It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saudi gets sentance of 90 lashes for breaking the law

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Amina Lawal, 30, has been sentenced to death by stoning - a fate which would involve being buried up to her neck in sand and have rocks thrown at her head. However, the Islamic court has ruled that the penalty cannot be carried out until Lawal has finished breastfeeding her baby daughter, Wasila, which the judge said would not be before January 2004.


This is the worst punishment in the whole of the twisted Sharia law. Its pretty much torture. How this can this still be practiced proudley today?




posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
So the rapists knew she was not married to that guy? I didn't see that in the article


Nor did I, it looks like someone is making unfounded assumptions in order to defend their reprehensibly false and offensive logic.


[edit on 11/4/06 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
27/Mage, I was thinking the exact same thing.

I don't see why Bravo is so quick to defend a culture that condones torturing victims of a violent crime.

It's ok though, really, we've all booked our share of rape/mugging/murder victims.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JBurns
27/Mage, I was thinking the exact same thing.

I don't see why Bravo is so quick to defend a culture that condones torturing victims of a violent crime.

It's ok though, really, we've all booked our share of rape/mugging/murder victims.


Maybe if you lived in the culture you would understand it better.

You phrased that sentence in a misleading way. No one condones torturing victims.
She broke a law and got punished for it. The rapists broke a different law and got punished for it.

In Saudi, you wont see women walking arnd in short skirts, etc. Infact, you wont see a woman walking around alone, period. Because the law prohibits it. If you were a rapist, you would have a lot of problem finding a victim becasue you will not be able to find a woman alone in a quite isolate place. Even, if you see a woman, she will be accompanied by her husband or blood relative.

Therefore, there could be 2 scenarios.

1. The rapists could get lucky and find a woman alone. Unlikely
2. The stranger the woman was with had this whole thing set up with the rapists. Which we know is true because he was recording the whole rape on his mobile phone video camera.

So, had the woman followed the law and not been alone with the stranger, she would not have fallen for this trap.

She got punished for breaking this law.

Now lets talk about the culture itself. Saudi is a Islamic country. And in Islam, a woman's 'innocence' is to be guarded at all costs. Therefore, they have such laws concerning women. Someone who did not grow up in that culture will find the laws degrading or stupid.

In a western country. There are no such laws. Women are free to do what they want. They can wear the skimpiest of clothes, be with strangers, etc.

Both regions still have rape cases but for different reasons.

In saudi for example, you dont have the usual dating game, clubbing, bars, meeting women, etc. So men with uncontrollable urges have no way of letting it out. They cannot date a women coz they cant find one available. They cannot go to bars and pick up women and sleep with them. Hence, the only choice for some of them is rape. Not very common, but its easy to see why someone would be inclined to rape in those countries.
If the country didnt have such laws in the first place, then those few people wont have to resort to rape. They could just go out and meet women. But that would be against Islamic faith. So the government has laws which can enable them to preserve their faith (therefore no dating, drinking, sleeping around) and also enable them to stop crimes, like rape (by not allowing women to go out alone in public or wear skimpy slothes). Hence the argument, if the woman obeyed the law, she would not have been raped. It seems stupid to someone who is not of that culture, but it makes sense to the government of such countries.
Governemnt makes a choice. They have to introduce these 'stupid' laws to minimize crime since they cannot have bars and clubs, etc. If they did have bars, and clubs, people would have some place to meet women, hence rape wont be a big problem but then the Islamic faith is not being followed. So these laws, according to their understanding is for protection of the women.

In western countries, opposite is the case. We have bars, clubs, social gatherings, meetings, hangout places for both sexes, etc. Plenty of opportunities to meet women. Women can wear anything they like. Men have a lot of choices if they just go down the street. They could easily meet women and probably get to sleep with them. Its called the dating game. Western countries do not have such laws which prevent women from doing anything. Women have equal rights. But that also means that women have to defend themselves if faced by such situations.
Like, when a woman is alone in some quite, isolated place and a rapist jumps her, then she has no one to protect her, unless she gets lucky and someone hears her, or if shes a mrtial arts expert or something.
We still have rape cases in western countries. Because, even though sex is common, rapists are either sex starved or they look for variety (Like child rape). These countries have strict laws agasint rapists. They have preventive measures
like advising women not to go with complete strangers, carry a pepper spray or gun, etc.

So, the point is that, two very different countries have very different ways of dealing with the same crime because they are trying to preserve their culture at the same time. Therefore they have different laws. People from these cultures have a hard time understanding each other's laws and culture. And hence the constant conflict.

In any case, crime occurs and it is the individual's choice for commiting the crime. A rapist is not motivated by religion or culture. It is his own personal motive that makes him a rapist.
If the woman had obeyed the law, then she would not have been raped because then she would not have been with the stranger in the first place. According to the report, the stranger was in on the rape plan and was recording the rape on his mobile phone while it happened. So the woman fell for his trap and broke the law. She got punished for it. The rapists got a harsh punishment for commiting the rape.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Most people would agree that beating someone with a whip is a form of torture.

I don't care who says what, you'll never change my mind that they are completely WRONG.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
People keep saying if she hadn't been in the car she would not have been raped...here's some news for you all. She was stalked, kidnapped, and taken into the countryside where she was gangraped. This was a premeditated act of barbarity...THEY STALKED HER...The act would have occured irregardless of whom she was or was not with, whereever she was or was not...

To say she would not have been raped if she had been a "good little girl" and stayed home where she belongs is to ignore the fact that she is a victim. Not a criminal.

Just because something is the law, does not in any way make it moral.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Well said seagull.


Punishing a victim is not OK, regardless of where it's at. I think 99% of the people, good people, would agree with me there.

Radicals...


-I've made my point clear, and now I'm going to back out of this thread before someone goes too far and crosses the line.

[edit on 11/5/2006 by JBurns]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
People keep saying if she hadn't been in the car she would not have been raped


I dunno abt people. But if you read my post above then you would know what I was trying to explain. Had she obeyed the law, she would not have been in the car in the first place. The stranger tricked her into getting in the car with him and going with him. She broke the law by doing that.

Had she been with her husband in a car somehwre and people stalked her. The husband COULD have protected her by fighting back. Obviously, if she had still gotten raped, then only the rapists would get punished because only they BROKE THE LAW.

But thats not the case, SHE BROKE THE LAW TOO. she got punished for that crime.

She did not get punished for getting raped. Thats absurd.

The law seems stupid to some of us but not to the government. I already explained that in detail above.

[edit on 5-11-2006 by half_minded]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Half-minded

Thank you for enlightening me (and I presume others) to the cultural background of the laws that we're discussing.

Looking at it from the perspective that you, I think, laid out very well, I can understand why such laws are in place. While they seem primitive to others, I can tell that careful thought went into tailoring the laws to work with the faith.

And faith/religion is a touchy subject for many people... It's one of those things that can't be messed with, primarily because the mode of logic changes -- instead of objective, secular logic, the thoughts are focused on maintaining the religion, which is their way of life, their culture. Likewise, culture is a touchy subject..

I may not agree with the laws, but now I have a better understanding of why they are in place.

Thank You.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
Therefore, there could be 2 scenarios.

1. The rapists could get lucky and find a woman alone. Unlikely
2. The stranger the woman was with had this whole thing set up with the rapists. Which we know is true because he was recording the whole rape on his mobile phone video camera.

If the woman had obeyed the law, then she would not have been raped because then she would not have been with the stranger in the first place. According to the report, the stranger was in on the rape plan and was recording the rape on his mobile phone while it happened.


Dead wrong, and full of more unfounded assumptions. :shk:

The first is a false dilemma logical fallacy, and the second; "If the woman had obeyed the law, then she would not have been raped" is clearly a post hoc logical fallacy.

How about scenario #3: The truth.

She was with a friend, not a "stranger who was in on it", and it was the actions and choices of sick individuals that are to be blamed for the rape, not the victim's.


A male friend of the rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with her in the car.

The court heard that the victim and her friend were followed by the assailants to their car, kidnapped and taken to a remote farm, where the raping occurred.


He was a friend (who was also kidnapped), not the accomplice who recorded it.

Her friend was sentenced to 90 lashes while the "recorder" ("A fifth, married, man") is still facing investigation, clearly showing it was two different people.


