Morality Spill On Aisle 6: Saudi Religious Police Beat Husband After He And His Wife Use a Women-Only Checkout Line At Supermarket

Screen Shot 2014-09-02 at 7.20.12 AMIn Riyadh, the Saudi morality police are again in the news. You may recall that when we last left the medieval mod squad they had secured a sentence to flog a woman who insulted them. Now, the religious police was caught on video beating up a British resident after they paid a bill at a women-only cask desk. The religious police was irate at the violation of the strict Sharia-based separation of the sexists and apparently took what they thought was the morality correct approach in beating the man in front of his wife who was wearing a black abaya cloak.

The British man is heard screaming at the police to leave his wife alone and saying “That’s my wife, how dare you!”

The confrontation occurred at a supermarket when the husband and his wife went to a female cashier. The very thought of such a thing sent the morality police into a frenzy. They filmed his car as he left and he then turned around and filmed them. That is when the violent confrontation occurred when he refused to hand over his camera. He was then attacked and pushed to the ground.

By the way, putting aside the medieval application of Sharia law, the demand for the camera and film is a position held by some American prosecutors and police including such figures as Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez in Chicago. We have been following the continuing abuse of citizens who are detained or arrested for filming police in public. (For prior columns, click here and here). Despite consistent rulings upholding the right of citizens to film police in public, these abuses continue. It is a rather bad sign when an ally for Alvarez can be found in the Saudi morality police.

However, this particular confrontation occurred over the enforcement of the segregation of Saudi society even at a supermarket checkout aisle. The British man is actually a convert to Islam and have lived in the kingdom for many years with his Saudi wife.

The religious police are officially called the Commission of the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice and known unofficially as Mutawaa. We have long covered the abuses of the Saudi Arabian religious police known as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. These are the religious fanatics who reportedly forced girls back into a burning school in Mecca because they were not sufficiently covered in public — 15 died as a result. When they are not apparently burning girls, they are forcing women to cover up “attractive eyes” or shutting down dinosaur exhibits or shutting down lingerie stores or arresting women having coffee.

The important thing for the religious police is that the scene below shows the adherence to a moral code in the beating of a man in front of his wife. After all, a man paying a woman at a checkout counter in a supermarket could lead to . . . oh I don’t know . . . equality of the sexes.

Source: Yahoo

56 thoughts on “Morality Spill On Aisle 6: Saudi Religious Police Beat Husband After He And His Wife Use a Women-Only Checkout Line At Supermarket”

  1. @Olly

    I doubt there is one accepted definition of anything. However, “good law” is usually an old case that has not been overturned and is still being cited. Here are a few excerpts and a link that might help you at paragraphs 18-21:

    18. Now what? Your challenge now is to find a key case that most closely matches your fact pattern, is reasonably current (though a pivotal case may be very old), and is still good law.

    19. Is the case still good law? • KeyCite is Westlaw‟s mechanism for determining this. There are two ways to use KeyCite. • While viewing a case with a KeyCite flag, click the flag (if there IS one). • No flag = no negative treatment (so far) • Yellow = CAUTION • Red = CASE HAS BEEN OVERRULED – DO NOT USE -or- • Type kc or keycite followed by the case citation in the search toolbar.

    20. No flag = good law so far – Yellow flag = caution – Red flag = no longer good law (has been overruled, overturned) Click on the flag for specific negative history.

    21. Just because there is no flag… • … does not mean this is the best case! • A case like Roe v. Wade – (Supreme Court of the United States January 22, 1973 – 410 U.S. 113) • a very famous U.S. Supreme Court case in the 1970s, has a yellow flag because some courts have not agreed with certain aspects of the Court‟s ruling – but this case has been cited over 22,000 times! • If later cases have „cited‟ to (referred to) a case thousands of times, even if there is some negative treatment, this case is still good law, and very, very important! • Bottom line: don‟t be afraid of cases with yellow flags!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. “This particular case is still good law and is regularly cited in new cases striking down two citizen parent cases.”

    Is there one accepted definition of a “good” law?

  3. Some more bad news. Just finished watching the BBC report from Wash DC.

    Had an undercover interview with Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. When the stupid Yankee GI’s leave, the Taliban will invite ISIS in and go on a killing rampage.

