Shahrazad Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Did I ever say what happened to her wasn't wrong? Is it possible, in some of your eyes, for a conservative Muslim woman to also be opposed to injustice because it seems like my posts on this point are continuously ignored.I don't know so much about the UAE but my understanding is that much of it is pretty modern, despite having theocratic laws. There is a difference between saying extramarital sex is illegal and as such, we should respect that law and not go there and have public intercourse and expect not to face a charge on that (and I am NOT referring to the victim the post was originally about but another poster who spoke solely of consensual encounters) and saying it is ok for women to be whipped or beaten on the street for being women? I just don't even know why some of you are so insistent to make everything I say into a sanction of being ok to beat/rape/arrest women. My point is this: if a country wants a theocratic government, then who are you to insist that you know better and they should have the same government as you. They aren't coming to the US and forcing theocracy on you because they believe their form of government is better since a theocracy is based on divine revelation. The same way we've had multiple topics about how it is inappropriate to use religion for lawmaking since there is separation of church and state here in the US, it is not right for you to command a nation of people (most of whom are sharing the same faith) to put aside and disregard their religious laws and beliefs in a country that is founded on theocratic principles with the desire to live in a theocratic nation because YOUR beliefs disagree. I understand interfering if it is clear that the way the government is working is at odds with the wishes of the people or if there are clear human rights' violations occurring (such as prosecuting a rape victim in this case), but to completely take away the people's right to choose a theocracy for themselves is unfair as well. However, to my knowledge, the Emirates are not a place where women get beaten just for being a woman or where it is extremely difficult to be as a woman. I've known a lot of Emirati people and expat women married to Emiratis and I have honestly only heard the utmost praise for the ease of living for Emiratis and their spouses there and the combination of modernity with *some* Islamic values (depending on the emirate). This is not a place where women get beaten for uncovering their faces (in fact most of those places are Taliban or AQ territory or extremely rural areas of certain countries where they are pretty far removed from the cities). I kind of feel we've snowballed into putting every atrocity committed by any government claiming to be Muslim upon the UAE's shoulders and are mixing issues where we're talking about apples and oranges.Anne in Oregon, you are right. 'Do' is the more appropriate term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 If it's any comfort shahrazad, I don't think you are alone or completely misunderstood. I am not having a problem understanding you and mostly agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 A woman should have the right to get drunk AND still be protected by law from any assault, rape, or prosecutuion. Problem is what happens when a woman gets so drunk she can't find her room is with a guy who is also just as drunk? Or do only men have a responsibility to be sober enough to know where they are and be coherent? I don't think it means she deserves mistreatment. She doesn't. No one does. I think it creates a situation where no one is credible in their decisions or memory of an event. Legally it's a mess bc no, we can't just take her word for it on such a serious matter. And we shouldn't. There has to some kind of evidence beyond her just saying she was raped even in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 There are a lot of actually very divergent topics getting rolled into this thread. What are the laws of Dubai, are they just, how could this norwegian situation have been prevented, what are the cultural mores that might have led to this.. Does a people have the right to decide how to govern themselves? Or do they only have that right if it confirms to a western nations ideals? What actually is sharia law? How is it implemented? What good or not is the UN and any treaty they form? What expectations should foreigners expect to demand when traveling to other countries that clearly do not share common legal systems and or beliefs What is an effective means of having dialog with people of strong different views? Is dialog even desired? I was going to mention a few other topics but a kid cried and I lost my train of thought. Squirrel! lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I think it creates a situation where no one is credible in their decisions or memory of an event. Legally it's a mess bc no, we can't just take her word for it on such a serious matter. And we shouldn't. There has to some kind of evidence beyond her just saying she was raped even in the US. Yes, especially if the penalty is death, the evidence has to be very strong. Imagine if your son or husband could be sentenced to death based only on one person's unsubstantiated allegation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfrumpable. Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 La Texican, on 21 Jul 2013 - 08:52 AM, said: That's why ancient religions should not have final say in modern laws. smh Shaharazad Many would disagree with you considering that many people (from all countries) are in favor of capital punishments and many would not mind to see it enforced on rapists. I will say that is one law I am very proud of in my faith. IMO, a rapist deserves the death penalty. I didn't mean that capital punishment was barbaric. I quoted where you said, "and I don't mean lethal injection, I mean by stoning or worse like it says in the Quran" (paraphrasing this time, clipped and quoted your exact words last time.) Why is stoning better than lethal injection, or word of mouth better than dna evidence just because that's the way the book says? i believe in a global comingling and a planetary human race. I just like what Chris Rock said, "I don't believe in beliefs. I mean, you can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it." I think killing people with stones instead of lethal injection is an example of beliefs. If it was an idea instead of a belief they would have changed and started using dna evidence and lethal injection to kill rapists. Although Chris Rock did say that, he said in in the role he was playing in the movie Dogma. :) So, I think the credit of that line would go to Kevin Smith. :) One of my favorite movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Texican Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Best. Movie. Ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Problem is what happens when a woman gets so drunk she can't find her room is with a guy who is also just as drunk? Or do only men have a responsibility to be sober enough to know where they are and be coherent? I don't think it means she deserves mistreatment. She doesn't. No one does. I think it creates a situation where no one is credible in their decisions or memory of an event. Legally it's a mess bc no, we can't just take her word for it on such a serious matter. And we shouldn't. There has to some kind of evidence beyond her just saying she was raped even in the US. Yes. And I think this is a key point in this situation. When a person is extremely drunk, male or female, they can not be relied on to defend themselves, to help anyone else, to make clear decisions of any kind, or to recall details of their drunkenness. No sexism required. The fact is that anyone who is drunk is a vulnerable person-- vulnerable to crimes of all sorts, to injury, to accidents, you name it. That is something I hope I can teach my kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Yes. And I think this is a key point in this situation. When a person is extremely drunk, male or female, they can not be relied on to defend themselves, to help anyone else, to make clear decisions of any kind, or to recall details of their drunkenness. No sexism required. The fact is that anyone who is drunk is a vulnerable person-- vulnerable to crimes of all sorts, to injury, to accidents, you name it. That is something I hope I can teach my kids. Yes. And she can say she recanted for any reason but she still recanted. Which means legally she didn't have a rape case. Being as I'm a fan of justice, I'm not ready to run to presume the guy is guilty of rape when I've not seen evidence of it yet. I'm willing to believe it could have happened but there's no evidence of it. :( It sounds like a cluster from the start. She doesn't appear to have been properly informed and guided, lacked a hefty amount of judgement to get so drunk while on business that she couldn't get to her room and trusted a guy she either shouldn't have or whose judgement was just as impaired as hers. What a tragic mess. I don't think she'd have ended up in jail in the US but then again, I think if she kept claiming rape after recanting - she would be risking a lawsuit from the man she's accusing. And I don't think he would have gotten any jail time at all here. It sounds like she would have had a difficult time proving rape. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Does a people have the right to decide how to govern themselves? Or do they only have that right if it confirms to a western nations ideals? My take on the bolded item above is that some "western ideals" are fundamental human rights. I don't believe that affording women equal rights and protection under the law is nothing more than a western ideal. It seems that some in this thread are suggesting that. I'm having a difficult time believing that people are actually ok with that, and find that suggestion disingenuous at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Different cultures have different ideas about what constitutes "respect" for women. Even if we could somehow re-write all the laws to prevent what we call discrimination, that would not change cultures. That's been tried plenty of times. When the laws change, then the traditional practices become "crimes," but they continue to happen. The people responsible for enforcing the laws are people in the community. Child marriage comes to mind. Female circumcision, child abuse, and many other illegal acts continue to be practiced. But that's not to say I agree that Islam hates women. I don't. I believe that, much like Paul's words in the Bible, the rules were intended for the good of the people and times they were written in. I don't personally agree that they should never change to conform with *advances* over time. And I'm not talking about the advance of the women's sexual freedom movement, which I think is largely ill-advised and does NOT serve the ideal of "respect for women." I'm talking about advances in technology, communication, education, and other aspects of civilization that should make the world a safer, more comfortable, friendlier place for everyday women. That said, most of the subjugation and abuse of women that we see is the result of *small* men misusing or ignoring well-meant laws. I would also say that this is true regardless of religion and even, to some extent, of culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 My take on the bolded item above is that some "western ideals" are fundamental human rights. I don't believe that affording women equal rights and protection under the law is nothing more than a western ideal. It seems that some in this thread are suggesting that. I'm having a difficult time believing that people are actually ok with that, and find that suggestion disingenuous at best. Thank you very much! My tolerance well is pretty deep, but I can honestly say that the bucket stops short of tolerating this kind of human rights violation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Yes. And she can say she recanted for any reason but she still recanted. Which means legally she didn't have a rape case. Being as I'm a fan of justice, I'm not ready to run to presume the guy is guilty of rape when I've not seen evidence of it yet. I'm willing to believe it could have happened but there's no evidence of it. :( It sounds like a cluster from the start. She doesn't appear to have been properly informed and guided, lacked a hefty amount of judgement to get so drunk while on business that she couldn't get to her room and trusted a guy she either shouldn't have or whose judgement was just as impaired as hers. What a tragic mess. I don't think she'd have ended up in jail in the US but then again, I think if she kept claiming rape after recanting - she would be risking a lawsuit from the man she's accusing. And I don't think he would have gotten any jail time at all here. It sounds like she would have had a difficult time proving rape. :( Wow. Just wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Different cultures have different ideas about what constitutes "respect" for women. Even if we could somehow re-write all the laws to prevent what we call discrimination, that would not change cultures. That's been tried plenty of times. When the laws change, then the traditional practices become "crimes," but they continue to happen. The people responsible for enforcing the laws are people in the community. I agree that cultural change is difficult, especially when certain attitudes have been deeply entrenched over hundreds or even thousands of years. But it's certainly not impossible. We've got plenty of examples of successful cultural change right here in the U.S. just in the past 200 years. When enough people push for change, they're able to bring about changes in the law. While some shifting in cultural attitudes is necessary to effect legal changes, the cultural shift is usually more gradual and may take a generation or so to fully take hold. But it can and does happen. Again, I'm not implying that our society, culture, or legal system is perfect or that the U.S. represents the "ideal". Just pointing out that this country has made significant strides in addressing discriminatory practices, discriminatory laws, and effecting cultural change. As have many other countries. As to whether enough people in countries under Sharia law want change, that's a different question. The survey I linked in an earlier post seems to indicate that the majority of Muslims support Sharia law. They have a right to vote for the laws they want. That doesn't negate our right to disagree (and push for action to address human rights issues). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennynd Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Speaking of unfair legal outcomes, how about this one. True story, here in the USA. A woman and her children were walking across the street. (The reason being, they needed to go buy groceries and she didn't have a car.) A drunk driver speeds by and kills her four-year-old (who had gotten scared upon seeing the drunk-operated vehicle and tried to run back to one side or the other). The mother is convicted of homicide because they were not crossing at a crosswalk. The drunk, speeding driver is NOT found responsible for the death. No Sharia Law to blame here. Hmmm. This is just one but I'm sure we all could think of many examples if we tried. Sorry, the tone of righteous anger just got to me. Let's take the mote out of our own eye first. I read that story too. I do agree that the drunk driver should be convicted, however, I do think the Mom has some responsibility too. I drive to a downtown area for work and I can not tell you how many times a person just came out of nowhere and running through a busy street. They completely disregard the traffic sign. In this case, it does seem this Mom cross the street where/when she should not especially with young kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Different cultures have different ideas about what constitutes "respect" for women. Even if we could somehow re-write all the laws to prevent what we call discrimination, that would not change cultures. That's been tried plenty of times. When the laws change, then the traditional practices become "crimes," but they continue to happen. The people responsible for enforcing the laws are people in the community. Child marriage comes to mind. Female circumcision, child abuse, and many other illegal acts continue to be practiced. But that's not to say I agree that Islam hates women. I don't. I believe that, much like Paul's words in the Bible, the rules were intended for the good of the people and times they were written in. I don't personally agree that they should never change to conform with *advances* over time. And I'm not talking about the advance of the women's sexual freedom movement, which I think is largely ill-advised and does NOT serve the ideal of "respect for women." I'm talking about advances in technology, communication, education, and other aspects of civilization that should make the world a safer, more comfortable, friendlier place for everyday women. That said, most of the subjugation and abuse of women that we see is the result of *small* men misusing or ignoring well-meant laws. I would also say that this is true regardless of religion and even, to some extent, of culture. This is what I've been thinking over this afternoon after seeing a few of the comments on here. So many people jump to the conclusion that men come up with insane laws so they can rule over women and rape them without consequence. I don't believe that every man since the beginning of time has desired to hurt women and control them. I remember reading something a few years ago on the right to vote for women. The idea wasn't that women were stupid, incapable, weak-minded, second-class citizens, etc., but it was the idea that every family had a vote and men, as the head of the family, would cast that vote. I don't agree wtih it, but at least I can understand that reasoning. The problem is that people are screwed up. I think we can have the most perfect law in the world and we will somehow screw it up. Utopia doesn't exist. Societies since the beginning of time have been trying to figure out what works. I think many laws that we today find horrible and unfair against women were, at the time of their creation, intended to help and protect women. Obviously we can see that in many cases it doesn't help women. But that doesn't mean all Middle Eastern men hate women or view them as evil. (It also doesn't mean I'd want to live under those laws either.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Wow. Just wow. Just wow what? Those are the facts. She got so drunk she couldn't find her way to her room. (Her statement) She accepted this guy's "help". (Her statement) Was he drunk too? Did they have a romantic relationship? Are there other people in the bar to give an opinion on how it seemed? We don't know. The last thing she remembers is sitting in his room. (Her statement) Did she pass out that second? Was she so drunk she doesn't remember more? What? We don't know. She woke up being raped and afterward went downstairs for help. (Her statement) How long after passing out? What was he doing? Was he violent? Did he seem confused? We don't know what exactly the circumstances were. The staff got her to a hospital and called police at her request. (Hef statement) They seemed to think calling the police unwise. Why? We don't know. There's numerous possibilities. She recanted her claim of rape. (Her statement) Afterward she claims it's because the police told her to, as translated by her boss. Thus this was never treated as a rape case from that moment on. So. Let's place this scenario in an American locale. Based ONLY on this info: A 26 year old female gets so drink she can't find her hotel room. A guy offers to help her. She passed out or loses memory or something in the hotel room. She wakes up at some point to him having sex with her. Leaves to get help bc she was raped. After she makes the charge of rape, she recants. The rape charges are of course dropped. Later she says she really was raped. She does not press charges again. She just tells everyone she was raped and how awful it is that she didn't get justice. Okay. Based on ONLY that - Would you send a man to go to prison? Would you expect him to do time, much less serious time? Would you expect a conviction? I wouldn't. One, I have not heard the man's side. Two, there's simply no evidence. Three, her choices leave more questions and doubt. If a woman recanted from rape charges and then continued to publicly state the man really did rape her, then wouldn't