Where eating in public is a crime.

[boyntonstu]

Where eating in public is a crime.

Under Moroccan law, eating in public during the hours of daylight, when Muslims are supposed to observe a fast, can lead to a fine and up to six months in prison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8262787.stm

[Puppycow]

Of all the theocratic laws in muslim countries, this one is relatively minor.

We have similar laws in America. I went to a supermarket on Sunday morning to buy supplies for a party on Sunday afternoon, and I wasn't allowed to buy beer.

[Ausmerican]

More "Where and when eating in public is a crime". This only seems to apply during Ramadan not all the time.

[kerikiwi]

We have designated areas where alcohol bans are in force. No drinking allowed.

[Architect]

I'm sure we can point to laws in your country that we would consider weird. Do you have a point, OP?

[gtc]

We have designated areas where alcohol bans are in force. No drinking allowed.

Can breaking that law lead to 6 months in jail?

[ProbeX]

I'm sure we can point to laws in your country that we would consider weird. Do you have a point, OP?

Yeah, good point. We could certainly point to your country too.

[kerikiwi]

Can breaking that law lead to 6 months in jail?

I'm not sure what the penalties are. Why?

[Puppycow]

Can breaking that law lead to 6 months in jail?
According to this (http://askville.amazon.com/severe-penalty-jay-walking-Las-Vegas/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=419824) you could theoretically go to jail for 6 months for jaywalking in America. I'd like to know what the standard penalty is in practice, not in theory.

[MG1962]

Well I live in an American city where it is illegal to kiss my wife passionately in public.

Given Ramadan finished today for those of the Islamic faith, the no eating in public in Morocco law has been put to bed for another year

[Architect]

Yeah, good point. We could certainly point to your country too.

Nah, it's our laws which allow us to let people go which upset everybody.....

[Marc39]

Of all the theocratic laws in muslim countries, this one is relatively minor.

We have similar laws in America. I went to a supermarket on Sunday morning to buy supplies for a party on Sunday afternoon, and I wasn't allowed to buy beer.

Morocco is light years ahead of, say, Saudi Arabia or Egypt, however, Morocco is nevertheless a dictatorship that infringes on basic freedoms, such as speech and protest. One musn't, for example, criticize the monarchy and criticism of Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara is also taboo.

[Dorian Gray]

I'm sure we can point to laws in your country that we would consider weird. Do you have a point, OP?America has several published books and active websites about all the crazy and archaic laws on the books in this country. So what?

[Dorian Gray]

Morocco is light years ahead of, say, Saudi Arabia or Egypt, however, Morocco is nevertheless a dictatorship that infringes on basic freedoms, such as speech and protest. One musn't, for example, criticize the monarchy and criticism of Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara is also taboo.In America, we can criticize our president all day and all night with a bullhorn in the middle of town, if we want to. And Morocco has the same freedoms that we do. They, too, can criticize the American president all day and all night with a bullhorn in the middle of town.

[Elf Grinder 3000]

In many "muslim" countries muslims cannot marry christians.

[funk de fino]

Just another bigot thread then?

[gtc]

Just another bigot thread then?

Perhaps you might like to explain why it is bigoted to object to this law before you decide to call other posters bigots.

[funk de fino]

Perhaps you might like to explain why it is bigoted to object to this law before you decide to call other posters bigots.

Did I say it was bigotted to object to it? Did I call posters (plural) bigotted?

Try again.

Its another of those nasty "muslims are backward savages because they have laws we do not like" OP's.

Pure and simple.

[Architect]

America has several published books and active websites about all the crazy and archaic laws on the books in this country. So what?


Exactly. Feel free to read the thread before responding next time.

:rolleyes:

[Cleon]

Did I say it was bigotted to object to it? Did I call posters (plural) bigotted?

Try again.

Its another of those nasty "muslims are backward savages because they have laws we do not like" OP's.

Pure and simple.

Pretty much my read on it, too.

As wacky laws go, "thou shalt not eat in public during daylight during Ramadan" is fairly benign.

[Darth Rotor]

Pretty much my read on it, too.

As wacky laws go, "thou shalt not eat in public during daylight during Ramadan" is fairly benign.
There are some people where I live who ought to, IMO, be banned from eating in public, ever, thanks to their atrocious table manners.

Good thing I'm not king, I suppose.

[Darat]

Does this law only apply to Muslims and/or Moroccans? The reason for asking is that Morocco is a popular tourist destination and I've not heard of any tourist being arrested for eating during the day during Ramadan.

[gtc]

Did I say it was bigotted to object to it?

Yes. Because that is all the thread appears to be about.

Did I call posters (plural) bigotted?

Yes.

You said the thread was a 'bigot' thread.

Its another of those nasty "muslims are backward savages because they have laws we do not like" OP's.

Pure and simple.

Ah. So you are actually reading something into this thread that just does not exist.

I can't prove that this thread wasn't started out of hatred of Muslims. But if you want to claim that it was then you have to provide some evidence other than your own prejudices.

[funk de fino]

Yes. Because that is all the thread appears to be about.

See OP. See posters history. See reason for posting.


Yes.

You said the thread was a 'bigot' thread.

Wrong. You lie. I did not say posters were bigots, I did not call posters bigots. Use semantics all you want. There were non bigots posting so it could not have been the posters I was referring to, rather it was the thread.

Ah. So you are actually reading something into this thread that just does not exist.

I can't prove that this thread wasn't started out of hatred of Muslims. But if you want to claim that it was then you have to provide some evidence other than your own prejudices.

No, I am not. See posters history. Its a flamebait thread.

This is a well known law that is applicable during ramadan in many countries. Does it need a thread here posted in the manner it was by who it was?

[Architect]

Excuse me, just off to shoot a Scotsman from the ramparts of York with a longbow........(or is it Carlisle?)


(the Brits will know what I'm referring to)

[gtc]

See OP. See posters history. See reason for posting.

You don't know the reason for posting. It is all in your head.

Wrong. You lie. I did not say posters were bigots, I did not call posters bigots. Use semantics all you want. There were non bigots posting so it could not have been the posters I was referring to, rather it was the thread.

Don't accuse me of lying. Your post was ambiguous.



No, I am not. See posters history. Its a flamebait thread.

Once again, it is all in your head.

This is a well known law that is applicable during ramadan in many countries.

So? Does that make it acceptable? Did you read the article from the BBC?


Does it need a thread here posted in the manner it was by who it was?

Yes. It was good to see an example of a homegrown activist for classic liberal values in the Muslim world. I wish him well.

You are just poisoning the well.

[gtc]

Excuse me, just off to shoot a Scotsman from the ramparts of York with a longbow........(or is it Carlisle?)


(the Brits will know what I'm referring to)

Except that I bet if someone did shoot a Scotsman from the ramparts of York they would find themselves in jail.

This law still seems to be applied according to the BBC article.

[funk de fino]

You don't know the reason for posting. It is all in your head.

Of course it is (in your head)

Don't accuse me of lying. Your post was ambiguous.

Ever thought of asking for clarification?

Once again, it is all in your head.

His posting history is on this site not my head.

So? Does that make it acceptable? Did you read the article from the BBC?

I never said it was acceptable. However I have been in many countries where it is law. I respect the countries ability to have their own laws. You are not the law moderator for the world. And yes, I read the article.


Yes. It was good to see an example of a homegrown activist for classic liberal values in the Muslim world. I wish him well.

Did the OP put this across?

You are just poisoning the well.

I do not need to, there are enough here that do it straight off the bat with the OP.

I guess someone could have brought examples of people jailed for 6 months for breaking the fast?

PS - There is at least one posting in the thread.

[gtc]

I never said it was acceptable.

No. But you never said it wasn't acceptable either. This is a discussion board. Maybe you would like to discuss the law.

However I have been in many countries where it is law. I respect the countries ability to have their own laws.

Which implies that you do think it is acceptable.

You are not the law moderator for the world. And yes, I read the article.[/quote]

I never said I was the law moderator for the world. It is possible to object to laws and support people who call for a change laws that I believe are wrong. Even if those laws don't apply in my country.

Your argument in this thread means that you will be a hypocrite if you ever object to any law in a country other than your own.

[SezMe]

We have similar laws in America. I went to a supermarket on Sunday morning to buy supplies for a party on Sunday afternoon, and I wasn't allowed to buy beer.
You came all the way from Japan to buy some suds? In what state? Or was it a local law?

[funk de fino]

No. But you never said it wasn't acceptable either. This is a discussion board. Maybe you would like to discuss the law.

Why should I? The OP didn't. Which only adds to the flamebaiting finger pointing.

Which implies that you do think it is acceptable.

Bring me someone who has been imprisoned for 6 months for this crime and we can look at it by case merit.


I never said I was the law moderator for the world. It is possible to object to laws and support people who call for a change laws that I believe are wrong. Even if those laws don't apply in my country.

