The recent verdict handed down by a Saudi appeal court, confirming a verdict by the Qatif General Court, and increasing the sentence of a young Saudi woman to 200 lashes and six months in prison, has caused outrage among many Saudis. It has also drawn the attention of Western media, already ill-disposed toward Saudi Arabia. Both the case and the reporting are troubling in different ways.
The facts of the case, as best I can determine, are as follow:
• A young woman, then 18, was in a car, in the parking lot of a mall, with an unrelated male. She was seeking the return of photographs of her that were in the older man’s possession. Just what sort of photos and how he came to have them have not been clearly described, but it appears that she had given him the pictures when she was 16. While the exchange was taking place, they were set upon by a group of seven young Saudi males.
• The males proceeded to rape the girl and her male companion.
• Just how the police were brought in is unclear.
• A trial was held that joined (confounded) two criminal acts: 1) the rape and 2) the girl’s being with an unrelated male.
• The Qatif General Court found against both parties for their crimes, sentencing the rapists to jail terms of between 10 months and 5 years and the Girl to 90 lashes.
• The Girl appealed the sentences given to her rapists as too lenient.
• An appeals court agreed, essentially doubling the sentences of the rapists. Stunningly, they also increased the sentence on the Girl to 200 lashes and six months’ imprisonment.
There are several things that are very wrong—in my view—with this entire case.
First, the two separate crimes—each with its own culprit, each with its own victim—should not have been tried before the same court. Because they were, the Court was able to causally link the girl’s misbehavior (being with an unrelated male) to the rapes, at least in the judges’ minds. This led to unclear reporting (and intentional misreporting in some media) that the girl was being punished for being raped.
Second, Saudi courts are, by definition, religious courts: they take the Quran, Hadith, and Sunna as the sole sources of law. This verdict seriously damages claims that God is merciful. Most people in the world would consider that being gang-raped was more than sufficient punishment for nearly any crime. To punish the victim in addition to that mental and physical punishment already imposed by the rape, for what is essentially a crime against social and religious norms, seems excessive to the point of brutality.
Third, the punishments allotted the rapists, even the enhanced version, seem far too light. Rape is often considered a capital crime in the Kingdom. That the gang-rape included not only the Girl, but also her male companion, would seem to call for extremely serious penalties. [I don't believe in the death penalty, so I'm not going that far.]
That the rapists are getting off so easily makes it very easy to suspect that sectarian differences played a role in the judges’ decision. The girl was Shi’a; her attackers, Sunni (her male companion’s sect is unstated, but likely to be Shi’a as well).
Saudi media has not seized upon this story, largely because of the OPEC now being held in Riyadh, I suspect. But it’s not ignoring it, either. Arab News runs this story by Ebtihal Mubarak:
Gang-Rape Victim Vows to Fight On
Ebtihal Mubarak, Arab NewsJEDDAH, 18 November 2007 — Upset with a sentence of 200 lashes and six months in prison, the 19-year-old Saudi gang-rape victim known as “Qatif Girl†is appealing the verdict even as the judge in the case said her sentence could be increased as a result, the woman’s husband told Arab News yesterday.
The woman is charged with being in the company of an unrelated man shortly before she and her companion were brutally gang-raped by seven men, all of whom have been found guilty and sentenced to between two and nine years in prison with lashes for the crime.
In the absence of her lawyer, whose license to practice law was recently revoked by the Qatif General Court, the young woman agreed to fight the verdict.
“She was very determined and strong facing the harsh ruling. Even I was surprised,†said the victim’s husband, whose name is being withheld to protect the woman’s identity.
The husband said the judge warned that if the defendant lost her appeal her sentence could be increased.
…
Saudi bloggers have yet to put up much material. They tell me that they are so angry at the verdict that they want to pause before writing to avoid getting themselves in trouble. Some have posted, as ‘The Sandcrawler: Saudi Jawa’ (The Holy Saudi Cows) and ‘Saudi Jeans’ (Justice and Common Sense). I’ll be watching for other comment and commentary.
The Association for the Protection of Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia has taken up the banner for this case. It is calling for the government to establish codified laws on rape—and prefers that the punishments be strict. It also compliments the victim’s husband for standing behind his wife in her ordeal. It further condemns the court’s barring of the Girl’s defense attorney as an affront to legal process. I agree with them on all points.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
November:18:2007 - 12:43
what do u expect…. she is a shi’a woman … that country doesnot respct shi’a believe’s & it treats them in a bad way… Also, she’s a woman in Saudi arabia that mean’s ur nothing. U’re always wrong and the Man is always right… They probably said that the whole thing was her Fault
November:18:2007 - 13:40
They tell me that they are so angry at the verdict that they want to pause before writing to avoid getting themselves in trouble.
No Martin Luthers there. Erasmus remained calm, but never did make any major changes that way…
November:18:2007 - 14:13
I don’t think I wrote: “They’ve decided to keep their mouths shut.” What I meant to convey was that they wanted to write coherently.
November:18:2007 - 14:37
Outrage in the Kingdom
John Burgess notes fallout in Saudi Arabia regarding the horrendous case.
November:18:2007 - 15:00
[...] in which a female rape victim has been “sentenced” for her “crime” (see here for a more precise explanation of what really happened) is already is already well known on the Web. [...]
