View Full Version : Court Sentances Rape Victim
crizgolfer
11-17-2007, 12:49 PM
And how many times has this happened in the American justice system? Maybe not in the exact same way it has happened here, but in general?
I feel for the woman, but I understand that these judges only did what they believed is right. Doesn't mean I agree with it, doesn't mean I like it.
How many times has it happenned in the US justice system? I would say too many times to count. My statement was not meant to imply that the US justice system is perfect (it is far from it). I was not responding as an "American." I was responding as a human being.
The judges may have believed that what they did was right, but so did the Nazi's, Pol Pot, and the KKK. Does not mean they were right.
PrincessShea
11-17-2007, 01:34 PM
How many times has it happenned in the US justice system? I would say too many times to count. My statement was not meant to imply that the US justice system is perfect (it is far from it). I was not responding as an "American." I was responding as a human being.
Wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, just pointing out that our justice system isn't exactly godly either. While we may not technically punish the rape victims, they are often traumatized by the way their cases are handled. They are hurt by the very people they rely on for justice.
Jenny
11-17-2007, 02:43 PM
I'd agree with that, but in a broader sense I think the culture has more problems than mysogyny as it is stuck in centuries-old thinking on a lot of things, not just treatment of women. When I say "modernize" I mean (and not to be too glib, but...) "get with the program and join us here in this fancy modern world of not stoning people and running a country like a theocratic fuedal state." :P
Yes. They ought to be using lethal injection instead.
Like I said - I think the problem in Saudi Arabia is with the model of human rights and equality, and I think it is a little naive to assume that is a problem with lack of modernity. And if you think Bush is trying to "modernize" Saudi Arabia in terms of human rights abuses... like, what are you thinking? We all know that is not the case.
twisterinAZ
11-17-2007, 02:58 PM
I agree 100% with Yek.
GentlemanX
11-17-2007, 04:57 PM
"the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state"
crizgolfer
11-17-2007, 04:59 PM
Wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, just pointing out that our justice system isn't exactly godly either. While we may not technically punish the rape victims, they are often traumatized by the way their cases are handled. They are hurt by the very people they rely on for justice.
Sorry if my response came off as defensive. It was not intended to be so(context can be hard to read on a message board). I agree with your points completely. ;)
mermaidnz
11-17-2007, 05:02 PM
To MermaidNZ and others: Female Genital Mutilation is a deeply ingrained tradition in much of the world. In fact, in some cultures, it is the only way a woman can get married and live a normal, secure life. But really... do you think that scraping off the labia and clitoris of a small girl with a sharp rock and no anesthetic is acceptable because it's "culture"? It's fucking not.
[For me at least] it's not about any disdain I have for Islam. In fact it's quite the opposite. For me human rights should ALWAYS be preserved, and religion, which cannot be proven, should never get in the way. Suffering is proven. Religion is not.
so,like, male circumcision is ok? :-\
i agree, both are wrong, but both types of circumcisions have been going on for centuries, who am i to say whats good for their culture? human rights is one thing, killing out culture is another..... look what the white people done when they cmae to america for the first time...didnt they rape and slaughter native americans? they certainnly did when the white man came to nz and australia, imposing their views both political and cultural on the existing people.
no one has that right.
lestat1
11-17-2007, 05:42 PM
Yes. They ought to be using lethal injection instead.
Like I said - I think the problem in Saudi Arabia is with the model of human rights and equality, and I think it is a little naive to assume that is a problem with lack of modernity. And if you think Bush is trying to "modernize" Saudi Arabia in terms of human rights abuses... like, what are you thinking? We all know that is not the case.
My thought was more a general one that a political change in the region might help bring about social and cultural changes.
When I speak of "modernizing" I'm thinking about an education system not centered on theology, the development of a middle class, a system of laws that can support stable business and trade with the rest of the developed world, the rule of law and order (as opposed to citizens with enough weapons to form their own, local, mini-government), a move towards greater equality, those sorts of things. I'm guessing to an English major "modern" (and "post-modern") refer to very specific periods and theories that don't apply here and I'm using poor terminology or something, but I see a 1,000 year old society with gross inequality left and right and I'm calling it "not modern." I think there is room to make it "more modern" in the sense of the above things I listed. More current? More developed? More evolved? More advanced? More equitable? Whatever label someone wants to apply to mean "not like it's the year 1002" works for me.
Not really a Bush fan, didn't vote for him either time, and I don't think his actions are as altruistic as "Saint Bush going over to free the people." But I think my own self-interest is aligned here with his, the U.S.'s self intrerest, and your average world citizen's. My life is better if we have happy world citizens. So is theirs. Happy, educated, productive people living free lives do good stuff, like make tasty food for me to eat and video games for me to play. Unhappy people rebel against the haves, their oppressors, and their perceived opressors and blow things up. Taking down really oppressive governments is one way to try and force political/social change, with admittedly mixed results throughout history.
And yes, they should use lethal injection instead. I'm personally strongly against capital punishment, but if you're going to do it, the quicker and less painful the better.
Jenny
11-17-2007, 06:53 PM
My thought was more a general one that a political change in the region might help bring about social and cultural changes.
I don't really see why this is a valid assumption, or even contention. Particularly if the "new political system" was one unilaterally instituted by the US. If you look at the history of the region, Western interference in the political arena hasn't actually led to an increase in human rights standards. I would suggest that the other way around would likely be more effective.
When I speak of "modernizing" I'm thinking about
I know what you were thinking about. I just think it is a ridiculously ethnocentric idea of "modernity". The problem is not the Saudi Arabia is undeveloped or that it is like the year 1002. The problem is not that they don't have cars - it is that women aren't allowed to get into them with man. The problem is not that an education system is based on theology (again, what an American idea) but that it espouses ideals that are inherently unequal.
But I think my own self-interest is aligned here with his, the U.S.'s self intrerest, and your average world citizen's.
Technically, not so. Unless I've misunderstood something Saudi Arabia is not on the U.S's shit list. So Bush's self-interest still includes extraditing people to Saudi Arabia to face torture so that they can share potential intelligence with the U.S. I mean - since we're speaking of modernizing the world and all.
And yes, they should use lethal injection instead. I'm personally strongly against capital punishment, but if you're going to do it, the quicker and less painful the better.
Again, isn't that an interesting idea? Very American. Hanging, when properly done, was just as fast and painless as lethal injection. Lethal injection seems more technilogically advanced and therefore allows us to sterilize the procedure (I mean in our minds, not the victim's body). By adding technological accroutements we divorce lethal injection from barbarism - but they are just accessories.
Yekhefah
11-17-2007, 07:09 PM
Mermaidnz, are you really saying that this is perfectly acceptable because it's their "culture"? The fact that this woman was brutalized and tortured and now faces more torture, that her lawyer was barred from defending her, and that her punishment was doubled because she tried to involve the media in a quest for justice - that's perfectly okay with you, she deserves it? I mean, I can't imagine that a decent human being and especially a woman would say such a thing, but it really seems like that's what you're saying. Please explain.
Casual Observer
11-17-2007, 07:15 PM
As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are rights of man (and woman) that are not afforded by government decree, but by our very existence.
The right to live without being raped seems so basic as to be academic...but apparently not.
TheSexKitten
11-17-2007, 08:26 PM
so,like, male circumcision is ok? :-\
i agree, both are wrong, but both types of circumcisions have been going on for centuries, who am i to say whats good for their culture? human rights is one thing, killing out culture is another..... look what the white people done when they cmae to america for the first time...didnt they rape and slaughter native americans? they certainnly did when the white man came to nz and australia, imposing their views both political and cultural on the existing people.
no one has that right.
Well, either we're veering off topic here or I'm not quite understanding what you're trying to get across. I don't think male circumcision is ok (unless elective at a legal adult age), and I also completely agree that no one has the right to wipe out cultures. What has happened to the tribes of North America, and India, and much of the African continent, and the Aboriginies, etc due to imperialism is a damn shame. If you're really looking at it that way, you might sympathize with a Southern American person who believes that by helping to abolish slavery Abraham Lincoln wiped away a central part of US culture. By your mindset, that would be true. Obviously though, slavery is not ok. Human rights are a completely separate issue than cultural norms and traditions.
mermaidnz
11-17-2007, 08:30 PM
Mermaidnz, are you really saying that this is perfectly acceptable because it's their "culture"? The fact that this woman was brutalized and tortured and now faces more torture, that her lawyer was barred from defending her, and that her punishment was doubled because she tried to involve the media in a quest for justice - that's perfectly okay with you, she deserves it? I mean, I can't imagine that a decent human being and especially a woman would say such a thing, but it really seems like that's what you're saying. Please explain.
she deserves the prision sentance if the law states a woman is not to be in the presence of a male unrelated to her.
ffs, is every here really too stuipd to see WHY shes got a prision sentance? it has nothing to do with the rape. she broke other laws.
thats like saying, i was in a store molestering a kid, when there was an armed hold up, and i got shot and stabbed.then i got a prision sentance for the molestation.woe is me! hell fucking no! a law was broken regardless of the incident that followed.
just because we dont see that law as relevant in our sciety, doesnt mean its not relevant in another.
i give up on theads where i get slammed for saying the opposite of the masses. ill just nod and agree next time, no matter how many facts ya'll overlook ::)
TheSexKitten
11-17-2007, 08:32 PM
she deserves the prision sentance if the law states a woman is not to be in the presence of a male unrelated to her.
ffs, is every here really too stuipd to see WHY shes got a prision sentance? it has nothing to do with the rape. she broke other laws.
thats like saying, i was in a store molestering a kid, when there was an armed hold up, and i got shot and stabbed.then i got a prision sentance for the molestation.woe is me! hell fucking no! a law was broken regardless of the incident that followed.
just because we dont see that law as relevant in our sciety, doesnt mean its not relevant in another.
i give up on theads where i get slammed for saying the opposite of the masses. ill just nod and agree next time, no matter how many facts ya'll overlook ::)
..... http://66.70.186.203/images/2245-chimp_scratch_head.jpg
We're past that part, babe.
Deogol
11-17-2007, 08:40 PM
NO! Islam is not evil. These individuals are but they do not represent Islam or Mohammad any more than wackos professing to be Christian represent Christianity! There were 'Christians' in our courts who let perpetrators go free and punished victims instead based on their sex, race, even sexual preference. This has nothing to do with the religion they pretend to follow. It's just a cloak--much like the cloak the neo-cons use in this country.
