Loros Summer Holidays Quiz 2024
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
British woman 'raped' in Dubai tells of arrest ordeal.
74 Answers
Great isn't it? You're raped in Dubai and you are thrown in jail!
It may be a technologically sophisticated country but it is still a country with a criminal justice system firmly rooted in middle-aged, moronic, misogynistic thinking.
Absolutely disgusting.
http://www.telegraph....of-arrest-ordeal.html
It may be a technologically sophisticated country but it is still a country with a criminal justice system firmly rooted in middle-aged, moronic, misogynistic thinking.
Absolutely disgusting.
http://www.telegraph....of-arrest-ordeal.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi, you know perfectly well that's a loaded question: have you stopped beating your wife? It presupposes that something indefensible has happened. I've already asked birdie twice to show what, in the news story he linked to, says that the woman was locked up because she had been raped. I can see nothing whatever to show that this is what happened. Can you? Where is it?
PS naomi, I take your point about Dubai's income: it's essentially an oil state that has tried to diversify ahead of the day when the oil runs out. But it's unclear at the moment how this is working out; its property boom has more or less come to a stop and the future of tourism is questionable. I don't know where their money is coming from at the moment - I suspect it's now more heavily dependent on oil than it has been for the last 20 years or so.
jno, you're playing with words, but it doesn't work because something indefensible has happened. This woman went to the police claiming she had been raped, but her claim was ignored and she was ridiculed - and that in itself is indefensible. However, that aside, if she hadn't reported the alleged rape in the first place, she wouldn't have been arrested on suspicion of illegal drinking and of having sex outside of marriage; neither would she have been questioned about her sex life with her boyfriend, or been obliged to sign papers saying the rape never happened. Therefore she found herself in prison fundamentally because she went to the police to report a rape. If this had happened in a western country I'm convinced you would think very differently - at least I hope you would - but it didn't, and that, I suspect is why you won't answer Birdie's so-called 'loaded' question.
Dubai's main income is from tourism, property and financial services.
This from the internet: The emirate's main revenues are from tourism, property and financial services. Although Dubai's economy was originally built on the oil industry, revenues from petroleum and natural gas currently contribute less than 6% (2006) of the emirate's US$ 80 billion economy (2009).
Dubai's main income is from tourism, property and financial services.
This from the internet: The emirate's main revenues are from tourism, property and financial services. Although Dubai's economy was originally built on the oil industry, revenues from petroleum and natural gas currently contribute less than 6% (2006) of the emirate's US$ 80 billion economy (2009).
There are no rights and wrongs - there are only opinions.
So lets see, Birdie starts off with stating that if you are raped in Dubai you are thrown in jail - a factually incorrect statement (see Jno's previous answers).
He has also assumed that an allegation must be true (see combustible's answers)
He then goes on to state that there justice system is firmly rooted in middle aged, moronic, misogynistic thinking - again incorrect as pointed out by Everton.
Haven;t been on AB much recently, but glad to see that nothing really changes. Still the same old people stating incorrect things and not bothering to apologise or correct themselves.
So lets see, Birdie starts off with stating that if you are raped in Dubai you are thrown in jail - a factually incorrect statement (see Jno's previous answers).
He has also assumed that an allegation must be true (see combustible's answers)
He then goes on to state that there justice system is firmly rooted in middle aged, moronic, misogynistic thinking - again incorrect as pointed out by Everton.
Haven;t been on AB much recently, but glad to see that nothing really changes. Still the same old people stating incorrect things and not bothering to apologise or correct themselves.
naomi24
// This woman went to the police claiming she had been raped, but her claim was ignored and she was ridiculed - and that in itself is indefensible. //
I believe you are only getting your information from one source, and I believe that that information is wrong and biased. If you listen to it from the Dubai side, they say the rape claim was properly investigated. They say she remembers going to the toilet when very drunk and was aware of being followed in by the Indian waiter. She remembers passing out on a couch. The next day she reported that she thought she had been raped (but didn't really have a recollection of it).
The standard of investigation between the UK and Dubai may be different for cultural reasons, but the conclusion would probably have been the same here.
http://gulfnews.com/n...e-criticised-1.575348
// This woman went to the police claiming she had been raped, but her claim was ignored and she was ridiculed - and that in itself is indefensible. //
I believe you are only getting your information from one source, and I believe that that information is wrong and biased. If you listen to it from the Dubai side, they say the rape claim was properly investigated. They say she remembers going to the toilet when very drunk and was aware of being followed in by the Indian waiter. She remembers passing out on a couch. The next day she reported that she thought she had been raped (but didn't really have a recollection of it).
