Originally posted by Castro: ^ I'm having to explain to my co-workers what's happening with these cartoons. Predictably ( ), almost all of them share NGONGE's opinion. So I'm, literally, having to fight NGONGE day and night. NGONGE may be more interested in changing how Muslims behave than changing western laws to curb free speech. Though he won't come out and say it. I'll read that stuff he listed up there and see what I can come up with. Someone has to stand up to the guy. Really? Your co-workers think freedom of speech has no limits? From what I have seen and read in Canada - most people are able to grasp that. For them - the puzzlement is in the 'ferocity' of the reaction. But then when you are secular, nominal Christians - religious sensitivties are hard to understand.

^It becomes an actual confession when the phone call has been verified and the alleged confession he made to the police was not under undue circumstances or pressure. Essentially when the judge admits into evidence - it is an actual confession.

Originally posted by Jamilah: Don’t envy me just move to Australia there is plenty of room I would but I am afraid that I will be attacked by racist hooligans on the beach - I'd rather remain in cold but safe Canada!

^^Because they love us soooooooooooo much!!!

^LOL - tell me about Rogers! I can't stand those b*****ds. And TD is the bomb - lower fees than RBC! What I don't understand is the logic of ATMs inside the bank? Did they not think people would need them in off hours?

^^There was no 'trust' given - it simply was an occupation. I'm sure the Palestinians 'trust' the Israelis with their land. And for maintenance that was not asked for the risk lies with the individual who undertoook something that was not asked of him/her.

^^^If they speak Som-Glish and have no parents that insist their kids not be herded in there, then ESL for Somali native born would be much less of an issue.

^^^^LOL - I doubt anyone 'pays' taxes on property in Mog nor do they 'contribute' to the city! It wouldn't be the way it is if they were

Originally posted by sheherazade: Do the Americans think saying, 'have nice day' makes a service good? It's a bad sign when you notice that banks have posters threatening criminal prosecution if you verbally abuse their staff. That's cause enraged dcustomers use their mouths and not their pieces. If u don't have a right to carry a wepaon u use the next best thing- your maaawff- as they say in London. Less to do with 'have a nice day' and more to do with prompt service - I'm in Canada and it takes about 2 hrs to open a a bank account and I bet even less in the States. I'm not sure why u have such a harsh view on the States - inferiority complex? PS - I didn't add this part of the article: "Gwyneth Paltrow recently got into some trouble after unleashing a string of pet hates about life in London in Marie Claire magazine. "Customer service is just rubbish in England. People are much more relaxed there, and things take forever to get done. They'll tell you it'll take two weeks for your Internet service to be fixed! It drives me nuts." I never thought I'd be quoting Gwyneth, but she's spot on. All of us at the school have a long supply of anecdotes about the perils of British customer service."

I was reading an MBA student's journal when I came across this funny post on cutomer service in Britain. For UK residents - can you confirm the situation below for us? -------------------------------------------- It's a bad sign when you notice that banks have posters threatening criminal prosecution if you verbally abuse their staff. As an American, you might expect posters like this in the post office, but the bank? That's a head-shaking first. Think about it. It means that enough people in the past have lost it at bank tellers — across all branches — for the bank to warrant investing in advertising to dissuade future verbal abusers. What happens at a bank? Sure, there may be an occasionally long line, but what more in the way of uncaringly bad customer service would you expect at your local bank branch? Given that Britain is a society of polite, demure individuals, I didn't quite get it. That was, until I tried to open up my bank account. Retail banking in the United Kingdom is abysmal. It took me the better part of three and a half weeks to establish my bank account. I'm still waiting for my checkbook. This is with repeated trips to the local branch, which closes promptly at 5 p.m. This was despite the bank's relationship with the school, and my attempt to deposit nearly £5,000 off the bat. The first few weeks of school, conversation was easy. We could simply trade our HSBC stories. One student had to show up for an "interview," scheduled two weeks prior. When he got to the branch, they couldn't find his appointment. He waited patiently for an hour until he finally lost it and raised his voice. The bank manager finally dragged out a second black-bound hardback, where his name was penciled in for the 2 p.m. slot. They use books to keep track of accounts. How primitive is that? If someone — anyone — wants to start up an easy business in the U.K., set up a better bank. Britain will thank you. I don't know what regulatory hurdles you may face, but there's a list of "innovations" you could bring to retail banking. For instance, offer ATMs that let you deposit checks and money outside of bank hours. Banks here have automated machines that do this, just like in the U.S., but they keep them inside the branch -- which close at or before 5 p.m., meaning if you want to deposit a check after-hours, you're out of luck. Apparently, Canary Wharf, the newly established financial sector of London, has banks that offer full-functioning ATMs outside the branch.

