Saudi gang rape victim to be flogged

Remove all ads!

Do feel welcome. If this helps any, I've read Radbruch too. (Statutory injustice and suprastatutory law, hello. )

That's the way of the authorities everywhere: submit and ask for compensation later. No matter the state will lose zots in civil or administrative suits. No matter it will cost more than changing the rules early enough. No matter the citizen will have been hurt. In our "civilised" systems, the closest counterpart is unjust taxing. Pay all, declare bankruptcy of your company, sue the decision/verdict/statute in appropriate courts, then sue for compensation. Either get a symbolic payment, or sue the state out of many million, they don't care. They explain lawfulness in one way: submit and then ask for compensation. That's a small-minded view.

Well, you can see I'm not quite a positivist.

 

Bingo.

I alluded to that in my post. But Nakia said it much better.

 

Thanks, Splunge. I would like to expand a bit on the Gandhi, Rosa Parks theme. They would not have been successful if many people had not supported them. One person may initiate an movement but without the vocal and active support of those who agree the movement will die before birth.

One cement block does not a wall make but add thousands together and you have a wall. Not the best example but the one which popped into my mind.

 

@Montressor: To be honest, I think Ragusa, Nakia, Splunge, and Chevalier have all laid plain what does and does not constitute a stupid (or unjust, or unreasonable) law and how we should deal with them. Regarding what makes a "good" law, it's a question of fairness. Fair laws are good. Unfair laws are not. If you are looking for a rigid definition upon which to rely, you'll never find it. In the realm of philosophy (where the crux of your question lies), there are few absolutes.

 

Really? Two hundred lashes for talking to a foreign man? Yup. How about a fine, however, i.e. the same prohibition but a different penalty? Parents often forbid children to go to dangerous places. If men are unruly, why not instill a habit in women of not going alone where men, especially many men, are? And what's a better motivator for a habit than attaching a criminal penalty? Don't go to the forest. Going to the forest is bad. Dad will smack you if you go to the forest. You get the idea. Liberal laws don't get the concept of punishing people for putting themselves in danger, but this doesn't mean the idea is backwards. It's simply not in line with the liberal tendencies which are dominant in this age, but liberalism isn't coterminous with progress. I'm not bashing liberalism, because liberal ideas are quite often quite progressive. On the other hand, some are quite regressive. And some are, well, just liberal ideas. One of those is that you don't ever punish people for doing what can harm only or mostly themselves. However, the fact is, in the Saudi social system, it is known that men are unruly and that they are voracious. It is also known that the best way to avoid danger is avoiding naive or downright risky association with them. It is further also known that dishonour or shame befalling one member befalls the whole family. Knowing all this and still choosing to take the risks, choosing to act on flighty urges and careless motives (I'm not talking about deliberate romantic encounters involving a feeling here), at the price of endangering oneself and the family, may be a morally negative act. Therefore a society might choose to affix a penalty to it.

Consider a society of hunters-gatherers. They move around. They will on occasion finish off or leave behind the injured or crippled, but this is no happy moment to them. The tribe is weakened as one of the results, so is the immediate family, there is also the sadness of having to leave him behind or having to finish him off if he can't fend for himself or be helped within reason, as the tribesmen see it. Therefore it might well fit them to establish a criminal penalty for hunting alone and throwing oneself at a beast he has a slim chance of defeating, or for venturing outside for too long without adequate supplies or without sufficient notice. What kind of penalty? Certainly not prison and probably not a fine since resources are limited and vital. Then what? Lashes. Some form of physical pain.

Perhaps a more modern society. Some bad habits people enjoy put them in need of healthcare and sometimes also welfare. If they choose to indulge in their vices, why fund the treatment for them, especially if they will continue to act counterproductively to the medication? We no longer need people to be healthy and fit, but we have healthcare and we can't quite deny people the benefits of it. We can't just allow a person to die because he has overdosed this or that. On the other hand, we can't forbid the person from doing what he likes if it's not a crime, unless our law allows some drastic administrative means. Aren't students punished for drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes? This is meant to prevent them from becoming addicted. Aren't drugs prohibited even for private use?

Similarly, sex might be prohibited for teenagers, who are not fit to be parents. Allowing the use of contraceptives, which do not have a 100% success rate as well as even abortions on the ground that the girl's spine won't be done good by pregnancy, or some such, is not the answer. We know what happens when young people meet unsupervised, especially in a hotter climate. Especially in a culture in which men are supposed to be manly - voracious fighter macho types who used to steal camels from other tribes at age 13 to prove they've reached adulthood. There's no sense in repeating Romeo and Juliet stories and sobbing over tales of youth love when we know how this ends in practice with a near 100% rate. Therefore, prohibiting young people from meeting usupervised is reasonable in such circumstances, at least until such time as the youth are able to control themselves. This, of course, should be enforced on both sides, not just the girls. It is understandable, however, that more stress is put on girls, especially by parents, since boys simply do not become pregnant. Therefore, girls risk more. While two hundred lashes is barbaric and even a single lash would make most of us cringe in disgust, perhaps a serious consequence of non-corporal nature would actually be a good idea and could serve the purpose well.

 

I neither, but you can't say they're under a social contract under which everyone decides for himself and transgressors respond to authority set forth by their peers, right? The state might issue some prohibitions for the sake of its citizens' welfare as the situation warrants. No jay-walking, no children smoking or drinking, no women having fun with unrelated males without escort by relatives.

Nonetheless, if you reach for drugs, you will be punished all the same and if you were under 18/21, you wouldn't be sold alcohol.

You forget to add, "without a victim other than yourself." According to liberal tenets you can't be a victim of yourself, but this isn't exactly true. Suicide is not a victimless crime - if it's a crime. Neither is putting yourself in danger if that's outlawed. Personally, I think family fathers and other obligated bread-winners who attempt suicide should be restrained and it should be made sure they won't succeed the next time they try. Similarly, people shouldn't be allowed to take foolish risks (I don't mean heroic feats or risk for a good reason, e.g. high-risk military actions), such as let's say, riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Someone depends on them and even if no one does, there are still people who care. We aren't each on his own, we're social beings, members of families and societies.

It's not property. Not even her own.

Nonetheless, knowing the risks, it's reasonable to forbid women from high-risk interaction. Especially if we deal with such young or inexperienced people that can't predict possible consequences of their actions or neglect those.

In part probably yes, another part - to protect family and family values (even if they have polygamy there, eh...), reduce fornication and a couple of such reasons.

On our own civilised grounds, I'm very much in favour of preventing co-ed sleeping rooms, co-ed baths, co-ed nudist beaches etc to minors, as well as preventing the free and unsupervised intermingling of sexes in such situations as beaches, parties, night clubs. I'm very much in favour of highschools and universities being allowed to continue some of these restrictions past legal age. Physical restraint of a person under legal age and especially under the age of consent, from having consensual sexual intercourse, doesn't ring wrong to me either.

I still maintain that the judges should lash one another if they enjoy it, though.

 

Those may be the stated reasons, but they're probably not the actual reasons.

IME, the people who talk loudly about protecting the family and/or women tend to, ah, dislike women. Often intensely.

 

Including your old buddy chev? Obviously, I don't connect my Catholic values with Eastern-style proprietary notions, but they do have a point in trying to prevent the opposing sexes from unsupervised intermingling if the latter can't be trusted.

 

Drew:

Yeah. But I never implied that she was to blame for being raped. Surely you can appreciate such a subtlety?

I'd love to see such data. I'd also love to see some sort of conclusive evidence which demonstrates that the woman in this case was discriminated against due to her ethnicity, religious or political beliefs.

Who decides that a law is stupid? You? You may feel that the law is stupid, but I'm afraid that your opinion matters very little in Saudi Arabia. It's clear that in Saudi Arabia, the law is not seen as stupid, otherwise it would not have been enforced.

And I have a PhD in Sexology. Being a 'trained Arabic linguist' does not make you an impeccable authority on the culture of Saudi Arabia.

Nakia:

Precisely. So what is everyone on this thread bitching about? The woman knew the law, and she knew the punishment for breaking the law. If she had wanted to change the law, she could have found legal ways of doing so. Instead, she broke the law. Not only was she punished, but she was also raped. Boy, perhaps there is a good reason for having that law in place, huh?


[Two posts within 6 minutes of each other??? Merged - dmc]

 

Making a harsh penalty known doesn't make it fair.

In Saudi Arabia?

Yes. Exactly. Though 200 lashes is absurd and abhorrent. I wouldn't have anyone suffer it. One, two, five, but 200? And certainly not for a young girl. Corporal penalty on women is just barbaric.

 

Hokay, Chevy, here I come. First of all I agree that society through its representatives has the right to regulate behaviour. Even harmful behavior that is caused directly only to oneself.

Here, however, we are dealing with a specific law which as I understand it states that a woman (any woman, young or old) may not be in the company of an unrelated man unless properly chaperoned. Why? Because men are so degenerate, so uncivilized, so lacking in self control that women must be locked away from them in order to protect the women? If I was a man I would be screaming my head off against such a law. Women should be punished because men are less than animals? Come on now.

Moral Theology, as both Chev and I have studied it, clearly states that an unjust law need not be obeyed. The downside of this is that the person refusing to obey must be willing to suffer the consequences of disobeying. Which is why I cite Gandhi and Rosa Parks who were people willing to do this and thus brought to national, nay, International attention the injustice of certain laws. If I believe a law is unjust I have the right to protest it; if enough people agree with me it may even get changed. On a side note this in my opinion is democracy working at its best and bravest.

So friend Chev, stop playing Devil's Advocate and admit that this particular law is unjust and stupid.

You almost did there.

Unjust laws have been and are written. Stupid laws have been and are written. Silence is agreement so if you believe a law to be unjust or stupid speak up. Don't be intimidated by those who tell you to be quiet and obey. Lift high your banner, stride forth to face the minions of those who make second class citizens of people based on gender, race or ethnic group.

 

Nakia, the moral theology I have studied often leads to conclusions that laws generally had better be obeyed, which sometimes includes very silly stuff. On the other hand, I don't consider myself bound to report myself for jay-walking in a hurry or the underage drinking I committed when illegal to drink but legal to answer before courts. Similarly, if I were a judge and I knew they'd shot me at the court wall for acquitting or absolving (I mean the civil law term, not religious) a doctor who refused to carry out or inform about possibilities of abortion, I'd still sign that verdict, citing natural law if need be, and tell them where they can shove the blindfold. However, I wouldn't feel obliged to do that just because the statute said so or the executive ordered so. I might as well flee the country and be perfectly morally in order. So here I don't think being willing to face the consequences is a prerequisite if the law is unjust. If it's not binding and you're not under an obligation to obey it, the sanction affixed to it isn't valid either.

It surely would be in a country like ours, but the way things are in Saudi Arabia, coed ban with a fine or several days of arrest attached wouldn't be a bad thing. Where I have a problem is that those laws interfere with friendships and valid social interaction. In so far as they prevent fornication, vain flirtation, licentious behaviour, those laws do a good job. Again - without the 200 lashes attached.

 

You're right, of course. You only said that she was probably to blame.

"If she hadn't disobeyed the law, she would not only have not be punished, her lawyer also wouldn't have been suspended, and she probably wouldn't have been raped.

I sincerely doubt that you would, since you aren't arguing in good faith. I think you are arguing just to argue, and I'm not interested in participating.

Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. Just because the government enforces a law does not mean that many (or even most) Saudis agree with the law. Even in democracies like ours, the courts often enforce laws that the people don't agree with.

 

Drew:

No I didn't.

Nowhere in the above did I say that she was to blame for her rape. What I did say is that if she had followed the law, and taken logical precautions, she probably wouldn't have been raped.

So you're choosing to bow out immediately after I requested some sort of evidence to support your supposition? How convenient that it took you exactly this long to realize that I wasn't arguing 'in good faith'.

Also note that if I am not arguing 'in good faith' (an assumption on your behalf), you're still required to back up your claims. He who asserts must prove.

Even if Saudi Arabia is not a 'democracy', that does not change the fact that laws often represent the will of the majority. And if the majority are incensed enough with a law they consider unjust, they will rise up and affect change.

chev:

Yeah, sure, I'm willing to repeat that IMHO, I find the penalty unfair. But then, I find many laws (and their corresponding penalties) harsh in my own country. And I still obey those laws, and will not whinge (or for people to whinge on my behalf) if I am ever punished for breaking them.

Are you saying that there are no legal methods by which one can affect change in the law in Saudi Arabia? I agree that it might not be as easy as in a liberal country such as Denmark, but I'm a little skeptical that there are no legal methods of altering the law.

True. But look on the bright side. Pain teaches even the dumbest of animals.

I disagree. Sometimes a bit of corporal punishment on both men and women is necessary. Although I agree that in this particular scenario, it is excessive.

 

Here is a another article on the sentence:

Rape victim's harsh sentence shocks Saudis

by Ghaldring

I would like to know under what circumstances you think corporal punishment is justified. Protecting society from those who would harm it is one thing but that can be done without inflicting harsh and unreasonable punishment. Physical pain may cause fear and the fear may lead the person to obey the law or it may create an even more rebellious person. Too many people in this world must live in fear. It is not right.

Injustice where ever it may be should be fought. "They came for the Jews and I was silent.......They came for me and there was no one to speak for me."

For anyone interested in further information regarding the government of Saudi Arabia here is a link:
Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is a monarch and there are no elections. The legislative branch is appointed by the Monarch.

 

The way in which they go about it is interesting, to say the least.

 

You said that if she followed the law, she probably wouldn't have been raped. That is all you said. In saying that, you are saying that she was probably raped because she broke the law. In other words, she was probably raped because of her actions. Sure, you aren't placing all the blame on her shoulders, but you are still blaming her.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you believe that a corrupt monarchy in the middle east has a judicial system that is, in fact, more fair than the American judicial system? The judicial system that we enjoy, one of the best in the world, has been proven again and again to have both a class and racial bias, yet you somehow expect Saudi Arabia, where nepotism is the order of the day and no gear spins without first being greased by a little bakshish, to be free of such ills? Give me a break, kid, you're insulting my intelligence...and your own, as well.