Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by aaron695 3330 days ago
So once again, they have not said this was applied to this particular case, why?

Try to read between the lines. It's a handy tool to have. This article is decietful. The above paragraph is OT to what I was saying. But you'll notice they use words like 'may' and they don't say it was relevant in this case. They are playing games with the truth. And that's something I particularly don't agree with.

1 comments

To be frank, I find the supposition that you are deceitful much easier to believe than the idea that Human Rights Watch is conspiring to give Islam/Saudia Arabia a bad name.

Given that Saudi Arabia doesn't even have a criminal code at all, of course they make statements like that. Judges simply enforce (their idea of) islam, rather than any legal code. There is no rulebook like in pretty much every other country on the planet. So judicial randomness is the norm, rather than the exception (and of course, one might even say this is not the fault of the judges, as they don't make the law, this is the fault of the government refusing to govern).