UKH

Following previous threads about what a great place Morocco is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29531605

It was the main story a little while ago... he was released, after spending 20 days in jail in Marrakesh.

Mr Cole, 69, said: "I've seen things I never knew existed. It's not a prison, it's a concentration camp."

but we don't know what happened to his Moroccan friend.

BTW, homosexuality is a crime in Morocco. Obviously this is not a reason to stop promoting the place.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

A little bit of victim blaming there Bruce? FYI he was arrested after the police stopped him and his friend and asked to see their phones which had gay pornographic images on it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Why in the name of all that's sacred do people go abroad and ignore the local laws? Do they go to France and still drive on the left 'because it's legal in the UK'?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

oh, so all gays must avoid all muslim countries just in case they are found out to be, you know, gay?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Very little is being said about the 69 year olds 20 year old morrocan partner who was also jailed.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

They might be wise to do so or at least to delete gay images from their phones and be very discreet in their behaviour. However this is not a narrow gay issue but a wider one of needing to obey the law of wherever you are or risk the consquences. If you choose to visit a country you must accept their laws whether you agree with them or not. The same warning could be given to those who like drinking alcohol.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Funny how things change isn't it?

Back in the days when it was illegal to be homosexual in the UK, many British men used to go out to Morocco precisely because the attitude out there was considered to be much more liberal. I was reading a book recently about Gavin Maxwell, who was gay and spent a lot of time in north Africa. He claimed that it was considered normal in the Moroccan culture for older men to form relationships with much younger ones.

Does anyone know when this changed? Or indeed if it was ever the case that Morocco was more liberal, as opposed to European sex tourists going out to take advantage of young boys and using "it's normal in their culture" as an excuse.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

may be he just wasn't aware of the laws on possesion of pornographic images, but was aware that being gay is a criminal offonce.
I think there is a world of difference.

In reply to the thread:

There seems to be quite a lot of irony being used on this thread, such that it's hard to follow what people actually think.

Do people think that we should stop promoting Morocco as a great destination because they've got medieval laws on homosexuality? I can't decide, personally.

I don't really understand what the law is. It seems the guy was arrested for having "homosexual images" on his phone. So if a gay person wants to travel there, they have to erase all evidence of them being gay? Would text messages to a same-sex partner be treated similarly I wonder.

I guess there is a broader question about whether we see this cultural difference as something we should respect (and so gay people should choose either to avoid the place, or to ensure there is no evidence of their sexuality while they're there), or whether as outsiders with an influence as tourists we have a moral duty to try to change things for the sake of the gay people living under an oppressive regime?

I would say the latter. I don't think cultural difference is a license to run roughshod over human rights. I don't think FGM is OK, and I don't think locking people up for being gay is OK either.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Of course people should obey the local laws but there's also the issue of personal property and our rights as humans to not be subjected to unwarranted searches. I don't know for certain how it came to be that a policeman had suspicion to check their phones but up to that point no offence seems to have been committed. It could be the policeman thought the men looked a little bit 'gay' and decided to see if his hunch was right or it could be that they were holding hands or kissing in public. I suspect it's likely to be the former! in which case, suggesting people should obey the law is moot and suggesting gay people should avoid these types of countries is slightly missing the point.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The fact that they may not agree with a local law does not entitle anyone to break it nor to expect sympathy if they do. To give another, less emotive, example: the alcohol limit for driving in Spain is lower than in the UK. If I'm caught over the limit can I say; 'It's OK, mate. I know you think I'm p*ssed and you'd prosecute a Spaniard for it but that reading would be legal at home so I'm in the clear' and drive off? No I don't think so either.

In reply to the sheep:

I read something that said that Mr Cole's family are working to help his friend.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

But on the other hand... attitudes towards women in Morocco aren't as progressive as in the UK, so is it therefore okay for UK women to be grabbed at whilst in Morocco?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

There's a lot of supposition, woulds, coulds and mights in there. You are the one who raised the idea of gay people avoiding countries where it is illegal and I agreed it might be wise but I went on to say that if they chose to go they might also be wise to take certain precautions. I would have thought that was self-evidently true.
However, we both seem to agree that people should obey local laws. The fact that other country's police (or even ours) don't behave like Dixon of Dock Green should really come as a surprise to no one.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Nobody is saying they disagree with the local laws (insofar that they accept they are there and abide by them, but do not condone them). there's no evidence they broke any laws to give the policeman just cause to search their phones.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


That's a false analogy, because it's perfectly easy to abide by the law in question. We haven't yet discovered exactly what is illegal in Morocco. If I go to Morocco, and someone reports me as being gay (because of things I've said or done in the past, at home), then is it OK for me to be prosecuted? How can it be illegal to *be* gay? Or are *homosexual acts* illegal? What constitutes a homosexual act? A gesture? A hug? A thought?

The case is rather murkier than you make out.

In reply to Tall Clare:


And does it make a difference if they're appropriately dressed by local standards, or only by UK standards?

In reply to Tall Clare:

Not for me to defend foreign laws or attitudes Clare and that's not what I'm doing. The simple point I keep making is that if you don't obey local laws because either a) you do not agree with them or b) think they should not apply to you please do not start bleating when you end up in bother.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


the first quote implies that the man in question went to morroco with the intention of breaking the law there, with the implication being if it is illegal to be openly gay in morrocco then he should avoid going there. It's not always possible to hide one's sexuality.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
it is very common to see young men holding hands in some Arab countries, it is just a sign that they have been friends since childhood,and I am regularly kissed on cheeks and forehead by my wifes male relatives in Turkey

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


A fals dichotomy right there - There's also the option that you could break those laws just by looking a bit lavender which gives rise to personal searches

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Is it? I've no idea. I've not a clue about what the niceties of Morroccan stop and search powers and proceedures are but from my reading of the scant few pars we all seem to be relying on it seems that the offence was having the images on his phone, which seems to be undisputed. I've not seen any suggestion in the coverage that he was arrested for simply being gay or even for homosexual acts, just for possessing the images which, since he was arested and spent three weks in this hell hole' is presumably an offence there. I don't know, I've never been there so never needed to know. But if I were to go I would check up on laws that I thought might be going to affect me and make damned sure I stuck to them.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

But how far should you go in checking? It's reasonable to assume that the contents of a phone could be considered a private space, much like a diary.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I go abroad precisely because it is different, so I generally check the FCO website https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/morocco/local-laws-and-customs which works for me, to go, get arrested for what you were told not to do, then start slating the country for being backwards seems a bit arrogant to me.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


No, they just need to respect and observe local laws. When you travel to a foreign country you are a guest in that country.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
"The pair were reportedly approached by police officers while standing at a bus stop on 18 September. Both men were arrested on the grounds of suspected homosexuality.

Moroccan authorities are understood to have held a trial for both men using a photo from Mr Cole’s mobile phone showing them both together as evidence."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/british-man-jailed-for-commi...

Note: 'standing at a bus stop' and 'grounds of suspected homosexuality'.

seems to me the policeman had either had a tip off or he used his prejudices to justify stopping and searching an innocent man.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:



They were told there was “evidence on his phone that was incriminating” and that “the police went through his Facebook account and emails to build a case”.

So it seems it's not a simple law about illegal images, it may well be being prosecuted for a crime that's not actually properly defined, i.e. persecution rather than committing a specific offence against the law.

You seem to think that law over there works the same as it does over here, I doubt that's the case.


Good luck with that, if actually the laws are just vague excuses to persecute.

In reply to mypyrex:

There's no report saying they didn't/weren't.

In reply to Tall Clare:


I would definitely not assume any of that Clare. Many countries, even supposedly civilised, western ones, take a rather more cavalier approach to these things than we do

In reply to mypyrex:


So what did they do to disobey local laws? If you're going to offer advice to gay travellers, I think you need to be a bit more specific. What should I do to avoid anyone in Morocco finding out that I'm gay?

In reply to Tall Clare:

Wiley Coyote did not say anything was okay. He said " does not entitle anyone to break it nor to expect sympathy if they do"

Likewise, it's not "okay" for a UK woman to be grabbed/groped whilst in Morocco, but perhaps they would be wise to expect it if travelling to some areas, and to be prepared a) to act in advance to mitigate the risk and b) to deal with the consequences if it does happen in a way that does not further endange themselves at the time.

None of this makes it acceptable by either our standard or in the case of the OP by the standard to which the world is supposed to be held to account in terms of human rights. I am not familiar with any of the areas relevant to the OP so I won't comment on it, but I do get annoyed when I see a suggestion that an individual has to carry significant risk/responsibility for their safety when travelling abroad turned round to suggest they are condoning the source of the risk.

It is a sad fact of the world that there are many things should check before travelling to many countries - media stored in physical form or on electronic devices, alcohol, medication - prescription or OTC - especially opiates, choice of clothing, ones own behaviour etc.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I agree with your 'simple point'. But there's a (c) as well - if you don't obey local laws because you don't know what they are, don't be surprised if you get into trouble and suffer the consequences of breaking the law. Perhaps (c) is commoner than (a) or (b)? I don't know.

