American woman arrested in Saudi Arabia...

[Sefarst]

...for sitting at a Starbucks with a man who was not her husband. The Saudi Arabian Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevent of Vice said, "It's not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331254,00.html

Absolutely disgusting...

[Pardalis]

she was strip-searched, forced to sign false confessions and told by a judge she would "burn in hell" before she was released on Feb. 4.
The Commission contested Yara's version of events, saying she was never strip-searched or forced to sign confessions.

So they did tell her she would burn in hell? Now that's uncalled for!

[Nogbad]

Fox News are pro Hell so they would be cool with that anyhoo.

[Soapy Sam]

...for sitting at a Starbucks with a man who was not her husband. The Saudi Arabian Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevent of Vice said, "It's not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331254,00.html

Absolutely disgusting...
What-Starbucks, Fox News or Saudi Law?
I agree it's a damn silly law, but we have a number of those too. That is no defence. Any woman who holds a career post in Saudi knows- or should know- the law on public behaviour.
Many of us get angry at immigrants to our countries who want to impose their customs on us. So do many Saudis.

Can't have it both ways.

The Saudis have no time for "multiculturalism". Frankly, neither have I.
I think Islam has no place in my culture: They think liberalism doesn't fit theirs. I worked in Saudi Arabia for years and had no problems, because I obeyed their laws, silly or not, just like I do in Britain or America.

Silly , yes. Disgusting? I disagree.

[Policenaut]

"It accused her of wearing makeup, not covering her hair and "moving around suspiciously" while sitting with her Syrian colleague, who was also arrested, but later released."

What kind of a law is "moving around suspiciously" and how can you be moving around suspiciously while sitting down?

[NewtonTrino]

If it wasn't for the oil money these guys would still be nomadic desert tribesman. Frankly anyone that travels to Saudi Arabia is an idiot. Anyone that moves there probably needs to be removed from the gene pool. If they decide to move to the US or another somewhat more sane country then maybe they'll have redeemed themselves.

WTF kind of country has religous police anyway? Seriously!!!?!?

Could we just glass over the whole area and then re-drill the oil wells through the glass crust?

[TsarBomba]

I worked in Saudi Arabia for years and had no problems, because I obeyed their laws, silly or not, just like I do in Britain or America.

Silly , yes. Disgusting? I disagree.

Perhaps. But the laws in Saudi Arabia are truly idiotic and barbaric. Just look at this poor sod (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm).

[Francesca R]

Well I'm shocked about Saudi law. All over again. What nasty folk.

OK, next . . . .

[LawnOven]

Could we just glass over the whole area and then re-drill the oil wells through the glass crust?


Oh genocide; thats nice.

[Sefarst]

What-Starbucks, Fox News or Saudi Law?
I agree it's a damn silly law, but we have a number of those too. That is no defence. Any woman who holds a career post in Saudi knows- or should know- the law on public behaviour.
Many of us get angry at immigrants to our countries who want to impose their customs on us. So do many Saudis.

Can't have it both ways.

The Saudis have no time for "multiculturalism". Frankly, neither have I.
I think Islam has no place in my culture: They think liberalism doesn't fit theirs. I worked in Saudi Arabia for years and had no problems, because I obeyed their laws, silly or not, just like I do in Britain or America.

Silly , yes. Disgusting? I disagree.
Your argument is to just ask, "why won't you accept an inferior status in an unjust legal system and keep your mouth shut?"

I believe in cultural empathy, but not cultural relativity. It's one thing to say, "oh they do things a little differently around here," it's another to turn a blind eye to blatant sexism, homophobia, and intolerance and say, "hey that's just how their culture is."

[Soapy Sam]

Your argument is to just ask, "why won't you accept an inferior status in an unjust legal system and keep your mouth shut?"

I believe in cultural empathy, but not cultural relativity. It's one thing to say, "oh they do things a little differently around here," it's another to turn a blind eye to blatant sexism, homophobia, and intolerance and say, "hey that's just how their culture is."

You are free to think what you like about the laws in any land- your own , or others. As am I. I already said I find the Saudi laws on public behaviour silly. Your opinion is irrelevant. My opinion is irrelevant.
It's the law.

