Do the Sheikh's ethics concern you?

[Guest bigf00t]

But that sort of reasoning shows that you do give a shit about what he's done.

 

I'm not in any way suggesting that it's sad that people want Dubai inc to but LFC, just that the 'yay' option in this poll isn't about that but about wanting whoever's got enough cash to own Liverpool Football Club.

 

Thats just because its ashit poll with only two extremes as options. If i was FORCED to pick one id pick the 2nd one but ofcourse the statement accompanying the "No" is a ridiculous one which no self respecting Liverpool fan would agree with.

 

I believe the author of the poll was trying to be leading, or atleast sarcastic in a way- trying to force people into picking the first option.

 

I'd suggest racism against the arab sheikhs but id probably get lynched...

[Strontium]

I'd suggest racism against the arab sheikhs but id probably get lynched...

It's got nothing to do with race, it's just about them treating people like animals, which is something everyone should be concerned about, regardless of what colour skin they have.

 

If you're gonna keep bringing race into it, at least back it up with evidence.

[theghost]

sd, you make good points. ISR also makes good points. However, I would contend that you come off as SUPER hardline and unwilling to budge, which can make you sound like an ass. I tend to agree with you, that peopleshould be treated with respect, etc. etc. However, I do think that culturally, westerners are often blinded to the fact that others have lived a certain way for thousands of years. Does that make them wrong? To live in a way that they have done for many generations? Whilst I agree with you, I find it hard to believe that we in the west can make our beliefs and whatnot the law of the world when we largely dont understand the reasons for other people's beliefs.

[Strontium]

sd, you make good points. ISR also makes good points. However, I would contend that you come off as SUPER hardline and unwilling to budge, which can make you sound like an ass.

I am an ass.

 

But I'm not unwilling to budge, I have cautiously welcomed this investment, if only because the people in Dubai have shown a willingness to improve their human rights record.

 

If they were entirely unrepentant, it'd be a different story, which is why I was opposed to Thaksin and the Thais taking over the club.

[theghost]

I am an ass.

 

But I'm not unwilling to budge, I have cautiously welcomed this investment, if only because the people in Dubai have shown a willingness to improve their human rights record.

 

If they were entirely unrepentant, it'd be a different story, which is why I was opposed to Thaksin and the Thais taking over the club.

 

I think you missed the point; I was speaking more about your arguments with other forumites.

[Strontium]

I think you missed the point; I was speaking more about your arguments with other forumites.

I can't help it if zealots take me to task for expressing perfectly reasonable opinions.

[John101]

i have no problem with the investment, it has already been mentioned how he has made an effort to drag the country forward stopping the child slavery, allowing unions,etc and i can only see this continuing in future as his western interests increase and dubai becomes more wesernised through its increasing reliance on tourism and other western interests

[theghost]

I can't help it if zealots take me to task for expressing perfectly reasonable opinions.

 

Mate, I think you're acting more like a zealot than anyone else. I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to mediate this shite.

[Strontium]

Mate, I think you're acting more like a zealot than anyone else.

If you'd like to point out some examples...

[Stu Monty]

Who thinks "everything from the west is superior to that in the middle east"?

 

I think having the vote and being able to join a union are better than living in the kind of absolute monarchy Britain got rid of in the 17th century, yes.

 

I agree completely. What I'm trying to point out is that western companies don't need to do these things in their own country anymore as there are plenty of poor people abroad that they can exploit. Whether it be moving people off their land for oil, threatening to move investment unless local police subjugate the workers with unionist tendencies and various other tactics.

 

We actively promote the exploitation of people in other countries. We actively try to get rid of strong leaders, Venezuela being a good example, who help their people because they won't be easy to manipulate. When countries do become democratised they have to then vote for the man the west want or their vote is disregarded completely.

 

I'd be particularly interested to read SD's take on this.

[Tom R]

Apparently our potential new owner is less than perfect after some journo's decided to make an issue out of the fact that his country bans Israeli's from going to Dubai, that he hires children for work, and that Arabian women in Dubai don't have the freedoms they have in the west.

 

Does anyone really care about any of this, or are you just interested in his money funding our impending domiantion of the world?

 

Couldn't give a shite.

 

Women deserve everything they get for being inferior. If they were truly equal then they wouldn't let themselves be walked all over would they?

 

As for kids, well they just tend to piss me off. Bit a work at least keeps them busy and out of my way while I'm beating my women.

[Tom R]

I am an ass.

 

But I'm not unwilling to budge, I have cautiously welcomed this investment, if only because the people in Dubai have shown a willingness to improve their human rights record.

 

If they were entirely unrepentant, it'd be a different story, which is why I was opposed to Thaksin and the Thais taking over the club.

 

As far as I'm concerned there are no "human rights issues" in Dubai.

 

Who the fuck are we to impose our moral high ground on othe countries?

Pisses me right off. It's quiote frankly none of our fucking business if another country wants to chop off the heads of criminals in public and wot not.

 

If you don't want your head chopped off then don't commit crimes in countries that carry the punishment of getting your fuckin heads off. Simple.

[Kobayashi Maru]

For someone now working and living in Dubai for over a year now, I can say without doubt the UAE's human rights record is no worse or better than most western countries. There was a worry about certain immigrant workers rights being trampled on by scrupulous employees a while ago. More so with construction workers not being paid for months on end and getting away with it. Sheikh Rashid govt has introduced legislation and made firms accountable, and ensuring this practice could not continue. Protecting workers rights have been one of the foremost concerns for his govt even ensuring that no constructions workers are allowed to work between 12pm-4pm during the peak hot summers....firms who do not comply are fined heavily You still hear of cases of private firms not paying workers regularly, however a tough stance has been taken with these offenders.

 

As for womens rights, this is a non issue in the UAE compared to most other arab countries. Women have the same rights in emplyment and society as men with a level of freedom of speech on a par with most western countries. Women are represented in the govt and cabinet here and anti discrimatory legislation being introduced. However, I still beleive divorce is still conducted under sharia law which does discriminate against them as per western values.

 

Otherwise you see a relatively free society with women dressing as they will, relative press and media freedoms though censorship more stricter than in the UK....

 

Not saying its eden and there is still a lot the country can do, however it is heading in the right direction.

[Strontium]

As far as I'm concerned there are no "human rights issues" in Dubai.

Just like there's no law allowing defenders to screen the ball you mean? ;)

 

If you don't want your head chopped off then don't commit crimes in countries that carry the punishment of getting your fuckin heads off. Simple.

You'd be pretty fucked if they made waffling shit on the Internet a capital offence though wouldn't you? ;)

 

so would I actually, but still...

 

 

For someone now working and living in Dubai for over a year now, I can say without doubt the UAE's human rights record is no worse or better than most western countries.

 

Not saying its eden and there is still a lot the country can do, however it is heading in the right direction.

Thanks Mukky, that was what I was hoping, and it's good to hear a defence of Dubai from someone who actually has a fuggin' clue.

[Stu Monty]

Still waiting for your opinion on my posts Mr Dog.

[G Richards]

I'm a bit concerned about the Sheikh's ethics, but these are very complicated issues. Dubai is a very progressive place and in terms of where it was it is light year's ahead in human rights and ethical issues. Mukky's post above is from first hand experience of the place and it illustrates the progress that has been made.

 

I'm a little uncomfortable taking on the role of judge and jury over a sovereign nation though, especially when our own house (the UK) is not in order. We are right to point out some of the things that are wrong in Dubai, and as the country integrates more fully with the wider world I would imagine they will continue to leave behind customs and practices that are frowned upon. But let us not forget that the people of Dubai could rightly look at the UK and be glad they don't live in a place like this, where crime seems out of control and respect (of all kinds) dwindles.

[Strontium]

Still waiting for your opinion on my posts Mr Dog.

Sorry I missed that earlier.

