NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1141267/Saudi-judge-sentences-pregnant-gang-rape-victim-100-lashes-committing-adultery.html

A Saudi judge has ordered a woman should be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes after she was gang-raped, it was claimed last night.

The 23-year-old woman, who became pregnant after her ordeal, was reportedly assaulted after accepting a lift from a man.

How dare she do that.

She shouldn't have been accepting a lift from him, but it's not like it was her fault.

She shouldn't have been accepting a lift from him, but it's not like it was her fault.

Yes it is, she's a woman. Havn't you read the Bible or the Khoran? Its always her fault.

Fundamentalist religion is backward, misogynistic, and has no place in the twenty first century. This is just another case proving this. Frankly, I'm surprised and glad she hasn't been sentenced to death by stoning.

why do people make these threads? do they actually give a rats arse about Saudi women :confused:

I am still perplexed as to why we should care, or why this is news.

It's their country; it sucks, but we can't tell other people how they should run their own affairs.

why do people make these threads? do they actually give a rats arse about Saudi women :confused:

Before a thing can be changed it must be brought to light. Although we cannot "do" anything to correct this we can show our displeasure at what we perceive as the injustice of it all. In some small way then our furor over it will pass into the greater collective and influence an itsy bitsy the attitude that the greater whole of our society has about Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, to reiterate what I always say on the matter, fuck Saudi Arabia.

I am still perplexed as to why we should care, or why this is news.

It's their country; it sucks, but we can't tell other people how they should run their own affairs.

this, despite the op's apparent assertion that the US should do something about it, we'd just have 0 allies instead of some if we tried to change every culture to be our own. Frankly theres a lot I don't like about the way Europe is run, but I don't go around trying to force them to change either, its stupid and undiplomatic.

In some small way then our furor over it will pass into the greater collective and influence an itsy bitsy the attitude that the greater whole of our society has about Saudi Arabia.

the Saudis should retaliate and start calling all our women whores then

this, despite the op's apparent assertion that the US should do something about it, we'd just have 0 allies instead of some if we tried to change every culture to be our own. Frankly theres a lot I don't like about the way Europe is run, but I don't go around trying to force them to change either, its stupid and undiplomatic.
There's a difference between how a country is run and how a country runs by committing human rights abuses.

There's a difference between how a country is run and how a country runs by committing human rights abuses.

Saudi Arabia is the only country to commit human rights abuses now?

Saudi Arabia is the only country to commit human rights abuses now?

Well, it's not like the US ever committed human rights abuses.

<.<

>.>

Maybe George W. Bush was secretly Saudi Arabian. That would explain his love of the oil industry. :p

There's a difference between how a country is run and how a country runs by committing human rights abuses.

well, since human rights abuses are pretty much defined on a western standard, I'd say its true meaning is "not conforming to western standards"

But my point stands one way or another, most countries commit such an abuse of one kind or another and we can't go around telling people how to run their government.

Saudi Arabia is the only country to commit human rights abuses now?
No, it's not. That doesn't mean that its human rights abuses are fine and dandy.

Frankly theres a lot I don't like about the way Europe is run

Those Commie bastards, with their freedom of speech, alcohol and nakedness.

why do people make these threads? do they actually give a rats arse about Saudi women :confused:

Only as convenient examples for their "Saudi Arabia = All Mozlemz R Ebil" rants.

well, since human rights abuses are pretty much defined on a western standard, I'd say its true meaning is "not conforming to western standards"

But my point stands one way or another, most countries commit such an abuse of one kind or another and we can't go around telling people how to run their government.
Since there's an actual UN declaration detailng what constitutes human rights signed by governments all over the world, it's not just a western thing.

But then there's another agreement dealing with women in specific which the US didn't even ratify while a number of non-western, non-developed countries did (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) so...

I am still perplexed as to why we should care, or why this is news.

It's their country; it sucks, but we can't tell other people how they should run their own affairs.

Quote from Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Get it? If you don't take a stand when bad stuff happens to others, don't complain when they get around to doing it to YOU.

Since there's an actual UN declaration detailng what constitutes human rights signed by governments all over the world, it's not just a western thing.

But then there's another agreement dealing with women in specific which the US didn't even ratify while a number of non-western, non-developed countries did (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) so...

doesn't matter whose standard it is, but it certainly isn't universal.

doesn't matter whose standard it is, but it certainly isn't universal.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be.

It's their country; it sucks, but we can't tell other people how they should run their own affairs.Actually, yes, we can. In fact, we're doing it all the time.

well, since human rights abuses are pretty much defined on a western standard, I'd say its true meaning is "not conforming to western standards"What's wrong with western standards? I don't know about you, but personally, I'll take them over most other standards.

