Saudis Defend Punishment for Rape Victim

[Rose Siding]

Source: AP via LAT

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- The Saudi judiciary on Tuesday defended a court verdict that sentenced a 19-year-old victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes because she was with an unrelated male when they were attacked.

....the Ministry of Justice stood by the verdict Tuesday, saying that "charges were proven" against the woman for having been in a car with a man who was not her relative.

The ministry implied the victim's sentence was increased because she spoke out to the press. "For whoever has an objection on verdicts issued, the system allows an appeal without resorting to the media," said the statement, which was carried on the official Saudi Press Agency.
.....
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack avoided directly criticizing the Saudi judiciary over the case, but said the verdict "causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment.".....

Canada's minister for women's issues, Jose Verger, has called the sentence "barbaric."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top13nov21,0,2803445.story?coll=la-ap-topnews-headlines

[sharp_stick]

1. Ahhh, our allies in the mideast

My mother had an opportunity to go to Saudi Arabia to work as a nurse several years ago for a pile of cash. Very wisely she told them to go fuck themselves.

The Saudis pull this shit and the neocons claim they are still our buddies, kind of like the "democracy lovin" dictator in Pakistan. The fucking hypocrisy is smelling up the room but nobody in the media seems to notice the stench.

[Rose Siding]

3. Exactly like that...

"The Saudis pull this shit and the neocons claim they are still our buddies, kind of like the "democracy lovin" dictator in Pakistan."

Today: Musharraf visiting Saudi Arabia


In a signal that he believes his grip on power is secure, President Pervez Musharraf flew Tuesday to Saudi Arabia for meetings, his first absence from Pakistan since he imposed a state of emergency Nov. 3.

Also today:

"...President Bush telephoned King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to enlist his support for the conference, and in particular to try to get an agreement from him that the Saud family would be represented at the conference by Prince Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, administration officials said.

The presence of Prince Saud is seen as critical to assure a certain level of Arab commitment to the peace process."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/washington/21diplo.html

Tight little circle. Very ugly.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

21. As long as we are oil dependent, we need the Saudis.

There's no getting around it right now or any time in the near future. Still, what they did to that woman (and other women) is totally repugnant, unjust, discriminatory and just plain fucking sick.

[soothsayer]

2. I knew a gal thrown out of the army for being gay, which only came out during her

rape trial ("Ok, private so and so, you're all beaten up and battered, but how do we know this wasn't consensual sex?"). The rapist got punished, too (busted down in rank, maybe discharged), but so did she in essence.

[LibertarianAtheist]

11. Bit of a difference between what you're talking about and this

Firstly, I have serious doubts that "maybe" the rapist of your friend was discharged. He was definitely discharged. If for no reason other than the military's stupid rules about adultery. What is going on in Saudi Arabia is simply the continuation of over 1300 years of Islamic mistreatment of women (is one allowed to point out the historically misogynistc aspects of Islam?), though I will admit this is less severe than the Taliban's execution of female rape victims who couldn't provide the necessary four male witnesses to testify she'd been raped.

[northernsoul]

14. welcome aboard, LibertarianAtheist

As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to point out the historically misogynist aspects of any dogma. Feel free to join us over in the religion/theology forum, as well.

:evilgrin:

[happyslug]

23. The Male-Female Arabic relationship is much older than Islam

One of the older prays I know of goes this way:
"Give me the Courage to change the things I can"
"Give we the Strength to accept the things I can not" and
"Give me the Wisdom to know the difference".

When Mohammad formed Islam, he made several changes in Arabic law. For example he ruled you needed four Witnesses to convict a woman of Adultery, the Traditional rule had been you only needed one. This was radical change for the Arabs, and strengthen women's rights among Arabs, he dare NOT do more for the Arabs were not yet ready for such a change.

Woman's role in most herding communities are very limited. They are tied down with their children and as such restricted on contracts with non-female relatives. Males are as restricted, violence is a norm, much more than in farming communities. The reason for this is when it comes to herding communities you can lose all you own by the raid or attack by another group. The only way to prevent this is to be ready to commit violence yourself to protect your property. This is do to the fact, whatever is being herded can be moved quickly and easily, often before the rest of the tribe the herd is bring stolen from can react.

