Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[starseed]

The new 'modern' and 'civilized' Iran has allowed their judiciary system to sentence a woman to death by stoning for adultery. There were no witnesses to the alleged crime.

Ashtiani, 42, will be buried up to her chest, according to an Amnesty International report citing the Iranian penal code. The stones that will be hurled at her will be large enough to cause pain but not so large as to kill her immediately.
Ashtiani, who is from the northern city of Tabriz, was convicted of adultery in 2006.
She was forced to confess after being subjected to 99 lashes, human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei said Thursday in a telephone interview from Tehran.
She later retracted that confession and has denied wrongdoing. Her conviction was based not on evidence but on the determination of three out of five judges, Mostafaei said. She has asked forgiveness from the court but the judges refused to grant clemency.
Iran's supreme court upheld the conviction in 2007.

Article 74 of the Iranian penal code requires at least four witnesses -- four men or three men and two women -- for an adulterer to receive a stoning sentence, said Ahadi, of the International Committee Against Stoning. But there were no witnesses in Ashtiani's case. Often, said Ahadi, husbands turn wives in to get out of a marriage.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/me...id=QCcperPfDb1


Her two children may now grow up without a mother because of the barbaric belief that totalitarianism is the only proper way to govern ourselves.

[Gozer]

[Coach]

completely horrifying and ridiculous. There are not enough negative adjectives in the english language to describe how disgusting this is.

[Igottago]

Horrible. There should be international outrage at this.

[To Be Quite Honest]

MOD EDIT: HIGHLY inappropriate.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Mod edit

[T@T]

And we are supposed to believe these savages only want to enrich uranium for "peacefull" purposes.

Speaking of nuclear weapons, I would Soooo love to drop a couple of small ones on their court house and parliament building.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Horrible. There should be international outrage at this.

Quick! Someone say "flotilla"! That would be like kicking a wasps' nest of international outrage.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by starseed

Her two children may now grow up without a mother because of the barbaric belief that totalitarianism is the only proper way to govern ourselves.

I thought it was because she was an adulterer. I don't see making adultery, especially when kids are involved, a criminal offence as a bad thing.

[DropIt]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

I thought it was because she was an adulterer. I don't see making adultery, especially when kids are involved, a criminal offence as a bad thing.

Agreed. I also like the idea of lashing the truth out of people if there are no witnesses to the crime....

[HeartsOfFire]

I agree with the Lawful Neutral stance. That's the way Iran wants to do things. We don't have to like it, but that's where we leave it.

I'm sure that they feel we're barbaric nations for allowing our women to go so uncovered.

From a personal perspective, this just re-affirms my steadfast refusal to travel anywhere that isn't a first world nation.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I agree with the Lawful Neutral stance. That's the way Iran wants to do things. We don't have to like it, but that's where we leave it.

I'm sure that they feel we're barbaric nations for allowing our women to go so uncovered.

From a personal perspective, this just re-affirms my steadfast refusal to travel anywhere that isn't a first world nation.

hmmm.... you think ignoring the holocaust would have been a good idea?

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

hmmm.... you think ignoring the holocaust would have been a good idea?

Wow, it only took 12 posts for a totally off based and under-thought Nazi/Holocaust reference. That's gotta be some kind of record.

The Iranian's aren't wiping out a minority group. They're applying their laws (barbaric to us, for sure) as they see fit......HUGE difference.

As for the woman herself - I dunno. She says she didn't do it, confessed only after torture and even then only 3 of 5 judges convicted her. From both my Western and Human point of view, death seems a bit much. I could understand a jail sentence or something, but state sponsored murder should only be for situations in which there is no doubt at all.....

[CaptainCrunch]

And this is why the Western nations have to find a way to stop buying Middle Eastern Oil.

This is a barbaric sentence, even in the U.S. where they have a death penalty they try to make it humane. Stoning is designed around public humiliation and making the person suffer in the worst possible manner.

Its disgusting that countries do business with Iran.

Hell I would confess to anything after 99 lashes, and this sounds like a trumped up charge by the husband to get out of his marriage.

For a religion thats suppossed to show some compassion they've certainly shown the world the ignorant extremist view of that religion.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

hmmm.... you think ignoring the holocaust would have been a good idea?

Godwin's Law wins again.

To address your statement from an emotional perspective, comparing genocide to a death sentence of one person is like torching a field full of wheat because of a rotten ear of corn.

Now from a strictly hypothetical perspective, no. You don't ignore it. You denounce, condemn and sanction the hell out of the state, but you do not interfere. If it were possible, taking them to a higher court would be the next best option, but sovereign nations are unlikely to (and nor should they) respect the authority of a world court.

The sanctions and condemnations are a way to enact political and diplomatic pressure on a state to capitulate to your demands without resorting to force. Force is just as barbaric, if you're the sort that believes humanity must find ways to co-exist rather than wiping out people simply because their cultural views are different.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

I thought it was because she was an adulterer. I don't see making adultery, especially when kids are involved, a criminal offence as a bad thing.

I have been lurking on this forum for a bit because I enjoy the off topic section. I didn't post before, because yes I am a Oilers fan, so I will stay away from the main section. But I can't stay quiet when someone makes a comment like this.

Making something a criminal offence vs killing someone in a brutal and grossly inhumane way are not the same thing by a long shot. They are doing this to send a message to women. How many men do you hear about getting stoned for adultery in Iran? This is a misogynistic practice.

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm not condoning this practice at all, but bear in mind that this is a county that is about as far away from Calgary as you can get, is governed by archaic religious principles, has an ultra-conservative view on the world, and operates on a complete set of different value systems than anything we are comfortable with.

What we perceive as barbaric, they often perceive as "just business," and vice versa. Don't forget, it isn't out of the ordinary for the Islamic world to believe that we are also living lives of barbaric sin and excess. That's just the way it is.

[You Need a Thneed]

It takes two to commit adultery, no?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It takes two to commit adultery, no?

Not if the other person is unmarried!

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Not if the other person is unmarried!

So it is ok for an unmarried man to sleep with a married woman knowing full well that he is abetting a criminal?