Andrew Sullivan's Misogyny On Display. Again.

kosnomore@MyDD notes that "Andrew Sullivan Never fails To Disappoint":

Discussing lesbians who stuck with Hillary, and voted in lesser numbers for Obama than Kerry, Sullivan says "Maybe there was a particular lesbian bond with Clinton, which may have led some lesbians to pick McCain (they're susceptible to a little Alaskan boobage as well)."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/lgbt-gop-ctd.html#m%20ore

Wow.
Wow.
Can you imagine if a conservative referred to "a particular lesbian bond" with Hillary, with all implied by that sentence, or said lesbians voted for Palin's "boobage"? I somehow think they'd be tossed from Matthews' "panel of experts".

P.S. - Seriously, Sullivan writes that lesbians were inclined to vote for McCain because they like Palin's boobs, and he's invited on legitimate Sunday morning talk shows? That's THE most sexist thing I've read from an MSM talking head in years. Sullivan really has issues with women.

Sully has issues with anyone who disagrees with whatever position(s) he's taken at the moment. Always somehow winding up at the top of that list, women most frequently become the target of Andy's lame, misogynistic attempts at humor.

-AF

My Big Problem W/AFP's "Qatif Girl" Pardon Story

Apparently French news agency AFP story broke this story.


I take great exception with how AFP mischaracterized the US response to this woman's increased sentence:

The sentence against the 19-year-old girl had drawn criticism of the ultra-conservative Muslim kingdom from key ally President George W. Bush.

Nothing could be further from the truth (see Our Leader's Response to Saudi Rape Atrocity). Asked about his recent conversation with King Abdullah, Bush said "I don’t remember if that subject came up." Bush didn't have to broach the subject because Abdullah “knows our position loud and clear.” In other words: "I don't think I have to tell him what I think 'cuz I think he already knows what I think I think." So, in the absence of any sort of diplomacy are we to believe that Bush communicates with King Abdullah (and perhaps other heads of state) telepathically? Bush must have sensed that his comments didn't cut it. As he does with such alarming frequency, Bush veered sharply into the Strange. He turned the subject from the Saudi case to a creepy hypothetical situation involving one of the Bush daughters.

This "telepathic diplomacy" hasn't prevented the Bush Administration from trying to assume some credit for her "pardon." Per AFP (my emphasis in itlalics).

Casey said he was not aware of any specific US contacts with King Abdullah on the move, but added Washington had "made quite clear what our views were on this subject" through its embassy in Saudi Arabia and in its public statements.

In stark contrast to previous administrations, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice and Ambassador Fraker said little and did nothing to urge King Abdullah to address this blatant miscarriage of justice. A few weak "public statements" were made not by top Bush officials but rather through their surrogate spokespeople: Dana Perino and Tom Casey. Please. We, the American people, don't take them seriously. There's no reason to believe the King of Saudi Arabia does either.

AFP was lazy. They peddled a perception rather than the truth.

AF

Saudi King Pardons "Qatif girl" Gang Raped In Sectarian Hate Crime

Per French news agency AFP, Saudi King Abdullah has "pardoned" the 19 year-old Shiite woman AKA the Qatif girl who was brutally raped by 5 Sunni men.

I've discussed this case at length in my series Saudi Law Can't Punish Female Victims Too Harshly & Gay Sex Is OK As Long As It's Rape By Married Men Also Raping A Woman Parts I, II and III. Though this "pardon" may be the most transparent kind of PR ploy, a kind of justice has been served.

It's justice served late and begrudgingly. The only way this could happen is due to three extraordinarily courageous people: the woman, her husband and her lawyer. Each stood up to a strict patriarchal theocracy. This was without precedent amongst those strict fundamentalist Sharia-governed Muslim countries i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.