I find it silly that large stretches of British dual carriageway roads have a 50mph speed limit.
My opinion will not impress a traffic policeman in the slightest.
It's not up to me, or him, to decide the law. He is required to enforce it as I am required to obey it. The moral value of it is not part of the process.

You might respond that as a citizen of a democracy, I can vote to change the law. Fine in theory, but in practice both main political parties have a policy of speed limit reduction. I can no more change that law than the average Saudi citizen (who may share our opinion that their law is silly) can alter it. (Incidentally, bear in mind that the law restricts the behaviour of men also, though differently. )

What do you propose we do about this? Would you advocate externally enforced "regime change", so Saudi women can have liasons with men in Starbucks?
It's conceivable Saudi women might prefer to live in a country where they are not harassed by strange men in public places. I don't know what Saudi women think. Do you?
I do know when I go to a country with odd rules that they take seriously, I try not to break them. I suggest the lady in the report would do well to observe the same policy.

[bigred]

duplicate post

[bigred]

What-Starbucks, Fox News or Saudi Law?
I agree it's a damn silly law, but we have a number of those too. That is no defence. Any woman who holds a career post in Saudi knows- or should know- the law on public behaviour.
Many of us get angry at immigrants to our countries who want to impose their customs on us. So do many Saudis.

Can't have it both ways.

The Saudis have no time for "multiculturalism". Frankly, neither have I.
I think Islam has no place in my culture: They think liberalism doesn't fit theirs. I worked in Saudi Arabia for years and had no problems, because I obeyed their laws, silly or not, just like I do in Britain or America.

Silly , yes. Disgusting? I disagree.Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks.

Yeah how dare they expect her to respect their laws/customs while living in their country. The nerve. :rolleyes:

You can hate their laws all you want, but to willingly go there and disregard them is more than a little stupid. If it bothers you that bad, don't go.


Your argument is to just ask, "why won't you accept an inferior status in an unjust legal system and keep your mouth shut?"

I believe in cultural empathy, but not cultural relativity. It's one thing to say, "oh they do things a little differently around here," it's another to turn a blind eye to blatant sexism, homophobia, and intolerance and say, "hey that's just how their culture is."So what are you doing to combat Saudi Arabia's sexism, homophobia, and intolerance?

Saying "that's just how their culture is" doesn't condone it per se, it just acknowledges reality. This woman would have done well to do the same.

[tkingdoll]

I'm with Soapy. If you don't want to obey the laws of a country, however stupid, then don't go and work there.

However, my question would be: how selectively is this law enforced? Is it always enforced? Only sometimes? Could this law have been used as an excuse to arrest a Westerner? I don't know what the current sentiment is in Saudi towards Westerners.

[Soapy Sam]

Teek- I last worked in Saudi in 1995 and things have changed there greatly in the years since 9/11- possibly far more than in the west. The Saudi "government" and the Royal Family are very aware they are on a potential powder keg. They try not to offend America, because they learned during the first Gulf War that they are defenceless without the US. At the same time, they need to keep the conservatives happy.
The cultural affiliation between the largely Shiite community in the Eastern Province (where all the oil is) and Iran has long had the administration in the Hijaz deeply worried. The Al Saud family has traditionally been backed by the Wahhabi Sunni faction, which is rooted in Bedouin tradition-much of it pre Islamic. These have more power in the western areas, Mecca, Jeddah, Medina. In the east, they are less favoured by the locals, who are, in any case more used to foreigners.
Saudi politics is as complex internally as any western politics- and the law is a compromise between different power groups. It sometimes reminds me of Scotland in the 15th-18th century, where the word of the bearded Elders of the Kirk carried as much authority as any lawyer. These things eventually pass.
The tendency of the Metawa'in "religious police" to occsionally go overboard is an embarrassment to Saudi intellectuals, but there is only so much they dare risk saying in public. Political correctness rules. Saudi is what America would be if the Christian Right had total control.

[Darth Rotor]

Soapy, I think I'll bookmark this thread, as required reading, for reference in any future discussions of Saudi and their laws.

Well said. When in Rome . . .

