UKC

Another Beheading

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Greenbanks 20 Aug 2014
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20959228

Terrible & depressing. More so that we continue to collude with regimes like this for reasons of commercial or other self-interest.

Teachers, parents and others get panned virtually every time there is a 'discipline crisis' in our schools: for not modelling the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' etc. About time our own administration did something itself to show leadership on the world stage. Morally bankrupt.
In reply to Greenbanks:

Not exactly the same as a militant hacking someone's head off but utterly deplorable nonetheless.
OP Greenbanks 20 Aug 2014
In reply to higherclimbingwales:

No - it's not the same. But it passed with little mention - and even less action
 Banned User 77 20 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:
It has, whilst wrong on many levels (executions full stop, plus she was 17, plus how sound the conviction was), I'm not surprised its got less news than the execution of a member of the press for no reason other than his nationality which was also filmed to make a political statement to a western country.
Post edited at 19:34
 icnoble 20 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:


> Terrible & depressing. More so that we continue to collude with regimes like this for reasons of commercial or other self-interest.

> ..................About time our own administration did something itself to show leadership on the world stage. Morally bankrupt.

Aggreed
J1234 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

>

>

> About time our own administration did something itself to show leadership on the world stage. Morally bankrupt.


What exactly. Deplorable as this case is, is not Western and other governments showing leadership (buggering about) in distant places for their own ends that causes a lot of problems, seems to me that a lot of the radical terrorist groups started out with foreign government backing.
 jkarran 21 Aug 2014
In reply to SCrossley:

> What exactly.

Lots of options. We have things they want, they have things we want, we need to be careful which is why we tolerate doing business with regimes we would in other circumstances condemn but that doesn't mean we're powerless, nor are they.

> ...seems to me that a lot of the radical terrorist groups started out with foreign government backing.

Quite a bit of it Saudi. We're not the only ones at it!

jk
OP Greenbanks 21 Aug 2014
In reply to jkarran:


> Quite a bit of it Saudi. We're not the only ones at it!

Certainly agree with that; there is a long history of support for those who oppose (violently or otherwise) the regime of the day.
My point is that in our (i.e. UK) case, there have been few voices against the quite obvious cases of oppression against (eg) women in certain Middle East countries. Demonstrating a moral position on this appears beyond the wit of most of our politicians

 jkarran 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

We need their energy and we need to balance that trade with whatever we have, weapons, services, property. Until that changes we'll tolerate any amount of corruption and oppression with barely a murmur of polite disapproval.

jk
 timjones 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Certainly agree with that; there is a long history of support for those who oppose (violently or otherwise) the regime of the day.

> My point is that in our (i.e. UK) case, there have been few voices against the quite obvious cases of oppression against (eg) women in certain Middle East countries. Demonstrating a moral position on this appears beyond the wit of most of our politicians

Do we have any right to expect the rest of the world to operate to the same moral principles as our own?
 FesteringSore 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

A pity the Gurkha's couldn't be let loose amongst these b@stards. They'd be more than a match for them and no doubt their heads would be the last thing they'd chop off. ;o|
OP Greenbanks 21 Aug 2014
In reply to jkarran:

What is galling is that whenever a public figure/politician appears as a voice of protest it is the economic/strategic argument for collusion that always seems to be used as the counter-position - as well as frequent inferences that they are liberal softies. Whilst accepting that this is the way of the world, it'd be refreshing were it to be a little different. No help to the Sri Lankan teenager of course
OP Greenbanks 21 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones:

> Do we have any right to expect the rest of the world to operate to the same moral principles as our own?

Which 'moral principles'? Can't see too many being displayed in the case of this sorry incident.
 TMM 21 Aug 2014
In reply to FesteringSore:

You'd like the Gurkhas in the British Army to be sent to Saudi Arabia to 'be let loose amongst these b@stards'.

What are you hoping to achieve with your proposal?
 timjones 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Which 'moral principles'? Can't see too many being displayed in the case of this sorry incident.

Exactly!

It's against our principles but why should we expect other societies to abide by our chosen "morals"?
 FesteringSore 21 Aug 2014
In reply to TMM:
My comment was more tongue in cheek than a serious suggestion but given their reputation I imagine the Gurkhas would give as good as they got. Not all gurkhas are in the British army either. I thought we were talking about Murderers and rapists in IRAQ not Saudi Arabia
Post edited at 10:21
 FesteringSore 21 Aug 2014
In reply to TMM:

SORRY I have got my knickers twisted nthis morning. I was getting mixed up with the Foley murder
 wintertree 21 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones:

> It's against our principles but why should we expect other societies to abide by our chosen "morals"?

Not exactly a sound argument is it.

1) It's the kind of whiney argument only heard by those who don't live as second class citizens under a repressive state.

2) If you follow this principle you state, why should you expect someone in the same society as you to abide by that societies chosen morals? That person in your state no more chose to be born into that state than someone half a world away chose theirs.

3) In case you hadn't noticed the world has pledged support for a common moral code, and it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Every country that is a signatory to the UN should expect every other country to abide by the principles set out in that document. This includes the right to life.

J1234 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

Is the issue here, the beheading and the fact you object to capital punishment or the fact that you think the Saudi legal system is flawed and that they are incapable of coming to a just verdict.
Let us not forget a 4 month old child has died and a family is grieving over this loss.
 wintertree 21 Aug 2014

In reply to SCrossley:

> Let us not forget a 4 month old child has died and a family is grieving over this loss.

That's the point.

Setting aside significant concerns over the human rights record or the legal process of the state involved, do you believe that a retributive justice system that executes children has any place in the world?
 GrahamD 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

Out of interest, what is the significance of it being a beheading as opposed to any other method of execution ? why does it seem more emmotive than shooting ?
 off-duty 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

Not entirely sure why you chose the day that Foley was horrifically murdered by ISIS to try and make a point about a capital punishment murder case in Saudi Arabia that was carried out over 7 months ago.
Especially when it was universally condemned, including by the UK.
In reply to Greenbanks:

execution - the infliction of capital punishment on a person convicted of committing a crime.

Worth bearing in mind when referring to Foley as being "executed" rather than murdered.
OP Greenbanks 21 Aug 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

Beheading or any other execution of an apparent minor - that's before getting on to the whole question of capital punishment (which in my own view returns us to the Dark Ages).

In response to off-duty

Not coincidental at all really. Both events are in their own circumstances shocking and inhumane acts. What is different (understandably I suppose) is the extent of the outcry over the Foley killing by an identified foe, as opposed to the execution of the girl by a State that we've got a pedigree of cosying-up to.

I am in no way intending to diminish the trauma, heartbreak etc for the families of all concerned - which must be unimaginable
 jkarran 21 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Not entirely sure why you chose the day that Foley was horrifically murdered by ISIS to try and make a point about a capital punishment murder case in Saudi Arabia that was carried out over 7 months ago.

The stories were running side by side on the BBC website and nobody ever checks the dates, just a quirk of people searching for 'beheaded'.

jk
 timjones 21 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Not exactly a sound argument is it.

> 1) It's the kind of whiney argument only heard by those who don't live as second class citizens under a repressive state.

> 2) If you follow this principle you state, why should you expect someone in the same society as you to abide by that societies chosen morals? That person in your state no more chose to be born into that state than someone half a world away chose theirs.

> 3) In case you hadn't noticed the world has pledged support for a common moral code, and it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Every country that is a signatory to the UN should expect every other country to abide by the principles set out in that document. This includes the right to life.

"Whiny argument"?

It was a question.

I'm not sure that you have answered it very well.

Different societies will have different values, who are we to challange that?
 Rob Exile Ward 21 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones: I don't think you have really thought that one through. Does that mean that every society's values are equally valid? Nazi Germany (of course), societies that practice FGM, Aztecs and their blood sacrifices, all perfectly acceptable? Of course not.

There is a consensus that society has 'progressed' , where it is generally deemed that an individual has certain inalienable human rights. However imperfect, the UN is predicated on that.

Religion b*ggers things up a bit, because it is hard to argue with someone who believes that this world only exists to give us a tough time before paradise to come; otherwise there seems to be a general consensus that treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself is a pretty good moral code to enable us to live socially. And one that doesn't leave much room for chopping hostages heads off, firing rockets at neighbours (whichever direction) or many of the other horrors we are currently witnessing.
 wintertree 21 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones:

> I'm not sure that you have answered it very well.

