Middle Eastern Justice [Archive]

nessosin

April 18th, 2008, 01:28

The people you choose to feel superior about says a lot about you. Feeling superior to the Yemenis is about as edifying as feeling superior to the Vikings. It's a super-traditional society; as close to a survival from the Middle Ages as anything you're likely to find nowadays. Women there aren't much better off than they were in Europe back then.

Okey you're clearly right about their "survival" type of life, but why shouldn't I consider my culture as a superior to theirs? If only in aspect of situations like that? Should I consider thier model of living as an example?

I can't read minds

Seriously Yemen is backward even by third world standards. Using it as an example of 'middle eastern justice' is a bit like picking the most egregious case you can find from some corrupt backward corner of Central America and calling that an example of 'American Justice'.
Funny, that's almost word for word my initial reply to Squeek's message; I never posted it though.

Maybe you cant read minds, but you do want us to read yours ;) .

Corwin

April 18th, 2008, 01:35

Hmmm...I guess there aren't any 8 year olds in either the US or Finland selling themselves on the streets. Poverty and frequently drugs are a very sad mix!!

Squeek

April 18th, 2008, 01:54

I can't read minds, but I'm good at reading intent and unspoken assumptions, and I got a very clear reading of yours, thank you very much. "Trolling" is a word that springs to mind, and sadly I couldn't stop myself from taking the bait.The article didn't express any opinions, and neither did my post. Yours was the first comment. So like it or not you're the sole source of the views you're attributing to others.

Not that I blame you for feeling superior. We can all see that something's out of whack. Your going on the attack in defense of what you, yourself, obviously feel is wrong indicates to me that you're confused. Maybe you should reconsider how you really feel and whether or not you think that's ok.

@ V7: Since I didn't make any arguments, I certainly didn't refer to anything as an example. The article reported what happened, and I merely asked what we were to think of it.

For what it's worth, I do see this as a sort of obvious example, though. The question is, an example of what? You don't seem to like it, but there's nothing at all wrong with discussing this. What happened is what's wrong. Talking about it isn't.

Remus

April 18th, 2008, 02:30

There are many similar shocking cases out there, and in different categories and different countries. What we often forgot when looking at these cases, is the understanding of the context in which those incidents occured, instead, we often see its from our own limited social perspective, base on own culture, religion, etc. So, we would felt very surprise, shocked. The world bigger than we think or we assume that we understand it all from our view point...

April 18th, 2008, 06:04

The article didn't express any opinions, and neither did my post. Yours was the first comment. So like it or not you're the sole source of the views you're attributing to others.

@ V7: Since I didn't make any arguments, I certainly didn't refer to anything as an example. The article reported what happened, and I merely asked what we were to think of it.

Sorry but I've got to call you on this, you made what you thought quite plain with a title smearing dozens of countries and millions of people most of whom would be just as outraged at being called paedophiles as you would be. That you picked an egregious example from a backward country to make your point says more about you than 'middle eastern justice'. Frankly I'm impressed how much you managed to convey with three words.

If you're serious about wanting to know what to think the answer is obvious: traditional patriarchal tribal cultures have some pretty shocking attitudes toward women, but then I think you’d know that already.

April 18th, 2008, 06:24

Okey you're clearly right about their "survival" type of life, but why shouldn't I consider my culture as a superior to theirs? If only in aspect of situations like that? Should I consider thier model of living as an example?

Did anyone suggest you shouldn't? Really if you're desperate for something to feel smug about look at the honor killings or the way rape victums are treated in some of these places.

Squeek

April 18th, 2008, 07:31

Sorry but I've got to call you on this, you made what you thought quite plain with a title smearing dozens of countries and millions of people most of whom would be just as outraged at being called paedophiles as you would be.I titled this thread "Middle Eastern Justice" because, like it or not, this story is about real laws enforced by a real judge in a real legal system in a Middle Eastern country.

I didn't call anyone anything or smear anyone in any way. I simply asked, "What are we to think?" If you think the situation in Yemen is a disgrace, then I can understand why you would think that. If you think it speaks poorly of everyone in the region, then that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

But I won't be responsible for what you think. Your opinion is yours, not mine.

April 18th, 2008, 07:52

You’re being disingenuous, it’s not at all hard to choose a neutral title. Sure Yemen is located in the Middle East, Nicaragua is in the Americas and we don’t talk about American death squads. Referring to a country specific story by the region as you did implies you feel it applies to the region as a whole. Then you use a loaded word like ‘justice’ rather than decision or case implying that the people of the region somehow feel the outcome was fair and reasonable. A truly neutral title would have been something like ‘Yemeni Court Decision’ but I guess that’s not sensationalist enough.

I don't think the case speaks poorly of everyone in the region, but thats the way you framed the article.

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 08:42

Okey you're clearly right about their "survival" type of life, but why shouldn't I consider my culture as a superior to theirs? If only in aspect of situations like that? Should I consider thier model of living as an example?

What, exactly, do you gain from that feeling of cultural superiority? Nothing. It's like pissing in a dark suit -- warm and feels good, but doesn't show.

Conversely, if you approach different cultures with an open mind and a curiosity to learn about them, you might actually profit from it. You'll find some things that shock you, some things that you'll deplore, but also things that'll interest or fascinate you, and even things to admire.

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 08:44

The article didn't express any opinions, and neither did my post. Yours was the first comment. So like it or not you're the sole source of the views you're attributing to others.

