Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You might have heard by now about the appalling case in Saudi Arabia recently where a woman was sentenced to receive 200 lashes and jail time for being the victim of a gangrape. That woman was defended by a brave Saudi lawyer named Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem. Naturally, the Saudi government has suspended al-Lahem for defending the woman:
Saudi officials have revoked the license of human rights lawyer Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, who has handled the country's most controversial cases and defended a gang-rape victim sentenced to jail time and lashes.Lahem, 36, faces a disciplinary hearing Dec. 5 to determine the length of his suspension.
Disciplined for what, you ask?
Lahem is accused by the prosecutor general of "belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing the judiciary, and hurting the country's image," according to an official letter he received Monday.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to perturb a judiciary that cares nothing for justice. Lahem has a history of supporting liberty in a place where that concept is quite foreign:
Since he started practicing law almost five years ago, Lahem has defended clients whom other lawyers refused, including a school administrator suspended for criticizing the religious establishment, a man convicted of promoting homosexuality for saying it was genetic, three political reformists seeking a constitutional monarchy, and the first Saudis suing the country's powerful religious police.Lahem said that losing his license would be a blow to the country's budding human rights movement.
"If I am banned from practicing law, nobody will dare go up against the judiciary again," said Lahem, a slight man with a limp from a childhood accident. "If I win, it will open a new chapter for human rights in Saudi Arabia."
I would only tell this brave man one thing: this is how revolutions begin. They begin with brave men and women taking a stand against the seemingly invincible power of a tyrannical government and declaring that they will not be silenced no matter what the cost to themselves. Those brave people very often die, but the forces of modernism that they unleash by their death is not so easily dispatched. If true civilization is to come to the Saudi people, they will have this man to thank when it does. Let's just hope he's alive to see it happen.
Comments
Between this guy and the lawyers demonstrating in Pakistan, they're going to ruin the image of the profession. Who is he billing for all this activism?
Posted by: kehrsam | November 26, 2007 9:53 AM
"...Saudi Arabia, our partners in peace."
Posted by: Josh | November 26, 2007 10:05 AM
Nothing will ever happen as long as our oil is under their sand.
Posted by: carlsonjok | November 26, 2007 10:15 AM
A slight correction: The woman was not sentenced for being the victim of a rape, but for being in a car with a man, who she was not married to (the man was a friend of hers, not one of the rapists). The sentenced was originally 90 lashes, but was made more severe, because she had publicly spoken about it.
Of course, it's still pretty barbaric, and stuff like this happens there all the time. The 2002 school fire is perhaps the most outrageous that I've heard: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm.
Posted by: Flaky | November 26, 2007 10:28 AM
Tyrannical regimes like this create a catch-22 for lawyers who defend dissenters. By defending dissenters the lawyer is seen as aiding and abetting the dissent which the regime is determined to suppress.
Posted by: Bill in NC | November 26, 2007 10:29 AM
That's not really a catch-22. The safe (and wrong, and usual) thing for a lawyer to do, obviously, is not to defend dissenters.
Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2007 10:59 AM
The Bush Administration has refused to condemn the Saudi government.
Posted by: Kristine | November 26, 2007 11:00 AM
This is nothing new. Going after the license of the lawyer on the other side is an old tactic...they tried it on John Calvert of the ID network in Kansas, when he went over to Kansas when he gave talks even though he was licensed in Missouri
Forget that he wasn't in a recognzied court trying to practice, they went after him anyway. They talked about it at Kansas Citzens for Science quite a bit.
It didn't work.
He should have sued them.
Posted by: Blair | November 26, 2007 11:01 AM
The troll has spoken. Look at the transcript and you'll find Calvert acting as if all the relevant rules concerning legal proceedings were in play in trying to minimize the damage Pedro Irigonegaray did to his SBOE hearings. Why is it that the specific rules about who gets to practice law in a particular venue get suspended without notice for him?
