That is all.
A Malaysian model faces six lashes of the cane for drinking beer at a beach resort in the mainly Muslim country. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, 32, was busted last year at a hotel nightclub at Cherating in Pahang state, during a raid by the state's religious department, The Telegraph reports. She 'fessed up to drinking beer, …
I don't care WHY she is being caned (stupid laws, religious reasons or otherwise), but the fact she is being caned is wrong.
On the news this morning I heard woman aren't allowed to leave the house in the evening in Afghanistan. wtf?
The supposed civilised West should grow a pair, call out these backwards countries, and not tolerate/cooperate with them until they promise not to be a bunch of violent sexists stuck in the dark ages.
Same deal for China. I'd rather pay more for stuff than have some poor people in that cesspool of a country worked half to death to produce it as cheaply as possible. How can governments be so hypocritical and get away with it.
I understand if one trawls the internet long enough, examples of models having their buttocks caned are available via this media. It doesn't seem to be exclusively Islamic countries that offer this kind of, erm, 'corrective' training either.
Mine's the one with the copy of Bare Bottom Spanking Monthly in the pocket.
This post has been deleted by its author
The woman broke the law, it was a stupid law but she was aware of it's existence when she so publicly ignored it.
If you were caught anally invading a 14 year old Malaysian boy you may have countless defenses as to why it's a stupid law, doesn't change the opinion of the majority.
In their religous faith it is a sin to consume alcohol. Chrisitanity has its own crazy practices and you have no right to judge anyone elses.
*yawns* never did you any harm, chicken tasted better in your youth, men were real men, women cooked and washed up and Johnny Foreigner respected The Empire.
Yes, ASBOs are little deterrence, but meeting violence and anti-social behavior with more violence? Surely there's a better, more civilised way.
Ship the buggers off to the new territory? Iraqistan
"I was 'strapped' in school and it never done me any harm" -- Really? It seems to have taught you that violence is an acceptable way of solving problems. I call that harm.
@ AC 11:31
Agreed 100%. The EU should get together as a trading bloc and insist that no goods may be imported into any EU country unless they were manufactured under conditions that would be acceptable within the EU.
Several forms of corporal punishment were introduced by the British when Malaya was a colony. I am not sure if caning was one of them but I am pretty certain that they still hang convicted murderers according to British procedures.
Such "barbaric" practices were in full use in the war against the Communist insurgents sometime between 1952 to 1960. Not so different to fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan today except we were defending our own colony, albeit giving Malaya her independence partway through the war.
As a Muslim country, Malaysia is nearly secular in practice and the application of caning as a punishment for "minor" offences does actually work as a deterrent. Perhaps we could now do with importing back a few practices so very much preserved and proven to work in ex-colonies around the world. Six lashes to the backside might dissuade the next drunken yob from using your local phone box as a urinal.
as per comment, seriously had enough of the religious muppets pushing there crap onto people.
Seriously if you get a religious text and put it on trial - would you be able to factualy prove any of it.
Seriously take scientology - thats more cridable than alot of them and for me that puts it all into perspective. Stop it now, show me a country that bans all religion and I'm there.
Let's not confuse one issue with another hey boss? That said, I'll bite...
First, at your school, I'll bet it was the same people every week who got lashed. If physical pain was an effective deterrent then Thailand would be drug free right now.
You can't just introduce corporal punishment into a liberal country whose penal system is designed around rehabilitation (yes, I know it does a piss poor job, another discussion for another day), it is the polar opposite of the current approach and the practical implications beggar belief (There are books written on this topic).
Lets just say we did decide to bring back the whip. Who would administer it? What crimes would be cause for a thrashing? Would children be exempt? Women? Old people? Ill people? Wouldn't some prefer a quick beating to years behind bars?
What form of man does institutionalized violence breed? What effect would the casm between what we teach to be moral and what the government teaches to be right have on the children? If Pavlov told us anything, it's that the message must be clear.
I've been as reserved as I can, but I dispair at your sort. You are reactionary and dangerous. Think about the implications of what you suggest.
I presume this is peninsular Malaysia and not Borneo? Whilst there I got the feeling they were fairly tolerant of such things. Certainly the area we were in was happy to provide drink to foreigners at least.
Bearing in mind that Malaysia is a mish mash of religeons, she was probably in a prodominantly Muslim area and should have known better. Not that I'm condoning it, but personally I'd choose the lashes over 3 year imprisonment.
At the end of the day, she was caught taking illegal substances. If you do that in this country you'd expect to be punished for it. The method may not be what we would find acceptable, but I personally fell that, in the UK at least, we spend far too much time worry about criminal's rights and not enough time questioning what is actually just.
If you're caught taking drugs in the uk (which you funded by stealing) you seem to get off with a warning and people queuing round the block to rehabilitate you. Kudos to a country prepared to enforce their law, no matter how barbaric it may seem to us. She'll recover quickly with no lasting damage and the point will have been made not only to her, but I would imagine most people who read Malaysian papers. 1 good example is better than 10 good laws.
Time for a bottom line. Don't agree with the punishment, but can't sympathise with someone who knew full well what the consequences of her action could be.