Maybe I'd hoped you would think about what I wrote and answer it yourself.

A direct answer: We are members of a country who have signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That gives clear grounds to challenge any state that denies others the right to life, and clearly defines that as unacceptable behaviour.

An indirect answer

> Different societies will have different values, who are we to challange that?

There are plenty of answers to that, and plenty of rebuttals. Before answering that question in the context of another society, one has to realise than an individual does not choose the society they are born in to. This strongly motivates the whole concept and importance of human rights. Who are we to judge that a lawless society is morally wrong? Who are we to judge a society that systematically murders millions of people is wrong? Who are we to judge a society that represses 50% of it population is wrong? This is why I call the "who are we to judge" argument a stupid and moaning comment that one only ever hears from people on the nicer side of life.

Who are we to judge? We are the better people. We are the ones who do not believe in retributive justice. We are the ones who believe in that no human is a slave. We are the ones who believe nobody is born into subjugation by gender or caste. Who are we to say that this makes us better? It's an endless argument with no absolute answer, but suffice to say - either by coincidence or by correlation - the people with what I consider a better moral foundation embedded in their society and laws tend to be in the more developed nations who have the military and financial power to end up on top of the heap. So who are we to judge? We are the people that ultimately deliver people to The Haugue for judgement, and we are the people who supply the judges.

This is why I find it such a travesty that we now sit near the top of the pile and do not use our muscle to deal with specific countries with an appalling human rights record, and instead fall back to asking "who are we..." whilst doing business with them because of the "bigger picture."

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Post edited at 14:26
OP Greenbanks 21 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

Whilst agreeing that wealth ought to bring with it a high degree of moral resonsibility, I have great unease about even the mere suggestion that "the people with what I consider a better moral foundation tend to be in the more developed nations". Copious examples to confound that generalism.
J1234 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Whilst agreeing that wealth ought to bring with it a high degree of moral resonsibility,

Why should it?

OP Greenbanks 21 Aug 2014
In reply to SCrossley:

Greater opportunity for education, for one thing. Not just 'education' as it is currently delivered in a straitjacketed form, but also about the chance to explore values, differenet cultures & beliefs etc leading to a likelihood of a more meaningful understanding of the position(s) of others.
 wintertree 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Whilst agreeing that wealth ought to bring with it a high degree of moral resonsibility, I have great unease about even the mere suggestion that "the people with what I consider a better moral foundation tend to be in the more developed nations". Copious examples to confound that generalism.

Yes they do. Actually, bad phrasing on my part, I am considering more the behaviour of the state than the stance of individuals. Still, I believe there is a tendency for a society to develop more wealth - and therefore power - as a result of developing a stronger moral base. This is not to say that there are countries at the top that are less morally developed, although if you took away oil wealth there would be fewer of them, and the importance of universal morals seems to be wavering in other nations. It is also not to say that some less developed nations have foundations that meet strong human rights criteria for morality. However, I strongly believe that the two areas are interlinked. There are significant historical examples of great and powerful states that lacked a strong moral foundation, and one by one they fell by war or by internal collapse. This should serve as a warning to us all.

We are to busy however excusing bigotry and outright persecution on the pretext that someones religion make them special, or that someone, by accident of birth, is in another state and therefore not worthy of the same treatment as us.

Post edited at 14:53
 timjones 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I don't think you have really thought that one through. Does that mean that every society's values are equally valid? Nazi Germany (of course), societies that practice FGM, Aztecs and their blood sacrifices, all perfectly acceptable? Of course not.


Of course not, but most nations or societies are likely to be somewhere in the middle of the scale of "rightness" rather than ultimately right or wrong.
J1234 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:
I agree it could, are you familiar with Maslows hierarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs , but why the rest of society should expect the Rich to be more moral in their attittudes and actions , i`m not so sure.
Post edited at 14:55
 MG 21 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> A direct answer: We are members of a country who have signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That gives clear grounds to challenge any state that denies others the right to life, and clearly defines that as unacceptable behaviour.


That was signed in the 1940s when pretty much all the signatories had capital punishment so I don't think it can be used as an argument against that. Indeed we were executing people until the 60s and women only got the vote 100 years ago. Why are we so confident that our system is better after only adopting very recently that we feel we can order other countries to do the same as us?

