These people are our "allies"

[acrobat]

This to me, is up there with that thing someone posted recently about a lady passing out in the street and someone peed on her and recorded it on his phone. This is the same to me. I just can't get my head around it I can't believe its happening in the same world as Crysis, Spice Girls reunion, cakes, earl grey tea, Folding At Home, Quad Cores, 5 million channels on sky.... That maybe makes me sound like a horrible materialistic westerner or something. Globalisation etc.. But its just.. life is quite good for a lot of people, which just makes these kind of things just look extra unbelievable. Fricken 2007 and women are being beaten? What the eff!! The fact that she is rape victim that is being beaten, is pretty blummin sick =( Its all pretty hard to swallow.

Its one thing to not go poking around in other peoples business, or other country's / cultures business but... I personally would want to make this my business. People can worship cows and let them roam around their homes, eat snakes and drink their blood, put big pieces of metal through their eye lids... thats fine by me. But beating your own people is organised torture, and that is a human rights violation, and its all one step away from genocide. The UN should be in there, with 100,000 tanks and well armed soldiers, leading their leaders out to the same court that tried Saddam and Milosevic. And anyone that gets in their way with an AK47, should just be tazered or just shot.

The whole point of the UN is that its a big group of nations. So its not like anyone can say, "There goes the US / UK throwing their weight around again and enforcing democracy where they decide, whether anyone wants it or not..." - because it would be agreed upon by multiple nations, most of the nations in the world. And there shouldn't be any worry of only having 100 troops who could end up in trouble. I wanna see an enormous UN army of French and british and german and italian etc.. soldiers and tanks. Just go in and get rid of all the bad guys. Then let them vote for a new government or install one for them. As crap as we our with our Nike and Mcdonalds, atleast we dont get battered for being raped. What a load of balls that is. =(

Who gets to define "bad laws"?

The majority imo. Or, a representative, voted for by a majority. I doubt very much these laws where voted for by a majority of anything. Except maybe a majority of nutters with AK47's.

[Saracen]

....

Its one thing to not go poking around in other peoples business, or other country's / cultures business but... I personally would want to make this my business. People can worship cows and let them roam around their homes, eat snakes and drink their blood, put big pieces of metal through their eye lids... thats fine by me. But beating your own people is organised torture, and that is a human rights violation, and its all one step away from genocide. The UN should be in there, with 100,000 tanks and well armed soldiers, leading their leaders out to the same court that tried Saddam and Milosevic. And anyone that gets in their way with an AK47, should just be tazered or just shot.

That amounts to a 21st Century version of the Crusaders educating the barbaric heathen Muslims at sword point. So anyone that doesn't share 'our' world view of what's right and wrong gets invaded, tazered or shot? In other words, from our self-righteous Olympian heights of civilisation, other nations have to do what we tell them to or we'll invade and kill them?

If we can't get the UN to sort out problems like Darfur, there's no chance they're going to get anything like a concensus on invading any sovereign nation because of this kind of thing, however repugnant it may be and however incensed we may all get.

[Saracen]

.....

The majority imo. Or, a representative, voted for by a majority. I doubt very much these laws where voted for by a majority of anything. Except maybe a majority of nutters with AK47's.

I agree. But not if we have to impose it at the point of a gun ourselves. I'd MUCH prefer to see this Saudi regime out of power, and a nice peaceful, liberal democratic government in it's place. And if you've got a feasible, coherent plan for achieving that, stand for election, and I''ll vote for you. Meantime, realpolitic, whether you or I like it or not (and I don't much like it), lives and thrives. And there isn't much keyboard indignation will do about it.

We can't do much about how the Saudi's run their legal system. We can and should do something about welcoming them into this country and treating them like ..... erm .... visiting royalty. But do we? There goes that realpolitic again.

Now getting worked up about what OUR leaders are doing in all this ..... that does have a point to it. But then we come back to the age-old problem. Labour did roll out the red carpet (can't possibly threaten those arms deals and aircraft orders when they keep "British workers in British jobs", after all, can we??). So we boot those Labour rascals out, and what would we get? Tory rascals that would, and in the past have, done exactly the same thing.

We're in a so-called democracy in this country, and we can't even prevent our own government colluding with the Saudi's, so don't you think it's just a tad hypocritical going on a rant about the Saudi's, when we've been selling them arms for decades? How about sorting out the plank in our own eyes before we rant at the mote in the other guy's?

[acrobat]

That amounts to a 21st Century version of the Crusaders educating the barbaric heathen Muslims at sword point. So anyone that doesn't share 'our' world view of what's right and wrong gets invaded, tazered or shot?

