wtf!!! "Nigerian Mother Loses Appeal Against Stoning Death"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

the gridlock

Babyface
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
28
Location
Zoo Station
FUNTUA, Nigeria (Reuters) - An Islamic court in northern Nigeria ruled Monday that a woman must face death by stoning according to Muslim law for having a child outside marriage.

The decision, upholding a verdict by a lower court, looks set to re-ignite international outrage against Nigeria and could stoke sectarian tensions in the country's largely Islamic north.

The judge said the stoning would not be carried out until Amina Lawal Kurami, 31, had weaned her eight-month-old daughter Wasila, which may not be for another two years.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020819/wl_nm/religion_nigeria_dc_2
 
Its really sad that in this times a government still use so retrograd methods to aply "justice".

As in past cases, I hope this women will be released. But the important issue is to find a way to make this kind of discrimination to women end.
 
Keep in mind, however, that these are the effects of attempting to legislate morality beyond the greater protection of society--that is, when governments attempt to prohibit individuals from exercising control over their own bodies.

A lesson to those of you out there in Interference reader land.

And: as if the sentence itself weren't disturbing enough, does anyone else think it's unnecessarily sadistic to make the woman wait two years, giving her child time to bond with her and get to know her before her mother is brutally murdered? (Yes, MURDERED.)

Although I think we can take small comfort in the fact that this case will likely receive enough international attention to have the sentence reversed, we must remember that thousands of other women elsewhere in the world meet similarly gruesome fates for similarly trivial "crimes" every year.
 
paxetaurora said:
Although I think we can take small comfort in the fact that this case will likely receive enough international attention to have the sentence reversed, we must remember that thousands of other women elsewhere in the world meet similarly gruesome fates for similarly trivial "crimes" every year.

I wouldn't count on international attention preventing this execution; as you pointed out, "honor killings" occur far more often than many of us realize. Even if the Nigerian government doesn't carry out the stoning, other men in her family or community will likely be allowed to carry out the sentence without any type of recourse.

~U2Alabama
 
paxetaurora said:
Keep in mind, however, that these are the effects of attempting to legislate morality beyond the greater protection of society--that is, when governments attempt to prohibit individuals from exercising control over their own bodies.


So a ban on abortion will set a society down the slippery slope towards laws that demand capital punishment for women who conceive out of wedlock? Seems kind of strange to me...I don't recall the United States doing this in the pre-Roe v. Wade days.

Feel free to correct me if you think that the above is a ridiculous misinterpretation of what you originally wrote.
 
I saw her story on the TV news last night. What a thing...I found weaning my babies a time I didn't look forward to, what a fate awaits her. Several years ago, I was watching late night TV. A documentary came on about women's rights. They showed some smuggled footage of 2 women being stoned to death. I turned the TV off because i felt sickened. And then I thought NO!! those women had to face that alone in reality, I can at least bear witness for them. I turned the TV back on and...it was STILL happening. It is a very very very slow cruel way to execute someone. Why that method?
 
Last edited:
I can?t understand how some people in this world can believe in the Sharia. I assume Islam is a religion full of good points, but I fail to understand how people can believe in this cruelty.
 
To respond to speedracer: While I do not think that banning abortion would lead to women being stoned, it would nevertheless be making the statement that women do not in fact have the final say over what goes on in their individual bodies. This is the same issue at hand in Nigeria: whether or not a woman can decide how to govern her own body. That right has been taken away, obviously, in Nigeria.

And to respond to Bama: You are right. I forgot that in many cases such honor killings are carried out not by governments, but by family members. Creepy indeed. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Now that is just ridiculous! They are going to take her from her child to die an awful death? Geez, are these ppl stupid or what? What do they do to the men who commit the same crime? I didn't think so... Not only are they punishing her, they are punishing her child too. I hope someone steps in to help her out. That is just crazy. I can see some jail time, but death?!? What the hell is wrong with them?!!! :rant:
 
paxetaurora said:
To respond to speedracer: While I do not think that banning abortion would lead to women being stoned, it would nevertheless be making the statement that women do not in fact have the final say over what goes on in their individual bodies. This is the same issue at hand in Nigeria: whether or not a woman can decide how to govern her own body. That right has been taken away, obviously, in Nigeria.

Thanks for your reply.

Obviously, the Nigerian government is wrong here, but comparing this to abortion is misleading. Abortion concerns not only a woman's control over her own body but also the possible rights of the unborn child, which may or may not have precedence. I'm just sick of abortion supporters who can't argue their position intelligently and can only shout "IT'S A WOMAN'S CHOICE!" louder and louder.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
I can?t understand how some people in this world can believe in the Sharia. I assume Islam is a religion full of good points, but I fail to understand how people can believe in this cruelty.

It is really no different than Judeo-Christianity's Mosaic Law. It is just that most Jews and Christians had the good sense to wake up from their nightmare...

Melon
 
martha said:


And we're sick of men putting the "rights" of a fetus over and above the rights of a woman.

But you're prepared to argue that a fetus has no rights, so I can respect your position. This does not hold for the vast majority of pro-choice advocates I have read or argued with.

And there are women who put the "rights" of a fetus over and above the rights of women.

Anyway, perhaps this tangent should end now?
 
Re: hello???

the gridlock said:


surely, you don't mean this? :scratch: :ohmy:

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting both of you, but I thought Jala meant if they want to be unrealistic about this matter, a jail sentence would be the better of 2 choices. You may have read that for yourself in the reply and are questioning why jail is a suitable punishmernt, sorry if that the case!
 
And we're sick of men putting the "rights" of a fetus over and above the rights of a woman.

I agree, especially since its not the woman's right either.

Ant.
 
Anthony said:
And we're sick of men putting the "rights" of a fetus over and above the rights of a woman.

I agree, especially since its not the woman's right either.

Ant.

I was going to say that I didn't quite follow what you were trying to say, but the more I think about it, the more I understand what you were trying to say.

Fortunately men like you, who think they can control what I do to my body, are in the minority in these modern times, so I don't have to worry to much about you forcing me to either have children or NOT have children. I get to choose the medical care I need. I'm glad that you wern't around to make my decisions for me when I needed to have my uterus removed; you might have raised a legal stink about any potential children whose gestation may have killed me. Oh yeah, that's not the concern here; the potential child is more important that any life I may be living.

Notice that I was willing to drop this, but YOU brought it up again.
 
I formerly apologise for the encouraging the whole 'tangent' thing, as I did not read that, just Martha's response. However, as I DID raise it, let me just say Martha that my views were not an attack on you. Indeed, they weren't even my views, it was an observation.

Evidently, I came off as short. However, I am not anti-abortionist in the sense you might think of. Indeed, in any sense. I am NOT saying that Men have the right to decide over women, just as women don't have the right over a human life they may be carrying - the whole thing is 'morally' (I hate that word) dubious. I find it complex and shady, and not one to condemn or praise.

I did not mean it as a personal slant on you and your own personal and individual case. I find this topic intriguing, as you can see, and if you should want to continue discussing it I would be grateful if we conducted this in private, since it IS a tangent and I don't feel like opening a new thread.


Ant.
 
Ok, Ant., subject dropped again.

I don't think it would be productive to discuss it privately, because I see no dubious or shady aspects to the subject. I'm very committed to the rights of women to control their own reproduction, without interference from others.

If you'd really like to, maybe, but be prepared for absolute, dogmatic statements from me. This issue is not debatable for me, and it's a litmus test for candidates when I vote.

M.
 
Back
Top Bottom