Middle Eastern Justice

[Prime Junta]

I believe zakhal is rightfully pointing out that the actual issue in this thread was lost within 4 posts in favor of flogging people over their (admittedly inflamatory) choice of words. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of "political correctness", which was zakhal's point. And as for all of you waving "disingenuous" like it's the word of the day and needs to be used in a sentence 10 times in order to earn your cookie, I find it laughable that the word was drug out by some of the board's masters of the disingenuous comment.

@dte, you're uncharacteristically off-base with this one.

By "political correctness" I understand something like this:

"You shouldn't be allowed to state P because it might offend some individual X."

Nobody on this thread, as far as I can tell, has made this argument, or anything approaching it.

What's more, I for one am vehemently opposed to this argument -- I do not believe that any proposition P should be disallowed simply because it might offend some individual X, and I greatly resent it when people accuse me of holding that belief.

 

[Squeek]

So much has been said while I've been asleep that it's just too much to keep up with in the time I have, but I do want to offer some response to this absurd and, frankly, embarassing response to this story. You may have hours to go on and on, but I don't even have the time to read all of this right now.

If I posted a thread titled "American Religion," and in it I linked to the story about the wacky cult Magerette referenced, what do you reckon the odds are that a genuine discussion about the place of religion in American culture and society would take place?

That's exactly how these discussions go in America. It is an example of religion in America, and it's considered mature discussion to tolerate that fact.

I don't see the need to tip-toe in order to discuss people who rape children or the obvious general differences between values in the Middlle East versus values in the rest of the civilized world.

Instead of taking offense (and boy is that hypocritical, btw), maybe you should just get over it and discuss the actual issue. That's how it goes at the grown-ups table over here, and that's why some of us find it hard to respect the point of view over there.

I'd also like to point out that this was a featured story on CNN's Web site. Sorry, it doesn't happen to be innocuous, but it's worldwide news.

 

[Prime Junta]

That's exactly how these discussions go in America. It is an example of religion in America, and it's considered mature discussion to tolerate that fact.

Having been on the receiving end of a quite a bit of ire for perceived slights to American honor, I can assure you that you're (ahem) mistaken on this score.

Put more bluntly, you're either lying or utterly, completely, totally, lacking in self-knowledge.

I don't see the need to tip-toe in order to discuss people who rape children or the obvious general differences between values in the Middlle East versus values in the rest of the civilized world.

Instead of taking offense (and boy is that hypocritical, btw), maybe you should just get over it and discuss the actual issue. That's how it goes at the grown-ups table over here, and that's why some of us find it hard to respect the point of view over there.

What's to discuss? Raping children is bad. I'm pretty confident everybody here present agrees about that (and almost certain that if someone doesn't, they're not about to own up to it).

That means that there is nothing to discuss in the "actual issue" -- the only topics worth discussing are around it, namely:

* How representative is this case of "Middle Eastern Justice" in general? (Not very.)
* How educational a "lesson in Middle Eastern Justice" is the shock story you posted? (Again, not very.)
* What does it say about the underlying knowledge, assumptions, attitudes, and insecurities that caused a typical Orange County American to post a shock story about Yemen and paint it as a "lesson in Middle Eastern Justice?" (A quite a lot.)

If you didn't actually expect a reaction like this, I really suggest you should go out more -- and look in the mirror a bit. I count you among the more sensitive to perceived slights on American honor here, y'know.

 

[dteowner]

Hmmm. The complaint is, Squeek shouldn't have called the thread "Middle Eastern Justice" because that overly broad brush is offensive to Middle Easterners (or, in this case, their defenders). That seems to run pretty parallel to your definition:
"You shouldn't be allowed to state P because it might offend some individual X."

I fail to see a significant difference, though I'm willing to be educated.

 

[Prime Junta]

Hmmm. The complaint is, Squeek shouldn't have called the thread "Middle Eastern Justice" because that overly broad brush is offensive to Middle Easterners (or, in this case, their defenders). That seems to run pretty parallel to your definition:
"You shouldn't be allowed to state P because it might offend some individual X."

I fail to see a significant difference, though I'm willing to be educated.

Everything up to "that overly broad brush is" is fine, but nobody here has stated the bit after it. It should read "incorrect, ignorant, unfair, and prejudiced," as in

"Squeek shouldn't have called the thread "Middle Eastern Justice" because that overly broad brush is incorrect, ignorant, unfair, and prejudiced."

Somebody getting offended about it is entirely irrelevant.

BTW, I was checking out the news, and came up with this fine Lesson on Christian Justice: [ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3761084.ece ]

 

[dteowner]

What's to discuss? Raping children is bad. I'm pretty confident everybody here present agrees about that (and almost certain that if someone doesn't, they're not about to own up to it).

That means that there is nothing to discuss in the "actual issue" -- the only topics worth discussing are around it, namely:

* How representative is this case of "Middle Eastern Justice" in general? (Not very.)

Is is not fair to say that Yemeni law allowed this incident to occur? Let's not lose sight of that fact in our rush to change the focus of the discussion.

 

[Prime Junta]

Oh, and the "significant difference?" If we make it acceptable to censure speech merely because it may be offensive to somebody, we end up forbidding discussion of just about everything except the weather. Calling out someone when they say something that's incorrect, ignorant, unfair, or prejudiced is a different matter altogether -- and whining about being the victim of political correctness run amok when that happens is just... pathetic.

 

[V7]

I don't see the need to tip-toe in order to discuss people who rape children or the obvious general differences between values in the Middlle East versus values in the rest of the civilized world.

But that’s the point PJ and I are making, you can't meaningfully discuss values in the 'Middle East' the diversity of political economic and social systems in the region, ranging from practically western secular Turkey at one extreme to feudal tribal Yemen at the other, make such a discussion absurd. You're standing in a grocery store, holding up an apple and proclaiming all fruit is red.

Instead of taking offense (and boy is that hypocritical, btw), maybe you should just get over it and discuss the actual issue. That's how it goes at the grown-ups table over here, and that's why some of us find it hard to respect the point of view over there.

Perhaps you could clarify for the stupid children what the point is? Child marriage is bad? Sure, but its neither universal in or exclusive to the Middle East. Paedophilia is evil? Agreed, but that doesn’t occur exclusively in the Middle East either. Making a family pay compensation to the man who raped their daughter is horrific, no argument at all there but what makes you think much of the rest of the region doesn't object just as much as you do... unless of course you're forming your opinion of the region based on 30 second shock pieces in the media.

 

[Prime Junta]

Is is not fair to say that Yemeni law allowed this incident to occur? Let's not lose sight of that fact in our rush to change the focus of the discussion.

Actually, it isn't -- because there isn't any Yemeni law as we understand it. There are only judges issuing verdicts based on their understanding of tradition, custom, right, and wrong. And that's not typical of the Middle East either.

And in any case, Yemen isn't the topic here: it's Middle Eastern Justice. Says so right at the top of the page. So you're the one changing the subject here.

 

[V7]

Is is not fair to say that Yemeni law allowed this incident to occur? Let's not lose sight of that fact in our rush to change the focus of the discussion.

I think we're all agreed on that, Yemeni law is pretty barbaric by modern standards, I wasn't trying to be funny when I made the association with Somalia, the main difference is the Yemeni’s are a little better at managing their tribal rivalries.

 

[zakhal]

Personally I find it sad you’re claiming you can't see the spin in the original post (and positively frightening that Squeek is claiming it is unintentional). The post opens with ‘Here’s a lesson in Middle Eastern Justice..’ Were you expecting a discussion of the issue after a post like that? Anyone here want to defend child marriage or forcing a family to compensate their daughter’s rapist? No? That was a short discussion. We’ve already covered Yemen is not the middle east and note that Yemen wasn’t even mentioned in the original post. A court doesn’t deliver justice it reaches verdicts that may or not be just.

If you’d like to discuss another issue raised here please make a post, there’s nothing preventing you. You can even continue responding to the discussion you claim to deplore at the same time, aren’t forums wonderful?

I’m not sure where you’re getting the political correctness from unless it’s the insistence on meaningful clarity and critical thinking, and I’m not sure how you’d have a discussion worth anything without those.

That’s a lovely straw man you’ve built there. If you’d like to discuss something that makes sense to discuss at a regional level please raise it (trans-national terrorism say, or Sunni/Shia religious conflict), you are aware that legal systems work on a national basis right?

The mighty wall of words. Its amazing how many words one can type without actually saying anything.

But we agree to disagree so thx for the discuss.

 

[Prime Junta]

Its amazed how many words one can type without actually saying anything.

Actually, it's amazing how you can manage not to understand a damn thing if you make the effort.

 

[Prime Junta]

I think we're all agreed on that, Yemeni law is pretty barbaric by modern standards, I wasn't trying to be funny when I made the association with Somalia, the main difference is the Yemeni’s are a little better at managing their tribal rivalries.

I understand that they've done this by shooting over the each others' heads when they get into firefights. Cuts down on the vendettas no end.

 

[dteowner]

Well then, let's throw out the whole post and talk about the title. I thought the post was where the "meat" was. I'll certainly have to be more careful about my titles in the future. Good gawd, you're not that silly.

So, Yemeni law is not codified. You say yourself that the law is whatever these individuals say it is. Fine--that's the law, then. That law allowed the incident to happen. In fact, had the girl not fought the issue herself, the society as a whole was content with the situation.

 

[V7]

If PJ and my post gave you the idea Yeman is chaotic you're on the right track, the government doesn’t control much outside the cities (and not a lot inside either) the country is awash with ex-Soviet hardware and they occasionally shoot each other. If you wanted other places to compare it with I'd suggest Pakistan's North West Province and neighbouring tribal areas, parts of Afghanistan and Central Asia (saw a documentary about bride kidnapping there recently), parts of the Caucasus and some of the darker corners of Africa. Most of the time Yemen only makes the news when the CIA blows up terrorism suspects there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2416403.stm more recent BBC coverage includes: Tanks deployed after Yemen riots http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7325091.stm - Yemen bomb kills three policemen http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7349995.stm - Yemen lawmaker 'killed by gunmen' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7354110.stm

Here's the BBC's overview;

The modern Republic of Yemen was born in 1990 when traditionalist North Yemen and Marxist South Yemen merged after years of border wars and skirmishes. But the peace broke down in 1994 and a short civil war ended in defeat for separatist southerners and the survival of the unified Yemen

Since unification Yemen has been modernising and opening up to the world, but it still maintains much of its tribal character and old ways. Tensions persist between the north and the south; some southerners say the northern part of the state is economically privileged.

Hundreds have been killed in a recent uprising in the north-west among some members of the region's Zaidi sect, a branch of Shia Islam in the mainly Sunni country. The president has accused the rebels of trying to overthrow the government.

People wear traditional dress and the custom of chewing the narcotic plant khat in the afternoons is still widely observed. Yemen has attracted the curiosity of a growing number of tourists, although foreigners have been kidnapped by groups seeking to force concessions from the authorities.

-Politics: President Ali Abdallah Saleh has been in power since 1978. Rebels led by Abdul-Malik al-Houthi have been conducting a low-level insurgency in the north, allegedly to instal Shi'ite religious rule
-Economy: Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East; economic difficulties have sparked unrest
-International: Yemen has been co-operating in the US-led "war on terror", risking domestic resentment

 

[magerette]

I am also a bit unsure of what the real topic for discussion is--I see a human and, really, feminist issue here. Patriarchal religion permits women to be objectified as sexual possessions. In the link I posted, its obvious that while this was much more typical in the past, it still can occur in all patriarchal religions, not just Islam.

It also occurs in many societies around the world when women are seen purely as reproductive units and/or toys or when the economic situation turns human beings into commodities for sale. It also happens, of course, to young boys but that is not often codified into a situation sanctioned by religion.

The real tragedy here is not the maligning of a region, but the existence of these acts anywhere being condoned.

Edit: posted simultaneously with V7--not in response. Thanks for the info on Yemen, V7.

 

[Squeek]

I don't like the rules some people are trying to impose in this thread. Who says examples have to be defining in order to be effective? Who says they have to meet everyone's standard of fairness in order to be cited for discussion?

That's lame, and some of the arguments supporting it are just plain stupid.

Get a clue, guys. Stories like this one cause people over here to wonder about the Middle East. If you know so much about it, then maybe you should just drop the insults, get off the defensive, and discuss the example.

 

[Prime Junta]

Well then, let's throw out the whole post and talk about the title. I thought the post was where the "meat" was. I'll certainly have to be more careful about my titles in the future. Good gawd, you're not that silly.

OK, let's. Here's the whole post again:

Here's a lesson in Middle Eastern Justice about an 8-year old girl who was just granted a divorce from her 30-year old husband.

The court ruled in favor of the girl, not because she was only 8, but because it determined that she hadn't reached puberty; and husbands aren't allowed to force sex on their wives until then.

There are no provisions in the law for punishing men for this. In fact, the girl's family was ordered to compensate the husband.

What are we to think?

See anything in Yemen there? No? Me neither.

See what it starts with? "Here's a lesson in Middle Eastern Justice," right?

So what's the topic? Yemen, or Middle Eastern Justice?

So, Yemeni law is not codified. You say yourself that the law is whatever these individuals say it is. Fine--that's the law, then. That law allowed the incident to happen. In fact, had the girl not fought the issue herself, the society as a whole was content with the situation.

And?

 

[Prime Junta]

I don't like the rules some people are trying to impose in this thread. Who says examples have to be defining in order to be effective? Who says they have to meet everyone's standard of fairness in order to be cited for discussion?

Nobody -- but I say that if someone posts a non-defining, unfair, and non-representative example, it had damn well better be called out as such.

That's lame, and some of the arguments supporting it are just plain stupid.

Get a clue, guys. Stories like this one cause people over here to wonder about the Middle East. If you know so much about it, then maybe you should just drop the insults, get off the defensive, and discuss the example.

Did you ever consider wondering about the stories first?

 

[Squeek]

Prime Junta, you're dominating this discussion without adding value. How about giving it a break?