What would your great-great etc. ancestors say about this post of yours?
Considering at whom it was directed, the despicable statements which perhaps you have not read and should, they would applaud it. I did not commence this line of discussion, but I am now ending it.
HG, I don't put many people on ignore but you are now on that list.
O.A.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As for the few apologists of gross human rights violations by Saudi Arabia, perhaps you would wish to counter the following? From Amnesty International:
The lashes were administered in a room with three mutawa'een sitting at a table. I was made to lean over a chair fully clothed with my abaya. This was a special room in the prison.
''Beforehand, I had to queue up in an adjoining room. We were not supposed to look but occasionally peeked at what was going on. In any event, I could hear what was happening. I noticed that if women squirmed or moved, the lashes became more intense. Being made to listen made the procedure all the more traumatic.''
web.amnesty.org\SAUDI+ARABIA
SAUDI ARABIA:
GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AGAINST WOMEN
...2. Arbitrary arrest and torture of women by the state authorities
Arbitrary arrest and detention
Everyone is entitled to liberty of the person, as provided by Article 3 of the UDHR. The essential corollary to liberty of the person is protection against arbitrary or unlawful detention, as provided by Article 9 of the UDHR. This is echoed in the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia, although in a qualified form. Article 36 provides that:
The state ensures the security of all citizens and residents. No one has the right to restrict, arrest or imprison anyone except under the rules of the system.
Since the ''rules of the system'' appear to allow arrest in almost limitless situations, this in effect provides little protection from arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Moreover, the Statute of Principles of Arrest, Temporary Confinement and Preventive Detention (SPAD) gives law enforcement officials almost unlimited latitude to arrest people.31
Saudi Arabian law places many constraints on the freedom of movement of women (see Chapter 1). Linked to this are many circumstances in which women are deprived of their liberty arbitrarily. Amnesty International is concerned not only about the latitude given to law enforcement officials to arrest and detain women for vaguely defined criminal offences, but is also alarmed by accounts of women being deprived of their liberty for having run away from abusive employers.
The religious police, the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, usually known as al-Mutawa'een, are mandated to ensure strict adherence to established codes of moral conduct. They are known for being brutal — for example, beating people who do not pray at the required time. They also have more latitude to arrest and detain women than men because there are more constraints placed on the behaviour of women, and therefore more potential for offending behaviour. For example, women are vulnerable to being stopped, beaten and detained for infractions of the rules relating to dress, such as showing ankles or the face.
The case of Margaret Madil, a Canadian nurse, illustrates the vagueness of the remit of al-Mutawa'een — and the broad circumstances in which they are able to chastise and arrest women. It also shows the risks women face of being arbitrarily detained when there is no suggestion that they have committed a recognizably criminal offence:
''In April 1993 I went shopping in the Kuwaiti Souq in Riyadh, together with my colleague, Rowena. We were both wearing abayas and had covered our heads but not our faces.
''It was a very hot day and, as a result, we bought some orange juice to drink. It was not Ramadan, and accordingly, there was no reason why we should not drink orange juice. As we were leaving the souq, and approaching our awaiting taxi, a van pulled up, full of mutawa'een, accompanied by two police officers. The mutawa'een shouted at us. They kept telling us to cover our faces. They asked for our iqama (residency documents)... I handed in mine and then asked for it back... I was told abruptly to ''shut up''.
''Rowena and I started to scream; we were surrounded by men shouting at us. The taxi driver was made to take us (with a mutawa' sitting in the front) to a walled compound. The temperature was over 100 degrees [38 degrees Celsius] and we were kept locked in the car for about four hours.
''We were asked to sign a piece of paper in Arabic. I instinctively did not want to do that. We were not allowed to telephone our hospital, or indeed our embassy. There was a big stand-off about the signing of the document in Arabic. Finally, I signed, but put at the bottom that I had no idea whatsoever what it was that I had signed, as I did not understand Arabic. When this was translated to one of the mutawa'een, he seemed to get very angry.
''At one stage, when Rowena and I refused to get out of the taxi... the mutawa'een came and rocked the car and pounded it. They were reaching inside the car and were trying to slap us. Rowena and I were clutching at each other, thinking that we would be killed. Rowena sustained a black eye in the process. We became hysterical.
''We were taken... to Malaz prison — the women's section... We were strip-searched, which I found humiliating. We were put in a cell... We stayed in this place for two days [before being released]. We were not allowed to make any telephone calls, although we would repeatedly ask to do so.
''After several weeks, the security department in the hospital said that charges had been dropped. I asked what the charges had been. We were asked to sign something. I refused to sign it. It turned out that it was an apology for un-Islamic behaviour.''
Farzana Kauzar, a Pakistan national, was detained for 10 months, together with her three children. There was no allegation that she had committed any offence. Her detention appeared to have been related solely to a bid by the Saudi Arabian authorities to force her husband to return from Pakistan to settle a commercial dispute between his employer and a high-ranking Saudi Arabian citizen.
''My ordeal started... on 8 October 1997 when I heard first two, then several more men enter my drawing room while I was in the bathroom. The men talked loudly, then one came into the bedroom. I asked who he was and was told, ''I am a general of police'', but he did not show any identification paper or reveal his name. The manager of the apartment block came in and confirmed to me that these were police officers looking for my husband. I told them that he was in Pakistan but they did not believe me. In the midst of this my husband rang from Pakistan; my eldest son picked up the phone but when he tried to hand the receiver to me, one of the policemen in the room took it from him and put it down.
''The police officers took my money and jewellery away, then took me and the three children in a car to a detention centre in an unmarked office building in the centre of the city. There I was repeatedly questioned about my husband's whereabouts and told them again and again that he was in Pakistan to attend to his sick father.
''There was one attempt to intimidate us when, about six months after our arrest, I was told by the police they could cut my throat and send the children back to Pakistan if we did not cooperate... I did not dare sleep deeply as I was afraid the children might be taken away.
''One morning after almost 10 months in detention, I was taken to the office to sign a statement that my treatment had been adequate; the officer present at the time was the police general who had arrested us. He said that he knew I was innocent and promised they would take me to a judge if I cooperated. I was then taken to a judge in an office in a cargo-hall-like building, where heaps of packages and cargo were lying around; there I was asked to sign a paper in Arabic. The paper said that I was permitted to go with my children to Pakistan for 40 days to persuade my husband to surrender to the Saudi police.''
Neither Margaret nor Farzana, or indeed any of the runaway domestic workers interviewed by Amnesty International who were held in detention centres, has ever been given any legal assistance or opportunity to formally challenge their detention, as required by international law.
Women who have suffered abuse in the private sphere are often at risk of arbitrary detention. This is particularly the case for runaway domestic workers who are routinely held in detention centres. Domestic workers are obliged to stay in them for weeks or months while their employers complete the necessary paperwork for them to leave. |
