Saudi gets sentance of 90 lashes for breaking the law

The first line of the article is what I'm talking about. "A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married."

That, apparently, is their law, or at the very least, cultural standard -- a woman does not sit in the same car with a man who she's not married to.

By her doing so, was she not breaking the law/standard?

Well, I feel like I'm in a "who's on first" skit.

What part of her breaking the law "got her raped"? I'll cut this round short for you. Nothing. She got lashes for breaking the law. She got raped because four sick bastards committed a violent crime against her. Final word for me. Now all you jokers who think a woman can get herself raped continue on with your bashing of what you consider sick laws in another country.

I'm going to go wash your filth off my fingers.

Originally posted by Valhall
What part of her breaking the law "got her raped"? I'll cut this round short for you. Nothing. She got lashes for breaking the law. She got raped because four sick bastards committed a violent crime against her.

To a point, you are right.

It must be understood that in that culture, a woman not in the immediate company of her husband is considered a whore.

1- she broke the law/cultural standard by sitting in a car unaccompanied by her husband. (her actions were incorrect, by their standards)
No, it's not right that she was considered a whore, nor is it right that it's common practice for whores to be raped. But we are looking at, discussing, this particular culture, hence these details must be understood.

2- because she did this, these men (as accepted by the culture) took it upon themselves to rape her. (their actions were incorrect, by anyone else's standards)

3- all people involved are being punished because they all broke the law.


'Round and 'round and 'round we go... and after all this, I've long forgotten what exactly this thread is debating. We're squabbling over the nuts and bolts, when we should be debating how to fix the car, so to speak.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by Diseria]

Originally posted by Valhall "if she hadn't been [fill in the blank], she wouldn't have been raped" [edit on 11-3-2006 by Valhall]

Ok I,ll give it a go..

If she hadn,t been [ dancing naked in front of 20 sex starved convicts already sentenced to death].....etc.
This is common sense and obviously would not be done because she would have the common sense not to do so.

If she hadn,t been [driving alone with a man who was not her husband]... etc.
Is obviously incorrect.

But this is not the argument as far as I see.If you now try exchanging it with...

If she hadn,t been [driving alone with a man who was not her husband]...
.. ''Would not have been sentenced to 90 lashes''..

Do you think anybody would have been remotely interested in the story?
NO..of course not!! because even we know the laws of that land.
Are you saying that she didn,t?
She should have had the common sense not to be alone with another guy.

Yes we are horrified at the attack.
Yes we are horrified at her receiving punishment after the attack also.
Yes we are sympathetic and sad for her.
but No we are not suprised.

If there was a sweet and innocent looking girl in your neighbourhood that was raped,of course you,d feel sorry for her.
but if then the story came out that she was a prostitute or a drug supplier or even a burglar..
Would you expect her to be let off her sentencing because she was raped?
We are talking very large unknown factors in a culture that is greatly removed from ''normal'' westerners.

Taking it to the extreme. Saddam asked to be shot for his crimes..as according to his culture.. Yet Americans will insist on hanging or the electric chair or lethal injection....
Are you trying to tell me been electrocution is more ''civilised'' than a single bullet through the brain..?

We in the UK find some American laws repulsive too..
Do we go ranting that you are Barbaric neanderthaals?
Do we insist that you change your laws to suit us?
No we don,t and we are forced to respect YOUR laws

Don,t go calling people Neanderthaals .
I,m sure people wouldn,t like to call you a hypocrit.

I start by admitting that I didn't read all pages of this thread, only the first 3 or 4.

What I see is what usually happens in cases that affect some people more than others, and in cases where some people only see what they want to see.

a) - The article speaks of three crimes:
          1 - the woman was in a car with a man that wasn't her husband.
          2 - the man was in a car with a woman who wasn't his wife.
          3 - some men followed them, kidnapped them and raped the woman.

b) - The sentences for the crimes were:
          1 - 90 lashes of the whip for the woman for being in a car with a man who
              was not her husband.
          2 - 90 lashes of the whip for the man who was in the car with a woman
              who was not his wife.
          3 - 5 years and 1000 lashes for one raper, 4 years and 800 lashes for a
             second raper, 4 years and 350 lashes for a third raper and 1 year and
             80 lashes for the forth raper.

So:
1 - she was not punished for being raped, she was punished for a previous crime.
2 - the fact that she was in a car with a man who was not her husband is irrelevant for this case, we do not have any way of knowing if that would have happened if she was in the car with her husband.