In reply to abseil:


What about (d) the laws are just excuses to persecute you, so you can't take any specific steps to comply with them?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Not go. Why would you want to support a country with your money who discriminates against you?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


It is a sad state of affairs, but I suppose we always have the choice not to go to countries whose human rights principles don't align with our own.

In reply to SCrossley:


you can't say 'it's the country' that does that. you are mistaking the map for territory with that comment.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


What?

In reply to ByEek:

again, as above, the country's laws are not always a reflection of the people within it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That is a terrible situation, and I am so sorry if it happens. However, it is a different situation to what me & Wiley are saying - don't be surprised if you get into trouble in cases (a), (b) or (c). In my case, I will take more care in another country in case (d).

In reply to SCrossley:

it's not the whole country that is discriminatory, it's the laws which are created either by individuals or derived from religious texts (or a combination of the two).

In reply to SCrossley:


Yes. Do you think we'd be so relaxed, promoting holidays there, if a popular destination locked people up simply because they were black? Or do you think we'd strike it from our list of great places to spend a week?


It's a tricky question. There are lots of places many of us would like to go, but whose government's human rights behaviour is appalling. If my mates were planning a trip to Morocco, I have something of a dilemma, don't I?

I think there is a difficult question about how we treat countries that are tourist destinations but who don't respect human rights.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



It`s not tricky at all, Mr Coles has raised an issue, gays could act as a community and not go.
I think he`s a bit dodgey, a 69 year old sex tourist meeting a 20year old he met online to engage in illegal sexual acts. Think if it was a 69 year old Italian coming here to meet a 14 year old girl he met online, it would not look good would it.

In reply to SCrossley:

The reports I've read have emphasised that he wasn't a 'sex tourist'.

In reply to SCrossley:

Do you know if any of what you have said is true?

In reply to SCrossley:


How is not going to Morocco "acting as a community"? Do you think the lack of British gays would make a significant dent in their economy? The issue is whether as Brits or outsiders generally, we try to do something about human rights in countries we like to go to, or whether we just say "oh yeah, they cut womens genitals over there, poor girls, but the beaches are fantastic".


I know what you mean, it's a bit icky.


But now you're conflating it with under-aged sex! FFS!!

In reply to SCrossley:

and also why have gone from comparing a 20 year old man to a 14 year old girl?

In reply to SCrossley:

with that comment, I'm oot!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


According to that fount of all truth and wisdom, Wikipaedia, Morocco is a parliamentary democracy with a consitutional monarchy. While I do not profess to know the ins and outs of how the parliament is either elected - though there is section of the parliament elected from all women lists, which rather surprised me - or how it makes laws through its two chambers it seems a big step to assume this law is the work of 'individuals or derived from religious texts'. Since it is a Muslim country it may well be that the law is influenced by the Koran but that does not mean it does not enjoy majority support.

In reply to SCrossley:


Why have you suddenly made the other half under the age of consent for the straight analogy?

His 20-year old partner is an adult and above the age of consent. Whilst you may not approve of the age gap, it's not illegal. "Dodgey" [sic] is a character judgement which you've totally made up.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

There are six years missing from your analogy. I smell an agenda.

Re Morocco's political system, that doesn't mean that they can't suspend human rights to have the odd spurious crackdown if the beardy nutters are needing appeased or they want to make an example.

In reply to Removed User:

Six years? What six years? What agenda? Are you mixing me up with someone else?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Please don't paraphrase me

The laws aren't something the people get a lot of say in. it's usually left up to a small minority of lawmakers. (i nearly missed the fact you have used a double negative in that last sentence!)

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



Isn't that true of any parliamentary democracy? In the UK 600 and odd MPs decide for 60m of us and we get our two penn'orth once every five years or so. Are you saying that makes our laws invalid? Or is it just in Muslim countries?

In reply to Durbs:



In the UK maybe, but in Morocco homosexuality is illegal so therefore the partner wasnt above the age of consent and it was against the law, whether or not the law is just.

In reply to Removed User:


I'd like SCrossley to explain a bit more, but I'm guessing that he's drawing an equivalence between an illegal sex act over there (homosexual sex) with an illegal sex act over here (sex with a minor).

I.e. he is applying total moral relativism and giving no credence to human rights (the fact that the law against under aged sex is to protect human rights, whereas the law against homosexual sex is an abuse of human rights).

It would be interesting to know if SCrossley thinks that one moral code (say, that enshrined by Human Rights laws, e.g. ECHR) is actually superior to another (say that enshrined by Sharia Law) or whether there is total equivalence.

I will say firmly, on utilitarian grounds, that the moral code of human rights is superior to the moral code of Sharia Law.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm not sure I see what this debate is about. An Englishman went to Morocco and broke one of their laws. He went to prison for it, that's what happens.

In reply to Moley:

What did he do to break the law?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

no, I'm just saying you shouldn't disregard visiting an entire country based on the laws that possibly many people disagree with.

It goes without saying that there are many gay people in all muslim countries (statistically speaking) and that the laws that their country has to stifle freedom expression are not a reflection of those people.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Why, he had a limp wrist and a pink shirt of course!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well now the thread's got circular we can all go and do something more interesting. According to the BBC story he had 'homosexual images' on his phone. That's the crime in Morocco.
The fact it would not be a crime here is irrelevant.
The reason the pix were discovered is irrelevant.
The fact that we may or may not believe it should be a crime is irrelevant The very fact it involved a gay is irrelevant.
The salient point is, as Moley so very succinctly put it:
"An Englishman went to Morocco and broke one of their laws. He went to prison for it, that's what happens."
Thank you and goodnight!

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

You're wrong.

Moroccan authorities are understood to have held a trial for both men using a photo from Mr Cole’s mobile phone showing them both together as evidence. Both men were sentenced to four months.

You don't know what the crime was (homosexual acts, not possession of homosexual pornography), and you don't know what the evidence was.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm not certain of the actual legalities but I'm fairly sure that it was generally considered acceptable to be the "active" participant but less so to be the "passive" partner.Make of that what you will.Perhaps that has changed.

In reply to Tall Clare.
Of course not.My wife kept her head and body covered as per tradition and was still abused,spat at or ignored.Sometimes it's just as simple as sexism or perhaps racism.
Others of course will have had a different experience.

In reply to Moley:


It's about whether Morocco is a great place to promote for a holiday... I'd say this case demonstrates it may not be!

BTW. For those who have looked up Morocco on wikipedia so think it's a democracy the truth is it's not, the King is still in power. It's true the latest one has made some progress but it is still really a monarchy with the democratic trappings. A quick google will show you that this homosexuality question is just one of many civil rights issues, freedom of the press, use of torture etc. which have not yet been "modernised".

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think you are right to say we should think very carefully about visiting / supporting countries with dubious human rights records. The example in this case made me think of the laws in Russia against the "promotion" of homosexuality.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Exactly.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


I'm not blaming him, I think he is the victim of what is still a fairly oppressive regime. Just how oppressive, why there has been no "Arab Spring", how it compares to other African countries (I'd say better than many) would make a whole thread of course.

PS. To all those who say he was foolish to have gone there given the nature of the regime, I would sort of agree, but maybe he didn't know, and as they had been in contact for a while by facebook it seems odd his friend didn't warn him about the situation if there was really a problem. There could well be more to this than meets the eye.

In fact in Muslim countries it is quite ambiguous, as said above, you often see men strolling in the street holding hands - in Afghanistan I was puzzled to see policeman on duty doing this, but I was told it didn't imply they were "lovers".

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The law on sexuality in this regard is very arbitrary (both in the UK in the past, and in countries like Morocco).

But I would say the criminalisation of drug possession/use in the UK runs a very close parallel. Everything that happened to this chap, whether he is "dodgy" or not, happens to people in the UK on a daily basis, simply on account of having consumed in the past, being caught in possession of, or testing positive to some prior use of, anything ranging from a herb, a mushroom, or a powder.

You have to accept the law of the country you are in. The law may or may not be agreed with. It may be enforced sporadically or with a view to victimise certain individuals. But the law can also be morally wrong.

In reply to David Martin:



Not really. I agree our drugs laws are bullshit, but to be caught under them, you have to be actually committing a specific offence, and there has to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It has nothing to do with persecuting individuals for their inherent traits, which is the problem with the case.


It is easier said than done to "accept" a law that is just outlawing something about you, rather than prohibiting you from doing a particular thing. There's blatantly no actual definition of what is meant by "homosexual act" nor any objective standard of evidence to show that such an act has been committed.

I think it's fair to say that if you're gay there are better places to go on holiday than Morocco, but the idea that this guy was in the wrong for going to another country and straightforwardly broke their laws is incorrect. If the law is not objective, then one cannot objectively break it. He went to Morocco where people like him are persecuted, and was persecuted. He should probably have stayed away, but he took the risk.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>


Not at all just in Morocco Homosexuality is a sexual crime, in the UK it is not. In Italy the age of consent is 14 in the UK 16, so there is a parrallel that can be drawn. Just pointing out that different cultures have different sexual tabbos and that if you wish to travel internationally you should be aware of and respect this.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



>

If the UK Police found someone with a photo on their phone of them injecting something in their arm I doubt they could do anything, however if the photo showed them punching a traffic warden in the face, they could.
So really it all boils down to what the photo was of, Hand holding, kissing or something else. I doubt hand holding as men do that in Morrocco so something else.

