PDA

View Full Version : Saudi king pardons rape victim


Achilles
12-17-2007, 04:27 AM
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_justice)
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has pardoned a female rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone with a man at the time of the attack who was not related to her, a Saudi newspaper reported Monday.

The case had sparked international outcry. In a rare criticism of its Mideast ally, the White House had expressed its "astonishment" over the woman's sentence. Canada called it barbaric. Yay modernity :(

Darth InSidious
12-17-2007, 09:13 AM
Interesting that of the three English-speaking nations, the UK kept silent, America opted for namby-pambyism, and Canada said something that could be considered rude, but no-one did anything.

Yay, indeed, for modernity - in which money is more important than morals.

Ray Jones
12-17-2007, 09:31 AM
Seven man raping a man and a woman? Hm.

jonathan7
12-17-2007, 11:52 AM
Who ever thinks Saudi has a good judicial system or there extreme law is good is clearly an imbercile. Am I allowed to say that? Political Correctness is the biggest enemy of freedom of speech, and I'm pretty sure I would get told off for the above.
I feel very sorry for the families, and the sentancing of the criminals is pathetic for a country where you can get your hand chopped off for stealing....

Mocking Query: Did we (UK + US) not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons? And the fact a horrible regime was in charge? Or perhaps the cynic in me thinks for oil?
Doesn't Saudi have all those things? In fact Saudi probably has one of the worst regimes in the world for human rights abuses....

I find our (UK's) silence over the whole thing pathetic; maybe the buntch of muppets in charge over here thought the Saudi's would pull out of any arms deals....

Aeroldoth
12-17-2007, 12:52 PM
Interesting that of the three English-speaking nations, the UK kept silent, America opted for namby-pambyism, and Canada said something that could be considered rude, but no-one did anything.

Yay, indeed, for modernity - in which money is more important than morals.
I hear there's some tiny island somewhere in the Pacific that speaks English... Australia, or something?

But seriously, I echo your sentiment.

Darth InSidious
12-17-2007, 01:10 PM
I hear there's some tiny island somewhere in the Pacific that speaks English... Australia, or something?

But seriously, I echo your sentiment.
>.<

Apologies to any and all Australians on LF.

Web Rider
12-17-2007, 01:24 PM
I hear there's some tiny island somewhere in the Pacific that speaks English... Australia, or something?

But seriously, I echo your sentiment.

Don't New Zealanders speak English too?

Anyway, I wouldn't be very surprised to see some nut go and kill the girl. It's too bad there's too many conservative religious folk to keep the king from moving the country away from laws like that entirely.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-17-2007, 03:07 PM
Who ever thinks Saudi has a good judicial system or there extreme law is good is clearly an imbercile. Am I allowed to say that?Yes. You have to realize this is their culture and tradition, not to mention religion, and that attacking their chosen way of life is cultural imperialism and evil and...

Seriously, though, yes, you're free to say that.

Corinthian
12-17-2007, 03:17 PM
Actually, Johnathan, we invaded Iraq because we believed they were in possession of WMDs. Thus far, we've found nothing (Although I still think Saddam got them over the border into Pakistan), but that doesn't change it. If we really attacked people for Oil, we'd have hit Canada first, and then Saudi Arabia.

Web Rider
12-17-2007, 03:59 PM
Actually, Johnathan, we invaded Iraq because we believed they were in possession of WMDs. Thus far, we've found nothing (Although I still think Saddam got them over the border into Pakistan), but that doesn't change it. If we really attacked people for Oil, we'd have hit Canada first, and then Saudi Arabia.

psst: Iraq doesn't border Pakistan, Iran does. Iraq borders: Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and Turkey.

Also, Canada's oil sands are a very expensive and costly source to extract oil from, not to mention we've got plenty of frozen tundra to drill in Alaska. not to mention Canada's got more friends who are also our friends and that's bad for the global economy upon which the US is dependant.

