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

[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.

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.

So then we agree. That's what the UDHR and documents like that are for. They're for putting pressure on other countries to do things. That's why we sometimes sanction other countries with human rights abuses up the wazoo (of course WE only do that when we it really doesn't hurt us THAT much, ha). Forcing other countries is what we call "invading Iraq," etc.

Platy, nobody is saying we can change another country; we're saying we can express our disapproval. Which is what that woman is doing. eta: It's not the U.S. policing the world; it's the UN. Many, many nations. That's the whole point of the UN and the International Criminal Court, etc. Of all the developed (and many undeveloped) nations of the world, the U.S. has been the LEAST involved in matters of this type. We are the MOST involved in matters like invading other countries and arranging their governments for our own purposes. I leave it to you to decide which category human rights and calling media attention to a problem fall into.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Alex+R

[Peikko 1,575]

This is a joke right? I guess apartheid should have been ignored as well?

[PlatyPius 5]

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?

"Human Rights" are relative to the person doing the considering of the term.

The US and/or Canada and/or Europe will have a completely different view on "human rights" than someone in, say, Ghana. Why is OUR view the correct one? Elitism, ethnocentrism, and just feeling so damn good about ourselves is the reason "we" feel that we are the great white daddy who needs to scold the bad children who are "mean" to others.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't quite see where anyone has suggested the use of force in changing the Saudis' opinion oh human rights.

[PlatyPius 5]

I don't quite see where anyone has suggested the use of force in changing the Saudis' opinion oh human rights.

Who said anything about force?

[Peikko 1,575]

Again, clearly there are many people who misunderstand the principle of human rights and the acceptance and ratification of those principles. They weren't dreamed up one day by some guy and foisted upon the 'unsuspecting' rest of the world who dazedly agreed to them. This is staggeringly scary that so many are so cavalier with the principle of human rights.

[Alex+R 0]

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?

"Human Rights" are relative to the person doing the considering of the term.

The US and/or Canada and/or Europe will have a completely different view on "human rights" than someone in, say, Ghana. Why is OUR view the correct one? Elitism, ethnocentrism, and just feeling so damn good about ourselves is the reason "we" feel that we are the great white daddy who needs to scold the bad children who are "mean" to others.

Read my "eta" to my previous post. And then remember that we have in fact been in trouble for OUR human rights abuses. Canada put us on a list of human rights abusers. We're held to the same standards as anyone else, except we usually throw a fit and demand they stop calling us names. But the idea of the UN is that nobody is acting unilaterally. And it is not, contrary to what appears to be opinion on VJ, made up of Western nations only.

[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.

So then we agree. That's what the UDHR and documents like that are for. They're for putting pressure on other countries to do things. That's why we sometimes sanction other countries with human rights abuses up the wazoo (of course WE only do that when we it really doesn't hurt us THAT much, ha). Forcing other countries is what we call "invading Iraq," etc.

Platy, nobody is saying we can change another country; we're saying we can express our disapproval. Which is what that woman is doing. eta: It's not the U.S. policing the world; it's the UN. Many, many nations. That's the whole point of the UN and the International Criminal Court, etc. Of all the developed (and many undeveloped) nations of the world, the U.S. has been the LEAST involved in matters of this type. We are the MOST involved in matters like invading other countries and arranging their governments for our own purposes. I leave it to you to decide which category human rights and calling media attention to a problem fall into.

In general, we agree. However, applying sanctions to Saudi Arabia would only serve to cause us more harm than them. The United States tends to receive a great deal of it's oil from the Middle East and the Saudis know we require oil to function in our society. By using sanctions, we would be, in essence, "biting the hand that feeds us." So if the UN ever put this topic to a vote, I can only imagine the U.S. would go against it, if for no other reason, it'd be worried about it's energy supply.

[Peikko 1,575]

Deadpool seemed to believe that my horror of his misunderstanding of the principle of human rights equated to my wishing to act out some west versus east crusade. Not so. In my opinion, this is an issue like apartheid, it should be exposed for the abuse that it is and leverage brought to bear to exact change.

[Alex+R 0]

Of course the US would. We're so far in bed with the Saudis we're incapable of taking an ethical position.

[PlatyPius 5]

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?

"Human Rights" are relative to the person doing the considering of the term.

The US and/or Canada and/or Europe will have a completely different view on "human rights" than someone in, say, Ghana. Why is OUR view the correct one? Elitism, ethnocentrism, and just feeling so damn good about ourselves is the reason "we" feel that we are the great white daddy who needs to scold the bad children who are "mean" to others.

Read my "eta" to my previous post. And then remember that we have in fact been in trouble for OUR human rights abuses. Canada put us on a list of human rights abusers. We're held to the same standards as anyone else, except we usually throw a fit and demand they stop calling us names. But the idea of the UN is that nobody is acting unilaterally. And it is not, contrary to what appears to be opinion on VJ, made up of Western nations only.

Oh, I know that the US has some serious issues too; hence my comments about us being the "police" of the world. We blow the hell out of far too many people/countries in my opinion.

As for the UN.... I spit on the UN. They're worthless.

[kaydee457 13]

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

What does that have to do with this discussion?

This discussion is about a woman that clearly broke the law in a country where she's a guest, period. I have no doubt that she knew about the partitioning of "family areas" and the fact that women are not allowed to meet with men in a public place unless married.

She got thrown in the slammer and now is indignant that she was treated just the way a Saudi woman would have been.

If she doesn't shut her mouth she's headed for deportation post haste, and this is the lesser of the punishments. She's a guest there, and that' that!

She's clearly delusional if she thinks she can become the voice of moderation for womens rights. I'll say it omce again, these people believe in the policing of the populace by the "religious police" and they support it.

You, and the rest of your ilk here are just being silly treating their laws as a "problem" for women when frankly, most women agree with this enforcement.....

It's just a fact of life.

[Alex+R 0]

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

What does that have to do with this discussion?

Yo were talking about how we're being presumptuous by passing judgment on another country and how we had no right to impose our Western ways on another country. So how does that fit in with our many meddlings militarily in the ME?

[Peikko 1,575]

That's sort of the point, the US is no more above the principals of human rights than any other country and when for example they use torture, that should be exposed as an abuse of human rights.

As for the UN, that it may not be the perfect organisation or that it needs to be updated/overhauled is probably a given. However, obviously it is necessary to have an organisation that is made up of as many different cultures as possible to oversee the adeherence to the principles of human rights. I don't see any way around that.

[PlatyPius 5]

However, obviously it is necessary to have an organisation that is made up of as many different cultures as possible to oversee the adeherence to the principles of human rights. I don't see any way around that.

I do.

Minding our own damn business.