The Dubai Sheikh torture clip is infamous now. Amazing how you can torture a guy and not go to jail if you're a Sheikh. We know about this specific incident because of the video leakk. Who knows what else goes on there. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7402099
A lot of these emirates are guilty of encouraging human trafficking to allow supply of cheap labour. When your rich american/european visits the UAE, he doesn't see the human rights violations going on right around him - partly because his environment is sanitized of ill treatment of labour from poorer countries and partly because he chooses not to see. Should we all just shut up about the UAE's behaviour then?
The reason turkey, morocco etc are better behaved are because they're dependent on EU for economic support. I didn't mean to go muslim bashing with my comment but as you can see, they're easy to classify in this fashion. I wouldn't go to China either for the same reason I wouldn't go to a muslim country.
I can't believe you're trying to defend this position. I'm really quite shocked.
Human rights abuses against local people for dissent happen all around the world, including the US and the UK. In Germany you can be jailed for denying the holocaust. In France you can be jailed for wearing a headscarf. Exercising common sense is generally a good thing to do anywhere you go, but the things you talk about occur around the world and aren't just limited to states with a majority muslim population.
> The reason turkey, morocco etc are better behaved are because they're dependent on EU for economic support.
It's clear you've never been to Turkey. Turkey's outpaced the EU for economic growth for years and effectively dodged an economic bullet by not joining the EU. It may benefit by not being in the Euro, but loses out on tariffs and taxes. If you walk around Levent in Istanbul you'll see the real money's coming from China, Russia and the Middle East, not Europe.
With regards to your other points, I have nothing to add.
Regards Turkey - I'm not disagreeing, but I must point out that Turkey wouldn't have gotten to where it is except for a freak chance in getting Ataturk who specifically modeled the country to be viable to enter Europe; that process is being reversed gradually by the those elected in power today.
Turkey is where it stands precisely because Ataturk decided that they had to join the Euro region, and then had the military on his side who constantly defended his vision and the secular fabric of the nation.
Later, the Euro rejected them, to their current benefit.
Today, the secular institutions built during the earlier reign are slowly being converted and accommodating a new political reality which is a lot more comfortable with its Islamic credentials.
> I'm not disagreeing, but I am pointing out that Turkey really wouldn't have gotten there for a freak chance in getting Ataturk who specifically modeled the country to be viable to enter Europe, and that process is currently being reversed gradually by the those elected in power.
I see where you're coming from but when you look into it the whole thing isn't so clean cut. Ataturk was obviously the singularly biggest influence in modern Turkish history, but because of it's geography Turkey has always had prospects to do well. It's position in control of shipping between the mediterranean and black sea, combined with it's black sea and mediterranean coasts and position as a gateway to Iraq, Russia and Greece has meant that it was always going to be a major trade centre.
Ataturk never modeled the country on being able to enter Europe, he died decades before the coal and steel treaty and the Euro region didn't exist until 1992 depending on your views on EU history. Ataturk's foreign policy doctrine was one of strict neutrality, "Peace at home, Peace in the world" (Yurtta Barış, Dünyada Barış). The decision to keep Turkey out has been largely made by the French and German governments who are worried about uneducated Turks coming into Europe and flooding the labour market and (particularly in the French case) not integrating into their host countries' cultures.
Ataturk modeled his country on the Austrian system as the best way of modernising a new country widely regarded as extremely behind the times. This was a continuation and radical acceleration of work that had been going on for nearly 200 years prior (with the help of the Germans, which is why the Ottomans were forced into the war on the German side, that and an alliance between France and Russia being seen as a threat). The acceleration of that only occurred because of the destruction of the caliphate and the establishment of a secular republic.
Later in Ataturk's life and in order to maintain territorial integrity a personality cult was built around him, this was to keep the revolution going, to ensure that the country didn't sink into religious backwardsness and that they could keep themselves as an independent state without having to deal with external interference. Other leaders who included Ataturk's principles of Kemalism to some extent included Nasser and Mossadegh.
In the end Ataturk's models became so fixed by subsequent leaders that his party CHP lost it's relevance and AKP, the current party gained power. Now AKP is putting it's people into various positions to ensure it's longevity. While it has a much more pro-Islamic agenda, AKP cannot afford to overstep the mark and betray it's financial backers, who'll pull out the rug as soon as someone more moderate comes along.
If you're interested in reading about Ataturk, Andrew Mango's Ataturk book is the definitive English language book on the matter.
Thanks for adding detail, and suggesting a book for further reference.
While continuing to be numinous about the backers, it can be pointed out that there are also backers who can easily fund a movement further towards an even more pro-Islamic agenda. Not that I am arguing that this will happen or not.
I understand your point on the CHP losing its relevance, but partly that was also because the AKP tapped into the hitherto sidelined but more populous communities in Turkey, who are more pro-Islam. Correct me if I am wrong. These matters tend to always be intricate once you reach a certain level of magnification, so I am sure there are further factors at work behind the AKP's rise.
edit: removed redundant line on financial backers, cleared position a bit.
