Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: Goddess on October 24, 2017, 05:45:19 pm
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-saud-moderate-islam-vision-2030-conference-a8017181.html
Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, speaking at a major investment conference, has promised his kingdom will return to “what we were before – a country of moderate Islam that is open to all religions and to the world”.
The country would also do more to tackle extremism, the prince said. “We will not waste 30 years of our lives dealing with extremist ideas; we will destroy them today,” he told an interviewer.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I hope the motivation isn't just falling oil prices.
Also at the Future Investment Initiative, Prince bin Salman announced the creation of Neom, a new $500bn (£381m) independent economic zone to be built on the border with Jordan and Egypt.
The 2025 project will operate using alternative energy and serve as a worldwide technology innovation hub, he said.
The conference, which runs until Thursday, is aimed at showing that Riyadh is opening itself up to the modern world and diversifying its revenue streams, following a global plunge in oil prices.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-saud-moderate-islam-vision-2030-conference-a8017181.html
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I hope the motivation isn't just falling oil prices.
The problem is how he defines 'moderate'. All the major terrorist groups are outgrowths of Saudi Wahhabi Islam. And I've seen no signs that the Saudi royals are going to redefine that religion. Will churches be allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia now? Will Saudi women no longer be forced to wear burkas? Not bloody likely.
-
He's still a despot.
-
Talk is cheap from a politician, let alone the Saudi Monarchy.
-
Talk is cheap from a politician, let alone the Saudi Monarchy.
He's still a despot.
You are both correct! I agree!
-
I guess they are sprucing up their image with the west a little bit. Women can drive cars too now! Wow!
Last time we were discussing Saudi Arabia, I think I said that women not being allowed to drive wasn't even in the top ten things wrong with that sick and twisted place.
Their enthusiastic export of violent, chauvinistic Wahhabist ideology isn't likely to change in spite of some prince deciding that chicks can drive and hems can be a couple inches higher.
-k
-
This is interesting. The Saudi religious police have been steadily losing power and will be essentially eliminated. It seems Saudi women can walk about without a headscarf without fear of legal reprisal.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/this-is-a-revolution-saudis-absorb-crown-princes-rush-to-reform?CMP=fb_gu
-
This is interesting. The Saudi religious police have been steadily losing power and will be essentially eliminated. It seems Saudi women can walk about without a headscarf without fear of legal reprisal.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/this-is-a-revolution-saudis-absorb-crown-princes-rush-to-reform?CMP=fb_gu
I wonder how this will play out in the real world, though. There may not be legal reprisals for not covering, but I bet there will be individual Saudi citizens who disagree and will harrass women anyways. What will they do about those ones?
If it just a slap on the wrist or a little "warning" to not do it again, making a law will not change people's opinions if they still truly believe women are worthless. It's a start, I guess.
-
I was reading an English-language news site from Jordan (I believe it was Jordan) in regard to this. Their take is that "moderate" means very different things to a Saudi audience than to a western audience.
A western audience might assume they're talking about adopting western-style reforms. But in Saudi Arabia, threats to the established political power structure are "extremists" and this is probably primarily aimed at cracking down on the royal family's political enemies.
-k
-
I wonder how this will play out in the real world, though. There may not be legal reprisals for not covering, but I bet there will be individual Saudi citizens who disagree and will harrass women anyways. What will they do about those ones?
Yeah, thats why I specified legal consequences. No doubt some morons will take it upon themselves to punush women who aren't dressed appropriately.
If it just a slap on the wrist or a little "warning" to not do it again, making a law will not change people's opinions if they still truly believe women are worthless. It's a start, I guess.
Yup, a start.
-
I was reading an English-language news site from Jordan (I believe it was Jordan) in regard to this. Their take is that "moderate" means very different things to a Saudi audience than to a western audience.
A western audience might assume they're talking about adopting western-style reforms. But in Saudi Arabia, threats to the established political power structure are "extremists" and this is probably primarily aimed at cracking down on the royal family's political enemies.