On the other hand, in farming communities, the crops take time to harvest and once harvested are hard to move. Thus, if attacks it is hard to move the crop (or hold onto the land till you harvest the crop) BEFORE the tribe whose crop you are stealing can collect together and push the raiders out.

Thus any dispute over ownership can be resolved by the community as a whole. Furthermore any short term dispute can be resolved later, by transferring the property from one person to another (i.e. a lawsuit). In herding groups, disputes between tribes are generally thrift of whatever is being herded, and once stolen easy to move.

This affects the position of women. In Farming Communities, women often work with the men to get the crop in, and are around when decisions are made as a group. Thus it is rare for Farming communities to make decisions independent of their women (The women may not officially have a role, but they are in the same town when such decisions are made, and talk together and with males about the same issues). Not to surprisingly Hunters and gathers also tend to give women as much rights as farming communities AND do to the need to have everyone involved in the Hunting and gathering tend give as much rights as women in Farming communities (I do this do to the fact men's and women's rights have NOT always been "Equal" even in these two types of Social groups).

On the other hand the extra violence of herding groups lead to a decline in women's position do to women's weaker muscle strength. Combined with the tendency to the men to work the herds to market (And to leave the women behind to take care of the whatever is left behind) leave the men to make decisions independents of women input.

A final factor is paternity. In almost every culture the law assumes any child born of a married women is her husband's. She does NOT have to prove this, it is up to him to prove it is NOT his. One way is adultery. IF she committed adultery, he can denounce any of her children as not his.

Even in the West, prior to 1800 (and to this day in most of the non-Western World), the extended family was much more important than you nuclear family. As marriage was more an agreement between two families to merge is regards to two couple who married, and accept any product of that marriage as being the duty of BOTH families. Since the main safety net was this extended family anything that attacked this safety net affected more than the two people who married each other, it affected BOTH OF THEIR EXTENDED FAMILIES. If the woman did adultery she could bring into her extended family another child, but a child NOT subject to the care of another family (i.e. NOT subject to support of her husband's extended family). Thus the not only the Father had a reason to reject the child, so did the mother's extended family (and thus she had no safety net to fall back on, which can be a death sentence in a society with NO other safety net).

The above problem of adultery and the greater tendency to violence herding societies are noted for, herding societies tend to keep women's rights to a minimum AND maximize her duties to her husband and extended family (Both her own and her husband's). You see this is the traditions of the Highlanders of Scotland (a Herding group), Southern Whites (Who tended to be descendent's from heading groups in Scotland, Ireland and Britain, while the North was settled by people whose ancestors tended to be Farmers from Southern England and other parts of Europe) and among the arabs. American Indians who tended to be farmers or Hunter/Gathers gave women more rights (Through the Plain Indians, who adopted the horse about 1700, saw a slow, but steady decline in Women's rights after the adoption of the horse AND the abandonment of farming as their reverted to hunting the buffalo (Through you can view the Plain Indians and the Buffalo as more like heading then traditional hunting).

Furthermore it can take decades for a society to change. The classic change is the American Plain Indians where the rights of Women decline from about 1700 onward. Plain Indians Women still had some rights in the late 1800s but no where near the rights their Farming cousins had at the same time. The same goes for the Arabs, changes take decades to work their way into a society, the four wittiness rules took a while to be adopted fully by the Arabs, but Mohammad did adopt it and for that reason increased the positions of most Arab women.

My point is that the problem in NOT Islam, but the fact until while into the 1970s most Arabs in Arabia were Bedouins who lived in the rural areas of Arabia grazing their sheep. This has changed, most Arabs even in Arabia live in Urban areas, but it has NOT be long enough for the old rules of the herding Bedouins to seen as no longer valid. Thus the problem is Cultural not religious in nature (Often it is hard to tell the difference, for people often adopt a religion that reflects their culture, but to understand a people and hopefully to change them to the better you MUST understand the difference). A good comparison can be made in the US, the North has been urban much longer then the South. The North when it was rural, was farming in Nature and their Rural population came from faming groups in Europe. Thus greater willingness to leave the Courts to decide things (and to leave women go if they want to go). The South was settled by people from heading groups from Ireland and Britain. Such groups prefer greater violence AND weaker position of women in their societies. The American Idea of the Cowboy came out of the American South (Influenced by Mexican Cowboys). The South was (and still is) much more rural then the North and its Urban areas are products of post-WWII development (With some exceptions such as New Orleans, but most growth in Southern Cities are Post-WWII even if the Cities themselves are much older). All of this explains why the South tend to be more Fundamentalist in outlook then the North including a weaker view of Woman's rights. No one is calling the South Islamic, but when it comes to culture the American South is more like Arabia then any other part of the Western World. This is a product of Southern Culture. The American South is Fundamentalist, NOT because the South believes in the Bible, but Fundamentalism reflects Southern Culture. Arabia is the same, its law reflects it Culture, its religion was adopted because it reflects that culture. Thus attacking the Religion is attacking a symptom, ineffective for the problem is NOT Arabia's Religion but its Culture.

