What's wrong with this picture? (Warning: sexual abuse triggers)

[LucyStoner]

 

 The issue is that they do not understand the concept of date rape but will generally take pains to prosecute (or at least, leave alone a victim in a case they can't prove) rape when it occurs under those type of scenarios.

 

What, pray tell, says "date rape" to you about being raped while working?  What is less about a "date rape" than the other scenarios you listed?  

 

It is ok to admit that prosecuting these women is wrongheaded.  It is not attacking Islam to say that these women should not have been treated as they were under the law.  

[Murphy101]

Martha, in a way I agree with you that stoning would make the executioner face facts with what he's doing. I guess I think that execution is to protect society from a dangerous criminal more than it is about painful punishment. Extra pain while killing them is not going to make them learn their lesson because it's too late.

I completely agree. It is not about inflicting pain. It is about justice. Which is not always prettily and neatly managed.

[LucyStoner]

I don't believe my religion sees women as lesser human beings. Don't put words in my mouth. Your interpretation is that women are less based on what I've said. I'm sure you would have the same interpretation of Christian faiths that have similar views (like women submitting to their husband or the like). In some cases, I might even feel the same as you on those beliefs (of other faiths) because they are different from my own. Martha mentioned upthread that different cultures and different faiths have different views on how they respect women. They still see it as giving them equal respect but in terms of how that respect is done, it is different. You have your definition of respect and others have theirs. In your eyes, that might not be respect at all but in their eyes, they still believe women are equal (and women ARE equal in the sight of God). Perhaps to you, that is not true equality, and you are entitled to feel that way. But, I am by no means saying that I see women as lesser beings and it doesn't matter. Not that anything I say under the circumstances will convince you otherwise.

 

Religions of many stripes have been used worldwide to treat women as lesser human beings.  This is part of why I believe strongly that legal protections for men and women shouldn't be based on religion, but on human rights.  It's part of why I have a big issue with people wanting to use Christianity or any other religion as a basis for laws in the USA. I generally find people using religion as an excuse for sexism to be primarily sexist rather than to be people of deep faith.  I have no issue calling out Christianity, Judaism or Islam for the ways in which they are each used to justify sexism.  In this instance, an Islamic country is doing something that is very wrong.  It doesn't follow that anyone saying this is wrong is saying that Islam itself is all wrong or that Christianity or any other religion is all right or good.  

[La Texican]

Actually, the British Embassy had put out an advisory regarding that issue in the UAE, so I wouldn't be surprised.

 

http://m.gulfnews.com/date-rape-pill-watch-your-drink-1.844097

this part is scary:

(because it supports the idea that victims can't get help)

 

Police statement

Lt Col Jamal Salem Al Jallaf, Deputy Director of Control Section at the Criminal Investigation Department at Dubai Police, said "There have not been any cases of date rape in Dubai to my knowledge.

"Over the last few years we haven't received any complaints from victims who claim to have been date-raped after having consumed the date rape drug.

"Rape is not tolerated in our society. The number of reported rapes in Dubai is significantly low in comparison to other countries."

[Shahrazad]

The pre-marital/exta-marital sex laws are pretty well known. They usually don't prosecute expats for it though. However, I'd assume that if you find a law that does not allow extramarital consensual sex problematic and don't want to risk prosecution for it, you would not go to the UAE and have sex, particularly not in a public manner. I don't necessarily think they need to change their laws (though those laws should NEVER apply to rape and personally, I don't care for them to apply to expats) on that matter but that they should be consistent instead of making people unsure of whether that would actually be an issue (speaking consensual here). There are many laws people obey that they disagree with and find unfair. I think the same courtesy should be extended when going to a country where something is clearly illegal and not breaking the law.

And here I go again before someone accuses me of victim blaming above, I am referring to ChocolateReign's point that they should get rid of the extramarital sex laws in the first place for consensual encounters. Rape should be prosecuted, rape victims should NEVER be prosecuted, even if you can't prove rape and it is clear that a sexual encounter happened and you suspect it might have been consensual. The rape allegation should be enough to void the sex charge.
 

What, pray tell, says "date rape" to you about being raped while working?  What is less about a "date rape" than the other scenarios you listed?  

 

It is ok to admit that prosecuting these women is wrongheaded.  It is not attacking Islam to say that these women should not have been treated as they were under the law.  

