Saudi woman gets jail (and whipped) for being gang raped

TwoShedsJackson

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm

Delightful - although in fairness she was 'in an unrelated man's car' at the time, so clearly she got what she deserved :rolleyes:

The Hill Billy

Hold your bleedin' horses there! She did not get jailed & whipped for being gang raped.

She got jailed & lashed for "violating laws on segregation of the sexes" & for attempting to influence the judiciary.

The men who gang-raped her also had their sentences doubled.

seamus

Ah Islam, is there anything you won't do?

super_furry

seamus wrote: »

Ah Islam, is there anything you won't do?

Eat pork?

magick

them durkas are a crazy bunch


religion of peace :rolleyes:

The Sweeper

Hill Billy wrote: »

Hold your bleedin' horses there! She did not get jailed & whipped for being gang raped.

She got jailed & lashed for "violating laws on segregation of the sexes" & for attempting to influence the judiciary.

The men who gang-raped her also had their sentences doubled.

Absolutely!

She was jailed and whipped for being in a car with a bloke who wasn't her brother or her son or her father! Damn right! Should have stoned her too! And as for trying to appeal to the sanity of the masses to make sure you don't get lashed for being in some bloke's car, that's definitely a DOUBLE WHIPPING OFFENCE!

Good to see the bloke who got one year for being part of a gang that raped a 19 year old woman fourteen times had his sentence doubled to two years. THAT'LL LEARN HIM!

Yep. Justice served all around I think.

kmick

Very sad. However I would say the people down there are no more or less screwed up than we are. Their religion is a little bit stricter mind. Poor woman.

Terry

magick wrote: »

them durkas are a crazy bunch


religion of peace :rolleyes:

Warning given.

The Hill Billy

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Absolutely!

She was jailed and whipped for being in a car with a bloke who wasn't her brother or her son or her father! Damn right! Should have stoned her too! And as for trying to appeal to the sanity of the masses to make sure you don't get lashed for being in some bloke's car, that's definitely a DOUBLE WHIPPING OFFENCE!

Good to see the bloke who got one year for being part of a gang that raped a 19 year old woman fourteen times had his sentence doubled to two years. THAT'LL LEARN HIM!

Yep. Justice served all around I think.

You seem to think that I'm condoning the Saudi justice system. I am not.

I pointed out that the OP's thread title was misleading as she did not get jailed for being gang raped.

It is sensationalist & completely incorrect bo11ox like that the serves to further divide the christians/jews/muslims/[enter random religion/ethnicity here].

biko

Fundamentalism rears its ugly head again.

Brethitmanhart

True but still overall it's just not right...although I 100% agree with Hill Billy, for example how many people would read the title and tell loads of people they knoe...when it's not true!

DO0GLE

Wouldn't be great if the Irish government brought in lashes into this country. That would sort half the scumbags out

Public lashes every Saturday morning on O'Connell St. for knackers

cornbb

The title is inaccurate but I wouldn't say its particulary sensationalist. This is fairly typical of what women deal with in Saudi Arabia. In a trial, women can't testify unless "it is a personal matter that did not occur in the sight of men". Even then, their testimony is regarded as presumption, not fact, while the testimony of a male witness (eg rape suspect) is regarded as fact.

Kintarō Hattori

It's a shocking case and how Saudi Arabia can think of itself as a civilised nation is beyond me at the moment.
OK so she broke the laws on segregation, but they were pretty crazy laws in the first place. It's also shocking that she gets double the amount of lashes and a jail sentance for appealing her case.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

r3nu4l

HillBilly makes a great point. It's time people started reporting things properly.

That said, MAJD once again makes an excellent point and I fully agree with her. The injustice of it all is shocking.

EdgarAllenPoo

It's useful to point out that while they might be "crazy laws" they are still the law of the land there and have to be followed. You wouldn't expect someone here to have decent grounds for appeal just because the law they broke is considered crazy by other countries.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

EdgarAllenPoo

I'm not saying you shouldn't critisize them (you should definitely critisize the harshness of the punishment), what I'm saying is that every person in whatever country they're in has to follow the laws of that country, if it was against the law for her to be in a car with a man other than a male relative then she shouldn't have been.

Terry

GDM wrote: »

I'm not saying you shouldn't critisize them (you should definitely critisize the harshness of the punishment), what I'm saying is that every person in whatever country they're in has to follow the laws of that country, if it was against the law for her to be in a car with a man other than a male relative then she shouldn't have been.

He has a point.

While it may be a complete ludicrous law, the fact of the matter is that it is law.
Break it at your own peril.

sickpuppy

It is a shame western society depends so much on oil.
Otherwise we wouldnt have to trade interact with these oppressive regimes.
I am sick of people saying its there culture laws etc its barbaric and ali baba and the fourty thieves should not be let into ireland.

griffdaddy

Terry wrote: »

He has a point.