[Honeycombe8]

34. Where do the belly dancers fit in?

Seriously....there was a time in the middle east that women were freer and had more rights. Women could earn a living, even by dancing suggestively practically naked in front of groups of men AND women.

Then enter radical Islam.

Yes, there is a history of nomadic herding communities...not just in hte middle east, but the world over. But the history of the middle east is NOT just herding communities. It is of a certain religion that permeated the area rather quickly. There ended the centers of great learning, being the leaders of the world, science and math and philosophy, and freedom. Think of Egypt BEFORE Islam and after. A stark difference.

[happyslug]

35. History is a record of people who could read and write.

And those tend to be male more than female even today. Prior to 1800 (1900 for areas outside Europe and North America) most people could not read and write (Literacy increased from about 1200 onward but majority of people did not learn to read and write till after 1900). This restricted our source of what happened in the past. In Islamic territories Reading and Writing increased after Mohammad (needed to be able to read the Koran) but declined after 1258 when the Mongols took Baghdad and the raise of the Ottoman Empire.

Remember prior to 1800 90% of people world wide lived in RURAL AREAS. This was higher outside Europe, which had the highest urban population. This restricted what EITHER sex can do, it was farming in a farming area, or herding in areas to dry for farming. This is what people did, you have to eat.

It was rare for people to move more than miles in their life (you did have people move clear across the world, but these were exceptions NOT the rule). Movement of Goods were harder, if you were on the Coast, movement of goods were relativity easy, but inland it was harder and harder. Europe became the center of the world for it had the largest Coastline in the world and as such had the lowest costs of transportation. The rest of the world had less coastline do to the fact the other continents are larger, but more compact. This makes transportation harder, especially of Goods. This restricted how people can trade and interact. Rivers are a major exception to this rule, for the River acts as a roads, rivers keep people together, forcing them to think as one people and thus one culture. This restricts what people can do, more than any religious restrictions.

For example, several Historians have pointed out that they seems to have been NO CHANGE in how Rural Egyptians have lived since the time of the Pharaohs. The reason is the need to re-divide the River Valley after each year's flood (Which only ended with the building of the Aswan High Dam in the 1960s). Do to this need for constant re-division of the land Egypt has ALWAYS had some sort of bureaucrat to do such re-division. During the times of the Pharaoh this was done by the Temple Priests, this lasted till Egypt turn Christian around 400 AD. Christian Priests did the re-division each year till long after the the Arab Conquest (It is believed Egypt was more Christian than Islamic till the end of the Crusades when the Rulers of Egypt re-trained the Islamic religious leaders to perform the job of land division and Egypt started to become majority Islamic).

As to women's rights, it increased in most Islamic countries, until about the 1600s. Women had a place, but in rural agricultural areas women HAD to work with men, and that cultural restriction prevented widespread suppression of Women's rights. This change in the 1600s as the Turks (who had been the main force for Islam since about 900 AD, at first the Seljeks and than after about 1300 the Ottomans) started to decline. The Ottomans covered this up using Islam, but Islam as part of the overall Turkish culture. No Ottoman Sultan ever technically married, their harems were made up of what we would call Mistresses (Concubines) as opposed to wives. Wives had rights, and no Moslem could have more than Four at any one time, the Turkish Sultan could have hundreds of Concubines and since they claim to be Caliphs in addition to being Sultans, they ruled what they were doing was Islamic (Even through most Islamics rejected this view AND the fact that the Sultan was also the Caliph, The Shiites have NOT agreed on the Caliph since the death of Mohammad Son-in-law, the Sunnis have not agreed on a Caliph since the taking of Baghdad in 1258 AD). The dancing of women in front of Men and Women was from this time post-1600 period, as real rights of women declined. The dancing was part of the decline, Women competing with each other based on their attractiveness to men, as opposed to what they can do themselves.

