Friday, 08 April 2005
Dresden dogs & Fishawy - Amgad Mousa
I think this controversy is because every body is reading the events from a different perspective to reach a decision on who is to blame for the misery of the poor toddler, the only victim in the case till now. Let us try to write a balanced account
1- Two adult persons had sex out of marriage or under an invalid form of married (declaration is a corner stone of marriage)
Conclusion both of them are adulterer with equal blame, remember non of them is a teenage
2- The women got pregnant and tell this to the man asking him to make their relation legal
3- The man refuses to do this and denies the whole issue hoping that the woman will give up.
So the man is a liar in addition to an adulterer.
His denial means that the man ignores completely that this baby might be his and thus he must be responsible for him as any law or religion dictates.
This means that he behaves with complete recklessness toward his probable baby.
The man's motivations can be
He does not really like the girl so he does not want to marry her. If this is true, we can say that he was acting with her like the oriental playboy of ever
He does not want to admit his fatherhood to the girl because this will damage his image as the religiously committed actor.
If any of these is true we can say that he is a swindler
4- The woman decides to hold him accountable and carries the case to the courts and the TV channels
The girl's motives can be
She felt deceived and was bitter about this so she wanted to get revenge by exposing her sexual relations with him. If this is true, we can say that she is an unreserved girl. Actually this does not add much to her being an adulterer
She is afraid of the future of her girl and wanted to secure her a father. Is this is true she is simply a mother who wants what she thinks is good for her kids
5- After losing to the woman in the court of justice and both of them become scandalized the man admits the relation yet he continues to deny his fatherhood to the girl
He can be very angry at her because she did not yield to him and give up the whole issue, so he wants to harm her to the maximum by destroying whatever left of her and her family reputations, if this is true we can say he is a hateful person.
He can be sure that this woman used to have many relations and he was just one of many. If this is true, they are two persons worthless of being discussed.
This reading of events, hopefully a balanced one, says that we have a hateful, swindler, liar and adulterer against an adulterer. This in my opinion makes the men a much worse person.
Finally I wanted to mention something I heard in the news
The local authority of the city of Dresden planes to make a DNA base for all the dogs in the city, so whenever dog excrements are found in the city the dog which made them can be surely identified and his owner severely fined for not collecting his dog's excrement and putting it in the assigned bins.
In others words, dogsâ€™ owners in Dresden are hold accountable for where their dogsâ€™ shit and for some people in Egypt it seems excessive that a man should be hold accountable for where his p**** ejaculates.