A fifth, married, man who was stated to have filmed the rape on his mobile phone still faces investigation.


All of the rapist apologists in this thread need to stop making unfounded assumptions, stop placing blame on the victim for being raped, pull their heads out of their butts, and actually read the article.

[edit on 11/5/06 by redmage]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
2. The stranger the woman was with had this whole thing set up with the rapists. Which we know is true because he was recording the whole rape on his mobile phone video camera...



How did you arrive at that conclusion? as far as i can tell, the guy who was driving the car when they were kidnapped got exactly the same punishment as the rape victim, indicating that the court did not believe he took part in the gangrape.

So, the point that there were two different, unrelated crimes (the crime of rape and and the offense of driving with a stranger if you will) and were judged independently, stands, while the point that the rape would have been averted when driving with a relative, afaics, does not.

The latter point enraged several members in this thread, of course and i personally don't see how one could possibly arrive at the conclusion the victim had any chance to avoid her fate. The reason is simple, and perfectly obvious to boot: if you lock people up for life just because they're female, they remain dependant on protection for life. in this case, protection did not amount to much and a relative wouldn't have automatically done better i might add.

there really is no alternative to self-defence, even though it does not work everytime, because it raises the risk for perpetrators. Islamic women are handicapped by many many factors, notably their ridiculous dress code )which is not very conducive to running, should the need arise), limited if any physical exercise and a severe lack of situational awareness, which does not develop if you're locked away for life. in short, a lamb to the slaughter.

anyone can see that but a few tolerance preachers and politically correct finger-pointers insist on blaming the victim for something she most likely had no control over, because of an essentially unrelated (it works both ways for all of you who are tempted now) offense aka. non-sequitur. Imho, this mentality is a spin-off, the same mechanism is being used to de-humanize prisoners, f-ex when it comes to prison rape. doesn't matter if you're 'in' for murder or a speeding ticket, you're a criminal and deserve it. Or, it's valid deterrent
. side note: guess why legalizing torture was so easy...

yes, this woman broke her country's laws, the outrage! this makes her a valid target of violent pervs i assume
THIS is the true revelation of this thread.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
Maybe if you lived in the culture you would understand it better.


It really doesn't matter to me personally whether it is cultural or not. If the human race is to survive much longer, we need to realize we can't allow barbaric practices to continue because "we don't understand the culture". If I were to hear or see my neighbor beating his/her child violently, I would not think twice about intervening physically by whatever means necessary to stop it. It would not matter at all to me whether it was my yard he/she was doing it in or not. We ALL live on earth, that's the bigger picture, eastern vs. western culture can kiss my arse. Back@ssward traditions that cause harm and suffering to poor souls who were unlucky enough to be born is a cruel society must be done away with, east or west. And my psychic abilities (lol) are allowing me to see some saying I support the NWO, well I do, but not the way many see it. I just think if the people of this planet, NOT the most powerful few, were to somehow come together as one world, not seperate nations, the lives of EVERYBODY on this planet would vastly improve, IMO. Too bad the corrupt governments and religious leaders are so good at ensuring everybody hates each other....



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
Her "obeying the law" (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with her being raped.


Thanks for adding your own bit of obtuse reasoning.....

I wonder if anyone here realizes the possibility that the people in question most likely had dealings with each other prior to this event. As, such, any detail that is specified, as of yet in this thread, fails to account for the 'causes' that set everyone together there in the first place.

And to everyone here is going to make a base an opinion (and some of them opinions being brutal) on each individual of an entire society based ON A STORY THAT YOU CANNOT VERIFY EXCEPT THROUGH INDIRECT MEANS AND ONLY THROUGH OTHER PEOPLES PERCEPTION...*ahem*.......all I have to say is..

"Whoah."

I wish my certainty could be so substantially omniscient.....*cough*...

Excuse me...I may have a cold...or not.....sorry but the only way you have to verify the truth value of my potential physical ailment is my word.....my printed word.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I wonder if anyone here realizes the possibility that the people in question most likely had dealings with each other prior to this event.


How can you say "most likely"? You have no more an idea than anybody else. Sure it is a possibility, but what makes it the "most likely" possbility? Please share your reasoning.



