SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the don't-blame-the-messenger-—-charge-them dept.
A U.K.-based human rights organization has urged Britons living in the United Arab Emirates to not report incidents of rape or sexual assaults following the case of a British woman who was allegedly gang raped in Dubai and after reporting it was arrested and charged with "extramarital sex" charges.
[...] The organization Detained in Dubai, which provides legal assistance to foreign people arrested in the UAE regardless of their citizenship and financial status, has already launched a petition at Change.org, urging authorities to take action on the matter.
[...] Radha Stirling, a U.S. citizen founder of the charity, said to The Independent that following the recent case – as well as a number of other shocking incidents in recent years where rape victims have been detained in the UAE – she advises British tourists not to report crime.
Human rights organizations have asked the UAE monarchies to match their country's great economic growth and tourism potential with changes to its legal system to improve and develop the legal rights and process.
From guide2dubai.com:
In 2013, the total population of UAE was recorded to be 9.2 million. Out of the 9.2 million, the expatriates contributed to around 7.8 million with the Emirati Nationals holding a population share of 1.4 million. [...] South Asian countries alone contributes to around 58% of the total population of UAE. The western population shares to around 8% of the overall population of the country.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:20PM
in fact if you follow their laws you will be far less likely to be raped than in most other countries
That may be true of "official statistics," but the actual incidence of rape may be more or less than those official numbers. I'm reasonably sure that if a rape report is likely to get you arrested (and possibly even executed, depending on the circumstances), most people who ARE raped probably will NOT report it.
From my understanding in Islam, there were never any specific rules, accusing a man of rape is like accusing him of any crime, you generally are innocence until some physical evidence or witnesses are bought against you (or you confess).
Another post has already pointed out the actual standard here -- you generally need either the confession of the rapist or four men testifying to the rape. That's a pretty high standard for any crime.
While the Bible says that unless significant evidence is found counter to the woman's claim of rape, that you must believe the woman.
The Bible says no such thing. In fact, the woman's testimony is almost irrelevant, if you follow the Old Testament legal code [biblegateway.com]. Basically, you have three cases: is the woman married, unmarried but engaged, or not married nor engaged?
So, yeah, the Bible basically assumes innocence for the woman IF she is engaged AND the rape happened "in open country." Otherwise, she will likely be stoned to death or end up married to her attacker if she complains. I don't think this is really an improvement on Islamic law in terms of basic human rights.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:33PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:02PM
Your third point is a distortion. This law appears twice, in slightly different words, and if you read the version in Deut. only it could be ambiguous, but if you look at the other occurrence in Exodus it's much more clear.
No, sorry, but you are the one distorting the text. This is a common way for modern Christian fundamentalists to "explain away" this passage and make it sound less bad to modern sensibilities.
But these passages deal with two different scenarios. In the Exodus version (22:15-16), it clearly is about seduction. But in that case, there is no specific monetary penalty, and the father gets the choice of how to handle the situation. (Presumably because the woman's value in a marriage transaction is reduced, due the fact that she is "damaged goods.")
But in Deuteronomy, the situation is quite different. The man "seizes" her. The Hebrew root word [biblehub.com] means:
catch, handle, lay, take hold on, over, stop, surely, surprise,
A primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. Seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably -- catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, X surely, surprise, take.
If you look at the other Biblical occurrences of the word at that link, you'll see it tends to be used in cases not only of grabbing or seizing something or someone, but for terms like capturing a person or a city. It does NOT mean simple seduction. It clearly implies rape. (Also, the word translated as "violated" later in the passage is the same Hebrew word used to refer to the Rape of Dinah in Genesis, which led to the well-known retaliation from her brothers.)
And the additional penalties in the statute make the distinction in this case clear -- here the monetary penalty is mandatory and specific, and he has no option to divorce the woman in the future. This is a significant additional penalty and is also mentioned earlier in the Deuteronomy chapter for a man who falsely accuses his new wife of not being a virgin.
For a more detailed analysis by an actual Hebrew scholar, you might look here [thetorah.com]. By the way, in practice, from other Biblical passages, it appears that such rapes of virgins were dealt with haphazardly with retribution from the woman's family, so yes -- practically, the father probably still had a choice about what would actually happen in such a case. And if the father made the determination that she should be married to her attacker, she presumably would obey, according to customs of the time. (If she didn't, and she didn't publicly report the incident at all, then when she DID get married, Deuteronomy makes clear that if her husband discovers she is not a virgin, she could also be stoned to death.)
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Arik on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:12PM
I don't think I am but I'll be happy to consider your argument.
"This is a common way for modern Christian fundamentalists to "explain away" this passage and make it sound less bad to modern sensibilities."
Even if that's true, it's not relevant to the truth or falsehood of the proposition.
"But these passages deal with two different scenarios. In the Exodus version (22:15-16), it clearly is about seduction."
Indeed. Keep that in mind.
"But in that case, there is no specific monetary penalty"
Well, ok. I suppose that's true. It does not set a specific measure of the price, it refers to the bride price as something that was understood and varied with time and place. But there's certainly a monetary penalty there.
Now, t-ph-s means to hold in the hand or to take hold of with the hand, either literally or figuratively. Your own list of translations illustrates this clearly, most of them are immediately recognizable as related through that concept. NOT all of them have violent implications, though obviously it occurs quite frequently in senses like 'capture' (as in take him in your hands) which do have violent overtones, but in Habakkuk it just means 'wrapped' (as in fingers wrapping around a pole) and there's no implication of violence or even animation of any kind. Ezekiel uses the same root several times, both for 'capture' but it can also simply mean 'handle' as in 21:11. So I don't think you can rule out the possibility that this verse is referring to unauthorized seduction, not on the strength of that word alone at least.
"And the additional penalties in the statute make the distinction in this case clear -- here the monetary penalty is mandatory and specific, and he has no option to divorce the woman in the future. "
It's certainly an interesting difference that Exodus speaks of a 'bride price' while Deut. sets a specific amount of silver, but I don't see it helping the case that this is about rape. The exact same thing goes for the no-divorce clause, it's potentially interesting that this particularly element is added in Leviticus, but there's nothing here that forces us to parse t-ph-s as 'rape.'
"For a more detailed analysis by an actual Hebrew scholar, you might look here."
Are you Eve?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:12PM
Is this like saying that we have to give the bible credit for introducing slavery lite? Come on now.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:43PM
Is this like saying that we have to give the bible credit for introducing slavery lite? Come on now.
Huh?
I don't know what you're getting at, but all I'm saying is that women had precious little rights under biblical law. Yes, both Judaism and Christianity have evolved a LOT since then. But a lot of people like to "project" modern ideas back onto biblical texts. In most ancient societies, women were basically treated as property, or at best with the rights equivalent to minor children. In fact, that's somewhat true up to the 19th century in Western society, when coverture [wikipedia.org] laws were finally starting to be overturned and women started to be given equal legal standing. This isn't blaming anything on the Bible or any other religious text, just noting that societal principles were vastly different back then.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:12PM
You are looking at a small selection of primitive cultures. The relative rights of men and women even varied a lot within the middle east, much less if you go outside that area. Equality (well, of a separate but equal kind) wasn't rare, and there were even cultures where the women were dominant, although these seem to be largely (though not entirely) pre-agricultural. Men seem to have become culturally dominant on a wide scale only when armies became economically feasible.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:02PM
The relative rights of men and women even varied a lot within the middle east, much less if you go outside that area. Equality (well, of a separate but equal kind) wasn't rare, and there were even cultures where the women were dominant, although these seem to be largely (though not entirely) pre-agricultural.
I merely said "most" ancient societies treated women as inferior, not that there weren't significant variations from place to place or over time. Women in Islamic areas, for example, often enjoyed much greater rights during medieval times than they did in "Western" (European) areas under Christian rule. (And fewer rights than they tend to enjoy in many modern Islamic states.)
I also am familiar with the theories of "matriarchal prehistory" that emerged in the 19th century and enjoyed a popularity in the late 20th century. At least as I understand it, while there is some speculation of greater matriarchal societies in neolithic and pre-agricultural cultures, there seems to be little direct evidence of large numbers of historical matriarchal societies (and even debate among anthropologists over whether a truly matriarchal culture has existed; not just a matrilineal or matrifocal one). Regardless, I guess my previous post was geared toward societies with advanced legal codes, which tend to come about with the rise of agriculture anyway.
But if you have a significant source you can share about matriarchal or gender egalitarian ancient societies, I'm legitimately curious to know more.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday November 21 2016, @06:19PM
I'm not talking about matriarchal. I'm not sure that this has ever been demonstrated anywhere at any time. Matrilineal is a different matter..that HAS been demonstrated. And when I said "equality of a separate but equal nature" what I meant was that in some roles men were dominant and in other role women were dominant. This establishes an interdependence such that there MUST be agreement between the two or you don't do well at all. Women were always disadvantaged due to their greater investment in and attachment to children, but an outcast man was quite likely to die...and men were more likely to be outcast. And in matrilineal societies many of the male roles were filled by the woman's brother. This provides some protection against abuse, and there was much less pair-bonding between lovers. The man invested less in the children that he fathered, so fidelity was less important.
It's always a matter of power and economics, but the culture has a lot to say about how those manifest, and can act as a balance wheel...or the opposite.
N.B.: Matrilineal societies have their problems, e.g. what if a woman doesn't HAVE a brother, but they all have ways of dealing with that situation, usually better than "If she's got no brother then she's been cursed by the gods.". I believe in some she becomes the official sister of the chief...but I'm really not sure what that means.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday November 21 2016, @10:27PM
Now playing "crickets.wav"
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:54PM
Another post has already pointed out the actual standard here
Yes, it pointed out false laws that no country has ever followed. Sharia law simply does not work like that
That is a misrepresentation of the Bible.
The Bible says believe her, unless you have proof that she did not cry for help. That is why it mentioned "open country", if the circumstances are such that she might of called for help but not been heard, she is assumed innocent. In all scenarios, she is only assumed to be guilty if their are witnesses who can corroborate her guilt.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/28613/3480 [stackexchange.com]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:21PM
Your link to Stack Exchange has most of the highly-rated answers more-or-less agreeing with my interpretation of the passage. At NO POINT in that passage does it explicitly mention any doctrine of "believing the woman" about a rape charge EXCEPT in that one scenario, which basically fails the usual "test" for valuing male testimony because there are no other (male) witnesses around to provide corroboration for either side. (In fact, the Bible explicitly compares it to a MURDER case in open country, i.e., where the victim is completely silent and unable to testify on his own behalf, like a woman in the case who normally would have no legal standing.) The historical evidence of legal proceedings we have show that women weren't even allowed to make legal testimony in Israel. Yet you somehow claim the Bible says in rape cases we not only must accept the woman's legal testimony but believe it over a man's??
Please cite ANY Biblical passage that clearly states that we must believe a woman over a man in any other circumstances, particularly when there are numerous examples of laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that put more trust in the testimony of men and their accusations. (See e.g., the passages in Numbers which allow fathers and husbands to cancel oaths by a woman, or the passage where a woman is accused of being unfaithful and must be taken to a priest to make a determination rather than simply asking the woman... or even the same chapter in Deuteronomy which we're discussing where a false claim of virginity is treated by stoning the woman to death, but a false accusation that a woman was not a virgin is treated by fining the man and forcing him to be married to the woman for the rest of his life... a similar penalty to rape passage a few verses later.)
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:20PM
From the link:
25 But if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offense punishable by death, because this case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor. 27 Since he found her in the open country, the engaged woman may have cried for help, but there was no one to rescue her.
When a woman accuses a man of rape, and their are no witnesses to disprove her, she is innocent and he is guilty. Period.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:52PM
When a woman accuses a man of rape, and their are no witnesses to disprove her, she is innocent and he is guilty. Period.
Except if he gags her, in which case she is to be stoned to death for not crying out. (Period?)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday November 21 2016, @10:31PM
Not "If a woman, ..."
"If a woman *who is promised as property to a man* ..."
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday November 21 2016, @12:41AM
After reading this thread, all I can say is Fuck the Bible, Fuck the Koran and thank the earth I walk on that I live in a place where neither of these insane works hold much sway in the law.