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: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:18PM
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?
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.
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
> 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
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
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
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
Which is precisely why I wrote the following - which you chose to ignore:
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:
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
>>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.