Saudi Arabia elected to the UN Commission on the status of women

RobertKK

In case one did not know the UN is a joke, here is another example.
Saudi Arabia has been elected to the sit on the UN commission on the status of women.
The UN commission in question is responsible for gender equality and the empowerment of women.

In Saudi Arabia, a woman needs a male guardian with her to leave her home, and needs the guardians permission to marry, travel, get medical help and do business.
Women are not allowed to vote or be involved in politics.

Saudi Arabia also sits on the UN commission for human rights.

One could not make this up.
Shame on the UN.

ChikiChiki

In case anyone underestimates the power Saudi has over the world. Thats the definition of irony right there.

Richard Hillman

Who runs the world? Saud's
Who runs this mutha? Saud's
Who run the world? Saud's

The_Valeyard

RobertKK wrote: »

In case one did not know the UN is a joke, here is another example.
Saudi Arabia has been elected to the sit on the UN commission on the status of women.
The UN commission in question is responsible for gender equality and the empowerment of women.

In Saudi Arabia, a woman needs a male guardian with her to leave her home, and needs the guardians permission to marry, travel, get medical help and do business.
Women are not allowed to vote or be involved in politics.

Saudi Arabia also sits on the UN commission for human rights.

One could not make this up.
Shame on the UN.

Another reason people have turned away from respecting the UN

Dravokivich

Meetings are dull when everyone has agreed the same point of dicussion. Maybe they need the conflict of Saudi Arabia's position to affirm theirs and give'em focus.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Someone should ask Hilary Clinton what she thinks of this, after all she was happy to takes their millions in 'donations' when she was running for President.

henryporter

Meanwhile the US Secretary of State tries to tell us that Iran is the source of all the terrorism emanating from the Middle East. This and the UN decision is conclusive proof that we live in multiple parallel universes at the same time

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

In case one did not know the UN is a joke, here is another example.
Saudi Arabia has been elected to the sit on the UN commission on the status of women.
The UN commission in question is responsible for gender equality and the empowerment of women.

In Saudi Arabia, a woman needs a male guardian with her to leave her home, and needs the guardians permission to marry, travel, get medical help and do business.
Women are not allowed to vote or be involved in politics.

Saudi Arabia also sits on the UN commission for human rights.

One could not make this up.
Shame on the UN.

I never get how so many countries bow down to them over their own interests. I get oil and money but enough places have gone for morality over money that you think it would crop up more often in Saudi and countries like them. Even the so called feminist Swedish ministers deferred to sexist laws in Iran.

Obama was one of the few that did anything and even then it was overly late in the day when he stopped the sales of weapons (which were predictably continued when Trump got in).

RandomName2

RobertKK wrote: »

In case one did not know the UN is a joke, here is another example.
Saudi Arabia has been elected to the sit on the UN commission on the status of women.


Saudi Arabia also sits on the UN commission for human rights.

One could not make this up.
Shame on the UN.

Well Saudi Arabia is America's ally. If this was Iran or Syria we were talking about it would be a different matter altogether.

The Rape of Lucretia

RobertKK wrote: »

In case one did not know the UN is a joke, here is another example.
Saudi Arabia has been elected to the sit on the UN commission on the status of women.

Fundamentally what is wrong with this?
The UN is all-inclusive. Saudi Arabia's views on the status of women may not agree with yours, but their perspective is as entitled to be heard or have input as much as any other country - more possibly if their view is considered a minority one. It is great that the UN is not prejudicial on this point, and does include all views in commissions on such important issues. Their inclusion suggests an enlightened and well motivated UN - certainly not a joke organisation as you suggest.

A predictable continuation of another fine US foreign policy. First, discredit the UN by financially undermining its work via not paying billions in debt to the UN. Second, then bully it into accepting one of the most heinous regimes on the planet, with arguably the most vile dehumanisation of women's rights (Pakistan and India give it a run for the money, though), because the same régime is a great ally of the great moral protector of the world that is the United States of America. Third, should the UN not be a puppet of the whims of the United States of America, well good old Uncle Sam will never pay its debts to the UN.

Elmer Blooker

Its all part of a campaign to try and show Saudi Arabia in a good light.
Its a PR stunt, a case of ...Saudi Arabia isn't perfect but its getting there.
Heres a perfect example of pro Saudi propaganda in operation.

