Just about everyone can agree that Australia's top Muslim imam is wrong in comparing women to meat who deserve to be raped for their immodesty, but the right answer is not always so clear-cut.
A Muslim cleric's claim that women who do not wear the veil are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators sparked outrage around Australia yesterday.Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the nation's most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women who do not wear the Islamic headdress with meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats. ...
In a Ramadam sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame.
There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.
Blaming rape victims who don't wear burkhas is clearly ludicrous and evil, but are all those who cry "rape" completely innocent? (The age of consent in Ohio is 16 years old.)
The week before the show, Mango's entertainment director Holly Everson began to lay the groundwork, recruiting local girls to kick-start the action. In an e-mail to the 17-year-old Falls girl, Everson wrote, ``call me if you want to be part of Girls Gone Wild on Weds. @ Mangos... Ill hook you up, all you gotta do is be there at 9 and dance on the bar all night and have fun.'' ...The recipient of Everson's invitation doesn't talk like a typical teen. She is direct and well-spoken, and clearly intelligent.
Hard to square that kind of acumen with the girl who at 9:15 p.m. on Sept. 13 rolled into Mango's with a female friend to make $50 to dance on top of the bar and ``get things going,'' as she was instructed. They were among four young girls recruited to liven things up.
The Falls girl says it was made clear to her that she and her fellow insiders would be treated to an open bar.
And what did she drink that night? ``I think a better question would be, `What did I not drink?' '' she replies.
The drunker she got, the more she took off. By roughly 11 p.m., she was gyrating on the bar, exposing everything at one time or another, as perhaps 350 customers hooted their approval and three GGW photographers documented the action, two with video cameras and one with still. ...
As closing time neared, she says, she and several other girls were invited out to the bus. She was the first in line and, after she climbed aboard, she says, the others were barred. While she was partially passed out, the cameraman who had been watching her came up from behind and forced himself on her, she says.
There may have been a rape, but could it possibly be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Is the 17-year-old here completely blameless? In my experience, the commenters who will be hardest on this girl will be other women.
1. It's safe to assume that this 17 year-old willingly attended the party, knowing what it was about.
2. It's safe to assume that this 17 year-old dressed "appropriately" for the party and filming.
3. It's apparent the girl knew what she was doing when she began consuming alcohol at this sexual event. i.e., "what did I not drink?"
4. Rape is a crime, and a disgrace to society. If the man DID rape her, he should be put in jail.
BUT
the girl should also be punished for underage drinking and putting herself in that situation. It all comes down to actions and consequences. No one person is solely responsible for what allegedly happened.
My final question is: Where were her parents?
ok wat this muslum guy is sayin is that if chicks dont walk around with their ass hangin out of their skirts and their boobs popping out the top of their tops are makin guys want it, and obviosly some of the attention from this is bound to be unwanted. so they souldnt walk around dressed like this cause its puttin them at risk. as for the 17 year old the party sounded suss from the start and she shouldnt have gone to begin with, she cant claim rape as she dosent really no if he screwed her or not but- she may have consented but cant remember it cause she was way to pissed and should not have left her friends! watch wat your doing wen u go out try and dress sensibly, watch out for your friends and get them to whatch out for you.
Why is it that one should have to dress a certain way when walking in public? Is it not a free country? What about those victims who do not dress provocatively and who do not "gyrate" in public places? Are they still to blame? Rape is the fault of the rapist. Regardless of what I am doing in my free country, you are responsible for your own actions. You know what is right from wrong and for you need to be able to control yourself. No woman deserves to be raped; she is not calling it upon herself. She is entitled to wear what she chooses and to go where she pleases. Granted, she should not have been drinking underaged, but that is a seperate crime. Her actions in no way make her liable for what happened that night. If a rape did occur, it is the rapist's fault, not the girl. Stop finding reasons to judge the victim because that is exactly what she is, a victim. Do we say that someone, Jane Doe, deserves to be killed becasue she made another person, John Doe, angry to the point where he mercilessly murdered her? No, in fact, that is not even determined in the case. All that is paid attention to is the fact that poor little Jane is lying 6 feet under while her family is weeping their eyes out. Is it not the same for the rape victim? Why is it that our system finds it acceptable to judge the victim; it is not she who is on trial here, but the rapist. In conclusion, it is never what the victim is wearing or how they are acting that needs to be determined but the severity of the crime. If it were your sister or your mother would you take the time to question whether the clothes she was wearing provoked her attacker? I think not!! Then don't do it to someone else's sister or mother. As the old cliche goes, "Judge not, lest ye be judged!"
Regi: You say that if a rape occured then it is the rapist who bears the blame, and that's correct, of course, because it's in the definition of "rape". However, what's really hard is determining whether or not the sex was rape, and that decision is certainly impacted by the behavior of the potential victim.
As for your comparison with murder, you're wrong. If person A purposefully provokes person B to violence and B kills A, that may not be murder in may cases, it may be manslaughter or even justifiable homicide.