Jack Straw drives a bus

Manchester Evening News:

A MUSLIM woman was prevented from getting on a bus in Greater Manchester because she would not remove her veil.

The 22-year-old Manchester University student from Oldham says other passengers laughed when the driver refused to let her on because he could not check her identity with her bus pass.

The Asian News:

AN EIGHT-year old-boy was left terrified by racist thugs who punched him in the face and pulled off his mosque cap.

Mohammed Tamazul was attacked whilst on his way to his uncle’s home on Stockport Road Levenshulme, Manchester where friends and family gathered for special evening Ramadan prayers.

As he made his way Mohammed noticed three teenage boys following him on mountain bikes.

One of them got off and asked if he was Muslim.

When he didn't reply the lout pulled his cap and started throwing kicks and punches at him before riding off again.

Mohammed's dad Tamazul Miah said he believed the attack was a result of the negative media coverage of the Muslim community.

Father of four, Mr Miah said: "My son was targeted because he is a Muslim, I can’t see any other reason.

"This has never happened to him or any of my other children before.

"My son was left shaking after the incident. He told me that whilst they were attacking him, the other two thugs were laughing and encouraging their friend to carry on. They were also saying to their friend "get the Muslim".

Mohammed was left with bruises around his eyes and is now frightened to go out.

Comments

[joe90]

I don't normally massage egos with a reply,
but its good to see you agree with me that violence against children is permissible under certain circumstances- which is not what you said initially - isn't it important exactly what you say in law ?

I noticed you shifted your ground but didn't acknowledge this fact, or the fact that you were wrong and I was right, regarding your global assertion about violence against children - the fact you tout yourself as a 'solicitor in practice', but did't actually practice it in this extremely important instance, and then didn't acknowledge your real howler, doesn't fill me with any confidence in your forensic skills I'm afraid

Is this enough ego-massaging for you pseudo-solicitor-by-practice, whatever that is? I don't normally read the small print attached to small egos unsure of themselves.

You may find people mistaking you for a real 'solicitor', if you go around pretending to be one, attaching only the suffix 'in practice' (I've no idea what this means as I'm not a solicitor) in order to distinguish you from a real solicitor -
- all of which I've only got your word for, Martin Munchausen etc etc
- but impersonation is still an offence regardless

I've got my copy of 'General Principles of Scots Law' by Enid Marshall,
so I don't need someone to tell me about Scots Law or to repeat to me what I can read in BBC news bulletins -
- or that child custody cases are typically fraught with extreme loyalties and partialness on either side (same with divorce cases and settlements - there you go, see its easy, even I can make it all up as I go along, just like you)-

- you've told me nothing about law I couldn't find out very easily for myself, blah blah

[Martin]

Joe,

This particular rant is even more incoherent than usual.

Pity the poor Palestinians, when they have such ineloquent advocates.

From the top, JoJo -

"the fact you tout yourself as a 'solicitor in practice"

Never did. Anywhere.

"You may find people mistaking you for a real 'solicitor', if you go around pretending to be one,"

Never did. You can't read. Not my problem.

"I've got my copy of 'General Principles of Scots Law' by Enid Marshall"

Good for you, JoJo!!! You've got me going there.

A word to he wise JoJo. Law books are like handguns. Owning them is one thing - knowing how to use them quite another...

However, you also write,

"its good to see you agree with me that violence against children is permissible under certain circumstances- which is not what you said initially "

No, no, JoJo, what I said to DrM was,

"don't ever imply that I support violence against children ever again.

You then said,

"I think you'll find, mr psuedo-solicitor, 'violence' against children is perfectly legal, depending on circumstances (just like everything to do with ethics-law) "

I replied by saying that,

"The legality of violence against children dependent upon circumstances is not in dispute - however, that was not my point. I was criticising its very practice."

You're another one who can't read English! What on earth is wrong with you people? For goodness' sake, the radicals and revolutionaries are always supposed to be the well educated and clever ones...

And keep your hands off my small print, you naughty boy...

[Martin]

Joe,

This particular rant is even more incoherent than usual.

Pity the poor Palestinians, when they have such ineloquent advocates.

From the top, JoJo -

"the fact you tout yourself as a 'solicitor in practice"

Never did. Anywhere.

"You may find people mistaking you for a real 'solicitor', if you go around pretending to be one,"

Never did. You can't read. Not my problem.

"I've got my copy of 'General Principles of Scots Law' by Enid Marshall"

Good for you, JoJo!!! You've got me going there.

A word to he wise JoJo. Law books are like handguns. Owning them is one thing - knowing how to use them quite another...

