101. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204270 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 2:42 pm

I'd better not tell you what I do for a living then, eh? ;-)

Then again, I am charity lawyer, so my dorsal fin is fairly small.

EDIT: this was to Stryer.

102. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204264 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Why wouldn't Lord Phillips say this? Is it because Islamic Sharia Law is any less bigoted than the racism of the BNP? Or is it simply because once again religious values are accorded undue respect automatically?

The latter.

103. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204256 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Look at this in context. Of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of disputes with legal implications that almost certainly arise in the UK every year, the vast majority will be settled informally. Without even instructing lawyers or other mediation/arbitration specialists.

Of those that result in formal proceedings, only a tiny proportion will end up being decided by a court.

Within the framework of the law, people are entitled to use whatever methods of dispute resolution they like.

I don't like the idea of giving authority to thugs, or imams. I find Islam to be despicable, from what I know of it (I've read the Qur'an in translation and selected parts of the hadith.)

But here, the authority is being given by the parties to the dispute, not the State. What's the alternative? Do you really want a situation where people are only allowed to settle disputes by instructing qualified solicitors/going to court? Boon for the legal profession; bit of a bugger for everyone else.

Basically, I think it was politically dumb of Lord Phillips to say this, because he was not giving any quarter to Muslims that was not aready available to everyone. I can't help wondering why he said it.

104. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204230 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 12:55 pm

hungarianelephant and mrjonno are absolutely right: this is talking about mediation, which is itself subject to English law. People can choose whatever means of settling disputes they like. Jewish people often use a Jewish Beth Din to settle their disputes. This would be a Muslim equivalent.

And yes, if racist BNP types want to settle a dispute by asking the biggest thug among them to give his verdict, why not? The fact that Lord Phillips would never say this indicates how pointless and misguided his statement was, though.

If mediators/arbitrators impose a sanction that is contrary to English law (such as a beating), they'll be subject to being found out and prosecuted like any one else.

The only issue I have with the idea of Sharia-based dispute resolution is that it's impossible to believe that participation will always be entirely voluntary. Which is quite a big reservation.

105. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202858 by Rachel Holmes on July 2, 2008 at 4:20 am

Thanks for the extra info, Auraboy.

The fact that she was turned down by 25 salons before the one she sued makes the decision look like bullshit. Were the other 25 salons also discriminating in the same way?

Malicious intent doesn't necessarily invalidate a case. A claim can be both malicious and meritorious.

106. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202833 by Rachel Holmes on July 2, 2008 at 3:39 am

HunterZolomon,

I agree with the principle behind the law. Alas, I'm going to have to give a lawyers' answer to your specific question and say that without reading the judgment and knowing how fundamental head-baring was to the job, I don't know whether I agree with the decision or not. I find it hard to see how showing your head could be that fundamental though. It's a peripheral matter that could happily sit on your "desirable" list of employee characteristics, but "essential"?

I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on RamziD's scenario. Should the Muslim shop owner be allowed to refuse, on principle, to employ the non-veil wearing retail assistant? If not, what in your view distinguishes the two cases?

107. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202768 by Rachel Holmes on July 2, 2008 at 12:35 am

Tetsujin,

The point is that the Muslim haridresser won her case. The Tribunal found that she had unfairly been discriminated against. The same would apply to your hypothetical shop assistant.

The law allows employers to impose conditions on employment that may have the effect of making it hard for members of a minority group to get into that type of employment, but only where the condition is a "genuine occupaptional requirement".

As someone else said earlier, your willingness to bare your head makes no difference to your ability to cut hair. "Must show off coiffure" is not a genuine occupational requirement.

"Must have hands with which to operate scissors", on the other hand, is. Even though it discriminates against hand amputees.

108. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202745 by Rachel Holmes on July 1, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Henri,

Thanks for explaining what you mean by evolution here.

Been away sleeping, so catching up.

I'm talking about excellence (admittedly a vague term)

The definition of excellence would be an interesting subject to discuss. One that (a) it's probably safe to say you've given more thought to than I have, and (b) could probably do with its own thread.

Compared to a wolf, a chihuahua is pretty excellent in the "economy of space" department...

109. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202453 by Rachel Holmes on July 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Why not idealise hierarchy? Why not promote the evolution of man rather than the equality of man?

