Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

peter2095 wrote:If you go to a muslim country then there are times that you are expected to wear it.

Are you offended by the BBC New correspondant who is out there. She is British but she wears one!!!!

Its not demeaning in any sense!!!!!!

The woman is a member of the British Armed Forces captured whilst in uniform. What right do they have to change British Naval uniform?

In fact, if she is not in an acknowledged uniform then the capturing country has the right to take her out and shoot her as a spy. Perhaps that is what they intend to do just as they caused the embassy problem so many years ago.

They have every right to. Plus i would want a change of clothes. How does anyone know that she didn't request a change of clothes?

The insurgents in Iraq or Alqeada, wear Civies, what right do we have to put them in Orange jump suits???

Dave - I have reviewed and edited where necessary

Thanks

I'll just stay British, (English), and be proud of it.

No further comment, AT THIS STAGE !

I agree with Dave that I'd encourage the avoidance of deliberately using language which will cause offense.
I'm also keen to encourage lively debate, which this certainly is. Whilst CH' name is not brought into disrepute, and nothing illegal is said, then I'm of a mind to let this debate run....

Note the Ts&Cs though at the bottom of every page:-

"The Unofficial Christs Hospital (CH) Forum is not responsible for the accuracy and nature of content posted in our forum, nor are we liable for any information which could be offensive and/or lead to any damage to the browser, personal, private, public corporations, any forum participant, or use in any other capacity. We monitor our content regularly, moderating content as appropriate, and we ask that all of our forum participants ask, answer, and post only appropriate material, and that they refrain from using offensive language............
This includes misrepresentation, insinuation or falsehood, rather than an opinion, since anyone can hold an opinion of their own......"

The poor young woman looked terrified, and was quite clearly saying what she had been told to say. The Iranians have changed their minds about the exact location of the boats, and have shown themselves untrustworthy. Did they ever intend to release her early, or was it just a ploy to increase the pressure.
I agree with JR- we should start kicking out some Iranians.

midget wrote:I agree with JR- we should start kicking out some Iranians.

Ahh, now we're getting into the "an eye for an eye" debates, so I can't resist weighing in.

I also find JR's comments a touch rash, but I do respect his opinion. I would argue though that the fact that the Iranians may have forced the female Naval officer to wear a headscarf shouldn't be thought of in negative terms, and I believe JR has justified this point himself. He stated in an earlier post that he would not stand for the erosion of our (i.e. British - whatever that means) national heritage by a foreign (whatever that means) culture. I would not expect the Iranians to do so either and find it quite acceptable that they require female prisoners to wear appropriate dress. It would appear from the images shown that the British prisoners are being treated with respect and decency. Whether it was right to show those images is another thing, but I suppose it is common place in that region to do so.

I agree that this whole affair seems fishy and a bit of national pride/ support/ whatever you want to call it is quite understandable, but I don't think we should go tarring an entire religion with the same brush because of a few rogue individuals. Let's not forget the many attrocities that have been carried out in the name of Judaism and ESPECIALLY Christianity, some of which we should have on our collective national consciences.

graham wrote:I agree that this whole affair seems fishy and a bit of national pride/ support/ whatever you want to call it is quite understandable, but I don't think we should go tarring an entire religion with the same brush because of a few rogue individuals. Let's not forget the many attrocities that have been carried out in the name of Judaism and ESPECIALLY Christianity, some of which we should have on our collective national consciences.

Well said. I quite agree with this sentiment.

If we look at Northern Ireland we would not want the world in general to judge Christianity by either side in the so called Troubles.

J.R. wrote:If we don't stand strong and firm NOW , it will only be a matter of time before our National heritage is no more, and all our women will be forced to walk the streets wearing veils and covering their ankles so as not to 'offend' the muslims !

I think that to take the extreme stance of the above argument as justification for forcing foreigners in our nation to renounce their cultural values is just a little hypocritical. The 'heritage' at stake here is the freedom to dress as one might want (within reason) - the imposition of a dress code is hardly a way to protect it.

To link this to another thread also started by JR, I would note that one reason I might justifiably be proud to be British is the reasoned and diplomatic stance taken by our government on occasions like this - trying to resolve the situation diplomatically, and with the minimum force or embarassment necessary - only upping the ante when forced. We can clearly see that our soldiers are safe and well - it is hardly worth endangering the lives of countless British citizens in the region and destroying fruitful relations with other nearby Islamic nations with a response unlikely produce anything other than bad will. As is clear at the moment, the current policy is gaining the British support (at the expense of Iran) from Iran's nearest neighbours, something perhaps even important than the perceived 'humiliation' of the capture.

To fight dirty with a country (perhaps regime is a better term) far less restricted by moral and social conventions than we are is hardly likely to succeed in the long term, and to be so arrogant as to assume that we have the power to immediately force a solution onto Iran was a mistake for which the Americans paid dearly in 1980.

Just to add to the debate, may I reproduce something printed in yesterdays 'Daily Mail' ? I think this puts the whole matter into context.

"WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW SAYS:

The Geneva Convention specifically prohibits countries from parading captured military personnel.
Under the diplomatic code signed by 189 countries, including Iran, 'prisoners of war must at all times be protected...against insults and public curiosity'.
It also states that prisoners of war should not be subjected to 'degrading or humiliating treatment'."

The short article goes on to say the International Committee of the Red Cross is the recognised guardian of the Geneva Convention and is therefore responsible for ensuring that any country breaching of the rules are 'bought to book'.

