theweaselking: (Default)
[personal profile] theweaselking
"Pay your phone bill or we'll double it - pay THAT, or we'll break your legs"

German tourist repairs a Turkish airplane. In midair. With tape.

And, the new Iraqi Constitution:

Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.

Article (2):

1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

2nd -- This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices like (Christians, Yazidis, Sabaean Mandeans.)

...

Date: 2005-08-31 08:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] unnamed525.livejournal.com
And that's not self-contradictory how?

Re: ...

Date: 2005-08-31 08:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
What do you mean?

They say you're allowed to be of and practice any religion you want. The state, however, is Islamic, and the law that everyone must follow is Islamic.

There's nothing inherent to Islam about other religions. They don't even have the Christian law prohibiting non-Christianity, because Mohammed said, basically, that Moses was out of his gourd and God felt better now.

Re: ...

Date: 2005-08-31 08:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] laurewyrm.livejournal.com
I get it...you are allowed to be whatever religion you want, but women still need to cover themselves appropriately to Islamic Law, etc.

It is like a Catholic Nation saying you can practice any religion, as long as you don't eat meat on Fridays (I know there is more to it than that, but you get the idea).

Re: ...

Date: 2005-08-31 09:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] unnamed525.livejournal.com
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

I don't see how those two aren't inconsistent.

Re: ...

Date: 2005-08-31 09:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
How are those irreconcilable?

(Leave "undesirable" behind, for the moment)

Re: ...

Date: 2005-08-31 09:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] unnamed525.livejournal.com
How are the undisputed rules of islam democratically determined? Being determined by a small group of theologians isn't democratic.
If those aren't democratically determined, then it seems, to me, that the first is inconsistent with the second.

Re: ...

Date: 2005-08-31 09:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ceara.livejournal.com
It doesn't say (necessarily) that the "undisputed rules of Islam" are laws, just that laws can't contradict them.

Re: ...

Date: 2005-09-01 01:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rolodexpropaga.livejournal.com
If the rule of the majority is also the rule of Islam, then they aren't inconsistent. I favor neither for that reason.

Re: ...

Date: 2005-08-31 09:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
Something like that.

It notes that it does *not* enshrine Islamic principles in law, only prohibits laws that contradict Islam - so they can make a law required head coverings, and they can make no law about head coverings and leave it up to the individual, but they cannot make a law prohibiting head coverings.

If you make a case that your religion doesn't allow (or require) head coverings, then you've got a strong constitutional case - section 2-2 guarantees your right to your religion and section 2-1-C prohibits them from restricting the practice of your religion. Section 2-1-A only prohibits passign laws that contradict Islam, it does not protect enforcement of pro-Islam law.

Re: ...

Date: 2005-08-31 09:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] unnamed525.livejournal.com
Ah ... ok ... now I'm seeing the distinction.

Re: ...

Date: 2005-08-31 09:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] laurewyrm.livejournal.com
I didn't read it carefully enough...that is what comes of keeping my internet window small.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-31 09:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sivi-volk.livejournal.com
Article 17, Part 1 reads: "Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality." Article 36 says that freedoms of "expressing opinion by all means," "of press, publishing, media, and distribution," and "assembly and peaceful protest" are guaranteed "as long as it does not violate public order and morality."

This worries me just as much, if not more.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-31 09:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
I haven't even gotten that far. I got busy at work.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-31 10:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sivi-volk.livejournal.com
Don't feel bad, I pulled it off another site (though it provided reference links where I didn't)

(no subject)

Date: 2005-09-01 12:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] corruptedjasper.livejournal.com
German tourist repairs a Turkish airplane. In midair. With tape.

Anf of *course* that's Onur Air. Why they let those opportunistic moneygrubbing assholes back in our airspace after having successfully banned them, I don't know.

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Feb. 7th, 2026 09:27 am