- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Sunday Brunch

Parents demand answers?

Let me see if I’ve got this straight? ‘Parents’ (and I’m using the word loosely) decide to teach their 17 year old son who has ‘stolen’ Mum’s car a lesson with some ‘tough love’ and call the cops. The ‘Parents’ go further by encouraging the court to remand him in Prison, while being transferred to remand he gets murdered in a Prison van by a prisoner.

AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE?

Vast swathes of the under-developed part of NZ (many of whom vote National) seem to be under this illusion that Prison is a strict hotel service, that it’s easy in there. Christ we’ve had fuckwits on this site try and tell us it’s easy, that it needs to be harder – NO! IT’S A VERY VIOLENT PLACE! Tim detailed an assult in his first Prison Blog – NOTHING HAPPENED. That any Parent DUMB ENOUGH to willingly send their 17 year old boy to a prison have no right to look surprised – HOW DARE THEY HAVE THE AUDACITY to turn around and demand answers from a Correction service that is so dysfunctional and overcrowded that a child could be murdered in a Prison Van.

And yet under the Sunday Star Times front page is a pathetic story about Prisoners getting an easy time in Prison, and there is our Poster Boy for fuckwit of the month, Simon Power complaining that it’s just so easy for Crims in this country. Ask Liam Ashley how easy it is.


Bob ‘Bigot’ Clarkson

I have a view of provincial National voting types as slow witted, sexist, homophobic, narrow-minded, America lovin’, Rugby-fixated, sexist, homophobic (put in twice cause they really don't like fags) red-necked fuckwits, whom I wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire. Here are quotes from National Party Provincial guru and minority rights campaigner Bob ‘Let’s talk about my ball sacks’ Clarkson which are helping to flesh out that perception.

On Islam…
”Even walking down the street to a certain extent, how do we know there’s not a crook with a gun hiding under a burqa?”

On Gays..
”The problem with fags is that they are gay”

On his testicles..
”I like to talk about how sore my nuts are in public in front of female television journalists in the hope they might pop down there for a quick Tauranga mouth car wash”

Congratulations National, you are really looking like a 'Government in Waiting', if this was hell.

28 Comments:

At 27/8/06 3:58 pm, Blogger john said...

One of the things about having a teen who is spinning out of control is that your never short of advice, most of it from smug side-liners who want to tell you that you've done wrong and it is all your fault. What you don't find is people queuing up to help.
It wasn't my kid but I too would like to know how it was that a 17 year old was killed while in the care of the state.

Bob's a treat isn't he? You might want to check out Iranian Leader Calls NZ MP 'Good Joker'

 
At 27/8/06 9:21 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Clarkson has a point about Burkas in banks. People aren't allowed into banks with bike helmets on for security reasons. I think bank owners' should have the choice on whether or not they allow people to wear burkas/purdahs in them.

The face is the most recognisable part of one's body. Allowing Muslim woman to have their faces covered up in Passport and Drivers License photos defeats the purpose of having them. Letting Muslim women cover their faces up in court reduces the level of accountability.

Why should NZers bend over backwards for the medieval hang-ups of a minority culture? (Minority of a minority; not all Muslim woman have there face covered up).

 
At 27/8/06 10:07 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob Clarkson quotes reported in the NZ Herald:
--------------

"If you walk up and down the street picking your nose, you're a bit different, aren't you? You're going to offend somebody.

"Do it in your home if you want to," he said.

"Take that gay parade. They flaunted themselves out there that they're all different than us, and to a certain extent, in my mind, they're trying to make out that we should be the same as them."

The idea of gay couples being allowed to adopt gave him "the gutsache", and even small-scale displays of homosexuality, such as two men holding hands, made him feel strange.

"You can't convince me that's normal. But I'm not rubbishing them because they might be born like that," he said.

"I'll put it this way: I'm very happy that I was born in 1939 in Gisborne as a male and I've stayed that way all my life."

------------------

I think it is good that Bob Clarkson is being honest about is feelings. By saying how he feels people can discuss why he would have those feelings and debate whether the faults are with him, the gays, government or society in general.

