Are you a virgin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The issues you highlight Fragony, are characteristic concerns of all settled people when it comes to large scale immigration.

For much of the last couple of centuries, the Irish were demonised in exactly the same words you use about Muslims. Our religion was considered suspect, we were poor, violent, aggressive, even sub-human thieves/baby-stealers/mother-rapers/father-rapers and all kind of mean and nasty things. We even did the terrorism thing for real too.

Replace Irish with Jews, Hispanics, Africans or any other immigrant people and you hear the same old tired nonsense. I guess the Romans said the same things about the Germans and back on until the Neanderthals sat round the camp-fire bemoaning the "bloody CroMagnons stealing our mammoths and our wimmin."

---

If it was nonsense since the romans then why are we still saying it. It can be for the better and it can be for the worse, most things since the romans are. Rome is a fitting example though but that would be a bit cheap but not entirely unthinkable.

People are still saying it because it's just as convenient and lazy an excuse to say "blame the immigrants" now as it was then. People would much rather blame all their problems on outsiders than take responsibility for them themselves.

Funny how when the right bangs on about personal responsibility they always seem to be referring to someone else's responsibility, not their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I think courts should allow divorce on any ground.

---

Nuff said. The persons involved in the case are backward and silly, not French law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Nuff said. The persons involved in the case are backward and silly, not French law.

---

Back on track. Backward and silly are currently minister of law;

Rachida Dati, the Justice Minister, who has Moroccan and Tunisian parents. The law had, she said, protected the bride. “Annulling a marriage is a way of protecting the person who perhaps wants to undo a marriage. I think this young girl wanted . . . to separate quite quickly. The law is there to protect vulnerable people,” Ms Dati said.

Have a nice death bye, got it comming.

Quote:

---

If it was nonsense since the romans then why are we still saying it.

---

Because humans have a long history of being idiots:idea2:

Now honestly I cannot believe that someone seriously linked to Gates of Vienna , and not only that but then said follow the links on it :dizzy2: Then again see above:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

But anyhow , not on the original story but on the rape theme that has developed . In a typical western white male rapist case what is the likelyhood of a white western born western educted western cultured defense lawyer making an issue of what the victim was wearing , what she was doing , where she was and what sort of sex life she had had ?
If you can come up with any answer than extremely bloody likely if not a certainty then you can go back to your "its the foriegners culture" .
If not and you do persist along that line then all that needs to be said is that you are proving that you are a good example that humans have a long history of being idiots .

Gates of Vienna is an anti-islamisation site so don't be surprised if it's hostile towards the islam in Europe. Relax soon the EU is going to make doubting the peacefull nature of islam a criminal offence so their time is running out. Why don't you check it out you can still vote no.

Tell me Tribes, what do you read here;

achida Dati, the Justice Minister, who has Moroccan and Tunisian parents. The law had, she said, protected the bride. “Annulling a marriage is a way of protecting the person who perhaps wants to undo a marriage. I think this young girl wanted . . . to separate quite quickly. The law is there to protect vulnerable people,” Ms Dati said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Because humans have a long history of being idiots:idea2:

Now honestly I cannot believe that someone seriously linked to Gates of Vienna , and not only that but then said follow the links on it :dizzy2: Then again see above:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

---

Many people here link to blogs (or, sometimes, nothing at all...*cough*) - just because Gates of Vienna happens to be anti-Islamization and pro-Israel does not necessarily make it more or less reliable than any other blog.

It was Marcus Aurelius that said "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not a truth."

Quote:

---

Tell me Tribes, what do you read here;

---

That annullment is the quick simple and cheap option .
Why what do you read ?
or do you just get stuck into the usual once you reach the word Moroccan ?

Quote:

---

Many people here link to blogs

---

yes and in many cases get ridiculed for the reliability of the information they link to .
Now I hate to break it to ya Mars but a white suprmacist nut site is about as reliable as an al-qaida fan club site . And when someone suggests following the links to support the claims I must say that is something I normally suggest when I want to show a site for the crap that it is by directing people to pages that would not be allowed on this forum . I mean bloody hell I even got warning points for simply suggesting a google search for some of the crap in those links on your page .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

yes and in many cases get ridiculed for the reliability of the information they link to .
Now I hate to break it to ya Mars but a white suprmacist nut site is about as reliable as an al-qaida fan club site .

---

One can be anti-Islamization without being a white supremacist. I'm far from a racist, Tribsey.

EDIT: I don't deny that Gates of Vienna has some pretty whacky stuff, for lack of a better word. However, the gist of this specific article - Muslim hate rapes (and honour killings, etc.) are a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That annullment is the quick simple and cheap option .
Why what do you read ?
or do you just get stuck into the usual once you reach the word Moroccan ?

---

I read the minister of justice saying that apparantly the girl wanted to divorce rather quikly, now on a scale from 1 to 10 how realistic do you think that is?