FWIW I think any execution and certainly beheading is barbaric, but the way forward is persuasion and argument, not pointing to rules, ordering foreign countries about and telling them how to behave.
 wintertree 21 Aug 2014
In reply to MG:

> That was signed in the 1940s when pretty much all the signatories had capital punishment so I don't think it can be used as an argument against that. Indeed we were executing people until the 60s and women only got the vote 100 years ago.

Is it not the case that those principles then went on to influence the abolition of capital punishment however? Is it not the case that they are still being used to assist the campaign for human rights and equality in many other countries? Is this not almost their reasons to be? If we all went round being jolly nice to each other all the time, there would have been no need for the declaration, would there?

> Why are we so confident that our system is better after only adopting very recently that we feel we can order other countries to do the same as us?

What answer to this question would ever satisfy you or others asking it?

Why did we abolish those things? Where does any moral authority ever stem from? Also, we do not "order out he countries to do the same as us". We ask, we plead, we cajole, we sanction. What is our authority to do these things? That we can.

Also, I get a bit sick of asking "who are we to judge". When it comes down to subjugating and repressing the female half of your population, the "who are we to judge" line is either monumentally stupid or pathetically weak. Unless you believe someone born a female half a world away is somehow different to a daughter or sister or mother born here. Personally I have similarly strong feelings about the execution of a minor under any circumstances.


> FWIW I think any execution and certainly beheading is barbaric, but the way forward is persuasion and argument, not pointing to rules, ordering foreign countries about and telling them how to behave.

Indeed. You will note that I was using the UDHR as a response to the question of "Who are we to judge..." and not as an instrument by which we should seek to change the world by "ordering" people about". It is also why I said:

> This is why I find it such a travesty that we now sit near the top of the pile and do not use our muscle to deal with specific countries with an appalling human rights record,

We need to use persuasion. With the Saudi example, one form of persuasion would be to use our financial muscle and break off arms agreements. As I've said a focus on "the bigger picture" would seem to outweigh any such possibility, somewhat weakening our claims to any moral superiority in the whole dirty business.
Post edited at 15:19
OP Greenbanks 21 Aug 2014
In reply to SCrossley:

Very familiar...but Maslow's version of 'need' is quite a crude rendition, which can (and often is) viewed as an exclusively hierarchical series of domains

In my own experience, some of the most economically disadvantaged people I've encountered (in places as far flung and disparate socially & culturally as Central Africa, Eastern Europe, Bolivia & some other Latin American locations,the Deep South of the USA, and closer to my present home, in parts of Northern England and Central Scotland) have been amongst the most generous in material things and in their spirit.
J1234 21 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

Yes, I quite agree, just think it is unrealistic to expect people to acquire morals along with money, in fact I would think the inverse could be more likely.
Pan Ron 22 Aug 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

> Out of interest, what is the significance of it being a beheading as opposed to any other method of execution ? why does it seem more emmotive than shooting ?

That's an interesting question.

We're certainly making a meal out of the Foley murder (I know that is a different case) which is understandable - the beheadings are shocking. But beheadings, evisceration, and dismembering is a normal part of warfare when explosives are used. Considering our drones and airstrikes establish an ever present threat of this in tribal regions bordering Afghanistan, in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and no doubt many other areas we don't even hear about, I can quite imagine many in the Middle East and Central Asia would view the barbarity of this beheading as being no worse than that which the West threatens to inflict around the clock in their homelands. Whether its their actual justification or not, it is certainly a central statement in the public statements of jihadis and is something the West appears to be unable to dispute.
Pan Ron 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Who are we to judge? We are the better people.

> This is why I find it such a travesty that we now sit near the top of the pile and do not use our muscle to deal with specific countries with an appalling human rights record, and instead fall back to asking "who are we..." whilst doing business with them because of the "bigger picture."

There are two problems there.

First is, what "muscle" do we use to deal with this? Every year but one of the century so far has been spent with the UK and US doing just that, largely justified on moral grounds. Many would argue our action was totally immoral. If you are talking about "not doing" business with Saudi Arabia, then I completely agree. But if you want real, powerful action, that goes beyond the business/social/economic ground then much of our legitimacy vanishes. Killing the people to save them is not going to work.

Second, if you are claiming we have a moral authority because we are "better", fair enough. But how do you square that when, for example, Sudan invades South Sudan, or vice versa, on a justification that their morality is relatively better than the other? And what if Sweden suddenly turned around and said to the USA that is needs to end capital punishment or be sanctioned? Are they justified in doing so?

While I generally agree with you, I think when you strip away the emotive element to a simple logic problem, I'm not sure what moral authority we have - even if our country hadn't been utterly morally bankrupt itself.
 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to David Martin:

I agree with all that. Elsewhere I said its our financial and trade muscle we should use with the Saudis. Despite some highly questionable motives and our less than spectacular results in direct interventions, and as you mention, our selective lack of action, there were many good reasons to act.

Personally I would like to see UN mandated military action when any state reaches a tipping point in terms of civilian deaths from atrocities led by their state. It is the absence of a consistent message from consistent UN action that leaves the vacuum that individual nations stumble in to, mixing motivations and not exactly succeeding.

> And what if Sweden suddenly turned around and said to the USA that is needs to end capital punishment or be sanctioned? Are they justified in doing so?

This is happening to a degree. EU wide rules are effectively sanctioning the US by preventing the sale of certain medical drugs to them because they use them in lethal injections. I believe the law was motivated by their death penalty. A small step and more probably wont follow, but if they continue to slide from the top of the heap, perhaps other leaders will find a moral backbone

But in terms of Saudi exeuting children, who are we to judge? We are people who do not retributivly execute children. I consider that in that sense we are the better people.
 Andy Hardy 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

[...]
> But in terms of Saudi exeuting children, who are we to judge? We are people who do not retributivly execute children. I consider that in that sense we are the better people.

We are not intrinsically 'better people', we have a mature democracy and legal system which they do not.
 Rob Exile Ward 22 Aug 2014
In reply to David Martin: 'even if our country hadn't been utterly morally bankrupt itself. '

Compared to who, exactly? Not perfect; deeply flawed; but utterly morally bankrupt? Get a grip.
 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to 999thAndy:
> [...]We are not intrinsically 'better people', we have a mature democracy and legal system which they do not.

The message to which you give this reply clearly uses "people" as a plural term refering to a state.

Forget it. I've said - several times - that we're all born the same into different states by chance of birth. I was using "better people" as our nation; what is a nation but it's people? (it's government and their police...). If I'd said a "better nation" pedants would come out on that. It's not as inseparable as you would like however. We are people raised in and by that mature democracy and legal system. I suspect therefore a larger proportion of people are against retributive execution of children in the UK than in Saudi. Does that make us better? I haven't actually asked many Saudi's for their opinion, and neither does their government, so who knows....
Post edited at 09:18
 jkarran 22 Aug 2014
In reply to David Martin:

> And what if Sweden suddenly turned around and said to the USA that is needs to end capital punishment or be sanctioned? Are they justified in doing so?

Are we not already very close to this situation with tight EU export controls to the US on dual-use drugs that could be used in executions? No bad thing to my mind but that's just my opinion I see the point your making about the relativity of our morals.

jk
 Andy Hardy 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

I guess this confusion just proves the adage 'every decoding is another encoding'
 timjones 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> The message to which you give this reply clearly uses "people" as a plural term refering to a state.

> Forget it. I've said - several times - that we're all born the same into different states by chance of birth. I was using "better people" as our nation; what is a nation but it's people? (it's government and their police...). If I'd said a "better nation" pedants would come out on that. It's not as inseparable as you would like however. We are people raised in and by that mature democracy and legal system. I suspect therefore a larger proportion of people are against retributive execution of children in the UK than in Saudi. Does that make us better? I haven't actually asked many Saudi's for their opinion, and neither does their government, so who knows....

What happens if another nations democracy and legal system "matures" and their consensus view is that beheading is a suitable punishment?
 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones:

> What happens if another nations democracy and legal system "matures" and their consensus view is that beheading is a suitable punishment?

Find me an example of that happening. Find me an example of the people in a democratic nation where no sect or gender is denied the vote that has voted for beheading. Oh, wait, the trend in met such nations is away from capital punishment.

Draw from that what you will about the development of nations, and of democracy, and of morality.
KevinD 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Draw from that what you will about the development of nations, and of democracy, and of morality.

The USA still has capital punishment. Given some of their recent executions by lethal injection beheading might be preferable.
 timjones 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Find me an example of that happening. Find me an example of the people in a democratic nation where no sect or gender is denied the vote that has voted for beheading. Oh, wait, the trend in met such nations is away from capital punishment.

Is it ever going to happen whilst we keep trying to impose our values on the evolution of the values and morals of other people?

Are our overcrowded prisons a good enough example to allow us to tell other people how to enforce the thin veneer of civilisation?



 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> The USA still has capital punishment.

Yes. Did I ask for examples of countries that still have it? No. The USA is not an example that I asked for - a modern nation where the people vote to introduce beheading, or indeed any capital punishment. Capital punishment in the USA dates back over 400 years. 18 states have democratically abolished capital punishment in the USA.

> Given some of their recent executions by lethal injection beheading might be preferable.

Yes. Barbaric.
 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones:

> > Find me an example of that happening. Find me an example of the people in a democratic nation where no sect or gender is denied the vote that has voted for beheading. Oh, wait, the trend in met such nations is away from capital punishment.

> Is it ever going to happen whilst we keep trying to impose our values on the evolution of the values and morals of other people?

What are you on about? Are you suggested that us evil westerners are preventing other countries from becoming freely democratic and them preventing them from having free democratic votes to start beheading people? ????? ??? ?????

 Rob Exile Ward 22 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones: I'd rather spend 10 years in our overcrowded prisons than a year in most other prisons round the world.
 timjones 22 Aug 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'd rather spend 10 years in our overcrowded prisons than a year in most other prisons round the world.

I'd rather do neither, but the evidence suggests that our prison and system of punishment isn't quite the deterrent that we might like ;(
 timjones 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> What are you on about? Are you suggested that us evil westerners are preventing other countries from becoming freely democratic and them preventing them from having free democratic votes to start beheading people? ????? ??? ?????

No I'm suggesting that we are as likely to try and influence democratic staes as much as any others?

It might also be worth taking a look at our own pathway to our current system of democracy and wondering whether other people/nations/societies can easily reach the same point without being free to pursue their own pathway in order to reach it?
 Banned User 77 22 Aug 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> The USA still has capital punishment. Given some of their recent executions by lethal injection beheading might be preferable.

A US judge has said it's probably the best mechanism, that or a firing squad..

The problem is getting executioners, this is an issue with the lethal injection.. they struggle to get medics to help out. They want a non-violent death but the injection clearly has huge issues.

I think it's a disgrace rage US executes..

 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones:

> No I'm suggesting that we are as likely to try and influence democratic staes as much as any others?

Yes.

Let's go back to the comment you made of "What happens if another nations democracy and legal system "matures" and their consensus view is that beheading is a suitable punishment?"

Okay. Why was the UN created? Why does it have a universal declaration of human rights? What happens when nations were not nominally bound by these things, and did what they wanted? What happened what nations did not try and export their morals to others? Again, why was the UN created?

> It might also be worth taking a look at our own pathway to our current system of democracy and wondering whether other people/nations/societies can easily reach the same point without being free to pursue their own pathway in order to reach it?

That is a very astute question.
 Banned User 77 22 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones:

> I'd rather do neither, but the evidence suggests that our prison and system of punishment isn't quite the deterrent that we might like ;(

And the death penalty deterrent is floored...
 timjones 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Yes.

> Let's go back to the comment you made of "What happens if another nations democracy and legal system "matures" and their consensus view is that beheading is a suitable punishment?"

> Okay. Why was the UN created? Why does it have a universal declaration of human rights? What happens when nations were not nominally bound by these things, and did what they wanted? What happened what nations did not try and export their morals to others? Again, why was the UN created?

> That is a very astute question.

The two points are linked. If it is necessary for all peoples to navigate their own pathway to their own version of a safe and fair society at what point is it right or acceptable for the UN or any individual nation to intervene and seek to influence that pathway?

Sorry but there are loads of questions and few definitive answers!
 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to timjones:

> The two points are linked. If it is necessary for all peoples to navigate their own pathway to their own version of a safe and fair society at what point is it right or acceptable for the UN or any individual nation to intervene and seek to influence that pathway?

A tough nut. I think the bit where no human can choose their country of birth, many are born in to lives of repression at the hands of their state, and few of those can leave is as close to an objectively damming view as you can get, framed in the context of the UDHR.

Sitting back and giving countries the time to evolve is clear not working in a number of cases. We are coming up to 70 years of the UN now. Several generations have passed in various problem countries and they are no closer to finding their own path. It is becoming apparent that left to their own devices, the problems in our lives will cease to be mere moral dilemmas about the suffering of others and direct challenges to our relatively suffering-free lifestyle.

The picture of the world is one in which the UN is far from being the success it was intended to be. Given the story of its predecessor that is a frightful thought.
KevinD 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Yes. Did I ask for examples of countries that still have it? No.

The USA hasnt had capital punishment for 400 years. It has had it since 1976. Since it was banned for 4 years before the majority of states passed laws which allowed it to be resumed. More than have "democratically abolished" it.

Also most polls show, sadly, that if there was a referendum on capital punishment in the UK then it would be reinstated. Its slowly dropping but it is one of those cases where Parliament appears to be going against the public wishes.


KevinD 22 Aug 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> The problem is getting executioners, this is an issue with the lethal injection.. they struggle to get medics to help out.

I believe that proper medics are prohibited by their professional bodies from being involved. So they have to go with non qualified medics with varying levels of competence.
 Frank4short 22 Aug 2014
In reply to jkarran:

> We need their energy and we need to balance that trade with whatever we have, weapons, services, property. Until that changes we'll tolerate any amount of corruption and oppression with barely a murmur of polite disapproval.

Actually the vast majority of Saudi O&G is now exported eastwards rather than westwards. However in saying that what they do do is they keep global energy prices comparatively stable. As they are more or less the only oil producer on the planet that has significant excess/spare production capacity which can be used when prices spike.

Further to that the main product the Saudi's buy off of the UK is military hardware, and they buy a lot. They are probably BAE's second biggest customer after the British govt. and may actually exceed the British govt.

Saudi society is considerably more complicated than most western people/media give it credit for. Whilst there's no doubt questionable human rights issues and a misogynistic vain that runs right through society in Saudi it's not necessarily as cut and dried as is often made out in the media. For instance the vast majority of Saudi women don't have a problem with not being able to drive or having to wear an abaya and niqab as these are what they are brought up with, and more importantly, are told by their religious leaders that this is how they should behave.

As to the support of funding questionable outside groups the bulk of this tends to come from private funding from within Saudi as opposed to the state. Like all non democratically elected governments the state does everything it can to maintain itself in a strong position. The likes of IS & AQ are a considerable threat to the state and there are strong anti-radicalisation programmes in place to try and prevent young Saudi's from being radicalised or if they are to de-radicalise them when they return from conflicts like those in Iraq, Syria & Afghanistan. This however is often contrary to what the local and national religious preachers teach. Which is where most of the money comes from...
 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> The USA hasnt had capital punishment for 400 years. It has had it since 1976. Since it was banned for 4 years before the majority of states passed laws which allowed it to be resumed. More than have "democratically abolished" it.

Well, the people of the land now called the USA have been using the death penalty over the last 400 years. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-us-1608-2002-espy-file?scid=8&am... - the number of executions is rising with time, so is the population.

I believe my point stands - it is not a country that transitioned to a modern stable democracy and then voted to instate beheadings or other forms of capital punishment as part of its moral development. Their executions are a part of their legal legacy going back to the nations it draws from, and is a legacy - perhaps - in the process of throwing off. Or perhaps it is in the process of embracing it further. Either way, it is not the example I was looking for.
KevinD 22 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Well, the people of the land now called the USA have been using the death penalty over the last 400 years.

No they havent. They used it for some of this period but not all of it. They selected to reinstitute it after it was banned for several years.

> Either way, it is not the example I was looking for.

Well if you are going to make your terms so narrow as to be meaningless than may happen.
Fact though is several countries have deliberately retained capital punishment. Several more, including the UK, would have it if it was put to a specific vote according to all the polls.
 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> They selected to reinstitute it after it was banned for several years.

Several is not a lot in the face of 400 years of evidence is it? If anything it tells me that there is a growing abolition movement.