Also, we have to think about the article's intentions.

That article's title wording was made on purpose to excite this type of discussion between people.
If the woman was with her husband when attacked by the rapers what title would they use for the article? And have that newspaper even made an article about such a crime?

Just as a final note, do not let things like this get into your nerves. I am not talking about the rape, that is one of the worst crimes and should be seen and treated like that, I am talking about the discussion that started about something nobody has any way of knowing if its true or not, namely, that the woman was raped because she was in a car with a man who is not her husband.

Originally posted by Valhall
Oh how sad...still no score for Bravo.

You won't get an apology from me, just contempt.

I take this as another insult, and I dont know what you mean by 'still no score for Bravo', but I have received half a dozen u2u (and more than one WATS) telling me basicly that I am right and you are abusive.
How long are you going to carry this cross and try to hijack this thread into a 'Dont blame the victim' crusade?

I noticed that a mod cleaned up your foul post from earlier, why cant you clean up your own mess? Why are they making an attempt to sanitize your words? Perhaps because you were wrong to use them? If you dont owe me an apology then why would the offensive words have been removed?

Come on Val, give me the apology that I deserve, drop the cross you are carrying, and lets have a discussion on imposing western values on non-western cultures.

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Had she only obeyed the law she wouldnt have got raped.

It's a STUPID law, made by STUPID people. She's a victim, not a criminal.

Get your facts straight.

Furthermore, Val doesn't owe you an apology for anything. She is completely right. What kind of "people" are going to punish a crime victim. That's like me arresting the little old lady that got mugged, since she was breaking the law by walking by herself and all. Tell me how that makes sense.

What if your mother got raped Bravo? Would you want her getting beaten?

AGENT_T: You are right. That culture is anything BUT normal.

[edit on 11/4/2006 by JBurns]

Originally posted by JBurns.

Val doesn't owe you an apology for anything.

[edit on 11/4/2006 by JBurns]

She owes me an apology for calling me names. That is abuse.
Its fine that she disagrees with me, its fine that she thinks I am wrong.
Its NOT fine to call somebody names.
Abuse is against the T+C, and since she wasnt flagged by the staff for her abuse, rather, her abusive comments were 'cleaned up' by a mod, I feel the least I deserve is an apology for the assault I received.

So Jburns, you are saying its OK to abuse other posters?

Its ok to call people names?
Is this not a civil place for people to discuss events without name calling?
What are the T+C for? Only for new people? The rules dont apply to long time ATS users?

I was abused, then I was punished by the staff while I was being abused.
Why is it ok for Val to call me derogatory names in multiple posts?
What special status does she have that others dont?
Is it so hard to understand that Val broke the T+C, went unpunished, and isnt even big enough to admit that she shouldnt have called me names?

I assure you that had I called anybody names like Val was calling me, I would have been flagged, possible banned.
If she doesnt owe me an apology, then nobody on this board ever deserved one.

Lot of sensitive people on ATS.

Originally posted by soficrow
Women were considered chattel in most countries and religions throughout most recorded history.

My 1929 Webster's defines "woman" as follows:

woman:

a wife, and in the lesser sense of human being, a person.

Please note: "Chattel" is a legal definition. Until recently, women did not have the right to be educated, vote, own property, hold a professional job, or make financial decisions or commitments - because the were property, in the full legal sense.

I'm glad things have changed - but frankly, they haven't really changed that much, in very many places. Speaking with authority as an ex-resident of New Mexico, for example.

...Anyway, in some Islamic traditions, women have value only as chattel, and only for their virginity or "virtue" as a woman.

Such Islamic laws are designed to protect women as property - to preserve their virginity before marriage, and their 'virtue' after marriage.

So how can we change this? Where do we start?

...Presumably, we can find guidance in our own history. How did we change our own laws, and give women the rights of citizenship and human rights?

Fantastic Post, especially that last sentance. Also agree with Valhall, her being in a car with a man who isn't her husband has nothing to do with her being raped that is completly different event, to link the two together is misleading and a injustice to the woman.

Just a experiance with a similar law when my uncle lived in Amman, Jordan he had his Fishing Rod stollen by a 10 year old boy. They caught the boy and asked my Uncle how many lashes he should have, my uncle said a demanding "NO" and said to let the poor boy go as he has his finishing rod back.

