lol. Pardoning someone who was subjected to several unwelcome penises.
The funny thing is the guy pardoned her only coz it serves the interest of the country not because he thinks the sentence was wrong. What an amazing asshole.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Pardoning someone who was subjected to several unwelcome penises.
Leaves you to wonder how many people haven't been rescued by the press.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-17 03:41:53)
QFTunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Leaves you to wonder how many people haven't been rescued by the press.
I'm so glad l live in the UK, some of the things here make me wonder at times but by christ it could never be that far wrong!
Same thing happened in Australia recently.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Leaves you to wonder how many people haven't been rescued by the press.
/sageusmarine2005 wrote:
Same thing happened in Australia recently.
Hmmm... I hate it that she was raped, and the guys should CLEARLY be hung by the testes and imprisoned for raping her, but the sentence was for a separate crime.
Let's do it like this: You are in a car, and you have crystal meth and a bunch of needles and a bunch of baggies to sell the junk with you in your car, and you get carjacked and somebody beats the shit out of you. They should obviously punish the carjackers, but you're going to get prosecuted for the meth.
She was prosecuted for having an illegal affair, not for being raped. Bummer that that's how she got caught, but in that society, affairs are a no-no and the fact that she was unfortunately raped (and I'm all for fucking those guys in the asses with baseball bats) doesn't mitigate the fact that she was committing a crime when a crime was committed against her.
She was guilty of a dumbass crime, one that shouldn't be illegal, but it is, she knew it was, and she was doing it. Bad call on her part. Had she been stopped for running a red light and subsequently busted for the affair she'd have been sentenced and nobody over here would even know about the lashes. The rape is tainting everyone's view of the crime/punishment.
Let's do it like this: You are in a car, and you have crystal meth and a bunch of needles and a bunch of baggies to sell the junk with you in your car, and you get carjacked and somebody beats the shit out of you. They should obviously punish the carjackers, but you're going to get prosecuted for the meth.
She was prosecuted for having an illegal affair, not for being raped. Bummer that that's how she got caught, but in that society, affairs are a no-no and the fact that she was unfortunately raped (and I'm all for fucking those guys in the asses with baseball bats) doesn't mitigate the fact that she was committing a crime when a crime was committed against her.
She was guilty of a dumbass crime, one that shouldn't be illegal, but it is, she knew it was, and she was doing it. Bad call on her part. Had she been stopped for running a red light and subsequently busted for the affair she'd have been sentenced and nobody over here would even know about the lashes. The rape is tainting everyone's view of the crime/punishment.
It may have been a dumbass crime, but by extension, it's a dumbass law.
It's a shame we even have to do business with these loathsome people. Maybe their culture will evolve one day.
It's a shame we even have to do business with these loathsome people. Maybe their culture will evolve one day.
Really? Honestly, I have no idea. I've been cut off from Australian news for a week and a half so the King of Botswana could've annexed Perth and I wouldn't have known.usmarine2005 wrote:
Same thing happened in Australia recently.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I have heard the opinion of a man who lived in Saudi Arabia for a good number of years.
Regarding whipping, he noted that it is not painful, nor meant to be painful, but instead to humiliate the person in front of the nation. He cited the example of a few Brits who were punished several years ago by whipping, only to return home a few days later in no worse shape. Now, I am not entirely sure of this- Does anyone else have any information that would corroborate this in a similar manner? It seems somewhat strange, but I would not be surprised if our media takes care to ensure a more scandalous news story by not doing their homework.
Regarding whipping, he noted that it is not painful, nor meant to be painful, but instead to humiliate the person in front of the nation. He cited the example of a few Brits who were punished several years ago by whipping, only to return home a few days later in no worse shape. Now, I am not entirely sure of this- Does anyone else have any information that would corroborate this in a similar manner? It seems somewhat strange, but I would not be surprised if our media takes care to ensure a more scandalous news story by not doing their homework.
Humiliation might be more of the nature behind this punishment, but I wouldn't put brutality past any culture of this region. Saudi Arabia has never been known for its human rights or women's rights, for that matter.
Yeah but 200 lashes would probably smart after a bit. And it's the fact that she's being punished for being raped which is the question.Drakef wrote:
I have heard the opinion of a man who lived in Saudi Arabia for a good number of years.
Regarding whipping, he noted that it is not painful, nor meant to be painful, but instead to humiliate the person in front of the nation. He cited the example of a few Brits who were punished several years ago by whipping, only to return home a few days later in no worse shape. Now, I am not entirely sure of this- Does anyone else have any information that would corroborate this in a similar manner? It seems somewhat strange, but I would not be surprised if our media takes care to ensure a more scandalous news story by not doing their homework.
