Re: @FunkyGibbon
I don't usually bother with correcting those who are hard of reading, BUT..
FunkeyGibbon said:
Speaking of deluded...
"that would not be even a punishable or fine-able offence in the rest of the civilized world."
You don't get to select the rules you live by, the countries In large parts of Africa homosexuality is illegal. This is a morally repugnant and regressive set of laws that would not be even a punishable or fine-able offence in the rest of the civilized world. But if you go to Cameroon and have sex with your same sex partner and are caught, then you don't have much right to complain, that's the law. It might not be morally defensible in the eyes of most people but if that's the rules they have chosen to set you have to respect them.
Assange has to accept he has committed a crime in the country where the act took place. Unless he thinks he is above the law...?
The implication being(since this was in reference to Assange being extradited to Sweden, where the crime was committed) that if you were to commit the crime of homosexuality in Cameroon, thems the rules and presumably have to expect that you can be sent back there to face the consequences, so I challenged this implication for clarification I asked the question outright..
Sir Runcible Spoon said:
So, if someone were to engage in a homosexual act in Cameroon, then skip the country to travel here, you would expect the UK to ship them back to face trial?
Unfortunately FunkeyGibbon hasn't confirmed his position on the matter, but a few of the usual jumped up ego-twats have chipped in with..
(I ain't Spartacus excluded from list because the post was a rational response to a question and provided clarification of the law)
Matt 'troll of trolls' Bryant said:
The UK does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with Cameroon. D'uh!
Way to miss the point Matt, but delivered with your usual flair.
Scorchio!! said:
See if you can see the differences and incompatibilities here; the Cameroon law concerns self regarding behaviours, in western democracies self regarding behaviours have a long and noble history of being left out of law, as long as they are self regarding.
Rape is by definition not a self regarding behaviour, rape by virtue of proceeding without a condom (shakes head)... ...well, it's more than worse.
Two different things, completely different and at variance with modern human rights legislation across the world, and your argument is thus a non sequitur.
I don't need to look at the different laws of anywhere because I was asking someone a question to highlight the absurdity of what they had actually said. I also didn't mention anything to do with rape, but thanks for the input. Lastly, but not leastly, I don't see how a question could reasonably be considered an argument, whether or not it is a non sequitur is therefore irrelevant*. Oh, and as for self-regarding behaviour being left out of Western law, I urge you to read the following Man dates local bike
I don't mind engaging in opinion wars, I only mind when people respond to points being made in their own minds, and then attributing those points to someone else. It's just, well, boring - especially as it seems to crop up on here so often.
*Yes, that's a self referencing joke.