Lord Haw Haw reborn........

[Spion]

I don't know what part of Iran executes gay men you are having a problem understanding tbh.

And I'm not sure which bit of 'don't just believe what any axe-grinding blogger on the internet says without checking it' you don't understand.

I'm sure they do execute gay men in Iran. But they don't seem to have executed all of them, so i'd like to know why they have exceuted the ones they have executed.

 

[_angel_]

Of course, it doesn't execute them for being homosexual, but for homosexual acts.

An important distinction.

How effective is this policy?

First point. You're splitting hairs.

Second point:
That's neither here or there. The fact is it has happened and can happen and may well happen to the bloke trying to claim asylum.

A load of fudging the issue doesn't help. Wimping on this fact doesn't help.

 

[_angel_]

And I'm not sure which bit of 'don't just believe what any axe-grinding blogger on the internet says without checking it' you don't understand.

I'm sure they do execute gay men in Iran. But they don't seem to have executed all of them, so i'd like to know why they have exceuted the ones they have executed.

They got caught???

Again, is it suddenly okay because they don't apply the same penalty across the board.

 

[untethered]

First point. You're splitting hairs.

Second point:
That's neither here or there. The fact is it has happened and can happen and may well happen to the bloke trying to claim asylum.

A load of fudging the issue doesn't help. Wimping on this fact doesn't help.

Where I come from it's generally incumbent upon people to follow the law and community standards. If this chap does indeed face a threat based on his actions, perhaps he should have been more circumspect about them before he acted.

On the other hand, I don't see how executing him will improve matters.

 

[Spion]

They got caught???

Again, is it suddenly okay because they don't apply the same penalty across the board.

So, what exactly happened with the guy in question who got hanged?

 

[jæd]

And I'm not sure which bit of 'don't just believe what any axe-grinding blogger on the internet says without checking it' you don't understand.

I'm sure they do execute gay men in Iran. But they don't seem to have executed all of them, so i'd like to know why they have exceuted the ones they have executed.

At the discretion of the Iranian court, fines, prison sentences, and public lashings may be used instead of a public execution. As the Islamic law covers all aspects of Iranian society and culture, no public discussion of homosexuality is permitted, no gay rights organizations are allowed to exist, and no political party that supports gay rights will have their candidates on the election ballot.

In a November 2007 meeting with his British counterpart, Iranian MP Mohsen Yahyavi confirmed that the Iranian government executes homosexuals. According to Yahyavi, gays deserve to be tortured, executed, or both.[14]

That bit seems to cover it. Probably a bit like why the US puts some murderers one death and some not. It depends on the court.

Not sure how this is news to people...

 

[Spion]

Not sure how this is news to people...

It's not, really. Wikipedia is worth shit as evidence tho

 

[untethered]

It's not, really. Wikipedia is worth s- as evidence tho

All statements in Wikipedia are meant to be verifiable from reliable sources. If they're not, you can request sources from the contributor or remove the statement.

More's the point, you can actually follow up the references where they exist.

If a statement is well-sourced, it should be accorded the same credence as any other.

 

[purves grundy]

Where I come from it's generally incumbent upon people to follow the law and community standards.

Where I come from, and the rest of the 6+ billion people on earth, its incumbent upon state law to fit into a basic framework of international human rights. The sad alternative is your disgusting, anything-goes relativism in which a person's fate is dependent on the lottery of their birthplace.

 

[Spion]

All statements in Wikipedia are meant to be verifiable from reliable sources. If they're not, you can request sources from the contributor or remove the statement.

More's the point, you can actually follow up the references where they exist.

If a statement is well-sourced, it should be accorded the same credence as any other.

There's room for many a slip between 'reliable sources' and interpretation of history and politics, me old racist

 

[untethered]

Where I come from, and the rest of the 6+ billion people on earth, its incumbent upon state law to fit into a basic framework of international human rights. The sad alternative is your disgusting, anything-goes relativism in which a person's fate is dependent on the lottery of their birthplace.

Well for a start you'll probably find that at least half the people on earth wouldn't see anything wrong or unusual about laws prohibiting homosexual acts.

As for your framework of international human rights, perhaps you should come back once you've discovered a principle upon which you can interfere in the internal governance of a sovereign state. You may dislike some aspects of the Iranian regime; I do, too. But doing anything very much about it is most probably neither legal nor prudent.

 

[untethered]

There's room for many a slip between 'reliable sources' and interpretation of history and politics, me old racist

Who are you calling racist?

The matter in hand concerns the facts about Iranian law - surely not too hard to find definitive answers about.

 

[audiotech]

Lord Haw Haw?

Are you seriously comparing George Galloway to William Joyce, a propagandist for the Nazi's who was later hanged for treason?

 

[Spion]

Who are you calling racist?

You. I didn't think you hid it

The matter in hand concerns the facts about Iranian law - surely not too hard to find definitive answers about.

Precisely what I'm after

 

[purves grundy]

As for your framework of international human rights, perhaps you should come back once you've discovered a principle upon which you can interfere in the internal governance of a sovereign state.

The system of international law which has slowy evolved since 1945 has done exactly this. The days when states can do whatever they want to their own populace are long gone, thank fuck. States that have signed and ratified the many international human rights treaties have themselves decided that their internal governance can be 'interfered' with. States which have signed the UN Charter - pretty much every state on earth - also affirm their intention to realise international human rights. Why don't you go and read the Charter now?

 

[untethered]

You. I didn't think you hid it

I'm absolutely opposed to discrimination based on ethnicity, if that's any help to you.

Precisely what I'm after

Having recently resigned my chair as Professor of Spoonfeeding Studies, perhaps you could go and look it up yourself, seeing as it seems to matter to you.

 

[Spion]

The system of international law which has slowy evolved since 1945 has done exactly this. The days when states can do whatever they want to their own populace are long gone, thank fuck.

LOL. Good one

 

[untethered]

The system of international law which has slowy evolved since 1945 has done exactly this. The days when states can do whatever they want to their own populace are long gone, thank f-. States that have signed and ratified the many international human rights treaties have themselves decided that their internal governance can be 'interfered' with. States which have signed the UN Charter - pretty much every state on earth - also affirm their intention to realise international human rights. Why don't you go and read the Charter now?

I've read it, thanks, and I'm very familiar with what international law is supposed to do and its limitations.

There are very few effective mechanisms for enforcing most aspects of international law that refer to states' internal affairs, which indeed is why human rights abuses are still as widespread as they are. Where there's a conflict, power trumps law every time.

Affirm their intention? Oh please.

 

[Spion]

I'm absolutely opposed to discrimination based on ethnicity, if that's any help to you.

S'funny, only the other week you were saying how you boycott foreign-born shop owners and ask for foreign language signs to be taken out of shop windows

Having recently resigned my chair as Professor of Spoonfeeding Studies, perhaps you could go and look it up yourself, seeing as it seems to matter to you.

I didn't ask you for anything, you klutz. I was merely making the point that when condemning someone or something I prefer to have reliable evidence rather than just pick up the pitchfork because some axe-grinder on the internet says something is true

 

[untethered]

S'funny, only the other week you were saying how you boycott foreign-born shop owners and ask for foreign language signs to be taken out of shop windows

Which is a matter of nationality, is it not? It's important to maintain the British character of our neighbourhoods and not drift into a balkanised babel of mutual incomprehensibility.

 

[The Black Hand]

You. I didn't think you hid it

You're right there, right wing shite from a right whinger, and then pretending its not.

 

[purves grundy]

I've read it, thanks, and I'm very familiar with what international law is supposed to do and its limitations.

Then you ought to write your posts a little more carefully, because it appears that you know next to nothing.

There are very few effective mechanisms for enforcing most aspects of international law that refer to states' internal affairs, which indeed is why human rights abuses are still as widespread as they are. Where there's a conflict, power trumps law every time.

