ilmaestro said:
If you come to my house, and I ask you not to smoke... I expect you not to smoke. I doubt anyone in Qatar cares whether you think you "are" gay or not (or, rather, for the purposes of the law, I doubt they conduct thought-crime like testing for it by running people through a "how hot is this guy" test once a month)... just don't "be" gay.
It's like forcing kids to write right-handed. Happened to lots of people as recently as my Dad's generation, and as a result I know a few of them who can play all sorts of sports left or right handed! Bonus!
/may be pushing the boundaries a little
Well they are doing nothing to change the law to suggest they agree with it or fear to speak out about it. People still get found out and punished for it, so it's not a law which is not acted out on. With up to 5 years in prison and lashes as punishment, its not exactly slap on the wrist
Jayme said:
Neferpitou said:
The issue is not what laws another country has but it's simply wrong to reward a country an international event with such archaic laws against basic human rights.
What were your thoughts on China hosting the Olympic Games?
Zin5ki said:
Neferpitou said:
It seem human rights can be ignored simply for more money.
Such is the state of affairs governing the manufacture of many of our household goods, as I understand.
Interesting point about China as their human right record is not that great either. But with China it seems they are more secretive. So I can't really judge China to full extent. While it is true that it's hypocritical to condem a country while still buying their product. But Goods come all across the world and aren't that simply know where it from until after you brought it and checked the packaging. In some case you would never know where certain goods come from. If you went to local petrol station it's unlikely a member of staff would know where their petrol/Diesel would come from for example.
Also the Olympic has lost it shine somewhat compared to football World Cup has. While it would be naive suggest to suggest there no drug taking in the world of football. Theirs no question that drug taking is more of problem in Olympic than it's in Football. There also question marks about the harsh training method used on children to get result in future events.
Athletic is also nowhere near as popular than football worldwide. You can see this through attendances, cost of tickets, coverage and the money made. Not many athletics could every dream what football earn these days, Even the lower earners in the Premiership.
Project-2501 said:
Neferpitou said:
How can a country be considered the best choice to host a world cup when its illegal to be gay there?
It was illegal to be gay in the UK up until 1967 and in some states of the USA it was illegal as late as 2003.
The movement to remove the anti-gay law started well before 1967. Also happily we live in more in-lightninged times compared to attitudes from over 50 years ago. You can't constantly have go at attitudes in the past as the attitudes of today that matter. Most countries have have commit horrible atrocities in the past but have learned from them and changed their ways. We can't refuse to negotiate with other countries simply because we were at war centuries ago.
Chaz said:
ayase said:
Neferpitou said:
The issue is not what laws another country has but it's simply wrong to reward a country an international event with such archaic laws against basic human rights.
So who is it that has this right to reward or punish countries, and what do they base these decisions on? Thinking we could be the "world's policemen" is what got us and the Yanks into Iraq. "Stop right there criminal scum! You're breaking the laws of the free world, which apply wherever and whenever we say so!" Which is a supremely arrogant attitude, to believe that your country has a right to tell another country what to do.
If people don't like what their government is doing, they should remove it. If they do like what they're doing (even if it goes against liberal western sensibilities) then who are we to try and force them to change? We don't place embargoes on the US because they still have the death penalty. It's none of our business what other countries do, unless they are doing something which affects our country in some way.
Edit for typo.
I agree with Ayase on this point of view. Aren't the Human Rights acts/laws made by diplomatic agreements of the powers of Democracy? A soviegn nation who leads its own people its own way has not agreed to any of this, as it is not a democratic state. It has a ruler deciding the laws for them.
In this sceranio, all we can do to change this is condenm them and overpower them to push our ideal onto the populous. Whether that is a positive or a negative affect is down to personal perspective. As a member of democracy, I can view the act of making gay relations illegal as unfair and "wrong," but that ideal can only be sorted in an area that has the same perspective as I. It's also unfair for me to walk into another country and demand that they change their laws if the populous is generally happy with the rules of their country. (Note: I dont know if they are happy with the laws, but if they want to change that, they should ask for help or sort it out themselves.)
Both Qatar and USA both have the Death penalty so a bit of mute point to bring up. At least with the Death penalty theirs at least some argument for & against the system. There no agrument you can bring that its fair to persecute people for being different.
The point being raised is Qatar should not hold the tournament. Not that their Anti-Gay law has to be removed and must be removed by force. Essentially taking the argument needless over the top. No one forcing them to change there ways.
If they so desire they can live in their own bubble and keep whatever laws they want. But If Qatar what enter the western society by hosting international events they have to accept the most basic western sensibilities. Otherwise where do you stop. Should the next world cup be held in North Korea, Zimbabwe or certain Middle eastern state where women are given less rights then?
Should we go back and apologize to South Africa for excluding them because of Apartheid in the past?
sic vita est said:
Neferpitou said:
How can a country be considered the best choice to host a world cup when its illegal to be gay there?
How a country with loose morals be considered to host the world cup? It doesn't even punish adultery!
It'll be interesting if they stage the World Cup during Ramadan.
Asides from playing devil's advocate, I wouldn't even know where to begin for the rest of the points covered. But...
Mentioning Iraq is walking a fine line: Saddam killed at least 500,000 of his own people and invaded Kuwait. At what stage does the international community intervene? Is my next door neighbour beating his wife in their own home not anyone's business? How far do we take the non-interventionist logic?
What I disapprove of immensely is the selective application of moral outrage, which almost every government is guilty of and which may have been the main point being made.
Random article:
The Kingdon in the Closet, which is about homosexuality in Saudi Arabia and written in 2007, but still an interesting read.
Adultery is man made concept. Most animal species main goal in life to mate with as many other of their species as possible. We just following out our urges that all
.
With adultery theirs little need for state punishment, as the scorn partner normal get revenge one way or another. :wink:
