Saudi woman sentenced to 100 lashes and year in jail for being raped

[syd syside]

the vast majority of the world behave like savages - may not be politically correct but it's true. it's only a very small fraction of the planet where "civilised society" (if you can call it that) exists. most of the world is still stuck in medieval attitudes and thinking. this is what is causing a lot of the problems today - the clash of these socially less developed cultures (in terms of moral acceptability) with western values of openness and freedom etc.

Best thing you've wrote on here for a good while! Personally I couldn't agree more.

 

Missed this, well said BCM.

[Friendly Foil]

(Most) people don't behave like savages where I live. Must be pretty lucky.

[SR4]

Many on the Left invariably invoke liberal values, but should not liberals first address political ideologies and cultures that are hostile to liberalism?

 

The underlying views of humanitarian racists are welcome in mainstream media and prevalent among the intelligentsia, who happen to disproportionately identify as progressive or Left. Regarding Israel, this comes out through the almost complete acceptance of the Palestinian narrative and its many falsehoods, its continuous promotion that Palestinians are purely victims and not also perpetrators of criminal acts. By adopting such a skewed and intellectually crude perception of reality, humanitarian racists have become supporters, allies and enablers of the worst Palestinian behavior.

 

Despite what else one may be, to consider Palestinians responsible for their criminal acts and aggression, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, like any human being should similarly be responsible, is not racist at all, humanitarian or otherwise. Except if one trends into Orwellian territory that "humanitarian" racists generally occupy.

 

Westerners must acknowledge that “the great ideas of the West — rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy — are superior to any others devised by humankind.” Likewise, it is critical to compare Western ideals to those of the Islamists, which are antithetical to liberty and increasingly threaten it.

 

Many Progressives these days fail to adequately see that the very Western system they oppose, through Israel and the USA, is the one that in reality affords them the opportunities and freedoms that are limited or nonexistent elsewhere. What do they offer as a replacement to the Western model? A dream? Imagine their situations if they were in Egypt, Iran, China, if they opposed the state or system similarly.

 

.

 

wow. that might be the most retarded editorial I have ever read.

 

The west isn't responsible for war crimes, torture, and indiscriminate bombings? Causing starvation? Expanding the African slave trade to 3 other continents? For PURPOSEFULLY OVERTHROWING DEMOCRATIC REGIMES because they weren't in lock-step with US/British/French economic policies?

 

fuck this shit, seriously. Westerners on the whole live a little bit longer, and they can afford bigger houses and a 6-pack of good beer now an then. What fabulous markers for civilization to strive for.

[syd syside]

 

fuck this shit, seriously. Westerners on the whole live a little bit longer, and they can afford bigger houses and a 6-pack of good beer now an then. What fabulous markers for civilization to strive for.

 

What about the aphex twins tho?

 

Roland?

 

You completely missed the point of that editorial btw. Western ideals... crony capitalism isn't an example of our ideals.

[SR4]

fuck this shit, seriously. Westerners on the whole live a little bit longer, and they can afford bigger houses and a 6-pack of good beer now an then. What fabulous markers for civilization to strive for.

 

What about the aphex twins tho?

 

Roland?

 

You completely missed the point of that editorial btw. Western ideals... crony capitalism isn't an example of our ideals.

 

and I bet if you asked a Saudi on the street, "injustice" isn't one of their ideals.

[syd syside]

56 Islamic States: Sexual orientation and gender identity have “No legal foundation in any international human rights instrument.”

 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) believes the subject matter is out of bounds, and that such "controversial notions" have "no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument," and to believe otherwise is "misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

 

It wrote a letter to this effect to the HRC, saying that "historical, cultural and religious backgrounds" must take precedence. As such, "the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC" and it will not accept considerations and recommendations of the panel. It may even stage a walkout at the event.

 

http://www2.ohchr.or....41_english.pdf

 

This isn't about racism. It's about standing up for ideals/human rights and criticizing states/institutions that oppress those rights. The fact that you jump to some kind of insinuation that I think all Saudi's support "injustice" shows the kind of backwards attitude you and Lain have on this topic and how sensitive the racial component is on your outlook of the world.

 

You should be well aware that I don't condone war crimes done by the west or crony capitalism from the other political threads. I am WAY more outspoken on that on this forum and on the internet, because I know that I have more political capita with those issues, but that does not mean we shouldn't be critical of human rights issues across the globe. And we should not assume that it is ONLY the West that is the root cause for the oppression.

[SR4]

56 Islamic States: Sexual orientation and gender identity have “No legal foundation in any international human rights instrument.”

 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) believes the subject matter is out of bounds, and that such "controversial notions" have "no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument," and to believe otherwise is "misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

 

It wrote a letter to this effect to the HRC, saying that "historical, cultural and religious backgrounds" must take precedence. As such, "the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC" and it will not accept considerations and recommendations of the panel. It may even stage a walkout at the event.

 

http://www2.ohchr.or....41_english.pdf

 

This isn't about racism. It's about standing up for ideals/human rights and criticizing states/institutions that oppress those rights. The fact that you jump to some kind of insinuation that I think all Saudi's support "injustice" shows the kind of backwards attitude you and Lain have on this topic and how sensitive the racial component is on your outlook of the world.

 

You should be well aware that I don't condone war crimes done by the west or crony capitalism from the other political threads. I am WAY more outspoken on that on this forum and on the internet, because I know that I have more political capita with those issues, but that does not mean we shouldn't be critical of human rights issues across the globe. And we should not assume that it is ONLY the West that is the root cause for the oppression.

 

so you roundly condemn all nations equally on moral terms then? the impression i am getting is that you believe (and this editorial article) that the west has a "superior morality". I really need a more substantial argument than "because liberty". You might not set women on fire for liking a man, but you might also be condoning illegal acts of torture, illegal wars, economic and financial slavery, recognition of illegitimate governments around the world (that in their repression are beloved by the western powers, as they are their primary backers)

 

I have no problem calling abuse against women immoral. I agree with you on that.

 

I vehemently disagree with the idea that we are "morally superior" to any other society. The guilt goes around equally, trust me.

[syd syside]

56 Islamic States: Sexual orientation and gender identity have “No legal foundation in any international human rights instrument.”

 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) believes the subject matter is out of bounds, and that such "controversial notions" have "no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument," and to believe otherwise is "misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

 

It wrote a letter to this effect to the HRC, saying that "historical, cultural and religious backgrounds" must take precedence. As such, "the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC" and it will not accept considerations and recommendations of the panel. It may even stage a walkout at the event.

 

http://www2.ohchr.or....41_english.pdf

 

This isn't about racism. It's about standing up for ideals/human rights and criticizing states/institutions that oppress those rights. The fact that you jump to some kind of insinuation that I think all Saudi's support "injustice" shows the kind of backwards attitude you and Lain have on this topic and how sensitive the racial component is on your outlook of the world.

 

You should be well aware that I don't condone war crimes done by the west or crony capitalism from the other political threads. I am WAY more outspoken on that on this forum and on the internet, because I know that I have more political capita with those issues, but that does not mean we shouldn't be critical of human rights issues across the globe. And we should not assume that it is ONLY the West that is the root cause for the oppression.

 

so you roundly condemn all nations equally on moral terms then? the impression i am getting is that you believe (and this editorial article) that the west has a "superior morality". I really need a more substantial argument than "because liberty". You might not set women on fire for liking a man, but you might also be condoning illegal acts of torture, illegal wars, economic and financial slavery, recognition of illegitimate governments around the world (that in their repression are beloved by the western powers, as they are their primary backers)

 

I have no problem calling abuse against women immoral. I agree with you on that.

 

I vehemently disagree with the idea that we are "morally superior" to any other society. The guilt goes around equally, trust me.

 

What guilt? The notion that people of the West must feel guilt for history is pretty silly when the majority of people are oppressed in general. All I am suggesting is that the foundations of our ideals that have led to a separation of church vs. state, freedom of speech, gender equality, etc etc should be promoted and protected.

 

And to suggest you can't compare societies morality is absurd. You've never condemned US policy in favor of some place like Canada or Sweden?

[Hoodie]

(Most) people don't behave like savages where I live. Must be pretty lucky.

 

i seriously doubt that.

[SR4]

56 Islamic States: Sexual orientation and gender identity have “No legal foundation in any international human rights instrument.”

 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) believes the subject matter is out of bounds, and that such "controversial notions" have "no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument," and to believe otherwise is "misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

 

It wrote a letter to this effect to the HRC, saying that "historical, cultural and religious backgrounds" must take precedence. As such, "the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC" and it will not accept considerations and recommendations of the panel. It may even stage a walkout at the event.

 

http://www2.ohchr.or....41_english.pdf

 

This isn't about racism. It's about standing up for ideals/human rights and criticizing states/institutions that oppress those rights. The fact that you jump to some kind of insinuation that I think all Saudi's support "injustice" shows the kind of backwards attitude you and Lain have on this topic and how sensitive the racial component is on your outlook of the world.

 

You should be well aware that I don't condone war crimes done by the west or crony capitalism from the other political threads. I am WAY more outspoken on that on this forum and on the internet, because I know that I have more political capita with those issues, but that does not mean we shouldn't be critical of human rights issues across the globe. And we should not assume that it is ONLY the West that is the root cause for the oppression.

 

so you roundly condemn all nations equally on moral terms then? the impression i am getting is that you believe (and this editorial article) that the west has a "superior morality". I really need a more substantial argument than "because liberty". You might not set women on fire for liking a man, but you might also be condoning illegal acts of torture, illegal wars, economic and financial slavery, recognition of illegitimate governments around the world (that in their repression are beloved by the western powers, as they are their primary backers)

 

I have no problem calling abuse against women immoral. I agree with you on that.

 

I vehemently disagree with the idea that we are "morally superior" to any other society. The guilt goes around equally, trust me.

 

What guilt? The notion that people of the West must feel guilt for history is pretty silly when the majority of people are oppressed in general. All I am suggesting is that the foundations of our ideals that have led to a separation of church vs. state, freedom of speech, gender equality, etc etc should be promoted and protected.

 

And to suggest you can't compare societies morality is absurd. You've never condemned US policy in favor of some place like Canada or Sweden?

 

I can disagree on policy in favor of another, but I also bear in mind that their society has functioned/formed rather differently from ours. So no, I don't believe that just because I find socialized medicine to be a good thing, that Sweden somehow has a superior morality to Americans.

 

you aren't getting what im saying. the guilt is universal, so stop trying to put in this moral hierarchy that is supposedly universally applicable to all peoples, when we ourselves fail to follow it.

[syd syside]

56 Islamic States: Sexual orientation and gender identity have “No legal foundation in any international human rights instrument.”

 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) believes the subject matter is out of bounds, and that such "controversial notions" have "no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument," and to believe otherwise is "misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

 

It wrote a letter to this effect to the HRC, saying that "historical, cultural and religious backgrounds" must take precedence. As such, "the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC" and it will not accept considerations and recommendations of the panel. It may even stage a walkout at the event.

 

http://www2.ohchr.or....41_english.pdf

 

This isn't about racism. It's about standing up for ideals/human rights and criticizing states/institutions that oppress those rights. The fact that you jump to some kind of insinuation that I think all Saudi's support "injustice" shows the kind of backwards attitude you and Lain have on this topic and how sensitive the racial component is on your outlook of the world.

 

You should be well aware that I don't condone war crimes done by the west or crony capitalism from the other political threads. I am WAY more outspoken on that on this forum and on the internet, because I know that I have more political capita with those issues, but that does not mean we shouldn't be critical of human rights issues across the globe. And we should not assume that it is ONLY the West that is the root cause for the oppression.

 

so you roundly condemn all nations equally on moral terms then? the impression i am getting is that you believe (and this editorial article) that the west has a "superior morality". I really need a more substantial argument than "because liberty". You might not set women on fire for liking a man, but you might also be condoning illegal acts of torture, illegal wars, economic and financial slavery, recognition of illegitimate governments around the world (that in their repression are beloved by the western powers, as they are their primary backers)

 

I have no problem calling abuse against women immoral. I agree with you on that.

 

I vehemently disagree with the idea that we are "morally superior" to any other society. The guilt goes around equally, trust me.

 

What guilt? The notion that people of the West must feel guilt for history is pretty silly when the majority of people are oppressed in general. All I am suggesting is that the foundations of our ideals that have led to a separation of church vs. state, freedom of speech, gender equality, etc etc should be promoted and protected.

 

And to suggest you can't compare societies morality is absurd. You've never condemned US policy in favor of some place like Canada or Sweden?

 

I can disagree on policy in favor of another, but I also bear in mind that their society has functioned/formed rather differently from ours. So no, I don't believe that just because I find socialized medicine to be a good thing, that Sweden somehow has a superior morality to Americans.

 

Individual rights > society/culture etc. So agree to disagree because I think universal health care and having the option to get treatment does make that society morally superior than the opposite.

[Guest Iain C]

Lol