Saudi Arabia - Stoning for Women, Lashes for Men

Relevant video. Until we stop being so dependant on fossil fuels we have little choice other than to be allied to them, despite our disapproval of their culture and practices.

I'm in complete agreement with your sentiments, but I think the relationship with Saudi Arabia is more complex than it being merely a question of oil. Having the KSA on our side is quite a useful thing. Even as allies, we know they sponsor terrorism, often against Western countries, but imagine what they'd get up to if they weren't our allies. Saudi Arabia is a major power in the Middle East, and being allied to them gives us a foot in the door. If we didn't have that, it's not unreasonable to imagine that an all-out war between certain Middle Eastern countries and Western countries might arise.

Imo if there were more funding for them --> more development, they may be able to.

What can be done to moderate such indefensible and destabilising actions? Does our reliance on Saudi for cheap oil preclude us taking any meaningful action? Should we take any action, or should we let the unelected Kingdom impose its barbaric rule at home and sponsor terrorism abroad without interfering?.

Short of a full scale invasion and subjugation of the people, pronouncing Saudi Arabia "New America" and installing the US ambassador as president, there's very little anyone can do. And obviously China and Russia would not be amenable to that, and it would entail a nuclear era world war.

It's a pity they've never achieved the promises that they've made in the past. When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine then we're screwed.

Not withstanding the huge investment that are required in them.

Is it hypocritical that Saudi holds the chair at the UN? Maybe.

But the a agin the UN isn't just there to deal with western mindsets.

Are you equally angry that China isn't a democracy? What about India investing in a space programme which such high levels of poverty?

A lot of things more things preclude us from taking meaningful action than just oil. We rely on Saudi to by our exports and provide us with manufacturing jobs. They are also clearly a stabilising presence in the region (obviously you disagree, but I don't see how stoning on woman is "destabilising" compared to having a strong western ally exerting influence over an unstable region). Moreover the alternative factions that would step into a power vacuum caused by regime change isn't any better from a human rights standpoint and is probably actually a lot worse.

Short of a full scale invasion and subjugation of the people, pronouncing Saudi Arabia "New America" and installing the US ambassador as president, there's very little anyone can do. And obviously China and Russia would not be amenable to that, and it would entail a nuclear era world war.

So yeah it's too bad she's going to get stoned. I guess the lesson is don't break Saudi laws if you go to Saudi, no matter how ****ty they are.

Our exports to Saudi Arabia constitute 1.2% of our total exports (2013).

I substantiated my opinion that they are a destabilising force in the region with the other comments I made in the OP (see: war(-crimes) in Yemen and complicity in rise of IS and other radical islamist groups).

I never suggested regime change, so attacking that suggestion (when I merely asked others for their opinions) is the definition of a straw-man.

Would sanctions and/or diplomatic pressure not have any influence whatsoever?

Isn't there also the different question of our own complicity in Saudi's war-crimes by selling them military arms? For the good of our own compliance with international law ought we not to suspend arm sales to such a regime?

I think you can believe all of that, though, and still protest against Saudi's laws/punishments. I disagree with the use of the death penalty in some US states, that doesn't mean I can't agree that the US sometimes does good in the world, if that makes sense.

You can absolutely protest, make placards and write all the strongly worded letters you want. You can make pithy websites like some redditor apparently did, and you can share the whole experience on Instagram, Facebook AND Twitter so that people know you're serious. You can even vote for Jeremy Corbyn if by some miracle his leadership survives long enough to see a general election. The OP asked about meaningful solutions, so that's why I discussed those and not "diplomatic pressure" and "protesting."

Actually you can have solar energy without the sun shining. I'm not a physicist but I do remember that plus, there will always be tidal etc. The environment isn't a tiny issue, it needs proper attention - and money - and not this 'oh we'll just cut the green crap' DC (and many governments before him and around the world) has been pulling. Look at Switzerland (I think) using methane from cow manure as a source of gas. Obviously it's not the best environmentally but it's a start, and the methane would be a huge pollutant on its own so at least it's being used for something. Anyway, that was a huge off topic ramble haha oops sorry

No, it isn't - but there are an agreed-upon standards of human rights and Saudi does not meet these standards.

Yes, I don't agree with any regime, and I'm aware that China is one of the biggest human rights abusers in the world. The India thing is a bit like being angry over the fact we invest in Trident instead of helping our own homeless (which many people only seem to care about when BLEEDIN' FOREIGNERS are coming over - I saw someone compare the Daily Mail and their ilk's attitude towards homelessness before and after the refugee crisis and it was great, it was something about how before refugees started to come they were all 'homeless people, it's their own fault, they're all lazy drug-taking scroungers' and then after refugees started seeking asylum were like 'but what about our own homeless?!' and it perfectly summed up the attitudes about so many people in this country, we only care about our own poor when we start to think about helping other people... anyway off topic again haha).

I didn't mean literally protest I meant that the governments involved in dealings with Saudi could potentially do something about it. And definitely not elect them for chair of the Human Rights Council Panel like DC did..!

Standards of human rights Agreed by who?

You may disagree with investment in trident, but any governments first responsibility is to the defence of its citizens. We have homeless people in the uk, but there's a huge difference between homelessness and what you think is homelessness.

Well sure, I agree with that. But we need them as an ally and they know it, so most of the diplomatic pressure we can exert really does amount to strongly worded letters. Except we probably can't even word them too strongly.

We can also stop doing favours for them - like DC did. Stop bowing and scraping to them. Treat them civilly and as an ally, but don't do bs like nominate them for chair.

The ruling for unlawful intercourse, regardless of gender :

Unmarried = lashes

Married = stoning

Why?

The first thing that comes to mind is the EU Human Rights Convention; I think one should be written with the UN in mind.

Yeah Trident isn't going to do jack****, it's a waste of money... yes, thank you, I'm not ignorant of how much better (relatively) homelessness is in the UK compared to Asia etc.

.......And it does make sense to see cheating on your spouse as worse than having sex with someone else's spouse, no?

I don't agree. Both parties knowingly inflict emotional and perhaps financial damage so both are culpable.

By differentiating punishments (which I think both are barbaric and unacceptable) the unattached person has less of a deterrent to pursuing a married person. The whole 'honour' and religious morality explanation is morally bankrupt because those cultures see people and especially women as chattels.

How is depriving young children of a loving parent seen as justice? Surely the state is imposing a punishment that sentences the children of the mother to emotional trauma through execution, for what? Because the husband failed to take responsibility for his part in a miserable relationship or that arranged marriages allow people to justify abuse because they had no choice?

How is it that throughout the Western world the vast majority of people manage to survive infidelity without resorting to state sponsored murder for vengeance and retribution?