Hey, Blair/Legion, why is it that you root for antievolution eugenics boosters, but criticize critics of antievolution when they haven't even given any sign of giving support to eugenics?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | November 26, 2007 11:14 AM
I am both amused and saddened that Blair believes that a suspension of a license of a lawyer in Saudi Arabia defending a rape victim has any relationship whatsoever with a lawyer giving a speech in Kansas.
Posted by: yoshi | November 26, 2007 11:53 AM
Flaky, a small correction: Unless I have been badly informed, the sentence was not made more severe because the woman spoke out about it, but because her lawyer did. The woman has reportedly not spoken to the media at all since the incident.
Posted by: Rasmus Faber | November 26, 2007 11:55 AM
One thing that I found particularly upsetting about this case is that when the review of the case was announced, the victim actually expressed her relief and said that "The thought of the lashing has been haunting me ever since" the original verdict. The judges instead thought that was worth the extra 110.
Perhaps Al-Lahem was always the main target of this; I've got a bit of background here.
Posted by: Bartholomew | November 26, 2007 12:44 PM
IIRC, Calvert was providing legal advice to the Kansas Board of Education thinly disguised as 'consultation,' ultimately leading to his prominent role in the legal-yet-not-quite-legal Kansas Kangaroo Kourt.
He was wont to parade his attorney status when it suited him (or his audience), but when challenged to show his credentials from the Kansas Bar, suddenly he was no longer an attorney, but instead a 'consultant.'
But of course, his ethics were impeccable, as demonstrated by his perfect score on any number of imaginary religious purity tests.
Posted by: Farb | November 26, 2007 12:57 PM
Ummm, who is that is "hurting the country's image"?
Posted by: The Ridger | November 26, 2007 2:43 PM
What do they use for lashes in Saudi Arabia - wet noodles?
Anything even approaching 50 lashes with a real whip is a death sentence, AFAIK.
Why is the poor woman expressing relief?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 26, 2007 4:11 PM
Gingerbaker: In Saudi Arabia, as in most Arab states, "Lashes" actually means strokes from a thin bamboo cane, not a real whip. While extra-ordinarily painful, it is unlikely to meet the Bush definition of torture as threatening death or the shutdown of vital bodily functions.
Back in the 1980s and earlier, some sentences were carried out with whips. This often meant death for the prisoner.
During the late 1980s, I worked for a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and several times was regaled by Saudi diplomats telling me how the canings proved how "enlightened" the government was becoming. They compared it to the canings (spankings) they had received in English "Public Schools" growing up. Because we all know English boys regularly pass out while being spanked.
By the way, the Religious Courts, which are separate from the civil authority, can and do still sentence to actual lashes.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 26, 2007 4:58 PM
Gingerbaker wrote:
As I understood it she hoped to have her sentence reduced or dismissed upon review. Instead, it increased from 90 lashes to 200 (presumably as added punishment for her having irritated the judges sometime after the first sentencing).
Posted by: Leni | November 26, 2007 6:14 PM
Oh, and just out of morbid curiousity I poked around a bit and found this page where they discuss the varieties of floggings found around the world.
It's very interesting. Apparently the Saudi version isn't nearly as bad as (for example) Malaysian caning, which is a bloody and brutal punishment that often takes many weeks or even months to recover from. They can't seem to pick a a consistent weapon and they have to tuck a Koran under their arm to keep them from swinging with too much gusto.
Still, it certainly won't be a friendly little pasta flogging. It's going to be her bent over a crappy piece of furniture of some sort, naked from the waist down and getting beaten by a man who thinks she deserves it and is probably getting off on it. Possibly in public and probably on several different occasions. Sounds very much to me like what already happened to her...14 times by seven different men who took pictures of it for posterity.
Posted by: Leni | November 26, 2007 6:54 PM
What I want to know is, where is the U.S. support for this lawyer? This should be on all the news channels, in every paper, and every blogger should be writing about it. The U.S. should use all of it's diplomatic power to support this lawyer, and the UN should using any power it has left to do so as well, as should all democratic countries.
Ah, that was a nice dream I had once.