Sorry hon, but you are the radical. There are hundreds of millions of people out there who strictly to their religion and the old "it's only the radicals" story is getting thin. If all these things were not acceptable to the society at large, there would be riots just as there are in the US and other countries. The only difference is they riot and kill over cartoons over there.
Now lets practice a little bit of tolerance out there for other people's value systems. She was part of the society and she knows it's rules.
All this bigotry against muslims and their beliefs is disturbing.
pheno
11-17-2007, 08:44 PM
I'm finding everyday in the news it seems there is a war against women. Some of it is veiled in religion as with the cultural laws of Islam or the anti choice bullshit in the US and some of it is just unthinkable evil as in what is happening in places like the Congo. Some days, it's really hard to remember there are good men out there and not just hate them all - which wouldn't help anything.
TheSexKitten
11-17-2007, 08:44 PM
IR2Deogol: Ok then. "Witch"-burning and lynching escaped slaves were totally cool back in the days when it was legal. Didn't those witches know not to practice black magic? And didn't those silly blacks know their place on the plantation?::)
Think civil disobedience.
We're all ass backwards
btw... molesting a child is very unequal to sitting in the car with a student of the opposite sex.
crizgolfer
11-17-2007, 08:46 PM
Mermaidnz...
I think that what most are questioning is the law itself. Not the fact of whether the law was broken.
Don't take this as an attack. It is just a conversation. ;)
Deogol
11-17-2007, 08:52 PM
IR2Deogol: Ok then. "Witch"-burning and lynching escaped slaves were totally cool back in the days when it was legal. Didn't those witches know not to practice black magic? And didn't those silly blacks know their place on the plantation?
We're all ass backwards
Well, to the population at large, yes - these things were completely acceptable in those ages.
Just as the population at large accepts these customs for women in those lands.
One cannot just say it is the radicals doing it. The government and the church are not radical over there - it's business as usual. It is muslims practicing the job of stripping who are the true radicals to a faith who most adherents cover even their hair.
If one wants to practice multi-culturalism and tolerance of other cultures and faiths, this is the result. Otherwise, prepare to be called intolerant.
(If anything, the radicals over there are the terrorists who want to disrupt the system! Put your tin foil hat on and ponder that for a bit.)
mermaidnz
11-17-2007, 08:54 PM
btw... molesting a child is very unequal to sitting in the car with a student of the opposite sex.
to us, yes. to them? maybe not?
TheSexKitten
11-17-2007, 09:02 PM
Well, to the population at large, yes - these things were completely acceptable in those ages.
Just as the population at large accepts these customs for women in those lands.
One cannot just say it is the radicals doing it. The government and the church are not radical over there - it's business as usual. It is muslims practicing the job of stripping who are the true radicals to a faith who most adherents cover even their hair.
If one wants to practice multi-culturalism and tolerance of other cultures and faiths, this is the result. Otherwise, prepare to be called intolerant.
(If anything, the radicals over there are the terrorists who want to disrupt the system! Put your tin foil hat on and ponder that for a bit.)
That's obvious. I understand that it's more or less "accepted" and "part of the system". However, that doesn't mean it's RIGHT. Pray multiple times a day? Knock yourself out. Don't eat pork? Totally respectable. Treat women like inferior, dirty creatures who are little more than property (despite the fact that the Qur'an actually acknowledges the need to respect and cherish women)? Not cool. It'll change eventually.
Just like slavery, we accepted it at the time, but there were also people back then who were aghast at the injustice, and now as we all look back, almost everyone sees how horrible a practice that was. It's called progress.
Also, other traditions like the ones where women wear modest clothing and what not are totally fine. Many Muslim women prefer to do that. But this specific case, and others I can think of, where it's so obviously unjust and where the woman has no rights in the matter, it's a different story.
Jenny
11-17-2007, 10:50 PM
i agree, both are wrong, but both types of circumcisions have been going on for centuries, who am i to say whats good for their culture? human rights is one thing, killing out culture is another.....
I agree. Human rights are one thing. Culture is another. If culture violates human rights... maybe there is a problem there. I think what is going on is that you are trying to say that culture should trump human rights, while pretty much everyone here thinks that cultural relativism is important, but that it is limited at basic human rights.
look what the white people done when they cmae to america for the first time...didnt they rape and slaughter native americans? they certainnly did when the white man came to nz and australia, imposing their views both political and cultural on the existing people.
no one has that right.
Um, yeah. But. The discussion is not "let's say that everything a given culture does is acceptable because it is a culture" or "let's mow down the culture like so much grass". There are lots of ways of evaluating cultural relativism, and, well, none of them are those two. I mean you can look at factors like "how central is this activity to the culture?" "Is this an issue of culture or is it an issue of rights of the individual?" "Does this abrogate other obligations of the state?"
xdamage
11-17-2007, 11:58 PM
One cannot just say it is the radicals doing it. The government and the church are not radical over there - it's business as usual. It is muslims practicing the job of stripping who are the true radicals to a faith who most adherents cover even their hair.
(If anything, the radicals over there are the terrorists who want to disrupt the system! Put your tin foil hat on and ponder that for a bit.)
