This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Flagellator

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6607808/Students-flagellator-was-not-an-offensive-weapon-court-rules.html

Discuss.

Even if it weren't intended as an offensive weapon (which, to me, sounds a lot like its very definition, no matter whether one plans to self-flagellate or flagellate others), it's surely a darn silly thing to be flagellating oneself in the name of religious schizophrenia. Indeed, it isn't only Muslims who do this, for those with racist intentions; Catholic sects self-flagellate, too, and there are no doubt other religious organisations which do similarly scatterbrained things.

Reply 1

tom//

jismith1989

Indeed, it isn't only Muslims who do this, for those with racist intentions

religion/religious followers are not the same as race

he should have been convicted of both counts tbh

Reply 2

faber niger

tom//

religion/religious followers are not the same as race

he should have been convicted of both counts tbh

No, obviously not, but most Muslims are Asian; ergo, racists have been known to use "Muslim" as a code- /by-word for "Asian", attacking the former as a legitimating cover for attacking the latter, and I merely wanted to distance myself from that, before it gets brought up, as no doubt it will on TSR. :smile:

Reply 3

HearTheThunder

What the hell is 'religious schizophrenia'?

Reply 4

Liaxx

Ohhhhhhhhh.
I thought this thread was about epilators or something. =/

Reply 5

rotatoe

well it made sense back in the plague days.. it probably did seem like punishment for god and it was quite a good idea to beat yourselves for penance!! If my flatmate had forgot to clean the toilet i'd be quite happy to watch him beat himself with a shoe

Reply 6

thunder_chunky

It's a religious thing and he does it to himself so I don't see the problem.

Reply 7

faber niger

HearTheThunder

What the hell is 'religious schizophrenia'?

Schizophrenia:

a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation.

Sound at all like much religion?

Reply 8

MSB

I'll be damned before people are allowed to do what they want to themselves.

Reply 9

faber niger

MSB

I'll be damned before people are allowed to do what they want to themselves.

Sure, he can do what he wants to himself. I don't like the idea of anyone committing self-harm, except in exceptional cases (e.g. euthanasia), though. Besides, how can one know that he has only used it on his self? Anyone non-religious wouldn't, perhaps, be given so much benefit of doubt.

Reply 10

i_<3_you

i thought this would be about flagella and some kind of -ator mixed.... ill walk away now

Reply 11

WhereIsMyMind

I wonder if all he did was drive to this nightclub? and presumably drive straight back?

I mean, if you're a self-flagellating *****, you're not going to be going to nightclubs are you? :confused:

Reply 12

Lefty Leo

LOL. Whatever floats his boat :rofl2:

Reply 13

faber niger

WhereIsMyMind

I wonder if all he did was drive to this nightclub? and presumably drive straight back?

I mean, if you're a self-flagellating Shiite, you're not going to be going to nightclubs are you?

Very good point! Surely nightclubs are generally haram, especially for someone of such conservative tendencies.

Just for the sake of accuracy, by the way, he was Shia, not Shi'ite. :wink:

Indeed, his knucleduster (!) "excuse" seems rather suspicious, thus shedding suspicion over his other claim:

However, they convicted him of a mirror-image count involving the knuckle-duster, after rejecting his defence that it doubled as a belt-buckle which he had taken off because it was digging into his stomach.

Reply 14

L i b

jismith1989

It seems to me that this was perfectly inkeeping with the spirit of the law.

First off, he had a reasonable excuse for having it in public - he was using it on himself for religious purposes; the court may have been harsher because apparently he had 'forgotten' about it, that's another matter really - but in the presence of a good excuse, considering whether he could have used it on someone else is irrelevant.

If a chef, for example, is found walking around the streets with a set of knives, and we accept that they are used for his work, we do not try to work out whether he has used then to commit a crime. Of course he could have, but there's absolutely no evidence to support that suggestion; there's not even grounds for legitimate suspicion.

jismith1989

Indeed, his knucleduster (!) "excuse" seems rather suspicious, thus shedding suspicion over his other claim

Indeed, but you cannot surmise because someone committed one crime that they committed another. He probably is a lying, dodgy bastard - he probably looked and dressed like one when he was in court - but that shouldn't form the basis for deciding his guilt or innocence.