|
Title: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 17, 2009, 02:44:27 PM http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/02/08/robertson.saudi.child.bride.cnn
I just don't see how this can be justified on any level. But it's not surprising when the prophet who founded the religion (upon which the laws remain that allow this to happen) married his child bride when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: AndrewT on February 17, 2009, 03:00:59 PM Video blocked at work, so don't know what that story is about but this one made me laugh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7894721.stm Quote The founder of a US Muslim TV network has been charged over the beheading of his wife, media reports say. Muzzammil Hassan, 44, is accused of second degree murder of Aasiya Hassan, whose body was found last week at the TV station in New York state. Both Mr Hassan and his wife worked at Bridges TV, a station aimed at countering stereotypes of Muslims. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: TightEnd on February 17, 2009, 03:02:30 PM Oh goodie. Looking forward to this thread ;frustrated;
Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 17, 2009, 03:16:44 PM Video blocked at work, so don't know what that story is about but this one made me laugh. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7894721.stm Quote The founder of a US Muslim TV network has been charged over the beheading of his wife, media reports say. Muzzammil Hassan, 44, is accused of second degree murder of Aasiya Hassan, whose body was found last week at the TV station in New York state. Both Mr Hassan and his wife worked at Bridges TV, a station aimed at countering stereotypes of Muslims. It's about an 8-year old girl in Saudi Arabia being given in lieu of a debt her father had to a 47-year old man so she can be his wife. The judge didn't annul the marriage, but made the man promise he wouldn't have sex with her until she started puberty... Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: Grier78 on February 17, 2009, 09:24:10 PM Video blocked at work, so don't know what that story is about but this one made me laugh. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7894721.stm Quote The founder of a US Muslim TV network has been charged over the beheading of his wife, media reports say. Muzzammil Hassan, 44, is accused of second degree murder of Aasiya Hassan, whose body was found last week at the TV station in New York state. Both Mr Hassan and his wife worked at Bridges TV, a station aimed at countering stereotypes of Muslims. It's about an 8-year old girl in Saudi Arabia being given in lieu of a debt her father had to a 47-year old man so she can be his wife. The judge didn't annul the marriage, but made the man promise he wouldn't have sex with her until she started puberty... What not being able to have sex with your wife, surely thats against his human rights? Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 09:35:25 AM More wrongness:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009020828735 Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: pokefast on February 18, 2009, 09:46:06 AM Sad buy unfortunately not surprising.
I read somewhere yesterday that a guy cornered a heroin dealer ( who had been selling to one of his family ) in his flat and flushed all his produce down the toilet but was arrested himself and convicted of breach of the peace ffs! Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: The Camel on February 18, 2009, 01:53:35 PM I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but taking a couple of stories on their own is misleading.
I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). It's a different culture and different rules apply. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 01:54:23 PM I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but taking a couple of stories on their own is misleading. I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). It's a different culture and different rules apply. Do you want more stories? You think that these stories are comparable to upsetting someone's sensibilities at seeing some human flesh in a newspaper? Different cultures are fine, and something that should be applauded and enjoyed. But the removal of human rights for women isn't a 'cultural' issue. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: Colchester Kev on February 18, 2009, 01:58:35 PM I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but taking a couple of stories on their own is misleading. I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). It's a different culture and different rules apply. Do you want more stories? You think that these stories are comparable to upsetting someone's sensibilities at seeing some human flesh in a newspaper? Different cultures are fine, and something that should be applauded and enjoyed. But the removal of human rights for women isn't a 'cultural' issue. What next ... The Vote !! Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: The Camel on February 18, 2009, 01:59:00 PM I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but taking a couple of stories on their own is misleading. I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). It's a different culture and different rules apply. Do you want more stories? You think that these stories are comparable to upsetting someone's sensibilities at seeing some human flesh in a newspaper? Different cultures are fine, and something that should be applauded and enjoyed. But the removal of human rights for women isn't a 'cultural' issue. How about the exploitation of women in pornography? Eastern European women being forced to work in brothels? Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: AndrewT on February 18, 2009, 02:00:28 PM I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). "Nikki from Gravesend (21) wishes her Muslim fans well and hopes they don't Mecca big fuss about Page 3" Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kukushkin88 on February 18, 2009, 02:03:08 PM lol nice one Andrew, the mecca pun works better if she is from newcastle though.
Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: Wardonkey on February 18, 2009, 02:14:16 PM There are exploitation, injustice and violations of 'human rights' occur in every society. These should for the most part be dealt with by the members of that society. Very occasionally pressures from outside that society are appropriate and useful, more usually such pressures are counterproductive.
