• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saudi princess 'given UK asylum'

Laila

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
A Saudi Arabian princess who had an illegitimate child with a British man has been granted asylum in the UK, the Independent newspaper has reported.

It said the married woman was allowed to stay after telling a judge that her affair left her at risk of being stoned to death in her home country.

The woman, who has been given anonymity by a court, is married to a member of the Saudi royal family, the paper said.

The Home Office declined to comment on the case.

The Independent says the woman is one of a small number of Saudi Arabian citizens whose asylum claims are not acknowledged publicly by either country's government.
Click to expand...

Under Saudi Arabia's Sharia law system, adultery is punishable by public flogging or execution.
Click to expand...

BBC NEWS | UK | Saudi princess 'given UK asylum'

Dozens of countries yet UK is where she chose. What happens if the King demands her back? Saudi Arabia has weapons deal with UK and i don't feel like pissing off another country.
 
Last edited:
americanwoman said:
I think it's great of the UK to stand up against unjust laws.
Click to expand...

Blair intervened and shut down investigation of bribery because Saudis threatened to restrict information of terrorism.

Saudis have killed royals before for adultery, why would this be any different?
 
jallman said:
Do you feel like handing a woman over to be stoned to death though?
Click to expand...

She may be stoned but UK hands people over for torture do we not? So why would this be any different?

I know why she came UK and not US. We are stupid enough to take her in despite possible consequences of our actions.
Saudis can withdraw billions from UK if they wished and during a economic crisis, oh jeez :doh
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
She may be stoned but UK hands people over for torture do we not? So why would this be any different?

I know why she came UK and not US. We are stupid enough to take her in despite possible consequences of our actions.
Saudis can withdraw billions from UK if they wished and during a economic crisis, oh jeez :doh
Click to expand...

So then you're ok with handing her over to be stoned to death. As long as we're clear that you are supportive of the death penalty.
 
jallman said:
So then you're ok with handing her over to be stoned to death. As long as we're clear that you are supportive of the death penalty.
Click to expand...

No. I am not.
I don't support death penalty in US but i respect the fact it is not my country or laws and i cannot force it to change to suit my political positions.
But it is not our laws she broke, it is Saudi law. She was aware of the consequences of her actions and still acted upon it.

Why she dragged UK into it is beyond me, the last thing we need is a confrontation with our weapons buyer and oil dealer.
 
Laila said:
But it is not our laws she broke, it is Saudi law. She was aware of the consequences of her actions and still acted upon it.
.
Click to expand...


Would a Saudi prince also be stoned to death?

Oh yeah, he'd be able to make the mistress his second wife. :roll:


I'm glad she broke the law and defied it. Those outdated sexist laws need to be broken and stood up against. She should not have to face any consquences for adultery, especially death. That's incredibly absurd.
 
Laila said:
No. I am not.
I don't support death penalty in US but i respect the fact it is not my country or laws and i cannot force it to change to suit my political positions.
But it is not our laws she broke, it is Saudi law. She was aware of the consequences of her actions and still acted upon it.

Why she dragged UK into it is beyond me, the last thing we need is a confrontation with our weapons buyer and oil dealer.
Click to expand...

She is already in your country. And the UK would be hesitant to extradite a criminal who faces the death penalty to the US also. I know for a fact Canada won't extradite if the death penalty is on the table for a US citizen.

And the death penalty is the death penalty no matter which country enforces it. So if you don't mind supporting the death penalty, then sure...I can understand your position.
 
americanwoman said:
Would a Saudi prince also be stoned to death?

Oh yeah, he'd be able to make the mistress his second wife. :roll:

I'm glad she broke the law and defied it. Those outdated sexist laws need to be broken and stood up against. She should not have to face any consquences for adultery, especially death. That's incredibly absurd.
Click to expand...

Prince Faisal was executed in 1978.

I think she is a fool. Maybe she shouldn't have broken her marriage vows. She is fully aware of what would have happened.

Has she never heard of a condom? Or perhaps the morning after pill? :roll:
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
She is already in your country.
Click to expand...

Yeah.
And now we are stuck with her for fear of being sued or being in trouble with EUCoHR
 
Last edited:
americanwoman said:
I fully support the death penalty, yet I cannot even begin to think of supporting the death of this woman.
Click to expand...

I don't support the death of any women and child for sex.

