The alcohol reference was very specific, and I have a point Klaus.
"we do indeed live in a world where the concept of basic international human rights exist"
The concept exists, but does not include every practice one may want to jump on the soapbox about. For instance, according to my reading the UNDHR says nothing against legislation to prohibit consumption of alcohol, except possibly under Article 29.
It'd be a poor sort of internationalism that excluded whole legislative regimes from participation on any of the grounds so far mentioned in this thread.
In my opinion, no telos of universal freedom, however laudable, mounts a strong argument for the by-the-letter enforcement of a collection of asymmetrically determined, frequently mutually contradictory human rights on specific cultural practices, within the current international political reality.
Much like Western military intervention, real intervention that's claimed to take place along these lines tends to be on a pick and choose basis, actually taking place only where it ultimately assists a morally reprehensible program of Western (or other) cultural imperialism or exploitative commerce.
This is one of the main reasons why 'rights' are a great abstract philosophical tool, and an excellent tool for drawing attention to, and describing evident moral abuses, but a poor basis for legislation or enforcement.
The best gains in real quality of life for all come from respectful and reasonable engagement, not talking trash about Qatari culture as a whole because you're pissed off that some Qataris bought the World Cup.
/sanctimonious wank