It is this decline that caught people's idea of "Islamic world", the belly dancer were always a sub-topic of this idealized story, the Arabic Horse Races, all decadent by 18th Century Puritan outlook. As more and more people learned to read after 1800, these stories expanded. Movies of the 20th century expanded this idea. The truth was otherwise, but that was not marketable. Even today, Turkey was "Secularized" in 1924, and while women rights were technically expanded, in reality women no longer had to wear long dresses and keep their faces covered, but children still went to Fathers not Mothers in custody disputes, Adultery was still only a crime a female could do and her property was her husbands to do with as he saw fit. This was true under Islam, and pre-Islam. Most of what is view as Anti-Women in Islam, predates Islam and is independent of Islam. Some of this anti-women view was incorporated into Islam (as similar anti-women view was incorporated into Christianity and even Communism under Stalin and his successors). These were things Mohammad did not think could be changed.

For example, Mohammad's First Wife, and the Mother of ALL of his children, was at first his EMPLOYER and he accepted that role, it is believed she proposed to him and he viewed her as his partner in his business. When he saw his vision she was his first convert, but she retained the rights to her own property to her death, something Mohammad accepted as her RIGHT. Of his children only his Daughter Fatima had Children (To her Husband Ali), anyone who claims decent from Mohammad does it through Fatima and Ali. This is a Big factor among Shiites, less a factor among Sunnis. This reflects Mohammad's and Mohammad's First Wife role as business partners in their home town. This continues till this day, but one of the reason Mohammad's First Wife married him, was she was restricted on who she could deal with based on the then existing cultural norms. Both of them accepted these norms. These norms had existed in Arabia for Millennia before Islam, and exist to this day (In fact Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries were woman can NOT drive, even in radical Iran, women can drive and hold office, again a result of the Iranian Culture, which has never been as anti-Women as the Arabs).

My point is the problem is not Islam, but people who want to use it (like people have used other theology, like Christianity, Buddhism, Social Darwinism and even Communism) to advance their own agenda. It is less the Theology then the people who want results who then use a theology that they can use to get that result. You can say this about "Radical" anything, Islam, Social Darwinism, Communism etc. The issue is NOT Theology, but People.

[LibertarianAtheist]

41. the problem is Islam

I'm sorry, I have trouble believing that stonings for adultery, executions for being the victim of rape, and female genital mutilation are not problems that come from the teachings of Islam. I suspect your counter-argument would be "well the people who use Islam are enforcing this," or something along those lines so let me pre-emptively strike that with this: the fact that these and other hideousnesses could be interpreted as appropriate based on the fundamental teachings of the religion shows a problem from the religion itself. When the Catholics preached that Jews had blood on their hands for the crime of deicide and the Jews were treated as second class citizens worthy of torture within Catholic Europe that made the problem Catholicism, not simply the problem with the Pope or Ferdinand and Isabella.

[gtar100]

47. It may be that our religions are a result, not a cause

If I understand what happyslug is saying, it leads me to the idea that our religions are born out of culture and are sort of a distillation of beliefs, culture, codes of conduct, and moralistic laws that existed even before the religion. Religion is a result and then becomes a cause for justification of actions when put into practice. This, despite the story of them coming "from God".

So I would agree that the problem is the religion because it perpetuates these horrific practices. At the same time, it calls into question what we are and what we do as groups of people simply out of the necessity to live. Individuals can transcend these barbaric practices and renounce them. But in all practicality, it would take a different belief system centered around developed cultural practices to change people en mass.

How much better it would be that these beliefs were based on deep respect of individual rights of both men and women along with a profound sense of responsibility we should all share for each other (ie, providing a social safety net, providing education, etc...).

Islam needs to be reformed from within in order to end the barbaric practices you list and this will only happen, I believe, if there is a cultural model that actually demonstrates a better way and unequivocally proves to be beneficial for the people as a whole. American Muslims I think could play a significant role in this if freedom of religion and personal liberties are upheld here.

[Honeycombe8]

45. I didn't read your whole post (too long). But I take it the upshot is...

that Islam is not the problem, people are. True enough. Like guns. "Guns don't kill people....people kill people." Correct?

True enough.

But I'm not so sure that Islam isn't a big part of the problem.

As I said...look at the remnants of Egypt before Islam, and look at its accomplishments afterwards. A stark difference. Before the religion permeated the region, Egypt was a leader in the world as to science, art, and learning in general. Heiroglyphics. Even the world's oldest dog breeds, perhaps. Egypt had a female pharoah. (Yes, modern historians seem to think she was unpopular because she was female, but I would point out that there is no evidence of this. She was pretty much wiped out...her images and so forth...but I wonder if it had more to do with the fact that she seized power from her young charge, a male child, who wiped her image out when he grew up and regained power.)

Iraq was the home of the first city in the world. Can you imagine the Islamists in the region creating the first city in the world now? Where in Afghanistan they'd rather sacrifice the production of half the country (females) than create cities of learning and creativity. Where they had schools that taught only males, and then primarily religion was taught, peppered with statements of hatred for non-Islamists (and females). Where the males must die as martyrs to get the sex that they want.

No, I tend to think that the religion itself plays an integral part. Like any cult....it's the stupid people who should be held accountable for their actions. But that doesn't mean the cult had nothing to do with it.

[LibertarianAtheist]

40. You see anti-liberalism in "moderate" Islam as well radical

How about the Council on American Islamic Relations trying to stifle any free speech that they find distasteful (look at their campaigns to stop Robert Spencer, who is an idiot but idiocy doesn't mean he can't be stupid, from ever giving a speech), and crying Islamophobia whenever anyone dare point out that Islam is about as progressive in thought as medieval Catholicism. It's similar to how some members of the Jewish community call anyone who dares criticize Israel a rabid anti-semite.

Islam is as legitimate a target as Christianity regardless of their minority status.

[gtar100]

46. Fascinating observations

Many thanks for posting this. Much to ponder.

[acmavm]

4. Yeah Sean, make sure you don't upset bush**s second family

why don't ya? Just because the Saudi's are barbarian backwards buffoons why upset the apple cart by calling them on their shit?

Hey, if I had my way we'd develop a reliabe, clean, efficient alternative fuel and tell the Saudis to fuck off.

[balantz]

5. "causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment."

What an impotent remark!

[Danger Mouse]

6. So, barbarism is okay as long as our 'ally' does it?

Disgusting pigs. 'A fair agree of surprise and astonishment'? :puke:

[sasquatch]

7. We should've invaded those fucks on September 13, 2001

[heliarc]

13. Taliban were just as bad or worse nt

[ohio2007]

32. Taliban were funded by private Saudi citizens and the

ISI from Pakistan

[ohio2007]

31. The world's addiction to oil wouldn't allow that.

We should have told them to open their country and allow "the foriegners" doing all the labor for them to be allowed to practice their own religion in the open.

[Sam Ervin jret]

8. The "surprise and astonishment" is that we as humans are not DISGUSTED, MORTIFIED, AND UTTERLY

HUMILIATED THAT WE AS PEOPLE, AS A SPECIES HAVE NOT DEVELOPED MORALLY, SPIRITUALLY, ETHICALLY, EMOTIONALLY AND CULTURALLY beyond the point where such a thing as this were even possible.

[gratuitous]

9. Well, it's nice to know that our representatives are surprised and astonished

Not, of course, that they're going to do anything about it, but surprised they are, you can bank on that. By the way, the man-not-the-woman's-relative who was in the car? Gang-raped, too.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Bush** and the Fundies are Surprised and Astonished…

…that they didn't think of doing something like that to put women back in "their place".

[leftynyc]

28. Not surprised or astonished enough

To call off an arms sale I'm sure. Musn't let anything upset our weapon making companies.

[nebula]

12. There are no words...

barely surviving a brutal gang-rape, only to be jailed and beaten within
an inch of your life by your own government. Jesus Christ.

[LeftishBrit]

15. What absolutely evil bastards!

[KamaAina]

16. I cannot believe I just read that

it literally took me a second or so to process that: "punishment... rape victim."

