Sharia law used in the United Arab Emirates to jail gang-raped Australian woman

[Rainman05]

I had to change the wording of the title because it was too long.
~story taken from reddit.

Sharia law used in the United Arab Emirates to jail Australian woman after she was gang-raped

IN JUNE 2008 Alicia Gali took a job in the UAE at a luxury hotel operated in Dubai by one of the world’s biggest hotel chains, Starwood.

Gali was using her laptop in the hotel’s staff bar when her drink was spiked. According to this report, she:

Awoke to a nightmare beyond belief: she had been savagely raped by three of her colleagues.

Alone and frightened, she took herself to hospital. What she did not know is that under the UAE’s strict sharia laws, if the perpetrator does not confess, a rape cannot be proved without the testimony of four adult Muslim male witnesses. She was charged with having illicit sex outside marriage, and thrown in a filthy jail cell for eight months.

Now, finally home and struggling to move on with her life, Gali, who is suing the hotel group, broke her silence for the first time on television to reporter Ross Coulthart the weekend.

Read the rest on the link. It presents more on the story and other things as well related to how sharia is (including people running for their lives after renouncing Islam). And to think that some people advocate and support sharia courts in many countries in Europe, particularly the UK. This is what you are encouraging.

So I guess we have new set of advice memes to give:

 

[Sarcogito]

Scary story.

 

[fyrenza]

Anyone that doesn't realize that we are just animals to them,
for them to tame,

hasn't been paying very close attention, imho.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I hope the liberals who believe in multiculturalism take note of such realities of different cultures.

 

[MMC]

I hope the liberals who believe in multiculturalism take note of such realities of different cultures.

It doesn't say who her attackers were other than they were her colleagues. Although it does say they did jail the attackers before they deported them.

Additionally, the men involved were also prosecuted and each served prison terms before being deported.....snip~

So, this was done by foreigners and not any Sunni Arabs. Still to put her in jail for what some Foreigners did to her is BS. I would think Sunni Arabs will want to avoid going around her family in Australia.

 

[Rainman05]

I hope the liberals who believe in multiculturalism take note of such realities of different cultures.

Anyone that doesn't realize that we are just animals to them,
for them to tame,

hasn't been paying very close attention, imho.

It doesn't say who her attackers were other than they were her colleagues. Although it does say they did jail the attackers before they deported them.

Additionally, the men involved were also prosecuted and each served prison terms before being deported.....snip~

So, this was done by foreigners and not any Sunni Arabs. Still to put her in jail for what some Foreigners did to her is BS. I would think Sunni Arabs will want to avoid going around her family in Australia.

The issue is not who her rapists were. The issue is that she spent time in prison for being raped. Her rapists could have been asians, arabs, whites, blacks, etc or UAE nationality or other. The article doesn't mention their ethnicity (or maybe I missed it). All we know is that they were her colleagues at the hotel and some got deported (so some were not UAE nationals).

So again, the focus of the issue is that under sharia law, she spent time in prison for being gang-raped. She spent time in prison for being a victim, ok? Why? Because under sharia law, women are not really citizens or human beings for that matter, they not entitled to the same rights. And if it weren't for the efforts of the Aussie embassy along with the owners of the hotel where she worked to seek justice, no justice would have been done.

This article is a demonstration (one out of countless) of the stupidity and inherent injustice of islamic law. And anyone who claims that islamic law is a good thing, a desirable thing, is at least idiotic. At least.

 

[MMC]

The issue is not who her rapists were. The issue is that she spent time in prison for being raped. Her rapists could have been asians, arabs, whites, blacks, etc or UAE nationality or other. The article doesn't mention their ethnicity (or maybe I missed it). All we know is that they were her colleagues at the hotel and some got deported (so some were not UAE nationals).

So again, the focus of the issue is that under sharia law, she spent time in prison for being gang-raped. She spent time in prison for being a victim, ok? Why? Because under sharia law, women are not really citizens or human beings for that matter, they not entitled to the same rights. And if it weren't for the efforts of the Aussie embassy along with the owners of the hotel where she worked to seek justice, no justice would have been done.

This article is a demonstration (one out of countless) of the stupidity and inherent injustice of islamic law. And anyone who claims that islamic law is a good thing, a desirable thing, is at least idiotic. At least.

Heya RM. :2wave: Oh I know.....I pointed that out as, it had been some Sunni Arabs that did the rape. Then their azz would need to be held accountable. Which then would have caused some Diplomatic Uproar. Now all they did was just play on the laws of their Country. Jailing all involved. Which I doubt anything will come of it.....other than what the Hotel Provided.

Shame that women have to deal with such garbage in Arab Countries. Perhaps the left should wake up to that fact that the Sunni are not our Friends. No matter what they state out of their mouths.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So again, the focus of the issue is that under sharia law, she spent time in prison for being gang-raped. She spent time in prison for being a victim, ok? Why? Because under sharia law, women are not really citizens or human beings for that matter, they not entitled to the same rights. And if it weren't for the efforts of the Aussie embassy along with the owners of the hotel where she worked to seek justice, no justice would have been done.

This article is a demonstration (one out of countless) of the stupidity and inherent injustice of islamic law. And anyone who claims that islamic law is a good thing, a desirable thing, is at least idiotic. At least.

Thank-You.

Exactly my unstated point, along with making it a point there are drawbacks to embracing multiculturalism.

 

[RDS]

It's their law. So just suck it up.

 

[Serenity]

Pretty horrendous experience that's for sure. We hear quite a bit about her here and the struggle she has had since trying to somehow come to terms with her experience. Mentally she is obviously not doing great and she has appointed lawyers to also pursue the Australian government for an oversight by a consular official, whom she alleges did not tell her she could be charged with adultery if she made a rape complaint against married men. Hopefully time and support of her family and friends will help her heal.

It actually happened 5 years ago so i'm not sure why it's taken 5 years for the media to become interested in this incident. Still, considering the UAE had 8-9 million foreign visitors last year, continued education that local laws and penalties reflect the fact that Islamic practices and beliefs are closely applied there isn't a bad thing. If you're going to visit, work or whatever in these Countries, you must familiarise yourself with local laws before you travel there and understand that as repulsive and ridiculous these rules are, if you go there then they are going to apply to you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's their law. So just suck it up.

There are reasons why our State department has warnings of visiting certain other countries.

link: United Arab Emirates Country Specific Information

 

[RDS]

There are reasons why our State department has warnings of visiting certain other countries.

link: United Arab Emirates Country Specific Information

And when you are in Rome do as the Romans do.

 

[Strucker]

And when you are in Rome do as the Romans do.

Well, it's one thing to say that one should follow the laws of a country when one is there. That's just good sense, and self-preservation.

It's another thing altogether to shrug our shoulders at something so outrageous as this.

And it's not that she's Australian. That's irrelevant. It's that it's just plain wrong to treat victims this way, anywhere, anytime.

 

[digsbe]

I think when traveling in a foreign country it is necessary to do some background work and look into the laws of that nation. Do I agree with the law? Absolutely not, and I think that under the current law in the UAE many women will not receive justice and instead punishment for reporting a rape.

I do think that this is an injustice and a human rights violation, hopefully the Australian government or international organizations can intervene to at least help her situation.

 

[RDS]

Well, it's one thing to say that one should follow the laws of a country when one is there. That's just good sense, and self-preservation.

It's another thing altogether to shrug our shoulders at something so outrageous as this.

And it's not that she's Australian. That's irrelevant. It's that it's just plain wrong to treat victims this way, anywhere, anytime.

There are countless stories like this in the Middle East. Learn from the past and avoid such places.

 

[Strucker]

There are countless stories like this in the Middle East. Learn from the past and avoid such places.

Of course. I agree with you as a matter of practical action.

I'm only offerring my fairly uncontroversial opinion that it's disgusting.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, it's one thing to say that one should follow the laws of a country when one is there. That's just good sense, and self-preservation.

Yes, it is. She obviously didn't know the law holds her as the criminal for being raped. As cold as it sounds, that is her mistake for not knowing the laws where she was visiting.

It's another thing altogether to shrug our shoulders at something so outrageous as this.

Should I be as aghast as others and be a lemming, showing outrage like others? I have been perfectly aware of such laws for years, so it doesn't shock me one bit at all. What I am shocked at is the stupidity of others thinking they carry their national rights with them when they travel.

And it's not that she's Australian. That's irrelevant. It's that it's just plain wrong to treat victims this way, anywhere, anytime.

Yes, it's wrong. What can we do? Yes, I am outraged that parts of the world have such stupid laws. What can i do about it? Lob 112 cruise missiles at them like Obomba did to Libya?

From the link I posted:

Incidents of verbal and physical harassment as well as isolated cases involving assault of expatriate women have occurred, including some incidents of harassment by taxi drivers. On more than one occasion, expatriate females have been sexually assaulted while walking alone through underground pedestrian walkways near the Abu Dhabi Corniche. Female travelers should keep in mind the cultural differences among the many people who coexist in the UAE and should be cognizant that unwitting actions may invite unwanted attention. Taxi passengers should avoid sitting in the front seat of a taxicab and should be sensitive that "small talk" can be misinterpreted as over-friendliness or even a form of propositioning by some taxi drivers. Victims of harassment are encouraged to report such incidents to the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi or the U.S. Consulate General in Dubai.

 

[Strucker]

Yes, it is. She obviously didn't know the law holds her as the criminal for being raped. As cold as it sounds, that is her mistake for not knowing the laws where she was visiting.

Should I be as aghast as others and be a lemming, showing outrage like others? I have been perfectly aware of such laws for years, so it doesn't shock me one bit at all.

I wasn't talking about being shocked, or surprised.

I think it's a disgusting thing to happen. I remarked that opinion off-the-cuff.

You don't disagree, so I'm not sure why...the apparent disagreement. You seem to think we have some slight disputation, at the margins, perhaps. That's not at all clear to me.

Yes, it's wrong. What can we do? Yes, I am outraged that parts of the world have such stupid laws. What can i do about it? Lob 112 cruise missiles at them like Obomba did to Libya?

Of course not.

 

[Rainman05]

Pretty horrendous experience that's for sure. We hear quite a bit about her here and the struggle she has had since trying to somehow come to terms with her experience. Mentally she is obviously not doing great and she has appointed lawyers to also pursue the Australian government for an oversight by a consular official, whom she alleges did not tell her she could be charged with adultery if she made a rape complaint against married men. Hopefully time and support of her family and friends will help her heal.

It actually happened 5 years ago so i'm not sure why it's taken 5 years for the media to become interested in this incident. Still, considering the UAE had 8-9 million foreign visitors last year, continued education that local laws and penalties reflect the fact that Islamic practices and beliefs are closely applied there isn't a bad thing. If you're going to visit, work or whatever in these Countries, you must familiarise yourself with local laws before you travel there and understand that as repulsive and ridiculous these rules are, if you go there then they are going to apply to you.

The reason its in the news now, recently, is because the report on the case was finalized recently, meaning, a few days ago. Watch the first video... at the link for the start of the story.

UAE rape victim jailed - Sunday Night - Channel 7 - Yahoo!7 TV - Yahoo!7 TV

And the woman who was the victim of the gang rapists had decided to speak out against both the UAE government and their laws and the Australian incompetence in handling foreign affairs involving Australian citizens. The thing is, this was a planned assault. The video clearly shows how the men sabotaged her bathroom so that she would go out of her room in order for them to rape her. The 3 men who raped her were employees of the hotel.

The second video from the link shows just this other woman, charlotte adams, in the start of the second video, was put in jail for kissing her fellow british national, colleague, on the cheek in public. This is just ABSURD. So yeah...

But of course, the main story, the one about this poor Australian girl denied justice and treated like a dog after being abused by her colleagues. And while the owner of the hotel pushed for her release, they cut off all ties with her and you can hear the guy saying: they didn't pay her for when she was wrongfully imprisoned, they took her passport and didn't return it to her, they don't pay for the damages of the mental trauma and her medical expenses are sky rocketing.

Yes you are correct. If you go somewhere, you need to learn the rules and obey them, even as a tourist. But you see how it gets confusing when you have certain aspects of sharia law enforced (like treating women like dirt)... and some not (like alcohol consumption).

