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

[Alex+R 0]

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.

I think the fundamental problem is that DeadPool does not understand the concept of human rights. They are, by definition, universal.

[Peikko 1,575]

However, perhaps this lack of understanding of what the principle of human rights were not only intended to be but should be to all of us who understand the principals of equality in terms of both gender and race explains some people's ability to dismiss certain individuals/groups of people as 'unworthy of life'. It certainly makes more sense if one draws this conclusion.

[DeadPoolX 9]

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.

I dismiss them because when western nations got together and decided what was right (i.e. acceptable and proper behavior and so-called universal rights), they didn't really seek the acknowledgment nor the approval of other cultures or societies, did they? So why should those nations, all of whom were never invited to the meeting table, abide by the rules and decisions put forth by others from a society and a culture unlike their own?

It'd be like all of the Middle Eastern countries gathering together and deciding that every nation on the planet should follow their rules, their guidelines and their principles. Why should we? We're not them; we're different and if they want to do that, fine. We govern ourselves and they have no say what we do, just as we have no say in what they do.

[Alex+R 0]

You seem to misunderstand as well who was part of the UN in 1948, Deadpool. Saudi Arabia was in it, and it chose to abstain from ratifying the UDHR.

[Peikko 1,575]

I just find that attitude incomprehensible. Dismiss human rights? Clearly as an individual it's not something you have any 'right' to do particularly as a citizen of a ratified country.

[Alex+R 0]

I just find that attitude incomprehensible. Dismiss human rights? Clearly as an individual it's not something you have any 'right' to do particularly as a citizen of a ratified country.

Embarrassingly enough, we didn't ratify the two covenants that made most of the UDHR binding. Hilarious, right? We haven't committed to many of the treaties. Good enough for everyone else, but not us!

[DeadPoolX 9]

You seem to misunderstand as well who was part of the UN in 1948, Deadpool. Saudi Arabia was in it, and it chose to abstain from ratifying the UDHR.

If it abstained, it doesn't have to abide by the rules then, does it? After all, the U.S. didn't choose to abstain and it seems that half the time we "cherry pick" what parts of known UN guidelines we wish to follow.

I just find that attitude incomprehensible. Dismiss human rights? Clearly as an individual it's not something you have any 'right' to do particularly as a citizen of a ratified country.

So... I have no "right" to dismiss human rights, yet you (and apparently just about everyone else) has the "right" trample over another's society and culture?

Interesting. It seems to me that by attempting to force others to conform to "our way" of life, we're dismissing their human rights. But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

[britty 1]

Interesting. It seems to me that by attempting to force others to conform to "our way" of life, we're dismissing their human rights. But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

I think this is a reasonable point. There will be many people in Saudi who support the laws there, and I am sure, feel that the west is ridiculously lenient when administering punishments upon its people. Whilst we of course don't condone brutality, and the suffering of other human beings, we have to be careful that we are not simply enforcing our perceptions of what is acceptable on a nation that will not recognize any input from a western country, or indeed a country that does not share its values or religious beliefs (as a whole).

[Alex+R 0]

You seem to misunderstand as well who was part of the UN in 1948, Deadpool. Saudi Arabia was in it, and it chose to abstain from ratifying the UDHR.

If it abstained, it doesn't have to abide by the rules then, does it? After all, the U.S. didn't choose to abstain and it seems that half the time we "cherry pick" what parts of known UN guidelines we wish to follow.

I just find that attitude incomprehensible. Dismiss human rights? Clearly as an individual it's not something you have any 'right' to do particularly as a citizen of a ratified country.

So... I have no "right" to dismiss human rights, yet you (and apparently just about everyone else) has the "right" trample over another's society and culture?

Interesting. It seems to me that by attempting to force others to conform to "our way" of life, we're dismissing their human rights. But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

1. Nobody "has" to abide by it. The KSA was one of the 8 global nations (including some other notorious human rights violators) who chose not to ratify. But they remained part of the organization. I pointed this out to refute your point that we didn't "invite" them to talk about the declaration. They voted about 400 times (literally) on each element of the declaration, and the Saudis were hung up about the right to equality between men and women in marriage.

2. I hope you realize your cultural relativist perspective doesn't bear out in the big picture. You're saying you have no sense of right or wrong. You think it's ok to keep women in bondage because it's someone else's "culture"? That's also assuming culture is a static entity, which it never is. It's always growing and changing. I'm pretty sure 50% of the Saudis, the women, would be just fine with equality.

