Caption from NY Times reads:
"A government minister, Attiya Inayatullah, left, comforts a woman who was ordered by a tribal jury to be raped by four men as punishment. The case has provoked outrage and one man has been arrested."
-- Modified on 7/6/2002 8:18:49 AM
If I recall this story correctly, the girl herself had not done anything wrong. It was her younger 11 yo brother who had committed the unpardonable sin of walking with a girl from a rival tribe. Therefore, the girl should be raped as punishment.
So when you hear people saying " we should not attack these people, we should first try to UNDERSTAND them," somebody please tell me how you do that. (Understand them.)
I worked in that area of the world for 7 years. This case was in all likelihood a criminal act, and unique. This is why is at the forefront ...
One can pick up a newspaper from any corner of the world, and find bizzare things. M
Let's not use a broad brush, and use the terms like "these people"
Although against the constitution of the nation, & not really condoned by the Koran, "honor killings" are allowed to take place with no true punishment. Those killings have been a part of tribal justice for so long that the courts almost look the other way. For those unfamiliar with the term "honor killing" it is the murder of someone bringing shame upon the family.
I'll give an example of an article I read in an English-language Pakistani newpaper published in Islamabad about 4 years ago.
Two men were put on trial for the murder of a young woman. One of the two was her father, the other a man hired by the father to do the actual killing. It seems the woman had filed for divorce, stating that her husband was an alcholic & physically abusive among a few other things that I can't recall. Her marriage had been "arranged" by the two families (still the common practice). The simple act of attempting to divorce was enough to bring shame upon her family...that shame being what led to her murder in order to restore family honor.
Nothing in the article stated the the husband wasn't the things she claimed (although that shouldn't be important), nor was there apparently ever any question about the fact that she was killed by the one man who was paid by the father to commit the act.
The courts let both men off completely free...no punishment of any nature.
Stuff like this is mind-boggling to us, living here in our world. What's even more mind-boggling is that often the victims of these things are in agreement with the process (if not exactly happy about it being applied to them personally). What about all the many Hindu women who willingly participated -- as opposed to those who were forced -- in Suttee (being burned alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands)?
In what looks so clear-cut to us, it's hard to talk about "relative values," and I can't defend all the weird s**t that people do, nor am I inclined to. Think about all the people who really thought September 11th was a very cool thing. It's also hard to imagine how anyone could find fault with what we do in our country. Sure, we know we're not perfect, but we think we're more good than bad, don't we? Not everyone shares that opinion.
Makes you wonder what kind of s**t we'll find on Mars if there's "intelligent" life up there.
A few months after learing of the case I cited in my first post, I came upon a wire story (AP) in our newpapers. While the country wasn't specifically identified, it was an Islamic nation & the dateline was in Saudi Arabia.
The crime had to do with two people having consesual sex while unmarried. The man, a German businessman, a non-citizen but in the country legally. He was not of the Islamic faith. The woman was a citizen & was Muslim. Neither were married. There was nothing in the story indicating it was anything short of "vanilla sex"--she wasn't coerced in any way, not gotten drunk first, certainly not raped, & no indication it was a pay-for-play encounter. Both were put on trial, but separately. At the time on the article she had been judged guilty. The verdict in his trial was pending. Unfortunately, I never saw a follow-up to it.
Her punishment (by this time already carried out) was to have all she owned confiscated & be driven from her village by being stoned...no mentioned of whether she lived or died from the stoning. Harsh, right? But listen to this. His maximum punishment for the same crime, if found guilty, would be life inprisonment. BUT because he was not a muslim, it would be....death!!!
I suppose he broke their laws but forgetting about whether or not the law is fair, moral, etc etc. The logic of this toally escapes me. If a person breaks a law & then the punishment is determined (apparently by religion) by supposed beleif in the law, I would only imagine that if there was to be a difference at all in the punishment based on belief...it would be stronger if the law was one the "criminal" supposedly believed in. Of course, this is only MY OWN thinking with regards to logic. Can anyone explain why the potential sentence was such, other than to just say "that's the way it is?"
Sure...while I certainly might have different opinions than many of you about what they are & what changes are needed, I'll be among the first to say that this country is far from perfect & changes are needed in many was...laws, application of justice, politics, etc etc. But at the same time, I think we're all damn lucky to call this country our home as opposed to almost anywhere else that I know.
The setting was an isolated valley in Germany during the Thirty Years War. Michael Caine was the leader of a small band of soldiers fighting for the Protestants. They marched into town and pretty much took it over like the bandits in "The Magnificent Seven" (or "The Three Amigos," if you prefer).
While laying down the law to the villagers, he went down a list of crimes and punishments. The penalties were uniformly more severe for Catholic perpetrators than for Protestants. To show he was fair, he said the same laws would apply equally to his own soldiers, some of whom were Catholics and would therefore suffer the Catholic consequences.
It doesn't sound logical on face value, but when you consider that the underlying logic is based on "them" and "us," not "right" and "wrong," it becomes clearer. There are those who would also argue that minorities in this country (and I would add, EVERY OTHER COUNTRY, TOO), generally receive harsher sentences than do those of the majority group. Logic is also "relative" sometimes.
However, there is one thing you mentioned that I hope everyone understands: just how lucky we all are to live here in the USA. There's so much good stuff we take for granted (hell, we even call them "rights") that few other people in this world enjoy. I'm not a flag-waver, but I appreciate what we have.
I'm not familar with either the movie or the historical account (assuming the movie was based on actual events). However, I don't find myself surprised at all that such a thing could happen. History if full of such incidents & there's no point recounting them...I'm sure you're already aware of most I might mention & perhaps even more. I think the vast majority of time when organized religion is involved there can be things found that defy what we typically think of as correct logic.
But I'm glad to see you understood the meaning of the last paragraph of my post. That's really the most important thing I said...the rest was really only to illustrate it, & to keep things somewhat within topic.
Thanks for your response.