I read in the Guardian

« Blogger's Block | If »

I read in the Guardian

by timsuzi ^Pro @ 2009-06-19 – 07:53:42

I read an article in the Guardian a few weeks ago that has stuck in my memory.

The husband of an English couple living in one of the Arab states had reported his wife to the police for adultery which is illegal there and so she has been sent to prison and has, obviously, lost all access rights to her children.
Now the author considered that, as do I, appalling but she then went on to develop approvingly other ways in which women, and it was always women, got some form of natural justice when their husbands had played away. You can guess the kinds of things, a variety of forms of criminal damage culminating in Mrs Bobbitt who 'hilariously' cut off her philandering husband's penis.

So, I guess the article was suggesting that instead of exploiting a repressive legal system to send his wife to jail the husband should have carried out a clitorectomy on his wife without anaesthetic.

Which really is appalling.
Options:
Tags:

12 Comments to I read in the Guardian

Hide subcomments

- brokendownangel ^Pro
- 2009-06-19 @ 08:40:25
It is truly awful that he did this, unless of course they both lived according to the law of the land, even though they weren't nationals, in which case she knew the laws and the punishment for breaking them - i know it sounds harsh but they are English and had a choice presumably in where they lived and how.
The natural justice way is far more barbaric x
- - banana ^Pro
  - http://poetry4fun.blog.co.uk
  - 2009-06-19 @ 08:48:58
  I remember this case. As far as I know they were separated and the wife had been having a relationship with the new guy for a while and had discussed the visit with her estranged husband.
  
  The husband had agreed to the visit and then called the police.
  
  I may be wrong on the details but that was the impression I got.
  
  That the reporting to the police had been a rather unpleasant strategy in a nasty custody battle during a marital split-up.
  
  I don't agree with 'revenge' tactics on any side in a marriage. If the marriage is over then settle it with dignity and move on. Anything less is an insult to ones own self esteem more than an attack on the partner. Where there are children involved anything other than a concerted effort to minimise the damage done by the break-up is just cruel selfishness.
  
  Furthermore who would ever want to get involved with someone who had gone nuclear over a previous relationship breakdown? Probably only the sort of person it wouldn't be very wise to get involved with either. So it is self sabotage more than anything to behave in that way.
  - - brokendownangel ^Pro
    - 2009-06-19 @ 09:04:43
    If she never agreed to be subject to the law of the land in the first place then she shouldn't have been - although I suppose if you steal or kill somewhere else you are subject to whatever punishments the country you are in chooses.
    
    But this says more about the husband than the law doesn't it? What sort of man would want his wife imprisoned because she has fallen out of love with him and is with someone new?
    
    I agree totally about moving on with as much dignity as you can muster - it is necessary for your own survival as much as anything else x
    - - banana ^Pro
      - http://poetry4fun.blog.co.uk
      - 2009-06-19 @ 09:15:32
      Don't think you can choose whether to be subject to the law of a land in which you are situated.
      
      Visitors to the UK and any other country are bound by the laws of the lands they are in. Otherwise every individual country would have to be legally knowledgeable in every other countries laws and hold courts for each individual according to their nationality - which would not be practical.
      
      It would mean Sharia law - for muslims in the UK who chose not to follow UK law but their own for instance. It would mean people who had certain ideas such as under age sex could say well I don't agree with age of consent laws so I do not choose to be subject to the law of the land.
      
      If you are in a country you have to abide by its rules.
      
      In this specific case though - there was no reason for her 'technically illegal' behaviour to have been brought to the attention of the authorities - and without the husband (British) stirring things up it wouldn't have been.
      
      I think I read that afterwards he was sorry and tried to take it back - but by then it was too late, once the information was officially known it couldn't be 'forgotten'.
      - brokendownangel ^Pro
        
        2009-06-19 @ 09:30:56
        
        No that isn't what i meant by choice, i meant whether they had converted so she was aware of the option to him. I can't imagine she ever thought he would go down this road though!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        banana ^Pro
        
        http://poetry4fun.blog.co.uk
        
        2009-06-19 @ 09:52:45
        
        I know what you mean!
        
        People have an unlimited capacity to surprise.
        
        Sometimes good, sometimes bad
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
      - timsuzi ^Pro
        
        2009-06-19 @ 19:58:59
        
        I quite agree with you here banana (and do you know what I have never agreed with a banana before about anything contrary fruit that they are) I was horrified when the Arch Bishop of Canterbury suggested in a ponderous and worthy attempt to be multicultural that there was a case for Sharia Law in certain parts of this country.
        If we cannot abide the laws of the place that we live then we should leave and choose somewhere that fits our own views, there is after all enough choice.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- - timsuzi ^Pro
  - 2009-06-19 @ 19:52:36
  Clearly, the husband acted appallingly here but I was more shocked by the hypocrisy of the article itself which seemed to be suggesting that genital mutilation was acceptable and even rather funny if it's carried out by a woman on a man. Can you ever imagine any newspaper in this country suggesting that the reverse was acceptable?
  - - brokendownangel ^Pro
    - 2009-06-20 @ 08:51:24
    Nope, not a chance. It is appalling to even suggest it isn't it? A case of double standards would definitely apply here
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- la_spice
- 2009-06-19 @ 08:50:51
That was really below the belt (no pun intended)
- - timsuzi ^Pro
  - 2009-06-19 @ 20:00:20
  Which bit,
  the imprisoning
  or the suggesting that it's ok for a woman to mutilate the genitals of atheir philandering partner?
  - - la_spice
    - 2009-06-19 @ 20:16:34
    Reporting his ex ~
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink

12 Comments to I read in the Guardian

Leave a comment (Login)