Saudi Rape Victim Faces 90 Lashes
hurley_108 @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:56 am
neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
neopundit neopundit:
Put it into context.
The men who raped her were deservedly charged and convicted.
However, what she did was against the law of her country. Is the law convoluted? Yes, I think so. But it is a law in her country and she has to obey it.
It's funny, you'd think that you conservatives would be all over this with praise, that the laws of the country are being enforced.
The men who raped her were deservedly charged and convicted.
However, what she did was against the law of her country. Is the law convoluted? Yes, I think so. But it is a law in her country and she has to obey it.
It's funny, you'd think that you conservatives would be all over this with praise, that the laws of the country are being enforced.
Good lord, there is absolutely no moral way to defend the punishing of a woman for "allowing herself to be raped."
There are just laws and there are unjust laws. This is an unjust law.
Where do you get "allowing herself to be raped"? Try a source besides FOX News.
She was convicted of being with another man in public whom she was unrelated to. It had nothing to do with the rape.
I agree the law is stupid. One of many stupid, stupid laws in that country and in ours.
I admit I went over the top, but it's still an unjust, indefensible law.
hurley_108 @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:02 pm
canuckns canuckns:
$1:
are these the same set of laws"sharia?" they wanted to bring to CANADA?
Yes. This is Islamic "Sharia" law at its best. What all these immigrant muslims want to bring into Canada.
More like sharia at its worst.
canuckns @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:26 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
canuckns canuckns:
$1:
are these the same set of laws"sharia?" they wanted to bring to CANADA?
Yes. This is Islamic "Sharia" law at its best. What all these immigrant muslims want to bring into Canada.
More like sharia at its worst.
Yeah I forgot to put the sarcasm infliction in there.
neopundit @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:32 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
I admit I went over the top, but it's still an unjust, indefensible law.
Ah, I see. I agree, it's riduclous. It's decidedly convenient, however, that we have this thread as well as the Granny Lockup thread going at the same time, where we can see individuals arguing:
"It's the law. Break it and suffer the consequences!"
Where as in this thread the argument goes:
"How can she be punished for such a ridiculous law!"
That's textbook hypocrisy. Those arguments are mutually exclusive. Of course, that implies that those arguing even think about what they are saying.
That's who I was aiming the comments at. Personally, I disagree with the law and the ensuing "justice" in both cases.
BartSimpson @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:42 pm
$1:
are these the same set of laws"sharia?" they wanted to bring to CANADA?
Precisely and without moderation of any kind. Sharia is not sharia if modified. That is something Abbas would've agreed with me on, I am sure.
camerontech @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:49 pm
neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
I admit I went over the top, but it's still an unjust, indefensible law.
Ah, I see. I agree, it's riduclous. It's decidedly convenient, however, that we have this thread as well as the Granny Lockup thread going at the same time, where we can see individuals arguing:
"It's the law. Break it and suffer the consequences!"
Where as in this thread the argument goes:
"How can she be punished for such a ridiculous law!"
That's textbook hypocrisy. Those arguments are mutually exclusive. Of course, that implies that those arguing even think about what they are saying.
That's who I was aiming the comments at. Personally, I disagree with the law and the ensuing "justice" in both cases.
come on neo... you can't just grab two out of context snippets from each thread and then say that it's hypocrisy. We're talking about Canadian law and Sharia law in the middle east, the two couldn't be more different.
starshine @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:57 pm
thats sick.
BartSimpson @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:03 pm
neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
I admit I went over the top, but it's still an unjust, indefensible law.
Ah, I see. I agree, it's riduclous. It's decidedly convenient, however, that we have this thread as well as the Granny Lockup thread going at the same time, where we can see individuals arguing:
"It's the law. Break it and suffer the consequences!"
Where as in this thread the argument goes:
"How can she be punished for such a ridiculous law!"
That's textbook hypocrisy. Those arguments are mutually exclusive. Of course, that implies that those arguing even think about what they are saying.
That's who I was aiming the comments at. Personally, I disagree with the law and the ensuing "justice" in both cases.
Ooooh, very good cross-thread debating points there! Nicely done, Mr. Neopundit!
neopundit @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:17 pm
camerontech camerontech:
come on neo... you can't just grab two out of context snippets from each thread and then say that it's hypocrisy. We're talking about Canadian law and Sharia law in the middle east, the two couldn't be more different.
You're going to have to explain this to me. Either you believe in the rule of law, regardless of how ridiculous the laws are, or you believe that there are laws that should be challenged.
Look, this isn't about the merits of the law or about the appropriateness of the punishment. However, take the following statement:
$1:
She got exactly what she deserved. No one is above the law not even [..]