I personally think homosexuality is a bad thing but not a sin, as it can't be helped. I think that homosexuality is an inferior sexuality to heterosexuality. Imagine how disappointed a parent would be if they found out their bloodline was to end with them due to their offspring being gay.

I don't think gay couples should be given equal preference to straight couples for adoption. There are more straight couples willing to adopt than there are children being given up for adoption. Imagine how a kid would get treated at school if their classmates found out he had "two dads". Neither the child nor the foster parents would be to blame for such a situation however I believe that the rights of children should take priority over the rights of gays.

I don't think local governments should give money to "gay awareness" parades. We know they exist already. The hero parades were more about attention seeking than advocating gay rights.

The Civil Unions bill went a bit too far IMO. I am in favour of letting gays have next of kin status for their partners. I am not in favour of having a piece of legislation that has a blanket statement giving them the same rights as married couples. The Civil Unions bill narrows the fiscal policy options of the government. If income tax splitting was allowed for married couples it could mean gay couples get income splitting advantages as well. The purpose of income splitting for married couples is to help strengthen the (nuclear) family unit.

 
At 27/8/06 11:10 pm, Anonymous Rangi said...

fuck off you homophobic cunt

 
At 27/8/06 11:16 pm, Anonymous rangi said...

I think that women should be allowed to wear their Burqa whenever and wherever if their religion says they should. Because that's called "religious tolerance" and "human decency". They are things that we have in the 21st century.

I don't get why certain people in our country are afraid of Muslims. I can't recall Muslim spies ever trying to obtain an NZ passport illegally (Israel) or blowing up a ship in our port (France)

 
At 28/8/06 7:30 am, Anonymous Bomber said...

....
John - mate are you joking? Parents who put their kids voluntarily in prison are up there with parents who give their kids a keg to drink and then the keys to send them down the road for another one. The prison environment is lethal and any parent dumb enough to pull a stunt like this has no grounds to get self-righteous! But then again John, ask Liam mate, go on, ask him if it was a good idea, oh that’s right, he’s cold in the grave isn’t he John?

Anon1 - Burqas in banks? Are you serious? Are you telling me that a member of the criminal fraternity will shop for a Burqa in the Muslim woman’s clothing section? Or they will break in and steal one? And are you seriously telling me that no one on the street would notice a man under a burqa walking into a bank to rob it? I just think these ‘fears’ are so unlikely and ridiculous and are used to justify not liking Muslims.

Anon 2 – Wow, thank you for ‘letting gay people be gay’ – how benevolent of you, the gay community will be so happy to hear that you only just give them equality with pets – what an open person you are, it’s like finding a liberal member of the KKK.

 
At 28/8/06 1:41 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 2 - The tired old argument that kids with 'two dads' will be treated badly at school is ridiculous in this day and age. My mother came out when I was a teenager, still at school, in the late eighties - I was never teased or treated differently, or even looked at sideways, as far as I know. And guess what, I survived the experience - and am in a happy, stable hetero relationship.

Now days my mother and her girlfriend foster three primary school-aged children. The principal of their (decile 9 mainstream)school is a lesbian. As far as I know the children have feilded curious questions from their peers, had to learn to deal casual homophobia in the playground, but have never been teased or ostracised for having 'two mums'. In this day and age, most people have gotten over it. If children want to bully each other any excuse or minor difference will do, but it is not an argument to restrict the ability of gay people to look after children.

 
At 28/8/06 3:23 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, the most slow witted, sexist, homophobic, narrow-minded voters tend to vote for the Maori Party.

 
At 28/8/06 8:05 pm, Blogger Msth8d said...

Anon 28/8/06 3:23 PM, phew then I guess that counts me out seeing I didnt vote at all, But just wondering whether that was your attempt to come across as being completely witty? or to secretly announce, that you too, are a liberal member of the KKK.

