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 gang-rape victim faces 90 lashes

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Saudi gang-rape victim faces 90 lashes


Source Link: newsinfo.inquirer.net

RIYADH -- A Saudi woman who was kidnapped at knifepoint, gang-raped and then beaten by her brother has been sentenced to 90 lashes -- for meeting a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported on Monday.

In an interview with the Saudi Gazette, the 19-year-old said she was blackmailed a year ago into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the ultra-conservative desert kingdom.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
So Much for Justice, not only was she raped 14 times, n ow she is to b e flogged, some justice that is. Wonder if anyone will jump up an shout human rights violations, Im sorry its just sick. Feel sorry for her actually..... Makes it worse the 5 involved only got jail senteces raging from 10 months (:flame
to 5 years!!!!!!!!!!! They are the one who need to be flogged not the victim....



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Oh no, not this story again.....



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I'm happy that stories like this are coming out, although for every one story that escapes, I'm sure another hundred or so are covered up. And to think there are organizations within the UK who wish to impose this perverted 'justice' system on us


Originally posted by 11Bravo
Oh no, not this story again.....


This story is dated 5th March 2007 by the source.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
AHhh, well it sure reminds me of this ATS thread



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
90 lashes?, jeez thats more or less a death sentence for a woman no?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Oh come on, this is the same story posted last year at this same time.
Its like an annual story to remind us about the evil muslim nations.
Now I see it has 2 flags already...

Cant we close this year-old, already dead horse of a thread?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by James Daniel
I'm happy that stories like this are coming out, although for every one story that escapes, I'm sure another hundred or so are covered up.


You're sure? Why the need to recycle a year old story if there are another hundred or so?

6 Flags now, and nobody stopping to 'deny ignorance' by realizing this is over a year old and has already been covered.
When oh when will this thread be closed?




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Originally posted by James Daniel
I'm happy that stories like this are coming out, although for every one story that escapes, I'm sure another hundred or so are covered up.


You're sure? Why the need to recycle a year old story if there are another hundred or so?

6 Flags now, and nobody stopping to 'deny ignorance' by realizing this is over a year old and has already been covered.
When oh when will this thread be closed?



Is it a year old?

"Agence France-Presse
Last updated 08:33pm (Mla time) 03/05/2007"

Even if the date updated really only means it was updated yet is still a year old the update is hours old. Wouldnt that qualify as new information and as such justify its posting?

Also, things like this just shouldnt be ignored even if it is old. Lets just ignore civil rights, thats old. Lets ignore Nazi Germany. Thats old. We can definitely start ignoring all the wasted time and money spent trying to revive a city that was built in a bowl below sea level. Thats old. These topics pop up all the time. Theyre all old.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
All I know is that this same story appeared over a year ago, right here on ATS, which I already linked to. Like I said earlier, it appears to be an annual attempt to demonize Muslim nations and their, I repeat, THEIR laws.
It is not 'breaking news'.
It is a recycled story from over a year ago.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
All I know is that this same story appeared over a year ago, right here on ATS, which I already linked to. Like I said earlier, it appears to be an annual attempt to demonize Muslim nations and their, I repeat, THEIR laws.
It is not 'breaking news'.
It is a recycled story from over a year ago.


Well, I couldnt find the article in that link but a poster referred to this information:
"I read you article, it said the woman was expecting a harsher sentence.
it also said 'four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes.' Whats that, 555 lashes a peice for the guys?"

which isnt in the new article.

Isnt just as likely that 90 lashes is a standars punishment in these areas with theses crimes?

I also dont think posters or articles are doing harm to the Muslim image. At least not any more harm than they are doing to their own image. This sort of thing happens. Apparently on more than one occasion. That speaks volumes.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
All I know is that this same story appeared over a year ago, right here on ATS, which I already linked to. Like I said earlier, it appears to be an annual attempt to demonize Muslim nations and their, I repeat, THEIR laws.
It is not 'breaking news'.
It is a recycled story from over a year ago.


No disrespect, 11Bravo, but you seem quite defensive of these actions. May I ask why?

Also, just to make you aware that this board is an International discussion board where every member contributes regardless of their location, culture, religion or 'laws', which makes your point that there are 'THEIR laws' moot.

As thisguyrighthere as rightly stated, this is a new/updated article, which warrants further discussion from those interested, otherwise it will drop of the board.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by James Daniel]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Is this what youre talking about?

nov.2 2006

Both articles side by side seem to have plain differences in the descriptions of what happened.

They seem to be two different instinces.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Let he without sin be the first to lash her.

This makes me sick to a massive degree. Is there no justice.




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Is this what youre talking about?

nov.2 2006

Both articles side by side seem to have plain differences in the descriptions of what happened.

They seem to be two different instinces.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by thisguyrighthere]


Seem to be two different instinces....
From the year old article..


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.


From the new article....

After driving off together from a shopping mall near her home, the woman and the man were stopped and abducted by a gang of men wielding kitchen knives who took them to a farm where she was raped 14 times by her captors.


From the old...

The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al- Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis


From the new...

Five men were arrested for the rape and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years by a panel of judges in the eastern city of Qatif,


Qatif? Qateef? Whats in a name right?

From the old article..

The victim was quoted by Okaz newspaper as saying she had expected harsher penalties for the assailants, especially as they had pleaded not guilty.


(Notice the old article give the name of the newspaper...their source.
From the 'new' article...

"I was shocked at the verdict. I couldn't believe my ears," said the woman, who has appealed against her sentence.



