Liberal Saudi Web Forum Founder Sentenced To 600 Lashes and 7 Years In Prison

cold fjord writes "Some reformers travel a harder road than others. The Seattle Times reports, 'The founder of a liberal-minded website in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes after angering Islamic authorities in the ultraconservative kingdom. ... Raif Badawi, through his website known as Free Saudi Liberals, had urged Saudis to share opinions about the role of religion in the country, which follows a strict form of Islam that includes harsh punishments for challenging customs. A judge in the Red Sea port of Jiddah imposed the sentences but dropped charges of apostasy, which could have brought a death sentence, the Al-Watan newspaper reported. Badawi has been held since June 2012.' More at details are available at the BBC, which informs us that 'The judge ordered that the 600 lashes be administered 150 at a time.' 'The lashes could be spread out but in Sharia this is a sign that the judge wants to insult him,' Badawi's lawyer said."

Comments

150 lashes?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many does it take to kill a person? Just wondering...

Re:150 lashes?

[TheCarp]

I doubt you can really put a number on it. I know there used to be superstition on exactly this topic and people used to only get some odd number for that reason; however, I think its likely that either someone once died while being whipped; starting the rumor, or someone started it just to have an excuse not to go overboard.

In reality I think it would come down to both the health of the person and the technique of the lasher. I have certainly given 150 or more lashings and seen others give even more/harder lashings but, I doubt anything we do in our bedrooms comes close to what these guys do.

Would also depend on the whip. A bull whip, for example, is much worst than most modern bsdm "cat o 9 tails" types that tend to be made from 10s of foot long strips of soft leather. In fact, I have heard people rant about idiots with no experience who buy bull whips as sex toys without realizing how much damage they can do.

Its likely highly variable.

Re:150 lashes?

[TheCarp]

of course, the funny thing is, I occasionally think twice about posting about smoking pot on here, even though I am not actually admitting to a crime in my state. Yet I don't think twice about admitting to having whipped someone for sexual purposes....when my state makes no exception for consensual bdsm in its domestic abuse laws, and doesn't require the "abused" to even agree that they were abused or want to press charges.

People here still talk about paddleborough

Re:150 lashes?

[Jeremy Erwin]

In Western countries, when we we performed lashes it was full force and if just several dozen were performed you are talking potential death, broken bones, and striping flesh off of ribs.

Just who do you work for? Have you considered reporting your employers to the police?

Re:150 lashes?

[JustOK]

They ARE the police

Re:150 lashes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment got me curious, so I went and looked it up. From a 2006 report on human rights practices published by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor:

"According to press reports, lashings were generally administered with a thin reed by a man who must hold a book under his arm to prevent him from lifting the arm too high. The strokes, delivered through a thin shirt, are not supposed to leave permanent damage but are designed to leave painful welts that bleed and bruise."

A paragraph or so above that quote is a reference from Human Rights Watch that says that the lashed do not receive medical treatment.

Re:150 lashes?

[gl4ss]

death by lashes depends largely on how they're administered - so if it's practically something that is death or just slap on the wrist is negotiable by whoever is in power.

saudi arabia sucks big time and they can all go suck cocks. fucking burma is more fair.

if you're going to be a saudi arabian net-activist - first thing you should do would be to move the fuck away from there, because they're giant cocksuckers the whole lot.

now - they know that their business is all purely dependent on oil which is why they're dumping money on some IT business among other tech jobs, which is why there's lots of gigs to there. don't fucking go there to work - and double don't fucking go there to work if you're a woman, just stay the fuck away unless you're invited by royalty and paid royally.

I don't have this harsh opinions about many countries, but saudi arabia consistently manages to be a fuckhole of DIFFERENT RULES FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE only rivaled by north korea. russia doesn't get half close, china doesn't get close, even the mentioned burma doesn't get half close. even in china getting away with murder of hired underclass is hard and involves both bribing and maintaining secrecy and then escaping the mob retaliation - even if you're part of the party. in saudi arabia no such problems.

you know how in the gulf oil arab countries booze is banned? well fuck, in practice it's available but you'll have to pay through the nose for it since the local booze mafia is run by the princes(ruling class). insulting that class? well fuck, only if you're part of it can you do it. and the worst thing? the fucker saudis aren't even embarrassed about it and act all surprised if they get caught acting like they do when they're visiting other countries as if their slavery contracts extended elsewhere from their shithole in the desert.

btw religion has nothing to do with the state of affairs there, it's just a tool.

