--- Here’s your Chuckle for

--- Here’s your Chuckle for the Day. Found this at Instapundit. and thought I’d put it up here because it’s hilarious. What’s even better is the author is completely serious.

Coolcentria, eh?

--- And now for something completely different.
How is it possible, in the year 2003, that women are still under the
threat of being stoned? Because that’s what’s going to happen to
Amina Lawal if her appeal fails: she will be buried up to her neck, her
vulnerable head poking out of the dirt, and idiots will be allowed to
throw stones at her until she dies. And what do you want to bet some
idiot will make sure she’s veiled
while this happens? Because, of course, she can’t be causing unseemly
lust in men even while she’s bleeding to death because of a cerebral
hemorrhage caused by a rock hitting her unprotected skull.
“Draconian” doesn’t seem to cover it, does it?
But, amazingly enough, human rights protesters have not chosen to make
the treatment of women under Islam the basis of their protest.
According to the article “…most
domestic and international outrage has focused on what many critics say
is the discriminatory nature of sharia's stand on adultery. The male
partner usually escapes injunction.”

Oh, the old “it takes two to tango” argument. That’s
worthy of protest here? Not the fact that a woman who is illiterate,
who didn’t know she was committing a crime, much less one she was
likely to lose her life over by admitting to, has been found guilty of
adultery and has been sentenced to death by stoning and they’ve got their knickers in a twist over the fact the man isn’t being held accountable too?

What is wrong with these people?

I suppose it must be the we must respect all cultures and the diversity of opinions that are not our own mentality. Yes, there is a time and a place to respect other beliefs and ethnic traditions.

But this isn’t one of them.

NOW denounces the stoning but says "Until
both women and men are treated equally under the law in Nigeria, other
women are certain to be sentenced to death for the 'crime' of becoming
pregnant out of wedlock, even if it is the result of rape." They go on: “Amina Lawal Kurami's sentence is both inhumane and discriminatory…” Ah, yes. It’s discriminatory. They say it’s inhumane, yes, but the main reason, it seems to me, that they object to Amina’s stoning is because it’s discriminatory. Surely, it’ll stop when men start being accused of this as well.

So, while Amnesty International for
once has the right idea, the leading feminist organization here in the
U.S. seems to imply that stoning people for adultery is all right as
long as both parties are stoned, not just the woman, because that would mean equality between the sexes.
That would mean, of course, they’ve succeeded in their task of
ensuring equal treatment of the sexes. Who gives a flying fig if their
local tradition then decides to stone the pair of them for having sex
out of wedlock? That’s not the issue here: the equal treatment of
women under the law is the issue here. You know, the idiocy of
some of these people really amazes me. It shouldn’t, I know. I’m
being naïve, but when a woman is about to be stoned for taking part in
consensual sex that---unluckily for Amina---produced evidence of that
affair by means of a child, you’d think they’d say, hey, she
didn’t do a damn thing wrong; she can have sex with a man if she
wants to; she doesn’t have to marry the guy for that. In other words,
they’d bring the situation up to their
standards, but they don’t. That would, obviously, be treading on the
goddess Diversity’s toes, and that they can’t have. There is such a
thing as right and wrong. Yes, I know: I’m asserting my western,
imperialist pig standards on the followers of Shari’a. I’m, of
course, making a major boo-boo by judging the harshness of their
punishments using my own standards of what is and is not barbaric. I
should use their
standards of what is and is not barbaric in this situation, and of
course, under Shari’a, Amina broke the law by sleeping with a man to
whom she was not married. Shame on her and let the stones fly, she
deserves it. Bullshit. The adoption of Shari’a into the northern
provinces of Nigeria is a recent thing. According to the CIA World Factbook
Nigeria declared its independence from the UK in 1960. Their legal
system is based on English Common Law; Shari’a has only been adapted
in the past few years, and only within a few provinces. Their heritage
is pretty much the same as mine: America’s legal system, after all, is
based on English Common Law: we used to be a British colony, too. So,
somewhere along the line, the Nigerians got a goodly taste of a western
tradition. Yes, it’s different than their tribal tradition, but then
if they really thought it was worthless, they would have thrown it out
completely at their independence, wouldn’t they? They didn’t,
however. Shari’a is not part of their common tribal tradition,
either. Which legal system truly speaks for where Nigeria has claimed
it wants to go in the future? Because it sure as hell isn’t the
medieval Inquisition-like institution of Shari’a.
Any way you cut it, stoning someone for adultery is wrong. Not
because it’s a woman who’s being stoned here. I would object to a
man being stoned as well. The who isn’t important: the action,
however, is. To say that stoning is the best way to cut down on
extra-marital affairs; that this is the best solution to keep the
followers of the Islamic faith on the straight and narrow is the
antithesis of what faith is. If you choose to follow a certain
religion, you are in essence saying, I believe in what you preach; I
believe in your version of God, hence I will assume that God will have
faith in me. No matter what problems I have with the Catholic Church, I’ve never felt that my God didn’t have faith in me.

Allah doesn’t seem to have a lot of faith in his followers.

--- My only question is who did this?
It’s obvious it was a direct attack, but there are many possible
culprits. White hatters who think the system is wrong on political
grounds. Black hatters who took it down just for the hell of it. Or a
Palestinian kid in the West Bank who’s in league with either Hamas,
Hizbollah, or Al-Qaeda. --- Catholics and Mormons in agreement.
I know a big ol’ shudder just raced over my body at the shock of it.
How about you?