That's disingenuous -- your title alone ("Middle Eastern Justice") says as much. What's more, hiding behind an article like you're doing now is just plain cowardly.

Not that I blame you for feeling superior. We can all see that something's out of whack. Your going on the attack in defense of what you, yourself, obviously feel is wrong indicates to me that you're confused. Maybe you should reconsider how you really feel and whether or not you think that's ok.

I'm not at all confused. I'm just irked.

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 08:46

I titled this thread "Middle Eastern Justice" because, like it or not, this story is about real laws enforced by a real judge in a real legal system in a Middle Eastern country.

So, if I posted a thread about that weird cult Magerette linked to, and titled the thread "American Religion," and then asked "What are we to think about this?" and then defended it by saying "like it or not, this story is about real religion in a real community in real America," and then claimed that I'm not actually expressing any opinion, just linking to an article and asking for polite conversation, and God forbid there's any element of warm-and-fuzzy cultural masturbation involved, you wouldn't find that at all suspicious?

Get real.

nessosin

April 18th, 2008, 10:37

What, exactly, do you gain from that feeling of cultural superiority? Nothing. It's like pissing in a dark suit -- warm and feels good, but doesn't show.

Conversely, if you approach different cultures with an open mind and a curiosity to learn about them, you might actually profit from it. You'll find some things that shock you, some things that you'll deplore, but also things that'll interest or fascinate you, and even things to admire.

I never said I gain anything by my "feeling of cultural superiority". Nevertheless should I follow political correctness and smile and pretend nothing has happened? Should I consider those situations as an sociologic curiosity?

zakhal

April 18th, 2008, 11:20

I never said I gain anything by my "feeling of cultural superiority". Nevertheless should I follow political correctness and smile and pretend nothing has happened? Should I consider those situations as an sociologic curiosity?

Yes you should be very careful. If youre not politically correct enough with your thoughts you might make a thought crime. We wouldnt want that to happen to you would we?

This case in yemen is surely just one isolated one. Most of middle east values human rights especially those of women. In the least you should always respect their cultural richnesses.

April 18th, 2008, 11:50

I'm not sure how political correctness embraces child marriage but I'm sure you can come up with a convoluted explanation. No one is pretending nothing happened, that Yemen is a bastion of human rights or a nice place. Take a look at KazikluBey's map, Yemen is a quick hop across the Gulf of Arden from Somalia, if you gave me a choice between living in one or the other I'd flip a coin. Using it an example of human rights in the middle east is a cheap mockery, the region has a greater range of cultural, economic and political diversity than Europe does. You wouldn't hold up Albania as representative of Europe don't try and do the same for Yemen in the Middle East where people know better.

nessosin

April 18th, 2008, 11:52

Yes you should be very careful. If youre not politically correct enough with your thoughts you might make a thought crime. We wouldnt want that to happen to you would we?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

This case in yemen is surely just one isolated one. Most of middle east values human rights especially those of women. In the least you should always respect their cultural richnesses.

Have I written that I dont respect thier culture? Where?

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 11:59

I never said I gain anything by my "feeling of cultural superiority". Nevertheless should I follow political correctness and smile and pretend nothing has happened? Should I consider those situations as an sociologic curiosity?

No, and no.

You should strive to understand exactly what is happening, and what the structures that cause these things to happen are. Then you might want to start thinking about what could be done to improve things, and eventually what you, specifically, could do about improving them. Not just point, gape, deplore, and enjoy that warm fuzzy feeling of superiority.

Yemen *is* a sociological curiosity too, but that doesn't mean there aren't moral issues involved either. The thing is that like any society, it's a pretty rich weave of mores, rules, traditions, laws, values, and practices. If you want to change it for the better, you have to be aware of the whole, and understand that any change you attempt will have repercussions elsewhere.

And, for starters, it would help not to equate Yemen with the Middle East in general. That's just mind-bogglingly ignorant -- to the point that the ignorance itself becomes a moral question.

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 12:01

This case in yemen is surely just one isolated one. Most of middle east values human rights especially those of women. In the least you should always respect their cultural richnesses.

As V7 said, Yemen is about as representative of the Middle East as Albania or Moldova are of Europe. And yes, at the very least you *should* respect their cultural richnesses [sic] -- they have that a-plenty.

That doesn't mean closing your eyes to the horrible things that are going on in many of the countries there either -- but unless you're willing to make enough of an effort to distinguish between Yemen and the Middle East, you'd be better off if you just STFU about it.

zakhal

April 18th, 2008, 12:32

As V7 said, Yemen is about as representative of the Middle East as Albania or Moldova are of Europe. And yes, at the very least you *should* respect their cultural richnesses [sic] -- they have that a-plenty.

Thats exactly what I said. Yemen is just one isolated case. Yemen is not middle-east. Its just (tiny) part of it.

That doesn't mean closing your eyes to the horrible things that are going on in many of the countries there either -- but unless you're willing to make enough of an effort to distinguish between Yemen and the Middle East, you'd be better off if you just STFU about it.

I agree fully. We really need thought guard on this forum to police us what is right and wrong or else someone might accidently post some texts here that are not politically correct - this is the political forum after all!

Im sure many of our middle-eastern forumites are allready enraged by the title of this thread.

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 12:38

Oookay, I guess... [backs off slowly]

zakhal

April 18th, 2008, 12:46

Yemen *is* a sociological curiosity too, but that doesn't mean there aren't moral issues involved either. The thing is that like any society, it's a pretty rich weave of mores, rules, traditions, laws, values, and practices.

