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

Burnwinter wrote:

People also excuse too much cultural egocentricity on the pretence that their own culture is naturally congruent to a morally advanced standard of living - both expressing and (by default) conforming to "basic international standards of freedom".

The western democracies are by no means perfect, but in my opinion they are by far the most enlightened societies that now exist where people at least have a chance to achieve "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", thats why millions risk their lives to live here.
I'm not saying that because I'm some cultural chauvinist I'm well aware how lucky I am to live in one of them.

Burnwinter wrote:

Regarding alcohol consumption specifically. You all live in countries that place all manner of restrictions on consumption and use of various controlled substances. The exact substances vary from country to country - there may well be some that are controlled in your own country that are freely used in Qatar for all I know.

The exact means by which religious views propagate into legislation and enforcement is another area that's both divergent and widely misunderstood.

Also, there's nothing explicit in the UNDHR on alcohol so I'm not sure which "basic standards" you're referring to. Stringent controls on alcohol are certainly not unknown to the supposed bastion of freedom, the USA.

Yes there are varying restrictions on when and where and to whom alcohol is sold, but the rational behind such laws are public health and safety not to proscribe what adults of either sex may do, thats the basic international standard of which I spoke.
The UN is just an international talkfest which was based on the postwar world and is in no way the benchmark for human advancement.
Like all international forums (including FIFA) it accommodates sometimes the most debased and worst examples of human societies.

The western democracies have a position of preeminence in the world today, and the reason for that is their openness and inclusiveness gives them the superiority in education the arts technology and commerce.
They are not as restricted and retarded by religious superstition and tribalism which is the ruin of other societies.
This has happened before in history, indeed Arabic societies around the Mediterranean during the middle ages were the shining beacons of openness at the time and this was reflected in their power.

So don't bother playing devils advocate Burnsy, you know that we live in the best possible of societies and all others are more seriously deficient.

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm adhering to a standard of liberal thinking which is a central part of my value system.

The idea is roughly that of "overlapping consensus":

... an attempt to secure the possibility of a liberal consensus regardless of the "deep" religious or metaphysical values that the parties endorse (so long as these remain open to compromise, i.e., are "reasonable"). The ideal result is therefore conceived as an "overlapping consensus" because different and often conflicting accounts of morality, nature, etc. are intended to "overlap" with each other on the question of governance.

All that is required of (to use our example, Qatar) is a willingness to accept the process of reasoning (or compromise) that attends upon engagement between differing communities.

This is about as basic a "principle of human freedom" as you'll find, one which respects freedom of choice, but your approach completely contravenes it.

The principle itself is a grand relativism which doesn't reflect my individual preferences as to the organisation of society, based on my limited knowledge and life experience (preferences I suspect are pretty similar to your own, and Klaus's).

However I'm convinced - and increasingly so as I observe more and more failures of paternalistic/hawkish "enlightened" foreign/intercultural policy - that it's unhelpful to predispose the outcome of engagement by taking to it a presupposition of cultural superiority.

Anyone who is serious about positive change has to get empirical about the slow, peaceful and gradual processes that produce it instead of imagining it's a matter of toppling a couple of statues and declaring "we won - now be free, the way we say, or else - and no electing those pesky Islamic parties to government". Or doing what Richards has done - you win yourself no friends and look like a snob and a prat, because you're both.

The slow, peaceful and gradual processes that produce change that you talk about is only possible because of technologies like the internet which are as powerful as the printing press was, this and not any militaristic adventures will foment change.
The march of technology is inexorable so it's unnecessary to compromise with the forces of reaction and primitiveness.

Paddy is sitting next to Mohammed on a flight, the flight attendant comes and asks if they'd like something before their meal, so Paddy orders a large whiskey.
Will ye have one yerself he asks.
I'd rather I was raped by 100 filthy whores than alcohol should pass my lips Mohammed replies.
Paddy reflects for a moment and says Err I'd like to cancel that, I didn't know we had a choice.

"The march of technology is inexorable so it's unnecessary to compromise with the forces of reaction and primitiveness."

Right, well, that's exactly the kind of "all civilisations are on a single advancing axis of progress and we're out the front" thinking that is so objectionable to people who have to put up with Euro-centric Enlightenment thinking.

Our democracies don't cope so well with the idea that ''bestowing freedom'' upon people, who have for an age been oppressed (as defined by our world view), does not result immediately in the wholesale adoption of our core values and belief systems.

Burnwinter wrote:

Right, well, that's exactly the kind of "all civilisations are on a single advancing axis of progress and we're out the front" thinking that is so objectionable to people who have to put up with Euro-centric Enlightenment thinking.

It's a good way to win Civilisation though.

Apparently this dave Richardson bloke fell in to a swimming pool shortly after making these dumb comments. Fair to say he was a little sloshed.

Don't talk rubbish Tim.

It was a fountain......

I'm fully behind Biggus on this.

The fact is there is no room for the accommodation of religious beliefs in modern laws. I respect anyone's right to be anti-alcohol consumption or anti-pre-marital sex, but to punish with jail those who are partake on these activities solely due to religious dogma is as much a violation of human rights as any.

If you think that drinking will ground you in hell don't do it, but don't make other people's life hell due to your unfounded beliefs.

Exactly, it's not religion or alcohol that's the issue here it's that a religious group seek to impose their views on everyone by making their religion the law of the land, it's about separation of church and state- And thats a fundamental human right.

I would support a boycott of this world cup, but I suppose it's asking too much to expect countries to make a moral stand.

I think their are bigger issues than being allowed to drink alcohol in Qatar (after all we got the tickets to actually watch a football match) such as the racism that people will face in russia. I mean http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17479438 just shows how big the problem is and i doubt it will get any better by 2018 (yet no one seems to be complaining). I would say racism is more of a worry in human rights violation than being given laws which are unpopular.

Load of nonsense being spouted in this thread.

There's no forcing of religion on anyone here - the Dutch don't have the right to force us to open up brothels and 'coffee shops' in London every time they send their football team over, just as we don't have the right to impose OUR values on the Qataris on matters such as this. Personally, I'm think the whole anti-booze thing is a bit silly, including at football in this country but a human-right it is not.

Besides, Qataris already make exceptions for foreigners in certain hotels & bars. In that sense, they're a whole lot more progressive and liberal towards those who do not share the state's ideologies than we are in the west.

I disagree Asa. Strongly.

Alcohol is not a human right, but when it's banned for religious reasons it's outrageous.

Religion is never a good enough reason for ANY law that affects all citizens of a country. The alcohol issue is barely the tip of the iceberg in places like Qatar. This is a country that retains floggings and stonings also for religious reasons.

If something like this happened in the 'western world' there'd be mass rallies in the streets, regardless of which religion someone 'offended'.

An Irish woman has been sentenced to seven-year imprisonment following her conviction of insulting the Qura’n in an incident that took place in the women’s mosque at the Doha international airport some nine months ago...

...the accused told the public prosecution that the copy of the Qura’n fell “by mistake” from her hands on September 14 last year, adding that she belonged “to all religions”...

Explaining the seven-year imprisonment verdict, the court said that it was handed down after taking into consideration the gravity of the woman’s deed.

The court ruled that the woman should leave the country after serving the punishment.

http://www.qatarliving.net/node/1087704

I find it far from outrageous. I think it's monumentally patronising to tell other nations on what basis they can and cannot legislate, especially when the basis for forming a law is agreed upon by the vast majority of those who are governed by it. The way people here are talking its as if some band of radical Mullah's is forcing prohibition on a thirsty nation. It's bollocks. Qatar is historically a conservative Islamic nation, and whilst there are many elements of their constitution which are problematic, the decision not to permit alcoholic beverages to be imported or sold is not one of them, regardless of what's informed their thinking on the matter.

And I also don't equate the banning of alchohol to corporal or capital punishment - I have no comment on the dropped / thrown Quran.

For reference, the US State Dept. 2010 Human Rights report on Qatar.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154471.htm

Also, an interesting (but unrelated) article from the BBC today regarding US counties where prohibition still exists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17291978

Personally, I find it far more outrageous from a human rights perspective that china, a country with a far worse record, was given the Olympics.

I don't think Qatar should have the football, either, but not because they've banned booze.

Phew, thank Christ Asa. When I looked in here this morning I couldn't bring myself to respond to all the nonsense about "imposing religious dogma".

When in Rome ... simple as that. In Turkey, it's illegal to insult Turkishness. A silly law with its roots in the guilt of nationalist genocide, but a law in a country with a far more complex and many-splintered history than most.

Although I'm a firm atheist, a majority of the world's population claims a religious worldview and I'm uncomfortable with any position of sneering contempt relative to the great mass of humanity. Contempt never won hearts and minds.

In some ways it's the same argument as the one over banning the burqa. Anyone who supports that is more or less in favour of racist trolling of Islam.