Not even who? Grandparents? Rape victims? That sounds like a universal statement to me.
It's fine to disagree, but to espouse The law should be enforced for everyone, regardless and then argue that it shouldn't be enforced in a case you disagree with is, indeed, hypocritical.
neopundit @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:21 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Ooooh, very good cross-thread debating points there! Nicely done, Mr. Neopundit!
Forums are no fun unless you are fighting with somebody!
BartSimpson @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:21 pm
neopundit neopundit:
camerontech camerontech:
come on neo... you can't just grab two out of context snippets from each thread and then say that it's hypocrisy. We're talking about Canadian law and Sharia law in the middle east, the two couldn't be more different.
You're going to have to explain this to me. Either you believe in the rule of law, regardless of how ridiculous the laws are, or you believe that there are laws that should be challenged.
Look, this isn't about the merits of the law or about the appropriateness of the punishment. However, take the following statement:
$1:
She got exactly what she deserved. No one is above the law not even [..]
Not even who? Grandparents? Rape victims? That sounds like a universal statement to me.
It's fine to disagree, but to espouse The law should be enforced for everyone, regardless and then argue that it shouldn't be enforced in a case you disagree with is, indeed, hypocritical.
You're doing fine without my help.
Hope you don't mind if I just sit back and watch.
![[popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Eating Popcorn")
canuckns @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:26 pm
neopundit neopundit:
camerontech camerontech:
come on neo... you can't just grab two out of context snippets from each thread and then say that it's hypocrisy. We're talking about Canadian law and Sharia law in the middle east, the two couldn't be more different.
You're going to have to explain this to me. Either you believe in the rule of law, regardless of how ridiculous the laws are, or you believe that there are laws that should be challenged.
Look, this isn't about the merits of the law or about the appropriateness of the punishment. However, take the following statement:
$1:
She got exactly what she deserved. No one is above the law not even [..]
Not even who? Grandparents? Rape victims? That sounds like a universal statement to me.
It's fine to disagree, but to espouse The law should be enforced for everyone, regardless and then argue that it shouldn't be enforced in a case you disagree with is, indeed, hypocritical.
While I don't agree with the lashes penalty, I do agree with the saying, If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. She knew the what the law was in her country just as well as the Granny knew what the law was in Canada. They both broke thier respective laws and now they will be punished for it.
neopundit @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:29 pm
starshine starshine:
thats sick.
The law? Yeah.
The punishment? I'd take it over 10 years. Hell, I'd probably take it over 10 months.
BartSimpson @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:32 pm
neopundit neopundit:
starshine starshine:
thats sick.
The law? Yeah.
The punishment? I'd take it over 10 years. Hell, I'd probably take it over 10 months.
90 lashes could equate a death penalty. At the very least the girl will be subject to wounds so severe that she will be deeply scarred for life and will have damage to her musculature and nerves.
Saudi floggers pride themselves on their ability to flay flesh with each stroke of the lash. These guys literally spend their days practicing their trade. It is not an exaggeration to say that some of them could consistently flick off the lit end of a cigarette from 10 metres away.
Only in a muslim country could "flogger" be a profession.
camerontech @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:36 pm
neopundit neopundit:
camerontech camerontech:
come on neo... you can't just grab two out of context snippets from each thread and then say that it's hypocrisy. We're talking about Canadian law and Sharia law in the middle east, the two couldn't be more different.
You're going to have to explain this to me. Either you believe in the rule of law, regardless of how ridiculous the laws are, or you believe that there are laws that should be challenged.
Look, this isn't about the merits of the law or about the appropriateness of the punishment. However, take the following statement:
$1:
She got exactly what she deserved. No one is above the law not even [..]
Not even who? Grandparents? Rape victims? That sounds like a universal statement to me.
It's fine to disagree, but to espouse The law should be enforced for everyone, regardless and then argue that it shouldn't be enforced in a case you disagree with is, indeed, hypocritical.
ok, first of all I'm kinda of a impartial observer in all of this because I didn't even comment on the Sharia incident nor did I say that we have to obey all laws regardless of our disagreements with them, I just commented on this because you were trying to drag two topics together that don't belong together and are under different circumstances.
I believe some laws should be challenged, I also believe the grandma deserved to go to jail for being in contempt of court, she was trying to block construction workers from doing their jobs and that's a no no in my books. Did she deserve the time she's getting? I don't know, does she deserve to get punished as a repeat offender and for not being remorseful to the crime she committed? damn straight she does.
About this law in Saudi Arabia, it's ridiculous and people have to abandon archaic religious laws and embrace newer ones that are fair and just for everyone involved. Comparing our interpretation of justice in Canada with one half way across the world isn't contributing to the topic at hand.
That's all I was trying to say.