-k
The story I linked mentioned the youth of the current ruler, Prince what's'name, so I wondered if this is more about the image Saudi has around the world. I certainly don't think its about bettering the lives of the women.
But he did seem to be criticing the extreme fundamentalism of Wahhabism in Saudi and its spread outside of Saudi borders.
(On my phone so please excuse any typos.)
-
Their take is that "moderate" means very different things to a Saudi audience than to a western audience.
A western audience might assume they're talking about adopting western-style reforms. But in Saudi Arabia, threats to the established political power structure are "extremists" and this is probably primarily aimed at cracking down on the royal family's political enemies.
-k
"Moderate" means different things to Westerners, too. I view the burkas and niqabs as an "extreme" religious belief. I base that on the fact that it is not prescribed in the Koran and the harm it causes to women, men and society.
Other Westerners view burkas as a charming and exotic cultural distinction, which must be protected by law from people like me who see it for what it really is - a denigration and oppression of women. It denigrates even women who do not wear it, as being **** with no modesty. I don't believe in making it easy for women who want to participate in their own oppression/denigration.
-
"Moderate" means different things to Westerners, too. I view the burkas and niqabs as an "extreme" religious belief. I base that on the fact that it is not prescribed in the Koran and the harm it causes to women, men and society.
Other Westerners view burkas as a charming and exotic cultural distinction, which must be protected by law from people like me who see it for what it really is - a denigration and oppression of women. It denigrates even women who do not wear it, as being **** with no modesty. I don't believe in making it easy for women who want to participate in their own oppression/denigration.
Thats so cute. Here I can agree with you that ots a tradition steeped in misogyny, but I don't think it gives me the right to impose upon women even more strictures on how they may.or may not dress. Further, if the issue is misogyny, how does penalizing women solve that problem? This is something that "people like you" seem unable to address.
If there were evidence from France or another country that banning burkas reduced spousal abuse and created more.freedom and safety for these women, then maybe it would be worth it. Unfortunately for Muslim women the world over, wearing or not wearing the burka\hijab is irrelevant to whether they will be abused by their family or by individuals who take it upon themselves to punish women for dressing "incorrectly". It is a shame that Western media focuses only on stories of women who are punished for not wearing burkas/niqabs and ignores or downplays the opposite.
-
Further, if the issue is misogyny, how does penalizing women solve that problem? This is something that "people like you" seem unable to address.
I've said from the beginning of the Bill 62 debate that I am unable to address it. I've said from the beginning that I am uncomfortable with another law dictating how women dress.
It's like seeing a woman in an abusive relationship who insists she loves being abused and has made the choice to continue to be abused. I agree with you - she absolutely has that right. The part I'm also uncomfortable with is legitimizing and condoning the public display. She may be super proud of how brave she is for enduring the abuse and even believe it benefits her in some ways.....should that view be publicly endorsed and accepted as a legitimate belief?
It just seems to me that there are more important reasons to ban such a garment, than making it a legitimate part of society just so a woman can have her "personal right". I'm sorry but other than the issue of personal rights (which I agree is a also very important), I see no benefit in endorsing burkas and niqabs. No benefit to women. No benefit to men. No benefit to society.
I see it almost the same as the smoking bans - it's each person's "right" to do something that harms themselves. But laws are put in place as to when and where smoking can take place - out of respect for others. Part of the argument for smoking bans back in the day was also that we didn't want children to see it as legitimate and normal and accepted. If we accept burkas and niqabs as legitimate and normal in our society, how will anyone ever see them for what they are?
But yes, no argument from me that it is their "right" to dress however they want.
-
Been sick for a couple of days, so just getting back to this now.
I've said from the beginning of the Bill 62 debate that I am unable to address it. I've said from the beginning that I am uncomfortable with another law dictating how women dress.
Yes, you have. It was your "people like me" who see the sense in banning it that I was addressing, more than you specifically since you have said you are uncertain.