And here's the thing. If I think that a given standard is 'Good', and another one is 'Bad', I find that talking about the goodness of my cultural background but not doing anything to spread it is, err, criminal. If you're convinced that your way of life, your cultural background is better than another way of life, why wouldn't you want to spread your point of view? Are all those ragheads and negros not worthy of enjoying a human rights standard comparable to our own (If not higher - best of the existing doesn't mean perfect, unfortunately)? Is it wasteful to think of them as being similar to us, and thus deserving the same rights?

Oh, I know what you want to reply. 'White Man's Burden'. 'Cultural Imperialism'. 'Racist'. Whatever. Isn't the same thing - I'm not denying that everyone who believes their cultural values to be the 'Right' ones has the right - nay, duty - to spread them. Be they western ones, muslim ones, confucian ones, whatever. I's merely of the opinion that the value system most concerned with things like, say, equality before the law and individual rights should win the contest.

If you disagree, and believe that the opinion of a largely inheritable bureaucracy with the means to enforce its will through, well, firepower and brainwashing by the religious elite, and not individual choices should determine what's right and wrong, well, that's your choice... But quite frankly, if you do believe this, I consider you guilty of supporting - among other things - every genocide that occured since you've been capable of forming an opinion. Such things, too, are matters of sovereignty, after all. And nobody has a right to interfere in the internals of a sovereign country.

But my point stands one way or another, most countries commit such an abuse of one kind or another and we can't go around telling people how to run their government.As said before, yes we can. Yes we do. And why shouldn't we? If I've a moral - and actually, legal, too - obligation of providing help when I see someone assaulted on the street, why doesn't the same apply to entire societies? Because the legal constructs of 'State' and 'Sovereignty' prevent is?

Bullshit.

doesn't matter whose standard it is, but it certainly isn't universal.It's whatever the people believing in it think it is, I'm afraid. So while it doesn't have to be, it damn well can be - at the very least, it is to me.

In fact, since there is indeed no standard other than 'I think it's right' for civilisational values in general, be they human rights or the universal prestigiousness of such values (I'm sure you'll agree with this, since that seems to be your whole point), [one person saying 'This is applicable for everyone, no matter where they live, and no matter their cultural background' is enough to, in fact, falsify your poor excuse for 'I'd rather not do anything'. It's their value, after all, and who are you to force your own upon them?

Only as convenient examples for their "Saudi Arabia = All Mozlemz R Ebil" rants.Given that this would require the woman in question to be considered evil, too, I can't help but think that your polemics are retarded.

Saudis are fundamentalist? Whodathunkit.

Given that this would require the woman in question to be considered evil, too, I can't help but think that your polemics are retarded.

Given that oppression of women is one of the more popular justification for decrying Islam and its adherents as evil-while ignoring the context of Saudi Arabia as a backwards fundamentalist regime- I can't help but think you haven't paid much attention to NSG and the internet in general.

Given that oppression of women is one of the more popular justification for decrying Islam and its adherents as evil-while ignoring the context of Saudi Arabia as a backwards fundamentalist regime- I can't help but think you haven't paid much attention to NSG and the internet in general.I'd help your point if the op had the words 'Evil Muslims', 'Backwards Muslims', 'The Muslims' or at the very least just the word 'Muslim' in it.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. It does however, have the words 'Saudi Arabia' in it.

I find this to be at least circumstantial evidence that the context of Saudi Arabia as a backwards fundamentalist regime is recognised.

What's wrong with western standards? I don't know about you, but personally, I'll take them over most other standards.

relatively little

And here's the thing. If I think that a given standard is 'Good', and another one is 'Bad', I find that talking about the goodness of my cultural background but not doing anything to spread it is, err, criminal.
You're entitled to your beliefs, I'm not forcing anyone to change their's just making an observation.

If you're convinced that your way of life, your cultural background is better than another way of life, why wouldn't you want to spread your point of view?
that's easy, if its in my self interest not to, I wouldn't spread my beliefs. If my culture included being awesome and kicking the crap out of weaker countries, why would I spread that notion to other places that may one day come and kick my ass.
Are all those ragheads and negros not worthy of enjoying a human rights standard comparable to our own (If not higher - best of the existing doesn't mean perfect, unfortunately)? Is it wasteful to think of them as being similar to us, and thus deserving the same rights?

Frankly I don't care about them or what they do, insofar as I get what I want from them.

Oh, I know what you want to reply. 'White Man's Burden'. 'Cultural Imperialism'. 'Racist'. Whatever. Isn't the same thing - I'm not denying that everyone who believes their cultural values to be the 'Right' ones has the right - nay, duty - to spread them. Be they western ones, muslim ones, confucian ones, whatever.
I couldn't care less, I wasn't speaking from a moralistic standpoint but a practical one.

I's merely of the opinion that the value system most concerned with things like, say, equality before the law and individual rights should win the contest.

Have at it.

If you disagree, and believe that the opinion of a largely inheritable bureaucracy with the means to enforce its will through, well, firepower and brainwashing by the religious elite, and not individual choices should determine what's right and wrong, well, that's your choice... But quite frankly, if you do believe this, I consider you guilty of supporting - among other things - every genocide that occured since you've been capable of forming an opinion.
I honestly don't care, I would willingly support such things (as you've described it, non-action) if they were in my best interest. I will also hold you responsible for them, as I doubt you've hitched a ride to every genocide to kill the bastards doing it.

Such things, too, are matters of sovereignty, after all. And nobody has a right to interfere in the internals of a sovereign country.

As said before, yes we can. Yes we do. And why shouldn't we? If I've a moral - and actually, legal, too - obligation of providing help when I see someone assaulted on the street, why doesn't the same apply to entire societies? Because the legal constructs of 'State' and 'Sovereignty' prevent is?

We try to, but we shouldn't in some cases as it is counter productive in some aspects, and certainly damaging to us in others.

Bullshit.

remarks like this are needlessly inflammatory.

It's whatever the people believing in it think it is, I'm afraid. So while it doesn't have to be, it damn well can be - at the very least, it is to me.

huh? I was simply stating that ethics are non-universal. What is ethical in one cultural would be unethical in another. Its absolutely impossible for everyone to have the same standards you do.

In fact, since there is indeed no standard other than 'I think it's right' for civilisational values in general, be they human rights or the universal prestigiousness of such values (I'm sure you'll agree with this, since that seems to be your whole point), [one person saying 'This is applicable for everyone, no matter where they live, and no matter their cultural background' is enough to, in fact, falsify your poor excuse for 'I'd rather not do anything'. It's their value, after all, and who are you to force your own upon them?

I'm not forcing anything on anyone.

No, it's not. That doesn't mean that its human rights abuses are fine and dandy.

but it does mean that you will be spending the rest of your life being outraged at every government ever

Only as convenient examples for their "Saudi Arabia = All Mozlemz R Ebil" rants.

pfft who needs to show examples >_>

Quote from Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

good and evil don't exist so now that we have that out the way I guess I can do what realistically makes sense to do

Saudis are fundamentalist? Whodathunkit.

I bet its nothing more than an elaborate ruse for some sort of crazy secret free love country

Only as convenient examples for their "Saudi Arabia = All Mozlemz R Ebil" rants.

All Muslim governments are, just like any theocracy.

Saudi Arabia is the only country to commit human rights abuses now?

Is that even close to what he said?

No, Saudi Arabia isn't the only country to commit human rights abuses. Does that mean we shouldn't discuss them when they do?

Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to be beaten because she was raped. That's pretty fucked up. And when some other country does something equally fucked up, we can discuss that.

I'm surprised no one has questioned the integrity of the OP's link by now.

I'm surprised no one has questioned the integrity of the OP's link by now.

Yeah, using "it is claimed" isn't quite the most confidence-inspiring term.

Yeah, using "it is claimed" isn't quite the most confidence-inspiring term.

That and everytime something controversial is posted, if the news source is the daily mail, at least three or four people get in a tizzy about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1141267/Saudi-judge-sentences-pregnant-gang-rape-victim-100-lashes-committing-adultery.html How dare she do that.

And you say that to say...what exactly? That America is somehow culpable for this? That Islam is bad? That we shouldn't have allies? What?

Unless you're going for some sort of Stating the Obvious Award by pointing out that this is a miscarriage of justice, I don't see what you hope to accomplish.

Since there's an actual UN declaration detailng what constitutes human rights signed by governments all over the world, it's not just a western thing.

A U.N. Declaration? Well, why didn't you say so? We all know how universally respected and effective those are. I'm surprised a brave new day of human rights hasn't already dawned, now that the U.N's involved.

I'm surprised a brave new day of human rights hasn't already dawned,
Compared to what occured in the 19th century and previous, yeh a new day of human rights did kind of dawn in the international sphere.

now that the U.N's involved.
The UN? You mean the collective entity that is the world?

The UN? You mean the collective entity that is the world?

If I had meant 'the collective entity that is the world' I'd have said that. Of course, I'd have smacked myself right after for typing such utopian bullshit, as well. You are familiar with the useless parasitical organization known as the United Nations, yeah? That's what I meant. It never fails to amaze me that people cite 'U.N. Declarations' like they mean something or have any kind of authority.

If I had meant 'the collective entity that is the world' I'd have said that.
Right, right....

Of course, I'd have smacked myself right after for typing such utopian bullshit, as well. You are familiar with the useless parasitical organization known as the United Nations, yeah?
The United Nations what? Secretariat? Security Council? World Food Program? Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization? Children's Fund? World Heath Organisation?