*salutes*

DR

[Sefarst]

You are free to think what you like about the laws in any land- your own , or others. As am I. I already said I find the Saudi laws on public behaviour silly. Your opinion is irrelevant. My opinion is irrelevant.
It's the law.

I'm aware it's the law and that the Saudis will not care that some Americans are complaining on the other side of the world about their laws. But it serves as an example of the ridiculousness of Sharia law to those of us in the West not familiar with it.

I find it silly that large stretches of British dual carriageway roads have a 50mph speed limit.
My opinion will not impress a traffic policeman in the slightest.
It's not up to me, or him, to decide the law. He is required to enforce it as I am required to obey it. The moral value of it is not part of the process.

I'm calling the presence of such a law disgusting, not the enforcement of it. I have no problem describing various speed limit laws as silly, but I need a stronger word when discussing institutionalized prejudice. But how should we talk about it? If the Saudis tell us that, in their country, a woman's testimony can't be trusted like a man's because women are inferior, how should we describe that?

What do you propose we do about this? Would you advocate externally enforced "regime change", so Saudi women can have liasons with men in Starbucks?

I'm not sure what should be done about it. Perhaps step up international pressure or propose sanctions for human rights violators.

It's conceivable Saudi women might prefer to live in a country where they are not harassed by strange men in public places. I don't know what Saudi women think. Do you?

This woman was not being harassed by a strange man, she was sitting and having a conversation with her colleague.

To your question, I don't know any Saudi women, though I have read what women who have spent time in Saudi Arabia or other Islamic countries think about those laws (a good example being Ayaan Hirsi Ali).

I do know when I go to a country with odd rules that they take seriously, I try not to break them. I suggest the lady in the report would do well to observe the same policy.

I think it's correct to expect to be arrested. I could possibly be killed if I went and started drawing pictures of Muhammed in sidewalk chalk. That doesn't mean it would be right, though.

[egslim]

I'm not sure what should be done about it. Perhaps step up international pressure or propose sanctions for human rights violators.
Wouldn't work. Too many non-western nations either have more pressing issues or just don't give a hoot for a sufficiently broad international coalition to be possible, and we need their oil too much.

Let's face reality: The western world no longer runs the world as much as it did 100 years ago. We chose to allow former colonies and protectorates to become independent, which means our ability to affect their internal affairs has diminished. Regardless of whether or not their policies are disgusting.

[E.J.Armstrong]

...for sitting at a Starbucks with a man who was not her husband. The Saudi Arabian Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevent of Vice said, "It's not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331254,00.html

Absolutely disgusting...

Has this practice suddenly become disgusting or has it always been absolutely disgusting?
Is the disgust because she was American and Americans shouldn't be subject to other people's laws?
Is it disgusting because it shouldn't happen to women full stop? If it is, where have all the objections been to it happening to Saudi women? If it isn't, why make an exception for one woman?
Are other countries entitled to have laws that differ from the USA?
Is it disgusting for someone to enter a country and breaks its laws no matter what we think of them?

The USA executes mentally ill people despite it being illegal under international law. Saudi Arabia beheads people in public. Those practices are surely infinitely more disgusting than an American breaking the law in a country that provides so much support to the USA.

[Soapy Sam]

I'm aware it's the law and that the Saudis will not care that some Americans are complaining on the other side of the world about their laws. But it serves as an example of the ridiculousness of Sharia law to those of us in the West not familiar with it.

I'd repeat that much of what passes for "law" in Saudi actually owes more to Bedouin traditional custom than to Islam. The restrictions applied to women in Saudi are not echoed in all Islamic nations. There's no mention in the Koran, for instance, of women being unqualified to drive cars. As I said before, we agree about the essential silliness here, but that's because we share similar assumptions from our own cultures.
I feel that the best way to convince others of the superiority of our ways is to demonstrate that they are good. Many Saudis, learning of crime statistics in the west , consider our culture utterly reprehensible and want nothing to do with it. When I read a newspaper, I am occasionally forced to see their point.



I'm calling the presence of such a law disgusting, not the enforcement of it. I have no problem describing various speed limit laws as silly, but I need a stronger word when discussing institutionalized prejudice. But how should we talk about it? If the Saudis tell us that, in their country, a woman's testimony can't be trusted like a man's because women are inferior, how should we describe that?