Yeah and I would like to discuss about them too (Im curious) but sombody wanted to turn the thread into a dicuss of political correctness instead.

And america was brought into it too even though the topic is about middle-east. I wonder why.

April 18th, 2008, 12:50

I agree fully. We really need thought guard on this forum to police us what is right and wrong or else someone might accidently post some texts here that are not politically correct - this is the political forum after all!
.

Why yes because thats exactly what we're proposing. I certainly wouldn't want anyone applying a bit of critical thought or questioning the way ideas are presented when we're so busy dehumanising people. Why the very idea calls for someone to make a smugly sarcastic mockery of the idea of thinking at all.

zakhal

April 18th, 2008, 13:00

Why yes because thats exactly what we're proposing. I certainly wouldn't want anyone applying a bit of critical thought or questioning the way ideas are presented when we're so busy dehumanising people. Why the very idea calls for someone to make a smugly sarcastic mockery of the idea of thinking at all.

If you read the first post you see "court" mentioned there. The topic middle eastern "justice" sounds just right. Yemen is IN middle-east and court delivers justice you know? So its not totally wrong atleast not worth of serious moral debate.

Its a joke that this thread turned into a serial discuss of political correctness and moral superioirity instead. I think its very sad if you dont see that.

I guess soon we need to stop mentioning continents/regions of the world totally in all political discussions because othervice theres always somone who might get upset. Allthough nations too migth be equally bad because surely i.e in this case the incident happened only in one city/village in yemen. Or one court.

So next time use the right topic "Isolated case of justice in one single yemen court" that way we can be sure noone gets offended. :)

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 13:54

If you read the first post you see "court" mentioned there. The topic middle eastern "justice" sounds just right. Yemen is IN middle-east and court delivers justice you know? So its not totally wrong atleast not worth of serious moral debate.

Perhaps not totally wrong, but wrong enough that it needs to be set right before a real discussion can take place. Seriously, consider the counter-example I provided above: 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?

Not too big, I'd bet -- it would rightly get slammed as a gratuitous expression of ignorant anti-Americanism.

So next time use the right topic "Isolated case of justice in one single yemen court" that way we can be sure noone gets offended. :)

Or, y'know, actually post a thought or two about justice in the Middle East in general, rather than simply demonstrating your ignorance by linking to a shock story and generalizing the hell out of it in the subject line.

This is an area that interests me too, a great deal, which is precisely why I get so annoyed at seeing it treated this way. Here are a few random topics that I think might be worth discussing around the bigger one:

* Some Middle Eastern countries have different civil laws for different sects (religions). So, for example, Muslim men are allowed four wives, and Catholics marry for life (no divorce allowed, only annulment, and that only in very exceptional circumstances).
* Yemen has a "free market" legal system, with no written laws. Anyone can start dispensing justice. If he gains a reputation for good judgment, people will start coming to him to resolve their disputes.
* There's a major, mostly Turkish-led, effort underway to reform Islamic jurisprudence and make it (more) compatible with modern societies, without compromising the core values of the religion. Similar efforts have been attempted before -- the single most successful one happened about a thousand years ago, which gave us the shari'a. (Which was, incidentally, incredibly progressive at a time when, for example, monarchs and princes were generally regarded as untouchable and above the law.) An abortive effort similar in many ways to the current one was the so-called Jadeed movement in Central Asia in the early 20th century. From an outsider's POV, what would you like to see happening in this effort? What do you think are the odds of it succeeding better than Jadeedism?

April 18th, 2008, 14:06

If you read the first post you see "court" mentioned there. The topic middle eastern "justice" sounds just right. Yemen is IN middle-east and court delivers justice you know? So its not totally wrong atleast not worth of serious moral debate.

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.

Its a joke that this thread turned into a serial discuss of political correctness and moral superioirity instead. I think its very sad if you dont see that.

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.

I guess soon we need to stop mentioning contents/regions of the world totally in all political discussions because othervice theres always somone who might get upset. Allthough nations too migth be equally bad because surely i.e in this case the incident happened only in one city/village in yemen. Or one court.

So next time use the right topic "Isolated case of justice in one single yemen court" that way we can be sure noone gets offended. :)

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?

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 14:39

Damn, V7 -- I think I'm ready to retire. You just say it so much better than I do. And, although I hate to admit it, know more than I do too. Well, sometimes. ;)

dteowner

April 18th, 2008, 14:49

April 18th, 2008, 15:50

I think I'd disagree with your definition of political correctness although I understand what you're saying. I'd have to ask whether the 'actual issue' actually lost though? If the point of the thread was to discuss the case is anyone going to say anything besides its a travesty? Good for us, pats on the back all round - does anyone actually learn anything from that? If there's a point to be raised so we can have a worthwhile discussion, please, do.

As for 'disingenuous', I see it twice once each from PJ and I, no cookies for us I guess. Any reason to pick on that word in particular? (really just curious)

April 18th, 2008, 15:56

Thanks PJ but your proposed topics on Islamic legal questions were well beyond my comfort level for debates, reminds me of the old academic joke. ;)

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 15:57

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

April 18th, 2008, 15:58

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

April 18th, 2008, 16:14

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

April 18th, 2008, 16:24

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 16:27

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

April 18th, 2008, 16:29

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

April 18th, 2008, 16:33

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.

April 18th, 2008, 16:36

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

April 18th, 2008, 16:36

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.

April 18th, 2008, 16:41

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

April 18th, 2008, 16:41

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

April 18th, 2008, 16:43

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

April 18th, 2008, 16:44

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

April 18th, 2008, 16:48

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.

April 18th, 2008, 17:00

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

April 18th, 2008, 17:00

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

April 18th, 2008, 17:01

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

April 18th, 2008, 17:06

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

April 18th, 2008, 17:08

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

April 18th, 2008, 17:10

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

magerette

April 18th, 2008, 17:15

Squeek, I think it would be helpful to all if you would clarify what the topic is here. Are we talking about religion, politics or human rights issues? I'm completely confused.

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 17:16

@Squeek, thank your for the suggestion, but I think I'll make my own decisions on when to take breaks. Coincidentally, though, I am going to take one now. If you feel that I'm not contributing anything of value, feel free to ignore it.

April 18th, 2008, 17:24

Magerette; not sure its a religious issue rather than one of Patriarchal and particularly tribal societies, a quick search turns up examples of child marriage in:

India: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4552287.stm (Illegal but not unknown)
Australia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4401982.stm (illegal and prosecuted but not unknown in traditional Aboriginal culture)
Nigeria and Africa generally: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6211258.stm

Sierra Leone banned it last year although not female mutilation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6734273.stm

I know there are examples in Central Asia although I don't have references to hand.

And there was a big scandal in Romania recently: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3168638.stm mostly because of the prominence of the bride's farther, the authorities apparently usually overlook child marriages in the Roma community.

I'd be surprised if someone couldn't dig up some examples in some of the more traditional cultures in the Americas too, but even with those above we've got a wide cross section of religions, cultures and regions. Marriage ages have bounced up and down in western societies as well, honestly I'm not sure what to make of it other than to suggest its as much about gender power and possibly poverty as anything else.

Edit: I'd be really interested if anyone knew anything about matrichal societies wedded ages.

Squeek

April 18th, 2008, 17:34

Squeek, I think it would be helpful to all if you would clarify what the topic is here. Are we talking about religion, politics or human rights issues? I'm completely confused.I started this thread to talk about Middle Eastern justice and how it compares, generally and maybe specifically, to what's considered justice here (the US) and in other parts of the world. I cited this as an example, because it's topical and in the news at the moment.

I don't see any need to cite a perfect example. Sorry. I don't believe, and never imagined anyone else would believe, that this is a defining example. But I do see it as good one, because it typifies the kinds of things we sometimes hear about and remember about the Middle East.

Here's another example. Years ago I lived with an Iranian guy who would read parts of his mother's letters from Iran out loud to me. Once she wrote about a woman who was whipped in public for having worn a bathing suit while swimming in her backyard pool. There was a fence, but someone in a nearby hotel could see over it and reported her to the authorities.

You should have seen the look on my roommate's face or heard the tone as he read his mother's letter. It's not just Americans who think this stuff is crazy. Middle Easterners over here tend to think that stuff is crazy too.

It's stories like the ones in that letter, ones the news sometimes reports, and ones I sometimes hear people talking about over here that I thought we might discuss in this thread.

magerette

April 18th, 2008, 17:35

...
I'd be surprised if someone couldn't dig up some examples in some of the more traditional cultures in the Americas too, but even with those above we've got a wide cross section of religions, cultures and regions. Marriage ages have bounced up and down in western societies as well, honestly I'm not sure what to make of it other than to suggest its as much about gender power and possibly poverty as anything else.

I definitely agree with this. IMO, it's all about power and control, and the inability to resist it due to cultural and economic circumstances.

The link I posted earlier is our American example--indeed child and multiple marriage is outlawed here of course, but this sect proves that a religiously brainwashed element can still condone it in an advanced western society.
Thanks for your examples.

Edit: Thanks for responding Squeek--again I posted too close to you to see yours before writing this one.

Remus

April 18th, 2008, 17:37

Underage marriage is nothing new, existed long time ago in the Far East and Asia Pacific regions. Of course, most modern societies in that areas banned those marriages.

PS. i searched "matriachal" but i google asked me "Did you mean: patriarchal". Lol. Google is sexist.

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 18:22

A while back there was a bit of a flap on Amazon, when the search term "adoption" returned "Did you mean: abortion?"

Squeek: The wording of your original post had nothing in it to suggest that these were the topics you wanted to discuss. The first phrase was "A lesson in Middle Eastern Justice," and the rest of it didn't mention any of these aspects of it.

Which is a real, cryin' shame, 'cuz if it had, I for one would have responded completely differently -- the questions you're asking now are interesting ones, and the example you posted is relevant to them.

In fact, I would apologize if I believed for a moment that you did, in fact, want to discuss these topics when you posted the thread, and aren't simply back-pedaling furiously now that we've gotten to this point. But since I don't, I won't.

Squeek

April 18th, 2008, 18:27

Whatever, PJ. You like to argue, even if it's only with yourself, sometimes.

KazikluBey

April 18th, 2008, 18:27

I started this thread to talk about Middle Eastern justice and how it compares, generally and maybe specifically, to what's considered justice here (the US) and in other parts of the world. I cited this as an example, because it's topical and in the news at the moment.
First, you base your OP on the assumption that that this is an example of Middle Eastern justice in general and, as seen in this thread, not everyone agrees. Since they don't agree, they can't participate in the discussion you envisioned, and instead they do the natural thing in an open forum: Attack the framework you set up.

