Printable View
Norris won his case in the European Court of Human Rights in the late 80's. Homosexuality wasn't decriminalised until 93 (iirc).Quote:
Originally Posted by reder
You could also add the influence on religion on the fact that couples weren't allowed to divorce until 95, and the ongoing situation with regard to abortion. Recently, we've seen civil partnerships for homosexual couples delayed because the Government won't risk upsetting the religious.
Huge difference from being treated as a pariah and from actually breaking a law. A law, one assumes, that has a fairly bad punishmentQuote:
Originally Posted by reder
Thankfully we're changing. Unlike the UK Ireland now has the same age of consent for gay and straight people. Divorce is legal.
Little by little we're getting towards an open society. Well open in every way but government obviously
I didn't mention them. I'm talking about this law in Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
Besides, those laws were put into effect in the interests of one part of the community: the whites in SA, the Nazi's in Germany and the whites in the USA.
In Saudi Arabia, the overwhelming majority of people would be Muslim and would therefore such laws are hardly going to discriminate against the Muslims in that country seen as they'd all have the same beliefs. Although, I must admit I do not know the specific differences between Sunni and Shia.
Well the government was, if certain tribunal witnesses are to be believed, open to offers until relatively recently :D
Why say nazis in germany. Surely all white christians would've benefitted, and not just members of the political party?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
And are you saying that jus because the Saudi rule doesn't discriminate against the majority its all right?
Well all white Christians in Germany then. I've never heard of anything to suggest that other "non-Aryan" Germans were prosecuted by the Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
No. I'm saying that the ideology behind such laws would be accepted by the majority of the people there as they're Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
And the point being made to you is that the majority of people in the USA were white and they had rules banning the minority blacks from all sorts of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Don't assume you know what the average Saudi thinks either. Just because its illegal for men and women to mingle, doesn't mean they don't do it
Considering there hasn't been any news on protests or media condemnation in Saudi Arabia over this particular incident (even the BBC article didn't mention anything like that), I think it's fairly safe to assume that this kind of law is accepted in Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Protestors are murdered. It mightn't be the highest priority for the average Saudi either.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
As I said, don't presume that just because a law exists it has the full support of the people
In this case, there's no evidence to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
*Sigh* Spurious logic. There's no evidence that they support the law either. We're not talking about a typical democratic state...Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Burma is not a typical demcratic state either yet their natives protested over fuel prices (initially). What's stopping the Saudi's from protesting against this if they are so against it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Who said they were *so* against it? I've said numerous times they may/may not be in favour of it, and it it may/may not be among the top issues for most Saudis. My whole point is that you have a fecking a clue what Saudi's feel about their laws so don't be coming on here trying to justify/excuse the whipping of a girl who's already been raped by 14 men on the basis of "culture".Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
You might want to read this and see if they excuse it http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm
Prima facie it does, but you'd have to appreciate that probably no one was ever tried under it - ie that its draconian existence only continued because it hadn't come into public consciousness. The likely reason it existed for so long was because it was latent, so when someone took offence and decided to do something about it the law was rightly repealed. Contrast that with Saudi Arabia where no one has the right to question anything, just accept it, and you begin to see the tip of the iceberg, or more appropriately, the base of one ginormous sand dune. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by reder
Superfrank your naivety on this issue is startling me! I don't understand your point that because the Saudi media didn't revolt that we should just presume the gross inequality there is accepted. The media is controlled and, more importantly, censored by the state, plus all political opposition is banned, showing how suppressed opinions are. If you don't like something there, tough luck. The downtrodden have no voice, and we can't be outraged just because we don't understand the culture? Question why you don't understand the culture rather than fobbing the issue off.
To be fair, as Superfrank has pointed out, the woman is not being punished for being raped, although media headlines like "Rape victim gets prison sentence" would lead you to believe that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
She is actually being punished, initially, for being in the car of a man she didn't know, and on appeal had that punishment increased for trying to use the media to gain support/sympathy.
My point is that the punishment for her crime (and in S. Arabia it is a crime) and the punishment of one of her rapists is closer in sentence than I can believe.*
*As in, I think the law regarding being in the car of a stranger is ludicrous.
Thats why I deliberately worded it that wayQuote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
indeed you did. Although I don't think he has excused/justified it so much as said we need to understand more before we can comment. Personally, i disagree. Sometimes something is wrong, no matter how culturally distant it is, but I dont see his comments as any justification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Did you watch that video I sent you?
Yep. Thoroughly enjoyable voilence ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I think I can assume more or everyone feels the Taliban were evil? I believe the only 2 countries to recognise them were Pakistan & Saudia Arabia. I don't think we need to debate just how evil the Taliban were?
IMO the Saudia leaders (royalty) use extreme implementation of religion to control the masses. I read previously that SA has a very well educated middle class & in particular women however the vast majority are never allowed to use those skills so instead they high in foreign professionals. When the oil has dried up I wonder what they will have to show for it. 13% unemployment yet in a population of 27m they have 5.5m foreign "guest" workers.
I can't believe SA is compared with Ireland in the middle of the last century. If locals complain or protest they are beaten or killed. SA is a "Kingdom" so has a lot more in common with European Kingdoms of the Middle Ages. If anyone can point out the difference with dictators/tyrants feel free... :rolleyes:
The media in Saudi Arabia is among the least free in the world, the lack of media outrage there speaks more to the media's failings and state control than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank