American businesswoman imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for going to Starbucks with unrelated male colleague

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are you saying that it is a pointless exercise to have egalitarian and humanitarian ideals? To want to strive for equality for all? I am getting very confused with this idea that terrorism can exist as a concept if there is no universally accepted idea as to what constitutes the right to human life. Is it purely dependent on the culture from which you originate or take up residence? If so then surely terrorism is merely a legitimate path in the struggle to be top dog?

So it would seem....

[Peikko 1,575]

Charles, I am not sure why you feel it necessary to be facetious about the problems of famine unless you do believe that the struggle for some degree of fairness is pointless. If that's your view, fair enough, but don't cry terrorism. If you want every country to be able to just do what they like, then there are consequences.

[Ban Hammer 13,703]

Charles, I am not sure why you feel it necessary to be facetious about the problems of famine unless you do believe that the struggle for some degree of fairness is pointless. If that's your view, fair enough, but don't cry terrorism. If you want every country to be able to just do what they like, then there are consequences.

my resolution will end world hunger and restore world peace. why are you so against those two becoming extinct?

[kaydee457 13]

I don't agree with what happened to this woman at all, but it doesn't sound like she suffered anything worse than the indignity of being thrown in jail. She wants to make a stink of it, because this doesn't happen at home, but she is in Saudi - and I expect the embassy is telling her to put up or shut up. When she says she "thought Saudi had become more liberal" so she thought she could get away with direspecting their laws

I do know where kaydee is coming from on this one - I have travelled through the middle east (both on business and as a tourist) and Westerners (men and women) can be very disrespectful. I gueess sometimes that comes back to bite them.

I think this may have been the post whereby some confusion may have crept in...I was being sarcastic....

To sum it up....This woman's indignant because she was treated like an ordinary Saudi woman. How dare they <sarcasm>?

I'm sure the U.S. Embassy gave her two options, and probably a bit of advice; shut up and persevere within the bounds of their laws or buy an airplane ticket and go home ......afterall, you are a guest in this country

Ms. I'mAnAmericanAndISitWhereIWant!

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

tonight i'm drafting a resolution to end world hunger AND global warming. and because i said so, that will be the end of it. and i'll even have my cat co-sign it.

The cat too? I'm sold.

[kaydee457 13]

I'm marveling at all the westerners in this forum that are blind to the simple fact that the Kingdom's “Mutaween” police enjoy the arbitrary enforcement authority they have because they have the support of most of the Muslims in the country....

Now, you can say that they are "victims" of draconian immoral justice, however, it's the system they've known since birth.

Most people cooperate with the Mutaween, as I believe happened in this instance.

Stop trying to rationalize, and then condemning their laws by imposing your own western, mostly Christian, values on people that can't relate to it, nor do they care to. It wasn't too long ago that we were burning women at the stake for far lesser infractions......

Try to understand their culture by stepping back a bit and imagine having never knowing anything else.

Tolerance, people, tolerance!

[Peikko 1,575]

So, are you advocating tolerance towards those who seek to destroy western culture as well? I am trying to understand what standard principle you are applying here and failing miserably.

[kaydee457 13]

So, are you advocating tolerance towards those who seek to destroy western culture as well? I am trying to understand what standard principle you are applying here and failing miserably.

No, not at all......It's simply, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do"......

Your comment is bigoted as Muslims aren't looking to "destroy western culture".

This woman's a guest in Saudi Arabia. She should be repectful of their laws......

Edited February 8, 2008 by kaydee457

[Peikko 1,575]

I hate to say it, but your tolerance argument really makes the war in Iraq an act of pure American aggression against a weaker nation. Is this the spade?

[Alex+R 0]

I hate to say it, but your tolerance argument really makes the war in Iraq an act of pure American aggression against a weaker nation.

How do we justify any of our actions in the last 100 years if we're cultural relativists?

[Peikko 1,575]

There is a difference between accepting that people have different laws and expecting certain universally accepted standards to take precedence. If you accept the standards then this 'infraction of shria' law can be seen as falling short of the standard. (It's important here to understand the only the woman was humiliated for this 'crime' If both the man and the woman had been thrown in jail the argument would be slightly different)

Accepting certain universally applicable standards means that it is totally acceptable to express abhorrence of this system and it is not only acceptable but necessary to work towards change. If however, there is no universally accepted standard then not only can each culture treat its citizens however they want to without fear of criticism but they can apply any standards of warfare to make their culture the dominant one, should they so desire.

