A Saudi court has doubled the punishment it meted out to a gang-raped woman for speaking about her case. Now she is to get a six months jail term and 200 lashes for being the victim.
An official at the general court in Qatif said judges had increased the sentence because of the woman's "attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media".
"A courageous young woman faces lashing and prison for speaking out about her efforts to find justice," said a spokes for Human Rights Watch. "This 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."
Such nice human beings to do ministerial-level business with and offer royal hospitality to...
Baz, what bunk. Islamic fanatics were never in control of the Holy Land before the state of Israel, so why should they take over if Israel withdraws behind the pre-1967 borders as required under international law?
But if Israel doesn't comply, then all bets are off and anything - including the nightmare you mention, Baz - could indeed happen. If that doesn't concentrate western minds I don't know what will.
The way these regimes treat women is an absolute disgrace. There isn't enough of an outcry. I made myself watch the video of the young girl being stoned to death for having a relationship with someone out of her tribe. I didn't want to watch it but felt I had to appreciate the level brutality to understand it. It was terrible.
In Britain we lock people up for 6 months for having more than one consentual spouse (bigamy) which i suspect many foreign saudi type countries think is barbaric.
On Wednesday, 6 August 2003, Mr C was given an 18 month prison sentence for contempt of court for failing to comply with court injunctions.
This follows a long history of planning breaches and enforcement notices in relation to Mr Cs' illegal occupation of agricultural land on several locations throughout the borough.
Mr C has been in disagreement with the Council for many years over the use of land resulting in enforcement orders being made against him. Mr C persistently ignores the enforcement orders and the Council has therefore sought injunctions for compliance through the Court. In October 1999, Mr C was given a sentence of 14 days in prison after refusing to remove a mobile home from his land. He was given a sentence of 3 months for contempt of Court.
Despite these sentences Mr C still did not comply with the injunctions and on Tuesday, 5th August, Mr C was once again found guilty of breach of previous injunctions and was sentenced to nine months imprisonment suspended for two years. As he had a record of breaching planning laws on other sites, a borough-wide injunction to prevent Mr C siting his mobile home on any land without planning permission was also granted with immediate effect.
The borough-wide injunction is an innovative use of planning injunctions as a means of preventing individuals from deliberately and persistently ignoring planning regulations throughout the borough. The Council considered that this would be the most effective way of protecting agricultural land from misuse by Mr C and prevent his continual and flagrant abuse of the planning system.
So here in the UK someone was sent to 1 1/2 yrs in prison NOT for the "original offence" but for refusing to do what a court ordered they do.
This man was sentenced to 18 months in prison for putting a mobile home on HIS OWN LAND!
He possibly felt he was a victim of a law he did not agree with (it was HIS land) and he possibly feels he is a victim.
You have to appreciate in the devils advocate scenario, that the female rape victim going to the press could have an impact on any appeal the men may have launched, and maybe the saudis dont agree with trial by press.
Look at the recent Barry George stories by Panorama and ITV where they practically alluded to the fact he was innocent.
This before the appeal had been heard, or a judgement found in the impending retrial.
This is what happens when religion and monarchs are still allowed to run countries. And don't expect any protest from those democratic, freedom-loving nations the US and our own, because SA is a valuable ally to them.
The point i am making is that in the UK someone has been given an 18 month prison sentence because he INSISTS ON HAVING HIS MOBILE HOME ON HIS OWN LAND!!!!
Wheras a mugger may just get let off with a warning.
Quote:
In which case he has the right to appeal the decisions.
He cannot appeal against a law he does not agree with.
All he can do is campaign to get the law changed.
The point was the woman in Saudi was given the prison sentence for CONTEMPT OF COURT.
So was the man that refused to obey a court order preventing him from putting his mobile home on his own land.
Imagine for a moment you lived in Saudi Arabia and had never lived in Britain and you read the following. This is the same as above but spun in a different way..
"Hi, this is Saudi news. Some people in Europe don't agree with our values and traditions. Well we feel that Britain also abuses its powers.
A man was shot dead in England just for trying to get on an overcrowded london underground train. Some government police which were not even wearing any identifiable uniform jumped on top of him and before he knew what had happened he was shot dead.
They have locked up a man after they found out he had 2 wives living with him. That was the only reason they gave and he has been sentenced to 6 months in prison just for this.
And also they have sent a man to prison for 18 months just for putting his own home on his own land.
The police also sometimes kick and punch defendants during arrests and claim it is part of their training to do this.
They can also lock up suspects without telling them what they have supposedly done wrong.
They have TV detector vans which drive around their country spying on what people are watching in thier own homes.
And if you think that is bad, a british judge ordered a paedophile provide £250 to his victim saying "If it buys her a new bicycle, that's the sort of thing that might cheer her up.", implying it is ok to touch up girls providing you buy them a new bike. He had done this sort of thing before but was not locked up.story here
The rape case in Saudi Arabia is a disgrace. Vince Cable boycotted the visit of King Abdullah because of the appalling human rights record in that Country; Brown and Cameron should have joined him.
As a left-wing, liberal, I've never understood why so many people seem afraid to speak out cleary against the barbaric system of sharia law.
The government were supposed to be bringing up human rights issues during the recent state visit-according to the Saudis the subject was not raised and I've heard nothing from the government to dispute the claim.
Does anyone have any ideas as to why so many supposedly liberal people over here find it difficult to send out a clear message that Sharia law is a disgraceful, barbaric practice that can never be justified.
I have a lot of time for Ken Livingstone(maybe I better hide now lol) but didn't he invite some lunatic to London who expressed his support for executing homosexuals, adulterers and other 'sinners'? I can't remember the exact details but I'm sure Livingstone claimed that the man was a moderate!!
Sudan are getting in on the act now; arresting a British teacher for "insulting faith and religion".
For the dastardly crime of allowing her young pupils to name a teddy bear Mohammed, she is facing the prospect of 40 lashes or 6 months imprisonment. Not that this should be relevant but,according to CNN the school "on its website calls itself a ' British International School"
The last man to be sent to prison for blasphemy was John William Gott. In 1922 he was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for comparing Jesus with a circus clown. In Scotland, there has not been a public prosecution since 1843.
In 1977 moral campaigner Mary Whitehouse brought a private prosecution against the Gay News for publishing a poem, The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name, depicting a centurion's love for Christ.
This law is still on the statute books so in theory if someone today compared Jesus to a clown they too could get locked up i think.
Consider for a moment the rape that Mike Tyson was jailed for.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N4/tyson.04w.html
The undisputed facts were this.
Tyson and his victim went to a hotel room together.
They had sex.
Quote:
Arguing on Tyson's behalf, Fuller stood at a podium and, occasionally pounding his fist and raising his voice, argued that the accuser was a sophisticated young woman who knew what she was getting into when she accompanied the 5-foot-11, 200-plus pound boxer to Room 606 of the Canterbury Hotel in the wee hours of July 19.
By contrast, prosecutors portrayed her as a naive and star-struck young woman who was fooled by "a wolf in sheep's clothing." In a high-wire finale in which he invoked Indiana basketball coach Bob Knight, read Supreme Court case law and generated charisma. "Date rape is not half a crime," Garrison said. "It's a violent crime against a woman -- a crime that every man must recognize and do everything he can to prevent."
Many believe, quite simply that by accompanying him to his hotel she was "asking for it" and that had she refused earlier to go to his hotel room then the rape might not have taken place.
In some countries they believe that if the woman behaves in a way in which she encourages herself to be raped then she should also receive some punishment for tempting the man.
In today's modern world if a man takes a female stranger back to his hotel unless there are business related reasons well it is usually sex.
I believe in the original post the woman convicted broke some seperation laws about her getting into a car with strange men to discourage rape.
Well, essentially Saudi's laws on women’s conduct are morally guided, drawn from old traditions and religious doctrine. So 'moral law', folks. Those famous 'traditional family values'. :)
How many times have I come up against the traditional values brick wall on this board?
Well, in those cases I just smash into the Tory shariah, no?
Or is one’s moral doctrine superior to someone else’s? If so, isn’t that what the Saudis think regarding their laws?
Sure, I’m being a little facetious here, no doubt. But the argument is a sound one.
Outraged? Sure.
But then which traditional, moralist dogma does one endorse oneself?
When I hear David Cameron sniping about rap lyrics or films, when I hear David Davis harping on about sexualisation of society, then I hear moral bigotry and prejudice.
To me that's not that dissimilar from Ayatollahs banging on about hijabs.