Please stop propaganda. There's no jail in France for the hidjab (or what this scarf is). It's a 150 euro fine. Not for wearing the hidjab, but for covering the face in public. Real jail time or corporal punishment is a different story, don't you agree?
Let's say I had a few beers and took a leak on the street. Is there a difference between a few hundred bucks fine and having my weapon of crime chopped off?
There's something in his position worth defending. And I guess that the difference is in the age. Islam is younger than Christianity, they're a few hundred years behind. Remember what Christians were doing 600 years ago? Inquisition, Crusades, etc. But this is just my theory.
"Remember what Christians were doing 600 years ago? Inquisition, Crusades, etc"
Yeah Christians did it 600 YEARS AGO. But islamic countries do that kind of horror nowadays and AFAIK they did not developed in a bubble, isolated from the other countries. So it is perfectly relevant to judge them.
Human Rights are universal, not a simple "cultural standard".
Where are Muslim Crusades currently being waged? Remember that the Crusades were a huge undertaking involving many entire nations engaged in full scale war.
To run a crusade you need a target. All obvious targets for Muslim crusades either have the nukes, or rumored to have nukes or have friends with nukes. Bummer.
Even if that were not the case, and even if it were actually true that the majority of today's Muslims were in support of such adventures (let alone willing to die in the numbers that European crusaders did) ... Muslim countries are flat out too poor to dedicate the same percentage of GDP that European countries did to the Crusade. The ones which are less poor are making all their money by working with the West anyway.
Agree in general, but I believe that if there was no (rumor of) nuke in Israel, they would have tried (again).
Another "positive" moment within the Muslim world itself is that Muslims are still happily killing each other (like Christians were doing a few centuries ago). Eventually they will stop doing this.
I came from a very civilized place where a bunch of girls sang a song wearing masks in the cathedral (there were very few other people), recorded a video [1] without the sound and then put it on the youtube. They have been imprisoned without justice for 3 months and recently their stay was extended for another 2.
Russia really has a wonder in intellectuals with science and art to give to the world -- I wish all your oil disappear, so there isn't anything for the politicians to steal anymore :-(
Besides, the problem there is hardly the cathedral, it is the opposition to your thieves of politicians.
The problem is in both. Cathedral was used as a weapon of mass approval for the punishment. And it worked :-( I don't care much for politicians, they come and go, but when half of the population (I'm very conservative here) approves the injustice based on blasphemy, I lose the faith.
You are right about the shift in Turkey's trade to the middle east. Turkey still exports something like 25% - 40% of its total exports to EU countries (not sure about exact % right now). If the EU imposed trade sanctions on Turkey, it would be hard to argue that there would be no effect.
How can you even compare holocaust denial laws to what muslim countries do? You think denying people the right to disagree with the state or condemning them to a life with their rapist or torturing a man AND taking away the right of people to deny a historical fact are the same thing? I don't see why the holocaust denial law is necessary but I don't see it as being oppressive to rights that should be fundamental!
Religious headscarves should be banned for the same reason slavery is. Just because a slave would never complain to law enforcement agencies and does not see the injustice in his life because he has been brainwashed and accepts his fate does not mean the state should not enforce his rights. Have you even seen the plight of women in an orthodox muslim family? Would you consider a muslim women who only does what she is "allowed" as your equal? Banning the hijab was a good move - it is a symbol of oppression.
There you go with the 'muslim countries' thing again. It's not like you can lump a whole load of different countries into one basket and make sweeping generalisations.
"How can you even compare holocaust denial laws to what muslim countries do?" - Very easily. The holocaust was over 65 years ago. The perpetrators of this egregious act are mostly dead. The victims of this egregious act are mostly dead. The modern German of today had nothing to do with the holocaust. Their mother and father had nothing to do with the holocaust. What does making holocaust denial do other than prohibit a form of dissent? Does it bring people back to life? No, it does not. Does it stop it from happening again? Just because a crime is unmentionable does not mean that it would not happen (and the holocaust is not the only genocide, nor the most efficient one, there have been many more before and since).
When you remove the right to say fuck, you remove the right to say fuck the government. In Germany any debate on the extent of the holocaust is stifled due to the law, the same (but opposite case) as it is in Turkey with respect to the atrocities referred to by some as the Armenian Genocide. In both cases the law is wrong and stifles free speech and people go to jail[1][2] for dissent against it.
> Religious headscarves should be banned for the same reason slavery is.
You really have no understanding of the purpose, origin or practice of the headscarf in countries around the middle-east and mediterranean whatsoever. Would it come as some surprise to you to know that in the early 20th century Irish women would wear headscarves to protect their modesty? Oh those poor oppressed Irish women, whatever became of them?
"Would it come as some surprise to you to know that in the early 20th century Irish women would wear headscarves to protect their modesty? Oh those poor oppressed Irish women, whatever became of them?"
They quit wearing them, it would seem. This puts them a century ahead.
