A friend wrote to me in response to my posting about the Saudi rape case and asked: "what exactly makes you angry about this? :)" He went on: "I can see why there is plenty in this case to make one angry, the mere fact that a 19 year old was savagely gang-raped 14 times is more than enough, but I still don't think that absolves the victim for her "crime." And what she did is a crime as defined by the Laws of the country in which she lives. Whether it is an appropriate or just law, and whether it accurately reflects the requirements of Islam are wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. The fact is, she was committing a crime when she got into the stranger's car and (absent any absolving factors) she should be punished for it, irrespective of what happens afterwards. "
I have written a lengthy response to this comment (and it could probably have gone on for many, many more pages). My anger arises for a number of different reasons (as I explain). But one of the most disturbing things for me regarding this comment was the view of law as a mechanical tool that should be applied no matter what has happened to the criminal/ victim (ie the 19-year-old woman). Even if, for some reason I cannot understand, you believe that the woman should be punished for "illegal mingling", the fact that she was gang-raped and has to carry the scars of that attack around with her for the rest of the life should surely be punishment enough???
For more information about this case, see http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/11/16/saudia17363.htm
It turns out that both the woman and her male friend (the man who she was "illegally mingling" with) were gang raped by a group of strange men:
"The young woman, who is married, said she had met with a male acquaintance who had promised to give her back an old photograph of herself. After she met her acquaintance in his car in Qatif, a gang of seven men then attacked and raped both of them, multiple times. Despite the prosecution’s requests for the maximum penalty for the rapists, the Qatif court sentenced four of them to between one and five years in prison and between 80 and 1,000 lashes. They were convicted of kidnapping, apparently because prosecutors could not prove rape. The judges reportedly ignored evidence from a mobile phone video in which the attackers recorded the assault. "
I would be curious to hear people's response to the idea that, if a law is on the books, it should be applied regardless of the pain that might have consequently been inflicted on the individual who violated the law. I have put some examples in my comment on the original saudi rape posting (following Sage's comment). Any more comments/ rebuttals would be appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"if a law is on the books, it should be applied regardless of the pain that might have consequently been inflicted on the individual who violated the law."
We would only have a real and practical standoff, as opposed to a theoretical one, if laws are instituted non-democratically, as is the case in Saudi Arabia, that would be just the sort of society which needs Rebecca to be there to ensure that human rights are not outlawed by some prehistoric laws.
Post a Comment