Rule One in the Biased BBC handbook is that the BBC is actively trying to instal Islam in the UK. Rule Two is that the mullahs of Broadcasting House are not to be trusted in any way.
Innocent Biased BBC followers may have cheered when they saw the BBC giving a lot of coverage to the woman who is defying the religious law in Sudan over her right to wear trousers in public. Could the BBC be returning to the path of Islamo-fearing righteousness?
Perhaps not. The Rev. David Vance, in sternest preacher mode, warns his followers not to be fooled.
She is getting lots of publicity from the BBC for her noble fight in trying to get the law in Northern Sudan changed to allow women to wear trousers lest they fall foul of Sharia and get 40 lashes for wearing such garments.
Great news! Al-Beeb is disappearing. We're getting Auntie Beeb back!
Fair enough, I suppose,
Uh-oh..
...although I was intrigued by Ms Hussein's suggestion that "I want to change this law, because hitting is not human, and also it does not match with Sharia law," she told the BBC.
(Intrigued = Pissed Off in Advanced Vance.)
Would this be the same Sharia law that mandates the stoning to death of adulterers and hanging of homosexuals, for example?
Mandates? Doesn't it depend on which version of the law you're quoting?
Might this be the same Sharia Law that mandates "honor killings", that advocates whipping for those who drink and gamble, that allows husbands to hit their wives; that commands that a thief's hand be cut off?
Isn't it her point that the law is open to interpretation?
Forty lashes for wearing trousers is harsh but then again when it comes to Sharia, violence and inhumanity are central.
I'm sure you're right, though the Archbishop of Canterbury takes a different view.
Trying to sanitise the sheer awfulness of Islamic law by reducing it to whether trousers may be worn or not seems trivial to me.
Fecking al-Beeb. At it again.
Maybe Ms Hussein's employers - the UN - will issue a statement condemning this brutal system
Bit late for that. If you read the BBC story properly, she "has resigned from a UN job that would have given her immunity to take on the case."
Great news! Al-Beeb is disappearing. We're getting Auntie Beeb back!
Fair enough, I suppose,
Uh-oh..
...although I was intrigued by Ms Hussein's suggestion that "I want to change this law, because hitting is not human, and also it does not match with Sharia law," she told the BBC.
(Intrigued = Pissed Off in Advanced Vance.)
Would this be the same Sharia law that mandates the stoning to death of adulterers and hanging of homosexuals, for example?
Mandates? Doesn't it depend on which version of the law you're quoting?
Might this be the same Sharia Law that mandates "honor killings", that advocates whipping for those who drink and gamble, that allows husbands to hit their wives; that commands that a thief's hand be cut off?
Isn't it her point that the law is open to interpretation?
Forty lashes for wearing trousers is harsh but then again when it comes to Sharia, violence and inhumanity are central.
I'm sure you're right, though the Archbishop of Canterbury takes a different view.
Trying to sanitise the sheer awfulness of Islamic law by reducing it to whether trousers may be worn or not seems trivial to me.
Fecking al-Beeb. At it again.
Maybe Ms Hussein's employers - the UN - will issue a statement condemning this brutal system
Bit late for that. If you read the BBC story properly, she "has resigned from a UN job that would have given her immunity to take on the case."
Anything else?
maybe thinking that is just, well, pants?
Don't be too hard on yourself, David. I think we can all see that you are trying...
maybe thinking that is just, well, pants?
Don't be too hard on yourself, David. I think we can all see that you are trying...
Update: J. Harris wants to compliment Islamic law....
Sharia law isn't wrong on *everything* -
Admirably fair of you.
homosexuals *should* be hanged.
There's *more* here.
Posts
"The lecture, which was given before an audience of about 1000 people and which was chaired by the Lord Chief Justice" Oh come on - you're surely not trying to suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury knows more about religion than B-BBC contributors, and that the Lord Chief Justice might understand something about how the legal system operates?
ReplyDeleteElitist twaddle. Fritigern (see above) will deal with their sort...
ReplyDelete