Your argument in this thread means that you will be a hypocrite if you ever object to any law in a country other than your own.

Yet, the OP did not seem to object but just posted an article. Please show me where you dicussed the merits of the law in the thread and objected to it in this thread. If you break a law in your country you have to suffer the consequences. Whats up with that? If those gus are really protecting the law then they know exactly what they are going to end up getting. That is there choice, it is their country. In the muslim world in general they are out of kilter with the majority on ramadan. Thats the way of the world. Minority sucks.

Whats your problem with the law?

[Beerina]

Where eating in public is a crime.

Under Moroccan law, eating in public during the hours of daylight, when Muslims are supposed to observe a fast, can lead to a fine and up to six months in prison.


On top of what God will do to you?!?!?! Jeebus H. Christ.

[kerikiwi]

On top of what God will do to you?

What is that?

[Whiplash]

Ever thought of asking for clarification?


Ever thought of being 100% clear in the first place? Or not having the nerve to complain that someone misunderstood you when you were clearly ambiguous? You tacitly admit as much by suggesting that he should have asked you for clarification.

I realize that you are feeling a strong, defensive desire to shoot back, rather than take a second to reflect and actually think about it. Please, try to be reasonable and actually take the time to think about it.

[funk de fino]

Ever thought of being 100% clear in the first place? Or not having the nerve to complain that someone misunderstood you when you were clearly ambiguous? You tacitly admit as much by suggesting that he should have asked you for clarification.

I realize that you are feeling a strong, defensive desire to shoot back, rather than take a second to reflect and actually think about it. Please, try to be reasonable and actually take the time to think about it.

I tacitly admit nothing. I was not deliberately ambiguous and did not think I was inadvertantly ambiguous on reading back. If someone has misconstrued what I said and went straight on the attack then that is their issue not mine.

Where is the debate from the OP? Where is the debate or comment from the guy who piled onto me? Then he has the nerve to try and prod me into debating the merits of the law?

[gtc]

Yet, the OP did not seem to object but just posted an article. Please show me where you dicussed the merits of the law in the thread and objected to it in this thread. If you break a law in your country you have to suffer the consequences. Whats up with that? If those gus are really protecting the law then they know exactly what they are going to end up getting. That is there choice, it is their country. In the muslim world in general they are out of kilter with the majority on ramadan. Thats the way of the world. Minority sucks.

Whats your problem with the law?

Aren't you a Scottish nationalist? If the majority of Brits don't support Scottish independence then, by your logic, Scotland stays British and you have no right to complain.

[gtc]

I tacitly admit nothing. I was not deliberately ambiguous and did not think I was inadvertantly ambiguous on reading back. If someone has misconstrued what I said and went straight on the attack then that is their issue not mine.

The person who went on the attack was you. When you starting on your accusations of bigotry.


Where is the debate from the OP? Where is the debate or comment from the guy who piled onto me? Then he has the nerve to try and prod me into debating the merits of the law?

Of course I have the nerve to try and prod you into debating the merits of the law. Its a discussion board for ****'s sake. You are supposed to discuss the issues and not resort to mindless personal attacks in an attempt to shut down discussion.

If you don't want to discuss the law then I suggest you find some other venue for your complaints about bigotry and whines about your victimisation because this is a discussion board.

[WildCat]

A few weeks ago I was grilling some chicken in my back yard. My tenants who live in the upstairs apartment are Muslim, the father brought his kids down to play in the yard. The little boy was getting hungry smelling the chicken and was quite upset to find out there were still 10 more days of Ramadan. :p

[funk de fino]

Aren't you a Scottish nationalist? If the majority of Brits don't support Scottish independence then, by your logic, Scotland stays British and you have no right to complain.

Incorrect. If the majority of Scots do not want independence then I am in the minority. That is the way of the world. I complain that we have not had the choice yet. Try again.

[funk de fino]

The person who went on the attack was you. When you starting on your accusations of bigotry.

I attacked the OP/thread starter. This was due to some experiece of postings.

You attacked me and accused me of doing something I did not do.

Of course I have the nerve to try and prod you into debating the merits of the law. Its a discussion board for ****'s sake. You are supposed to discuss the issues and not resort to mindless personal attacks in an attempt to shut down discussion.

Yet where is the OP debate, or yours? Bring something to the table I will debate it. If MaGZ had started this thread I would have said the same thing. And again, there are bigots posting in the thread whether you like it or not.

