Rape victim gets 200 lashes

PeterCH said:
Still women can travel outside of Saudi Arabia although to leave SA they probably need to be with a male relative.
Click to expand...

Yes, she will need to be with a male in order to leave the country - otherwise the Religious Police will make mince meat of her.
 
Syndyre said:
I'm not arguing with you, was just saying the Palestinian case was probably one of the worst. I can't understand why they vote for those parties but then again I can't understand why people vote ANC either. :D
Click to expand...

Well because the blacks in this country don't have an alternative.
DA is still seen as predominantly pro-White or at least not as pro-black.
When you're dirt poor you're gonna vote as well as you can for yourself
before thinking of the benefits for the economy. Ummm it's almost like
expecting the liberated French to vote the Vichy regime back into power
after 1945. At the end the blacks themselves suffer but since we have
no party of unity which stands equally for whites and blacks in SA,
we'll have the ANC government in power until either that happens
of the ANC falls apart. Still many NP mps did join the ANC too, how
could they do that then?
 
PeterCH said:
Well because the blacks in this country don't have an alternative.
DA is still seen as predominantly pro-White or at least not as pro-black.
When you're dirt poor you're gonna vote as well as you can for yourself
before thinking of the benefits for the economy. Ummm it's almost like
expecting the liberated French to vote the Vichy regime back into power
after 1945. At the end the blacks themselves suffer but since we have
no party of unity which stands equally for whites and blacks in SA,
we'll have the ANC government in power until either that happens
of the ANC falls apart. Still many NP mps did join the ANC too, how
could they do that then?
Click to expand...

Ironically the DA would probably be better for most of the populace, not saying they're perfect but they're better than the ANC. The NP MP's were opportunistic and wanted to set themselves up with comfortable positions I'm presuming.

SA politics is still too race-polarised and unfortunately I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 
PeterCH said:
Mothers are respected in Saudi society. Secondly these Saudi men are raised by these 'unhappy' women. I'm also sure that the average Saudi man loves his mother, sister and wife. They're not any less human than you or me.

I agree with you on the physical punishment for the woman but I still
feel that it's their country and they seem to be satisfied with the way it is run.
Click to expand...

You have fallen into the trap that because its a law then its ok or that because its their belief then its ok.

I wonder what your stance on apartheid was.
 
feo said:
If you don't respect another country's law then that's your problem. It seems to work well, maybe SA needs a little dose of Shari law considering the state this country is in when in comes to rape.
Click to expand...

Apartheid was law, would you have preferred it if the rest of the world had respected South Africa's laws then?
 
icyrus said:
Apartheid was law, would you have preferred it if the rest of the world had respected South Africa's laws then?
Click to expand...
Apartheid was not based on religion. It was oppressive whereas Shari law isn't, it's just VERY strict (which is a good thing IMO).
 
feo said:
Apartheid was not based on religion. It was oppressive whereas Shari law isn't, it's just VERY strict (which is a good thing IMO).
Click to expand...

Where does the distinction lie between very strict and oppressive?
 
icyrus said:
You have fallen into the trap that because its a law then its ok or that because its their belief then its ok.

I wonder what your stance on apartheid was.
Click to expand...

It's THEIR law which stems from THEIR beliefs. Apartheid was a white law which brought various forms of injustice on non-whites who had no power to change it. Had Blacks chosen to follow apartheid by FREELY accepting it and not protesting against it, it would have been a different story. Does my explanation help you understand my way of reasoning? :)

In Saudi society the Saudis themselves tacitly follow their own laws.
They are happy to follow their own laws and if you look at other countries
in the region where elections were held, fundamentalist parties which
follow similar forms of law to the Saudis won substantial popular support.
 
Last edited:
feo said:
I guess it's subjective, I can't really give you a better answer than that. I certainly wouldn't call it oppressive.
Click to expand...

So, for instance, would you agree with this woman being lashed? I must admit I wouldn't feel too much sympathy for the murderers, rapists and thieves it was applied to, at least one handed thieves are easy to spot. :D
 
feo said:
I guess it's subjective, I can't really give you a better answer than that. I certainly wouldn't call it oppressive.
Click to expand...

Whether you reject something or not. If you don't reject it - it's just strict, then again it's all relative. Something you may find as strict, others may find as lax. Going to cram school in Japan after finishing school and homework at 20:00 is not considered strict over there. Everything is relative I guess.
 
feo said:
Apartheid was not based on religion. It was oppressive whereas Shari law isn't, it's just VERY strict (which is a good thing IMO).
Click to expand...

Needless to say, you are not a woman right?

The afrikaaners could have based apartheid on religion if they so wished - what possible difference does that make?

PeterCH said:
It's THEIR law which stems from THEIR beliefs. Apartheid was a white law which brought various forms of injustice on non-whites who had no power to change it. Had Blacks chosen to follow apartheid by FREELY accepting it and not protesting against it, it would have been a different story. Does my explanation help you understand my way of reasoning? :)
Click to expand...

And this is a man's law that brings various forms of injustice on woman. The only difference I can see is that the oppression is so thorough as to have complete quelled any hope of liberation.

It seems you think apartheid was wrong because the whites were not effective enough in destroying the blacks spirit and brainwashing them into believing that this was in their best interests.

And somehow this is all legitimized because they claim to be following the will of their imaginary friend in the sky?

In a society were woman are taught unwavering obedience and subservience to males from birth till death; in a society were thier movements are tightly controlled and their lapses in following these men's rules results in punishments such as the above - how exactly do you imagine change will come about?

More importantly how will change ever come about if the rest of the world looks on and pretends thats its ok because they're not complain ing or because its supposedly written in some bronze age book?
 
icyrus said:
Needless to say, you are not a woman right?

The afrikaaners could have based apartheid on religion if they so wished - what possible difference does that make?



And this is a man's law that brings various forms of injustice on woman. The only difference I can see is that the oppression is so thorough as to have complete quelled any hope of liberation.

It seems you think apartheid was wrong because the whites were not effective enough in destroying the blacks spirit and brainwashing them into believing that this was in their best interests.

And somehow this is all legitimized because they claim to be following the will of their imaginary friend in the sky?

In a society were woman are taught unwavering obedience and subservience to males from birth till death; in a society were thier movements are tightly controlled and their lapses in following these men's rules results in punishments such as the above - how exactly do you imagine change will come about?

More importantly how will change ever come about if the rest of the world looks on and pretends thats its ok because they're not complain ing or because its supposedly written in some bronze age book?
Click to expand...

The Afrikaaners did base the oppression on religion however other religions, eg the Roman Catholic church opposed Apartheid also on religious grounds.
Also please don't single out the Afrikaaners as responsible for Apartheid, if anyone is responsible its the collective White government made up of both English and Afrikaans (and German, Portuguese, French, Italian, Polish, Greek etc) speakers.

As for brainwashing, I don't think so. Why is it that in modern secular Turkey the populatin is electing more and more fundamentalist governments? You don't suggest that they're all braiwashed over there?
The Turkey that wishes to join the EU.

Secondly I'm not a woman but I am human and I can understand suffering
having witnessed it myself (my line of work). People in Saudi Arabia are
free to believe what they wish, yet they choose to believe that Bronze Age Book as you call it. Its their right in their own country to have these beliefs. Its also incredibly rude and naive to be an armchair champion for injustice
where one has not visited the country, spoken to the locals and decided for
oneself if they are really oppressed or not, not based upon anti-religious bias but really on the psyche of the population.

As said before, women exist in Saudi society and they raise their sons, at least in the beginning. They raise them to treat them as they do. Now I'm not passing judgement here but these males and females don't exist in a vacuum being bred in coccoons independently of each other. People grow up in families and girls start wearing their traditional dress when they
reach maturity. I think we shouldn't judge these people by our own standards which to them are those of debauchery but by their own level
of satisfaction and since they haven't risen up like say the Iranians against the Shiah or the Palestinians against the Israelis we can assume that they
are not that discontended with their status quo.

Just to add, yes I feel sorry for the woman concerned but its her country
and her laws. I'm not going to go petitioning the EU/USA to start bombing them for that.

As for change, why should there be change? Change to what? A bin Ladin run government which
sponsors terrorism? Mind you - that is a moot point too since the Saudis do seem to support
the Palestinians. Still most Saudis seem happy in their enslavement. Are you happy in yours?
You're not really free either? You can't leave SA for example without a passport and a ticket?
If you're poor you're a prisoner too. Ok diversifying too much here, but they live this way and
most of the time most of them are happy. I'm sure some people are unhappy over the papsak
ban in SA too but if it leads to fewer rapes/assaults, why not?