Originally posted by Curling Waterfall: quote:Originally posted by Northerner: Doing it it for ones self or not, the 'maintenance' occured to the advantage of the owner, thus some sort of comp is only fair but not a leglity. I'm questioning whether this should be made a legal issue. The 'maintenance' occurred to the advanatage of the residents. Ma waxaad ku dhex noolaan lahayd aqal isku qudhmey oo dumay? Even as a renting customer, you're obligated to maintain the house and any damage to the property waa lagugu soo dalici kara. Thats how it works in the rest of the world. Occupants should be grateful they lived rent-free for years in some1 else's property and get the hell out when the owners come back to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. I totally agree with this outlook - it seems to me strange to receive compensation when you were living there rent-free. I mean even if the individual left the place in better shape and he asks for compensation - can't u ask for the rent for all those years? Isn't this also against Islamic rules to occupy or take something that is not yours? Anyone there who can enlighten us on this aspect of the issue. Of course, in dire poverty etc it is understandable - but personally speaking I would do my utmost to refrain from that. But in our screwed up society - there are individuals who race to occupy/set up shop in others property.

Originally posted by Zero: Castro, I must you say you dont look too unseemly or ungainly in a dunce cap . Oh well, I'll flick the light on more time, and if you still think the room is pitch dark, then I can't help you. You'll have to see a seasoned Opthamalogist, dude. You stated that I overlooked the nuances and nicities of "legal and legislative" laws and procedures in some western countries. Could you have been anymore obscure? Could you have been any more off the mark? Well, I think you surpassed this slap-dash statment with another flimsy one. Apparently, it is naivete and comprehension issues (I thought NGONGE had patents on this phrase, I was tempted to use it with you and ThePoint ) that are handicapping my ability to understand your moot point. Again- please, please, please- dont be afraid to accept something "tentatively" (do you think my use of this word is accidental? and here you are telling me that NGONGE's argument is not the last word. What do you think tentative means?) if you cannot argue against it. What you seem to be doing is not arguing for or against anything. You're just making preposterously vague statements that even you dont understand. Its the second time I am asking you if you can actually explain your words. But no, you cant, how can you explain something you dont understand? Aint gonna happen, Comrade. EDIT:- ThePoint, take off the dunce cap. Really, just for a breif minute. Take it off! P.S. That's my last say on this topic. Any further attempts to explain a crystal clear point will not bear any fruits. The true dunce is one who sees the real or imagined 'dunce caps' of others but fails to see his own. Retreat is defeat. See Ya!