[Peikko 1,575]

So which part of inflicting a punishment on a woman for doing the exact same thing as a man is doing at the exact same time constitutes some kind of distortion of perception?

Sorry Deadpool, but you just don't seem understand the concept of human rights. It's not 'my view' as apposed to 'your view' it's a universally agreed principle ratified by the participating goverments which are not devided along 'western' lines as you seem to believe. I can no more opt out of the idea than you can but it's why anyone would want to that I find ultimately baffling.

[kaydee457 13]

Interesting. It seems to me that by attempting to force others to conform to "our way" of life, we're dismissing their human rights. But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

I think this is a reasonable point. There will be many people in Saudi who support the laws there, and I am sure, feel that the west is ridiculously lenient when administering punishments upon its people. Whilst we of course don't condone brutality, and the suffering of other human beings, we have to be careful that we are not simply enforcing our perceptions of what is acceptable on a nation that will not recognize any input from a western country, or indeed a country that does not share its values or religious beliefs (as a whole).

Yes indeed.....It's the silly liberals in this forum once again imposing their own virtues on everyone that they, the lofty and superior/progressive thinkers they delude themselves to be, believe that they know what's best for the Saudi's, dammit whilst of course ignoring the fact that the Saudi Muslims aren't asking for their opinion.

But that's never stopped them before, the liberals simply can't help themeselves.....sigh..

[Alex+R 0]

Kaydi, how do you justify invading Iraq or Afghanistan or the war in the Gulf?

Edited February 9, 2008 by Alex+R

[DeadPoolX 9]

You seem to misunderstand as well who was part of the UN in 1948, Deadpool. Saudi Arabia was in it, and it chose to abstain from ratifying the UDHR.

If it abstained, it doesn't have to abide by the rules then, does it? After all, the U.S. didn't choose to abstain and it seems that half the time we "cherry pick" what parts of known UN guidelines we wish to follow.

I just find that attitude incomprehensible. Dismiss human rights? Clearly as an individual it's not something you have any 'right' to do particularly as a citizen of a ratified country.

So... I have no "right" to dismiss human rights, yet you (and apparently just about everyone else) has the "right" trample over another's society and culture?

Interesting. It seems to me that by attempting to force others to conform to "our way" of life, we're dismissing their human rights. But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

1. Nobody "has" to abide by it. The KSA was one of the 8 global nations (including some other notorious human rights violators) who chose not to ratify. But they remained part of the organization. I pointed this out to refute your point that we didn't "invite" them to talk about the declaration. They voted about 400 times (literally) on each element of the declaration, and the Saudis were hung up about the right to equality between men and women in marriage.

2. I hope you realize your cultural relativist perspective doesn't bear out in the big picture. You're saying you have no sense of right or wrong. You think it's ok to keep women in bondage because it's someone else's "culture"? That's also assuming culture is a static entity, which it never is. It's always growing and changing. I'm pretty sure 50% of the Saudis, the women, would be just fine with equality.

Okay, well... first of all, if inequality is all the women have ever known there (and I'm not absolutely sure that it is), then they wouldn't really know what they're missing by not having equality. A "normal" life would be as is currently dictated. You can't wish for something that you don't know even exists.

Second, I'm not assuming culture is static, so please don't put words into my mouth. If it were, African Americans would still be picking cotton in the southern United States. But my issue is we can't force change on an already established culture. There's the keyword: FORCE. We can -- and probably should -- suggest and urge them to change, but at the end of the day, it's their decision; not ours. We can't make them do anything they don't want to do, since if we try, they'll end up rebelling against us.

[PlatyPius 5]

I can't believe that this damn thread is STILL going on!

Yes, the laws suck.

Yes, she broke the law, such as it is.

She is to blame.

If you want the laws changed in Saudi, become a Saudi citizen and THEN, maybe, your opinion will mean slightly more than a cold dog #######.

Until then, we have no right to tell another country how to govern its citizens. Once again, it all comes back to why everyone else on the planet hates us....we think we're the damn cops/saviours of the world.

[Peikko 1,575]

I presume you are merely trying to be provocative as apposed to having anything to contribute at this stage?

Or are you seriously trying to put forward the idea that the principle of 'human rights' is just some silly liberal whimsy?