back to article Saudi Arabia to flog man 1,000 times for insulting religion on Facebook

After Friday prayers at the Al-Jafali mosque in the Saudi Arabian city of Jeddah, Raif Badawi will receive the first 50 lashes of his 1,000 stroke sentence for the crime of publishing blasphemy against Islam on Facebook. In May, Badawi, a father of three, was sentenced to five years in prison, and will receive 1,000 lashes to …

Page:

  1. LaeMing

    To paraphrase the villan from Speed.

    Poor nations are barbaric, Saudi Arabia is eccentric.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: To paraphrase the villan from Speed.

      Also, they sometimes accidentally the whole skyscraper.

    2. WatAWorld

      Re: To paraphrase the villan from Speed.

      Protecting the Wahhabists and Salfists in Saudi Arabia is what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were/are all about.

      Our troops, our sons, fight and die to protect Saudi Arabia and its domestic and exported religious extremism.

      1. Seth Johnson

        Re: To paraphrase the villan from Speed.

        Nothing to do with oil and US hegemony then?

        Or (choke) because Saddam had WMDs?

        Really the American's are happy with a stable ruling body that they ultimately control that will maintain a regularly supply of oil. It's nothing to do with their 'brand' of Islam because a ruling elite wouldn't espouse something that challenged their stability. Islam specifies a 'Caliphate' from the people, never a 'Kingdom' which is why the Saudi's grip will fail eventually as soon as the west withdraws its support. IMHO.

      2. Jaybus

        Re: To paraphrase the villan from Speed.

        And here I thought that the wars were to protect Saudi Arabia and its oil.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "right to freedom of expression"

    As this right doesn't exist in Saudi Arabia, this sort of punishment isn't all that surprising. You either need to leave, keep quiet, or if you are exceptionally brave like I assume this guy was, you risk the punishment to spread your mind and hope it results in change.

    1. Brandon 2

      Re: "right to freedom of expression"

      I get your point, and agree with you. At the risk of being a pedant, a government cannot grant rights. They can only help protect them, or trample all over them, as is the case in Saudi Arabia. A right, granted by the government, can be taken away by the government, and it is thus, not a right, it is a privilege.

      1. WatAWorld

        A right is something that is inherently deserved.

        A privilege is something given that is not inherently deserved.

        Barbaric regimes deny rights and claim they are privileges.

        If shutting up to stay safe was the right thing to do the UK would still be in the dark ages like Saudi Arabia.

        1. Captain Hogwash

          Re: the UK would still be in the dark ages

          There's some evidence we are heading back there.

          I like your post. Upvoted.

        2. Jaybus

          Re: A right is something that is inherently deserved.

          Of course the difference of opinion is in which things are rights and which things are privileges. In Saudi Arabia rights are defined by religion. No doubt the religion calls for 1,000 lashes for his "crimes". By contrast, in Western nations we stick to the time honored principles of "might makes right" and "money is power".

        3. P. Lee

          Re: A right is something that is inherently deserved.

          I wonder what would happen if you stood up in an English secondary or tertiary educational institution and said you thought Jesus was the only way to eternal life and sodomy was wrong.

          Whether or not you think those statements are true, I think you'd quickly find find the limits of "freedom of speech" when departing from state-sponsored moral orthodoxy are not as far away as you might imagine. There can be no discussion of such matters, certainly not by staff and not by students either.

          We aren't into flogging, of course, that's barbaric. We don't do evil by getting our hands bloody, we do it by shuffling bits of paper - an academic suspension, a dossier slanted in a convenient direction, business deals which bring in millions of GBP of benefit to one group, at the expense, hardship or deaths of others.

      2. Dr. Mouse

        Re: "right to freedom of expression"

        A right, granted by the government, can be taken away by the government, and it is thus, not a right, it is a privilege.

        While I do agree very strongly with the "right" to free speech, and many others, they are very new concepts, and I would guess that the majority of the populations are not legally or physically entitled to them. To most of the world, these are privileges, ideals to wish for, or pipe-dreams, if they are thought of at all.

        We see them in "the West" as rights, but this is only because of the last few hundred years they have become enshrined as such. In fact, these are not rights. Go to a war torn country in Africa, or to China, or to North Korea and you will see this. Hell, we do not even truly have the right to free speech in the UK: Even without looking at the laws on terrorism and religious hatred, look at the laws on slander etc. (and many other areas) and you will see that the "right" is limited.

        Many of the "human rights" we hold so dear are privileges granted by our governments, society and moral code. I believe they should be universal rights, but they are not for all but the privileged few in "Western Democracies"(TM).

        1. Seth Johnson

          Re: "right to freedom of expression"

          Just a thought. There are still books, films and people that are banned from the UK.

          One famous case was an Irish comedian (writer?) who Margaret Thatcher didn't approve of and so was banned for coming into the country based on what they might say.

          Obviously I don't agree with the Saudi regime but it is more like a sliding scale and we're less censoring than they are rather than full on black vs white. Interested in people's responses on this and happy as always to be corrected (sorry I can't find details of the example mentioned).

      3. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: "right to freedom of expression"

        At the risk of being a pedant, a government cannot grant rights.

        Quite the opposite, ALL civil rights are granted by government.

        An interesting corollary of this fact is that only a government can take your rights away. The reason why this is interesting is that those same governments do like to make statements like "this act of terror is an attack on this or that right". Yet, it is entirely up to the government itself to either retain the right in question or curtail or revoke it altogether. No terrorist can technically do it.

        As the result, if a terrorist attack leads to a reduction in our rights - the culprit is the government, not the terrorist. People mostly do not realise or remember that, unfortunately...

        1. lorisarvendu

          Re: "right to freedom of expression"

          "Quite the opposite, ALL civil rights are granted by government."

          Correct. It galls me when heated discussions about the most "basic" rights (right to live, right to freedom ect) almost always end up with someone using the phrase "God-given". I always reply that since I (and many other people like me) don't believe in any kind of God, where does that leave us?

          The closest thing we have to "God-given" rights are those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...which only apply to you if your Government has agreed to abide by them.

          1. croc

            Re: "right to freedom of expression"

            ""Quite the opposite, ALL civil rights are granted by government."

            Correct. It galls me when heated discussions about the most "basic" rights (right to live, right to freedom ect) almost always end up with someone using the phrase "God-given""

            I'd make the point that 'rights' as such do not even exist until someone tries to limit them. Much like air, everybody used it but no one ever questioned it for many thousands of years. Therefore, it did not really exist, it was just there. So too with, say, 'Freedom of Speech'. Gog and Magog went around 'f this' and f that' and Gung (the tribal leader) finally had a gut's full and said 'Gog, Magog, I hereby forbid you to express the 'f' word. Thus began expression, by the limiting of it.

          2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: "right to freedom of expression"

            "The closest thing we have to "God-given" rights are those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...which only apply to you if your Government has agreed to abide by them."

            The UDHR applies to all people, whether or not their governments have signed it. It is the duty of the signatories to use whatever means possible to ensure all humans everywhere have these rights, regardless of what their governments happen to feel about the topic.

            That requires no god, nor any government. It is a universal ethical obligation. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance; those of us who are free may be called upon to lay down our lives to protect and/or ensure the freedom of others.

            Governments that recognize the UDHR and try to abide by it are merely protecting their own power. Without such commitment, they will be removed from power, eventually, and replaced with individuals more capable of supporting the universal rights of the people they serve.

            Governments serve. The people rule. No other configuration is to be tolerated.

        2. P. Lee

          Re: "right to freedom of expression"

          >Quite the opposite, ALL civil rights are granted by government.

          Perhaps in Europe. In the UK, everything which is not explicitly prohibited is allowed.

          That's why a "bill of rights" is to be rejected in principle. The state should not be granting rights, it should be circumscribing prohibited behaviours. If the state grants rights, they essentially own you.