It never fails to amaze me that people cite 'U.N. Declarations' like they mean something or have any kind of authority.
Like it or not, those Declarations, and a lot of work emanating from the United Nations, are the basis of a lot of law. But continue away.

why do people make these threads? do they actually give a rats arse about Saudi women :confused:

Depends whether they're good looking really.

Frankly theres a lot I don't like about the way Europe is run, but I don't go around trying to force them to change either, its stupid and undiplomatic.

Unless Europe beats women for being raped, then your comparison is offensive and you should GTFO.

America is somehow culpable for this?

Well, we do go out of our way to ensure that the guys who make these laws maintain power.


And then rattle our saber at countries that "abuse human rights".

Let that be a lesson to any theocrat out there. If you want to committ human rights abuses like theres no tomorrow, be the US's friend first.

Well, we do go out of our way to ensure that the guys who make these laws maintain power.


And then rattle our saber at countries that "abuse human rights".

Let that be a lesson to any theocrat out there. If you want to committ human rights abuses like theres no tomorrow, be the US's friend first.

It might be different if there really was an alternative in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately there are only the West's theocrats and the other theocrats. Its hard for anyone - a government or an individual - to support a political alternative that doesn't exist.

It might be different if there really was an alternative in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately there are only the West's theocrats and the other theocrats. Its hard for anyone - a government or an individual - to support a political alternative that doesn't exist.

There are actually democratic movements in the Middle East. They just want to have democracy on their own terms, and not from the West.

Hard to achieve though when the big kid on the block keeps the boss out of trouble.

There are actually democratic movements in the Middle East. They just want to have democracy on their own terms, and not from the West.

Hard to achieve though when the big kid on the block keeps the boss out of trouble.

In other Middle Eastern countries, certainly. But in Saudi Arabia itself the democratic movements are so insignificant and weak that it isn't even necessary for the King to have Western support to keep them from achieving popularity. The only threat to his rule comes from different theocrats, not democrats.

why do people make these threads? do they actually give a rats arse about Saudi women :confused:

What I give a rat's ass about is that the US is allied with this country because they have oil.

It is just sickening that this kind of stuff still goes on. We need a lot more soldiers.

Saudi Arabia is my least favorite country on Earth, right after Canada.

...

Canada knows what it did!

But yeah, the United States shouldn't support such an idiotic government. Of course it would reeeealy suck to pay $6 for a gallon of gas. So we have to ask ourselves, what is worse: sacrificing your values and ideals for economic expediency or taking a stand, but being flat broke because of it?

Well, we do go out of our way to ensure that the guys who make these laws maintain power.


And then rattle our saber at countries that "abuse human rights".

Let that be a lesson to any theocrat out there. If you want to committ human rights abuses like theres no tomorrow, be the US's friend first.


Out of our way? The US had nothing whatever to do with putting the House of Saud in power. We buy their oil, certainly. So does the rest of the world. Why are we uniquely responsible for their status?

More to the point, what do you suggest the US do to escape this awful moral complicity? Invade? Assassinate King Abdullah? Airdrop copies of UN Declarations over Riyadh?

Just one more reason to pull out of the whole goddamned region...let the whole place rot...

Agreed. I think we should put our money where our mouth is and boycott a country when they do stuff like this.

Agreed. I think we should put our money where our mouth is and boycott a country when they do stuff like this.Reality called. Apparently you got disconnected.

Reality called. Apparently you got disconnected.

Why is it unrealistic to Boycott Saudi Arabia? They obviously deserve it as much as Iran or the other countries we do that way...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1141267/Saudi-judge-sentences-pregnant-gang-rape-victim-100-lashes-committing-adultery.html



How dare she do that.

And people wonder why guys like Gert Wilders have support?

Unless Europe beats women for being raped, then your comparison is offensive

Only to those who are easily offended and cannot comprehend comparisons.

and you should GTFO.

you first trollie

Does that mean we shouldn't discuss them when they do?

must we always discuss the dog barking or the grass growing?

Depends whether they're good looking really.

my theory is they are all ninjas underneath but they can be models if you really want them to be* (http://www.euro4arab.com/saudi_arabia.html)

*hmm think of how obedient she would be I bet you could get away with beating her for talking during a match...not that any of that would appeal to me

What I give a rat's ass about is that the US is allied with this country because they have oil.

breaking news: the US is allied with unscrupulous powers

next you will say crazy things like the Saudis being in the UN and this not some crazy US plot for world domination

Why is it unrealistic to Boycott Saudi Arabia? They obviously deserve it as much as Iran or the other countries we do that way...

yes lets just have the American economy implode and the tentative balance of power in the middle east shatter

yes lets just have the American economy implode and the tentative balance of power in the middle east shatter

I'm fine with that. Guns, ammo and canned rations. Buy them now.

What does the US have to do with what a Saudi judge does?