Also, there's not really anything of substance in your OP. There's indignation about a specific "shock" example, a generalization and an invitation to discuss that is also full of indignation. Since everyone here shares your indignation (I hope), that too just leaves your generalization to actually discuss.

If you actually wanted a discussion going, instead of just telling us that child marriage/pedophilia is an example of the horrible Middle Eastern justice, I would suggest you try gathering multiple examples of Middle Eastern justice and ask questions such as those proposed by PJ, or: "Is this examplary of court justice in the Middle East? Is there really popular support for these laws, or are they imposed by powerful minorities/dictators?"

Or whatever tickles your fancy, as long as you stay away from the assertions.

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 18:32

As an aside, I looked up "age of consent" on Wikipedia. It mostly runs the gamut from 12 to 18; the lowest in Europe today is 13 (Spain), unless you count the "small age difference exception" in the Netherlands that permits sex with a 12-year-old if the partner is less than four years older. In pre-modern Europe, the age of consent was generally 12.

I consider that, um, a bit on the low side.

The note on Yemen said that child marriage is allowed, but the husband is not allowed to have sex with the bride until she is sexually mature.

Squeek

April 18th, 2008, 18:43

@ KazikluBey: I avoided stating any opinions in my original post for the same reason the writer avoided stating opinions in his article. If you can figure out what you explained to me, then you can figure that out too.

Look, I enjoy a good argument, and I'm perfectly willing to have one. But this is the kind of stuff that stands in the way of that, just like it stands in the way of quality discussion.

I'm willing to try harder to make myself clear and usually do, but not in the face of folks determined to misunderstand. There's a discussion here that I think is worth having, but it's one I'm willing to walk away from too.

If my elaboration and assurances of good faith aren't enough, then I suppose I'll just have to accept that.

Prime Junta

April 18th, 2008, 18:47

I think this thread is beyond redemption.

Anyway, it shouldn't really matter what I think of your motives. However, if you're genuinely interested in having the discussion you described above, please post a new thread based on that post; I will participate, and won't go into attack mode unless you (or someone else) does something new to warrant it.

Squeek

April 18th, 2008, 19:04

dteowner

April 18th, 2008, 23:35

I said, GOOD DAY SIR!
:p

Ionstormsucks

April 18th, 2008, 23:51

Well... safe to say discussing on these forums is becoming less and less fun.

Now, on the topic:
I think one has to separate two issues here. The cultural perspective on the one hand and the individual perspective on the other. As it was mentioned already in this thread the legal age of marriage has gone up in Europe over time. When I read the OP the famous English poet Ernest Dowson sprang to my mind who lived in the mid-late 19th century and who was deeply in love with a young girl named Adelaide. He waited for several years to marry her and was crushed when suddenly the legal age of marriage (in GB) was raised from 13 to 16. So from a cultural perspective we're not that far away from what Squeek described. I'd also guess that marrying off girls or young women to older men was not an uncommen thing in late 19th and even early 20th century. When it comes to matters of marriage and sexual intercourse in general, Yemenite and British law of the 19th century show some slight similarities - homosexuality for example is considered to be illegal and that of course reminds us of Oscar Wilde who was sentenced to two years of hard labour at the end of the 19th century.

From an individual perspective however we have to realize that Dowson was certainly not a prototypical late Victorian - he was a pedophile or had at least paedophiliac tendencies. We can safely assume that Dowson was the exception and not the rule and that most men in late 19th century GB prefered women, not girls.

On the other hand there are some obvious differences, which are certainly worth discussing. Opposite to Europe, Yemen lowered the legal age of marriage in 1999 from 15 years to the "beginning of puberty". This is clearly a step backwards... It is a tendency which is not undisputed in the Yemen, a minority in the Yemenitic parliament is for raising the legal age of marriage again - so we should not make the mistake and think of all Yemenitic men as a bunch of paedophiliac perverts.

Another problem is that, opposite to the development in Europe, marriage, marriage law, and law that concerns sexual practices has a strong social, even religious element to it. One of the reasons why girls are married off at such a young age is because their parents fear the loss of honor should their daugter have premarital sex.
The same can be sad for homosexuality. Whereas Great Britain's prohibition of sexuality between men (sexuality between women was allowed) was a panic reaction to certain scandals at the end of the 19th century (for example the Cleveland Street case), the Yemen has religious reasons why it does not allow sex between persons of the same gender.

Squeek

April 19th, 2008, 00:21

Well, I have to say I’m impressed. You seem very familiar with this subject, Ionstormsucks. Is it safe to assume you've discussed this before?

Generally speaking, I think there's a strong perception here in Southern California that Middle Eastern thinking in terms of justice is sometimes behind much of the rest of the world. But there's also a sense of disbelief and suspicion that there surely must be more to it than would seem.

It never occured to me that the Yemeni might feel religious pressure for their daughters to remain chaste. If that’s true, then I have to imagine there really could be a connection between that and their habit of sometimes marrying them off at an early age.

Ionstormsucks

April 19th, 2008, 02:24

Well, I have to say I’m impressed. You seem very familiar with this subject, Ionstormsucks. Is it safe to assume you've discussed this before?

I'm afraid - not really. But in Germany we have a strong Turkish community and some of my collegues are Turks. So we often discuss things which are connected to the Islam.