Corinthian
12-17-2007, 04:12 PM
Whatever. It's the Middle-East, you can spit from a plane and you'll probably hit a country that wouldn't mind harboring terrorists or hidden WMDs.

Darth InSidious
12-17-2007, 04:21 PM
"Do not seek to know for whom the bell tolls", Corinthian.

Corinthian
12-17-2007, 04:23 PM
Translation?

mimartin
12-17-2007, 04:45 PM
This just shows the difference between cultures. I have no way to fathom why you would punish the victim.
Amnesty International said the man who was raped received the same sentence as the woman. Al-Jazirah did not mention whether he had been pardoned as well.Why isnít Bush or the State Department saying anything about the other victim? Is our lack of opposition saying it is alright for him to be raped and then receive six months in prison and 200 lashes because he is male?

Web Rider
12-17-2007, 05:09 PM
This just shows the difference between cultures. I have no way to fathom why you would punish the victim.
Why isnít Bush or the State Department saying anything about the other victim? Is our lack of opposition saying it is alright for him to be raped and then receive six months in prison and 200 lashes because he is male?

YES. It's the usual male-female double standard. It's a horrible fate for any woman to be treated poorly, but if it happens to a man, well, who cares?

jonathan7
12-17-2007, 06:51 PM
Actually, Johnathan, we invaded Iraq because we believed they were in possession of WMDs. Thus far, we've found nothing (Although I still think Saddam got them over the border into Pakistan), but that doesn't change it. If we really attacked people for Oil, we'd have hit Canada first, and then Saudi Arabia.

You really believe that? I will make a few deductions/assumptions; the first being that your American; the second that it was us (UK + US) that sold Sadam a whole load of biological and chemical weapons in the first place; so why would Nuclear weapons really make a difference? Ever wondered why the Iranian government dislikes the US; research your foreign policy and you'll realise Bush's daddy was selling Iraq's weapons to fight Iran...

Yes. You have to realize this is their culture and tradition, not to mention religion, and that attacking their chosen way of life is cultural imperialism and evil and...

Seriously, though, yes, you're free to say that.

If you really want to believe a tyranical regime manipulating religion among other things to stay in power constitutes those things then thats your call. I would like to further point out I dont actually believe in democracy (firstly will it work in a country that has been brutalised for however many years?); its also given us Blair and Bush; which is very interesting if you consider that democracy gives the majority of people the government they deserve. Which to me is proof that while it may be preferable from other forms it is hardly perfect. Freedom of speech is the most important liberty for a person to have. The often quoted Voltaire; "I disagree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it".

You may also want to consider untill the Crusades, the Muslim world was the height of what would now be called 'westernisation'; they were streets ahead of your europe in science, philosophy, architecture and culture. Indeed the First Crusade happened at the only time it could have succeeded due to the divisions between the many different muslim groups. In many sense the fanatical Christians in the west produced the now fanatical Musilms in the east. So how does Saudi constitutes culture? I think tyrants use all means at their disposal to hold on to power and increase their grip on power.

Corinthian
12-17-2007, 07:04 PM
I maintain a somewhat childlike assumption that sometimes, people don't lie. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. The man was a Level 99 Lunatic.

Web Rider
12-17-2007, 07:08 PM
I maintain a somewhat childlike assumption that sometimes, people don't lie. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. The man was a Level 99 Lunatic.
I didn't. Yeah, he was a nutter, but the evidence was terrible, Bush just scared everyone into believing with thoughts of Anthrax and WWIII. Even Colon Powell didn't believe the things Bush wanted him to say.

Jae Onasi
12-17-2007, 10:42 PM
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has pardoned a female rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone with a man at the time of the attack who was not related to her, a Saudi newspaper reported Monday.

The case had sparked international outcry. In a rare criticism of its Mideast ally, the White House had expressed its "astonishment" over the woman's sentence. Canada called it barbaric.Wow, how generous of the king. It makes me want to run out and buy an abayah.