Originally posted by Zero: ^^^ How many people have purchased the dunce cap from dollar stores and thrift outlets. ThePoint is donning one too. This is outrageous. If I am a jew, and a muslim tells me that my people will perish, I will start fuming, cussing, frothing, and I'll wreak verbal havoc on them. Afterall, from where I am sitting this is his/her (the muslim) opinion. So imagine if the muslim adds: not only will the jews perish (something I would find offensive and tasteless) but they will perish at the hands of muslims! At this point, my body temperature would go through the roof, and my face would exhibit all the colors of the rainbow, turning from red to blue to green. Naturally, this would be a manisfestation of the storm raging inside of me. But the muslim has more to tell me: not only will I perish and perish at his hands, on top of that, even nature itself will abet and aid the muslim in exterminating me(trees and rocks will divulge my hiding place). What Jew would not be offended by such an opinion. Still, this is our religion, I should be able to say it, and he should be able to say whatever he wants. Seriously, if you cant refute an argument, grant it a tentative acceptance. Dont make a fool out of yourself. Geez! Sir, just make your argument and refrain from the insults. By definition - Muslims and Christians believe that those of religions other than theirs will perish except those saved by God. Does that Jews fume/mad/froth etc? Does that make the average Chinese or Hindu fume/mad/froth etc? Hardly - they simply don't beleive in it. Are you offended when a Christian tells you that you are damned - I am not - I grant them the right to believe whatever they wish to believe. Most religions have an exclusivity/monopoly on the truth/future - that's part of it. Check: If a white guy tells you blacks, including you, are gonna perish - are you gonna fume/froth etc.? Most people wouldn't - they would simply dismiss it since they don't believe in it - and if you are going to fume/froth then there are serious emotional issues there. Additionally, don't presume unknowns for the hadeeth - Muslims will be among those killing them - but we don't know if they will be the only ones killing them. And as to nature that is also part of the prophecy. How is this prophecy different from the Armageddon of Chrisitians - in which everyone else is damned and perishes except them? Do you see non-Christians parading around being offended by that belief system - no - because religious belief is granted the leeway to advocate its view of the future. Your comments are not consistent. And your comparison of the hadeeth and the cartoons is similarly inconsistent and wrong.

That was an excellent article - and the author articulated the position so well, especailly the whole legal issue. Should be posted in other threads on this forum.

Originally posted by ibtisam: quote: So what is his is yours when kids come around but what's yours is yours! I love it! Someone will have(or has?) a whipped spouse no what is his, he has to share with his kids, not me while what is mine is always mine, unless i decide to share it with someone. whipped spouse you say not a bad idea i tell ya Xaasidsana - have u no obligation to share with the kids - or are you the pampered princess queen bee

Originally posted by ibtisam: What is the big deal? What is mine is always mine, what is yours is yours, what you choose to share with me from yours is up to you. if and when there are kids in the picture. Then what is yours becomes theirs and what is mine remains solely mine. why would you want to know every penny he has and his bank account, :confused: i personally think there is nothing better than your own money, then some farah commenting on how you spent his hard earn money :rolleyes: So what is his is yours when kids come around but what's yours is yours! I love it! Someone will have(or has?) a whipped spouse

Originally posted by Zero: Castro, you are still dancing to a dead tune. Take your dancing hat off and put down your cane, dude. Let me say it in a different way. The line between Freedom of Speech and Incitement of Hatred (either offense is sub-category of hate or hate is a sub-category of offense. Take your pick. I dont like playing with semantics) is vague or blurry. But do you know why? Freedom of speech is clear: say whatever you want, in whatever words you desire, and whenever you want. What creates the fog and mist in our view is the Hatred/Offense. It's because the hatred/offending (or becoming offended)/discriminating/enflaming that is RELATIVE. You'd probably aruge, how the hell can hatred be relative or blurry, its clear as daylight. Go back to the hadith NGONGE referred to and place yourself in the shoes of a jew. Very simple. We cant possibly expect to be afforded the right to say certain things about certain faiths and peoples, and then expect others not to be granted the same right. There can be no DOUBLE STANDARD in the freedom of expression. Can you live with not being able to practise your religon? If I could interject here: Zero, the hadeeth in question is not an apt example. The hadeeth in question talks of events that WILL happen as the Day of Judgement nears not what SHOULD happen - the latter which could be seen as offensive. Christians believe that as Judgement Day approaches many Jews will convert to Christianity and be saved but most will perish and go to hell. Is that hate speech? Hardly. The cartoons in question made the statement that the Prophet(PBUH) was terrorist bomber, misygonist and other things. That can be clearly seen as offensive as opposed to a scenario in the future in which Jews don't even believe in. Let's do a mind experiment: If I believe all Chinese people WILL perish and be killed before the Day of Judgement comes - is that offensive, no. If I believe all Chinese SHOULD perish and be killed before the Day of Judegment comes - that is offensive. And one hadeeth can hardly be the whole of the religion, no?