Barbaric laws that use torture deserve to be abolished, as a human being, borders of a country should'nt come in to account, world leaders are not doing enough to rid the world of this evil.

How on earth do you survive 20 lashes let alone 90! shocking truely shocking! The women will now be scarred for life for getting in a car with a man, what a disgusting law that is.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by estar]

All Bravo was saying is that

If she wasn't in the car with a man beside her husband, she wouldn't have been raped.

She may bave been in a dozen situations that lead to this event, and deviating from any choice may have caused different results.

If she went to the market, then to a movie with her brother, and she was raped she wouldn't have been lashed.

THe rape is in no way her fault, but she conciously chose to disobey the law and because she was caught she gets punished. I don't think anyone is advocating the law.

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
oh no........... I feel tourettes raising its ugly head again!!!! IM GONNA BLOW!!

All the world is a pre-historic cesspool and we are but bits of crap.

Originally posted by estar
......agree with Valhall, her being in a car with a man who isn't her husband has nothing to do with her being raped that is completly different event, to link the two together is misleading and a injustice to the woman.

Can you agree with me that had she been at home she wouldnt have been raped? Can you agree that had she not been riding around with this other man that wasnt her husband she would have been at home, safe and sound?

Just a experiance with a similar law when my uncle lived in Amman, Jordan he had his Fishing Rod stollen by a 10 year old boy. They caught the boy and asked my Uncle how many lashes he should have, my uncle said a demanding "NO" and said to let the poor boy go as he has his finishing rod back.

Very admirable of your uncle.
I believe that the general consensus of the Saudi people was similar to your uncles reaction. I believe most Saudis wanted the woman exonerated. She would have been let go if it were up to me too.
But I also believe that the authorities in Saudi are of the opinion that if they let this woman go, when it is clear that she broke a law, it would send a signal to others that sometimes you can break the law and get away with it, and it would also put the idea that if a woman is ever caught breaking this law, all she would have to do is cry rape and she would go unpunished. They were caught in a catch 22 if you will, and I would pretty much assure you that the person doing the whipping, unless they are a sadist, is going to go as lightly as possible on the woman.
You know, what they are guilty of there in Saudi is following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. (See the teachings of Jesus)
Arent you glad (im assuming your American) that our founding fathers were smart enough to see a way around this? The Trial by a jury of your peers was instituted because our fathers knew that authority would abuse power and attempt to use the letter of the law to twart the spirit of the law. Always remember when you are on a jury that what you are deciding is if the law is just in the first place, and applies to this particular person in this particular case, not if the law was broken or not. Otherwise we get rulings like the one in Saudi, where yes, the law was broken, but no, she shouldnt be punished because what happend to her was punishment enough. Remember, your right to trial by jury is your assurance that this doesnt happen to you.

Barbaric laws that use torture deserve to be abolished,

Now you open up a giant can of worms. Look at the present debate over what actually constitutes torture. I agree with you, torture is bad bad bad and should be abolished, but as a free man I would consider it torture to lock me up for 10 years, and would probably take half an hour of whipping instead of giving up a decade of my life where I am going to be under daily threat of beatings and rapes.

as a human being, borders of a country should'nt come in to account, world leaders are not doing enough to rid the world of this evil.

So you are a proponant of one world government? Or are you saying that we should impose our standards on other cultures regardless of who or where?
Would you like it if Russia was the only superpower, and imposed its standard on anyone it saw fit? or China? Or Israel or Venezuela or anybody that doesnt think exactly the same way as you?

How on earth do you survive 20 lashes let alone 90!

Dear God I dont know. I read an earlier poster say that the amount of lashes for the men was a death sentence. I believe that.

shocking truely shocking! The women will now be scarred for life for getting in a car with a man, what a disgusting law that is.
[edit on 4-11-2006 by estar]

Again, I beleive this law was intended to protect women and marriages.
It is sad to see it used in this case on this woman, but you or I have no right to pass judgement on the Saudis and their laws, there are a number of laws on the books right here in the USA that need examined and/or abolished. Like I said earlier, I wish Americans were more concerned with whats happening in there own house, and around the world in their name, and less concerned with the private affairs of foreign lands.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
All Bravo was saying is that

If she wasn't in the car with a man beside her husband, she wouldn't have been raped.