If you don't want to discuss the law then I suggest you find some other venue for your complaints about bigotry and whines about your victimisation because this is a discussion board.

I am afraid you are not the person who tells me when and where and what I can post. Thankfully. You're the one who started whining.

Quite ironic that I asked you what your problem with the law is and you ignore it and start some irrelevant rant about Scottish independence. Rather hypocritical.

[Lothian]

Aren't you a Scottish nationalist? If the majority of Brits don't support Scottish independence then, by your logic, Scotland stays British and you have no right to complain.Actually, the majority would not be enough. Also I suspect that Scotland would stay British, in the same way as it would remain European.

[gtc]

Actually, the majority would not be enough. Also I suspect that Scotland would stay British, in the same way as it would remain European.

Fine, I will express myself more clearly. By his standard, a vote for Scottish independence would have to be held throughout the entire United Kingdom and if it went against the Scottish then they would have no right to complain.

My point is quite clear, his apparent lack of concern for minorities is either hypocritical or simply posturing to attack the OP.

[gtc]

Quite ironic that I asked you what your problem with the law is and you ignore it

I have a hard time believing that anyone could post something this thick.

I have made my position clear on why I have a problem with the law. Your only contribution to the thread was, until I called you on it, the suggestion that this entire thread is 'bigoted'.

[Lothian]

Fine, I will express myself more clearly. By his standard, a vote for Scottish independence would have to be held throughout the entire United Kingdom and if it went against the Scottish then they would have no right to complain.I understand Funk to want the Scots to be able to make their own law without outsiders demanding that the wishes of the Scottish people should be disregarded because they disagree or fail to understand those wishes. I think his view is the same for the Moroccans.

[Lothian]

I have a hard time believing that anyone could post something this thick.
Don’t worry, it is a well recorded phenomenon. People overrate their intelligence. It is called Illusory superiority. It fully explains why you post something stupid and then have a hard time understanding how and why you did it.

[gtc]

I understand Funk to want the Scots to be able to make their own law without outsiders demanding that the wishes of the Scottish people should be disregarded because they disagree or fail to understand those wishes. I think his view is the same for the Moroccans.

BS. His view is classic majoritarian. In the UK that would mean that the entire UK gets to make decisions for the Scottish minority and he would have to like it or lump it. He obviously wouldn't like that which means that he is either being hypocritical or being contrarian out of some misguided concerns about bigotry.

More importantly, he (and you) are ignoring the fact that the protests that have been pointed to in the BBC article and the protests that I have supported are from Morrocan people themselves. It is not an outsider trying to impose their views it is an outsider supporting the concerns of Morrocan people.

Don’t worry, it is a well recorded phenomenon. People overrate their intelligence. It is called Illusory superiority. It fully explains why you post something stupid and then have a hard time understanding how and why you did it.

BS again. You can't point to anything that I posted in this thread that was stupid or that shows I have had a hard time understanding why something I posted in this thread was stupid.

Maybe you and Funk de Fino should stick to discussing the actual topic rather than trying to shut down debate.

[Lothian]

BS. His view is classic majoritarian. In the UK that would mean that the entire UK gets to make decisions for the Scottish minority and he would have to like it or lump it. He obviously wouldn't like that which means that he is either being hypocritical or being contrarian out of some misguided concerns about bigotry.There is a big difference between a majority in a descrete area of a country wanting to apply their own laws to that area to a minority wanting to apply their laws over the whole country.
More importantly, he (and you) are ignoring the fact that the protests that have been pointed to in the BBC article and the protests that I have supported are from Morrocan people themselves. It is not an outsider trying to impose their views it is an outsider supporting the concerns of Morrocan people. 7 Moroccan people. I support the right of the Moroccan people to make a free choice in setting their own laws.

BS again. You can't point to anything that I posted in this thread that was stupid Rather than coming out with an ad hom you could have answered the question and explicitly stated what the problem is with Moroccans setting their own laws.

[leftysergeant]

Perhaps you might like to explain why it is bigoted to object to this law before you decide to call other posters bigots.

Glass houses and all that.

[Beerina]

On top of what God will do to you?!?!?! Jeebus H. Christ.

What is that?

HELLFIRE and shoot?


Ya know, I wonder why people just don't let God kill off His own political enemies.

[funk de fino]

I have a hard time believing that anyone could post something this thick.

I have made my position clear on why I have a problem with the law. Your only contribution to the thread was, until I called you on it, the suggestion that this entire thread is 'bigoted'.

Just because you misunderstand something does not mean you called me on anything. It just shows you are too quick to jump in and badger.

I note you also now have to resort to snipping stuff out.

Please show us your reply to the OP about the law that clearly shows what your opinion of it is.

[funk de fino]

BS. His view is classic majoritarian. In the UK that would mean that the entire UK gets to make decisions for the Scottish minority and he would have to like it or lump it. He obviously wouldn't like that which means that he is either being hypocritical or being contrarian out of some misguided concerns about bigotry.

You do not really undestand that the independance issue is nothing to do with the rest of the UK but it is NOW a scottish parliament issue do you?

I have lumped it for years that the UK did not allow for independence and my country could do nothing about it. Now we have a scottish govt we can.

If we get enough support for the referendum then we get it. If we do not then I have to live with it. Thats life. Thats majority rule.

More importantly, he (and you) are ignoring the fact that the protests that have been pointed to in the BBC article and the protests that I have supported are from Morrocan people themselves. It is not an outsider trying to impose their views it is an outsider supporting the concerns of Morrocan people.

Show us your support. I think they have every right to protest the law. The are in a minority not just in Morrocco but the rest of the muslim world as far as eating during daylight during ramadan. If Morrocco decides to change the law then I am fine with that. If other muslims are not then that is tough luck for them.


BS again. You can't point to anything that I posted in this thread that was stupid or that shows I have had a hard time understanding why something I posted in this thread was stupid.

You made a stupid analogy about independence. That is thick.

Maybe you and Funk de Fino should stick to discussing the actual topic rather than trying to shut down debate.

Maybe you should show us your support for the OP.

PS - as much as you want to run from this there are bigots posting in the thread.

[funk de fino]

Fine, I will express myself more clearly. By his standard, a vote for Scottish independence would have to be held throughout the entire United Kingdom and if it went against the Scottish then they would have no right to complain.

My point is quite clear, his apparent lack of concern for minorities is either hypocritical or simply posturing to attack the OP.

You never made that clearer you just made it more stupid.

I did attack the OP as the OP is a bigot OP. Not because I do not care for the Morroccans referenced.

Spotted the bigots yet?

[GlennB]

This law was created because people disposed of gum incorrectly by sticking them under places like chairs or tables. Chewing gum is banned in Singapore under the "Regulation of Imports and Exports (Chewing Gum) Regulations."

Oh shock! Oh horror!

[leftysergeant]

Pretty much my read on it, too.

As wacky laws go, "thou shalt not eat in public during daylight during Ramadan" is fairly benign.

It is in keeping with the religious requirement in the Qur'an that those who do not observe the fast must pay a penalty, which usually involves feeding a hungry person.

It is, then, a breach of public decorum, a flaunting of impeity, to eat in front of people who are observing the fast, almost as though to defy authorities to force them to pay the penalty prescribed in the Qur'an.

[gtc]

The article says that six people were locked up for this and the punishment can be a fine and jail time.

Be that as it may, what gives a government the right to lock people up for 'flaunting impeity'.

[GlennB]

The article says that six people were locked up for this and the punishment can be a fine and jail time.

Be that as it may, what gives a government the right to lock people up for 'flaunting impeity'.

Because it's the law, created by a government of some kind presumably.

We could just as well ask "what gives a government the right arbitrarily to lock people away in concentration camps for years, without charge and without due process of law, torturing them meantime?"

[leftysergeant]

The article says that six people were locked up for this and the punishment can be a fine and jail time.

Be that as it may, what gives a government the right to lock people up for 'flaunting impeity'.Disorderly conduct and an attempt to create public discord.

[gtc]

Eating constitutes disorderly conduct and attempting to create public discord? You can not honestly believe that.

You would be screaming blue murder if conservatives tried to impose Christian values like this in the US. So why are you defending this?

[leftysergeant]

You would be screaming blue murder if conservatives tried to impose Christian values like this in the US. So why are you defending this?

America is, by law, not a Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever country.

Morocco is Muslim.

Why is this an issue?

[Architect]

Good excuse to complain about Arabs, I suspect.

[leftysergeant]

Good excuse to complain about Arabs, I suspect.

Are you implying that certain members of this forum might be too ethnocentric in their world view?

EGAD!

[Architect]

The MA forbids comment.

[MarkCorrigan]

Be that as it may, what gives a government the right to lock people up for 'flaunting impeity'.

That would be the concept of statehood and government.

[funk de fino]

The article says that six people were locked up for this and the punishment can be a fine and jail time.

Be that as it may, what gives a government the right to lock people up for 'flaunting impeity'.

I cannot believe you just posted that.

I could be locked up for drinking alcohol in certain public places in my country. I know the law, I know the consequences. If I disobey then I suffer those consequences.

The morrocan's in the OP are quite right to protest but they must suffer the consequences of disobeying the law of the country. Not accidentally breaking it, but on purpose.

As much as I disagree with religion playing any part in the laws of a land, that is the case in many muslim countries. That is their business. Or should we start bombing them for their lack of freedoms?

The OP is one thing and one thing only.

[gtc]

The MA forbids comment.

We've been through this already. Your fantasies only tell us about you not about me.

[gtc]

Or should we start bombing them for their lack of freedoms?

No one is advocating bombing anyone. I am suggesting that my support for people's rights are not contingent on where they live.

Why is that so difficult for you and Architect to comprehend?

[Prometheus]

No one is advocating bombing anyone. I am suggesting that my support for people's rights are not contingent on where they live.

Why is that so difficult for you and Architect to comprehend?

How many countries do you know of where people have the 'right' to break the law?

[gtc]

How many countries do you know of where people have the 'right' to break the law?

That is a silly statement. I am advocating that it shouldn't be the law.

[funk de fino]

That is a silly statement. I am advocating that it shouldn't be the law.

tough ******

Show us your support.

[Architect]

That is a silly statement. I am advocating that it shouldn't be the law.

That's your opinion. But it's not your country, and it's not your culture. Live with it.

[oldhat]

Good excuse to complain about Arabs, I suspect.

That's all this is, some dumb excuse to get worked up about encroaching Islamomarxistsocialistfacism.

[Prometheus]

That is a silly statement. I am advocating that it shouldn't be the law.

It's not a statement at all. It's a question. Morocco has a system in place by which laws can be changed--breaking those laws in protest is not a part of that system. The same is true in the U.S. and many other places. There are all sorts of laws in the U.S. that I would argue should not be laws. I don't go around deliberately breaking them in public while calling attention to the fact that I'm doing so, and expect to get off without punishment.

That aside, why are you advocating that Morocco shouldn't have this law? Just because it's religious in nature, or something else? Or are you just disagreeing with the level of punishment?

I lived for two years in a muslim country where I was subject to a similar law, and I can tell you that it was never a big deal. It's not like it's difficult to eat my lunch in doors, instead of walking around out on the street. IIRC the law does allow for certain exceptions, such as pregnant women, diabetics etc., so what's the big deal?

[leftysergeant]

Religious institutions have to assume many of what we would consider government functions in much of the world. Part of that, in the case of Morroco and other Muslim nations, is the feeding of the poor. The laws surrounding the observance of Ramdan are just a part of that.

I think that the people involved in "civil disobedience" on this issue are attacking Islam itself, thus, some of the underpinnings of Morrocan society.

With what do they intend to replace the Islamic state? Perhaps a Libertarian model of government?

Gimme a break.

[Architect]

So, erm, are GTC and others so incensed about this case going to pop on a 'plane and protest about this stupid law in the USA?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155145

Or is it just Arabs we get upset about?

[gtc]

I am annoyed about that law on behalf of the arabs who have protested - the fact that it is arabs who have put forth the law is not relevant.

I am also annoyed at the law in my home state that prevents trading on boxing day and I think the law in the the thread you link is also moronic (although it is not enforcing religious observation on people.

I noticed the link between these two threads but didn't think there was anything I could add.

Are your views consistent on these two issues or do you only support dumb laws if it allows you to feel superior to people you consider racist?

[funk de fino]

I am annoyed about that law on behalf of the arabs who have protested - the fact that it is arabs who have put forth the law is not relevant.

I am also annoyed at the law in my home state that prevents trading on boxing day and I think the law in the the thread you link is also moronic (although it is not enforcing religious observation on people.

I noticed the link between these two threads but didn't think there was anything I could add.

Are your views consistent on these two issues or do you only support dumb laws if it allows you to feel superior to people you consider racist?

It's your opinion it is a dumb law. Many millions of muslims would disagree.

What is dumb is deliberately breaking a law and then whining about being punished. I do not support the law but I support the right of Morroco to have the law. I also support the right of the authorities to enforce this law.

Note the OP seems not to be interested in going any further on this one?

Edited for rules 11 and 12.

[funk de fino]

Edited for off topic and attacking the arguer ( Rule 11 and rule 12 )