Seems like there are more similarities than 'plain differences' as you state.
Could you back up your ascertion with some points for me to compare?
Oh, didnt think so.
Go to the source....
SOURCE
Its the same story, on the one year anniversary.
Just to remind you...deny ignorance.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by 11Bravo]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Okay. Theres a farm. There are knives. There is a regional court. There are cars. There is a female victim. The victim is shocked by the verdict.

Sounds like every crime in New Haven but instead of a farm its "taken to a building."

Even if these are in fact the same instance the fact that the "new" article is dated with todays date means that at some point sombody saw fit to re-publish the story. Whether there are new bits of information or not I dont know but because the publishing happened as recently as today I think its perfectly justified in being posted and discussed.

Oh, I love the quick two-line attack at the end of your post.

"thought so"

Did you thumb your nose too? Have a sudden surge of self satisfaction?
Feel that waking up this morning really paid off? Had your little brother look on with quiet awe?

Do us all a foavor and dont reduce threads to sophomoric expressions of simple wit and, what I can only assume at this point, a solid foundation ready to bear the weight of endless name-calling and bitter replies.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
are you judging a culture by your own culture's views


this kind of stuff is probably normal for them


(not saying its right)...





posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
It is pretty hard not to be sickened by this kind of cruel and inhuman behavior no matter what the source. These women could not speak out even if they wished too. Only through bringing these topics out of the darkness and into the light of day will there ever be a change.

The following excerpts are from a report by the "Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor". :


external source link
The following human rights problems were reported:

• no right to change the government
• infliction of severe pain by judicially sanctioned corporal punishments
• beatings and other abuses
• arbitrary arrest
• incommunicado detention
• denial of fair public trials
• exemption from the rule of law for some individuals and lack of judicial independence
• political prisoners
• infringement of privacy rights
• significant restriction of civil liberties--freedoms of speech and press, assembly, association, and movement
• no religious freedom
• widespread perception of corruption
• lack of government transparency
• legal and societal discrimination against women, religious and other minorities
• strict limitations on worker rights.


Women clearly do not have anything resembling equal rights under Saudi Law -

A woman's testimony does not carry the same weight as that of a man. In a Shari'a court, the testimony of one man equals that of two women. Under the Hanbali interpretation of Shari'a followed in the kingdom, judges may discount the testimony of persons who are not practicing Muslims or who do not adhere to Hanbali doctrine. Legal sources reported that testimony by Shi'a was often ignored in courts of law or was deemed to have less weight than testimony by Sunnis.

Female parties to court proceedings such as divorce and family law cases generally had to deputize male relatives to speak on their behalf. In the absence of two witnesses, or four witnesses in the case of adultery, confessions before a judge were almost always required for criminal conviction--a situation that has led prosecuting authorities to coerce confessions from suspects by threats and abuse (see section 1.c.).


Here is another case of the victim receiving a harsher punishment than the criminal (same external source) -

For example, Nour Miyati, an Indonesian maid, accused her employer and his wife of tying her up for a month in a bathroom, beating her severely, injuring her eyes and knocking out several teeth. Her significant physical injuries resulted in gangrene in her fingers, toes, and right foot. Her sponsor's wife was found culpable for beating her and sentenced to 35 lashes. Nour Miyati was sentenced to 79 lashes because she gave contradictory testimony. She had signed a statement (which she could not read) that contradicted her oral testimony, and her oral testimony was inconsistent. At year's end both sides were appealing the verdicts.


The lack of adequate Human Rights, especially for women, is clearly a problem in Muslim society that will not change anytime soon. As long as the Saudi's are ruled by Shari'a Law women will remain second class citizens and will suffer because of it. Hopefully, some day, that will all change.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Oh no, not this story again.....


yeah, I know


the west is barbaric compared to this. Somebody show me s verse in the koran where you cannot beat a woman?
yeah, I didnt think so. This woman should be given 100 lashes and made to pay the men. islamic society is the only truly "civilized" society.

Also, our ways are far more barbaric and we have the balls to criticise them? I mean, come on! only someone who is completely backwards would find this appaling.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Even if these are in fact the same instance
Even if?
Do your homework. THere is no doubt that these are the same events, contrary to your earlier claim that, and I quote "Both articles side by side seem to have plain differences in the descriptions of what happened.
They seem to be two different instinces."


...the fact that the "new" article is dated with todays date means that at some point sombody saw fit to re-publish the story..... I think its perfectly justified in being posted and discussed.
Perhaps you are right.
It isnt 'breaking news' though.
My very factual point is that this very incident was discussed ad-nausium over a year ago, when it was breaking news, right here on this board.



Oh, I love the quick two-line attack at the end of your post.

"thought so"

I was asking if you could compare the articles "side by side" like you claimed to have done, and point out the "plain differences" that you found.
I knew you couldnt or wouldnt do that, so I said "Oh, didnt think so".
If you felt that was condescending I appologize.


Did you thumb your nose too? Have a sudden surge of self satisfaction?
Feel that waking up this morning really paid off? Had your little brother look on with quiet awe?

Do us all a foavor and dont reduce threads to sophomoric expressions of simple wit and, what I can only assume at this point, a solid foundation ready to bear the weight of endless name-calling and bitter replies.

So my 'two-line attack' warrented a two-paragraph tyrade asking me to 'do us all a favor'?
Sure, I will 'do us all a favor', but, I must ask, Who is 'us all', and when did they put you in charge?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join