Posted on 05/18/2010 4:11:57 PM PDT by BlackVeil
An 18-year-old Emirati woman has been charged with having sex outside of wedlock after reporting that she was raped by six men, Abu Dhabi’s Criminal Court was told yesterday.
The men, only two of whom were in court yesterday, are charged with raping LH in the back seat of one of the defendant’s vehicles. Both men pleaded not guilty, while L H, who has been taken into custody, also pleaded not guilty to the charges against her.
The woman and one of her male Emirati friends, HA, went for a drive in his vehicle on May 2, prosecutors said. The charges allege that because she had agreed to be in the car, the two had, therefore, met to have sex. According to court records, HA, 19, called five of his friends – four Emiratis and one Iraqi – and invited them to join him.
Prosecutors said that after HA and the woman had sex in an unknown location in Abu Dhabi, the five men met up with them. At that point, the charges say, the men all raped her in HA’s car.
The woman later contacted police and said she had been raped by six men, including HA. It is not known when she reported the attack.
The Abu Dhabi Judicial Department Forensic Unit declined to discuss whether the woman had been examined after the incident for evidence of rape.
HA has been charged with rape. The only other defendant in court, an Emirati with the same initials, was also charged with rape. The other four men are being tried in their absence.
The woman has been in custody since she reported the incident. She and the two defendants in court yesterday are being held without bail.
Chief Justice Saeed Abdul Basser twice asked her: “Did you have sex with these men?”
“No,” she replied.
It was unclear whether the judge was referring to consensual sex or rape.
The woman was not represented by a lawyer and no members of her family were in court yesterday.
All of the defendants are older than 18 and are being tried as adults.
So when does the stoning (of her) start?
This should serve as a warning to Muslim women—you can’t trust any of your men to ever help you without tacitly allowing men to freely rape you.
In the 50’s the chief defense of rapists was, Did you enjoy it? What were you wearing? How strongly did you fight back?
There are several movies along these lines. The woman was put on trial instead of the man.
Fortunately, we have evolved since then. They still live in the Middle Ages.
"HA, 19, called five of his friends – four Emiratis and one Iraqi – and invited them to join him."
Was this an orgy with one woman? How big was this car?
Inquiring minds...... :o
But even in our backwards times, the male relatives of the female would have either beaten or killed the male perps rather than the female victim. That would have happened even if the woman was a tramp. The courts may not have always believed the woman but her family did. The poor women of Islam are pretty much fair game for gang rape if they can ever be cut from the herd and gotten alone.
Remember this next time you hear some liberal politician, judge or “constitutional scholar” tell us that the Constitution has to take foreign law into consideration.
Most who advocate a “foreign law” influence are thinking only in terms of European law. But if they don’t think that growing Muslim populations in Western countries will push for, and eventually win, concessions to Sharia law.
It’s already happening in the UK, and it sure as hell could happen here. I mean, who’s to say WHICH foreign laws ought to be reflected in modern “interpretations” of the “living” Constitution.
You are right, this is medieval. In Australia, up until the 1970s, there was a disgraceful attitude towards underage girls who had been sexually assaulted - the girls were placed in a youth prison, but the men concerned were usually not charged. There was a case in West Aust where a girl less than 10 was sentenced as a juvenile offender, and her mother’s boyfriend, who raped her, walked free. Nothing like that happens now, it is a thing of the past.
Tell the court what he did to you exactly. And how did you feel about it?
It was a huge intimidation factor to keep women from reporting rape.
That is what this is about in Islam. If a woman is raped she should keep her mouth shut. That is part of the reason you see so many Muslim gangs raping western women. Because they are used to it and expect no consequences. Especially from an Infidel whore.
But, trust me on this I have been there, a Muslim will kill anyone, family, friends, neighbors, anyone for any reason. The family of the woman will not just let it go. So there is kind of a correlation there. I wouldn't want to be one of those guys.
Furthermore, before a Muslim woman is married she is checked to ensure virginity. So, unless the father can afford the bribe to the doctor, a raped woman in Islam, reported or not, is pretty much ruined. So this makes it even more of a horrible crime.
And you think "the movies" tell you what it was really like. Hm.
If the clan of the rapist is more powerful than the clan of the raped, then nothing will happen, because dealing justice on the rapist will have his whole clan going to war. That’s how it works.
Of course, back then, the father (and friends) of the raped daughter would make sure the rapists never raped again. And the law would pretty much leave them alone.
thank you. I will keep it in mind.
“The poor women of Islam are pretty much fair game for gang rape if they can ever be cut from the herd and gotten alone.”
I don’t even know if being in the herd helps these poor souls.
Why not gang rape a woman in the middle of a shopping mall? The only thing that would happen would be the victim would be stoned for her harlotry.
Does anyone ever get convicted of rape in the Middle East?
Muslims. The worst savage trash there ever has been. Their Mad Mo started the cult of islam to allow men to rape and beat women. Mad Mo was a homosexual child-molesting murderer, and that is a fact. The cult grew legs because men of the time thought it was pretty cool they could treat women the way they do and claim their moon-rock god gave them permission.
Ann Culter had it right: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
“dly enough, this sort of used to happen in the U.S.”
I call BS. Name the case.
To combat these antiquated notions, rape shield laws arose through two significant developments. The sexual revolution of the 1960s dramatically changed social values regarding premarital sexual activity, and feminist legal theory became highly influential a decade later. Feminist critics attacked the premises on which the common-law origins of rape defenses were based. Their argument posed a question that only a generation earlier would have been widely dismissed: why should a woman's sexual history matter at all in relation to her claim of rape? Not only was such evidence irrelevant, they asserted, but harmful. Its use in court discouraged a woman from bringing a charge of rape because, in effect, she would be put on trial. Fearing a public assault on her reputation, a victim had a strong incentive not to report a rape. And when women were willing to undergo a barrage of intrusive questions, they often saw their claims mocked and their violators allowed to go free.
Equating a victims past behavior to say she was not raped is a far cry from charging her with a crime.
An uninjured woman could not have been raped or she did not fight back sufficiently. They actually gauged the extent of the injuries as proof. If she was lightly injured, black eye or such, they would conclude, well, that really didn't hurt that much. The more severely she was injured the more likely she was raped.
Other considerations are kidnapping, mental illness, whether or not there was a weapon involved and on and on.
Check out this post from Yahoo Answers. I found it interesting.
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
For rape to be punishable in the 1950s it had to be accompanied by extreme physical violence. So if the woman didn't fight back, or if her size or incapacity made the use of force unnecessary, then there was no crime. Changes to the law began in the 1960s to make it enough that the crime was against the victim's will, without a showing of physical force.
Source(s):
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpag
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.