From the BBC.
What kind of country is this?Quote:
An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.
Printable View
From the BBC.
What kind of country is this?Quote:
An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.
So if they were all related it would have been ok:oQuote:
Originally Posted by bbc
God help the poor woman
But "its their culture and we have to respect that":rolleyes::(:mad:
Christianity had its fundamentalist period centuries ago. Islamic Fundamentalism seems to a few hundred years behind Christianity & as bad anything that happened in the Middle Ages in Europe. Fundamentalist Islam will claim it cherishes women but I think it is fairly clear it hates women.
Saudia Arabia is even worse because its leaders enjoy a Western lifestyle.
Edit: On the otherhand maybe we could bring in this law. ;)
[QUOTE=osarusan;816053
What kind of country is this?[/QUOTE]
Over here in the UK they had the Saudi's over for a state visit recently. Loads of arse-kissing and the like going on. I think it was the Brit foreign secretary that said ' we share common values' or something to that effect. As usual only a few labour backbenchers spoke up about this nonsense and the countries despicable humanitarian record.
They might have even made it as far as Buckingham Palace.
Just one more place where "god" is an excuse for human rights violations.
Friend of mine is living in Dubai at the moment due to work and can't believe the nonsense that she hears over there on a daily basis. It includes being illegal to be an unmarried pregnant woman, and her friend almost getting a jail sentence for having a drink of water in a taxi duriung Ramadan. Almost makes you believe in George Bush being a means to an end, almost
Given that the Bushes are best buddies with the Saud Family, I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
I was more talking of the extermination of Islam to be honestQuote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
Extermination is a strong word :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
While I support the removal of religion from any sphere of influence, I don't think Bush's methods have helped. At all. Aside from his "proving the extremists right", he hasnt actually done anything to stop Islam: he invaded the only secular state in the region. In particular, funding and protecting the theocracy we're discussing here invalidates any such hope for me, I'm afraid.
She was punished for being in the car with an unrelated man. That's the law over there (bizarre as it may be). She got punished for that. It was nothing to do with being raped.
Her rapists had their sentences doubled, anyone else mention that?
Superfrank, she gets 200 lashes with a whip and a six-month sentence for being in a stranger's car.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
However-
Just under a year doubled equals....lets say 22 months.Quote:
Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years
She gets 6 months in prison and 200 lashes for being a in a car with an unrelated man.
He gets less than 2 years for his part in a 14-time gang rape.Quote:
the 19-year-old woman, who is from Saudi Arabia's Shia minority, was gang-raped 14 times in an attack in Qatif in the eastern province a year-and-a-half ago.
You are right in that it is the law over there, my point is it is a disgraceful law which people should be disgusted by.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
I understand what you're getting at. When she gets a strong punishment for what we see as a stupid law, surely the rapists should get stronger punishments for their part. But that's the case the world over. Frequently in any given country people are given lenient sentences when the crime warrants something worse (The Hoolahan/O'Donoghue case here springs to mind). The only reason this story is getting any publicity is because the woman was also punished for a Saudi crime that we don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Is that because I'm thick and my moral compass is horribly skewed or because the way 'justice' is meted out in Saudi Arabia is abhorrent?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
In my case, I am not a Muslim therefore I do not understand the tradition and customs of that religion. That's why I do not understand why a law forebidding a female to be in the car of a male unrelated to her is passed and enforced in Saudi Arabia. It doesn't make sense to me and all non-Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
However, if I were a Muslim I would have an idea of why such a law is in effect.
It's down to environments. We think it's ridiculous that such a law is enforced in any part of the world because it would be seen as a joke here because of the way our culture is. However, in a Muslim country with different customs and a different culture altogether, there may be a public taboo regarding such behaviour and therefore they have this law.
I'm not condoning it but I think it's a bit snobbish of us to say what laws are right or wrong in another country which has a different culture that we don't understand.
Call me a snob in that case then!
