Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 11^th, 2007 at 3:39pm:

And what of the idea that justice involves a certain duty of care when it comes to those imprisoned? Bodily mutilation as a punishment for a crime is by definition a denial of justice, unless you change the definition of justice, then if you open those gates, why not start whipping again? Stoning? Cutting off the hand...wait, don't the nasty Muslim societies resort to these barbaric measures? So what is different about cutting off the penis of a rapist and cutting off the hand of a thief? In fact, I would say they amount to exactly the same thing.

Hi Zoso,

Is that a fact ? That casteration would by definition be a denial of justice ? Even if the person were guilty ? If so, that is a pity. There you go though. The law is the law.

In my books there is a significant difference between casterating a serial rape offender/child sex offender and whipping someone 70 times for listening to music or drinking.
Which is only 2 of the laws under sharia law.

Hi oceans,
The lebs made their race and religion a significant point in their rape. They pack raped her because she was not a leb/muslim. Hence the medias coverage of that aspect.
hilali made fun of it as it does not constitite a crime to his belief.
that is one of the reasons I dislike extremely that religion.

Hi JJJ,
How are you ? Thanks for your comments.
I agree, aAll lebanese are not muslims, or christians.  Not all lebanese muslims are rapists.
There were remarks made during the rape that she was inferior as she was a nonmuslim.
Would they have raped a muslim woman?
Given the aggrevated long duration of the crime, the fact she was subjected to whatever that pack of animals wanted to do to her over an extended period I feel they should be never released.

hilalis comments are outrageous. he is trying to take responsibility away from the rapists and blame the victim.
That is as stated clearly in the koran. a woman is worth 1/2 a man, most of those in hell are woman.
a man can lightly beat a woman, and a nonmuslim is worth less than a muslim. crimes against a nonmuslim in an islam state are not recognised.
Put all those together and it is not the muslimmens fault. So it MUST be the nonmuslim womans.
That is entirely in keeping with hilalis speeches.

lock all pack rapists up forever and/or casterate them is my vote

Hi JJJ, I gree, those aussie rapists that took movies of the crime should be severley punished.
It should be a strong statement to everyone in aussie that those sort of crimes against women in aussie is just not on. 
The sending of the movies to others on her own phone show a remoreslessness that is unacceptable to me.
Our women in aussie deserve to be protected from those sort of people forever.

Some criminals are jailed with the recommendation "Never to be released", as far as I am aware.
Extenuating circumstances demand this. eg the young man/boy in perth (I think) recently who was chained up for days by raping homos. In my money, lock them up forever.

I am VERY happy to admire a womans beauty. They can show off their bodies as much as they want for me !!!!! 
If I can't control my actions, that is up to me. That is NOT the victims fault.
Punishing a woman for her beauty because a man cannot control his actions blames her for his actions.

Have a good day.

If you sentence someone to life and later find out they are innocent, you can free them. If you resort to cruel and unusual punishment like castration, you can't take it back.

Even if the person were guilty ?

Maybe it would be just, but justice applies to the real world where you can't take anything for certain, not to hypotheticals.

and if u read the whole transcript of hilali's "cats & meat" sermon, and i mean the whole transcript, not just what u read in the newspaper, u would realise he said "if a man commits rape, i would punish the man, but i would also punish the woman for showing off her body". extreme yes, but hardly the rantings of a person saying rape is okay.

No, but they are the rantings of someone saying that a woman should be punished for being raped.

that's not condoning rape at all since he clearly said "i would punish the man", how would punishing the rapist be condoning his actions?

Putting rape victims in the situation where they are punished for trying to get justice effectively condones injustice. Hilaly is in favour of punishment for rapists in a technical/abstract sense only. In practice he supports rape and the treatment of women as property. Punishing victims encourages the perpetrators because in practice it means they do get off free.

Furthermore, if a woman gets raped, she has done nothing wrong. To suggest that she has is a denial of natural justice.

He says punish the victim, so they do get off free. I suspect you missed my point.

Saying they should be punished and actually punishing them under the system he espouses are two different things. Are you familiar with the term 'lip service.' That's all it is. Imagine if he said that murderers should be punsihed but only if there are four male witnesses and the victim can identify the perpetrator in court.