Posted by: Mat Wilder | November 26, 2007 9:25 PM
Ed:
Flaky:
Rasmus:
This has been discussed several times in the English-version Thai newspapers here... Ed's version (sentenced to receive 200 lashes and jail time for being the victim of a gangrape) is very incorrect. Both Flaky and Rasmus expand on it mostly correctly. I would only add that the extra punishment was given to her because the lawyer was speaking about the case on her behalf, presumably with her permission. This was punishable because the court had given a gag order to all parties involved to not discuss the case in public... allegedly to protect the privacy of those partially involved, even though I agree with those above who think the gag order was given for reasons more political than privacy-related. It seems to me that her lawyer is a lightning rod for controversy over there.
I'd also like to point out that the men who raped her received sentences from 2-9 years (if I remember correctly), depending on their involvement in the gangrape.
Here's my take on all this... There are several different issues going on here.
If she had been in the middle of robbing a bank and several people decided to gangrape her in the vault, should she not be punished for holding up a bank just because she was brutally violated?
I ask this question to point out that the fact that she was gangraped is quite irrelevant to what the real issue is (or should be). The real issue in my mind is that she, and any other woman, can be punished for being out in public with a male who is a non-relative.
Yes, her civil rights were violated by the courts... and the fact that she was gangraped for being a 'fallen woman' by a bunch of vigilantes doesn't change the fact that her civil rights would have been violated anyway even if the rape had never occurred.
Posted by: doctorgoo | November 26, 2007 10:06 PM
what i am curious about is how come NO ONE has mentioned that her male counterpart was also raped, and he also was sentenced to 90 lashes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/7112999.stm
"Adultery is a punishable offence in Saudi Arabia's strict system of Islamic law, and correspondents say judges are given wide powers to impose custodial sentences or corporal punishment.
The justice ministry statement is at odds with previous published testimony of the woman, who is a Shia Muslim from the Qatif area.
She has reportedly said she met the car-owner in order to retrieve a photo of them together, having herself recently got married.
She says two men entered the car and drove them to a secluded area where others were waiting, and both she and her male companion were raped.
Her sentence was increased on appeal after judges wanted to punish her for attempting to use the media to influence the case. Her attackers' sentences - originally up to five years - were also doubled.
The woman's companion was sentenced to 90 lashes "
Posted by: VicVanity | November 26, 2007 10:19 PM
At times like this I have to keep reminding myself that regime change didn't work in iraq and won't work in Saudi Arabia either.
Posted by: James | November 26, 2007 11:23 PM
Looks like we invaded the wrong country.
Posted by: daenku32 | November 27, 2007 6:16 AM
Hey Wesley, when your side used the Bar to go after Calvert, they chorlted with glee.
Of course, they weren't legal proceedings in a court of law and using procedural rules of law no more made it a court than using parliamentary procedure makes a meeting a parliatment.
And the Bar agreed, and took no action against Calvert.
So, Mr. Wesley "I'm a Christian too" Elsberry, you are are bearing false witness? (i.e. lying.)
Isn't that a no no?
Posted by: Blair | November 27, 2007 8:14 AM
Hey Mr. Wesley "I'm a Christian too" Elsberry, Calvert was not practicing in a court of law or conducting any legally binding hearings.
Using legal procedures no more make it a court of record than using paliamentary procedure make a meeting a parliament.
And when this was taken to the Bar, they agreed and found no fault on Calverts part. If you are aware of a contray decisison, please advise: prediction you won't because you can't
So My Wesley "I'm a Christian too" that means you are bearing false witness.
Isn't that a NO NO in your book>
Posted by: Blair | November 27, 2007 8:18 AM
Wesley?
I'm talking to you Wesley!
Want me to explain it a third time?
Wesley, you little banning smear artist, come out and argue like a man for once.
Posted by: Blair | November 27, 2007 8:20 AM
Ain't he just the cutest little thing when he spits and sputters like that?
Posted by: Farb | November 27, 2007 9:25 AM
Wesley?
