There is activity on YTS with people assuming that because of the - TopicsExpress



          

There is activity on YTS with people assuming that because of the nature of Vanuatu’s Constitution, that we can say whatever we like. I was also prompted to write this following the recent barbarous attack in France against Charlie employees. I hope that this post gives many people a perspective of Freedom of Expression in light of recent developments. Freedom of Expression to people in Vanuatu is one of the intangible rights that we have and it is a very positive thing. However, some people believe that Freedom of Expression gives them the unalienable right to reduce their speech down to slander. But this is not acceptable. At the same time, some people get offended whenever that “freedom” crosses over into what may be legitimate, but ends up offending one particular group. The hotspot for this offence is whenever religion is discussed. With Freedom of Expression, comes responsibility. These are called “Duties.” This is what the Constitution says on this matter. [I have only shown the relevant parts. You can view the rest by clicking the link. It is worth familiarizing yourself with it. 𝘗𝘈𝘙𝘛 𝘐 – 𝘍𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 2.1.5.(1) 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘧 𝘝𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯, 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴, 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘹 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺, 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 – (𝘧) 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱; (𝘨) 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯; 𝘗𝘈𝘙𝘛 𝘐𝘐 - 7. 𝘍𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 2.2.7 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 – (𝘢) 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯; (𝘣) 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺; ... (𝘧) 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺; 8. 𝘍𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘌𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘕𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴. What part 8 means by “non-justicable,” is that these Fundamental Duties cannot be considered in a court of law. In my opinion, the whole point being made here is that with Freedom there comes Duties, and while they may not be prosecutable, they still hold weight as, common sense and civility. Take 8(a) for example. How do you judge whether someone is acting in the spirit of the Constitution or not? Such things are subjective. The only group that has Freedom of Speech explicitly stated are Members of Parliament 2. Freedom of speech No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of Parliament for words spoken before, or written in a report to Parliament or to any committee thereof, or by reason of any matter or thing introduced by him into Parliament by draft legislation, petition, motion or otherwise. [Members of Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act 1977] This is called Parliamentary Priviledge. An MP can say whatever they like about anything, but not in public (like Facebook for example.) This is why most politicians do not get involved in slanderous activity on facebook. They are not protected. On top of that there will be other rules regarding conduct with speech which will be in the Standing Orders. What follows demonstrates how lucky we are to be living in a country that allows its people the right to freedom of expression. I tell the story of a man called Soheil Arabi. This demonstrates what happens when suppression of expression, collides with religion and facebook. Credit to huffingtonpost 𝘈 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬. 𝘚𝘰𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘭 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪, 𝘢 30-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘨𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘴, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. Facebook posts insulting Mohummad is punishable by death! 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬-𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘏𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘙𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘞𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘥𝘦, 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨,𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘌𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘎𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘪𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱. He is to be hanged OVER FACEBOOK COMMENTS. 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩. 𝘏𝘙𝘞 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘦, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘺, 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘉𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩 75 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘦𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘯’𝘴 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘒𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘪. 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 262 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 74 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴. Ok, so if you are genuinely angry the punishment is 74 lashes. But if you actually mean it it is DEATH. 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘕𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘪, 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘴𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘕𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘪 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘥𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. 𝘈 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘶𝘱, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 2,400 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. https://facebook/savesoheilarabi The photo shows Arabi with his daughter. 𝘊𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩, 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘎𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘈𝘭𝘪 𝘔𝘰𝘩𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪 𝘌𝘫𝘦𝘪, 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘳𝘺. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯. 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢. 𝘐𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘏𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘛𝘶𝘣𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 21 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴. 7 people arrested for dancing to a song called Happy, as well as 8 facebook users sentenced to prison for up to 21 years, insulting Government officials. We have it so good in Vanautu. This act falls under Sharia Law and was a story from Iran. What you see in France is an overflow of this form of extremism. I AM CHARLIE. (To be continued) huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/03/iranian-blogger-soheil-arabi_n_6261904.html
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 03:36:57 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015