No one knows if she would have been raped if she were with her husband, brother, father, or sister for that matter....instead of with a male friend of the family.
The motive of the kidnapping and attack were not revealed in the news article.

Regarding the 90 lashes she was sentensed to, I have this to add...Unjust laws that restrict freedom and oppress men or women regardless of their country of origin deserve to be condemned.
The corrupt governments that enact & enforce them deserve to condemned.

Did she know the consequences of her actions when she decided to be in the company of the family friend? Who knows?
Do we know what her mental state was? No.
Do we know the reasons she was with him? No.

In the end ... none of that matters. The Law she broke is repressive and a basic assault to her freedom & dignity as a human being.




[edit on 4-11-2006 by Sparky63]

[edit on 4-11-2006 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by estar
Barbaric laws that use torture deserve to be abolished, as a human being, borders of a country should'nt come in to account, world leaders are not doing enough to rid the world of this evil.

Originally posted by sparky63 I have this to add...Unjust laws that restrict freedom and oppress men or women regardless of their country of origin deserve to be condemned.
The corrupt governments that enact & enforce them deserve to condemned.

Wow.. Where to start?? Fortunately I,m in a far too relaxed mood to start digging up ammendments and civil rights revokations..

You know the ones!..
The ones making all the past few months news regarding abandonment of the long standing Geneva convention regarding torture.
The ones where they are allowed to arrest and detain you indefinitately without charge.. or until you ''commit suicide''
There is a large glass house called America inside which there are a lot of people with very large stones demanding that others reform to their standards of '' civility''

Name calling?

If you can't take a little name calling, then don't bother going into the real world.

I don't believe that offense to namecalling is an issue...

however...if the tactic of namecalling is going to be utilized as a response instead of a rational inquiry...than why, perhaps, are we even making an attempt at discussion?

Perhaps namecalling can be termed as a way to discourage further, 'on-topic,' discussion....

'You Bastard.'

Oops....slip of the tongue...I wish for conversation to continue....

I guess that makes me a bastard....

*sigh*...tired...still tired...

Originally posted by 11Bravo
I havent seen anyone on this thread 'place the blame of criminal acts of violent peretrators on the victim'.

You have with your statement that:

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Had she only obeyed the law she wouldnt have got raped.

By your stating, "Had she only obeyed the law she wouldnt have got raped." you've not only created an invalid cause and effect, but also placed blame on the victim.

Cause: her "not obeying the law"
Effect: got raped
Blame: Placed squarely on the victim with your statements "Had she only ..., she wouldn't have...". because you're making "her choice" out to be the cause.

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

It was an act committed by sick individuals of their own free will, not "her choice".

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Can you agree with me that had she been at home she wouldnt have been raped?
Can you agree that had she not been riding around with this other man that wasnt her husband she would have been at home, safe and sound?

You seem a little too stuck on the "at home" idea.
Are there no other viable alternatives?

Look at it this way; if she had been in the car with a female friend that day (obeying the law), do you think the rapists following them would have "gone on their way", or committed 2 "gang-rapes" instead of just one?

Therefore, your logic is right on par with people who say things like, "If she wouldn't have worn such a "skimpy" dress then she wouldn't have been raped"; in short, reprehensible and highly offensive.

[edit on 11/4/06 by redmage]

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

She was riding around with a man that wasnt her husband.
A despicable group of men saw her breaking the law, and figured that if they took advantage of the situation, if they followed, kidnapped and raped this woman, it wouldnt be turned in by her because she would be afraid of her punishment for breaking the law in the first place by riding around with the 'family friend'.
These men didnt break into her house and kidnap her.
They spotted their victim riding around in a car with a man other then her husband.
I will say it again, had she obeyed the law, she wouldnt have been riding around with the 'family friend', had she not been riding around with the family friend the perps wouldnt have seen her, had the perps not seen her then how could they have raped her?
Its pretty simple logic really, but that is beside the point.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you just here to help Val with her cross?
These men would not have even seen her had she not been riding around with the 'family friend'.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
A despicable group of men saw her breaking the law, and figured that if they took advantage of the situation, if they followed, kidnapped and raped this woman, it wouldnt be turned in by her because she would be afraid of her punishment for breaking the law in the first place by riding around with the 'family friend'.

So the rapists knew she was not married to that guy? I didn't see that in the article, perhaps I missed it, but I can't help but wonder had she been with a family member or her husband if they would have done the same thing....