 

Seriously, did you read the other posts or are you just assuming what I've said. Firstly, I mentioned in one of the earlier posts that I was using the term "date rape" although it was not a date as I did not know a better term to encompass the situation. I think I mentioned in my first post that, just as in the US it is still hard for some people to grasp the idea that is it never OK to force a woman to have sex, even if she's been drinking, flirting, or you think she's giving you some sort of invitation, no means no, many ME countries are still behind the times in understanding what rape is when it doesn't take place in the way they traditionally see it. Many would hear that she had been drinking and asked the guy to take her to her room and see that the medical exam does not show signs of rape (probably because she was unconscious) and he says it was consensual but she just regretted it and not understand that that could still be rape.

I've said repeatedly and in depth that prosecuting the women is wrong headed. It isn't attacking Islam to say that these women shouldn't have been treated like that, my entire posts and point were based on the fact this  may be the law of the land but it isn't sharia. My references were to ChocolateReign's responses to me in which she has made it clear that Qur'anic law is the cause of all misogyny and female oppression in those countries, not the misapplication of that law because the common thread is that they're calling it shariah.

[Parrothead]

The number of reported rapes in Dubai is significantly low in comparison to other countries."

Of course it is low. Women are afraid to report so they don't go to jail for having pre-marital sex. Or adultery if they are already married.

[Parrothead]

The pre-marital/exta-marital sex laws are pretty well known. They usually don't prosecute expats for it though. However, I'd assume that if you find a law that does not allow extramarital consensual sex problematic and don't want to risk prosecution for it, you would not go to the UAE and have sex, particularly not in a public manner. I don't necessarily think they need to change their laws (though those laws should NEVER apply to rape and personally, I don't care for them to apply to expats) on that matter but that they should be consistent instead of making people unsure of whether that would actually be an issue (speaking consensual here). There are many laws people obey that they disagree with and find unfair. I think the same courtesy should be extended when going to a country where something is clearly illegal and not breaking the law.

 

So, you think consensual sex between consenting adults being illegal is a good thing? How is consensual sex between consenting adults ever the governments business.

[Shahrazad]

this part is scary:

(because it supports the idea that victims can't get help)

 

Police statement

Lt Col Jamal Salem Al Jallaf, Deputy Director of Control Section at the Criminal Investigation Department at Dubai Police, said "There have not been any cases of date rape in Dubai to my knowledge.

"Over the last few years we haven't received any complaints from victims who claim to have been date-raped after having consumed the date rape drug.

"Rape is not tolerated in our society. The number of reported rapes in Dubai is significantly low in comparison to other countries."

That is a stunning lack of self-awareness if I ever saw one.

[SKL]

She recanted, hence the perjury and illicit sex charges.  We don't know what the outcome would have been had she not recanted.  And we don't know that the justice system somehow forced her to recant.

 

And yes, you can be jailed for perjury, even in the USA.

 

The sentence for illicit sex was given to both sexes, as both admitted consensual sex.

 

As for whether it was date rape, from "our" perspective, it does not look like it, but we are only hearing her side of the story - the side she told before she recanted.  It isn't fair to convict on only one side of the story.  She wasn't simply working with the guy; by her own free admission, she says they were out drinking together until the wee hours, she was too drunk to find her hotel room without his help so she ASKED him to walk her to her room, he pulled her into his room instead, and, while sipping water trying to get sober in his room, she passed out.  He then took advantage of her.  Not sure if that was date rape or not, especially without hearing his side.  It isn't clear what their relationship was.  People don't "date" in conservative countries anyway.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

She recanted, hence the perjury and illicit sex charges. We don't know what the outcome would have been had she not recanted. And we don't know that the justice system somehow forced her to recant.

 

And yes, you can be jailed for perjury, even in the USA.

 

The sentence for illicit sex was given to both sexes, as both admitted consensual sex.

 

As for whether it was date rape, from "our" perspective, it does not look like it, but we are only hearing her side of the story - the side she told before she recanted. It isn't fair to convict on only one side of the story. She wasn't simply working with the guy; by her own free admission, she says they were out drinking together until the wee hours, she was too drunk to find her hotel room without his help so she ASKED him to walk her to her room, he pulled her into his room instead, and, while sipping water trying to get sober in his room, she passed out. He then took advantage of her. Not sure if that was date rape or not, especially without hearing his side. It isn't clear what their relationship was. People don't "date" in conservative countries anyway.