Wesley!!
Are you there Mr. Christian?
Posted by: Blair Fan | November 27, 2007 10:00 AM
VicVanity wrote:
Wow. I wasn't aware that he was a victim too. Of course it's as horrible and wrong that he's being punished (for adultery, in his case) as well. I hope he's also being defended, and it is sad that his case isn't getting the attention it deserves.
Doctorgoo, I know what you are saying, but I can't help but thinking "To-may-to, to-mah-to."
You are right that she and all other Saudi women's right are being violated on a daily basis. Still, both victims had to risk further abuse by their govenment in order to seek justice for the rapes, so in a very real way they are essentially being punished for being victimized. Of course the law doesn't say that, but that is essentially what it does. When someone suffers through an attack as brutal as this it just it makes it all that much more unjust that they should be punished for something so trivial. I know, it is wrong from the get-go, but at this point it just adds insult to injury.
At the very least, it's a "chilling effect" that certainly must result in a great many real crimes going unreported. That in itself would be a punishment for any victim.
Posted by: Leni | November 27, 2007 1:34 PM
Hey, troll, your keyboard seems to be spouting gibberish. Again. Everything I've said here is accurate.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | November 27, 2007 9:19 PM
Mr. Blair will be going bye bye now. Go hang out at Fafarman's place and whine about being banned all you want.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 27, 2007 11:07 PM
Cowards!
Posted by: Stine | November 28, 2007 6:52 AM
Stine says, "Cowards!"
You're exactly right, Stine - Blair & f
riends are cowardice personified.Thanks for playing.
Posted by: anti-anti-atheist | November 28, 2007 7:28 AM
I am a parent of one of the sci-bloggers who frequents this site. I am pleased to see the overwhelming support being shown for these courageous human rights campaigners. As a lawyer in Canada, and a member of Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada (http://www.lrwc.org/standard.php), I am pleased to see the expanding social revulsion towards the terrible situation facing countless human rights defenders world wide. I strongly urge all of your readers to link into the Observatory (http://www.humanrightstools.org/dir/detail/link-162.html)or Amnesty International, and to lend their passion and their voices (letters) to those of other human rights workers worldwide. Although history is a witness to the fact that the actions of courageous human rights defenders usually do result in positive changes, we owe it to ourselves and our collective international conscience to support these individuals so that they do not become martyrs, statistically or otherwise. They need us to help curb the madness so that they and their families share the long term benefit of their courage not just the short term wrath of the powers that be. Keep up the fine work. Thank you
Posted by: Darlene K. | November 29, 2007 8:02 PM
How is it Mr. Bush,(yes, I always omit the 'President'part), can always managed to add a little more insult to injury? During this morning's White House press conference, CNN's Ed Henry questioned Mr. Bush about the Saudi rape case:
Q: Thank you. Another issue -- on another issue of credibility in the Mideast, at the Annapolis summit, you used your influence to get Saudi Arabia to the table. But I wonder whether now you will use your influence to do something about the Saudi rape case that's gotten so much international attention. What goes through your mind when you hear about a 19-year-old Saudi women getting gang-raped by seven men and basically a Saudi court blames the victim and sentenced her to 200 lashes? You spoke to King Abdullah by telephone in the last couple of weeks. Did you press him on this case? If so, what did you say? And if not, are you giving him a pass?
BUSH: My first thoughts were these: What happens if this happened to my daughter? How would I react? And I would have been -- I would have been -- I'd have been very emotional, of course. I'd have been angry at those who committed the crime, and I'd be angry at a state that didn't support the victim. And our opinions were expressed by Dana Perino from the podium and -
Q: But did you press King Abdullah about it, personally?
BUSH: I talked to King Abdullah about the Middle Eastern peace. I don't remember if that subject came up.
Transcripts here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071204-4.html
Video here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/04/bush-saudi-rape/
Perhaps human rights aren't as important as say family friends...
Posted by: pensy | December 4, 2007 6:52 PM