In reply to SCrossley:




From the Independent:

Adrian managed to attend his father’s trial, which he called a “complete farce”.

“They’ve gone through his phone and found photographs that they’re using as evidence for a homosexual act.”

Doesn't sound much like a "fair cop" to me.

In reply to SCrossley:

>

No, it boils down to what he did to instigate the policeman into taking his phone and violating his right to privacy. I suspect nothing at all.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

No, it boils down to what he did to instigate the policeman into taking his phone and violating his right to privacy. I suspect nothing at all.

Maybe they suspected him of being a homosexual, searched his phone accordingly and convicted him on what they found?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


My wife and I have had 2 very nice trekking holidays in Morocco and told everyone so.
But if I was gay I might give it a miss or make sure I didn't infringe on their laws - however much I disagreed with them in principal. I won't recommend the place to any of our gay friends or relations.

In reply to Jon Stewart:





Adrian is hardly an unbiased observer is he.
Without knowing what the photo`s are of it is very difficult to judge isn`t it.
I do find it a bit odd the distrust that people seem to have of foreign judicial systems, not racist but certainly mistrustful of Johnny Foreigner, no justice like British Justice.

In reply to SCrossley:




I think it's perfectly justified to be suspicious of any judicial system that persecutes homosexuality.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

My comment was of a general nature and aimed specifically at neither gay people or heterosexuals.
I just wanted to make the point that before going to a foreign country it's never a bad idea to get some idea of any of their laws that might be a bit different to ours. "Rough Guides" usually have a lot of useful info.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I think it's perfectly justified to be suspicious of any judicial system that persecutes homosexuality.

It doesn't matter if the persecution of homosexuality in Morocco is dis-tasteful or not.
It's illegal, he got caught and was convicted accordingly.

In reply to Tall Clare:

No, but it's an issue Mrs Ridge avoids by not visiting countries where women are treated like dirt and the men are after the sex pest excellence award. Depends if you go on holiday to relax and enjoy yourself or to have a run in with the locals.

Whilst not condoning the morrocan attitude to homosexuality, I can't think why anyone who's homosexual would want to visit the place if that's the law there.

In reply to SCrossley:




It's perfectly justified to distrust a legal system that makes homosexuality an offence. How can such an offence be defined legally and evidenced beyond reasonable doubt? My understanding is that it isn't anal sex between men that is the crime, but homosexuality. So what does that mean?

Any attempt to legislate against personal characteristics that aren't under an individual's control should be treated with the utmost suspicion. They are abuses of human rights, so what would it even mean to say that such a law had been implemented "fairly". If the basis of the law is religious prejudice, then it's incredibly unlikely that it's going to be applied in a fair and objective way.

What I find strange is that many people seem to think that in the tension between the right for a government enforce laws as it sees fit (and according to cultural context) and the human rights of an individual, the rights of the government to pursue an agenda of persecution should win.

In reply to FactorXXX:

What, precisely, is illegal?


Doing what?


On the bases of what evidence?

In reply to mypyrex:


The problem is that if I went to a country where homosexuality was illegal, I would ensure I wasn't publicly engaging in anything that would be construed as that. I wouldn't try to book a double hotel room for me and a lover. But I probably wouldn't go as far as erasing all evidence from the internet, such as profiles on dating sites, etc that could be used as evidence for my homosexuality, if that was even possible.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Such as the England & Wales legal system pre-1967 and that real backward country Scotland took till 1980 and 1982 N. Ireland.
Bit of a sweeping statement?

In reply to Moley:



Yes.
edit: we are talking about the present, not circa 1970/80. A paradigm shift has occured in the past 20 years where homosexuality is concerned.

In reply to Moley:


Yes.


And a fair one.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

What, precisely, is illegal?
Doing what?

From the attached Foreign Travel Advice: Homosexuality is a criminal offence in Morocco.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/morocco/local-laws-and-customs


On the bases of what evidence?

Whatever the Moroccan authorities deemed necessary and adequate.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

For those of you who have no sympathy for homosexuals who get into trouble when visiting countries where it is illegal (and seem annoyed that other people might have sympathy for them): Do you feel the same way about homosexuals who live in these countries and knowingly break the law?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Sorry Wiley, I did mix you up, it was direct ed at SCrossley. Apologies.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


It took England & Wales a long time to get there, and then another 15 years for Scotland & N. Ireland to join us and only 14 years ago (2000)in our serving military. We were not that advanced in our tolerance or seeing the error of our ways.

To criticise an African country and distrust their whole legal system because of their current laws on homosexuality seems mighty intolerant and somewhat arrogant to me. They will get there (hopefully) and until then we should abide by their laws. Or accept the consequences.

In reply to malx:

I cannot speak for others, but the Homosexuality does not matter to me, it could be drug taking, drink offenses etc, when you go to a foreign country you are a guest and a representative of the UK, so have the manners to respect the countries laws and customs, and if you do not, be prepared to take the consequences.

In reply to Removed User:

No worries. You had me a bit confused there.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Drinking alcohol is comparable to being gay?

In reply to FactorXXX:



So that's alright then, is that what you mean (it's not quite clear)?

In reply to Ridge:


What about the point of view, that ond should be able to be a citizen of the world without having to worry about the importance of one's sexuality (or gender etc)?

Some would see it as 'giving in' if they didn't to countries they otherwise found interesting/to be photogenic etc because of concerns over attitudes towards them.

In reply to malx:

I have resolutely tried to keep out of the whole gay part of this thread because I think it muddies the waters and introduces a whole lot of unhelpful emotion and agenda driving which does not help.
I believe that ANYONE who goes to ANY country and breaks ANY of their laws should expect to suffer the consequences. If you don't like a country's laws or cannot or will not obey them then the only logical course of action is not to go. Problem solved.

In reply to Timmd:

So that's alright then, is that what you mean (it's not quite clear)?

I think such persecution is abhorrent.
However, the Moroccan authorities don't and that is what ultimately matters.

In reply to FactorXXX:
I dunno, I'm somewhere between what I'm guessing is your point of view, that people should bear these things in mind, and having admiration for people who'd travel there anyway as 'an act of difiance' as it were, due to things like this being simply wrong. It does seem like exceedingly bad luck that he had his phone looked it.

There's pretty cool climbing in Morocco, with potential for new routing. If somebody dreamed of putting up new routes, and happened to be gay, I cans easily see why they'd not want other peoples' bigotry to squash their dream. Why should they*?

*Rhetorical question.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

So do you think locals have more of a right to break the law than tourists? Or do you just view all laws as sacrosanct?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


You are assuming he went to Morroco to intentionally break its laws. I suppose on one level it is true given that he knew he was gay and potentially knew that homosexuality is illegal but given the lack of information from the FCO on the issue it could be equally probable (if not more) that he thought being gay is ok but doing gay stuff isn't in which case my point stands.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I suppose on one level it is true given that he knew he was gay and potentially knew that homosexuality is illegal but given the lack of information from the FCO on the issue it could be equally probable (if not more) that he thought being gay is ok but doing gay stuff isn't in which case my point stands.


From the attached Foreign Travel Advice: Homosexuality is a criminal offence in Morocco.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/morocco/local-laws-and-customs


Personally speaking, if I was gay and travelling to such a country, I would research exactly what was allowed or not...

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


That is fair enough and one should not expect sympathy for shagging in the street in Saudi. However there are more insidious laws for instance.

(Reuters) - In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim, people who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law, according to a detailed study issued on Tuesday.[technically you have to be a muslim to be an apostate but in some countries the definition has broadened, either way a declaration of atheism, on ones passport say could leave you without legal status]

And beyond the Islamic nations, even some of the West's apparently most democratic governments at best discriminate against citizens who have no belief in a god and at worst can jail them for offences dubbed blasphemy, it said.

Also in some countries if you get raped you might find yourself arrested for having sex outside marriage. Now the obvious thing is don't go to these countries, but you may not always be aware of what laws exist especially if it is a country you are just passing through to reach your destination. I remember some years back a biker friend got into trouble passing through Singapore, being unaware that male long hair was illegal at the time

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I kind of agree with that but the problem is that in some countries it is not what you DO that can break the law but what you ARE and that can not be helped. So anyone who is gay, does not believe in God, or a lone female (not that lone females are illegal but the actions of others can put you in an illegal situation without you doing anything) should ONLY go to safe West European countries and the like.
Regardless as to whether they are the law of that country I would still advocate campaigning against them (such as Amnesty does)

In reply to malx:


It's not a question of laws being sacrosanct. I am not defending any particular laws nor abitrary enforcement of them (if that is what happened here). However, regardless of our opinion of them they are the laws of that country and the safest and wisest thing if you want a trouble-free trip is to obey them. If you choose to break those laws be prepared to suffer the consequences.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


So gays should not travel to all the countries where being gay is illegal? I find this attitude very negative and backward thinking.
If it wasn't for cases like this where these types of laws are tested, they will never change. If it wasn't for the suffragettes it's possible womens vote might not have happend until more recently.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

So gays should not travel to all the countries where being gay is illegal? I find this attitude very negative and backward thinking.

