Spotted this on the Beeb.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15079620

On initial reading, the immediate reaction is abhorrence for obvious reasons. The contrary argument would be that they know what the law is, and consequently the punishment, so more fool them.

Against that, there is the fact that this is not so much the need to drive in a particular instance but a type of protest - a very dangerous one admittedly.

Should other countries get involved in a nations laws ? Should there be international protest ? Let's face it, there's oil there ( I'm looking at you, yanks ).

I personally think there should be ( I'm not of a legal bent so don't know the procedure ).

PS. This is my first post of this type before certain people accuse me of drive by postings.

We didn't like the South African apartheid laws discriminating against blacks, and imposed sanctions until they changed things.

So perhaps we should impose sanctions on Sau... oh. Hmmm. Bugger.

As you were.

Intervention in South Africa is a good point.

The situation in Saudi isnt so very different, the economics are.

If the west had any balls it would of course meddle in the situation there, but we dont.

I see the Saudis have decided to (finally) let women vote and run for office as of 2015(?), but apparently is not OK for them to drive themselves...

I read that there was nothing in law to prevent them, more social convention. I guess in Saudi, that's the same thing.

Thats another outrageous aspect of this isnt it? This woman has been "convicted" and is to be lashed, and she hasnt even broken a law.

Uh, didn't lots of people criticize the US for meddling in other countries' affairs during the last decade

Apart from appealing to the State involved and attempting to drag them out of the dark ages, what do you think other jurisdictions can do? If it is their law (I have no idea whether it is or isn't) what right does any other country have to criticize it? Next you will be saying it is justified for non Americans to criticize various States for having the death penalty, for other nationals to criticize the West for allowing women to wear bikinis, etc.

What has condemnation of China's record on human rights achieved?

I believe it is fine to say they are rather neanderthal for having such a law but we need to accept that we can do bugger all about it

In your opinion was the embargo on South Africa unjustified, given their discrimination based on race?

I dont really see how blatant descrimination based on both ethnicity AND gender is a more palitable situation.

The situation in China has changed some due to international pressure, sure its not great, but it was and could be worse.

The truth is that the west does nothing for fear of pissing off the major oil providers. We can live without Cape grapefruit, or some cheap chinese tat, but not without Saudi oil.

Who is the West? The politicians or the electorate that provide the politicians with their jobs? Would the "West" be willing to pay more for their oil if they didn't source oil from the major oil providers? If the answer to this is "Yes" then it is hard to understand why the West doesn't refuse to take any oil from States whose laws it doesn't agree with. If the answer is "No" then, once again, the West is showing how hypocritical it is. I suspect it is the latter, in which case it shall be hereinafter known as "Bono's Syndrome"

Im sorry, I couldnt tell from that if you thought the apartheid embargo was justified or not

To the extent that one could argue that it ended the system of apartheid in South Africa (I don't know if if did or not) then, as it achieved its aim, it was justified.

To the extent that it was justified purely on the basis that citizens of other jurisdictions wished to impose their view on another, independent, jurisdiction, it is not justified if one accepts the sovereignty of States.

If one does not agree with the laws of another jurisdiction one can choose not to have anything to do with that jurisdiction (don't go their on holiday, don't purchase any products produced there, etc.).

As there is no organization that arbitrate such disputes between jurisdictions (the UN is a complete non entity in this regard as can be amply demonstrated by events over the past half decade), it is for the individual or, if sufficient numbers of citizens of a particular jurisdiction force their elected representatives to take a position as a State, the State to decide a course of conduct with the offending jurisdiction to attempt to achieve whatever aims it wishes to.

I suspect that some will wish to turn this into a "this proves AC is racist" as the current debate is about race. It is no such thing.

LOL, its a wonder you can get out of bed in the morning and tie your shoes, that level of vacillation would be crippling for me.

How exactly do you propose that I, as a consumer, go about ensuring that the gas I buy, or the oil that heats my home, or the plastic feedstocks that are in so much of what I buy are not from (for example) Saudi Arabia? Im all ears on that one. Clearly government action is the only way to ensure that, and you are right, its people that ultimately drive that.

The SA embargo was driven by the UN, the Iraq embargo was driven by the UN. One wonders how the ball ever got rolling in those cases. The UN hasnt changed, its still has the legal authority to mandate and enforce such things. What it lacks is the political will from within the security council, which is where the shots are called, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out the vested interests behind why that might be.

OK, I will be clear: Apartheid was wrong and I do not agree with it.

Tell me what the UN did to assist civilians in Bosnia? Tell me what the UN did to benefit Rwandans? Tell me what the UN are doing to benefit the Sundanese? Tell me what the UN did to benefit civilians in the Congo? This list could go on, but I am sure you get the picture.

I don't care, why they didn't/don't intervene, that doesn't assist those on the ground.

Nope, Still no sure... was the economic embargo on South Africa justified or not?


My history is a bit sketchy, but Im pretty sure the UN had troops on the ground as peacekeepers in many of those places. What would have happened without that intervention? Granted, things were bad, but would they have been worse.

Im not talking about military intervention anyway, Im suggesting diplomatic and economic pressure to make it clearer to certain regimes that what they do is considered unacceptable by our governments standards, rather than dancing around the issues for fear of enduring their wrath in the form of oil shortages or price spikes. Jimmy Carter had it right in 1979, "This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation." The west is far too dependent on Oil from outside and that makes it impossible for it to do the right thing.

Justified in what way? I thought I made my position clear: I don't agree with apartheid and the embargo achieved its aim (if it did, I genuinely don't know if South Africa ceased apartheid simply on this basis). What other justification are you seeking?


Do you not believe that makes it worse - they were there but chose to do nothing? Peacekeepers achieve the square root of bugger all, if they are not allowed to intervene. Perhaps you believe those being raped, maimed and killed felt better about being raped, maimed and killed as those doing the raping, maiming and pillaging were being watched by peacekeepers.

Does anyone actually believe that the West believes that the impugned laws are acceptable?

Please explain the type of pressure that you believe would work.

That's easy. Whilst some things are a morally grey area lashing a women for driving a car is not. Only somebody bat shit insane would think otherwise, it is wrong and deserves criticism.

Whether that criticism is leveled by our elected leaders or not should depend on 'the greater good', something that is very ambiguous. Personally I'd rather pay more for my petrol and other goods and spend less tax on the military (western defense budget / barrels of oil from middle east + current price of oil is almost certainly greater than the true price of oil), but we need oil to live given that 16 calories of oil is burnt for every calorie of food we eat - or something like that.