And to everyone here is going to make a base an opinion (and some of them opinions being brutal) on each individual of an entire society based ON A STORY THAT YOU CANNOT VERIFY EXCEPT THROUGH INDIRECT MEANS AND ONLY THROUGH OTHER PEOPLES PERCEPTION...*ahem*.......all I have to say is..

"Whoah."


Well, yeah, of course that is correct. Unless one of us was there, we are all forming opinions on a story that can't be verified, as with just about anything else we form opinions on. But what we know is there are societies that innocent people are born into brutal forms of oppression and fear, and I'm not meaning to single any out, it's just that we're discussing one in particular. In the one we are discussing, regardless of this event and who may have known whom or who you believe may have wanted what, women are oppressed, and brutally beaten for deciding they want THEIR body to ride in a car with a man they may not be married to. Perhaps the men there would be more secure if they married women that actually wanted to marry them instead of forcing them to. They are not born into these societies by choice, imagine being in love with somebody, and not being able to be with them because you were forced to marry somebody you didn't love, not to mention the outrageous punishments dished out in those societies for the most petty of offenses. Those primitive, cruel customs have no place in a civilized world, and we all have the right to defend those who can't defend themselves. And again, in order to stop this CRAP, the entire world needs to be united....



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Here is an eye opening report on Human Rights Abuses and denial of Basic Human Rights in Saudi Arabia;

www.amnesty.org...


Women, whether Saudi Arabian or foreign, emerge time and again as victims of discrimination because of the law, social mores and traditions. While women have gained some ground in terms of economic rights and have established companies and charitable institutions, their civil, political and social rights are systematically violated.


And yes, it is true there are Human rights abuses in all countries in the world, the US included. But we are not discussing these other countries. The fact that abuses are happening in other countries in no way diminishes the injustices that women in Saudi Arabia regularly face.

When Apartheid was the law in South Africa, and blacks faced unjust punishment because of repressive & discriminatory laws it was the obligation of all compassionate & caring people to speak out against it & to condemn those who supported it and made lame excuses for its existence.


Furthermore, women are forbidden from driving, a ban made official in 1990 by a Fatwa issued by the Council of Senior ‘Ulama.6 To walk unaccompanied or to be in the company of a man who is neither her husband nor a close relative puts her at risk of arrest on suspicion of prostitution or other "moral" offences. Given these restrictions on their right to freedom of movement, the scope for women in Saudi Arabia to enjoy the spectrum of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights is limited in the extreme.

www.amnesty.org...

For all you who shrug your shoulders and say," its their country, their law, their custom.....ect" ask yourselves this, "would I want my mother, sister. daughter, wife,...ect. to live there or face these same restrictions."

Or if they were there, would you want the world to close their eyes to their suffering and callously ignore the unjust & inhumane treatment they were forced to endure?



[edit on 6-11-2006 by Sparky63]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Here are some experiences of some who have been flogged.
www.amnesty.org...

"I was brought to the whipping area. They tied me to a post. My hands were handcuffed and they also shackled my legs. I was wearing a T-shirt and jogging pants... The whip was one and a half metres long... with a heavy lead piece attached to the tip. It was terrible. Some fell on my thighs and my back. I would fall when the whip reached my feet but the prison guard would raise me up to continue the whipping. It was terrible. I was amazed to find myself still alive after the 70th lash was given. It lasted about 15 minutes... my back was bleeding. I cried."


He was flogged for taking part in a Roman Catholic Service.

Women also receive lashes as a judicial punishment. Nieves, a married Filipina mother of two children who worked in Riyadh, was sentenced in 1992 to 60 lashes and 25 days’ imprisonment for prostitution after she was tricked into signing a "confession".23 Her trial, she said, lasted "a matter of minutes". She described the flogging:



"I thought it will be fast but no, it was done one at a time... [The policeman] really takes his time before striking. I started counting and when it reached 40 I thought I could not make it... I prayed so hard... At last it reached 60... I could not explain the pain I experienced. The stick he used was like a bamboo, round but hard."

www.amnesty.org...

An Egyptian National was sentenced to 4000 lashes. These were to be administered at a rate of 50 lashes every 2 weeks.


Each time he received the lashes he was left with bruised or bleeding buttocks, unable to sleep or sit for three or four days afterwards.

www.amnesty.org...

Yes, it is possible to understand their culture and still be disgusted with their laws and treatment of women & minorities. Anyone who thinks 90 lashes is a just punishment for riding in a car with a male friend of the family needs to do some soul-searching, & perhaps, check their pulse to see if they have a heart. IMHO



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBurns
I don't see why Bravo is so quick to defend a culture that condones torturing victims of a violent crime.


I didn't really see him/her defending it so to speak. I saw him/her using the logic that if the woman hadn't been breaking the backwards oppressive law, she wouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or something along those lines. Bravo seems to be personally offended by the women riding in the car with the man who wasn't her husband, and this is no way a personal jab, but maybe Bravo had a bad experience with a significant other being dishonest, or he/she just personally believes women should not interact with men they are not married or related to, and in some way this story struck a personal nerve, of course I'm not a psychiatrist or anything, but he/she did say that the law is in place to "protect marriages". Of course there they are "protecting" marriages that the women may not want to be in, and the only way to keep their women faithful to them is to threaten them with severe bodily harm, nice.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Is it not better if she did not report it if she was going to get more torture out of this, maybe she thought society had settled down a bit with these kind of restrictions. Even so, it seems the rules them selves make people so oppressed that one look at a women makes men in that society more desperate to commit this type of crime. The rapists and the women seem to have given credit that the law is right in the first place when it probably caused the uncontrolled behaviour of human interaction to go wrong from a basic conversation that is lacking there to a tempting invite.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by redmage
Her "obeying the law" (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with her being raped.


Thanks for adding your own bit of obtuse reasoning.....

I wonder if anyone here realizes the possibility that the people in question most likely had dealings with each other prior to this event. As, such, any detail that is specified, as of yet in this thread, fails to account for the 'causes' that set everyone together there in the first place.
..



Look you can't have your cake and eat it, too.


Either the rape is considered unrelated or it is not. the saudi court implicitly said it is, otherwise the punishment would have looked differently and now you're inferring they 'most likely had dealings with each other' before. i don't know what you consider 'dealings' (they lived in the same town) but i certainly know that your guess is good as anyone's and i don't understand how you could possibly be sure enough of your view to write 'most likely' without additional sources.

in other words: what's more obtuse? going by what we know even if it's incomplete or inferring a relationship out of the blue for convenience sake? what has this got to do with their society anyway? seems more of a criminalistic issue to me, regardless of location. btw, would having had 'dealings' before mark her as 'rapeable'? just curious why some of you are desperately trying to paint this woman with the same brush as the rapists.


PS: just a little cross-reference: there is no misunderstanding, just take a look at politics.abovetopsecret.com... 5000 Muslims cheering a cleric who publicly excused the Sydney gang-rapes and defended the perpetrators involved.

The Plot thickens, get over it, this is not some kind of mistake, it's a strategy, they even try to talk their way out of it.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I have lost track of the number of posts about Iran and North Korea stating that a country should be free to do what it wants within it's own borders. Granted the majority of these posts have delt with the development of nuclear weapons, but how is this any different?


Actually, it's not hypocricy.

North Korea and Iran with their hatred for "the west", or from our point of view, the allied nations, are testing and devloping weapons of mass destruction. Weapons that could very well be used on any of our nations and kill millions upon millions of people and create unprecendented environmental damage.

The fact that these nations openly state their "hatred" for the US, Britain, etc. makes them a significant security risk. More so, very good intelligence suggests that these nations will arm and supply terrorists to cowardly attack us and then deny any involvement.

Although it is tragic and sad about the woman who was gang-raped and now having to suffer a beating on top of it, the difference is that these Saudi laws, no matter how reprehensible they are to us, do not directly affect our security through an act of war or terrorism.

Therefore, I would argue on behalf of the posters that many do not like the laws of Saudi Arabia but also understand that it is their nation and their right to make whatever laws it wishes. Thus the statement that they can do what they want in their borders.

The same people however would logically understand that when actions inside a nation directly threaten the security of your country, your life, and potentially the entire world then action has to be taken against them.

Pokey Oats



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join