Taking an example in isolation and drawing attention to it merely reinforces peoples prejudices, and is not useful. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: NoflopsHomer on February 18, 2009, 02:17:39 PM I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). "Nikki from Gravesend (21) wishes her Muslim fans well and hopes they don't Mecca big fuss about Page 3" ;tightend; Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: thetank on February 18, 2009, 02:21:44 PM I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but taking a couple of stories on their own is misleading. I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). It's a different culture and different rules apply. Do you want more stories? You think that these stories are comparable to upsetting someone's sensibilities at seeing some human flesh in a newspaper? Different cultures are fine, and something that should be applauded and enjoyed. But the removal of human rights for women isn't a 'cultural' issue. What constitutes a human right is a cultural issue though. Saudi Arabia has criticized the United Nation's definitions of human rights for it not taking into account the culture of Islamic countries. It is impossible to fully comply with the both the UN's Universal Document of Human Rights and the Shariah (Islamic Law) The UDHR is percieved by many Islamic societies as being... "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition" The Organisation of the Islamic Conference came up with their own document on human rights which could be adhered to without infringing on the Shariah. I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). "Nikki from Gravesend (21) wishes her Muslim fans well and hopes they don't Mecca big fuss about Page 3" lolololololololololololololol Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: cia260895 on February 18, 2009, 02:27:01 PM I'm not going to get into an argument about this, but taking a couple of stories on their own is misleading. I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). It's a different culture and different rules apply. Do you want more stories? You think that these stories are comparable to upsetting someone's sensibilities at seeing some human flesh in a newspaper? Different cultures are fine, and something that should be applauded and enjoyed. But the removal of human rights for women isn't a 'cultural' issue. How about the exploitation of women in pornography? Eastern European women being forced to work in brothels? from what i've seen its then men that get exploited...I mean sometimes its as much as 1 fella to 3 women... Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: Graham C on February 18, 2009, 02:31:20 PM I'm sure if a Saudi Arabian muslim picked up a British newspaper he could find a story appaulling (at the very least he would deeply offended by Page 3 of the Sun). "Nikki from Gravesend (21) wishes her Muslim fans well and hopes they don't Mecca big fuss about Page 3" ;hattip; Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: thetank on February 18, 2009, 02:34:21 PM There are exploitation, injustice and violations of 'human rights' occur in every society. These should for the most part be dealt with by the members of that society. Very occasionally pressures from outside that society are appropriate and useful, more usually such pressures are counterproductive. Taking an example in isolation and drawing attention to it merely reinforces peoples prejudices, and is not useful. this Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 02:57:35 PM My apologies for highlighting the fact that a woman has been punished for being gang-raped, and that child abuse is condoned in Saudi Arabia.
These stories are obviously fabricated or are one-offs, and woman have a fair rights and aren't subject to human rights' abuse in Saudi. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: thetank on February 18, 2009, 03:11:39 PM My apologies for highlighting the fact that a woman has been punished for being gang-raped, and that child abuse is condoned in Saudi Arabia. Apology accepted By way of penance, I charge you with the task of reading wardonkey's post again. These stories are obviously fabricated or are one-offs, and woman have a fair rights and aren't subject to human rights' abuse in Saudi. I don't think anyone has suggested that. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: The Camel on February 18, 2009, 03:52:37 PM There are exploitation, injustice and violations of 'human rights' occur in every society. These should for the most part be dealt with by the members of that society. Very occasionally pressures from outside that society are appropriate and useful, more usually such pressures are counterproductive. Taking an example in isolation and drawing attention to it merely reinforces peoples prejudices, and is not useful. This. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 03:58:27 PM My apologies for highlighting the fact that a woman has been punished for being gang-raped, and that child abuse is condoned in Saudi Arabia. Apology accepted By way of penance, I charge you with the task of reading wardonkey's post again. I wasn't responding to Wardonkey's post. Quote These stories are obviously fabricated or are one-offs, and woman have a fair rights and aren't subject to human rights' abuse in Saudi. I don't think anyone has suggested that. I was suggesting that their rights are being violated, and it's wrong. To illustrate the point, I selected two examples. I didn't realise I needed more - is there a special number of examples that I need to present in order to have a valid point? Of course, I haven't been there and neither am I a woman - so maybe I shouldn't have an opinion on it... Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: The Camel on February 18, 2009, 04:04:23 PM There is something about the way the second article is written which makes me think it has been a mistake in translation.
It is written so stutteringly and is barely comprehensble. To use this as a basis of an opinion is deeply flawed imo. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: thetank on February 18, 2009, 04:09:14 PM I didn't realise I needed more - is there a special number of examples that I need to present in order to have a valid point? You don't need to post more examples, we're actually saying you should perhaps post less examples. Ideally, no examples. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: AndrewT on February 18, 2009, 04:11:14 PM There is something about the way the second article is written which makes me think it has been a mistake in translation. It is written so stutteringly and is barely comprehensble. To use this as a basis of an opinion is deeply flawed imo. I read it and now I can't get Lionel Richie out of my head. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: thetank on February 18, 2009, 04:14:31 PM Of course, I haven't been there and neither am I a woman - so maybe I shouldn't have an opinion on it... Of course you can have an opinion. Just as someone else can have an opinion that your opinion is not very helpful and pretty irrelevant. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: Colchester Kev on February 18, 2009, 04:15:25 PM There is something about the way the second article is written which makes me think it has been a mistake in translation. It is written so stutteringly and is barely comprehensble. To use this as a basis of an opinion is deeply flawed imo. I read it and now I can't get Lionel Richie out of my head. LMFAO ... please go directly to hell, do not pass Heaven, do not stay in limbo. I am afraid I shall be laughing at your post all day !! Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 04:17:16 PM There is something about the way the second article is written which makes me think it has been a mistake in translation. It is written so stutteringly and is barely comprehensble. To use this as a basis of an opinion is deeply flawed imo. It was probably translated by Ironside. It's not the basis of my opinion. It merely is an example of what is happening in Saudi, and how the law treats women there. The second article comes from the Saudi Gazette: http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.spages&spageid=6 It's not an article condemning the Saudi policy on women's human rights - in fact it's apologetic towards the men involved and damning on the woman's part in the incident (imo). The article itself is an interesting reflection of the views of the system there, apart from the actual incident itself. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 04:19:26 PM There are exploitation, injustice and violations of 'human rights' occur in every society. These should for the most part be dealt with by the members of that society. Very occasionally pressures from outside that society are appropriate and useful, more usually such pressures are counterproductive. Taking an example in isolation and drawing attention to it merely reinforces peoples prejudices, and is not useful. I disagree that the violation of someone's human rights shouldn't be a matter for discussion or action from someone outside that country. Especially when the person whose rights are being violated have little or no voice themselves. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: Wardonkey on February 18, 2009, 04:25:17 PM Read the comments on the Saudi Gazzette article, they are probably a more accurate indicator of public opinion there than the article itself.
Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: thetank on February 18, 2009, 04:26:41 PM Woody Allen was a dirty bugger who mucks about with girls 60 years younger than him.
As he's of a Jewish persuasion, maybe he could meet up with this Islamic gent that kinboshi is banging on about. It's some common ground. Perhaps the two of them can talk shop for a bit, and from there maybe a lasting peace and understanding among their respective people can grow? Or maybe they're just two old dirty buggers. (One of whom happens to make decent movies) Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: Graham C on February 18, 2009, 04:29:47 PM Didn't know you liked Saudi movies Tank
Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: AndrewT on February 18, 2009, 04:30:14 PM Woody Allen was a dirty bugger who mucks about with girls 60 years younger than him. As he's of a Jewish persuasion, maybe he could meet up with this Islamic gent that kinboshi is banging on about. It's some common ground. Perhaps the two of them can talk shop for a bit, and from there maybe a lasting peace and understanding among their respective people can grow? Or maybe they're just two old dirty buggers. (One of whom happens to make decent movies) "They can come and be in my gang" (http://www.nndb.com/people/600/000022534/gglitter-yipes.jpg) Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: The Camel on February 18, 2009, 04:33:10 PM this is the article:
"A 23-year-old unmarried woman was awarded one-year prison term and 100 lashes for committing adultery and trying to abort the resultant fetus. The District Court in Jeddah pronounced the verdict on Saturday after the girl confessed that she had a forced sexual intercourse with a man who had offered her a ride. The man, the girl confessed, took her to a rest house, east of Jeddah, where he and four of friends assaulted her all night long. The girl claimed that she became pregnant soon after and went to King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces in an attempt to carry out an abortion. She was eight weeks’ pregnant then, the hospital confirmed. According to the ruling, the woman will be sent to a jail outside Jeddah to spend her time and will be lashed after delivery of her baby who will take the mother’s last name." If she is unmarried she can't commit adultery. Wikipedia definition of adultery: "Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not his or her spouse". He CAN commit adultery (if he's married) and as the article says he and his friends assaulted her I would guess the punishment has been given to him, not her. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: Jon MW on February 18, 2009, 04:37:52 PM this is the article: "A 23-year-old unmarried woman was awarded one-year prison term and 100 lashes for committing adultery and trying to abort the resultant fetus. The District Court in Jeddah pronounced the verdict on Saturday after the girl confessed that she had a forced sexual intercourse with a man who had offered her a ride. The man, the girl confessed, took her to a rest house, east of Jeddah, where he and four of friends assaulted her all night long. The girl claimed that she became pregnant soon after and went to King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces in an attempt to carry out an abortion. She was eight weeks’ pregnant then, the hospital confirmed. According to the ruling, the woman will be sent to a jail outside Jeddah to spend her time and will be lashed after delivery of her baby who will take the mother’s last name." If she is unmarried she can't commit adultery. Wikipedia definition of adultery: "Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not his or her spouse". He CAN commit adultery (if he's married) and as the article says he and his friends assaulted her I would guess the punishment has been given to him, not her. That's the western definition of adultery. He wasn't her husband - therefore adultery Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 04:38:26 PM this is the article: "A 23-year-old unmarried woman was awarded one-year prison term and 100 lashes for committing adultery and trying to abort the resultant fetus. The District Court in Jeddah pronounced the verdict on Saturday after the girl confessed that she had a forced sexual intercourse with a man who had offered her a ride. The man, the girl confessed, took her to a rest house, east of Jeddah, where he and four of friends assaulted her all night long. The girl claimed that she became pregnant soon after and went to King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces in an attempt to carry out an abortion. She was eight weeks’ pregnant then, the hospital confirmed. According to the ruling, the woman will be sent to a jail outside Jeddah to spend her time and will be lashed after delivery of her baby who will take the mother’s last name." If she is unmarried she can't commit adultery. Wikipedia definition of adultery: "Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not his or her spouse". He CAN commit adultery (if he's married) and as the article says he and his friends assaulted her I would guess the punishment has been given to him, not her. The wikipedia definition of adultery doesn't count for much in Saudi law I'm guessing. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 04:38:58 PM Woody Allen was a dirty bugger who mucks about with girls 60 years younger than him. As he's of a Jewish persuasion, maybe he could meet up with this Islamic gent that kinboshi is banging on about. It's some common ground. Perhaps the two of them can talk shop for a bit, and from there maybe a lasting peace and understanding among their respective people can grow? Or maybe they're just two old dirty buggers. (One of whom happens to make decent movies) I didn't realise the girls he 'mucked about' with are pre-pubescent. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 04:41:44 PM Read the comments on the Saudi Gazzette article, they are probably a more accurate indicator of public opinion there than the article itself. I don't deny that. I'm sure a majority of the Saudi people are as outraged and against this judgement and law as I am (we are). Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: thetank on February 18, 2009, 04:51:53 PM The wikipedia definition of adultery doesn't count for much in Saudi law I'm guessing. A very good point. It is a somewhat occidental source is it not. We can't use that to... hang on a minute... zomg, what's a human right? Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: kinboshi on February 18, 2009, 04:56:08 PM The wikipedia definition of adultery doesn't count for much in Saudi law I'm guessing. A very good point. It is a somewhat occidental source is it not. We can't use that to... hang on a minute... zomg, what's a human right? It something afforded to males only according to some states. Title: Re: This is just wrong. Post by: Wardonkey on February 18, 2009, 05:29:32 PM Informed discussion is useful. Finding extreme examples of gross injustice and posting links to them with the entire analysis consisting of the line 'This is wrong' is not useful.
The ideas of equality of the sexes and associated rights and freedoms are relatively new. When you think that New Zealand was the the first country to grant women the vote in 1893 the cultural shift required to spread universal suffrage across the the globe has occurred remarkably quickly. The UK only achieved this in 1928 and France took until 1944. More recently (this decade) Arab states such as Oman, Kuwait and UAE have all granted women the vote. Saudi Arabia will follow, and it will be the Saudi people who demand it. It won't happen any quicker if the Saudi monarchy are ostracised and derided by the west, in fact isolation is the bigot's friend. There are groups within Saudi working to shift attitudes and achieve change, they will succeed eventually. The influence the rest of world has on this process is benign, we achieve more by being open and inclusive than by being judgemental and sensationalist. |