 

I agree completely. What I'm trying to point out is that western companies don't need to do these things in their own country anymore as there are plenty of poor people abroad that they can exploit. Whether it be moving people off their land for oil, threatening to move investment unless local police subjugate the workers with unionist tendencies and various other tactics.

 

I agree to a point, however the difference is that companies and governments in the West are acountable to their citizens in ways that many foreign companies and governments in the Middle East are not.

 

It's true that some (not all) companies exploit foreigners, but if we don't like them exploiting foreigners, we use a different company's products, or we don't buy their shares, or we campaign against them; the choice is ours - that's the free market. If we don't like what our government does abroad, we vote them out; the choice is ours - that's democracy.

 

Dubai has neither democracy nor a free market. There is no accountability there. They have no mandate from the people.

 

We actively promote the exploitation of people in other countries. We actively try to get rid of strong leaders, Venezuela being a good example, who help their people because they won't be easy to manipulate. When countries do become democratised they have to then vote for the man the west want or their vote is disregarded completely.

Venezuela is a bit of a grey area though. Chavez has done some positive things, but he's not all sweetness and light. I desperately hope he doesn't turn into some evil dictator like Castro further down the line, but the signs aren't promising e.g. getting his cronies onto the supreme court, abolishing the Senate, enacting a new media law allowing the state to supervise content, enacting a law permitting the state to imprison anyone for showing "disrespect" to government officials, posting lists of voters and their voting habits on the internet etc etc

 

Anyway, what I am saying is that our government does have legitimate concerns about what happens in places like Venezuela. However, I would agree with you that we should not try to get rid of their democratically elected leaders for our own ends. Hell, I'm a member of the only major party that didn't even want to get rid of Saddam.

[isr]

I agree to a point, however the difference is that companies and governments in the West are acountable to their citizens in ways that many foreign companies and governments in the Middle East are not.

 

And the reverse can also be true, in different ways. For example, its not unheard of for a ruler to don a concealing garb, and just wander out to the local markets to get a feel for what the people are thinking and saying. The former Emir of Kuwait was notorious for this.

 

You don't realise that even absolute monarchs have to be sensitive to public opinion. Only in extreme cases is the public totally powerless. And, in addition, there are tribal customs, cultural and religious restraints.

 

It's true that some (not all) companies exploit foreigners, but if we don't like them exploiting foreigners, we use a different company's products, or we don't buy their shares, or we campaign against them; the choice is ours - that's the free market. If we don't like what our government does abroad, we vote them out; the choice is ours - that's democracy.

 

"ours" being the operative word. What you're missing is "ours" does no always equal "theirs".

 

Pretty much every society on Earth wants personal prosperity, law and order, social stability, etc. Thats a given. What is NOT constant, is how each society thinks the best way to achieve this is.

 

You're speaking from the perspective of a Western, capitalist, liberal democracy. Western liberal democracy can work in pluralist societies, where:

1) the State sees itself as being apart from the predominant religon of its citizens (the Church v State battle fought in Europe, over the centuries)

2) there have already reached a certain economic level.

 

These conditions are not universal.

 

 

Religon v State

--------------

In the Muslim world, in the majority of cases, the MAJORITY of people do NOT want a complete divorce between religon and state. This is not implied Talibanism, or even an Iranian solution. The only example, in recent history, of a Muslim country making that break has been Turkey.

 

And guess what. Without the constant threat of military intervention, that break would have been largely reversed by now (even the current Turkish government is largely Islamist in orientation).

 

 

Economy

--------

BUT, there are many societies, at a lower level of economic attainment, who predominantly WANT strong (and yes, at times authoritian) leadership. Because they see this as the best way forward, given their current situation.

 

Most examples we have today of succesful economies built in the post-colonial world, were NOT built under Western standards of democracy.

Singapore (a small scale example, but Lee Kuan Yew was never a poster child for Western democrats)

South Korea

Japan (single party rule for most of its economic revival)

 

I am over-simplifying. There are many more layers of detail I can go into. But I've already gone WAY beyond what this thread, and this forum, is about.