          The past few British governments have tried to circumvent this by passing vague and onerous laws that make almost everyone a criminal. It's wrong, but don't let it drive further loss of privilege.

          1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

            Re: "right to freedom of expression"

            Perhaps in Europe. In the UK, everything which is not explicitly prohibited is allowed.

            No, it's not that. I mean that, as a matter of technical principle, all individual's rights exist by the grace of the government.

            In the absence of civil society (and therefore a government) your rights are determined by your physical and mental strength. You have absolute rights to grab and try to hold on to anything you like if you can defend it. But anyone with a bigger, err... right can grab that thing and take it away from you. That will be his right.

            In a civil society there is a government which is the strongest person of all and as such they have rights over everything and everyone. For practical considerations (to maintain social cohesion, to motivate workforce etc.) the government may grant individuals certain rights (thereby diminishing their own) or they may not.

            So, any rights an individual citizen has, have a priori been given to him by the government. Not by virtue of him being a human or because he was born with a beautiful eyes or through the charitable disposition of Gaia or anything...

      4. frobnicate

        Re: "right to freedom of expression"

        > At the risk of being a pedant, a government cannot grant rights.

        I find it hard to believe people still subscribe to this 18 century nonsense about "natural rights" (which was a politically charged agitation piece in the first place) ignoring all the overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary. Systems of rights and responsibilities are always created by authority, from the earliest theocratic villages in Mesopotamia to the European parliaments, created by the kings to curb nobles.

        1. Denarius
          Unhappy

          Re: "right to freedom of expression"

          @frobnicate

          More the other way round. Parliaments were used by nobles to limit the absolute monarch. Parliaments more often existed by custom or culture. Not that kings did not wind up using the parliaments to control nobles. Our current political problems in the West are that parliaments are now funded by oligarchies and fed mis-information by spooks

        2. Jaybus

          Re: "right to freedom of expression"

          To curb the nobles? Are you sure it wasn't to avoid the fate of King Louis XVI as the "infection" of democracy spread across Western Europe and North America?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

      And do you have the right of freedom of expression in the UK?

      While the sentences may not be so barbaric in the UK say the wrong thing and you will find yourself in court without the defense of freedom of expression.

      1. DavCrav

        Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

        "And do you have the right of freedom of expression in the UK?"

        Yes, we do. It is balanced against other rights, but it exists. It's called Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As I assume you are a trolling American, that's the same document where state-sanctioned murder is forbidden, and the US still executes minors, placing it on the following illustrious list of countries that have executed minors since 1990:

        US, China, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Congo, Sudan, Nigeria.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

          Article 10 is limited and does not give you the right to freedom of expression, it is primarily intended to protect freedom of the press and whistler blowers. Other than that it basically says you can say what you want if it is within the law, it will not protect you against, for example, hate speech.

          1. DavCrav

            Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

            "Article 10 is limited and does not give you the right to freedom of expression, it is primarily intended to protect freedom of the press and whistler blowers."

            Article 10:

            "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

            1. Richard Barnes

              Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

              The right to freedom of expression is not absolute.

              For example, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 part 3A says "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."

              There are also numerous other English laws that circumscribe completely free speech, most notably the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 4A which states:

              (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

              1. P. Lee

                Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

                > (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

                Well, that means Charlie Hebdo should being charged, under English law. Its reasonable to deduce that they insulted the prophet and caused distress. (distress = sorrow / pain and suffering affecting the mind.)

                And what baloney is the Racial and Religious Hatred Act language, relying on the motive for displaying threatening material? Either it is threatening and there is guilt, or it isn't threatening, and there is no guilt. Don't bring motives into it. "Intent" should only be applicable if there is a "intent" to commit a further crime. The inclusion of the qualifier looks like the reverse of what it should do. It should further limit the scope of the offence, but I suspect its used to widen the scope - "The defendant swore at the plaintiff because he is black and should therefore got to jail." Rubbish, either the swearing warrants jail, or it doesn't. Motive is irrelevant. If someone murders someone else because of their skin colour, they aren't "more guilty" than if they did it while trying to steal a handbag.