I think I've a reasonable idea of what Islam is like, women are treated as some form of sub-human.
I take your point about us not being qualified to comment on how the laws are spawned. But Shirley this kind of behaviour is reprehensible no matter what cultural basis. Like can I not say that the cannibalistic tribes of rural Laos egregiously violate human rights? (Although I'm not sure the right to not being eaten is in the UN charter!) I may not understand the cause but I know the effect is downright wrong. I think the question really should be whether the women in this case can understand it. If they do and are happy to accept it then we don't really have a right to interfere.
But perhaps because they are, given their position, voiceless we should be obliged to stand up for basic equality. Or should we sit back and allow religion to be leveraged to persecute people simply because we don't understand the reasons? Wrong is wrong the world over - people are people and just because a religion is used as an excuse to foist inequity I don't think it should be brushed off on the grounds of cultural misunderstanding.
As it happens, I live next door to a Muslim (of Algerian origin) family. The man of the house is a lovely fella, always smiling and saying hello, even on the days after the music had been blaring til all hours! Obviously and unfortunately I've no idea what the wife is like. She does tend to scream at the kids a lot though so I'm not too sure about her. It can be pretty unsettling at times when you walk past her and the kids, it's hard to know whether to say hello, just smile, or ignore them. I usually just tend to say hi to the kids. What can be very weird is when I look out my sitting room window to see a gaggle of women, well presumably at least, shrouded head to toe in black floating around the corner. Just one of the joys of multiculturalism I suppose.
Like apertheid in South Africa ( written into law). Nazi Germany laws. Seperation of black and white in he south of the US up to the late 60's (State laws). Very snobbish of us to think of these as abhorent.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Great post.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
POTM. :D :pQuote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Find that strange and conflicting regarding Dubai :Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
- Firstly, some in Ireland today and the vast majority up until recent times treated single pregnant women like criminals in Ireland.
- I have been told that it was illegal to be gay in Ireland until the late 80's (I stand corrected if this was not true.) I genuinely dont believe it personally. It beggers belief.
- I find the incident you speak of relating to Ramadan very strange given that all non-Muslim have ID cards in Dubai that allows them to buy alcohol and it is probably the most relaxed country in relation to the Muslim faith in the world. I was there during Ramadan and had absolutely no problems with food or drink in public during the hours of daylight. Are you sure it wasnt Saudi?
On Saudi, people need to accept that it is a uber-strict muslim country and they live and breath the Koran and its principals. I sure we all agree that the liberal west has many faults and failings.
Norris won his case in the European Court of Human Rights in the late 80's. Homosexuality wasn't decriminalised until 93 (iirc).Quote:
Originally Posted by reder
You could also add the influence on religion on the fact that couples weren't allowed to divorce until 95, and the ongoing situation with regard to abortion. Recently, we've seen civil partnerships for homosexual couples delayed because the Government won't risk upsetting the religious.
Huge difference from being treated as a pariah and from actually breaking a law. A law, one assumes, that has a fairly bad punishmentQuote:
Originally Posted by reder
Thankfully we're changing. Unlike the UK Ireland now has the same age of consent for gay and straight people. Divorce is legal.
Little by little we're getting towards an open society. Well open in every way but government obviously
I didn't mention them. I'm talking about this law in Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
Besides, those laws were put into effect in the interests of one part of the community: the whites in SA, the Nazi's in Germany and the whites in the USA.
In Saudi Arabia, the overwhelming majority of people would be Muslim and would therefore such laws are hardly going to discriminate against the Muslims in that country seen as they'd all have the same beliefs. Although, I must admit I do not know the specific differences between Sunni and Shia.
Well the government was, if certain tribunal witnesses are to be believed, open to offers until relatively recently :D
Why say nazis in germany. Surely all white christians would've benefitted, and not just members of the political party?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
And are you saying that jus because the Saudi rule doesn't discriminate against the majority its all right?