While it may be a complete ludicrous law, the fact of the matter is that it is law.
Break it at your own peril.

It is a very valid point, if i was in Ireland and got caught with a bag of high quality grass i couldn't say 'oh, when i lived in Holland this case would be considered ridiculous.', even though, over here, when i watch international news with Dutch people they think it's the WEIRDEST thing ever when people get huge jail sentences for Cannabis, it's like us seeing someone get sentenced to 10years for having a car full of whiskey or something.

Jigsaw

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Bloody sub human savages tbh. Aren't they the big fellows?

If I was King for a day........................:mad:

Lux23

GDM wrote: »

I'm not saying you shouldn't critisize them (you should definitely critisize the harshness of the punishment), what I'm saying is that every person in whatever country they're in has to follow the laws of that country, if it was against the law for her to be in a car with a man other than a male relative then she shouldn't have been.

She also shouldn't have been raped but you all seem more upset about her breaking segregation laws. If people don't stand up to the injustices in the world how will anything every change. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist as was Michael Collins, the suffragettes, the american revolutionaries etc etc. Saudi is a corrupt country with archaic laws but it seems they have a get out of free jail card because of oil. Thats what is really sick.

hopalong85

Lux23 wrote: »

She also shouldn't have been raped but you all seem more upset about her breaking segregation laws. If people don't stand up to the injustices in the world how will anything every change. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist as was Michael Collins, the suffragettes, the american revolutionaries etc etc. Saudi is a corrupt country with archaic laws but it seems they have a get out of free jail card because of oil. Thats what is really sick.

Nelson Mandela and Michael Collins were terrorists. Collins used guerilla warfare and Mandela was in the ANC. The ANC were terrorists.

togster

hopalong85 wrote: »

Nelson Mandela and Michael Collins were terrorists. Collins used guerilla warfare and Mandela was in the ANC. The ANC were terrorists.

What?? By who's standards? Yours?

Lux23

hopalong85 wrote: »

Nelson Mandela and Michael Collins were terrorists. Collins used guerilla warfare and Mandela was in the ANC. The ANC were terrorists.

Yes I am aware of that, but most would call them 'freedom fighter'. But my point is that they stood up and tried to change something, people in saudi should be doing the same.

humbert

The delightful world of Sharia Law. Where grotesque inequality and violence are imposed by law.

hopalong85

I know their motives were right. Still terrorists though. It is sick what happened to this girl, segregation law or not there is no excuse for her being punished here. I can't see things changing there though. A lot of the citizens in Saudi most likely agree with it unfortunately.

sickpuppy

Saudi people stand up and be counted you must be joking?
You puta foot wrong in the eyes of the law there and your are ****ed.
They have a huge amount of executions yearly can you imagine what the jails are like?
The whole arab world belongs in the middleages with there horrible laws and the way the treat women especially.
Honour killing and the such are disgusting but its ok its there culture lets hope it dosent infest ireland,what we have here is not perfect but its a hell of a lot better than shariah law etc.

zuutroy

Thats ingenius. A large portion of this world really hasn't evolved too far from primates.

Red Lemon

image3440537-1.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7068616.stm

When one goes to war in the name of democracy...in my name! Does one then have the right to applaud the King and dictator of Saudi Arabia...in the name of the arms manufacturers.

If so..then the laws of Saudi Arabia, of Britain and of Ireland need to be challanged if not broken.

To whomever it is who wants to cast the first lash in Ireland....is'nt Berti Ahern up to his neck in SCUM

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Terry

hopalong85 wrote: »

Nelson Mandela and Michael Collins were terrorists. Collins used guerilla warfare and Mandela was in the ANC. The ANC were terrorists.

Good old political brainwashing.
Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too.
Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents.

Lux23 wrote: »

She also shouldn't have been raped but you all seem more upset about her breaking segregation laws. If people don't stand up to the injustices in the world how will anything every change. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist as was Michael Collins, the suffragettes, the american revolutionaries etc etc. Saudi is a corrupt country with archaic laws but it seems they have a get out of free jail card because of oil. Thats what is really sick.

I don't think anyone agrees with or is not sickened by the rape of this woman.
People are merely pointing out that she did break the local law.
Nobody is suggesting that this is justification for rape.

We can all sit here in our first world ivory towers and lambast the Saudis for what they are doing, but the sad fact is that not many of them know any different.
They are not all rich oil barons with mansions near the Curragh.
Most of the people are piss poor.

When people are piss poor, they tend to turn to religion. You only need to look at other poor areas in the world to see this.
The Southern United state, Mexico and all of South and central America. Most of Africa and Asia. All these places have religious fanatics who lure in the locals with promises of a rich and comfortable after-life.
The problem is that with this comes ridiculous laws. Laws which put men first and women second.

