Children a security risk


Just the Facts
#1
So, are we a nation that values freedom of speech, or are we not? Are we free to express our ideas without fear of physcial retribution, or are we zombies who can't say what we really think lest we be attacked?
Is it just me or do stories like this make anyone else's blood boil? I say life in prison or leave the country for perpetrators of crimes like this!

From Editor and Publisher with thanks to Jihadwatch

Faizi had to be treated in the hospital for injuries to his left arm, and lost two days of work. Wednesday, the vice principal of the school his three children attend asked him to keep them at home, saying they may be a security risk, CJFE reported.


Three children a security risk? How, exactly, by being too small to defend themselves? Anyone, I mean ANYONE who would threaten a child in school over politico-religious issues DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS COUNTRY. PERIOD.
It is not the children who are a security risk. Is that really that hard?

Edited for formatting.
 
the caracal kid
#2
what is the rest of this story? It is hard to comment with just a snippet (out of context).
 
Just the Facts
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kidView Post

what is the rest of this story? It is hard to comment with just a snippet (out of context).

A guy was beat up over his political views. How much context do you need? What context, exactly, pray tell, would justify a guy being beat over what he wrote IN THIS COUNTRY!! Are you kidding me?!
 
karrie
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

It is not the children who are a security risk. Is that really that hard?

The principal was not directly quoted. Did he say 'please keep your children home they are a security risk'. Or 'please keep your children home, there is a security risk.' Because frankly, a responsible principal would recognize if he did not have the means to protect young children from cricket crazed criminals. It sounds to me like he is taking the right steps, and has their interests in mind. I'd do the same thing in his position. I would not want the death of a young child on my conscience simply for the sake of how my actions might be interpretted by the media and those reading it with a cursory glance.

I notice the father doesn't even complain about the principal's actions in the article.
 
the caracal kid
#5
I am not saying anything justifies being beat up, but details would go a long way to understanding what exactly unfolded.

Context is important.
 
Just the Facts
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kidView Post

I am not saying anything justifies being beat up, but details would go a long way to understanding what exactly unfolded.

Context is important.

See I don't buy that. Everyone in this this country, EVERYONE, has the right to say what they think without fear of retribution. There is no context. It's black and white. I don't care how much what you say pisses me off on these forums, I will NEVER EVER come looking for you. I expect the same for everyone. Everyone! I don't see any room for "context".
 
Just the Facts
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

The principal was not directly quoted. Did he say 'please keep your children home they are a security risk'. Or 'please keep your children home, there is a security risk.' Because frankly, a responsible principal would recognize if he did not have the means to protect young children from cricket crazed criminals. It sounds to me like he is taking the right steps, and has their interests in mind. I'd do the same thing in his position. I would not want the death of a young child on my conscience simply for the sake of how my actions might be interpretted by the media and those reading it with a cursory glance.

I notice the father doesn't even complain about the principal's actions in the article.

Yes you are absolutely right, but it's hardly the point. I expect to see a nationwide manhunt for the perpetrators of this crime.
 
Tonington
#8
I think what Caracal is getting at is these situations are rarely black and white. It's hard to comment on without knowing the full context, as he allready explained. My mother works in the education system and educators face an unbelievable amount of pressure.
 
Just the Facts
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I think what Caracal is getting at is these situations are rarely black and white. It's hard to comment on without knowing the full context, as he allready explained. My mother works in the education system and educators face an unbelievable amount of pressure.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Can someone give me a "for instance" where context would make it OK to beat someone up over what they said or wrote? OK, I understand that the principal may have been acting in the best interests of the children, but does anyone not see the problem with accepting as "normal" or "standard" procedure to keep kids out of school because they may be in danger because of what their parent wrote? That is the point. If there really is ANY reason to fear for the safety of these children, then those who are a THREAT to the safety of these children should be removed from this country forthwith and without delay!! That is the point!

Edited for spelling and grammar mistakes due to seeing red over this issue
 
karrie
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Maybe I'm missing something here. Can someone give me a "for instance" where context would make it OK to beat someone up over what they said or wrote? OK, I understand that the principal may have been acting in the best interests of the children, but does anyone not see the problem with accepting as "normal" or "standard" procedure to keep kids out of school because they may be in danger because of what their parent wrote? That is the point. If there really is ANY reason to fear for the safety of these children, then those who are a THREAT to the safety of these children should be removed from this country forthwith and without delay!! That is the point!

