Outrageous Injustice: Saudi Woman Sentenced to Jail, Lashes

[Mk]

See? I still like my Israeli commando idea.

 

[wildman]

Not sure what Jesus has to do with any of this. Mohammad did not start Islam until ~700AD. What is your proposal for fixing the problem?

Oh, no connection. It is that Jesus was one of the few men in history willing to stand up to the religious leaders of the day. Of course, Jesus eventually got strung up for it. It is just a good quote and fitting in this case. These characters are truly a den of vipers.

Fixing the problem? You think I am some kind of genius? I am not. I complain, but in this case I have no solution. I just wanted to point out that these guys know what they are doing and they know it is wrong.

 

[DaveC426913]

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

OK, now this is starting to drift into generalized bashing of a specific religion (two separate no-nos for those who are counting).

I think this thread is bound for the food dish of the Lockness Monster.

I don't think brutal behavior should be immune from criticism just because the perpetrators say it is a part of their religion.

What? I'm just saying this thread is drifting outside forum bounds.

 

[Evo]

OK, now this is starting to drift into generalized bashing of a specific religion (two separate no-nos for those who are counting).

Good point Dave. Let's not get into religion bashing and stay more on the law/human rights aspect. This gets rather difficult with Islamic law since the religion itself is the law in Saudi Arabia.

I guess a good example of stopping archaic traditions is China's banning of the binding of women's feet.

A good read for those that might not be too familiar with this practice.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8966942

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't see how quoting the source of Islamic laws and detailing and or condemning examples of it's implementation equates to a 'generalized bashing of a specific religion' unless the practioners of the religion are embarassed to have these details known

You should, however, include links to the sources.

 

[Delzac]

The point is human rights itself is not universal, some cultures find certain practices permissible and others, a taboo. What is permissible last time(slavery) is frown upon today. The Law of Segregation can very well be seen as a restriction placed on women to prevent their modesty from being breached, although more liberal cultures find this Law irksome.

 

[J77]

This has nothing to do with religion, just idiots of the first order running the country.

It's barbabic. It has no place in the world today. However, who's going to give the aforementioned primeval nob-jockeys a slap on the wrist?

Surplus nation.

 

[fleem]

But...thats their law, and regardless of how other people see it, they intend (or seem to intend) to want to follow these laws

Whom do you mean as "they"? The women?

 

[mjsd]

The point is human rights itself is not universal, some cultures find certain practices permissible and others, a taboo. What is permissible last time(slavery) is frown upon today. The Law of Segregation can very well be seen as a restriction placed on women to prevent their modesty from being breached, although more liberal cultures find this Law irksome.

I've been reading all the posts. Although I agree with many on this board that such law/punishment is unjustifiable, uncivilised and disgusting, it is perhaps true that human rights itself is not universal. far from it!
Over time different cultures would change and evolve, some change faster than others, and some take on different directions. In our opinion, based on our own values/education, and at this particular time/era, we see that these laws are absurd, however, there is nothing universal about what/how we think. 500 years from now when people in the future look back to what we do now, I am sure that they will have more than a few things to say about our values, our so-called laws.

Give u a common example: 300-400 years ago, if you say anything that defies the church's teachings, you would be sent to the inquisition and burnt alive as a heretic. Barbaric by today standard? surely.
Now, society has changed, because the thinking of the common people has changed.
And until that has also happened in the Islamic states (ie. the ppl changes their own values/thinking), it is perhaps incorrect for us to impose our values on them and force them to change, even though we could try to persuade them, encourage them and educate them so that they could change or judge for themselves.

 

[out of whack]

I don't think anyone can claim that the population really wants their laws and their rights to be what they are since they are in no position to make a choice. No elections, you see... They may very well say in some interview that they love their ways and their king, and death to America. But give everyone a voice in their country's politics and see if they really mean that.

 

[mjsd]

I don't think anyone can claim that the population really wants their laws and their rights to be what they are since they are in no position to make a choice. No elections, you see... They may very well say in some interview that they love their ways and their king, and death to America. But give everyone a voice in their country's politics and see if they really mean that.

perhaps the issue at hand is a bit sensitive and that people get very emotional very easily. But one fact is clear though: the thinkings in those societies are probably not monolithic. As a result, no matter how many fair elections you conduct, you will never get 99% in support of or against these laws (for whatever reasons). In true democracy, one would find that nothing can be done because ppl never agrees. Anyway, what I am getting at is that there is no good way to ascertain whether the public really wants/hates these laws, and because of lack of information, we cannot even judge on them as if we do know! That's the real dilemma, if the world is more black and white and clear-cut, we don't have to sit down and talk about what is universally good and what is not.

another example, burning the national flag in America is a (serious) crime , but it is not in country like Australia. So, should Australia starts telling America how silly their laws are or vice-versa? Some may say why is burning a flag (just a piece of cloth with a few stars, you don't hurt anyone physically in the process) be regarded as a crime? Some may say otherwise. Who is right? who has better moral high grounds??

