In parts of "orderly" Scandinavia, what is the result of merely holding a kitchen knife while heading to your own balcony to shout down at some street thugs to tell them to leave alone the innocent people on the street below? The police bust down your door, shoot and then prevaricate so as to try to point the blame elsewhere and at the victim of state brutality. At least during the anarchy in your extreme example, holding a gun or a knife to prevent or end a sexual assault attack on someone else was possible without the police busting down the door and shooting you for that. Not that it was ideal before or during "anarchy" there.

The US is far less "orderly" than Scandinavia or even the UK, however it compares to Israel. All the mentioned entities being places that are considered to have well established "democratic" order; and yet the way the state authorities in these places approach individuals can be just as lousy as can be anywhere when the object of state agent action or non-state agent action.

I have never been impressed by that quote. Democracy can be the ultimate handmaiden of tyranny too, something Churchill should have realized given Hitler got empowered democratically; and he should have known the history behind the notion of tyrant/tyranny in classical Greek history was rooted in having won over the support of the necessary "demes".

That democracy may -- under some conditions -- be better than other forms of government doesn't undermine the fact that states -- democratic or otherwise -- are lousy moral actors and the ultimate thugs.

Well, the Norwegian woman was subject to the rule of law in the UAE, and then pardoned, under the rule of law in the UAE.

Just about everywhere, people live under the rule of law; however, the rule of law -- just about everywhere -- is at the whim of the government. Governmental actors choose who/how to pursue or not pursue, who/how to charge or not charge, who/how to prosecute or not, etc. Given the plethora of laws and the complexity involved in modern nation-states -- "western" "liberal democratic republics" included -- the rule of law is more largely about "priorities" based on governmental actors' personal preferences/prejudices than it is equal justice (equal application of the rule of law) for all.

"Blame the victim" it may not necessarily be. There are some people who falsely accuse others of a crime, and the motivation for false accusations can vary -- having a desire for revenge, seeking to protect one's own reputation, seeking fame, or one of a variety of other possibilities.

They certainly didn't blame her for being raped. She was convicted for perjury, unlawful intoxication and unlawful fornication. The unlawful fornication charge is ridiculous in my opinion -- and the charge is all the more ridiculous given the huge amount of prostitution that is allowed to take place in the UAE -- but the charge of unlawful fornication is part of the rule of law in the UAE. By the way, many states in the US used to have unlawful fornication laws too. How those US unlawful fornication laws were enforced or not enforced was also a product of authorities' preferences/prejudices.

It has happened before. Some drunk British man who was allegedly cheating a female prostitute of money got pounded by the prostitute. The police were called and the drunk British guy ended up having the British embassy team involved there. The police were not interested in pursuing the prostitute.