Unable to properly present his case in any way whatsoever, this woman's lawyer went public with details of this atrocity and her mistreatment at the hands of the Saudi Sharia courts. Most of the world was outraged. The Sunni judges retaliated. The court increased her punishment as well as that of her attackers. Still these rapists weren't punished to the fullest extent of the law. More AFP:

A rape conviction carries the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, but the court did not impose it due to the "lack of witnesses" and the "absence of confessions," the justice ministry said last month.

I guess the rapists' cell phone video didn't count.

That she had to be pardoned at all when she did nothing wrong begs the question: Will this have any effect on the Saudi's historically poor treatment of women or is this a one off? Could this be a kind of Tiananmen Square moment for Saudi women? I live in hope but I doubt it. The first key indication will be how she is regarded by other women her community. Will she be treated as one worthy of respect or as a pariah?

King Abdullah wants this story to disappear already. His government botched this case from the start and he knows it. Years will pass before we will know if this case has any long term impact on Saudi law or culture. Other than the extremely rare exception, the Saudi legal system is entirely self-reporting. We normally only know what the Saudis want us to know and when they want then want us to know it.

We'll be watching...

AF

Silence Emboldens

After the Saudi government punished the victim of a brutal rape, the Western world (sans the U.S.) expressed outrage. Rightly so. Muslims and non-Muslims alike should be outraged when a mindset inappropriate in the 14th Century rears it's ugly head in the 21st Century. But this is one of those situations in which real change can come only from within. Where exactly are those moderate Muslims we hear so much about? I know they are out there. Given recent slew of injustices committed by governments in the name of Islam, now would be a good time to speak up. Not a peep has been heard.

Feminist and former member of the Dutch Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali published an editorial in yesterday's NYT. She's also a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute -- that always raises screaming giant crismson flags with me. Neocon bona fides aside, Ali places a powerful call to Islam's Silent Moderates:

It is often said that Islam has been “hijacked” by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates. But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?

Exactly right. Sharia i.e. Islamic Law desperately needs to be brought out of the dark ages and into the new millennium. (There are powerful forces working to prevent such a thing but that is a topic for another time). She takes to task those Muslim groups "quick to defend any affront to the image of Islam." Yet these same groups stands mute in the face these multiple incidents that have "done more to damage the image of Islamic justice than a dozen cartoons."

Ali calls moderate Muslims on the carpet for their hypocrisy:

I wish there were more Islamic moderates. For example, I would welcome some guidance from that famous Muslim theologian of moderation, Tariq Ramadan. But when there is true suffering, real cruelty in the name of Islam, we hear, first, denial from all these organizations that are so concerned about Islam’s image. We hear that violence is not in the Koran, that Islam means peace, that this is a hijacking by extremists and a smear campaign and so on. But the evidence mounts up.

These groups are adept at misdirection and practiced at denial. It's one thing to claim you are a "moderate" Muslim. It's quite another to be a moderate Muslim. Ali's conclusion is cut-and-dried:

When a “moderate” Muslim’s sense of compassion and conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should choose compassion. Unless that happens much more widely, a moderate Islam will remain wishful thinking.

Read the whole thing here. Now.

AF

Our Leader's Response to Saudi Rape Atrocity

via Think Progress: King George speaks to King Abdullah about various things. The Saudi rape case? “I don’t remember if that subject came up.” But it doesn't matter if Bush broached the subject because Abdullah “knows our position loud and clear.” Our position? "And our opinions were expressed by Dana Perino from the pulpit — from the podium." Really? Perino's entire comment on the subject:

I think that the situation is very discouraging and outrageous. There is an appeals process and we hope that the verdict changes. It is certainly not consistent with the judicial reforms that the Saudis have said that they would undertake.

That is not an unambiguous condemnation of a Saudi government for persecuting a Shiite woman brutally raped by 5 Sunni men. It is not one head of state putting direct pressure on another head of state to force the recognition of basic human rights. Instead our President sent a surrogate up to the "pulpit" to say we hope you do better like you told us you would. Bush further diluted his message by his choice of messenger. You don't enlist a diminutive woman who doesn't even hold a cabinet position to deliver a missive to the King of a patriarchal society.