Liam's parents, there fucked... whatever came across them to put there son in Jail, to teach him a lesson. thats just so fucked up.
R.I.P Liam

 
At 28/8/06 11:19 pm, Anonymous Amigo said...

Having a past history of lengthy imprisonment terms, I find it very very difficult to understand what logical thoughts, or what benchmarks the parents of the young boy who died in the back of the prison van on the way to Mt.Eden Prison were basing their decision on, when they decided not to bail their son out of prison when they actually had every opportunity to do so.

I can understand their primary thoughts to teach their son a Tough-Love lesson in life, but look where that got them, that incident was their son’s very last horrible lesson in life, no one got the chance to say goodbye to anyone. My sincere hope for future scenarios is that parents will not ever repeat, or entertain such a fool hardy thought in life ever again because, sadly, this is what will happen when people are thrown into a melting pot with seasoned hardened criminals. Anyone who has experienced prison either as inmates, or visitors for that matter, will tell you that this decision was not a very good decision at all.

I feel for the parents and family deeply because I know this was not their intentions, I just don’t know what they based their decision on. I look forward to the Justice Departments explanation of the incidents because I can tell you right now that there will be no blame on the department what so ever, yet, what’s the bet that corrective actions have been put in place “to ensure this doesn’t happen again, once they complete their enquiry!

Finally, to all parents who face a similar scenario … if you love and care for your children … don’t ever put yourselves in such a horrible situation with such a horrible ending. Remove your children from the Hell-Hole they are incarcerated in before you actually lose sight of your loved ones for the rest of your lives. Prisons breed bad behaviours regardless of all the safety measures put in place, everytime an incident occurs, enquiries are held, people appear to be doing all the right things for corrective actions, but that is only as short lived as the next incident that occurs. So bail your loved ones out at the earliest convenience and don’t even contemplate the thought that “if you left them in for one night only, maybe that will fix them up”. That’s not the best policy for an environment that spits out victims on a daily basis. We just don’t hear about how bad scenarios really are in actual fact!

R.I.P Mate.

 
At 29/8/06 8:42 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, I wasn't trying to be witty at all. Maori tend to be socially conservative. Bomber's love affair with them is quite curious.

 
At 29/8/06 8:51 am, Blogger bomber said...

...
Dear Anon - my 'love affair' with Maori? It's not about race, it's about justice - real simple.

 
At 29/8/06 10:57 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

" fuck off you homophobic cunt"

Gee, that is rather constructive of you, Rangi. Why don't you try to form logical arguments that rebut mine? The winner of an argument isn't necessarily the one who sounds the angriest.

What makes you think that I'm homophobic? I'm not afraid of queer folk in general but if I was, would it be wrong? Saying that people choose to fear something, seems as dumb as saying that people choose to be gay.

You are as much of a reactionary as those who think being gay is a sin.

 
At 29/8/06 11:36 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that women should be allowed to wear their Burqa whenever and wherever if their religion says they should. Because that's called "religious tolerance" and "human decency". They are things that we have in the 21st century.

I don't think there should be laws banning burkas/purdahs in general but I think the face should be shown when identification is necessary.

In Western society, religion tends to be something that is chosen by the individual. If a Muslim women decides not to be Muslim, she is likely to get shunned (or worse) by her family. Women are often treated as lesser beings to the men. Wearing the burka/purdah is enforced by men, not religion. Burkas/purdahs aren't required as part of the Muslim faith.

I don't believe that unethical cultural practices such as forced burka wearing, beating women when they disobey their husbands or female genital mutilation should be tolerated.

Maybe Muslim women should be given empowerment classes when they come here.



I don't get why certain people in our country are afraid of Muslims. I can't recall Muslim spies ever trying to obtain an NZ passport illegally (Israel) or blowing up a ship in our port (France)

I am not afraid of homosexuals (as you have accused me of) but to some extent I am afraid of the Muslim population.

