Saudi Arabian Couple Allegedly Implant 24 Nails and a Needle in the Feet and Forehead of Maid

There has been a large number of stories about the abuse of maids and household staff in Saudi Arabia, particularly among foreign workers. However, doctors were still shocked to examine Mrs. L.T. Ariyawathi, 49, a mother of three. She was less than five months in Saudi Arabia and returned with 24 nails in her foot and a needle implanted in her forehead. Punishments by her employers.

The husband allegedly hammered the nails into her foot as punishment. She was able to get word to her family who was able to get Sri Lankan embassy officials to intervene and arrange for her return.

The punishment reportedly began when she dropped some glass items. The wife allegedly held her as the husband implanted hot iron nails in her foot. Later the wife implanted the needle.

This is an example where civil liability would serve an important function in the clear absence of criminal enforcement by the Saudi authorities.

Source: Sri Lanka Guardian

26 thoughts on “Saudi Arabian Couple Allegedly Implant 24 Nails and a Needle in the Feet and Forehead of Maid”

  1. Wootsy,

    ” … The flex-fuel system allows cars to run on gasoline, ethanol or a mixture of the two in the same tank. Brazil has long been a leader in producing cars that run on ethanol made from sugar cane. With encouragement from the Brazilian government, carmakers in South America’s largest country have been producing ethanol-powered vehicles since the late 1970s. At one point in the mid-1980s — when I was living in Brazil — about two-thirds of the cars produced in the country ran on ethanol. But Brannigan, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who spends her time between Coral Gables and Brazil, says ethanol shortages and volatile price swings began turning Brazilian drivers off, spurring auto makers to search for another solution.
    Enter the flex-fuel technology. Introduced in 2003, flex-fuel has proved so popular that, by the end of this year, nearly all new cars produced in Brazil will be capable of running on a combination of gasoline and ethanol. Another factor that makes a flex-fuel system feasible is that ethanol is available at most service stations in Brazil. In contrast, there are only about 700 ethanol pumps in the United States.
    Perhaps the United States as a whole can learn from this Brazilian example. The most powerful nation in the world still remains far too dependent on foreign oil. Let’s make searching for and exploiting alternative fuels a priority. …” (Miami Herald from an article ”In the Driver’s Seat,” by Martha Brannigan)

  2. Scott B in DC 1, August 27, 2010 at 10:46 am

    So why are we still doing business with these people. Oh… I forgot… they have the oil and the damned GOBP (the GOP as a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP and other oil companies) does not want to vote on an energy bill that would wean the country off the oil that we have to buy from schmucks like these.
    this may be a tad OT but I got a political geography lesson last night from a lawyer from Peru who says that Brazil is now become a force and power to contend with BECAUSE they have weaned themselves , succesfully, from the oil cartels. Is this true? If so, why are we not following that example?

  3. UPDATE:Arrests made in maid’s nail torture, Sri Lankan officials say

    “A Saudi employer and his wife, who are accused of torturing a Sri Lankan housemaid by hammering nails into her body, have been arrested in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, officials at the Sri Lankan External Affairs Ministry said Monday.

    Saudi Arabian authorities could not be reached immediately for verification. No further details were available.

    The two suspects have not been named.”

  4. who said invading Iraq was a good idea? I didn’t, all I said when you decide to fight a war you don’t do it in half measures for precisely some of the reasons you stated.

    The will to win is not a patriotic fluff phrase, if you are in a fight for your life with a wild, unreasoning beast you had better have a “will to win” or you will surely end up as the fine repast of the beast who did have a “will to win”.

    So much for patriotic fluff phrases.

    As far as our shameful involvement in Viet Nam goes, the left did more to win that war for the North than any one group. They hung our troops out to dry and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Go listen to or read any interview by General Giap, he was beaten and badly after Tet but had victory handed to him by those great “generals” Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather and their minions-Jane Fonda and the Weathermen, et. al.

    The right has a good deal to answer for but the venality and banality of the left is nonpareil.

  5. Jeepers Creepers:
    You apparently prefer to leap to conclusions without the benefit of facts. So let me set you straight.
    1. Invading Iraq or doing nothing in response to 9/11 were not the only available alternatives. In fact, from a strictly logical viewpoint, there were an infinite number of possible responses. In my opinion, the focus should have been the capture or killing of bin Laden. Instead, 9/11 was used as an excuse to go to war by an Administration that was itching to do so.
    2. There was no particular necessity for taking down Saddam Hussein. He was actually doing us a favor by keeping Iran occupied. The after the fact justification that the world is better off without him is meaningless. There are a number of tyrants without whom the world would be better off.
    3. The democratization of the Middle East by force is a fool’s dream.
    4. If a country is going to commit itself to war, the reasons and the goals need to be specific and honestly conveyed. That didn’t happen in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, which explains why the definition of “victory” in each instance has been a constantly moving target.
    5. If a country is going to commit itself to war, the commitment should be by the people as a whole, not merely by the military and their families. The war’s costs should have been paid for by additional taxation if necessary, so that Americans would recognize the necessity of shared sacrifice. The costs of these wars were deferred. They were deferred to avoid confronting us with the truth and risking serious debate. The “will to win” concept is meaningless if war is advanced based on lies and continuously justified based upon additional lies.
    6. There are only two meaningful comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, and neither of them has anything to do with the “will to win,” a patriotic fluff phrase which is useful only for stirring the blood at political rallies. First, in both instances the government consistently and intentionally lied to the American people. Second, in both instances we failed to acknowledge the power of nationalism. The war in Viet Nam was nothing more than the continuation of a war against colonial occupation; we were merely left holding the bag when the French could no longer sustain the humiliation.

  6. there are no comparisons, one war (WWII) was fought as total war the other (Iraq and Afghanistan) has been fought as a police action or at least with limited application of force.

    The Marshall Plan has nothing to do with how a war should be fought. And anyway it was Truman’s idea. But I shouldn’t fault you for not knowing that.

    Pray tell why do you think no response was necessary to the destruction of the World Trade Center and a portion of the Pentagon and over 3,000 people? Peace at any price? Shall I call you Neville?

    Why would you want to go to war and put American blood and treasure at risk without a will to win? We did that in Viet Nam, it worked out very well indeed. It almost destroyed our country.

Comments are closed.