If this had been say Myanmar or Iran, Condi would be screaming bloody murder. But the House of Saud and the Bush family have long been uncomfortably close. And when it comes to Bush's loyal friends, no crime is too large to be ignored.

AF

Saudi Law: Can't Punish Female Victims Too Harshly & Gay Sex Is OK If It's Rape By Married Men Also Raping A Woman, Pt. 3

The first two parts of this series, here and here, document the extent to which the Saudi Sharia courts' strict interpretation of Islamic Law is blatantly punitively sexist and prejudicial. Like other countries under strict Islamic rule, Saudi courts treat women as half-citizens at best. Shiite women in a Sunni court system fare far worse. In this case, the judicial outcome was a particularly egregious parody of justice.

While presenting their case against 5 Sunni Saudi men who viciously gang raped a Shiite woman, Prosecutors were not permitted an opportunity to prove their case in court. Sunni judges refused to allow video of the crime (recorded on one rapist's cell phone) to be entered as evidence. This woman was not allowed to testify against her attackers in court. For good measure these judges charged her with "fornication" and then denied her request to defend herself against that charge. Because Saudi law can't punish female victims of sex crimes too harshly, she was convicted. Her Sunni rapists were charged with and convicted of only the least serious of their multiple offenses: kidnapping.

It's the crime not cited that exposes the hypocrisy and duplicity at the heart of the Saudi legal system (and therefore the entire Saudi government). The court turned a blind eye to, what was by this court’s own strict Sharia interpretation, the rapists' most "serious" crime of all: gay sex. Yep, these 5 married Sunni men weren't satisfied with sadistically brutalizing a Shiite woman. They also repeatedly raped her male Shiite blackmailer.

This is remarkable. Homosexuals are widely persecuted throughout Muslim world. Moderate Muslims who refer to homosexuality as a "mental illness" seem comparatively charitable until they force their sons to seek "medical help." Former Guardian Middle East Editor (2000-2007) Brad Whitaker is author of Unspeakable Love. Gay and Lesbian Life in the Middle East. His 2006 lecture "Sickness or Sin? Attitudes Towards Homosexuality in the Middle East" tells of a psychiatrist's attempt to "cure" a gay patient through aversion therapy:

The treatment involved showing pictures of men and women, and giving him electric shocks if he looked at the men.

This strategy was ultimately unsuccessful.

Even fictional depictions of homosexual acts can prove death defying. The NYT reports Paramount Pictures was compelled to delay the release of their big budget Kite Runner six weeks to ensure the safety of the child actors. The father of one of the boys feared as far back January that at the very least "people will come and arrest us and put us in jail." The Times spells it out:

They were feared to be vulnerable to reprisal because of the film’s depiction of a culturally inflammatory rape scene.

In the film as in the book one of the boys is bullied and raped by another boy. Homophobia is so endemic to Muslim culture that these young actors' lives were endangered by something that never happened!

Back in Saudi Arabia consensual gay sex is on the book as a capital crime. International protests have led the Saudis to recently publicize a few convicted gay citizens sentenced to lengthy prison terms in lieu of execution. Color me skeptical. The Saudi legal system is completely self-reporting making it impossible to determine how widespread this "leniency" is. Furthermore a US State Department report released earlier this year notes that organizers of a "gay beauty pageant" arrested over two years ago have yet to be sentenced. Their present fate is unknown.

In our highlighted case, 5 married Sunni men raped a Shiite man. It wasn't considered gay sex. It wasn't considered rape. It wasn't considered at all. Due to the Saudi court's selective application of justice, two capital crimes were utterly ignored. By virtue of it being a hate crime, this type of gay "sex" is tacitly approved. The monarchy's directive is unambiguous: Sunnis are free to commit unlimited sectarian violence against minority Shiites without fear of facing the most serious punishments. For members of Saudi Arabia's majority Sunni sect, membership clearly has its privileges.