However, you also write,

"its good to see you agree with me that violence against children is permissible under certain circumstances- which is not what you said initially "

No, no, JoJo, what I said to DrM was,

"don't ever imply that I support violence against children ever again.

You then said,

"I think you'll find, mr psuedo-solicitor, 'violence' against children is perfectly legal, depending on circumstances (just like everything to do with ethics-law) "

I replied by saying that,

"The legality of violence against children dependent upon circumstances is not in dispute - however, that was not my point. I was criticising its very practice."

You're another one who can't read English! What on earth is wrong with you people? For goodness' sake, the radicals and revolutionaries are always supposed to be the well educated and clever ones...

And keep your hands off my small print, you naughty boy...

[joe90]

I'll have to get the dictionary you are using then to follow what you are saying Martin the legal eagle,

Martin is a solicitor by training holding a pacticising certficate,
and not a soliciter by practice holding a certifcate of training
- play this game at home, jumble up the words to make your own meaningless sense out of them (or do they, in fact, all mean the same thing?)

Martin disagrees and agrees with violence against children all at the same time - his rigid adherence to formulaic utterences trying to dress them up as legalese is quite pathetic -
- try and work out what he means, because he certainly doesn't know

The conversations in the Munchausen household must be electrifying,
big arguments over nothing but normal word usage but without taking into account the legal aspects of the case-sensitive, context sensitive meanings that can surround words but which have been understood incorrectly etc etc etc blah blah blah

I am actually beginning to believe you're a real solicitor after all, but not really - a real bag of meaningless hot-air more like

So after all the huffin and puffin about nothing, what is your point ?

The fact you are a fraud and charlatan, that is merely playing with words is nothing new - there are a few others round here that blow as hard as you to no effects as well,

You are going to have to try much harder to bamboozle me Martin Munchausen - you ain't up to the job mate -

And as for me helping support Palestinians - you stick with the enemies of international law, order and justice that way you can help the Palestinian cause no end

ps
I am sometimes a practicing Napoleaon, or The Messiah or The Queen, but not by training and certainly not in reality -
- try and work out what this means, if like me, you are also an amateur philospher and like to indulge in the occasional exercise in logical-positivism
ie messing about with words, meanings, statements and contexts

[Martin]

JoJo,

As previously advised I am a solicitor by training, but have never claimed to be the holder of a current practicing certificate. I have not spoken one word of a lie.

'Martin disagrees and agrees with violence against children all at the same time' -

Nonsense. I acknowledge it is legal under certain circumstances. That does not mean that I either agree with it or condone it - indeed, it was DrM's scurrilous accusation that I supported or approved of a criminal assault on a child which kicked off this thread what now seems like a very long time ago.

"The fact you are a fraud and charlatan, that is merely playing with words is nothing new - there are a few others round here that blow as hard as you to no effects as well"

The words 'fraud' and 'charlatan' have very specific meanings. I cannot see how either of them might apply to me.

If however, you wished to apply to them to the discredited Muslim bigot and apologist for kidnapping Osama Saeed then you might be on slightly firmer ground.

[Ted]

Am I the only one who thinks Martin has a point regarding the legal situation of Molly Campbell whose kidnapping (in the legal sense) even our MP's were happy to accept? Apparently so.

[Shavez]

History is full of people who broke the law when it was an ass. That's usually what it takes to get it changed. We would be nowhere without it.

I'm sure there was also people who sat around lamenting Rosa Park's contravention of the law at the time too.

So you worry about the law all you want, while others keep their eye on the prize - a happy girl.

[Ted]

Well, I do worry about the law - one of the things that makes a country civilized is the rule of law. If the lawmakers themselves, like Mohammed Sarwar, don't respect the law then what's the point? We may as well descend into anarchy where the only law is that of individual whim.

[Ted]

BTW, Shavez, what precise part of the law is 'an ass' (to use your expression) with respect to the Molly Campbell case?

Why do I get the impression that if Molly Campbell's mother had ignored the ruling of a court in Pakistan and had smuggled her to Scotland, we wouldn't be able to move for the outbreak of psoriasis, bed-wetting and cries of Islamophobia on here? Or am I just being cynical?

[ainelivia]

Sorry to break into the back and forth of law and so forth, with a little return to reality, how and ever, solicitership and linguistics and philosophy aside, guys, the central question without reference to punctation is simple.

What has being a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Irish Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist got to do with how, or if, we care for our children?

[Martin]

Ainelivia,

To you or I, nothing.

But it sure seems to matter to Osama Saeed.

