Thracian Posted 21 November 2007 Posted 21 November 2007 From Yahoo News: RIYADH, Saudi Arabia The Saudi judiciary on Tuesday defended a court verdict that sentenced a 19-year-old victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes because she was with an unrelated male when they were attacked. The Shiite Muslim woman had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes after being convicted of violating Saudi Arabia's rigid Islamic law requiring segregation of the sexes. But in considering her appeal of the verdict, the Saudi General Court increased the punishment. It also roughly doubled prison sentences for the seven men convicted of raping the woman, Saudi news media said last week. The reports triggered an international outcry over the Saudis punishing the victim of a terrible crime. But the Ministry of Justice stood by the verdict Tuesday, saying that "charges were proven" against the woman for having been in a car with a man who was not her relative. The ministry implied the victim's sentence was increased because she spoke out to the press. "For whoever has an objection on verdicts issued, the system allows an appeal without resorting to the media," said the statement, which was carried on the official Saudi Press Agency. The attack occurred in 2006. The victim says she was in a car with a male student she used to know trying to retrieve a picture of her. She says two men got into the car and drove them to a secluded area where she was raped by seven men. Her friend also was assaulted. Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by a system of religious courts according to the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islamic law. Judges have wide discretion in punishing criminals, rules of evidence are vague and sometimes no defense lawyer is present. The result, critics say, are sentences left to the whim of judges. A rapist, for instance, could receive anywhere from a light sentence to death. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack avoided directly criticizing the Saudi judiciary over the case, but said the verdict "causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment." "It is within the power of the Saudi government to take a look at the verdict and change it," McCormack said. Canada's minister for women's issues, Jose Verger, has called the sentence "barbaric." The New York-based Human Rights Watch said the verdict "not only sends victims of sexual violence the message that they should not press charges, but in effect offers protection and impunity to the perpetrators."
BigGibbo Posted 21 November 2007 Posted 21 November 2007 From Yahoo News:RIYADH, Saudi Arabia The Saudi judiciary on Tuesday defended a court verdict that sentenced a 19-year-old victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes because she was with an unrelated male when they were attacked. The Shiite Muslim woman had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes after being convicted of violating Saudi Arabia's rigid Islamic law requiring segregation of the sexes. Yep thats one of our great allies As an aside bit harsh calling her a shite muslim (does that joke fly) im leaving.
Nationwider Posted 21 November 2007 Posted 21 November 2007 Those crazy Saudis, blazing a trail for human rights as usual. *sighs*
Thracian Posted 21 November 2007 Author Posted 21 November 2007 I've never known the human rights lobby so quiet.
Steven Posted 21 November 2007 Posted 21 November 2007 I've never known the human rights lobby so quiet. This passes for Human Rights nowadays.
The People's Hero Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 I've never known the human rights lobby so quiet. Perhaps they are waiting for a chance to get a work in edgeways, Thracian
Alexikokopops Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 Perhaps they are waiting for a chance to get a work in edgeways, Thracian Pssst.... word, not work!
Fez of Mahrez Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 I've never known the human rights lobby so quiet. Yeah I bet Amnesty International are laughing this one up.
Thracian Posted 22 November 2007 Author Posted 22 November 2007 Perhaps they are waiting for a chance to get a work in edgeways, Thracian That's a sidestep because getting a word in never been a problem for you. Yet you remain so silent on the issue. Strange.
Thracian Posted 22 November 2007 Author Posted 22 November 2007 Yeah I bet Amnesty International are laughing this one up. I was talking the FoxesTalk Human Rights lobby.
Alexikokopops Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 That's a sidestep because getting a word in never been a problem for you.Yet you remain so silent on the issue. Strange. What are you actually trying to imply with comments like that and this: I've never known the human rights lobby so quiet. Because I'm quite confused.
Thracian Posted 22 November 2007 Author Posted 22 November 2007 What are you actually trying to imply with comments like that and this:Because I'm quite confused. I'm not "implying" anything at all. I am frequently and falsely labelled all sorts of "ists" by TPH. Anything "ist", even imaginary "ists" are meat and drink for the guy and this, as far as I can see, is just about as "ist" as it gets. Yet, for one with so much to say on so many things, he utters not a word on the subject. I find that strange.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 I was talking the FoxesTalk Human Rights lobby. And who would that consist of, exactly??
Dr The Singh Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 There are many "democratic" nations that do alot worse to there people!!! Not that I condone this kind of behaviour!!!
