NationStates Jolt Archive

The situation of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is well known to many of us here, as being one of extremely poor standing. But there are I have been shocked to discover, a great many people around the world who believe that it is actually the right of the Saudi Arabian government to persecute people in this way. Is there anyone on here who actually thinks that the Saudi's have those kind of rights?

(Indidently if you don't and would like to support that they dont, click here http://www.petitiononline.com/SARF/petition.html )

Might makes right, right?

It's their country.

No, since it's a human rights violation.

But it has powerful buddies and oil that it plays nice with, so don't expect anything to be done about it.

I think it depends how you look at it.

There's the right of the government to restrict what goes on within its own borders, and the right of an individual of expression.

The government has the right to persecute practitioners of other religions, just as our governments have the right to encourage diversity. That is a simple fact of being a sovereign nation.

Does that make it right? No quite obviously not from where we are sitting.

Just because one has the right to be a drunk 365 days a year should one? Obviously not.

What my question would more be on this topic is whether they are violating any international law by persecuting practitioners of other religions? And what form is their persecution taking?

No, since it's a human rights violation.

But it has powerful buddies and oil that it plays nice with, so don't expect anything to be done about it.

When did the world repeal that section in the UN Charter that deals with a nation's internal affairs? Sovereignty? Did the world repeal that?

Do another Iraq on em, Bomb em, take the oil, and put in a democratic government :) [sarcasm]

When did the world repeal that section in the UN Charter that deals with a nation's internal affairs? Sovereignty? Did the world repeal that?

Remember those pesky Nuremberg trials? That whole universal declaration of human rights? Sovereignty is not an excuse for human rights abuses, which no one is entitled to commit because of a line on a map.

Remember those pesky Nuremberg trials? That whole universal declaration of human rights? Sovereignty is not an excuse for human rights abuses, which no one is entitled to commit because of a line on a map.
It's traditional, and indeed there is precedence, for only enforcing human rights violations across borders after you've pounded the violator's nation into rubble and demanded their unconditional surrender. There have been exceptions, but they are quite rare. Also, those violations are rarely used as the primary pretext for invasion - otherwise, other nations will criticize the invader as being reckless, etc.

Governments have the right to do whatever they can get away with. They don't have the right or the guarantee, that others will support them in this.

It's not a good thing, obviously, but then it's their country and no one can stop them.

The situation of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is well known to many of us here, as being one of extremely poor standing. But there are I have been shocked to discover, a great many people around the world who believe that it is actually the right of the Saudi Arabian government to persecute people in this way. Is there anyone on here who actually thinks that the Saudi's have those kind of rights?

It depends if they both allow and make it possible for people to leave the country if their religion does not conform. If they do, then I think they do have a right to persecute those who decide to remain.

Otherwise: no.

It's traditional, and indeed there is precedence, for only enforcing human rights violations across borders after you've pounded the violator's nation into rubble and demanded their unconditional surrender. There have been exceptions, but they are quite rare. Also, those violations are rarely used as the primary pretext for invasion - otherwise, other nations will criticize the invader as being reckless, etc.

I think Eddie Izzard put it best (talking about Pol Pot, but the content was the same):

Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72, well done indeed! And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that. “Ah, help yourself,” you know? “We've been trying to kill you for ages!” So kill your own people, right on there. Seems to be… Hitler killed people next door... “Oh… stupid man!” After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we?

I think Eddie Izzard put it best (talking about Hitler, but the content was the same):

And Hitler ended up in a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire, so, that's fun! I think that's funny, ‘cause he was a mass-murdering fuckhead. And that was his honeymoon as well! Double trouble!

"Eva, let's marry."

"Where should our honeymoon be?"

"Well, in a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire. I've already arranged it upstairs."

"Oh, how romantic, Adolf."

"Yes, I thought!"

Fun! What a bastard! And he was a vegetarian, and a painter, so he must have been going, "I can't get the fucking trees… Damn! I will kill everyone in the world!"

And he was a mass-murdering fuckhead, as many important historians have said. But there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there; Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72, well done indeed! And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that. “Ah, help yourself,” you know? “We've been trying to kill you for ages!” So kill your own people, right on there. Seems to be… Hitler killed people next door... “Oh… stupid man!” After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we?[/incoherent rant]
Okay then.
Thank you for that 'now for something completely different' moment.

It's traditional, and indeed there is precedence, for only enforcing human rights violations across borders after you've pounded the violator's nation into rubble and demanded their unconditional surrender. There have been exceptions, but they are quite rare. Also, those violations are rarely used as the primary pretext for invasion - otherwise, other nations will criticize the invader as being reckless, etc.

The question was "do they have a right to persecute"? No, they don't. Sovereignty does not grant them that. Lassitude and moral turpitude allows them to get away with it, but getting away with it and being entitled to it are not the same thing.

Do another Iraq on em, Bomb em, take the oil, and put in a democratic government :) [sarcasm]
You're being sarcastic, but I think that Saudi Arabia would have been a much more appropriate target in the WOT than Iraq. Saddam never used terrorism against the USA, but Saudi clerics incite terrorism against us and Saudi nationals attacked us on 9/11. If you want to kill islamist terrorism maybe you should attack it at it's root.

The question was "do they have a right to persecute"? No, they don't. Sovereignty does not grant them that. Lassitude and moral turpitude allows them to get away with it, but getting away with it and being entitled to it are not the same thing.
Right on.

You're being sarcastic, but I think that Saudi Arabia would have been a much more appropriate target in the WOT than Iraq. Saddam never used terrorism against the USA, but Saudi clerics incite terrorism against us and Saudi nationals attacked us on 9/11. If you want to kill islamist terrorism maybe you should attack it at it's root.

It will never happen and that's why the war on terror is a joke and will never achieve any real results.

Seeing that the the Declaration of Human Rights also states that every human being has the right to marry without stating anything about the spouse having to be of the opposite gender, does the USA have the right to deny marriage to homosexuals?

Seeing that the the Declaration of Human Rights also states that every human being has the right to marry without stating anything about the spouse having to be of the opposite gender, does the USA have the right to deny marriage to homosexuals?
:fluffle:

Seeing that the the Declaration of Human Rights also states that every human being has the right to marry without stating anything about the spouse having to be of the opposite gender, does the USA have the right to deny marriage to homosexuals?

I wubs you too. :D :D

:fluffle:

Thanks. :D

I just feel the this thread is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Thanks. :D

I just feel the this thread is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Isn't it always?

Thanks. :D

I just feel the this thread is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Right, so what your saying is that if someone isnt perfect in one area, they have no legitamacy to criticise someone else in a diffrent area?

Right, so what your saying is that if someone isnt perfect in one area, they have no legitamacy to criticise someone else in a diffrent area?

It's called ad hominem tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque).

Right, so what your saying is that if someone isnt perfect in one area, they have no legitamacy to criticise someone else in a diffrent area?
Isn't that always the claim USians make? Turnabout is fair game.

Thanks. :D

I just feel the this thread is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black.


I'm so sick of that fucking pot.

I'm so sick of that fucking pot.
You wouldn't be were you but speaking of Canadian pot...

Haven't you done this thread 3 times already?

Just bump the old ones ... don't make a new one.

Seeing that the the Declaration of Human Rights also states that every human being has the right to marry without stating anything about the spouse having to be of the opposite gender, does the USA have the right to deny marriage to homosexuals? Might makes right.

Not moral, but sadly true. I fail to see how being born in a specific country takes away the - inalienable, was it? - right not to be persecuted for your religion.

I wish the Saudis luck though. Religions tend to secretly thrive under persecution.

Haven't you done this thread 3 times already?

Just bump the old ones ... don't make a new one. Then we get accused of gravedigging… which is the second most illogical online offence I've ever heard of, the first one being not allowed to send aid to a player in another online game just for the sake of aiding them. [/tangent]

Then we get accused of gravedigging… which is the second most illogical online offence I've ever heard of, the first one being not allowed to send aid to a player in another online game just for the sake of aiding them. [/tangent]

Well, we could gravedig Neo Cannen's old posts...

The situation of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is well known to many of us here, as being one of extremely poor standing. But there are I have been shocked to discover, a great many people around the world who believe that it is actually the right of the Saudi Arabian government to persecute people in this way. Is there anyone on here who actually thinks that the Saudi's have those kind of rights?

(Indidently if you don't and would like to support that they dont, click here http://www.petitiononline.com/SARF/petition.html )

I would have to say they have every right to do so. It is their culture, their country, and their religion. Who are we to say what they don't, or shouldn't, have the right to do this. If you don't want to be part of their religion, I suggest you live elsewhere, and stay out of affairs you have no business in. Who are you to announce triumphantly they have no right to do so? Maybe you shouldn't have the right to believe what ever you want.