The standard of investigation between the UK and Dubai may be different for cultural reasons, but the conclusion would probably have been the same here.
http://gulfnews.com/n...e-criticised-1.575348
naomi, if you report a crime in this country, and in investigating it the police find you have committed a crime yourself, you will be charged with it. There is nothing remotely medieval, misogynistic, barbaric, Islamic or indefensible about this, here or abroad.
As for the rest of your claims, I am not the one playing with words. Here's what birdie said:
Jno – No. She was initially jailed for having 'sex' with the unknown individual.
A clear statement of fact. But - Where. Is. The. Evidence.
There is none. What birdie says happened, did not happen.
If you're now trying to downgrade this claim, and merely saying that an alleged rape victim being badly treated is 'indefensible', then I'd entirely agree with you. But as I pointed out in my first post, something like four rapes in a thousand lead to convictions in the UK, and I find that just as indefensible; and yet somehow neither birdie nor you start threads about this when it happens in your own country, only when you think you can score cheap points against Muslims.
Meanwhile, I can only assume birdie is a Christian, in his apparent ability to believe something happened when he can offer no evidence for it. And in his willingness to use selective evidence, ignore the facts, and refuse to answer questions about them, I assume he is...
tadaaa...
a climate change scientist.
Funny how things work out when you're determined to ignore the facts, move the goalposts, and stick rigidly to your beliefs whatever the evidence.
I am now leaving this thread. It is pointless to debate with people who simply cannot admit the facts. You might as well argue about the existence of God.
As for the rest of your claims, I am not the one playing with words. Here's what birdie said:
Jno – No. She was initially jailed for having 'sex' with the unknown individual.
A clear statement of fact. But - Where. Is. The. Evidence.
There is none. What birdie says happened, did not happen.
If you're now trying to downgrade this claim, and merely saying that an alleged rape victim being badly treated is 'indefensible', then I'd entirely agree with you. But as I pointed out in my first post, something like four rapes in a thousand lead to convictions in the UK, and I find that just as indefensible; and yet somehow neither birdie nor you start threads about this when it happens in your own country, only when you think you can score cheap points against Muslims.
Meanwhile, I can only assume birdie is a Christian, in his apparent ability to believe something happened when he can offer no evidence for it. And in his willingness to use selective evidence, ignore the facts, and refuse to answer questions about them, I assume he is...
tadaaa...
a climate change scientist.
Funny how things work out when you're determined to ignore the facts, move the goalposts, and stick rigidly to your beliefs whatever the evidence.
I am now leaving this thread. It is pointless to debate with people who simply cannot admit the facts. You might as well argue about the existence of God.
jno, I haven't made any claims, and I'm not trying to downgrade the claim this woman made. I've read the link birdie provided and I've assessed that. I haven't given my opinion on the rape statistics in this country because they are irrelevant to what we are discussing here.
//If you listen to it from the Dubai side, they say the rape claim was properly investigated.//
Yes, they do. What else would you expect? However, they also say the British press reported that the alleged rapist was an Arab, and that Dubai police forced her to marry her British-Indian friend. I can't find that in the link Birdie provided, so are you sure you'd rather believe the Dubai press?
As for scoring cheap points against Muslims, firstly, that isn't my style, and secondly, I don't need to. I give my opinions on questions raised, and if you disagree with me then so be it.
Incidentally, although I agree that Vic is a sensible debater, I think you'll find he wasn't talking about me - he was talking about God. Note the capital 'S' in She. Maybe you shouldn't have bothered popping back.
//If you listen to it from the Dubai side, they say the rape claim was properly investigated.//
Yes, they do. What else would you expect? However, they also say the British press reported that the alleged rapist was an Arab, and that Dubai police forced her to marry her British-Indian friend. I can't find that in the link Birdie provided, so are you sure you'd rather believe the Dubai press?
As for scoring cheap points against Muslims, firstly, that isn't my style, and secondly, I don't need to. I give my opinions on questions raised, and if you disagree with me then so be it.
