Causing a bit of a stir in The Sandbox - the verdict issued against the 75-year-old woman who was "caught" in the presence of two unrelated men. There is an article about the issue in today's Arab News.
Someone tell me why it is that a 75-year-old woman who was having bread delivered to her is being identified by name AND nationality in the paper when a pedophile who has raped and killed little boys - toddlers! - is NOT identified by even his nationality. [I am not going to use her name here; she more than deserves a little respect and privacy as far as I'm concerned. The pedophile killer on the other hand - I want to know his name, his nationality and I want to see his picture. I want "Bubba" in the jail to which the pedophile ends up in to know who he is, too. I digress...] For the sake of identifying her, here, I'm going to call her Mrs. VWBS [as in Mrs. Very Wronged By Society].
Mrs. VWBS's lawyer says "he plans to appeal the verdict, which also demands that Mrs. VWBS be deported after serving her prison term. ...his client has not served her sentence yet." Kudos to Arab News for contacting police and commission officials; they both "refused to give further details about the case." You don't say.
A legal specialist, Fariyal King, said "...police had a responsibility to explain the case as they detained the two men on the request of officials from the commission. The Hail police spokesman's refusal to give a statement shows that there is some sort of obscurity." No!
Mrs. VWBS "met the men last June after she asked one of them to bring her five loaves of bread." She couldn't, after all, just hop in her car and scoot off to the market to get it herself. The two men - also identified - went to her house to do so. "As they came out after delivering the bread, the two men were arrested by commission officials." Are there not enough other and more pressing matters to be concerned about? Apparently not.
"The court said it based its March 3 ruling on information from citizens and ... testimony [one of the men's father]." That father has "accused [Mrs. VWBS] of corruption." Huh? Mrs. VWBS told the court "that she considered [one of the men] as her son, because she breast-fed him when he was a baby." That claim has been denied by the court on the grounds that "she had no evidence." [No one used a mobile to take pictures? That's a first.] A commission director says that "his officials detained the woman after receiving a written message that two men had entered her house." Is there ANY rule or law, here, that allows the accused to find out who their accuser is? WHO sent the written message - and how was it sent - via carrier pigeon, Federal Express, text message? Seems to me that the "written message" had to have gotten to the intended recipient faster than the speed of light for the events to have unfolded as they did. It is reported "that police had arrested the woman on two previous occasions." For what?
Anyone smelling something funny yet? Read this: "After I gave her the bread two commission officials came. They first said they belonged to a charity and wanted to know the living condition of the woman. While we were going out they caught us and handed us over to the police," reports one of the two men. A set-up. Entrapment? Something. The other man says, "There were six commission members who all had their faces covered."
A lawyer, Ibrahim Zamzami says, "[I]f it was proved that the old woman is [one of the men's] foster mother through breast-feeding, then the charge of khulwa (illegal seclusion) would be nullified. But if his reIation to her is only as his uncle's wife then the charge would stand as she is eligible to marry him." [You cannot make this stuff up.] Mr. Zamzami says "the matter of illegal seclusion with an unrelated woman was difficult to prove. 'This depends on the circumstances... The shorter the time spent together, the more likelihood of illegal seclusion.'" Am I the ONLY ONE who doesn't understand THAT concept? "The shorter the time... the more likelihood..." He says, "[A] 75-year-old woman is usually not considered seductive yet she is a woman and unrelated men should not be alone with her." Cougar!
When I posted on this yesterday, I said I would see what reaction the Saudi Gazette would garner. Four comments have been submitted. There are here. Not a single one of the four supports the sentence that Mrs. VWBS has been given!