It's a dumb law, but it's also an inhumane law - lashes?? I mean - WTF?
That went out of English schools ages ago because it was deemed cruel and immoral, so why keep it in these backwards countries (no offense to any Malaysians, but you gotta admit, the punishment REALLY doesn't fit the crime)...
We have ASBOs, which, although laughed upon by the general poplace, and held-high with pride by the Chavs who they get awarded to, also carry a fine, which is a fair deterrant. But fining someone AND physically hurting them is not fair, all because you drank a beer which is outlawed in a religious law - to the best of my knowledge, and a bit of internet searching, it's not illegal by COUNTRY law to drink alcohol in Malaysia - it's just that the province in which this girl was caught drinking has a massive islamic population, and so it was more by popularity than anything else. I think religion should keep their F*CKING noses out of the countries business, and stop acting like archaic, inhumane dooches! And that goes for all religions, not just Islam (it's just that most people in the Islamic world pay attention to their religion, whereas most of us in "Christian" countries couldn't give a rat's arse about Christian laws and values).
Also, IT angle??
I suggest everyone expressing their approval of thrashing as a suitable deterrent for drunken yobbery bear in mind that this woman is being physically punished simply for *drinking alcohol*, not for drinking alcohol and subsequently smashing up a bus shelter and punching a policeman in the gob while singing 'you're going home in a fuckin ambulance'.
Not that anyone is explicitly condoning it - just that some of you don't seem inclined to condemn it. But that's up to you, of course.
All legal systems are built around cause and effect, whether you follow a tradition of innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent.
When the "effect" side of the balance is rendered impotent (i.e. ASBOs, stupidly short sentences, easily skippable bail) then the system fails.
The price we pay for lax laws in the Western world is that yobs soon learn they can do what they want and suffer little consequence. However, in many other civilised countries, such as Malaysia, people soon learn that small infringements lead to big consequences. It's the other side of the coin.
I'm not saying that stealing an apple should be dealt with by chopping limbs, but if you've had ratboy break into your house, nick your telly and s**t on your living room floor, you can probably understand the sentiment.
Malaysia is a fantastic country which I've been fortunate to visit 6 times. It is a minority of states in which the dictat of Islam is truly upheld (Terengganu, as I saw it, being the strictest) - if you pick your head out from your copy of the Daily Mail and actually go out and look at the world, starting with those which offend your ridiculous 'principles' so greatly, perhaps you'd take a different viewpoint.
As at least one person above pointed out she was surely aware of the law when she broke it. This is what angers me when Brits go abroad to countries like Dubai and break their laws but have the audacity to claim their behaviour was fine.
We have no right to interfere? Really?
Perhaps we should've let Hitler exterminate the jews then? Or allow millions to starve in Africa? Or do business with the scum-princes of Saudi (oh. wait. we do) or accept that 'extraodinary rendition' is acceptable? Or child abuse is the business of the parent and not of the state?
We have no right!? Nonsense! On the contrary I say we have a DUTY to interfere! Where suffering is inflicted upon the weak, we MUST take action. Put your mothers, wives and daughters in the place of this poor woman and then see if it's still funny, tittilating or irrelevant to your own lives.
That evil may triumph only requires that good men do nothing.
I hand a FAIL tag out to everyone who reduces these issues to acinine comments, comedy or self-centered utilitarian philosophy. Next time, think before you spout NIMBY/Daily Fail nonsense.
It's well past the point where any civilised person should be excusing the excesses of Islam with claims of cultural and religious privilege. It's barbarity - no more, no less.
But that said, Islam practices little more than most religions inflict where countries aren't at least partially secularised. I shudder to think what state the UK would be in if our more fundamentalist god-botherers got their way. Look at Israel - halfway to Fourth Reich status courtesy of religious self-righteousness - and half the world on fire because of them. The other half because of American Christian fundamentalists and their grip on the White House.
The problem is of course that eternal cancer of the human race - organised religion. Responsible for half the woes of mankind since the dawn of time. But we just never EVER seem to learn.
Just incase anyone is in doubt, the cane used is designed to break the skin and leave long-lasting scarring. Its not just a "spanking" as some here have described it as.
This punishment is inhumane, regardless of wether the law she broke was just or not. And it was not a just law - most countries ban various substances (the UK bans various drugs), but this law was discrimatory in that it only applied to women, which makes it unjust.
Violent punishments simply keep a country in fear, rather than safe.
"In their religous faith it is a sin to consume alcohol. Chrisitanity has its own crazy practices and you have no right to judge anyone elses."
I'd like to draw attention to this statement not as a means to berate the original poster, but to point out why I disagree with it. I belive I have the right to judge anyones religious faith and practices. Especially when they are counter to what humanity as a whole would consider acceptable. Few people here (I'd hope) would agree disciminating someone on their race would be acceptable. She may have broken a law and she clearly knew that (who supplyed the beer and why are they not being punished?), but it's also possible that she doesn't care about the religion (or at least only cares on a casual basis. How many people who would call themselves Christian actaully follow the Bible rather than just taking the bits that suit them) her state lives under, yet she is being punished for the ideaology of others who disagree with her personal choice and freedom to choose.
