2 ms·

hrw is lying. OK, not lying but being deceiving. They never actually say she was sentenced for being raped if you read it carefully. Why have they done this

hrw is lying. OK, not lying but being deceiving. They never actually say she was sentenced for being raped if you read it carefully. Why have they done this?

candiodari 10y ago
So let me get this straight. In order to believe that this is not in fact the case, you suggest that human rights watch is a conspiracy against Saudi Arabia, or perhaps against islam. And we are to believe that, as opposed to the many different sources pointing out that islam assigns second-class status to women, and Saudi Arabia forces that on women, on your word, without so much as a single source. Can you provide some sources for this ?
- aaron695 10y ago
  I'm not sure what else I can do other than give you the HRW link again? https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/15/saudi-arabia-rape-victim-punished-speaking-out https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/15/saudi-arabia-rape-victim... Please read it carefully, they never say she was prosecuted for being raped. The article is specifically written to fool people. Unless you can explain why if she was prosecuted for being raped HRW omitted that information?
  - unprepare 10y ago
    from the link: >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.
    - aaron695 10y ago
      So once again, they have not said this was applied to this particular case, why? Try to read between the lines. It's a handy tool to have. This article is decietful. The above paragraph is OT to what I was saying. But you'll notice they use words like 'may' and they don't say it was relevant in this case. They are playing games with the truth. And that's something I particularly don't agree with.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - candiodari 10y ago
        To be frank, I find the supposition that you are deceitful much easier to believe than the idea that Human Rights Watch is conspiring to give Islam/Saudia Arabia a bad name. Given that Saudi Arabia doesn't even have a criminal code at all, of course they make statements like that. Judges simply enforce (their idea of) islam, rather than any legal code. There is no rulebook like in pretty much every other country on the planet. So judicial randomness is the norm, rather than the exception (and of course, one might even say this is not the fault of the judges, as they don't make the law, this is the fault of the government refusing to govern).

hrw is lying. OK, not lying but being deceiving. They never actually say she was sentenced for being raped if you read it carefully. Why have they done this?

candiodari 10y ago

So let me get this straight. In order to believe that this is not in fact the case, you suggest that human rights watch is a conspiracy against Saudi Arabia, or perhaps against islam. And we are to believe that, as opposed to the many different sources pointing out that islam assigns second-class status to women, and Saudi Arabia forces that on women, on your word, without so much as a single source. Can you provide some sources for this ?

aaron695 10y ago
I'm not sure what else I can do other than give you the HRW link again? https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/15/saudi-arabia-rape-victim-punished-speaking-out https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/15/saudi-arabia-rape-victim... Please read it carefully, they never say she was prosecuted for being raped. The article is specifically written to fool people. Unless you can explain why if she was prosecuted for being raped HRW omitted that information?
- unprepare 10y ago
  from the link: >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.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    So once again, they have not said this was applied to this particular case, why? Try to read between the lines. It's a handy tool to have. This article is decietful. The above paragraph is OT to what I was saying. But you'll notice they use words like 'may' and they don't say it was relevant in this case. They are playing games with the truth. And that's something I particularly don't agree with.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - candiodari 10y ago
      To be frank, I find the supposition that you are deceitful much easier to believe than the idea that Human Rights Watch is conspiring to give Islam/Saudia Arabia a bad name. Given that Saudi Arabia doesn't even have a criminal code at all, of course they make statements like that. Judges simply enforce (their idea of) islam, rather than any legal code. There is no rulebook like in pretty much every other country on the planet. So judicial randomness is the norm, rather than the exception (and of course, one might even say this is not the fault of the judges, as they don't make the law, this is the fault of the government refusing to govern).