Saudi gang-rape victim faces 90 lashes, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times
Topic started on 5-3-2007 @ 08:04 AM by searching_for_truth

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)


reply posted on 5-3-2007 @ 08:20 AM by 11Bravo
Oh no, not this story again.....



reply posted on 5-3-2007 @ 10:31 AM 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]


reply posted on 5-3-2007 @ 12:19 PM by 11Bravo
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]



reply posted on 5-3-2007 @ 02:11 PM by Blaine91555
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.


reply posted on 5-3-2007 @ 02:41 PM by 11Bravo
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?
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^