If she was passed out it was rape. End of discussion.

[La Texican]

I think the biggest mind boggle I got today was when Martha informed me the UN allowed the UAE to ratify a treaty agreeing not to discriminate against women, allowing them to reserve the right to discriminate in cases allowed by their personal Sharia laws. What was the point of the contract if you're going to still discriminate, "but only in the cases where we would have anyway?" OMG. Who writes this stuff?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The pre-marital/exta-marital sex laws are pretty well known. They usually don't prosecute expats for it though. However, I'd assume that if you find a law that does not allow extramarital consensual sex problematic and don't want to risk prosecution for it, you would not go to the UAE and have sex, particularly not in a public manner. I don't necessarily think they need to change their laws (though those laws should NEVER apply to rape and personally, I don't care for them to apply to expats) on that matter but that they should be consistent instead of making people unsure of whether that would actually be an issue (speaking consensual here). There are many laws people obey that they disagree with and find unfair. I think the same courtesy should be extended when going to a country where something is clearly illegal and not breaking the law.

 

And here I go again before someone accuses me of victim blaming above, I am referring to ChocolateReign's point that they should get rid of the extramarital sex laws in the first place for consensual encounters. Rape should be prosecuted, rape victims should NEVER be prosecuted, even if you can't prove rape and it is clear that a sexual encounter happened and you suspect it might have been consensual. The rape allegation should be enough to void the sex charge.

 

 

Seriously, did you read the other posts or are you just assuming what I've said. Firstly, I mentioned in one of the earlier posts that I was using the term "date rape" although it was not a date as I did not know a better term to encompass the situation. I think I mentioned in my first post that, just as in the US it is still hard for some people to grasp the idea that is it never OK to force a woman to have sex, even if she's been drinking, flirting, or you think she's giving you some sort of invitation, no means no, many ME countries are still behind the times in understanding what rape is when it doesn't take place in the way they traditionally see it. Many would hear that she had been drinking and asked the guy to take her to her room and see that the medical exam does not show signs of rape (probably because she was unconscious) and he says it was consensual but she just regretted it and not understand that that could still be rape.

 

I've said repeatedly and in depth that prosecuting the women is wrong headed. It isn't attacking Islam to say that these women shouldn't have been treated like that, my entire posts and point were based on the fact this may be the law of the land but it isn't sharia. My references were to ChocolateReign's responses to me in which she has made it clear that Qur'anic law is the cause of all misogyny and female oppression in those countries, not the misapplication of that law because the common thread is that they're calling it shariah.

Of course you refuse to acknowledge that there is no one commonly accepted interpretation of Shariah law. It just seems odd how so many nations always consistently choose to interpret it in a way that discriminates against women. Basing laws on what "some scholars say" about how religious texts should be interpreted is a recipe for disaster.

[SKL]

Her employer told her to recant her charge against its Sudanese employee.  She recanted.  I really think people's outrage about this is misdirected.  What is a legal system supposed to do when a woman files a rape charge and then, after time has passed, states that she lied, it was actually consensual adultery?  How would any of us feel if our husband/brother were falsely accused and charged for rape, and the justice system just coddled the perjuror?  Religion aside.

 

We should really be up in arms against this woman's employer IMO.

[marbel]

If she was passed out it was rape. End of discussion.

 

What if the sex happened before she passed out, and when she woke up she didn't remember it being consensual?    What if they were both too drunk to be fully cognizant of their actions and in control of themselves?  

[SKL]

I think the biggest mind boggle I got today was when Martha informed me the UN allowed the UAE to ratify a treaty agreeing not to discriminate against women, allowing them to reserve the right to discriminate in cases allowed by their personal Sharia laws. What was the point of the contract if you're going to still discriminate, "but only in the cases where we would have anyway?" OMG. Who writes this stuff?

 

It's not unusual even in the USA to have laws make religious exceptions.  But especially in countries where separation of church and state isn't written into their laws.  I was told that in India, you're only allowed to have 1 wife EXCEPT that if you're Muslim, you can have up to 4.

 

In the US we couch it in terms of keeping the state out of the church's business.  Hence churches (and other religious organizations) are generally tax-exempt etc.

 

[Shahrazad]

So, you think consensual sex between consenting adults being illegal is a good thing? How is consensual sex between consenting adults ever the governments business.

 

 

I think it is their law and it is not OUR business. It is the law of the country as desired by the people who inhabit it. I think that people should respect the laws of the countries they visit as they, in turn, expect others to respect the laws of their own country when they visit.

 

Of course you refuse to acknowledge that there is no one commonly accepted interpretation of Shariah law. It just seems odd how so many nations always consistently choose to interpret it in a way that discriminates against women. Basing laws on what "some scholars say" about how religious texts should be interpreted is a recipe for disaster.

I acknowledge that the interpretation of shariah law differs. The way it differs however, is not a major difference and never falls into the category of the types of things we are discussing. It may differ in what it IS, but it is clear in what it is NOT. And it is not charging or persecuting rape victims.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's not unusual even in the USA to have laws make religious exceptions. But especially in countries where separation of church and state isn't written into their laws. I was told that in India, you're only allowed to have 1 wife EXCEPT that if you're Muslim, you can have up to 4.

 

In the US we couch it in terms of keeping the state out of the church's business. Hence churches (and other religious organizations) are generally tax-exempt etc.

 

Non religious non-profits are tax exempt as well. And no, there is nothing in any federal or state statutes that says a law or penalty is different for a particular religious group.

[Murphy101]

I think the biggest mind boggle I got today was when Martha informed me the UN allowed the UAE to ratify a treaty agreeing not to discriminate against women, allowing them to reserve the right to discriminate in cases allowed by their personal Sharia laws. What was the point of the contract if you're going to still discriminate, "but only in the cases where we would have anyway?" OMG. Who writes this stuff?

I know, right? It'd be funny if it was some kind of ironic fiction novel.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I acknowledge that the interpretation of shariah law differs. The way it differs however, is not a major difference and never falls into the category of the types of things we are discussing. It may differ in what it IS, but it is clear in what it is NOT. And it is not charging or persecuting rape victims.

Clearly certain nations and groups disagree with you.

[SKL]

I can see how the state has an interest in curbing adultery.  That's usually how AIDS is spread in developing countries.  It's also how a lot of out-of-wedlock babies are born.  Adultery also obviously harms the wife, family, and community of the adulterer.  And also, making it illegal/punishable to have out-of-wedlock sex can provide a disincentive to rape.  The alleged rapist in this case supposedly has to spend more than a year behind bars, which is more than lots of US rapists do.  Maybe it will make other men think twice before engaging in such acts.

 

Just because the US no longer has adultery laws with teeth (that I know of), that doesn't mean it's wrong for other countries to have them.

[LucyStoner]

 

Seriously, did you read the other posts or are you just assuming what I've said. Firstly, I mentioned in one of the earlier posts that I was using the term "date rape" although it was not a date as I did not know a better term to encompass the situation. I think I mentioned in my first post that, just as in the US it is still hard for some people to grasp the idea that is it never OK to force a woman to have sex, even if she's been drinking, flirting, or you think she's giving you some sort of invitation, no means no, many ME countries are still behind the times in understanding what rape is when it doesn't take place in the way they traditionally see it. Many would hear that she had been drinking and asked the guy to take her to her room and see that the medical exam does not show signs of rape (probably because she was unconscious) and he says it was consensual but she just regretted it and not understand that that could still be rape.

 

I've said repeatedly and in depth that prosecuting the women is wrong headed. It isn't attacking Islam to say that these women shouldn't have been treated like that, my entire posts and point were based on the fact this  may be the law of the land but it isn't sharia. 

 

Just in case you didn't notice, I am not ChocolateReign or her surrogate, much as I often admire her wit and brevity.  I was responding to your post and your post alone.  I see where you say you don't blame the victim and then I see where you sorta are doing just that.  Not "understanding date rape" does zip to mitigate the error of this law.  The way you phrased it implies that it does.  You are speaking 2 very different ideas here.  

 

It may not be your interpretation of sharia law that women are treated differently and less under the law, but other interpretations of sharia law currently coded into many countries' laws do very much use religion to mistreat women.  I am willing to concede this may be a distortion of the faith (just as I think wifely submission and Bill Gothard are distortions of faith) but this is why civil law needs to be distinct from religious interpretations.  

[LucyStoner]

I think it is their law and it is not OUR business. It is the law of the country as desired by the people who inhabit it. I think that people should respect the laws of the countries they visit as they, in turn, expect others to respect the laws of their own country when they visit.