Re:150 lashes?

[TheCarp]

Fascinating. Ouch, that could still hurt....a lot. However, its not nearly what I, or I think most people, imagine at the idea of "lashings".

That said, I don't think the description really does justice to how much pain that really could still cause. A thin reed being so small can generate an awful lot of pain without doing much damage.

I guess in the grand scheme of these whether this is better or worst than being sentenced to time in jail is a matter of personal opinion (I might actually take the beating over the time if it was more than a week or two).... totally aside from how just disgusted I am at the reasons for it.

However, lets keep this in perspective... just a few years ago they wanted to stone a woman to death for "being seen in public with a man who was not her husband".... in an incident where the "witnesses" dragged her from a car and gang raped her.... but were not themselves charged with anything. Her life was only spared after international pressure.

So I guess this is.... not as terrible as that. Um.... good job guys.

Re:150 lashes?

[Khyber]

Virgin detected.

WTF?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Good thing we are still friendly with this nation who is a shining beacon of freedom.

Re:WTF?

[i kan reed]

You've been taught a myth in your high school science classes. They tell you that millions of years ago algae and small plants died, and decomposed into oils and coals. This is an evolutionist myth, because the world is only 6001 years old.

Oil actually comes from unnecessary human suffering, but because evil liberal evolutionists conspired to end slavery in the U.S., we had to outsource our oil production to the middle east.

Re:WTF?

[ArcadeMan]

We've got to stop relying on oil.

FTFY

Re:WTF?

[h4rr4r]

Your word for today is Fungible. Learn what it means.

We need to stop using so much oil at all.

Re:WTF?

[sideslash]

yes.. they are the right wing christian's theocratic wet dream

No, right wing Christians are generally much bigger fans of Saudi Arabia's only truly democratic and generally freedom-espousing neighbor, Israel. To get on Israel's bad side in terms of speech, you pretty much have to give a threat of genocide. Which of course actually does happen frequently due to the loveliness of Islamic Sharia and its campaigns against the Western world. Which brings us back to Saudi Arabia.

Remember this

[bondsbw]

Remember this when you get an urge to say that America and Western society is oppressive, and when you decide that Islam is a peaceful religion.

Re:Remember this

[Nidi62]

Does the religion not dictate the politics and the legal aspects of their society?

Partially yes, but eventually they will have to come to terms with the fact that 1400? year old religious-based legal system just cannot be applied in a modern world. Many Muslims have already realized this and accepted it, while others are fighting it tooth and nail. But when it does happen, the legal framework within the religion will be forgotten/ignored much like in Judaism, and then it will really be no more violent/dangerous than modern day Christianity and Judaism are. Because when you think about it, where Islam is right now, Christianity was at the same age. Imagine 14th century Christianity existing right now. It would look pretty bad too.

Re:Remember this

[Lunix Nutcase]

Saddam... Saddam... Wasn't he the one who Don Rumsfeld was chummy with in the 80s and who the Reagan Administration was giving tanks, missiles and technology so he could produce chemical weapons? Oh and who also gave him satellite imagery so he could bomb civilian targets in Iran?

Re:Remember this

[h4rr4r]

Bullshit, he let women drive, attend university. That guy was nearly a saint compared to these assholes.

Heck, the CIA put him in power and until Bush 1 he was our best buddy.

Re:Remember this

[stdarg]

Many Muslims have already realized this and accepted it

"Many" as in millions perhaps, but that's a small percentage of Muslims.

When we're talking about the general Muslim population, the people you may know in the US don't count for anything. It's the large populations in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Tunisia, Indonesia, etc. that count. There is widespread support for sharia law throughout the Muslim world.

Because when you think about it, where Islam is right now, Christianity was at the same age. Imagine 14th century Christianity existing right now. It would look pretty bad too.

That argument makes no sense at all. The age of the religion doesn't matter, it's the state of the world that matters. 14th century Christianity was backwards because in the 14th century we didn't have modern science and medicine, electricity, widespread literacy, the Internet, access to the entire world's products and cultures, and instant access to historical information.

Guess what? Muslims have all those things. The literacy rate in Iran is over 98%. Pakistan has over 118 million cell phones.

To top it off there are newer religions that are better, like Sikhism (a monotheistic warrior religion founded in the 15th century as a reaction to the military strength of Islam... that's why they carry swords all the time). Do you think Sikhism is umm 800 years or so behind EVEN ISLAM in terms of modernity? Nope!

Really, if you have a good reason why younger monotheistic religions should be more backwards, despite examples to the contrary, please share it.

America

[Iniamyen]

As much as I love bitching about the issues that we have here in America, seeing what happens in shitholes like Saudi Arabia makes me feel really lucky to have been born here.

Flaming Liberal!!

[happy_place]

The Flaming Liberal, clearly he got what he deserves... 600 lashes and 7 years in prison will definitely change his mind and reform him about those wrong-headed ideas that the blessed Shariah Law-abiding Conservatives of Saudi Arabia are not too punative or quick to deal out harsh rulings.

A prime example

[kheldan]

Yet another prime example of why alien civilizations won't contact us openly: How can a truly civilized race possibly take us as anything other than animals when we still do things like this? Our so-called "civilization" is just as thin a patina over the animal underneath as our neo-cortex is over the rest of our brains. It's positively heartbreaking to read of things like this in this day and age when I know that the human race, at it's best, is in such stark contrast with such senseless ignorance and brutality.

No, I'm not joking, and I'm not trolling either; this is really how I feel about this, and I don't care if anyone likes it or not.
Bracing for being flamed all the way down to "-1, Troll" for daring to speak my mind, which ironically enough will prove my point for me better than I can prove it myself.

Re:A prime example

[Zak3056]

Yet another prime example of why alien civilizations won't contact us openly:

Well, that and the fact that you couldn't get here from pretty much anywhere in any reasonable amount of time. Personally, I tend to think that's a bigger reason than any particular human behavior, but hey, whatever works for you.

Re:A prime example

[kheldan]

I'm not so arrogant to believe that we've discovered everything physics has to offer, so I'll still hold out for the possibility of methods of travelling interstellar distances in relatively short periods of time.

Re:Why do we associate with these barbarians?

[Cigarra]

You have death penalty in the US. And CIA-sanctioned extrajudicial torture. And lots of children-killing drones that rain death all over Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, among others. And if you're convicted in your late teens for, say, smoking pot, your life is pretty much ruined forever, thanks to the eternal stain that won't let you get an education or a decent job, therefore making sure you remain in poverty ad aeternum.

Is that somehow less barbaric than what Saudi Arabia does? Please explain how.

Re:Empirically determined to be survivable ...

[mwvdlee]

Either that or they want to torture him before dying.

The "Party of Lincoln," and the Southern Strategy

[Valdrax]

The Republican party doesn't want to coddle minorities because it believes that minorities are just as capable as the majority, and believes that introducing dependence perpetuates problems. The Democrats want to keep dependency going because they get to harvest votes (instead of the cotton they used to get). Yes, this is surprising news to you that the *Republicans* believe in true equality regardless of race - but that is the history if you care to look.

The sad thing is that I think you've actually convinced yourself of that. That the political parties are now as they have always been, and that the Republicans are still the "Party of Lincoln."

No, if you really look at the history, you see people like Strom Thurmond and his fellow Dixiecrats who left the Democratic Party to become Republicans in the wake of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You see Nixon and the Southern strategy. As Kevin Phillips, Nixon's political strategist said at the time:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

The mid 20th century was a transition time in which the Democrats split over the issue of segregation v. equality. Thurmond's Dixiecrats feuded with the rising liberalism in the party, and the end result was that most Southern Democrats were replaced with equally racist Southern Republicans -- at least the ones that didn't just switch parties themselves. It would be the Republican party that would squeeze out its pro-equality members over the next few decades, not the Democrats. As LBJ is said to have told an aide upon signing the Civil Rights Act, ""We have lost the South for a generation." It was the Democrats who made the political sacrifice to do what's right on race. And it was the Republicans who made the cold, amoral decision to pander to racists to gain their votes.

Although it was then-Democrat George Wallace who first linked popularized the connection between racist policies and states rights, it was Republican Barry Goldwater who ran with the idea and became the first Republican candidate to win the South with Reconstruction. Nixon's subsequent campaign on "states rights" and "law and order," all under the guidance of Harry S. Dent, was well understood by Southerners to mean support for racially biased policies. As Lee Atwater said:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me â" because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'"

The only reason Republicans pretend to care today is beca