It's simple to say she broke a law and we may not like it, but it's their law and we should respect it. I disagree. Anything that curtails the personal freedoms of an individual is not deserving of respect. Tradition and beliefs are not an excuse when put next to the development of a civialisation as a whole. I respect your rights to belive what you want, but that doesn't mean you have the right to practice it if it is completey outmoded. Why should i respect the beliefs of someone when then are contray to what any intelligent sentient being would consider acceptable.
What does that mean? Are you illiterate? Why do we bother? Bother what? You seem to be implying that we're somehow supporting them.
Question: upon committing a minor infringement of the law would you rather spend the next 6 months dragging your way slowly through our legal system and then spend the rest of your life on some Big Brother database or get an immediate 6 strokes and let go?
Btw, I hope none of the commentards using words like "barbarous" above come from a country that condones torture or any form of capital punishment.
This post has been deleted by its author
The trouble with boycotting countries for having corporal punishment is that logically you'd then have to also boycott countries which have the far more serious human rights problem of capital punishment, which means you'd have to boycott China, Japan and the USA, which would be rather difficult in practice.
Suggest you concentrate on getting your own house in order instead. There is no country in the world which couldn't be improved from a human rights perspective.
BAM! Godwin's law strikes again.
So, Steve, you're saying that YOUR moral framework is the correct one, and that if others don't adhere to it, they should be made to, by force if necessary? Perhaps you're not so unlike those you wish to change.
Ah the dichotomy of Good and Evil. I wonder how many lives have been lost in the name of the Good? Because after all, Steve, nobody fights for Evil.
So much for the "rule of thumb" then. Although I suppose it is worse as a smaller cane can be swung faster and deliver more energy on impact due to the whole velocity squared thing.
That said, this kind of thuggery should end. The police there should take a view of how it works here. One of the big reasons people don't trust gubbermint is the police doing things wrong and getting a pass for it. When cops can do wrong without consequences, the citizenry doesn't see much reason why they shouldn't also. When it escalates to using fear and intimidation through video surveillance, you know the police have lost everything resembling goodwill with the public.
Finally, in the interest of bridging this social injustice, I hereby open my home to all female models, Malaysian or not. Come one, come all, come multiple times if you like. That's right ladies, there are plenty of rooms, no need to shove. Yes, just like a bridge, no canes, no morals, just weight limits.
On the news this morning I heard woman aren't allowed to leave the house in the evening in Afghanistan. wtf? The supposed civilised West should grow a pair, call out these backwards countries, and not tolerate/cooperate with them until they promise not to be a bunch of violent sexists stuck in the dark ages.
Would somebody enlighten this ignorant twat about the Taliban and why we are there.
If you can read, try something like "The Kite Flyer" a "good" little intro...if you can't rent the DVD.
PS The "Enlightened" US didn't allow Black people on the same bus or go to the same schools as whites until 50 years ago, South Africa even less, so maybe the "wonderful" west isn't all it's cracked up to it's be.
I think you misunderstand me. I have no objection to the people, state or culture of Malaysia. I do however object to bullies with sticks beating women. I call that behaviour primitive.
For those of you who seem to think that knowing the punishment for a certain behaviour is tantamount to having no right to object when you commit the 'crime' I suggest you look at some of the research into the psychology of those who abuse their children; often they set abitrary rules with extreme consequences as punishments; "If you touch anything blue today, I will beat you."
This punishment, delivered by a bully is an example of institutionalised abuse codifed and excused by religion, and that, will always be the behaviour of a primitive mind.
And, by the way, I never read the Daily Mail.
>>Btw, I hope none of the commentards using words like "barbarous" above come from a country that condones torture or any form of capital punishment.
Fair point on the 'why do we bother' issue, but I would think that any commenters condemning barbarity in other countries would also condemn it in their own if it occurs there. It's hardly their fault. You can't really suggest it makes them hypocrites. I don't endorse a lot of my own country's policies, do you?
What people's reaction would be if she were caught taking Heroin? If it is illegal to drink beer (which is a mind-altering substance, to a degree) then it's not much of a leap to Heroin.
Ok, it is really, but that would infringe upon the point I'm making.
My point? Oh, I've forgotten. Pass me a cold one.
I've been to Malaysia a couple of times actually - very interesting place. Every bloke (and most women, but obviously they weren't Muslim) I met seemed to spend most of the day and night drinking. So it's a bit off with "one law for them and another for us", but that's what you get with Sharia.
*bow* quite right, and well played...
...but I am left with the issue that someone somewhere is suffering because of the vicarious whims of another. How then can I justify my inaction? Because it's not happening to me or mine? Because it's on the other side of the planet? How close to home does it have to be before we take action? It's this desire for a peaceful life at all costs that is leading is to sleepwalk into barbarism, isn't it?
Surely, to accept that we cannot interfere with the morality of another nation, and thus by extension, the morality of any individual, we become paralysed in the face of those who DO committ such acts, such as these so-called 'religious authorities' who will carry out this terrible act?