Incidentally, although I agree that Vic is a sensible debater, I think you'll find he wasn't talking about me - he was talking about God. Note the capital 'S' in She. Maybe you shouldn't have bothered popping back.
it seems this woman doens;t know what happened to her but believes in her drunken stupour to have been followed into the toilets by a waiter. i suspect the waiters would have been immigrants from some poor part of the world, living on a pittence.
i really hope this story isn't true but i dread to think what might have become of an immigrant waiter in dubai, wrongly accused of rape.
vic - spot on
i really hope this story isn't true but i dread to think what might have become of an immigrant waiter in dubai, wrongly accused of rape.
vic - spot on
Not only was Dubai founded in 1971 it didn't exist prior to that, it was an invention formed by the joining of the Trucal states.
What some are willingly and wilfully ignoring is that the attitudes alleged by the police were prevalent here 20 years ago, were they the dark ages?
The attitude of the police overall seems to be out of sight out of mind with regard to sex and drink, but, if you invite the police into your life then they feel you've invited the law in too.
It's an awful story if it's true, but I wonder how the people of Dubai feel about all those immigrants that come to their country, ignoring their laws on drink, flouting their laws on sex, wearing strange clothes not a bit like what they wear, next to none of them speak Arabic and they refuse to integrate with the locals preferring to spend their time in ex-pat clubs.
Bloody immigrants, they're all the same!
What some are willingly and wilfully ignoring is that the attitudes alleged by the police were prevalent here 20 years ago, were they the dark ages?
The attitude of the police overall seems to be out of sight out of mind with regard to sex and drink, but, if you invite the police into your life then they feel you've invited the law in too.
It's an awful story if it's true, but I wonder how the people of Dubai feel about all those immigrants that come to their country, ignoring their laws on drink, flouting their laws on sex, wearing strange clothes not a bit like what they wear, next to none of them speak Arabic and they refuse to integrate with the locals preferring to spend their time in ex-pat clubs.
Bloody immigrants, they're all the same!
Oneeyedvic – I'll answer your criticisms in order.
1.“Birdie starts off with stating that if you are raped in Dubai you are thrown in jail” - I was speaking about this particular case. She made an allegation of rape and was imprisoned. Whether she was imprisoned for being raped or whether she was imprisoned for having sex outside of marriage is not clear. If it's the former, it's barbaric; if it's the latter it's moronic. This is 2010 – people should not be thrown in prison for having sex outside marriage. Frown upon it by all means but don't put people in prison because of it. If you think it's reasonable to imprison people for having sex outside of marriage, I'd be interested to read your arguments.
2.“He has also assumed that an allegation must be true” - So when you read things in the press do you automatically take the view that you are being lied to? This wasn't reported in one newspaper – it was widely reported. The women says she was raped – but you seem to know better as you appear to doubt her story. Why do you think she's not being honest?
3.“He then goes on to state that there justice system is firmly rooted in middle aged, moronic, misogynistic thinking” - I was probably wrong to accuse the legal system of being rooted in the middle ages but I stand by the accusation that it is misogynistic – if you want examples, I'll give them to you, but I'm sure you can find them on your own if you want to.
4.“Still the same old people stating incorrect things and not bothering to apologise or correct themselves.” Indeed. I hope you're including yourself in that category.
1.“Birdie starts off with stating that if you are raped in Dubai you are thrown in jail” - I was speaking about this particular case. She made an allegation of rape and was imprisoned. Whether she was imprisoned for being raped or whether she was imprisoned for having sex outside of marriage is not clear. If it's the former, it's barbaric; if it's the latter it's moronic. This is 2010 – people should not be thrown in prison for having sex outside marriage. Frown upon it by all means but don't put people in prison because of it. If you think it's reasonable to imprison people for having sex outside of marriage, I'd be interested to read your arguments.
2.“He has also assumed that an allegation must be true” - So when you read things in the press do you automatically take the view that you are being lied to? This wasn't reported in one newspaper – it was widely reported. The women says she was raped – but you seem to know better as you appear to doubt her story. Why do you think she's not being honest?
3.“He then goes on to state that there justice system is firmly rooted in middle aged, moronic, misogynistic thinking” - I was probably wrong to accuse the legal system of being rooted in the middle ages but I stand by the accusation that it is misogynistic – if you want examples, I'll give them to you, but I'm sure you can find them on your own if you want to.
4.“Still the same old people stating incorrect things and not bothering to apologise or correct themselves.” Indeed. I hope you're including yourself in that category.
Jno.
“neither birdie nor you start threads about this when it happens in your own country, only when you think you can score cheap points against Muslims.”
Well done. I knew someone would do it sooner or later.
So you think I dislike Muslims do you?
The women and her (ex) fiancé are Muslims. Why would I be so indignant about the treatment of a Muslim couple if I dislike Muslims? You really haven't thought that statement through.
