Woman, 75, Sentenced to 40 Lashes For "Mingling"

In Saudi Arabia, Khamisa Sawadi, a 75 year old widow has been sentenced to 40 lashes and 4 months in jail for mingling.

Sawadi is Syrian but her late husband was Saudi. The court also ordered her to be deported after completion of her sentence.

The newspaper Al-Watan said the woman met with the two 24-year-old men last April after she asked them to bring her five loaves of bread at her home in al-Chamil, a city north of the capital, Riyadh.


Al-Watan identified one man as Fahd al-Anzi, the nephew of Sawadi's late husband, and the other as his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein. It said they were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread. The men also were convicted and sentenced to lashes and prison.

As to the law:

Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam prohibits men and women who are not immediate relatives from mingling. It also bars women from driving, and the playing of music, dancing and many movies also are a concern for hard-liners who believe they violate religious and moral values.

As to the evidence against her:

The court said it based its ruling on "citizen information" and testimony from al-Anzi's father, who accused Sawadi of corruption.

... How can a verdict be issued based on suspicion?" Laila Ahmed al-Ahdab, a physician who also is a columnist for Al-Watan, wrote Monday. "A group of people are misusing religion to serve their own interests."

The woman's defense was rejected:

Sawadi told the court she considered al-Anzi as her son, because she breast-fed him when he was a baby. But the court denied her claim, saying she didn't provide evidence. In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.

From the reporter as to why he is writing about the case:

...Sawadi commonly asked her neighbors for help after her husband died, said journalist Bandar al-Ammar, who reported the story for Al-Watan. In a recent article, he wrote that he felt the need to report the case "so everybody knows to what degree we have reached."

Can a 75 year old woman survive 40 lashes? This is so barbaric and sadistic.

< Mondale: Right to Counsel Is in Jeopardy | Glass Houses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Havent we evolved beyond needing religion yet? (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:43:30 AM EST

    Don't confuse (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by bocajeff on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    Religion with barbarism...

    When the source material is the same... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    doesnt seem to be worth the trouble.

    Apparently we haven't evolved beyond (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    needing power nor beyond using religion, government, tradition, relationships, etc., etc., in order to get it.

    Good point... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:22:41 PM EST
    but Id say government and relationships are practical.  Religion, not so much.

    Humans use whatever tool is at hand (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    in order to exert power. If this one's not available, they'll just use that one over there...

    Ok... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    but this doesnt negate my original question.

    Winning or losing was not my intent. (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    Uh... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    the only one who thought of "winning or losing" was you.

    Because (none / 0) (#56)
    by AlkalineDave on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    atheistic governments never abuse human rights...China/Tibet...

    Wholeheartedly agree... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 04:36:34 PM EST
    but that has nothing to do with my original question.

    Please, DO confuse... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Shainzona on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:35:56 PM EST
    religion with barbarism.

    Haven't we evolved beyond (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    the need to subjugate women yet?

    involved got subjugated pretty brutally also.

    On a very related topic though, my son is in the middle of doing the ubiquitous (to CA) 4th grade "mission project."

    One of the sources on his mission told of how the padres "had to teach the male NA's how to work because in their native society it was unmanly for any male to work."

    Not a pretty picture of life as a female NA (the forced alternative provided by the missionaries not withstanding).


    My husband would like that to use that excuse! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    You funny! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:09:52 PM EST
    Just found the actual quote:
    The missionaries discovered that the Indians, who regarded labor as degrading to the masculine sex, had to be taught industry in order to learn how to be self-supportive.
    The last part is ironic. Were the NA's not already self-supportive when the missionaries showed up?

    It is currently the custom in some (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 06:59:18 PM EST
    ethnic groups in western India for the women to work and the men to lounge about watching them.  

    Power (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:48:11 PM EST
    Subjugation is gender neutral. It is about power.

    I dont think anyone here... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    would disagree with that.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    But it is easier to work on and discuss when oppression is looked at as an operation of power as opposed to an operation of sexism or racism, or any ism..

    Otherwise all sorts of get out of jail free cards are on the table, and the root issue gets unduly complicated.


    Perhaps not. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    But they will certainly try to change the subject into something different, or more general, or anything other than what it is.

    Generalize? (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    You mean like you did?

    I might disagree (none / 0) (#67)
    by otherlisa on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 07:52:33 PM EST
    I mean, I agree that subjugation is about the expression of power. But the subjugation of women is something that is far more universal than the subjugation of men.

    Yes (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:50:59 PM EST
    That is where it gets complicated, and sometimes counter productive because of competition among other things, imo.

    The best action is case by case, iow start from the specific and call out whoever is abusing their power irrespective of gender, race. The un-predetermined approach levels the playing field.

    Which men? which women? where? ...  Justine or Juliette?


    I think you are dodging the issue (none / 0) (#81)
    by otherlisa on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:11:50 AM EST
    Yes, I believe in calling out oppression wherever it exists and regardless of who is victimized. But I get the feeling you are reluctant to admit to the particular and global oppression that women face.

    That Is Incorrect (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:23:21 AM EST
    Haven't we evolved beyond needing religion? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Left of center on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 04:44:14 PM EST
    Some of us have, but others still need to turn to ancient cave drawings and other assorted nonsensical superstitious ramblings written by primitive people who thought it was a good idea to murder anyone who disagreed with them.

    This is why the possibility of reaching (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:46:15 AM EST
    an agreement with the Taliban is worrisome.

    There are no answers... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:51:28 PM EST
    ...for many things in life, one of the most prominent being how to control other people, in other cultures, on the other side of the world.  It is not possible UNLESS you plan on being MORE brutal than those you fight or SO altruistic the world has never seen such generosity.  And, most likely, you'd have to do both, which isn't exactly complimentary.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:26:41 PM EST
    This is what you will get called for having that thought:

    Black and White. BTW- do you have personal experience with the Taliban? Or are you just parroting MSM and BushCo WOT themes?

    I can see why you supported bomb, bomb bomb bomb McCain.

    Those dark skinned unchristian furriners are all crazy, right?

    Wanna guess who thinks that way?


    Poor Baby (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:43:39 PM EST
    Do you feel subjugated? And you seem more into parroting than thinking, imo.

    Yes (3.33 / 3) (#14)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:29:34 PM EST
    They are probably more worried than you are, considering our history of torture, sadistic brutality, rape and sexual abuse of muslims.

    But, apart from naysayers like you, I think that cutting a deal with the Taliban would be a great way to make peace with Afghanistan.


    That surprises me. As I recall, (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    then the Taliban controlled, women couldn't leave the house w/o a male escort, were consigned to wearing burkas, couldn't go to school, couldn't work outside the home.  I would like to hear the opinion of women who live in Afghanistan on resolving conflict by letting the Taliban be in charge of them.

    Fast forward to: 2014. (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:35:34 PM EST
    5 years after the US "cuts a deal with the Taliban" their savage control over Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan results in the brutal deaths of 10's of 1000's.

    squeaky: "It's America's fault."


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    it's more like:

    squeaky: America is worse


    Given our history... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    and our embarrassing behavior during the last 8 years, I find it hard to argue against that point.

    More Like (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    Glass houses, but how BushCo of you to question my patriotism.

    Sorry, the (none / 0) (#58)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 04:12:56 PM EST
    questioning of patriotism is coming from the left today; Biden, Pelosi, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm,

    Yes (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    It would seem unpatriotic to wish for the country to go down the tubes simply for partisan gain.

    OK (3.33 / 3) (#17)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    So we have two fans of BushCo diplomacy, any other takers?

    My guess is that you are with Bolton, et al, and think the best solution is to just wipe them out, no?


    Ridiculous. Metaphysicist. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:42:00 PM EST
    (h/t BTD.)

    Gives a bad name to metaphysics. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    Binary thought. So predictable. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:45:46 PM EST
    Dont be so hard on yourself. (3.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    Why didnt you use these powers... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:41:49 PM EST
    to stop the financial crisis?

    The area around Riyadh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    is far more stringent on all topics. They are Sunni. Most of the horror stories from Saudi come from that area.

    They know the rules.


    Can't a Bush make a phone call... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    or something...they're tight with these brutal tyrants.  

    Im sure they approve... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    they need their scapegoats.

    Primitive country, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    primitive justice.

    America? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    Women's rights activist .. (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    Wajeha Al-Huwaider:  It has nothing to do with religion. It's all about control. And the more you spread fear among people, the more you control them.

    True, but (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    isn't there a relationship between religion and control.

    Abso-freaking-lutely. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:15:47 PM EST
    The nuns used to beat the kids at our local Parochial school, when I was a kid. Then the kids used to go out and beat up jews.

    I've noticed (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by DXP on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    you seem to disdain women's rights issues and always reduce some terrible violation to "its not as bad as" or "other things are just as bad as". You miss any opportunity to shine a light on such inhuman grotesque behaviors. Seems all "ho-hum" to you, and IMO if this kind of cultural behavior is to change one method is to expose it and make it reviled - even mocked. Your unwillingness to recognize, formulate and face these issues simply extends them.

    BS (3.00 / 2) (#60)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 04:15:18 PM EST
    THat is utter nonsense.

    well (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

    And you still get 2 for 1 in Saudi Arabia.

    Ya know what the women... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    of hard-core Islam really need?  A real life Lysistrata...this crap would stop right quick.

    You must be kidding. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    How to enforce the strike?

    Half-kidding... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:40:30 PM EST
    organization and willpower would be major hurdles, but I'm not joking about the effectiveness...I really think it would work.

    72 virgins in heaven sounds great and all, but who wants to wait for heaven for earthly pleasures.  And even a devout believer has to have some doubts.


    You missed my point. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:07:34 PM EST
    Do you imagine that women in those countries have the right or the ability to say no to the men of their families on any subject....ever?

    Guess again.  Saying no would mean nothing.  Zip.  The result would be rape and beatings and other punishments we can't even imagine...


    I'd imagine it depends... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:18:07 PM EST
    on the family, but I got ya, women are second class citizens in Saudi Arabia, sadly this is not news, though lashing an elderly woman is extraordinarily barbaric.

    The big truth is you only have the rights you can defend...sitting around waiting for the Saudi royal family, government, clerics and the men who support it to come around ain't gonna work.


    According to news release, (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:22:31 PM EST
    President Obama commissioned Valerie Jarrett to make sure all cabinet officers consider the effect of everything on women and daughters.  Stay turned to see if this has any effect on our domestic and/or foreign policy.

    Good. I like Jarrett. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:18:38 PM EST
    Oh why not (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by rghojai on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:24:35 AM EST
    Some perhaps unusual perspectives here. I (am an American citizen, ethnic pasty white guy who) moved to Saudi Arabia in 11/01. Was striking to read English-language newspapers based there and see a lot of questioning of things in the KSA society domestic and otherwise, a general tone of, "We've too long buried our heads too far in the sand."

    At that time and more so now, there definitely was an awareness of how things play both domestically and internationally--and no small measure of discomfort among some people with in-the-media voices that various things in the Kingdom were simply wrong and reasonably leaving people elsewhere with concerns about the land of sand.

    Operationally, there is an awareness that increasing Internet access--relatively little is blocked; I visited Israel-based newspaper sites, the NYT, etc.--and vast access to CNN and such via satellite TV--is making more Saudis and people elsewhere more aware of things going on there.

    Western colleagues who had been there for a while said this was a recent sea change--a sign that some people rousing from a deep slumber to face a murky, turbulent morning. And let's not forget that OBL had been vehement in his opposition to the Saudi royal family. Much to be said for questioning motives and seriousness, but when words and actions speak at least in part to self-preservation, there's a fair chance of seriousness in said words and actions.

    Too, the King has made concrete steps in navigating tricky waters--balancing views of what he thinks is best and the not-insignificant power held by those more conservative.

    A couple thoughts about that. For good or ill, he doesn't have to worry about elections in '10, re-election in '12. That aside, while the conservative aspects of the society get attention relative to things like this, it is also conservative across the board in the sense of more comfort with slow, relatively incremental changes. Tradition carries huge weight.

    There is at least one good if arguably relatively small side to this: Crime there is very low, be it a street mugging, car break-in, car theft, bank robbery, store robbery, drug/gang-related stuff. Lest it not be clear, I in no way condone the action in question.

    It's arguably an interesting topic, a society where a small number of people get ugly treatment, but there is appreciably less suffering in terms of anything from the hassle of a car break-in to people's sons, fathers, husbands getting shot. Fair play, the line about giving up liberty for more security gets you neither.

    More operationally, we'll see how it plays out, but wonderings if this is someone in authority being willing to lose a battle while making real progress in winning a war--making a cold, ugly trade-off as part of either cold deal-making or hoping people eventually drown by their own weight.

    Brutality Is Rife In the US Too (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    As absurd as this Saudi sentence is, our hands are not clean either.

    Prison beatings, worse than 40 lashes. And for the guards to not ever notice, it seems to be organized to me.

    This is what I'm talking about (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by otherlisa on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:43:24 AM EST
    when I say I'm not sure if you take the oppression of women seriously.

    Yes, prison conditions in the US are deplorable. But that's not the topic here.


    The Topic (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    Here is unfair and rather brutal treatment, by religious zelots, on a 70 year old woman and two younger men.

    If you look at the actual case, the two men have faired worse. But you are generalizing and focusing on one aspect, which I think always weakens ones case.

    And then to assume that I am insensitive to injustice when it comes to women, is really a stretch.

    My point about prisons in the US, and yes women are raped and beaten as well as men on a daily basis, was meant to encourage self reflection on the notion that other countries are barbaric and we have moral authority to condemn them.


    If you're an abused prisoner in NY, (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:26:37 PM EST
    and you write your Senator for relief; you get no response. If you write your Congress-person, he/she forewards your letter to the warden to investigate; you then find out the real definition of brutality.

    In California there is an (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:34:14 PM EST
    Inspector General's office which investigates complaints of state inmates.  Also, in the state correctional facilities  in CA, inmates use a photocopied form to sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (violation of civil rights).  The inmate handwrites in the information requested, files it by mail in federal district court along with a form requesting waiver of filing fees, and then asks the court to have the marshal's office serve defendants.

    Dylan 1979 (4.00 / 1) (#41)
    by SOS on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    All that foreign oil controlling American soil,
    Look around you, it's just bound to make you embarrassed.
    Sheiks walkin' around like kings, wearing fancy jewels and nose rings,
    Deciding America's future from Amsterdam and to Paris
    And there's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.

    no and yes. (none / 0) (#28)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    Can a 75 year old woman survive 40 lashes? This is so barbaric and sadistic.

    i suspect the 40 lashes part will be suspended. even the batsh*t crazy saudis know it would look bad if she died as a result. they'll probably just deport her, having made their point to everyone else, and having the two men to shred.

    But, apart from naysayers like you, I think that cutting a deal with the Taliban would be a great way to make peace with Afghanistan.

    yeah, that worked so well for the british, when they "cut a deal" with hitler and the nazis. the only way to deal with psychotics is to either kill them or put them away, where they can't harm anyone.

    the taliban are psychotics. just because their homicidal psychosis is fueled by religious fervor doesn't make them any less psychotic.

    Yes. Think Khmer Rouge. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    Silly Analogy, IMO (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    But you are entitled to ridiculous hyperbole. If I remember correctly you advocated leveling Iraq, and Iran as well.

    you're entitled to your opinion, (none / 0) (#55)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    it doesn't make it correct. my analogy was pretty damn accurate, show me where it isn't. put up or shut up.

    the taliban share many traits with the nazis. a single-minded pursuit of power. the use of public brutality, to induce fear in the population, in order to maintain control of it. a belief that allah (god) has appointed them to be a sort of "super" race.

    historically, fanatics can't be relied upon to honor treaties, it's just not their nature. otherwise, they wouldn't be fanatics. it didn't work for chamberlain or stalin, why do you think it would work for us?

    no, i certainly never advocated the complete destruction of either afghanistan or iraq. what i did say, and completely believe, is that in order to achieve total victory in either theatre, sherman's "total war" concept would need to be employed.

    because both of these operations were bungled, right from the start, that's the only way to completely eliminate the remaining opposition.

    i never suggested that i thought it should be done.


    Tribal Sect (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    That is an example of religious extremism. Most of the taliban's killing has been sectarian. They do not recognize the Shia as  muslims. As much as bedwetter fantasies abounded during the BushCo years about Muslims taking over the world and forcing Sharia law on everyone (read ppj) this is not a possibility.

    Hitler's rise to power and fascist dreams were another thing entirely.


    Sure, make a deal with the Taliban (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by otherlisa on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 07:55:15 PM EST
    but don't use my tax money to fund the bastards.

    OK (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:53:40 PM EST
    Would you rather choose than, than having even 100 times more of your tax dollars going to kill them all.

    Although it does not appear Pres. (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    Obama will choose this course, one option is to withdraw U.S. military from Iraq and also Afghanistan.  

    Really? (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:03:35 PM EST
    Not sure why you feel the need to state the obvious. Most people in the US want military forces in Afghanistan,  Inclucding two of your faves, btd and hillary.  

    I have always been against the idea.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#82)
    by otherlisa on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:16:01 AM EST
    IMO we shouldn't be dealing with the Saudis either.

    I'd say that about very very few countries. I'm all for engagement. But engaging with a country or group that would deny my basic humanity?


    When South Africa was an apartheid regime, we boycotted them. The Saudis engage in wholesale oppression of women and we sell them fighter jets.

    Well, I'll tell you what - make a deal with the Taliban if and only if they'll stop oppressing women. I could go for that.


    You do know that it is the Sunni Tribe (none / 0) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:09:17 PM EST
    that dominates the area of Saudi where the woman was tried and sentenced, don't you?

    No matter how horrible the (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:34:07 PM EST
    crime in another country those who wish to make their political point are so predictably quick to make the Bush, America, conservative, religous pick you poison comparisons.

    I would think 40 lashes for a 75 year old women would have proven beyond thier scope but they've again proven that their sense of moral relativism knows no bounds.

    Classic bigotry victim. (none / 0) (#65)
    by clio on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 06:48:10 PM EST
    In another time by another religion this old, poor, poorly educated and foreign, and probably odd-looking woman would have been burned at the stake as a witch.  

    The 40 lashes will probably have the same effect but take longer.  Even if by some miracle she survives it's hard to see that she will ever be free of pain or, due to scarring, able to care for herself adequately in the future.

    I wonder is what this woman has that the person(s) who engineered her persecution wants or needs?  (?her house or its location if it's not to shore up the local mullahs' standing)   There's always an earthly reason for these "religious" purity sacrifices...and while barbaric an accurate adjective corrupt and venal also apply. And, of course, the victim is unable to fight back.  It's never the local rulers who end up at the lash end.

    Just the usual despotic and tyrannical cruelty in religion disguise.

    religion is religion (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:36:59 PM EST
    just a question of degrees.

    I remember, as a three year old having thrown away half a sandwich, that my life was over. From that moment on I was condemned to an eternity of pain, agony, and burning flesh.

    No "pleasant dreams" for me.