I don't recall Muslim spies doing those things listed but I do remember the following:
- The 11/9 attacks where around 3000 innocent civilians were "punished" for the US Federal government's dodgy foreign policy.
- The 7/7 attacks which were done for similar reasons but killed only civilians. The majority of the British population were against the war in Iraq.
- The Madrid bombings which were done for similar reasons. The Spanish government supported the invasion of Iraq but 90% of Spaniards surveyed were against the war.
- The Bali bombings. Same sort of thing but with Australians, Balinese and other ethnic groups getting killed.
- The world wide riots in response to a couple of Danish cartoons. In Britain the protesters had signs like "Behead those who insult Islam". Only psychopaths would behead someone for insulting them or something they identify with being.

The Muslim protests weren’t over Mohammed being labelled as a terrorist. They were protesting because a picture of Mohammed was drawn. They were angry because they were told to be angry at things like that throughout their lives. They have a medieval mentality that puts blind obedience ahead of logic and ethics. Many Muslims think the Koran is right because the Koran says the Koran is right. They get offended without having strong enough reasons to be offended. The reason they gave for finding the comics offensive was that it encourages “idol worship”. I somehow doubt the comic images will be worshiped.

I value cultural diversity but not when it comes at the price of losing individual sovereignty. Some cultures have a great deal of intolerance towards other cultures and expect them to bend over backwards to appease them. Muslim fundamentalists are a strong example of this. I don’t mind Muslims doing their own thing in NZ as long as they behave ethically and don’t restrict the free practice of other cultures. Unfortunately their culture of medieval zealousness conflicts with the cultures in NZ that allow the freedom to draw or replicate pictures of historical religious figures. Most prominent New Zealanders have been too scared to speak out about the issue out of fear of violent attacks from Muslim fundamentalists.


The National party won't stay out of power forever. Once in power they are likely to join the US in unethical wars for NZ's "interests". I wouldn't be surprised if Muslim fundamentalists would respond by committing acts of terrorism.

Letting large numbers of Muslims migrate to NZ from third world countries puts every New Zealander at risk. Preventing them migrate here wouldn't be fair for the innocent ones but at least no-one would get killed as a result.

 
At 29/8/06 11:40 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 2 - The tired old argument that kids with 'two dads' will be treated badly at school is ridiculous in this day and age. My mother came out when I was a teenager, still at school, in the late eighties - I was never teased or treated differently, or even looked at sideways, as far as I know. And guess what, I survived the experience - and am in a happy, stable hetero relationship.

I was refering to "two dads" not "two mums". The two scenarios are likely to get a completely different reaction from the rugby thug type kids. I never said that the scenario would change someones sexuality.

 
At 29/8/06 12:06 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Anon - following your 'logic' we would also ban Americans from coming to NZ, bringing their backward fundamental thinking here as well? Has it occurred to you that there might be some justifiable reasons why Muslims are angry at the West? Wouldn't it make more sense to deal with those reasons rather than making them feel further persecuted?

Oh and how come 2 mums is fine but not 2 dads? And why the hell should anyone have to bow down to others ignorance? Just because rugby thug people don't like it - why should others have to live under that type of pettiness?

 
At 29/8/06 2:12 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 2 – Wow, thank you for ‘letting gay people be gay’ – how benevolent of you, the gay community will be so happy to hear that you only just give them equality with pets – what an open person you are, it’s like finding a liberal member of the KKK.

How very constructive of you Bomber. How very wise and enlightened you are; although you didn't need to be because all you had to do was just write me off as a lunatic because I argued in favour of unpopular opinion (unpopular on this blog at least). Your debating style is what I would have expected from an arrogant conservative American who treats liberals as idiots rather than equals who happen to differ in opinion.

What is so important about the state recognising a gay couple's commitment? Is narrowing the available fiscal policy options, a price worth paying?

Far more people and politicians would have been in favour of next of kin status. If the bill was about next of kin status rather than civil unions, far fewer tax payer funded parliamentary hours would have been needed to pass it.


You think I am prejudice yet you say things like "What is it with Christian’s and beating their kids?" The majority of Christians don't send their kids to state integrated or private religious schools. The majority of state integrated or private religious schools don't have corporal punishment.