“... in his willingness to use selective evidence, ignore the facts, and refuse to answer questions about them, I assume he is... tadaaa... a climate change scientist.”
I'm not a climate change scientist. I'm a man-made climate change sceptic but this is not a thread about climate change is it? I've fully explained my concerns about the 'official' climate change theory and you have never answered any one of my questions about it. It is you who is ignoring evidence not I. If you bothered to look at the evidence instead of quoting the IPCC all the time and convincing yourself that it is the holy grail of scientific research on this matter, you might actually start to understand. You are uninformed but are unaware of this fact.
But I digress.
“It is pointless to debate with people who simply cannot admit the facts”.
You never wrote a truer word.
“neither birdie nor you start threads about this when it happens in your own country, only when you think you can score cheap points against Muslims.”
Well done. I knew someone would do it sooner or later.
So you think I dislike Muslims do you?
The women and her (ex) fiancé are Muslims. Why would I be so indignant about the treatment of a Muslim couple if I dislike Muslims? You really haven't thought that statement through.
“... in his willingness to use selective evidence, ignore the facts, and refuse to answer questions about them, I assume he is... tadaaa... a climate change scientist.”
I'm not a climate change scientist. I'm a man-made climate change sceptic but this is not a thread about climate change is it? I've fully explained my concerns about the 'official' climate change theory and you have never answered any one of my questions about it. It is you who is ignoring evidence not I. If you bothered to look at the evidence instead of quoting the IPCC all the time and convincing yourself that it is the holy grail of scientific research on this matter, you might actually start to understand. You are uninformed but are unaware of this fact.
But I digress.
“It is pointless to debate with people who simply cannot admit the facts”.
You never wrote a truer word.
123everton - “Not only was Dubai founded in 1971 it didn't exist prior to that...”
I freely admit that I know precious little about Dubai from a geopolitical perspective but Wikipedia has this to says about it...
“The earliest recorded mention of Dubai is in 1095, in the "Book of Geography" by the Andalusian-Arab geographer Abu Abdullah al-Bakri. The Venetian pearl merchant Gaspero Balbi visited the area in 1580 and mentioned Dubai (Dibei) for its pearling industry. Documented records of the town of Dubai exist only after 1799.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
I freely admit that I know precious little about Dubai from a geopolitical perspective but Wikipedia has this to says about it...
“The earliest recorded mention of Dubai is in 1095, in the "Book of Geography" by the Andalusian-Arab geographer Abu Abdullah al-Bakri. The Venetian pearl merchant Gaspero Balbi visited the area in 1580 and mentioned Dubai (Dibei) for its pearling industry. Documented records of the town of Dubai exist only after 1799.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
Continued...
Before anyone jumps down my throat with the accusation that Wikipedia is utterly unreliable, (which I don't entirely agree with – it shouldn't be taken as gospel but it's as good a place as any to start research) it appears that your statement doesn't hold much water.
The point I think you're making it that it was not recognised as a nation state prior to 1971. This may be factually correct. But it in no way explains the rather oppressive laws on sexual relations.
If the Wikipedia entry is correct then Dubai and it's people have been in existence for a hundreds of years have they not? And if so, the argument that it's a 'young' country and therefore it can be forgiven for having oppressive laws is pure garbage.
Other countries have been in existence for very short periods of time and yet don't have such objectionable (from a human rights perspective) legislation.
Before anyone jumps down my throat with the accusation that Wikipedia is utterly unreliable, (which I don't entirely agree with – it shouldn't be taken as gospel but it's as good a place as any to start research) it appears that your statement doesn't hold much water.
The point I think you're making it that it was not recognised as a nation state prior to 1971. This may be factually correct. But it in no way explains the rather oppressive laws on sexual relations.
If the Wikipedia entry is correct then Dubai and it's people have been in existence for a hundreds of years have they not? And if so, the argument that it's a 'young' country and therefore it can be forgiven for having oppressive laws is pure garbage.
Other countries have been in existence for very short periods of time and yet don't have such objectionable (from a human rights perspective) legislation.
Jno – You made this statement earlier, “... Sorry, couldn't resist popping back to answer a question from a sensible debater...”
I assume from the statement above that you consider yourself to be a 'sensible debater' also?
If so, would you be interested to know that you have bulldozed your way through at least three logical fallacies to arrive that the conclusion that I don't look at the facts? - “... you're determined to ignore the facts, move the goalposts, and stick rigidly to your beliefs whatever the evidence...”
So far you've used -
1.“The Appeal to Authority” – You use the the IPCC. 'All these people think you're wrong. Therefore you must be wrong'.
2.“Non Sequitor” - Translation – 'It does not follow'. You've concluded that because you think my opinions on the legal system in Dubai are flawed, my opinion on every other subject is equally flawed.
3.“Ad Hominem” - Personal attacks. You've stated, “... his apparent ability to believe something happened when he can offer no evidence for it. And in his willingness to use selective evidence, ignore the facts, and refuse to answer questions...” All very emotive. And all very incorrect.
Come on Jno - I'm sure you can do better.
I assume from the statement above that you consider yourself to be a 'sensible debater' also?
If so, would you be interested to know that you have bulldozed your way through at least three logical fallacies to arrive that the conclusion that I don't look at the facts? - “... you're determined to ignore the facts, move the goalposts, and stick rigidly to your beliefs whatever the evidence...”
So far you've used -
1.“The Appeal to Authority” – You use the the IPCC. 'All these people think you're wrong. Therefore you must be wrong'.
2.“Non Sequitor” - Translation – 'It does not follow'. You've concluded that because you think my opinions on the legal system in Dubai are flawed, my opinion on every other subject is equally flawed.
3.“Ad Hominem” - Personal attacks. You've stated, “... his apparent ability to believe something happened when he can offer no evidence for it. And in his willingness to use selective evidence, ignore the facts, and refuse to answer questions...” All very emotive. And all very incorrect.
Come on Jno - I'm sure you can do better.
"It is you who is ignoring evidence not I. If you bothered to look at the evidence instead of quoting the IPCC all the time and convincing yourself that... etc etc etc"
What??????????
I've never quoted the IPCC in my life, let alone 'all the time'. You've just made that up too! This thread started off with factual inaccuracy and it's getting wilder and wilder by the minute.
(But my ad hominem comments were meant tongue in cheek, so my reason for returning to the thread is to apologise on that score.)
What??????????
I've never quoted the IPCC in my life, let alone 'all the time'. You've just made that up too! This thread started off with factual inaccuracy and it's getting wilder and wilder by the minute.
(But my ad hominem comments were meant tongue in cheek, so my reason for returning to the thread is to apologise on that score.)
1) ///“Birdie starts off with stating that if you are raped in Dubai you are thrown in jail” - I was speaking about this particular case. ///
You really should try and understand the difference between being raped and an allegation. This has been pointed out to you already on this post. It is rather important you know.
///Whether she was imprisoned for being raped or whether she was imprisoned for having sex outside of marriage is not clear. If it's the former, it's barbaric; if it's the latter it's moronic. ///
From your article: However, she claims officers jeered her before they were both arrested on suspicion of illegal drinking and having sex outside of marriage, and held in jail for two days
Pretty clear to most people - she was not arrested for being raped but for illegal drinking and having sex outside marriage. Of course, I am sure you would prefer it to be the other way, since that is the title of your question, but again factually incorrect.
///This is 2010 – people should not be thrown in prison for having sex outside marriage./// - that is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. Some people would say that a man should not be thrown in prison if he has sex with a 14 year old girl (this is perfectly legal in Spain for example). Different countries have different customs and laws. When visiting those countries, it is your responsibility to find out what those laws are and abide by them. I am sure that if a Spanish man came to this country and had sex with a 14 year old, you would want them prosecuted.
You really should try and understand the difference between being raped and an allegation. This has been pointed out to you already on this post. It is rather important you know.
///Whether she was imprisoned for being raped or whether she was imprisoned for having sex outside of marriage is not clear. If it's the former, it's barbaric; if it's the latter it's moronic. ///
From your article: However, she claims officers jeered her before they were both arrested on suspicion of illegal drinking and having sex outside of marriage, and held in jail for two days
Pretty clear to most people - she was not arrested for being raped but for illegal drinking and having sex outside marriage. Of course, I am sure you would prefer it to be the other way, since that is the title of your question, but again factually incorrect.
///This is 2010 – people should not be thrown in prison for having sex outside marriage./// - that is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. Some people would say that a man should not be thrown in prison if he has sex with a 14 year old girl (this is perfectly legal in Spain for example). Different countries have different customs and laws. When visiting those countries, it is your responsibility to find out what those laws are and abide by them. I am sure that if a Spanish man came to this country and had sex with a 14 year old, you would want them prosecuted.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Computers13 mins ago
Crosswords22 mins ago
How Many Onn Here Thinkthis Is...
News22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.