Weird news - Jailed after reporting rape

Sometimes the clash of civilizations and differences in laws between countries can lead to weird situations and seemingly very wrong treatment. For the western world and all concepts of being civilized, a lady stating that she was raped would lead to a police investigation to find the rapist, to give her medical help and the counseling to enable her to overcome the trauma, and sometimes that trauma can take time to get over. It is not expected that she would be blamed for what happened, and it would not be expected that she would have to suffer a jail term.
And this is where what happens in the Islamic world can literally jar the western and 'civilized' world. Pakistan had many years implemented a stricter interpretation of laws through the Hudood laws, which mandated that a woman had to provide 4 witnesses for a rape allegation, else she could be prosecuted for adultery (link to Wiki).
Yet another instance of a case has come about in Qatar. A Dutch woman had gone to a bar where she was apparently drugged and found herself in a strange place, and realized that she been raped. Upon making the charge, she found that she was herself in the dock, along with the rapist. She was charged with illegal sex, and also for being drunk (so this makes it weird, she was raped and yet charged with an illegal sex act). (link to article):

At a court hearing in Doha Monday, the 22-year old, whom CNN has identified only as Laura, was handed a one-year suspended sentence and placed on probation for three years for the sex-related charge, and fined 3,000 Qatari Riyals ($823) for being drunk outside a licensed location. She'll almost certainly be deported immediately. A Syrian man also appeared alongside her and was found guilty of the same crimes. He was sentenced to 100 lashes for the illicit fornication charge and a further 40 lashes for the illegal consumption of alcohol. As a Muslim he is not allowed to drink at all under Qatari law. No mention was made of the rape accusation during proceedings. Neither defendant was present in court, in what was the third hearing in the case.

Weird news - Bananas and cucumbers prohibited for women as per Islamic preacher

Sometimes one comes across religious sanctions that seem utterly strange. There was a case where a husband divorced his wife when angry, but when he became normal, was unable to take her back since the divorce (of uttering the words talaq 3 times) was held valid; and if he wanted to marry her, she had to marry somebody else first, then get divorced and then only could they marry again. Such cases seem so weird; now consider this wisdom from a preacher about how to keep woman pure. Apparently if a lady sees something resembling the make sexual organ, then it will cause her to have impure thoughts, and hence the lady should keep away from such fruits and vegetables. No word on the many other items that seem similar in shape to the male organ such as pens, tubes, and so on (or looks like the preacher has been seeing too many X-rated movies) (link to article):

The Egyptian news website Bikya Masr on Wednesday quoted the cleric whose diktat featured in an article on el-Senousa, a religious publication. The cleric has said that women should not even get close to bananas or cucumbers. "If women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their a father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve," the cleric dictated.
According to the cleric, bananas and cucumbers "resemble the male penis" and therefore could arouse women or "make them think of sex." The cleric also added carrots and zucchini to the list of forbidden foods for women.

Such ridiculous statements get a lot of attention (and ridicule) on the internet, and can make moderate Muslims embarrassed. But on a serious note, such a statement also shows what the opinion many of these clergy have of women.

The Truth About Islam and Women

In the Land of Invisible Women: A Female Doctor's Journey in the Saudi Kingdom

Inside Islam (History Channel)

Weird news - Saudi lady sentenced to 10 lashes for driving

Sometimes we take our independence for granted. The ability to drive wherever we want, live the way we want, and so on. This is particularly true for woman's rights, where many countries had to go through long struggles to establish rights.
Even in the modern western democracies, where the spirit of freedom is taken for granted, rights for women such as the right to drive, and most important, the right to vote were won only in the last century, and too after long struggles. So it seems strange when you hear that in some societies, women are still deprived of the right to drive because of cultural and religious reasons.
But to expect that a woman can be expected to be lashed because she had the guts to drive is something that is totally unexpected, and yet that is the scene in the conservative Islamic society of Saudi Arabia where a religious police governs everything (link to article):

A Saudi woman has been sentenced to be lashed 10 times with a whip for defying the kingdom's prohibition on female drivers, the first time a legal punishment has been handed down for a violation of the longtime ban in the ultraconservative Muslim nation.
The driver, Shaima Jastaina, in her 30s, was found guilty of driving without permission, activist Samar Badawi said. The punishment is usually carried out within a month. It was not possible to reach Jastaina, but Badawi, in touch with Jastaina's family, said she appealed the verdict.
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that bans women _ both Saudi and foreign _ from driving. The prohibition forces families to hire live-in drivers, and those who cannot afford the $300 to $400 a month for a driver must rely on male relatives to drive them to work, school, shopping or the doctor.

In the end, the king over-turned the judgment, but it also showed how far backward the country actually is and the sorry state of women's rights.

Weird news - Woman imprisoned in home for 20 years in a Brazil house

There have been a number of cases in the recent past which talk about people being found who have been confined to their homes, some for sexual purposes by their own family members, for many many years. Each other such a case is found, there is always a great amount of surprise, as to how such a thing can happen.
In yet another case, a woman was locked up in a house for over 20 years, and this was only recently discovered when police arrived for a raid, and found the lady calling for help (link to article):

Police in Brazil said they had freed a 45-year-old woman who had been locked in a house for 20 years with no communication with the outside world.
Police in the state of Parana yesterday said that the woman was locked in the home by her partner, a 60-year-old man, in the city of Mariluz, 550 kilometers (340 miles) from the state capital Curitiba.
In the complaint, "the assistant told the police that a person was kept imprisoned for 20 years and was going through health problems, since she was banned from medical supervision," said Viana.

Husband impotent, so allows father to rape wife

The quest to get a child is a strong urge. In patriarchal societies, getting a child after marriage becomes a social obligation, and when this does not happen for some time, especially after some years, it can be a social disaster. People ask about what happened, is everything wrong, and is the man capable. In such cases, the pressure to get a child by any means is strong, and here is a report, which if true, shows the extent to which a person can go to make sure that society does not impact them. But one wonders as to how a person could do such a thing (link to article):

A Rajkot woman on Monday filed a case against her father-in-law alleging that he had raped her after doctors declared her husband as impotent. The woman in her complaint said her husband had agreed to let his father rape her so that they could have a child.
The woman was married to Dharmesh seven years back. When she couldn’t conceive for first two years of her marriage, her in-laws took her to a doctor who declared her medically unfit to bear children. She got suspicious and went to another gynaecologist for a second opinion. The gynaecologist told her that there was nothing wrong with her. When she confronted her in-laws, they accepted that Dharmesh had a medical problem and suggested in vitro fertilisation (IVF). The woman alleged that one day when she was alone, Vimal gave her sleeping tablets and raped her while she was unconscious. When she complained to Dharmesh, he allegedly told her that it was all planned.

Woman impregnated with wrong embryos, gives birth

Medical science has promised a lot of people in need of help; for childless couples, the prospect of being able to have children through in-vitro fertilization or through the help of a surrogate mother is a huge deal. However, once in a while, there are errors that happen. In this case, a couple was implanted with their embryo by a fertility clinic through in vitro fertilization, and was then informed that they had been implanted with the wrong embryo (a news that would have been horrifying to the couple, who were hoping to get a child through this technique). The couple finally decided that they would give the baby after birth to the natural parents, and, now the woman has finally given birth, and they are going to carry out this promise (link to article):

The couple said a fertility clinic implanted another couple's embryo into Carolyn Savage's uterus -- in essence, she became an unwitting surrogate for another family. Ten days after the procedure in February, they received a call from the clinic's doctor: "Carolyn is pregnant, but we transferred the wrong embryos."
They met with the baby's genetic parents and the DNA-related mother of the child came along for one doctor's appointment. In their statement after the birth, the Savage family congratulated the biological parents of the baby.

Such a decision requires a huge deal of courage and selflessness, and it is great to see that the couple have decided to go ahead with this decision.

Malaysian woman to be caned for alcohol drinking

When people start getting out of control in terms of alcohol drinking, they head off to rehabitilation centers to break their habits. Others try to moderate their alcohol limits. However, in many Islamic countries, alcohol is firmly banned, and citizens are not allowed to consume alcohol. Even then, using corporal punishment to deter drinking is another very different step in prevention of alcohol drinking. However, consider the weird situation where a citizen of a country is not allowed to drink while another citizen of the country can drink (difference based on the religion of the person), a woman could be caned for drinking, and the punishment is imposed by a religious court that is parallel to the civil judicial system, and the civil judicial system cannot interfere in this judgment (link to article):

A Malaysian model, who was set to become the first woman to be caned in the southeast Asian country for drinking beer in public, had her sentence postponed Monday until the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. An Islamic, or sharia, court in Pahang had fined Kartika -- a Muslim -- $1,400 (5,000 Malaysian ringgit) and sentenced her to six strokes with a rattan cane for drinking at a hotel bar two years ago.
The caning would have been carried out within seven days of that, making her the first woman to be caned in Malaysia under sharia law. The moderate Muslim country has a dual-track justice system, in which Islamic courts operate alongside civil courts. But the country's civil system also cannot overrule a sharia court sentence.

Such a punishment, caning, for drinking alcohol, seems very harsh. Further, the fact that a country's civil courts cannot over-rule a religious court seems even stranger.

Weird law: Denying your wife food if you don't get sex

In April, there was wide-spread international condemnation when a legislation catering to the Shia sect in Afghanistan was passed. This legislation tilted the gender balance very strongly towards men, something not uncommon in Islamic countries. However, since Afghanistan was a place where troops from many nations were fighting the Taliban, and many of these troops were losing their lives, there was more outrage. How could a country have such a law if the Government of the country was dependent on foreign aid and foreign support. At that time, the President of Afghanistan, Karzai, shook off the criticism by claiming that he had not read the legislation clearly before signing it, and he would take steps to revert. However, seems like nothing really happened after that (link to article):

Afghanistan has enacted a new legislation empowering men of Shia sect of Islam to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, a media report said on Saturday. The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work, The Guardian reported.
According to the report, the new law has been backed by the hardline Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohseni, who is thought to have influence over the voting intentions of some Shias, who make up around 20 per cent of the population. Karzai has assiduously courted such minority leaders in the run up to next Thursday's election, which is likely to be close, a poll indicated.

Given that the President is now contesting for re-election as the President of Afghanistan, and Shia votes will also be important, it is doubtful whether this legislation will be so easily reversed; would be so ironic that a state supported by the West enshrines a massive gender bias.

Mother cut open to take unborn baby

Sometimes you come across crimes so bizarre and horrible that one does not know how to react. One cannot easily determine whether the crime was conducted when the person was of sane mind, or whether the person was insane at that time, and laws normally do not easily allow people who are insane to be prosecuted for crimes that they committed (it is a different matter that it can be fairly difficult to determine whether the person was insane when they committed this crime).
Consider the following case where investigators found a dead woman and a dying baby inside the home of a woman who had earlier claimed to be pregnant, but who was not pregnant (link to article):

An Oregan who was killed last week was cut open by her killer so that the baby could be removed from her womb, an autopsy revealed. Authorities also said Heather Snively’s accused killer, Korena Elaine Roberts, who was arraigned on Monday, told her boyfriend and her family members she was pregnant, even though she wasn’t, The Portland Oregonian reported on Tuesday.
Roberts did not speak during her court appearance, the newspaper reported. Her court-appointed attorney did not enter a plea on her behalf. She is charged with the death of Snively, not her baby because the unborn child must have taken a breath to meet the legal standard of being alive, Washington county prosecutor Bob Hermann said. “The issue is - was the child alive at all, at any point in time?” he said. “That’s the legal issue we’ve got to try and resolve.”

In such a case, jury members have a tough task of determining whether the crime was conducted by a person in full control of their mind (and one can expect that the defense attorney will try to present a defence based on temporary insanity).