It's like seeing a woman in an abusive relationship who insists she loves being abused and has made the choice to continue to be abused. I agree with you - she absolutely has that right. The part I'm also uncomfortable with is legitimizing and condoning the public display. She may be super proud of how brave she is for enduring the abuse and even believe it benefits her in some ways.....should that view be publicly endorsed and accepted as a legitimate belief?
I don't disagree with you here. But to me, banning burkas/hijab's would be like telling an abused woman she isn't allowed in public with bruises or broken bones from her spouse's or family's assault. How would that help the woman or solve the problem of domestic violence? It would simply make the abused woman invisible to the rest of us and the funny thing about people is that if they can't actually *see* it, they tend to believe it doesn't exist.
I do understand your concern that if people inclined to a fundamentalism saw burkas or niqabs on the street, they might be more inclined to want that as part of their life. And, perhaps burka wearing women are such a small population that it really wouldn't matter much if they were hidden away. But then I'm reminded of racist people: I knew there were racists in Canada, but I never heard or saw any because it was socially unacceptable - until Trump came to power and they were legitimized somewhat. Now I'm shocked and saddened by how many there are, how racist ideology permeates our society. Was I or society in general better off unaware of this, or would there have been a better way to address these attitudes rather than just repressing them through social disapproval? It's a tough question, especially since I tend to believe people can believe what they want, as long as they don't act in ways to harm others.
I see it almost the same as the smoking bans - it's each person's "right" to do something that harms themselves. But laws are put in place as to when and where smoking can take place - out of respect for others. Part of the argument for smoking bans back in the day was also that we didn't want children to see it as legitimate and normal and accepted. If we accept burkas and niqabs as legitimate and normal in our society, how will anyone ever see them for what they are?
I see the similarity here. On the other hand, banning smoking in public places didn't mean that women, especially, would be at risk of becoming essentially housebound because they were unable to smoke in public places. That to me is an important difference.
-
Kimmy your reasoning is well stated. I am divided on the issue. You may already be aware like Godess I loath on an individual basis
fundamentalist religious beliefs that teach the female body is to be covered up. I believe that discriminates women and presents a view that sexuality let alone female sexuality is something that must be covered up. If I as a man can not control my basis urges to the extent this is needed might I suggest bagging women is not the way to treat my lack of sexual control.
Fortunately in my case I am old at 61 and useless and no harm to you or any woman although I could be charming and hold a door for you.
On a serious note I loath what it stands for and I loath all religions not just Islam that teach this. That said I believe challenging such beliefs are best done not by government but people engaged in respectful free speech that does not incite violence or hatred against Muslims or anyone but challenges the precepts behind the practice.
I think governments imposing standards of what is acceptable is a slippery slope. It will start with a burqa and soon move on to other things. How far will it then go? How far will this initiate limiting what we can wear? It makes me nervous.
So I am afraid I agree with both you and Kimmy and may I say respectfully as a man, I believe ultimately it is women who must take the lead not we men and determine how much from men they are going to allow to dictate their identity.
I taught my daughters to determine their identity based on their opinions not mine when it comes to their female identity. I deliberately deferred to their mother. I have a lot to say about how I believe women should be treated respectfully by men and safety issues but not how women should define themselves-I don't think I should. I have thank you enough issues dealing with my male identity and all the inherent contradictions that come from it.
Whatever you to decide, I would in all seriousness out of basic respect to women defer to. Ultimately how women deal with their identity is their issue.
I only say this, no man should expect a woman to take responsibility for how we view women. That is our issue and problem if we can't deal with it. Having women be transferred by men the responsibility of covering up because we can't control ourselves does not deal with the issue it simply blames women for it.
-
Rue said: (Sorry, on my phone and quote thing is sketchy)
I think governments imposing standards of what is acceptable is a slippery slope. It will start with a burqa and soon move on to other things. How far will it then go? How far will this initiate limiting what we can wear? It makes me nervous.
That is a big factor in my misgivings about banning it. The slippery slope of what could be next for women.
That slippery slope or the slippery slope of allowing it to continue to be promoted.....either way, it's a tough one.