Sometimes it has to be right to attack them... ...doesn't it?
so you've never seen the police squared up against a demonstration in britain, with batons out, then?
Just as barbaric, probably far less targeted and completely without any judicial process (or oversight) about who gets hit, with what and how many times or even if they were doing anything actually illegal.
Motes and eyes, anyone?
Remember that Mr Swann is always ready to intervene everywhere in the World where Justice is in danger. As long as he doesn't have to move from his armchair with a comfortable access to The Reg's comments, of course.
I don't remember seeing anyone like him at the demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur on August 1st against the Sedition Law, though. Truth to be told, I didn't see anybody like him at those supporting the same Law, either. Sedition Law that was introduced by the Brits, so if a Democracy did it, it must be a good Law.
That said, unlike those about which we hear often in The Reg, I could take pictures freely before and during those demonstrations (note that I was only a tourist enjoying the action, I had no idea which demonstration was which). I could even take pictures of the police forces getting ready for it. And that's considering I'm 6" tall!
Back to the topic, I do find the punishment rough. Keep in mind that this is a country where being convicted of drug trafficking has an automatic death sentence, as reminded (often) by the newspapers. That some politicians there are indeed trying to prohibit alcohol sale in the Muslim-majority areas. That is has been found that a secular court cannot overrule a decision made by a religious one.
Now, if they follow the same path that a beacon-of-democracy country, that tried alcohol prohibition about 100 year ago, we can conclude that Malaysia will be decadent and prone to obesity in just a few decades, with still quite a few pockets of religious extremists spread around and sometimes elected to government. No wonder their flag looks like the one of the USA, they're obviously followers.
Ah, I wish the world was black & white as seen through Mr Swann glasses. However, its infinite shades of grays, and complicated patterns, particularly in Malaysia and its long history, make it difficult for some to understand before judging.
The thing is Neil, is that it's only illegal according to the RELIGION'S laws, and not the COUNTRY'S laws.
If she was caught taking heroin, fair enough to punish her by sending her to prison (the cane is still inhumane) but if, for example, someone in the US, or England was caught not going to Church on a Sunday (a religious crime, since these two countries are Christian), they wouldn't be punished at all - it's another case of religion ruling the country, and not the country's laws and government. Sharia law sucks major arse, and to all those Muslims who practice it - stop being douches and following an out-dated, cruel, inhumane and sexist penal system...
Sharia law and all those who follow it = FAIL!
A duty to interefere?
I saw a documentary years ago that interviewed an elderly (late 60's?) Afghan man. He said "In my country it's legal to smoke heroin, but illegal to drink alcohol. In yours, it's illegal to smoke heroin but legal to drink alcohol. Who can say who is right?"
Laws are made and enforced by people. So who's laws are YOU going to force on every 'backward' country? Yours? The ones enforced in the UK? We have so many wrong and crap laws in the UK that it just proves that our law-makers don't have a clue!
I bet you'd be really receptive to having another country enforce laws on us. Oh, wait a minute, the EU....
Please do. An 'ignorant twat' I may be, but it's a side I hadn't seen reported on the news before, and it's certainly never been a justification for going. I don't think we should be over there, and I generally don't watch news about it. (Also: abusive insults always make you look superior, good job)
Hey! Look at this from last month!
"Security has plummeted across Helmand since UK troops arrived three years ago, and ordinary people have watched the Taleban grow stronger."
'Why do we bother' = we should publicly condemn these countries/regimes/whatever. We should avoid doing business with these countries. We shouldn't be dying in their countries.
re: getting own house in order, I fully agree.
Further to your invocation of Godwin:
"Perhaps we should've let Hitler exterminate the jews then?"
I think you'll find we, er, did. Something to do with only having evidence courtesy of listening in to Enigma transmissions on the subject and not wanting to give the game away by flattening the death camps. But the ends justified the means...............didn't they?
I've been involved in a fair few protests, right here in the UK, and campaign for equality and civil rights in many ways. Granted I don't travel abroad much, and I do have a love of the Reg indeed, so your points are well taken; Perhaps its time I took more broad ranging stances.
I still don't think that inflicting a beating upon someone is acceptable or excusable, however, and even as I withdraw from this debate (as I clearly have some things to consider now!) I can promise you I won't stop campaigning for an end to such things as unjust laws, brutal physical punishment and religious dogmatism whether its here or abroad.
Mines the one with a WHOLE pile of questions in the pocket. Thanks guys!
What about the scarring, can't that affect her career? Lashes don't always leave just welts, they sometime leave scars. She broke the law, yes, but Malaysia isn't respecting foreign laws on the matter either, which pretty much puts no one in the right.
In the end, because Malaysia failed to follow international procedure, the model will likely be returned unscathed.
I appear to have aimed for El Reg and hit the Twat-O-Tron by mistake.
The point a lot of people here are missing or muddying with moralising about our right to interfere etc... is that, according to Natural Justice, the punishment should fit the crime and the reparation to society be appropriate to the damage caused.