Thracian Posted 22 November 2007 Author Posted 22 November 2007 And who would that consist of, exactly?? I'd have thought that you, of all people, would be bright enough to have your own opinion and that it would have been perfectly clear by now anyway, seeing the thread has been up for 20-odd hours. But no. Plenty of asides to cloud the issue yet very little comment at all. I'm even a little surprised you've not commented yourself. Sincere apologies if I'm mistaken, but weren't you into politics? And if you were I would be interested in your view considering Saudi Arabia is a major ally of the West and their Head of State was recently our country's honoured guest.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 I'd have thought that you, of all people, would be bright enough to have your own opinion and that it would have been perfectly clear by now anyway, seeing the thread has been up for 20-odd hours.But no. Plenty of asides to cloud the issue yet very little comment at all. I'm even a little surprised you've not commented yourself. Sincere apologies if I'm mistaken, but weren't you into politics? And if you were I would be interested in your view considering Saudi Arabia is a major ally of the West and their Head of State was recently our country's honoured guest. I honestly would have thought it'd be pretty obvious what my view would be, and equally obvious that I never waste my time on stating my opinion in threads like these because no good ever comes of it.
Finnegan Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 I was talking the FoxesTalk Human Rights lobby. Or shatting it over job interviews.
Daggers Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 I'd have thought that you, of all people, would be bright enough to have your own opinion At no point was it your intention to discover the relative viewpoints on Saudi law. You slapped a quote up with no point, no comment and then have the audacity to accuse others of not having an opinion. You posted the thread with the intention of provoking an argument; a shitty little personal argument rather than a reasoned intellectual debate. It really is quite pathetic.
Thracian Posted 22 November 2007 Author Posted 22 November 2007 I honestly would have thought it'd be pretty obvious what my view would be, and equally obvious that I never waste my time on stating my opinion in threads like these because no good ever comes of it. Conveniently evasive - I'm sure you'll go far. . And, sorry, but I wouldn't presume anything about your views.
Thracian Posted 22 November 2007 Author Posted 22 November 2007 At no point was it your intention to discover the relative viewpoints on Saudi law. You slapped a quote up with no point, no comment and then have the audacity to accuse others of not having an opinion.You posted the thread with the intention of provoking an argument; a shitty little personal argument rather than a reasoned intellectual debate. It really is quite pathetic. You are totally wrong about that. Indeed you sound exactly like TPH in giving a totally false impression and, for someone I may have mistakenly understood to be a teacher, it hardly does you justice. I have long been greatly interested in Islamic laws/viewpoint. Indeed I still have two detailed books on the subject which should go back to The Singh as I'm sure he would confirm. I have an Islamic website bookmarked and am a regular reader about Islamic matters. TPH suggests I comment too much and he cannot get a word in. I find the subject of Islam compelling. I didn't comment specifically because I was and am particularly interested in other people's views. I have voiced my own opinions about Islamic justice on several occasions and thnk that, while the brutalality of Islamic law does much to maintain the power over people that the religion is meant to maintain, it does much to hold back the progress of Islam in a spiritual sense.
mancunianfox Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 You are totally wrong about that. I am greatly interested in Islamic laws/viewpoint. Indeed I still have two detailed books on the subject which should go back to The Singh as I'm sure he would confirm.I have an Islamic website bookmarked and am a regular reader about Islamic matters. I find the subject both compelling. Still doesn't change the fact that your original post had nothing to do with the topic and you were just trying to provoke an argument.
The People's Hero Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 I'm not "implying" anything at all. I am frequently and falsely labelled all sorts of "ists" by TPH. Anything "ist", even imaginary "ists" are meat and drink for the guy and this, as far as I can see, is just about as "ist" as it gets. Yet, for one with so much to say on so many things, he utters not a word on the subject. I find that strange. I haven't said anything on the issue because quite frankly I think there is nothing to be said. For what it's worth, I see the judgement as fairly deplorable. That said, I have such little knowledge of islamic law, culture, tradition etc that presenting a genuine 'opinion' as such on it would be only as valid and useful as any comment which you would make on football, leicester city football club or in fact anything else. It's a sensitive issue and not one which I fancy commenting on whilst being unarmed with any of the relevant facts, just a subjective piece in the media, posted by a poster who has his own discourse and it certainly isn't the pursuit of a reasoned argument.
Dr The Singh Posted 22 November 2007 Posted 22 November 2007 You are totally wrong about that. I am greatly interested in Islamic laws/viewpoint. Indeed I still have two detailed books on the subject which should go back to The Singh as I'm sure he would confirm.I have an Islamic website bookmarked and am a regular reader about Islamic matters. I find the subject both compelling. Yes, i can confirm, Thrac has an interest in islam, and still owes me a few beers, and my books!!! :
Thracian Posted 22 November 2007 Author Posted 22 November 2007 Still doesn't change the fact that your original post had nothing to do with the topic and you were just trying to provoke an argument. I think if people are invited to comment on any subject it is virtually, by definition, argumentative. Is that a problem? So long as it remained constructive I cannot see that Mark would mind one bit. It is what this site depends on to a great extent.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.