[Shavez]

You're quite right Ainelvia, but others like Martin were determined to bring religion into this very personal and emotional family case. I'm glad to see he has finally realised religion has nothing to do with this though.

Ted, my test would be whether I could look Misbah (please for crying out loud get her name right) in the eye and tell her that she had to be forced to live somewhere else against her will.

[Ted]

Shavez, your test might work well on Touched By An Angel, Highway To Heaven or any other mawkish, sentimental TV programme but it is impractical for a serious legal matter which is why, unsurprisingly, British courts, and any reputable court anywhere, would ignore such blatant emotional blackmail. Do you seriously believe that a 12-year-old girl, who loves both her parents, is going to say her father is holding her against her will? What do we know is that Molly/Misbah (happy?) was taken abroad against the orders of a British court of law. I don't ultimately care where Molly/Misbah ends up residing but I do like British law to be honoured, not least by those paid by the UK taxpayer to make those laws!

I don't believe her father wishes her any harm, and she clearly loves him as I said, but he's gone about it in an illegal manner and we can hardly condone it. It also sets a dangerous precedent for future custodial battles - either one parent disregards the verdict of the court or we ask children to decide which of the parents they love the best. Nice one. Way to run a country.

[ainelivia]

As I posted above previously, "Martin wrote quoting Osama "if Sajad wasn't a Muslim, he wouldn't care about his daughter."

That's a fairly gob-smacking statement."

Which if anyone reads it, infers that others do not care about their daughters. Who exactly are these "others", who according to the statement, not being Muslim, do not care about their daughters?

Simply put, the statement infers that non-Muslims do not care about their daughters.

Unfortunately it echoes a statement by Misbah's Father, who on Channel 4 News, stated quite clearly that if Misbah was with her Mother, "She'd be brought up as a nothing". Which would equally infer that non-Muslims are "nothings".

When I raised that point with Osama, as I recall without returning to the said thread, he stated that Mr Rana's statement was wrong. (So I am suprised to see the above statement, attributed to Osama by Martin).

However we do not seem to be able to get away from the fact that either of these statements are loaded with predjudice. What is offensive is that they are prejudiced against the "other", the "outsider". That is where the danger lies, that any of us believe that any particular aspect of our being renders any of us superior to another.

[martin]

Shavez,

You wrote,

"...others like Martin were determined to bring religion into this very personal and emotional family case. I'm glad to see he has finally realised religion has nothing to do with this though."

Not correct. It was Sajad Ahmed Rana who brought religion into this case by seeking custody in Pakistan on the basis of Louise Campbell's apostasy from Islam.

From his point of view religion seems to be critical to the case.

Incidentally, given that your comments are very similar to ones that Osama has made elsewhere -

"Martin, people like you have to bring religion into everything"

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/molly_campbell.html#comment-22389823

and given that the URL on your posting name takes a viewer right back to this site's homepage, Shavez, I have to ask - are you Osama posting with another screen name?

And did anyone else hear about Osama's wee spat with the Dundee Courier, by the way? He hasn't posted a word about himself, so you can read about it here -

http://martinkelly.blogspot.com/2006/11/has-osama-saeed-incited-perversion-of.html

Ainelivia, you are trying to reason with the unreasonable. Keep going, becuase one day you might just get through to them.

[joe90]

martin von munchausen,
for someone that is supposed to be a trained solicitor by practice, or something (jumble the words up to produce the correct formula),
your writing style is appalling,

And I see you are still living in denial over the fact you don't support violence against chlidren but do - which is it?

Martin von munchausen phoney solicitors-by-practice,
the idea that 'fraud' and 'charlatan' have specific meanings, according to your inconsiderable authority, is howlingly funny -
Here is me thinking these words, like every other word in the lexicon, didn't have any specific meaning whatsoever, we just make them up as we go along,
much like the rest of your little transparant phoney legal eagle act

[Osama]

Ainelivia, please don't be deceived by Martin. The link is there, go and see what was said in its context. We have our disagreements from time to time, but you're a reasonable person. I think Sohaib laid it out well above too. I doubt even the Daily Express would run it as a story, as Martin threatened.

Martin, I really do feel for you reading your life story. It's fairly clear though that our disagreements are not worth debating out, especially if every little thing is going to be twisted as you do. Peace be upon you.

[Martin]

"Martin von munchausen phoney solicitors-by-practice"

JoJo, is that your best shot? Really?

If I were you I would bow out now, before you embarrass both your cause and yourself even more than you've done already.

Osama,

And also with you, my son.

I have sought not to deceive, but only analysed what you have said yourself. If you can't stand the heat, Osama, get out of the kitchen.

By the way, you might like to know that the little unpleasantness that you were involved in up in Dundee earlier this week made Page 9 of today's 'Scottish Daily Express'.

Go in peace, to love and serve the Lord.

[joe90]

For someone who is supposed to be a solicitor von munchausen,
you don't seem to realise my 'cause' is that I support the laws that already exist.

I support the cause of 'international law and order' and the laws and customs that underpin it.

Now, exactly what is so left-wing and revolutionary about supporting laws that already exist and that I want put into practice martin von munchausen?

Being a 'solicitor' (notice I'm using quotations just like you do) I would have thought you would have no problem explaining yourself on these points of law and its practice.

I would have thought my 'cause' was actually a very staid, very sober, very right-wing non-radical no-nonsense 'cause'. According to you, a solicitor, it isn't.

I suppose this surprising conclusion comes with all that training you do being put into practice and vice-versa - such as the fact you are able to 'explain' your support for violence against children and, at the same time, 'explain' the fact that you don't support it.

[Sohaib]

Aine, if I may add one thing. You said:

"[Osama's sentence] infers that others do not care about their daughters. Who exactly are these "others", who according to the statement, not being Muslim, do not care about their daughters? Simply put, the statement infers that non-Muslims do not care about their daughters."

Putting aside the fact that you mean "implies", just be careful that you are not putting words in Osama's mouth.

He didn't say anything about "others", even if he wasn't being sarcastic (which he WAS). If you want to take him literally, then you could go as far as assuming that he thinks Sajad Rana is nothing without religion. But imagining a slur against all non-Muslims is simply not textually supportable.

[Ted]

Sajad Rana was on Radio Scotland this morning. He has a new-found love of the law as he expects the court, in Pakistan, natch, to uphold his decision to take Molly/Misbah to Pakistan. Presumably he believes this to be the end of the matter. Having previously rejected the law when it suited him, he now urges respect for the law when it suits him.

He also stated that, in his expert opinion, Louise Campbell became a bad mother when she was no longer a Muslim.

So a hypocrite AND a bigot. So why did assorted people who should know better rally to the defence of this vile, bigoted, boorish oaf?

[Osama]

Ted, not having heard the interview, I would comment on your comment that I've known converts to Islam that have had their non-Muslim spouses divorce them on the basis of the conversion. It does not make them bigots, you can't for the sake of political corectness ignore the fact there has been a material difference made in the foundation of the family life.

Louise and Sajad were bringing up their children in an Islamic fashion for years. It's entirely legitmate for him to bring up the fact that Louise is setting up a different way of life for Misbah than that they had agreed on previously.

Allied to this is the host of personal problems that coincided with her identity crisis. It wasn't just that she took of her niqab, stopped praying 5 times a day, and carried on her life normally.

[Ted]

Osama, this assume that his religious views trump hers which I can't quite understand. You could just as well turn it around and say he's imposing a way of life on Molly/Misbah which Louise Campbell, her mother, no longer agrees with and does not give her consent. But then her views always seem to have second in this entire affair.

Osama, you should be able to hear excerpts from it on the BBC website. I think it's around 1hr and 40 mins in.

The other key point is that Sajad had no legal basis to take Molly/Misbah to Pakistan - though I don't doubt he felt morally justified in doing so. I actually found it quite offensive, I have to say, to hear it being said that he expects the court to agree with him and that should be that. He never deferred to the verdict of the court when it agreed with Louise Campbell, it must be said.

[ainelivia]

Osama wrote. "Ainelivia, please don't be deceived by Martin. The link is there, go and see what was said in its context. We have our disagreements from time to time, but you're a reasonable person. I think Sohaib laid it out well above too. I doubt even the Daily Express would run it as a story, as Martin threatened."

I must have missed this Osama. I'd like to believe that I am reasonable as you say, though I truly believe that all of us can be pushed to the unreasonable on occasions.

Trust, that I can tell the difference between empty threats and meaningful discussion, and that I side with no one. I express here my own feelings and beliefs. But some of the more purient schoolboy debate on this blog cannot go unchallenged or questioned. Question everything that is my policy.

Also that really no consensus is ever reached if there are those who seek to section us off and create groups. And Martin and JOe90 are more than guilty of that offence.

While I'm on the subject, it is the nature of much commenting on this blog to take a stance/side and throw all the garbage that can be thrown. Where I feel that comments are unwarranted or show up the predjudice of the commenter I often do respond.

When I first found your blog, I hoped for insight into the world of Muslims in this country. However I often have to wade through mud to find any sensible discussion. Granted that is not your doing, and you are willing to keep open commenting so that's the nature of the situation.