Theresa May has said she hopes to send a message about women in leadership when she visits Saudi Arabia,

Yeah right! May was in Saudi Arabia on ... cough .. cough .. "business"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/03/theresa-may-hopes-example-female-potential-saudi-arabia

Ulysses Gaze

Wonder will many leading feminists and feminists groups be as vocal in their outrage over this as they would be over other issues.

steddyeddy

RobertKK wrote: »

In case one did not know the UN is a joke, here is another example.
Saudi Arabia has been elected to the sit on the UN commission on the status of women.
The UN commission in question is responsible for gender equality and the empowerment of women.

In Saudi Arabia, a woman needs a male guardian with her to leave her home, and needs the guardians permission to marry, travel, get medical help and do business.
Women are not allowed to vote or be involved in politics.

Saudi Arabia also sits on the UN commission for human rights.

One could not make this up.
Shame on the UN.

They celebrated getting on the commission for human rights with a good old crucifixion.

More like shame on anyone who goes there.

nice_guy80

Amazing what oil will buy you

They're also projecting themselves militarily a lot for the last decade

Trying to counter Iran

Ulysses Gaze

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Amazing what oil will buy you

They're also projecting themselves militarily a lot for the last decade

Trying to counter Iran

And from internal insurrection.

Once the oil runs out, and their money they've invested in the West, the House of Saud is screwed.

Back to desert and raising camels for them at best. Or death at worst.

Billy86

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Someone should ask Hilary Clinton what she thinks of this, after all she was happy to takes their millions in 'donations' when she was running for President.

It would make more sense to ask Trump, given that he accepted millions from them, set up multiple businesses there during the campaign itself on top of the ones he already had there, and is actually the president of the US.

ScumLord

I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing. We need to include them and lead by example.

Ulysses Gaze

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing. We need to include them and lead by example.

I would agree if this would lead to anything positive in Saudi Arabia for women.

But it most likely will not.

RobertKK

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Fundamentally what is wrong with this?
The UN is all-inclusive. Saudi Arabia's views on the status of women may not agree with yours, but their perspective is as entitled to be heard or have input as much as any other country - more possibly if their view is considered a minority one. It is great that the UN is not prejudicial on this point, and does include all views in commissions on such important issues. Their inclusion suggests an enlightened and well motivated UN - certainly not a joke organisation as you suggest.

Do you honestly believe it will change anything in Saudi Arabia?

Shenshen

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I would agree if this would lead to anything positive in Saudi Arabia for women.

But it most likely will not.

It may or may not, but I'd take any chance to possibly influence the situation for the better over that glowing feeling of having self-righteously told someone off.

It took women in the West more than a century to obtain something resembling equality, so I would expect any steps being made in Saudi Arabia being small. There have been some protests, there are women driving and posting clips of themselves behind the wheels on social media. Anything that can be done to help them along even a little bit must be a good thing, surely?

keano_afc

It always makes me laugh when people cite the UN's interference in our laws as grounds for changing them.

They are an embarrassment.

ArmaniJeanss

Have we a link for this. I wanted to see the actual nut&bolts facts behind the OP but there only seems to be one site ( 'dailycaller' which is a website I've never heard of) saying it.

steddyeddy

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing. We need to include them and lead by example.

Let's be honest. SA have some pretty backward views on women, the poor and different ethnic groups. If they sit on a commission that has the role of advancing the position of one of these groups, you could see them influencing the outcome negatively.

diomed

Will women be allowed drive driverless cars in Saudia Arabia?
Only allowed if they have curtains on the windows?

ScumLord

steddyeddy wrote: »

Let's be honest. SA have some pretty backward views on women, the poor and different ethnic groups. If they sit on a commission that has the role of advancing the position of one of these groups, you could see them influencing the outcome negatively.

They might try, but if they're part of a committee they'll likely be dragged along with the flow of the group, they'll probably take part in initiatives and see any positive outcomes from them. I'm not saying it would be the thing that changes them but it will include them in the women's rights process.

It's a step, it may fail miserably but I think it's worth a try, it's not like they'll be able to start rolling back women's rights.

The Backwards Man

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Have we a link for this. I wanted to see the actual nut&bolts facts behind the OP but there only seems to be one site ( 'dailycaller' which is a website I've never heard of) saying it.

The Daily Caller is often described as the most unethical news publication in the US, which when considering the competition, is quite a mean feat.

RobertKK

5 EU countries voted for Saudi Arabia to be on the commission that deals with women rights.

There is growing outrage about the decision that got Saudi Arabia onto the commission. Claims their petrodollars helped get them elected.

Junkyard Tom

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing. We need to include them and lead by example.

Em.. no. They probably think they're leading us by example. They need to be treated the same way South Africa was for its behaviour.

monty_python

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Fundamentally what is wrong with this?
The UN is all-inclusive. Saudi Arabia's views on the status of women may not agree with yours, but their perspective is as entitled to be heard or have input as much as any other country - more possibly if their view is considered a minority one. It is great that the UN is not prejudicial on this point, and does include all views in commissions on such important issues. Their inclusion suggests an enlightened and well motivated UN - certainly not a joke organisation as you suggest.

Well said

Elmer Blooker

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Fundamentally what is wrong with this?
The UN is all-inclusive. Saudi Arabia's views on the status of women may not agree with yours, but their perspective is as entitled to be heard or have input as much as any other country - more possibly if their view is considered a minority one. It is great that the UN is not prejudicial on this point, and does include all views in commissions on such important issues. Their inclusion suggests an enlightened and well motivated UN - certainly not a joke organisation as you suggest.

Yes, an very enlightened and well motivated UN.
Is that why the vote was kept secret and the 5 EU states that voted for Saudi Arabia are not being disclosed? Why not? We are entitled to know who these five are.
What is wrong with a secret ballot? The UN is beyond a joke at this stage.

JupiterKid

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so perverse. The UN is a complete joke.

padd b1975

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And from internal insurrection.

Once the oil runs out, and their money they've invested in the West, the House of Saud is screwed.

Back to desert and raising camels for them at best. Or death at worst.

Heard a great quote that a Saudi oil baron is supposed to have said.

"My grandfather rode a camel.
My father drove Mercedes.
I drive Rolls Royce.
My son drives Mercedes.
His son will ride camel".

That day can't come quick enough for me.

ScumLord

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Em.. no. They probably think they're leading us by example. They need to be treated the same way South Africa was for its behaviour.

So isolate and look down at them? I'm sure they'll love that and change their minds immediately. To me that seems a bit like giving out to someone for not reading a book but refusing to sell them the book.

There's no way they'll lead the rest of the world by example, even they must know that the west see's them as backwards when it comes to human rights. They'd be laughed at if they tried to persuade western countries to be more like them.

This allows them to witness the process of bringing about equality. It's not like we've even gotten it perfect yet.

RobertKK

ScumLord wrote: »

So isolate and look down at them? I'm sure they'll love that and change their minds immediately. To me that seems a bit like giving out to someone for not reading a book but refusing to sell them the book.

There's no way they'll lead the rest of the world by example, even they must know that the west see's them as backwards when it comes to human rights. They'd be laughed at if they tried to persuade western countries to be more like them.

This allows them to witness the process of bringing about equality. It's not like we've even gotten it perfect yet.

Saudi Arabia do read the book, it is the koran/quran and they would burn any book that tells them to do anything different to their Wahhabism form of Islam.

They will not change one iota by being on the commission for the rights of women.

riffmongous

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Yes, an very enlightened and well motivated UN.
Is that why the vote was kept secret and the 5 EU states that voted for Saudi Arabia are not being disclosed? Why not? We are entitled to know who these five are.
What is wrong with a secret ballot? The UN is beyond a joke at this stage.

Considering Theresa May was there on a controversial visit recently I think it's fair to assume the UK was one of them.

jmayo

RobertKK wrote: »

In case one did not know the UN is a joke, here is another example.
Saudi Arabia has been elected to the sit on the UN commission on the status of women.
The UN commission in question is responsible for gender equality and the empowerment of women.

In Saudi Arabia, a woman needs a male guardian with her to leave her home, and needs the guardians permission to marry, travel, get medical help and do business.
Women are not allowed to vote or be involved in politics.

Saudi Arabia also sits on the UN commission for human rights.

