Amnesty International reports:
Child of 13 stoned to death in Somalia
31 October 2008
A girl stoned to death in Somalia this week was 13 years old, not 23, contrary to earlier news reports. She had been accused of adultery in breach of Islamic law.
Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was killed on Monday 27 October, by a group of 50 men in a stadium in the southern port of Kismayu, in front of around 1,000 spectators. Somali journalists who had reported she was 23 have told Amnesty International that they judged her age by her physical appearance.
Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander. An al-Shabab spokeperson was later reported to have apologized for the death of the child, and said the militia member would be punished.
At one point during the stoning, Amnesty International has been told by numerous eyewitnesses that nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue.
Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was accused of adultery, but sources told Amnesty International that she had in fact been raped by three men, and had attempted to report this rape to the al-Shabab militia who control Kismayo. It was this act that resulted in her being accused of adultery and detained. None of men she accused of rape were arrested.
She was detained by militia of the Kismayo authorities, a coalition of Al-shabab and clan militias. During this time, she was reportedly extremely distressed, with some individuals stating she had become mentally unstable.
Amnesty International has campaigned to end the use of the punishment of stoning, calling it gruesome and horrific. This killing of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow demonstrates the cruelty and the inherent discrimination against women of this punishment.
After a long time I post here again and this time my target is a very specific group of people: The “rational” ones. It’s not that I forgot this Blog but I seldomly know what to write about.
I’m talking about those who think that they are always rational and don’t recognize if they behave differently. So it’s not about humans who know that and when they are not rational – that is indeed rational.
Everyone has his weak spots. There’s someone you have great respect for because he’s always calm, fair , possesses great knowledge and tolerance. He will listen first and then give his well-informed opinion. Excellent prerequisites for an interesting discussion. But once a different, a very special topic is being discussed he (or she) goes ballistic. The most common example is politics. Sure, that’s important so (probably) everyone is emotionally involved in it and that’s not what I want to criticize. What I’m aiming at is the distortion and misrepresentation of facts or the complete lack of facts. The well-informed and mannered person suddenly runs berserk and doesn’t stop telling nonesense. That’s the point: Lies are being told though the “Liar” sometimes doesn’t even seem to know that he is doing that. And this is something I do not only experience during political discussions but discussions about anything.
Before I go on I want to clear out a possible misunderstanding: This is a Blog where I mainly wrote about serious issues like rape. Imagine the following situation: Person A defends rapists rather calmly but with dubious arguments (how else could you?) and Person B somehow tangented to it reacts strongly and “irrational”. Now this might look like a case I would be writing about here but it isn’t – or if so, then Person A would be the target, not Person B. Rape is a serious issue and I think that the posts on my Blog so far prove that I do think so. What I’m talking about now is irrationality regarding subjects you are not or onyl marginally involved with (so maybe using politics as an example was not that good but you know what phenomenon I’m talking about at once since it’s so common). You’ll see what I mean.
So there are topics most people are not involved in like sports – most fans don’t earn money if their favourite team wins. They just enjoy it and there’s nothing bad about it. There are millions of people who are excited and they are happy if their favourites win, sad if they lose. But then again there are those who will suddenly start to distort facts and tell lies. I’ve seen this many times (and sports is just an example. It’s not about the content of my examples but the form.). It’s not just about outright lies but also jumping to (sometimes ridiculous) “conclusions” – when it’s so obvious that the onter one interpreted the facts really the way he wanted to.