 

 

 

Of course, I should be sure not to be raped, by anyone other than my own husband (since it is legal for me to have sex with him), when visiting the UAE.  Got it.  

[La Texican]

The wikipage on Sharia law is fubar'd. I read it at the beginning of this thread. It says r..e is only prosecuted in the case of four witnesses, never dna evidence. Sharazad says they also use dna evidence now, or even the testimony of one witness, even just a female. She says the "male witness clause" is only in business court cases, not r..e cases. The wikipage says Sharia law only uses oaths and personal testimonies in court, not lawyers or juries (not all US cases use juries or lawyers either). Mr. Google says that's not true because I googled "Sharia lawyers Dubai" and saw a lot of advertisements for lawyers.

I don't like religious empires, but I don't like misinformation and pride in ignorance either. Since wiki is publicly edited there's no way you could keep it edited with facts faster than it will be edited out. Sad for the woman

on the wiki picture being beaten, suposedly for going in public without a burka. (is that true, or misinformation?)

[SKL]

Non religious non-profits are tax exempt as well. And no, there is nothing in any federal or state statutes that says a law or penalty is different for a particular religious group.

 

OK, I should be more specific.  Pastors and other religious leaders are not subject to the same tax laws as other employees, and there are a lot of other differences.  I'm not an expert on this, but if you do some research you will learn there are a lot of religious exemptions etc.

 

Recently there was a big fuss about whether churches could be forced to indirectly pay for abortions and birth control pills.  I don't know if it's ever really been resolved, but it showed an example of religious bodies being treated differently based on separation of church and state.

 

There are other examples.  What about religious exemptions for "needed" medical care and school-required immunizations?  I'm sure there is a long list if anyone had time to look them up.  It just isn't true that we don't have legal exceptions for religious reasons.

[Murphy101]

I would never rely on Wikipedia for genuine research. Certainly not a main source of research.

[SKL]

Here's a question that is now bugging me.  How come most of the articles never mention that she recanted?  Am I the only person who thinks that's kind of relevant to how the courts would handle things?

 

I hate that this whole thing became about the evils of Islam.

[Shahrazad]

Clearly certain nations and groups disagree with you.

And they are wrong. And don't have legitimate evidence to back themselves up. They are using the illusion of a religious basis to further political and misogynistic aims as many groups do all over the place.

 

Just in case you didn't notice, I am not ChocolateReign or her surrogate, much as I often admire her wit and brevity.  I was responding to your post and your post alone.  I see where you say you don't blame the victim and then I see where you sorta are doing just that.  Not "understanding date rape" does zip to mitigate the error of this law.  The way you phrased it implies that it does.  You are speaking 2 very different ideas here.  

 

It may not be your interpretation of sharia law that women are treated differently and less under the law, but other interpretations of sharia law currently coded into many countries' laws do very much use religion to mistreat women.  I am willing to concede this may be a distortion of the faith (just as I think wifely submission and Bill Gothard are distortions of faith) but this is why civil law needs to be distinct from religious interpretations.  

I know that you aren't CR, but I meant that the reference was to her, not you. I am NOT blaming the victim. I suppose you hear what you want to hear rather than what is actually said. I said I couldn't fathom why they would act the way they did and then, because I am from a similar cultural background, I theorized that perhaps the reason was because the idea of date rape is foreign to them. That isn't OK. It doesn't make it acceptable for them to treat a victim that way even if they don't understand it. I was trying to provide some possible context for how they might've gone so wrong, not to excuse their behavior or give them some sort of justification. I was simply trying to point out that it wasn't so much the idea of rape in general that they had trouble with but that they don't yet grasp this form of rape as a concept because it is not very common within the culture itself since their are pretty strict rules regarding interaction between genders. I hope this clarifies and does not seem like I'm further blaming the victim. My point was, as La Texican said, not the UAE is behind and backwards in this regard (50+ years), but not quite as behind as she originally thought at first read (ie thousands of years).

 

Of course, I should be sure not to be raped, by anyone other than my own husband (since it is legal for me to have sex with him), when visiting the UAE.  Got it.  

Um, no. I never in any way, shape, or form said that. Way to pull something out of something else and completely warp it out of the realm of sensibility. If you know that a country has a law that criminalizes extramarital sex, maybe don't take a guy out to the beach and have (consensual) sex with him there and then get caught, and then protest the fact that you were arrested despite knowing you were breaking a law. Rape is a completely different animal.

 

The wikipage on Sharia law is fubar'd. I read it at the beginning of this thread. It says r..e is only prosecuted in the case of four witnesses, never dna evidence. Sharazad says they also use dna evidence now, or even the testimony of one witness, even just a female. She says the "male witness clause" is only in business court cases, not r..e cases. The wikipage says Sharia law only uses oaths and personal testimonies in court, not lawyers or juries (not all US cases use juries or lawyers either). Mr. Google says that's not true because I googled "Sharia lawyers Dubai" and saw a lot of advertisements for lawyers.

I don't like religious empires, but I don't like misinformation and pride in ignorance either. Since wiki is publicly edited there's no way you could keep it edited with facts faster than it will be edited out. Sad for the woman

on the wiki picture being beaten, suposedly for going in public without a burka. (is that true, or misinformation?)

I believe the wiki picture was of the Taliban in Afghanistan and they did do those kinds of things so probably factual. I don't know why they didn't label it as the Taliban.

[Dandelion]

OK, I should be more specific.  Pastors and other religious leaders are not subject to the same tax laws as other employees, and there are a lot of other differences.  I'm not an expert on this, but if you do some research you will learn there are a lot of religious exemptions etc.

 

Recently there was a big fuss about whether churches could be forced to indirectly pay for abortions and birth control pills.  I don't know if it's ever really been resolved, but it showed an example of religious bodies being treated differently based on separation of church and state.

 

There are other examples.  What about religious exemptions for "needed" medical care and school-required immunizations?  I'm sure there is a long list if anyone had time to look them up.  It just isn't true that we don't have legal exceptions for religious reasons.

 

Religious exemptions are completely different from basing a country's legal system on the tenets of one religion.

 

The former exempts certain people from certain requirements if those requirements are in conflict with their religious beliefs (within appropriate boundaries as defined by the law).

 

The latter subjects everyone to the tenets of one religion without exception.

[Lawana]

Here's a question that is now bugging me.  How come most of the articles never mention that she recanted?  Am I the only person who thinks that's kind of relevant to how the courts would handle things?

 

I hate that this whole thing became about the evils of Islam.

Perhaps because her explanation is that the withdrawal of the rape claim was a strategic move that was suggested to her by either her manager, or a police officer, depending on the source, to "make it all go away." That if she dropped the rape claim, as a foreigner, she would be left alone. 

[La Texican]

oops double post

[La Texican]

I'm not really researching Sharia Law, just googled a little for my own thoughts that poped up during this conversation. I'll admit I was enjoying having a conversation about ideas and not just cartoons, toys, dishes and dinner, and gossip about the neighbors. plus I might have learned a little bit more about the world in the process.

[Shahrazad]

Here is a case where DNA and physical evidence was used without a confession:

 

http://www.emirates247.com/crime/local/death-for-employer-who-raped-job-seeker-2012-07-31-1.469605

Unless they changed the law since 2012 (when they were still regularly using DNA to prove rape cases), then they accept those things as proof.

 

[La Texican]

I believed you. That's why I said I learned a little bit more about the world, in the process.

 

ETA: i physically cringed when i read you say it was probably factual (about another group)

Those poor people. :(

[SKL]

Religious exemptions are completely different from basing a country's legal system on the tenets of one religion.

 

The former exempts certain people from certain requirements if those requirements are in conflict with their religious beliefs (within appropriate boundaries as defined by the law).

 

The latter subjects everyone to the tenets of one religion without exception.

 

I was talking about the sub-topic of having a treaty that exempts countries whose religious-based laws conflict with the treaty.

 

If a country's people want its laws to be based on religion, that's not my business.

 

There's always a tendency to believe that the culture / system one was raised in is the best.  I'm sure the folks raised in the UAE consider their system superior to ours in many ways - especially since they haven't experienced our actual lifestyle.

[SKL]

Perhaps because her explanation is that the withdrawal of the rape claim was a strategic move that was suggested to her by either her manager, or a police officer, depending on the source, to "make it all go away." That if she dropped the rape claim, as a foreigner, she would be left alone. 

 

But it's still very relevant to the legal outcome, regardless of why she recanted.  It's just this sort of selective reporting that makes us skeptical to sympathize with stories like this.