Why do you presume that idealising hierarchy is tantamount to promoting the evolution of man? Or that promoting equality (in the sense used in the Equality Bill) is contrary to the evolution of the species?

You're in no better position than anyone else to know what traits will be selected in the long-term.

110. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189679 by Rachel Holmes on June 7, 2008 at 1:05 am

the supposed absolute equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Would that be the same equality that you affirmed under 30 posts ago?

(Really must stop coming back here - it's like gawping at a train wreck.)

111. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189101 by Rachel Holmes on June 5, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Please re-read my post 1017, Appleby. Seriously, your brain must be Teflon-coated!

As I said before, you only get to play the "consent is irrelevant" card if you are trying to justify bestiality on the grounds that we do much worse things to animals without their consent.

However, this argument is based on the premise that sexual relationships between humans are fundamentally different from sexual relationships between humans and animals (since you are - correctly - adamant that consent is a necessary ingredient for ethical human sexual encounters).

Therefore, by using this argument, you are admitting that bestiality is not equivalent to homosexuality.

Therefore your equating homosexuality with bestiality remains what it aways was - wholly fallacious.

This, I'm afraid, is the logical conclusion that flows from trying to remove consent from the debate, so far as sex with animals is concerned.

Incidentally, the status quo has nothing to do with what is ethical - it just describes what is. So you can't justify treating people less favourably on the grounds the grounds that their behaviour is not part of that status quo (even though, as people have pointed out on several occasions, acceptance of homosexuals is now part of the status quo in many countries.)

By all means, continue to feel revolted at the idea of two men having sex. (Better still, just don't think about it.) But please, give up this bizarre thought experiment - you're never going to justify your contempt for homosexuality rationally. Ever. Seriously.

I'm out of here.

112. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188551 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 7:46 am

You really think that evidence will be forthcoming? Can't say I agree but we'll see, eh?

113. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188547 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 7:41 am

On what grounds do you think zoophilia should be permitted, Appleby?

Because it is ethically equivalent to relations between adults humans? Fine - but to prove that you will have to show that it ticks the same ethical boxes as adult human relationships, i.e. that it is consensual and non-harmful. Given that, with our current state of knowledge, it is reasonable to suppose that bestiality is non-consensual and harmful to animals, you can't do that. Ergo, unless contrary evidence turns up, they are not ethically equivalent.

Or perhaps you want to make the case that it should be permitted because it is no more unethical than other things the law allows humans to do to animals. Great - NOW you get to play your "consent is irrelevant" card, and you have a better (though not unanswerable) argument.

Nevertheless, by taking that tack, you are conceding that bestality is not ethically equivalent to adult human relationships, since you are effectively saying that human/animal relationships are so different that it is acceptable to do something to an animal that would be morally repugnant if done to a human being.

114. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188461 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:50 am

Thank you Colwyn!

Right, I'm off. I've got feck loads of work to do.

Happy bantering, all.

115. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188458 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:46 am

Taking another tack...

Given that we allow animals to be hunted and to be killed for food, surely it should not only be acceptable for us to inflict suffering on them by raping them but we should also be allowed to inflict any form of torture and cruelty on them.

Yes or no?

EDIT: Thanks for making that basic point, irate.

116. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188455 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:39 am

Colwyn,

I would give special pleading to a kitten that cute.

Appleby, are you as cute as that kitten?

117. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188452 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:38 am

The consent issue can only apply to humans? Why? You yourself have been making the hypothetical case for bestiality in part on the grounds that humans and other animals aren't so very different.

Why is consent material when it comes to sexual relations between humans (including humans who are incapable of granting consent) but not between humans and animals?

118. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188449 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:35 am

I did answer that point, Appleby: I said that it shows inconsistency in the way the law treats animals, but is irrelevant to the question of whether we should endorse sexual relations between animals and humans.

Yes, that would be one way of addressing the inconsistency. Another would be to ban hunting and the killing of animals for food. And another would be to allow humans to be hunted and killed for food.

119. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188444 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:31 am

You are the only one who thinks it is invalid, and the reason you gave for that stance is itself invalid. I wrote a post on this a page or so back. EDIT: Post 725

However, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that consent is irrelevant.

