My girlfriend and I got arrested for screwing in a car right here in Toronto, many years ago.

Mind you, we weren't imprisoned or tortured or anything, and neither of us were slaughtered or even maimed by any of the males in her family.

While I enjoyed reliving that little episode, I don't really know what the story is here.

Posted by: Darrell at December 29, 2005 10:04 PM

You don't know what the story is here, huh? Yeah, its just like the time you got caught for screwing in a car....minus the beheading.

Posted by: THw6kds at December 29, 2005 10:35 PM

Never get caught.Throw a mattress in the back of the panel van, draw the curtains around, turn the stereo down low and check the shock absorbers.

Posted by: islamophobic pride at December 29, 2005 11:17 PM

Just make sure your young lady is over the age of 16 or so, depending on your state or province, or 9 if living in Iran.

Posted by: dby at December 29, 2005 11:36 PM

Don't forget the bumper sticker:

"If this van's a rockin', don't come a knockin'. And Allah knows best."

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 29, 2005 11:37 PM

Darn you Shinoliite,you beat me to it--out here it was--"If this camper is rocking forget about knocking"

Posted by: bob the good at December 29, 2005 11:47 PM

This is a peculiar news item to put up, and the facts show that the Bahraini judge's sentence does not rise to the level of something that merits outrage.

Furthermore, the behavior in question would in the recent past, all over the Western world, have been not only looked at askance, but the police would have not behaved differently from the police in Bahrain. Unless one believes that the rules regulating sexual behavior in public that once were enforced in the United States and all over the Western world were outrageous, then s what is described here is not outrageous.

Bahrain is not Saudi Arabia, but famously the place where, in the Arabian peninsula, there is the most freedom. But why should there not be reasonable limits to that freedom?

In this case the quote from the judge, in bold to draw our attention to it -- "You should appreciate that our laws are different from those in the West"-- does not strike one as outrageous.

What if pornographic sites are censored in Saudi Arabia? Should that be posted at Jihad Watch as a sign of the primitive mores of Muslims? No -- nor should it be offered by Musliim propagandists as a sign of the moral health of the world of Islam, or of its "respect for family values." For we know the full story. And when those Saudis, with their sneers of cold command, use their female house staff as sex or other kinds of slaves, beat their wives whenever they feel like it (say, do Saudi and other Arab diplomats get to bring more than one wife to Washington, London, Paris, Rome? Just wondering. Answers from moles inside the State Department appreciated.), or prevent them from driving or even leaving the house without a male guard, and so on, all the way to those oxymoronic "honor" killings -- that's when such things are fit to be posted, and make us, as we read about them, fit to be tied.

The category of the unseemly, rising to the indecent, and then to the kind of indecency that can be subject to the law, to norm and sanction, is a category worth preserving. It is not a moral advance for that Canadian court to have last week declared that orgies in night clubs could not be prevented or punished.

Free verse removed the grid, in English, of iambic pentameter. That grid provided something for poets to observe and also, at times, to violate. It was a corset, not a strait-jacket, and all the muses, who tend to gain weight as time passes, look better in corsets.

Other grids, or rules, regulating sexual behavior in public, may similarly be imposed, to be observed (mostly) and to be violated (sometimes). None of the Framers would have thought flagrant behavior should be permitted. Was the past idiotic? Were all those people, up until 1963, when according to Larkin's famous phrase sex was invented, benighted?

If this was not mere clipping and kissing, but a couple found in flagrante delicto, then why should the imposition of punishment be mocked? To do so is to fall into attacking absolutely everything that goes on when done by Muslims, but presumably not when the same thing is done in the West, by intelligent solons.

And besides, if we all insist that anything goes (and far too much goes, gone with the absent-minded wind), then those who enjoy transgression will have nothing to transgress. And in that case, Jack (and blushing Jill) could turn out to be a very dull couple indeed.