I will give an example where it’s obvious and the sport i’m talking about is chess. I take the example from Edward Winter’s article A Sorry Case from 1999 without giving the names of the persons involved but just the necessary details: Dr. Lasker was Worldchampion and played to matches against Dr. Tarrasch. The first one in 1908 was for the Worldchampionship Title (Dr. Lasker won) , the second in 1916 not. Writer A claims that Dr. Tarrasch tried to take the title from Dr. Lasker twice. Writer B asks “When was the second time?”. It is obvious that B refers to the fact that the 1916 match was not for the WC title and nothing is known about any other WC match between Dr. Lasker and Dr. Tarrasch apart from the one in 1908. Even if someone didn’t grasp it at once he could at least try to take it into consideration that B referred to the status of the second match. But now, Writer C appears and writes the following (I’ll change the names to A B and C since it’s not about this special case and not the person’s involved):
‘Young Mr B gives as an “example of general carelessness” that A makes the absurd statement that Tarrasch played two matches with Lasker, as only one was played. Anyone who has followed the careers of these great players knows that there were, of course, two matches. The second match does contain some rather poor play by Tarrasch, who got clobbered, but nevertheless it was a real match. The games are presented below. In his 90s A may slip up from time to time. But the insult by the impudent young chess historian is without foundation. In any case, A’s witty prose and wealth of anecdotes are far more valuable than some whining lad who can’t even get the facts right.’
Here, the intention of Writer C is obvious: He wants to defend A from B at any cost and doesn’t refrain from personal attacks. This is a good example because the facts are there and it’s also not about something that the life of millions of people depends on. Most chessplayers, and those who don’t like/play chess anyway, won’t care about it anyway. For sure, you may it call disrespectful that B reacts towards the strange claim with such a question. But B cares about accuracy while others don’t. But now, C not only attacks B but also distorts the facts in a way that he can ridicule him.
Now, in general people will lie etc. in order to gain an advantage but in the case I depicted there’s no such motif (and even if it was, that’s just an example). It’s so often the case that I observe people trying to win arguments at any cost – either to appear clever or to abase the other. Btw., this was only an example for the phenomenon so it doesn’t mean that teh person called C in this case was one of “calm, fair and knowledgable” persons I described at the beginning.
I might have created the impression that I was involved in many arguments but I’m not. In general, I simply observe the others and arrive at my own conclusions. Still, it bothers me since it’s so … how can I say it … it reminds of turf wars and is such a waste of time. In my opinion, the winner should be the one with the best arguments and not the one who yells the loudest.
But it’s not only a matter of being frustrated while having to listen to such a conversation. It’s also something which can be used to spur on others. They will argue for issues without knowing anything about it, claiming to find problems where there are none. This is the worst aspect – not only senseless and frutless discussions but people arguing for and against issues they don’t know anything about.
Probably everyone knows Mungo Jerry’s huge hit “In the summertime” from 1970. It’s a nice song but something’s strange with these two lines:
If her daddy’s rich take her out for a meal
If her daddy’s poor just do what you feel
They continue to make clear that they love everybody and pose no threat, etc. but these lines tell a different story.
The question arises why you should treat a rich girl differently from a poor one and why you were allowed to just do what you feel when facing the latter. If it was consensual then her parents’ economical situation wouldn’t matter. It just does if it’s not consensual.
So the rich daddy may become angry if you do to his daughter whatever you feel and can punish you for it. But what is a poor dad supposed to do? He probably wouldn’t be able to afford taking court action if he was really poor and who would believe his daughter anyway.
It’s comparable to damaging goods. Imagine you manipulated your poor neighbour’s car – what could he do if he didn’t even know the perpetrator and his car wouldn’t be of value anyway. And even if he finds out he needs real friends to help him or else you could simply intimidate him physically. But what about the rich guys new Rolls Royce – i don’t need to say more, do i?
In fact, it seems to me as if the comparison to a thing is quite good and the songwriter regarded women as things and not human beings. These lines seem to express that rape merely meant damaging someone’s property and so it’s just logical that the property of a rich guy was more precious than that of a poor one.
Poor ethics, i would say…
I didn’t write much lately though a lot of things happened but sometimes I just don’t know what to write about.
The Kramnik – Deep Fritz match or the newest (and dumbest) Topalov interview (from December 17)?
Another topic could have been the tragic death of the English chess talent Jessie Gilbert who died July-16 at the age of 19. It’s likely that she committed suicide and she accused her father of raping her during her childhood before. Still, the father was acquitted of having done so afterwards.
I don’t know the details so i don’t want to comment on his guilt or not and just quote the BBC:
During the trial Mr Gilbert suggested Jessie may have deliberately drip-fed information about the alleged abuse to family and friends before she contacted police, in order to make her story more credible.
The court heard Jessica fell out with her father after a row about a laptop computer and there were other disagreements.
In court, Mr Gilbert said that allegations of rape were “disgusting” and that Jessie was playing a game of chess against him and was preparing a strategy for revenge.
It’s quite common to use chess as a symbol for strategic thinking and the ability to plan ahead. I’m just reminded of all those film scenes where the bad guy is playing chess to make clear that he could concoct a perfidious plan. Of course, all of this has nothing to do with chess and almost everybody could plan something like this. Not that i believe this crap – the opposite is true! I just want to make clear that I’m opposed to the view that her chess talent made such a plan more likely (and Mr Gilbert’s whole story thereby more convincing).
So Jessie had argued with her father about a laptop and became angry. Then she abused alcohol accused her father of raping her and finally jumped from the eigth floor of a hotel to get her revenge… Well, sounds like a bad joke but it’s too serious to be one!
At least, not ridiculous enough to not convince English jurors. But what else could have been expected with these statistics:
Only 5.6% of British women who take their complaint to the police see their assailant convicted. Many more decide to keep quiet rather than go through the humiliation of being interrogated in the dock.
For those cases that do, the UK conviction rate is little over 20%, the lowest of any European country except Ireland.
One can just hope for the situation to become better…
I wish all of you a happy new year!
The old an new Chess Worldchampion!
Congratulations, Vladimir Kramnik! You are my idol and a true sportsman.
Regular time control: Kramnik – Topalov 6-5 (6-6 due to FIDE)
Rapid chess: Kramnik – Topalov 2,5-1,5
The Godfather says:
Don Danailov and his second Veselin Topalov failed to win the match though they played tricks even Don Zaluchi would never have thought of!
A lot has been said about how to prevent rape.
Women should learn self-defense.
Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark.
Women shouldn’t have long hair and women shouldn’t wear short skirts.
Women shouldn’t leave drinks unattended. In fact, they shouldn’t dare to get drunk at all.
But, if fact, rape is not just a female bodied concern. And rape is not the responsibility of the survivor, it is the responsibility of the predator. Men, male-bodied people, and other bodied/gender identified people should be concerned with rape.
Instead of that sexist, victimizing ideal, how about:
If a person is drunk, don’t rape them.
If a person is walking alone at night, don’t rape them.
If a person is drugged and unconscious, don’t rape them.
If a person is wearing a short skirt or shorts, don’t rape them.
If a person is jogging in a park at 5 am, don’t rape them.
If a person looks like the ex you’re still hung up on, don’t rape them.
If a person is asleep in their bed, don’t rape them.
If a person is asleep in your bed, don’t rape them.
If a person is doing their laundry, don’t rape them.
If a person is in a coma, don’t rape them.
If a person changes their mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don’t rape them.
If a person has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don’t rape them.
If a person is not yet a adult, but a child, don’t rape them.
If a person is “ugly” and you think they’ll appreciate it in the long run, don’t rape them.
If the person agrees to sex with a condom, but you want to take it off, don’t rape them.
If your partner or significant other is not in the mood, don’t rape them.
If your child or family member is watching tv, don’t rape them.
If you break into a house and find a person there, don’t rape them.
If your “friend” thinks it’s okay to rape someone, tell them it’s not, and that they’re not your friend.
If your “friend” tells you they raped someone, report them to the police.
If your peer or another person at the party tells you there’s an unconscious person upstairs and it’s your turn, don’t rape them, call the police and tell the peer they’re a rapist.
If they moaned and got hot, you’re still a rapist.
If they came, you’re still a rapist.
If they were on top, but forced, you’re still a rapist.
If you used a condom, you’re still a rapist.
If there were no weapons involved, you’re still a rapist.
If they were someone you had sex with before, you’re still a rapist.
If it was oral or anal sex, but forced, you’re still a rapist.
If you used a foreign object in the act, but not any part of your own body, you’re still a rapist.
Tell family, friends, co-workers, neighbors it’s not okay to rape someone.
don’t tell your friends how to be safe and avoid rape, or what they “should” have done.
don’t imply that they could have avoided it if they’d only done/not done x.
don’t imply that it’s in any way their fault.
don’t let silence imply agreement when someone tells you they “got some” with the drunk person.
don’t perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.
There’s no excuse for raping someone and no excuse for blaming the victim also.
Vladimir Kramnik is currently playing the sixth game of the match after agreeing to the forfeit on game 5 (with later clarification).
This shows that he is not only the one (the only one ever) to beat Garry Kasparov in a Worldchampionship but also behaving like a true Champion, a real sportsman!
His decision deserves the higest praise and respect! To play against a firece attacker like Topalov after so much stress and suffering, after losing a point to him by a dirty trick is something most people would have refrained from.
Another example shows how a real sportsman acts in a situation very similar to that of Veselyn Topalov after game 4 (the first letter of protests was filed after the second game and Kramnik’s second win): Brissago 2004! Leko was leading by a single point with two games to go. What did Kramnik do? Play dirty tricks to unsettle his opponent? No! He played chess and only amazing defensive skills saved Leko in game Nr. 13 but Kramnik won game Nr.14 – a truly great game!
The reason is simple: Vladimir Kramnik loves the game of chess! He is often heavily criticized for short draws but he simply doesn’t see the sense behind playing on in drawish positions hoping for the opponent to blunder. Topalov does and he was severly punished in the first game of the reunification match!
Go VLADIMIR KRAMNIK, Worldchampion of Chess!
Thanks to Mr Topalov and Mr Danailov
The reunification match between Worldchampion Vladimir Kramnik and FIDE Champion Veselyn Topalov had a great start and promised to become an exciting match filled with brutal fighting chess and subtle positional manoeuvres. But it looks different now. And that’s why I want to thank Mr Topalov and Mr Danailov:
- Thank you for showing your disrespect towards millions of chessplayers and chessenthusiasts around the World.
- Thank you for insulting Vladimir Kramnik.
- Thank you for your childish behaviour.
- Thank you for those anchorless suspicions.
- Thank you for your ridiculous claims.
- Thanks for making us talk about how often to visit a bathroom instead of discussing the fifth chessgames of the Worldchampionship 2006
Thank you for teaching us the meaning of real sportsmanship.This was so unnecessary but it all happened. It happened behind Vladimir Borisovich’s back.
The game of chess – the Royal Game – deserves more than this!
It’s about the rape and murder of Jennifer Moore again. I guess most people read the New York Post article and there’s a detail that left me puzzled.
You know, they start describing what had happened and this quite detailed. They even go as far as to include this one:
Jennifer, meanwhile, wandered away from the lot, wearing a white miniskirt and black halter top.
I wondered why they mentioned this.
- The clothing of crime victims is sometimes published if they were abducted and not yet found – in order to increase the chance of finding them, of course. But Jennifer Moore’s dead body is not missing.
- Do they look for evidence needing eye witnesses? Well, they don’t say so, don’t give a phone number (i.e. police department) and seem to know about the happenings quite well.
Ok, so i looked for a description of what Draymond Coleman wore (the guy who allegedly raped and killed her. Most people seem to forget that he exists – see my previous post for an example) or his girlfriend/prostitute/mother of their child (Crystal Reardon). But i didn’t find any.
Why not? Why Jennifer Moore’s clothing?
So the “Bash-the-victim” classic “dressed like a slut” came to my mind. Only the (murdered) rape victim’s clothing is mentioned along the way. Neither Coleman nor Reardon have been reportedly raped. There’s not even the right context. The whole quote goes like this:
Friends who talked to Talia said she remembered nothing between the time of the ambulance ride and when she woke up safe at home.
Jennifer, meanwhile, wandered away from the lot, wearing a white miniskirt and black halter top. Detectives suspect that Jennifer – who was not old enough to drink legally – was worried about getting into trouble with cops.