The situation of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is well known to many of us here, as being one of extremely poor standing. But there are I have been shocked to discover, a great many people around the world who believe that it is actually the right of the Saudi Arabian government to persecute people in this way. Is there anyone on here who actually thinks that the Saudi's have those kind of rights?

(Indidently if you don't and would like to support that they dont, click here http://www.petitiononline.com/SARF/petition.html )

Does the US have 'the right' to commit human rights abuses on detainees?

Does the US military have 'the right' to discriminate against members of their own population, because of gender orientation?

Does the US have 'the right' to use 'Christian' religion as a basis for the laws governing Christians AND non-Christians, alike?

It comes down to three things...

1) Countries are sovereign, and, if you expect other people to keep their noses out of YOUR business, you'd better pay them the same courtesy...

2) It only matters if someone else is willing to make a big enough issue over it...

and 3) There are no universal 'human rights', except those a society allows.

I would have to say they have every right to do so. It is their culture, their country, and their religion. Who are we to say what they don't, or shouldn't, have the right to do this. If you don't want to be part of their religion, I suggest you live elsewhere, and stay out of affairs you have no business in. Who are you to announce triumphantly they have no right to do so? Maybe you shouldn't have the right to believe what ever you want.
I wonder if you'd be so understanding if, for example, Italy decided to knock down every house of worship that wasn't Roman Catholic and decided to imprison and torture anyone who holds non-Catholic religious services or proselytizes to Catholics.

Right, so what your saying is that if someone isnt perfect in one area, they have no legitamacy to criticise someone else in a diffrent area?

I'm saying it's hypocritical accusing others of not ahering to laws and concepts you rouself don't adhere to.
You were referring to the declaration and human rights, and so was I. You claimed that Saudia Arabia doesn't follow those principles, I pointed out that neither does your own country.
There's an old German proverb saying "Sweep in front of your own door first, you'll find more than enough dirt"

I wonder if you'd be so understanding if, for example, Italy decided to knock down every house of worship that wasn't Roman Catholic and decided to imprison and torture anyone who holds non-Catholic religious services or proselytizes to Catholics.

That begs the question if the faith itself is prosecuted in Saudi Arabia, or if practice of the faith is prosecuted.
If it is only practice, it's more than easy to stay out of harms way.

Well, we could gravedig Neo Cannen's old posts...

I don't see why... he never answered any of mine....

I don't see why... he never answered any of mine....
I have the impression that Neo is Neo is Neo.

I have the impression that Neo is Neo is Neo.

THAT would explain an awful lot...

I have the impression that Neo is Neo is Neo.

We'll have to see whether we can't get Neo Danube involved in a deep analysis of scripture...

It always seemed to me that Neo Cannen was a lovely fellow... but I got the impression he'd never actually read the Bible he was so fond of waving...

When did the world repeal that section in the UN Charter that deals with a nation's internal affairs? Sovereignty? Did the world repeal that?

Yeah, absolutely. Basically, as long as they don't mess around with other nation states, they do their own laws, it's none of our business.
As an optimist realist that I am, I believe that states will always look after their own national interests first, and one of our national interest is in dealing with those guys since they have so much oil and natural gas. Full stop.

You're being sarcastic, but I think that Saudi Arabia would have been a much more appropriate target in the WOT than Iraq. Saddam never used terrorism against the USA, but Saudi clerics incite terrorism against us and Saudi nationals attacked us on 9/11. If you want to kill islamist terrorism maybe you should attack it at it's root.

US foregin policy targets States who sponsor terrorism. There is no conclusive evidence the Saudi government directly is propogating or defending terroism (especially since most terrorism now targets them). While there was much evidence in the past of the Iraqi government sponsoring different forms of terrorism, least of all Saddams declaration to support palestinean familes whose family members become suicide bombers.

So more appropriate ? on the contrary, that would be more "illegal".

Furthermore, in the WOT, the truth is security is paramount, and I believe that sometimes people must make concessions in order to feel safe. But again, it all comes down to a conflict that is multi-dimensional.

US foregin policy targets States who sponsor terrorism. There is no conclusive evidence the Saudi government directly is propogating or defending terroism (especially since most terrorism now targets them). While there was much evidence in the past of the Iraqi government sponsoring different forms of terrorism, least of all Saddams declaration to support palestinean familes whose family members become suicide bombers.