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2005 12:52 AM

As for Colmes, while he may not be too bright, one thing I do admire about him is that unlike most Liberals, he debates the issues, rather then resort to personal attacks. That is the good thing about him. That said, if I was a Liberal and wanted a good debater, I'd rather have Neal Gabler on this program, and have Colmes on Fox News Watch.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 28, 2005 11:33 PM

ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL LMAO

MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD TELL THE LIBS?????

NO BACK SEAT SEX BOY WOULD THIS OPEN THEIR EYES??

ROTFL ROTFL

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at December 30, 2005 1:08 AM

Well said (as always), Hugh. Non curo. Si metrum non habet, non est poema ("I don't care. If it doesn't rhyme, it isn't a poem.")

If this was not mere clipping and kissing, but a couple found in flagrante delicto...

Clipping. There's a euphemism I'm not familiar with... but mixed-gender manicures are probably haram, too. :)

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 30, 2005 1:32 AM

See, they are just like us:

They screw in cars! They are human after all!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 30, 2005 1:45 AM

THw6kds,

Were they beheaded, or sentenced to be? I didn't see any reference to that in the post, or the link.

I suspect you were confused by the subtlety of the second paragraph of my post, though I didn't think it terribly subtle.

Posted by: Darrell at December 30, 2005 1:47 AM

Sorry to offend Hugh -

What I posted with minimal comment speaks tons and tons more than what the article or I can possibly articulate.

This woman (however indiscreet) was exercising a human trait (hardly deniable and certainly most desirable) the majority of humanity has been practising since its inception.

The proliferation of mankind is proof of this innate behaviour. It can't be stemmed as long as we live and it will certainly cease with our destruction.

Whether you, Mullah Man or Sheik Sam disagree with this or not makes no difference; procreation is the ultimate human freedom.

This young Bahraini woman was correct when she stated, "What my friend and I were doing is part of our individual freedom."

Indeed it is.

The judge be damned for his judgement of this very human female.

The judge be damned for elevating one culture over another.

The judge be damned for not even considering that his mother may have conceived him in the back of a car, or in the hay of a cart or even on the hump of a camel.

This news item is not peculiar in the least and it is entirely relevant on this particular thread.

It speaks of freedom.

Good night and good day.

Posted by: Eschwapp at December 30, 2005 1:47 AM

Eschwapp... what are you talking about?

F*cking in public is a celebrated freedom for everyone and anyone, anywhere, anytime, because... f*cking is what people do?

Posted by: kamala at December 30, 2005 1:58 AM

Only one way to find out if this act would still meet the same reaction in the States...

... I was thinking of asking a policeman, by the way. What were you thinking? ;)

Kamala-- I don't think "making the beast with two backs" is permitted in public anywhere, even in the Netherlands, let alone the US.

Now can we get back to the threat of global jihad, and take leave of what people ought to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

... Again, I was thinking of posting at blog sites. What do I look like, a perv? :)

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 30, 2005 2:19 AM

This story might have made more sense if the whole thing had been quoted. It looks as if she got 3 months for answering back and it's not clear if he was jailed at all; they might have got nothing for the sex alone. "The clerk scratched his nose with a pen. "Some people would consider" he observed, "that stealing the motor-car was the worst offence; and so it is. But cheeking the police undobtedly carries the severest penalty; and so it ought.""

Posted by: philiph35 at December 30, 2005 3:36 AM

Darrell:

This better not be the Darrell I know from Toronto, LOL you got busted, now I am wondering if it is my buddy Darrell who lives in Toronto.

They should have done the "look out" thing where the person on top glances around every now and then.

But then again, they probably picked a horrible location. When I was in University, I always preferred Todmorden Mills since they had this cool parking lot surrounded by trees. Oh to be in University again....those were the days.....

Now back to the present:

"You should appreciate that our laws are different from those in the West," he said."

Yeah I guess she should since she will now realise how much her religion sucks and little if any freedom she really has.

Posted by: Gorkhali at December 30, 2005 3:54 AM

This is a very powerful speach and shows to the world that Islamic laws are different to those of civilised nations, is anyone listening who is in power, I think not.

http://www.iheu.org/node/1539

Posted by: Daffersd at December 30, 2005 4:06 AM

Hugh writes "It is not a moral advance for that Canadian court to have last week declared that orgies in night clubs could not be prevented or punished."

One could easily argue that sexual freedom is an integral part of the broader freedoms we are fighting for? So why is the ruling of this Canadian court not a "moral advance."

I'm not sure about morality, but from a completely practical point of view, because the ruling applies even to minors, it encourages promiscuity not only among adults but among teens, many of whom are not mature enough to make appropriate behavioral judgments.

Unless every precaution is taken, the repercussions are obvious; unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease. One need not be a prude to acknowledge the obvious: Sexual promiscuity has undeniable sociological and public-health consequences.

In 'Radical Son,' David Horowitz details how - during the explosion of the AIDS crises in 1983, he actually went to a bath-house in San Francisco to observe the goings on.

One room had partitions that began at the waste and went up to the ceiling, where men had completely anonymous sex with one another. Another called the 'orgy room' was described by Horowitz as "a gigantic petri-dish," where many had literally dozens of encounters in a single night.

Horowitz tried to sound the alarm about the potentially tragic consequences of homosexual promiscuity, urging the closing of the bath houses and the cancelling of the 'gay pride' parade that year so the epidemic wouldn't leave San Francisco for the heartland. He was vilified as a homophobe and a hate-monger by the gay-lobby.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco public health dept was so obsequiously deferential to that same lobby that it chose not to close the bath-houses or cancel the parade. Thousands were subsequently infected that might not have been, and those in turn infected hundreds of thousands of others.

Political-correctness killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in the early years of the AIDS epidemic. Homosexual promiscuity was the agent of the spreading infection, but to make such a claim transformed one into a bigot, a homophobe, and a hate-monger.

I'm not one for passing judgments on sexual morality. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own abode is their business.

The sin of the 80s wasn't homosexuality per se, but rather the astonishing promiscuity that pervaded the homosexual sub-culture. Even worse was the political correctness that precluded an effective public-health response that might have contained the epidemic.

It is the same political-correctness that today precludes us from containing a different type of epidemic, one of violence and intolerance...and based upon theology.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 30, 2005 5:48 AM

Bat Ye'or and our own Robert Spencer are to appear in a new documentary "Islam: What the West Needs to Know."

When were you going to let us in on it Robert?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48131

Posted by: Cornelius at December 30, 2005 6:24 AM

What about the bloke? Anything happen to him for partaking of this coq au vin? Probably not, knowing the double standards that usually apply in this kind of case, especially, though not exclusively, in Islamic countries.

Three months in the clink is a bit steep. Let's hope he came up to scratch - well hung for a sheep not a lamb.

Posted by: Interested at December 30, 2005 7:23 AM

Just a general FYI note:

I myself would not have put this up. Eric Schwappach, who meanwhile has summarily resigned as News Editor for an unstated reason, put it up without checking with me.

I would take it down but since it has stimulated some useful discussion, and important comment from Hugh, I will keep it up.

I agree with Hugh: "If this was not mere clipping and kissing, but a couple found in flagrante delicto, then why should the imposition of punishment be mocked? To do so is to fall into attacking absolutely everything that goes on when done by Muslims, but presumably not when the same thing is done in the West, by intelligent solons."

Cornelius, I filmed my part for that documentary over a year ago. I didn't know it was finished and have posted the article at JW.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 30, 2005 7:56 AM

Eric, come back! Let's kiss and make up. Hugh is right and Robert is right. This makes for an interesting discussion, if nothing else.

Theodore Dalrymple muses that the reason our elites don't advocate a stricter moral code for the masses, whose lives are daily ruined by the unfettered pursuit of sexual freedom, is that they fear they would have to observe it themselves...

In the name of freedom, should we abolish duty and reverence?

Posted by: Rebecca JW at December 30, 2005 8:39 AM

" Eric Schwappach, who meanwhile has summarily resigned as News Editor for an unstated reason..."
-- posted by Robert

Hugh is wrong. It is moral relativism to equate punishment of public indecency based on a democratically established --- and constitutionally protected --- to the same based on theocratic fiat girded in a truly awful scripture.

In other words, the judge's justification should be met with derision and profound disrespect. That makes this a solid news article.

DISLOYAL HARVARD DISLOYAL GEORGETOWN DISLOYAL USC DISLOYAL COLUMBIA

Uninformed equivalencies are the mist droplets that make up the fog in which Infidelia remains totally lost.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 30, 2005 9:50 AM

"Clipping. There's a euphemism I'm not familiar with.."
-- from a posting above

Not a euphemism. Merely a beautiful way of saying "to embrace," found most often in that fixed, alliterative phrase.

For example:

"White thy fambles, red thy gams.
And thy quarrons dainty is.
Couch a hogshead with me then,
In the Darkmans clip and kiss."

A preview from "Ulysses."

Coming to a bookstore near you.

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2005 10:49 AM

Speaking of useless minutia, anybody know the tune that Nero played while Rome burned?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 30, 2005 11:10 AM

Clipping to me means something far more prosaic - it's when a prostitute takes the money but does not perform the required service.

Posted by: Interested at December 30, 2005 11:16 AM

"If this was not mere clipping and kissing, but a couple found in flagrante delicto, then why should the imposition of punishment be mocked?"

The imposition of punishment should be mocked insofar as it is grounded in a puritanical totalitarianism; in the modern West, such punishments are not. The modern West has learned through painstaking centuries of discussion, reasoned arguments, and sociopolitical strife to moderate the regulation of society and rationally leaven such regulation with the fact no human being has a direct pipeline to the omniscient God.

Does our modern Western approach have no flaws? Of course not, it has plenty of flaws, and thank God for that. The far more chilling and dangerous flaws always emanate from those (whether Communists, Fascists, Muslims, or the small minority of nostalgic Christians that exist) wishing to impose flawlessness.

Thus: when such enforcements of morality are grounded in an ideology of flawlessness, mock away. The difference is clear between them and (most of) us.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 30, 2005 11:20 AM

"Speaking of useless minutia [sic]"
-- from a posting above, apparently describing the lines of Romany from "Ulysses"

"Ulysses" is "useless minutia"[sic]?

No. "Ulysses" and other works of literature, and the preservation of societies that can produce both those who write, and those capable of reading them, constitute part of the reason for, as the World War II slogan went, Why We Fight.

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2005 11:39 AM

Don't forget that in WWII the allies actually did fight.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 30, 2005 12:02 PM

Fighting comes in many guises, and uses many instruments. Warfare was not what led members of the Communist Party apparatus to rethink the success, or failure, of Soviet Communism.

One of the main problems is that this Administration has no understanding of any way to fight except with tanks, Humvees, and "boots on the ground" (a phrase that deserves to be retired). No Infidel propaganda, no sowing of discord in the Muslim camp, no intelligent articulation of the problem, and its scope and duration, to the Americans or other Infidels, no recognition, or hint of it, that Da'wa and demographic conquest are the main instruments, and measures have to be taken that, a mere half-century ago, would have been seen as both commonsensical and morally acceptable, but are now, apparently, not even to be hinted at (here, I'll hint: Masaryk, Benes).

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2005 1:24 PM

"Much ado about nothing" (that's my small literary contribution, btw)

They were screwing in the car and got caught? Too bad for them. It is illegal in Bahrain and it is illegal in most western countries. Want to know why? Because if I am walking my dog, I might not want to be confrontated with the sight of two people screwing each other's their brains out. To some that could be a pleasant sight, but to some others it might not be. It all depends to what is socially acceptable and what isn't.

The newly wed Aztec couple would spend the honeymoon in a hut where both the male and the female would be lectured the the village elders on how to have a pleasurable sexual intercourse. How having sex while being watched by a bunch of decrepit old women could be "pleasurable" is something that I will never comprehend, but apparently the Aztecs could because it was costumary within their society.

Back to the Arab couple, if they were kissing, the sentence is ridiculous. If "Ahmed" was trying to find out if the girl's ankles made a nice necklace, then they had it coming. What the story doesn't tell is whether or not the girl was the only party penalized. What sentence did "Ahmed" get? We don't know.

Posted by: cruzado at December 30, 2005 1:45 PM

Conflicting viewpoints: the young woman: "This is a democratic and free country..."

The judge: "This is an Islamic country..."

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at December 30, 2005 6:36 PM

The laughable and tragic part about this tale is the UTTER hypocrisy of all Muslim culture... They pretend there is no prostitution in Islam, pretend the A.I.D.S. virus doesn't exist, pretend they don't have STDs, pretend there is no fornication, pretend there is no dirt in Islam, pretend that child rape isn't going on, pretend that child rape is sanctioned by their "religion" and the behavior of their psychotic "prophet", pretend that drug abuse doesn't exist in Islam.... ALL of it lies, all of it pathologically delusional. They disavow their flaws by foisting them on the "other" -- that is, the "infidel" or the "Jew", they systematicall cleanse their innumerable crimes by projecting them onto others, thereby exonerating themselves, and further dehumanizing those whom they want to destroy...

It is a very effective ideology... It is the world's largest dysfunctional family... Until we begin to throw their hypocrisy back in their lying faces, until we utterly reject their tendency to pretend that all the filth inherent in their culture or the insanity replete in their "religion" is somehow OUR fault, we will not begin to stop their grotesque lies... we will not begin to win back our future from their dark designs...

The sordid truth about Islam must be exposed for the festering sore that it is... When they foist their horror, their crime, their deficiency upon us -- we must do everything in our power to hold the mirror up to their filthy lying faces, and not allow them to squirm away from the horror of their system of beliefs. Our decency, our unwillingness to repudiate them, to point out their obvious flaws and failures in the vain hope that they will admit what we all know is failing -- in fact, it only fuels their dark delusions of superiority in the face of mountains of evidence that they are inferior and that Islam is a disease for humanity...

Posted by: jsla at December 30, 2005 7:05 PM

"The laughable and tragic part about this tale is the UTTER hypocrisy of all Muslim culture"

It's not really hypocrisy; it's a schizophrenic pathology: Muslims really believe in their totalitarian puritanism, AND they practice the sexual degeneracy you cited (in addition to many other types). This goes beyond hypocrisy. A mere hypocrite still has his rationality and sanity intact. Good Muslims don't.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 30, 2005 8:54 PM

"What the story doesn't tell is whether or not the girl was the only party penalized."

It appears she was the only party penalized...and in more ways than one.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 31, 2005 12:17 AM

It appears she was the only party penalized

The double standard is the aspect of this case that concerns me. The sexual double standard is universal, but in the West it is no longer enshrined in law. In the Islamic world it is.

There is no sexual morality as such in Islam, just hatred of women's sexual autonomy. Men, on the other hand are allowed a great deal of latitude.

This is the aspect of the case that should have been emphasised in Eric's original post. Had due emphasis been given to this aspect, then the post would have been a perfectly legitimate one to make. It belongs on this site at least as much as the trivial stuff about banning piggy banks and Christmas lights, which turned out to be untrue.

Posted by: Interested at December 31, 2005 2:50 AM

"[T]his is a democratic and free country," the student, who is above the age of 21, told the judge sentencing her..."

Clearly this is the problem. If she had been only nine years old, the judge would have congratulated them both for following the example of the Prophet.

Besides, they violated a Sharia law more important than the sex: If Muslim women are going to fornicate, they should at least keep the veil on. They're not married and he could see her face ... and he wasn't even her cousin!

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 31, 2005 11:17 AM