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

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.

BalcombeSt4

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

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

I wouldn't be suprised if they do.

Just like they dropped Saddam after he stopped becoming useful to them.

The Rape of Lucretia

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.

The UN is there to hear all voices. Sure, they arent minor differences. But you cannot ignore those he believe there should be large differences between the rights for both sexes just because you are of an alternate view. The mission of the UN is to include all nations, cultures, religions and views - not to exclude. It is the UNITED nations.
Have some cop on.

pangbang

The UN is irrelevant, hasn't been for decades. Its just becoming too weak to even hide it anymore.

It was a club setup to stop war, and from the very beginning it failed.

The further down the path we follow the UN and its absurdity, the worse off we'll be.

The first few off the sinking ship will get the life raft.

Ulysses Gaze

pangbang wrote: »

The UN is irrelevant, hasn't been for decades. Its just becoming too weak to even hide it anymore.

It was a club setup to stop war, and from the very beginning it failed.

The further down the path we follow the UN and its absurdity, the worse off we'll be.

The first few off the sinking ship will get the life raft.

It is just a more convoluted and bureaucratic League of Nations.

About the same success rate in stopping conflict as well.

RobertKK

Irish foreign minister Charles Flanagan refuses to say if Ireland was one of the 5 European countries that voted for Saudi Arabia to be on the UN women's rights commission.

He should clear it up despite it not being the norm to disclose votes.
We should know for transparency reasons.

ScumLord

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

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.

That's very possible, but the guys who have bought property in some of the most expensive places in the world should always have enough to live off. Those fancy cars they buy are often worth more second hand than what they paid for them too. Just selling off their cars would give them millions.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Irish foreign minister Charles Flanagan refuses to say if Ireland was one of the 5 European countries that voted for Saudi Arabia to be on the UN women's rights commission.

He should clear it up despite it not being the norm to disclose votes.
We should know for transparency reasons.

As much as I disagree with the decision unless there is a general agreement to discuss what was a private vote he should keep quiet.

This decision to make this public should be made in agreement with others.

jobbridge4life

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It is just a more convoluted and bureaucratic League of Nations.

About the same success rate in stopping conflict as well.

Yes definitely. Lets see the League of Nations collapsed and we had the most brutal conflict in the history of man. The United Nations was founded and we live in the most peaceful period of recorded history.

Totes the same.

riffmongous

Christy42 wrote: »

As much as I disagree with the decision unless there is a general agreement to discuss what was a private vote he should keep quiet.

This decision to make this public should be made in agreement with others.

Belgium revealed their vote and the PM offered a public apology

ilkhanid

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

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.

They also spend a lot of money producing theology graduates.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The UN is there to hear all voices. Sure, they arent minor differences. But you cannot ignore those he believe there should be large differences between the rights for both sexes just because you are of an alternate view. The mission of the UN is to include all nations, cultures, religions and views - not to exclude. It is the UNITED nations.
Have some cop on.

I couldn't disagree more. The UN sets certain minimum standards..that's why we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you can't uphold these then to hell with you, The notion that women have no rights, isn't just "an alternate view", it's madness. demented zealotry.