Back to original issue, we condemn such outrageous laws based on our own values, and hope that they would change, but often the same applies for the other side and they want us to change and become like them instead. If either side changes there will be no more arguments (some sufferings may continue though).

 

[Gokul43201]

Anyway, what I am getting at is that there is no good way to ascertain whether the public really wants/hates these laws, and because of lack of information, we cannot even judge on them as if we do know!

Might we at least fault them for not letting theie own people have a say in these laws. We don't know whether they like the laws because they are not permitted to express an opinion. Might we not object, at least, to the denial of this permission? Or are we to just sit around and accept the circular logic (that follows from virtually any religiously based legal system) that their laws prevent them from expressing their opinions on the laws, and the law knows what's good for the people!

 

[EnumaElish]

In 700 AD these punishments were probably not unduly harsh in the context of society at that time but the rest of the world has moved on and developed.

"Including, many (probably most) of the Muslim world" is what you meant, I was sure, until I read:

This development cannot happen in the Islamic world for to try to start a debate or question the punishments proscribed in the Qur'an is itself under the Qur'an punishable by death.

"Aargh, please kill me now!"

 

[EnumaElish]

This just burns me up.

And what a great incentive to seek out and rape Saudi couples "in love but not in law."

(Rapist to victim: "Go ahead and report me, but remember what will happen to you, too, if you do. You'd be better off keeping silent. -- BTW, are you going to be hanging around here with your BF next Friday?")

 

[mjsd]

Might we at least fault them for not letting theie own people have a say in these laws. We don't know whether they like the laws because they are not permitted to express an opinion. Might we not object, at least, to the denial of this permission? Or are we to just sit around and accept the circular logic (that follows from virtually any religiously based legal system) that their laws prevent them from expressing their opinions on the laws, and the law knows what's good for the people!

pal, fair point. It is entirely possible that the laws themselves prevent them to be challenged (all in the names of god/culture/whatever). They may continue to brainwash their ppl into believing that these laws are absolutely correct and that ours are wrong; as a result ppl there will continue to suffer... and their entire populuation will never "growth" out of this. So, can we do anything? Well, we, as ppl from outside, could only do so much without interferring with the choices that others made, otherwise, we ourselves become the so-called "dictators" who tend to dictate what others should do. Strictly speaking, we don't have that right to impose/force others to be with us, with our values. All we could do is reach out with a heart and hope that they would realize that those continual suffering may not be the best way to go about things. If they don't listen, then they will have to learn the lesson the hard way. ie. continue to suffer, the culture and civilisation continue to linger in the "stone age"... and they will suffer the consequences, and perhaps self-destruct one day.

 

[wildman]

I've been reading all the posts. Although I agree with many on this board that such law/punishment is unjustifiable, uncivilised and disgusting, it is perhaps true that human rights itself is not universal. far from it!
Over time different cultures would change and evolve, some change faster than others, and some take on different directions. In our opinion, based on our own values/education, and at this particular time/era, we see that these laws are absurd, however, there is nothing universal about what/how we think. 500 years from now when people in the future look back to what we do now, I am sure that they will have more than a few things to say about our values, our so-called laws.

Give u a common example: 300-400 years ago, if you say anything that defies the church's teachings, you would be sent to the inquisition and burnt alive as a heretic. Barbaric by today standard? surely.
Now, society has changed, because the thinking of the common people has changed.
And until that has also happened in the Islamic states (ie. the ppl changes their own values/thinking), it is perhaps incorrect for us to impose our values on them and force them to change, even though we could try to persuade them, encourage them and educate them so that they could change or judge for themselves.

I don't know if things really change that much. It is what the leaders can get away with rather than some change in the society. It is all about power. One of the points of the Jesus quote I made above is that he was condeming exactly this kind of behavior 2000 years ago. Yet as you pointed out 1700 years later religious leaders were doing the exact thing he was condeming (in his name no less!). Strange no?

The problem is not in Saudi or Islamic culture. To imply that is really an insult to the (vast majority) of the good people in those states. The problem is the absolute power given to the religious leaders of those states. These leaders should not be allowed to hide behind their culture like some kind of shield. The religious leaders in Jesus' day knew what they were doing was wrong (that is why they strung him up), the Christian leaders knew it was wrong 300 years ago and the Islamic leaders know what they are doing is wrong today. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. Period.