Change must come from within themselves. It cannot be imposed by foreigners. This is what
happened in Eastern Europe. People got sick of Soviet Domination and rebelled. This led
to uprisings in Hungary and Solidarity in Poland which dealt the final blows to the crumbling
atheistic giant that the Soviet Union was. Change was not imposed from outside like it
was in 1945 when these countries were liberated by Soviet troops but instead by a desire
for liberty from within the people themselves which was supported by the Chuches in these
countries themselves.

People the world over are different. People from the ME who settle in France
and the UK want to change the liberal laws of those countries into more
strict Shariah like laws. Why is that? No-one forces these people to have these
desires. They come from within themselves. Surely all these women who want to
wear Islamic scarves in France and the UK in schools are not being actively brainwashed
by their male partners?
 
Last edited:
PeterCH said:
It's THEIR law not YOURS and THEY want to keep a LAW which only exists within the boundaries of THEIR own country. Tolerance is a mark of civilisation, otherwise if
we listen to everyone and their dogs' opinion about what laws we should keep or remove, we'll end up in an anarchy.
Click to expand...
Interesting point of view. Lets explore it a bit shall we?

1) Hitler was perfectly entitled to oppress / genocide the jews. It was german law and had nothing to do with the US / (free) Europe.

2) Rob Mugabe is perfectly entitled to 'Nationalise" white owned land in Zimbabwe. It's Zimbabwean law and if the farmers don't like it they should leave. People in other countires have no right to complain.

3) Iran is perfectly entitles to build nuclear weapons. It's their law.

4) Saddam Hussain was perfectly entitled to chem the kurds or anyone else he didn't like. It was Iraqi law.

etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, I'm not going to buy into that philosophy.

Listening to everyone and their dog's opinion about what laws should be is called democracy. It may have it's faults, but as Churchill said, Democracy is the worst system of government ever tried except for all the others. Of course, Saudi is not a democracy it's an absolute monarchy run by one family as their personal fiefdom. Noboddy else has any say. This families personal country also officially doesn't recognise the concept of human rights. Which allows things like this to happen. You say the people are happy? Well those that count or have any say are. Nobody askes the rest and if they rock the boat in any way they will be severly puished. If they are so happy why do they have to have gangs running around beating women who they feel are dressed inappropriately? Why is this women is getting 200 lashes? Wasn't she happy with the way things were? If so perhaps they should give her another 200 for being a malcontent?

Now I don't want anyone to bomb Saudi over this. I'm not even advocating sanctions. But I do think they deserve universal contempt and disdain. And quite frankly, that goes for their nightmarish, hatefull religion as well. Because it Religion once again thats acting as the great oppressor and providing the tool for the elite to use to get the majority to accept their own oppression. But then, thats what religion was invented for.

I do agree with you (PeterCH) that we should not be talking regime change here. Externally imposed regime change has a really, really nasty way of going wrong.
 
Last edited:
GougedEye said:
Interesting point of view. Lets explore it a bit shall we?
Click to expand...

Go ahead :)

1) Hitler was perfectly entitled to oppress / genocide the jews. It was german law and had nothing to do with the US / (free) Europe.
Click to expand...
It was a law which most Germans rejected or at least say so nowadays. Hitler disbanded the Reichstag after the Communists tried to
burn it down. Hitler's aim was to get rid of the Jews, the Saudi's aim is to follow their religion not kill of their women - something which they have
wide consensus in their country. The US did not go into
WW2 to save Jews but because Hitler declared war on them which
was secondary to the US declaration of war on Japan.[/quote]

2) Rob Mugabe is perfectly entitled to 'Nationalise" white owned land in Zimbabwe. It's Zimbabwean law and if the farmers don't like it they should leave. People in other countires have no right to complain.
Click to expand...
Yes if that's the law of the country as laid down by the democratically elected government of that state. Last I checked free
elections haven't been held in Zim since the first ones where Mugabe won after Ian Smith.

3) Iran is perfectly entitles to build nuclear weapons. It's their law.
Click to expand...

Iran has called for the destruction of Israel and countries allied to
Israel. Iran is also a sponsor of terrorism. Since they plan to produce nuclear weapons and also have an official policy which seeks the destruction of other people - other people may see it as a matter of their national security that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
No-one had a hissy fit when India and Pakistan acquired nukes.

4) Saddam Hussain was perfectly entitled to chem the kurds or anyone else he didn't like. It was Iraqi law.
Click to expand...
Saddam Hussein was murdering people. The Saudis don't gas their women
and children. I don't see the comparison. What Hussein did was an afront
to his own religion too. He also killed many religious teachers/mullahs.

etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, I'm not going to buy into that philosophy.

Listening to everyone and their dog's opinion about what laws should be is called democracy.
Click to expand...

No. Its democracy when informed, competent citizens elect a government
which governs according to their constitution in the best interests of the
population. It's not a democracy when MyAdsl.Co.Za forumites
who may or may not have feminist/anti-religious issues and who
don't know what the locals want interfere from across the gulf
of their internet connection. That my friend is just petty imperialism. :)

It may have it's faults, but as Churchill said, Democracy is the worst system of government ever tried except for all the others. Of course, Saudi is not a democracy it's an absolute monarchy run by one family as their personal fiefdom.
Click to expand...
The same Churchill who sold Eastern Europe out to the Soviets.
Gee where where his principles? Oh wait ... actions speak louder than
words. Sorry Churchill was great as a war minister but he wasn't
that much of an advocate of liberty.
The Saudi Population - most of it - is happy it is run that way. Most
people who travel to Mecca for their pilgrimage don't have issues either.

Noboddy else has any say. This families personal country also officially doesn't recognise the concept of human rights. Which allows things like this to happen. You say the people are happy? Well those that count or have any say are. Nobody askes the rest and if they rock the boat in any way they will be severly puished. If they are so happy why do they have to have gangs running around beating women who they feel are dressed inappropriately? Why is this women is getting 200 lashes? Wasn't she happy with the way things were? If so perhaps they should give her another 200 for being a malcontent?
Click to expand...
They seem happy or at least most of them are happy living that way.
Punishing people with lashes is brutal but giving them slaps on the wrist for
murder in the neo-democratic South Africa seems even worse to me.

Now I don't want anyone to bomb Saudi over this. I'm not even advocating sanctions. But I do think they deserve universal contempt and disdain. And quite frankly, that goes for their nightmarish, hatefull religion as well. Because it Religion once again thats acting as the great oppressor and providing the tool for the elite to use to get the majority to accept their own oppression. But then, thats what religion was invented for.

Dude I'm not eben Muslim but cut the anti-Muslim BS. Their
religion is not hateful - it's just some religious freaks who take things
out of context. Try to see through "eyes unclouded by hate"
- I'm quoting a Hayao Miyazaki anime here - but you should just
drop all your prejudices first when making judgement calls - yes
I know its difficult - perhaps its not even possible.

Religion was not created for oppression. This is another
preconceived idea you have. Oppression stems
from man's inhumanity towards man - at the root is power
and wealth and perhaps ethnic hate - we hate people different to us
- its inbred it seems - look at the BS posted in the
Japanese thread on the News forum. Religion is in fact anti-authority and anti-oppression,
where I come from - the Roman Catholic Church helped
our people survive through 2 big genocides and 50
years of totalitarian rule. I'll go side with the Church vs
any postmodern bs anytime. I love religion and in fact
if we had people devoted to God like priests in the government
instead of money-hungry-nihilistic-egoists and their sycophant lackeys
under guise of democracy I bet we'd have a better life for all
even the atheists.


I do agree with you (PeterCH) that we should not be talking regime change here. Externally imposed regime change has a really, really nasty way of going wrong.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting that at all. It was a mere extreme alternative to
some distatsteful lashings.

I'm not in agreement with you. I find that simply looking through South African western eyes from a country which segregated it's population according to
colour just a few years ago and now does the exact opposite (reverse racism) one can't judge another society which seems content.
Click to expand...
 
noxibox said:
Sharia is thoroughly oppressive.
Click to expand...

Everything is relative. Pedophiles out there like the NAMBLE believe that young boys should be free to be sodomised by older men. They believe our age of consent laws are oppressive too because they can't have their
way - legally at least - with children. OK one distateful example, but that's
how it is - everone has a POV. In SA our laws are not strict enough - look what we have here - bloodbaths everyday affecting ordinary innocent people. Shariah law may be strict and even oppressive for our western tastes but the people who put it there excecise it on themselves and their own families too. Most of these people seem to be happy - people aren't
fleeing Saudi Arabia or comitting mass suicide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X