Tommycat
12-17-2007, 11:08 PM
I didn't. Yeah, he was a nutter, but the evidence was terrible, Bush just scared everyone into believing with thoughts of Anthrax and WWIII. Even Colon Powell didn't believe the things Bush wanted him to say.
Well I for one am very concerned that we didn't find any WMD's. Not because of the justification of the war, but we know he had them at some point. I want to know where they went. You know, the WMD's we sold him are missing.

Achilles
12-17-2007, 11:23 PM
Many had been seized and/or destroyed by UN inspectors between 1993 and the run up to the 2nd Gulf War. The WMDs that we had record of were largely the ones that we had provided him during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's...most of which had a shelf life of 5 years or less. The one that he didn't use would have been useless for years at the time that we demanded to know their whereabouts. The fact that we haven't found any evidence of an active program (let alone weapons) means that he probably didn't have any. Considering the severity of the sanctions that were in place, they couldn't even get certain medicines let alone components for chemical or biological weapons.

Jae Onasi
12-18-2007, 12:16 AM
WMD discussion should probably go into one of the (many) Iraq/war threads. :)

Rev7
12-21-2007, 12:50 AM
It is, IMO, a taboo to us. Many, if not all countries in the Middle East (and all over the world), don't have as many women rights as America does. Most of us have been in a vehicle with the oppisite sex, but apperently women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to and are harshly punished if they are caught doing so. This is a taboo to us...

RobQel-Droma
12-22-2007, 06:52 PM
^As far as I know, its what Muslim law states - if a woman is raped, then it's the woman's fault because she somehow "tempted" them. And a woman's testimony to such a crime is only worth half as much as a mans. I often wonder why feminist movements here in America aren't zeroed in on this, instead of going on about stuff here...

Web Rider
12-22-2007, 09:31 PM
^As far as I know, its what Muslim law states - if a woman is raped, then it's the woman's fault because she somehow "tempted" them. And a woman's testimony to such a crime is only worth half as much as a mans. I often wonder why feminist movements here in America aren't zeroed in on this, instead of going on about stuff here...
Because the first activist to go over there would probly be shot, raped, lashed, ect....though maybe not in that order.

Corinthian
12-22-2007, 09:34 PM
It's good to know the Religion of Peace shows such regard to it's women.

Darth InSidious
12-23-2007, 07:34 AM
What is true of one sect of Islam is not necessarily true of another.

RobQel-Droma
12-25-2007, 12:18 AM
^I'm not quite sure if it is one sect. This is what muslim law teaches.

Web Rider
12-25-2007, 01:10 AM
^I'm not quite sure if it is one sect. This is what muslim law teaches.
more moderate muslims, obviously, are not stoning their daughters to death for resistance to the hajib.

Darth InSidious
12-25-2007, 07:16 AM
^I'm not quite sure if it is one sect. This is what muslim law teaches.
As you may have noticed, laws are open to interpretation. This also applies to Sharia law. :)

SilentScope001
12-25-2007, 08:56 AM
^I'm not quite sure if it is one sect. This is what muslim law teaches.

Nope. Wabbhisim, a small sect of Sunni Islam, not at all related to other Muslims.

Jae Onasi
12-25-2007, 09:35 AM
more moderate muslims, obviously, are not stoning their daughters to death for resistance to the hajib.

No, but at least one father strangled his daughter (http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=159480) for not wearing one.

Michelle Malkin's blog (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/11/the-murder-of-aqsa-parvez/) on the subject. I might buy a Mohammed teddy bear.

Totenkopf
01-02-2008, 07:31 PM
Was anyone really surprised about the verdict, though?

Web Rider
01-02-2008, 07:57 PM
No, but at least one father strangled his daughter (http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=159480) for not wearing one.

I think that discounts him from being in the "moderate" category, wouldn't you agree? My statement, although explicitly using stoning, a common practice among religious types for killing "bad" people in their religion, also applies to any, in this case Muslim, who is willing to kill or to bring severe(or really any kind) harm to another for not following their belief.