November:19:2007 - 02:39
Hi John,
I wrote a story about this in the New York Times on Friday (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeast/16saudi.html?ref=world)and was quoted in The Guardian on Saturday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,,2212583,00.html)saying that I thought at least some of the more conservative Saudis would agree with Qatif girl getting lashed for being alone with an unrelated male.
I talked to Ebtihal about the case and she told me that Qatif girl did not report her multiple rape until four months after it happened probably due to shock and shame. This is perhaps why her rapists are getting relatively lenient sentences.
Also, everyone I’ve talked to has denied that the rapists were Sunni and the victims Shiite. According to these sources all involved were Shiite. I don’t know how this sectarian twist got added to the story, but I first say it in an AFP story on the case.
November:19:2007 - 04:18
I just want to make a clarification on your comments:
The Qatif Girl did not appeal the verdict until Saturday. Any appeal is referred to the Saudi Court of Cassation. This is what’s happening now.
What happened, as far as I can tell:
- Qatif Court gave 1st sentences to girl and the rapists (and let’s not forget that her companion who was also raped was also sentenced);
- Qatif Girl’s LAWYER (Al-Lahem) asks the Higher Court (the Saudi “Supreme Court”) to review the Qatif Court’s ruling on the basis that the rapists were given lenient sentences;
- The Higher Court orders a re-trial in the Qatif Court;
- Qatif Court re-tries the case, increases sentences for all, and revokes Al-Lahem’s license to practice law;
- On Saturday, Qatif Girl requests an appeal to the Court of Cassation;
- The appeal is expected to be filed by next Saturday followed by a 2-3 week trial; and
- Her companion, fearing another increase in his sentence, declines to appeal.
November:19:2007 - 09:13
And now I must also clarify the above:
In fact, the Higher Court of Justice did rule and did issue sterner sentences. Amazing that Arab News is right on this while the reast of the media world is wrong (they all say the Qatif Court issues both rulings).
This is relevant because nobody in the foreign media seems to be doing a decent job explaining just how this judicial process took place.
The rest of my comments above are correct. The appeals process begins now at the Court of Cassation. Before that, al-Lahem has petitioned the Higher Court to review the lower court’s ruling.
This stuff is confusing, but interesting to watch.
November:22:2007 - 06:01
yet again its proven beyond doubt …..in the land of islam , the holiest place for islamic beliefs …. you cannot ask for justice … for their thinking is still lingering in the stone age …what a sham ??????
November:22:2007 - 08:13
I’d reserve that judgment until after the justice system has completed its run. There are several layers of appeals ahead.
November:22:2007 - 12:32
May I make two comments on the para above: “Second, Saudi courts are, by definition, religious courts: they take the Quran, Hadith, and Sunna as the sole sources of law. This verdict seriously damages claims that God is merciful.”
First, what humans do have no bearing on God’s mercy. This is true of any religion. It only shows what humans are capable of doing.
Second, it is true that “Saudi courts are, by definition, religious courts: they take the Quran, Hadith, and Sunna as the sole sources of law.” However, the way they interpret it makes it, often, pure Saudi law, which may be quite different from what the law would be in another Muslim country also applying the Quran, Hadith and Sunna as its sole sources of law.
So, it would be appropriate to distinguish between religion and what people do, in terms of law, whether in Saudi Arabia or in other countries.
November:22:2007 - 13:07
I do make those distinctions. It’s Saudi courts that seem unable to do so, as you note. Disentangling tradition and culture from religion is a formidable task.
November:22:2007 - 23:51
I carried a blog “Attrocities against Women” after reading the news about this gory sentence … more than 95%, who read my blog, polled that they were aghast with the strange nature of justice system prevailing in Saudi Arabia.
I believe such primitive laws should be changed and women in the 21st century should be given the dignity and liberty at par with men.
November:23:2007 - 08:31
I think most reading this blog agree that the laws need to be changed. What we think, however, is immaterial. What counts is what the Saudis think.
Luckily, this verdict has shocked most Saudis.
December:04:2007 - 05:16
There should be an obligation on the world as a whole not to stand idly by whilst such atrocities are carried out. Countries so savage and primitive should not be allowed to carry on with their systematic violation of human rights. Their government should be disbanded, imprisoned, exiled or shot and the country placed under emergency ruling by an independent body. The same happened to my country. When Hitler engulfed the world with war and tried to wipe out an entire people he was stopped. It is only a shame it took so long and cost so many lives. The world has learned nothing from this. Sadly the UN is totally useless and a sham. The USA only cares for oil and certainly needs a warning shot across the bow themselves. The world needs a governing body that has the power to step in anywhere and prevent savage, primitive people from walking all over human rights. Just calling it “tradition” and “religion” is no excuse ever for injustice, torture and murder.
I don’t care for “Eastern”, “Western” and other tags that people need as crutches to distinguish between groups of people. I don’t care about religion, state ideologies or the decor in the governing buildings. Such concepts are primitive and only detract from the true fact: There are only people and there’s only right and wrong. Most people are not yet ready for this and have to hold on to their archaic notions of “my god is bigger than yours” and other made up superstitions.