When I hear people applauding them for these traditional values, it galls me to hear them criticise Saudis for enforcing their moral beliefs.
Why should the Saudis not have their prejudice if people over here insist on having theirs, - ‘because it’s right and proper’?
Sure, Saudi Arabia’s view of morality is cookoo.
But then to me law ought to be a highway code, not a moral doctrine.
Else doesn’t it just depend on whose golden calf, sorry, whose teddy bear gets named inappropriately?
In case there are scrolling issues here are some from that bbc news site:
Quote:
My 12-year-old son goes to the same school where Ms Gibbons is a teacher. The culture here, as elsewhere in the Islamic world, is very sensitive. That's why the story took such a direction. Maybe she didn't mean this to happen and it was an innocent mistake. But they don't accept that as an excuse. Lashes is a severe punishment and it is too harsh for what she did. But she has to be punished somehow. She should have learnt more about this society and taken more care about her actions. Me and other parents are not happy about the school closure. The children are going to miss so many classes and they were supposed to have exams next week. Now they have to stay at home and wait.
Fatima, Khartoum Sudan
I've been a student at the Unity High School for the last seven years. I am really worried about Miss Gillian. I don't know her because she teaches the younger schoolchildren, but I always see her playing with the kids and making them feel happy. She seems to be a wonderful teacher. I am a Muslim but I am not offended by what she did. She had no idea that it is forbidden. She should be freed.
Razan, Khartoum, Sudan
I believe this was a misunderstanding and the authorities are sensitive in light of the recent cartoon fiasco in Europe. I think it will be resolved and Miss Gibbons will eventually be cleared and allowed to go home. But it highlights how sensitive and defensive people have become. I pray it is all resolved soon and Ms Gibbions is allowed home.
Sultanah, Khartoum, Sudan
To feel offended by what the teacher did is impossible. She should not be punished for something like that. I believe that the teacher is in her right mind and is aware that she is in an Islamic country. I am sure she knows what can create religious tension and she wouldn't have done such a thing on purpose. The poor lady is being accused of a sin she did not commit. I hope and pray that the UK government will take this seriously and intervene with vigour before things get out of hand. Why aren't Muslim brothers taking more kindly to such things? Sanity my people!
Salma Aki, Khartoum Sudan
I was at the Unity High School when the event took place. I am a student there. I think it was a misunderstanding. I feel sorry for the teacher, sadly she lacked common sense. I am supporting Miss Gillian and I hope she can be free soon.
Mohamed Ahmed Osman, Khartoum, Sudan
I was born in Sudan. I moved to the UK two years ago. The teacher went to Sudan and she should have learnt the laws of that country. Here in England people think that what she did was an innocent mistake, but I don't think that. She was very wrong to make fun of the Prophet Muhammad. Boys are called Muhammad and that's alright because mothers are proud to name their sons after the Prophet. But to name a teddy bear after him is wrong. The teacher should be punished because she has insulted Islam and Muslim people.
Meizu, UK
I understand that where some immigrants come from Swan is a legal delicacy.
How would we have reacted if in another country, they said it was an outrage we lock him up for eating food he can eat at home, and that at worse he was just guilty of theft?
Shamsu Miah, 52, killed the mute swan at a boating pond in Llandudno, North Wales, on September 25.When challenged by police he said: “I am a Muslim, I am fasting, I needed to eat.” Llandudno magistrates were told that Miah, from the town, had white feathers stuck in his beard and blood on his shirt. Jim Neary, for the prosecution, said: “The officers told him the swan was the property of the Queen and he replied, ‘I hate the Queen, I hate this country’.”
Miah, who has no previous convictions, pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to intentionally killing a wild bird and possessing a bladed article. He was released from custody, having served two months on remand.
Regime change in Saudi, Jake? Unthinkable as long as they keep ordering death-dealing hardware from us. After all, we are as corrupt as they are
Just to clarify, I am never in favor of forceful regime change. I was merely being facetious. I certainly agree with the sentiment of Yorker's retort though.
Saudi is a demonic state, especially in its treatment of women! It is also a very powerful state. That aside, to participate in the world community Saudi MUST accept more humane behaviour or be ostrisised by all other nations. So, too, should Zimbabwe, and Sudan, and... Oh I wish that it could be enforced, but it's rather an idyllic dream!
Do you know, I am not sure of the validity of citing some of our own rediculous laws as comparisons to Saudi. After all the chap who stuck a caravan on his own land and got into trouble, daft as the punishment was, KNEW he was breaking the law and CHOSE to act in defiance of it. How does this compare with the woman who was gang raped? Where was her control? Where was her defiance of the law? Where was her guilt?
Both she and the man she got into a car with were given 90 lashes for "illegal mingling". The man she got into the car with was NOT one of the rapists and both did so consentually which is why both received equal punishment. The forced rape by OTHER men took place afterwards. One of them received a 1000 (yes 1000) lashes find and i think 5 years in prison.
In Saudi it is illegal for a woman to get into a car with a man that is not a family member or her husband.
That was the punishment for that crime.
You may not agree with that law and think it is barbaric but that is the law she broke.
The rapists were as i understand punished and sent to prison and/or an even more severe punishment (have to look it up).
She thn went to the press to complain about her punishment and case, which is contempt of court, as in thory that could jepardise any appeal the rapists could have made.
Because she spoke to the press about her case it was increased to 200 lashes.
If however, she had not got into a car with a strange man and a gang ran up to her and her husband (if she is married) and sexually attacked her, then she would not have received any punishment at all and they would have been punished.
The British Equivilant (nastier though it is) would be this.
A bigamist woman marries 2 men. They all get into a car together. A gang attack the car. She is raped. She goes to the police. Police ask about others in the car and find out she has 2 husbands.
She would be charged with bigamy and given a 6 month prison sentence.
If before that happened she spoke out in the press about her cases, then she could also have her sentence extended for contempt of court.
So in Britain a bigamist rape victim could be locked up for 6 months and have her sentence increased if she talked about it in violation of a court order.
Suppose one man in britain had 2 wives. If they got into a car and then were attacked by a gang which raped the women then if the police found out they were knowlingly bigamously married to the man in the car they would be arrested and tried for conspiracy to bigamy. I do not know what the sentence is for that.
Wheras in Saudi the women would not be punished at all, because bigamy is allowed in saudi (well i know a man can have more than 1 wife).
So, in Britain we would punish female rape victims for something that would not be punished in Saudi.
If you read the original article in Al Jazera it says this:
Quote:
In October 2006, the woman was sentenced to 90 lashes for what the court called "illegal mingling".
According to Human Rights Watch, the woman said she had met a male friend who had promised to return a photograph of her.
A Saudi woman can only have a husband or
a male relative as an escort in public
After she met him in his car, the pair were attacked by a gang of seven men who allegedly raped them both several times.
The man was also sentenced to 90 lashes. Of the gang prosecuted in the case, four were convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to between one and five years in prison and between 80 and 1,000 lashes, Human Rights Watch said.
I.e. Punishment for illegal mingling (her being with a strange man in a car) 90 lashes for each.
Punishment for the rapists: 1-5 years in jail and 80 - 1000 lashes each.
Her sentence was then incresed by 110 lashes for talking to the press in contempt of court.
You may not agree with thier laws, but I very much doubt she was unaware of the punishment for illegal mingling. She possibly was a feminist trying to change the law.
Nothing wrong with that. Larry Flint spent years in prison so men could see explicit maagazines with consenting adults.
But at the time he published the material, he knew he was breaking the law.
And when she got into a car with a stranre man she knew the pubishment.
Supposing for example, in Britain a woman was raped in town centre.
Trouble is she is tagged, having been let out of prison earlyy, and not meant to be in the town centre after a certain time, so having breached her tag conditions she would be locked up to finish her sentence despite being raped.
The saudis punished the saudi woman for CONSENTUALLY WITHOUT FORCE getting into a car with a strange man(that didnt rape her). She was not punished for UNINTENTIONALLY AGAINST HER WILL "Mingling" with the rapists.
"In the UK a woman has been locked up in prison for being raped in the town centre.
She was wearing a tag which meant she was not allowed to be in the town centre. Also her friend was also raped and she had a court order banning her from being in the pub she had just come out of.
In both cases the women were jailed for contempt of court.
In a seperate story a convicted rapist was spared jail because the judge said that the victim looked older than she was and it was believed that she actually wanted and enjoyed it. The Judge even said "She was looking for a man and got what she wanted."
".
You can try and defend the actions but think how the Saudis might see it.