Quote:

---

I read the minister of justice saying that apparantly the girl wanted to divorce rather quikly, now on a scale from 1 to 10 how realistic do you think that is?

---

Well Frag unless you can find the woman saying that she wanted a long slow drawn out seperation process then on a realistic level it scores a 10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The issues you highlight Fragony, are characteristic concerns of all settled people when it comes to large scale immigration.

For much of the last couple of centuries, the Irish were demonised in exactly the same words you use about Muslims. Our religion was considered suspect, we were poor, violent, aggressive, even sub-human thieves/baby-stealers/mother-rapers/father-rapers and all kind of mean and nasty things. We even did the terrorism thing for real too.

---

That was *ahem* certain people going over to Ireland and taking over. Not you going to Saudi Arabia and getting utterly hammered on St Patrick's Day.

Quote:

---

Replace Irish with Jews, Hispanics, Africans or any other immigrant people and you hear the same old tired nonsense. I guess the Romans said the same things about the Germans and back on until the Neanderthals sat round the camp-fire bemoaning the "bloody CroMagnons stealing our mammoths and our wimmin."

---

I think you know as well as I do that Roman civilisation collapsed under the pressures of immigration, and that's just counting the people they invited in.

I'm sorry but the mind set of some of the people coming into Europe right now is just unacceptable. It's not ok to rape women, or stab people you don't like. While I accept that these are things done by our native population it seems to be the prevailing opinion among some immigrant groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well Frag unless you can find the woman saying that she wanted a long slow drawn out seperation process then on a realistic level it scores a 10

---

Anyone with half a brain and full a bottle understands that this was an aranged marriage.

Quote:

---

That was *ahem* certain people going over to Ireland and taking over.

---

No that was the same crap about Irish immigrants in your country and many others .

Quote:

---

While I accept that these are things done by our native population it seems to be the prevailing opinion among some immigrant groups.

---

Just as it is the prevailing opinion among some native groups , so your statement means nothing .

Quote:

---

Anyone with half a brain and full a bottle understands that this was an aranged marriage.

---

Damn and there was me thinking it was a marriage that wasn't planned :dizzy2:

Sigh.

I wonder if you really don't see it or just enjoy anti-discussion.

Law is the law wether or not the marriage was aranged. That's what she should have said, better if she had shut up. But what does she do she puts all responbibility on the girl.

You read dutch tribes, my favorite white-supremist Afshin Ellian http://www.elsevier.nl/opinie/weblog.../77/index.html

Indeed, sharia=+1 and he knows what it is, now I wouldn't go as far as him, judge has to apply the law, but that minister of Justice is way out of line. Or completily in line but that's another issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

However, the gist of this specific article - Muslim hate
rapes (and honour killings, etc.) are a problem.

---

You have still not provided a source for these 'hate rapes'; they exist in your books only.

Quote:

---

Law is the law

---

Yes and ???? this annulment was in accorance with the law wasn't it

Quote:

---

That's what she should have said, better if she had shut up. But what does she do she puts all responbibility on the girl.

---

Errr excuse me Frag but the responsibility was on the girl , it was her who lied and her lies that made the marriage contract null and void .

Quote:

---

You have still not provided a source for these 'hate rapes'

---

Perhaps he means Sutcliffe , he raped and killed some women because of the way they dressed and acted , he really hated them and if I recall correctly he claimed to be religeous and was doing nothing wrong at all .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes and ???? this annulment was in accorance with the law wasn't it


Errr excuse me Frag but the responsibility was on the girl , it was her who lied and her lies that made the marriage contract null and void .

---

The man can distinguish every shade of gray on a scarve but he doesn't see what's wrong here :dizzy2:

Thanks for another episode of The Fragony and Tribesman Show. It's been up to the usual standard of entertainment, which is to say, it's about as intriguing as watching paint dry.

I do have a question(s), though: This ruling was in Lille, France. So, we can assume that in that jurisdiction, the virginity of a bride (presumeably: any Bride, not just a Muslim one) is a contractual condition of a marriage? Do the prospective brides sign some paper that certifies "I am a Virgin"? If not, how has the State shown a compelling interest in enforcing a virginity requirement? Or, if so, could any Groom, years after the fact, claim annullment of his marriage, if his Bride admits non-virginity as of their wedding date?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

it's about as intriguing as watching paint dry.

---

You go to the wrong party's.

And no years after the fact it wouldn't stand, proportionality-principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But anyhow , not on the original story but on the rape theme that has developed . In a typical western white male rapist case what is the likelyhood of a white western born western educted western cultured defense lawyer making an issue of what the victim was wearing , what she was doing , where she was and what sort of sex life she had had ?
If you can come up with any answer than extremely bloody likely if not a certainty then you can go back to your "its the foriegners culture" .
If not and you do persist along that line then all that needs to be said is that you are proving that you are a good example that humans have a long history of being idiots .

---

Indeedy.