True, but this an American or European thing to say, people who live far away with a lot of freedom, and who see themselves as "moderates", people who pick and choose the parts of a religion as it suits them. What they don't understand from that distance is, to much of the Islamic world they are the fallen, not true believers. But like I said, everyone should read Sam Harris' book, because the apologies made by the moderates are actually more dangerous than the "extremists".
If one wants to practice multi-culturalism and tolerance of other cultures and faiths, this is the result. Otherwise, prepare to be called intolerant.
See to me, it's just us people. Culture is not sacred. Culture comes and goes, and people often times act in cruel, disturbing ways. It's like talking about man whose body is ravished with cancer, and someone gets it into their head that the most important thing is to preserve the man in whole, lesions, pain, suffering and all. And it's nonesense. Culture is not inherently good (or bad), it's just stuff made up by people. Smart people are always reasonably asking basic questions, like is this ???right??? Not asking is it this ?culture? Culture-smulture. Even though countries have some rights to make decisions, the rest of the world also has some rights to look in from the outside and see heinous practices for what they are. While we don't always have the power to change those practices, we can still at least agree that they are evil, and examples of how things go terribly wrong when a "culture" adopts practices that are harmful to a large group of it's people. No society is perfect, but some are much worse then others.
And as an aside... imagine being a slave, mistreated, abused... and no human on the face of the earth will lift a finger or say NO to help because every human is so worried about being politically incorrect and offending the societies culture, afraid to do anything to help change the laws of the land which you as a slave have no choices in, but to conform or be severely punished. It's not a great thought to me. I'd much rather have the rest of the world up in arms about it, or at least in agreement that my mistreatment is heinous and putting pressure on my society to stop the practice.
lestat1
11-18-2007, 12:21 AM
Again, isn't that an interesting idea? Very American. Hanging, when properly done, was just as fast and painless as lethal injection. Lethal injection seems more technilogically advanced and therefore allows us to sterilize the procedure (I mean in our minds, not the victim's body). By adding technological accroutements we divorce lethal injection from barbarism - but they are just accessories.
"When done properly" is quite a qualifying comment. Yeah, when it snaps the neck it's a nice, instant death. When it's suffocation, not so much so. Where is the benefit of hanging over lethal injection? Now if you want to argue for the guillotine, there was a cheap, effective, quick death. I'd take that over hanging anyday, if I were forced to pick my own demise between the two.
On the rest - can you give me examples? I can't think of a theocratically-driven education system or government that I would consider viable and good for its people. Ok, you disagree. Example? Help me understand.
Can you derscribe a less ethno-cenmtric idea of modernity? I actively tried to avoid capitalist or democratic terms as I know the U.S. system is not the only viable system. There are plenty of socialist countries that are thriving, for example.
We've got roughly 60 years of poor U.S. foreign policy regarding the Middle East, but I don't think that morsel of time is enough to discredit thousands of years of revolutions leading to change (okay now I sound like a hippie). Although that's the part that you didn't think was valid. Hmm, it's been my impression from the history I've studied that there is a world pattern of: discontent -> revolution -> new government -> stuff changes. So much so that it almost seems cliche to me. It's not a U.S. idea, or something that requires the U.S. to do it. More of a human nature idea, or John Locke's 'social contract' to be technical about it.
So you're not a fan of the underhanded crap the Bush administration is pulling regarding torture, the grey area of enemy combatants, its alliance with Saudi Arabia when they should be on our shitlist. I'm on board with all that you're saying there. Now tell me how Iraq was better with Sadam. Tell me how inaction is better. Tell me how leaving is better. Tell me how we get to "equality" if not by what's currently being done. Seriously. I'm as middle of the road as they come and I've got an election to vote in in one year. I want to hear ideas and alternatives. I'm thirsty for them! :-\
Lysondra
11-18-2007, 12:26 AM
I'm going to put a Western twist on this story:
Let's say I broke into someone's house to steal their stuff and they raped me. Breaking into their house was still illegal so I'd get sentenced for that - just like the rapist would. Sure, it's a silly stupid law, but she broke it, which is why she was sentenced. Just like if I broke a Western law.
Jenny
11-18-2007, 08:52 AM
"When done properly" is quite a qualifying comment. Yeah, when it snaps the neck it's a nice, instant death. When it's suffocation, not so much so. Where is the benefit of hanging over lethal injection? Now if you want to argue for the guillotine, there was a cheap, effective, quick death. I'd take that over hanging anyday, if I were forced to pick my own demise between the two.
Yeah. "Properly done" is a qualifying statement for all forms punishment. If lethal injection is improperly administered, that is hardly quick or painless either. However there is all sorts of technology attached, and it is more technologically sophisticated, so it must be better and more civilized.
On the rest - can you give me examples? I can't think of a theocratically-driven education system or government that I would consider viable and good for its people. Ok, you disagree. Example? Help me understand.
Well of course you can't. It is contrary to your own intuition. Mine too, for that matter. In Canada, however, at confederation, rather than guaranteeing a secular school system (which the U.S. ostensibly did, but of course, didn't actually provide) there was a guarantee that provinces would provide for minority religions in their educational establishments. At the time it meant that Quebec offered protestant, english schools and Ontario offered french catholic schools. The language requirement has been absorbed in Ontario, but the government still funds, as a matter of constitutional law, catholic schools. There are plenty of children in Jewish, Catholic and Islamic schools who are not being taught a mantra of misogyny.
