This story made me so angry: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm
It describes a situation in Saudi Arabia where a 19-year-old woman who was gang-raped fourteen times has, herself, been sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in prison. She was given these lashes because she had violated Islamic rules about separation of the sexes and had been in the car of a strange man. Her punishment was increased after she appealed the initial ruling in the case. The judges said that she has been attempting to manipulate the media.
Also, her lawyer has had his license suspended and faces disciplinary proceedings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
In a time when the word "hero" has become devalued, Mukhtaran Bibi and people like Rebecca live up to the title.
I'm embarrassed to be put in the same sentence as Mukhtaran Bibi - the experiences she went through and overcame are just unthinkable. I admire her so much for her courage and her ability to overcome societal prejudice (and violence). I certainly am not anywhere near the same league as her!
Nor am I at all 'heroic' - far from it!! (are you reading my complaints about life in Cairo? - heroes don't complain!! ;-)).
But, middlexeast, I appreciate your kind words.
I know you already hate me, so I'm going to be obnoxious and ask what exactly makes you angry about this? :) You say "She was given these lashes because she had violated Islamic rules about separation of the sexes and had been in the car of a strange man." First, I would like to point out that your statement is somewhat inaccurate. She is not being punished for violating "Islamic rules" but rather the Laws of Saudi Arabia. The BBC article provides a more accurate description "the victim was also punished for violating Saudi Arabia's laws on segregation that forbid unrelated men and women from associating with each other. She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in the car of a strange man." I'm sure you can appreciate the differences between these two statements.
But that isn't even my point. I will try to illustrate my point with an example of something that happened to me when I got into a driving accident. I was passing an intersection and I did not have the right of way. An oncoming car did not see me passing and slammed into the side of my car sending it spinning. As my car was spinning it hits a car that was parked illegally in the safety zone of the intersection (ever seen that happen in Cairo by any chance?). When the police arrived, I tried to convince them I shouldn't be liable for the damages to the illegally parked car because it was in a place it shouldn't have been. My argument failed and rightly so. The police officer said, she may be where she shouldn't have been (like the victim in the strange car) but her punishment isn't having your car slam into her (like the victim getting raped). But the officer did proceed to write her a ticket for her parking violation (the victim being sentenced to lashing for her violation of the segregation law).
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 think some of the other issues that come up in the case merit further examination; like increasing a sentence on appeal. Rules of criminal procedure of most jurisdictions prohibit this, but here they seem to have also added a new charge on appeal ("manipulating the media in court proceeding") also a no-no in most jurisdictions. But I don't know what the rule is in Saudi, but if they are charging her with a separate crime and the prosecution meets its burden of proof, then they should be able to sentence her to the punishment of that crime (which I don't think is doubling the original sentence, but you never know). The way her lawyer was treated also strikes me as odd, and I'm sure there must be interesting facts surrounding that as well.
Let me know what you think. :)
Dear Sage,
I don't hate you. On the contrary, I kind of like you for your rhetoric skill.
What we are dealing here is not about law enforcement or trickier the technicality of Saudi laws, but rather who should we support: the reactionary Saudi laws, or a teenager who was savagely gang-raped 14 times?
Are the rights of the Saudi laws higher than those of the individual?
"What to say to a man who tells you he prefers to obey God than to obey men, and who is consequently sure of entering the gates of Heaven by slitting your throat?" - Voltaire
Dear Sage,
I appreciate the way you keep me on my toes – I wrote this posting when I was tired and a little rushed and did, indeed, incorrectly describe the laws as “Islamic” when, in fact, they are Saudi. I am fully aware of the debate surrounding the law applied in this case as it relates to the Sunni/ Shia divide in Saudi (see, eg, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7098940.stm). And I am also aware of the fact that so there are so many ranges of views regarding the interpretation and application of “Islamic” law – so I should definitely have known better than to describe the laws in this way.
Having said that, the rest of your message filled me with horror and despair. It genuinely upset me and has been rattling around my brain since I read it. What upsets me most is the fact that you could ask me what I’m so angry about and then apply such a cold and calculating analysis of the law – “the law exists, it was applied properly, so why be upset?” You might be attempting to wind me up, but I suspect this is your real view.