So more appropriate ? on the contrary, that would be more "illegal".
The government of Saudi might not be directly implicated in terroism, but the wahabbi clerics, who by order of the government are the only official religious authorities in the country, provide the ideology. Also rich Saudis have been known to supply funds to "charities" that sponsor terrorism. Saudi Arabia is the root from which the poison tree of terrorism grows. Time to uproot it and watch it die IMHO.

The government of Saudi might not be directly implicated in terroism, but the wahabbi clerics, who by order of the government are the only official religious authorities in the country, provide the ideology. Also rich Saudis have been known to supply funds to "charities" that sponsor terrorism. Saudi Arabia is the root from which the poison tree of terrorism grows. Time to uproot it and watch it die IMHO.

And in every country there are organizations who support terrorism in one manner or another. That does not mean the government is not fighting against it or should even be held responsible. In fact the Saudi government has made many strides in fighting terrorism in their country.

(ex) should we invade Germany because neo-nazi groups still exist ?

I wonder if you'd be so understanding if, for example, Italy decided to knock down every house of worship that wasn't Roman Catholic and decided to imprison and torture anyone who holds non-Catholic religious services or proselytizes to Catholics.

If they give those non-Catholics several warnings to leave before engaging in the torturing and imprisoning as well as aiding them in a smooth and easy leaving of the country - why not ? If you received fair warning that what you are doing is against the local law and are kindly requested to practice your unlawful practices elsewhere it is your own fault for not obeying.

Of course, if they just arrest you immediately and start torturing - they would be wrong. The leaving in peace option should be given.

The government of Saudi might not be directly implicated in terroism, but the wahabbi clerics, who by order of the government are the only official religious authorities in the country, provide the ideology. Also rich Saudis have been known to supply funds to "charities" that sponsor terrorism. Saudi Arabia is the root from which the poison tree of terrorism grows. Time to uproot it and watch it die IMHO.


That actually is true. But again, the UN Charter clearly stipulates that states have the right to use force only if attacked in form of self-defence. Now, since the Saudi regime has not openly attacked any of us, we should not attack them. But I also think that while we can continue to trade with them, we should also regularly check their commitment to the WOT, and if they are really fighting it effectively. If intelligence can clearly identify a link between the Saudi regime and terrorism, then obviously something will have to be done about it.
But, on the other side, I do agree that all that charify funding thing and some of the extreme aspects that come from those wahabbi clerics can be seen as a threat in a way.
It's quite a difficult problem indeed: anyways, I think in the present people should not forget the most important things to solve, the Iraq quagmire and the question of Iran getting nuclear expertise.

That actually is true. But again, the UN Charter clearly stipulates that states have the right to use force only if attacked in form of self-defence. Now, since the Saudi regime has not openly attacked any of us, we should not attack them.

That's not true. Any form of offesive millitary action is a de jure violation of international law under the UN Charter, unless Cananda participates, in which case it automatically becomes peacekeeping/prevention of genocide - ICJ findings notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Drunk commies deleted
The government of Saudi might not be directly implicated in terroism, but the wahabbi clerics, who by order of the government are the only official religious authorities in the country, provide the ideology. Also rich Saudis have been known to supply funds to "charities" that sponsor terrorism. Saudi Arabia is the root from which the poison tree of terrorism grows. Time to uproot it and watch it die IMHO.

in fact a better corrolation would be to say, we should invade Britian because there is a government mandated church (protestant church) whose affiliates contribute (and have a long history of doing so) to terrorism in Ireland.

Just doesn't make sense

That's not true. Any form of offesive millitary action is a de jure violation of international law under the UN Charter, unless Cananda participates, in which case it automatically becomes peacekeeping/prevention of genocide - ICJ findings notwithstanding.

Canada's military is not strong enough obviously to conduct any other operation than just peacekeeping... which tells you a lot about certain things.

Canada's military is not strong enough obviously to conduct any other operation than just peacekeeping... which tells you a lot about certain things.

What peacekeeping. A vast majority of all peacekeeping operations are conducted by American forces. Canada is a drop in the bucket hardly worth mentioning. May as well put Andora in the mix

Well, that's why it's in the interest of states to increase their defence spending in such a security environment.

Haven't you done this thread 3 times already?

Just bump the old ones ... don't make a new one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457423
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456757
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457398
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456925
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457933

5 times...Neo Danube really wants your signatures