Can you derscribe a less ethno-cenmtric idea of modernity? I actively tried to avoid capitalist or democratic terms as I know the U.S. system is not the only viable system. There are plenty of socialist countries that are thriving, for example.
I think you're problem is that you are seeing this as an issue of general "progress" when that is just not the case. Saudis are not "un-modern". They have a bad human rights record. If you cannot separate those things in your mind you will be quite incapable of ever dealing with cultural dissonance.
We've got roughly 60 years of poor U.S. foreign policy regarding the Middle East, but I don't think that morsel of time is enough to discredit thousands of years of revolutions leading to change (okay now I sound like a hippie). Although that's the part that you didn't think was valid. Hmm, it's been my impression from the history I've studied that there is a world pattern of: discontent -> revolution -> new government -> stuff changes. So much so that it almost seems cliche to me. It's not a U.S. idea, or something that requires the U.S. to do it. More of a human nature idea, or John Locke's 'social contract' to be technical about it.
I don't understand what you are talking about here. You suggested that Bush should clean up the region and make it more modern. I suggested that the problem was not with a lack of modernity and that an American political system, unilaterally put in place would engender more resentment against Westernism. I didn't say a thing about the people revolting, and, for that matter, neither did you. You're talking about invasion; not revolution.
So you're not a fan of the underhanded crap the Bush administration is pulling regarding torture, the grey area of enemy combatants, its alliance with Saudi Arabia when they should be on our shitlist. I'm on board with all that you're saying there. Now tell me how Iraq was better with Sadam. Tell me how inaction is better. Tell me how leaving is better. Tell me how we get to "equality" if not by what's currently being done. Seriously. I'm as middle of the road as they come and I've got an election to vote in in one year. I want to hear ideas and alternatives. I'm thirsty for them! :-\
Hmm. I think you have a faulty premise here. Again, going back to the whole "those people" are not really "those people" just because they are all some shade of brown. Taking down a dictator in Iraq does not mean that all dictators with brown skin have been removed from power. There are all these different countries, with different laws and actually, different human rights records. Since the US has all sorts of cooperation with many such countries with bad human rights records, they are not likely to invade them. "Equality" - by which I assume you mean encouraging countries to respect jus cogens norms regarding human rights, or encouraging countries to live up to their human rights agreements will obviously NOT be gained through invading one country at a time, while encouraging all other countries to continue the exact violatioins that form the ostensible reason for the invasion. I mean, that is ... self evident. What is being done now is not being done to achieve what you call "equality" and will not achieve it. The choice is not between that action and inaction. South African apartheid was brought down through sanctions with no invasion.
BTW - there is no "grey area" of enemy combatants. There is a specific way to deal with enemy combatants legally. The US invented a category of "illegal enemy combatants" (yes, as opposed to legal enemy combatants) to avoid having to follow that law. There is a reason Gitmo is where it is.
Yekhefah
11-18-2007, 10:13 AM
she deserves the prision sentance if the law states a woman is not to be in the presence of a male unrelated to her.
So humans have no rights or dignity beyond the whims of a particular government? There is no such thing as fundamental justice, or right or wrong? That's really sad, that you believe that. I hope you never wind up on the wrong side of an unjust law.
xdamage
11-18-2007, 10:48 AM
So humans have no rights or dignity beyond the whims of a particular government? There is no such thing as fundamental justice, or right or wrong? That's really sad, that you believe that. I hope you never wind up on the wrong side of an unjust law.
I hope (or think) she is just arguing from the position of the devil's advocate, or pointing out that the girl knew the law and the punishment, and that was why she is receiving a prison sentence. I hope?think? everyone sees that "laws" are made by humans for humans. They are not the ultimate truth or unchangeable. They can and should be challenged by people in some cases, and I'd say that this law, which prohibits women from being in public with a man who is not a relative, is such a law that should be challenged by the rest of humanity.
Dirty Ernie
11-18-2007, 11:31 AM
While it's nice to think that humans , as a whole, have some sort of entitlement to a basic right is nice in theory, but the fact is that, yes, as an inhabitant of a particular nation you are subject to the whim of that nation's govt and laws. I'm sure there are laws in every country that a reasonable westerner could take issue with. Right or wrong is a subjective, evolving, concept.
As for the "rest of humanity" challenging a sovereign nation's law, I doubt the majority of the rest of the world really cares. The west can impose sanctions for human rights abuses, but when it comes to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, and others, the U.S. gov't isn't really interested in rocking the boat as these nations are more important to us economically and militarily than our dedication to the idea of basic human rights.
Jenny
11-18-2007, 03:50 PM
While it's nice to think that humans , as a whole, have some sort of entitlement to a basic right is nice in theory, but the fact is that, yes, as an inhabitant of a particular nation you are subject to the whim of that nation's govt and laws. I find this to be kind of a cheap argument (I just read a 70 page paper on the subject that I thought was substandard; so pardon me if I'm over irritable). The fact that rights can be violated doesn't mean that they don't exist, even in the most positive of positive law constructs.
Dirty Ernie
11-18-2007, 04:12 PM
But how can they be violated if they don't exist? In Saudi Arabia, a woman does not have the right to travel in a car with a male who is not a relative. I think the only intrinsic human right is that of self-defense, borne of our survival instinct. Isn't everything else is granted through culture or law?
p.s. That paper that you found substandard would probably make my head explode.
Jenny
11-18-2007, 04:25 PM
Well okay. There is a reasonable line of thought that goes that people are granted certain rights simply by virtue of being human. Natural rights. And that states that do not respect those rights are violating them by not respecting them. Arguing that "they don't exist in positive law therefore they don't exist" is circular because the contention is that "they don't exist in positive law and are therefore being violated". I personally don't believe that it is particularly useful to examine the viability of a legal system based only on the fact that it exists - that is, the only way to evaluate a law is whether or not it exists and whether it conflicts with another law, because law is only founded upon itself - so I fall into the Natural Rights camp of legal analysis sheerly as a practical issue. I assume that laws exist for something, and that thing should contain certain elements and exclude certain elements, and evaluate the system by that analysis. Otherwise we might as well all give up, go home and turn on our telescreens, because who is to say that is a problem? Or so it seems to me.
However, as I mentioned to Scarlett - if it makes you feel better Saudi Arabia is a signatory to CEDAW and has obligations as to the equality of women.
lestat1
11-18-2007, 04:32 PM
What is being done now is not being done to achieve what you call "equality" and will not achieve it. The choice is not between that action and inaction. South African apartheid was brought down through sanctions with no invasion.
Are sanctions your proposed solution then, or did I read that wrong and there's another option?
Critique has its purpose, but this discussion isn't an abstract exercise for me. I've got an election coming up, and if my choices next November are sanctions, or tweaking the current approach, my vote is going to the candidate suggesting the latter. I think that has a higher chance of success.
TheSexKitten
11-18-2007, 04:50 PM
The only problem with the current method though, is that the US did not enter Iraq on the basis of policing human rights. If that was really the case, we wouldn't have given a big fuck off to the UN. Not to mention that there are even worse violations occurring in less oil-rich societies.
Jenny
11-18-2007, 04:57 PM
Are sanctions your proposed solution then, or did I read that wrong and there's another option?
Critique has its purpose, but this discussion isn't an abstract exercise for me. I've got an election coming up, and if my choices next November are sanctions, or tweaking the current approach, my vote is going to the candidate suggesting the latter. I think that has a higher chance of success.
Um. Okay. I would suggest that you vote your conscience. However, like I said it is not a choice between an action that is sort of effective and one that may not be effective. It is a choice between an action that is not effective, that is not intended to be effective and will not become effective ever and a something that might be effective if anyone was committed to it. If, however, global human rights are on your voting agenda... I have no advice. Nothing in the next election is going to have any effect whatsoever. None. Zero. At all. So no - this is not a practical exercise.
TheSexKitten
11-18-2007, 05:05 PM
^^^ You say what I think, but better. *_*
Deogol
11-18-2007, 05:12 PM
True, but this an American or European thing to say, people who live far away with a lot of freedom, and who see themselves as "moderates", people who pick and choose the parts of a religion as it suits them. What they don't understand from that distance is, to much of the Islamic world they are the fallen, not true believers. But like I said, everyone should read Sam Harris' book, because the apologies made by the moderates are actually more dangerous than the "extremists".
See to me, it's just us people. Culture is not sacred. Culture comes and goes, and people often times act in cruel, disturbing ways. It's like talking about man whose body is ravished with cancer, and someone gets it into their head that the most important thing is to preserve the man in whole, lesions, pain, suffering and all. And it's nonesense. Culture is not inherently good (or bad), it's just stuff made up by people. Smart people are always reasonably asking basic questions, like is this ???right??? Not asking is it this ?culture? Culture-smulture. Even though countries have some rights to make decisions, the rest of the world also has some rights to look in from the outside and see heinous practices for what they are. While we don't always have the power to change those practices, we can still at least agree that they are evil, and examples of how things go terribly wrong when a "culture" adopts practices that are harmful to a large group of it's people. No society is perfect, but some are much worse then others.
And as an aside... imagine being a slave, mistreated, abused... and no human on the face of the earth will lift a finger or say NO to help because every human is so worried about being politically incorrect and offending the societies culture, afraid to do anything to help change the laws of the land which you as a slave have no choices in, but to conform or be severely punished. It's not a great thought to me. I'd much rather have the rest of the world up in arms about it, or at least in agreement that my mistreatment is heinous and putting pressure on my society to stop the practice.
I agree with everything you say.
Let me throw this out there for conversation. For a population that is incredibly poor (in general, I am not talking about the Saudi family) - the threat (and example) of lashes may actually be good. It certainly is one way to prevent unwed children. If she had followed the rules, she would not have been at opportunity to being raped. The country is literally a desert - unplanned and foolish pregnancy could literally starve the entire family (very little welfare out there!) The people plan their families (and the obligations of being family - very different than the western concept) very carefully - what would happen if a foolish daughter made a relation with a bad family by child birth! Throw in some STD prevention too. I am quite sure the population takes these thoughts into mind and see her as the ultimate example of why the rule is good and the punishment is deserved.
