Comment by candiodari | Hacker News Reader

Comment by candiodari | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Rape victims arn't punished in Saudi Arabia. Theres no crime of being raped. The woman in your one anecdotal point was charged with a seperate case of adultery during a rape trial that wasn't in conjunction with the rape. Furthermore the rapists were charged and punished for rape, an act that is illegal. If you want to argue about adultery being a crime then go for it but don't conflate to topics to spread something factually incorrect.

Since you're accusing human rights watch from inaccurately reporting this ... can you provide a citation for your new fact that there was a second offence ? Or are you perhaps claiming that while the rape was an offence of the rapists, getting raped was a separate offence by the victim ?

I would also like to point out that punishing rape victims is part of islamic rules:

e.g. "if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers," "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses," "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (Abu Dawud 4462 and al-Tirmidhi 1456)

Google it to find more references than you could ever need to be satisfied. And yes, this is about gay sex, but is widely interpreted to include gay rape. Getting raped by someone of the same sex as you is punishable by death according to sharia. Are you seriously disputing this ?

And just so we're clear. We're talking about this Saudi Arabia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecca_girls%27_school_fir...

Where the "religious police" beat up firefighters and sent rescued girls BACK INTO THEIR BURNING DORMATORIES because of the mingling laws ... at least 15 did not survive.

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?

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 ?

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...

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?

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.

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.

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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com