Isn't she being punished for being in a car with non family members?Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Yeah but 200 lashes would probably smart after a bit. And it's the fact that she's being punished for being raped which is the question.Drakef wrote:
I have heard the opinion of a man who lived in Saudi Arabia for a good number of years.
Regarding whipping, he noted that it is not painful, nor meant to be painful, but instead to humiliate the person in front of the nation. He cited the example of a few Brits who were punished several years ago by whipping, only to return home a few days later in no worse shape. Now, I am not entirely sure of this- Does anyone else have any information that would corroborate this in a similar manner? It seems somewhat strange, but I would not be surprised if our media takes care to ensure a more scandalous news story by not doing their homework.
From what I can tell from the article, yes. She was in the car with the other guy getting a photograph (which was the "crime" she commited) when both people were abducted and raped.Fallschirmjager10 wrote:
Isn't she being punished for being in a car with non family members?
It should be noted that the man she was with was also raped by the seven guys, and that he was also sentenced to be lashed (90 lashes I think). BBC's report on the story said that they had no idea if he'd been pardoned or not. I guess that at least shows they were being vaguely fair in terms of gender-bias... I guess... (clutching at straws here)
It's pretty fucked up, tbh. A sentence of 200 lashes... I don't know exactly how the Saudi's carry out their whippings, but I've read a lot about naval history, back when people were lashed regularly. Back then 200 lashes was pretty much a really slow, painful death sentence. Anything over two dozen lashes was extreme. 200 lashes across the back would have left you with literally no skin on your back, and there would probably be bone exposed from where the flesh had been flayed off. In all likelyhood you'd die of blood loss and shock. Typically sentences like that would have been stopped by a doctor somewhere before 50 lashes.
I'm going to work on the assumption that Saudi lashes aren't quite at the same intensity as those of the Royal Navy in the 19th century, but even still 200 lashes seems more than a bit over the top. The fact that it was bumped up from an already nasty 90 lashes on appeal was just fucking spiteful.
It's pretty fucked up, tbh. A sentence of 200 lashes... I don't know exactly how the Saudi's carry out their whippings, but I've read a lot about naval history, back when people were lashed regularly. Back then 200 lashes was pretty much a really slow, painful death sentence. Anything over two dozen lashes was extreme. 200 lashes across the back would have left you with literally no skin on your back, and there would probably be bone exposed from where the flesh had been flayed off. In all likelyhood you'd die of blood loss and shock. Typically sentences like that would have been stopped by a doctor somewhere before 50 lashes.
I'm going to work on the assumption that Saudi lashes aren't quite at the same intensity as those of the Royal Navy in the 19th century, but even still 200 lashes seems more than a bit over the top. The fact that it was bumped up from an already nasty 90 lashes on appeal was just fucking spiteful.
Just as bad if you ask me...Spark wrote:
Really? Honestly, I have no idea. I've been cut off from Australian news for a week and a half so the King of Botswana could've annexed Perth and I wouldn't have known.usmarine2005 wrote:
Same thing happened in Australia recently.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_ … pe_outrage
Mmmmm, this coming from the same guy who continually argues about the difference between simulated drowning and decapitation. I think you'll find both these situations are quite different, even if they do both concern rape.usmarine2005 wrote:
Same thing happened in Australia recently.
Here we go...Braddock wrote:
quite different, even if they do both concern rape.
Just doing what you did in previous threats! ...Both cases are appalling in my opinion but I don't think the Australian authorities had, at any point, considered lashing or jailing the Aboriginal girl in that rape case.usmarine2005 wrote:
Here we go...Braddock wrote:
quite different, even if they do both concern rape.
I bet I could whip that man with a towel on his ass and he'd be crying like a baby... "no pain..." what a maroon.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Yeah but 200 lashes would probably smart after a bit. And it's the fact that she's being punished for being raped which is the question.Drakef wrote:
I have heard the opinion of a man who lived in Saudi Arabia for a good number of years.
Regarding whipping, he noted that it is not painful, nor meant to be painful, but instead to humiliate the person in front of the nation. He cited the example of a few Brits who were punished several years ago by whipping, only to return home a few days later in no worse shape. Now, I am not entirely sure of this- Does anyone else have any information that would corroborate this in a similar manner? It seems somewhat strange, but I would not be surprised if our media takes care to ensure a more scandalous news story by not doing their homework.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2007-12-18 12:23:42)
Brrr...what 'nice' customs...