Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-blame-the-messenger-—-charge-them dept.

TeleSUR reports:

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:27PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:27PM (#430022) Journal

    You don't think that the second link might have a bit of bias, beginning as it does with:

    A 17-year-old Danish girl who used pepper spray to defend herself from a rape attack by a nonwhite invader “refugee" in the southern city of Sønderborg [...]

    I mean 'nonwhite invader “refugee"' is the sort of phrase that must pop up in everyday conversation for most people, well, perhaps for those that read the New Observer (Unique News - Unique Views).

    And, while it is normal for Americans to go round armed with whatever they fancy, it is not the norm for Europe. She is not being charged for defending herself against rape, but for Firearms Offences, because:

    According to the Danish Firearms Act, it is illegal to possess and use pepper spray—even though it is freely available across the continent and there is no active attempt to prevent its importation, as the Sønderborg case shows. Possession of pepper spray can result in fines and up to three months in prison.

    Other protective measures are legal, but not pepper spray. Now we don't tell you what laws you should have in your country, so perhaps you can refrain from suggesting that we should change ours to suit you.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:43PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:43PM (#430032) Homepage Journal

    Sure, it's biased. Doesn't change the facts though.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday November 21 2016, @10:56AM

      by mojo chan (266) on Monday November 21 2016, @10:56AM (#430434)

      The facts being that in countries where pepper spray is illegal, even fear of being raped is not a valid excuse for having it. Same as you can't keep a gun under your pillow just in case someone invades your home, even though guns are illegal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:45PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:45PM (#430034)

    Now we don't tell you what laws you should have in your country

    Go ahead. If you point out that one of our laws are unjust, I might even agree with you. It's fine to discuss it. There's nothing inherently bad about saying that a law in another country shouldn't exist.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:18PM

    by shortscreen (2252) on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:18PM (#430049) Journal

    You don't think that the second link might have a bit of bias

    If the story is accurate then I don't really care who reported it or what their bias is. Are you suggesting the story is not accurate?

    She is not being charged for defending herself against rape, but for Firearms Offences, because:

    According to the Danish Firearms Act, it is illegal to possess and use pepper spray—even though it is freely available across the continent and there is no active attempt to prevent its importation

    Nonsense. Banning the means of defending oneself is effectively the same as banning self defense. And they are charging her for defending herself. If she hadn't needed to, then she wouldn't have been charged now would she? Especially since you just said they aren't trying to prevent people from obtaining pepper spray, the only time it is going to come to their attention is when someone has to use it.

    Now we don't tell you what laws you should have in your country, so perhaps you can refrain from suggesting that we should change ours to suit you.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me remind you what TFS was about: it's about women being treated like trash in certain countries that have some backwards, cruel laws. Are you OK with that? No? Then maybe you will realize that anyone who considers themselves a civilized person absolutely should be criticizing unjust laws inside or outside their own country.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:06PM (#430081)

      > If the story is accurate then I don't really care who reported it or what their bias is. Are you suggesting the story is not accurate?

      Apparently its not a popular opinion around here, but when a reporter injects obviously partisan statements into a story that itself has implications on that same topic, it makes the reporting suspect.

      • (Score: 2) by Spamalope on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:43PM

        by Spamalope (5233) on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:43PM (#430110) Homepage

        It does, or rather it means it isn't useful as a single data point. Additional information is needed before any evaluation can be useful. If you have context for the source you might find that it's agenda 'fit the narrative' bent makes it useless for anything other than possibly pointing out an event you should read about elsewhere. The context might be a brutally opinionated and scrupulously honest source that can be trusted to report the facts accurately. Alternatively, you might find addition reporting or even better police reports or court confirming or contradicting the reporting and then you're able to evaluate the story instead of the source.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @02:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @02:22PM (#430518)

          Except the problem is that when you agree with the biased viewpoint, it isn't worth your time to use it as a single data point because it is obviously correct. If you don't agree, it is worth your time to search for a biased web site that agrees with you, and you thus feel vindicated as well as proud of yourself because you did that extra work to seek out the truth and you have thus uncovered an obvious lie.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @10:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @10:15AM (#430421)

      If the story is accurate then I don't really care who reported it or what their bias is. Are you suggesting the story is not accurate?

      Strong bias in the reporting has a very high correlation with the story being fake. So yes, the very fact that the given source is highly biased is an indication that the story is probably fake. It's not a proof, of course, but it is on those who make the claim to provide reasonable evidence.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Monday November 21 2016, @10:16AM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 21 2016, @10:16AM (#430423) Journal

      Banning the means of defending oneself is effectively the same as banning self defense

      Which is precisely why I wrote the following - which you chose to ignore:

      Other protective measures are legal, but not pepper spray.

      Other sprays, devices and defensive measures are legal in Denmark. To take it to the extreme: would the use of an anti-tank weapon be acceptable as a form of defence against a personal individual attack in your country? No, why not? After all "Banning the means of defending oneself is effectively the same as banning self defense.". There is a matter of proportionality, and there are other dangers inherent in the use of pepper spray that the Danish people and government believe to be unacceptable.

      And then you make the same mistake that many others make. Just because European laws are not the same as American laws does not mean they are unacceptable to us, nor does it follow that they fail to meet the needs of the public. The vast majority of Europeans much prefer our way of life to the American one, where there is often a need to carry weapons in order to feel safe when just living your normal lives, hence my comment:

      perhaps you can refrain from suggesting that we should change ours to suit you.

      The OP could have quoted the incident from any one of a number of sources, none of which used such inflammatory terminology as "nonwhite invader refugee" and "rapefugee", both of which are simply devices to evoke an emotional response rather than an intelligent one. Such techniques are often used to garner support for a poor argument.

      I do not support the subjugation of women, I do not believe that rape is ever justified or acceptable. Those attacked are fully justified in defending themselves in any way permitted under law. The victim in this case is not being prosecuted for defending herself. The claim is that the weapon she used to defend herself is not permitted by law (and, in all likelihood, the case will be dismissed with a caution). Their choice, their decision. You don't have to live there or visit, and they probably don't want another county's version of democracy and freedom imposed upon them.

    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday November 21 2016, @11:18AM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday November 21 2016, @11:18AM (#430440) Journal

      >>You don't think that the second link might have a bit of bias
      >If the story is accurate then I don't really care who reported it or what their bias is. Are you suggesting the story is not accurate?

      The bias changes the context, twisting a story to support an opinion that it shouldn't.

      You and the biased story are both looking for an excuse to shout "LOOK, SHARIA LAW IN EUROPE! WOMEN PUNISHED FOR DEFENDING AGAINST EVIL IMMIGRANT RAPISTS! THE MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER!" when in fact the same punishment would have been issued had she been defending herself against a white rapist, a purse-snatcher of any colour, or indeed if it had been a man who used the banned weapon in self defence. It was nothing to do with gender, with race, with religion or even with rape. The prosecution was about illegality of the weapon used. Nothing else. The accuracy of your Danish story is therefore irrelevant, because the story itself isn't relevant to the discussion.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:25PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:25PM (#430099) Journal

    Better I should offer a link that is biased in the other direction? I've posted many times - other people have posted many times - THE MEDIA IS BIASED!! You think that I should post a more socialist article, instead? I should have searched for an article written by an SJW? Because, of course, the bias of an SJW is somehow superior to that of what people are calling "alt right" today.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday November 21 2016, @09:32AM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 21 2016, @09:32AM (#430412) Journal

      Or, heavens forbid, make an unbiased statement....?

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 21 2016, @12:58PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 21 2016, @12:58PM (#430479) Journal

        The unbiased statement is, uncivilized furriners are invading Europe, and raping Europe's innocent children. There - no mention of color there, right?

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday November 21 2016, @03:11PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 21 2016, @03:11PM (#430544) Journal

          Bollocks! 'Uncivilized' - says who? Just because they have a different skin colour or come from a different country doesn't mean they are uncivilized. I'll bet if you check, you have rapes occurring in the US, and not just between people of different races.

          "[I]nvading Europe" - many of the refugees have been invited to enter European countries, in their 10's of thousands. I take it from your statement that you personally know this individual and are fully conversant with his circumstances? It doesn't matter whether they were invited or not, they all pass through the same refugee centres so that doesn't help you make such a determination.

          "[R]aping Europe's innocent children" - there you go with your emotive statements. You could have said raping women or committing rape. It would have been just as accurate.

          At this time the case has not been heard in court (as far as I can tell). So presuming innocence might be a bit premature. You only have 1 side to the story and yet you are making a decision based on your own prejudices. If it turns out to be a case of consensual sex that suddenly changed course after the event it might be a different story. Or maybe she wanted him to follow her so that a group of her male friends could attack him, but he attacked her first. Neither of these circumstances would justify rape but she might not be as innocent as you are assuming. That's is why we have to have a rule of law and enforce it through a fair judicial system.

          I suggest you put on your hood and collect your burning cross on the way out.....

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 21 2016, @03:45PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 21 2016, @03:45PM (#430570) Journal

            I'll bet if you check, slavery is illegal in the civilized world, and prosecuted when discovered. And, if you continue to check, you will find that the slave trade is alive and well throughout most of Islam. Barbarians, from a barbaric culture, with their barbaric religion that justifies anything and everything a man wishes to do to women.

            Emote any way you like - them Muslims fuck like rabbits, and breed like rats, they've got to go somewhere. Today they are infesting the civilized world, because they've overpopulated their natural range.

            I really don't give much of a damn about presumed innocence and all that shit.

            http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/list-of-terrorist-attacks-that-have-struck-europe-in-2016/ [indianexpress.com]

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday November 21 2016, @05:43PM

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 21 2016, @05:43PM (#430692) Journal

              You appear, in your arguments, to be just as extreme as those you seem to blame for this particular attack. It does you no credit.

              Nowhere does it say the attacker is of Islamic Faith. You are simply impressing your own racial hatred on a story that you believe supports your extreme views. We in Europe have refugees from many places, and one cannot simply assume that all those from the Middle East are muslims. Have you heard of the Syrian Christians [wikipedia.org], for example? Certainly. many of those from Africa are other faiths.

              Try reading this Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] to further you knowledge which details some of the other religions that are common in that region - people from those places are now among the refugees in Europe.

              I really don't give much of a damn about presumed innocence and all that shit.

              And in that one statement you have just proven that, in the civilised world that you claim you represent, that all your arguments are without merit. You have no respect for the law and the civilised societies that depend upon it. Don't bother replying - you have just emptied both barrels into your foot.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 21 2016, @07:55PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 21 2016, @07:55PM (#430796) Journal

                Interesting. I take it then, that you have a lot of instances of Syrian Christians attacking women in Europe? Or, a lot of Sikhs? Those Muslims are probably doing the same! The Jews!

                Come on man, who are you trying to kid here? Rape is part of the Muslim culture.