Edited for spelling and grammar mistakes due to seeing red over this issue

I get it... I totally agree that, regardless of context, no one's allowed to hunt other people down with cricket bats in this country. My only argument was that it seemed you were criticizing the principal in his decision regarding the children. But, we cleared that up. And, as enraging as it is, the article does state that the CJFE is working on making sure this man is represented. Police reports have been filed. The perpetrators ARE being hunted down. So, not only does this man have an advocate in the form of police protection, but he's also got advocates from his trade. I think that's pretty damn good, and says a lot of positive things about our country.
 
the caracal kid
#11
group mentality.

I was not condoning the man being beaten for voicing his opinion. In a "perfect world" we would not see such actions. Given that we did see such action, however, we need to ask was was so inciteful in his message that led to the attack?

to the point of the children. if his message was so inciteful, the principle could well be taking the safe route knowing that childrem, spouses, siblings, friends, etc of targeted people can very well become targets as well.

It is far better that potental targets of backlash be withdrawn from school for a few days until things calm down than the children potentially being attacked.

Again, I don't condone this behaviour. It is however something that does exist.
 
Tonington
#12
Nobody is advocating the use of violence as acceptable. If the principal at the school deems there is a risk to students, it's their responsibility to ensure the students are safe, and it really is that simple. That's why I asked for context, perhaps I'll search google to dig some more...
 
Just the Facts
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

The perpetrators ARE being hunted down. So, not only does this man have an advocate in the form of police protection, but he's also got advocates from his trade. I think that's pretty damn good, and says a lot of positive things about our country.

Yes, thank you, that is a positive. I just hope the seriousness of this crime is not minimized. We cannot allow this type of behaviour, we need to let it be known that it is NOT OK.
 
Just the Facts
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kidView Post

Again, I don't condone this behaviour. It is however something that does exist.

That's exactly the point. It OUGHT NOT exist. It needs to be discouraged in every possible way. We need to assert in no uncertain terms that we value freedom of speech and under no circumstasnces is assult an acceptable response to not liking someones viewpoint.
 
Just the Facts
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That's why I asked for context, perhaps I'll search google to dig some more...

I'm really anxious to be educated as to what context justifies sending children home from school lest harm be done to them.
 
Tonington
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

I'm really anxious to be educated as to what context justifies sending children home from school lest harm be done to them.

Well for instance the article mentions he and his editor have recieved threats on the phone. It doesn't say what the threats were, but if they were against his familly for instance, that would justify "security risk" for other students at his children's school. Understandably there are many bits of information which the media shouldn't report and frankly shouldn't really know.
 
Just the Facts
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kidView Post

Given that we did see such action, however, we need to ask was was so inciteful in his message that led to the attack?

Whoah! I just re-read your message. No, we DO NOT need to ask that. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, can be so inciteful as to lead to this attack. If what I write pisses you off, WRITE BACK!! Period. There are absolutely NO CIRCUMSTANCES where what someone wrote mitigates the seriousness of an assualt. None. In a barroom brawl, maybe. In society, none whatsoever.
 
Just the Facts
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Well for instance the article mentions he and his editor have recieved threats on the phone. It doesn't say what the threats were, but if they were against his familly for instance, that would justify "security risk" for other students at his children's school. Understandably there are many bits of information which the media shouldn't report and frankly shouldn't really know.

Yes I understand that. My point is that there should be no reason for children to have to be herded away for their own safety in this country. My beef is not with the principal, my beef is with those that the principal feels it neccessary to take action to protect the children from.
 
the caracal kid
#19
Actually, many things can be quite inciteful.

It would be nice if that was not the case, but if you walk into a room of riled up people, and start riling them more, watch out! Welcome to human nature. When emotions run high, it is best not to "fuel the fire". The question is "what did this man say, and in what context was it said?" We need to know this to analyze what unfolded.
 
Just the Facts
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kidView Post

Actually, many things can be quite inciteful.

It would be nice if that was not the case, but if you walk into a room of riled up people, and start riling them more, watch out! Welcome to human nature. When emotions run high, it is best not to "fuel the fire". The question is "what did this man say, and in what context was it said?" We need to know this to analyze what unfolded.

i.e. the barroom brawl mentioned in my previous post. But that is not the issue here. We're not talking about a hockey fight or drunken testosterone laden twenty-somethings on an oil rig.
 
tamarin
#21
So, was the school the kids attended a private one? One religion-based where the journalist's quarrel with others in that community was likely to be better known?
 
no new posts