[Peikko 1,575]

I didn't say all muslims aggressively sought the destruction of Western culture but if you want to make me out to be some kind of bigot, so be it. However, our idea that say Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist is only applicable if we apply some universal standards of what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm marveling at all the westerners in this forum that are blind to the simple fact that the Kingdom's “Mutaween” police enjoy the arbitrary enforcement authority they have because they have the support of most of the Muslims in the country....

Now, you can say that they are "victims" of draconian immoral justice, however, it's the system they've known since birth.

Most people cooperate with the Mutaween, as I believe happened in this instance.

Stop trying to rationalize, and then condemning their laws by imposing your own western, mostly Christian, values on people that can't relate to it, nor do they care to. It wasn't too long ago that we were burning women at the stake for far lesser infractions......

Try to understand their culture by stepping back a bit and imagine having never knowing anything else.

Tolerance, people, tolerance!

I'm sure there's a similar argument that can be brought in here about battered women blaming themselves for the brutal treatment they receive at the hands of abusive husbands/boyfriends.

"I deserved it, because I broke the rules he imposed on me".

Great...

[DeadPoolX 9]

Damn. I step away from the computer for a few hours and everyone starts typing away! Well, there's far too much to quote, so I'll try and reply to as much as I can...

1. I don't think anyone is saying there's no such thing as human rights. That's a neat little spin on the discussion. What some of us are saying is that we don't believe there's such a thing as "absolute" or "universal" human rights. There's a big difference there. Human rights can (and often do) differ from one country to the next and since they do, I fail to see how human rights could be "absolute" or "universal" unless every nation in the world sat down and agreed to follow certain rules and guidelines -- and then most importantly, enforced them!

2. Terrorism is an interesting case because, if you peel away the underlying layers, it's all about one's point-of-view. As the old saying goes, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Neither side really gives this much thought when bloodshed occurs, however. No matter how the situation is viewed, someone will appear to be the "enemy" and the other the "hero."

3. I think a number of societies today don't attempt genocide, not because they find it terrible, but because of the backlash from the international community. It'd be much more difficult to get away with what Hitler tried today than during WWII. The media is so invasive and prevalent that the story would be on every blog before lunch.

4. American Imperialism is hardly "rolling." Try looking at Teddy Roosevelt's administration for a good example of American Imperialism.

5. I think most people have already come to the conclusion that there are no WMDs in Iraq and that it was a mistake to even go there, despite the successful ousting of Saddam Hussein.

6. I don't think it's pointless to want to "egalitarian" or "humanitarian" ideals at all. However, I sincerely doubt we'll see it in our lifetime. Human beings, by their very nature, are selfish and self-serving. Not everyone, but most are and the majority of them are in seats of power within the government. These ideals you speak of, while nice and probably the best course for mankind in the long run, would ultimately reduce the power of politicians within each country to act as they please and very few of them -- after literally spending millions upon millions of dollars to attain that position -- would be very willing to do that.

7. We can't realistically justify our actions in the last 100 (or even 200) years of our existence by modern standards. Then again, no country can claim to do that either. The further you go back, the more the times were different. At one point, it was considered more than acceptable to enslave someone due to the color of their skin; hunt down and kill groups due to their ethnicity; refuse access to schools and professions based on race or religion and so on. Looking back at that with today's mindset, it's unthinkable, but during those times... it was the norm and accepted as life (for better or worse).

8. You can't reasonably compare the situation a battered woman has with her abusive husband and the laws a country imposes on it's citizens. People can find out the laws, customs and norms of any country today before they travel there. Try doing that with a spouse that decides it'd be fun one day, after a year of marriage, to suddenly take his Louisville Slugger out of the garage and use it on his wife because she overcooked his dinner. Maybe there were warning signs, but she couldn't very well look up his information online and decide ahead of time if she wanted to deal with that, now could she?

Edited February 8, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Peikko 1,575]

1. I don't think anyone is saying there's no such thing as human rights. That's a neat little spin on the discussion. What some of us are saying is that we don't believe there's such a thing as "absolute" or "universal" human rights. There's a big difference there. Human rights can (and often do) differ from one country to the next and since they do, I fail to see how human rights could be "absolute" or "universal" unless every nation in the world sat down and agreed to follow certain rules and guidelines -- and then most importantly, enforced them!

It's not a neat little spin as you seem to think it's fundamental to the question of what is and isn't acceptable behaviour on a global level. Either you have an absolute on what are 'human rights' or you don't. They can not be dependent on culture or beliefs, they have to be independent of and transcend them. That was the point of trying to define these rights and incorporate them into an universally binding agreement and have them ratified via the United Nations by all countries. Some people seem a little to eager too dismiss the importance of this principle which I find rather disturbing to say the very least.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus