A Dubai man whose fiancée kept her charms hidden under a niqab opted for a quick divorce after his first glimpse beneath the veil revealed she was cross-eyed and sported a beard. According to Gulf News, the unnamed "ambassador" never saw his intended's face on the few times they met, but was convinced all was well since the …
2 horrifying terms
First of all "Moral Damages", suing someone else for you breaking your morals is retarded
Secondly "hormonal deficiencies", what the hell!?! that sounds like "not horny enough"... hmn actually I think I might refer some of my exes for that.
Free pint to anyone who can...
...explain "moral damage".
any religion any time any place=moral damage
It just goes to show..
Moral damage = damage to feelings or reputation.
All in all, this sad case just shows that it's still worth heeding that old wiltshire saying:
"always look at a woman's face before you marry her, if you are the sort of person who might get upset when she later turns out to be less attractive than you were led to believe."
No wonder they want the niqab banned in France. Armpit hair is bad enough...
I'm curious. My local bank requests motorcyclists remove their helmets, yet there is no sign requiring the niqab or even balaclavas be removed...
Probably because anyone wearing a balaclava in a bank is probably also carrying a shotgun and demanding to make a withdrawal. There not the sort of people you ask to remove there facial gear!
Reminds me a hotel I once stayed in somewhere in Africa, probably Uganda. It was apparently against hotel regulations to keep automatic weapons, explosives, poisons, or nuclear material in their rooms. I never could quite imagine what type of person would wonder around with such items yet feel obliged to honor such terms.
Not as puzzling...
has anyone read the form you have to fill to enter the US (form I-94W). I quiote:
C. Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?
Ahhhmmm: Yes ? Who would acknowledge this in a freaking form !
In sudafrica, firearms are quite common amongst the population. Some nightclubs have gun lockers !
I say old chap..
Reminds me of the signs at security in a UK nuclear power station I used to visit, it asks you to hand over any bladed weapons or firearms before entering the site.
Honourable bunch those terrorists.
I needed to go to the job centre today. A muslim couple walked in, woman in full niqab (post box style, just eyes showing), the husband wearing a hoody. The security staff asked him to remove his hood; the woman was not challenged and allowed to keep hers on. So, if you want to put a hit on the Job Centre, you know what to wear.
"Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?"
I would think that you'd be expect to lie. Then when they do find out, there is a good reason to deport you. If you answer correctly - and they miss it - well you are in a good place deportation wise.
It's an easy way to cancel your visa
If you lie on your visa forms they can cancel your visa very easily. They can even revoke a green card and American citizenship obtained through naturalisation if you lied about such things
Oh, no worries, mate, it is bound to happen.
All that it takes is a cartoon.
"Have you ever been or are you now involved in...."
'C. Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?
Ahhhmmm: Yes ? Who would acknowledge this in a freaking form'
It is a legal issue. If the people concerned are honest (very unlikely), they will probably be denied entry to the USA. If the people concerned lie (as one would expect), they will have committed an offence when they submitted the form. This offence allows them to be deported with minimal proof of involvement, whereas proceedings for more specific crimes might be more complicated and the outcome is less clear because their level of involvement may be relevant.
Re: Re: Non?
Or how about simply the questions they ask when you check in at an airport...
"did you pack this bag yourself?"
"are there any dangerous materials in your bag?"
"could anyone have put something in your bag without your knowledge?"
You put a fresh blade in the razor one day only to find it dull after you get up the next morning.
Must have had beautiful eyes...
even more untitled...
....or a lovely personality!
crossed eyes at that!!
Re: En Francais
To be sure though, you should try walking into the bank wearing a balaclava or niqab O:)
"...you should try walking into the bank wearing a balaclava or niqab..."
I think some guys in Paris have done exactly that a couple of days ago. One of them produced a handgun and they escaped with 4500 Euros.
Then there was a robbery at a jewellers in the UK a while back, where a robber wore a burka.
Wear both, just to be sure.
What could possibly go wrong?
Back in the 1980s...
...a schoolmate of mine (a violinist, no less) actually did go into a savings bank with a violin case. It did not contain a violin... just some cash he wanted to put into his account. No Balaclava, no sunglasses, nothing. Just a trench coat and a violin case.
They hit the alarm button before he was even half-way to the counters.
They mistook it for a Viola case and thought he might be about to take it out and play it.
Caveat Emptor perhaps?
In a religion where you cant "try before you buy" surely Caveat Emptor counts for a great deal? He bought it how he saw it, and as we've all been caught out before - things just dont always work out how you hope when you buy without inspecting the goods first! Tough luck, deal with it sunshine...
One question though, he wasnt allowed to look at her face before the marriage but he was shown a photograph? Am i the only one that sees that as absolutely ridiculous. If your not allowed to see the girls face, surely you shouldnt be allowed to see a photo. Alternatively, if your allowed a picture, then why not the real deal... What a ridiculous piece of religious nonsense...
He didn't see her photo...
...his mum did! It says it in the article, in black and white (unless you've been playing silly beggars with custom style sheets in your browser again).
It's men that shouldn't see a woman's face, and his mum is quite likely not to be a man, so it's no problem at all for her to see the potential daughter-in-law's face. Really she should have insisted on meeting her in person, so maybe he should be suing his mother for neglect of parental duty too....
If you're going to be derisory about other people's cultures, get your facts straight first!
RTFA, his MUM saw a picture of her sister
Not quite the same as he seeing a photo of his future bride.
I can't help but feeling sad for the poor girl. And it's not like her parents are gonna pull a similar sting anytime soon, with such publicity on El Reg and elsewhere.
Creating pictures of animate objects is forbidden in Islam so it should have served as a warning to the man's family that their future in-laws were prepared to break this rule. However, there is the loophole used by some that as photographs are not created by one's own hands but are made by a camera then it's OK. I rather think this loophole wouldn't pass muster seeing as the events apparently occurred in Dubai so public floggings all round.
Re: RTFA, his MUM saw a picture of her sister
Maybe El Reg isn't the best publicity for a hairy woman, but it may be a stepping stone to Slashdot (surely any woman is a step up...) or a South African Athletics scholarship.
Re: RTFA, his MUM saw a picture of her sister
What? You think eligible suitors will be browsing El Reg for consumer advice?
Reading other websites
Reading other websites it does actually say HE saw the pictures...
From the BBC "The envoy, who has not been identified, told a Sharia court her mother had tricked him by showing him pictures of the bride's sister, Gulf News reported."
So either El Reg or the BBC and Gulf news are wrong... I'm willing to place my bets on the BBC (being wrong) but the facts are not clear cut...
So i stand by my statement!
could be worse. . . . anal beard ?
beer + turn the lights off + poke yourself in the eyes a few times so your vision goes blury. . . .and all would be fine
I am not an expert (in religions; I'm very good at beer) but I think booze would not be allowed.
Paris because she too revealed her hair to a man who subsequently treated her like shit.
Nice to see...
...that in some parts of the world they have managed to cut out all that romance nonsense although they've still got a way to go to get rid of the present giving.
Surely the headline should be...
Woman conned into wearing Niqab.
Hang on, not news in some parts of the world...
I just can't help feeling rather sorry for the bearded lady.
She's got married (perhaps in good - albeit naive faith), got divorced and been told by the court she's a munter.
I'm sure her self image is on top form right now.
She already knew she was a munter. Hence the deception with the photo.
There's worse than that...
She lives in a society where women are traded as goods and can be returned as defective -- but if the guy's not as advertised then tough shit. At least, now it''s known that she's not that attractive looking, she's less likely to be stoned for being sexually assaulted.
Caroline of Brunswick.
@The Indomitable Gall
"Really she should have insisted on meeting her in person, so maybe he should be suing his mother for neglect of parental duty too"
But how could HE have KNOW on the day who was under the niqab until he peeled it back?
If you're going to be derisory about other people's comments think about it first.
Moral damage in this case is likely equivalent to what we would call damage for pain and suffering over in the UK, or "emotional distress" in the US.
It comes from the French, where the word for "mental" in certain circumstances is the same as the word for "moral". What is sometimes translated from French cases as "moral damage" is actually damages awarded for emotional distress. It seems to be the same here.
How do I claim my pint?
Life imitates Chris Morris
I had to look up this El Reg story again and watch the trailer:
"Chris Morris jihad film good to go - Four Lions trailer live"
"So why's she got her hands on her face?"
"Because she's got a beard..."
PS - I especially like the way the story tags allow me to read more about Beards! See the David Bellamy special feature analysis comment.
Sheik shaken, suddenly sues in hijab hidden hair horror
Yep, that's mine.
Should of taken 'her' on a pre-marriage holiday to sunny London, arriving at Heathrow so he could of had a butchers at 'her' bits on the perv-scanner!
so _that's_ the IT angle!
So the bloke can get a quickie divorce when he makes a mistake, yet a 12 year old Saudi girl forced to marry an 80 year old cousin has to plead for a divorce? Smashing legal system that is. They should have made the bloke sweat a bit longer. And should lock up the parents of the 12 year old.
So this was a 12 year old girl with a beard? and they didn't find any hormonal problems? Something smells fishy.
It's a Sharia court. You know, those places that perform destructive testing on justice.
Somehow, I am reminded of a Country song; part of the lyrics are:
"I go to bed at 2 with a '10', and wake up at 10 with a '2' ", or something like it.
I have to feel sorry for that dude. The masquerading schmuck is lucky he did not get "hung by the balls" when the 'jig was up'.
Pig in a poke?
That old saw definitely comes to mind here! Along with Caveat Emptor...