Feminists storm 'Should Wife-beating be Allowed?' debate in France and get attacked!

[Sunsoo]

And the response is sickening:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/femens-topless-condescension-towards-muslim-women-only-helps-sexism

I cannot believe people think that these women are just as bad as the men whom attacked them!

Also, why the fudge was this debate even allowed to happen? Violence is illegal in France. End of discussion!

I actually might stop reading the Gruan since they've published this article.

Nope, carry on debating, but do not try to kick me out either because I am discussing some of the shady points you made.

BigChoc the Coptic Christians have suffered a lot.

And you're right that The experience of Western visitors living in a privileged bubble may be quite different. But at least it's some experience of the Middle East, and you can, if you want to, explore beyond the bubble. I honestly had similar views as Scremer and some of the other posters on here before I met my husband and moved to the ME. It's very easy to be convinced by the media portrayal of Muslims and this part of the world.

Breaking my rule to say that if lush is any imaginary shape or form other than what we term a barrack-room lawyer, I'll eat my hat (theres a good old-fashioned non-offensive cliché). I cannot recall any past descriptions by you of your supposed merits. I just don't believe you. Alternatively, if you are indeed a lawyer, you have real professional problems and I cannot believe that any competent bar would authorise you to practice when you have such a lack of basic legal knowledge and such underdeveloped discursive skills. There is a problem with foreign-qualified lawyers not quite being up to skill but who get authorised to practice in the UK because of reciprocal agreements. But your style of writing is just so scattergun, I cannot see how you would even manage to compose a first year level essay on a basic legal topic. You can't even debate on comparative legal systems properly. You need to learn (or re-learn) the proper rules of research and legal reasoning and then you might just be about comparable to the most incompetent first year trainee that has ever been taken on. You are possibly the least educated person claiming to be a lawyer that I have ever come across. I guess its possible that the Bar Association that you originally qualified under has very few applicants as access is restricted due to financial reasons for the vast majority, and while not wishing to dismiss an entire sector, I have come across some very women from very wealthy families who call themselves lawyers but who in a genuine competitive market would not have in any shape or form been admitted to even the undergraduate degree.

Have I made myself clear? I'd also hazard a guess that you are describing a bit of a fantasy world and that your real life, away from the internet, is not the Eutopian image that you present.

But all in all, I'm not that interested in you, I'm far more interested in debating the very serious subject of this thread. Your assumption that someone is a particular ethnicity and that Muslims only live in the Middle East is really offensive.

Its also extremely tiresome that your ego results in your constant pleas to bar people from this thread. I cannot see that you are contributing anything of value, which if you were in a proper lawyer, you would presumably be capable of.

So, to give you a chance, how do you think the rule of law is challenged by the current parliamentary set up and lack of separation of powers in the jurisdiction in which you reside, and how do you think that can be best resolved (be specific, you don't get any marks for broad general remarks about culture in law)?

FWIW I don't even believe that you are currently in the ME - just call it a hunch.

Ofa you're not 'discussing' at all, you're aiming sarcastic, personal little snipes at me implying I'm some sort of ignorant snob who hasn't noticed the plight of many of the less privileged out here, which is absolutely not the case - it just isn't the topic of the debate on this thread.

Bambanini What an ugly turn this interesting thread has taken. The personal bitching being directed at lush is quite disappointing and fucking disgusting.

I suspect its not unrelated to her constant pleas to bar other posters from the thread who disagree with her, and the Nazi reference...

Whatever, Scremer. And in the real, practicing world, we just don't discuss 'the rule of law' - which is completely off topic anyway, so no I'm not going to answer your ridiculous essay question.

I support the Femen right to protest peacefully - some of them may have been North African Muslim women - AND I support Muslims who are campaigning for feminism within their communities and countries.

Everyone has the right to put their point of view, but that noone has the right to advocate beating up someone because of their gender or race.

• but noone on this thread is doing that, so no problem.

lushilaoshi you caught me. But I don't know if it was implying or just directly telling you without being censored by MNHQ.
Frankly, Scremersford said it better than me just now.

And Scremer, where did I say Muslims only live in the Middle East? I am well aware that this is not the case.

lush Whatever, Scremer. And in the real, practicing world, we just don't discuss 'the rule of law' - which is completely off topic anyway, so no I'm not going to answer your ridiculous essay question.

OK then. I mentioned it because as lawyers who inform government legislation, we are discussing it rather a lot in a comparative sense in the UK. Its the hot topic and I'm disappointed you are not interested in it.

But since you claim to be admitted to the Quatari Bar, what would be useful would be if you could describe the system for promulgating legislation in Quatar and the difficulties that most Quatari lawyers admit to in the process? Because far from having no contact with Muslims, I have very strong links with one or two Quatari lawyers. It would therefore be interesting to hear any further viewpoints. Please be detailed and use specific instances of legislation (I am aware of a couple of really important pieces).

Wow, OK. Fine. I am going to leave this thread now because it's started to get very personal - Ofa and Scremer have become particularly nasty. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with what I'm saying, but personal insults and direct accusations that I'm lying on the thread are just unacceptable.

