If you read the last post you should have noticed that I am a bit divided over this whole thing, namely because I have no idea when exactly the crime that she is being punished for occurred.
And now I have found many, many different articles all of which give different details.
The BBC articles that I posted yesterday just say that she was found in the car of a "strange man"
Other news sources say:
Fox News
This article is from March, and says that she was basically blackmailed twice, once by her former boyfriend and then by one of the rapists. She was abducted while in the car when it was stopped by two other cars. Basically she had broken the law before she was raped by the men, at least according to this article.
Knowing the well known criticism that Fox News has it may have been made up and attributed to The Scotsman (have to look).
The Telegraph
Doesn't mention blackmail. Says that she asked him to return photos because she was getting married.
Also says that she was in the car before the rape.
CBC News
Once again mentions her in the car before the abduction.
There is one common aspect to these other articles. They say that they were both raped. Now this may sound a bit wrong, but would it not have been better for the courts to say that the rapes were some form of divine punishment for the two of them breaking the law?
There is one thing that annoys me just a little, and that is that she broke the law beforehand. It doesn't really nullify the fact that she was raped, but it does somewhat damage the idea that her being in the car had something to do with her being raped.
Still, 200 lashes for telling her tale is still too harsh a punishment. And up to between 2 and 10 years for rape is too lenient. If Fox is right at least. then I would have to say good on the prosecution asking for death, I still think that the rapists deserve to meet the sword in a very intimate way.
No comments:
Post a Comment