P1. A four-year-old child cannot consent to sex with an adult.
P2. Consent is irrelevant to the question of whether a sexual act is morally acceptable.
C: Therefore it is acceptable for an adult to have sex with a four-year-old child.

Replace the idea of sex with a child with references to sex with a animal and there we have your argument in favour of bestiality.

Do you agree with the above argument or not?

120. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188438 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:24 am

No. My point is this: both animals and young children are unable to give informed consent to sexual relations and it is reasonable for us, on the evidence we currently have, to suppose that such sexual activity is harmful to them.

Unless you dispute that, on what grounds would you allow bestiality but not paedophilia?

121. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188432 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:19 am

Rational distinctions between homosexuality and padeophilia have been presented to you on numerous occasions. Your inability to understand the harm and informed consent principles is a weakness on your part. You cannot claim the arguments haven't been put to you.

Perhaps you can tell me whether you think sex betwen adults and young children should be endorsed, given that you appear to think that consent and harm are irrelevant. If not, why not?

122. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188424 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 5:11 am

If research came forward to show that animals were able to give meaningful consent to sex with humans and that it was not harmful (in health/psychological terms), I would accept it.

On similar grounds, I'd accept sex between an adult and a four-year-old.

In other words, you can bring on the evidence, but I won't be holding my breath.

123. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188410 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 4:20 am

I'm now confused. Your premise throughout this thread has been that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality (unless everyone here has seriously misunderstood you). Yet you are now saying (whether in answer to the hetero-v-homo or hetero-v-bestiality question, I don't know) that you "didn't say it was better".

If you are answering the hetero-v-homo question, then unless "I didn't say it was better" is a politicianesque way of saying "I'm not going to answer that question", you are saying you think heterosexuality and homosexuality are equivalent.

If you are answering the hetero-v-bestiality question, then the same applies: with the same caveat, if you believe that heterosexuality and bestiality are equivalent, then given that you appear to think that homosexuality and bestiality are equivalent, you are - by implication - saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equivalent.

Can you clarify?

124. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188401 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 3:56 am

Well come on then, tell me why it is. Or, as I say, tell me why your heterosexual relationships are better than my homosexual relationship.

125. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188399 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 3:50 am

Did you actually read my post? I gave reasons, based on the harm principle, that differentiate homosexuaity from bestiality. I very much doubt that the issue of informed consent has ever been raised as an objection to homosexuality, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

I don't think my - or anyone's - sense of revulsion is sufficient by itself to justify discrimination against those who practise it. To be honest, I find the idea of a man and a woman getting it on to be pretty revolting. Can't say I waste too much time thinking about it.

But answer the question: how is your relationship with your girlfriend different from bestiality? Or why not cut straight to the chase: on what grounds do you think your heterosexuality (complete with your love of delowering virgins) is superior to the committed love between me and my fiancee?

126. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188331 by Rachel Holmes on June 4, 2008 at 12:02 am

I wonder, I really do, why you persist in equating homosexuality with zoophilia. Heterosexuality bears just as much similarity

Exactly, Cartomancer.

Come on Appleby - tell us why your relationship with your girlfriend is different to a 'bestial' (to use your word) entanglement, and there you'll have the answer to your question "in what way is homosexuality different from bestiality?"

Perhaps, given your comments, you don't think there is any difference.

For what it's worth, if a bloke could prove to me that his cat was happy being shafted by him, then I might accept it. It'd still turn my stomach and I do not see how a relationship between a human and an animal can reasonably be said to involve the same level of communication and informed consent as a relationship between two human adults. At its core, it's unequal and exploitative. Mitchell mentioned that the justifications for zoophilia resemble those used to justify paedophilia, and I think that's a good point.

127. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188219 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 11:34 am

You're very naughty, Philip. Have a cup of tea and calm yourself.

:-)

128. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188212 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 11:10 am

Appleby,

If you think you're not getting any real answers to your questions, does that mean you consider that my relationship with my fiancee really is no different to goat-fucking?

I really hope not, because that would point to some seriously fucked up thinking on your part.

129. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188130 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 8:50 am

Thank you Philip. She proposed to me on the edge of a cliff, so I felt it would be wise to say "yes".

EDIT: And thank you Steve!

130. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188109 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 8:30 am

hungarianelephant,

Oh please tell me I've not invented yet another term for an erection!

131. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188107 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 8:28 am

Of course you're coming across as homophobic. The assumption underlying your questions was homophobic. I agree that difficult questions can and should be asked, but frankly, I think it's safe to assume that someone who even feels it necessary to ask a question like, say, "are black people any more intelligent than baboons?" has racist views.

In any event, I hope my point about my relationship -v- bestiality has shown you how misbegotten your question was.

132. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188100 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 8:17 am

I am simply trying to establish whether or not homosexuals view themselves (and consequently their rights) as somehow different from those who practice bestiality. If so, I would like to know what criteria they use and if these criteria have any basis in science, for one thing.

Oh go on then, I'll take this. I realise that, as a gay woman, I don't suffer quite so much contempt from you as my male brethren. (Charitable of you, dear chap.)

Ok, well I'm engaged to my girlfriend and we plan to get CP'd in the next couple of years.

So...

What distinguishes my loving, monogamous, mutually supportive committed relationship with my partner from goat-fucking?

Gee, its a toughie.

Seriously Appleby, do you even realise (or care) how daft and offensive you are being?

133. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188086 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 7:59 am

Yes, it is questionable whether animals can give informed consent to sex with a human. However, that has no bearing on the validity of the consent issue as a characteristic that distinguishes homosexuality from bestiality. Severely mentally disabled people, young children and coma patients are unable to give informed consent to sex, but I hope we can agree that it would be wrong to jump them without consent.

As for us subjecting animals to worse treatment than non-consensual sex, well: first of all there's a debate to be had about whether killing for food (which exists throughout the animal kingdom and is related to survival) can really be put in the same category as bestiality. Still, pointing this out for the purposes of showing that the law govering human/animal relations are logically incoherent is valid. For what it's wrth, I agree that there's inconsistency.

It's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether homosexuality is distinguishable from bestiality, though.

134. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187985 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 5:34 am

I must confess that I have a special loathing for people like Appleby who are not only bigoted, but also dense, and yet think they are clever and enlightened. His failure to see the difference between homosexuality and bestiality - when he himself gave an example of how they are different - is particuarly obtuse. I do hope he keeps his word and stays away.

Incidentally, if he thinks that the inability of a potential fuckee to give informed consent somehow implies that it's ok to press ahead and give said fuckee a jolly good rogering, I can only hope to god that he doesn't work with mentally disabled people.

135. 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas

Comment #185885 by Rachel Holmes on May 29, 2008 at 12:30 am

Quine,

I thnk that's a great idea.

I'm not sure how much money the RDFRS has, but it might be worth pitching the idea to them.

136. In God's Name

Comment #183360 by Rachel Holmes on May 22, 2008 at 1:04 am

Why, funny you should ask, SOAS.

Carmel is an independent school, which means that it doesn't have to follow the national curriculum or have teachers who have been through approved teacher training. It does, however, have to meet the independent education standards, as set out in the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2003 (as amended). Ofsted will be checking for compliance with those standards when it inspects the school.

One of the standards is to do with the quality of education provided.

It apears that Ofsted inspected this school fairly recently (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/pdf/?inspectionNumber=296790&providerCategoryID=16384&fileName=\\school\\132\\s163_132774_20070213.pdf) where it didn't fare brilliantly but not badly either. I hope to goondess Ofsted didn't find evidence of creationism being taught and sweep it under the carpet.

In any event, it may be worth contacting Ofsted to tell them that ids are being taugt this dross as science. Their website is www.ofsted.gov.uk.

137. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169871 by Rachel Holmes on April 27, 2008 at 2:41 am

Whilst I think it's fair to ask schools to educate kids into not being crybabies, I kind of expect them to educate kids into not being insensitive, bigoted dickheads, as well. In my opinion, any teacher who refused to stop constant name-calling and teasing on the grounds that he didn't want to infringe on the kids' freedom of speech, or that those in minorities needed to learn some sangfroid, would be unworthy of his post.

Personally, I think all bullying should be stomped on. Yes, that leaves open the question of how you define "bullying", but at least it gets round the question of whether some types of bullying are less acceptable than others.

138. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169430 by Rachel Holmes on April 26, 2008 at 4:45 am

Be happy, not gay, eh?

Hmmm.

Can't I be both? That option doesn't seem to have crossed his mind [sic].

139. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #165862 by Rachel Holmes on April 22, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Hmm. The tab for the SciAm link on my Firefox toolbar reads "A Conversation with Expelled's Ass".

Coincidence? Proof of God?

You decide.

140. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161213 by Rachel Holmes on April 15, 2008 at 3:25 am

David,

Regarding the question of whether the scientists you know should be fired, I can only repeat what others have said: this would only be appropriate if their beliefs prevented them from doing their jobs properly. That doesn't seem to be the case, from what you have said.

You also mention that they have doubts about aspects of evolutionary theory, rather than rejecting it outright. Questioning aspects of a theory is one thing; rejecting it wholesale and promulgating an unsupported hypothesis in its place is another.

Also, as others have again pointed out (and they seem to have researched this more closely than I have), it appears that it is incorrect to say that the scientists mentioned in "Expelled" lost their jobs on account of their views on evolution. They lost their jobs for various reasons, or simply left them. If this is true, the discrimination claim is the lie at the heart of the film.

141. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161166 by Rachel Holmes on April 15, 2008 at 1:52 am

Firstly you actually miss the point of Expelled. Its major charge is that there are scientists in academia who are being 'expelled' or discriminated against because they dare to question some aspects of Darwinism (the hint is in the title of the film). If this accusation is false then that is the 'falsehood at the heart of expelled'. If the accusation is correct then it is profoundly disturbing.

142. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #155938 by Rachel Holmes on April 6, 2008 at 11:09 am

Glad to be of service, dear boy.

Don't tell a soul, but I'm working on something spectacular for Yellowstone...

143. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #155839 by Rachel Holmes on April 6, 2008 at 3:49 am

Cartomancer and Raiko,

Does it not bother you even slightly that Sally Kern is onto us? Does this point to infiltration within the Enclave?

As Head of Geological Gay Terrorism, I am worried. I shall await further instructions from our glorious (but satanic) Leaders.

In the meantime, don't anyone piss me off, or I'll sneeze in the direction of a faultline near you.

144. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151876 by Rachel Holmes on March 29, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Clearthinker,

The group is called "Humanist Community", not "Atheist Community."

As has been pointed out to you on numerous occassions, atheists are defined solely by their lack of belief in deities. Secular humanists are, if you like, a sub-set of atheists, who subscribe to certain positive (humanistic) ethics. I would put myself in their camp.

So you are wrong to say that this is an "atheist church". Moreover, there is quite a distinction between subscribing to a set of ethics and having religious or quasi-religious "faith". There is also a huge difference between encouraging people to think critically and hammering inviolable doctrine into their heads. Can you genuinely not see that?

145. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147398 by Rachel Holmes on March 20, 2008 at 9:30 am

The Daily Telegraph? That's advanced kama sutra-ing is that, Philip.

Don't underestimate Scrabble, though. I shall never forget the first time my girlfriend gave me a triple word score. Whew!

146. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147386 by Rachel Holmes on March 20, 2008 at 8:57 am

Honestly, esuther - I can't believe you'd blithely give out the lesbian daily routine like that.

However, if we're opening our secret box (so to speak)...

I would add that, in answer to all those (startlingly unimaginitive) people who wonder what lesbians do in bed, the answer is "Scrabble".

Or, if we want to go all night, The Times cryptic crossword.

147. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146954 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Mitchell - my apologies. I didn't mean to cause offence. Japanese animation is a whole unknown area to me!

funkybeatt, I think you'll find that a lot of us here, of all sexual orientations, found escaping from religion (or from a supposed "relationship with God", if that's how you prefer to think of your faith) to be liberating. I know I did.

148. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146919 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Hi Mitchell, that's why I didn't want us to move onto hentai! I find your avatar pleasant, which hentai isn't.

149. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146905 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Thank you mundusvultdecipi - that's exactly the sort of stuff I need.

150. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146889 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm

See Al, this just shows how manly you are.

My girlfriend would be even prouder of you. It's all I can do to stop her turning the living room into something Barbie would find tasteless.

Glad to see you're into pink as well, Mitchell. I'm still trying to take in the manga refs. Let's not go onto hentai, eh?