Most of these folks don't know how good we have it. All they know or care about is where their next meal is coming from.

Red Lemon

Most of the people are piss poor.

No there not! The people who do all the work in Saudi Arabia are usually immigrants with very few rights, coming in from Pakistan Palistine Iraq .......
The Saudi Family is Saudi Arabia!

Terry

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Am I missing something here?

Sharia-based laws would be similar to faith-based tribunals already permitted by the Canadian province for Catholics and Jews to use the principles of their faiths to settle family disputes.

Now I was brought up catholic, but I don't know of any laws regarding the settlement of family disputes.

But many Muslims believe that because Canada is a secular country, its legal system makes it difficult for them to govern themselves by the laws of their religion.

Aww.
When western people go to an Islamic state, they are required to obey the local laws.

hopalong85

Terry wrote: »

Good old political brainwashing.
Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too.
Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents.
QUOTE]

Sorry Terry, but you would argue that the ANC weren't terrorists? You think Michael Collins' use of guerilla warfare wasn't terrorism? Terrorism is a particular type of warfare. The reasons behind terrorism are irrelevant, it is what it is. I'm not saying it's not necessary in some situations but Osama Bin Ladin is no more a terrorist than ANC leaders were during their struggle against apartheid. People might sympathise more with one cause that's all.

The Iraqi soldiers were defending their country against invading forces. The Iraqis fighting since the fall of Baghdad through car bombs etc are surely terrorists?

MrJoeSoap

zuutroy wrote: »

Thats ingenius. A large portion of this world really hasn't evolved too far from primates.

Or hasn't evolved at all if you believe our old AH friend estebancambias over in the Christianity forum.

Red Lemon

When western people go to an Islamic state, they are required to obey the local laws.

No they don't. Plans to invade Iran are not troubled by Iranian law. The decision will be based on how far the American and British think they can get away with kicking ass

Tony Danza

Lux23 wrote: »

Yes I am aware of that, but most would call them 'freedom fighter'. But my point is that they stood up and tried to change something, people in saudi should be doing the same.

I'm not going to claim to know a lot about Saudi Arabia but I would imagine that most of the people don't want change? Wouldn't they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way of living for Allah?

humbert

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You could argue that it's their culture, but I don't like any legal system whose only required justification is a convincing interpretation of some book written over 1000 years ago.

Terry

hopalong85 wrote: »

Terry wrote: »

Good old political brainwashing.
Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too.
Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents.

Sorry Terry, but you would argue that the ANC weren't terrorists? You think Michael Collins' use of guerilla warfare wasn't terrorism? Terrorism is a particular type of warfare. The reasons behind terrorism are irrelevant, it is what it is. I'm not saying it's not necessary in some situations but Osama Bin Ladin is no more a terrorist than ANC leaders were during their struggle against apartheid. People might sympathise more with one cause that's all.

The Iraqi soldiers were defending their country against invading forces. The Iraqis fighting since the fall of Baghdad through car bombs etc are surely terrorists?

First off, no need to apologise. You're entitled to your opinion.

Guerilla warfare and terrorism are two seperate things.
They may use similar tactics and are closely linked, but they are not the same thing. Much like conventional warfare is similar to guerilla warfare.
The aims of all three tactics are the same: Kill people you disagree with.

As for the Iraqis still blowing stuff up, why shouldn't they?
Their country is all but under the control of an invading force.
They may have had elections, but that's just a puppet government.

Red Lemon wrote: »

When western people go to an Islamic state, they are required to obey the local laws.

No they don't. Plans to invade Iran are not troubled by Iranian law. The decision will be based on how far the American and British think they can get away with kicking ass

Instead of using colo(u)r tags, use

tags.

I don't quite know what you're getting at here.
Would you care to expand on that?

Tony Danza wrote: »

I'm not going to claim to know a lot about Saudi Arabia but I would imagine that most of the people don't want change? Wouldn't they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way of living for Allah?

That's basically what I was trying to say.
You made it a bit clearer.

Red Lemon

Tony Danza wrote: »

I'm not going to claim to know a lot about Saudi Arabia but I would imagine that most of the people don't want change? Wouldn't they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way of living for Allah?

The Saudi Family does not want change, however the Egyptian workers do!
Many Egyptians work in Saudi Arabia.

The BBC's Arab affairs analyst, Magdi Abdelhadi, says the Egyptian government, which does not tolerate dissent, is fearful of the workers' growing self-confidence.