Generally speaking, I think there's a strong perception here in Southern California that Middle Eastern thinking in terms of justice is sometimes behind much of the rest of the world. But there's also a sense of disbelief and suspicion that there surely must be more to it than would seem.

The problem here is really the term Middle East. Everyone is using it (and I include myself here) and very few people have actually an idea what kind of area it incorporates (again, I include myself). The term is simply extremly blurry - often people use it and mean the Near East which includes countries such as Turkey. But it should be clear that Turkey is quite different from the Yemen and when it comes to law, both countries are worlds apart. In Yemen (do you say in the Yemen or just Yemen?) the source of the law is the Sharia, so law, religion, and state are closely interconnected. Yemenitic law is behind much of the rest of the world - there can be hardly any doubt about it. The Islam is the state religion, and Yemenites that convert to Catholicism have to fear for their lives...

In Turkey we have exactely the opposite - a strict separation of state and religion and a very liberal Islam. Even in Turkey we can find things like forced marriage, men insisting on marrying only virgins, etc. But it's clearly no longer the rule - these are exceptions.

If we include Turkey in this discussion, we're on extremly slippery ground. Turkish law can be harsh, but meanwhile they have abandoned the death penalty (even in times of crisis) and that's something the US for example has not done yet.

I think that Yemen on the one hand and Turkey on the other hand are the extreme poles of the spectrum, but none of the countries is exemplary for the Middle or Near East.

It never occured to me that the Yemeni might feel religious pressure for their daughters to remain chaste. If that’s true, then I have to imagine there really could be a connection between that and their habit of sometimes marrying them off at an early age.

Well, you know how it is, mate... money probably plays a role as well. Most likely it's not the main aspect, but nonetheless... The Yemen has, as far as I know, a very high rate of unemplyment and marrying off your daughter is of course a possibilty to make some money.

magerette

April 19th, 2008, 02:31

Edit: I'd be really interested if anyone knew anything about matrichal societies wedded ages.

There have been and still are a few matrilineal societies, but to my knowledge
(and wikipedia) matriachies as such have never existed in a provable way; they are anthropological theories that belong to the age of myth, along with the idea of worship of the Earth as mother Goddess and so forth. In books like The White Goddess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Goddess) by Robert Graves for instance, it was argued that in prehistory, society was aligned along matriarchal lines, but apparently, as soon as guys realized that it wasn't a passing spirit that was causing pregnancy, women lost control of their wombs (and have only recently been able to get a bit of it back.) :)

To try to answer your question, in these imagined societies, marriage isn't even a real concept--women and their brothers are the core family unit, and neither women nor men are considered each other's property. This kind of social organization was supposedly supplanted when reproductive facts became known so that the modern concept of marriage rests mostly on the issue of legitimacy of offspring, that is paternity, and descent of property through the male rather than female parent.

Anyway, this article at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy) makes interesting reading on the subject. Here's a bit this forum may relate to:

The idea of peaceful matriarchal civilizations being destroyed by patriarchal, nomadic barbarian invaders has lived on as a powerful literary trope...More recent uses of the theme share essentially the same narrative. Mary Renault's historical novels about Greek mythology and history such as The King Must Die combine motifs of political conflict between goddess and god worshippers with The Golden Bough's hypothesis about dying and reviving gods. The patriarchal conquest of matriarchy motif is found in literally dozens of fantasy novels, from Marion Zimmer Bradley's historical revisions of Arthurian romance and the Trojan War to works such as Guy Gavriel Kay's A Song for Arbonne. Gender roles and the conflict of patriarch vs. matriarchy is a major theme in the Wheel of Time books by Robert Jordan.

Sorry to ramble--you can get back to more modern times now, guys. :)

Prime Junta

April 19th, 2008, 12:19

There have been and still are a few matrilineal societies, but to my knowledge
(and wikipedia) matriachies as such have never existed in a provable way; they are anthropological theories that belong to the age of myth, along with the idea of worship of the Earth as mother Goddess and so forth. In books like The White Goddess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Goddess) by Robert Graves for instance, it was argued that in prehistory, society was aligned along matriarchal lines, but apparently, as soon as guys realized that it wasn't a passing spirit that was causing pregnancy, women lost control of their wombs (and have only recently been able to get a bit of it back.) :)

I've always thought that theory completely ridiculous. Don't forget that these people were (a) exactly as smart as we are, if not smarter, and (b) living in extremely close contact with nature. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the connection between two bunnies on top of each other and... more bunnies.

Prime Junta

April 19th, 2008, 12:22

Generally speaking, I think there's a strong perception here in Southern California that Middle Eastern thinking in terms of justice is sometimes behind much of the rest of the world. But there's also a sense of disbelief and suspicion that there surely must be more to it than would seem.

There's a similar perception in much of Europe about America -- the fact that the question of legalized torture is even a matter of debate, the continued use of the death penalty sometimes applied in very cruel ways, and the discourse that rotates more around retribution than rehabilitation appear quite barbaric and primitive.

Ionstormsucks

April 19th, 2008, 12:47

Squeek, I think it would be helpful to all if you would clarify what the topic is here. Are we talking about religion, politics or human rights issues? I'm completely confused.

I fear that in this particular case these topics are deeply interconnected. I find the question quite interesting that Squeek asked at the end of the OP... what are we to think?
For me this is absolutely not a question of cultural superiority. Without any doubt certain aspects of modern western culture ARE superior to their counterparts in Yeminitic culture. That shouldn't make us arrogant, because it took us a long time to get where we are now, and even today Europe and the United States have a rather hypocritical attitude towards topics like human rights.