you expect him to sue her? I would. That's a dispicably slanderous accusation to expect a man to endure. I am not saying she wasn't raped. I'm fully willing to believe she was. But sadly, we base jail time on evidence not sentiment. I'm more baffled that they charged her for unlawful sex. I suspect they will drop it. But once she recanted the rape, she lost any claim to expect the legal system to treat her as a rapid victim. Because she said she wasn't one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 A woman should have the right to get drunk AND still be protected by law from any assault, rape, or prosecutuion. Problem is what happens when a woman gets so drunk she can't find her room is with a guy who is also just as drunk? Or do only men have a responsibility to be sober enough to know where they are and be coherent? Thank you for asking this. And re: the bolded - it seems a few people posting on this thread would say yes to that. Seems like the men have the responsibility not only to keep control of themselves but also, somehow know when the woman is out of control. Why do only women get a pass on getting stupid drunk? ETA: So, is this the new feminism? I am woman, hear me roar, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 You have to seriously wonder who is supporting these laws though. The men who get to vote for them? Everyone? I have my doubts as to the fact the majority want women to be treated like second class citizens. I really do. But that's the kicker isn't it? Do they in fact feel they are second class citizens? Of course no one wants that for themselves. But I wouldn't assume they view themselves that way just bc you or I might view it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I agree. And being that I'm fair in my judgment, there are some things that the US does that I believe violates human rights. So it's not like I'm saying the US is perfect and does everything right. YUP! This! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 No I would not send anyone to jail based on that, but why was she sent to jail? Apparently bc sex outside marriage is illegal there. That's also why the man went to jail. I already said she wouldn't be in jail for that in the USA. But then again, neither would he. If they are going to have a law against sex outside marriage, at least they should give it to both participants. It would be sexist not to, yes? Which brings us to the questions of: Should a country be permitted to have a theocracy if they want one? IMO yes. (Which is not to say *I* want one. Happens I don't.) Should a people be permitted enact laws against sex outside marriage? IMO yes. (Again which is not to say *I* want it. Again it happens I don't.) I do not think those are necessarily acts against humanity. Should it be okay for women to be raped and laws ignore it or punish her for it? No. Because no decent man or woman anywhere of any religion or culture wants their mother/sister/wife/daughter to ever be raped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I don't really want to post here anymore but I can only say this one more time. I agree that this case was a HR violation. I cannot tolerate it either. I do plan to live overseas in the future at some point and it is my desire to start some things to help women in these situations (victims of abuse, rape, also women who are involved in prostitution and need help-- not trying to compare the other victims to prostitutes but overseas, a lot of prostitutes are victims themselves). Perhaps I'm overly optimistic or this is an unrealistic goal in the eyes of some. My husband and I have at-length discussions about this and we are on the same page. I don't think a woman ever deserves it. I don't think it is ever justifiable. Honestly, I do feel bothered by the fact some people are acting like I'm trying to somehow justify a case like this. I have only justified people being in favor of theocracy's right to have a law preventing people from having sex outside of marriage (namely publicly since it has to be public to be witnessed) when it is CONSENSUAL and no crime has been committed and no rape or sexual assault has taken place. I don't think I ever belittled the plight of this woman or any other who has been a victim. When women are victimized like this it is a crime and a black spot for the whole ummah (muslim community) and we have a responsibility to remedy this. I believe in sharia and I also believe that sharia does not allow for this. IMO, this gives me a better chance to make change within the realm of sharing a religion, beliefs, and a culture. The idea that so many people would insist on the assumption that I have somehow blamed the victim or that I think women deserve treatment like this or that I support this sort of thing in any form when the entire reason I posted to this thread knowing the direction it would go in was to condemn this and to publicly speak against it as a Muslim woman, is so abhorrent to me it really makes me sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Because it [alcohol] isn't illegal in Dubai. Intoxication in public spaces is. The BBC says these are the charges: "The 24-year-old reported the March attack to the police but found herself charged with having extramarital sex, drinking alcohol, and perjury." which certainly suggests that any drinking of alcohol is illegal. So did the BBC get the charges wrong? Or is alcohol illegal in Dubai and the hotels are still serving it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I don't know. Unfortunately, what we mostly hear are the horror stories. So my judgment is clouded by that. But you can't do that and come to reasoned decisions. Think of what you would think if that's how you based decisions about do many things. Most of what we hear about home schooling on the news. About big families. About people who are on state assistance. You have two women posting in this very thread saying they don't view Islam or sharia as making them second class citizens. They both post that their great upset is people claiming things in the name sharia/Islam that is not true to teachings. I gotta say I can easily identify with that as a RC. It seems to be a plague dilemma that many different believers must content with sorting out. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Just wow what? Those are the facts. She got so drunk she couldn't find her way to her room. (Her statement) She accepted this guy's "help". (Her statement) Was he drunk too? Did they have a romantic relationship? Are there other people in the bar to give an opinion on how it seemed? We don't know. The last thing she remembers is sitting in his room. (Her statement) Did she pass out that second? Was she so drunk she doesn't remember more? What? We don't know. She woke up being raped and afterward went downstairs for help. (Her statement) How long after passing out? What was he doing? Was he violent? Did he seem confused? We don't know what exactly the circumstances were. The staff got her to a hospital and called police at her request. (Hef statement) They seemed to think calling the police unwise. Why? We don't know. There's numerous possibilities. She recanted her claim of rape. (Her statement) Afterward she claims it's because the police told her to, as translated by her boss. Thus this was never treated as a rape case from that moment on. So. Let's place this scenario in an American locale. Based ONLY on this info: A 26 year old female gets so drink she can't find her hotel room. A guy offers to help her. She passed out or loses memory or something in the hotel room. She wakes up at some point to him having sex with her. Leaves to get help bc she was raped. After she makes the charge of rape, she recants. The rape charges are of course dropped. Later she says she really was raped. She does not press charges again. She just tells everyone she was raped and how awful it is that she didn't get justice. Okay. Based on ONLY that - Would you send a man to go to prison? Would you expect him to do time, much less serious time? Would you expect a conviction? I wouldn't. One, I have not heard the man's side. Two, there's simply no evidence. Three, her choices leave more questions and doubt. If a woman recanted from rape charges and then continued to publicly state the man really did rape her, then wouldn't you expect him to sue her? I would. That's a dispicably slanderous accusation to expect a man to endure. I am not saying she wasn't raped. I'm fully willing to believe she was. But sadly, we base jail time on evidence not sentiment. I'm more baffled that they charged her for unlawful sex. I suspect they will drop it. But once she recanted the rape, she lost any claim to expect the legal system to treat her as a rapid victim. Because she said she wasn't one. I love how you pretend her recanting the claim occurred in a vacuum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I read that story too. I do agree that the drunk driver should be convicted, however, I do think the Mom has some responsibility too. I drive to a downtown area for work and I can not tell you how many times a person just came out of nowhere and running through a busy street. They completely disregard the traffic sign. In this case, it does seem this Mom cross the street where/when she should not especially with young kids. If we're going to prosecute people for jaywalking, which most of us have done, fine - but don't you think the mother was punished enough by losing her child?! Do they ticket everyone who crosses the street there or only bereaved moms? If we're going to get into "she could have been safer," there was also a lot of discussion about why the city planners located a low-income housing project in a place far away from any reasonable road crossing, essentially forcing people to jay-walk, because having to walk so far out of the way with bags of groceries and children at your heels is not feasible in many real-life cases. But of course the people who designed things that way didn't get charged with any crime or have to pay a fine. Some people think the woman was charged essentially for being poor. How dare you have multiple children and no car? People were actually bitching about the number of children she had, as she mourned her dead four-year-old. This is the modern, civilized, humane USA. ETA: From a broader perspective, what does it really mean when we convict a mom of a crime because her child had an accident that, in retrospect, she might have been able to avoid? Most child deaths are accidents. If I am out driving with my kids and a drunk driver hits me, is it my fault because I should not have been on a road where drunk drivers might speed by? If my kid falls off the monkey bars and bangs her head, do I need to be convicted for letting her climb or not putting a helmet on her head? If in a split second of distraction my tot runs in the path of moving equipment, am I a criminal? We could all be in jail at that rate. Or holed up in our houses with our kids protectively wrapped in bubble wrap. It's ridiculous. I'm sure the mom already thought to herself, "gosh, I wish we hadn't tried crossing that damn street." Sorry, this really upsets me, as you can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The BBC says these are the charges: "The 24-year-old reported the March attack to the police but found herself charged with having extramarital sex, drinking alcohol, and perjury." which certainly suggests that any drinking of alcohol is illegal. So did the BBC get the charges wrong? Or is alcohol illegal in Dubai and the hotels are still serving it? The way I read it, the alcohol conviction was drinking without a license or something like that. It sounds like there are certain controls on alcohol consumption that were violated. Both he and she were convicted of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The BBC says these are the charges: "The 24-year-old reported the March attack to the police but found herself charged with having extramarital sex, drinking alcohol, and perjury." which certainly suggests that any drinking of alcohol is illegal. So did the BBC get the charges wrong? Or is alcohol illegal in Dubai and the hotels are still serving it? Firstly, Alcohol is served at many hotels, restaurants, and bars in Dubai. I believe Dubai and one other Emirate are the only ones the decriminalized alcohol. Dubai has several laws regarding alcohol which tourists should be aware of before visiting: Alcohol is available only at licensed premises, usually attached to hotels (most nightclubs and bars are in or attached to hotels, though they may have separate entrances). Alcohol is not sold on religious holidays, nor during daylight hours in Ramadan (even to non-Muslims). It is illegal to drink alcohol in public places, and there is a zero-tolerance policy on drunk driving. Anyone involved in a collision found with alcohol in their blood will usually get a month's jail sentence and fine. Alcohol can be bought only for home consumption at certain outlets in Dubai, and an alcohol license is required. Supermarkets only stock non-alcoholic beers. Even food items containing alcohol are not sold in supermarkets. Remember to carry some sort of identification when visiting a bar if you are young, as you will not be let in otherwise. The law prohibits anyone below 21 to enter. The Authorities take disruptive behavior while intoxicated very seriously, which as you can imagine will lead to jail time or deportation. I'm not religious though. So I really don't believe in basing laws and government on religious books. I do get what you mean though. I try to have an open mind about it, but it's hard to imagine what good can come out of blaming women for rape. It's easier for a person to say she supports a certain situation when she has a choice. (sorry for my random thoughts) You should definitely