mantra wrote on Jun 30^th, 2009 at 11:09am:


All those things are still allowed and legal. The complexity of the issue is that there are so many cultural and personal standards. The legislation is there to draw a line in the sand for a minimum of behaviour for the ininvited, unfamiliar and unwanted.

Stalkers probably think they are showing the hieght of flattery as well, if only their victim would understand and appreciate them standing outside their bathroom window masterbating, all would be good. Yes that is an extreme. But the point is that what is acceptable for one is not for another.

Less extreme example, there is a party up the road that has been playing loud music till 5am and skateboarders and hoons tearing up the street till dawn. Personally I start having fantasies about garrotting them, my 14 year old niece thinks it's cool. Luckily she is not writting the legislation that protects hardworking families from having to put up with that crap.

Affectionate touching particularly is dangerous ground, and rightly so. I remember a joke many years ago that is enlightening....What is the definition of Rape?.......Assault with a friendly weapon. Surprising how many woman don't find that funny.

mantra wrote on Jun 30^th, 2009 at 11:09am:


It deserves a court case if it is persistant, if it oversteps a verbal or behavioural signal that it is unwanted, if it is intentionally demeaning or derogatory. Some of it can be stupid and some of it can be confusing. Many years ago I had an in class argument with a female lecturer in Philosophy about some of these boundries for sexual harrassment. She claimed that asking someone out, on a date, was sexual harrassment as it was uninvited and unwanted attention. While I agreed that it may in many circumstances be uninvited (as in unexpected) it could not be categorised as unwanted until after the fact. At that point the refusal should be respected. Any other sequence or pre-empted guilt was just stupidity.


mantra wrote on Jun 30^th, 2009 at 11:09am:


The actions of males in viking societies were taken for granted as well.  Also the Roman's took for granted that a man could kill his wife and family being his property. Peasants could not speak against their master nor a wife against her husband. Times change.

Not sure what validity being attractive adds to someone rights or their potential to be wronged. What about how smart they are? Maybe someone who is really dumb and would otherwise have no social interaction should feel grateful at being lampooned as opposed to being left in peace, or at least respected and treated kindly.

Personally I find the woman in this story very unattractive, but that does not diminish her rights.

As for men turning to each other, maybe the Greeks were onto to something there but they took it just a step or two too far for my liking.

locutius wrote on Jun 30^th, 2009 at 12:40pm:


Of course I'm not talking about brutality or rape or persistent sexual harrassment, but I was thinking of that recent incident where the NSW MP (forgotten his name) lost his job without trial for allegedly putting his hand on some woman's knee. He was vilified and humiliated and it turns out that the woman is currently on charges for assaulting her husband, lied about her qualifications and had lodged a similar previous complaint about an English lecturer, which almost destroyed his career.

This politician vehemently denies this occurred, but even if it had - does putting your hand on a woman's leg at some function constitute destroying a person's livelihood?

We are just too quick to jump to conclusions and always imagine the worst.

Quote:


Why is it so different?
Each want special consideration because they do not want to accept our social norms.

Muslim police are looking for a notorius male prostitute, last seen wearing a bright red suit, and heard saying, HO, HO, HO.

Here's another workers' right case for the comrades - a Muslim Butt insists on what's right.

Muslim NHS dentist 'tried to force patients to wear traditional Islamic dress'
A Muslim NHS dentist faces being struck off after a tribunal ruled he tried to force patients to wear traditional Islamic dress before treating them.

Published: 9:26AM BST 02 Jul 2009

Omer Butt kept a box full of hijabs at his practice so he could lend them to women before checking their teeth.
Omer Butt, 32, whose brother Hassan used to be spokesman for the banned radical Muslim group Al Muhajiroun, ordered female patients to wear headscarves and forced men to take off gold jewellery before allowing them into the dentists' chair.

He even kept a box full of hijabs at his practice so he could lend them to women before checking their teeth.






Primitives with degrees. Is it his fault? The womens' fault? Both. And especially Islam's fault. Primitivism masquarading as spirituality. A smacking disgrace. But let's pretend otherwise, comrades. i

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2009 at 10:34am:



I am sorry, I didn't realise this was about tribunals. I thought it was about a Muslim Butt who wouldn't look into a woman's mouth without her hair being covered. I don't need a tribunal to tell me that the man is an Arse, I mean, Butt.

That its the thin edge of the wedge, that these attacks on our civilisation and freedom of our civilisation are happening all over, with Islam never taking a backward step.

The Leftist Apologists are Enablers permitting the destruction of our society, one chop at a time.

Quote:


Every single stroke must be strongly opposed, or the oak will fall over. It is already showing signs of being diseased.

locutius wrote on Jul 6^th, 2009 at 1:58pm:


You don't even know what you're opposing yet. That's the first step.

Impartiality? Justice? Fairness? When the immutable truth about Islam = Peace cannot be questioned or even discussed? How's that 'justice' and 'truth'?

The truth about Islam is far too unpalatable for anyone to know, so it will continue to be covered up with Orwellian language at every turn. But what happens when you keep asking a tree to bend in the wind? Eventually it snaps with an awful crack. That is what is going to happen with the population of Australia. If you dont want moderate changes, you are going to have extreme ones.