PrettyCurlieQ
11-18-2007, 05:14 PM
I have plenty of Muslim friends who are disgusted by those zealots in charge. This is supposed to be the religion of peace, not a perverted theocracy!
That's not a practice of Islam, that's a practice of the backward government.
This is fucking sick, and makes me so angry.>:(
TheSexKitten
11-18-2007, 05:25 PM
I agree with everything you say.
Let me throw this out there for conversation. For a population that is incredibly poor (in general, I am not talking about the Saudi family) - the threat (and example) of lashes may actually be good. It certainly is one way to prevent unwed children. If she had followed the rules, she would not have been at opportunity to being raped. The country is literally a desert - unplanned and foolish pregnancy could literally starve the entire family (very little welfare out there!) The people plan their families (and the obligations of being family - very different than the western concept) very carefully - what would happen if a foolish daughter made a relation with a bad family by child birth! Throw in some STD prevention too. I am quite sure the population takes these thoughts into mind and see her as the ultimate example of why the rule is good and the punishment is deserved.
I see your point, but I cannot agree with the sentence that I bolded.
Yekhefah
11-18-2007, 05:27 PM
^^^ Exactly, because once again, she was not raped by the guy she was sitting with. They were carjacked and her friend was beaten up too. She could just as easily have been carjacked with her brother or father.
TheSexKitten
11-18-2007, 05:44 PM
And honestly, a woman in almost any society is very very frequently in the position of being raped, as long as a rapist is present... (aka fault=rapist's)
xdamage
11-18-2007, 10:37 PM
Let me throw this out there for conversation. For a population that is incredibly poor (in general, I am not talking about the Saudi family) - the threat (and example) of lashes may actually be good. It certainly is one way to prevent unwed children. If she had followed the rules, she would not have been at opportunity to being raped. The country is literally a desert - unplanned and foolish pregnancy could literally starve the entire family (very little welfare out there!) The people plan their families (and the obligations of being family - very different than the western concept) very carefully - what would happen if a foolish daughter made a relation with a bad family by child birth! Throw in some STD prevention too. I am quite sure the population takes these thoughts into mind and see her as the ultimate example of why the rule is good and the punishment is deserved.
Well, most people who have grown up in the last few decades in societies that have access to cheap modern birth control often don't really grasp why it is that history is full of socially created laws, rules, and practices to discourage casual sex. So yea, when you consider that without birth control casual sex generally means an 16+ year investment in raising a child, often without a father (DNA testing is also extremely new on the historical scene and still expensive and limited availability), the only thing that still amazes me is how ignorant so many of today's people are about WHY societies discourage sex (and as you pointed out, the STDs are another issue).
Now regarding the contentious sentence...
If she had followed the rules, she would not have been at opportunity to being raped.
What you wrote here is probably offensive to some, but let me break it down a little.
In our society a woman could go out with a man who is not her relative and CHOOSE not to have sex. The unspoken part though is she could also CHOOSE to have sex, and as you point out, that's at the root of what I commented on above. Factor in no birth control, and so we can see why the law exists.
But does that give other men the right to rape her? In our society, absolutely NOT. They are completely separable issues. After all, if it was just about a risk of rape, she runs that risk being with one man who is her relative, or one man who is not a relative, but...
The problem here is that, apparently, or possibly, the society has adopted a set of beliefs that goes just beyond discouraging casual sex, but apparently? also allows and even encourages males in the society to punish her for it by raping her. While that may be the ultimate deterrent, and will deter the next girl from breaking the law, I have to say that being raised as I have been raised, it also leaves me feeling like the society has placed too much of the onus of sex control on the women. I also understand why societies do it, but I don't have to like it.
Bella21
11-19-2007, 01:59 PM
she deserves the prision sentance if the law states a woman is not to be in the presence of a male unrelated to her.
ffs, is every here really too stuipd to see WHY shes got a prision sentance? it has nothing to do with the rape. she broke other laws.
thats like saying, i was in a store molestering a kid, when there was an armed hold up, and i got shot and stabbed.then i got a prision sentance for the molestation.woe is me! hell fucking no! a law was broken regardless of the incident that followed.
just because we dont see that law as relevant in our sciety, doesnt mean its not relevant in another.
i give up on theads where i get slammed for saying the opposite of the masses. ill just nod and agree next time, no matter how many facts ya'll overlook ::)
Wow... what is WRONG with you?! I can't believe you're comparing a woman getting into a car with a man to child molestation. Riding in a car with a friend - not hurting anyone. Molesting a child - hurting someone. Duh.
Just because some crazy religious freaks "own" a country, it is not okay for them to oppose their beliefs on others. It happens in this country, too... but that is a whole other level of disgusting. For a woman to be sentanced to jail and beaten for being in a car with a man is sexist and not progressive. Go read the Bible. Here's a scripture for you:
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Oh, here's another:
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)
The USA is full of Christians who follow this very Bible... are rape victims being stoned on the streets? Are we sentancing gay people to death? No. We have laws to PROTECT people. It's called social progress.
If everyone in the world thought like you, things like this would never stop. People would turn a blind eye to it and wave it off as "culture". You know what? If a person has to rely on the Bible or Koran for their moral code, they are in a very bad place... because they are filled with glorified rapes, murders, and other crimes. "Morals" should be based on what is good for society.