Well all white Christians in Germany then. I've never heard of anything to suggest that other "non-Aryan" Germans were prosecuted by the Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
No. I'm saying that the ideology behind such laws would be accepted by the majority of the people there as they're Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
And the point being made to you is that the majority of people in the USA were white and they had rules banning the minority blacks from all sorts of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Don't assume you know what the average Saudi thinks either. Just because its illegal for men and women to mingle, doesn't mean they don't do it
Considering there hasn't been any news on protests or media condemnation in Saudi Arabia over this particular incident (even the BBC article didn't mention anything like that), I think it's fairly safe to assume that this kind of law is accepted in Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Protestors are murdered. It mightn't be the highest priority for the average Saudi either.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
As I said, don't presume that just because a law exists it has the full support of the people
In this case, there's no evidence to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
*Sigh* Spurious logic. There's no evidence that they support the law either. We're not talking about a typical democratic state...Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Burma is not a typical demcratic state either yet their natives protested over fuel prices (initially). What's stopping the Saudi's from protesting against this if they are so against it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Who said they were *so* against it? I've said numerous times they may/may not be in favour of it, and it it may/may not be among the top issues for most Saudis. My whole point is that you have a fecking a clue what Saudi's feel about their laws so don't be coming on here trying to justify/excuse the whipping of a girl who's already been raped by 14 men on the basis of "culture".Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
You might want to read this and see if they excuse it http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm
Prima facie it does, but you'd have to appreciate that probably no one was ever tried under it - ie that its draconian existence only continued because it hadn't come into public consciousness. The likely reason it existed for so long was because it was latent, so when someone took offence and decided to do something about it the law was rightly repealed. Contrast that with Saudi Arabia where no one has the right to question anything, just accept it, and you begin to see the tip of the iceberg, or more appropriately, the base of one ginormous sand dune. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by reder
Superfrank your naivety on this issue is startling me! I don't understand your point that because the Saudi media didn't revolt that we should just presume the gross inequality there is accepted. The media is controlled and, more importantly, censored by the state, plus all political opposition is banned, showing how suppressed opinions are. If you don't like something there, tough luck. The downtrodden have no voice, and we can't be outraged just because we don't understand the culture? Question why you don't understand the culture rather than fobbing the issue off.
To be fair, as Superfrank has pointed out, the woman is not being punished for being raped, although media headlines like "Rape victim gets prison sentence" would lead you to believe that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
She is actually being punished, initially, for being in the car of a man she didn't know, and on appeal had that punishment increased for trying to use the media to gain support/sympathy.
My point is that the punishment for her crime (and in S. Arabia it is a crime) and the punishment of one of her rapists is closer in sentence than I can believe.*
*As in, I think the law regarding being in the car of a stranger is ludicrous.
Thats why I deliberately worded it that wayQuote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
indeed you did. Although I don't think he has excused/justified it so much as said we need to understand more before we can comment. Personally, i disagree. Sometimes something is wrong, no matter how culturally distant it is, but I dont see his comments as any justification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Did you watch that video I sent you?
Yep. Thoroughly enjoyable voilence ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I think I can assume more or everyone feels the Taliban were evil? I believe the only 2 countries to recognise them were Pakistan & Saudia Arabia. I don't think we need to debate just how evil the Taliban were?
IMO the Saudia leaders (royalty) use extreme implementation of religion to control the masses. I read previously that SA has a very well educated middle class & in particular women however the vast majority are never allowed to use those skills so instead they high in foreign professionals. When the oil has dried up I wonder what they will have to show for it. 13% unemployment yet in a population of 27m they have 5.5m foreign "guest" workers.
I can't believe SA is compared with Ireland in the middle of the last century. If locals complain or protest they are beaten or killed. SA is a "Kingdom" so has a lot more in common with European Kingdoms of the Middle Ages. If anyone can point out the difference with dictators/tyrants feel free... :rolleyes:
The media in Saudi Arabia is among the least free in the world, the lack of media outrage there speaks more to the media's failings and state control than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank