Saudi king 'pardons rape victim'
-
However she is a woman and she made it up there into the top position right?Originally posted by Spartans:Personally I dun think Ho Ching is a good example. She becomes the chairwoman of Temasek Holding simply because of her father-in-law. -
Yup she is a woman, commonly known as the "Iron Man" by ordinary Singaporeans.Originally posted by fymk:However she is a woman and she made it up there into the top position right?
She made it to the top position by the influence of her father-in-law. She was just an army Master Sgt before she married LHL. So on what basis do you think you can make it top the top of Temasek Holding, an investment company? -
Originally posted by protonhybrid:
Again I shall ask you for proof that that happened. That Singapore ignores a crime of rape and abuse because I will be very surprised.
[b]
well what about singapore? what happens to foreign maids who get raped duped abused and not paid for months in singapore? and also i did mention the case of medical malpractice, the law, the doctors, the hospitals, the media/govt (IF they get involved, not likely) ALL favour the doctors and disfavours the FOREIGNER (of nonchinese, nonanglo background) victim. why is that? what can the victim do to PROVE that he's being wronged and to acquire compensation for it?
Do you have proof of all the above said medical malpractice case?
If you have documentation or witnesses, you can sue.
You keep dragging in an anglo argument when you presented zit zilch on your so called medical malpractice case.
Where are you from?
You bring no proof of medical malpractice - you NEVER once mentioned the details at all . You just skirted around the topic when asked. -
Yah but can she do it in Saudi Arabia? Sure cannot because not man mah.Originally posted by Spartans:Yup she is a woman, commonly known as the "Iron Man" by ordinary Singaporeans.
She made it to the top position by the influence of her father-in-law. She was just an army Master Sgt before she married LHL. So on what basis do you think you can make it top the top of Temasek Holding, an investment company? -
vaguely worded comments. this is the 21st century CE, for chinese this is 6th millenia i presume, for jews likewise, greater for persians i presume, so on and so forth, your point being?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... this is the 21 century and the new millennium and yet we have people living in the middle ages... why? More importantly is... are YOU living in the middle ages and why is that if you are?
The answer? ... ancients beliefs...
i doubt you have a point. -
would you say democracy is suspect too? since it originated before christ. same with civilization. i guess you wouldOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:... it does not matter what you believe in... as long as it is ancient... it is suspect...
-
quite sad that you can't argue logically when you see i foiled your fake arguments eh? what about men then? dont say they have hair cover as chinese men normally dont.
I am pretty sure that in Africa , some tribes go topless with women.
I like the idea of wearing clothes, it gets pretty cold you know?
IF it's all about choices, then so be it with saudis or elsewhere too. why the hypocrisy and double standards? you did say you will impose your will on the world IF you had your way with it.
It is all about choices. Still the woman has a choice to go to a nude beach and air her wares .
It is also about convenience - I don't think the law wants to deal with complaints of molestation if a guy accidentally brushes against a naked woman especially in a CROWDED PLACE.
It is easier for them to keep an eye on a designated location than everywhere else.
If you are yearning to see naked women to serve your sick fanatasies - go buy playboy.
the same excuses that you make can be made in saudi case. -
... too stupid to understand the difference between "suspect" and "wrong" or "undesirable"?Originally posted by protonhybrid:would you say democracy is suspect too? since it originated before christ. same with civilization. i guess you would
Many simply cling on to ancient beliefs without thought, like in this case...
If it is suspect, then you re-consider it to see if it makes sense...
... based on what you have written so far... it seems obvious that you do not know how to think and you simply sprout whatever comes to your small mind... -
well i dont exactly follow this paragraph but i get the gist of it. what i dont get is how exactly is it relevant to saudi arabia or the king's pardon of the victim?Originally posted by fymk:You wanted an example of how religion got used . Well there is where religion was used as a defence . It is also about showing you reverse oppression which is opposite of the western oppression you like to speak about. Hey don't hit the messenger just because it didn't turn out as you expected . [/quote]
i cant recall wanting that but anyway that's what a criminal did, doesn't mean it's right or representative or widely prevalent even. it appears you have an axe to grind. how does it even relate to the saudi case? IF you want, i can find cases relevant to many other religions and atheists too, but i dont see what purpose they serve.
again you're talking tripe. i dont think there are many caucasian girls in australia to begin with and even if there were, why would you describe their rapists as "muslim" (by religion) instead of by race (caucasian, chinese, anglo, lebanese, french etc etc). i see double standards mate.