I had a non-smacking Christian upbringing. I think that Christians are as divided on the issue as non-Christians are. It just happens to be that the strange Christian sects (Destiny, Exclusive Brethren, etc) are speaking out against the anti-smacking legislation while the people shouting its praises happen to be secularists.


Your statement "What is it with Christian’s and beating their kids?" was a generalisation (and a poor one at that) but I won't hold it against you. Generalisations are sometimes necessary to shorten messages.

I wonder how you would react if I were to say "What is it with Polynesians and beating their kids?". The statement is a generalisation but seems far more accurate than your one.

 
At 29/8/06 3:20 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon - following your 'logic' we would also ban Americans from coming to NZ, bringing their backward fundamental thinking here as well? Has it occurred to you that there might be some justifiable reasons why Muslims are angry at the West? Wouldn't it make more sense to deal with those reasons rather than making them feel further persecuted?

It is highly unlikely that there would be American immigrants who would commit acts of terrorism against innocent civilians if the NZ government does something wrong. The US Federal government is likely to commit acts of terrorism but not American immigrants.

There are many justifiable reasons why Muslims are angry at Western governments. For example:
- Putting in place an interim government in Iraq that would sell state assets for next to nothing to American "investors".
- Australian, British and Spanish governments being in favour of the war in Iraq.
- Bombing of Iraq by Bush Snr, Clinton and Bush Jnr administrations.
- Supporting Saddam while he was at his worst.
- Telling Saddam that the US wouldn't get involved in his border disputes with Kuwait; then going to war with Iraq after he invades Kuwait.
- Killing thousands in Afghanistan without staying around long enough to significantly improve the country.
- Helping the Shar of Iran come to and stay in power.
- Giving huge amounts of military aid to Israel and not speaking out against the Israeli government's human rights abuses.
- The double standards the US has when comparing how they treat the fundamentalist regime in Saudi Arabia with the fundamentalist regimes in other Islamic countries.
- Helping General Suharto come to power in Indonesia.
- Bombing Libya and killing 100s including Gadaffi's adopted daughter.
- "Abuses" (torture) in Abugraib and G'tmo.
... and the list goes on.

There aren't justifiable reasons for using terrorism against innocent civilians.

Voting is severely limited. Vote splitting can occur. MMP allows smaller parties seats in parliament but it is still a two party system. STV/Condorcet voting would eliminate vote splitting. Having separate elections for the executive and legislative branches would have an outcome that is more reflective of the voting majority. Even if such a system was put in place, citizens don't get to vote on every issue, especially foreign policy.

I wasn't advocating the persecution of Muslims for being Muslims. I just think that people from third world dictatorships (especially Islamic ones) should be barred from migrating here unless they come here as genuine refugees. When I say genuine refugees, I mean people who are trying to escape persecution for promoting freedom in their country e.g. openly criticising their government.

Hundreds of thousands of people protested against the war in Iraq in Australia, Britain and Spain yet there were Muslims that thought it was appropriate to kill hundreds of civilians indiscriminately. No matter how active an individual is at promoting peace, they are still just as likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack as anyone else.

 
At 29/8/06 3:55 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and how come 2 mums is fine but not 2 dads?

I never said the rugby thug kids were logical. Rugby thug kids are more likely to pick on a boy with "two dads" than a boy with "two mums" or a girl with "two mums/dads".


And why the hell should anyone have to bow down to others ignorance? Just because rugby thug people don't like it - why should others have to live under that type of pettiness?

They shouldn't. Unfortunately it is very hard to tame rugby thug kids. They get satisfaction from the misery of others. They would attack the fat kid who does debating, the pimply kid who likes Star Trek and does well at science, the non-violent Christian kid, and any other kid who is "gay".

Standing up to them is rarely an option as they are likely to hit back harder. They don't care if they get hurt themselves. Ignoring them definitely doesn't deter them.