One could not make this up.
Shame on the UN.

I think it is more shocking that you are shocked.
This is the same UN that has peacekeeping troops raping women.

This the same UN that decades ago abandoned helpless people to be raped and murdered in numerous countries.
If you want to see how bad the UN is then why not read about the Bosnian conflict or worse still read about Rwanda and the aftermath in the UN refugee camps in Zaire where hutu mass murderers were in control.

The UN has been a joke for a long long time which operates at the behest of those on the security council.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Fundamentally what is wrong with this?
The UN is all-inclusive. Saudi Arabia's views on the status of women may not agree with yours, but their perspective is as entitled to be heard or have input as much as any other country - more possibly if their view is considered a minority one. It is great that the UN is not prejudicial on this point, and does include all views in commissions on such important issues. Their inclusion suggests an enlightened and well motivated UN - certainly not a joke organisation as you suggest.

What a load of codswallop. Inclusion my arse. We are not talking about some minor differences between men and women here, we are talking about limited rights for a gender. That one gender has more right than another because of chance, is insane, not just a difference of opinion. Imagine I were to have more rights than you based on my family name, or where I was born or the color of my eyes. That's how stupid this ideology is. It's a stone aged concept which encourages a stone aged mentality. It breeds ignorance imo. Even women in Saudi Arabia are against inequality as they believe the way they live is the closest thing to "pure islam". Cuz equality = western ideology and the west is evil, mmmkay?

Women in Saudi Arabia cannot make important decisions for themselves, they cannot travel abroad, marry, work or in some cases, seek medical assistance without the permission of their owner guardian.

"In July 2013, King Fahd hospital in Al Bahah postponed amputating a critically injured woman's hand because she had no male legal guardian to authorize the procedure. Her husband had died in the same car crash that left her and her daughter critically injured."

What kind of society allows spousal or statutory rape, or punishes the victim of rape? Let's not even go that extreme, what kind of society prohibits women from being in contact with strange men? I said earlier that Saudi Arabia has a stone age mentality, this is absolutely not fair to say as men and women were considered equal.

There's plenty more evidence to show why Saudi Arabia should not even be considered for this post.

You don't field your worst team and expect a good outcome. UN are trolling the entire world, they have some set of balls on them, that's for sure. Twats.

ScumLord

Augustine Worried Ping-pong wrote: »

What a load of codswallop. Inclusion my arse. We are not talking about some minor differences between men and women here, we are talking about limited rights for a gender.

But if you exclude them from the equality process how do you ever expect them to change?

The fact is modern capitalist societies required women to work, we needed the labour, a traditional family where the woman stays at home just isn't workable for a lot of people in the west.

I suppose Saudi imports slave labour so they can keep women out of the work force.

I think they need to be involved, even if the odds of them changing is slim it creates a chance that wouldn't exist otherwise.

Glenster

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Yes, an very enlightened and well motivated UN.
Is that why the vote was kept secret and the 5 EU states that voted for Saudi Arabia are not being disclosed? Why not? We are entitled to know who these five are.
What is wrong with a secret ballot? The UN is beyond a joke at this stage.

Secret ballot for voting is fairly standard. TBH it's best practice.

riffmongous

Glenster wrote: »

Secret ballot for voting is fairly standard. TBH it's best practice.

Maybe, but surely the citizens of a country have a right to know what their government is voting on their behalf

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

ScumLord wrote: »

But if you exclude them from the equality process how do you ever expect them to change?

The fact is modern capitalist societies required women to work, we needed the labour, a traditional family where the woman stays at home just isn't workable for a lot of people in the west.

I suppose Saudi imports slave labour so they can keep women out of the work force.

I think they need to be involved, even if the odds of them changing is slim it creates a chance that wouldn't exist otherwise.

I didn't mean to imply that they should be excluded, but why the hell would you allow them to lead? They are the complete opposite of a role model. I thought the use of the word inclusion, was very ironic. Saudi Arabia doesn't even include their own citizens. They should at least be work on the inequalities in the country before being appointed to such a position.

Not everybody want's a traditional family. Removing that choice is absolutely not the correct way to go.

ScumLord

Augustine Worried Ping-pong wrote: »

I didn't mean to imply that they should be excluded, but why the hell would you allow them to lead?

Are they leading? As I read it they're part of a committee. That would make them equal members, they can make suggestions and vote on action but they can't force anyone to do anything. Depending on the other members they'll likely be along for the ride. I've been on committees, they can be diverse and are often a good way of softening hardline views because the committee has to end up with an agreement.

They are the complete opposite of a role model.

I don't think anyone is expecting them to be role models.

Either we include them in the process or we exclude them and basically let them carry on as normal. What's the alternative?

Junkyard Tom

ScumLord wrote: »

What's the alternative?

A cultural and sporting boycott would be a good start.

BalcombeSt4

ScumLord wrote: »

So isolate and look down at them? I'm sure they'll love that and change their minds immediately. To me that seems a bit like giving out to someone for not reading a book but refusing to sell them the book.

There's no way they'll lead the rest of the world by example, even they must know that the west see's them as backwards when it comes to human rights. They'd be laughed at if they tried to persuade western countries to be more like them.

This allows them to witness the process of bringing about equality. It's not like we've even gotten it perfect yet.

Thats what the US does when they disagree with anyone.

Really nobody should be suprised by this, the US does not care about human rights abuses, aslong as you are some way useful to them they don't care what what abuses you have committed, it's nothing new they supported dictators like Pinochet, Saddam Hussien & even defended the right of the Khemer Rouge to have a seat at the UN. This whole foreign policy of "my enemies enemy, is my friend" has totally failed. Saudis are an enemy of Iran that makes them a friend of the US.

Ulysses Gaze

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Thats what the US does when they disagree with anyone.

Really nobody should be suprised by this, the US does not care about human rights abuses, aslong as you are some way useful to them they don't care what what abuses you have committed, it's nothing new they supported dictators like Pinochet, Saddam Hussien & even defended the right of the Khemer Rouge to have a seat at the UN. This whole foreign policy of "my enemies enemy, is my friend" has totally failed. Saudis are an enemy of Iran that makes them a friend of the US.

And Oil. And the $3 trillion that the Saudi's have invested in the US economy.

BalcombeSt4

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And Oil. And the $3 trillion that the Saudi's have invested in the US economy.

Well that also helps alot yeah.

Ulysses Gaze

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well that also helps alot yeah.

When both run out, and they will, the Yanks will drop them faster than lead **** filled balloon.

ScumLord

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A cultural and sporting boycott would be a good start.

I wouldn't be opposed to a boycott, a full on one from government level, because the end consumers don't buy a lot directly as far as I know.

I really don't see that happening though, we want/need their oil. The rich go there on holiday, maybe start boycotting anyone that goes there and promotes that fact.


Saudi will run out of resources, and like Ulysses Gaze says we'll all drop them like lead balloons.

But I don't like half measures, if we're going to continue to appease them to get access to their resources, including them in our equality processes is the only way to encourage any kind of change.

The other problem is the saudi leadership will probably survive their country going into the gutter, they'll have invested enough money to keep them in lamborghini's long after the oil has run out. So we have little to hold over them.

Junkyard Tom

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And Oil. And the $3 trillion that the Saudi's have invested in the US economy.

There's also tens-of-billions of USD's worth of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia to consider.

Ulysses Gaze

ScumLord wrote: »

I wouldn't be opposed to a boycott, a full on one from government level, because the end consumers don't buy a lot directly as far as I know.

I really don't see that happening though, we want/need their oil. The rich go there on holiday, maybe start boycotting anyone that goes there and promotes that fact.


Saudi will run out of resources, and like Ulysses Gaze says we'll all drop them like lead balloons.

But I don't like half measures, if we're going to continue to appease them to get access to their resources, including them in our equality processes is the only way to encourage any kind of change.

The other problem is the saudi leadership will probably survive their country going into the gutter, they'll have invested enough money to keep them in lamborghini's long after the oil has run out. So we have little to hold over them.

There are 15,000-20,000 members of the Royal Family in Saudi.

They'll burn through their post-oil resources quickly because they will not be able to rein in their spending.

They won the geological lottery and could have changed the world for the better - could have advanced science and technology for the benefit of mankind. Instead they buy supercars and fund terror.

And they won't have a pot to piss in soon.