I remeber a newspaper article in Aftenposten a year or so ago, about a study on jury verdicts in rape cases. They found that they were a lot more likely to find the defendant guilty than judges, especially when there were a majority of women in the jury.

There were quotes of a few statements, the best one I remember was from a white, female jury member, who stated that "...no respectable girl would go to a party like that." And then found the defendant not guilty....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There were quotes of a few statements, the best one I remember was from a white, female jury member, who stated that "...no respectable girl would go to a party like that." And then found the defendant not guilty....

---

Maybe because they were so very, very specific.

Sigh, the greatest trick Marx ever pulled was convincing the people they have a clue :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

I do have a question(s), though: This ruling was in Lille, France. So, we can assume that in that jurisdiction, the virginity of a bride (presumeably: any Bride, not just a Muslim one) is a contractual condition of a marriage?

---

Not in the slightest , the virginity isn't the issue its the deception about the virginity that is the issue .
leglly speaking ,marriage is just another contract , if it is established that a contract is gained under false pretenses then the contract is null and void .That is all that has happened here and why it was a non-story until the Sun tried to make an issue of it.


indeedy indeed HoreTore , it is unfortunately all to common to find idiots with views like that which you mention . There was a survey over here a few months back where a very sickening number of people put the blame on the victim in rape cases .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not in the slightest , the virginity isn't the issue its the deception about the virginity that is the issue .

---

No the issue is applying the law and living the law, everybody but a few understands what really happened here. Would have been a strictly legal issue had the minister of justice kept her mouth shut instead of morally supporting the husband.

Oh hang on there. I'm going to back Tribes on this one. How was she supporting the husband?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh hang on there. I'm going to back Tribes on this one. How was she supporting the husband?

---

"I think this young girl wanted . . . to separate quite quickly. The law is there to protect vulnerable people,” Ms Dati said."

She knows very well what most likely to have happened to this girl. She will not be able to marry within the boundaries of her traditions she's going to live the life of an outcast. Of course she didn't want to seperate very quikly because that means she's screwed, she's damaged goods, a shame for her family. It is so very irresponsible of no less then the minister of justice to speak out on this when it's quite clear that the judge applied nothing other then the law, but she had to feed a bone to the ' traditionalists'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

She knows very well what most likely to have happened to this girl. She will not be able to marry within the boundaries of her traditions she's going to live the life of an outcast. Of course she didn't want to seperate very quikly because that means she's screwed, she's damaged goods, a shame for her family. It is so very irresponsible of no less then the minister of justice to speak out on this when it's quite clear that the judge applied nothing other then the law, but she had to feed a bone to the ' traditionalists'.

---

Very well said. Have you been to a political debating course or something, where they taught you to make a point without appearing hysterical? You're getting better, man. That Justice Minister's remark is scandalous and she ought to be fired on the spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You're getting better, man. That Justice Minister's remark is scandalous and she ought to be fired on the spot.

---

Well that's unexpected, thanks :beam:

Quote:

---

Of course she didn't want to seperate very quikly because that means she's screwed, she's damaged goods, a shame for her family.

---

Don't be so silly Frag , she was called publicly called a liar and a slut in front of her wedding guests at the wedding party on her wedding day ...and you seem to think that she didn't want to get the hell out as quick as possible after that ?????:dizzy2:

Oh hold on , I get it . She didn't want to get out quickly because if she did she would be screwed :yes:
Of course , why couldn't I see that ....perhaps because I was stuck on the the little detail that the public display on her wedding day meant that she was already well and truly screwed as .

Quote:

---

That Justice Minister's remark is scandalous and she ought to be fired on the spot.

---

Why is that Adrian ?
Would it not appear that while other ministers and politicians are shouting outrage over the case that was entirely within the law , this minister simply said that it was done within the law and that is what laws are there for .

Quote:

---

It is so very irresponsible of no less then the minister of justice to speak out on this when it's quite clear that the judge applied nothing other then the law,

---

Could you think of any better person to make a comment about the legality of a case when other people are talking nonsense about it ?
Perhaps I live in an alternative reality but usually when a legal case becomes an issue and politicians are shouting the odds it is up to the justice minister to make a statement on the case .
It does make you wonder though if as you say Fragony it was obviously quite clear that the judge did nothing but apply the law why on earth were the other politicians spouting crap(apart from them being politicians of course) ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Why is that Adrian ?
Would it not appear that while other ministers and politicians are shouting outrage over the case that was entirely within the law , this minister simply said that it was done within the law and that is what laws are there for .

---

That's what you say. She said something entirely different, didn't she? And she said the law was there to protect vulnerable people. Yet the law was invoked by the husband, not the vulnerable girl. Do you honestly think a girl in her position is able to exercise her formal rights? She isn't, and the Minister knows that. If you can't see the scandalous point in her remark, then you must have no heart.

It all doesn't make sense, old chum, until you realise that she is defending tribal custom; that she is, like our friend here said, throwing a bone to North African migrants who are stuck in the old ways.