                Stupid and dangerous laws.

              2. Master Rod

                Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

                So if I call someone an asshole, I'm causing someone distress, and can be guilty of some infraction of the law? Was this snippet of law written by an asshole to protect assholes? In the US, the most mouthing out will get you is a pop in the mouth. Then again depending on what you say can get you shot....

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "right to freedom of expression" @DavCrav

              Why do you only quote half of it?

              2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

              In other words your freedom is not absolute. Try denying the holocaust then see how far your freedom of expression gets you.

              1. DavCrav

                Re: "right to freedom of expression" @DavCrav

                "Why do you only quote half of it?

                2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

                In other words your freedom is not absolute. Try denying the holocaust then see how far your freedom of expression gets you."

                I only quoted half of it to disprove your statement that Article 10 doesn't apply to ordinary people. It does. As for the second part modifying your right, 1) Holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK, and 2) there is nowhere in the world with an absolute right to say anything. The standard "fire" in a crowded theatre example will have you arrested in the US for public endangerment. So please shut up about the fact that because there are certain narrow exemptions for various safety, or things that are there to try to stop the rise of Nazism again (there is great debate as to whether Holocaust denial should actually be a crime, by the way), that we are as bad as Saudi Arabia. Try getting a clue.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: "right to freedom of expression" @DavCrav

                  >I only quoted half of it to disprove your statement

                  I think everybody knows when you only quote half of something it's because what you miss out proves you to be wrong and you hope nobody will notice.

                  >there is nowhere in the world with an absolute right to say anything

                  So we can take it that this includes the UK

                  >So please shut up about the fact that because there are certain narrow exemption

                  I see, can't prove your point logicall so you resort to bullying methods. Nevertheless, very ironic in a discussion about freedom of expression you ask someone to shut up then go on to admit there are limits. You either have freedom of expression or you don't any qualifications no matter how narrow you seem to think they are, even if it's only one, means you do not have such freedom.

                  >Try getting a clue

                  Ouch, that hurt. Oh, wait, no it didn't, I've been insulted by better.

                  I think the best thing you can do with your comment is delete it before anybody else sees how you can't form a coherent argument without contradicting yourself.

        2. Master Rod

          Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

          We don't cuddle criminals like you Brits do, We terminate their worthless life because they have done unspeakable horror, and are of no use to a civilized society. The problem here in Texas is that we don't use it enough. Our right to own and carry guns has resulted in less crime in the last few years. Break into a home, you get shot. Break into a vehicle, you get shot. Harass someone, you could get shot. So, let's mind our manners shall we....

          Master Rod

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

            >>"Break into a home, you get shot. Break into a vehicle, you get shot. Harass someone, you could get shot. So, let's mind our manners shall we...."

            This all seems to assume that the proportionate response for any of these things - such as not minding your manners, apparently - is to die.

        3. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: "right to freedom of expression" @Doug S

          "It's called Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights"

          The same human rights convention that your most prominent politicians are trying desperately to get the UK out of?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What do you expect

    What do you expect from a society that won't let women drive cars. They're still stuck on the Middle Ages, and insult all women, and everyone that thinks for themselves.

    1. web_bod
      Coat

      Re: What do you expect

      You can hardly blame their medieval behaviour - by their reckoning it's 1436

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What do you expect

      "What do you expect from a society that won't let women drive cars"

      Far fewer accidents. Much better parking. More confident driving leading to better traffic flow.

      1. h4rm0ny
        Paris Hilton

        Re: What do you expect

        >>"Far fewer accidents. Much better parking. More confident driving leading to better traffic flow."

        Riiiiggght. Because insurance companies give us lower prices out of the goodness of their hearts... ;)

        Paris because she's the only female icon vs. 7 males ones! Boo! Patriarchal El. Reg! ;)

        1. Wilseus

          Re: What do you expect

          Riiiiggght. Because insurance companies give us lower prices out of the goodness of their hearts... ;)

          Not anymore they don't, the EU banned that a couple of years back. Apparently it's sexist.

