one eye one can still live," she told top-selling newspaper El Pais in another interview. I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, it's so barbaric it's ridiculous. On the other, it sure makes a statement, doesn't it? She rejected his marriage request... so he blinded her and destroyed her face. "My intention is to ask for the application of the law not just for revenge but also so that no other woman will have to go through this. It is to set an example," the 30-year-old added. Hopefully it works. Hopefully the next wronged man thinks about this sentence. While people often respond to "an eye for an eye" with "...and the whole world goes blind", I think people would be more respectful of others' eyes if they knew their own were at risk. -k

Sad that the land of my father's ancestors has fallen to such depths. All this respect for barbarism under the guise of respect for cultural tradition... there used to be a Swedish tradition that involved horned helmets, broadswords, and the heads of enemies mounted on stakes. Perhaps that one should be revived. -k