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: 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