  4. These are the laws there. Do you like the laws you have to live with here? I imagine there are some as backwards as these.

    No, wait, it cannot get more stupid. Nobody’s well being was harmed in any way except during enforcement. How backwards is that.

  5. Some good news: The Saudi Morality Police better look over their shoulder: Female PKK Fighters May Be ISIL’s Worst Nightmare

    It’s an Islamic State fighter’s worst fear: to be killed by a woman

    There are plenty of female Kurdish soldiers on the front lines. They’re smaller than their male comrades, but they talk just as tough as they prowl the battlefield
    clutching automatic rifles and vowing vengeance for those victimized by the Islamic State.

    The female PKK troops get fired up when they talk about the mass rapes and sex slavery that has been a hallmark of the Islamic State.

  6. @PaulCS

    How true! Where do you think all those little Puritans came from? Anyway, for a few dollars you can read this fascinating little book about “bundling.”

    I stole, uh er uh borrowed my father’s copy. Wiki says:

    Traditionally, participants were adolescents, with a boy staying at the residence of the girl. They were given separate blankets by the girl’s parents and expected to talk to one another through the night. The practice was limited to the winter and sometimes the use of a bundling board, placed between the boy and girl, discouraged sexual conduct.

    By word of mouth from Victorian times: In Buckinghamshire (England) it is understood the practice involved each of the young persons being put into a sack, or bag, which was tied closed at their neck. They were then allowed to sleep together, each in their own sack. They could cuddle one another, but that was as far as they could go. The practice was not limited to a specific time of year and was not uncommon during the 19th century. No doubt this was also practiced in other counties in England.

    As late as the mid-19th century, there are indications that bundling was still practiced in New England, although its popularity was waning. The court case of Graham v. Smith, 1 Edm.Sel.Cas. 267 (N.Y. 1846), initially argued before Judge Edmunds in the Orange Circuit Court of New York, concerned the seduction of a 19-year-old woman. Testimony in the case established that bundling was a common practice in certain rural social circles at the time. By the 20th century, bundling as a practice seemed to have died out almost everywhere, with only isolated references to it occurring in Amish Pennsylvania.[4]

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  7. @John

    Thank you! You finally answered the question! You think Obama is “very ineligible”, and therefore not the legal President. Nice to know that you think a letter written by John Jay in 1787(?) trumps an 1898 SCOTUS case.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. squeeky – The interpretation of the Constitution changes from time to time. I would not hold too much hope on a case from the 19th century.


    Is the President golfing as he did after the first beheading? Does anyone know where the very ineligible President is? Does anyone know where the allegiances of the Commander-In-Chief lie? The President is the son of a foreign citizen.

    Jay and Washington effected a “strong check” to preclude foreign influence on the Commander-In-Chief, which was a requirement that both parents of the candidate be citizens, which they accomplished by raising the eligibility requirement from “citizen” in the draft to “natural born citizen” in the Constitution.

    P.S. Answer: he’s fundraising; maybe a little golf.

  9. Paul – no kidding. The more repressive, the more rebellious. I don’t think the Muslim Morality Police would be satisfied with a Scarlet Letter.

  10. Paulette – I agree with Nick. Are you seriously telling us that saving the Jews from concentration camps is not “just”? We didn’t even join until they attacked Pearl Harbor. Would you prefer to be a Nazi? Perhaps you need to visit a Holocaust museum and look at the photos of the “living skeletons” being carried out from the concentration camps, barely alive.

    We as a people have forgotten what we fought for.

  11. Terrible news – this is awaiting confirmation, but there is a video in which that same British ISIS extremist decapitated journalist Steven Sotloff. His mom had just pleaded for mercy, and his release, last week, pointing out that journalists care about the downtrodden.

    I have not watched the video, nor will I.

    Only when Muslim extremists believe they will be worse off, that it means certain destruction, will they stop targeting the US and its citizens. Perhaps soldiers and journalists need some kind of implantable tracking device during a deployment. I don’t know if that is even possible. But I sure want to try to prevent any more US citizens falling prey to such savagery.

Comments are closed.