Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes

Nov 15 10:51 AM US/Eastern
110 Comments




View larger image

A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
The 19-year-old woman -- whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms -- was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," the Arab News reported.

But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.

A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine known as Wahhabism and forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

Last year, the court sentenced six Saudi men to between one and five years in jail for the rape as well as ordering lashes for the victim, a member of the minority Shiite community.

But the woman's lawyer Abdul Rahman al-Lahem appealed, arguing that the punishments were too lenient in a country where the offence can carry the death penalty.

In the new verdict issued on Wednesday, the Al-Qatif court also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.

The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.

Lahem, also a human rights activist, told AFP on Wednesday that the court had banned him from handling the rape case and withdrew his licence to practise law because he challenged the verdict.

He said he has also been summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee in December.

Lahem said the move might be due to his criticism of some judicial institutions, and "contradicts King Abdullah's quest to introduce reform, especially in the justice system."

King Abdullah last month approved a new body of laws regulating the judicial system in Saudi Arabia, which rules on the basis of sharia, or Islamic law.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071115145104.rykb7bub&show_article=1

Well, maybe the next time she'll obey the law, huh? It's often the case that disobedience of the law has consequences ...one should learn those consequences. If not, then....

Baron Max

That'll teach her not to get gang raped again.

That'll teach her not to get gang raped again.

No, no, Spider. The men who raped her are in prison - that was the consequences of their disobedience of the laws.

The 100 lashes is the consequences for the woman disobeying the laws about being in a car with an unrelated male escort. She should have known better, and she got raped. That's too bad, but it doesn't lessen her own crime.

Baron Max

It's fucking retarted.

No, no, Spider. The men who raped her are in prison - that was the consequences of their disobedience of the laws.

The 100 lashes is the consequences for the woman disobeying the laws about being in a car with an unrelated male escort. She should have known better, and she got raped. That's too bad, but it doesn't lessen her own crime.

Baron Max

yea...just goes to show you that women should continue to have less rights then men.

It's fucking retarted.

No, it's apparently a good law that women should be accompanied by a related male escort. See? That woman wasn't escorted properly, so not only did she get gang raped, but now she's going to be whipped for not obeying a law which would have protected her in the gang rape incident.

Baron Max

yea...just goes to show you that women should continue to have less rights then men.

Or suffer the consequences!

Baron Max

Pathetic

This kind of stuff really scares me, and I always stare in wonder when I see an ambassador from the Saudi government speaking with a politician from the West saying they are just as civilized as the West.

Oh look Baron max is playing the devil's advocate again. How clever. Yes it's a f**ked up system over there.

An ill effect of polygamy

So she was personally violated, and the punishment is to inflict more abuse on her. They could just take the end of the lash and lightly tap her on the forehead. It would fufill the letter of the law.

Although I find those Saudi Arabian laws are cruel, I'm afraid they are one of the few successful measures available to mankind.

It seems that people sometimes think they should be free to be stupid and careless, that they are entitled to stupidity and carelessness, and that they should have no negative consequences for them.

Fact is, stupidity and carelessness do have negative consequences, and the sooner and more thoroughly people are made aware of that, the better.

An ill effect of polygamy

I think it has more to do with repression.

Although I find those Saudi Arabian laws are cruel, I'm afraid they are one of the few successful measures available to mankind.

It seems that people sometimes think they should be free to be stupid and careless, that they are entitled to stupidity and carelessness, and that they should have no negative consequences for them.

Fact is, stupidity and carelessness do have negative consequences, and the sooner and more thoroughly people are made aware of that, the better.

So you think she was stupid for being gang raped, and therefore should be punished for it? Ermm ok..

So you think she was stupid for being gang raped, and therefore should be punished for it? Ermm ok..

No, I think it was stupid and careless of her to be in the car of an unrelated male.

The "Western" equivalent of this is a woman dressing up in a mini skirt, low cleveage, and going to a busy backstreet bar.

No, I think it was stupid and careless of her to be in the car of an unrelated male.

The "Western" equivalent of this is a woman dressing up in a mini skirt, low cleveage, and going to a busy backstreet bar.

I think it's stupid and careless to foster a social system that is so repressive that a woman can expect to be raped for simply being in a car with an unrelated male. I mean fuck, maybe it was an emergency and there were no male relations around! Remember a couple of years ago those saudi school girls burned to death because the firemen weren't related and therefore couldn't carry them out of the burning building.


The "Western" equivalent of this is a woman dressing up in a mini skirt, low cleveage, and going to a busy backstreet bar.

This happens all the time without incident.

In any case don't you think being raped is punishment enough?

No, I think it was stupid and careless of her to be in the car of an unrelated male.

The "Western" equivalent of this is a woman dressing up in a mini skirt, low cleveage, and going to a busy backstreet bar.

Do you think women who do this should be whipped?

If we whipped the men who make this an unwise choice on her part it might no longer be an unwise choice.

We could give one lash to every guy who says 'Wanna blow me baby' for starters and come at the problem from that side.

It seems like men's behavior is taken as a kind of part of the landscape issue and women must adjust.

Although I find those Saudi Arabian laws are cruel, I'm afraid they are one of the few successful measures available to mankind.

Please explain.

It seems that people sometimes think they should be free to be stupid and careless, that they are entitled to stupidity and carelessness, and that they should have no negative consequences for them.

Being in the company of a male non-relative is stupid and careless?

Why punish a woman because these pathetic men have no self control? Why bias a system to make women cover up, because all men are on the verge of rape if they see anything alluring?

Men are the problem here, and their attitudes toward women.

Grantywanty:


It seems like men's behavior is taken as a kind of part of the landscape issue and women must adjust.


That's the equivalent of claiming that thieves' behaviour is taken as a kind of part of the landscape issue, and law abiding citizens must adjust by locking their car and house doors, and purchasing insurance.

It's not about women adjusting, it's about taking sensible precautions. A woman who does not want to get raped should take certain precautions in order to reduce the probability of such an event occuring.

I'm not commenting about what happened in the above scenario, but it seems that some feminazis can't grasp this very simple concept. Very few people are saying that 'If you dress like a whore and get smashed, you deserve to get raped'. What we are saying is 'Bad people exist, and if you want to reduce the probability of getting raped, you shouldn't dress like a whore or get pissed'. Think of the analogy "Bad people exist, and if you want to reduce the probability of getting burgled, you should lock your doors and windows."

phlog:


Why punish a woman because these pathetic men have no self control?


In Australia, you can be fined for not locking your car doors when leaving your vehicle unattended.

Also, if you fail to lock your house doors/windows, and are burgled, you aren't eligible for insurance.

Why punish the law abiding citizen in such a manner, because some pathetic criminals don't have self-control?

The "Western" equivalent of this is a woman dressing up in a mini skirt, low cleveage, and going to a busy backstreet bar.

And then what? "Westerners" might have a sneaky look if she bends over the pool table, but we don't turn into turn monsters because we see a bit of flesh! We might think if someone dresses in an alluring fashion they are trying to attract our attention, and we may try some of our cheesier pick up lines, but IN NO WAY DOES A WOMAN'S DRESS MEAN WE CAN USE FORCE.

We have self control, we are civilised. To enact laws such as to excuse the lack of men's self control is pathetic, it sets the bar too low.

That's the equivalent of claiming that thieves' behaviour is taken as a kind of part of the landscape issue, and law abiding citizens must adjust by locking their car and house doors, and purchasing insurance.

I think that's taking his point out of context as I think it really only applies to the issue of women and men, not men and the rest of the world.



It's not about women adjusting, it's about taking sensible precautions. A woman who does not want to get raped should take certain precautions in order to reduce the probability of such an event occuring.

Definitely, in fact, let's just cover them from head to toe shall we?



Think of the analogy "Bad people exist, and if you want to reduce the probability of getting burgled, you should lock your doors and windows."

You do understand that you are now saying exactly what you 'accused' Grantywanty of claiming right?

phlog:


In Australia, you can be fined for not locking your car doors when leaving your vehicle unattended.

Also, if you fail to lock your house doors/windows, and are burgled, you aren't eligible for insurance.

Why punish the law abiding citizen in such a manner, because some pathetic criminals don't have self-control?


The second I agree with, the first I don't. So Australia is fucked up too.

Huh? What the hell are you crappin' on about!?

Edit: That was in response to jlocke.

We have self control, we are civilised.

No, only some of us are civilized. One must also take into account those who are not. If everyone in the world was a nice guy, we wouldn't need any laws or police, now would we?

Baron Max

And then what? "Westerners" might have a sneaky look if she bends over the pool table, but we don't turn into turn monsters because we see a bit of flesh! We might think if someone dresses in an alluring fashion they are trying to attract our attention, and we may try some of our cheesier pick up lines, but IN NO WAY DOES A WOMAN'S DRESS MEAN WE CAN USE FORCE.

It's not about whether you are able or allowed to use force.

A woman (or man) dressing in what within a particular culture is deemed "provocative" manner, is taking certain risks of being harrassed, or even assaulted, raped or murdered.
This is a fact. A fact that anyone dressing this way should take into consideration.



We have self control, we are civilised.

Riiight. And there are no crimes, no rapes, no murders, no robberies, no burglaries, no extortion, no theft.



To enact laws such as to excuse the lack of men's self control is pathetic, it sets the bar too low.

To enact such a law is not to excuse the lack of men's (or anyone's) self control.
It's acknowledging that some behaviors are risky and that efforts should be made to avoid such behaviors.

It's not about women adjusting, it's about taking sensible precautions. A woman who does not want to get raped should take certain precautions in order to reduce the probability of such an event occuring.
...
What we are saying is 'Bad people exist, and if you want to reduce the probability of getting raped, you shouldn't dress like a whore or get pissed'. Think of the analogy "Bad people exist, and if you want to reduce the probability of getting burgled, you should lock your doors and windows."

Exactly.

phlog:


In Australia, you can be fined for not locking your car doors when leaving your vehicle unattended.

Really? So traffic laws are the same Australia wide are they? Shame for those people with convertibles eh mountain?

I have practiced in QLD and I have never, ever heard of such a fine in my life. You can get a fine for leaving a child or animal in the car unattended. That is due to the harm that may be caused to the individual or animal in the vehicle. But a fine for leaving your car door unlocked? Unless you can link me that particular section of a statute mountain, then I would be guessing you are trying to pull a quick one there.


Very few people are saying that 'If you dress like a whore and get smashed, you deserve to get raped'. What we are saying is 'Bad people exist, and if you want to reduce the probability of getting raped, you shouldn't dress like a whore or get pissed'.
You should tell that to the 80 year olds who are raped in their own homes. Or to the children who are raped as well.:rolleyes:

This woman had done nothing other than to ride in a car with non-male relatives. Seeing how she was in SA, I would imagine she would have had to be covered up anyway, so your argument about dressing like a whore is moot. Women are also more likely to be raped by people they know. So should we say she or any other woman, should never ever get in a car with men they do know?

-----------------------------------------------------

I still cannot believe how anyone could actually attempt to justify this woman being punished for something that was not her fault. How in the world can anyone justify her being imprisoned and lashed 200 times for being raped? And some of you go so far as to say she was somehow at fault? What part of the primitive and uneducated dark ages did some of you actually escape from?

Please explain.

In short: People are all too often acting irresponsibly, carelessly. Some countries have taken up the policy to be firmer toward their citizens in this regard. So the state is acting as a parent concerned for the welfare of their children.

I still cannot believe how anyone could actually attempt to justify this woman being punished for something that was not her fault. How in the world can anyone justify her being imprisoned and lashed 200 times for being raped? And some of you go so far as to say she was somehow at fault? What part of the primitive and uneducated dark ages did some of you actually escape from?

She's not being punished for the rape, Bells, she's being punished for disobeying another, completely different law. The people who raped her are already in prison as I understand it.

Please read the OP, you'll see. The law against her riding in a car with an unrelated male was an attempt to keep such rapes, etc from happening. And since it did, perhaps it's not such a bad law, huh?

But, Bells, no one here is trying to justify the rape. You're pulling that out of one of you deep, dark holes all by yourself.

Baron Max

It's not about whether you are able or allowed to use force.

It seems to be, because you use such loaded terms such as;


A woman (or man) dressing in what within a particular culture is deemed "provocative" manner, is taking certain risks of being harrassed, or even assaulted, raped or murdered.

Provocative? What are you, a bygone from the Victorian era? To use such a term is excusing a bad reaction and lack of self control, and putting some blame on the victim. That is total BS, however. Rape is wrong, and rapists are unhinged, and attitudes like yours rather unhelpful, as they provide excuses for the weak minded.

A woman (or man) dressing in what within a particular culture is deemed "provocative" manner, is taking certain risks of being harrassed, or even assaulted, raped or murdered.
This is a fact. A fact that anyone dressing this way should take into consideration.

Let's take this to it's extremes: either you believe that A) women are responsible to what they wear to help ward off rape or B) women should be able to wear what they want and act how they want without having to account for what is done to them as a result.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if we take A to extreme we get Saudi Arabia, where the women are just as responsible to what is done to them than the men who do it. Most Western government, especially the US, is based on the principle of individual freedom. We should all be able to do exactly what we want to do, within the law, without having to change our behavior out of fear. Yes, one could argue that the woman may have been irresponsible, but that is still no justification for rape.

You should tell that to the 80 year olds who are raped in their own homes. Or to the children who are raped as well.

Obviously, not all crime can be prevented. But some can.



This woman had done nothing other than to ride in a car with non-male relatives.

Which, according to SA laws, is punishable.



I still cannot believe how anyone could actually attempt to justify this woman being punished for something that was not her fault. How in the world can anyone justify her being imprisoned and lashed 200 times for being raped?

She was not punished for being raped.

She was punished for being without proper male-relative attendance.

Or to the children who are raped as well.

Well if he's gonna wear that speedo....

Please read the OP, you'll see. The law against her riding in a car with an unrelated male was an attempt to keep such rapes, etc from happening. And since it did, perhaps it's not such a bad law, huh?

Yeah not a bad law at all, can't imagine why we haven't done in the US...

Obviously, not all crime can be prevented. But some can.

Again, you seem to be arguing that the law-abiding side of the population should be the ones being proactive about the unabiding side. It should be the other way around...

Yes, one could argue that the woman may have been irresponsible, but that is still no justification for rape.

Indeed, and it's certainly no grounds for punishment! This law basically puts all the the reponsibility onto women. It says 'men are such slavering dogs inclined to rape so instantaneously, that to prevent this from happening, we will punish women that tempt them'.

If they want a law to prevent rape, how about 100 lashes for the MAN caught in a vehicle with a non-related woman?

Wow, radical.

Australia's top Muslim cleric rationalized a series of gang rapes by Arab men, blaming women who "sway suggestively," wear make-up and don't cover themselves in the tradition of Islam.


Sheik Ibrahim Mogra with Sheik Taj el-Dene Elhilaly. (Courtesy Sydney Daily Telegraph)

Sheik Taj el-Dene Elhilaly's comments in a Ramadan sermon in a Sydney mosque have stirred a furor in the country with even Prime Minister John Howard weighing in with condemnation.

The cleric also said the judge in the case, who sentenced the rapists, had "no mercy."

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims – whom he said were "weapons used by Satan."

Sound familiar?

Indeed, and it's certainly no grounds for punishment! This law basically puts all the the reponsibility onto women. It says 'men are such slavering dogs inclined to rape so instantaneously, that to prevent this from happening, we will punish women that tempt them'.

If they want a law to prevent rape, how about 100 lashes for the MAN caught in a vehicle with a non-related woman?

Wow, radical.

Haha, exactly.

Let's take this to it's extremes: either you believe that A) women are responsible to what they wear to help ward off rape or B) women should be able to wear what they want and act how they want without having to account for what is done to them as a result.

Don't take this into such extremes, it is pointless.

Fact is that it is possible to take some reasonable precautions and avoid risky behaviors. It is for one's own good. Period.


Consider this: What if the state, out of concern for the welfare of its citizens, would have a mandatory jail sentence for everyone who hasn't started a retirement fund by the time they are 30 years old? I'm sure many people would consider this outrageous. Yet from the perspective of a good guardian, some forceful actions are in place.



Most Western government, especially the US, is based on the principle of individual freedom. We should all be able to do exactly what we want to do, within the law, without having to change our behavior out of fear.

This is very liberal and probably nice, but unrealistic.
Some people think that Earth should be heaven and we should be free to behave accordingly ...



Yes, one could argue that the woman may have been irresponsible, but that is still no justification for rape.

Nobody is trying to justify rape.

Phlogistician, JLocke, Bells,

You seem to be arguing on the grounds of some honor issues.
Whereas the actual welfare of an individual seems to be of lesser concern than honor to you.

I think it's stupid and careless to foster a social system that is so repressive that a woman can expect to be raped for simply being in a car with an unrelated male.

One should expect to be assaulted, raped, robbed, murdered, killed by a falling meteorite, one's home flooded or burnt and so on simply because one lives on planet Earth.

This isn't heaven.



I mean fuck, maybe it was an emergency and there were no male relations around! Remember a couple of years ago those saudi school girls burned to death because the firemen weren't related and therefore couldn't carry them out of the burning building.

Of course, such is always possible.
But they respected the Law. Which, in the great scheme of things, is more important.



In any case don't you think being raped is punishment enough?

If my child would get raped, and I would know that he or she was engaged in what he or she knew in advance was risky behavior, I would punish the child in some way as well.
He or she would need to learn not to engage in risky behavior, for his own or her own welbeing.

Consider this: What if the state, out of concern for the welfare of its citizens, would have a mandatory jail sentence for everyone who hasn't started a retirement fund by the time they are 30 years old? I'm sure many people would consider this outrageous. Yet from the perspective of a good guardian, some forceful actions are in place.

I'm sorry but I'm confused, I live in the USA, I don't know if you do; however, here we believe that 'we' should decide what the government does, not the other way around...it's called a democracy. The government should not be a separate entity to the people, dictating this or that from it's high position of 'guardian'. The government represents the people, and if the people decide that it should be a criminal offense not to start a retirement fund (would never happen but regardless), then I would have no problem with that law.

Phlogistician, JLocke, Bells,

You seem to be arguing on the grounds of some honor issues.
Whereas the actual welfare of an individual seems to be of lesser concern than honor to you.

As opposed to you who seem to find it perfectly reasonable that this women will be whipped for being in a car with unrelated males who raped her...

If my child would get raped, and I would know that he or she was engaged in what he or she knew in advance was risky behavior, I would punish the child in some way as well.

Hahahahaha, ok, discussion over. We obviously have very very very different moral values, and I don't think any amount of discussion will change either of our minds on this one....so I'm out.

One should expect to be assaulted, raped, robbed, murdered, killed by a falling meteorite, one's home flooded or burnt and so on simply because one lives on planet Earth.

If you are willing to accept such a state of affairs then that is up to you. I will not tolerate such an enviornment it bears no semblance to where and how I live.


This isn't heaven.

It's not hell either





Of course, such is always possible.
But they respected the Law. Which, in the great scheme of things, is more important.

When a societal structure is in such a state that it ceases to function in the face of adversity (girls burning to death, woman having to go somewhere but no male relation is available), in the greater scheme of things the that society needs to be fixed (along with the laws).





If my child would get raped, and I would know that he or she was engaged in what he or she knew in advance was risky behavior, I would punish the child in some way as well.
He or she would need to learn not to engage in risky behavior, for his own or her own welbeing.

Leo V is that you?? :rolleyes: Lemme know how that works out for ya.

When I was younger, I did some pretty stupid and bad things, and some bad things happened to me as well.
I wish my parents and the people in charge weren't so liberal and "full of understanding" then. In the long run, the way they have handled those situations actually made things worse for me.

Phlogistician, JLocke, Bells,

You seem to be arguing on the grounds of some honor issues.
Whereas the actual welfare of an individual seems to be of lesser concern than honor to you.

Not at all, repressing women 'for their own good' is the cause of all this. My concern is exactly that of the welfare of the woman; Like I said, if the issue is men being alone with non-related women, lest the man assaults the woman, let the man be punished.

When I was younger, I did some pretty stupid and bad things, and some bad things happened to me as well.
I wish my parents and the people in charge weren't so liberal and "full of understanding" then. In the long run, the way they have handled those situations actually made things worse for me.

When I was 13 I was arrested, my parents didn't punish me, just looked terribly sad. That changed my direction.

When I was younger, I did some pretty stupid and bad things, and some bad things happened to me as well.
I wish my parents and the people in charge weren't so liberal and "full of understanding" then. In the long run, the way they have handled those situations actually made things worse for me.

Then you should realise that you have some issues to deal with still, and that your percecption of what is risky, moral, and acceptable is tainted, and it clearly is to the rest of us.

Go get some therapy kid.

From the sound of it there are multiple issues here - and everyone seems to be talking cross-purposes:

1. The woman broke the law (being in company of un-related male).
Is this a reasonable law? Is the country far too male-biased?

2. The woman was punished for breaking the law above.
Does the punishment (200 lashes) fit the crime?

3. The woman was the victim of a rape.
Does the law she broke prevent such things?
Is there not better ways to prevent such things than seemingly draconian laws?

4. The men were punished for their crime.
Was the punishment they received befitting the crime they committed?



The woman broke the law of the society she was in - and therefore punished according to the law.

The men broke the law by raping the woman - and were punished.


If, in the UK, X shot at and injured Y while Y was trying to nick his car, then X would be done for shooting Y and Y would be punished for trying to nick a car, even though he was injured and the apparent victim of a crime / shooting.

While the laws of SA might be a tad more restrictive (especially for women), the principles of who is punished and for what remain the same.

I think something kinda like this happened here in the US. A woman was raped and instead of taking her to the hospital, they took her to jail. She had an outstanding warrant.
Granted, its not near as bad as this Saudi case, but still.

Originally Posted by greenberg:
"One should expect to be assaulted, raped, robbed, murdered, killed by a falling meteorite, one's home flooded or burnt and so on simply because one lives on planet Earth."

If you are willing to accept such a state of affairs then that is up to you. I will not tolerate such an enviornment it bears no semblance to where and how I live.

So you live in a true Utopia ....where nothing bad ever happens to anyone in your world? That's a pretty interesting place you have there. Just remember, if it can happen to "Joe" down the street, it can happen to you.

Baron Max

So you live in a true Utopia ....where nothing bad ever happens to anyone in your world? That's a pretty interesting place you have there. Just remember, if it can happen to "Joe" down the street, it can happen to you.

Baron Max

Life is not without dangers Baron but the manner in which Greenberg framed that statement is beyond my life. It's the "I should expect to " that does it. Guess I got abit reactionary. None the less I think Sarkus outlined the legal particulars of this fairly well.

Do you think women who do this should be whipped?

If we whipped the men who make this an unwise choice on her part it might no longer be an unwise choice.

We could give one lash to every guy who says 'Wanna blow me baby' for starters and come at the problem from that side.

It seems like men's behavior is taken as a kind of part of the landscape issue and women must adjust.

Let's not mix up contexts.

Saudi Arabian laws make sense within the Saudi Arabian society and their laws.

It would be absurd to suddenly introduce such laws to a country like the U.S., and I'm not suggesting that.

But do note that even in so-called Western countries, judges and juries (depending on the particular law system of the country) sometimes do take into consideration the state of the person before he or she was attacked. Which can result in a milder or harsher sentence for the perpetrator.

I am totally confident that SAM will come up with an entirely reasonable and innocent explanation.

Muslim society is heavily patriarchal, and sharia law only enforces this. They are basically scared of a woman's power, hence the restrictions on what she can do, where she can be.

If they want a law to prevent rape, how about 100 lashes for the MAN caught in a vehicle with a non-related woman?

Wow, radical.
Good point. I read nothing about the male being punished for having the unrelated women in his car.

She's not being punished for the rape, Bells, she's being punished for disobeying another, completely different law. The people who raped her are already in prison as I understand it.

Please read the OP, you'll see. The law against her riding in a car with an unrelated male was an attempt to keep such rapes, etc from happening. And since it did, perhaps it's not such a bad law, huh?

But, Bells, no one here is trying to justify the rape. You're pulling that out of one of you deep, dark holes all by yourself.

Baron Max

Oh you have to be kidding me. Between the two crimes here, which do you think deserves more punishment? Rape or being in the company of unrelated males? If a reasonable individual reads this case, even if they agree she broke a law, they would agree that she is being punished for being raped. I wonder if the same punishment would have applied to her if a male relative had been in the car with her. My guess is yes.

She was first meant to receive 90 lashes for her crime. However in a country where rape is a capital offence, the offenders were given 5 to 6 years prison time. She was further punished because she dared to appeal their sentence. Her lawyer was then barred from practicing law because he dared to appeal her case. Or did you miss that in the OP Baron? Did you also miss the fact that all of her attackers were armed?


Lahem's latest client is a 19-year-old woman who was in a car with a male friend when she was kidnapped and gang-raped by seven men. In November, four of the men received prison sentences ranging from one to five years and 80 to 1,000 lashes, and three are awaiting sentencing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201579.html


Hmmm... so she is being punished for being kidnapped and gang raped. Yes, I guess she should have known better than to allow herself to be kidnapped eh Baron?:rolleyes: Even if she had been with a male relative and had been kidnapped by the 7 men, she would probably still have been punished because she was in a car with 7 men who aren't her relatives. She was not in their car willingly. She was kidnapped. It can hardly be her fault.


"Instead of ordering post-traumatic treatment for her and making sure she's appointed a lawyer," he said, the judge "sentences this young girl, after what she's been through, to lashes." He shook his head.

"This could completely damage her," he said, fingering the handle of a gray cane he carries because of a pronounced limp caused by a fall when he was an infant. "This is not justice; this is jungle sharia."
You'd have to agree with him, wouldn't you? Or maybe you don't, but I would imagine most reasonable people would.

Amazing isn't it? She is being punished for being in a car with unrelated males, but she was in said car because she was kidnapped by the unrelated males.


The attack took place in 2006. The woman has said that it occurred as she tried to retrieve her picture from a male high school student she used to know. While in the car with the student, two men got into the vehicle and drove them to a secluded area. She said she was raped there by seven men, three of whom also attacked her friend.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107ap_saudi_justice.html

So I wonder which one she is being punished for? For daring to speak to the unrelated male she knew from high school, or for being kidnapped and then gang raped? The kidnappers did not get the death penalty, which is usual in rape cases in SA. Instead they got a few years in jail, while she was sentenced to jail and 200 lashes. Yes, real fair.:rolleyes:

Oh you have to be kidding me. Between the two crimes here, which do you think deserves more punishment? Rape or being in the company of unrelated males? If a reasonable individual reads this case, even if they agree she broke a law, they would agree that she is being punished for being raped. I wonder if the same punishment would have applied to her if a male relative had been in the car with her. My guess is yes.

She was first meant to receive 90 lashes for her crime. However in a country where rape is a capital offence, the offenders were given 5 to 6 years prison time. She was further punished because she dared to appeal their sentence. Her lawyer was then barred from practicing law because he dared to appeal her case. Or did you miss that in the OP Baron? Did you also miss the fact that all of her attackers were armed?

Just think of it this way, Bells, if that woman had NOT been in that car with that unrelated man, none of any of that would have happened. She wouldn't have been raped, the men wouldn't be in prison, there would have been no lashes to administer to anyone, anywhere, and the lawyer would still be practicing his profession (such as being a lawyer is a ...profession! I think of it as legal theft, with the courts backing it up!).

Baron Max

Why not? Would a relative protect her, while a friend would not? What if the relative were her 12 year old brother?

Why not? Would a relative protect her, while a friend would not? What if the relative were her 12 year old brother?

Oh, I don't know, Spider, .....why don't you think about it, then get back to us on that issue.

Baron Max

My sources reveal that the law against being in a car with an unrelated male is no protection against rape, since a relative could be a grandfather or a teenager.

My sources reveal that the law against being in a car with an unrelated male is no protection against rape, since a relative could be a grandfather or a teenager.

Well, the relative must be of legal age to drive and must have a driver's license. However, the chances are extremely slim that if she'd been with a relative, they would NOT have been in a place where a rape would have taken place. ....don'tcha' think?

But, Spider, you and I can speculate all we want and it doesn't change the facts of the case. If she hadn't been doing something wrong, something against the law, then none of this would have happened as it did.

Baron Max

But, Spider, you and I can speculate all we want and it doesn't change the facts of the case. If she hadn't been doing something wrong, something against the law, then none of this would have happened as it did.

If you don't want to be speculating then you can't make that claim.

If you don't want to be speculating then you can't make that claim.

Oh, but that's not speculation, that's a fact!

Baron Max

Well, the relative must be of legal age to drive and must have a driver's license. However, the chances are extremely slim that if she'd been with a relative, they would NOT have been in a place where a rape would have taken place. ....don'tcha' think?

But, Spider, you and I can speculate all we want and it doesn't change the facts of the case. If she hadn't been doing something wrong, something against the law, then none of this would have happened as it did.

Baron Max

She was kidnapped Baron. Even if the male in the car had been her relative, that would not have ensured her not being kidnapped. Do you get it now? Even if she had been with her father in that stationery car, there was no way to prevent their not being kidnapped by armed men. They were then driven to a far away place, she was gang raped and her friend was beaten up. Instead of giving her the medical care she needed, she was imprisoned and sentenced to 90 lashes for having been in a car with unrelated males. When she appealed, the jail time was increased and she was sentenced to receive 200 lashes. It doesn't matter at all if the male in the car had been related. The fact that she was kidnapped by unrelated males and then driven somewhere and raped, in that she would have broken the law there as well.

Do. You. Understand. Now?

She could have been in a car with 5 related males and she could still have been kidnapped by the armed men, driven away and gang raped. And do you know what Baron? She would still have broken the law for being in a car with unrelated men (as in her kidnappers).

Damn... it's like trying to reason with a 1 year old with mental retardation.

She was kidnapped Baron. Even if the male in the car had been her relative, that would not have ensured her not being kidnapped. Do you get it now?

Nope, if the relative had been in the car, they wouldn't have been in the same location.

But, Bells, you're not grasping the basics of this issue .....the separation of the two crimes. If a burglar breaks his leg running out of your house with all of your jewelry, does that lessen his crime of burglary? ...even if he might win a lawsuit against you for having a dangerous walkway or some such legal bullshit as that.

The rapists raped her and are being punished according to Saudi laws. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the woman's crime of being in a car with an unrelated male. Two different crimes, two different trials, two different punishments.

"Ooh, the poor woman got raped!" should have nothing to do with her crime.

Baron Max

The rapists raped her and are being punished according to Saudi laws. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the woman's crime of being in a car with an unrelated male. Two different crimes, two different trials, two different punishments.

"Ooh, the poor woman got raped!" should have nothing to do with her crime.