Thats the point of the UN though. It wouldn't be our view, it would be all the nations in the UN. If you have a disagreement with someone... maybe you are right. But when EVERYBODY disagrees with you, that usually means you are wrong

In other words, from our self-righteous Olympian heights of civilisation, other nations have to do what we tell them to or we'll invade and kill them?

But really, this isn't a philosophical thing. Its not like we would be telling them to not wear burkas or praise Allah or start using the metric system! or whatever, we are talking about beating women (a rape victim no less). Surely theres a point where something goes beyond just being a personal belief, and becomes just plain stupid and barbaric and shouldn't exist in the modern world. Otherwise you would end up with nutters waving banners shouting, "Cancer is a not a disease, its a living thing! It has rights too!".

If we can't get the UN to sort out problems like Darfur, there's no chance they're going to get anything like a concensus on invading any sovereign nation because of this kind of thing, however repugnant it may be and however incensed we may all get.

Maybe so. But thats wrong. Theres hardly any point there being a UN if they don't really do anything. Infact, I can't remember the last time I saw those troops in blue berets doing something.

[acrobat]

I agree. But not if we have to impose it at the point of a gun ourselves. I'd MUCH prefer to see this Saudi regime out of power, and a nice peaceful, liberal democratic government in it's place.

How often does something like that ever happen though? Im no war monger, imagine no relgion, give peace a chance and all that... But these regimes always just go on and on and if one ever ends, its only usually because of a big bloody battle. My idea with the UN, is that they could be SO big, and so global, that its basically like an army of 5000 terminators walking into a school playground to arrest a 10 year old bully. He will be so busy wetting his pants they shouldn't have much trouble whisking him away to The Hague or whatever its called.

Thats maybe a simplistic view, but thats all I'm really capable of

So we boot those Labour rascals out, and what would we get? Tory rascals that would, and in the past have, done exactly the same thing.

Indeed =( Hence why I'm not especially political. Cause its all balls =( I can't imagine it will change either. Not in my life time anyway.

We're in a so-called democracy in this country, and we can't even prevent our own government colluding with the Saudi's,

Yeah. We can't even prevent our country rolling going to WAR against another country. Or rolling out ID cards etc. Its not really much of a democracy. We vote once every blue moon for crappy party A, or crappy party B (or bunch o drunks C), and then just have to cross our fingers and ride it out.

so don't you think it's just a tad hypocritical going on a rant about the Saudi's, when we've been selling them arms for decades?

Hypocritical of who though? Its not hyopcritical of me, cause I had no say it in it. And its not hypocritical of the UK government, because they probably couldn't care less about some woman in Saudi.

[TooNice]

Okay, so a "bad law" needs to be opposed including by disobedience? Who gets to define "bad laws"? That, taken as written, is an anarchist's charter. Can we all just ignore any law we consider to be "bad"?

If a particular law is viewed as oppressive by a majority of the population* (who have no personal interest in the matter), then I do think that a review of the law is in order. I suppose it depends how you view the purpose a law: I see law as a way to enforce certain moral values broadly accepted by a given society, hence it is important that the majority of the population share those values and are provided a legal route for amendment. But what if the law is used to protect the ruler or a selective portion of the population (e.g. men)? If there are no legal option to oppose such law, then isn't disobedience the only form of opposition?

* Now I am putting a question mark as to whether other countries should have a say. Even if people can no longer point their finger at a single nation for playing the world police (i.e.. the US), I don't think that walking in, and throwing out their leaders will automatically win the heart of the populace. I am curious as to what are the opinion of Saudi women on this particular matter. And Saudi men. It may well be that the majority actually find the ruling crazy. Or perhaps they believe that justice was served. If it is the later, and any intervention from the outside, be it the US or the UN will be fruitless.

[charleski]

In any society I can think of, disobeying laws is going to get you punished if you get caught. She got caught. As I said, I don't agree with the laws and I certainly don't agree with the punishment, but nor do I have a right to tell the Saudi government, or nation, what their laws should be.

That's an absurd statement. You have a right to do so, I have a right, and anyone with a shred of moral conscience does. Or do you think that people protesting against apartheid were violating some vital principal of legal blindness? Apartheid was constructed from a legal framework of statues passed by a duly constituted sovereign government in a country with an independent judiciary, did that make it any less despicable? No.

Okay, so a "bad law" needs to be opposed including by disobedience? Who gets to define "bad laws"? That, taken as written, is an anarchist's charter. Can we all just ignore any law we consider to be "bad"?

We, each and every one of us, has a moral duty to decide that for ourselves and act accordingly. Hiding behind the notion that law must be obeyed merely reduces you to the level of a drone.

I have an opinion on them, and I've said what that is, but my opinion is also that breaking laws carries a risk and she doesn't get a free pass because of what subsequently happened to her. They are two separate events.

Resistance to tyranny carries a risk. We all know that. Those who are prepared to accept that risk are carrying out heroic acts.

[JPreston]

I said earlier, I don't agree with the laws and I think they are, as I said before "primitive, punitive and barbaric". But the fact that she was subsequently raped does not give her a free pass on having previously broken laws. Look at the context of my post. I quoted someone that said she was punished with lashes and jail "for being gang raped". She was not being punished for that at all. She was punished for breaking laws. They are separate issues.

She gets 200 lashes as punishment for being a woman in the presence of men outside her family, and so we should shrug and say 'well it's the law, no free passes'?!?

I really don't think anyone here should be a cheerleader for that. The mere fact that there exists a sovereign state where the legislature is motivated entirely by medieval ignorance and hatred does not in any legitimise their pronouncements.

[TooNice]

Mind you - while not as extreme, I can see people from other countries look at the bike case and ask a few questions.

[charleski]

Wooah, hardcore. Can you play the drums? Want to start a punk band?! =)

It represents my shock that anyone of intelligence would even think to employ such a notion in a context such as this.

[acrobat]

I liked it. But Im not gettin involved ;P

[JPreston]

It represents my shock that anyone of intelligence would even think to employ such a notion in a context such as this.

Fair enough too.

To say that we cannot, or should not, say which laws are 'bad' within a state ruled by a currupt and theocratic government that doesn't even pretend to be representative of its people in any way, is truly bizarre.

By the same token Anne Frank had a bloody nerve to hide in her attic, Dith Pran should have allowed himself to be murdered by the Khmer Rouge, the guards at Checkpoint Charlie should have opened fire on everyone when the Berlin wall was coming down, the tanks should have ground that protestor into the ground in Tiannamen Square, and the Taliban were correct to murder school teachers up to 2001, but wrong afterwards. Dictators and terrible regimes always have their laws, and their apologists.

[Perfectionist]

Okay, so a "bad law" needs to be opposed including by disobedience? Who gets to define "bad laws"? That, taken as written, is an anarchist's charter. Can we all just ignore any law we consider to be "bad"?

Come off it, brutally flogging a woman within an inch of her life for daring to associate with men really can't be described as anything else than pure ****ing fascism.

I'm pretty appalled you think in this black and white manner...


edit: The others put it better than me. Thanked!

[Saracen]

Thats the point of the UN though. It wouldn't be our view, it would be all the nations in the UN. If you have a disagreement with someone... maybe you are right. But when EVERYBODY disagrees with you, that usually means you are wrong

But really, this isn't a philosophical thing. Its not like we would be telling them to not wear burkas or praise Allah or start using the metric system! or whatever, we are talking about beating women (a rape victim no less). Surely theres a point where something goes beyond just being a personal belief, and becomes just plain stupid and barbaric and shouldn't exist in the modern world. Otherwise you would end up with nutters waving banners shouting, "Cancer is a not a disease, its a living thing! It has rights too!".

Maybe so. But thats wrong. Theres hardly any point there being a UN if they don't really do anything. Infact, I can't remember the last time I saw those troops in blue berets doing something.

acrobat, I suggest you read the UN Charter if you think that's the point of it. Not only is what you say is the point of the UN not the point of the UN, but the actions you propose the UN should take are specifically prohibited by it's Charter.

[Saracen]

Come off it, brutally flogging a woman within an inch of her life for daring to associate with men really can't be described as anything else than pure ****ing fascism.

I'm pretty appalled you think in this black and white manner...


edit: The others put it better than me. Thanked!

Don't put words in my mouth.

I did NOT say that I had anything but contempt for that punishment, or that that should be a crime. I said I thought it was "primitive, punitive and barbaric". What we do NOT have the right to do, as a matter of international law, is to dictate to other countries what their laws should be ... and certainly not, as acrobat was suggesting, invading them if they don't do what we like. We are all entitled to hold opinions on the laws of other countries, and I've said several times what my opinion of that law is, but it does NOT give us a right to dictate that other countries must have the laws WE like. If you accept that principle, then the reverse of it is that they can dictate our laws.

[Saracen]

.....

Hypocritical of who though? Its not hyopcritical of me, cause I had no say it in it. And its not hypocritical of the UK government, because they probably couldn't care less about some woman in Saudi.

No, no. I didn't mean you. Hypocritical of the UK. On the one hand, we fete Saudi royalty because their petro-dollars buy British aircraft and keep our unemployment figures down, and then turn around and condemn them for their laws? It's standard political practice - hypocrisy in action.