So, to give a truncated response to an issue that I could probably talk about for days:
First, I find the fact that you analogized between an illegally parked car (which you even refer to as “she”!) and a woman who has been raped very telling. In your analysis, you ignore the wider social and emotional context of law and reduce it to a very “law and economics” type rationale—where law is seen as something that should be measured in outputs and results. My anger, you have to understand, is less that the laws were applied properly (or improperly – who knows), and more that these laws exist at all.
“But!” (I hear you cry) “these are religious laws and are used across the Muslim world to prevent improper mingling of the sexes!”.. “And, moreover, they are applied to both men and women – so they’re not even sexist.” (HRW released a detailed report describing how the married (raped) woman was actually with a male friend and they were both raped by a gang of men – and both got lashings).
“And” (I hear you mutter more under your breath – or maybe very loudly?) “You’re not Muslim so you can’t really understand this issue.”
I am, admittedly, not a Muslim. But I am someone who cares very deeply about human rights around the world. And I believe strongly that certain fundamental rights should be upheld and respected, whatever an individual’s religion, race, gender or age.
First, I happen to think that these type of segregation laws lead to more harm than good and are consistently applied in a manner that discriminates against women. If you really haven’t heard of case after case of women being prosecuted while men get away (for example, if a woman gets pregnant, this is seen as automatic admission that she had an affair; but the man in question still needs to have 4 witnesses speak out against him… this is one example, but the list could go on and on and on… I’ll send more if you really need examples)
However, whether or not these laws exist in general, they are particularly damaging in the context of rape. The criminalization of contact between men and women in Saudi Arabia does, in the words of HRW, “severely impede the ability of rape victims to seek justice. A court may view a woman's charge of rape as an admission of extramarital sexual relations (or "illegal mingling") unless she can prove, by strict evidentiary standards, that this contact was legal and the intercourse was nonconsensual.” (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/11/16/saudia17363.htm). As HRW and many other groups have emphasized, women face tremendous hurdles proving rape in Saudi (and, indeed, in every country in the world). The judicial process, the treatment by police, the general attitude towards “illegal mingling” and the view that the woman must also have been in part culpable – all these things place tremendous barriers in the way of any woman who attempts to get justice in the criminal system.
You write that “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.”
This type of cold, calculating view, Sage, is what lies at the very heart of my anger. Even if the law is on the books where this woman was born (she didn’t really have any choice over where she was born!), this doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t feel anger about its mechanical application, with no regard to the wider picture of the pain and suffering that transpired.
Rather than thinking dispassionately about your illegally parked car, I think it would be more appropriate to turn your mind to the following analogies:
First, a black man in 1930s United States goes into a whites-only restaurant and is beaten by white supremacists to within an inch of his life and is confined to a wheelchair. Yet the law on the books says that this man should get lashings (YES!! LASHINGS!!) on his already-scarred back because he violated the law. Should we feel angry about this? Or do we just accept that this black man knew the law and ignore the ‘punishment’ that had already been handed out by the white supremacists? I certainly think that anger is the correct response – and I believe it is only through anger and outrage that this type of cold, unjust application of the law will be remedied.
One final example to finish my response (I have so much more to say, but not enough time/ space!):
Imagine that you are a father with a 10-year-old child. You have told this child that if they go into a particular room in the house that contains dangerous tools and machines, you will give them 10 lashings with a leather belt. (This, you feel, is a good law – the lashings are being given to the child just to protect her). The child is old enough to know that this law exists, but thinks that the cat ran into that room and so decides to pop in very quickly to see if she can find it. When she enters the room, a piece of dangerous equipment falls on her and she is rushed to hospital and unable to walk properly for the rest of her life. As soon as she gets back from hospital, however, you remind the child that, in the place where she lives, there is a law on the book and, given that there were no absolving factors, she must bend over and accept the 10 lashings.
You might think that my comparison of the black man / girl with the Saudi rape survivor are inaccurate because the former were both physically damaged beyond repair. But, Sage, you must surely realize that rape is also something that damages you beyond repair and is something that weighs heavily inside you for the rest of your life. And gang rape… I dread to imagine.
Dear Rebecca,
While I thoroughly enjoy your blog and your comments (and also winding you up a little bit, and keeping you on your toes) I have to keep my response brief, as unlike you I am not brave and selfless enough to devote my life to human rights (I'm not being sarcastic here), and have enslaved myself to the corporate law firm with the specter of its whip, in the form of the billable hour, hanging over me.
I will make comments on your response as I go through it
1. The Shia-Sunni sensitivities is not relevant to this issue, at least not for a legal perspective.
2. It is true, "Islam" and has as many interpretations as its 1.3 billion followers. There is even a verse (I'm pretty sure in the Quran but am having a hard time finding a pinpoint citation) saying:
الطرق إلى الله بعدد أنفاس الخلائق
The ways to God are as many as the breaths of His (or Hers, before you get angry again) creations. So we are not discussing whether the "segregation law" is Islamically valid or not, I personally think its not and follow the ruling of more liberal-minded Ayatollahs that hold the same belief. But the way the government of Saudi Arabia has decided to come down on the issue is that it is forbidden. I am not sure, being a Kingdom and all, how the legislation process works there, but I'm am going to make a blind bet and say this particular law reflects the general sentiment of the Saudi people (i.e. it could have been passed even through a "democratic" process). This begs a more fundamental and philosophical question, where do laws get their authoritative quality? Is it merely whether a majority of society wants to be bound by them? Saying this, I realize our main disagreement is philosophical in nature. I am generally a utilitarian: greatest good for the greatest number. Where as (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe there are certain fundamental human rights that one does not give up when entering into this social contract. I follow this argument to a certain extent, but don't think "the right to mingle with the opposite sex" is one of these fundamental human rights. I DO think that when the Romans threw Christians to the lions in coliseums for their entertainment that the utilitarian argument breaks down, as life is a fundamental right you do not give away for the good of the greatest number of people.
3. I use "she" for the illegal parked car because it was driven by a woman. I was in Iran at the time, women are allowed to drive there. But I wish they weren't because all the traffic accidents I've been involved in have somehow involved women (I'm kidding).
4. Now I want to go beyond the issue of whether the law was appropriately or inappropriately applied and address the root cause of your anger, which is that "these laws exist at all." This is a wholly different question. When you say "these laws" what exactly do you mean? A law calling for the segregation of the sexes, which includes banning women from getting into the cars of strange men? If you look at the equivalent of the legislative history of this law, don't you think it was put in place to prevent things like what has happened in this very instance? Moreover, as I alluded to earlier, these laws are the laws of a country whose people are of a conservative and religious nature. Most people WANT a law banning the mingling of the sexes in public. What gives the West the moral authority to say that this is "barbaric" or "backward" (as I've seen many times and also in the comments posted on BBC's article). The people of the world have different interpretations of decency, for example in Saudi, sex before marriage is immoral but polygamy isn't. I am not defending either. The sexual liberation of the West nor the repression of the MidEast. Personally I tend to feel I have a more Western tendency because I grew up in this culture (and it's way more fun ;). But this doesn't give me the moral authority to say what the people in Saudi Arabia (or a democratic Islamic country for example) think is wrong because it doesn't conform with a Western notion of Human Rights. There is a quote I think relevant here..."When traveling remember the country you are in is designed to make its own people comfortable, not you."
5. The arguments you make on my behalf are not ones I would make. I don't think you need to be a Muslim to be able to object to these behaviors. I myself do it all the time (you may not believe it but I've actually worked on Human Rights in Iran on and off for about 3 years and specifically on women's rights issues). These "fundamental rights" you speak of, what are they? Not getting raped? Why do you think my defense of the original 90 (or 100) lashings is a defense of the rape. The rapists should also be held strictly accountable for their crime, which I believe is a capital offense (again something else that makes you Human Rights people squeamish). If the law so proscribes the rapists must be executed and if they have only been imprisoned THAT is the problem with the ruling, not the original 90/100 lashes. But recognize this, I am in agreement with you that there are certain rights that are inviolable, but none were triggered here. If they were, please let me know what you believe they are. If you believe the right is to bodily integrity, I think the law was there to ensure just that, for anyone of any religion, race, gender or age.
6. While I don't think our discussion has anything to do with rape, I will still say in terms of the evidential requirements for proving rape I agree they tend to have a discriminatory effect on women. But your statement was again inaccurate (at least as I know it is applied in Iran) as to when an unmarried women is found pregnant. The mere pregnancy is not admissible evidence as to her fornication. And you should also take note, the four witnesses cannot provide mere circumstantial evidence (i.e. We saw a man and woman go into a hotel room and spend the night and in the morning we found incriminating evidence), but rather they must witness the actual penetration itself. Impossible standard you say? I would agree. This is actually the point of the whole thing. They combine this with an even harsher condition. If you accuse someone of illicit affairs without the required proof you yourself will be lashed 80 times for the accusation, as you have damaged someone's reputation. But I want you to take a step back and have a different look at all this. What is the effect of such a law on a society? It will mean women will not stay out alone, will avoid unsafe neighborhoods, and this will lead to a higher level of safety for them. Compare the rape figures for Western countries and Muslim countries, doesn't it strike you as odd? I know we can discuss topics such a marital rape, or non-reporting and such for hours, but even despite all that don't you agree that rape happens less often in the "sexually repressed" MidEast than it does in the liberated West?
6. As I said, I don't think this topic is even about rape. Would you still believe the girl should not have had the punishment of the law she broke applied to her had she only been mugged? I agree what she went through is infinitely worse than the punishment of the crime, but wouldn't it become a slippery slope? What if she was only sexually harassed in the car? Should that be enough to absolve her of the crime? I personally think the best thing to do is to sentence her for her crime, and then have her pardoned in light of the pain and suffering she has already gone through. It will ensure that the law is not selectively applied and the deterrence effect of the law is not undermined.
7. Another key point on which I think we differ. I believe law, more than anything, seeks to create order in society. It seeks to promote order, even more than justice. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, even though it is unjust to punish someone for committing a crime they did not know of. Same with statutory rape when the offender doesn't know the victim's age, or any other strict liability crime.
8. You talk about the laws of the country in which she was born. I find that wholly irrelevant. If you, as a foreigner, go to the Saudi and there is a law the requires you to wear the headscarf, then you have to wear the headscarf. End of story. A guy from Saudi Arabia cannot marry a second wife in the US. End of story. It isn't about choice. We don't choose the laws we follow. You can say you choose the country we live in, but even that is dictated by so many factors that it really isn't much of a choice. This is law. You must obey the law of the land, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, reform it, as I will talk about below.
8. I think your best argument was the example of the black man in 1930s, and I appreciate that you brought up the analogy. In that case I think the white supremacists should be punished to the full extent of the law. As for the black man, he should get compensated to the full extent possible for the injuries he received. If he lives at a time and has to deal with judiciary that will look unfavorably upon his case, that is problem that must be redressed through social and judicial reform. Not by breaking the law. I guess it reveals my mind set, I'm a reformist not a revolutionary. Him getting beat up for entering the restaurant was not "punishment" and you too realize this. It was a crime. His punishment is the lashing which he should receive, along with his compensation. He did assume a risk when he entered the restaurant, and that was of receiving lashes, not being beat to within an inch of his life. When the lady parked her car in the safety zone, she assumed the risk of a parking ticket, not being crashed into. When the girl gets into the car she assumes the risk of lashes, not rape. I am not saying she is responsible for the rape and I am not defending the rapists. They should be hanged.
9. I don't think the best approach to law reform is by breaking the law Rosa Parks style. Laws are meant to reflect the values of the people in the society in which it applies. I think social reform and legal reform go hand in hand. I realize this is easier said than done, but I think the chaos that would ensue if every person who thought a law is unjust took it upon themselves to violate it would be more damaging to society as a whole than an unjust law. Legal reform should happen through its appropriate channels. We can discuss what those channels may be, but I don't think individuals taking it upon themselves to break the law is the answer.
10. I realize emotional and psychological damage can be more devastating than even permanent physical pain, and often is.
"But this doesn't give me the moral authority to say what the people in Saudi Arabia (or a democratic Islamic country for example) think is wrong because it doesn't conform with a Western notion of Human Rights," wrote Sage.
There's no denying that the enemies of freedom come from free societies, from a slice of the educated flunkies of the state-cum-corporations who deny the benefits of democratic rights to the rest of humanity, and more specifically to their compatriots, if they're unfortunate enough to belong to another religion or ethnic group.
Post a Comment