Everyone here is "smart" enough to know "why" she got her sentance. We(well, or most of us) are just disgusted by the entire thing.
So humans have no rights or dignity beyond the whims of a particular government? There is no such thing as fundamental justice, or right or wrong? That's really sad, that you believe that. I hope you never wind up on the wrong side of an unjust law.
Here-fucking-here.
Bella21
11-19-2007, 02:14 PM
If she had followed the rules, she would not have been at opportunity to being raped.
That reminds me of a conversation I had with a girl at work last night. I was putting back on my street clothes (a short skirt and boots) and she said that I looked "trashy" like I was "asking for it". I was like, "Yea, I'm totally asking for it. I totally want some guy to rape me in a dark alley. That's TOTALLY what I'm asking for!" I guess if I walked around in sheets, I wouldn't have the opportunity to get attacked by someone... let's not pay attention to the people DOING the attacking... oh, no. That would make too much sense. I'm a stripper... I'm TOTALLY asking for getting raped and murdered and shoved in a dumpster.
There are other methods of birth control than the crazy rules they have out there. For example, her right to abstain from sex if she can't even afford condoms.
Yekhefah
11-19-2007, 02:16 PM
Argh. :banghead:
I can't believe there are people on here who are insisting that humans have no worth or dignity outside of what their governments grant them. Somehow I think if those people were being similarly brutalized themselves, they'd be singing a different tune.
Jenny
11-19-2007, 02:38 PM
Well, moreover it is a completely useless way, outside of a Legal Philosophy perspective to analyze a law. If laws are not meant to DO anything - if they are merely meant to exist, and that existence provides all necessary justification - then there is no way to criticize any law, except by way of conflict with another law. And that can be circumvented by "notwithstanding any other..."
mermaidnz
11-19-2007, 05:07 PM
Wow... what is WRONG with you?! I can't believe you're comparing a woman getting into a car with a man to child molestation. Riding in a car with a friend - not hurting anyone. Molesting a child - hurting someone. Duh.
Just because some crazy religious freaks "own" a country, it is not okay for them to oppose their beliefs on others. It happens in this country, too... but that is a whole other level of disgusting. For a woman to be sentanced to jail and beaten for being in a car with a man is sexist and not progressive. Go read the Bible. Here's a scripture for you:
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Oh, here's another:
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)
The USA is full of Christians who follow this very Bible... are rape victims being stoned on the streets? Are we sentancing gay people to death? No. We have laws to PROTECT people. It's called social progress.
If everyone in the world thought like you, things like this would never stop. People would turn a blind eye to it and wave it off as "culture". You know what? If a person has to rely on the Bible or Koran for their moral code, they are in a very bad place... because they are filled with glorified rapes, murders, and other crimes. "Morals" should be based on what is good for society.
Everyone here is "smart" enough to know "why" she got her sentance. We(well, or most of us) are just disgusted by the entire thing.
Here-fucking-here.
once afuckinggain..... did i SAY she deserved it? no. did i say rape was ok? no.
you and yek, need to get a fucking life, other then ripping apart what im saying, your taking what i say out of context, insinuating things about me and my views, its bullshit. lysondra even resaid something i said (but better) and she didnt get ripped apart. ::)
Bella21
11-19-2007, 05:14 PM
once afuckinggain..... did i SAY she deserved it? no. did i say rape was ok? no.
you and yek, need to get a fucking life, other then ripping apart what im saying, your taking what i say out of context, insinuating things about me and my views, its bullshit. lysondra even resaid something i said (but better) and she didnt get ripped apart. ::)
Grow up and start supporting your argument instead of just resorting to insults (and your posts complain about how people attack YOU... oh, the irony!). Explain to me how I took ANYTHING that you said out of context.
^^ oops, yeah, sorry, my whole post wasnt directed at your comments, i was just referring to that bit about how you said it was disgusting...just ment we were brought up to believe that. the rest was directed at the others in the thread. my bad
It is disgusting and wrong. Cars are a fairly recent invention so that law must be fairly recent. Explain to me how this falls under the category of "culture". Explain to me how being born with a vagina makes someone a lower class citizen. If that is the case, does being born with a certain skin color make someone a lower class citizen? Should the USA go back to slavery? You know, being a part of our "culture" and all. What about a woman's right to vote over here? Women had to fight HARD for equal rights over here! What do you think this woman in Saudi Arabia is doing by contacting the media?! She's trying to fight!
If I'm brought up to believe that women are repressed because they are less than a man or that white people can enslave black people because they are better in some way, does that make it RIGHT?
Like I'd said before, there are so much more to morals than what the law dictates. The seperation of church and state thing? Yea... not so much. Let's resort to science, shall we?
Woman = person
Man = person
There is so much more to culture than oppression. "That's just the way it is" is the lamest excuse ever.
Yekhefah
11-19-2007, 05:40 PM
Mermaidnz, I have no idea why you feel the need to be hateful and nasty because I strongly disagree with you. I was just asking for you to explain what you said, because it seemed as though you were suggesting some things I didn't associate with you. If that makes you feel defensive I'm sorry; I just wanted further explanation. But there's no need to lash out at people. No one here is out to get you. We're not in Saudi Arabia, after all. ::)