          1. phil dude
            Boffin

            Re: What do you expect

            As it should be. Insurance rates should be exactly the same as everyone else...based upon your driving history!!

            Hence, being 17 will carry a heavy premium penalty as you have provided no history. If you have a willing parent (!), you can drive on their policy. The understanding is that the parents are covering some of the liability.

            It should be obvious to the reader that in this case, basing premiums upon environment and history, is a fair and practical approach - hence, insurance companies MAKE MONEY. Actuarism (I think that's the word for the work of the Actuary) is a very mathematical field, because the numbers don't lie.

            Hence, it is sexist. It is actually just plain wrong. That is why I think that robot cars will change the world. If you grab the wheel it is one price, and if the car drives it is another price.

            Who among us not named Clarkson, will grab the wheel and pay the fine...?

            P.

    3. Peter Simpson 1
      Joke

      Re: What do you expect

      What do you expect from a society that won't let women drive cars.

      Ah...but it's for their own good. You know, to protect them.

  4. Ian Michael Gumby

    Let this be a lesson to all...

    ""It is horrifying to think that such a vicious and cruel punishment should be imposed on someone who is guilty of nothing more than daring to create a public forum for discussion and peacefully exercising the right to freedom of expression.""

    Really?

    Do you not think that other nations don't have the same laws protecting your freedom to express your opinion?

    This is really nothing new... There was this guy named Luther? Remember him?

    The really ironic thing is that if he were in Egypt, he would be free to make that statement.

    After what happened in France, Egyptian leader Sisi is critical of Muslims staying silent on the issue of the violence.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: Let this be a lesson to all...

      > Luther

      A radical. Basically the ISIS guy of back then. Unkorked the demons of religious war. Couple of centuries of pro-cleaning came in his wake. Now can be admired on pictures and as statues.

      Luther and even Calvin had no intention of fragmenting Christendom; on the contrary, each set out to reform a unified Christian Church. But the consequences of their revolution was to open Pandora's box. Whereas frictions and heresies had before been either stamped out or accommodated within the Church, now Christianity split apart in literally hundreds of different sects, some quite bizarre, each propounding different theologies, ethics, and prescriptions for social life. ... If reason cannot be used to frame an ethic, this means that Luther and Calvin had to, in essence, throw out natural law, and in doing so, they jettisoned the basic criteria developed over the centuries by which to criticize the despotic actions of the state. Indeed, Luther and Calvin, relying on isolated Biblical passages rather than on an integrated philosophic tradition, opined that the powers that be are ordained of God, and that therefore the king, no matter how tyrannical, is divinely appointed and must always be obeyed ... Thus, on a crucial question which had vexed scholastics for centuries: whether private property is natural or conventional, i.e. merely the product of positive law, Luther was characteristically anti-intellectual. He was not interested in such questions; therefore they were trivial: 'it is vain to mention these things; they cannot be acquired by thought, ...'. As Dr Gary North has commented, 'So much for 1500 years of debate'. All in all, Richard Tawney's assessment of Luther on these matters is perhaps not an overstatement: "Confronted with the complexities of foreign trade and financial organization, or with the subtleties of economic analysis, he [Luther] is like a savage introduced to a dynamo or a steam engine. He is too frightened and angry even to feel curiosity. Attempts to explain the mechanism merely enrage him; he can only repeat that there is a devil in it, and that good Christians will not meddle with the mystery of iniquity."

      In: Murray N. Rothbard in "Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol 1" 137ff.

      Such is lifethe human mind.

      After what happened in France, Egyptian leader Sisi is critical of Muslims staying silent on the issue of the violence.

      ...he is presumably VERY critical of Muslims NOT staying silent on the issue of GOVERNMENTAL violence.

      1. TheOtherHobbes

        Re: Let this be a lesson to all...

        >Unkorked the demons of religious war.

        Yeah - all those Crusades and heretic persecutions that happened in the centuries before him - totally Luther's fault.

