Looks like they are really cracking down on rape victims in the Maldives. (//http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21595814)
QuoteA 15-year-old rape victim has been sentenced to 100 lashes for engaging in premarital sex, court officials said.
The charges against the girl were brought against her last year after police investigated accusations that her stepfather had raped her and killed their baby. He is still to face trial.
Prosecutors said her conviction did not relate to the rape case.
Amnesty International condemned the punishment as "cruel, degrading and inhumane".
The government said it did not agree with the punishment and that it would look into changing the law.
That'll learn her.....
Jeez.... :sad:
It'll certainly teach her (and other girls) to keep their mouths shut when they get raped. Which, to anyone not looking closely, is going to bring down the amount of rape going on in the country.
I hate Islamic countries. They need to cut out this Sharia law crap needs to be stamped out. Since the girl isn't going to be punished for being raped until she's 18, we have 3 years to mount a rescue mission.
I don't see anything in the article about it being consensual though. The article seems pretty clear that she was being charged as a direct consequence of being raped.
Hm, you are right. I was reading too fast. I wonder what she's actually convicted of, then. The article seems to be missing a lot of information in that case. I agree with the 'half-assed journalism' comment.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Jason, did you even read this news article?
Yes, yes I did.
QuoteProsecutors said her conviction did not relate to the rape case.
I don't believe a word of it. The poor girl was raped, and then charged because she "willingly committed an act outside of the law". As if allowing yourself to be raped is being "willing".
I don't believe that there was anything consensual about the relationship between the stepfather and the girl.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Again a half assed, irresponsible journalism makes the day.
I think this is the problem, the only people it mentions are the step-father and the girl. It doesn't clearly say who she willingly committed an act with.
I assumed it was the step-father, because he's the only male mentioned.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Noone said anything consentual about the rape. It's rape. The article's title is saying she was given the sentence because of 'pre-marital sex'. You wrote she was given the sentence because of rape.
The court officials said that she was sentenced for engaging in premarital sex. The only premarital sex act mentioned in the article is the rape. I believe that the court officials are using "premarital sex" as a euphimisim for "being raped". Zaima Nasheed, claims that the girl had "had willingly committed an act outside of the law". If she's not talking about the act in the article, then what is she on about?
I am fascinated that you are able to, with a straight face, look at a situation where a 15 year old girl is impregnated by her father and then the child is murdered and suggest that the 15 year old girl was a willing participant. When was the last time you heard of a 15 year old girl being willingly impregnated by her father?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I am fascinated that you are able to, with a straight face, look at a situation where a 15 year old girl is impregnated by her father and then the child is murdered and suggest that the 15 year old girl was a willing participant. When was the last time you heard of a 15 year old girl being willingly impregnated by her father?
It has come to my attention since my initial post that my paraphrasing of the headline might not be as accurate as I intended it to be.
There's every possibility that the sex act that she will be getting the lashes for was not the rape that was mentioned in the article.
Quote from: "Jason78"There's every possibility that the sex act that she will be getting the lashes for was not the rape that was mentioned in the article.
If that's really the case then this is some shit journalism and a lot is missing from this story. If true, there's also no mention of
the guy she had sex with, assuming it's someone other than the stepfather, getting the same punishment. 100 lashes is a ridiculous punishment anyway, but it's still a horribly misogynistic injustice if they don't even administer it equally to all parties, male and female.
Don't count on it. It's pretty common in muslim ideology to frown on (read: stone to death) girls who have premarital sex, but encourage guys to bone as many girls as they can, preferably non-muslims. It's why many muslim kids in western countries have native girlfriends but marry muslim girls. Because the natives aren't "pure". But that only bothers them when they get married.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Nonsensei"I am fascinated that you are able to, with a straight face, look at a situation where a 15 year old girl is impregnated by her father and then the child is murdered and suggest that the 15 year old girl was a willing participant. When was the last time you heard of a 15 year old girl being willingly impregnated by her father?
HUH? Where did I say that? Learn to read in your mother language first, moron. And don't ever dare to tell me anything about my English again.
How in earth you could even think that I was saying something like that? And even if I did, don't you think people would shred me to bits, instead of agreeing with me?
Something is wrong with the news feed and we are discussing that, stupid.
Originally this post was much more insulting.
Instead I will just ask why you find it so necessary to be as nasty and repugnant as possible. Do you really believe it lends anything to any point you try to make? Does it make you feel good to be a walking pile of nastiness?
In other words what is your fucking problem?
Eh, I'm siding with drunkenshoe this time. The topic has moved on, your assessment of it seems to be lacking, and you're the one who started with the unfriendly tone.
Her response might be a bit much, but she is right about this being crappy journalism and the article not telling the whole story.
QuoteAmnesty International condemned the punishment as "cruel, degrading and inhumane".
Is Allah cruel, degrading and inhumane?
It is Allah's punishment according to
Quran 24:2The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.Rape in islam (//http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Rape_in_Islam)
QuoteThere is no equivalent term for 'rape' in the Qur'an. Likewise, there is not a single verse in the Qur'an which even remotely discourages forced sex. In contrast, there are several verses in this book which give the green light to rape and other sexual crimes against women.
Quote from: "Plu"Eh, I'm siding with drunkenshoe this time. The topic has moved on, your assessment of it seems to be lacking, and you're the one who started with the unfriendly tone.
Her response might be a bit much, but she is right about this being crappy journalism and the article not telling the whole story.
You are siding with Drunkenshoe for the wrong reason. Whether she is right or wrong, she often seems physically incapable of speaking to someone without launching into a stream of insults and name-calling. So agree with whatever point she may or not be making in a moment of lucidity...but don't encourage the overbearing style of conversation she seems to enjoy.
Sorry, I agree with her. If you don't want people to beoverbearing, don't be agressive yourself and say something stupid (and continue to dig yourself in a hole when you are clearly wrong).
Quote from: "Shiranu"Sorry, I agree with her. If you don't want people to beoverbearing, don't be aggressive yourself and say something stupid (and continue to dig yourself in a hole when you are clearly wrong).
Except he wasn't aggressive.
He may have misunderstood what she said and responded to that, but that is no justification for a stream of abuse. "overbearing" does not describe someone who instead of saying "I didn't mean that, what I said was ____" says "YOU ARE A STUPID MORON HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT" etc.
It is ridiculous, she does it to anyone she dislikes or who disagrees with her. Thread going fine....people agreeing with her....one misunderstanding she explodes.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"accused me with advocating a rapist father. I called him a moron and a stupid.
& there it is. If someone accuses you of saying something because they misunderstood what you wrote, you correct them and explain what you actually wrote and meant.
Also a bit rich given the multiple, made-up accusations thrown at me that you refused to explain, and when I contested the accusations (like you tried to do in this thread, just really rudely) I got called a disgusting human being and a mentally ill kid.
Double standards all day every day with you.
DS: You were banned for being belligerent, rude, insulting etc.
Quote from: "wolf39us"DS: You were banned for being belligerent, rude, insulting etc.
If that's all it takes to get banned now, I guess I will talk to yall later, since you just described 3/4th of the posters...
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "wolf39us"DS: You were banned for being belligerent, rude, insulting etc.
If that's all it takes to get banned now, I guess I will talk to yall later, since you just described 3/4th of the posters...
He is talking about the chatroom, Shiranu.
Oh that's okay then, I don't even use it :P.
It was a temp ban by the way
Quote from: "wolf39us"DS: You were banned for being belligerent, rude, insulting etc.
lol, anytime there's disagreement here, seems like shit gets flung.
Doesn't just seem like!
Edit: The above is directed not any specific person, there are lot of people here who throw mud around and get intense in discussions. It seems to be part of the forum climate, and it doesn't bother. Just to clarify.
Oddly enough, I don't see much "disagreements" on threads concerning Christianity.
Apparently threads dealing with Islam seem to be more... emotional. Curious.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "wolf39us"DS: You were banned for being belligerent, rude, insulting etc.
lol, anytime there's disagreement here, seems like shit gets flung.
I would say more like whenever there's a disagreement here there's a chance for shit flinging. It doesn't always happen.
But if drunkenshoe is involved that chance rises to 100% and the shit starts flying instantly without even a windup period where civilized dialogue wears thin and people become frustrated. You're just a moron right out of the gate with her. You disagree, you're a retard and its okay for her to call you a retard because she is always right.
