Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CM Incorrect. Like i said before you changed track when you called on me directly:
and...
In both cases you called on me specifically to comment on matters which are not subjects of this discussion and at the same time you made it personal. |
I'll stop debating this and...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CM That Audace is how you read it and i can not be held responsible how you read very simple and direct sentences. I have stated 3 times in a row that this is what is to happen under Shariah law. If you wish to read into that my own personal opinion when i have said it is not, that is honestly not my problem. |
This. We could repeat ourselves on this until armaggedon comes (only a slight pun intended) and still don't see eye to eye on it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CM Actually no. The UN Charter governs the function of the UN and its various bodies. The Geneva Conventions are by no means related to the governing of the UN. They are international legally binding documents that countries accede to. Honestly if you join the UN you do not have to ratify the Geneva Conventions. They are seperate. The Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter are not one and the same and never will be. The Geneva Conventions were mainly signed and came into force post 1948. The Charter came into force in 1945. |
You are simply factually incorrect on the Geneva convention part. Historically and with respect to content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CM Again incorrect. The CHR is a inter-governmental body which deliberates on the Human rights situations in the World. It is not a legislative or legal body. Secondly the Geneva conventions are independent of the CHR. That is why the US is wants a HRC (Human Rights Council) in the UN like the SC (Security Council). But lets forget the details. |
With the UNCHR I meant the charter for Human rights not the commission governing it, which appearantly you were not referring to, but since it was the only on topic document I could think of that was signed roughly 50 years ago(your time-frame) I thought that was what you meant. You are still reffering to articles in the Human Rights Charter though.
Which leaves me with;
At least we seem to agree that it is in fact a matter of legal interpretation. You, however, have linked to two
opinions that support yours. Since you seem to wish to discuss the legal part of the French law concerning religious symbols in public schools I will post on that in a later post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CM I have no problem discussing them and will like to continue. However i just wanted to clarify what we were going to discuss as i felt we were bouncing all over the place.
1. Headscarf ban
2. Homosexuality in Islam. |
I do, surprisingly enough, not agree with the wording of your first point but that as an aside.
I do not necissarily have to discuss the latter as a stand alone subject though it might come up with regards to the general subject of the thread which, correct me if I'm wrong, is Clash of Civilizations/Different Customs.
I'll try to post a bit more tomorrow, but gotta get up in 6 hours so forgive me my early parting for today.
Linear Mode