Tell them we disagree and why. Show them how our way is better. You will win few hearts or minds by simply attacking them because their assumptions differ from yours.



I'm not sure what should be done about it. Perhaps step up international pressure or propose sanctions for human rights violators.

You might, out of interest, write to the nearest Saudi embassy asking for an explanation of their thinking. You might also write to your own elected representative with your opinion and asking for his/her observations. Understand me in this- I do not object to your upset at what you see as unfairness. I merely point out that law is based in custom and assumptions, which vary. Neither your views nor mine on racism or sexism are moral absolutes. Had you lived where you do fifty years ago, your own views might be significantly different. Who knows what will be the majority opinion fifty years hence?


This woman was not being harassed by a strange man, she was sitting and having a conversation with her colleague.
Yes, which she felt perfectly respectable because her assumptions came from another culture. Had they been in London, she would have been perfectly correct. In Saudi, her cultural assumptions were not fitted to her environment. Selection occurred accordingly. The human environment mostly is other humans. In Glasgow, she could have sat in the corner of the coffee shop, talked to her colleague and breast fed her baby. Few people would notice and those who did would probably smile and ignore her.
Would this be tolerable in New York?

To your question, I don't know any Saudi women, though I have read what women who have spent time in Saudi Arabia or other Islamic countries think about those laws (a good example being Ayaan Hirsi Ali).
Saudi women (except the very wealthy) tend to have a sheltered upbringing. They might have been shocked by the behaviour of these people.



I think it's correct to expect to be arrested. I could possibly be killed if I went and started drawing pictures of Muhammed in sidewalk chalk. That doesn't mean it would be right, though.

It would be wrong where you are. Whether it would be right elsewhere is a complicated question. My primary objection to "multiculturalism" as espoused by many British politicians, arises from precisely this confusion. Moral systems are largely arbitrary and largely hereditary. Once adopted, the system itself becomes our standard of judgement. It is not possible to judge one system using the assumptions of another, any more than it is possible for me to correct the spelling of an American based on my assumptions about "correct" British usage. It's crazy. Answers which seem obviously right to me are in fact wrong.

We must have tolerance. But that does not mean equal tolerance of everything. We must also value our own moral systems and apply them in those areas where they have authority. I prefer debate to carpet bombing or sanctions, but debate, like bombing, is easier if you hold the heights.

[TriangleMan]

from the article (bolding mine):
Speaking from the family's home in Jeddah where they have lived for eight years, Yara's husband . . .

She's lived there for eight years?! She had to have known that what she was doing was against the law. It's a stupid law but I agree with Soapy: it's the law, she knew it was the law, she violated it.

At the end of the day did anyone force the family to move to Saudi Arabia? I doubt they are there because they love sand. I'm pretty sure that they are there because, like the rest of us Western expatriates working in the Middle East, they make more $$$$ than back home at no tax (well she's American so she still owes a bit of US tax, but I digress). Part of accepting work in these countries is the understanding that you accept their laws. If you can't accept their laws don't work there.

On the flip side there are things that are accepted in parts of the world that are against Western laws, yet we expect immigrants from those places to abide by our rules, such as polygamy, spanking/physically punishing children, smoking in public places etc. Heck, anyone remember Annette Sorensen (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n2_v92/ai_19487246) the Danish woman arrested in NY because she left her baby in a stroller outside a NY restaurant while she and her husband dined inside? What she did was apparantly acceptable in Denmark, in the US she was arrested.

[Mobyseven]

Yeah, crazy countries with their outdated laws. Don't have any of them in western civilisation. I mean, no western country would allow a man to sue for seduction of his wife, right? But not allow a wife to sue in the reverse situation?

The law is silly, the law is stupid, the law is unjust. Except when it isn't. But if you willingly and knowingly break the silly, stupid and unjust law of a country you choose to work in, you're just looking for trouble.

[Francesca R]

The law is silly, the law is stupid, the law is unjust. Except when it isn't. But if you willingly and knowingly break the silly, stupid and unjust law of a country you choose to work in, you're just looking for trouble.Nope. That depends on your ability to prevail. Laws do get changed by civil disobedience. But you need to be motivated, have a coalition on your side, and be relatively risk tolerant. This lady had little ability--by her actions--to change Saudi law, so she shouldn't have bothered to take the risk. But I reject the idea that breaking a law is nothing but "looking for trouble".

[Soapy Sam]

Mostly- as I expect in this case- it's momentary inattention.

Civil disobedience en masse does get laws changed, but also can get people shot. The risk must be measured against the benefit.
I do feel though that civil disobedience must come from the citizens of the country in question. For foreigners to do it - in any country- is to risk antagonising locals who in other circumstances would be your natural allies.

During the first Gulf War, there was a widely circulated story, perhaps apocryphal, that a female US army soldier was harassed by a Metawa in Dhahran when he realised she had been driving a vehicle- an illegal act for a woman. Her response was to pull a gun on him. I met so many people who "saw this happen" that the street must have been blocked by witnesses.

What definitely did happen some months later was that a number of wealthy Saudi women, I think in Riyadh, dismissed their drivers and drove themselves in convoy through a part of the city.

The authorities came down heavily on the husbands, who were seen as having failed in their civic duty to properly discipline their wives.
It is a deeply stupid system which prevents a young and healthy woman from driving, but permits an elderly and functionally blind man to do so. Very hard to get one's head around.

[Marquis de Carabas]

"It's not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married."
Don't they mean yell and weep and drink coffee together like they are married or are their marriage customs different, too?

[Soapy Sam]

Only wives 1 through 3 are permitted to yell. Number 4 has to complain in writing.;)

[tkingdoll]

I don't think they've thought that law through. If you can't sit and have a coffee with a man because that's what husbands and wives do, then a man sitting and having a coffee with a male friend must mean they are gay.

[Policenaut]

I though homosexuals didn't exist? Oh except for the ones they murder of course.

[Mobyseven]

Nope. That depends on your ability to prevail. Laws do get changed by civil disobedience. But you need to be motivated, have a coalition on your side, and be relatively risk tolerant. This lady had little ability--by her actions--to change Saudi law, so she shouldn't have bothered to take the risk. But I reject the idea that breaking a law is nothing but "looking for trouble".

Except that's not what I was saying. My entire point was that this woman chose to work in Saudi Arabia. She's not a citizen there, she's not some American leader of a Saudi civil rights movement righteously standing up to an unjust system on behalf of the female Saudi population - she's just a woman who went over to work and should have paid more attention to the laws of the country, no matter how silly she may think they are.

I think that 21 is a silly age to have as the legal drinking age. But just because I think it's silly won't stop me from getting in trouble in the USA if I break that law. "I think it's a silly law" isn't a valid defence anywhere in the world.

[Francesca R]

Except that's not what I was saying. My entire point was that this woman chose to work in Saudi Arabia. She's not a citizen there, she's not some American leader of a Saudi civil rights movement righteously standing up to an unjust system on behalf of the female Saudi population - she's just a woman who went over to work and should have paid more attention to the laws of the country, no matter how silly she may think they are.I agree with that, just not with this general statement (my italics):

"But if you willingly and knowingly break the silly, stupid and unjust law of a country you choose to work in, you're just looking for trouble."

[Soapy Sam]

I don't think they've thought that law through. If you can't sit and have a coffee with a man because that's what husbands and wives do, then a man sitting and having a coffee with a male friend must mean they are gay.

Cafes and restaurants tend to be set up in two sections. The open public part is essentially male only, though a man might take children in. A second area, perhaps contiguous, probably with some degree of screening is for families or women in company with other women- which seemed common enough when I was there. Think "smoking" and "non-smoking". It's a social convention which polite folk observe, as with public toilets. There's not much to stop me walking into a womens' toilet, but convention keeps me from doing so.
I wonder if the pair in the report were sitting in the public area? Had they been in the family area, it's hard to see how anyone would have known- unless they were specifically targeted- that they were not a couple. Perhaps they had been there before ?