It doesn't matter what laws, religious or otherwise, Malay, British or even Martian, were broken, or whether or not the woman in question knew about the laws and potential consequences beforehand. The woman is being beaten with a switch which will cause actual bodily harm and scarring for consuming something which is against her religion. This is a barbaric affront to natural justice and, when confronted with such, we bloody well should get upset and angry.
Just like we did with the G20 police tactics, Pete 2, or did you not see any newspapers/ websites/TV/anything at all in the aftermath? Like the official review and U-Turn on police tactics that came as a result?
Unfortunately no such review of practises is likely to happen in this case.
Oh and, hey, you lot at the back? The "phwoar-bit-of-slap-and-tickle-innit?" brigade? To borrow from the Moderatrix: DFO! If you don't understand the difference between boudoir play and being beaten with a switch, do us all the very big favour of not parading your ignorance, please.
An issue over which we actually do have a semblance of control. Putting up a fail sign on matters of opinion is annoying. Gives the impression that a hard and fast fuck up is about to be debunked, and disappoints.
Good use of fail: 'Would somebody enlighten this ignorant twat about the Taliban and why we are there.'
ODFO: 'I hand a FAIL tag out to everyone who reduces these issues to acinine comments, comedy or self-centered utilitarian philosophy.'
I'll bite on this too.
Any laws (or other conventions) which proscribe anything which doesn't cause actual harm to another person (and to hell with offended senses of propriety or morals) are going to lead to crap like that described in the article. Refer to the earlier article regarding the petition to apologise to Alan Turing if you have trouble with the concept. Otherwise you leave a society at the mercy of whatever idiot prejudices are currently in vogue since there is nowhere else to draw a neat line. If it's OK to beat some poor woman for having a beer, it's probably OK to torture you to death for having red hair or wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area or being too fat or whatever subjective shit someone in a position of authority would like to pull out of their butt.
So the "she knew the law, broke it and should take the consequences" is not a good argument. In fact it shows a mentality which is quite contemptable, given the actual facts of the case.
And, since we're at it, what exactly is the objective difference between taking heroin and drinking beer? Just the actual doing, hurting nobody but yourself. Why is it OK to do one and not the other?
And why might beating a woman with a stick (or for that matter, jailing people for getting zonked on alkaloids derived from plants) be a worse thing than having your moral conscience offended?
This is rather a tricky one to be honest. On one hand, she was a practicing Muslim following Muslim law, and knew that drinking alcohol was illegal. She knew full well that she would be tried as a Muslim if caught.
On the other hand, lashings with a cane designed to leave permanent scars does seem rather barbaric to me. Admittedly, it is only six.
I have to wonder...she's the first to be handed this punishment rather than a jail sentence, perhaps she was given the choice of the two and saw this as the lesser of two evils?
This seems extreme to us, as alcohol is such a huge part of our society...probably TOO huge really! But to them I guess it's no different to punishing someone for taking illegal drugs.
One thing that I really can't make my mind up on - this law is ONLY applied to Muslims. Non-Muslims and foreigners are allowed to drink when and where they want, within reason. Would this mean that the choice is given to each individual, or is Muslim/non-Muslim decided for you? And if you're religious enough to accept punishment, then why break the law of your religion in the first place? But then...where do those who believe in Islam on a casual basis stand? Do they even exist? I know rather a lot of casual Christians, does this follow with other religions?
A lot of questions that I can't answer because I neither know nor understand all of the facts. I do think, however, that we all need to stop jumping down the throats of anyone who disagrees with our particular point of view, as we're not necessarily the ones in the right!
You, sir, are highly mistaken. The United States of America is not a "christian country." Infact, the highest law of the United States prohibits it from ever being one:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--The First Amendment to the Constitiution of the United States of America http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
Some countries do have national religons. Some of them will have religous laws, and therefor religous crimes. The United States of America does not, therefor there are no religous crimes.
Singapore too uses caning as a deterrent. The way it works is different: women are not caned. Only the men are. A thn rattan cane is soaked in water overnight, and a single lash applied by a martial arts expert. It then proceeds at one lash a day so that the convicted person gets to savour each individual lash in its glorious entirety.
Not sure about the Malaysian way, but am given to understand that women are not caned on the buttocks, but on their palms or calves.
Religions should be banned. Religious nutters should be caned using switches with embedded nails.
I'm pushed to see the difference, she could get 3 years for alcohol, but it's really not a major drug, or come to the UK and get done for 'lethal' pot, just because Brown doesn't know what he's talking about.
Neither drug is particular major, and pot is the lesser of the two.
Doesn't stop Brown wasting money on TV propaganda pretending it's more dangerous than it really is though. Just ask Frank, certainly, don't go on the science of anything like that...
Would this mean that the choice is given to each individual, or is Muslim/non-Muslim decided for you?
In Malaysia (and probably other Islamic countries, but Malaysia is the only one I've lived in) once a muslim, always a muslim - there was recently a landmark case where a woman who'd converted for marriage was allowed to de-convert but that was a huge deal and very special circumstances.
If you're muslim, you are under the sharia laws, and that means no staying in a hotel together out of wedlock, no drinking etc. Cherating is a holiday area (they even have a club 18-30!) and I would suspect that the government is annoyed at something, so having a nice, public crackdown.