meet some Emirati women as I think you'll find they do have a choice and are pretty content with the governments. While I've seen differing in how women feel about their governments in many countries, the responses I've always gotten from Emirati women were overwhelmingly in support of UAE law and the Emir. However, I think the point is that firstly, Islamic law never blames women for rape. Secondly, the UAE has their own law loosely based in shariah and, as a general rule, the law is not supposed to prosecute rape victims and is supposed to prosecute the attacker. The issue is that culture/society has not yet 'caught up' regarding date rape or some of the different types of rape beyond what they typically see. It seems that the authorities did not believe that she was raped because of their ignorance on this matter and the lack of physical evidence combined with the he said, she said situation. That is inexcusable, however it is also not the same thing as the law itself criminalizing being a rape victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I love how you pretend her recanting the claim occurred in a vacuum. Oh bullchips. I didn't pretend anything. I stated facts. You know. Those pesky things that annoy you so much. I stated what happened. She recanted after supposedly being told to do so via the police as translated by her boss. No vacuum involved. Tho she said she did it bc she "just wanted it all to go away". We don't know what that means. Was she threatened? Was she told he would get a death sentence and she disagrees with that? Did she just want to go home and not be there dealing with a trial? What? We Don't Know And because she recanted, we never will. Again I can believe she was raped and this was an awful mess. But it wouldn't matter why she recanted in the USA either. Unless she can prove she was coerced, she lost the right to be treated as a rape victim when she recanted. And she loses credibility. And MANY women in the USA recant simply because the legal process is brutal and they can't or won't face it. I wish they could have their fathers/husbands/brothers/sons speak for them. But they can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 However, I think the point is that firstly, Islamic law never blames women for rape. But Islamic *culture* devalues women, and perpetuates a dynamic that reduces women's power. This exacerbates a poor understructure for justice to be served in terms of crimes against women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 But Islamic *culture* devalues women, and perpetuates a dynamic that reduces women's power. This exacerbates a poor understructure for justice to be served in terms of crimes against women. But that is not Islamic culture so much as it is specific Arab cultures, Persian Cultures, and South Asian cultures (which though they make up a large part of Muslim societies are not the entirety of Muslim societies either). Non-Muslims within the same cultures have the same problems and often times it is put under the guise of their Christianity, Hinduism, or the like. I do think it is interesting that in many ways in the past, after Islam was introduced (as pre-Islamic Arabia was a pretty horrible society for women and Islam granted women a lot of rights they did not have at the time) was more progressive than some of the behaviors we see these days. When I read Islamic history books and profiles of Muslim women of the past, I'm often taken aback with how tough many of them were, how many rights they had, and how often they did and said things that cultures of these areas would find taboo in modern day. It is like we went forward and now are going backwards which is strange, in a way, when even if we emulated much of the attitude that was had at the time when Islam was at its peak, women might actually be in a better place than what some societies have right now! I'm not sure if that makes sense. We have an issue, no doubt, however I believe this issue is largely a result of culture and the men (and women) perpetuating these ideas through the generations as a way to control people who know no better as well as political aims of certain groups. I don't know if I'm clear at all. I'm probably making no sense. I don't feel super coherent atm and I'm NAK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Oh nm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 You are telling that to an Islamic woman? Do you profess to know more about her culture than she does? Can you expand this with related examples? To me, this is like noncatholics telling me what catholic beliefs are. It's highly annoying and often not accurate. And yes, I've had people say the RCC subjugated women too. Yet here I am. A Catholic woman feeling very free and not at all subjugated. ;) I have to wonder if Muslim women are reading this and scratching their burkas ;p in confusion at why they don't feel the way some posting seem to presume they should. There are THOUSANDS of examples. From the Qu'ran to how things actually play out in lived experience. I have not actually observed that dynamic in Catholicism, and you will not find posts from me in that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 But that is not Islamic culture so much as it is specific Arab cultures, Persian Cultures, and South Asian cultures (which though they make up a large part of Muslim societies are not the entirety of Muslim societies either). Non-Muslims within the same cultures have the same problems and often times it is put under the guise of their Christianity, Hinduism, or the like. I do think it is interesting that in many ways in the past, after Islam was introduced (as pre-Islamic Arabia was a pretty horrible society for women and Islam granted women a lot of rights they did not have at the time) was more progressive than some of the behaviors we see these days. When I read Islamic history books and profiles of Muslim women of the past, I'm often taken aback with how tough many of them were, how many rights they had, and how often they did and said things that cultures of these areas would find taboo in modern day. It is like we went forward and now are going backwards which is strange, in a way, when even if we emulated much of the attitude that was had at the time when Islam was at its peak, women might actually be in a better place than what some societies have right now! I'm not sure if that makes sense. We have an issue, no doubt, however I believe this issue is largely a result of culture and the men (and women) perpetuating these ideas through the generations as a way to control people who know no better as well as political aims of certain groups. I don't know if I'm clear at all. I'm probably making no sense. I don't feel super coherent atm and I'm NAK. I think I am following you, and I agree that patriarchy is well entrenched back to the ancients. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I wouldn't call it Islamic culture. It's the culture of certain locations, some of which practice Islam. India is a pretty good example. There is no one religion that treats its women worse. Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian and presumably other families / communities engage in practices that "keep women down." Women tell their daughters and sisters to shut up and endure spousal abuse. Mother-in-laws are nasty as hell to their daughter-in-laws. Husbands and mother-in-laws say and do hateful things if a woman doesn't produce a male heir fast enough. Parents restrict their daughters' movement (for their own safety and for the sake of family reputation), and abuse them if they stray. Parents give boys priority when it comes to education expenses and even eating. Parents force daughters to marry men who have a history of wives who died in freak accidents. Islam doesn't teach any of this, and neither does Hinduism or any other respectable religion. Mostly it springs from poverty, ignorance, and the general powerlessness of the population as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 However, I think the point is that firstly, Islamic law never blames women for rape. I am under the impression that in Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape, without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men willing to stand up against the accused, are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery. In this way, the woman stands accused (she is blamed) unless she can provide extraordinary evidence, whereas the man is treated as the victim (his honor is on trial, if you will). Am I misunderstanding this law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It is like we went forward and now are going backwards which is strange, in a way, when even if we emulated much of the attitude that was had at the time when Islam was at its peak, women might actually be in a better place than what some societies have right now! I think you make very good sense, and confirm what I've understood myself. As to this part I picked out, why do you think this is? I occasionally see images that compare cities like Tehran from 1970 and today. The revolution is understood to be inspired by Islam. So why, if Islam is understood to free women from oppression, why would we see more oppression today? An example of the images that make me wonder: source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I am under the impression that in Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape, without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men willing to stand up against the accused, are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery. In this way, the woman stands accused (she is blamed) unless she can provide extraordinary evidence, whereas the man is treated as the victim (his honor is on trial, if you will). Am I misunderstanding this law? No. Under Islamic law, rape can be proven in three ways: 1. Witnesses - there is differing over the qualification of witnesses. As you mentioned, some take the view you need 4 male witnesses or that 2 female witnesses equal 1 male witnesses. This is based on a specific verse regarding business contracts and the witness there. Others take the view that 4 female witnesses are equally sufficient either because a) they feel that the male witness vs female witness is exclusive to the one business contract mention or B) because they believe a female witness is sufficient in an area where they have expertise of a specific perspective and a woman would recognize another woman being raped or assaulted. 2. Confession 3. DNA + physical evidence of rape. If a woman alleges rape (married or not) but the evidence is inconclusive and there is not enough to prove rape, then neither party should face prosecution. Both are considered innocent without proof of guilt. So, in a way, the woman's story of being raped is sufficient that it is believed even if it cannot be proved and by the same token, as it cannot be proven, the man is seen as innocent. It is left for Allah to judge. The exception, I suppose, might be if there is clear evidence that she made a false complaint, such as she confessed to accusing a person who was innocent, she could be prosecuted since his conviction would've carried the death penalty so there has to be accountability for lying under those circumstances. Essentially, it needs to be proven that he raped her or he is considered innocent and let off. However, it would likewise require a burden of proof to prove that she wasn't raped without a doubt for any prosecution to take place against her. The man is not so much considered a victim as a woman is in an opposite situation. If a man accuses her of adultery or extramarital sex without evidence, that is considered one of the major sins in Islam and requires a serious punishment under Islamic law (and is considered something that gains punishment in hellfire). I think you make very good sense, and confirm what I've understood myself. As to this part I picked out, why do you think this is? I occasionally see images that compare cities like Tehran from 1970 and today. The revolution is understood to be inspired by Islam. So why, if Islam is understood to free women from oppression, why would we see more oppression today? An example of the images that make me wonder: source Well, personally, I don't equate Iran or the revolution much with Islamic principles. It is complicated by sectarian differences and the fact that Khomeini and his ilk are pretty reviled by Sunni Islam. I certainly don't consider Islam having much to do with the revolution so much as it was a way for a nutcase on a power trip to treat actual people like pawns in his sick game :). As to why we see more oppression today, I would argue that it is because over time Muslims drifted farther from the Message and lost understanding of Islamic principles as our generations got further from their predecessors. When you look at the people who immediately surrounded Muhammad and his companions, those who ruled after him, and the direct descendents of those people, you often see women playing a major role in society. These were still religious women, they were women who veiled too even and clung closely to Islamic teachings and principles, but in doing so, this gave them a freedom to pursue avenues of education, science, the arts...etc that previously had not been as closely occupied by women. They had much more rights over their marriages, it was easy to divorce if it was unhappy and was not taboo, and could choose their own husbands. It is often mentioned in textual evidence occurrences of certain women being hard-headed, ruling over their husband, arguing with them, being outspoken with regards to education of all matters, advocating for themselves in all aspects of life (the right of a woman to s*xual pleasure for example is mentioned in religious texts and there are instances of female companions asking for clarification on these matters as well)...things that are a far cry from the submissive, quiet, beaten and broken housewife in a burka* locked inside her house and deprived of any sort of education or care that we are seeing in some countries. It is sad to think that these same men probably would've disapproved of the most revered women in our faith (including Muhammad's wives and daughters) because their ideas have gotten so backwards. *I throw in the burka reference more as a reference to the Taliban and the way women are treated under similar groups than to a negative on women who choose to cover their face. I cover my face myself in addition to the regular hijab so obviously I don't see it as a negative or something to be looked down upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I think what you are trying to say, Shahrazard, is that is that religion is the excuse for these laws, not the reason. Richard Dawkins says that all wars are caused by religion. I disagree with him. I think religion is often used as a "moral reason" for wars, but I think the wars would have happened regardless. I do think certain brands of fundamentalism (in various religions) use their religion to oppress women. I don't think one can extrapolate that to religion being inherently oppressive toward women. The fact is that society has *always* been cyclical. Sometimes being progressive is popular, sometimes "getting back to traditional values" (even if your particular platform never existed before) is popular. Yes, one must follow the laws of countries that one visits. No, I don't think we should campaign to change laws that have little to nothing to do with us (trying to divest the UK of its monarchy). Yes, I do think we should work to change laws that violate basic human rights. Yes, I think countries that want to be seen as modern and progressive often bend to certain types of international pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 According to this news report the lady in question has been pardoned http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18103215/dubai-pardons-norwegian-in-rape-case/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 According to this news report the lady in question has been pardoned http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18103215/dubai-pardons-norwegian-in-rape-case/ If this is indeed true, she needs to get her behind to the Norwegian Embassy and camp out there until they can transport her home. I don't think it would be wise to remain in country for any length of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Her alleged attacker was also pardoned. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23404042 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Hmm, this is the first time I saw it reported that the attacker was her "boss." I'm glad this was resolved so quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I'd hardly call that resolved, but at least she can get the heck out of there. I'm not sure how much more can be done since she said it was consensual. Even if it is possible to get her admission thrown out, it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble. If I were her I'd just be wanting to get out of there and find something else to immerse myself in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Texican Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 If it was her boss, and if he was Norweigan, and if she's sticking to her story after she's safely out of Dubai, then I hope she sues him back home. Good grief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 If it was her boss, and if he was Norweigan, and if she's sticking to her story after she's safely out of Dubai, then I hope she sues him back home. Good grief! No, he's Sudanese. Given the admission of consensual sex, I think she might have given up practical options as far as suing. Otherwise she might have a case of sexual harassment and a few other things. The only thing I could see her being able to "do to them" is generate some really bad press. But then that could bite her in the a$$ too. Personally I would look for something more positive to focus on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I do not know in the case of r*pe, but DV cases are often pursued and prosecuted even after the wife/girlfriend has recanted her statement against her abuser. This is because courts do recognize that witnesses can recant for reasons other than lying initially. That can also be true in the case of r*pe complaints because of fear of reprisal etc. But I don't know if they are prosecuted in that case or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahrazad Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I do not know in the case of r*pe, but DV cases are often pursued and prosecuted even after the wife/girlfriend has recanted her statement against her abuser. This is because courts do recognize that witnesses can recant for reasons other than lying initially. That can also be true in the case of r*pe complaints because of fear of reprisal etc. But I don't know if they are prosecuted in that case or not. This is true but I've never seen a he-said-she-said case with no conclusive physical evidence prosecuted without a woman's complaint. DV statutes differ by state (some states require a complainant, some states require actual physical assault while other states will file without a complainant and others only require the 'fear' of assault). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 This is true but I've never seen a he-said-she-said case with no conclusive physical evidence prosecuted without a woman's complaint. DV statutes differ by state (some states require a complainant, some states require actual physical assault while other states will file without a complainant and others only require the 'fear' of assault). What a horrible system. She has to have witnesses (four, specifically not women), or a confession, or show bodily injury. Having had a gun to my head at one time in my life, I know a little about how one can be forced to do things without leaving a bruise or broken bone. Good god I hope she not only gets home safely, but makes the biggest international stink for the whole world to hear. The people in Dubai should be publicly and constantly shamed for their secondary assault on her, and hopefully before too long, will be too embarrassed to allow this kind of horror continue. Of course they should be shamed for every event like this they allow to happen, but that can't happen in countries where the law doesn't exist to support the woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 If I were her I'd just be wanting to get out of there and find something else to immerse myself in. For sure that's what they're hoping - she'll go away and clam up and everyone [but her] can forget all about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.