 

[Rainman05]

I think when traveling in a foreign country it is necessary to do some background work and look into the laws of that nation. Do I agree with the law? Absolutely not, and I think that under the current law in the UAE many women will not receive justice and instead punishment for reporting a rape.

I do think that this is an injustice and a human rights violation, hopefully the Australian government or international organizations can intervene to at least help her situation.

The Australian govt have tried to supress the story. So did the hotel manager and the UAE govt.

 

[Rainman05]

And when you are in Rome do as the Romans do.

So if you to the middle east... you'd have no problems raping women right? Because you know that under sharia law, there is no way you'd be charged and that she would be spending time in prison of she reported it.

 

[notquiteright]

Several things come to mind.

Many knock the removal of dictators during the Arab Spring with more fundamentalist regimes. However our 'allies' in the region have been practicing this sharia law business for far longer, those same 'knockers' seem far more muted about the repression of not only women but most of their citizens in these countries on the Arabian Penn.

Now of course a long time ally is held account in a vague way, FAR more is said about sharia law than those who support it in this country under scrutiny, not the same way the newly 'free' nations are addressed.

Sharia law covers a lot of ground. As one would note, if they sat back and thought on this JUST a little bit, every country modifies what comes to it's shores. Food, accents, holidays, dress, and even law traditions.

Fearing Sharia law adherents is like fearing Catholics who put Papal dictates above national secular law. Do we fear strict Catholics?

It isn't Sharia law one should attack in situations such as this, it is the political motive behind it, not unlike the use of Christianity in women's healthcare/ reproductive rights.

 

[Rainman05]

Several things come to mind.

Many knock the removal of dictators during the Arab Spring with more fundamentalist regimes. However our 'allies' in the region have been practicing this sharia law business for far longer, those same 'knockers' seem far more muted about the repression of not only women but most of their citizens in these countries on the Arabian Penn.

Now of course a long time ally is held account in a vague way, FAR more is said about sharia law than those who support it in this country under scrutiny, not the same way the newly 'free' nations are addressed.

Sharia law covers a lot of ground. As one would note, if they sat back and thought on this JUST a little bit, every country modifies what comes to it's shores. Food, accents, holidays, dress, and even law traditions.

Fearing Sharia law adherents is like fearing Catholics who put Papal dictates above national secular law. Do we fear strict Catholics?

It isn't Sharia law one should attack in situations such as this, it is the political motive behind it, not unlike the use of Christianity in women's healthcare/ reproductive rights.

The UAE didn't experience the arab spring or the propping up of dictators. Your comment is irrelevant from this POV.

Sharia law does indeed cover a lot of ground. It is a socio-political system meant to empower the religious figureheads and to create an islamic state. It covers everything from inter-personal relations to social order and hierarchy to who calls the shots in the state.

Fearing sharia is not like fearing Papal dictates. The sharia is a cornerstone of Islam. There is no socio-political organizational structure in the New Testament is there? All that theocracy in the Western world and the immense power of the Papal State came from the way history panned out. I mean the Pope got power in the early dark ages because the territories under Papal influence were the only ones who had stability. Everything else was in chaos after the fall of the Roman Empire. In the mid dark ages the Papacy had power because of the Holy Roman Empire which was founded by Charlemagne. It was called Holy because the Emperor was crowned Emperor by the Pope... the Pope had influence over the HRE through its influence over the Emperor. And later on because you know, organized catholicism spread out into the world and was fixed into positions as the Xth century rolled in. But organized Catholicism took a long time to build because there was nothing about it in the Scriptures. I mean, Jesus didn't leave a blueprint of how a nation is to be government when he was on Earth. He just said that you know, the kingdom he's concerned about and that he preached about was in the afterlife, not in this life.

Sharia is a totally different cake now is it? It's already there in Islam by default. You can't build islam, as it is written in the koran, without sharia where as you can have the 3 main denominations of Christianity (catholicism, protestantism and orthodox) without a theocracy.