The effectiveness of international human rights law depends to some degree upon the intention of states that enter into that system to live up to their promises, this is true. Increasingly, states do this. But enforcement of international law and absence of international law - and the principles upon which it rests - are two completely different things. You were asking for principles upon which the internal governance of a state can be interfered with, and I've told you that states now accept that there are standards which they must live up to.

The days of your disgusting relativism, which bred Nazism, are long-gone.

 

[fogbat]

Lord Haw Haw?

Are you seriously comparing George Galloway to William Joyce, a propagandist for the Nazi's who was later hanged for treason?

William Joyce probably at least had some principles, twisted though they were...

 

[untethered]

Then you ought to write your posts a little more carefully, because it appears that you know next to nothing.

The effectiveness of international human rights law depends to some degree upon the intention of states that enter into that system to live up to their promises, this is true. Increasingly, states do this. But enforcement of international law and absence of international law - and the principles upon which it rests - are two completely different things. You were asking for principles upon which the internal governance of a state can be interfered with, and I've told you that states now accept that there are standards which they must live up to.

The days of your disgusting relativism, which bred Nazism, is long-gone.

There are of course many states that sign up to various international treaties and conventions which promulgate human rights. However, these are still enacted in domestic law and as you seem to suggest, are by no means either universally adopted or enforced.

So as much as you'd like there to be a global system of universal rights, the reality is very different. What happens in practice is simply states enforcing their own standards.

Top marks for the Godwin's sign-off, though.

 

[Spion]

Which is a matter of nationality, is it not? It's important to maintain the British character of our neighbourhoods and not drift into a balkanised babel of mutual incomprehensibility.

Boycotting foreign-born traders is abhorently remeniscent of what Nazis did to Jewish shopkeepers and Zionists to Palestinian traders.

And regarding foreign-language signs in shops windows, it seems to me that people are more likely to get on when one or the other of them is not forcing petty rules on them regarding basic things like that.

This is going way off topic, but seeing as you're someone who promotes actively racist behaviour I'll always be sure to mention it when I 'meet' you on U75

 

[untethered]

And regarding foreign-language signs in shops windows, it seems to me that people are more likely to get on when one or the other of them is not forcing petty rules on them regarding basic things like that.

Ah, but they're not rules handed down from above.

They're community standards which come up from below. In my community, the take-up of that proposal was universal.

Or are you suggesting that there should be a petty rule that people must display foreign-language signs? That'd be nearer the truth in many contexts.

 

[durruti02]

Boycotting foreign-born traders is abhorently remeniscent of what Nazis did to Jewish shopkeepers and Zionists to Palestinian traders.

And regarding foreign-language signs in shops windows, it seems to me that people are more likely to get on when one or the other of them is not forcing petty rules on them regarding basic things like that.

This is going way off topic, but seeing as you're someone who promotes actively racist behaviour I'll always be sure to mention it when I 'meet' you on U75

agreed with you on this spion ..

 

[audiotech]

William Joyce probably at least had some principles, twisted though they were...

Joyce was a cunt and you're a fucking idiot.

 

[purves grundy]

There are of course many states that sign up to various international treaties and conventions which promulgate human rights. However, these are still enacted in domestic law and as you seem to suggest, are by no means either universally adopted or enforced.

So as much as you'd like there to be a global system of universal rights, the reality is very different. What happens in practice is simply states enforcing their own standards.

I wouldn't like there to be a global system of human rights, it is a legal fact that there is a global system of human rights. Of course many states stray from their human rights pledges, and in so doing receive demands for their domestic legislation to be altered (a system which your words implied did not exist). International human rights law is a creature that is still very much evolving. But this doesn't change the fact that people have human rights, legally, politically, and philosophically, and that the standards of a community and a nation can be judged.

Which you denied.

 

[_angel_]

Where I come from it's generally incumbent upon people to follow the law and community standards. If this chap does indeed face a threat based on his actions, perhaps he should have been more circumspect about them before he acted.
On the other hand, I don't see how executing him will improve matters.

Sorry, but this line of reasoning ends with nazi apologists.