It's shame that some posters can't have an adult discussion without resorting to mudslinging. Thanks to all those who can - it's been interesting, up to a point.

Sorry we harassed you. Even on Internet, the UK is dangerous I guess.

Well that was an interesting thread, thoroughly derailed by the horrible bitchiness and extremely personal attacks on lush by *OfaFrenchmind2" and "Scremersford".

Wow, OK. Fine. I am going to leave this thread now because it's started to get very personal

Oh that's a shame, because my friends who are Quatari qualified lawyers tell me that there is a piece of very important legislation that was stuck for several years in the legislative system, despite there being no disagreement on its terms, but which simply didn't progress. And that in practice it produced rather a lot of law suits because of penalty clauses.

It's shame that some posters can't have an adult discussion without resorting to mudslinging. Thanks to all those who can - it's been interesting, up to a point.

Its a real shame that you are not interested in the rule of law, not only because its a basic first year undergraduate essay topic, but because several bar associations not too far away from you are currently advertising specifically for "Rule of Law Legal Advisors", because it is considered that important.

Evn though I am now an agnostistic / atheistic, I do feel loyalty to my cultural heritage of Coptic Christianity. It is a bit entangled with my pride in my mixed race. Hence my grief and horror at what Coptic Christians are suffering now.
My family are all feminists. My late mother even in her late 80s was so impatient to see a female bishop ordained. Maybe Femen could also storm the next CoE conference.

My interaction with Muslims in the UK has been totally different to my family's persecution. The Muslim colleagues at work and those in the gym are genuine gentlemen who respect women.

Maybe hackneyed to say it, but it's vital to treat each person as an individual, not as a representative of their religion or race.

Well that was an interesting thread, thoroughly derailed by the horrible bitchiness and extremely personal attacks on lush by OfaFrenchmind2" and "Scremersford".*

Sometimes the tactics you have to employ to make people face up to reality are not particularly pleasant. I don't say that with reference to lush, I say it with reference to the subject of this debate. Criticism can sometimes be harsh, and unpleasant questions sometimes have to be answered. But I don't think someone's comments really stood up to challenge on this thread, and I make no apologies for questioning that. The far more important topic is that women's rights are under far greater threat, and that should always be challenged, not excused away.

Have you had threatening PMs? That is completely unacceptable, if so.

The tactics that you have employed have been out of order and designed to shut down debate. I thought that lush came across perfectly well, unlike you who used your debating skills to be highly personal and highly unpleasant.
I really don't think there's any excuse. I was actually finding the thread interesting and informative until it descended into a horrible, condescending bitch-fest. It's made for unpleasant reading and it's not been remotely constructive.

Sorry, that was to lush.

its a strange world at times

there is one poster who lives in a mulsim country is telling you of her experience and who has in-depth knowledge of muslim culture and faith (though culture differs from area to area, but as in all countries religion and culture overlap) as her husband is muslim

there is the other side not agreeing with what she is saying, as they post they want equality for all women (who doesn't) while disagreeing with said poster which is the nature of aibu but pulls their posts apart and openly mocks them

now what area of feminism is that it is not one I am familiar with

always plays out the same islam, feminism and muslim culture on these threads, the women don't really know what they are talking about as they have been brainwashed, conditioned and should take the western worlds lead as we know best

SlaggyIsland The tactics that you have employed have been out of order and designed to shut down debate. I thought that lush came across perfectly well, unlike you who used your debating skills to be highly personal and highly unpleasant.

Not at all. You don't get to prescribe the rules of debate on here. I actually faced many snide comments from lush, as did other posters. She is presumably not some fragile little flower who cannot be challenged on her own asserted legal knowledge. I gave lush every chance and in fact encouraged her to make genuine contributions to the debate, away from the generalising comments she was making which created a false impression.

The actual issue is far more important than lush's supposed fragilities (is she really now claiming to have received harassing pms? I don't believe her). But it seems she has her wish, since the thread is now all about her.

If you claim, even online, to be a qualified barrister, then you must take the level of debate that goes along with that. Any barrister I know would be capable of answering properly.

I saw no 'horrible bitchiness' or 'extremly personal attacks' by screamers or ofa.

All the things they said seemed reasonable.

there is one poster who lives in a mulsim country is telling you of her experience and who has in-depth knowledge of muslim culture and faith (though culture differs from area to area, but as in all countries religion and culture overlap) as her husband is muslim

Sorry, but she is claiming to be a barrister admitted in the UK, and qualified and admitted in two other jurisdictions. The real Quatari lawyers I know are excellent at debate and have extensive legal knowledge, and not just about their own legal systems (which they criticise heavily).

But as soon as she was called upon to debate on legal issues, she disappears.

Scremer she did not allege pm attacks, I asked the queestion because I could see no reason for the comment.

Really Cheezy, reasonable to have horrible personal digs about shellac nails, maids and malls? To tell someone that they were making things up and couldn't possible be degree-educated?
I'd hate to see what you consider getting really personal then.