I thought about Squeek's question... and it's very hard to come to a conclusion that is entirely satisfying. On the one hand the Yemen is a country that cannot be compared to modern western civilizations and that might remind us of Europe's own ugly past. On the other hand, the Yemen isn't exactely an isolated country. The country gets development aid (quite a bit if I may say), and there is a beginning tourism, and it is involved in international politics.
The fact that we have an influence on the Yemen inevitabley brings up the question: "Where does our responsibility begin and where exactely does it end?"

I'll be honest there, my feelings here are deeply ambiguous. On the one hand I think that we should of course show a certain respect towards other cultures - we should indeed try to develop an understanding where they come from and why they have certain habits and customs, etc. On the other hand, if I look at this very specific case, I cannot but realize a certain hypocrisy. The Yemen a country in which religious freedom is non-existent, and in which Yemenites that convert to Christianity have to fear for their lives, obviously has not trouble at all to accept over 70 million Euros development aid from a country that is full of unbelievers.

magerette

April 19th, 2008, 16:59

I've always thought that theory completely ridiculous. Don't forget that these people were (a) exactly as smart as we are, if not smarter, and (b) living in extremely close contact with nature. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the connection between two bunnies on top of each other and... more bunnies.

Yep, it's been completely discredited. I don't think too many farm kids have to have the birds and bees explained to them either. And the article I linked goes on to posit that there's no indication whatsoever that worshiping a female deity actually empowers individual females in the society. Just another theory that sounded good at the time--and another proof that science, especially social science, isn't infallible.

@ISS I agree that the question "What are we to think" is a really difficult one to answer. I appreciate everyone who's dredged up some factual information and attempted to put this in a larger cultural context. We've seen many times in these discussions that people in the US have a very limited exposure to the culture and religious philosophy of the Middle East and Islam, and that isolated examples are confusing, as is the intent behind them, when you only see the end result.

The search for balance is ongoing; adversarial, inflexible and judgmental positions only make it harder to resolve disputes and conflicts. I see this issue as a human rights one, I think young girls(and boys) should not be regarded as possessions, toys, or reproductive units, but let's face it, the economic reality of many cultures makes that extremely difficult. How many kids here in the US end up on the streets because that's the only choice open to them?

Squeek

April 19th, 2008, 19:20

For me this is absolutely not a question of cultural superiority. Without any doubt certain aspects of modern western culture ARE superior to their counterparts in Yeminitic culture. That shouldn't make us arrogant, because it took us a long time to get where we are now, and even today Europe and the United States have a rather hypocritical attitude towards topics like human rights.I see the lack of social exchange in the Middle East as a big problem. I've travelled all over, but I've never been to the Middle East (nor do I intend to go there anytime soon). There's no substitute for firsthand knowledge, and there's not much of it moving back and forth. So we hear stories, like the one in my OP, and can only wonder what to think.

If these stories are true, that kind of backwards thinking isn't good for those Middle Easterners, themselves. Selling daughters, raping children, restricting freedoms -- that kind of stuff doesn't work for anybody. It's only hurting those poor people.

We would all be in a better position to discuss this if we were saints up in heaven. We're not, of course. There's obvious opportunity for resentment here, and some are having a hard time with that. It's not working for them any better than it's working for the rest of us, and I'd like to urge them to try to get over it.

Prime Junta

April 19th, 2008, 20:10

If these stories are true, that kind of backwards thinking isn't good for those Middle Easterners, themselves. Selling daughters, raping children, restricting freedoms -- that kind of stuff doesn't work for anybody. It's only hurting those poor people.

Again, you use the term "Middle Easterners," when we're discussing Yemen -- a quasi-medieval, feudal, ultra-traditional society. I'm kinda surprised you haven't realized the problem with that generalization yet, and switched to a more specific term. "Middle Easterners" in general do not sell daughters or rape children any more frequently than "Westerners" in general -- although you'll certainly find "Westerners" who do both. Sale of underage girls to prostitution is pretty run-of-the-mill in the poorer corners of Europe, for example.

The problem is that child marriage and the treatment of women as property are part of a bigger whole. There's a huge load of social and economic practices upholding them. If you took a society like Yemen's and found a way to suddenly enforce the right of women to own and dispose of property, not to mention themselves, it would have repercussions everywhere -- land rights, inheritance and maintenance of estates, even cultivation patterns. Done quickly, this would very likely result in societal collapse. Unless you simultaneously find a way to transform these in a way that doesn't have these effects, you'll end up doing more harm than good.

Example: back in the '50's and '60's, there were huge vaccination campaigns in Africa and Asia. They drastically cut down child mortality. However, nothing was done to simultaneously lower the fertility rate. The result? An enormous population explosion that left tens of millions of people starving or fighting wars for resources. The Rwanda genocide, for example, is a direct consequence of overpopulation -- there just wasn't enough arable land to go around to support the population, which eventually resulted in one tribe exterminating another.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the best thing we can do is "nothing" -- on the contrary, I'm a huge believer in our capacity to change things for the better if only we set our minds on it. What I am saying is that we should be extremely careful about how we go about it, lest unintended consequences destroy any good we may have done.

We would all be in a better position to discuss this if we were saints up in heaven. We're not, of course. There's obvious opportunity for resentment here, and some are having a hard time with that. It's not working for them any better than it's working for the rest of us, and I'd like to urge them to try to get over it.