It's entirely up to them what they do and take the necessary precautions needed to avoid them getting into trouble.


If it wasn't for cases like this where these types of laws are tested, they will never change. If it wasn't for the suffragettes it's possible womens vote might not have happend until more recently.

Was this actually a protest?
I don't think it was and if people want to protest against such laws in foreign countries, then I think it needs to be done in an organised manner and ideally through the International Community.
Further, you seem quite happy for people to visit such countries, act illegally and take the hit on behalf of the greater good!

In reply to FactorXXX:

I'm not suggesting this was a protest (im sure it wasn't). I'm just saying that if things aren't challenged, they don't change. Saying Gays should go elsewhere to holiday or stay at home does not help spread tolerance.

In reply to FactorXXX:

As would I, but given the inconsistency about application of the law in Morocoo that would be very difficult.

The wikipedia page on LGBT rights in Morocco says that:

"Article 489 of the Penal Code of Morocco criminalizes “lewd or unnatural acts with an individual of the same sex.”.[2] Same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Morocco and can be punished with anything from 6 months to 3 years imprisonment and a fine of 120 to 1200 dirhams.[3][4] However, the law is sporadically enforced by the authorities,[4] with a degree of tolerance extended to homosexuality in the holiday resorts like Marrakesh.[4]"

He got arrested apparently waiting at a bus stop and then his phone was found to have pictures on it. Did those pictures break moroccan law? If they did, did it happen in Morocco?

Anyway Morocco is now off the list, along with Russia and most of the Caribbean...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What a desperate little man you are, Bruce. Unfortunately, you can't even be disingenuous without cocking it up.

The previous thread was actually somebody looking for partners in an already-planned road trip. You decided to land a load of codswallop about jihadists on the poor bloke and got your @rse handed to you as a result. Nowhere in that tutorial (engaging you is not a rational discussion, but a tiresome dismantling of your guff until one gets bored and wanders off) was there generalised support for the Moroccan government. That you're trying to imply otherwise betrays the intentions which inform pretty much all of your postings.

Hopeless, but consistent.

Martin

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I'm just saying that if things aren't challenged, they don't change. Saying Gays should go elsewhere to holiday or stay at home does not help spread tolerance.

I think the only way to change the laws/policies of foreign countries is by a concerted organised effort and ideally with some sort of 'official' support.
As I've already said, at this moment, Gays have to decide themselves what they do regards travel, etc. However, I don't think it's wise or fair to encourage or advocate unilateral action.

In reply to Timmd:


It's a point of view that I can sympathise with, and admire, but that doesn't alter reality in those places.


That's an entirely personal choice, and depends on how much of a stand you want to make. It's a point of view I can admire, but you have to weigh up the consequences. For example I might think somewhere in Syria looks a fascinating place to visit, but turning up in my socks and sandals at present would be a pretty stupid thing to do. There are plenty of other places in the world to take my kuffir self off to for a fortnight. Influencing attitudes in that part of the world for the greater good is pretty low down the list of my priorities.

In reply to Ridge:

there are few similarities between Syria and Morroco other than the presiding faith base of each country. Not least the fact that Syria is currently in a state of civil war! Poor analogy

In reply to Tall Clare:


Is "friend" the current P.C term for 'rent boy'?

In reply to Indy:

I don't know; perhaps you do?

In reply to paulcarey:

Like WTF.... The Moroccans are perfect entitled to have whatever laws they like. The fact that geriatric sex tourists looking to throw their European wealth to attract poor 20 year old locals as "friend" is rather revolting if you ask me. Then to belly ache about the conditions and demand special treatment in the prision your sent to after breaking the law is rich to say the least.

I wonder how many UK 20 year olds would be "friends" with this 70 year old?

In reply to Tall Clare:

In this case I do.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Stay out of the country. Simple. You cannot expect a whole society to change to fit your belief of how things should be.

In reply to Indy:

how do you know?
Are you friends with the man?
Were you at the trial?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


If the age of consent in a foreign tourists home country is 12 you'd be perfectly happy for them to do a bit of "challenging" of UK perceptions would you?

In reply to paulcarey:

No, no and no!

In reply to Timmd:


Oh god, what a terrible world that would be, where everywhere there is a bland uniform compliance with Guardian based norms.



Fine, let them go stomping about those country in their tutus and tiaras and demanding that the world change to accept them and their norms. Just don't complain when the consequences occur.

In reply to Indy:


hahahahaahaha. is this the best you can come up with?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Off you go then. But don't complain about the consequences.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Answer the question!

In reply to Indy:

So you know as much as I do then!

You don't know the nature of this guy's relationship any more than i do.

I don't get why you are so quick to judge when you know so little.

In reply to Indy:

I'm not going to justify your prejudices by giving an answer to such a stupid question.

In reply to paulcarey:

I've seen numerous people like him in 3rd world countries trawling for things they can't get at home purely because of the size of their wallets.

Wanna answer my question about the age of consent and foreign tourists or is it a bit uncomfortable?

In reply to stroppygob:

What makes you think I'm gay? is it because I'm defending them?

In reply to Indy:



It's not uncomfortable, it's just stupid.

In reply to FactorXXX:



It doesn't answer the question, it says that 'homosexuality' is illegal. Does that mean bum sex, fancying men, looking a bit fruity, what?



Well yes. Given that we've no satisfactory definition of what the crime is, I doubt very much that there are satisfactory criteria for the evidence. Trust that their legal system is fair and objective? You're having a laugh.

In reply to Indy:

Its not uncomfortable.

In fact its easy to answer your question about a low age of consent and sexual tourism it may attract because it has nothing to do with sexuality.

Its wrong. I'm not sure what other answer you were expecting.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

What does that have to do with anything I said? If you want to protest that a part of the world doesn't fit to your views, off you go. Be prepared for the consequences though.

In reply to stroppygob:

What the f*ck are you on about? It's about people not having to deal with crap due to being gay, you moron.

That just about covers it. If you're after an argument, go and find an empty room.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

O.k so why is it a stupid? Is it because if you answer truthfully it blows your argument out of the water?

In reply to stroppygob:

As we were talking about gays and going to to a country with laws against them and you saying 'off you go', am I wrong to assume you were inferring I am gay and should try to test their laws?

In reply to Timmd:


Well tough titty. Other cultures have different norms, we may not like them but if we are guests in that country we have a duty to ourselves, and to them, to ensure we do not break their laws.

If you do not want to deal with the crap, stay out of Morocco.

In reply to Indy:


And what argument is that then?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Now who said; and I quote;


Now then, off you go and do your challenging, you seem keen on it, gay or straight.

Or are your high ideals about this situation being "challenged" just armchair warrior ideals. You want others to go and do the hard work?

In reply to stroppygob:


I agree mostly. But, I don't think it's the whole society that needs to change to fit my belief, more that the modernisers should be encouraged and the religious retards should be slated. I'm also not keen on promoting the place as a great holiday destination - doesn't sit well with me.

In reply to stroppygob:

Of course, but that's not what you posted.

What do you expect if you link the idea that gay people shouldn't have to put up with cr*p, in principle, to Gaurdianistas?

I have had a pretty rotten day to be honest, which probably made me shorter than normal, but it is gobbledeegook, what you posted*.

*In a polite sort of way.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Very fair reply Jon.

In reply to Timmd:



Why did you take such offense, change your newspaper if you're ashamed to be associated with it.


You're forgiven. Just this once.


Some of us have worked through that, and now have a healthy respect for gay and lesbian people.

In reply to stroppygob:

Messaged you Mr Stroppy. ()

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Speaking as an atheist, Jon, I don't think a phrase like 'religious retards' is very appropriate language for a man who is asking for his own views and lifestyle to be respected.

In reply to stroppygob:


Actually I think the opposite would be the case. If no one was bothered by sexuality or gender. Dolly the sheep constantly complains that she can't show off her nipple clamps.

But we could look at it in another way. If you wanted to shag a 15 year old then Morocco is fine with that or if you fancied them younger then there are other countries where 12 is legal. So people wouldn't be happy if someone came from those countries with their 13 year old wife and expected no hassle
Bottom line is travelling is a risky business and in some places you can break the law by just being who you are. Which is wrong in my view but there it is and we have to deal with it on its own terms

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Why a poor analogy? Two countries out of many that I can think of various reasons not to visit, so I decide not to. The presiding faith is irrelevant. The idea that you can travel absolutely anywhere in the world regardless of local attitudes is a nice idea, but utterly impractical.

In reply to Indy:


You think elderly men can't pick up young men in Britain. You don't get out much do you.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Well I don't respect the views of BNP, I don't respect the views of religious retards in Morocco, I don't respect the views of the Vatican, the list is a long one. If a political view or philosophy is one that promotes the persecution of people because of trait such as race, gender or sexuality that they can do nothing about, then it is harmful and retarded, and does not deserve respect.

I'm arguing that every individual's basic rights are respected. I see no reason to pull punches when it comes to criticism of those who don't abide by this principle: they're harmful, and they're retarded. Why should I pretend otherwise?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Must have changed a lot since Joe Orton's time.....

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Because if you don't respect the right of other people to hold views that differ from yours without childish name-calling you're in no position to expect them to respect your views. All you are going to get is the same intransigence back.
Just because I happen to be an atheist I see no reason to insult or denigrate people with religious faith any more than because I happen to be straight I see any reason to insult or denigrate LGB people.
Seems to me to be a two way street.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Doesn't to me. People who respect all others' basic rights are not morally equal to those who promote persecution.

"I respect your view that I should be persecuted, but I'd like to ask nicely that you wouldn't do it, please". Yeah, great.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It doesn't answer the question, it says that 'homosexuality' is illegal. Does that mean bum sex, fancying men, looking a bit fruity, what?

As I said to another poster, if I was Gay and looking at travelling to somewhere like Morocco with stated anti homosexual laws, then I'd do a bit of research before making a decision.


Well yes. Given that we've no satisfactory definition of what the crime is, I doubt very much that there are satisfactory criteria for the evidence. Trust that their legal system is fair and objective? You're having a laugh.

That essentially reinforces what I said above.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You've got me interested in this now and human rights seem to be a very slippery mess.

eg Article 18 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom ...... either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

So what happens when 'practice and observance' of that religion includes suppression of homosexuality? Is it still one of your basic rights? Or is the UN wrong? Or merely ambiguous? I can't see anything that says which rights trump others.

Article 29 states:-
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

So what happens when one of those 'limitations determined by law' to meet 'the just requirements of morality' is to make homosexuality illegal? There's probably hours of fun in debating 'just' morality but again your 'rights' don't seem as clear cut or universal as you might think, at least for the UN.

In reply to Jon Stewart and others:
The same advice literature, also states: Sexual relations outside marriage are punishable by law.

I'm not married, if I fancied a trip to Morocco with a girlfriend, I would investigate that with a fine toothed comb before making a decision about going there!!!
Both scenarios are obviously ludicrous to us, but I'd rather go elsewhere, rather than risk being imprisoned, etc.
It's all very well shouting about the morality of the situation from our perspective, but that's going to feel pretty academic and pathetic when you're in a rat infested shit hole!
Additionally, to those who suggest/encourage that Gays should go there to make some sort of statement and risk having their liberty taken away from them in a very harsh fashion. Yeah, right, if you're that concerned about it, go and do something about it yourselves!!!

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Good post.
That said I would support any campaign to change the law in another country to make it more tolerant. Simply because as an atheist I would like to visit other countries without fear of arrest and I think that tolerance is for the most part a good thing. Nevertheless there are countries I would not visit and if I did I certainly wouldn't wear a t-shirt that was offensive to their laws.

In reply to. S Crossly.

In Italy the age of consent is 14.

I never knew that!

Right, change the flights, the Dolomites it is.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

It's pretty simple, someone's right to religious freedoms end when they restrict the legal rights of say another persons right to sexual freedom. Laws in individual counties are meant to codify the details of that. To be fair we struggle with that sometimes in Britain, but because something is sometimes difficult doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The likelihood is, he was tracked, the same as they are tracked in Egypt

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/egypts-police-using-social-m...

In reply to The New NickB:



Can you find me a quote for that in the Declaration? It's a document I'd never even thought of glancing at until Jon started pontificating on his own rights while casually dismissing those of others. It contains a lot of stuff I was not expecting but omitted quite a bit I thought would be in there. Despite the much-used 'I know my rights' I for one apparently don't.
After that, admittedly blearly-eyed, reading of it last night I can't agree with your first sentence, however. 'Pretty simple' seems to be the last thing it is, not least because inevitably, one person's 'rights' are going to conflict someone else's. There does not seem to be any kind of hierachy (eg Right B exists only insofar as it does not conflict with Right A).
All complaints BTW to Ban Ki Moon. Leave me out of this.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Not right now, as I have work to do, but individual jurisdictions have a responsibility to balance those conflicting rights.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Jon isn't dismissing the rights of others, he is calling them religious retards that he doesn't respect. They have no right to be respected. They have the right to religious freedom to the point that it restricts the rights of others to religious or other freedoms.

In reply to Moley:


It's not just this aspect of the Moroccan regime that is criticiseable, check it out. It is a repressive regime made to look acceptable by those who have an interest in doing so.

In reply to maisie:


Why such hate? I suppose it's because money is involved, you didn't answer on the last thread, what is your vested interest in people climbing or visiting Morocco? Come on now, be honest.

In reply to The New NickB:


So Jon are you calling them Religious Retards?

When I was there earlier this year I found them to be overwhelming friendly and welcoming. Where we where in the mountains people seemed very poor but I saw far more smiles than I see walking around the UK. It was obviously Muslim with the cry of the Muzzeins echoing up the valleys. So my impression was a deeply religious, friendly contented people and I would say labelling them as retards is deeply insulting and arrogant and blinkered.

In reply to The New NickB:

The point I was (vainly) trying to make to Jon after his comment on 'religious retards' was that in his demands for his 'rights' he might be a bit more tolerant of those of others. This seems even more true now that, at least in the eyes of the UN, those people have explicit rights to practise their religion and make laws on morality while the Declaration is utterly silent on sexual freedoms. I searched for the word 'sexual' in there and it came up blank. Jon has cited the ECHR but last time I looked Morocco was in Africa not Europe.
Being a straight atheist I really do not have a dog in this fight but I do get peeved by this attitude of 'Everyone else's rights end where I decide mine start' or 'It's up to us to enlighten these benighted savages'. It seems respect for other cultures, such a part of the liberal credo, goes out of the window as soon as it interferes with the 'right' to have a bit of slap and tickle on holiday.
Nurse! Is it time for my pill now?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

You do know how old the UN declaration is? It is about principles, it isn't a handbook.

In reply to SCrossley:

Well they probably weren't threatening to lock you up because of your sexuality. Kind of has a bearing on how nice you think people are.

In reply to The New NickB:

So it's inalienable rights when it suits and out-dated when it doesn't? Till it's up-dated by the UN it's the current version.

In reply to The New NickB:

Nor were they stopping me and searching me or my phone, even though I spent the entire week sharing a bedroom with another man, in fact the only person I know who had a run in with the police was speeding.

In reply to SCrossley:

So they did not persecute you, I'm very pleased for you.

In reply to The New NickB:


No odd that, in fact the only person I have heard of being persecuted is the dirty old man flying out there for illegal sex.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


The convention is regularly updated via declarations and resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly. Various declarations and resolutions have taken place in support of LGBT rights over the last decade.

In reply to SCrossley:


What a lovely person you are.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I think the convention on human rights is drafted in such a way that it can pretty much be all things to all men. Doesn't mean I agree with an interpretation which says 'yeah this is fine, just morality means we can outlaw homosexuality and persecute where we think we can get away with it'.

In reply to SCrossley:

You know all the ins and out of the case do you? You were at the trial?

In reply to SCrossley:

You don't know this. You can't say that he's a dirty old man because you don't know this is true.

intolerance towards homosexuality, like this, is what makes the world not a very nice place to live.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

If he was flying out to meet a 20 year old girl he had met online, I would still think it pretty creepy. Of course there may be some huge love thing going on, but cynical old me doubts it. Just in this case it is illegal and he was gormless enough to have some pictures on his phone that could be used in evidence.

In reply to SCrossley:

I've been too and had a similarly positive experience. The retards are the hard-line conservatives that the government are pandering to by persecuting gays.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I don't hate you, Bruce, I just find your selective, hypocritical and self-contradictory tripe slightly tiresome. You have but one tool in your arsenal, and that's to imply that your opponent is saying or doing something which they are not. It doesn't work for you, but you don't appear to understand this and plough on regardless. My problem with your previous argument was that you were trying to promote the idea that Morocco is a lawless wilderness overrun with jihadists, simply because you thought it made you look like a man of the world. It actually demonstrated your ignorance, at which point you left the room in high dudgeon - only to pop up here with a complete non sequitur. Again.

And, as you know but seem unable to retain for any length of time, I have no commercial interest in the country of Morocco. That you have conjured such a relationship entirely out of thin air just proves my point: if it were true, perhaps the rest of your world view would be more valid, yes?

Do you actually *know* anything about anything, or do you only share the made-up stuff that dribbles out of you?

All the best.

Martin

In reply to SCrossley:


Are you aware of what happens to opponents of the regime?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


In which country, Bruce: Russia, or China?

Woeful.

In reply to maisie:


I don't know this at all as you didn't answer my simple question... one wonders why you defend so violently such an unpleasant regime then?

Have we had exchanges on other threads or something of the like? There must be some reason.

In reply to maisie:



No, Morocco. Try using google if you've never met any one from the country.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Yes, the UN Declaration and ECHR are something of a slippery mess.




Under the ECHR some rights do trump others: some are absolute, others are qualified, and I think it gets more complicated than that. The legal specifics just cloud the issue which I see as this:

Not being imprisoned for a characteristic that you can't help is a basic right. I'd say it's one that can't be trumped.

A right to privacy is also pretty basic, but it's the qualified type where there might be good reason for it to be forfeited.

The right to religious observance is a right to go to mosque or wherever and mumble stuff out of books and have a sing-song. It isn't what I'd call a "basic right" - it's just a specific case of the right to do what you like as long as it isn't harming others. Once your "religious observance" starts to harm others, then that right is obviously forfeited. Only a complete retard would think that their right to "religious observance" trumps someone else's right to freedom (or even life). But there are many such retards out there.

And as for state persecution of minorities, what the hell has that got to do with religious observance? Human rights (by the ECHR or otherwise) don't give states the right to do anything, they concern individuals. Dressing up state persecution as "religious observance" is pretty horrible, IMO.


I agree that human rights (whether you take that to be the UN Declaration or the ECHR or something else) are just an attempt to articulate something about how people should be treated that most people would agree with. There isn't anything universal about them, they're just words on a page, and they (the UNDHR) are drafted quite deliberately not give gays any particular rights while race, colour, sex, language, religion all get a mention.

All the same, I believe strongly that you have to be a retard not to see that it's immoral and unjustified to imprison people for personal traits they can do nothing about. It's clearly an abuse of their basic rights - the simple rights to freedom and privacy, the right to seek happiness without harming others. I think that these are principles we should all be able to agree to, but sadly in the real world it isn't the case. People who think that their religion - or how they choose to interpret some words written in a book - is an adequate excuse to take these basic rights from others are retarded (at best).

I don't believe that all views are equally valid and should all be respected. Some views are harmful and disgusting: they breed hatred, divide people, and inspire violence. The views of the BNP fall into this category. I don't respect them any more than I respect religious fundamentalists who promote the persecution of homosexuals.

Do you believe that all ideologies should be respected, or do you have a cut-off point where you say "sorry, that really is total shit"? Or is it total relativism for you, anything goes? Do you think apartheid was fine, just someone else's culture, equally valid as our own, or do you think it was a good idea to campaign against it, to say it was wrong and that our ideas of blacks and whites being equal is better?

Which achieves the best outcome, pandering to retards who think it's fine or even morally righteous to persecute minorities and saying how you respect their view (a blatant lie in my case), or do you think it's better to have a bit more confidence in what you believe and say that it's wrong?

Thing is, there *is* a way you can judge ideas against each other and decide which is best. Just look at the outcomes. Which ideas bring about misery and violence vs. which ideas bring about freedom, opportunity and happiness? Call it utilitarianism, or just pragmatism, or even just 'reason', there is a system by which a sensible analysis can be made. Religious conservatism scores very poorly on this system: it is a pile of shit, because it leads to violence and misery. Secularism, science and human rights on the other hand are good ideas because they allow freedom and opportunity and do not contribute to violence or oppression.

If you are prepared to accept reason, then it's easy to see what's positive, sensible and progressive, and a path to good outcomes, and what's retarded, harmful and a path to misery and violence. Ideas and cultures are not all equally valid.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Various UN resolutions and declarations specifically update the UN declaration on Human Rights with regard to LGBT issues. It is effectively a live document.

Muslim countries were not happy about the 2011 resolution.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Enlighten me.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



One, never defended this regime. Simply pointed out where you've made stuff up to desperately bolster your point of view. So, again, we're back at the one-trick pony situation, where you imply an action or argument to me which is a fiction. This is all you have.

Second, you seem to think I'm persecuting you. Hilarious: you bring it on yourself by sniping and posting rubbish and then getting petulant about having it pointed out to you.

If you post crap on an internet forum, it's to be expected that it gets handed back to you. I was interested to see what would happen if, unlike more sensible posters, I didn't just roll my eyes and leave you to it. The answer is that you grow a persecution complex. Do you even know what irony is?

Do you have any considered opinions at all?

Martin

In reply to The New NickB:


Good, pity it has no teeth.


I imagine not. Oh how I respect their views...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So, knowing that I've visited the country, you have a pop at implying that I haven't. Regardless of whether I learnt anything on my trip, this your modus operandi yet again: ascribe something to your opponent which isn't actually true.

Anything? Anything at all?

Martin

In reply to FactorXXX:


And I've said the same - sensible not to go there.


Where it's clear that the purpose of the law is to uphold a set of twisted moral values that oppress minorities, then every aspect of that system should be treated with the utmost suspicion. The philosophy underpinning law might be about protecting individuals' rights and providing a safe society; on the other hand the law might be a tool to enforce religious ideology. We should should remain sceptical wherever there is cause for doubt, but where the underlying purpose of the law is just to prop up an irrational set of rules and values based on what people thought over a thousand years ago without any regard to fairness or objectivity, the scepticism-o-meter should be hitting the roof.

Sorry if you think that's racist.

In reply to maisie:

You are not persecuting me, it would take more than an unpleasant person on a forum to do this but you are using language which is unnecessarily objectionable for no obvious reason except for a desire to promote a country which is far from meriting it. You say you have no financial reason for this so I wonder why? Just as I wonder why you are bringing China and Russia into the discussion?

The facts are that Morocco has a bad human rights record, it seemed that it might be improving but this and other examples which are easily available on internet show it it is slipping back. On the particular example the Brit has been let out but the Moroccan, who was condemned for exactly the same things is still in prison. But this is just a tip of the iceberg, as you must know if you are interested in the country.

PS. The Moroccan is 25 years old, not 20 so hardly a child. This and other info, including a discussion which shows that it's not only ukc who has its collection of homophobes on this article from a Moroccan opposition magazine: (you might need google translate)

http://telquel.ma/2014/10/08/britannique-gay-libere-marocain-toujours-priso...

In reply to SCrossley:

Don't be lazy, google.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It seems (ie. I read it somewhere but can't give the quote) that each time the subject is brought up Saudi Arabia et al get all excited and the USA backs them so the subject is glossed over.

This thread shows the problem is not just with the UN

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Again, no I am not - at no point have I tried to be an apologist for the Moroccan government. You are pretending otherwise just so that you have something to say. This is all you can do, even when it's being repeatedly pointed out to you. How long before it sinks in?




Why are you telling me this? Have I at any time argued against any of those who decry Morocco for its attitudes to homosexuality. Are you such a half-wit that you're still just repeating the same behaviour?

Do you have anything to say? Can you actually reply to a post without constructing false arguments responding to things which haven't been said?

Take your time; do something new for a change and actually make a real point.

Martin

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Jon, the purpose of looking at the UN Declaration was try to persuade you that these rights and views which you clearly hold to be so self-evident and universal are neither and are certainly not viewed that way by everyone, including apparently,the UN. Ranting and calling people who hold a different view to you 'retards' is not going to win many friends or influence many people. Inevitably those cultures and countries with different world and religious views will enact laws that you do not agree with or approve of. Nor are African countries, like Morocco, going to be overly impressed with your quoting the ECHR's values. They have probably had quite enough of our European values already and may even point out to you that they are not part of Europe. They are African.
Despite what you seem to think, they do not have to live by your standards just as we do not live by theirs. If a Muslim came here and tried to marry a second, third or fourth wife they may well find themselves prosecuted for doing something they would consider quite normal. That would probably cut very little ice with a judge. We do not require them to agree with our laws but we do insist they obey them, just as they insist visitors to their country obey their laws.
So to repeat what has already been said ad nauseam: when you go to another country obey their laws, whether you like them or not. If you don't feel able to obey those laws then don't go. And if you do go and do break those laws don't whine when you discover they don't like it and that conditions in their prisons do not come up to the standards the Howard League might like.
It really is as simple as that. They don't care what you or I think. They are nation states and feel entitled to make their own rules without our help. They just require us to adhere to their laws in their country.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


But we were discussing the legal system, not the regime, why should I check out or criticise the regime? I've been to Morocco twice, fine with me.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Well done for not addressing any of the issues.

I'm not trying to convince the Moroccan authorities to change their policy by calling them retards, I'm posting on a UK internet forum. Christ!

As I've said, I *don't* think that the UNDHR (or the ECHR - it makes no odds, they're just words on paper) are universal. Did you miss that?

I thought that the discussion had moved on to the issue of whether moral relativism can be justified, or whether it was better to judge policies of other countries (like apartheid) according to a set of values you believe to be right. Apparently not.

Can you try and address a point that I've raised: does your view that other countries should be left to legislate however they like without comment from outside extend to apartheid, or does that example show how criticism from outside can improve lives?

In reply to maisie:


So you consider this is a normal way of addressing people? Like calling someone else a "halfwit". You also seem to have problems understanding posts, suggesting a post about the possible risk of travelling in Morocco meant insulting the whole people. Or here in this thread.

But at least you seem (?) to be going back on Morocco as a suitable holiday destination, or do you? You're not very clear but then your sort rarely are. What you post is the mirror of what is going on in your brain... really what has Russia and China got to do with Morocco? You mentioned them above but for what logical reason.

Whatever, the important thing is for people to be aware at their nice holiday destination might not be as nice as it appears, that their pleasure is to a certain degree on the back of the Moroccan people. On the other hand it's hard to see that many countries with unspoiled mountains which don't have such regimes.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


The word "they" seems a bit optimistic, the country is a monarchy, the King holds the power. The attitude of Moroccans has been rather variable - as said it used to be a haven for British homosexuals when this was illegal in Britain and nowadays the application of the laws is, apparently, rather haphazard. The "other man" was 25, not a youth as some have implied. In the magazine article in French one of the posters after the article said exactly this, that Morocco had been a tolerant country. The way the justice system works there is denounced as arbitrary by those Moroccans who dare to say so.

So the idea that this is simply a case of "we must respect their customs as we expect them to respect ours" is a dishonest simplification.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

There is only real issue to address: should you obey the law when visiting foreign countries? Answer: yes.

As for having an opinion on those laws, I don't waste my time even thinking about it . I have precious little chance of influencing our own laws never mind those on another continent. The world is full of distasteful and obnoxious regimes and I'm never going to change that. My days of that kind of fatuous self-indulgent junior common room hand wringing are long gone. However, this is still a free country and if such pointless excercises amuse you feel free to carry on.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



And your alternative would be what exactly? Ignore the law and go to jail?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Join amnesty?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

You have been shown to be wrong on this.

In reply to The New NickB:

On what?

In reply to Moley:


The two are much of a muchness, it's not a democratic country with separation of justice and regime. For example, did you know that this whole affair, judgement in the first instance, appeal and release of one of the two judged for the same "offence" was done in 5 days, including a weekend and a public holiday! Given the average sort of time for such matters does this sound like justice to you?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


No, that's the only issue you can be bothered to engage with, I'm guessing because you find it easy. That doesn't make it more real than any of the more interesting issues which require more effort to discuss.



Pathetic. I don't believe that I can change other regimes, I just find it interesting to discuss the issues.

You put forward a position of moral relativism, you criticise me for not respecting others views, yet you fail completely to defend your own position or to engage with any challenge to what you say.

Key questions that you won't engage with are:

- do you "respect" the BNP's views as different and equally valid to yours?

- do you think that apartheid was just a cultural difference that other nations should not have wasted their time engaging in "fatuous self-indulgent junior common room hand wringing" over.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


At least admit on this sort of public forum that there is a problem. If every unjust act was simply brushed under the carpet or every time a government acted like this one a lot of people made a fuss do you think the world would be exactly the same? Morocco depends a lot on tourism, why not use public opinion to put pressure on them?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I agree with you on a practical level, the most sensible thing to do is to obey their laws by not being there at all.

However, that's obvious and boring. The interesting points of discussion are about the morality of the law-making and how the cultural difference should be treated.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You're right. I am only interested in practicalities. All rest of it is like the proverbial pissing yourself in dark trousers - warm feeling but no one notices - and i've no interest in it. You'll have to find someone else to blather with/at

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Glad we finish on something we can agree on

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Then what the hell are you doing arguing about it on the internet? Your position on whether you're interested or not isn't even consistent...

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The only point I've been arguing all along is that it is sensible to obey the laws of a country you are visiting and it's a bit daft to whinge if you get banged up for breaking them. Otherwise I've trying to avoid all the red herrings that were coming up. (OK I did get a bit sidetracked myself when I got irritated by your use of 'religious retards') But as for the other stuff about the legitimacy of the regime, the gay rights,etc I'm just not interested because they are irrelevant to the basic question

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


And again. You're trying to ascribe a position to me which isn't actually the case. You really can't break out of this cycle, can you? It's so ingrained in you that you can't do anything else, but can't bear the thought of not saying anything. Desperate.


Do you actually think that you're educating people here? Utterly clueless.

Don't worry about other people not understanding your posts - my seven year old could take your logic apart without effort. Now, do you have any actual insight that doesn't come from a poor grasp of what you've read on Google?

Martin

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


The UN position.

In reply to The New NickB:

Really? I'm happy. to be proved wrong but so far have not seen the proof. I quoted the declaration. You said it had changed. I asked for a quote but you said you were too busy to find one and have simply repeated your assertions. Assertions are not evidence, especially on UKC! Please dig out the quotes - when you're not too busy.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Read back.

I have explain how UN 'policy' works. That it is updated by resolutions and declarations and that these have to be considered in conjunction with the original documents.

I have also stated that a number of resolutions and declarations on LGBT rights have been passed by both the UN Human Rights Committee and the General Assembly. You can verify all this very easily.

So, no I am not just making assertions.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

For someone who thinks it's a waste of time you're putting a lot of effort into debating this subject! Why not be honest and admit that you do think it is important to debate this issue or you wouldn't do it?

Next question is the same one I've been asking Maisie with no success: Why?

In reply to The New NickB:





So Nick, What you seem to be saying is 'I say this happened. I'm stating it as fact even tho I am putting forward no evidence whatrsoever but could you please go and find me some cos I'm too idle to back up my points' Where I come from that's called assertion.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Nah, Bruce, This is not debate. We've just bickering and I'm making a bit of mischief tweaking his tail.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


FFS Google. I have given you plenty that you easily check. I'm on my phone on a train, so I can't post a long list of links or quotes very easily. I am not being unreasonable and your statement above is just plain dishonest.

In reply to The New NickB:

Oh come on Nick, that's just feeble. Did the dog eat your homework too? Thre's nothing dishonest in my answer. I went to the trouble of finding the Declaration and cutting and pasting what I considered to be the salient parts to support what I wrote (which was itself a sideshow to a sideshow but never mind that). You say it's changed (which it may well have done, I've no idea), but you've produced nothing to back that up. If you want to be taken seriously let's have the evidence you lazy beggar.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Being taken seriously by you really isn't a major concern, but if you really need spoon feeding here is a link to Wikipedia, it isn't exhaustive, but it supports what I am saying.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_at_the_United_Nations

Let me know if you need a nappy change.

In reply to The New NickB:

Thank you. That was not so hard was it? Nappy's fine by the way but thanks for offering. I'll let you know if you're needed.

However this link doesn't really make your case, does it? Just read it a bit more carefully and cut through the weasel words.
The 2008 resolution produced two statements neither of which was adopted or signed. So no movement there. We can dismiss that one

IN 2011 we have a call for a report on treatment of LGB which leads to a 'hitoric' resolution on the follow up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration. Bit of a stumbling block here. First reading you think they are implementing the Declaration but they just want a report on implementing. Anyway the report appears in DEc 2011 and 'calls for' (well, whoop, whoop, that'll do it. They are really going for it now) the repeal of laws criminalising homosexuality. OK we hasve a report but still no action.
Then in 2014 - a mere 30 months later - the UN itself finally gets round to giving its own employees in same sex unions equal benefits but only, wait for it, 'where they are legal.'
So even the UN itself accepts that a state can make homosexuality illegal.
Hardly the ringing condemnation you were making it out to be, is it?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Well for continuing to not understand how the UN works.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



No, you haven't. You've just been trying unsuccessfully to put words in my mouth and demonstrating a lack of insight. If you want a debate, I think it's a waste of my time but I'm happy to help.

Martin

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

But surely you realise that the UN is a body which attempts to admit as many countries as possible and to exclude as few as possible so when this sort of issue comes up they are hardly likely to be at the avant garde. I think you'll find that a number of countries with some influence block things each time.

PS. You are being unreasonable to ask to be spoon fed each time, wikipedia is hardly an obscure source, you could make an effort to do your own research.

In reply to maisie:

If this is the case why not answer my simple question, why do you go OTT every time a thread mentions Morocco and someone, not just me, is critical of the way things are there?

It's possible to contradict without losing it you know, and probably more effective.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

My God, Bruce, I never thought I'd ever write this but I agree with you. That is precisely why I asked for Nick's evidence. It seemed to me highly unlikely that the UN had adopted this for the very reasons you outline. The homophobic countries are both too powerful (China and, one presumes given their internal record, Russia) and too numerous (the Arab League, many parts of Africa, several Caribbean countries etc). And this seems to be the case.

I do not, however, accept it is unreasonable or asking to be spoonfed to expect someone to back up their statements with evidence. Seems pretty damned basic to me, which is why I gave chapter and verse to back up what I said.

To expect other people to do the research for you is Alice in Wonderland logic. And it seems I was right. Nick has signally failed to produce any evidence that the UN has adopted this. Instead he has come up with a resolution which was not passed and a report calling for action which now seems to be festering in the long grass and er....that's it. A classic UN fudge with lots of pious words and no action. Given the homophobic forces ranged against them I suspect this is as much as the those campaigning for gay rights could realistically hope to achieve but it still falls a long way short of it being incoprorated in the Declaration.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Once again, your only tack is to imply that I'm doing something which I'm not. So yet again, Bruce, here's the answer to your question: I'm not doing what you're accusing me of. Couldn't be plainer, but clearly it's still going over your head.

I dare you, send me a single post that doesn't wrongly imply an action on my part, or pretend that I'm stooping to be angry. I honestly don't think you're capable of it, so surprise me.

Martin

In reply to maisie:


So you no longer suggest that Morocco is a great place to go for a holiday? Well that proves that discussion can pay and that you are capable of changing your opinion. That's positive anyway.