 

[notquiteright]

The UAE didn't experience the arab spring or the propping up of dictators. Your comment is irrelevant from this POV. Sharia law does indeed cover a lot of ground. It is a socio-political system meant to empower the religious figureheads and to create an islamic state. It covers everything from inter-personal relations to social order and hierarchy to who calls the shots in the state. Fearing sharia is not like fearing Papal dictates. The sharia is a cornerstone of Islam. There is no socio-political organizational structure in the New Testament is there? All that theocracy in the Western world and the immense power of the Papal State came from the way history panned out. I mean the Pope got power in the early dark ages because the territories under Papal influence were the only ones who had stability. Everything else was in chaos after the fall of the Roman Empire. In the mid dark ages the Papacy had power because of the Holy Roman Empire which was founded by Charlemagne. It was called Holy because the Emperor was crowned Emperor by the Pope... the Pope had influence over the HRE through its influence over the Emperor. And later on because you know, organized catholicism spread out into the world and was fixed into positions as the Xth century rolled in. But organized Catholicism took a long time to build because there was nothing about it in the Scriptures. I mean, Jesus didn't leave a blueprint of how a nation is to be government when he was on Earth. He just said that you know, the kingdom he's concerned about and that he preached about was in the afterlife, not in this life. Sharia is a totally different cake now is it? It's already there in Islam by default. You can't build islam, as it is written in the koran, without sharia where as you can have the 3 main denominations of Christianity (catholicism, protestantism and orthodox) without a theocracy.

You need to slow your roll and read what I typed... 'I' said the UAE and the Arabian Penn DIDN'T have the Arab Spring that caused such consternation among the 'conservatives' of this country. But you are incorrect about propping up dictators, Qatar is ruled by a minority Sunni bunch that during that Spring in question relied on Saudi troops to keep the ****te majority in check. What I said is funny how weak the tea on our allies' use of Sharia law and how bitter the brew when it is the Arab Spring nations. The 'fear' of Sharia law is odd considering our 'allies' in the region have been using it for generations and we cuddle with them. Funny too Israel has sharia courts in their country :shock:

It is interesting to see Westerners be so down on religion as part of governance when so many 'conservatives' are so insistent we need the Jeudo-Christian line of worship in ours. How many 'conservatives' in here have argues GAWD is the basis for our governance and Christianity founded this nation, (Madison and the Federalist Papers are quotes as a matter of course in such discussions)

I am not talking about 'ancient' history about Catholic governance, but right here, right now. For years Roe v Wade has been the law of the land. For years birth control has been legal in our Republic, yet to this day the Catholic Church, and it's devout members, are in open defiance. The list is long of the 'conservative' politicians attempting one 'GAWD' bill after another, attempting to restrict laws on religious grounds, and not for just their religions but for everyone in the state/nation..

To this day a person's religious back round can cause pause among the 'conservatives' in particular. From Kennedy in the 60's to Willard in the new millennium some worried if a person was of the 'right' type of religion. Catholics were viewed with a bit of concern as they 'obey' a foreign potentate.

The use of the New Testament is not new in this type of discussion, however it is half the book now isn't it? The Old Testament is full of Sharia law like commands. The difference between the Old Testament and the Quran against the New Testament and Christianity is the former two are 'conqueror' religion to justify occupation and the latter a 'slave' religion of a subject people. Not until the Romans usurped the religion in an attempt to prop up their crumbling empire did Christianity emerge from the shadows.

And do note how the religious tenant went from 'eye for an eye' in the old Testament, to 'turn the other cheek' in the New, to 'Kill them all GAWD will know His own' once Christianity became State Religion. So I'd say just trying to use what Jesus said as the only part our people use... waaaay too many are waaaay too quick to quote 'eye for an eye' who attend a Christian Church ahhh religiously...