Long live separation of Church and State!

 

[Gokul43201]

So, can we do anything? Well, we, as ppl from outside, could only do so much without interferring with the choices that others made, otherwise, we ourselves become the so-called "dictators" who tend to dictate what others should do. Strictly speaking, we don't have that right to impose/force others to be with us, with our values. All we could do is reach out with a heart and hope that they would realize that those continual suffering may not be the best way to go about things. If they don't listen, then they will have to learn the lesson the hard way. ie. continue to suffer, the culture and civilisation continue to linger in the "stone age"... and they will suffer the consequences, and perhaps self-destruct one day.

The prime directive doesn't really apply here (this is more at Dave's argument) because these people do not live in unaffected isolation. They travel outside the ME (many of them emigrate to other coutries); they trade with the rest of the world; they participate in sporting meets; they accept humanitarian aid from the outside world and they enjoy membership in global organizations like the UN. In other words, they have chosen to open themselves up to external pressures, whether they be in the form of trade limitations, denial of memberships, exclusion from participation in events or refusal of aid.

However, they have little to fear in the form of aggressive external pressure so long as they hold their trump card: oil.

 

[mjsd]

The prime directive doesn't really apply here (this is more at Dave's argument) because these people do not live in unaffected isolation. They travel outside the ME (many of them emigrate to other coutries); they trade with the rest of the world; they participate in sporting meets; they accept humanitarian aid from the outside world and they enjoy membership in global organizations like the UN. In other words, they have chosen to open themselves up to external pressures, whether they be in the form of trade limitations, denial of memberships, exclusion from participation in events or refusal of aid.

However, they have little to fear in the form of aggressive external pressure so long as they hold their trump card: oil.

I must say that there is nothing seriously incorrect about what you have said here. The sticking point, however, has always been where to draw the line?

There is no doubt that if those countries, like u said, wish to enjoy the benefit of being part of the global family, they must play by the rules. If you want to get a slice of the cake, you must join the party first. I guess there are ppl/countries who gatecrash just because they have enough arms/oil.

So, ignoring the complex politics for the moment, the first question that come to my mind is who should set these rules? US? Europe? Asia? Islam? Christian Groups? Catholic Church? Buddists? Environmentalists? Immediately, one would have a problem. Because people from different background will inevitably have different values and ideals. And it is sometimes (or always) hard to say outright who is right and who is wrong.

Now, if you put in the elements of politics/veseted interests/religious fundamentalism/$$$, the "truth" would probably be further obscured. And we often have this misleading picture of "good guys" vs "bad guys".

There is no easy solution to the problem, I admit. In fact, a solution may not even exist. But one must ask the question: how much one should cross the line. Because if we allow ourselves to cross the line (based on our own values) by X amount, there is no reason why the other side cannot be allowed to cross the line (based on their values) by X amount towards our direction either; unless, we are somehow inherently better by default (mind you ppl may need to get an universal agreement on this first), and so we can over-rule others! A bit like a parent teaching a child, the child may always think s/he is right, while with a good heart (hopefully no politics here!) the parent is trying to help by over-ruling her/him. But hey, should we regard ourselves as the parent in this situation? More importantly, would they see us as the parent?

I think the best we could do is to play the role of an adviser. But surely, an adviser has no real powers and cannot force change effectively. Ok, basically, you can't have it both ways, you either get your hands dirty or you don't. And whether it is more correct to get your hands dirty to force something you believe is correct, it is just a matter of opinion. There is really nothing universal about it.

This is basically my point (hopefully clarified). And, surely, I hope that one day they would realize what might be better for themselves. Thanks for reading.

 

[Astronuc]

I agree with the thread title - the flogging of the woman in question is an outrageous injustice. The infliction of bodily injury (corporal punishment) upon a person is retribution, not justice.

Justice is about meting out punishment to fit the crime, ostensibly to discourage one from repeating the crime and others from committing the crime. The woman violated a law (an unjust law IMO). But does the punishment of 200 lashes constitute justice? I declare NO - and to me that is self-evident.

A law is unjust if it is applied selectively and non-uniformly.


The government/society in Saudi Arabia is repressive. I believe the West must speak out against this current example of injustice and all injustices, as opposed to quietly (and tacitly) accepting/ignoring it. Injustice is wrong and needs to be eliminated.

At the same time, we in the west need to work for justice in our own communities and in our daily lives. This is an example of being consistent in order to be credible.


It was only 40-50 years ago that African-Americans had to pressure the US governments (federal/state/local) into guaranteeing certain basic human/civil rights. I certainly remember watching television news which broadcast the local government leaders and police (all white) attacking unarmed African-American demonstrators, and those who were trying to exercise their inalienable rights to vote or participate in democratic elections.

Looking back further - it was a capitable crime in one or more American colonies to be a heretic or hold beliefs contrary to the established church, which was, in some (possibly all) cases, the Church of England.

 

[siddharth]

Saudi Arabia's Justice Ministry said a girl who it sentenced to jail time and flogging after being gang raped by seven men was an adulteress who invited the attack because at the time she was partially dressed in a parked car with her lover.

"The Saudi justice minister expressed his regret about the media reports over the role of the women in this case which put out false information and wrongly defended her"

It said the sentence of prison and lashes, handed down last week following an appeal, was legal and followed the "the book of God and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad," noting that she had "confessed to doing what God has forbidden."

...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gatdiDluEsGnwNSjGRpufAW_7flQD8T50G880

The danger of basing laws on religious texts. It shows just how sick and twisted they are by actually blaming her for "inviting" the attack.

"We reiterate that judicial rulings in this virtuous country ... are based on God's book and the traditions of his Prophet and that no ruling is issued without being based on evidence,

That is just so sad.

 

[Moridin]

Here is another story along the same lines:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7112929.stm

"A British schoolteacher has been arrested in Sudan accused of insulting [Religious Icon], after she allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear [Name of Religious Icon].

Colleagues of Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, said she made an "innocent mistake" by letting the six and seven-year-olds choose the name.

Ms Gibbons was arrested after several parents made complaints.

The BBC has learned the charge could lead to six months in jail, 40 lashes or a fine."

 

[J77]

Why did you say "religious icon" instead of "Big Mo"?

 

[Moridin]

Why did you say "religious icon" instead of "Big Mo"?

I though [Religious Icon] was more respectful and/or less confrontational.

 

[J77]

She got 15 days in jail -- which won't be very nice for her :(

BBC have put together a nice article on what can't be called Mo -- apparently, it's also the 2nd most popular name for baby boys in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7115821.stm

"Millions of Muslim children in Muslim nations give their dolls, pets and teddies Muslim names of the Prophet and his mother, daughters and wives."

This seems more a local, lack of awareness of the outside world thing than a religious one.

Having said that, she should have known the local customs having lived there.

 

[Astronuc]

"You're not supposed to give a religious name to any objects - it could be seen as idolatry."

from BBC article. I guess I have a problem with this - "it COULD be seen . . . ".

Children (people) give names to objects or pets out of 'affection' for those objects or pets. That is NOT idolatry. Those objects/pets are not worshipped, but simply a source of affection.

Geez, some people need to lighten up.

 

[Evo]

It's gotten worse, they've had to move the teacher due to calls for her execution. It seems the Islamic community in other coutries are speaking out against this.

KHARTOUM, Sudan - Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Muhammad.

In response to the demonstration, teacher Gillian Gibbons was moved from the women's prison near Khartoum to a secret location for her safety, her lawyer said.

The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gibbons, who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.

They massed in central Martyrs Square outside the presidential palace, where hundreds of riot police were deployed. They did not try to stop the rally, which lasted about an hour.

"Shame, shame on the U.K.," protesters chanted.

They called for Gibbons' execution, saying, "No tolerance: Execution," and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071130/ap_on_re_af/sudan_british_teacher

 

[Andre]

Who thought that the dark ages were over?

 

[russ_watters]

Does anyone else think the teacher in the Sudan is dumb for appealing her sentence? Doesn't she see the parallel with what happened to the woman in Saudia Arabia? They could always decide to up the sentence. And even after she goes free, she's going to need to leave because she's in serious danger of being lynched - so just take your 15 days of jail and then get the heck out of Dodge.

 

[turbo]

Does anyone else think the teacher in the Sudan is dumb for appealing her sentence? Doesn't she see the parallel with what happened to the woman in Saudia Arabia? They could always decide to up the sentence. And even after she goes free, she's going to need to leave because she's in serious danger of being lynched - so just take your 15 days of jail and then get the heck out of Dodge.

Definitely dumb! There are enough hard-liners screaming for blood that she is better off gone, and the sooner the better.

 

[Evo]

Does anyone else think the teacher in the Sudan is dumb for appealing her sentence? Doesn't she see the parallel with what happened to the woman in Saudia Arabia? They could always decide to up the sentence. And even after she goes free, she's going to need to leave because she's in serious danger of being lynched - so just take your 15 days of jail and then get the heck out of Dodge.

When did she appeal the sentence, I hadn't seen that?? Anyway, the article says that she is being held for 15 days to serve her jail sentence then being deported.