I now accept that on AF one can drag Christianity and Christians trough the mud 24/7 without any problem, no one will mind.
However, you have to be more sensitive, and watch your words carefully when discussing Islam and Muslims, lest be called a bigot or an islamophobe.
This is strange, because according to the AF ethos all religions are equal.
Apparently some are more equal than others.
Quote from: "pr126"I now accept that on AF one can drag Christianity and Christians trough the mud 24/7 without any problem, no one will mind.
However, you have to be more sensitive, and watch your words carefully when discussing Islam and Muslims, lest be called a bigot or an islamophobe.
This is strange, because according to the AF ethos all religions are equal.
Apparently some are more equal than others.
Is that actually a rule? Because I find the Islam to be a vile, disgusting, putrid mess of a religion and it provides a fine example of why we need to maintain a separation of church and state.
Damnit, I put pr126 on block and then people starting quoting him :P
Quote from: "Plu"Damnit, I put pr126 on block and then people starting quoting him :P
Sorry.
NitzWalsh wrote:QuoteIs that actually a rule?
No. It is hypocrisy.
No problem, just a funny coincidence.
I personally don't think it matters if it was rape or consensual. This girl is being punished for something that shouldn't be a crime.
I agree. It is important to apply some rhetorical analysis to pretty much everything you read. Especially news articles which have a tendency to be biased one way or another.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Now, if you get this treatment often from the same person(s) in a long time of period, you are bound to get pissed of and call him something in the process. So yeah..actually 'the conversation has grown thin' long time ago.
Right, so you consider the few months since we talked on skype (at your request, I might add), without a single problem, during which we probably spoke to eachother in a maximum of 3-4 threads a long time period during which you recieved a certain type of treatment regularly? This is your justification for being horrible to people?
Or am I to believe that because I'm a "disgusting human being" for reasons unspecified then I just deserve this treatment by default?
My interpretation is that the girl is being punished for the rape. It doesn't make sense for them to leave out a second sexual partner. If, however, the law under which she is being charged does not use the term 'rape' in it's language, but is still used against rape victims, then the BBC would be justified in using the legal term rather than substituting their own. This is clearly derived from Sharia law, which does not differentiate between consensual sex and rape.
Another reason for my interpretation is this quote:
Quote from: "Ahmed Faiz"This is not the only case. It is happening frequently - only last month there was another girl who was sexually abused and sentenced to lashes.
It would seem that he was under the impression that her charge was for being raped, not some other sex act. And he's not just some schmuck, he's an Amnesty International researcher.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I would say more like whenever there's a disagreement here there's a chance for shit flinging. It doesn't always happen.
But if drunkenshoe is involved that chance rises to 100% and the shit starts flying instantly without even a windup period where civilized dialogue wears thin and people become frustrated. You're just a moron right out of the gate with her. You disagree, you're a retard and its okay for her to call you a retard because she is always right.
She was definitely harsh with me when I first arrived, but I'll say this: she heard me out (via PM) and got off my goddamned back once she saw that I wasn't full of shit.
On the other hand, I got called "stupid" (for stating the third-trimester abortion and its legality is not a cut-and-dried issue) and the asshole who did that didn't even have the balls to reply to my request for courtesy and how I pointed out that I hadn't been rude to him at all. That little fuckhead can rest assured that until his apology lands, he will not be treated with the courtesy which I reckon is everyone's grant.
And not one of you guys said anything, either. You guys tolerated that sort of bullshit without comment ... and it wasn't the only time that happened to me.
So singling out Drunkenshoe for rudeness is not very fair, because you guys have already acceded to a culture that accepts insult as a form of argumentation, it seems to me.
how come "I'm not going to talk to you anymore" or "You are on ignore" or "I am not reading your responses anymore" don't mean a goddamn thing? Sheesh, will you two just knock it off and iggy each other? And don't bother to respond to me cause I know how to ignore.
[mod:3v58hyoo]yeah, I not asking anymore, take yer shit elsewhere, both of you-aitm
and edited back to the last meaningful post[/mod:3v58hyoo]