 

It's just so easy to get people fired up about Islam, not enough people are asking the important questions.  Of COURSE the entire legal system and the entire country raped her.  They're Muslims!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

OK, I should be more specific. Pastors and other religious leaders are not subject to the same tax laws as other employees, and there are a lot of other differences. I'm not an expert on this, but if you do some research you will learn there are a lot of religious exemptions etc.

 

Recently there was a big fuss about whether churches could be forced to indirectly pay for abortions and birth control pills. I don't know if it's ever really been resolved, but it showed an example of religious bodies being treated differently based on separation of church and state.

 

There are other examples. What about religious exemptions for "needed" medical care and school-required immunizations? I'm sure there is a long list if anyone had time to look them up. It just isn't true that we don't have legal exceptions for religious reasons.

No, you stated for particular religions, not religious reasons.

There is a difference between saying law A applies to everyone except Christians as compared to certain laws providing religious exemptions due to conflicts with the First Amendment. We do guarantee the right to unwarranted government intrusions to all religions via the 1st.

[SKL]

"I was raped and they threw me in jail for it"

 

sounds so much better than

 

"I was raped while drunk, reported it, got the rapist arrested, then I said it was consensual.  Then I got sentenced for illegal adultery, illegal drinking, and perjury, all of which I had admitted."

[Shahrazad]

I believed you. That's why I said I learned a little bit more about the world, in the process.

 

ETA: i physically cringed when i read you say it was probably factual (about another group)

Those poor people. :(

 

Yes, definitely. I did a final project, years ago, for an international studies course on what could be done to remedy human rights' situations like this without forcing compromises in religious beliefs for the population and with respect to cultural norms. It is still something I'm very interested in pursuing but it is a long-term issue that will take time, not a quick fix IMO.

[Aelwydd]

I think the biggest mind boggle I got today was when Martha informed me the UN allowed the UAE to ratify a treaty agreeing not to discriminate against women, allowing them to reserve the right to discriminate in cases allowed by their personal Sharia laws. What was the point of the contract if you're going to still discriminate, "but only in the cases where we would have anyway?" OMG. Who writes this stuff?

 

Men, mostly.

[SKL]

No, you stated for particular religions, not religious reasons.

There is a difference between saying law A applies to everyone except Christians as compared to certain laws providing religious exemptions due to conflicts with the First Amendment. We do guarantee the right to unwarranted government intrusions to all religions via the 1st.

 

From the US side, I did not mean that the law intends to treat different religions differently (though that is often the effect).  In other countries, this happens, though.

 

I am not trying to write a scholarly work here.  I was just trying to say that it is not ridiculous for an international treaty to allow exceptions for local religious or other differences.  I added the US stuff because I feel people should realize that our laws aren't exactly religion-blind either, as some seemed to think.

 

I'm not a fan of human rights-oriented treaties for this reason.  And other reasons, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

ETA:  I went back and re-read my comments, and no, I did not state "for particular religions" with respect to the US.  You misread/misremembered.  (Unlike some people, I won't say you "lied" . . .. )

[Dandelion]

It's just so easy to get people fired up about Islam, not enough people are asking the important questions.  Of COURSE the entire legal system and the entire country raped her.  They're Muslims!

 

I just went back and re-read this entire thread, just to make sure I'm not missing the anti-Muslim sentiment that you keep coming back to.  As I hit reply, there were 138 posts in this thread.  Of those, exactly 2 posts express what could be construed as an anti-Muslim sentiment.

 

All the other posts are from people taking issue with Sharia law.  To me, Sharia law and Islam are not one and the same.  Yes, Sharia law is derived from the Koran and Muslim traditions.  But as Sharazad has pointed out repeatedly, there is a lot of variation in how Sharia is applied across the Muslim world.  And according to a worldwide Muslim Pew Survey, many Muslims disagree on what Sharia includes and who should be subject to it. 

 

If even the Muslim community is in disagreement, it seems that we should be able to have a discussion (and disagree) about Sharia law.  I do not interpret that as disrespect to the Muslim faith or to the Muslim members of this board who have participated in this discussion.  I'm very appreciative of the time Sharazad and UmMusa have taken to respond to the questions in this thread, even if I disagree with them.  IMO the majority of people posting in this thread have kept their tone respectful and have voiced concern with Sharia law - they have not attacked the Muslim faith.

[La Texican]

I know it's a big question, but what were some of the ideas you were throwing around? For example political assylum & love it or leave it are the only two concepts I've heard of that protect the individual and national soverignty.

[La Texican]

Men, mostly.

lol

[Aelwydd]

Here's a question that is now bugging me. How come most of the articles never mention that she recanted? Am I the only person who thinks that's kind of relevant to how the courts would handle things?

 

I hate that this whole thing became about the evils of Islam.

Me too, as I never referenced Islam in my original post. I did try to point out that men who would rape a woman are sexual predators, and such exist in all cultures. That's why IMO the appropriate response is to teach boys everywhere that it's simply wrong to have sex with someone who does not--or CANNOT--give consent. There are decent Muslim men who arewould respectful and the are misogynist atheist men who wouldn't hesitate to rape a woman. To me the difference is one of personal ethics and empathy. That is what I'm striving to instill in my ds.

[Parrothead]

What if the sex happened before she passed out, and when she woke up she didn't remember it being consensual? What if they were both too drunk to be fully cognizant of their actions and in control of themselves?

How did you come to that conclusion. The reports say she found herself being raped when she came to. As in being raped is what woke her up.

[Parrothead]

I think it is their law and it is not OUR business. It is the law of the country as desired by the people who inhabit it. I think that people should respect the laws of the countries they visit as they, in turn, expect others to respect the laws of their own country when they visit.

 

.

Of course it is our business. It is the business of every human to ensure other humans enjoy basic human rights. If not there would still be a segment in the US which allowed slavery, apartheid would be still going strong in South Africa, our governments wouldn't be working so hard against sex slave traders. To say it is none of our business is just mind boggling. Of course it is our business. It is the business of every human on the planet that men and women and children are treated with respect regardless of sex, gender, color, creed or nationality.

 

If these countries in the Middle East where women are whipped in the street, arrested or whatever other indignations are put upon women just for daring to be born women like their laws, they are a bunch of sick people.

[8circles]

Of course it is our business. It is the business of every human to ensure other humans enjoy basic human rights. If not there would still be a segment in the US which allowed slavery, apartheid would be still going strong in South Africa, our governments wouldn't be working so hard against sex slave traders. To say it is none of our business is just mind boggling. Of course it is our business. It is the business of every human on the planet that men and women and children are treated with respect regardless of sex, gender, color, creed or nationality.

 

If these countries in the Middle East where women are whipped in the streetcar arrested or whatever other indignations are put upon women just for daring to be born women like their laws, they are a bunch of sick people.

Exactly.  I don't get the attitude of "we need to respect their laws" as a response to "wow, what happened to that woman was a horrible injustice.  How can these things happen?".

 

What happened to that woman was wrong.  I don't respect that or the cultural/legal reasons why it happened.  It is 100% my business to say so.  My responsibility, in fact.

[Anne in CA]

I believe the wiki picture was of the Taliban in Afghanistan and they did do those kinds of things so probably factual. I don't know why they didn't label it as the Taliban.

 

 

 

 

I am unable to quote correctly, but the above is a quote, and I would like to add, there is no such thing as DID. Taliban does this all the time today.

[marbel]

How did you come to that conclusion. The reports say she found herself being raped when she came to. As in being raped is what woke her up.

 

I didn't come to a conclusion; I was just asking.   But am I correct that the guy said it was consensual?   

[Joanne]

Me too, as I never referenced Islam in my original post. I did try to point out that men who would rape a woman are sexual predators, and such exist in all cultures. That's why IMO the appropriate response is to teach boys everywhere that it's simply wrong to have sex with someone who does not--or CANNOT--give consent. There are decent Muslim men who arewould respectful and the are misogynist atheist men who wouldn't hesitate to rape a woman. To me the difference is one of personal ethics and empathy. That is what I'm striving to instill in my ds.

IMO there are cultures and attitudes that devalue and dimish women. They restrict women functionally, operationally, and sanction it through institutions. As such, certain groups of people create environments that make rape more likely from more men than would happen in a different environment. I believe this to be true in certain Muslim settings. Similarly, I believe marital rape is more likely in certain Christian settings.

 

It is a risk any time power is distributed by what genitals exist on the perrson being granted or denied power.

 

A woman should have the right to get drunk AND still be protected by law from any assault, rape, or prosecutuion.