1. She was offered the chance to appeal; she chose not to.
2. She's asked for the sentence to be carried out in public.
3. She's stated she agrees with the punishment.
3. The judge has given the same sentence to several men (who have generally appealed).
4. Despite everyone's lubricious fantasies, the caning is carried out while the person punished is fully clothed.
5. The caning is not allowed to break the skin.
http://tinyurl.com/m9ecz8, http://tinyurl.com/lcb4y2, http://tinyurl.com/n9b26w for more background. A lot more heat is being generated about this than it seems to warrant, or that I suspect it would cause if it wasn't happening to a pretty woman in a nasty foreign Muslim country.
"...On one hand, she was a practicing Muslim following Muslim law, and knew that drinking alcohol was illegal. She knew full well that she would be tried as a Muslim if caught..."
One could argue that she has no choice but be a practicing Muslim, or else.
And, law-wise, how do international laws work in a case such as this?
1) The Koran says nothing about punishment for drinking alcohol. While it's seen as something Not Good, the Muslim good book considers it to be more a personal matter between the sinner and God.
2) Sisters in Islam, a Malaysian women's Muslim group, has condemned the practice as "cruel and inhuman" and has urged the woman in question, several times, to appeal the decision. With the Koran on their side, there's a good chance the ruling may be mitigated, if not reversed. The woman doesn't want to.
3) The govt. (not the Islamic court) has also tried to give the woman an "out" by suggesting appeal avenues, jail terms (which will, in all probability, quietly melt away to a quick shoo out the door after a couple of months).
4) No man has been caned for alcohol consumption in the past few years; this woman is the first.
So, bearing all the above in mind, why is the woman wanting to go through with it? Only she knows.
"In their religous faith it is a sin to consume alcohol. Chrisitanity has its own crazy practices and you have no right to judge anyone elses."
Yes - Christianity has its own crazy practices, and they deserve to be treated with exactly the same contempt as the crazy Muslim practices.
Barbarians, all of them.
Fair do's - I was proven wrong regarding the States being Christian, but the UK certainly is a Christian country (dating WAY back, past the Tudors etc. but at the moment is recognised as a CofE (Church of England) country). I just assumed (I know - ass, you me etc.) the US was - my bad!
More complicated, and actually a bit more humourous. I'm not sure if booze shows up in the Koran at all, but it does get a look in in the Hadiths (the sayings and doings of the Prophet), and seems a bit more practical than religious (in 7th century terms, when no-one would be hanging out with an array of weapons). It goes something like this:
Some people from a neighbouring tribe came to see Mohammed, with a complaint about a tribe of unbelievers that had been giving them a hard time. They asked Mohammed for a solution. He told them to do four things and avoid four things. Thie first four were the obvious; pray etc. The no-nos included green coloured jars and the hollowed out stumps of palm trees, which he went on to explain were the root of their problems:
Mohammed: "Do you put dates in the hollowed out palm stumps?"
Tribesmen: "Yes, we do"
Mohammed: "And do you then sprinkle water on them?"
Tribesmen: "....errrm yes"
Mohammed: "And after the fermentation has ended do you drink it?"
Tribesmen (a bit sheepish by now as they could see where this was heading): "Perhaps occasionally have the odd swifty, yes."
Mohammed: "And do you end up so intoxicated that one of you belts one of his cousins with his sword?"
Tribesmen ( now totally embarrassed, not least as one of their number had been hiding shamefaced from the Prophet a leg injured in just this way after a particularly heavy session of stump-guzzling): "Funny you should mention it..."
Mohammed: "Can you see where I'm going with this...?"
He then gives them a brief lecture about using water skins tied with string at the neck (even if the rats do nibble them) instead of gourds, green coloured jars, palm stumps etc.
I imagine dry gourds and green coloured jars may well also be a caning offence in Malaysia.
Paris, wouldn't be a big hit in 7th century Arabia
It is indeed very complicated. From what I hear on the grapevine, there are three more of these cases due in the next few weeks. A lot of the furore seems to be that it's generally only women that are being picked up for public consumption of alcohol. No-one's going after the Datuks who drive home pissed as cunts after a bottle of Johnnie Walker, or the Saudis, Kuwaitis, et al teeming in KL's bars, all drinking merrily away. Case in point, I was discussing finer points of Islamic thought just last week in my local in KL with a Saudi guy, who self-identified as Wahabi. He happily troughed through a few pints of Tiger as we talked.
@James81, it is generating a lot of heat here in Malaysia as well, coming only a week or two after the religious police in Shah Alam confiscated all of a 7-11's stock of beer, despite the fact that the local municipal bodies (ie secular) had no authority to pass that sort of legislation, nor to greenlight the raid. The Selangor state authorities forced them to hand the beer back.
I know about five Muslims in this country who I know don't drink, and two of them are my kids. My wife, if we're out having a drink somewhere, is liable to be pulled up for this bullshit, despite not being Malaysian, so this is an issue that affects me VERY personally.
China Miéville, in his fascinating book 'Perdido Street Station', refers to a group of people/creatures who really have only one punishable crime - 'Choice Theft'. Quite a novel (no pun) concept.. For example stealing something from someone also steals that person's choice to have and use the item. Killing someone is effectively stealing that person's choice to live. The concept can be applied to almost any situation: Mugging steals the victim's choice about keeping their money; Noisy neighbours steal their neighbours' rights to peace and quiet. Penalties for infringement were related to the significance of the crime but were generally severe.
Try it on any crime or act you wish - it certainly provokes thought.
Lets refuse to trade with...
Spain - They kill bulls for "sport"
France - Thet eat horses don't they
USA - Guanatamo (OK its closed now)
Japan - Whale hunting
Germany - Who needs a reason
Israel - Palestinians persecution
Turkey - Human rights violations
Err.. This might leave us a bit isolated
"Any laws (or other conventions) which proscribe anything which doesn't cause actual harm to another person (and to hell with offended senses of propriety or morals) are going to lead to crap like that described in the article."
Dude, where I completely disagree with corporal punishment and personally believe this sentence to be abhorrent I must pick you up on the absolutely absurd statement suggesting that alcohol consumption doesn't cause actual harm to another person.
Seriously, most of us here will drink to some extent but hands up anyone who can honestly say they have drunk alcohol and *never* taken an action that has caused actual harm (or indeed serious risk of harm which is pretty much as bad) to another, whether it is driving whilst impaired, fighting, hurtfully mouthing off at loved ones (mental harm is also bad, mmmkay?) or just accidentally walking into people/hitting them whilst flailing around pissed on the dance floor or whatever.
Not to mention the assorted problems that go with alcoholism and dependency.
@Sarah Bee RE: Islam is kind of one of those all-or-nothing things
Actually this is a very common misconception.
There are many degrees of Islam the same way as there are many degrees of Christianity (etc.) - much of the rules attributed to Islam have nothing to do with the Qu'aran or The Prophet Muhammed pbuh but instead have been put in place by political leaders over the years as a way of strengthening their power.
Interestingly enough, and worthy of debate is the comparison between "accepted" Christianity and the word of the Bible versus "accepted" Islam and the word of the Qu'aran. Where I use "accepted" to mean the typical perception of said religion.
If you read the Bible it clearly proscribes a great many things which western "Christian" nations have chosen to ignore whereas the Qu'aran clearly gives a great many rights / benefits that hard-line Islamic states have elected to withdraw.
For a good comparison look at the differences in the way the Bible treats women versus the way the Qu'aran treats women:
Bible: Eve is responsible for Adam eating the forbidden fruit
Qu'aran: Adam and Eve jointly responsible for said eating transgression
B: Women punished for ever (childbirth) for Eve's transgression
Q: Adam and Eve both forgiven for the appley faux pas
B: It is OK for a man to rape a virgin as long as he pays her father and marries her
Q: WTF? Seriosuly? Rape OK? on what fucking planet?
And there are many more examples such as these. Really to call authorities that do things like caning people "Islamic" makes as much sense as calling North Korea "Democratic" or the crusades "Christian"
Sorry for the rant, carry on.
This post has been deleted by its author
<<but hands up anyone who can honestly say they have drunk alcohol and *never* taken an action that has caused actual harm....>>
Totally agree. That's how I met my missus. THAT'S actual harm!*
<<.....whilst flailing around pissed on the dance floor or whatever>>
You bet. Flailing around? I'm 53 - years old, and on Senior's Dance Nite, I can't even _see_ the other coffin-dodgers, let alone miss them. I must've put dozens into intensive care.
*Where did you meet your missus? On a prayer mat in Finsbury Park Mosque? Or do you play chess a lot?
My 4 wives were arranged for me by close family. I met them on our respective wedding days. We were all completely sober, or at least I was and their eyes didn't seem bloodshot or anything.
The tall one's father has a nice run of shops, the feisty one comes from a family of doctors, the older one is a really good cook and I think the other one used to be good at something or other, though I can't remember what. I am sure it'll come to me.
Never be seen dead in Finsbury Park Mosque, fucking liberal pussies.
Nicely restrained rebuke for that "northern monkey" laddie.
I spent two years in newly independent Malaysia after it emerged from years of terrorist atrocities inflicted by political extremists. Sad to see that beautiful country now sliding backwards into the control of religious extremists who will soon reduce the country to to the same level of anarchy we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Extremism in all its forms, religious, political and economic, is always configured against the interests of the majority and to the benefit of a very small minority. For evidence look no further than the economic lunacy of deregulated and unrestrained free markets. However, you can console yourself with the knowledge that you will benefit from what the economic extremists call the "trickle down effect". Bit like the suicide bombers who are promised the consolation of 27 virgins.
'...Spain - They kill bulls for "sport..."'
Well, no: we kill them for "art" and manliness' sake.
And half of us would like this idiocy prohibited, because of what it says about us. Also, we've had seven deaths, including a minor's, quite recently. We crucify driving under the influence but then when an idiot gets trampled by a bull we homage him and declare a birthplace-wide mourning day. Pure Darwin Awards material.
