marahfreedom

Posts Tagged ‘Law’

3 Articles : Considerations on ‘Underage’ Marriage and Ambiguous Actions considered Criminal (with response on Definition of Underage), Neutrality in the Controversial : Discussions on Paedophelia – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 15th Februaery 2012

In Abuse of Power, critical discourse, criticism, flawed judgments, freedom of choice, Freedom of Expression, if not contrived, individualism, Informed Consent, intent, Invasive Laws, Justice, Media Neutrality, mothers, political correctness, Prostitution, psychiatry, self policing, Sexuality, social freedoms, spirit of the law, spirit of the word, subculture persecution, word of the law on February 15, 2012 at 3:31 pm

ARTICLE 1

Getting married at 14 – 9 December 2010 | Save The Children | Posted by Noreen Ariff (exchange/discussion on early marriage)

News that a 22 year old school teacher had got married to a 14 year old girl has caused shockwaves in Malaysia, reverberating around the world. Recall what it was like to be 14 again, and consider if such marriages really can hold water under the law.

I still remember the 14th year of my life vividly. Every day I would wake up early in the morning to catch the morning bus to go to religious school. It lasted for 3 hours every day where afterwards I would go home and get ready to go to normal school ( this of course doesn’t mean that religious school is abnormal, I can’t think of a better description of a day school). Once in school, my friends and I would chat and chat about homework, gossiped about girls that we didn’t like and the latest boy bands that had got our fancy.

This routine continued every day for 5 days a week. Saturdays were for girl-guides and other clubs and as soon as my activities finished, I would catch a bus straight home to watch cartoons and old Malay movies on the then Singaporean Channel 5. Sundays were cartoons, 90210 and homework, lots and lots of homework. In between I would call my best friend, and we would chat and chat to our hearts content. Of course I had to help out with the household chores but let’s leave that out. In short, life was bliss. It had only one purpose: to be a kid.

My body was also changing. I had stopped wearing training bras and began using the real ones. I had gotten my period which was a bit of bother. At 14, I had only the slightest idea about sex. Sex out of wedlock is a no-no in Islam and from the medical books I read, the idea of sex actually grossed me out. I only properly learnt about the human reproduction system at 15, in science class. So at 14, I would say that I was still very awkward and blur. Did I feel and did my mum think that I was an adult just because I had breasts and was menstruating once a month? I don’t think so.

Yes, I wanted to have a boyfriend then, but at 14 marriage was the last thing on my mind. The main focus in life was to do well in school and get into a reputable university so that I can get a high-paying job, buy everything that I ever wanted, travel the world and change it. If my mum wanted to marry me off then, I would have rebelled and ran away from home because in my mind child marriages only exist in third-world countries where women were not educated, where her family had no means to support her and she had to depend on men.

I must have forgotten that Malaysia is a third-world country with third-world mentalities dominating our minds as if we had no other choice. I must have forgotten that not all parents are the same. Not all parents think that 14 year olds are kids, nor understand that having breasts and menstruation do not make these kids adults. Not all parents are patient enough to go through tough teenage years with their kids and encourage them to forget about the opposite sex for a while and stay focused on themselves and their studies.

I must have also forgotten that not all teachers are educators. I must have forgotten that once upon a time our Prophet Muhammad PBUH married Aishah, who was still a child and that is why some Muslims think it’s okay for a kid to get married. I must have forgotten that once a upon a time, Mansor Adabi a teacher of 22 years of age married Natrah, who was then 13 and our grandparents thought nothing of it.

I have forgotten that times may have changed but some minds are still trapped in the Stone Age.

I doubt Prophet Muhammed PBUH would have married Aishah if he was a prophet now and yes, I doubt Mansor Adabi and Natrah would have gotten married. The circumstances would have been different. Primary and secondary education in Malaysia now is free and available to all. Malaysian women have made it to the top echelons of organisations. I am sure these women would not be where they are right now if they had gotten married at 14. (Blesphemy! Lol, jk, but it’s a good thing Noreen is not in the worst of the Muslim world. Noreen’d be strung up and quartered, keel hauled, FGMed or whatever.)

I am appalled that after all these years there are still parents who allow their underage kids to get married and even more when their insanity is entertained by the Syariah Court who consented to these marriages. The country was just shocked by the news of the 11 year old who got married to an old man, we are now faced with news of a celebration of a 14 year old kid who got married to a 23 year old primary school teacher. The kid was quoted as saying “it’s going to be hard to juggle two roles – a student and a wife- but I’m taking it in my stride”.

I am wondering whether she fully understands what she has gotten herself into. Marriage is not about copulating and procreating alone. Everything might be rosy right now but how would she feel in a couple of years, if not months? While her friends woke up to go to school, studying or eyeing on the most good looking guy in school, she has to wake up, get the breakfast ready for her husband and after school, while others went straight to bury themselves in homework and tuition, she has to cook, wash, clean the house before night time where she has to do her wifely duties. How would she cope with pregnancy and morning sickness? She would have to miss school and probably even more after she gave birth. When her friends are burning the midnight oil for PMR and SPM, she is awake at night tending to her babies. What would she decide, if let’s say she got a place at a university that is far away from the place her husband is working. What we she do when she met a lot more men when she grew up? Would she still love her husband or resent him?

Did the Syariah Court, her parents and hubby think of all these? What are the criteria before such a marriage is allowed? Section 8 of the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984 merely states:

No marriage may be solemnized under this Act where either the man is under the age of eighteen or the woman is under the age of sixteen except where the Syariah Judge has granted his permission in writing in certain circumstances.

By this section alone, there are no guidelines or fixed criteria on what constitutes “certain circumstances”. If there were guidelines, I just hope they are not parents’ consent, ability of the future husband to support and the girl has reached puberty!

Getting married just to stop the couple from any immoral behaviour is the smallest aspect of things; parents should look into the bigger spectrum of life. Perhaps they should start by watching the movie Juno or An Education (haha)! Your 14 year old kid may be getting her periods, with breasts, stopped playing with Barbie dolls and all – but they are still kids. Parents should know that teenage girls are also easily attracted to older men who seem to know the world. If only the girls waited a little longer, they would know that they too can have the world, on their own.

If the parents can’t see the big picture, the husband, who is a 23 year old teacher, should be able to. He after all is supposed to be educated and more level-minded. Having people like him as teachers makes me wonder about the quality of people allowed to be teachers of our future generation?

Teachers are not here just to teach but they are supposed to inspire our kids to reach their fullest potential. Here we have a teacher who got involved with an underage girl and in marrying her, he had coincidentally robbed her of her childhood. Something that he probably had, how would he feel if he got married at 14? Somehow he has no qualms from robbing his wife from hers. How is this teacher going to be a role model to his students in school? What is he going to say to his students, study and get married or enjoy your school life, get a job, be the best in what you do and then settle down? If he truly loved this girl, he would wait.

If the parents were responsible parents, they would have lodged a complaint against this teacher and get him transferred and as far away as possible from their daughter. Their daughter has a right to have her childhood and if Article 5 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia means more than the right to live and includes the quality of life, then the parents, husband and the Sharia Court have clearly violated one of the most fundamental liberties of the Constitution.

It is a travesty when on the one hand rape with minors is considered statutory rape because they are under the age of consent and on the other marriages with minors are allowed. I am not saying the teacher is a paedophile but if he was, paedophiles should not be punished by allowing them to get married. Section 8 of the Islamic Family Law and any law of its kind should be repealed.

The 14 year old kid should stay a kid, no matter how much she wanted to get married; she is still a kid. There is a saying that childhood is the most beautiful of life’s seasons so do not lose it by rushing to grow up. If the parents and the guy truly loved her, they should encourage her to choose school, study, friends, gossiping with other girls about the best looking guy in their class, choose love and lost and love again, choose university, choose a career, choose independence. Do not choose marriage at the age of 14, do not make that mistake.

Choose life. Marriage at 14 is not a life.

Noreen Ariff loves being single but yes, she would like to get married…someday. She believes that people should only get married when they are mentally, emotionally and financially ready. Her LoyarBurokking here is on her own time, and her own views. They bear no reflection on the organisation she works for.

44 Responses to Getting married at 14

AgreeToDisagree
21 December 2010 – 9:16 am

hi @pointofview

Thanks for the kind word. I don’t like leaving room for misunderstanding by keeping elegantly silent or keeping people misinformed to empower myself, or to cause others to err then blame them, or give others reason to ostracise or abuse them after intentionally causing them to trip up (first hand to the N-th here), and this is the only principled way to communicate.

By being on an even playing field, though ‘stupidos’ could also be propagandists and advocates of authoritarianism via neurolinguistic programming half the time seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of the people.

These mental goons probably seek to propagate acceptance of 3rd world paradigms of tasering, abusive attitudes by counter staff, abuse of citizens by enforcement, shoot-first policy, entrapment, electronic harrassment, alongside other miserable and inhuman methods to enslave and contaminate democratic principles with grey area abuses while their family Oligarchs reserve MP seats and hand down the same MP seats between their children and grandchildren or sometimes partly hidden through cosanguinity (imagine Khairy marrying Nurul or something along those lines or every former PM’s child being a Minister or PM) . . . you get the picture (thats also how UMNO imploded with Pak-Lah-KJ vs. dr.Evil-Mukhriz creating so much resentment that so many disappointed voters ran for Pakatan and the same in Pakatan now causing voters to run for MCLM and KITA or becoming independents).

It is sheer inadequacy that makes these insane people go around spreading rumours or harming others. It is worse when those listening and believing the rumours are induced to act. What kind of justice or reparation can be sought? Those who broke the law should be punished accordingly or at the very least in kind. We have to keep aware and alert the public to such behaviour and seek to prevent continuation of such behaviour via educating the voters on such issues and building awareness for everyone to be wary of the modus operandi of such abusers.

And as we know a large portion of crimes are done by people who know the victim, so don’t be too excited or flattered or frightened by sudden boons or banes in the form of people or gift horses, they are easily inventions of the sick society we live in, right all the way up to the political parties in power.

pointofview
20 December 2010 – 10:32 pm

@ Agreetodisagree

I salute you for the facts that you have mentioned in your earlier comments to date. It is pointless to go into an argument or battle with some stupidos who can’t think out of the box. Anyway, bravo for justifying your points.

@ SiewEng

Yes, she made the right choice for her. A man and a woman or should I say a boy and a girl can meet in any circumstances, there shouldn’t be so much emphasize on the teacher student relationship. How if the cupid’s arrow striked between a doctor (a man) and a patient (a young girl 14 maybe)? Love is blind darling. It’s good if it ends up with marriage rather than other social ill issues. Right?

And as for others who have commented here…. start thinking out of the box. It looks like you guys are the ones living in the primitive world… go figure…

siewchinteo
20 December 2010 – 6:24 pm

at times it is difficult to reconcile how a person who “thinks out of the box” can actually accept hudud law…..or any restrictive law for that matter.

but what do i know – i am 3rd world and supports chopping off the head of anyone who harms a child.

AgreeToDisagree
20 December 2010 – 2:38 pm

No wonder the quality of our legal system is dropping. We have someone ready to deny facts than face them.

1) I understand every word that you have used in your reply . . .

But you lack the EQ or are afraid to absorb it.

2) But I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say, they seem to mean nothing when read as a sentence. Lol.

I don’t think so. If you read without thinking or trying to understand what is written that usually ends up bring the case.

3) No such thing as constitutional amendment when the basic structure of the constitution does not envisage the hudud law……ever!

Hudud does not need to exist upon Constitution. It exists in the hearts of the faithful in Islam, and those willing to be punished under it’s auspices. If you are a disciplined Muslim or a non-Muslim, no need to fear Hudud.

4) Once again, to keep things simple, go read your federal constitution you fucking nimrod!

Twist around trying to evade the facts, but facts remain facts. The federal constitution is not only to be read, but amended you fucking dimknob.

5) I also must add, you are one fucking dumbshit.

Speak for yourself. Still no case, now compounded by trying to evade facts with ‘value deducted’ sentence structures.

Let the readers judge the points (or in your case non-points) in this exchange for themselves.

Ali Davidson
20 December 2010 – 7:56 am

AgreetoDisagree,

I understand every word that you have used in your reply but I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say, they seem to mean nothing when read as a sentence. Lol.

It is just pure baloney.

No such thing as constitutional amendment when the basic structure of the constitution does not envisage the hudud law……ever!

Once again, to keep things simple, go read your federal constitution you fucking nimrod!

I also must add, you are one fucking dumbshit.

AgreeToDisagree
18 December 2010 – 3:35 pm

@Ali Davidson,

I keep walking into rooms full of establishment minded people who are unable to employ either critical or lateral thought. Or who wish to keep their fellow citizens in an easy manipulated state? I will presume you belong to the former category and so the responsibility falls upon to debunk yet again.

“You can’t apply Hudud la you dumbshit.” Is that so? Oh yes you certainly can apply Hudud.

Hudud Whipping? A Hudud signatory could call it a BDSM club with no physical contact to remain legal in Islam.

Hudud limb removal as pubnishment? A Hudud signatory could claim it was an association for treatment of body integrity identity disorder (BIID).

If Hudud is applied anywhere consensually under the above, the Federal Parliament have no say. And though it VAINLY claims to have the right to, the claim is absolutely inapplicable and should not even be brazenly misrepresented as being applicable. Dishonesty is a terrible sickness of so-called ‘Democratic Governments’.

QUOTE Journal of Applied Philosophy – “amputations should be morally permissible” on the grounds that people with BIID are not “globally irrational”. UNQUOTE

On this technicality and by the methods above, Hudud could be applied.

IT IS THEIR BODY, SO THEIR RIGHT ANYWAY, not for anyone to deny or legislate. More authoritarianism on your part? The constitution is a guideline that can change with time thats why there are CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. Given the sorry state of Malysia’s judiciary and political paradigms though these CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS have not been applied.

The right to Hudud punishments is a negative freedom but still a freedom nonetheless. No group of citizens via rule of mob or supposed right of larger numbers, might in numbers has any right to enforce ANYTHING on anyone. That is application of ETHICAL principles to a very difficult issue.

The as you call it, ‘fucking’ constitution. doesn’t work and should be amended but isn’t amended because we have lgislators busy trying to steal taxpayer monies who do not understand that Constitution is a living breathing document that needs to have changes to accomodate the PEOPLE, *NOT* the PEOPLE change to suit it because numerically they are out numbered, by force of arms even!

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. In the context of consensual Hudud vs. an inapplicable Constitution, guess where the Spirit of the Law lies? And that my ethically unaware or lazy minded friend, is the essence of Civilisation as opposed to the attitude of Malicious Compliance or brute force and punishment based on inapplicable words on a piece of paper. Teach a child to think by giving freedom, not hit a child into not thinking or imprison. Of course sheep are easier to herd, so it is easy to see who intends his charges well and who inevitably ends up abusing them.

The principle is the issue of victimlessness of an action and the right to self determinism. If there are spaces that can be made for whatever they wish experience, just you remember that the world and lands on the world belong to EVERYONE not those most numerous, with the most powerful weapons or the loudest voices or the ability to impose fines and jail terms by force of arms. The ethics of civilisation, be aware and apply!

This civilisation, the display of the tolerance of man, for the relatively minor weirdness that constitutes a mere fraction of the LIMITLESS POSSIBILITIES of what we perceive as reality.

Remember Stephen Hawking’s comments on Cthulu? Start thinking out of that box and stop putting people into it because you are too weak minded or LAZY minded. So many narrow minded and authoritarian people around? Making excuses for weak mindedness. Stop being lazy and TEACH responsibility not introduce/impose the Crutches of Authoritarianism on your fellow sentients. In a short while we could very well be having bio-engineered lifeforms ‘Spore’ style and brain transplants to boot alongside all manner of cybernetics. Does this mean a group who can’t wrap their head around these concepts has a right to demand others not be allowed to partake (after extensive ETHICAL testing to ensure no unwanted fallout occurs by any chance of course)?

“The tyranny of the many would be when one body takes over the rights of others, and then exercises its power to change the laws in its favor.” – Voltaire

So don’t tell me Hudud is so shocking. Its really very dull and not something I would chose, *BUT* the principal of the matter is that it’s that person’s choice and to respect God given free will and self determinism, we must at least make space for them to choose their own path. The world belongs to EVERYONE not the ‘majority’ alone. Spirit of Law. No more of this crudity, even against crudity.

For example, look at Section 377B, doesn’t exist in India or England. So why is it maintained here? To be used as a weapon. Every Malaysian who has had oral sex is guilty 377B and should be imprisoned 20 years and whipped. Were government to apply such laws instead of amending them, then we’d all be in prison.

So do you think the Constitution can be applied to Hudud even?

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for

people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

– Noam Chomsky

As Anwar was a victim of entrapment, so this trial doesn’t count. When a kangaroo court is in session, another political enemy is made to bite the dust. Again spirit of the law trampled by the judiciary’s negligence to amend, by unconstitutional powers to appoint judges, by abusing where people find most pleasure or necessity (like extreme taxes on vehicles) or inflicting Concessionaire Highways and Vehicular-APs on citizens.