Baron Max

That's the thing Baron. The rapists are not being punished "according to Saudi laws". The crime of rape is the death penalty. They only got a few years in jail. When she appealed their sentence, her sentence was increased dramatically, theirs only by another year and her lawyer has been stripped of his license and now faces disciplinary action for appealing their sentence.

Get it now?

Nope, if the relative had been in the car, they wouldn't have been in the same location.


And you know this because....?

She could have been kidnapped from her home by the armed rapists, driven to another location and gang raped and she would still have probably faced the same sentence.

"Ooh, the poor woman got raped!" should have nothing to do with her crime.


But her "crime" was entirely not her fault. It's like claiming that a bank teller who hands off money to an armed robber is committing robbery themselves, for giving money to someone they are not supposed to.

That's the thing Baron. The rapists are not being punished "according to Saudi laws". The crime of rape is the death penalty. They only got a few years in jail. When she appealed their sentence, her sentence was increased dramatically, theirs only by another year and her lawyer has been stripped of his license and now faces disciplinary action for appealing their sentence.

Get it now?

So which one of those issues are we talking about, Bells? There's several issues that you brought up, and as far as I can see they're unrelated crimes that simply have a few circumstances in common.

Baron Max

But her "crime" was entirely not her fault.

Her criime was being in the car without a male relative. That crime has nothingwhatsoever to do with the other crimes involved here ....which Bells keeps bringing up so as to muddy the waters of the discussion.

Baron Max

She could have been kidnapped from her home by the armed rapists, driven to another location and gang raped and she would still have probably faced the same sentence.

But she wasn't. Bringing up a whole new convoluted circumstance does nothing to lessen her original crime. She could have been on the planet Mars, but she wasn't, was she? Or would you like to try that one next?

Baron Max

Her criime was being in the car without a male relative. That crime has nothingwhatsoever to do with the other crimes involved here ....which Bells keeps bringing up so as to muddy the waters of the discussion.

Baron Max

The situation would be radically different if she was kidnapped, which apparently was not the case at the outset. I seem to have misread Bells.

In any case, while you're technically right, it seems awfully barbaric to punish someone for breaking a minor law when they have suffered a great deal from the circumstances surrounding it. Judges have leeway in sentancing for a reason.

And of course, the initial law is absurd.

Xev, I know you're addressing Baron, but...


In any case, while you're technically right, it seems awfully barbaric to punish someone for breaking a minor law


It is awfully barbaric, and I don't agree with the law. But it's not as though she was ignorant of the law. I wish some people wouldn't conflate the two unrelated issues by claiming that she is being punished because she was raped. Because that's clearly not the case.

BTW Bells, apparently I was wrong about the law regarding the locking of car doors. I don't know where I heard that from, but I can't find anything on Google, so it must be bullshit. Although one can still be denied the right to claim insurance if they fail to lock their car/house doors, and are robbed.

Just think of it this way, Bells, if that woman had NOT been in that car with that unrelated man, none of any of that would have happened. She wouldn't have been raped, the men wouldn't be in prison, there would have been no lashes to administer to anyone, anywhere, and the lawyer would still be practicing his profession (such as being a lawyer is a ...profession! I think of it as legal theft, with the courts backing it up!).

Baron Max

That's sort of like saying if Kitty Genovese hadn't been walking home late at night she wouldn't have been attacked and killed. Nice job of blaming the victim.

Gee, Mr. Praheet, if you hadn't been working in that convenience store late at night the robber wouln'd have shot you and he wouldn't be in jail right now. It is all your fault. Yeu deserve to be punished.

[QUOTE=mountainhare;1633956]Xev, I know you're addressing Baron, but...


It is awfully barbaric, and I don't agree with the law. But it's not as though she was ignorant of the law. I wish some people wouldn't conflate the two unrelated issues by claiming that she is being punished because she was raped. Because that's clearly not the case.
[QUOTE]

Technically, it is. If she hadn't been raped, the fact that she broke the "don't be in a car with an unrelated male" law would have never come to light.

But, then, you're correct.

I think it has more to do with repression.True and women are repressed and treated unequally in ALL polygamist societies.

True and women are repressed and treated unequally in ALL polygamist societies.

I was thinking more along the lines of general repression of human emotions etc.
In trying to set the bar so low as to avoid all temptation in the first place only sets the bar lower regarding when such things occur. I have had some interesting experiences with middle easterners who were exposed to norway in the summer ;) they basically had no mechanism for coping with what for norweigans was everyday.

really? What happened?

I noticed many, not all but many, guys from the ME are uncomfortable around women. They don't seem to know how to be "friends" with women. I mean just friends. And many of them say these snide generalizations about women. "All women use sex .. bla bla bla..." It's really sad. BUT, then I have buddies who are second generation who it depends on. The ones that are NOT very religous, like to go out for drinks etc..., act perfectly normal - the ones that ARE religous - they act almost as bed as the guys straight from the ME.

really? What happened?

I noticed many, not all but many, guys from the ME are uncomfortable around women. They don't seem to know how to be "friends" with women. I mean just friends. And many of them say these snide generalizations about women. "All women use sex .. bla bla bla..." It's really sad. BUT, then I have buddies who are second generation who it depends on. The ones that are NOT very religous, like to go out for drinks etc..., act perfectly normal - the ones that ARE religous - they act almost as bed as the guys straight from the ME.

Hypnotized, telltale stains, unrespondent stares, cameras ablazin' a general mess. I guess the point is a more scantily clad society is not by definition a less moral society so long as everyone conforms to the norms. I would postulate that a society that sets the threshold as low as the saudis is prone to breakdown at a lower level (as in the examples I mentioned).

telltale stains,.Eeeuuuuu! Disgusting :puke:

I saw a documentary once about Saudi girls that like to strip on their webcam homepages. Dunno if it's related.

Link please ;)

The attorney, Abdulrahman al-Lahim, had his license revoked last week by a judge for speaking to the Saudi-controlled media about the case.

I wonder if that will have more affect than the woman being punished.

And someone was posting here just the other day what a wonderful place KSA. Well actually the who ME is wonderful, except iraq oh and afghanistan oh and KSA if you're a woman or a chrisitan or a gay or a hindu or a .... and Pakistan is great unless you're a woman or a hindu or a gay or a .... oh Palestine is .. well wait Lebanon is .. Turkey? Egypt? Now Iran is really great unless you are a Jew or gay or a women ..

All countries are wonderful if you stay within their laws. Its your choice whether you wish to change the country or agitate to change the laws.

Sometimes, its a boon to be poor, overpopulated, illiterate and without oil. People leave you be to develop normally.

All countries are wonderful if you stay within their laws.

To just repeat what Michael stated, not if you're a woman/gay/Jewish whatever the case may be. They could stay within the laws and still have a shitty time, because that's what those laws are supposed to do.

Sometimes, its a boon to be poor, overpopulated, illiterate and without oil. People leave you be to develop normally.

So does that mean that First World nations shouldn't help with medical and food supplies to the Third World nations? ...and they shouldn't help educate the young, promising people of those nations? ...and that in case of major disasters, they should not provide help and supplies?

Interesting comment, Sam, but I think your idealism has gone a bit far.

Baron Max

To just repeat what Michael stated, not if you're a woman/gay/Jewish whatever the case may be. They could stay within the laws and still have a shitty time, because that's what those laws are supposed to do.Or a woman raped for 5 hours by seven men in KSA.

To just repeat what Michael stated, not if you're a woman/gay/Jewish whatever the case may be. They could stay within the laws and still have a shitty time, because that's what those laws are supposed to do.

One could probably say the same of any redneck place in the US.

One could probably say the same of any redneck place in the US.

It is not law in any place in the US, redneck or not, or anyplace else in the world, save a few countries confined to a north-Equatorial belt in Africa and Asia.

It is not law in any place in the US, redneck or not, or anyplace else in the world, save a few countries confined to a north-Equatorial belt in Africa and Asia.

To convict people for breaking state laws?

its like saying you don't think such and such should be a law, (like carrying weed for instance), but if you're caught and convicted, your beliefs don't matter much.

The ideal would be to change the law to something more in line with what you think it should be, which requires more social awareness and action than those people are currently willing to invest in. Its good that the lawyer showed initiative though.

To have laws mandating the specific conduct of women in the presence of men. Perhaps the redneck south US is not so enlightened as Saudi Arabia, of course.

To have laws mandating the specific conduct of women in the presence of men. Perhaps the redneck south US is not so enlightened as Saudi Arabia, of course.

From what I have seen of rape threads on this very forum, the thinking is not very different.

That is debatable: fortunately, the laws are more humanitarian here.

Perhaps, though I doubt all rapes are reported.

Even less so in Saudi, I imagine.

Oh, Sam: we do try, you know. We haven't got God on our side over here, telling us that women are evil and wayward, so we do the best we can on common sense and logic. I know that's just not always good enough.

well, she was pardoned (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/17/saudi.rape/index.html).

Saudi King Abdullah has pardoned a rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison in a case that sparked international attention, a Saudi newspaper has reported.

The case cast light on the treatment of women under Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic law.

Al-Jazirah newspaper quoted a Saudi Justice Ministry official saying King Abdullah issued a royal pardon Monday -- the same day that the Hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, begins in Saudi Arabia.

The victim's husband told CNN he has not received an official letter regarding her pardon, but considers it to be legitimate since it was announced in an official Saudi newspaper.

He thanked King Abdullah for the pardon, saying: "This fatherly care and noble gesture will help (in) lifting the emotional and psychological stress and suffering that our family has been enduring."

"This is not something new because we know that the King was always generous in dealing with his people and the entire world," the husband said. "This week, we have two holidays to celebrate; the Eid and this great news of the pardon."

Saudi sources told CNN that the king's pardon was not related to the beginning of the Hajj nor the Eid al-Adha festival that follows, which is normally when the Saudi monarch issues amnesty for prisoners.

Saudi Arabia's Justice Minister Abdullah Bin Mohammad al-Sheikh told al-Jazirah newspaper that the king felt the pardon would be in the best interests of the Saudi people, and the decision did not reflect any lack of confidence in the Saudi justice system.

The White House welcomed King Abdullah's decision, but National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe stressed that "this is obviously a matter for the Saudi Arabians and King Abdullah."....

Bully for them

Yeah, I was happy for her, but that really doesn't solve the problem.

Perhaps, though I doubt all rapes are reported.
Oh, I would say that few rapes in SA and in the ME are ever reported. What happens to a woman who is raped? Why her male relatives kill her of course. It's all about honor you know.:rolleyes: