In 2022, I will go to Qatar and live without booze for a month.
And then I will come home and drink to my heart's content.

Couldn't give a monkeys about Qatari law or alcohol consumption. It's not as if I am gonna go out there to watch poxy England, would rather wait until the world cup is on my doorstep again.

But I am worried that it's gonna be a shit tournament to watch because of the heat.

As I said, I have no problem with the banning of alcohol per se. We ban weed, they ban alcohol, and Malta bans abortion even if the mother and the child will both die unless an abortion is performed. None are reasons to award or not award the world cup.

The problem is the reasoning (or lack there of) regarding the laws of such a country in general.

I doubt you'd have to put up with one of those ridiculous religious laws where you live, or you'd realise how destructive they are to a progressive thinker's well-being.

I personally find stuff like this in your report disturbing:

Citizenship derives solely from the father. Women do not transmit citizenship to their children, even if the child is born into wedlock in the country. A woman must obtain permission from authorities before marrying a foreign national

You also say that people in other countries should decide on what they do, but places like Qatar have a hereditary monarchy that does most decision making, and a council for which only 16% of the country's population are allowed to vote due to ethnic reasons.

I was born in a third world country, but I live in Canada. Here I can tell people what to do and they appreciate my view so long as it is a reasonable one. I am also a citizen of 2 OECD countries, and I welcome people from all walks of life to tell us how we should and we shouldn't be doing things as often as possible again, so long as the feedback is based on good reasoning.

I think it's racist to think that people in 'other countries' should be entitled to run dysfunctional authoritarian governments that hold them back from enlightenment, but you'd probably be horrified if a similar regime was imposed on your son or daughter. We have our fare share of inept corrupt authoritarian bigoted politicians in the western world, but at least we can stand up to them and their beliefs without landing in jail.

P.S. Once more, I'd like to reiterate that I wouldn't not give someone the world cup on this basis, I couldn't care less. I just think it's silly to suggest that their nonsensical laws shouldn't be questioned by those of us who know better, regardless of our origin/ethnicity/age/nationality.

banduan wrote:

RC8 wrote:

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.

Meh. Plenty of space to decide where you draw the line. The rationale may be different but the actions the same.

Plenty of things you can consume considered illegal in the bastions of democracy out there.

Yes, it may be atrocious when someone prevents you from doing something based on some sort of divine ordinance. On the other hand, a lot of religious 'dogma' is grounded on sociological roots.

Besides, this bloke wasn't just dissing Qatar. It's his country against the world, pretty much.

Oh I agree with you, the PL chairman's logic is awful. No one stole anything from them, if they want to run English football independently from all other countries there is NOTHING stopping them.

Richards needs to be gotten rid of, but our FA is toothless and his position as chairman of the PL would have to be decided by a vote of the clubs' chairmen. It's probably low down on their list of priorities so he will be allowed to continue in his £300k a year job indefinitely.

asajoseph wrote:

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.

Fair enough Asa, just like we have the right to choose not to visit their country, play football against them or have anything to do with them.

As I said, it's not about booze or religion- Because freedom and secularism are just fancy phrases if you're not going to actually practice them.......

Perfectly right Biggus - you're free not to attend the world cup or play football against Qatar if you don't want to.

Burnwinter wrote:

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.

I'm happy to finally agree with you on something philosophical / political - makes a pleasant change. Actually have a different view on the Burqa, mind, but this really isn't the place.

Burnwinter wrote:

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.

The harsh truth rarely does win hearts and minds, and is often not popular, no one is ever rewarded for bringing bad news.
Still- calling a spade a spade is a dirty job but someones got to do it, while the rest can enjoy the benefits of a secularist society without having to pay any of the cost.

Guys, Qatar is not Saudi. You can drink there (locals, specifically islamic ones, can't); women vote, work and have basically all freedoms. Burqa's aren't compulsory (they aren't compulsory by islamic law anyway, but that's a different discussion) although a hijab may be expected but again isn't necessary.

Yes, there is the odd archaic overspill as expected in a country that straddles the line between civil and Sharia law but it's not how you guys are perceiving it to be. They have made huge strides in the last 10-12 years and will probably do so again in the next ten.

They've got 10 years to get decent at football too.

They'll just buy Spain.

asajoseph wrote:

I'm happy to finally agree with you on something philosophical / political - makes a pleasant change. Actually have a different view on the Burqa, mind, but this really isn't the place.

Indeed—we don't often agree, but it's good that we agree on something so basic. Also agreed on the latter.