The teachers would often turn a blind eye to what they do. They like being the "policeman' when it comes to uniform regulations or lateness but do next to nothing if violence is involved. The teachers hardly ever see the acts of violence happen and so telling them about the event won't lead anywhere. There is little the police can do about school yard assault unless it involves hospitalisation.



In the meantime, there are more straight couples wanting to adopt kids than there are kids given up for adoption. Whether gay or straight, the foster parents are likely to be loving ones. They probably wouldn't be willing to adopt kids if they weren't. Until there is a time when there is a shortage of straight couples for foster parents, I don't think that gays should be allowed to adopt.

 
At 29/8/06 6:05 pm, Anonymous bomber said...

...
Anon you are wrong

There are reasons why Muslims wish to do us harm - IF you do not change those reasons, they will continue to do us harm, it's real simple - hey I've got a crazy idea, how about we in the West stop propping up military dictatorships in the Middle East and then those people might not want to harm us. Remember, as their kids burn, our kids will burn - that's about as simple as it gets.

And as for the gay kids, how about you grow some balls and stand up for those people rather than being spineless and allowing bigotry to win?

 
At 30/8/06 12:47 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say that there is a surplus of straight couples waiting to adopt, and therefore, gays shouldn't be allowed too - In the case of my mother's three foster kids, when their nice normal straight nuclear family family broke down in violence and mental illness, there were no straight families putting up their hands to take these damaged kids. These days this is the kind of family history that most adopted and fostered kids come from. In this situation, whoever is willing to take on and nurture a shell-shocked kid, and provide a loving and supportive family should be allowed to do it.

My original point was that if you choose your environment carefully, as most gay people have learnt to do, the big rugby thug kids really are not as ubiquitous and powerful as you think - I didn't encounter them, and so far, neither have my mother's foster kids. They are not a reason to dictate how families should work. They are a myth that people like you use as an excuse for your discomfort - being 'normal' is not the be-all and end-all of childhood - especially when you come from a situation that is even less normal.

And really - I don't understand why having two dads is worse than having two mums?

 
At 30/8/06 6:47 pm, Anonymous deano said...

I see that people robbing banks in burkas to defeat identification has already happened in the US and in Australia.

 
At 30/8/06 7:16 pm, Anonymous bomber said...

....
proof please Deano

 
At 30/8/06 8:54 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are reasons why Muslims wish to do us harm - IF you do not change those reasons, they will continue to do us harm, it's real simple - hey I've got a crazy idea, how about we in the West stop propping up military dictatorships in the Middle East and then those people might not want to harm us. Remember, as their kids burn, our kids will burn - that's about as simple as it gets.

Bomber, it is never that simple.

Yes there are reasons but not justified reasons. Killing thousands of people who have little or no control over their government is both unethical and ineffective. Can you recall the last time a government of a Western nation held a referendum on whether or not the country should go to war?

Latin Americans have been treated in a similar way to Middle Easterners by the US Federal government yet I don't hear about them committing acts of terrorism in response.

It appears to me that you have fallen into the mentality of treating groups of people as allies simply because they are your enemy's enemies.

 
At 30/8/06 9:31 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon you are wrong

No Bomber; I simply differ in opinion to you.


And as for the gay kids, how about you grow some balls and stand up for those people rather than being spineless and allowing bigotry to win?

I used gay in quotation marks to put it in the context used by the rugby thug type kids. They use the word "gay" to mean anything they don't like or anyone they feel like harassing.

It was never about bigotry. I don't think you even know what that word means, so I will enlighten you:

bigot. n. a person who holds an opinion obstinately and is intolerant towards those who think differently.

You seem like a bigot because you think that any opinion of yours is right and any conflicting opinion of mine is wrong. If you were to point out factual errors in the assumptions of my arguments then I would be found wrong. I would then revise my opinions rather than hold on to them.

You say that Bob Clarkson is a bigot. How is he a bigot exactly?

You used to call John Banks, "John wanks the bigot" on your radio show yet I recall him changing his views on public transport while he was mayor of Auckland City. He occasionally showed signs of bigotry but he wasn't always a bigot.