My conclusion returns to my introduction and provides the title for this series. Saudi courts can't punish female victims too harshly. Gay sex is OK if as long as it's rape by married men also raping a woman.

I'm left struggling to comprehend how this society, which places righteousness and strict morality at the very foundation of their belief system, can consider itself just.

-AF
Si Fractus Fortus

Saudi Law: Can't Punish Female Victims Too Harshly & Gay Sex Is OK If It's Rape By Men Also Raping A Woman, Pt. 2

Before I return to the topic at hand, I want to make two points clear. Although organized religion does not work for me at all, I strongly believe in and very much admire genuine spirituality. I define "genuine" spirituality as that which places a powerful emphasis on tolerance, kindness, honesty, empathy, generosity and humility. I've read quite a bit on the subject. I have attended the services of many different faiths.

Islam sports a number of characteristics that impress me. The priority Islam places on fostering the community and the requisite discipline (perhaps best exemplified by the Salah or compulsory ritual daily prayers) are but two. Having lived for years in a Muslim-rich inner city neighborhood, I found Muslims to be excellent neighbors. I believe in my heart that most Muslims practice Islam is as a religion of peace. Unfortunately (and exactly analogous to fundamentalist Christianity), the fundamentalist form of Islam is a perversion of spirituality rife with intolerance and riddled with hypocrisy.

Few incidents have exposed this intolerance and hypocrisy more clearly than the case of an engaged to be married Shiite woman attacked, kidnapped and brutally gang raped by 5 Sunni men. This woman was thought to be "fair game" because they determined she had an "inappropriate" meeting with a man not related to her. (She has steadfastly maintained she was being blackmailed by this man. Her account best explains why she would ever take such a risk). Having deputized themselves in their own minds, these self-styled vigilantes appointed themselves judge and jury too. Her punishment was a fait accompli as was their role as her punishers.

These pigs later bragged about their heinous crimes confident her family would disown her. They expected her fiancé to break their engagement. They were certain they would escape prosecution because they were Sunni and their victims were Shiite. They depended on her shame and that of her family, at what they did to her, to end the story there. In fact, her brother did try to kill her. But it was her now-husband's response that was completely unanticipated. Upon learning of the atrocity committed upon his betrothed, her husband filed a complaint with the police. After an investigation, the case went to court.

The BBC makes clear the extent to which the burden of proof is skewed against women once a "sexual offense" reaches the Sharia legal system:

In Islamic law, both adultery and rape require four witnesses to be present at the "act". A woman's evidence is still only worth half of a man's, and in adultery cases she cannot be a witness at all.

It comes as no surprise that the Saudi rapists were not actually convicted of rape. They were convicted of the lesser charge of kidnapping supposedly because prosecutors could not prove rape. Per Human Rights Watch:

The judges reportedly ignored evidence from a mobile phone video in which the attackers recorded the assault.

Under Sharia law "unproved rape is fornication, punishable by stoning." Despite ample evidence to the contrary the married rapists also avoided being charged with "Zina" (adultery) which is also deemed "fornication." Evidently the Saudi courts give married Sunni men a free pass on "fornication" with a Shiite woman as long as that woman was in public and unaccompanied by a Sharia-required "guardian" i.e. a husband/male member of immediate family).

This is post is running longer far longer than expected. I'll wrap it up with Part 3 tomorrow.

AF
Si Fractus Fortis

Saudi Law: Can't Punish Female Victims Too Harshly + Gay Sex Is OK If It's Rape By Men Also Raping A Woman, Pt. 1

The Sunni Saudi court system has justifiably received world wide admonishment for sentencing the Shiite victim of a brutal, unbelievably sadistic gang rape to 90 lashes. (The Independent has the deeply disturbing story here). On Wednesday it was announced that her lawyer's successful appeal led to increased punishment for her Sunni rapists. The seven animals' original sentences ranging from 10 months to 5 years were boosted to run from 2 years to 9 years. At first glance the rapists' increased sentences could appear to be one in a series of small measures the Saudi government has taken lately to improve treatment of women under that country's strict interpretation of Sharia Law. It's not.

