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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:02PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:02PM (#430037) Journal

    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.)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Arik on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:12PM

    by Arik (4543) on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:12PM (#430188) Journal
    "No, sorry, but you are the one distorting the text."

    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?