Back to the rugby thug issue; I think they are motivated by a sadistic glee rather than bigotry. They know they are wrong. They just do those sorts of things because they find it fun.

I was the victim of those types when I was in 3rd and 4th form. The natural selection of School C, 6th form cert and Bursary eliminated them. Also they weren't taking the sorts of subjects I took in later years.

I can't recall anyone standing up for me. Rarely I would stand up for myself as that would often make things worse. I was of lower physical strength to them and they would hit back harder. I don't believe I should be ashamed of not being the "strongest".

You said "grow some balls and stand up for those people". Would you tell a women who gets beaten by her husband to "grow some balls" and stand up for herself?

Little can be done to those rugby thug type kids without evidence. Security cameras are used in secondary schools to catch kids smoking or making prank phone calls but are rarely used when assault is an issue. The police rarely get involved with assault within schools.

 
At 31/8/06 3:40 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I hate to say it i kind of have to agree about the Burkas in banks thing. If they don't want to take it off to go inside they can use ATMs, EFTPOS, or on-line banking services. I have no idea if these things are allowed but I don't think GOD could of banned them back then as we didn't have them yet. Also for drivers licences, as far as I am awear driving is a privilage, not a basic human right, if you want to do it leagaly you need a licence and unless the start issuing them with out photos (I want one!) then you will need to show us your face.
They could always have a female officer take the photo.

 
At 31/8/06 8:07 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You lost me when you started supporting the burqa. Look, the way it works is that muslims have this thing at home that has up until now been incorrectly translated as a "wife". "Female slave" is a much more accurate translation, so lets call her a WifeSlave. In the past that's what actually what wife meant, so you can accept the mistranslation to some extent. And of course many progressive muslims would say that the WifeSlave isn't really a slave, and that she is allowed, by the grace of god but mainly that of her husband, to do most things a man can do. But I've yet to hear a single (male) muslim speak out in favour of women's rights. Feel free to enlighten me about that, because I'd love to be proved wrong.

Well, the kind of muslims who have their WifeSlave wear a burqa are the most fucked up kind who can't really deal with the idea of their wife ever leaving home. Basically, they have the modern day mentality of the kind of guy who kidnaps a teenage girl and keeps her for twenty years in his basement. In such a healthy loving relationship, the WifeSlave eventually realises that the only way she's ever going to get out of her HousePrison is by wearing a bag over her head. But not just any bag, she might take it off, god forbid! Only a god-sanctioned bag will do, one that IF she can convince her husband that she's swallowed sufficient amounts of the IslamBullshit, that if she really BELIEVES, she will be allowed to wear it to (temporarily) get out of her HousePrison. So for her the burqa means freedom. It's a godsend (yes, pun intended).

So when you see a burqa, try to realise that it's like the fruiting body of a much larger fungus - it's one of the symptoms of a very sick disease. Treating it is not as easy as it sounds. If you don't allow burqas in banks, most WifeSlaves won't be permitted to go to the bank. If you don't allow burqas on drivers licenses, most WifeSlaves won't be permitted to drive. If you insist that witnesses show their faces on the witness stand, WifeSlaves won't be permitted to take the stand.

But does that all mean that we should just bend right over and allow burqas in banks, on drivers licenses, and on the witness stand? HELL NO! It's just supporting that crap, it's legitimising it, it's saying that it's ok which it fucking isn't. Half the trouble is that these women who are confined in their houses become so neurotic that they can't handle showing their faces anymore even if they wanted to anyway. So what do you do, when society condones it? How do you free a slave who has been brainwashed from birth into thinking that that's her lot?

Nobody.

 
At 31/8/06 2:33 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

About rugby thugs - obviously you had a horrible experience with them, and you are angry at the adults in your life who didn't support you against them, but you seem to think that this is a reason why everyone else has to live their lives in such a way as to not offend them - guess what; your experience is not typical. That sort of biotry and bullying obviously still exists, but most people manage to make choices in their lives without reference to what 'rugby thugs' might think - including being gay and having children.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home