The body of Islamic Law, Sharia, is open to a variety of interpretations (and subject to selective application by the all-male judiciary). However three aspects appear almost universal:

1. Women who are raped are frequently punished more severely than their attackers.
2. Courts in those countries ruled by Sharia law are extremely charitable in their handling of men who commit violent crimes against women. This is especially true of sex crimes. A rapist's confession can been thrown out on a "technicality." That same "technicality " does not apply to the victim's case even if it would "prove" to "exonerate" the victim.
3. Minority Shiites cannot expect objectivity from a Sunni legal system and vice versa.
   

The Sunni Saudi judges, who have repeatedly retaliated against the Shiite victim, have increased her punishment to 200 lashes and 6 months in prison! CNN sheds light on a vindictive legal system that can't keep its stories straight:

The judges more than doubled the punishment for the victim because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."

The ministry has previously said the woman's punishment was increased after further evidence came to light against her when she appealed her original sentence.

In contrast, her story has remained consistent throughout. Not that this benefited her in anyway whatsoever. Her "trial" was worse than a farce. It was seized as an opportunity by Sunni males to heap abuse upon a Shiite woman who had been raped for what they perceived as her "crime": being raped.

Appearing in a closed courtroom, she was subjected to threats by her Sunni attackers and berated by one of the Sunni judges. Worst of all she found herself denied "any chance to prove her innocence or describe how she was a victim
of multiple brutal rapes." Having found himself unable to defend his client in court, her lawyer stepped up his efforts to get her story out. CNN:

Al-Lahim previously said the woman met the man at a shopping mall in order to retrieve an innocuous photograph from him. He has also said the man was blackmailing his client and forced her to have the meeting to save her engagement and avoid embarrassment.

The need to avoid embarrassment is a particularly powerful motivation in Arab culture. Taken in this context her story rings true. Understandably, most of our planet found it incomprehensible for her to be charged with any crime. Suddenly it's the Sunni Saudi
government that is embarrassed. They've responded by taking every opportunity to vilify this Shiite woman. The latest official Saudi government smear via CNN:

The woman had an "illegitimate relationship" with a man who was not her husband, and that both "exposed themselves to this heinous crime."

(I'm glad they cleared this up for me. I always have a problem getting passed the whole pursuit-of-happiness/don't-blame-the-victim/
innocent-until-proven-guilty/feminist frame of reference encoded within my DNA).

The victim's lawyer did not escape unscathed either. His clamor for justice may cost him dearly:

Judge Saad al-Muhanna fom the Qatif General Court also barred al-Lahim from defending his client and revoked his law license, al-Lahim said. The attorney has been ordered to attend a disciplinary hearing at the Ministry of Justice next month.

At this disciplinary hearing, Al-Lahim could be slapped with a three-year suspension or disbarment. Regardless of the final outcome, the court's numerous retaliatory actions in this case will have an incredibly chilling effect on any Saudi woman (and her lawyer) considering whether or not to seek justice after being victimized by a violent crime.

The Saudi court's shameful conduct in this trial goes far beyond their harassment and cruel treatment of the victim and her lawyer. Part 2 will look at the court's hypocrisy and duplicity in dealing with male perpetrators of violence against women.

AF

Ed.'s note: Call me oversensitive. I cringe at labeling anyone who has been raped as a "victim." It comes from knowing and loving too many people who have been sexually abused. They are amazing, resilient and strong folks. "Victim" appears an insult. Yet to say otherwise minimizes the terrible crime committed against them. That strikes me as far worse. Regardless of the crime, those upon whom criminals prey are called victims.

"So victims" it is.