Yes, because what you wear on your head is equivalent to 100 years of technological and cultural progress. Thank goodness no-one in the west wears hats anymore, ban them!
Regarding the subject of denying crimes against humanity, how is the Pakistani education about the mass murders in Bangladesh 40 years ago -- by Pakistani troops?
(Afaik, Pakistani students coming to western Europe haven't heard about them.)
>>Oh those poor oppressed Irish women, whatever became of them?
They got their freedom and human rights a little later than other countries in western Europe -- Ireland had a bit of a tough history, for a while. When does that freedom come to the Mid East and Pakistan?
Edit: "You can find X everywhere" is easy, for most any X. But it is often dishonest and lazy. E.g. rapes happens in prisons in most any country -- but a serious argument would note that it is totally different if it happens to 5% of the prison population or 0.1 promille. And if it is a "job bonus" for the guards, like Syria.
> I can't believe you're trying to defend this position. I'm really quite shocked.
You may not realize it, but the main reason you're upset at asto is not sweeping unpleasant things under the rug of Political Correctness. Sadly, this is a very common phenomenon among white Western people.
I see where you're coming from but you're incorrect. It's not about sweeping things under the rug. It's the tarring of all 'muslim countries' (whatever that means) with the same brush, as though we ourselves in non 'muslim countries' don't have the same problems.
It's the perpetuation of all muslims as evil savages that leads to the idea that they're somehow subhuman. Just because some of the 'other' may (or may not) talk differently, have a beard, dress differently or not drink alcohol doesn't mean that they aren't people. And yes, all countries have their problems with human rights abuses, people being attacked for various reasons and so on, but it's important to separate the religious element from the culture of individual ethnic and tribal groups.
To tar all 'muslim countries' is to tar 'muslims' as being part of that, and that's a slippery slope some seem to be further down than others.
> It's the perpetuation of all muslims as evil savages that leads to the idea that they're somehow subhuman.
Well they do keep burying their teenage daughters alive for showing too much skin or refusing an arranged marriage or whatever.
Don't tell me it's not all of them. It's just that a considerable part of them are insane savages completely incompatible with 2012.
It's alright for them to be a different color, wear different clothes and speak a foreign language, but it's most certainly Not OK to murder people in broad daylight over "insulting" The Religion Of Peace (tm).
istanbul is to turkey what new york is to the usa - an outlier, nothing in common with the rest of the country.
i have a friend who was a human rights lawyer in turkey, defending kurdish dissidents - he lives in austria now, cause after being in jail, being tortured, etc he had enough. real, nasty torture, not loud music.
turkey is on its way back into islam, atatürk's laicistic idea of countryhood is being dismantled.
so, all in all, you have no fucking clue what you're posting about.
Plenty of Occupy protestors around the US have been abused[1][2]. During the civil rights movement in the 1950s the US used water cannons to disperse crowds of non-violent protestors. In the US you have 'free speech zones' far away from events that people would protest against, stopping them from protesting on public property[3]. The US will even stop people entering the country that are critical, or even make jokes about the country[4].
In the UK, 53 people were arrested[5] the day before the royal wedding last year in order to avoid dissent. The police in the UK practice a method known as kettling to force protesters into cramped spaces and deny them access to water or sanitation facilities, even using this against the young[7]. At the London G20 protests in 2009 a man with no connection to the protests was struck by a police officer[8] and later died.
My point to all of this is that to say that 'they' are savages is disingenuous. We aren't so enlightened as we lead ourselves to believe and we shouldn't expect others to meet high standards we continually breach. This isn't a political statement for me. It's an acceptance of the world we live in. If people didn't dissent, this wouldn't happen, but if people didn't dissent, then civil rights wouldn't have happened either.
No, my argument was one of racism in the initial response to what was then the top comment, specifically about the term 'muslim countries' within the context of Pakistan. This is wrong as islam is a religion not a race, although as the comment was specifically in response to Pakistan is not entirely wrong, nor right. The correct argument is that the original commenter is an islamophobe who considers muslims some generic 'other' subhuman.
In response to your comment you asked me to document rights abuses in the US, which I did.
In Morocco, a court ordered a teenager to marry her rapist. She killed herself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/03/moroccan-teenage...
The Dubai Sheikh torture clip is infamous now. Amazing how you can torture a guy and not go to jail if you're a Sheikh. We know about this specific incident because of the video leakk. Who knows what else goes on there. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7402099
Oman will throw you in jail for dissent with the govt http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/oman/oman-crackdown-on-dissent...
A lot of these emirates are guilty of encouraging human trafficking to allow supply of cheap labour. When your rich american/european visits the UAE, he doesn't see the human rights violations going on right around him - partly because his environment is sanitized of ill treatment of labour from poorer countries and partly because he chooses not to see. Should we all just shut up about the UAE's behaviour then?
The reason turkey, morocco etc are better behaved are because they're dependent on EU for economic support. I didn't mean to go muslim bashing with my comment but as you can see, they're easy to classify in this fashion. I wouldn't go to China either for the same reason I wouldn't go to a muslim country.