Also, understand what ‘cultural relativism’ and ‘free will’ mean you dimknob! So who’s the dumbshit now? Let the readers decide! Pathos without Logos! And don’t mention the Fed or the Constitution, that would be Ethos without Logos! No logic, means no case.

Ali Davidson
18 December 2010 – 9:41 am

AgreetoDisagree,

You can’t apply Hudud la you dumbshit. It is the Federal Parliament that sanctions the level of punishments for the Syariah courts.

Read your fucking constitution you nimrod!

AgreeToDisagree
18 December 2010 – 2:44 am

@Ali Davidson

“Syariah law in Malaysia is archaic and primitive.”

True. But people who WANT HUDUD even, have a right to live by Hudud. Though imposing any law without consent is also wrong. Hudud is livable if you are very disciplined, but most Muslims can’t really do it. That is PAS’s weak point. If PAS makes Hudud applicable on a signatory basis, with all Muslims still under Syariah Law as well, PAS would be quite strong. You could even say that any PAS Malay is an honest and non-corrupt Malay who is a proper follower of Islam. They need to be apply Hudud in this manner or they will chase Malay voters away.

With Tok Guru’s condemnation of Bumiputraism as APARTHEID and ex-Perlis Mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainal stating Bumiputra is akin to Zionism amonst others, PAS is quite popular in contemporary Malaysia among the minorities.

On the ethical scorecard, PMBK CEO Datuk Abdul Ariffahmi Abdul Rahman being asked to quit by Tok Guru to prevent conflict of interest sets a precedent probably in the whole of ASEAN, though here and there instances of extreme wealth have surfaced, though not as shocking as in BN.

Casual Analysis of Malaysian parties (International links wise) :

1) PAS is the safest where national security is concerned, other than ties with a mostly neutral German delegation, they look absolutely dedicated to Malaysian sovereignty.

2) DAP, as oligarchic and nepotistic as PAP is colluding with PAP on illegal technological fronts at USA’s behest, USA itself is beholden to the Zionist lobby.

3) PKR has Wolfowitz and others linked to Zionism as well though recent distancing of US from PKR’s ANwar make PKR slightly better for nationl sovereignty though NEPOTISM and OLIGARCHY in PKR however are so serious that MCLM and KITA have been set up to counter that in PKR.

4) The double faced Zionist-APCO link, damns Barisan no end.

Don’t laugh at Syariah or even Hudud Ali Davidson, it’s their choice if they really want it and have not been coerced. Self Determinism also applies in liefstyles like Hudud or those luddite minded Amish Mennonite communities in the USA. It’s a free world, don’t disparage that and even help others fight for their right to SELF DETERMINISM.

Ali Davidson
17 December 2010 – 10:44 pm

Just do away with Syariah law in Malaysia and you’ll have peace and harmony!

Syariah law in Malaysia is archaic and primitive.

I laugh each time I hear about Syariah law in Malaysia.

AgreeToDisagree
16 December 2010 – 3:15 am

That line is abit over the top and loses by itself, but you get the picture lol. But the arguement is won elsewhere in the repartee am very sure.

Awang Berbahaya
16 December 2010 – 1:44 am

You guys are a bunch of loonies.

REPENT from doing SATAN’s work? ROTFL

Saya tiba2 terbayang adegan seorang penceramah ajaran sesat dalam filem yang kononnya ada kuasa ajaib untuk memulihkan penyakit hanya dengan memegang dada pesakit.

@Agreetodisagree- I think you have lost your argument.

AgreeToDisagree
16 December 2010 – 12:12 am

England is the flunky for going on a 10th Crusade against Saddam for double standards on 2nd Amendment Rights and causing near 500,000 deaths. A holocaust only upped by the Ameri-Indian Natives in USA and Canada and South Americas.

I will indulge your skewed perception on free will and your attempts to turn the public against people trying to ensure open opinion and free mindedness.

What do you mean so by default what you say is not relevant and holds not water? Flunked Logic 101?

Because we advocate self determinism, and children who are psychologically mature or who will come to less harm being married than being jailbait, does not mean we are paedophiles. I personally am more inclined to Borticelli than Loli phenotype though if @pointof view is into the latter, and everyone is consensual to marriage including parents, why should there be an issue?

Marriage and childbirth dignifies the tween or teen (especially if biologocally capable) and transitions her into a woman and MOTHER, not some mentally immatured ingenue long past her biological fertility, that that too is a choice that must remain open to the fairer sex.

Did you think the stork dropped off babies at the orphanage and that only aging women are entitled to adopt and raise children, who are sometimes forcibly placed there via child alienation?

Even male-male homosexual couples are permitted to adopt and raise children, (by the initiative of a certain alter ego I would hope?) why do you seek to forbid young couples in love who chose to become life partners?

During tribal times where all was untamed wilderness, when 2 people matured, they would probably leave the tribe to set up their own family and start ‘experimenting’ much earlier as well. Was there a law then? Then the male would take out his bow and arrow and . . . HUNT animals (OMG someone call PETA! Duh.). (No I wasn’t going to get explicit.)

Then there is the ageism issue, is difference in age any indicator of maturity or a reason to place a barrier to consensual marriage?

NEUTRAL SPACES for thought and living! Autonomy!

Go hurl your stones somewhere else and put those pitchforks and torches to better use, like against an abusive government which far too many have vested interest (perhaps you are one who profits from the proliferation of ‘charities’, orphanages, child services, or child alienation lawsuits? REPENT from doing Satan’s work by speaking for his Satanic social engineering structures and leave us independent citizens alone.)

All religious institutions running as businesses as well had better empty those coffers full of sequesterd funds that never benefit society, PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING, EVEN DYING OUT THERE.

It is YOU who is advised to seek medical help for your lack of logic and attempt at tarring anyone by calling them paedophiles. God knows they’ve made a sacred taboo of freedom to marry alongside religion without more people egging the ‘self serving charitable’ on.

Oneofthesedays
15 December 2010 – 10:28 pm

@pointofview @AgreeToDisagree

Looks like you flunked England too….

You are a couple of pedophile supporters so by default what you say is not relevant and holds no water.

My advice to you is to seek medical help for your sickness.

siew eng
15 December 2010 – 7:49 am

“She probably dont know or understand what she is getting herself into but I think she has made the right choice for her.”

This reminds me of Noor Kumalarasi who said she’d follow even the hadiths that are daif.

How well the teacher taught the student!

pointofview
14 December 2010 – 8:46 am

Oneofthesedays

You must be a joke… math? go figure the world… I didnt flunked my maths or language but making a simple point that if that teacher guy made his decision to marry the 14 year old girl then he should be ready to double up his duties. 14, 24 or 30 the house chores or what you call as maid duties should be shared to build a good marriage. Obviously, you dont have the capacity to understand that.

FarFarAway
14 December 2010 – 1:12 am

Generally, the law of the land (which would have been gazetted normally after discussion, debate and consultations) should be observed.

However, in Msia, there appears to be two sets of law and these need to be streamlined – after a fair discussion/debate/consultations, of course – where a legal minimum age for marriage should be set clearly.

AgreeToDisagree
14 December 2010 – 12:11 am

@Oneofthesedays

“If you can’t tell the diff between 14 and 24 you must have flunked math :)”

You don’t need to know math for wifely duties, to give birth or nurse children. The poorer husband though would require doubling up for cook’s or even maid’s duties though, but the same do not need math either. In fact math is not even needed for housebuilding (the traditional way) or farming crops or mining. Do we need math or even language for that matter? A club and a cave is more important than math.

Oneofthesedays
13 December 2010 – 9:12 pm

pointofview

if you can’t tell the diff between 14 and 24…you must have flunked math 🙂

pointofview
13 December 2010 – 11:43 am

By the way, the age gap between my husband and I is 9 years. We have a beautiful daughther. And I must say that, I’m a happily married woman and I’m enjoying every bits of my life to the fullest with my husband who once was my teacher.

pointofview
13 December 2010 – 11:32 am

I dont understand why this issue of a teacher marrying a student is so provoking to the society. I’m married to my teacher. The difference is that we waited until I finished my studies and got married at the age of 24. See, this girl has made her choice by marrying the teacher at a very young age. We are nobody to judge her or the teacher. She probably dont know or understand what she is getting herself into but I think she has made the right choice for her. I’m not condoning their actions but sometimes when you are ready to get married…just go ahead and get married. If not, the right person to come by will take sometime…or maybe not at all.

As for the parents, I dont think they want to escape from their parental resposibility. They just dont want to see their daugther being unmarried, have sex and get pregnant. So, by marrying her to that guy will ease their worries. Sometimes, when you have daughthers, the right measure should be taken to prevent wrong doings. Just think of it that we are reversing the time to early 40’s, 50’s or 60’s….where women get married at a very young age and build their happy families.

p/s: this is for the writer:

before you loyarburok about others, please do some research and gather your facts and point of views. Just dont hantam people. Anyway, you are single. What do you know about getting married or being married?

Charlie
13 December 2010 – 4:02 am

Speaking as someone who does not live in Malaysia and who has never lived in a majority Muslim community, and therefore probably more removed from the emotions behind the debate, I wasn’t surprised to hear that children of 14 are getting married in Muslim countries (after all, the prophet Mohammed pbuh himself married multiple wives (11) one of whom was betrothed to him at the age of 6 and the marriage was consummated at 10 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad’s_wive…. In this context, I was relieved that there was not too much of an age gap between the newly married couple (only 8 years) which is a pleasant contrast to the extremes we see in truly undeveloped places like Afghanistan: See this picture of a 40 year old man married to an 11 year old girl that won Unicef Photo of the year http://www.metro.co.uk/news/80298-under-age-marri….

That said, I (and I expect many others in the West) do perceive marriage at such a young age to be a practice of countries less progressive than Malaysia, and I was surprised that there is this “loophole” in Malaysian law that allows the marriageable age of 16 to be broken if sanctioned by a Shariah court. I think it is scary and undesirable that such a court could sanction marriage to girls much younger than 14 if it wanted to. I think there should be a lower age limit on this power. What that age limit should be should be a topic of debate for the Muslim community in Malaysia.

Looking at marriageable ages around the world, the trend is to raise them not to lower them. The trend is also to stop the practice of children getting married. In 2008 Egypt raised the marriageable age from 16 to 18 and also outlawed female circumcision (a barbaric practice which I believe many of my Muslim brothers and sisters in certain countries have tolerated for too long). Even Saudi Arabia and Yemen (among the most prolific for child marriages) are also looking to introduce a minimum marriageable age. Such action is largely in response to outcries at what their indigenous populations saw as morally reprehensible behaviour in a marriage context (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nujood_Ali).

So, I think that is good news for the world. I am pleased that Malaysia is not having more extreme stories of forced marriages with larger age gaps coming out and I am also pleased that there is a willingness to debate these issues openly. No country is perfect, but through debate, willingness to change and pursuit of principles of fairness we stand a good chance of making our countries better and more harmonious places to live.

AgreeToDisagree
12 December 2010 – 3:14 am

What have you seen at 14? Why can’t you wait?

Well after picking the husband of choice or being picked by a successful suitor, or having an meticulously and astrologically soundly calculated arranged marriage (with someone not too noxious to oneself), the now matured woman (maybe in her late 30s onwards), may still choose to ‘see the world’ after raising her children to adulthood.

Who says a lfestyle has to be linear or binary? Try thinking out of the box, and while saying it is justified by Islam is the lazy way out, I think the Prophet would concur with my entirely secular and logic based views on the matter.

It IS okay for minors to get married. But only after many considerations are to be factored in. Best of luck, and don’t wait too long for ‘true love’, by biological factors, some things are best enjoyed and more viable while young!

Noreen
12 December 2010 – 1:02 am

Hi All,

Thank you all for your comments again. I am happy that my article has generated views both from those who are okay with underage marriages and those who are against it. And so, thank you for your concerns Crystal. I am touched.:-)

Who would have thought that there are people who are okay with underage marriages? Seriously. Again, seriously?!!

I feel compelled to comment again because I do not appreciate being called as someone who back-out from a war and having accused as someone with a perverted, corrupted mind who failed to understand the attributes and teachings of Prophet Muhammad.

The reference to stoneage is a metaphor to a time different from ours and to minds that somehow have not caught up with the 21st century. It wasn’t supposed to be read literally as a prehistoric period where man made tools from stones.

True, I agree that Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aishah is an exceptional case but is the teacher like Prophet Muhammad and is the kid like Aishah? Abu Bakar As-Siddiq blessed the marriage between Aishah and Prophet Muhammad because of:

(a) to reinforce friendly relations between him and the Prophet;

(b) to educate and train Aisha so she may served the purposes of Islam; and

(c) to teach her to utilise her capabilities for the sake of Islam.

If (note-IF) the parents’ intentions for approving the marriage were:

(a) to escape from their responsibility as parents; and

(b) to legalise sex between a minor and an adult.

Then, I feel sorry for the girl.Marriage is no child’s play and this was why the last paragraph of my article above was styled in the manner of the last dialogue in the movie Trainspotting. It is to evoke images of choices,empowerment, independence and there is more to life than getting married. See and experience the world first, then decide. What have you seen at 14? Why can’t you wait? True love waits.

To say it is okay for minors to get married because the Prophet did it to me is the same as saying it is okay for parents to kill their kid as a sacrifice to Allah. The same way as Ibrahim almost killed Ismail before being rewarded for his loyalty and faith with a big sheep sent down from the heaven to be slaughtered instead of Ismail. Sacrifice in this modern age has taken into a more in depth meaning if not metaphoric and is more than slaughtering the sacrificial sheep.

Farha’s suggestions to me is a happy compromise and while I respect her views, I still stand with what I have written. To me there is no compromise in underage marriages. It should be banned altogether.

As for the teacher and his newly married child-bride, good luck.I wish you all the best and may you have a blissful marriage.

Have a good weekend everyone.

zenonidenoni
11 December 2010 – 7:33 am

The Prophet Muhammad SAW is a mercy sent by Allah to mankind. His acts and his words were never driven by lust, his wisdom came from Allah through the the teaching of the Angel Jibrail. It is in your perverted mind that think their marriage was by lust, then why not the prophet married 10 young girls, why did he married only one while he can have them all, nobody was going to question the prophet back then. But he did marry only one girl and not making her as his daughter because a stepdaughter in Islam is not allowed to access much of his private life, which in fact, very important to us Muslims to learn about his way of life. The hardness of his life not only felt by him, but also his daughter Fatimah and all of his nine wives. He acted not upon his desire nor lust, but his actions were always guided by Allah. And people would slander him if he took Aisyah r.a. as a stepdaughter. You guys had not read nor study the life of the prophet or other prophets, so you will not have any idea other than what in store of your perverted, corrupted mind.

zenonidenoni
11 December 2010 – 7:17 am

I’m out of this argument. No point arguing anymore. I had made my stand, deliver my message that we should not intervene with the marriage, for fear it may cause them to separate. We should be supportive, not destructive, they are already married with the consent of their parents.

Who are we to decide that playing and going on school trips are good for her. We should grab whatever opportunity to do good deeds and shall not delay it for tomorrow for fear that the chance might go off. We don’t even know what is going to happen the next second, we can only assume. So, please, janganlah bersangka buruk dengan orang lain. Goodbye.

Crystal
11 December 2010 – 5:41 am

Dear Noreen,

Do not be disheartened by some of the comments by your readers. The way most Malaysians reacted to this news, we all know how the majority feels about this. And I very much agree with U-En Eng. This is not about the girl’s rights to get married. The questions really is about whether she is mature enough. I know some 14-year olds who are very mature, but why can’t it wait? If you are so confident about your love, why not wait?

And so many of you are not parents. Neither am I. But I shudder to think that there may be a teacher in my nieces schools who may be flirting and having a relationship with them! Parents are supposed to protect and prevent their children from making mistakes. How can a 14 year old really know what marriage really is and what she has committed herself into? What is the point of “building a family life early so by the age of 40, their children can help and support and build even bigger family.” Why not 20+??

And so many talk about the ‘legal’ aspect of marriage. Sex with a minor is still SEX WITH A MINOR, married or otherwise! MARRIAGE DOES NOT MAKE A KID OLDER! Marriage is not just a “holy union of two souls with god as witness”. It’s a lot of work, work that 14 year olds may not be capable of. Work that is not necessary for a 14 year old. She should be playing and going on school trips and having fun with her friends. How can you say she chose it when she may not even know what the hell she is talking about?

U-En Ng
11 December 2010 – 4:46 am

Do we trust a 14-year-old (or any girl on the basis of her first period, regardless of age) to drive a car? Buy a house? Work in a factory? Get a credit card?