Originally posted by Say(y)id Qutb: quote: The desired outcome is to avoid having a dubious fatwa shoved down people's throats. That's the desired outcome. Anyhow, do what you like. This is a public forum. No problem much worse has been said! Dubious or not dubious no one is forcing anything down your throat! Anyhow, if you didn't like my "dubious fatwa", no one is preventing you from sharing with "us" a more "valuable and reliable" fatwa you got in your arsenal of wisdom on the matter raised! Do as it pleases you for as I really don't care! Are you saying that you drive your car uninsured - just wondering? From what I know - life insurance is strictly prohibited but other kinds of insurance are not. My 2 cents.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: While the media is highly influential in lands with freedom of the press, enforcing what they disseminate is beyond their influence. I didn't claim they enforce anything - they simply help to mould public opinion which in turn decides how/what to enforce. Second, to stay in business and keep audience since they're mostly revenue driven, the media can ill afford to grate public sensitivity sour points. For example, in the US (to the best of knowledge) there are no existing laws prohibiting the broadcasting of ghastly pictures: like dying americans soldiers. The american public would be extremely upset if they were forced to watch dying american teenagers on the telly, hence the media acquiescences its audience's expectations/wishes. Argueably the public has greater influence on what the media says than the other way around as you suggested. There is definitely a give and take between the public and the media - but the media definitely has the greater influence. The media is an organized and concentrated medium of influence while the public is disparate and dispersed. In the example you cited above - what happened as compromise was to show the bodies of the dead Americans in coffins as they landed at the air force base. From slavery, to civil rights, feminism, to gay rights etc. the press has been well ahead of public opinion and they were instrumental in shaping/moulding and changing that public opinion - which then got reflected in changing laws. Lastly, as every dictatorship of 20th century has shown, citizens don't readily buy everything their media tells them. The citizens of the Soviet Union knew their governments were lying to them even though the media was practically a mouthpiece of the government. Where does that leave your theory that the media considerably molds public's actions and demands? I would argue its the needs of the local time that drive publics actions and demands. Not what they've hear and see on the telly. Of course not but the western media is hardly the press of a dictatorship - thus the comparison does not apply. Generally, the western press is accurate and truthful - and thus people give them credence. But Christians didn't voluntarily surrender the right of respect and decent artistic representation of Jesus, it was taken away from them. They protested, although not as loudly as us muslims are doing now, when Jesus was mockingly depicted in various art pieces. It was taken away from them? Are they little children or functioning members of a democratic state? Anytime you don't fight for your just rights - you have, in effect, ceded them. Having said, what exactly is our outcry aimed at? Our outcry is aimed at showing our displeasure at the newspaper and more so at the Danish government which has not condemned/repudiated/disassociated itself from this cartoons. In fact, their PM hemmed and hawed at it and said press freedom. Through this action - it is an implicit support and agreement with the caricature. Concesoring and reprimanding the cartoons and their authors? On what grounds? They havne't broken ANY laws. None! The Danish government has NO legal right to stop the newspaper from printing the cartoons or punish them. We can't demand from the Danish government what they can't legally do and we can't simply say we don't like these pics because of their nature and seriously expect to see change. I thought I made this clear - there is no dispute that legally they haven't broken any rules. My issue is with reaction of the Danish government - that is independent of whether any laws had been broken. My demand from the Danish government is as above. And perhaps an examination of whether press freedom should include insulting/degrading and false characterizations of religion. We can only expect change - when we act to show our displeasure and ALSO to suggest remedies that would help to resolve the dispute. However, throwing up our hands in the air and saying they haven't broken any laws acheives nothing and worse, lets on the impression that you don't care about this matter - that it doesn't matter to you. That is when you have ceded the issue and your right to take offense at free speech. Since our explicit wish is to not see cartoons mocking our prophet (scw) blasted on front pages, we must look into changing the laws relating to freedom of speech as they are. That is our best option and guarantee against future cartoons of the same flavour. We must look into that - but you have also have act to show your real feelings - otherwise people will not take you seriously.

Originally posted by Kooleey: And I would never think of giving to a leader---it should be a reputable charity (which is owned by the governemnt and subject to regular checks of staff and services) which gives it directly to the people who need it the most---those people also undergo regular checks of expenses---so they don't waste it on drugs or useless crap. Oh Lord! Aid agencies/Charities! They have been operating in Somalia and Kenya for decades - and yet every few years they issue alerts about the mass starvation/famine of people. WHAT have they been doing with all that money??? As with most people, these guys are generally in it for themselves - they have no desire to make sure the relevant populations achieve self-sustaining livelihood - otherwise their livelihood would go up in smoke!

Originally posted by Kooleey: Bill Gates, the multi-million & billion sheiks, and the Google boys should be stripped of their money. Honestly if I controlled the world (one of my many fantasies) I would put a limit on the amount of money one can have! Why the heck would any one person need hundreds of millions or billions sitting in the bank, not needed or used, when people are starving all over the world? I never understood that. There should be a cap of ten million. Honestly. The rest should be taken and given to charity. I hope you are not advocating that whatever moneys collected should be handed over to African leaders - they will just turn around and promptly put it back in the bank accounts they were taken from in the first place! PS - 10 million is chump change - when you have individual houses, planes, yachts etc. costing 4 or 5 times that much - 10 million won't get you far. Heck, they award 10 million to those measly Joe Blow lottery winners - It ain't that much money!

Originally posted by Northerner: These kids are simply not interested in logic, if they are not listening to their parents why are they going to listen to YOU? There is alot of work in the community to keep kids off the streets and try and push them in the right directions. But badness is never too far in London's inner cities. The culture is now violence, music, drugs and alcohol. I think they should deport these folks to the hottest, most desolate and isolated spots in Somalia - you had your chance to be everything that you could be in terms of worldly matters - and you blew it. See Ya.

Originally posted by Zafir: On the contrary; In terms of looks its women that tend to age faster then their counterpart, and..Ummm..Oh yeah, above and beyond men are never too old for fun seeking women. LOL - but you never know these days - with plastic surgery and liposuction and tons of makeup - that attractive young looking woman over there in the distance may be well into menopause

Originally posted by underdog: How come the somali communities DON'T confront their own youth? Do they really believe the youth will 'grow past this phase'? If the friends, relatives, neigbours and community are afraid of (cowards) or unable to (incompetent) discipline their youth, why can't they admit failure and let the racist, brutal and merciless police do what they do best and scrape our problem off our streets? I don't know how much one can confront or discpline criminals and losers? And given the alleged crime involved the police will be merciless. You hear this sorta of crap all the time - I care less and less, quite frankly.

Originally posted by Johnny: freedom of speach is a MUST HAVE right in a civilised society rich in thoughts, ideas, views, traits and favors,where a diffrence in views, oponions and ideology may seem to be a constant problem, but natural for human societies. does that single Islam out and deprive it the right or is Islam demanding beeing exceptional? The above is a fine sentiment but you can't have it both ways - you must keep it consistent. You can't have exceptions for speech against blacks, Jews, the holocaust etc. Do you support removing those protections? Now, do you think that a civilized society with a civilized news media should caricature blacks by showing them to be gorrillas scavenging for dog food biscuits etc? Is that conducive to a harmonious and tolerant society? Does allowing that 'free speech' increase or decrease the tensions and ill will in a given society? Similar sorts of caricatures and 'free speech' stoked and fed the rise of Nazi Germany and the eventual result. I think wisdom and thinking of the consequences would lead one to accept that there must be some limits on free speech.