> Fact though is several countries have deliberately retained capital punishment.

Retained, yes. The USA had a very brief blip in their history where they abolished it, and the argument continues. As their historical case was "having the death penalty" there are clear signs of a movement towards abolition.

As far as I am aware, no country historically (let's say a 40 year period) without the death penalty has democratically chosen to instate it. This is the example I was looking for, call it meaningless if you want, but I take the apparent absence of any such country as a meaningful indication.

> Several more, including the UK, would have it if it was put to a specific vote according to all the polls.

But that's an off the cuff answer to a poll, isn't it. Almost certainly in response to a leading question when you look at some of the motivations involved. Pretty meaningless and not in any way a part of the democratic system. Do you think that if a party stood for election with the manifesto promise of introducing the death penalty, that this would actually happen? You will note that even UKIP do not seem to consider it a ticket to election.

 Frank4short 22 Aug 2014
In reply to Frank4short:

Further to my previous point, Saudi society is changing, probably more so than a lot of the world's questionable regimes. The thing is that in order to change it goes against deeply ingrained traditions and religious dogma. Which are based around a largely nomadic desert based population. The make up of Saudi and other Arab societies has only really begun to change in the last 50 years or so. This makes change extremely slow.

However the current young generation, those that will be the opinion and decision makers in 20-30 years time, have largely received their third educated in the West. They are more receptive to Western views and morals. However it will not be a quick process to overcome the dogma to become what we would see as a society which is in line with Western views.

 wintertree 22 Aug 2014
In reply to Frank4short:
> ...through society in Saudi it's not necessarily as cut and dried as is often made out in the media. For instance the vast majority of Saudi women don't have a problem with not being able to drive or having to wear an abaya and niqab as these are what they are brought up with, and more importantly, are told by their religious leaders that this is how they should behave.

Just out of interest, do you think that these reasons make the subjugation of women acceptable?

I've never seen the media portray things as "cut and dried". I do however see a 100% clear case of a nation violating the universal declaration of human rights.
Post edited at 16:21
 pebbles 22 Aug 2014
In reply to Frank4short:


> For instance the vast majority of Saudi women don't have a problem with not being able to drive or having to wear an abaya and niqab as these are what they are brought up with, and more importantly, are told by their religious leaders that this is how they should behave.

err... how the hell do you know this? Thats about as well founded and authoritive a statement as me claiming "The vast majority of canadians prefer budgerigars to canaries". I'm assuming of course that you havnt recently conducted an exhaustive and completely anonymous poll of 'the vast majority of saudi women' asking them that question. I think thats a fairly safe bet.
 pebbles 22 Aug 2014
In reply to Frank4short:

(and breathe....)
OP Greenbanks 22 Aug 2014
In reply to pebbles:

I reckon that the point FfS was making still stands; you don't need an opinion poll to validate a common-sense view that cultural isolation (which in the case of many Saudi women is likely to be the result of their being supressed) will result in accepting 'as given' that certain rules are the norm
 Frank4short 22 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

I've lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly 2 years. My wife lived here for 6 years before I met her (I met her back home not in Saudi). As you put it the common sense view is prominent amongst all of the Saudi women i've met and my wife who is more in touch with Saudi women and has considerably more experience of it would echo that sentiment.

I came here cause of some life situations that put me in a bind, most expats who are here are the same, not because i thought it was some sort of wonderful place. I don't support a lot of what goes on here whether that be the human rights, women's rights or other situations that happen here. There are many problems with Saudi society. However in saying that like i said earlier it's not all necessarily as bad as is often made out. It is also changing, though again like i said earlier, change is a slow process despite many factors like the world's greatest natural resource life here is still far from what the western world approves of there are many other factors slowing change but it's happening.
 Rubbishy 22 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:

In a very grim way, your typical jihadi sounds like "what have the Romans done for us"?

Well pickle, they gave you the silicon chip, planes, cars, guns (I count China and Japan as the west).

and the internet

and TV (actually with you on that one)

and medicine

but yeah.
 Banned User 77 23 Aug 2014
In reply to pebbles:

> err... how the hell do you know this?

Again.. click on a profile..

FfS
"Location
Biqayq, Ash Sharqiyah, KSA"


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...