Don't you yourself like to compare USA/UK/western countries as oppressors of culture? Well this is one where the muslim boys choose to use their religion as a defence and excuse to rape a caucasian girl because of her dressing ( if I am not wrong).Feel free to look up the case.
[quote]
I know people who like to use the excuse of divisions when they cannot win a case. Race cards have been played on the caucasian community by some who shame the rest of their brethen. Race cards have been played on "colored people" such as me as well by some groups of ethnicities just because I told them to follow the rules of the hospital. -
again it seems you've problem with understanding re-read the posts i made. nowhere did i say what should or should not be allowed in other places, i asked what you think about netherlands' and singapore 's laws and positions on drug abuse, prostitution etc.Originally posted by fymk:Honor killing? So what you are in fact saying is that honor killing should be allowed ? Even some Islamic scholars are trying to prevent honor killing ...even the grand mufti of syria spoke against it in Zahra's case. Her case was heard because her husband was truly in love with her and very upset about her murder. She was murdered for being raped . Her husband married her to save her from being killed. Her brother killed her anyways. Her husband himself , for trying to get justice for her and other women, is octracised by HIS VILLAGE.
No I beg to differ. If migrants cannot adapt to the current culture of a country - then why even bother migrating? They should stay where they are - where their villages throw a huge party for a person who honor killed a poor woman who was raped .
also who the heck talked about migration? you're being even more facetious now. -
anyway enough for me for now. i hope to return a few days later i hope. i will see if i can make it tomorrow, if not maybe a few days later (a week later maximum i HOPE)
bye for now -
... and good riddance...
-
Geraldine, do you think Saudis have the right to call Singaporeans women wearing mini skirt as slu.t bi.tches or w.hore?
-
They have no right to do that if Singaporean women wear them in Singapore, but every right to do so if they choose to go against Saudi customs and laws in Saudi Arabia.Originally posted by Gazelle:Geraldine, do you think Saudis have the right to call Singaporeans women wearing mini skirt as slu.t bi.tches or w.hore? -
Well, I don't think it makes much difference, whether it is a family, or a country - it is only a matter of boundaries. Even between families, each can hold values and a culture which deviate from the norm and differ from each other completely. The focus here is how one would react as a bystander of an incident where one party is being treated unfairly by the other.Originally posted by Gazelle:thats not a very good example, because when you are neighbours, you will be living in the same country, governed by the same law and exposed to similar cultures. Saudi is a total different country all together, even in Middle East standard.
The Saudis are against women wearing mini skirts, having premarital sex and abortion. Should the Saudi also have the rights to tell Singaporeans women that they are slu.ts and bit.ches and they should be punish by God?
And to your question, Saudi doesn't have the rights to tell us all those ideas you have mentioned, just like Singapore doesn't need to teach them how to behave. But neither does the Arab men have the rights to tell the Arab women what to do and not do and deny their rights that every human deserve. -
Originally posted by protonhybrid:you very cleverly try to insinuate that you know what's right and what's wrong and that inaction over a "wrong" move is worse than taking action. however as you may not know, this is a moot topic, no such thing as right wrong fair unfair, etc actually exists that's equally acceptable to all places, times, ethnicities, religions, countries, socieities, etc
can you tell me what is your reaction to legalization of marijuana and other dangerous drugs in netherlands as well as prostitution? how do you see them? do you mean to say singapore's laws are barbaric?
or do you mean singaporeans should be taught how to let go of such drug abusers and prostitutes as the dutch may think singaporeans are "whacking the drugabusers with cane" and this may lead to even more catastrophic outcomes like the drug abusers causing mayhem in society.
Well, firstly, if you believe that this is a "moot topic" and there's nothing "right wrong fair unfair" about it, why do you say such statements in your very first few posts here?Originally posted by protonhybrid:unfortunately you either dont have the good will or the intelligence to figure out what i meant. NOWHERE on earth does the WHOLE POPULACE get to decide the laws, it's the politicians/legislators etc. and they can include or exclude any segment of the population depending on the prevailing climate in that society, i.e.the social climate, what is acceptable and what is not etc.
does singapore allow people below 21 to decide laws? never ever! they can't even vote! where does that leave your theory of every human being being able to decide for himself?
I don't need to insinuate the fact that I know what is right and what is wrong to anyone here. I can tell you directly right now, I know. But it's not just me, everyone knows. Does it comes as a surprise to you that a human should be able to tell what is right and wrong?Originally posted by protonhybrid:the original ruling was fair.
the law was absolutely ok.
Quoted from Spartans: But shouldnt there be a basic humane regulations which can serve as basis for ALL norms and laws?
is NO.
There can be situations where inaction is possibly better than action, but it all depends on the cause. In the case where the girl was abused by her father, I would say that the cause to take action and end the unfair treatment is to save her from a suffering which she as a human doesn't deserve. So what's your cause for inaction?
If you find that how she has been treated is just, I would like to know whether you will be able to walk towards the cruelly tortured girl, covered in bruises all over her body from repeated assails, kneel down and stare straight into her hazel eyes, where you can see her broken soul is begging for help and mercy, telling her calmly "You deserve the punishment. This is fair and right".
And may I know why are you bringing in unrelated topics into the discussion and evading the main one at hand? For instance, what does Singapore's take on marijuana has to do with women lashed for meeting a male stranger? I have been noticing your arguments versus fymk's. There were many times when she brought up a strong and valid point. But on several occasions, you ignore hers and throw in an issue that is totally unconnected to the current topic. I begin to wonder whether your ignorance is authentic or on purpose? If not, where are the answers I have asked for in my previous post to you?
Nowhere in this world has its entire population decides the rules for themselves - where one part of the population is denying the rights of another to do so. Even if the people are given the rights and don't set the rules themselves, they appoint a group of people to do so on their behalf. You call them the government. But no, I doubt the Arab females had requested for or agreed to the establishment of a law to whip them if they meet up with a male acquaintance.
Singaporeans under the age of 21 are not involved in voting events and other administrative matters that concern their lives and their country. But 21 years later, will this group of people be given the opportunity to do so? A resounding "Yes", of course. But how long do the Arab women have to wait before having the rights to take full control of their own lives? A thousand years? Probably longer. Or are you expecting them to undergo sex change surgical operations to join the Arab guys who have been denying their human rights, just like you deem liberty as being legal for women to go topless anywhere in public? Personally, I would like the latter to happen. But as humans, shouldn't we not only be able to tell between what is right and wrong, but to also tell between reality and fantasy? -
actually, if you take the stand in us not having the right to tell them how to behave, you cannot also simultaneously say the men there are wrong to deny women equal rights.Originally posted by LatecomerX:Well, I don't think it makes much difference, whether it is a family, or a country - it is only a matter of boundaries. Even between families, each can hold values and a culture which deviate from the norm and differ from each other completely. The focus here is how one would react as a bystander of an incident where one party is being treated unfairly by the other.
And to your question, Saudi doesn't have the rights to tell us all those ideas you have mentioned, just like Singapore doesn't need to teach them how to behave. But neither does the Arab men have the rights to tell the Arab women what to do and not do and deny their rights that every human deserve.
It's a paradox. -
An Arab woman could have said the same thing, but does it make a difference? The fact still remains - that it is not within the rights of the Arab males to deny the rights of their local females.Originally posted by deathbait:actually, if you take the stand in us not having the right to tell them how to behave, you cannot also simultaneously say the men there are wrong to deny women equal rights.
It's a paradox. -
Originally posted by fymk:
do you talk about "women's rights" all around the world, the numerous "abuses" taking place all around the world? no! why not? because you can't. however to PRETEND you care about saudi women ONLY when this news material pops up in anglo media is a sign of hypocrisy.
Ahahhahahah to Protonhybrid
I am a woman talking about women't rights and the Saudi case has a logical link to women being oppressed while you keep bringing in anglo countries and their colonies as a way of diverting the argument to that of western oppression.Yes it is their law which makes it right for women to be oppressed in their land.
you are just being naive, maybe because you can't help it or because you're intentionally being mischievous. any law on earth can be said to be "not right" what is that supposed to mean? repulsive to many people from various cultures can be singapore's laws, oz's law, or any other anglo laws. what's your point?
Their law is not right and they are repulsive to me as a woman , not as a person from a modern country .Women being treated as human beings deserving of respect is right to me and other women.
i guess not having to display their private parts in public in saudi arabia as contrasted with anglo countries or singapore, they can say they're respected MORE in saudi than in anglophone countries or their colonies.NO freaking way am I entering Saudi Arabia. I am not about to enter a land where men are allowed to do whatever they want to women as long as there are no male muslim witnesses. So forget that challenge.
no one invited you either. it's your choice why does it even matter? what matters is anglos have ALREADY entred looted pillaged killed and so on many countries including americas, australia, new zealand, africa, asia including singapore. and it's anglos who brought chinese over to singapore and ASEAN region, and settled themselves in OZ, NZ, USA, Canada etc etc etc
who invited them?
no what we can safely say is not only are you ignorant of suadi arabia but also intellectually challenged. anybody who's lived there knows that not only rapes but ALL types of crimes are low in saudi and other arab GCC countries.
We can safely say that rape statistics in Saudi Arabia is low because no woman dares to report a rape for fear of being accused of being an adulterer.
you b**** shut the **** up dont bring my relatives in to this picture. i did NOT drag your relatives to this picture
Your mother must be so proud of you for encouraging the killing of women for the so called repugnant honor of men. Your mother must be also proud of you for supporting the oppression of rape victims.
this is your second warning, i'll report to mods if you cross the threshold again
and i hope you get raped over and over and over again in australia, only to have "women's rights" save you. serves you right.
I hope you never have daughters - we certainly would not want to read about the culture of honor killing and how it is right for you to honor kill her because she does not agree to a forced marriage/ she gets raped/ she sees a boy she likes/she dresses in a western way.
YET it is not an affront when women are NOT allowed the same opportunity to play sports alongside men, to serve in armed forces etc in singapore or ozland eh? talk about brainwashing.
You must be from one of those countries which allows such atrocities to happen . Or you must be a male who thinks males are superior to women . Or even both .
You refuse to give your background even when asked but continue to address a women's right issue as though it is just a western idea only.
I am a woman and I can feel Saudi law as an affront to me. Simple. It is my view as a woman .
or not when they can't go topless in public as opposed to men but they have to display more skin than men on public in office attire usually. eh?As for the statement you made about Singapore, isn't Saudi Arabia dependent on the US for oil trading as well? The american companies and european countries control the oil market and oil fuels the world. Saudi Arabia is not the only one with oil.
they're not overly reliant on any one source.
Exports:
$204.5 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)
Exports - partners:
Japan 17.6%, [b]US 15.7%, South Korea 9.6%, China 7.2%, Singapore 4.4% (2006)
Imports:
$64.16 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)
Imports - partners:
US 12.2%, Germany 8.6%, China 7.9%, Japan 7.3%, UK 4.8%, Italy 4.8% (2006)
nobody would be as rich as they're now if they didn't trade. not even your "masters" anglos who you look up to and also chose to migrate to (ozland is anglo). that's rudimentary trade/econs theory mate.
The Saud family won't be as rich as they are now if they didn't sell oil to the Americans and Brits . They are cautious about offending the religious clerics because of this aspect. Once the oil well dries up , let's see what happens then. [/b] -
yes it tells me a lot that person also had learnt a lot during his time in london, had his saudi citizenship renounced, had a lot of funding from CIA, good equipment from USA, and so on. tell a lot yeah?Originally posted by fymk:Who said women rights is an issue of western countries only? It was an ideal which came out of women's suffragettes in 19th and 20th century Europe while ancient cultures such as Persia and China already gave women's rights in history long past . Anglo countries came in late whilst others has tried it and moved on because of males. So most modern countries are readapting it now. Even China now gives the women the same rights after a very long ancient pause .
[/quote]
where did you receive your brainwashing of "women's rights" etc from? from anglophone countries or from elsewhere? from persia? form china? from arabia? from where?
it's dependent on place, culture, time, ethnicities, etc etc etc to decide what is "rights" and what is not.However some older cultures still retain their respect towards women. The minangkabaus til now ,has a matriachal system. The Jews respect their women so much on equal standing that Israel actually drafts women into their army. So how come you delegated the rights of women to anglophone countries?
so does qatar, so does iran, so does turkey (who i think had the first female fighter pilot or sth) and so on. point being? israel is tiny and needs to amass AS MUCH resources it can to fight, so the dependence on women. same with "women's rights" campaigns in anglopohne countires, it started in WWII, thanks to uncle sam being unable to keep up with the germans. they resorted to asking their women for help (like hiding under their skirts i guess). now that germans lost, this turned in to a campaign for "woman's rights". roughly put, that's what happened.Women rights are an issue for all women regardless of where they are.
i suppose that includes singapore or australia where women can't go topless in public but men can. and also women and men are treated differently for military recruitment. also in sports. and so on and on and on.
based on? dont generalize. arab countries even allow topless sunbathing in maghreb (north african french colonies like algeria tunisia maroc etc), something singapore doesn't. lol!
In regards to the argument you twisted about SE asian muslims.
Did I say they won't produce extremist? I am saying they have more respect for women than their arab counterparts. and i'm talking about women, not only men unlike singapore ozland or anglophone countries.
that was just an example of the variation contained in arab world unlike your twisted mind likes to imagine.
[quote]
Jemaah Islamiyah is linked to Al Qaeda whose top member is a former Saud who has links to a billionaire oil sheikh. JI is also responsible for the Bali bombings.
Tells you alot right? -
Originally posted by fymk:
thanks for the reminder! yet you say it's not an issue about europeans ruling you and singapore or oz, but because you only believe in "....rights" and that can only make sense if it derives from anglophone countries (the europeans who ruled singapore). but if it's from other regions it's archaic, however if persian laws of 2500 years ago matches anglophones' laws of today, it's modern. brilliiant logic (being sarcastic) fymk.
I have not seen a war started over women's rights before. Women got their rights in the [b]European countries by voicing out and the trend followed in modern countries.
while wars may not be started over mere remarks, this can be prelude to much angst and trouble. which can lead to conflicts, wars are conflicts. religious wars actually very rarely happened in history, and if you look at it, it's almost alwasy the politicians, be they kings, prime ministers, presidents, monarchs, etc etc who incite such trouble not priests, imams, chaplins or whoever.
Wars are not started because someone said something. Wars are started for the following three main reasons: Power, Money and Greed. And if we want to start talking about religious wars - they are primarily started for power - the power to convert.
you take it up very religiously. you said IF you had it your way, you would enforce the laws on ENTIRE WORLD. i dont think even most fanatics of most violent factions of any line of thoughts really argue along this line. last i can think of, usa/ussr was embroiled in such conflict over their models of living. and usa still today pursues this agenda,
Women's rights have neither the power, money nor greed to start a war. It is also not a religious reason to start a war. Women are just starting to stand up for themselves. If no woman speaks up , how the hell would men listen?
1. to convert the whole world to THEIR OWN version of christianity, hint look up bible belt, missionary, rapture seeker
2. to covert the whole world into their own forms of "democracy" meaning those who support usa (for instance they dont like algeria, hamas or iran, but they do support singapore)
3. and to establish puppets in most "theaters" around world so they can capitalize on any chance to establish their rule/presence in that part of the world. to ensure "pax americana".
there are other methods than talking for communication. and speech can of various sorts, one has to fine tune it to adjust to potential benefits and losses, harmful effects and positive effects.
Likewise if nobody speaks up , then how would others know that they are unhappy. [/b] -
thanks for the diversion but your own version of morality need not be imposed on others.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:...just because something is culturally "correct" does not make it acceptable or logically and rationally correct...
...humans have a right to freedom in the pursuit of happiness as long as they do not step on other people's toes... and to prevent someone from doing something in case they harm you is atrocious...
...if they harm you, they deserve to be punished but you cannot stop them in case they harm you... unless you come from a tyrannical, barbaric societies...
you didn't even define what is "acceptable" of course that depends on persons, cultures, regions, ethnicities, times, etc etc etc.
and logical correctness or rationality doesn't appear to all persons to be same. chinese cuisine for one in nonchinese cultures evokes many unpleasant calls. does it mean chinese need to be thought of as barbarbaric? i dont disagree with you IF you say so about singaporean chinese, but i will disagree with you if you say so about chinese from PRC. -
...send a woman who is sitting in a car with a man to 6 months jail and 200 lashes? OMG barbarians and their supporters...
Seven men were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years.
OMG barbarians and their supporters...Her lawyer has been suspended from the case and faces a disciplinary session.
OMG barbarians and their supporters... -
lol grow up. how old are you?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... so if it makes the woman in question happy to spend time alone with a man in the car... that is her prerogative... and what right have the state to punish her? ... unless it is a tyrannical and barbaric state...
what about singapore when it bans anal and oral sex? are you saying singapore is barbaric and tyrannical. i dont disagree either.
but it's better if singaporeans stick to criticizing singapore only as they know it best, not other countries which they know j****** about. -
... a man found guilty of rape sentenced to under a year jail and a woman sitting in a car with another man sentenced to 6 months and 200 lashes?
OMG barbarians and their supporters...