There are fears that labour unrest might spread to other low-paid industries as it did last year, our correspondent says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7013184.stm

Cunny-Funt

hopalong85 wrote: »

Terry wrote: »

Good old political brainwashing.
Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too.
Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents.
QUOTE]

Sorry Terry, but you would argue that the ANC weren't terrorists? You think Michael Collins' use of guerilla warfare wasn't terrorism? Terrorism is a particular type of warfare. The reasons behind terrorism are irrelevant, it is what it is. I'm not saying it's not necessary in some situations but Osama Bin Ladin is no more a terrorist than ANC leaders were during their struggle against apartheid. People might sympathise more with one cause that's all.

The Iraqi soldiers were defending their country against invading forces. The Iraqis fighting since the fall of Baghdad through car bombs etc are surely terrorists?

omfg,

how is using guerilla warfare terrorism? Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure.

By your logic any army that is smaller then an invading army and that didnt do the old fashoned "lets all meet up in a field and charge at each other" tactic are terrorists?

Using guerilla tactics to attack enemy forces is NOT terrorism. It only when they start using suicde bombs and blowing up civiliians all over the place that its terrorism.

I suppose you think the vietcong were terrorists too eh? ffs:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ionapaul

Who knows what the average Saudi wants - the country is a dictatorship/absolute monarchy, the only people whose opinions matter are those in the House of Saud. The royal family has more political power than Charles I had in 1640s, and he got his head chopped off for his tyranny! The 'average' Saudi doesn't matter, sad to say.

hopalong85

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

hopalong85 wrote: »

omfg,

how is using guerilla warfare terrorism? Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure.

By your logic any army that is smaller then an invading army and that didnt do the old fashoned "lets all meet up in a field and charge at each other" tactic are terrorists?

Using guerilla tactics to attack enemy forces is NOT terrorism. It only when they start using suicde bombs and blowing up civiliians all over the place that its terrorism.

I suppose you think the vietcong were terrorists too eh? ffs:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're right, using guerilla warfare is not the same as terrorism. I shouldn't have implied that. The use of terror isn't exactly unheard of in guerilla warfare though. I think your definition of terrorism is a bit simple. It isn't really that black and white. If a terrorist group blows up an embassy killing government officials is that a terrorist attack? Or does the fact that civilians don't die make it guerilla warfare?

Oh yeah, and you should chill, it's Friday!

Terry

hopalong85 wrote: »

You're right, using guerilla warfare is not the same as terrorism. I shouldn't have implied that. The use of terror isn't exactly unheard of in guerilla warfare though. I think your definition of terrorism is a bit simple. It isn't really that black and white. If a terrorist group blows up an embassy killing government officials is that a terrorist attack? Or does the fact that civilians don't die make it guerilla warfare?

Oh yeah, and you should chill, it's Friday!

What would you call this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Iraq_War

Conventional war or terrorism?


The terminology suggests terrorism.

azezil

While I pity the poor girl, clearly the laws are there for good reason, she rode in the car of an unrelated man and got gang raped!

I couldn't help but snigger at the judges decision to punish her for trying to use the media to influence their decision tho! *grin* Rightly so IMO!

Mr. Incognito

Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure.

According to this the American and British bombing of most of Europe in WW2 is terrorism, the invasion of Iraq is terrorism etc.

I think a more appropriate yardstick is that terrorism is an action or offensive campaign carried out by a person, group or army in view of a particular aim and whom are not part of a countries standing army. e.g groups operating outside the law. A countries army when carrying out an offensive action is seen as furthering it's own territorial ambitions or defending that nation from attack.

It's easy to identify a countries army, terrorism is a bit murkier. Essentially it all depends on perspective. Michael Collins is an Irish freedom fighter but was a terrorist to the British government. Then he was commander of the Irish free staters and was somehow legitimised as part of a government.

Personally I'm a pacifist and I think the whole thing is bull. People fighting over land as if we own it. The land was here before man and it'll be here after but I'm not going down that road. Saudi is a country run by religious extremists. You cannot hold our value system out to theirs and vice versa. You cannot force a foreign culture to submit to your value system and i'd argue that you shouldn't be entitled to. The original post was misleading and I see it re-created on yahoo and a few more sites posted in the same proganda vein. She was punished for breaking segregation laws. She was also gang raped, whilst the two are indirectly related they do not amount to the same thing.

If we go down the right/wrong road it's subjective and we'll be here all day. I have no intention of arguing the point with anyone, just putting in my two cents. She broke the local laws and was punished. Short of going around invading countries and subjecting a foreign people to adopt foreign values (which takes a few hundred years of occupation and inter-breeding it seems judging by history) we have no right to judge the way those people have elected to govern themselves.

ferdi

200 lashes...that could easily kill her by itself...

this shyte sickens me...i hope god will punish them.

Red Lemon

War is terror! George Bush is the biggest terrorist on the planet.