Make no mistake. This is the direction we'd be heading under a Christian* theocracy. See Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" for details. :scared:

edit: spelling

[leftynyc]

29. As I don't think we have ANYchance

of becomming a theocracy - we have a constitution for that, I'm not worried at all about this. Our fundies are annoyingly loud but really only constitute a small number in comparison.
The Handmaid's Tail scared the shit out of me (great book, horrid movie), I think it's an unreasonable fear.

This case is a state sponsored punishment based on Sharia law - an immediate threat to all the women in Saudi
Arabia and any other country that allows Sharia law to flourish. It's barbaric and I wont minimize it just because Pat Robertson is an asshole. There is simply no comparison.

[sendero]

17. I wonder what the punishment was..

.. for the unrelated man she was with?

I thought so.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

19. He probably got

an award.

[barb162]

20. He got jail, a few years ,along with the other rapists n/t

[LynnTheDem]

22. That kind of behaviour is OK.

As long as it's bush cartel's buddies being barbaric.

[EFerrari]

24. And State didn't do squat. They're just as disgusting. n/t

[hayu_lol]

25. Ray Taliaferro on KGO San Francisco is really raving about this one...

http://www.kgo.com

right now(2am pacific time). His callers are a mixed bag and some are really strange.

Wasn't too long ago that a girl in Pakistan was walking home from another village in the company of an unrelated male. The tribal chief decided that she needed to be punished for that. He ordered several of the men to rape her to teach her a lesson.

Stone Age religion.

The entire civilized world should be demanding this victim's release without punishment. Perhaps, since the Soudis are so quick to cut the hands off thieves, they should do a 'Bobbitt' on the perps. Might make some of those crazies think a bit.

Only different by a small degree from what happened to our own Suffregettes when they demanded emancipation and the vote...just about 100 years ago.

Our fundies, judging from the calls that Ray is getting, are not so different from the followers of Islam.

[hayu_lol]

26. Update just breaking...

Bush will not speak out in criticism of this crime against a victim...just released by ABC(kgo).

[leftynyc]

30. I have to ask - ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Did he actually state that he had no comment on this? All of a sudden, I feel like swearing like a sailor (sorry to you sailors out there - it's just an expression).

[saigon68]

27. the verdict "causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment.".....

Well that's OK Bandar Bush is getting some french lessons from the Prostitutes on the Riviera

Double standard capitalist criminals in robes with fan belts on their heads

This group of thugs is worse than the Do it yourself pilots on 9-11

[Honeycombe8]

33. Bush's family friends. I'm sure they're proud. But, hey, as long as the oil still flows....nt

[SyntaxError]

36. Kind of like what we did to the woman in the Duke rape case.

[ohio2007]

37. .... give her free tuition to a college in the area ?

Wonder if she is taking advantage of what Jesse J set her up with

[Seabiscuit]

38. Islamic law was "barbaric" way back in its infancy. Nothing's changed.

And those who subscribe to it are actually deluded enough to imagine some god named "Allah" actually approves of it?

[ohio2007]

39. Try not to get arrested in Egypt

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a465e5506f
the internet is a strong dose of reality best left unchecked


...kinda makes you relize why so many nations need to control the internet

[clyrc]

42. I screamed at the television when I saw McCormack talking

I just couldn't help it. I took a break from a happy, busy day of cooking, but I went back to the kitchen in tears. I'm disgusted, both by Saudi Arabia and the US's failure to strongly denounce the verdict.

[NuttyFluffers]

43. oh dear, that was expected...

well, if we really want the best for her we should probably be quiet about this and let the backroom dealing go on. they might lessen it by getting a lenient whipper or doing this a bit less publicly. or somehow sneak her out of the country... but that will never happen. Saudi is pretty ingenious in getting what it wants, and any state would be stupid (but completely moral!) to get involved in this offering asylum.

now if you want to do something best for the women of Saudi you'd probably do best pushing our gov't to get off of oil and changing your energy usage/needs. Saudi will only change in their own time and any of our meddling in their affairs will only make them harsher. sort of like the inverse of when you are with a friend and you're in trouble with your parents; they have to make a show of discipline in front of strangers and cannot abide interference from outsiders.

saddened, but not in the least surprised. chin up folks, there's little positive things you can do to help make a better world. and maybe one day things like this will occur less!
:D

[JI7]

44. there is nothing surprising about this