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

[Alex+R 0]

Yeah, I think it's fair, DeadPool, to criticize human rights for being culturally Western, but there's a reason for that. We also have economic and social rights at the bottom of the UDHR, and Eastern countries have honored those more than the first 21 rights, historically, and vice versa for the West. There's still a lot of debate. I think the important thing is having the concept there, and working out an international set of humanitarian laws that will one day be 100% binding.

ps Also, don't forget it was Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman, at the helm of a lot of that planning of the original UDHR.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I had a few colleagues who were Saudis (Ive never been to the country), and they were proud, upstanding, deeply religious gentlemen, with nothing but love for their country. I am sure they are fully aware of the laws in Saudi, and what happens to those who either do break the law, or allegedly break the law, whether considered a religious or general crime. They conducted themselves impeccably whilst in London, meeting female business acquaintances with grace and joining us for dinner at an establishment that served alcohol. They are only too aware that the west conducts itself differently. I am sure the things they saw in London made their toes curl, but they were in a different country with different laws and culture, and they respected this. Yes Saudi has laws that may not seem appealing to other nations, and certainly their methods of punishment will be considered barbaric by others. However, we cannot assume that this makes all the inhabitants unhappy, or that we need some form of law reform their to rescue the Saudis from this evil regime. Hell, I don't agree with quite a lot of the laws in Britain, especially when you see a rapist serve 8 weeks in jail instead of life, or a burglar being able to sue the owner of the house he burgled because he cut himself on glass when entering through a window. We cannot erase centuries of strong culture and customs simply because we dislike it or think its too harsh.

Noone's saying we can or should, but I definitely don't think we should be supporting such things. As I say - brutalising a person (with humiliation and violence) is wrong and cannot be justified in any way shape or form.

Why do people insist on hiding behind cultural and moral relativisms rather than condemning this?

I just find ironic -- if not somewhat humorous -- that the same people who generally cling to "cultural and moral relativism" are now against it when it suits their purpose. Usually the more "liberal" members of this board like to say things such as "all cultures, societies and religions are equal" whenever other members on here talk about the U.S. forcing it's views on different nations.

Why the sudden change of heart?

I don't cling to cultural and moral relativism - I've always been against brutality and murder etc. I don't believe (any) people should be treated like garbage.

There's also a difference between comparative ideologies (like religions) and the way those are implemented or enshrined in law.

Secret police are just not my bag.

I don't want people to be brutalized or murdered either. I'm not saying they should be either. But what are we going to do about it? At the moment, Saudi Arabia has the U.S. in a very precarious position due to our reliance on them for oil. Our only two options would be...

1. Quit purchasing Saudi oil -- This sounds great and while it would hurt their bank accounts, it'd hurt us more than them. We need their oil to run our entire country; they'd just see a reduction in their overall income. If we plan to do this, we need to have fully functional alternative sources of energy in plance beforehand.

2. Go to war -- Normally, I wouldn't be against this option. I see nothing wrong with going in there and taking the oil fields from the Saudis; they've been extorting us for ages. The problem is that the U.S. military is spread thin between Afghanistan and Iraq right now and every terrorist in the Middle East is closing in on the soldiers there. Attacking Saudi Arabia would just serve to further fuel their hatred of the U.S. and make them even more motivated to kill our troops (and possibly civilians later on too).

So really, it's just a bunch of talk. We can beat our chests and talk a good fight until we're all blue in the face, but at the end of the day, nothing would have changed.

These O/T forums are all talk. If people thought that the discussions were pointless or irrelevant then surely noone would participate or bother talking about any of these things.

Perhaps everyone should just stop talking about the news because half (well, most actually) of the stuff we hear or read about we can do nothing about?

I realize that. What I'm saying is that if you really find the laws in the Middle East to be such an example of a human rights violation, why not attempt to do something about it instead of talking to us? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the discussion, but nothing will change unless you (or someone else) attempts to go through the proper channels. Somehow I doubt very many of the necessary people you'd need to speak to would be on the off-topic forum on VJ.

I never said I was trying to change anything - I'm simply expressing my distaste for backward-thinking laws that espouse prejudice, and the brutal way that they are implemented.

Forgive me for saying this but it looks very much as though you're trying to derail this discussion by rubbishing the topic itself. Are any of us trying to lobby for change on any of these things we talk about...? Are you?

If not, then what is your point exactly? That we shouldn't talk about things in the news?

[Peikko 1,575]

Ok, so there are no such things as human rights. What is terrorism then? It's simply a different way of expressing a different point of view, no?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ok, so there are no such things as human rights. What is terrorism then? It's simply a different way of expressing a different point of view, no?

What about genocide?

Hideous atrocity or quaint cultural practice?

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Yeah, I think it's fair, DeadPool, to criticize human rights for being culturally Western, but there's a reason for that. We also have economic and social rights at the bottom of the UDHR, and Eastern countries have honored those more than the first 21 rights, historically, and vice versa for the West. There's still a lot of debate. I think the important thing is having the concept there, and working out an international set of humanitarian laws that will one day be 100% binding.

ps Also, don't forget it was Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman, at the helm of a lot of that planning of the original UDHR.

we've had a discussion about that in ot before, it's a worthless resolution by the un as it has no enforceability.

[Peikko 1,575]

Roll on American Imperialism methinks.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Roll on American Imperialism methinks.

Why did we knock over that nice culture in Iraq?

I'm sure there's a press kit somewhere that says:

1) If WMD and national security rationale criticised, use humanitarianism.

2) If humanitarianism criticised use WMD and national security.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm all for consistency and calling spades spades. I have seen a couple of people go right along the line and come out with, 'it's a dog eat dog' world which I have to say I personally find chilling but at least I know where I am with that mind set. However, I have a feeling that running on a public platform with such a slogan might just land you in a spot of hot water. Is that because people hide from reality or because that simply isn't what the majority of Americans really want?

[Alex+R 0]

Yeah, I think it's fair, DeadPool, to criticize human rights for being culturally Western, but there's a reason for that. We also have economic and social rights at the bottom of the UDHR, and Eastern countries have honored those more than the first 21 rights, historically, and vice versa for the West. There's still a lot of debate. I think the important thing is having the concept there, and working out an international set of humanitarian laws that will one day be 100% binding.

ps Also, don't forget it was Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman, at the helm of a lot of that planning of the original UDHR.

we've had a discussion about that in ot before, it's a worthless resolution by the un as it has no enforceability.

That doesn't mean it's worthless, that just means it's part of the patchwork of laws that make up international humanitarian law. Agreeing to standards is the first step to making binding laws. We're just not there yet.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Yeah, I think it's fair, DeadPool, to criticize human rights for being culturally Western, but there's a reason for that. We also have economic and social rights at the bottom of the UDHR, and Eastern countries have honored those more than the first 21 rights, historically, and vice versa for the West. There's still a lot of debate. I think the important thing is having the concept there, and working out an international set of humanitarian laws that will one day be 100% binding.

ps Also, don't forget it was Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman, at the helm of a lot of that planning of the original UDHR.

we've had a discussion about that in ot before, it's a worthless resolution by the un as it has no enforceability.

That doesn't mean it's worthless, that just means it's part of the patchwork of laws that make up international humanitarian law. Agreeing to standards is the first step to making binding laws. We're just not there yet.

if it has no enforceability, what's the point then? a resolution without teeth?

oh wait, that's sop for the un.

[Marilyn. 340]

Nowhere in the article did she say that she expected to be treated differently nor did she compare Saudi Arabia to the US. She does say 'I was very lucky' and she was submissive to the judge. She recognises that she escaped harsher punishment than an ordinary Saudi Arabian woman thanks to her husband and her husband's connections. I suppose I am not reading the article in the same way as others of you are. Since she has been living in Saudi Arabia for eight years and wears the appropriate clothes and has not previously been in trouble I presume she probably has a very good understanding of how to conduct herself. We also can't assume that she was told not to sit in the booths by anyone. Surely her male colleague would have said something? She is trying to draw attention to the plight of the women living in Saudi Arabia, to the women who weren't as lucky as she.

Exactly. Are we the only ones who see it this way?

This has nothing to do with coming to a foreign country and not knowing the customs.

I agree with you too....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That doesn't mean it's worthless, that just means it's part of the patchwork of laws that make up international humanitarian law. Agreeing to standards is the first step to making binding laws. We're just not there yet.

I could be wrong - but I thought the individual countries who ratified that declaration have actually enshrined those 'rights' into their own domestic laws...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Yeah, I think it's fair, DeadPool, to criticize human rights for being culturally Western, but there's a reason for that. We also have economic and social rights at the bottom of the UDHR, and Eastern countries have honored those more than the first 21 rights, historically, and vice versa for the West. There's still a lot of debate. I think the important thing is having the concept there, and working out an international set of humanitarian laws that will one day be 100% binding.

ps Also, don't forget it was Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman, at the helm of a lot of that planning of the original UDHR.

we've had a discussion about that in ot before, it's a worthless resolution by the un as it has no enforceability.

That doesn't mean it's worthless, that just means it's part of the patchwork of laws that make up international humanitarian law. Agreeing to standards is the first step to making binding laws. We're just not there yet.

if it has no enforceability, what's the point then? a resolution without teeth?

oh wait, that's sop for the un.

business as usual

If the UN was around before WW2 Hitler would be a 118 year old dictator and Jews would be extinct. I'm sure a few people here would be happy about that.

[Peikko 1,575]

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?

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

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.