On Wednesday the chief spokesman of the ICRC declined to comment on the development, saying it was 'not involved in the situation !'

No change there, then !!

Well, it isn't quite that simple. One can notice the difference in terminology between the British news reports and the Iranian statements, where the Iranians consistently term the captures as 'arrests' of individuals who have committed a criminal act by trespassing and there is clearly little suggestion, whatever the ethics of the situation, that we were in a state of declared war with Iran, or that the soldiers were undertaking operations against Iran. The terminology of the captured personnel as 'prisoners of war' is surely as dubious than the American stepstepping of the Convention (with regard to captive Afghan militants) by the use of the term 'unlawful combatants'.

I think it is hardly surprising that the UK have not jumped at the opportunity to have their personnel designated 'prisoners of war', liable to detainment until the end of 'hostilities'...

I agree with JR that they should not be paraded around

However, they are not prisoners of war, as we currently are not at war with Iran. They have been taken as spies. I'm sure we would kick off if we found other country spies snooping around the UK

Here is Geneva Convention 4.1

i. Introduction
ii. Who is a Prisoner of War
iii. How Should Prisoners of War be Treated by the Detaining Power
1. Humane Treatment
2. Interrogation
3. Right to Fair Trial
4. Release of POWs
iv. Specific Issues raised in the current Gulf War
1. Filming of POWs
2. Hooding
3. a. Unlawful Combatants
b. Prosecution by US-sponsored Iraqi-led forum


i. Introduction

Since the War on Iraq began on 20 March 2003, concerns have been raised with regards to the treatment of Prisoners of War (POW) by both sides to the conflict. This briefing aims to provide background information on international humanitarian law, specifically focusing on the definition of a POW (section ii) and the protection it affords (section iii). It then provides a clarification to some of the issues that have been raised namely the broadcasting of POWs on television, the hooding of POWs, and their treatment in post war Iraq.


ii. Who is a Prisoner of War?

According to the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, prisoners of war (POWs) are combatants in an international armed conflict who have fallen into the hands of the enemy. Persons entitled to POW status fall into six categories (Article 4). They include

1. Members of the armed forces, members of militia or volunteers corps

2. Other members of militia or volunteers corps, including organized resistance movements provided that
- they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
- they have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
- that they carry arms openly;
-that they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members, provided that they receive authorization in the form of identity cards from the armed forces they accompany. This category includes captured war correspondents who would be entitled to the protections of POW status.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not receive more favourable treatment under other provisions of international law.

6. civilian taking up arms spontaneously take up arms against invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The Geneva Convention stipulates that if doubt arises as to whether captured persons are entitled to POW status, they should be treated as such until it is determined by a competent tribunal (Article 5).


iii. How should Prisoners of War be treated by the Detaining Power?
The Third Geneva Convention comes in to effect immediately upon capture. The Detaining Power is ultimately responsible for the treatment of the POWs, not the individual military units that captured them. A few of their responsibilities are briefly outlined below:

1. Humane Treatment

• POWs must be humanely treated at all times; they may not be subject to torture or ill treatment or killed due to any unlawful act or omission. Punishment or revenge attacks against POWs are absolutely prohibited.
• POWs must be protected at all times; particularly, against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity whether by enemy forces or civilians.
• Women POWs must be treated with due regard for their gender and be given at least the same rights and protections as men. Children who are POWs are entitled to special treatment.

2. Interrogation

• POWs are only obliged to reveal their name, rank, date of birth, and military serial number or equivalent information. Physical or mental torture or other coercive measures may not be used to obtain any information. POWs may not be subjected to threats, insults, or exposed to unpleasant or detrimental treatment for refusing to answer.

3. Right to Fair Trial

• No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced retrospectively for an act not deemed illegal by the Detaining Power or by international law, at the time of commission.
• Only a military court may try prisoners of war unless under existing laws of the Detaining Power civil courts are expressly permitted to try armed forces members of the Detaining Power with regards to the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
• POWs cannot be prosecuted for simply having joined in the armed conflict. However, if applicable they may be prosecuted for war crimes.

4. Release of POWs

• Unless they are liable to prosecution, POWs must be released and repatriated immediately after the end of active hostilities.

iv. Specific Issues Raised in the Gulf War:

1. Filming of Prisoners of War

The showing of captured US soldiers on Iraqi television on 23 March sparked accusations from President Bush and Prime Minister Blair that the Iraqis had breached Article 13 of the Geneva Convention. Under the provision, Detaining Powers must not expose POWs to public curiosity by parading or interrogating them in front of the media

A) We are at war with neither Iraq not Iran.

B) "Spies" do not parade around in full miltary uniform in marked boats in the middle of the sea.

C) Mark is talking the most sense here. A future diplomat I feel sure.

Incompetence rather than any thing sinister it would seem is behind this awful situation. The question is whose incompetence, the politicians, the military or both?

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... ement.html

and http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... count.html

I see the iranians have cranked up the pressure today by broadcasting an 'apology' from one of our kidnapped men !

Apology ?? YEAH, RIGHT !

It's interesting that the lady in question is wearing a head dress of sorts, as many would wear if they were travelling in Islamic countries as a mark of respect to their culture.

What I do not understand then, if western women must cover their head in Islamic countries, why do strict Islamic women here not wear head dresses to respect our culture. *


* Please note, this is not necessarially what I believe, I just think it is a good topic for debate...