Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chaoticag]

Indeed.  It's very much a cultural thing, and the women in question certainly aren't upset about it themselves.  For whatever reason, my university is host to very large population of Middle Eastern and African exchange students and immigrants.  Some of the women wear full robes and burqas, some wear jeans and long-sleeve shirts, but they all wear scarves and hoods.  And get rather offended when super-feminist women (which my college doesn't have many of) try to convince them otherwise.

I suppose you could make a "harmful" argument for burqas like the Taliban favors, which is essentially a heavy burlap bag, with a slightly thinner part that you're supposed to breathe and see through.  Those look very uncomfortable.

At any rate, Iran on the Women's Rights Council eh?  I wonder if anyone will bring up Boobquake.

Cultural, but not religious. As far as Islam goes, the recommended clothing would have been much less than what was traditional at the time. Other than that, not covering up in a desert would kill you, so it was a non-issue for a while. Now, it's a bit of a problem, since they really have no idea that they can show their faces. And yeah, Islam is pretty vague on that point, it just says "dress modestly, no cleavage or elbows or knees" and is more concise over who is the exception to the rule.

[Soadreqm]

Servant Corps: Huh. Good point. I never thought about it like that. The UN is only supposed to promote human rights inasmuch the member nations agree on the rights. They mostly do, which is good, but they're not really... required to agree with me.

[Blacken]

Culture is weird. Why would it matter if they can't decide for themselves if they aren't upset that they can't? The only reason it matters is because we believe differently.

Because...shocker...they may not have the ability to analyze it and decide if they want to participate?

You might be looked at funny if you aren't a Christian, say, in some parts of the United States, but nobody's going to go out of their way to hassle you (and I mean actually hassling you--interfering with you physically, not perhaps socially ostracizing you as is there right). You leave your body-bag at home in Iran and the punishment can be severe (depending on who you know and how much influence people who like you may have).

Servant Corps: Huh. Good point. I never thought about it like that. The UN is only supposed to promote human rights inasmuch the member nations agree on the rights. They mostly do, which is good, but they're not really... required to agree with me.

It is an utterly facile point with little bearing on reality. The United Nations has reams of documents outlining what "human rights" are. Like, um, this one. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a couple of claims that I don't personally agree with, but this is what the United Nations says that they're backing in terms of human rights.

Iran? Not so much. (And no countries do a perfect job of it, don't get me wrong, but most aren't quite as bug-fucked as Iran is, especially with regards to women's rights.)

The United Nations has an established standard of "human rights." They put the lie to any real interest in such when they put Sudan on the Human Rights Commission or Iran on the Women's Rights Commission. But that's no surprise, because the United Nations is designed to be ineffectual and moronic. Kind of their job.

[Neruz]

See, the UN does have a sense of humour.

[Huesoo]

I suppose you could make a "harmful" argument for burqas like the Taliban favors, which is essentially a heavy burlap bag, with a slightly thinner part that you're supposed to breathe and see through.  Those look very uncomfortable.

Okay, yeah, those burqas are messed up. But France banned headscarves, even. Awesomeo!

Fixed.

[Servant Corps]

It is an utterly facile point with little bearing on reality. The United Nations has reams of documents outlining what "human rights" are. Like, um, this one. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a couple of claims that I don't personally agree with, but this is what the United Nations says that they're backing in terms of human rights.

As a non-binding treaty, and instead only as a declaration. Its main power comes through the fact that it is accepted as part of customary law...meaning, it is law because many nations consider it to be custom. It's at the whim of the international community; if suddenly, the major world powers decides they don't want this declaration, then it loses even customary power.

According to Wikipedia, Iran have actually refused to abide the UDHR, saying it is incompatible with Islam, and instead, 40 nations have instead adopted a rival declaration, the Cario Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. And, also, according to Wikipedia, there are 193 widely recognised sovereign states and 203 sovereign states alltogether. If 20% of the world refuses to abide by this declaration entirely (I think there is some overlap between the two declarations), then I pretty much assume this declaration doesn't have the force of consensus, and may not even have any customary power whatsoever (I say "may", because I don't know how many nations have to agree to 'customary law' for it to be 'customary law').

I actually believe that the UHDR and Islam are compatible, and thus disagree with Iran here...however, we may have different interpretations of that declaration. Who's going to decide which interpretation is correct? Again, the international community, and the international community does not always have the best interest of human rights at its forefront. "National sovereignty" comes to mind as a major part of international law that must be defended and protected, even at the costs of human rights.

It is true that the United Nations has a goal of promoting human rights. But it also have other goals too. It is, primarily, a forum for international cooperation, and quite frankly, there are a ton of other issues the international community has to worry about.

[Blacken]

National sovereignty is more important to you than human rights? The sovereignty of a bunch of back-assward religious reprobates (and that goes for back-assward religious reprobates of all stripes, the problem is that Islamic nations are generally poor about figuring out how to act like sane modern societies) is more important than their people having basic fucking human rights?

OK, Aqizzar et al., a much more appropriate punching bag than me that just volunteered.

EDIT: Okay, beyond a certain point, I can see how this might hold. But that is only beyond a baseline of human rights that allows people to live more or less without significant interference in their personal dealings from governmental and religious entities. If they want to kick up a fuss about it? Fuck 'em. The United Nations does not exist to legitimize shit governments; that has just been an unfortunate side effect.

[Servant Corps]

National sovereignty is more important to you than human rights?

You're the one thinking I hold the same view as the International Community.

You're the one somehow worried about Islamic states, while ignoring the fact that secular states are just as often accused of human right violations (and these secular states happen to be advanced "great powers" to boot, such as China and Russia; aren't their crimes supposedly much greater then?).

[Duke 2.0]

National sovereignty is more important to you than human rights? The sovereignty of a bunch of back-assward religious reprobates (and that goes for back-assward religious reprobates of all stripes, the problem is that Islamic nations are generally poor about figuring out how to act like sane modern societies) is more important than their people having basic fucking human rights?

Because fuck if I want to follow my own religion. Obviously other peoples definition of my basic rights go before my own choices.

[Leafsnail]

...The headscarves aren't really the issue.  It's more the things like stoning to death for adultery that get me.  And sexism is just written all over their laws...

Article 74 – Adultery, when punishable by either flogging or stoning, can be proven by the testimony of either four just men, or three just men and two just women.

I mean... you can say that morality is relative all you like, but I don't think that'll convince a woman who's about to be stoned.

[Aqizzar]

OK, Aqizzar et al., a much more appropriate punching bag than me that just volunteered.

Y'know, I wasn't going to punch up on anybody.  Even if you had ragged with all your might on Servant's post, and I like him, I wouldn't have responded, because I just don't care, and I'm done looking for political fights..  But you had to go and say the magic word.  So it's Betelgeuse time.  Let's start with you saying international law has no place in the Catholic church child-abuse scandals -

And the idea that there is "one law for everyone" is dreadfully naive. It sounds nice to say so, and in that nebulous moral-positing "should" way I would even agree that it would be nice, but it is not the case in practice. Sorry. Life sucks.

What's that?  Systematic abuse by a religious authority ensconced in national politics is okay to let slide?  Because it's really such a minor issue at the end of the day, and the international community has bigger concerns to worry about?  Not to mention that dang United Nations has no business sticking its nose in countries and trying to be a one-world-government.  Funny how all that shit flies out the window when it's a culture you're not familiar with, and have classified into your catchall "enemies of civilization" crowd.

For the record, I even agree with you that no nation has a right to endorse abuse of a general category of it's people, certainly not for religious reasons or any others.  But I also agree with Servant Corps, that the U.N. is toothless, busy, and has no authority to go into other nations and tell them how to run their business, unless it breaks out into actual war.  Sometimes their "everybody gets a trophy" attitude creates worrying, hilarious situations like this, which is just part-and-parcel to having an international appeals body.

[Grakelin]

Lots of countries have very different views about women's rights than Western countries do.

If anything, this will just balance out the issue a bit when they're discussing it. They have a "devil's advocate", by our standards.

[Servant Corps]

I'm also going to post to say that I'm "done" with this thread, if only because I conveyed what I wanted to say, and people can listen and decide for themselves if my point is valid or not.

[Earthquake Damage]

According to Wikipedia, Iran have actually refused to abide the UDHR, saying it is incompatible with Islam, and instead, 40 nations have instead adopted a rival declaration, the Cario Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. And, also, according to Wikipedia, there are 193 widely recognised sovereign states and 203 sovereign states alltogether. If 20% of the world refuses to abide by this declaration entirely (I think there is some overlap between the two declarations), then I pretty much assume this declaration doesn't have the force of consensus, and may not even have any customary power whatsoever (I say "may", because I don't know how many nations have to agree to 'customary law' for it to be 'customary law').

20% of states is not equivalent to 20% of inhabited land, 20% of human population, or 20% of nations.  Just saying.

[Bauglir]

-snip-