So for you insulting people is not a sign of anger, it's your normal way of communicating? OK, point taken.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Again, your only tack is to imply that I'm saying something I'm not. You haven't at any point addressed anything I've actually said, merely continued with your non-sequiturs in desperate attempts to point score. In your own head, that probably counts for something, which would explain your staggering lack of self-awareness.

I'd address the petulant, cretinous drivel in your last post directly, but I think it stands as a better argument against you than anything I would stoop to waste effort on, so again, are you actually capable of producing an argument directed at something I've actually said, or are you forever trapped in the mire of your own imbecility? (We all, of course, know the answer to this through long exposure, but there is still some joy to be had in watching you struggle with the mental equivalent of a doorknob)

Ask me a question which isn't predicated on you inferring a position to me which only exists in your own head. And I'll answer it. Whether you understand the answer is not my problem, and we both know that if it challenges your sub-GCSE grasp of world politics, you'll just pretend that I said something else instead. But ask away anyway.

Martin

In reply to maisie:

That must be the longest post to say absolutely nothing I've ever seen.

Anything to say about the subject in the OP?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No, your understanding of it was zero; that's an entirely different thing. But at least you managed to put a question to me, after - what, a dozen? - invitations. Something might be getting through, despite your protestations.

The Moroccan regime - if 'it' could be defined as a single authoritative entity - has a reprehensible attitude towards the rights of LBGT individuals, particularly its own citizens. It appears to struggle with sex tourism, where there are commercial pressures which have always clouded the minds of those in charge. I suspect that the decision to initially detain Mr Cole followed a largely visceral reaction from a local plod, acting independently. Regional justice authorities could be relied on to back it up but once central government started to view it in terms of foreign policy, Mr Cole's release was expedited. Not for humanitarian reasons, but old-fashioned politics - Morocco's economy relies heavily on western supermarkets which, in turn, rely on decent PR to generate obscene profits.

Had Mr Cole not been with a local man, but another male tourist, it's much less likely that he would have been arrested. At least part of the escalation here was probably down to a perception of insult to the Moroccan people in the shape of a western tourist exploiting a power base for sexual gratification. Mr Cole has denied this, but I haven't seen any evidence that he was actually asked the question in the first place.

To anticipate your next question, Morocco is a fantastic - and generally safe - place to travel and climb in, but a godawful place to go for a beach holiday.

Take your time; try to address the points I've made rather than what you wish I'd said. If you can't manage to come up with any sensible rebuttal, just do what you normally do.

Martin

In reply to maisie:


Why assume I don't agree, BTW I wrote the OP so you've had plenty of time to say this before but haven't chosen too. I have also asked you several direct questions in this thread, about half a dozen more precise ones you didn't reply to, I'm glad you finally replied in a normal fashion.


I'm not sure what you mean by "beach holiday" but I don't think you can deny that this sentence is promoting Morocco, or can you?

Reading through the thread to count how many times I'd asked you a direct question I noticed that you have yourself put words in my mouth on occasions, so it's very much a case of a pot calling the kettle black... did I really " promote the idea that Morocco is a lawless wilderness overrun with jihadists," I don't think so, and how this would have been "simply because you thought it made you look like a man of the world." is even harder to understand. Never mind.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No, what you've done is to ask loaded questions based on what you knew to be false representations of what I said. I've pointed this out to you at some length and, as I said I would, answered the first direct question that wasn't couched in such terms.

Yes, you really did try to persuade somebody that Morocco was a dangerous place to visit because of jihadists. If you write it down, it's there, you know. But this demonstrates the basis for the rest of your nonsense now, so thank you for the insight.

And again, not my fault if you can't understand. I've come down as far as I can to accommodate you, and as a sometime teacher of young people with processing deficits, I can pitch pretty simply. I think it's just you.

Why would I deny that stating Morocco is a great place for a climbing trip would be promoting Morocco as a place to visit? Just when I think I've got a handle on the breadth of your idiocy, you push the boundaries back yet again.

Do you have any more questions, that don't rely on you mangling anything I've said?

Martin

In reply to maisie:


And yet...

Now coming back to the question I've been asking for yonks - Why? If that's not clear enough, Why do you do this?


Well as you still don't seem to have twigged it started off as a joke:

"> > Am mainly into big adventure


Then as I was picked up on this I explained:


Note: "I know the Morocco is reckoned to be safer"

(for information the decapitation of a French climber in Algeria was really big news in France, especially as it was so unexpected)

This was backed up by another poster or so and then you got involved and it all went wobbly... as usual when you are contradicted. But never mind, this a forum, it is to be expected. Can we drop it now as our squabble is hijacking the thread... not your intention, I hope.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

A joke? Good effort, but never going to work. Humour through petulance would be difficult for anybody to pull off, let alone you.

No, I'm clearly hijacking the thread. As I said before, I wanted to see what happened if I stopped just inwardly groaning at your horrible attempts to square your hypocrisy in relation to world politics - as we all generally do - and challenged you on it instead. I have my answer - if you can't rebut it, you try to pretend that your opponent's saying something else instead. Repeatedly and increasingly desperately. It's been great to have the hypothesis confirmed so spectacularly - you literally have no learning curve at all. I suspect that at the end, someone stepped in to help phrase a question for you, but that person's no longer in the room.

Speaking of help, if you're seeing the other halfwit on that thread as an ally, I'll take that as an admission that even *you* know you talk endless rubbish. That's the most perceptive - and self-aware - post you've ever produced. Well done.

So coming back to the drudgery of your thought processes, why do you imply that I wouldn't see a recommendation to visit Morocco as, er, a promotion of Morocco as a place to visit? (I know the answer to this already, as your confusion over a basic principle is plainly evident, but see if you can find your way through it).

Martin

In reply to maisie:

Last reply:


Can't you see how twisted this is? What I asked, and have asked half a dozen times is why do you promote Morocco? No hidden agenda, no complicated anything, just a simple question. Can you manage that?

If you can't no matter, I won't waste any more time on your riddles and complexes.

PS. To help you, at first I thought it was financial, it usually is when people get unexpectedly nasty on forums, climbing wall owners who can't stand climbing walls being slagged off, training centre employees who lose their rag when people say courses are a waste of time, etc. I thought perhaps you organised climbing trips to Morocco but you have said that it isn't this, so my very simple question is what is it that puts you into a rage like this - after all you've typed pages of bile on a subject that really doesn't justify it. Maybe there's no reason but in that case I can't understand why you didn't say this in the first place.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There's no rage here - you're repeating your behaviour because you don't know what else to do. It's easier for you to think that I'm angry; in fact, we're sitting here laughing at you. Now *that's* nasty - but honest.

To let you off the hook, you don't have the capacity to differentiate between promotion of a regime and promotion of the place and citizens where that regime is in power. This has been evident in your posts on, ooh, let's see, Russia and China. The complexity even of this just seems to defeat you.

This really is your A-game, isn't it?

Martin

In reply to maisie:

So still no answer then? Just a lot of self satisfied gobbledegook. I think we'd best leave it at that.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Pretending that I'm not answering your question just makes you look even denser, Bruce, although it's entirely consistent for you when you're out of your depth - or, in other words, whenever you're posting on the internet.

But I agree that there's little point in continuing, because it's a waste of my time: you're hopeless. I can't wait for your next pile of @rse.

Martin

In reply to maisie:

Maybe you're just trolling, but in case you're not when did you answer my question (ie. Why are you promoting Morocco as a good place to go for a climbing holiday?) - it's easy on ukc as when you post just in front of your text your name appears followed by the time and date, for example in this post of yours "maisie - 11:23 Sun". See? it's easy. Now when did you answer, or think you answered as it's quite possible you think you have answered... unlikely though as the question is so straightforward.

PS. Don't bother with the snide remarks, no one except you and I are reading this thread now, you have successfully turned it off subject.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ah, I see what you did there: instead of mis-representing what I *have* said, you're branching out to just deny that I've said it at all. You've literally doubled the number of debating techniques that you're capable of using. Wrong direction, but still an improvement - and to be fair, you did ask a straight question, so I'll answer it (again).

Morocco is a good place to go for a climbing holiday because it has lots of rocks to climb on. Plus some other stuff, but mainly the rocks. Otherwise it wouldn't be any use for a climbing holiday. I'd say that it pains me to have to point this out to you, but actually it's hilarious.

Despite myself, I'm intrigued. Do you NOT consider availability of climbable rocks to be an important criterion when choosing a climbing destination?

This is your best material yet; has the person come back to help?

Martin

In reply to maisie:

But why the hang up on Morocco? Why do you seem so excited when you think someone has said something negative about it? Your answer is true for hundreds of places. Never mind though, I can see I won't get an answer... maybe there is no reason, it's just some kind of Pavlovian style reaction which you can't even explain yourself, that you are not aware of.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And we're back to the beginning: misrepresenting my actions because you have no actual contribution to make. Just dreadful, really, but completely expected.

Bruce, we both know you're an idiot, but only one of us is honest enough to say it out loud, so I'll leave you to wrestle with your self-image. Give my thanks to your helper, though - they almost managed to engage you in a debate.

Martin