If there is an element of prejudgement in preventing underaged marriage (in that it deprives an individual, regardless of her age, of choice), aren’t we also bound at least to consider that an individual’s capacity for deciding *ought* to be tested by *sufficient maturity*?

farha
10 December 2010 – 11:18 pm

There are pros and cons to marrying at such a young age. In those days (yes, i HAVE to make that comparison), girls marry young but usually because their families have arranged for it…rarely does the girl marry out of their own volition.

Today, if the 14-year-old girl (who recenly is in the press) marry because she want to, to the guy who is right (at that time), feels she’s capable, why not? She have the right to get married…this i don’t deny. However, she also have the right to an education that supports teenage mums.

I think, then, there has to be some kind of guidelines to i)ensure they remain educated; or in worse case scenario, ii)be able to re-join school if she don’t want to attend school for the time being (for whatever reason)

(e.g – how many times can these young mums defer PMR/SPM if they take maternity leave? is there ‘compassionate leave’ for them if they need to attend to sick babies?)

kaza
10 December 2010 – 10:35 pm

Intresting article, Noreen. Funny comments from ‘some’ readers thou…

zenonidenoni
10 December 2010 – 8:34 pm

Oneofthesedays

quote – when are you marrying your 14 year-old?pedophile defender = pedophile

so nothing you have said has any credibility.

the pervert teacher should be arrested for rape and not be allowed near children unsupervised ever again.-end quote-

wah,so nice of you to accuse someone who you don’t even know. Do you understand that pedophile is a person who had sex (unmarried of course) with a young person. Between a legal husband and wife, you have no jurisdiction for that. And I always think it is nothing wrong to marry early, they are not rob from their childhood, they are building their family life early so by the age of 40, their children can help and support and build even bigger family.

By the way, my gf is a nice beautiful and charming 24-year old lady whom I’m going to marry her if Allah permit when I have enough money.

p/s: A writer should write responsibly.

AgreeToDisagree
10 December 2010 – 6:04 pm

hi @L,

1) ” and as Marina Mahathir had said in her column in The Star, marrying a teenager just for the sake of preventing “social ills” such as pre-marital sex can actually lead to bigger social ills like abuse, lack of education for the female bride therefore lack of her ability to fend for herself and thus have to be entirely dependent on her husband to decide her life for her as per his will…etc.

Not in every case. And with a strong and watchful (DO NOT BE ‘offensively watchful’ – try malicious compliance, for respect for her husband is critical to their marital bliss – warning all so-called feminists to check those attitudes in advance, especially older jealous jilted/unmarried ones) community setting I mention, ‘fending’ will be very unlikely.

As for ‘conveniently saintly’ Marin ‘Evil’ Mahathiru who looks potentially to angle herself via MCLM as Malaysia’s First Female PM, and the spectre of her becoming Malaysia’s First Female PM in true DYNASTY/OLIGARCHY form after her father dr.Evil, is just too horrible to mention. dr.Evil would never face a trial, and the ‘pity my father’ and ‘since I am also PM’ ploy will be all too obvious by then. She would likely to protect her father, whitewash Ops Lallang, or the Vehicular AP system or the APARTHEID or billions worth of ILLEGAL shipping bailouts, closed tenders, free contracts, unpaid and ignored bills and illegal movements of funds for Marina’s brothers Mirzan and Mokhzani.

By vested interests Mirzan is a director of at least eight companies listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. His private company, Peringkat Prestasi, a large stake in Lion Corp. His Konsortium Perkapalan Bhd, a listed haulage and logistics company, controls almost half of Malaysia’s road freight market. Imagine the number of freely given contracts this guy got!

Mokhazani, ex-UMNO Treasurer, is worth well over a billion, through his vehicle Kenchana Petroleum and much of the undistributed NEP wealth through a network of subsidiaries and proxies. Imagine the number of close tenders this guy got!

Careful of MCLM simply by the association of committee post bearer Marina to her brothers and by extension dr.Evil Mahathir! Blood is thicker than water and in the nepotistic and oligarchic world of blood relations, ALL the Rakyat are but water, so NEVER vote for those who by association attempt to protect those who have harmed Malaysia so much over the past 22 years. I’d drop MCLM for fear that friendships between Haris/RPK and Marina would be a protective last pitch weapon coordinated by the evil Mahathir in the background somehow. To play it safe, I’d advise all voters or current MCLM supporters to look for other options than MCLM or set up as private candidates instead. A 3rd Force is indeed needed but MCLM by blood association to dr.Evil, has too many holes for any cautious voter’s liking.

Citizens, run as private candidates instead if you want a 3rd Force so badly.

2) those who advocate this practice are supporters of a repressive patriarchal system who believe a woman’s purpose in life is to be a good wife and serve the man, who then will have all the rights to determine her life for her. Women are humans too, in case you have not noticed. Women have the right to choose…yes…some may choose marriage. but if at a young age, how sure are we that that choice is a choice made by an uninfluenced mind with a clear and rational idea of what she is committing herself towards.

Not necessarily again. Do you know what joy a child-like mind who has indulged and lived out whimsical decisions can accrue in the years to come? She will always say, I always had my way. And that is part of the magic of having a young bride that you may never know because of your distrust or lack of access of the strong supportive community as I mention.

Such settings are few but should be encouraged, and by this way of upbringing, the next generation of adults would be equally joyful and privileged, to influence society to a happier and freer world. I partook of a different form, (not a child bride) and here I am sharing what I have ‘gained’, though throughout there was much anger at the freedom I always felt and still wish to share.

The gain I mention above is incalculable as opposed to the devastating social engineering occurring this day. Though with caveats as in my earlier comment. Think deeper and in the right setting and conditions, the above culture is a wonder and luxury to behold that while out of reach to most today, should really be extended to all peoples of the world in time to come.

AgreeToDisagree
10 December 2010 – 5:46 pm

hi Noreen :

You said ” My question is why not? Writers write, readers decide.”

True but entirely neglecting the finer point I will now discuss below.

But too many people don’t really know their own mind or have had time to develop the intelligence or linguistic skills to make their own opinions or even develop their personality *shock* – schooling is something I feel should begin AFTER age 35 when a stable core personality has developed.

That is also why the AGEISM issue in uniformed or enforcement recruiting – a very vicious agenda that strips a young individual of the opportunity to develop themselves. Do you think a matured soldier who has lived as a civilian would torture prisoners as in Abu Gharaib? Go to war when the reasons are wrong? Hardly, so the young and vulnerable are being targeted and as an matured person (which I assume you are, note I used the word mature, because old age does not make for maturity) it is a responsibility for the conscientious to prevent such ‘collateral damage’ (in afflicting self determinism or formation of opinion) which I see many writers in many online mags or blogs neglecting to address entirely.

So when you write, you could end up inadvertently subsuming any opinions a reader might have had or that were in formation! Especially the less intelligent ones or those from lower socio-political classes who have been inculpated with ‘approval seeking’ natures.

Perhaps forums should have a rating system or warning (by the Information Ministry – which obviously is a propaganda machine with no sense of right or wrong, save for the political forces currently at sway) on the above matters to better prepare the readers for strong opinions that effectively end up as an imposition of ‘social engeineering’ without ‘informed consent’.

For added responsibility and respect for the free will of others to avoid this problem, such safeguards and considerations must always be met and never trivilised or neglected unless we have an ‘agenda’.

Now I do not know you well enough to judge that you have been tainted by communication with such people but if you are, please drop those guys, even if they pay you a salary to spin, and begin writing CONSCIENTIOUSLY and in a NEUTRAL manner.

As we communicate, more problems are identified and better ways of communication and social development are discovered. I think there are many who would find this exchange on the issue itself and the ‘why not’ you have brought up useful. Also very appreciative on the replies! Some article writers only want to pontificate and never engage or discuss as if theirs was the gospel tructh, others twist your comments via selective moderation, I really appreciate this and our so-called ‘aduns’ should learn to communicate with the Rakyat who voted them in after all.

Nice chatting!

KoE
10 December 2010 – 4:58 pm

I’m surprise that the writer failed to understand that the teachings and the attributes of Prophet Muhammad PBUH are universal and stand correct across the time

Oneofthesedays
10 December 2010 – 4:53 pm

@zenonidenoni

when are you marrying your 14 year-old?

pedophile defender = pedophile

so nothing you have said has any credibility.

the pervert teacher should be arrested for rape and not be allowed near children unsupervised ever again.

L
10 December 2010 – 1:48 pm

i enjoy reading your article. it is refreshing to see how some people in the community have a strong opinion against such a practice.

just because marriage has legalized sex with a minor, it doesn’t mean that it is not paedophilia. that is an extreme view, i am aware of that. but such a view cannot be dismissed altogether.

and as Marina Mahathir had said in her column in The Star, marrying a teenager just for the sake of preventing “social ills” such as pre-marital sex can actually lead to bigger social ills like abuse, lack of education for the female bride therefore lack of her ability to fend for herself and thus have to be entirely dependent on her husband to decide her life for her as per his will…etc.

those who advocate this practice are supporters of a repressive patriarchal system who believe a woman’s purpose in life is to be a good wife and serve the man, who then will have all the rights to determine her life for her. Women are humans too, in case you have not noticed. Women have the right to choose…yes…some may choose marriage. but if at a young age, how sure are we that that choice is a choice made by an uninfluenced mind with a clear and rational idea of what she is committing herself towards. some laws need to be enacted to protect people from their closest people, their love interests, families and even from themselves, in order to adequately protect their rights as a human, deserving of every freedom a human is entitled to.

zenonidenoni
10 December 2010 – 9:54 am

You can’t just declare a war and then back off..

But hey, no need to raise the alarm, I come in peace. And I did not say you insult the Prophet SAW. Only that I read that you talked about stone age in one paragraph, and the next paragraph you continue with a doubt about the Prophet decision if he was here. There is a link of ideas going on.. which I understood you wanted to say that the Prophet lived in the stone age…something like that.

And hey again, I think we should say to the girl to learn to be a good wife, and we should say to the husband, be gentle to your wife and we should say to their families we support you although we differ in our actions and decisions because we know this is not wrong and it has nothing to do with public opinion because this is their private life. Or just say something good and not being “buruk sangka” to other people.

Noreen
10 December 2010 – 7:38 am

Hi All,

Thank you for all your comments. It feels great that this article has evoked many thoughts and opinions. You have made me more inspired because the worst thing about writing is not having any readers at all.

Anyway: –

Dear Zedoninonini,

I am sorry to disappoint you but I am not taking up your challenge. Firstly because I am fully aware of my credibility and credentials when I wrote this. I do not have to prove this to anyone, certainly not to you. Secondly, I do not how you read the article, I did not insult Prophet Mohammad. Thank you for your comments.

Dear Agree to Disagree,

I see your points and if I had not formed any opinion on the issue of underage marriages,I might actually agree with all that you have just said. One point though, when you said “writers should not make opinions on any lifestyle as if it were the only way to live”. My question is why not? Writers write, readers decide.

zenonidenoni
10 December 2010 – 5:45 am

Salam, I am here to defend the Prophet Muhammad SAW although he does not need anyone to defend himself, but I’m doing it because I love him. Therefore O Writer of the Post, I have seven questions to challenge your credibility to have your opinion made public and yet accepted upon this gray issue. What you had wrote will surely applauded by disbelievers who always looking not by the wisdom of the Deen of Haq. Herewith are my questions:

1. Regardless of your marital status, what will you consider a marriage is, a gift from Allah, natural selection or a curse?

2. Have you studied intensively the story of the Prophet Muhammad SAW that you come to a conclusion that he will not get married to Aisyah r.a. if they live in this modern age?

3. You said, “I have forgotten that times may have changed but some minds are still trapped in the Stone Age.” Well, do you believe that there was a period in time called the Stone Age? What do you think when I say that there were the Age of the Prophets and the Age of the Kings and the bones and potteries that were found in the caves that are claimed to be from the Stone Age were just from people who somehow got disconnected from the ancient civilizations and beside that, there will always be foolish people all around these ages to believe that there was a Stone Age?

4. Do you know the teacher, the girl and their parents that you can just ignorantly depict them as the third world people? By the way, what world are you in? The dark matter world?

5. Can I blame you and other people that are with the same tune as your opinion in this matter if the marriage mentioned above fail? Why? Maybe because you are not being supportive to them and that make them in a state of under public pressure and scrutiny.

6. Don’t you agree that by marrying early enable the girl to learn and master the art of being a good and pious wife earlier than you do?

7. Why do you think the Prophet married Aisyah r.a. at her tender age?

P/s: Somebody posted this thread on a forum I used to follow (Darksiderg.com, under the column Banana Republic)

QUOTE

i just dont think its right to follow the preachings of someone who has sex with nine year old girls or takes his sons wife for his self because god told him to after he seen her naked.

END QUOTE

Here lies my answer to such accusation.
http://tinyslave.blogspot.com/2007/11/insulted.ht…

AgreeToDisagree
10 December 2010 – 12:23 am

You can’t have everything, so either choose :

(1) the marriage route which is a luxury in this day and age or

(2) the education and work route which most middle class types are forced to because they have no choice.

But nobody should have any lifestyle forced upon them or promoted as the only lifestyle as well. If future hubby is too poor to hire a maid (no more cleaning), a cook (no preperation of breakfast or meals) or a child minder (no more looking after of kids) or even a wet nurse (no more feeding, though most mothers probably would), then look at your family stature and decide if he is suitable for you. The above ‘chores’ should not be presented as a set of DEMANDS of marriage but are as optional as the young brides’ preference. Some might ENJOY the tasks and even refuse to let the hired help do the work. It’s not unknown and the sheer domesticity of ‘chores’ is the basis of happy marriages, depending on the personality of those being considered!

Affairs of the heart can always be fulfilled at any age, once biologically capable and with INFORMED CONSENT and knowledge of parents and community. Attachment to a husband is something that varies greatly between women, so early marriage is just another option and adds diversity to viable lifestyles that deserves the support of society as well.

Meanwhile the government could have a preparatory syllabus drawn up for young brides, and make sure the local Wanita branch of whatever party locally, is always watching over and constantly in communication with any young wives to make sure no abuses occur. This should make sure that all husbands (stop with the AGEISM which is no better than RACISM, old age is the breakdown of a body nothing else) treats young wives well and instills a sense of responsibility as well.

Writers should not make opinions on any lifestyle as if it were the only way to live. In truth, some girls would be very happy and fulfilled as a mother early in life, while others would not. So a study of the personality of the would-be bride should be done by parents on both sides and NEUTRAL matured people/professionals who do not advocate either life style as gospel truth the way this writer does.

Light demogoguery by Ms Ariff? She has chosen a path that she prefers or was swept into. The least the writer can do is to let others choose their own way of living without any pushing in any direction. That is the nature of free will and self determinism. Let all choose who to love, and when to marry, preferably after the above social checks and balances and opinion feedbacks have been made.

Steven
10 December 2010 – 12:16 am

Would statutory rape for minor below 16 years apply if the husband has sex with his so call wife.

Serious Shepherd
10 December 2010 – 12:09 am

Set of law A says:

-Killing foetuses is legal

-Adultery is legal if you and your partner are above 18 years old

-If one of the partners is under 18 then it is a statutory rape, even it is done through marriage

-If both are under 18 and commit adultery, then has to come out with something like Romeo and Juliet laws (let’s say both are 16)

Set of law B says:

-Killing foetuses is illegal

-Thou shalt not commit adultery regradless of age. Harsh punishment awaits. Khalwat raiders are always on active duty.

-It is legal for a guy above 18 to marry a girl under 18

If a community already adopts set of law B then there is no need for set of law A to be imposed on them. It’s like doing moral policing to a certain community who later complains on ‘imposing their moral values on others’.

anak_perelih
9 December 2010 – 6:01 pm

many 14 years old girls nowadays are having sex with their boyfriends… not a surprise…

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Not meaning to be critical but try this lullaby :

Hush, little baby, don’t say a word, Mama’s gonna buy you a mockingbird. (What does a baby need a mockingbird for? How about mixing with fellow babies at a crech?)
And if that mockingbird don’t sing, Mama’s gonna buy you a diamond ring. (Guess this is not ‘Career Woman’ Noreen’s bag? And yes thats really too early . . . )
etc. ends with :

And if that horse and cart fall down, Well you’ll still be the sweetest baby in town. (Horse and cart? Try singing about teats, cribs and bibs first ‘Mama’. ‘Mama’ in this song increasingly feels like a ‘Replicant’ from ‘Bladerunner’ (Ridley Scott 1982) not knowing or confounded by the difference between Tortoises and Turtles . . .

So guess what, the rest of the song here continues ‘gifting’ things that aren’t very useful to a baby or a child and ends with . . .  still be the sweetest baby in town . . . OMG the ‘Psycho’ scenario! The whole song appears to be geared towards not wanting baby to grow up or leave (horse and cart fall down . . . )?

Guess mothers even of that day were THAT clingy and selfish or didn’t know what a child liked. A mockingbird?!? Really? Does that come in a cage? How about something more cheerful and boisterous like so many songbirds in the wild which are free? And WHY must that dog be pre-named ‘Rover’? Baby or child might want to name their dog themselves, who knows baby or child prefers cats or no pets at all?

Good intentions without consultation of the receipient or consideration of the recipient’s preferences make for meaningless pontificative communication . . . Sigh, this lullaby is depressing and smothering – promise rewards for being quiet when QUESTIONING and DEBATING – AMENDING/APPENDING (to) FLAWED CONSTITUTIONS and BAD LAWS! So Noreen, how could anyone try to ‘imprint’ an article upon the readers like this much like the above lullaby does – imagine the negative subliminal effects such ‘lullabies’ might have on the subconscious! Freedom of choice is best and THAT covers APOSTASY and choice of sexuality, something Malaysia does not have. Noreen, taking away choice to get married young is no different than being forced to marry, and in this day and age, people love to stand out, no surprise that when everyone is studying those individualists who want to stand out will purposely get married and become mothers! You’re raining on an individualist Noreen, even as you yourself have become ‘Pro-Establishment’ (. . . probably, though perhaps I am too hopeful . . . ) without knowing so.

How about running for election on the below 3 items as an independent Noreen?

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism (Article 1 Human Rights Charter)
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy. (Article 18 Human Rights Charter)
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. (Surah An Nisa 4:75)

;and lower election deposits to 150.00 instead of 15,000.00, remove ALL road tolls (Freedom of Movement), remove AP (remove crony-capitalism), lower import taxes to DUTY FREE (remove state/retailer collusion to fleech consumers), end Forced Military Conscriptions (end rent seeking),

distribute unused land to the homeless (socialism but would you rather have 1% plutocrats with an angry 99% homeless, debt ridden, becoming gangs of thieves/robbers, or NGO ralliers running around, or distribute and aloow them to slowly build their homes into castles, contentedly smoking weed or poppy sap, chewing coca they grew in their own backyard for free and eating food they grew themselves?). Malaysia is a land of plenty, we do not need taxes, illegal immigrants being given free citizenships out of sheer racism or religiosity, and fees every step of the way right down to the apartheid and extreme religion. This is just step 1.

When the above all happens, then will new things appear for humanity – at least in Malaysia. If we can’t even do the above 3 for a start much less what I just listed, at least don’t try to ‘Lowest Common Denominatorise’ or ‘Streamline into Conformity’ individuals that have the strength to go against the mainstream.

ARTICLE 2

18-Year-Old Busted for “Selling Child Porn” of Herself – Author: Artefact – Date: Jun 28, 2010 23:20 JST

An 18-year-old girl has been arrested on child pornography charges for selling nude pictures of herself online.

The girl, an 18-year-old unemployed resident of Saitama, was arrested on charges of selling child pornography after she sold nude pictures of herself to men online using an Internet bulletin board.

Reportedly, from December of 2009 to April of 2010 she took a number of pictures of herself naked with her cellphone, in one case selling 33 to a pair of patrons for ¥12,000.

She identified customer bank accounts, allowing police to identify 147 customers who paid her a total of ¥1,070,000 ($12,000). It is not clear whether police will be pursuing charges against them.

She admits the charges, saying she used the money to pay her rent and food bills as she had left home.

18-year-olds, though still technically minors under Japanese law, are perfectly legal to portray pornographically in Japan – although unconfirmed, observers think the most likely explanation for her arrest is that some of the photographs were of her when she was still 17, though naturally this hardly constitutes “child pornography” in the eyes of most.

The arrest has proven contentious amongst Japanese – some have denounced it as a typical abuse of a bad law in order to terrorise minors into chastity, whilst others express disgust at police and mass media which insist on calling an 18-year-old a “shoujo” instead of a young woman. None can identify a victim involved in the crime.

Ironically, she would not have faced any charges had she just had sex with the men for money, or sold them her pantsu, even if she was a minor at the time – Japanese police never take legal action against “child” prostitutes, except apparently when they happen to take pictures of themselves.

Even more ironically, in most parts of Japan a schoolgirl can be procured for much less than the patrons mentioned paid for a few dirty snaps…

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Comment by Anonymous (@AgreeToDisagree being too lazy to fill inthe forms and Sankoku COmplex being too daft to include a comments system that allows posting Anonymously with personalised nicks . . . ) 09:08 01/07/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

Innocent-Guilty Questionaire Factors (Yes/No questions determine what charges can be brought on. treat each question as a Juror).

*Abstract Factors
1) Who initiated the first move (threw the first punch)? Was this ‘serial’ / ‘habitual’ in nature or due to ‘natural feelings of ‘love’?
2) Was act Consensual-Non-Coercive / Bribe-Pressure Induced (Did victim feel taken advantage of? Perpetrator’s view of advantage taking form could be created.)
3) Was the victim psychologically mature and intellectually capable of understanding relationships, has studied the subject sufficiently to make informed decisions? Psychological maturity could be tested to determine age for right to consent regardless of age.
4) Cultural norm/practice justification?

In this Sankaku example, factors 1, 2, 3 can be discounted. Factor 4 is debatable to a 50/50 degree.

*Material Factors
1) Onset of puberty another determining factor (Increases right based on uncontrollable chemical/mating instinct?)
2) Physical maturity another determining factor (Increases right based on ‘can carry to term with no significant risk to victim’ as in life threatening Caesarians being required as opposed to having capacity for natural birth, regardless of pregnancy or non-pregnancy after the act)
3) Is the victim a financial dependent? (Debatable : Financial dependent allowed/disallowed regardless of maturity AND if underage OR pre-pubescent may not be allowed to consent regardless of psychological maturity? Further – Can the law demand that Parental consent is required without trampling on self determinism and creating uproar among religious demographic? Is fiscal and statuary age based control of right of sexual association unconstitutional? (Leads to child labour laws AND psychological maturity issues / Application to pornograpy and media?)

In this Sankaku example, all 3 Factors can be discounted.

Verdict : 0.5 out of 7. Not guilty. Free her now with reparations pls., her ‘legal system unaffirmed’ human rights are being trampled on.

ARTICLE 3

NOW, even 6-year-old girls say they want to be ‘SEXY’ – Friday, 20 July 2012 18:22

Today in bleeeeeeeeuuuuuurrrrrrrrrgh, a new study in the journal Sex Roles suggests that girls as young as six years old are concerned with appearing “sexy.” As in, sexually attractive. To other people. With their bodies. In public. At the risk of getting all preachy about “the children,” I’d like to invite you all to join me in a rousing chorus of, “Holy shit!!! The chiiiiildreeeeeeen!!!”

Now, obviously “sexiness” doesn’t really mean anything to little kids, as much as they think they understand it. If my collection of wide-leg pants, head-bandannas, maroon clogs, and polyester potato sacks is any indication, I definitely didn’t get a handle on sexiness until I was like…24. At least. 25, maybe. Do I even know now? Whatever. I didn’t know what it was or how to do it, but I knew that I wanted it—because, in the grand scheme of things, the girls that had “it” were the girls that got what they wanted. Sexiness is the source of our power, society says. It’s what makes you a girl. So only, like, a baby snail in a coma would be naive enough to imagine that that attitude wouldn’t trickle down to the children. Kids are sponges. Which means that now kids are sexy sponges. Bleurgh.

Researchers presented 6- to 9-year-old girls with a series of paired paper dolls: one doll in a “sexy” outfit and the other in a trendy but full-coverage outfit.

Using a different set of dolls for each question, the researchers then asked each girl to choose the doll that: looked like herself, looked how she wanted to look, was the popular girl in school, she wanted to play with.

Across-the-board, girls chose the “sexy” doll most often. The results were significant in two categories: 68 percent of the girls said the doll looked how she wanted to look, and 72 percent said she was more popular than the non-sexy doll.

Girls who played sports chose the non-sexualized doll more often. Girls who both watched a lot of TV and had mothers with “self-objectifying tendencies” were more likely to choose the sexy doll. But on the flipside, girls who watched a lot of TV but received “maternal instruction during media viewing” (i.e. smart, attentive moms who made sure to call bullshit on bullshit) were somewhat more protected from self-sexualization. Media-consuming girls with religious mothers were similarly non-sexualized. However, perhaps most interestingly:

Girls who didn’t consume a lot of media but who had religious mothers were much more likely to say they wanted to look like the sexy doll. “This pattern of results may reflect a case of ‘forbidden fruit’ or reactance, whereby young girls who are overprotected from the perceived ills of media by highly religious parents … begin to idealize the forbidden due to their underexposure,” the authors wrote…”low media consumption is not a silver bullet” against early self-sexualization in girls.

And that gets directly to the heart of my feelings about this whole creep-show. The knee-jerk response is to blame Katy Perry, and Sydney Bristow, and Bratz dolls, and brokeback lady heroes. There’s no comic book lady-lawyer with a bionic briefcase whose superpower is competence and whose costume is a sensible pantsuit. That doesn’t exist. And that particular cultural flaw certainly doesn’t help little girls prioritize brains over butts. But it’s still just an intermediate symptom, not the cause.

Here’s the cause: Exactly one jillion years ago (historical accuracy courtesy of Lindy West, Lady Anthropologist), some genius decided that the human body was shameful. Especially the female human body. And the disgusting, shameful human body needed to be cloaked at all times, or else DOOM. Certain religious people (see above) are especially excited about this idea. Except simultaneously, some other genius decided that the female body is a precious, possessable commodity that can be sold and traded and hoarded like big floppy flesh-bucks. So that creates this crazy taboo where everyone is clamoring to see naked female bodies all the time, but they feel weird and guilty about it, which makes them mad at females who show their bodies too much, but also makes everyone worship females who show their bodies just enough (but also kind of hate them at the same time). And then women hate other women with “better” bodies, and little kids get the message that they’d better have the “right” kind of body and display it in the “right” way, or they’re screwed. It’s waaaaay more complicated than that, of course, but my point is that our entire relationship with human bodies is FUCKED.

There’s nothing objectively shameful about a body, which means there’s nothing objectively shameful about those outfits on the “sexy” paper dolls. (You never hear some badger mom complaining to Mole-ry Povich that her litter “dresses too sexy,” because that is just some weird shit that humans made up.) A “slutty” outfit is nothing but a different configuration of fabric. But because of the aforementioned taboo, and the commodification of the female body, and the way that certain religious folks combine those two things in the most fucked up and oppressive way possible, bodies mean everything. And 6-year-old girls internalize that and wind up “wanting” things that they don’t even understand: things that (supposedly) telegraph sexual desirability, things that (they think) will bolster their tiny ailing self-esteems. Things like, if this study is any indication, some shitty pleather bustier from the bargain bin at Lover’s Package.

And then we blame…pleather? Nope, sorry, this is our mess. You can froth about Barbies and shame Katy Perry all you want, religious mothers, but remember: you made Katy Perry.

-=jezebel.com

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Narrow minded display. That article is only true of a a certain demographic though the article itself creates bias in the readers who are not particularly familiar with or generally applying of critical thought, the voices mentioned above may be loud or even a majority but why should anyone care? There is also the set that wants to be in diapers and be breast fed by their mothers up to their tweens or worse, until ‘Psycho’ (1960 Alfred Hitchcock) scenarios occur but even that is their right though the murder was illegal and undesirable ( unless that was somehow subconsciously desired by Norman’s old mother). Other mothers sleep around, give birth and do not care about who does the adoption. Yet others collect as many orphans as they can to appear ‘cool’ and ‘kind’ while dripping evil on all other counts. This kids and sexiness thing is probably another fringe group who have parents that allow or foster or hacve been involved (gasp!) in this. Must be aware that generations ago, showing an ankle or even the neck was ‘sexy’. So who made the writer Ayatollah? People INCLUDING children will choose their preferences and regret the same or not later. Thats what being an individual is all about not biological age, though consent and free will of the child must be considered (i.e the child may want to continue family behaviour even if negative or may opt out the key issue is if the child has be taught to decide if said child wants to or not of said child’s free will).

The writer sounds really old and narrow minded here. There will always be burkha wearers even as there will be nudists. Or psychedelic organics smokers and those who avoid the same people and substances like plague. MINORITY OF ONE is a human right. It’s just that freedom of expression now FOR CHILDREN is much stronger than ever. Humanity is evolving even as fashionably outdated type memes will most certainly endure. Why rain on some kid’s ‘sexiness parade’? When people attempt to normalise anything or when everyone is a clone THEN that is more fightening. By sheer value in diversity, anyone should feel happy this is being expressed, though there should also be a open ended manual for children to study and be tested from, and discussion on what could or could not happen rather than NON-CONSENSUAL imprinting by parents, religions or society in a manner that subsumes a child’s free will which is what the 1st World and modern society or the ‘Minority of One’ concept (which is almost never practiced in law) is all about rather than the child’s own natural inclinations which must also be differentiated from stronger minds manipulating from the background in a form of ‘psychic dictatorship or ]’psychic subversion’ much like cults of personality that can demand all followers suicide and the group actually does that.

I.e. for a further example of free will – sex predators, which again some kids could actually want to ‘tame’ (or who knows HEAL with . . . , let your imagination run wild but this response at least comes from a Borticelli bod type lover . . . ), YES the fearlessness of the young is something that could change a sex predator brought up in older, less free willed times, the interactions are boundless – (and here we have ‘@jezebel’, yeah right – whats so ‘jezebel’ about snarking at kids wanting to be sexy? There will be some happy endings, some weird situations not too healthy, some though less – happy and even plain abusive where we must really step in but hardly on the above ‘want to be sexy’ example) – but in the history of mankind, probably most instances were not reported because internet media was not present. Stop nitpicking or being a control freak unless a particularly unpleasant incident happens. A below 10 kid loses their virginity. So? In some cases the kid themself might not even care and grow up into a career woman or get married as a mother without the psychosis that plagues those who come from strict prison-like chastity belt wearing convents or where parents beat children with belts and canes, or where even a slap or vicious scoldings could turn a child into some kind of hateful boss that enjoys bullying subordinates, or that loves to sabotage society by writing bad laws or even refusing to amend bad laws!

The frequency of ‘strange’ events like ‘kids wanting to be sexy’ is not increasing, more likely, we are just aware of the events because of new media and that society has chosen to live and let live rather than scream and spaz out in terror becuse these are not the values they are used to. Much like Burkha wearers and women forbidden to drive. They have a new voice and dare to express. So shaddup @jezebel, this dangerous potentially retaliatory, demogogue rousing musing bores the hell out of everyone. Ask around I’m very sure there are some who regret what not, but also some who would do eveything all over again, the point was to live for the moment, and the physical shell of the moment is but  a reflection of commitment to reality beyond the physical, which is why some these youth appear so feckless – there is nothing left out there except values and religions that threaten to leave one’s souls even emptier, little wonder they run straight into to subculture or even BDSM lot!

So yes if somehow things work out in some strange way, we the responsible adults (who do not demogogue) MUST let them as private individuals do what they want. Some may even choose suicide victim or abuser, but the soul knows when and why, and we cannot presume to act on or manipulate on any other soul’s behalf as if we had none of our own and wanted to interfere in  any other’s spiritual evolution. This is not pleasant or safe to say, BUT – if a victim gettting raped or a rapist getting away is part of that in some twisted manner, so that some sick pedophile gets a soul of their own (a soul for a rape event is WELL WORTH, and the attacker could go on to great things if we do not destroy them and they humannise fast enough to empathise with the victim etc..) or prevents the next Anti-Pope from being born, who knows what we could be causing if we prevented or pre-empted something else. Nature’s paths are many, and the mass killer who randomly kills Columbine style, could very well be killing some person who might give birth to someone who studies well as a nice scientist who ends up developing virulent poisons for some souless ‘Weyland-Yutani’  (refer to Aliens 1989 – Ridley Scott) type GMO/Genesplicing-toting corporation, or develops mind control technology that vicious minded dictators will destroy the free will of man with, or even brings black plague to the American continent etc..  . . . in the past? WHO ARE ANY TO DARE BLOCK FATE?

Here’s one mass murder that could have averted a Red Alert ‘Yuri’ (2001 EA Games) scenario where the world ends with all Humanity wiped out by mind control. Imagine if the below Holmes character got together with Biopolis Neuroscience Singapore and developed mind control technology that was inserted into BABIES brains at nanoscale or National Service Trainees on their 18th birthdays . . . aren’t we all glad Holmes flipped out instead of becoming a ‘Kroenen Nazi’ (Hellboy I – Guillermo del Toro 2004) under the employ of Nepotistic Dictator types?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176579/Dropout-PHD-student-massacre-12-cinema-screening.html

Perhaps an intergalactic war could be averted because a cockroach was not stepped on and some insect-like aliens were pleased into putting that planet into the lower priority conquest list (lets return after conquest of planets that stomp on bugs more than this one . . . ). How does one know? Perhaps because some pedophile killed in this life (for those who believe in rebirth) because in a past life that pedophile was killed by that same child who victimised them? Do we know how this works? Know past, present, and future? If some kid dresses sexy in some abstruse manner that keeps pedophiles distracted so that they do not become a sexually frustrated and trigger happy nuke fire control person (if I were a military chief of a country with nukes, I’d make very sure that Mr.Push-the-Red-Button is well laid and has all the poon and sex he wants ALL THE TIME), that would kill millions and irradiate the planet. This would require an adult services industry for the unmarried AND a legal system where multiple wives were legal and upfront so that both married and unmarried types will have access. The spin off benefit would be that 2nd Amendment Rights would be very safe to have as well – Mr.Redneck would be happy knowing he could kill you with a shot and thus does not feel the need to go on a killing spree, though genuine psychos could well still be present! Check the mindsets of the potential buyers, licence guns etc. but to prohibit is stupid and insulting to intelligence, which again could upset people into smuggling and using guns as often as they can in some oblique form of protest at lack of right to bear arms!