 

In the end, what you're advocating is that "THEY" must adopt "YOUR" standards, because you know whats best for them. Even if history, and public opinion, says otherwise.

 

 

Dubai has neither democracy nor a free market. There is no accountability there. They have no mandate from the people.

 

In most Arab countries, there is a strong historical and cultural preference for a STRONG ruler (who might appear harsh by Western, 21st century standards).

 

You want to give them democracy? Guess what - in most cases, they will vote for strongest bad ass out there. Because they are comfortable with that type of leadership.

 

Oh, and Chavez? For what he has done for his people - worth his weight in gold. For what he has done internationally - priceless!

[Moschops II]

In most Arab countries, there is a strong historical and cultural preference for a STRONG ruler (who might appear harsh by Western, 21st century standards).

 

You want to give them democracy? Guess what - in most cases, they will vote for strongest bad ass out there. Because they are comfortable with that type of leadership.

 

And naturally, you'll have at hand the results from all those democratic elections in Middle Eastern countries to back this one up, right?

[cochcaer]

And naturally, you'll have at hand the results from all those democratic elections

 

He would have, but it was chopped off......

[Kopite]

He would have, but it was chopped off......

 

:D

[Stu Monty]

Fair points, even if I feel you're pulling what you want out of the global situation and ignoring the other side of western influence.

 

Where do the IMF amd the World bank, the global loan sharks, fit into the picture considering that as far as I'm aware they aren't democratically elected? Objective one for them being the raping of the weak for the benefit of the strong.

 

Democracy is over-rated too SD. It very recently overwhelmingly voted back in two men who were proven to lie to take us into a war in which tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people will die. How is it any better to have millions of people willing to murder for their own comfort that one dictator?

[Strontium]

Democracy is over-rated too SD. It very recently overwhelmingly voted back in two men who were proven to lie to take us into a war in which tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people will die.

In this instance, it is not democracy which is over-rated, but human intelligence and compassion. I'm a member of the only major party which opposed the phoney war in Iraq, and guess what - we finished a distant third in the general election. So I'm no happier about the situation than you are, and I don't have any magic solutions. However, with democracy, the potential for change is at least there, if people actually can be bothered to change things. With a dictator, you're rather at his whim.

 

So far as the World Bank is concerned, I'm no fan of some of the things they are doing, although I only know what I've read. I do know that the third world farmers get screwed over by our protectionist laws, which is obviously something I am ideologically opposed to, as a liberal.

 

@ isr: You state that people in the Islamic world don't want a total divorce between religion and the state. They ought to. Religion has no place in government. And as has been pointed out, very few of them will actually get the choice anyway, so you're really just speculating.

[Guest bigf00t]

In this instance, it is not democracy which is over-rated, but human intelligence and compassion. I'm a member of the only major party which opposed the phoney war in Iraq, and guess what - we finished a distant third in the general election. So I'm no happier about the situation than you are, and I don't have any magic solutions. However, with democracy, the potential for change is at least there, if people actually can be bothered to change things. With a dictator, you're rather at his whim.

 

So far as the World Bank is concerned, I'm no fan of some of the things they are doing, although I only know what I've read. I do know that the third world farmers get screwed over by our protectionist laws, which is obviously something I am ideologically opposed to, as a liberal.

 

@ isr: You state that people in the Islamic world don't want a total divorce between religion and the state. They ought to. Religion has no place in government. And as has been pointed out, very few of them will actually get the choice anyway, so you're really just speculating.

 

Islam isnt just a religion though... its a way of life... Shariah Law etc...

 

very different to most other religions.

[Strontium]

Islam isnt just a religion though... its a way of life... Shariah Law etc...

Christianity and Judaism were like that a long time ago too, but they were superceded by something better; secular liberal democracy.

 

very different to most other religions.

Yeah, it's a lot more dangerous because of it.