You're forgetting the US and their insistence that someone who did the digital equivalent of walking into a house through and unlocked door get serious jail time as a terrorist -- they're also the ones who find it fun to let their prisoners enjoy something called "waterboarding". Or the UK where you can be jailed for picking mushrooms out of the ground and making tea with them -- they also like to jail you here if you're forgotten your password.
"even though [e] is safer and has far less negative physical and social impact than drink"
That's true - there was a debate on where some Lord or MP was trying to get e lagalised, and his arguement was something like 20 people die a year in the UK due to e alone, yet 100 people die a year in the UK due to horse riding...
@Lee - all I can say is "lol"! :D
The drink goes to Cameron for his excellent ideas regarding wild mushrooms :D
Just want to add some facts that were left out of the article or ignored by the commenters.
*The part time model is from Singapore and was visiting Malaysia. She is Muslim, married with 2 kids.
*She pleaded guilty and has paid the fine. She WANTS the caning to be carried out in public to call attention to her belief that 'The law is a little bit wrong'
*The recipient is fully clothed and the flogger cannot raise his arm high. The blows are delivered using a thin stick, so that they don't break the skin.
*The law forbidding alcohol applies only to Muslims, who make up about 60 percent of the population. The country's Buddhist, Christian or Hindu population can drink freely.
*Malaysia's civil court does not call for caning for alcohol consumption only the Shariah court does.
I think you need to be clearer in what you mean. Literally your statement reads "alcohol harms no-one except the person taking it" which is clearly not correct.
Read your initial post in a neutral manner and you will see what I mean.
However I stick by my assertion that no-one who drinks on at least a semi-regular basis has *never* committed a reprehensible act due at least in part to the alcohol partaken.
To clear some possible misconceptions:
I am not Muslim.
I was not brough up Muslim.
I am not actually a believer in anything other than what we as humans make for ourselves.
I do not have 4 wives.
The feisty one is actually up for grabs if someone makes me a decent offer though.
I do drink alcohol. Occasional I drink to excess. The rest of the time I drink way more than that.
I do not condone corporal punishment at all.
However i have little sympathy for those who break well known laws of countries they are in.
In short this means I think the drinking woman is stupid and deserves punishment, but that punishment should be civilised and not include whipping and buttocks in teh same sentence.
But mainly I have a problem with people assuming that a bunch of fucking lunatics who are out to oppress people in the [convenient] name of religion X are in some way indicative and authoritative for teh rest of religion X.
The problem here is people taking their own values and projecting them on others. You may have no problem with alcohol but many groups do. I am pretty sure there are legitimate groups out there that happily accept practices you find repulsive but I assume [hopefully wrongly] that you would have no sympathy with them if they came over to your town, committed their acts and then were prosecuted for doing so.
The feisty one is yours as long as I get to take photos.
"The woman broke the law, it was a stupid law but she was aware of it's existence when she so publicly ignored it."
So why was it on sale ? Is that not entrapement ? Should the seller not also be guilty of an offence?
"If you were caught anally invading a 14 year old Malaysian boy you may have countless defenses as to why it's a stupid law, doesn't change the opinion of the majority."
So the state lining the little boys up in a bar and offering a service is OK, but anyone actually participating would be wrong ?
I think you need to re-think your stance on this particular case.
I agree customs and religious beliefs should be respected in other cultures, but entrapement by the state is a different matter. And I think you'll find Amnesty International agrees!
No it's not.
You can't spell it and you don't know what it means, but that doesn't stop you being a patronising little cock. Go away.
Still here? Consider that alcohol and cigarettes are on sale in shops in the UK, and that minors are allowed in these shops, but aren't allowed to buy them. Have Amnesty cottoned on to this scandal? No? You should probably let them know.
Please note that Islamic laws in Malaysia are only applicable to Muslims. They do not apply to other groups like Chinese, Hindus etc. In this case the model is a Malaysian Muslim (though she lives in Singapore was back to see her family). Its obvious eh knew the law and still transgressed and she is happy to get the punishment to be over and done with.
Incidently this applies to toursists as well. If you are a non-Muslim and visit Malaysia, you can happily drink alcohol and sleep with other women/men. However, any Muslim visiting Malaysia may not drink alcohol in Sharia controlled states. Also they cannot sleep with anyone who is not their wife/husband (this applies to whole of Malaysia).
btw this is not entrapment. The alcohol is widely available so that other ethnic groups and tourists can buy it. Malaysia is not a totally dry country.
Somone mentioned Dubai. There you can drink acohol in hotels only. You cannot drink in public nor be drunk outside. Thats mainly for the tourists. But have you seen a local Dubai arab drink? Naaaaarrrrr!!!!
By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 20th August 2009 12:03 GMT
*edit for yawns*
Yes, ASBOs are little deterrence, but meeting violence and anti-social behavior with more violence? Surely there's a better, more civilised way.
Ship the buggers off to the new territory? Iraqistan
I like your thinking !!!!!
have you noticed that whilst punishments have become more & more liberal, with the need for reform & rehabilitation, the crimes being committed are becoming more & more violent and frequent.
could be a coincidence ... just saying
oh, and to the grammar police, GET A LIFE !
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021