I’d say lets turn the whole world into a red light district that also has organic psychedelics bars, distribute land and wealth equally, so that everyone was relaxed and pleasantly distracted than being put into situations that cause, frustrate or necessitate them to want to bend reality even as they bend in reality’s wind. See the angriest religion? The most capitalist country? Guess how unqualified they are to be morally pure/fiscally sound but so willing to commit acts of terror/so bankrupt . . . And here we have @jezebel wanting to diss ‘kids trying to be sexy’. These PERSONS (do not labelise as kids) are doing something not so nice as viewed by most of us who do not like that sort of thing, but sure as hell if adults don’t understand (much like heteros will never understand some people are gay, or bisexual), adults better shut up and see whether the kids or insane or the pedos are taking our souls or saving the world first, before firing socialised abuse without any warning, much less killing shots (in collusion with an already insane psychiatric establishment) that destroys persons engaging in general discussions on ideas like ‘kids trying to be sexy’.

We are not party to these people, have no right to judge, but can and should study and ask why and how FIRST, yet not condemn or prevent except in cases of coercion or unwanted and abusive grooming. This really is the best way – Live and Let Live . . . because things happen for a reason and must happen. That person left unmurdered could result in the murder of millions more simply because the system took out or disabled the would be murderer first. The fact might be that a murder in a particular neighbourhood was necessary! Lots of very bad people who have not been punished in former lives, dare think to presume to let them escape when ‘Punishers Through Time’ appear on the scene? How close or well studied are any to say? There will indeed be signs and thieves of signs covering up for more on the run from justice . . . stay the judgment from a past life but punishment will still arrive.

Civilise or stop a murderer and another will arise to claim the prize, do the job . . .  Legion is many and reaches the ends of all civilisations and sentients in the Universe, Mankind cannot even manage their own planet’s ecology, preserve and maintain species diversiy or raise their lesser setient charges to a state of equality (try Cetaceans and Canines, Felines even Rodents) much less handle issues of equality and abuse in societies within Humanity on Earth . . .

‘God’ or ‘Nature’ created EVERYTHING, including the birthers, predators and cullers, quakers, Earthquakers of who and whatever. A cyle of life across time and dimensions needs predators or overpopulation will destroy or cause harm to societies of the prey. Thwart that immense will and unseen intent at severe cost to the Universe, to indulge the evil of one’s own fat or sanctimonious ego . . . This response is NOT  intended or to be twisted to be in favour of sex oriented paedophiles (FINALLY – the word paedophile is not necessarily sexual btw, just straightening out hegelian dialectic floating around the use and abuse of the word demogogue style.Declaring one’s own ‘paedophilia’ (not recommended these days until the above written sinks in) is not sexual deviancy – good understanding of vocabulary says so current trends have twisted the word out of context – LEARN about hegelian dialectic and apply against government!!!  . . . , so now think back to how people who dislike kids are really almost safer and less mentally exhaustive to be around in certain ways, yer lazy brains . . . bleeeeeeeeuuuuuurrrrrrrrrgh indeed.

QUOTE “ . . . anger a Foetal/Foetid, end the Universe . . . ” excerpt from “Events, Event Horizons and Relations (and Bendings in) To Time” (by @Post Millenial Avatar)

Former RAF sergeant, 60, revealed as transsexual named Foxy Roxy is jailed for offering kinky sex with boy – By Daily Mail Reporter – Last updated at 9:06 AM on 8th February 2012

In advocacy, organic psychedelics advocacy, Prostitution, psychedelics, red light district legalisation, Sexuality, social freedoms, spirit of the law on February 10, 2012 at 7:52 am

A transsexual former RAF sergeant has been jailed for eight months after he was discovered offering sex services with a 15-year-old boy.

Martin Shaxted, 60, who used the name Foxy Roxy, appeared at Canterbury Crown Court yesterday to admit a charge of keeping a brothel and three counts of making and showing 32 indecent images.

The court heard that police officers had raided his home in Cliftonville, Kent, in December 2010 and discovered the boy.
Jailed: Martin Shaxted has been locked up for eight months after admitting keeping a brothel and three charges of making and showing indecent images

Jailed: Martin Shaxted has been locked up for eight months after admitting keeping a brothel and three charges of making and showing indecent images

But the prosecution accepted that Shaxted believed the boy was 19, rather than his real age of 15 after he confessed to police.

The youngster also admitted smoking cannabis and taking ‘legal highs and poppers’ and engaging in sex.

Police who raided the home also found child abuse pictures on Shaxted’s computer and took away objects including sex toys.

During the hearing Oliver Saxby, prosecuting, told how Shaxted had advertised his services online

Military past: Shaxted, who used the alias Foxy Roxy, served in the RAF for 23 years

He admitted meeting the youngster at a bar but denied encouraging him to take part in sex with other men.

Diaries revealed his services had earned him annual totals of £5,620 in 2008, £5,180 during 2009 and £5,955 in 2010.

The court heard Shaxted was a former RAF sergeant but no details were given of his military records, apart from the fact he served for 23 years.

John O’Higgins, defending Shaxted, said: ‘He became associated with a person who masqueraded as a much older person.

‘He took up escort work five years ago. But he did not entice this young man into providing the services.

‘He is not in the best of health and is now a recluse and is very embarrassed.’

Judge Adele Williams rejected a call from the defence to suspend the sentence because ‘of the kind of experiences he could expect in prison’.

Judge Williams then sentenced him for eight months after telling him: ‘The mischief here is this, that even though you believed him to be 19, he was in fact 15 at the time.

‘You are 60 years old. You allowed a very young man to be providing these services. But I accept you did not exploit him’

Shaxted was also ordered to sign the Sex Offender’s Register.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Whats so illegal about a brothel per se? Brothels offer sex workers safety in numbers and create a sense of community, a communicative atmosphere and camaraderie of companionship with people doinmg the same work. What is so offensive? Whats so illegal about making and showing indecent images especially to persons obviously matured enough ‘appreciate’ the images? Some people subsist on a diet of porn, others exist off making porn. What’s criminal here?

The judgment on the teen is good, but the sentence of 8 months is meaningless, which taxpayers want to pay for that jail stint? Porn is everywhere (actually it’s just art in nature of people unclothed in general . . . ), enjoyed by not everyone but a democratic and human right for those who do enjoy porn. Finally brothels in spirit are harmless! This judge is wasting taxpayer funds and colluding with prison contractors.

Ramos and Compean: Not Brown Enough? – By: John Lillpop (circa 2006) – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 10th February 2012

In Abuse of Power, Apartheid, racism on February 10, 2012 at 7:48 am

Pity poor souls Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Owing to poor career and lifestyle choices and just plain rotten luck, the two have been cheated out of twelve and eleven years of freedom, respectively.

In reality, Ramos and Compean have only themselves to blame. Each foolishly chose to serve America in law enforcement, which meant a commitment to secure borders, the rule of law, and American sovereignty as agents of the Border Patrol.

Obviously terrible choices, especially for young Hispanic men better suited for flipping Big Macs, mowing lawns, washing cars and marching to protest the rule of law.

Even more incredible, the two actually chose to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. That really pushed the envelope.

The final straw came when Ramos and Compean chased illegal alien Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila back across the Mexican border, thereby preventing the thug from smuggling drugs into America.

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila left America sans a few grams of brown buttocks blasted off his criminal being by a single shot from Ramos or Compean.

However, Aldrete-Davila was not injured too gravely, as he attempted to smuggle a “second load” of drugs into the U.S. on November 15, an indiscretion for which he was arrested.

WND: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58727

Unfortunately, last year our government was able to convict Ramos and Compean based on testimony provided by the drug smuggling illegal alien, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. That conviction lead to the brutal sentences imposed on the two in October 2006.

If only Ramos and Compean had been illegal aliens, things would have surely worked out differently.

To begin with, Ramos and Compean would have been defended by the ACLU, La Raza, the Democrat candidates for president, Hispanic civil rights activists, and stoked by Hispanic apologists Gerald Rivera and Rick Sanchez in the media.

Charges of racism and bigotry would have been levied against the prosecutors, and the sentences would have started a political firestorm of rage from coast to coast.

If the two had been illegal aliens, that is.

But Ramos and Compean are not illegal aliens. They are responsible American citizens who took their law enforcement responsibilitites seriously. As a result, the silence coming from the ACLU, La Raza and other Hispanic advocacy groups has been downright deafening.

Want to drive your blood pressure off the charts? Compare the injustice imposed upon Ramos and Compean with the fate of illegal alien Hector Velazquez-Nava.

This vermin from Mexico slammed his SUV into a car driven by director Bob Clark, famous for his award-winning film, A Christmas Story, in 1983. The crash killed both Clark and his 22-year-old son, Ariel Hanrath-Clark.

Hector Velazquez-Nava, an illegal alien from Mexico, had a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit.

For killing two Americans while in a drunken stupor, illegal alien Hector Velazquez-Nava was sentenced to six years in prison.

For doing their sworn duties, Ramos and Compean were sentenced to twelve and eleven years.

Perhaps they are just not brown enough?

Extreme High Costs (Bloodsucking Tollgate Atttitude) On Property Tranfer – original article by @AgreeToDisagree – 1st February 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, Bad By-Laws, checks and balances, Fair Chrges, Invasive Laws, Justice, Law, preventing vested interest, Wealth distribution on February 1, 2012 at 10:56 am

Some of us have not had the pleasure of owning many properties in this lifetime to be familiar in transferring the same, so please bear with any inaccuracies that may show up in this article intended for exposition of greed of the current ‘toll keeper mentality’ system. Because some of us have the finances to ignore these fees which are excessive to others, or take for granted that this is written in stone (most assuredly the MPs have the power to change this, or Bar Council the power to address this but both have not spoken, thus rendering them unvotable or not carrying out their responsibilities to better the system of governance leaving loopholes in place to parasities off), does ot mean everything is fine or that the system is fair, this is a very serious issue that must be addressed.

The current property sale or transfer process follows :

– a lawyer charges fees that vary (often equal to a month or few of salary) for representing transferring party
– transfer form is obtained and signed
– stamp duty department contacted by lawyer about sale
– stamp duty department will give notice how much the govt. to determine stamp duty based on excessive Stamp Duty Act figures.
– buyer or transferring parties will pay stamp duty which is 1% or more (this is excessive, in fact no Stamp fees should be levied at all – if someone wants to give you something, who’s business is it to say you have to pay the government first? MPs who neglect such things and do no amend such things, do not deserve your vote.)
– if deceased and within family, the stamp duty is waived
– if alive they have to pay stamp fee (why the difference? can’t family members transfer properties without stamp fees before they die and not be charged? why after dead then waived? this speaks of the viciousness of the system)
– if a family member the stamp duty is waived 50%

Effectively the transfer will be subject to interference by the government valuation (which could be colluded with at higher rates for pro-government of the day legal firms, or colluded against for anti-government of the day legal firms). This should be altered by the MPs of the day.

The Stamp Duty Act in all cases gives too much power to the government Land Office to decide what stamp duty is to be paid to the lawyer by the arbitrary power to decide the value of the property. The MPs and candidates for MPs should on top of the removal of Eminent Domain powers removal, and granting of Allodial titles (for freehold owners) requirement, be ready to promise to AMEND the Stamp Duty Act which is both invasive, wastes the time of all parties and adds unnecessary layers of administration.

WHATS WITH THE EXTREME COSTS FOR TRANSFER? It’s your property not the government’s property, and transfer should not cost anything (to witness and smudge some ink, they want us to pay nearly a month’s salary or even a year or few in high value properties?!? An officer can be assigned at the Land Office to sign themselves as a witness for a moment – yeah right I saw the Stamp being placed on the triplicate government issued titles in the presence of the owner and lawyer – this can be further proven with live videos made of EVERY signing) be so cumbersome or invasive.

This toll keeper mentality fo the government and law has to go. If anyone gave another person any property not sold it, for any reason, from a few properties, why should ANYONE much less government be allowed to demand and extract a pound of flesh or fees for a private property transfer in which no money passes between the giver and receiver? Who knows the commission that property agents charge could be an industry of making people move out of neighbourhoods to cause them to spend money  on the system as well. With this sort of stamp fees in place, the legal profession could not be doing REAL work and rather parasiting off people’s property transfers. Ethics please! Both parties don’t exchange a cent but the lawyer and the government get 1% or more % costing 1000s or even 10s of 1000s?!? AMEND THE LAW!

Property Transfer should be done in the below fashion :

– transferring parties (or party and Will) with lawyer shows up at Land Office as proof
– officer in charge of land transfers witnesses the transfer at Land Office (new owner, lawyer present), token stamp fee for RM1 ONLY (no valuation based fees or involvement of valuer state or private)
– 3 parties stamp or sign or mark in triplicate 3 single titles
– one copy kept by land office for proof, another by the owner, the 3rd copy kept by lawyer’s firm (in the event the lawyer’s firm goes bust, the lawyer has to pass all records to another legal firm of choice  and inform the current owner of any property being moved and land office that the record has been transferred to the new legal firm)

We are civilised now, what you earn can be used to buy what you own, but DO NOT vote for anyone who has this toll keeper mentalty which has doubtless led to the sense of entitlement that led to the government daringly placing toll booths everywhere. PAS who knows how to bulldoze the toll booths, so PAS ready to get your legal team in your poltical party to work on this an propagate the unvotability of all other political parties who do not understand this? Bloodsucking ‘kutu’ policy coalitions who ignore these issues need to be thrown out!

It’s YOUR property, if you want to give anyone it’s your business, WHO THE HELL HAS A RIGHT to demand fees against what property one owns when given away ESPECIALLY when no money passes between the giving and receiving parties?!?

If 66% of the MPs decide Stamp Fees only cost $1, the Stanp Fees will indeed cost $1. These are the MPs needed to be voted in, so find out which MP concurs with this and which MP does not. The MP who does not, thinks they can extract a pound of flesh everytime someone moves their goods and property to a loved one or relative, they will be sadly mistaken.

Consult your MP on if they will grant this to decide if your MP is revotable or deserves your vote or needs to be run against, they too pay for stamp fees. Then there is the issue of candidate deposits? Those who keep the deposit at 8000 and 15,000 respectively effectively keeping out all the people who do not have this sort of money are efgfectively barring the ENTIRE low wealth class from participating in politics. This is UNACCEPTABLE. Find out which MPs want to lower these deposits to 8000 and 15,000 to 8.00 and 15.00 or at least refund the entire deposit IF that candidate did not win and that deposit is more than 50% of their total liquid asset and if they do not own a second home. Otherwise UNVOTABLE again!

Why I work and stay overseas — A Bumi – 19th May 2011 (Series of NLP Articles Attacking Minorities)

In Apartheid, Bumiputera Apartheid, Democracy, Equality, non-Muslim rights, non-Muslim Rights in a Muslim country, social freedoms on January 31, 2012 at 3:49 pm

MAY 19 — I am a Malay working overseas. I find working in Malaysia unattractive due to the following reasons. I don’t want to belabour the points, so I list them down in point form: Chinese chauvinism/racism • Most private organisations including TMI are dominated by the Chinese and/or their political agenda.

• Chinese people have a tendency to assign negative stereotypes on other races (especially the Bumiputera races).
• They exhibit cliquish, insular, secretive and calculating behaviour.
• Chinese people favour fair-skinned people even though fair skin is disadvantageous in Malaysia’s sunny climate.
• They admire China’s achievements, despite China’s oppressive regime.
• Malaysian Chinese use the Chinese languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien etc.) to isolate their discussion from others while in their presence.
• The Chinese are not honest about failures of ethnic Chinese leaderships in Philippines and Thailand.
• Tokenism is rife in Chinese companies.
• Chinese will use changing criteria to judge people of other ethnicities; one day it is academic merit, another day it may be “character.”
• The Chinese favour their own kind over others, even when other kinds are of equal stature.
• Malays fear to voice out against Chinese for fear of repercussions especially with respect to their employment prospects in the private sector.
• The Chinese still hold strongly to their ethnic heritage.
• They diminish the achievement of other races, especially the Malays.
• Harp on Bumiputera affirmative action even though Chinese people still continue to succeed at all levels of Malaysian life (even government).
• Any Malay who has strong academic background is denounced as attaining it due to “Bumiputera privilege”, even though he graduated overseas with his own money.
• Use their overseas Chinese connection to gain unfair advantage, but pretend the advantage is minimal.
• The Chinese always make unfair comparisons of Malaysia with other non-Muslim, post-industrial countries.
• Chinese people don’t recognise the special position Islam has in Malaysia.
• Enjoy talking bad about Malaysia (even when working/living overseas) as if Malaysia is on the same level as Zimbabwe even though Malaysia is far from it.
• Highly critical of institutions that are Bumiputera-dominated (ie. government), but non-critical of institutions that are Chinese dominant (like gambling).
• Show no desire to partake in patriotic activities (e.g. serve in army), but cry foul when other people point out their lack of patriotism.
• Show lack of understanding about Islamic religion, but enjoy taking Quranic verses out of context to further their argument.
• If pushed to think “outside the box”, the Chinese would favour Western ideals above Islamic ideals.
• The Chinese show lack of respect toward Malay leaders, but accord unnecessary respect to their Chinese community leaders, even though they hold no significant position in government.
• Always speak about “brain drain” but still keep Malaysian passports.
• Willing to spread disingenuous claim that Bumis have already achieved economic parity with the Chinese.
• Use Indians who have achieved to further their claim that Indian community is ahead of the Malay community.
• Comments in support of Chinese chauvinistic agenda are allowed to be posted in TMI, while others are censored.

I can go on and on with more example, but I grow tired and annoyed. PAS religionists :

• Holds only their interpretation of Islam to be the truth.
• Willing to associate themselves with and be used by non-Muslims while creating enmity toward other Muslims.
• Use religion as a political tool to win arguments and foment discord.
• Ritualistic mentality.
• Have a simplistic idea/concept of the world and its affairs.

Umno nationalism

• Partake in bully politics.
• Enjoy seeing minor issues such as sexual improprieties take over the national discourse.
• Willing to give in to fervent Malay nationalism.
• Must “ampu” within Umno hierarchical structure to get to higher positions.
• Anti-intellectualism.
• Unwillingness to adapt and change to satisfy changing political climate.

Indian shiftiness

• Willing to change their allegiance due to changing political tide.
• Belief that Indian subcontinent will help them, like mainland China helps Malaysian Chinese.
• Dishonest about their caste and other internal problems.

Malaysian culture as a whole

• No proper understanding of logic and reason.
• Has not understood to segregate religious thinking from secular reasoning.
• Lost sensitivities towards other religions/races.
• Still admire Western culture, without studying their obvious weaknesses.
• Always sidetracked by minor issues rather than seeing bigger picture.
• Media not mature to show all sides of the story, media is all very partisan.
• Partisanship is being promoted at all levels from the family microcosm to the national level.

* A Bumi who chooses not to provide his identity, and who has worked in a China-man company as a token executive. * We asked readers who have migrated to tell us in their own words why they left. This is one of the stories.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Good list of reasons why Malaysia fails. But :

Chinese chauvinism/racism – they did not throw the APARTHEID Constitution and APARTHEID Law punch first. I’d say that the Chinese were just returning the favour.

As for the rest of this crafted diatribe posed as reasoned judgment and justification of APARTHEID, I will let the readers decide whether this is a carefully crafted NLP article by the Info Ministry or if there was any ‘Bumi’ at all, as if ‘Bumi’ is an acceptable term at all, given it ensconces the acceptance of APARTHEID albeit subtly.

There is no such thing as BUMI. All humans are sovereign citizens of the world. This article is  just **annoying**. Also just look at the other disgraceful NLP type titles on Malaysian Insider, just shameless and absolutely in need of retaliation against or debunking. Those with the networks and strength here please act.

DO YOU NOT SEE WHAT THEY DO TO THE MINORITIES non-Malay political parties in BN? ACT OR BE DAMNED AS COWARDS, ALL THE WEALTH AND POWER DOES NOTHING FOR COURAGE . . . Other bad ‘minority hate’, ‘demoralize the minority’ articles in Malaysian Insider worth taking a second look at :

Where is home? — GLB http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/where-is-home-glb

I am an unwanted step-child — Henry T. http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/i-am-an-unwanted-step-child-henry-t

Those real Malay leaders who believe in citizen equality by ending BUMIPUTRA APARTHEID rather than being manipulative via the media, PLEASE step forward and make your intentions known. The Orang Asli, Indians and Chinese, UNHCR and real Muslims who do not want to sin from Asabiya just can’t wait to vote for you !

Three to hang for kidnap – by SRI VIGASHINI – 28th June 2011

In Justice, Law, Malaysia, spirit of the law, word of the law on January 30, 2012 at 2:59 pm
(newsdesk@thestar.com.my) JOHOR BARU: The High Court here sentenced three men to the gallows and two others were detained at the pleasure of the Ruler for kidnapping a schoolgirl three years ago. P. Steven, 26, P. Vicknes, 29, and R. Ravikumar, 22, were handed the death sentence for abducting a 13-year-old girl with the intention of getting a ransom of RM500,000 in Tampoi at around 11.20am on April 28, 2008. However, Judge Kamardin Hash­im ordered that two others, both 19, be detained at the pleasure of the Johor Sultan under Section 97(2)(b) of the Child Act 2001 because they were underage when the offence was committed. To the gallows: The accused being escorted out of the Johor Baru High Court after the sentence was delivered. According to the facts of the case, the victim was abducted while she was on her way to school.
The victim’s dad subsequently paid RM80,000 to the accused at a petrol station in Sungai Besi. S. Vijayaretanam represented Vicknes while Mohd Haijan Omar represented the other four. Both lawyers appealed for a lighter sentence. Mohd Haijan said the accused had not harmed the victim. “The victim was not injured and they provided her with food and clothes,” he said. Vijayaretanam said the victim was not sexually harassed. However Deputy Public Prosec­utor Muhamad Iskandar Ahmad said the offence was serious. They were charged under Section 3 of the Kidnapping Act 1961, which carries the death sentence or life imprisonment, as well as whipping. Earlier, nine accused were charged with abducting the girl but four were acquitted in April after the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against them. All the accused were silent while the verdict was read out while some of their family members were seen weeping. The girl’s father M. Paramasivam, 48, who was present in court, said that he was satisfied with the judgment. “I accompany my daughter whenever she goes out as she is still afraid to step out of the house alone,” the businessman said. He added that he had also moved out of his old home as he was afraid for the safety of his family.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
The judge should punish according to the final ending of the situation. In this case the victimised family had a shock they would recover from in a few years at most. All were unharmed. But collectively these 3 people have up to 200 years of life taken away from them in a somewhat violent manner (hanging means that the neck is broken in a manner that kills via a noose). Is that a fair judgment, do the offenders learn anything?
To be lenient and even politically correct, the offenders could be required at very least to pay for any emotional or psychological stress quantifiable by some psyche personnel within the policeforce (this should not be  more than the entire value of the offender even if calculated by qualified panels of experts – we can’t have people demanding 100s of millions nor can people without the money pay damages that are impossible to foot , but we can ensure that the victims are protected from further abuse and compensated for any losses from the incident from any and all parties involved), offenders be put on probation having to report to a probation officer for a few months with a lifetime restraining order, preventing them from approaching the victims without permission from the court. At worst exile the offenders after a public apology at a public venue at Tampoi witnessed by any person’s interested in this case, probably media and judges, some relatives and busybodies.
Then extract some sort of compensation to the family, not more than will affect a reasonable living standard for the offender, as long as the victims require or as audited by some expert panel. Instead of imprisoning at taxpayer expense and making the offenders lose their lives quite meaninglessly with a fairly violent method, they could be made to pay out of their pockets (to some people loss of cash does not hurt them so for these people a tit for tat event could be more appropriate) or have the same done to them.
The offenders were greedy but not violent, nor did they imprison the victims so they should not be imprisoned in turn at cost to the taxpayer. This is a bad judgment IMHO as it is not equitable or commensurate with the suffering of the victims. Only the prison contractors benefit here. And conditions in jail are not necessarily appropriate unless we have fake ‘prisoners’ put into jail to mete out specifically tailored punishments – in which case the taxpayer loses again. Don’t hang, rehabilitate and let them live out the course of their lives, their mulling of the issue will be beneficial compared to a violent hanging and meaningless death.

Alasdair Thompson, New Zealand CEO, Fired for Sexism – Huffington Post – 6th July 2011

In Uncategorized on January 30, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Alasdair Thompson, New Zealand CEO, Fired After Linking Women’s Workplace Productivity To Menstruation, Childbirth The head of a major New Zealand employers’ group has been fired after implying that women were paid less than men because they took more sick leave due to menstruation. As the BBC is reporting, Alasdair Thompson of the Employers’ and Manufacturers’ Association (EMA) made the controversial comments on June 23 radio program. “Who takes the most sick leave? Women do, in general,” he said during a debate on recent figures that showed New Zealand women were paid about 12 percent less than men. “Why? Because once a month they have sick problems. Not all of them, but some do. They have children that they have to take time off to go home and take leave of.
 
Therefore it’s their productivity. It’s not their fault.” Thompson then went on to note, “I’m sorry, I don’t like saying these things because it sounds like I’m sexist, but it’s the facts of life.” Though Thompson reportedly apologized for the comments, that wasn’t enough for EMA, which was quickly bombarded with calls to ax the CEO. “After having considered this matter for some time the board believes Mr Thompson is no longer able to continue as CEO of the organization,” EMA official Graham Mountfort said in a statement, according to the National Business Review. “We regret that Alasdair’s role with the EMA is ending in this manner, especially considering the contribution he has made over the past 12 years. However under the circumstances the board has had to make this difficult decision.” New Zealand Women’s Affairs Minister Hekia Parata told the BBC on Wednesday that people would be pleased there had been a resolution. “I think that it’s been pretty clear from the response that the remarks made were unacceptable to a wide range of people and my own experience of talking to businesses and across the country is it was a generally felt view that they were unacceptable,” she said.
 
 
 
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
 
Morally correct, ethically wrong. A week’s suspension and formal apology maybe would have been better? Though CEOs are overpaid and deserve no sympathy for their sequestration of wealth, this treatment of Mr.Thompson is extreme and should result in a lawsuit by Alasdair Thompson who should use the analogy of ‘an eye for an eye’ or ‘a tooth for a tooth’. In this case a private apology for a slight would be appropriately equitable and a public apology would be more than enough. Taking away the man’s job is just wrong and far more than ‘an eye or a tooth’.

6 Articles Related To Reasoning Behind Norway Bombing (various dates 2010-2011)

In Anders Behrin Breivik, Fundamentalism, Judaism, Knights Templar, mass murder, Norway, psychiatry on January 29, 2012 at 4:36 pm
ARTICLE 1http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=185712Norway Oil Fund divests from Israeli companies – by JPOST.COM STAFF
08/23/2010 19:56

Norway’s Ministry of Finance announced that the Norway Oil Fund divested from Africa-Israel Investments and Danya Cebus Ltd. on Monday.

The reason given is the companies’ construction in the West Bank.

The Norwegian Finance Ministry said, “The ethics council stresses that construction of settlements in the occupied territories violates the decision of the Geneva convention regarding defense of civilians during war time. Several decisions of the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice have reached the conclusion that construction of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories is prohibited.”

ARTICLE 2

Norway to support Palestinians – Norwegian FM
Jul 19, 2011 10:16 Moscow Time

Norway will support Palestinians who are set to press for recognition of the independence of their state by the United Nations, says the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

He was speaking following his talks in Oslo with the Palestinian National Administration Head Mahmoud Abbas.

Støre said he saw a likely recognition of Palestine’s independence by the United Nations as no hindrance to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. He said the Palestinian-Israeli talks should continue irrespectively of the UN voting results.

ARTICLE 3

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/8325-norwegian-bomber-is-fundamentalist-christian-officials-say-

Norwegian Bomber Is Fundamentalist Christian, Officials Say – by R. Cort Kirkwood – 23 July 2011

Norway explosionNorwegian authorities have captured the man suspected of Friday’s bombing in Oslo and shooting at Utoya island, which left 91 people dead. The suspect is Anders Behrin Breivik, 32, whom Norwegian authorities describe as a Christian fundamentalist.

Breivik’s attack on Friday began with a bomb in the capital’s government headquarters, which houses the prime minister’s office. Seven people are believed dead in that attack. But Breivik, apparently, was waiting to do murder at the Island, which is about 20 miles from Oslo. There, he gunned down 84.

Said the Norwegian prime minister, “My childhood paradise that yesterday was transformed into Hell.”

Though an Islamic group claimed credit for the bombing, Breivik, apparently, is the only suspect.

What Happened

Breivik’s bomb exploded at about 3:30 p.m. local time in Oslo. As the New York Times noted, the streets around the city’s government center appeared to be Baghdad, Iraq, or Oklahoma City, a reference to atheist Timothy McVeigh’s bombing on April 19. 1995.

At 5:30 p.m., police allege that Breivik, dressed in the police uniform, opened fire at Utoya Island with a “machine pistol,” as authorities described it. The Labor Party, which governs Norway, was holding a summer camp for its youth members.

By the end of the attack, 91 were dead. Police are still searching for bodies in the waters surrounding the island.

It’s a wonder more people weren’t killed im the bombing. The Washington Post reprised a Norwegian newspaper’s account of what Breivik used to carry out the attack:

The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang, citing a spokeswoman for agricultural material supplier Felleskjopet, reported that the suspect bought 6 tons of artificial fertilizer — which is highly explosive — some 10 weeks before the attack. Police were alerted to the purchase only after it emerged the man was suspected of the deadly attacks, the Associated Press reported, quoting the newspaper.

The Norwegian VG newspaper reported that police had blocked off a farm in Asta, 100 miles north of Oslo, and were searching it, and Norwegian media speculated that the farm may have been the source of explosives used in the attack on Oslo, which blew out almost every window in the 17-story building that houses the prime minister’s office and severely damaged several other nearby buildings in the government district of Oslo.

The New York Times identified the fertilizer as ammonium nitrate.

Norwegian Profiling

An Islamic group took credit for the attack, the Times reported, and Spielgel online reported that Islamic Internet forums called the attack “good news.” As well, Norwegian authorities, Jihad Watch.com notes, had every reason to believe the attack was the work of Muslim terrorists from al-Qaida.

As Jihad Watch.com noted, Muslim terrorists recently released a handbook on fertilizer bombs and an Islamic terrorist threatened to make Norwegians pay for deporting him. Britain’s Sky News “reported that earlier this year, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula released a bomb-making handbook which contained notes on how to build fertilizer bombs.”

[Agence France Presse] reported that intelligence police chief Janne Kristiansen said last February that Islamic extremism was a major threat to the country and “our main priority and our main concern.”

Norway, a member of NATO, has some 500 troops in Afghanistan.

Last year police arrested three Muslim men based in Norway who were suspected of planning an attack using explosives, AFP reported.

Norwegian prosecutors earlier this month also filed a terrorism charge against Mullah Krekar, founder of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam, who was accused of threatening a politician with death over his potential deportation from the country.

Krekar had warned that “Norway will pay a heavy price” if he were deported.

But the suspect is not Islamic. The Associated Press quickly noted that Breivik is a “blond, blue-eyed Norwegian,” and Norwegian authorities flatly stated that Breivik is “right-wing and a Christian fundamentalist” who may or may not have gotten help, as the New York Times duly reported:

“We are not sure whether he was alone or had help,” a police official, Roger Andresen, said at a televised news conference, adding: “What we know is that he is right-wing and a Christian fundamentalist.” So far Mr. Breivik has not been linked to any anti-jihadist groups, he said.

Johan Fredriksen, chief of staff for the Oslo police, said officials were “not surprised” that the attacks had been the work of an ethnic Norwegian, a blond, blue-eyed man, saying “we think about scenarios.”

Breivik posted his beliefs on his Facebook page, the Times also reported.

A Facebook page matching his name and the photo given out by the police was set up just a few days ago. It listed his religion as Christian, politics as conservative. It said he enjoys hunting, the video games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and books including Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and George Orwell’s “1984.”

There was also a Twitter account apparently belonging to Mr. Breivik. It had one item, posted last Sunday: “One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests.”

ARTICLE 4

A death foretold: The rapid rise and tragic fall of Amy Winehouse, the deeply flawed soul prodigy – by Paul Bentley – 24th July 2011

In just 27 years, Amy Winehouse has managed to leave behind her a soul legacy, with a band of modern British female soul singers – Adele, Duffy, Jessie J – celebrating success across the world borne almost entirely in her wake.

Sadly, however, the immeasurably gifted singer is unlikely to be remembered for her talents, which were so often starved; drowned by drink and tranquillised by drug abuse.

Amy Winehouse’s death was one foretold by gruesome pictures of bloody plimsolls and near death experiences from drugs publicly retold by her lovers. It almost seems unsurprising that, in death, Winehouse joins many of her heroes – Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison – all of whom died aged just 27.

Amy Winehouse was born in 1983, a second child to cab driver Mitch and his wife Janis, a pharmacist, from North London.

Her parents split when she was nine years old and she and older brother Alex moved to live with their mother in Southgate, North London – just minutes away from The Priory, the rehab clinic favoured by celebrities, which she would revisit just months before her death.

‘She was always very self-willed,’ her father Mitch told Rolling Stone in 2007. ‘Not badly behaved but…different.’

The balance between her precocious musical talents and a seeming inclination to self-destruct were clear from a young age. At just 12, Winehouse enrolled at the Sylvia Young Theatre School but was expelled not long after for getting her nose pierced.

She had previously – aged 10 -formed a rap group, Sweet ‘n’ Sour – Winehouse was Sour – that she later described as ‘the little white Jewish Salt ‘n’ Pepa.’

She joined the Brit School and by 16 her otherworldly soul voice – deep, full and knowing but light and fresh and fragile at the same time – had won her a contract with Simon Fuller’s management company, which led to her being signed by Island Records.

In 2003, she would release her first album – to much critical acclaim – while also meeting the man with whom she would share possibly the most destructive celebrity relationship of the decade.

The jazz-influenced debut, titled ‘Frank’, was critically praised for its gems – the anthemic Stronger Than Me, about a weak, feminine boyfriend and F**k Me Pumps, in which she ridiculed tired female gold-diggers, and earned Winehouse an Ivor Novello songwriting award, two Brit nominations and a spot on the shortlist for the Mercury Music Prize.

But Winehouse soon expressed dissatisfaction with the disc, saying she was ‘only 80 per cent behind’ the album.
Amy Winehouse arriving at the Brit Awards 2005, Earls Court Arena, London. D
Amy Winehouse in the press room at the 2006 Q Awards at the Grosvenor House Hote

A tattoo appears: Winehous still looking fresh faced in 2005, and sporting her new tattoo the next year

That same year, she met Blake Fielder-Civil at a bar and swiftly had his name tattooed above her heart.

The relationship was on-off and infamously tempestuous, involving drug and drink binges. In one picture from 2007, she was seen with bruises on her face and blood seeping from her pink ballet shoes.

She grips Blake, as he displays a face full of scratches after a particularly viscious late night bust-up.
Amy Winehouse arriving at the 2007 Brit Awards, Earls Court, west London.
Amy Winehouse looks much more guant arriving at the MTV Movie Awards 2007 in Los Angeles

Losing weight: The singer has acquired more tattos at the 2007 Brit Awards, left, and looks gaunt at the MTV music video awards in Losa Angeles in the same year

By 2006, after three years with Blake, rapid weight loss, an ever-expanding beehive hairdo and documented drug and drink problems, Winehouse released Back to Black, her breakthrough album, which made her a huge star across the world.

Working with producers Mark Ronson and Salaam Remi and soul-funk group the **Dap-Kings** (note Malaysian friends, DAP NLPs via Minstreldom wrought by Zionism inflicted upon Malaysians specifically Muslim ones), Winehouse fused soul, jazz, doo-wop and, above all, a love of the girl-groups of the early 1960s with lyrical tales of romantic obsession and emotional excess.

Back to Black was released in the United States in March 2007 and went on to win five Grammy awards, including song and record of the year for Rehab.
British singer Amy Winehouse performs at the Brit Awards at Earls Court in London
Glastonbury – Amy Winehouse performs on the Pyramid Stage

The voice: Amy Winehouse’s talent was such that it has opened doors for many other young female soul singers who have earned huge success since her breakthrough. She is pictured performing in 2008

‘I did [go to rehab], for just 15 minutes,’ she told The Sun at the time. ‘I went in and said, “Hello” and explained that I drink because I’m in love and have f****d up the relationship. Then I walked out.’

Winehouse’s rise was helped by her distinctive look – black beehive of hair, thickly lined cat eyes, girly tattoos – and her tart tongue.

She was famously blunt in her assessment of her peers, once describing Dido’s sound as ‘background music – the background to death’ and saying of pop princess Kylie Minogue, ‘she’s not an artist … she’s a pony.’

The songs on Black to Black detailed her relationship with Blake with a similar frankness.

‘I listen to a lot of ’60s music, but society is different now,’ Winehouse said in 2007. ‘I’m a young woman and I’m going to write about what I know.’

Even then, Winehouse’s performances were sometimes shambolic, and she admitted to being ‘a terrible drunk.’

Increasingly, her personal life began to overshadow her career.

She acknowledged struggling with eating disorders and told a newspaper that she had been diagnosed as manic depressive but refused to take medication. Soon accounts of her erratic behavior, canceled concerts and drink and drug-fueled nights began to multiply.

Photographs caught her unsteady on her feet or vacant-eyed, and she appeared unhealthily thin, with scabs on her face and marks on her arms.

There were embarrassing videos released to the world on the Internet. One showed an addled Winehouse and Babyshambles singer Pete Doherty playing with newborn mice. Another, for which Winehouse apologised, showed her singing a racist ditty to the tune of a children’s song.

Winehouse’s managers went to increasingly desperate lengths to keep the wayward star on the straight and narrow.

Though she was often reported to be working on new material, fans got tired of waiting for the much-promised follow up to Back to Black.

Occasional bits of recording were released. Her rendition of The Zutons’ Valerie was a hit for producer Mark Ronson but other recording projects with Ronson, one of the architects of the success of Back to Black, came to nothing.

She also had run-ins with the law. In April 2008, Winehouse was cautioned by police for assault after she slapped a man during a raucous night out.

The same year she was investigated by police, although not charged, after a tabloid newspaper published a video that appeared to show her smoking crack cocaine.

‘I’m a musician; I’m not a model,’ she said on her 2007 concert DVD, I Told You I Was Trouble. ‘The more insecure I felt, the more I’d drink. The more insecure I feel, the bigger my hair has to be.’

That year, after breaking up with Blake, going out with chef Alex Claire, and getting back together with her former lover, they married in Miami.

‘I know I’m talented, but I wasn’t put here to sing,’ she told Rolling Stone. ‘I was put here to be a wife and a mum and look after my family.’

The renewed relationship with Blake led to cancelled tours and hospital visits after overdosing on drugs.

A day after being told she had received three MTV Video Music Award nods, the singer was rushed to the University College London Hospital after an overdose, which was initially dismissed as ‘exhaustion’.

‘I really thought I was on the way out,’ she said. ‘My husband Blake saved me.’

Later that year the pictures were taken of her blood-addled pumps. In emails to blogger Perez Hilton, she insisted Blake did not hit her. ‘I was cutting myself after he found me in our room about to do drugs with a call girl and rightly said I wasn’t good enough for him. I lost it.’

Later that week, on BBC’s Radio 5 Live, Fielder-Civil’s mother, Georgette, said: ‘I think they both need to get medical help before one of them, if not both of them, eventually will die.’

That November, Fielder-Civil was arrested for an attack on a pub manager the year before. Fielder-Civil later pleaded guilty to assaulting barman James King and then offering him £200,000 to keep quiet about it.

Winehouse stood by ‘my Blake’ throughout his trial, often blowing kisses at him from the court’s public gallery and wearing a heart-shaped pin labelled ‘Blake’ in her hair at concerts. But British newspapers reported extramarital affairs while Fielder-Civil was behind bars. They divorced in 2009.

After the split, Fielder-Civil described how he thought Winehouse had died in his arms following a three-day drugs binge.

Amy went into a seizure at a party at her home in Camden, North London, and had stopped breathing.

Blake told The Sun: ‘She started having a fit on the bed. She slid down on to the floor before I could stop her. She started quivering again and it suddenly grew into what seemed like a full-blown epileptic fit.

‘I was panicking. I didn’t know know how to help her. I was out of it on drugs as well – and was sobbing and crying out, “Amy!”‘

Fielder-Civil put Winehouse into the recovery position and pulled her tongue out of her mouth to stop her biting it.

‘I knelt over her as she kept on fitting. But then suddenly she just passed out and stopped breathing. It was the most frightening thing I had ever seen. I felt sure I was watching her die right in front of me. I didn’t know what to do or how to save her. I held her to me – and I thought she was dying in my arms. But somehow I managed to open her mouth and breathe air down her throat,’ he added.

‘At first nothing happened. So I did it again. I was feeling for her pulse because I thought her heart might have stopped.

‘Then she spluttered – and I saw her chest rise. I was still sobbing and panicking but I just felt this huge relief that she was alive.’

In June 2008 and again in April 2010, Winehouse was taken to hospital and treated for injuries after fainting and falling at home.

Her father said she had developed the lung disease emphysema from smoking cigarettes and crack, although her spokeswoman later said Winehouse only had ‘early signs of what could lead to emphysema.’

She left the hospital to perform at Nelson Mandela’s 90th birthday concert in Hyde Park in June 2008, and at the Glastonbury festival the next day, where she received a rousing reception but scuffled with a member of the crowd.

She also, in 2010, pleaded guilty to assaulting a theatre manager who asked her to leave a family Christmas show because she’d had too much to drink.

She was given a fine and a warning to stay out of trouble by a judge who praised her for trying to clean up her act.

In a bid to save her ailing health and desperate addiction problems, Winehouse most recently booked herself into rehab in May.

A month previously she had pulled out of her European tour after she was jeered while appearing drunk on stage at her comeback gig in Serbia.

She left the stage frequently, with her band having to improvise in her absence, and was said to have mumbled through parts of her songs.

After the disastrous gigs, the stint at The Priory in May was hoped to have been a means finally to refocus the young singer.

Winehouse, however, checked herself out after just one week.
Amy Winehouse dead at 27 – is she another member of the ‘Stupid Club’?
ANALYSIS by PAUL CONNOLLY

When Kurt Cobain, then 27, killed himself in 1994, his mother Wendy said that, ‘Now he’s gone and joined that Stupid Club.’

She was referring to the long list of rock stars who have died by their own hand at the age of 27: Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Brian Jones to name only a few.

Now, very sadly, Amy Winehouse has died at 27. At the time of writing it’s unclear what the cause of death was, so to speculate would be grossly unfair. Like Cobain, Winehouse has left us with a frustratingly meagre canon of work. A voice and a talent like hers should have a much more substantial legacy than just two albums, 2003’s promising Frank and 2006’s Back To Black, which was a masterpiece of soul.

There’s been little new material since Back To Black apart from her cover of The Zutons’ Valerie with Mark Ronson and another cover last year, this time Lesley Gore’s kitsch classic, It’s My Party for a Quincy Jones tribute album.

Clearly, since Back To Black made her a star, she’s become more renowned for her lurid lifestyle and, although she’s been working on new material, no release date had been scheduled. I sincerely hope she’s not remembered more for her drug use than her music but I’m not optimistic. Adele, at least, has much to thank Amy for – Back To Black’s success in America made it easier for her to make the huge inroads she’s enjoyed across the pond.

I met Amy once, way back prior to the release of Frank, and I found her witty, intelligent and sparky company. She certainly had a mischievous glint in her eye but I did not have her marked down as a potential member of the ‘stupid club.’ She seemed too perky, alive and confident.

The demons that have been clamped to her back in recent years were nowhere to be seen. Where did they come from? Did the pressure of fame conjure them up? Is that why she was so often drunk on stage? Did she, like Cobain, not enjoy fame? Like Cobain why did she not simply walk away? Perhaps that’s why progress on her third album was so slow. Maybe she didn’t want the attention focused back on her again.

Again, why didn’t she just walk away?

It’s desperately sad when someone who brought so much joy to so many dies unnaturally young. It really, really stings. But let’s please remember just how talented she was. R.I.P. Amy.

ARTICLE 5

But Really, How Jewish IS Amy Winehouse? Posted on January 24, 2008 by admin

Q. Amy Winehouse…a) makes pretty great music.
b) is a crack-smoking trainwreck.
c) is Jewish.The answer, as you probably know, is all three, and the media is obsessed with each of these factoids. After the release of a video of Winehouse doing various drugs was greeted with requisite shock and a reprise of “is she or isn’t she in rehab?”, I started thinking a little more about (c). In the face of the singer’s unraveling (about which there’s hardly need for yet another commentary), it’s become impossible to ignore just how psyched everyone seems to be that Amy Winehouse is Jewish.

There are different motivations behind this, of course. Both the ravenous press and Winehouse herself have joyfully portrayed her Jewish identity as a bizarre contrast with her bad girl image. The Jewish community, ever-eager to claim a celeb for the team, has managed to boast and sneer about her at the same time. Winehouse is the proud – and in many ways, welcome — antithesis of the “nice Jewish girl,” but since she does tend to identify with two out of the three elements of that little saying, both she and the media like to keep her options open.

Here are the oft-repeated basics. Back in 2004, The Guardian was one of many publications to pin her as “a slight 20-year-old Jewish girl from north London” and The Telegraph wrote, “Done up to the nines (lustrous lipstick, dark mascara, long black eyelashes, thick black hair), Winehouse looks every inch the Jewish princess.” In March of 2007, Rolling Stone‘s blog noted that “Ms. Rehab might in fact be the highest-debuting-female-solo-British-tall-Jewish-black-haired-tattoed-with-a-birthmark-on-her-left-arm artist ever to make the U.S. Billboard charts.” In May, the Toronto Star chimed in: “The beehived, heavily tattooed Winehouse might be a wee Jewish girl from North London, but she can snarl and wail like Etta James or Eartha Kitt.” From a Rolling Stonecover story that same month: “Those who have only heard her voice express shock upon seeing the body that produces it: The sultry, crackly, world-weary howl that sounds like the ghost of Sarah Vaughn comes from a pint-size Jewish girl from North London.” And from the Washington Post: “Winehouse has an exceptional voice that’s even more striking when you catch a glimpse of its source: a wispy, heavily tattooed young Jewish woman with a mile-high beehive for a hairdo and a Gothic level of mascara caked onto her face. It almost doesn’t compute.”

What a study in contrasts!

When she’s prodded to comment on her bad girl ways, Winehouse tends to bring up her Jewishness herself, offering it as a reassuring counterpoint to the rest of her image. “She says what she really wants to do in 10 years’ time is to settle down and be a good Jewish mum,” Australia’s Sunday Times reported last summer. The paper went on to quote the singer as saying, “I would like to uphold certain things, but not the religious side of things, just the nice family things to do. At the end of the day, I’m a Jewish girl.”

The news that Winehouse planned to have a traditional Jewish wedding ceremony and (bonus!) convinced her husband to convert, had the press slobbering.

After music producer Mark Ronson laughed off rumors that he and Winehouse were having an affair, he shared this highly pertinent information: “Amy makes a really nice meatball dinner. She’s good at making Jewish mother food.” More recently, he announced that he and Winehouse may team up to do a holiday album that will include ditties with names like “Kosher Kisses.”

Because all of this is not enough, the Jewish Chronicle recently posted a short write-up entitled “How Jewish is Amy Winehouse?”**

In what I can only assume is a very (very, very) lame attempt to be funny, the piece manages to embrace stupid stereotypes in the name of policing Jewish identity. In the “pro” column, “Amy is on record as saying she loves her grandma, she likes to make roast chicken on a Friday night and looks forward to a matzah and edam sandwich after an evening out.” On the con side, she has all those tattoos “(of naked ladies, no less)” and, you know, drinks a lot. The verdict? “Once she comes out of rehab, we’ll have her back,” the Chronicle reassures. “So we say she is 78% Jewish.”

What a relief! Now we know.

**”How Jewish is…” looks to be a recurring feature at the Chronicle, which also put French President Nicolas Sarkozy* on the hot seat. The results? His grandfather was Jewish (before he converted to Catholicism – but “we have made a halachic decision not to recognise it,” says the Chronicle)! He can boast of family members who died in the Holocaust! And woah, his girlfriend Carla Bruni once recorded a song written by Serge Gainsbourg, a bonafide Jewish person!!!

–Eryn Loeb

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

A postulation comes to mind. Don’t mind if the the dots are not connected properly, one could only guess the machinations between disparate events.

This Oslo bombing is a 911 style False flag done by Norway. Looks like Anders Behrin Breivik (a Mason and Christian) was killing pro-Israel fifth columnist politicians in coordination with the local politicians not yet corrupted. A true patriot to his race? But would Norway thank him for trying to free them from Israeli shackles or is Norway already in the grip of greedy Norwegian politicians bought up by Israel?

Was the neurotech was countered by this obviously phenotypically superior specimen of the blue eyed blond haired white race? Did Anders Behrin Breivik or Norway’s Nordic Occultists  and/or loyalists managed to break into the neurotech emissions origins, (or who knows psychics?!?) and wrest the information before deciding he had to do the patriotic thing and kill the treacherous politicians?

Was the Palestinian support issue what sparked this quiet war? He will likely spend time in prison quite well to thumb the Aryan nose at the dark haired, dark eyed, quasi-Arabian Israelis. Conclusion? Mason Scandinavians (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland) have decided that THEIR OWN Nordic primacy and hopefully that of diversity will take precedence over Israel and Judaism.

There was probably a fallout that spilt over to the Hollywood scene resulting in the death detailed on Article 3 as well. Corroborate with the below :

http://www.lilith.org/blog/2008/01/but-really-how-jewish-is-amy-winehouse/

The Norse Eddas has subsumed the Judaic-Egyptian agenda – FINALLY. Realisation of the Norsemen themselves, courtesy of you-know-who (I’d like to think heh), but likely out of fear of the Neutrotech that is doubtless proliferating the world right now.

There could be a few more deaths, false flags and massive economic and other retaliations in time. This Mason might too have been ‘enslaved’ so he decided to make a statement against neurotech bugging. By the way, Sarkozy’s grandfather is Jewsih as well. Citizens of France, ready to act to save yourselves before a fals flag is played out in Paris or other busy French town? A trucker’s strike is preferable to a false flag bomb, so act quick and depose all ‘Infiltrators’, before the deviate your leaders into selling off your country.

Perhaps one day all those enslaved by technology propagated by the Jews will finally be freed. Google ‘Neurotech’ and ‘Unmoderated Malaysian’ for more on the horror, and the inroads the Zionists have made into Malaysia.

Note the below events as well, related to the above somehow? :

http://stonethepreacher.com/2011/01/19/martyrs-christians-hand-severed.html

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/07/21/teenager-escapes-death-after-aston-sword-attack-97319-29093731/

After this series of easy and meaningless targets, Mossad (if it was Mossad) began targetting Iranian Nuke Scientists that looks set to create a very messy situation for peace and economy of the world . . .
ARTICLE 6
Related to the massacre at the camp on July 22 killed more than 80 persons. Around 1,000 young supporters of Norway’s Labour Party were making their way over to Utøya this week, an island in the Tyrifjord that’s often viewed as an incubator for future Labour Party leaders. Detractors call it a breeding ground for a relatively small clique of would-be power mongers. The summer camp for members of Labour’s youth group AUF (Arbeidernes ungdomsfylking) has launched the political careers of many a Labour Party leader. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg was a fixture at the camp in his youth and remains keen to visit every summer. Both he, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland were due to make appearances at this year’s camp during its five-day run that began Wednesday. Eskil Pedersen, current AUF leader, told newspaper Dagsavisen that this year’s camp will include speeches and debate over the upcoming municipal elections in Norway, the rival Conservative Party’s current policies, the even more conservative Progress Party’s asylum policies and the state of Norwegian schools. The latter is traditionally the issue of most interest to the young politically minded AUF members. Pedersen, quite possibly a future Labour Party leader or government minister himself if Labour keeps winning elections, said the “best thing” about the camp is “meeting lots of folks who have the same values as you do.” Newspaper Vårt Land, however, recently put another slant on the Utøya camp, reporting that the Labour Party historically is run by a tight network of politicians linked by family relations, marriage and friendships who also have a tendency to take on key roles not only in government but in business and Norway’s powerful bureaucracy as well. Many tend to meet in their youth on the island midway between Oslo and Hønefoss. Other media cited Utøya as “the glue in the Labour movement.” Events will run through Sunday, and the weather forecast called for pouring rain.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
The above ‘camp’ alludes collusion with GLCs, Nepotism, Oligarchy and all the abuse and power mongering that comes with such a structure. Typically the IMF or any globalist hegemonist group would infiltrate an AUF-like political party (parallels in any pro-Masonry/pro-NWO/pro-NATO groups). Then cause them to produce PIIGS nations type policies that bankrupt the government while favouring the representatives in parliament or bureaucrats so that kickbacks can be distributed. AFTER the country is bankrupted, the IMF comes in and ‘controls’ the nation via the Federal Reserve and international banking cartels. Anders Behring Breivik is a true patriot and good and moral Christian at heart, though one wonders if he could have used a different approach. Like Hitler’s valid concerns, there may have been a peaceful way via frank and honest discussions (which we all know is sometimes impossible with certain ‘power monger classes’ /especially those backed by propensity to use violence via the rather unthinking police and army that such violence as in the ‘Arab Spring’ becomes necessary).
Unless a majority of citizens are outraged at collusion (Example : Thai Rak Thai and PAP Singapore, with both nepotists in top Telecommunications companies being children of Prime Ministers defrauding 1.9 billion in tax monies which belong to the PEOPLE) and corruption and aware of the sellouts to IMF and Banking Cartels and plutocrats sequestering the lands and wealth of the world; Prevent Sequestering the lands and wealth of the world : http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36665503866 ;any inclined to write laws that raise the representative salaries, increase police and military powers, retain Emergency laws, oppress via religion, APARTEHID, assign TSA type powers of detention and search etc.., or even assign special funeral funds to themselves **at the taxpayers expense** in collusion with other representatives WITHOUT consulting the people and voters, the ordinary citizen who does not understand that the MP is the one causing the economy to fail but enrich himself will eventually be so embattled that he will have no time to even think about how to vote and become susceptible to cult of personality propaganda via the political party in power. Read some of my discussion links and you will see a case-study in DAP Malaysia, which of course being a splinter branch of PAP is equally nepotistic and self serving.
As of now, voters, are unaware that their own supposedly democratic Constitution in fact ALLOWS such hegemony and abuse via laws, and thus voters MUST vote in consideration of which MP will dismantle such legal and constitutional structures so that, land and wealth, even bonuses and salary increments will reflect the economy instead of enrichiong the few who are ‘in power’. VOTERS BEWARE ! Here is your criteria for voting! Vote only for non-plutocrat MPs **WITHOUT** internationalist links and business (vested) interests, or in general even (not necessary all clubs, as some members are not aware of what their club represents) Western affiliated orgnisation links (i.e. Free Masonry / Inns of Law / Rotary and Lions Clubs, University Greek Letter ex-student’s Clubs), 20 million and below that will amend abusive laws and constitutional clauses, removing powers vastly favouring the MPs instead of the people to prevent collusion with the International and Monetary cartels.
YOU the non-oligarch, ethical and educated VOTER, must only vote for MPs who will distribute the wealth and lands of the nation or run for election as a candidate with intent to do the same. Any who retain laws and constitutional clauses that allow them to collude and sequester for their own benefit must never be voted again. Any MP who disregards nepotism, limitless terms, parliamentary privileges for themselves MUST be voted out at once. Identify which MPs will lower Election deposits as well. Most people are unable to even run for candidacy because the Election deposit requirements are too high ! This means that in a country where savings of 8000 (Assemblyman seat deposit) or 15,000 (MP seat deposit) are relatively rare among the 75% or working class Malaysians, 75% of Malaysians may NEVER be able to run for candidacy. How is that democratic? It’s simply a plutocratic methd of keeping the Joe Public types from running for election. Now the MPs could address this by lowering those deposits but they instead intend to keep it a ‘rich man’s game’, TAKING AWAY the right to run for election as a candidate BECAUSE 222 MPs, none of which have spoken on this have decided to leave this undemocratic situation as it is!
Do not suffer the collusive and the self serving or plutocracy and neo-absolutist (TSA form governments will indeed form, to YOUR and YOUR childrens’ impoverishment and eventual demise). Meanwhile, do also practice population control and use contraceptives. The world can only support so many people. Daulat Tuanku (HRH Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abdidin in Malaysia’s case) ? God save the King (HRH Haakon in Norway’s case)? The people need your honesty and sense of ethics and humanity to end wrongs like APARTHEID and international collusion and inequitable distribution of wealth and lands of the world more than ever, so VOTERS, know to drop plutocrats, nepotists and the corrupt. You as voters (even those who have taken corrupt monies, can stop being corrupt from this moment and not further damn yourself), MUST wipe out those who corrupted you instead ! Heck even give any ill gotten wealth to charities and such and blow all the whistles on corrupters ! Every corrupt dollar destroys the nation and by extension YOURSELF indirectly as the politicians who give out such freebies are the same types who will raise taxes that will take back 10 times what they gave you after they win.
Act and vote the evil citizens out of power if you love the country and by parlance THE WORLD.

Ambiga: Explanation for instant citizenship not acceptable – by Malaysia Chronicle – 5th August 2011

In 3rd Force, Equality, Ethics, Justice, Law, Malaysia, Straw-women, Strawmen on January 29, 2012 at 10:58 am
The National Registration Department (NRD)’s explanation of the ‘Mismah-gate’ is unacceptable as it fails to address the public’s concern, said Bersih 2.0 chief Ambiga Sreenevasan. Therefore, she supported Pakatan Rakyat MPs’ call for an emergency parliamentary sitting this month in order to seek answers for the many questions the scandal’s raised. “We haven’t actually have had any meaningful answer… there has to be accountability on this issue,” Ambiga told Malaysiakini during an interview yesterday. “The answer that they have given us so far is really quite unacceptable.”
In a statement on Wednesday, NRD director-general Jariah Mohd Said explained that Mismah, a name found in the latest supplementary electoral roll draft, was granted permanent residency on July 17, 1982, and later citizenship on Jan 31, 2011. However, the statement failed to shed light on the question of how the NRD online verification system could have categorised Mismah as a permanent resident on Tuesday morning but ‘upgraded’ her to citizen four hours after a Malaysiakini report. Jariah was also silent on the PAS allegation of there being 1,597 such cases nationwide. Ambiga said that Bersih 2.0 had received similar complaints prior to the expose but not proven until the Malaysiakini report was published. “What I would have expected from the authority is for them to say ‘we think this is serious, we think it must be investigated and we will come back to the public on the issue’, but unfortunately all those who have spoken appeared to be defending the indefensible.”
Misgivings over biometric system Ambiga described the issue as something that requires urgent attention and transparency from the authority, failing which the affair could largely undermine the introduction of the biometric system by the Election Commission (EC). “It was one of the reasons why we have misgivings about the biometric system, because if we can’t even get the database at the NRD right, and there are questions about its integrity, then I really don’t know how it can progress to a biometric system.” The issue coupled with the failure of the authority to provide a satisfactory answer, has deepened the confidence crisis faced by the government, warned Ambiga. “Trust is something that they have to build and the way they can build trust is by being honest with us, it is really quite simple, and by being absolutely transparent with the public.” She reiterated that the EC has to involve the public at every stage of the implementation of the biometric system and keep them updated throughout the process. “In today’s Malaysia, it is not enough for the authority to say ‘just trust us’,” she stressed. – Malaysiakini
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Instead of talking and asking questions from the outside, file a lawsuit (which would doubtless be blocked by the judges but at least ‘realer’) get yourself voted into power then deport all the ilegally legalized immigrants all you want. We all know it is illegal, and that there is no way anything can be done unless people run for MP. After all that Bersih b.s. you still don’t want to run for election? Bar Council stint must have ruined your sense of justice. Keep insisting on demanding corrections for high profile things in a manner that cannot be solved without political power – fnal result? Waste of Rakyatr’s time and belief in you Ambiga. Run for candidacy, win, THEN solve the NRD or EC issues. Stop asking stupid questions of the government (you know they can ignore you, so what if you appear smart and knowledgeable) or making establishment blockable demands, you should be preparing to campaign in your constituency so you can actually make a difference. Also stand for :
1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.

One candidate, one seat — Kua Kia Soong – January 19, 2012

In 3rd Force, Apartheid, Bumiputera Apartheid, Equality, Ethics, Malaysia, Nepotism, Uncategorized on January 24, 2012 at 9:28 am

JAN 19 — Karpal Singh, Chairman of the DAP must be commended for his recent call to Pakatan Rakyat to practice a “one candidate, one seat” policy. At last, one leader in Pakatan Rakyat has finally spoken up against this undemocratic practice of the party elite monopolising federal and state seats … a lion amongst the lambs?

When I criticised this practice a few years ago (Mkini, 18.4.2008), the “seat grabbers” tried to justify the practice by saying they COULD handle both federal and state constituencies: “All you need to do is employ more secretaries to look after the seats for you what,” was their pathetic reply. They failed to see the contradiction and fallacy in this undemocratic practice while criticising the Barisan Nasional for not carrying out democratic reform.

Democratic reforms begin at home

A Pakatan Rakyat that champions democratic reforms should practice this basic democratic principle within their parties before talking about reforming the country. “Seat grabbing” of both federal and state constituencies in the general elections suggests that the politicians involved are brilliant multi-taskers and that there are too few appropriate candidates within their parties to do otherwise.

Democracy is about people’s participation and that means creating opportunities for MORE, not fewer people to engage in the democratic process of government. Are these politicians actively seeking and nurturing such potential candidates within their party?

Whatever their claimed intention, “seat grabbing” looks like an attempt by the power holders in the party to have as many positions and privileges as they can grab, a case of careerism and opportunism gone mad! It’s damn petty bourgeois if you ask me…

The Barisan Nasional, you may have noticed, does not practice such “seat grabbing” not because they are democrats but because they have too many parties between which, to divide the spoils. Furthermore, compared to the largely petty bourgeoisie in Pakatan Rakyat, they are the bourgeoisie who have the “discreet charm” to forego such cheap thrills of monopolising federal and state seats and go for the bigger economic stakes.

A retrogressive step

It has been mentioned that, now Pakatan Rakyat has so many candidates, they should think about implementing the “one candidate, one seat” policy. In fact, when I was in the Selangor DAP state committee in 1990-95, we already implemented this policy in the early 1990s, much to the chagrin of the power elite at the centre of the DAP. At the time, they had insisted that a part-time member of parliament who kept two medical practices was indispensable in the state as well. Even then, the rank-and-file in the DAP were opposed to power holders in the party monopolising both federal and state seats.

But now, this “one candidate, one seat” policy of the Selangor DAP state committee seems to have been rolled back in recent years obviously through the persuasive arguments by the power elite in the party that these politicians are indispensable at both federal and state levels. This example shows how political reforms can be rolled back with time…

There are other reforms that have not been implemented within PR including limiting the terms of office of the party leader, a democratic reform that has been achieved by even the retrogressive MCA. Has the never-ending feudal “dear leader” syndrome any place in a democracy?

Even at the expense of feminism?

Turning to PKR, the same practice has been carried out at the expense of very basic feminist principles. I am of course referring to the abdication of the Permatang Pauh seat by the president of the party, Wan Azizah for her husband, Anwar Ibrahim’s return to the federal parliament.

I was not opposed to the idea of forcing a by-election for Anwar to return to parliament but it should have been the MB of Selangor or some other ineffectual MP who should have given way for Anwar and not Wan Azizah. Hasn’t the mentri besar or the chief minister of state enough duties on their plate to also want to claim a federal seat?

In this case, we are talking about not just an ordinary woman leader but the president of the party and a possible Prime Minister of the country in the event of Anwar being imprisoned for sodomy 2.0.

But how was it that the feminists and the principled politicians in PR did not utter any dissension? It has become a standard feminist demand that there should be a gender quota of women representation in political parties, government office and other institutions. In this case, we have a woman president of the party who had already won her seat in parliament having to make way for a man!

It’s democracy, stupid!

Why do you think this grabby practice of wanting seats in both federal and state parliaments is not practiced in other democratic countries? Do you think it is because they cannot afford to employ political secretaries to look after their constituencies?

It’s democracy, stupid! To do so would risk being laughed at by the media and the public for being such petty bourgeois careerists! Democracy is a process that emphasises broad and greater participation of the people and the nurturing of new leaders in the political system. It is about the inclusion of women and young leaders in the exercise of power and decision-making throughout society.

This principle of inclusivity is crucial. It is not about placing a few token or high-profile women who are more interested in air-brushing their public image either! The role of women leaders is to push for deeper and more extensive models of democracy and participation for other women.

Thus, selection procedures within parties must be inclusive, transparent and democratic. Various structures such as the women and youth wings should be empowered to enable them to effectively participate in this selection process. As my example of the Selangor DAP state committee is instructive, intra-party democracy and inclusivity needs to be sustained. This requires the party to have in place structures and system that will ensure that all groups are catered for at all times and reforms cannot be simply undone.

If Pakatan Rakyat fails to carry out such intra-party reform, democracy will continue to be cynically interpreted — as my former comrades in the DAP used to joke about it — “Dia mahu kerusi”.

* The writer is a director of Suaram and former Petaling Jaya Utara MP

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

An intelligent article that is too pro-feminist for it’s own good. You’d think feminism was more important that mention of TERM LIMITS and NEPOTISM. Mention these Pakatan problems sometime too KKS, Pakatan is rife with it’s own form of undemocratic illness – with careerist behaviour particularly pronounced and well described here in Pakatan Rakyat.

Could MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP please leave BN to form a 3rd Force along with KITA, MCLM, PCM, Borneo Front, Konsensus Bebas, HRP, PSM that is not aligned to Pakatan? BN is too racist as of now. Pakatan is too ambiguous but more cosmopilitan, though likely corrupt and opaque when they entrench, even as term limitless politicians and nepotists throng the Pakatan coalition. The only safe option which the Rakyat can control to any measure, that could understand that limitless terms and nepotism is wrong, is 3rd Force.