News Forum - Transgender who fled to Thailand faces extradition to Malaysia

[gummy]

Just now, Fluke said:

You agree that Iran should have the right to  continue stoning females to death and also throwing homosexuals off the top of high buildings ?

Your trolling and deflection is not wanted in this thread thank you very much.

[Stonker]

15 minutes ago, gummy said:

Well if you say "seem to be" that indicates you did not read what I said accurately. either, or else did not understand it.

What I did say was  "I disagree. Every country should have the right to live under the rules and lifestyle deemed acceptable by the majority. ". And that has nothing to do with the stupidity of the reply which asked "So minorities should be persecuted if thats the will of the majority?"

So simply put, which I guess it has to be simple, anything  that in yours or anybody elses minds that "seems to be"  is purely a figment of your imagination.

No, what it indicates since you're trying to avoid elaborating on it as asked, by three posters, is that you said something you didn't quite intend to and you're now trying to avoid  justifying it since you don't know how to.

 

[Rookiescot]

5 minutes ago, gummy said:

Well if you say "seem to be" that indicates you did not read what I said accurately. either, or else did not understand it.

What I did say was  "I disagree. Every country should have the right to live under the rules and lifestyle deemed acceptable by the majority. ". And that has nothing to do with the stupidity of the reply which asked "So minorities should be persecuted if thats the will of the majority?"

So simply put, which I guess it has to be simple, anything  that in yours or anybody elses minds that "seems to be"  is purely a figment of your imagination.

You are dancing on the head of a pin.

You painted yourself into a corner with your post that "Every country should have the right to live under the rules and lifestyle deemed acceptable by the majority" while not even considering groups around the world who are persecuted which you might identify with.

When challenged to justify that you evade with some nonsense and have finally decided not to answer at all by calling the whole thing "stupid" and questioning peoples reading ability.

You got some quality evasion going on there. Sadly it does not reflect well.

 

[Fluke]

9 minutes ago, gummy said:

Your trolling and deflection is not wanted in this thread thank you very much.

My post was directly related to the post you made and I was asking you for clarification .

To avoid answering you merely suggested that I was trolling and to deflect from  answering you accused me of deflecting .

[Rookiescot]

16 minutes ago, Stonker said:

So what would you suggest as an alternative - particularly when it's far from only Islamic countries that are in the "dark ages ... persecuting people just because of their sexual orientation" but many Christian countries as well.

Hey I wish I had a magic bullet which would fix such things. My point about international condemnation and possible sanctions is only a start towards ensuring equality.

You are right about some Christian countries also persecuting people based on their orientation and they should be condemned too. Especially the ones who are in the EU of all places.

We gotta try something though.

[gummy]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

You are dancing on the head of a pin.

You painted yourself into a corner with your post that "Every country should have the right to live under the rules and lifestyle deemed acceptable by the majority" while not even considering groups around the world who are persecuted which you might identify with.

When challenged to justify that you evade with some nonsense and have finally decided not to answer at all by calling the whole thing "stupid" and questioning peoples reading ability.

You got some quality evasion going on there. Sadly it does not reflect well.

I don't have to justify anything as it my opinion that all countries have the right to rule by the majority of that country. Sorry if that impacts on your fantasy world  but just tough.

[Soidog]

13 minutes ago, Shade_Wilder said:

 

What an extraordinary post, Mr Dog! I read through it and then had the thought "there is a person who is trying to be a 'hater', but is too decent to pull it off",

 

Respectfully, allow me to take your letter and look at some of the issues raised in a different light.

 

It's true about Thailand not being a signatory of the '51 treaty, but so what? Thailand is a signatory to the UN charter and accepted both the rights and responsibilities contained therein. Okay, fair enough, it didn't specifically agree to certain, specific frameworks, but simply joining the UN implies acceptance. To sound a wee bit lawyerly (Boo! Hiss! Boo!), it is like saying you liked cooked ground beef, tomatoes, corn-based shells, lettuce, cheese, onions, jalapeño peppers and hot sauce, but never agreed that you would eat tacos. Further, Thailand participates in several global exercises regarding movement of peoples, refugees, etc., implying that in fact it does feel bound by international norms (participating in the US Annual Trafficking report and hosting staff from the IOM, for example). Finally, while many globally talk about UN treaties/resolutions being legally binding, the reality is that they are not; they are statements of principal that countries agree to abide by (Let me provide an example of the concept above. The US-Iraq war in the early 2000s went to the UN Security Council. Three countries said it was not allowed, two countries said it was. There is no independent adjudication, so both sides were correct.). To sum up, Thailand behaves as if it were a signatory to the treaty, and if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck.

 

Is international pressure on countries to treat their citizens better a bad thing? I don't think so. Do China and Russia often oppose the Western Democracies? Yes, but they are wrong, so who gives a Rat's Ass what they think. Ask people whether they would rather be a citizen of a Western Democracy or of China/Russia, and we both know what the answer will be. End of.

 

There seems to be condemnation that she is publicizing her case for nefarious reasons. Respectfully, I wouldn't place absolute faith in the Thai government to do the right thing, rather I'd tell the world in the hope that my case wouldn't be dealt with quietly and on the side. I see this merely as an insurance policy to ensure that things aren't quietly 'taken care of' on the backhand.

 

There seems to be condemnation that she wants to go to Australia rather than stay in Thailand. Respectfully, in her shoes, wouldn't you? In Oz, she can expect a better life, live as she pleases and not worry about some unscrupulous immigration agent sending her back over the border in return for a back-hander. While I like living in Thailand, in her shoes I'd be looking at another, slightly further away place that respected Human Rights to settle in.

 

Respectfully, you make it sound like the UK, Australia and/or Canada are somehow deceived into taking refugees and are played for suckers. I look at it differently; I see countries stepping up, living by their principles as best they can, and trying to do the right thing; they should be admired for it. Forgive me, but having countries try to do the right thing as they see it is good. Very good. Very, very good.

 

I think Trans people are weird; as noted above, I can't even pretend that I don't. That said, if she is going to face persecution in her native land, there should be a mechanism whereby she can flee. Is the global refugee system perfect? Nope. Is the global system of Human Rights perfect? Nope. Would she be a model citizen in Oz, if she makes it? I have no idea. But, if she does get sent back to Malaysia, she will be both persecuted and prosecuted, and that would be morally wrong.

 

 

Wow! A lot to address there! Let me start by saying I never aim, nor ever wish to “hate” anything or anyone. I believe in understanding by debate and changing opinions by examples and good supporting data. 
 

My comment about Thailand not being a signatory was simply a statement of fact. Typically Thailand doesn’t want to offend anyone while maintaining its options. To say they like all the ingredients of tacos keeps them in favour with many, while still having the option to say they don’t eat tacos!

My comments about the U.K., Canada and Australia wasn’t to suggest the governments were being duped. It was a comment to suggest that the active woke and “do-gooders” living in their leafy suburbs bringing unreasonable pressure to bear on their governments to accept refugees and then place them well away from their high end housing areas. Countries like Thailand simply facilitate support by threatening to “send them back”.

Finally, I wasn’t advocating for one second that she she needs made to return to Malaysia against her will. She is safe in Thailand and should remain free to stay there. She can of course apply to reside in any country she wishes in the world. However, she should not receive preferential treatment of that application simply because Thailand are threatening negative action.
 

I think we are agreeing but you seem to want to disagree?  

[MikeW]

3 hours ago, HolyCowCm said:

Looking at the picture, that boy is all plastic. If Malaysia is Sharia BS, wonder what the folk in Afghanistan are doing now. 

Sweating bullets 

[gummy]

Just now, MikeW said:

Sweating bullets 

Frightened to go out in the hot sun in case of melting 

[Rookiescot]

4 minutes ago, gummy said:

I don't have to justify anything as it my opinion that all countries have the right to rule by the majority of that country. Sorry if that impacts on your fantasy world  but just tough.

OK so what about Christians being persecuted in some muslim countries because thats what the majority want.

Is that OK?

[gummy]

Just now, Rookiescot said:

OK so what about Christians being persecuted in some muslim countries because thats what the majority want.

Is that OK?

Another purposely deflective comment from this threads topic

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, gummy said:

Another purposely deflective comment from this threads topic

Bzzzzzt

Deflection.

[JohninDublin]

5 hours ago, Shade_Wilder said:

I can't even pretend that I understand 'Trans' people at all; it frankly just seems weird to me.

That said, the sheer number of people globally who are 'Trans' and publicly identify that way, even knowing the trouble it will cause them, is large. In Thailand, our adopted home, we have the Ladyboys and they are an accepted element to Thai society and, on the few times I have ever chatted with them, a good laugh as well. 

The basic question to me is this; are our societies large enough to accommodate those who are different? I hope that the answer is 'yes'.

Finally, the key phrase in determining if a person is eligible for refugee status is "...A well-founded fear of being prosecuted..." Does this person meet that test? I think yes.

Be kind, Thailand, and give them refuge.

Is TH a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Asylum? It seems to me that this case would qualify.

I am not trying to make a comparison, but in the UK, a number of S. African lesbians have been granted asylum, because of the culture of some men, claiming "corrective rape" will solve the problems of these women's sexual identity.

[Shade_Wilder]

17 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Wow! A lot to address there! Let me start by saying I never aim, nor ever wish to “hate” anything or anyone. I believe in understanding by debate and changing opinions by examples and good supporting data. 
 

My comment about Thailand not being a signatory was simply a statement of fact. Typically Thailand doesn’t want to offend anyone while maintaining its options. To say they like all the ingredients of tacos keeps them in favour with many, while still having the option to say they don’t eat tacos!

My comments about the U.K., Canada and Australia wasn’t to suggest the governments were being duped. It was a comment to suggest that the active woke and “do-gooders” living in their leafy suburbs bringing unreasonable pressure to bear on their governments to accept refugees and then place them well away from their high end housing areas. Countries like Thailand simply facilitate support by threatening to “send them back”.

Finally, I wasn’t advocating for one second that she she needs made to return to Malaysia against her will. She is safe in Thailand and should remain free to stay there. She can of course apply to reside in any country she wishes in the world. However, she should not receive preferential treatment of that application simply because Thailand are threatening negative action.
 

I think we are agreeing but you seem to want to disagree?  

"I think we are agreeing but you seem to want to disagree? "

No, I think we generally agree; I am offering up a few different angles on the issue.

And, I am naturally argumentative; it gets me in trouble a lot...

Have a good evening

 

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

If she is allowed to stay it sets a dangerous precedent for every gay/trans/lesbian living in muslim countries to simply get here then not go back.

No country should be forced to accept that.

However all countries should be putting pressure on Islamic states to drag themselves out of the dark ages and stop persecuting people just because of their sexual orientation. 

If that means international sanctions then so be it. 

Though I agree with the message you are sending, if we all start imposing sanctions on countries for their bad behaviour, in next to no time very few countries would be trading with each other. At the same time, the wealthy would be screaming "Unfair", when they were prevented from selling "cattle prods" to Myanmar etc.

However, arrogant as it may seem I would gladly join a trading bloc that valued common western ideals such as democracy, free speech and tolerance. In my Utopia, the only thing that would not be tolerated is intolerance. I once heard a definition of "Fascists" as "People who hate others for being different". There's a lot of it about.

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Though I agree with the message you are sending, if we all start imposing sanctions on countries for their bad behaviour, in next to no time very few countries would be trading with each other. At the same time, the wealthy would be screaming "Unfair", when they were prevented from selling "cattle prods" to Myanmar etc.

However, arrogant as it may seem I would gladly join a trading bloc that valued common western ideals such as democracy, free speech and tolerance. In my Utopia, the only thing that would not be tolerated is intolerance. I once heard a definition of "Fascists" as "People who hate others for being different". There's a lot of it about.

But almost every country wants money. Especially the rich people in those countries. If their access to cash was being curtailed because western countries were boycotting their goods they would soon change opinions in their own country.

Its odd. When you look at the extremes of the political spectrum both fascists and communists behave the same. Both suppress any form of dissention. Both control the media. Both hate religion. Both hate minority groups which they blame for whatever ill has befallen the country.

Very different ideology but the same behavior.  

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Shade_Wilder said:

To sound a wee bit lawyerly .....

Sorry @Shade_Wilder, but much of what you say is factually 100%  incorrect.

1 hour ago, Shade_Wilder said:

... simply joining the UN implies acceptance.

Absolutely not. Either you're a signatory to any UN or any other convention or you're not - end of story. It's like being a bit pregnant - either you are or you're not.

Membership of the UN doesn't mean acceptance of every UN Convention, under any circumstances, unless you sign and ratify them - if it did there'd be no point in having signatories.

1 hour ago, Shade_Wilder said:

while many globally talk about UN treaties/resolutions being legally binding, the reality is that they are not

Again, absolutely not. They are 100% "legally binding" but the reality is that they can't  be enforced, which is very different.

 

1 hour ago, Shade_Wilder said:

The US-Iraq war in the early 2000s went to the UN Security Council. Three countries said it was not allowed, two countries said it was. There is no independent adjudication, so both sides were correct.

Absolutely and completely wrong on all counts. The US tried to get approval from the UN Security Council for war with Iraq and it was rejected - not by three countries out of the five permanent members, but by the Security Council. There's no partial approval, where "both sides were correct".

 

1 hour ago, Shade_Wilder said:

Ask people whether they would rather be a citizen of a Western Democracy or of China/Russia, and we both know what the answer will be. 

Rather obviously, it depends on who you ask  -  you'll get very different answers from Russians or Chinese to Westerners.

[JohninDublin]

3 hours ago, gummy said:

I disagree. Every country should have the right to live under the rules and lifestyle deemed acceptable by the majority. 

The problem with that is that the majority opinion can be so fickle. In the mid-1950's in the UK the majority was opposed to the death penalty, following the execution of Ruth Elis. Ten years later, it had swung the other way following the Moors Murders. 

There is an old joke about an establishment figure explaining why he is leaving Britain. He says (excuse the language) "200 Years ago, if you were a Nancy Boy, they would have hung you. 100 Years ago, you'd have got 14 years with hard labour. 50 years ago, they made it legal. I'm getting out of here before they make it compulsory". Of course, we know now or understand,  that being gay is not a lifestyle choice, but that kind of thinking was prevalent 50 years ago. The collective ignorance of many, was almost along the lines of "Can I catch it off a door-handle"? in that period. 

The legacy of that still survives in many parts of the world, and for populists in some countries, incitement to "queer bashing" is a good vote getter. If there is a homophobic majority in a country, it is because they fail to understand that being gay, is not a lifestyle choice, and just because there is a majority in favour of persecuting gays, does not make their actions acceptable.

[Stonker]

20 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

If their access to cash was being curtailed because western countries were boycotting their goods they would soon change opinions in their own country.

Rather than changing opinions "very soon", the unavoidable evidence is that sanctions don't work at all.

Look at South Africa, Rhodesia, Cuba and Iran for prime examples of the total failure of sanctions, while I can't think of any country where they've worked.

Can you?

[MrStretch]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

However all countries should be putting pressure on Islamic states to drag themselves out of the dark ages and stop persecuting people just because of their sexual orientation. 

If that means international sanctions then so be it.

They don't give a royal **** about what other countries think of their religion or how they conduct it.  The only changes in any country we've seen recently has been in Saudi Arabia, where women are now allowed to drive, hold a passport, travel without a male family member and even work independently.  This was done because their economy had stagnated as it was oil sales dependent.

Much of the rest of the Muslim world is still in the 14th century and has no desire to change.  Look at Afghanistan and the rise of DAESH...there are more fundamentalists than modernists.  International sanctions mean nothing to them, they'll just deal with someone else.  It would be seen as an attack on their religion and that would unify them behind an Islamic wall that you can't even imagine now.

She should be granted asylum, if not here, then somewhere in the West.

[Bluesofa]

5 hours ago, Fluke said:

They are also quite useful when you cannot get a jam jar open 

I'm not sure I want to know about the details of how that works.

[JohninDublin]

31 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

But almost every country wants money. Especially the rich people in those countries. If their access to cash was being curtailed because western countries were boycotting their goods they would soon change opinions in their own country. 

That raises the question, would (or even could) we really boycott ME oil?

[Rookiescot]

5 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Rather than changing opinions "very soon", the unavoidable evidence is that sanctions don't work at all.

Look at South Africa, Rhodesia, Cuba and Iran for prime examples of the total failure of sanctions, while I can't think of any country where they've worked.

Can you?

I would argue that in South Africa and Rhodesia they did work. It did take a long time though. The other examples you give Cuba, Iran would only work if there was a carrot and a stick approach. Sadly all they have had is the stick.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, gummy said:

I don't suggest any thing as an alternative it was not the point of my post which you clearly do not understand either.

My question, which you quoted, wasn't addressed to you but to @Rookiescot,  whom I quoted.

You seem to be the one with the reading and understanding issues, nobody else.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, gummy said:

I don't have to justify anything as it my opinion that all countries have the right to rule by the majority of that country. Sorry if that impacts on your fantasy world  but just tough.

This basic rule might also apply to such cultures attempting to impose their will or predisposed ethical/moral body upon others when it serves no significant purpose. 

 

A good start might come from the West, who often impose their expanding empire on the world that truly doesn't need it.