[Darth Rotor]

What kind of a law is "moving around suspiciously" and how can you be moving around suspiciously while sitting down?
Sharon Stone. Basic Instinct. :cool:

DR

[Madalch]

Sharon Stone. Basic Instinct.
I was thinking "When Harry Met Sally".

[Francesca R]

Sharon Stone. Basic Instinct. :cool:"Whatcha gonna do . . . charge me for being smokin'?"

[Darth Rotor]

"Whatcha gonna do . . . charge me for being smokin'?"
Well played.

*Golf clap*

Got a cigarette?

DR

[Mobyseven]

I agree with that, just not with this general statement (my italics):

"But if you willingly and knowingly break the silly, stupid and unjust law of a country you choose to work in, you're just looking for trouble."

Your italics. Bolding mine.

[godless dave]

I agree with several views in this thread, views which superficially might seem opposing.

I agree that the Saudi law in question is not just ridiculous but evil and misogynist. I also agree that foreigners shouldn't go into a country, break their laws, and expect to get sympathy. This incident is just one of many examples of why nations that value women's rights shouldn't support the Saudi regime, and why companies from those nations shouldn't do business with them.

But remember, Saudi Arabia is our ally in the war on Islamofascism. ;)

[luchog]

I can recall a similar issue from a number of years ago, and one of the comments that came up quite strongly is that even people who live and work there for extended periods of time often don't know all the little religious laws that are capable of being enforced. There is a huge corpus of religious laws and regulations that can be daunting even for native Saudis to understand the full extent of. On top of that, many of the laws are wide open to interpretation by the enforcing officer and the judge; and are thus wide open to abuse. Enforcement greatly depends on the mood of the Metawa, and is typically far more harshly enforced on women than on men.

It's a system which has corruption and harassment almost written into it.

During the first Gulf War, there was a widely circulated story, perhaps apocryphal, that a female US army soldier was harassed by a Metawa in Dhahran when he realised she had been driving a vehicle- an illegal act for a woman. Her response was to pull a gun on him. I met so many people who "saw this happen" that the street must have been blocked by witnesses.

I was in the military at the time, and while I don't recall this particular incident, there were a number of similar incidents reported in the military press, so I have no reason to doubt this one. Harassment of female troops by government authorities was a common occurrence during that period.

[steverino]

I am wondering if Starbucks has any say in the matter, but I assume they must "respect" sharia law if they open up shop over there. Those coffee whores.

[Francesca R]

Your italics. Bolding mine.I don't see what difference that makes. (PS you may "choose" to work in the country you are a national of too, under that statement)

[shuize]

This story reminds me a bit of foreigners who are dumb enough to try and smuggle drugs into Japan. "But it's only a little pot. In America, Canada, Britain, etc. it wouldn't even be a felony" does not play well here.

Saudi Arabia is f-cking backwards place. But I still have very little sympathy for this woman.

[Mobyseven]

I don't see what difference that makes. (PS you may "choose" to work in the country you are a national of too, under that statement)

Ah, true. I see where the misunderstanding is there, should have been more specific.

We are agreeing with a vengeance.

[bigred]

I can recall a similar issue from a number of years ago, and one of the comments that came up quite strongly is that even people who live and work there for extended periods of time often don't know all the little religious laws that are capable of being enforced. There is a huge corpus of religious laws and regulations that can be daunting even for native Saudis to understand the full extent of. On top of that, many of the laws are wide open to interpretation by the enforcing officer and the judge; and are thus wide open to abuse. Enforcement greatly depends on the mood of the Metawa, and is typically far more harshly enforced on women than on men.

It's a system which has corruption and harassment almost written into it.
Interesting, thx for that info.

OK then thing I know for sure is that SA is off my list of potential vacation spots. Beaches schmeaches.

[Soapy Sam]

... many of the laws are wide open to interpretation by the enforcing officer and the judge; and are thus wide open to abuse. Enforcement greatly depends on the mood of the Metawa, and is typically far more harshly enforced on women than on men.

It's a system which has corruption and harassment almost written into it.
Indeed, but that scarcely makes it unique in the world.:(

[ponderingturtle]

Interesting, thx for that info.

OK then thing I know for sure is that SA is off my list of potential vacation spots. Beaches schmeaches.

WHy would you go to a beach in SA? I suspect even the Burkini would be considered way to revealing.

[Safe-Keeper]

That Rosa Parks. Went and sat in the front of the bus when she was born and raised in the country and KNEW that the rules forbade it and that apartheid was a time-honored tradition endorsed by the majority of the American people. Stupid idiot. Any woman who holds a career post in America knows -or should know- the law on public behaviour. If you don't want to obey the laws of a country, however stupid, then don't go and work there:rolleyes:.

I know Parks did it intentionally as an activist act, and that she was probably born in the States, but I still feel it's a good metaphor. I don't agree with cultural relativism.
Many of us get angry at immigrants to our countries who want to impose their customs on us. So do many Saudis.

Can't have it both ways. Looking at it as 'our culture vs. their culture' is the wrong approach. I can perfectly well say, for example, that I don't agree with American laws on corporal punishment without also saying I find American culture inferior to that of Norway.

Personally, I believe a national and a foreigner should have precisely the same right to criticize a given culture. It's not your heritage that matters, it's your arguments. I don't feel that you can say to one person that his criticism of your society is sound, and then say to another person who says exactly the same thing that he's wrong just because he's a foreigner.

[ponderingturtle]

That Rosa Parks. Went and sat in the front of the bus when she was born and raised in the country and KNEW that the rules forbade it and that apartheid was a time-honored tradition endorsed by the majority of the American people. Stupid idiot. Any woman who holds a career post in America knows -or should know- the law on public behaviour. If you don't want to obey the laws of a country, however stupid, then don't go and work there:rolleyes:.


Foreigners engaging in civil disobedience might not be an effective way to motivate change.

[luchog]

Indeed, but that scarcely makes it unique in the world.:(
Far from it; but it is one of the more egregious examples.

[Soapy Sam]

I don't agree with cultural relativism.

Neither does Osama Bin Laden. You think he's right?


Looking at it as 'our culture vs. their culture' is the wrong approach. I can perfectly well say, for example, that I don't agree with American laws on corporal punishment without also saying I find American culture inferior to that of Norway.

You'll have to explain that to me, I'm afraid.

Personally, I believe a national and a foreigner should have precisely the same right to criticize a given culture. It's not your heritage that matters, it's your arguments. I don't feel that you can say to one person that his criticism of your society is sound, and then say to another person who says exactly the same thing that he's wrong just because he's a foreigner.

Fine. But your belief itself is influenced by the assumptions inherent in your society, which you absorbed as you grew up.
If you had been born in North Korea in 1950, can you be sure you would now believe the same?
Your beliefs are your beliefs. Perfectly respectable within the culture that gave rise to them. Elsewhere they are merely the beliefs of an unbeliever- there is no Newtonian reference frame of fixed "correctness". Culture IS relative, like it or not. If it was not, we would not be having this discussion.

Let me repeat my earlier example. If I say that you spelled "criticize" wrongly, because it has an "s", not a "z", do you judge my comment by my spelling rules, or yours? (I use a hypothetical example, I don't know if "the rule" differs between where you are and where I am, but let's suppose it does). By your rule, I'm wrong. By mine, you're wrong. It's not a question of cultural relativity. It's a question of place. We are both right. We are also both wrong. A simplistic either / or dichotomy does not apply.

[TriangleMan]

That Rosa Parks. Went and sat in the front of the bus when she was born and raised in the country and KNEW that the rules forbade it and that apartheid was a time-honored tradition endorsed by the majority of the American people. Stupid idiot. Any woman who holds a career post in America knows -or should know- the law on public behaviour. If you don't want to obey the laws of a country, however stupid, then don't go and work there:rolleyes:.
Actually I believe the point is if you deliberately don't want to obey the laws of a country, however stupid, don't then get shocked and go "OMG! I've been arrested!" when you get arrested for breaking such laws. Activists deliberately break laws to point out their unfairness, the article in the OP indicates that this was not a Rosa Parks situation, it was not done out of activism.

On a side note - with any luck the local activists who are using the arrest as a platform will be able to get changes to the laws. Unfortunately the lady's family do not appear to be enjoying the attention this elevation of the controversey has caused.