It’s like they were just giving information they thought were interesting or necessary for us to know. Like miniskirt and halter top were responsible for the rape and murder (though the alcohol got more attention in the end but i don’t want to repeat that).
I just wanted to point this passing mention out which creates a certain impression without directly adressing it. They can be quite dangerous if they serve a special purpose like discrediting Afro-Americans, Jews or Muslims – People with a different skin colour and/or religion, etc.. Maybe some reader (if someone reads this at all) knows more examples. Just have nothing else to the fore at the moment.
The Godfather says:
The devil is in the details
There’s a nice post over at Feministe about Jennifer Moore – The young woman who was abducted, raped and killed in New York City. The main suspect is the taxi driver she ordered on behalf of her boyfriend.
Zuzu discussed the Post’s and Daily News’ coverage but the commenters didn’t care.
A poster called rebecca had the following to say about the issue:
I don’t know about the whole race thing you’re getting at, but I agree that the coverage seems to be trying to force her into the victim role. It’s tragic what happened, but Jennifer made a number of really stupid decisions that are not terribly sympathetic (to me, at least). Driving into Manhattan to get tanked (while underage no less), then not calling parents or authorities for help when she and her friend got stranded was profoundly bad judgment. I shudder when I see these girls all over new york getting blackout drunk…don’t they know that they are putting themselves in horrible danger? Beyond alcohol poisoning, they’re basically hanging a “fuck with me” sign on their backs. It’s unfortunate that we always have to be cautious, but I firmly believe women should never get so drunk that they cannot take care of themselves–no matter who they are with. It’s incredibly stupid and I get so angry when I see it.
First, a correction: Jennifer Moore was not “blackout drunk” as rebecca states, her friend was. Jennifer Moore did drink alcohol and therefore avoided to call the police but called her boyfriend instead when a stranger stalked her (she was too young to be allowed to drink alcohol, aged 18). Her boyfriend told her to call a taxi…
rebecca is focused on alcohol as others like ginmar already discussed.
What made me wonder was the fact that a small detail is missing. Just a very small one. Something you can easily lose sight of….
Everything’s there: The young woman (or “girl”, “gal”), her misbehaviour (going to town with a female friend, doing things boys do (drink alcohol) and the punishment (abduction, rape and murder or “tragedy” as rebecca would say)). The good old story of a girl that doesn’t behave the way girls are supposed to. She acts like a boy and then the inevitable happens. All of this could have been avoided if she’d stayed at home and learned how to cook and wash while daddy’s looking for the right guy who’ll make her some babies… But she didn’t want to listen…
Now what’s the small detail i’m referring to? It’s the rapist, the murderer. He doesn’t play a role in rebecca‘s post. Does rebecca think he was just the tool needed for the girl’s punishment? rebecca talks about alcohol and the girl’s “several mistakes” and even confuses rape with sexual intercourse (“basically hanging a “fuck with me” sign on their backs”). But there’s no place for the rapist and murderer in her little rant.
This is quite typical cause the actions of boys and girls are not judged in the same way. Girls and women behaving like men or boys don’t experience the same reaction towards their behaviour most of the time.
Sex: A man who sleeps with a lot of women is admirable. He may not be regarded as the best husband and father but the perception is mainly positive. He is the man who makes women loose their minds. A woman doing the same is a slut cause women aren’t supposed to enjoy sex and if they do it’s unnatural. Anyway, what does a woman have to do to have sex except for broadening her legs (insulting to men, isn’t it. and this is also not the right moment to mention the fact that women have to do sports all day in order to stay attractive and even have to rely on plastic surgery to please the boys – their body is all that counts, you know) and the perception is therefore purely negative (especially if it comes to rape).
Alcohol: Boys who drink too much – well, they are just boys! That’s just the way it is. Of course, it’s not that good and can be dangerous but we all made stupid things during our adolescence, didn’t we? A girl getting drunk – man, she could be raped and then she was to blame (and the alcohol)! What a risky behaviour! But don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Strange to see that some things never change.