 

[Rainman05]

1)You need to slow your roll and read what I typed... 'I' said the UAE and the Arabian Penn DIDN'T have the Arab Spring that caused such consternation among the 'conservatives' of this country. But you are incorrect about propping up dictators, Qatar is ruled by a minority Sunni bunch that during that Spring in question relied on Saudi troops to keep the ****te majority in check. What I said is funny how weak the tea on our allies' use of Sharia law and how bitter the brew when it is the Arab Spring nations. The 'fear' of Sharia law is odd considering our 'allies' in the region have been using it for generations and we cuddle with them. Funny too Israel has sharia courts in their country :shock:

2)It is interesting to see Westerners be so down on religion as part of governance when so many 'conservatives' are so insistent we need the Jeudo-Christian line of worship in ours. How many 'conservatives' in here have argues GAWD is the basis for our governance and Christianity founded this nation, (Madison and the Federalist Papers are quotes as a matter of course in such discussions)

3)I am not talking about 'ancient' history about Catholic governance, but right here, right now. For years Roe v Wade has been the law of the land. For years birth control has been legal in our Republic, yet to this day the Catholic Church, and it's devout members, are in open defiance. The list is long of the 'conservative' politicians attempting one 'GAWD' bill after another, attempting to restrict laws on religious grounds, and not for just their religions but for everyone in the state/nation..

To this day a person's religious back round can cause pause among the 'conservatives' in particular. From Kennedy in the 60's to Willard in the new millennium some worried if a person was of the 'right' type of religion. Catholics were viewed with a bit of concern as they 'obey' a foreign potentate.

4)The use of the New Testament is not new in this type of discussion, however it is half the book now isn't it? The Old Testament is full of Sharia law like commands. The difference between the Old Testament and the Quran against the New Testament and Christianity is the former two are 'conqueror' religion to justify occupation and the latter a 'slave' religion of a subject people. Not until the Romans usurped the religion in an attempt to prop up their crumbling empire did Christianity emerge from the shadows.

And do note how the religious tenant went from 'eye for an eye' in the old Testament, to 'turn the other cheek' in the New, to 'Kill them all GAWD will know His own' once Christianity became State Religion. So I'd say just trying to use what Jesus said as the only part our people use... waaaay too many are waaaay too quick to quote 'eye for an eye' who attend a Christian Church ahhh religiously...

1) I don't see where you wrote that... And while it is true, many countries that are allied or friendly with the Western nations are using Sharia, most notably Saudi Arabia, that doesn't mean that we have to appreciate what that is on a personal level and adopt it in our own. Or even allow it to exist in any form in our world. Worldwide diplomacy is somewhat different than internal society, don't you think? You need to make dealings, on the world stage, with all sorts of people representing all sorts of countries.

2) I don't claim that we need to worship Judeo-Christian anything. I don't even get that term, Judeo-Christian. It is a void term in my perception. And people (I assume in the USA) can argue w/e they want. The reality of the situation is that while indeed, Christianity was the dominant religion and inspired the dominant culture of the USA and the west for a very long time, the foundation of the modern, secular countries are divorced from any relationship with any of the Christian churches except that of common respect and separation. Something that sharia law goes against. It is through the nature of Christianity that secularism was permitted to be born. No other (abrahamic) religion has proven capable of giving birth to this philosophy on governing, only Christianity. Judaism was unable to provide it. Islam could have never provided it.

3) Roe v Wade made it legal for birth controls legal, not mandatory. You can refuse to use them based on any principle you wish. Guns are also legal, but you aren't obligated to own one, you can refuse to own one based on any notion you wish to have. Free speech is also legal, but you can choose to be silent because of any reason. Same for that... just because something is legal, doesn't mean its mandatory.

4) Christianity is the New Testament. The Old testament is there to provide context... but Christians are Christian because of the New Testament and because of Jesus Christ. Christ--- Christian. Get it? No Christ? Not a Christian. The ones who adhere to the old testament are the jews. Ask any priest that knows his deal, what makes him a Christian, he will tell you: I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and his word as the truth. You don't have Jesus's words in the Old Testament, now do you?

And yes, you are correct about the abuses that organized religion can have. Which is why we here in the west have decided to stop obeying Church laws, regardless of which Church it is, and just adopt our own laws. The laws of mankind for mankind. It's called secularism and we like it. And while the people who have authority, now and in the distant past (as is the case for Christianity) always found ways to abuse it for their own benefit... well... even in todays' world where we have public education and a high literacy rate, people still get duped. 1000 years ago, when knowing how to read and write was a privilege most didn't have access to, it was more easy to dupe people into doing war based on anything.