But i don't see why we get the baggage and possible consequences
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Ethics: just so damned inconvenient at times.
Click to expand...

Hah. What ethics is there in Government or Government rules about asylum? None.

Why do i have a sneaking suspicion that if she wasn't a Princess, we would have rejected it.
 
Laila said:
Hah. What ethics is there in Government or Government rules about asylum? None.

Why do i have a sneaking suspicion that if she wasn't a Princess, we would have rejected it.
Click to expand...

Well I imagine ethics is what's stopping them from handing her over to be executed.
 
jallman said:
Well I imagine ethics is what's stopping them from handing her over to be executed.
Click to expand...

Not really. Politics is keeping her safe. For now.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Not really. Politics is keeping her safe. For now.
Click to expand...

Well that doesn't make any sense. You said politically and economically it's not a good thing to piss SA off. Yet UK is refusing to hand over a princess to receive the death penalty. So how are politics keeping her safe?
 
jallman said:
Well that doesn't make any sense. You said politically and economically it's not a good thing to piss SA off. Yet UK is refusing to hand over a princess to receive the death penalty. So how are politics keeping her safe?
Click to expand...

5 words.
European court of Human Rights.

We'll be right up sh*t creek if we deport her and she gets executed in Saudi Arabia
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
5 words.
European court of Human Rights.

We'll be right up sh*t creek if we deport her and she gets executed in Saudi Arabia
Click to expand...

I'm not being obtuse...I am literally just ignorant of what you are talking about. Can you further explain, please?
 
jallman said:
I'm not being obtuse...I am literally just ignorant of what you are talking about. Can you further explain, please?
Click to expand...

Europe would say it was a breach of her human rights. UK cannot even deport terrorists who "may" face torture inside Jordan so there is no way that we can now deport her now that she here.

Our process means she can take her deportation case to high court (which would take years anyway and waste taxpayers money) and if she doesn't get the answer she wishes, take it to EUCoHR and it'll uphold her status
For example UK court said yes to deport Abu but EU said no and we got stuck with a known nut who had links with terrorists.

The judgment, from which there is no appeal once it decides, binds all the countries of the Council of Europe, including Britain. EU court of human rights has already reaffirmed the prohibition on return to torture in case Saadi v. Italy and if we ignored the ruling, well ... What would happen if a US state refused to abide by a supreme court ruling? Think along those lines.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Europe would say it was a breach of her human rights. UK cannot even deport terrorists who "may" face torture inside Jordan so there is no way that we can now deport her now that she here.

Our process means she can take her deportation case to high court (which would take years anyway and waste taxpayers money) and if she doesn't get the answer she wishes, take it to EUCoHR and it'll uphold her status
For example UK court said yes to deport Abu but EU said no and we got stuck with a known nut who had links with terrorists.

The judgment, from which there is no appeal once it decides, binds all the countries of the Council of Europe, including Britain. EU court of human rights has already reaffirmed the prohibition on return to torture in case Saadi v. Italy and if we ignored the ruling, well ... What would happen if a US state refused to abide by a supreme court ruling? Think along those lines.
Click to expand...

So basically, European countries have given up their sovereignty.
 
jallman said:
So basically, European countries have given up their sovereignty.
Click to expand...

They gave it up a long time ago.

UK's soverignty got stolen by Brown and Blair in the hopes of this pipedream of a superstate federal Europe. United Europe.
He refused us a referedum he promised in manifesto and ignored the will of the people to force us closer to EU and EU wishes to force through lisbon
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Ours got stolen by Brown and Blair in the hopes of this pipedream of a superstate federal Europe. United Europe.
He refused us a referedum he promised in manifesto and ignored the will of the people to force us closer to EU.
Click to expand...

Looking at our history, such deep idealogical divides usually result in a civil war somewhere down the line.

I imagine this whole EU thing will last about 25 years. Then it's curtains for the whole idea.
 
jallman said:
Looking at our history, such deep idealogical divides usually result in a civil war somewhere down the line.

I imagine this whole EU thing will last about 25 years. Then it's curtains for the whole idea.
Click to expand...

Europe has had centuries of war.

But you are right, we will fight. At least with US, almost none of the states has had a long period of time as a single soverign nation with its own currency, history and traditions. Europe has that.

You have no idea what filth the lisbon treaty is. Decisions will be made on majority vote
Imagine losing control of border and trade and get a President you yourself do not choose but a minor few choose *shudders*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom