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?
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?
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 ?
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?
>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.
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.
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).