        Incidentally, in future centuries your 'economist' heroes will have the same moral stature as all those religious nutters do today, as a prime source of Stories That Make People Do Stupid Shit.

      2. P. Lee

        Re: Let this be a lesson to all...

        >Unkorked the demons of religious war.

        Say what? Luther and who's army did what? Luther's 95 theses which he nailed to the cathedral door were a revolt against the theological and financial corruption of the existing church of his time. He still considered himself a member of the church. Of course he wasn't perfect, but suggesting that he was responsible for religious war is like saying the suffragettes caused the Gulf war because women failed to vote against Bush & Blair.

        Rothbard was a revisionist historian; 'nuff said.

        Now for a little analysis of the the behaviour of "the religious."

        Take a look at the life of the founder of Islam and see if there is a link to the behaviour of the House of Saud. Mohammed wrote the Koran all on his own. He then went on to become a military commander, running an insurgency. At Badr (AD624) he only had around 300 men, but by the time he attacked Mecca six years later he had around 10,000 in his army. How would you expect the followers of this particular religion to behave?

        There's a qualitative difference with Christianity, but there are some parallel lessons to be seen. Christ doesn't try to form an army, chastises his followers for attacking those coming to arrest him and fixes the wounds his followers inflict on his enemies. Christianity doesn't really become corrupted until Constantine makes it his state religion. Does Constantine hear the Gospel, repent of his sins and follow the teachings of Jesus? No, he has a dream that he will win a battle if he puts a cross on his flag. He carries on building temples to pagan gods. He gives the Bishop of Rome a palace and power and interestingly, "Christianity" acquires lots of the theology, titles and practises of the pagan world. Unlike in Islam, this is a corruption of Christianity, not the ethics of its founder.

        It turns out that people with power and money try very hard to keep them and increase them and they will try very hard to neutralise those who threaten their way of life. That's true of the House of Saud, the Bishop of Rome, the European rulers of the middle ages, the Russian plutocrats and the American captains of industry and politics.

        The question is, what is in a particular world-view that limits these vices? Look at the content of people's ethics system, what/who it is based on, and you can determine what their values are and if they are living up to their values or not.

      3. Lamont Cranston

        Re: Luther. Basically the ISIS guy of back then.

        Good thing Superman was always around to stop him, then.

    2. The Dude

      Re: Let this be a lesson to all...

      Right you are. In Canada, you might be jailed, deported, or just have your life and family and career and finances ruined, for much the same thing. Arguably, this is not as bad as a flogging, but certainly the jail term is a risk in Canada for "hate speech".... using whatever loose definition is in vogue this week.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let this be a lesson to all...

        Canada - a group of up to 13 apparently immature Dentistry students made some unsavory and plainly stupid comments on (guess where?) Facebook.

        To be crystal clear, I would never defend their idiotic postings, their very bad decision making (seriously? On Facebook?), or the attitudes represented in the postings by some members of the Facebook group.

        That said, there is a frightening lynch mob out to ruin the lives of these foolish Dentistry students. The prevailing attitude seems to be seeking life-changing punishment. ...for making stupid posts on Facebook, or perhaps even for simply being a member of that group on Facebook.

        If canes were at hand, the furious crowd would cane them.

        1. WatAWorld

          The dental student fiasco is an illustration of why the term "feminazi" strikes such a tender nerve

          Canada's dental student fiasco is an illustration of why the term "feminazi" strikes such a tender nerve among female extremists -- it is so darn accurate.

          As if female dental students don't gossip to one another about their dates and their dates sexual abilities -- male sexual performance is not an uncommon topic among anglophone female Canadians despite it being a betrayal of a confidence.

          The misandry of the Canadian legal system ought to be a major issue, but we pretend it doesn't exist.

          However misandry is not religious zealotry, its a form of sexism. We in Canada can say what we want about Christianity.

          Judeaism and Islam -- we're less free to talk, but still no 1000 lashes. You might loose your job, but there will be no days in jail either.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like