Saudi Arabia: Sharia Shame Against Women

What is there to say about a woman in Saudi Arabia sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison after being abducted and gang-raped by seven men?

It is one of those cases that seems so improbable, so horrible, that words are meaningless. No matter one's political or ideological sympathies, this case defies comprehension -- though it is justified by some interpretations of Sharia law.

If nothing else, it should be a rebuke to those in the McGuinty government who supported, or advocated, a form of Sharia law being implemented in Ontario.

The Saudis point out that the 19-year-old married Shiite woman was not being punished for being raped. No, her offence was being alone with an unrelated man, an offence against Islamic law as practised by Wahhabi courts.

What makes this case even more bizarre is that the young woman was originally sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with the man, the seven rapists to five years. Then the Supreme Judicial Council reviewed the case and upped her sentence to 200 lashes and six months, and the rapists to sentences ranging from two to nine years.

Canada calls the whole process "barbaric," while the Saudi court reaffirms that theirs is a "virtuous country" that follows the rulings of God as revealed to Muhammad and based on evidence. Reassuring, eh!

It seems the woman's husband isn't happy with the sentence and has been told he can appeal -- with the judge warning that this might result in an increased sentence. There are also warnings that critical media coverage might adversely affect the woman.

The case is already an international outrage. Likely, if the Saudi court doesn't back down, King Abdullah will commute the sentence -- and world diplomacy will revert to its usual moral equivalency of not being critical of the habits and customs of other cultures, especially if we need their oil.

The trouble for the likes of America, Britain and Canada, all of whom are equally appalled at this case, is that Saudi Arabia is supposedly a friend, an ally, and therefore immune from harsh criticism or retaliation.

Canada's previous government chose to believe the Saudis when Bill Sampson was framed for murder, tortured and sentenced to death in 2000, before being released 31 months later. The shame of that still lingers.

Governments tut-tutted, but buttoned their lips in 2002 when 15 girls died in a burning Saudi school, supposedly not rescued because they weren't wearing head scarves.

Stoning to death is still a penalty for adultery, and lopping of hands a punishment for crime, as is the lash -- all of which our democratic governments tolerate (if not condone) because of sensitivity to outlandish customs, and because the perpetrators are allies.

Saudi Arabia, of course, survives via the double-standard. It produces terrorists (the 9/11 sky-jackers), and has spread jihadists and Islamic extremists around the world. It is a financier of international terrorism, yet we are afraid if we criticize, they'll jack up the price of oil.

Looking beyond the 200 lashes to a gang-raped Saudi woman, if there were less tolerance by the civilized world for barbaric behaviour, and if more discretion were exercised on which countries we called friends, perhaps the money supply would dry up and terrorism would revert to being a local or domestic phenomenon, not an international plague.

One can't be sure, but what is certain is that our present attitude encourages rather than curtails outrages and barbarism.