Squeek, methinks you've got your halo on too tight.

POLYGON

April 19th, 2008, 21:33

Being a middle-eastern, I have to say that it's no longer a mystery for me why most people have a bad image about the middle east and its people, everytime something like this happens in the ME it's discussed to death in the media till they make sure everybody heard about it...(teddybear anyone?)
The problem is that some ignorant people(I mean ignorant abt the ME) try to clarify ME topics to other people, which makes the ME a worse place in those people's eyes...
Obviously this problem is beyond redemption, and trying to give the ME a good reputation is an impossible mission, thus I'll say no more.

Squeek

April 19th, 2008, 21:39

Squeek

April 19th, 2008, 21:43

zahratustra

April 19th, 2008, 22:10

(a) exactly as smart as we are, if not smarter

"...if not smarter..." and what could possibly lead you to this conclusion PJ? Care to elaborate? o_o

magerette

April 19th, 2008, 22:45

"...if not smarter..." and what could possibly lead you to this conclusion PJ? Care to elaborate? o_o

We were discussing the people of prehistory--I imagine, though I don't want to speak for him, that Prime J was saying that present technologically advanced human societies aren't necessarily composed of smarter individuals than earlier ones.

Perhaps the fact that these cultures did all kinds of challenging things without our level of technology--like navigating the oceans, building Stonehenge-like stuff, creating advanced calenders like the Central & South American pre-Euro Native cultures, etc.-- might be a basis for considering some of them smarter.

If I've misinterpreted, please set me straight.

Prime Junta

April 19th, 2008, 23:23

PJ, I thought you weren't going to participate in this discussion, and that seemed like a good thing, frankly. Despite how you seem like a fairly bright guy who's familiar with this stuff, your posts really aren't worth reading, and so I only give them a glance (and often regret even that).

You're stuck, and that makes you boring and mildly annoying, and I don't like you enough to look past it. Others seem to be able to deal with you ok, so that's good (not so much for them, but for you), so you can have your conversations without me.

I never said I wasn't going to participate; quite the contrary. I merely thought this thread was too far gone to be salvageable. I appear to have been mistaken about that, except, as it appears, with regards to you. If you don't want to talk to me, then don't -- but I think that going "blaa blaa blaa I'm not listening I'm not listening" rather pulls the rug out from your professions of maturity and adulthood. But maybe that's just me.

Prime Junta

April 19th, 2008, 23:27

"...if not smarter..." and what could possibly lead you to this conclusion PJ? Care to elaborate? o_o

Just something I read in a book by a guy called Jared Diamond. He's spent a lot of time with Papua New Guinean highlanders, and commented that they appear to be smarter on average than we are. He surmised it was because they were constantly being challenged by their environment, rather than having the option to simply vegetate in front of the TV.

But I certainly don't have any hard evidence about it, one way or the other. I just think it's highly unlikely they were dumber -- we haven't evolved biologically since then (not much anyway), and their environment certainly favored intelligence and challenged the mind.

zahratustra

April 20th, 2008, 00:08

I have absolutely no objections to the statement that present day humans aren't any smarter than earlier ones magerette. It's the posit that they were smarter than we are that I have problems with.

I am simply am not aware that any of the challenges which stood before cultures of the past were met in an "way above our heads" sort of way!

True, they explored ("navigate" isn't really a right word to use until appearance of chronometer) oceans but since it was purely on the "trial and error" basis they have payed very heavy cost in lives.
True, they build Stonehenge but it was built in 7 stages and in a period close to a 1000 years!
Advanced calendars? Advanced as compared to what? The earlier ones? Sure! Modern (and I mean "modern" in a broad sense)? Not by a long shot!

Prime Junta

April 20th, 2008, 00:10

I have absolutely no objections to the stement that present day humans aren't any smarter than earlier ones magerette. It's the posit that they were smarter than we are that I have problems with.

I simply am not aware that any of the challenges which stood before past cultures of the past were met in an "way above our heads" sort of way!

Me neither, and that's not what I meant.

zahratustra

April 20th, 2008, 01:06

LOL PJ my response was more to what magerette thought you ment rather than to what you ment :D

Corwin

April 20th, 2008, 01:43

Squeek, PLEASE avoid making personal attacks on other posters. I won't tolerate ANY and I read every post in every forum I moderate!! As Jaz would say, Play nice Boys!! :)

Squeek

April 20th, 2008, 01:47

Fine, Corwin. It's the attacks, personal and otherwise, that I'm objecting to, actually. So ok, I'll be sure to play nice.

POLYGON

April 20th, 2008, 02:11

@ POLYGON:" All I can say is some Middle Easterners I know are comfortable speaking generally and specifically and have patience with folks who don't now much about them or where they're from. But they're over here and have a clearer perspective about who's sincere and who's not.

When I speak in general terms about folks from the Middle East, I'm trying my best. I have no interest in trying to shed an ugly light on the Middle East. But you should know that there's a very ugly light shining on much of it from our persective over here. I'll try to work past that if you will, so you're welcome to speak up and be honest.

I really can't think of another reason of why you've made the original thread-post, I don't mean the story, if you've just posted it as an interesting story then that would've been ok, but the way you put it, the way you relate it to the whole of the middle east is just not right..
When we(MEerns) hear of such stories we don't find it normal, we find it weird and non-humane as much as you do, and these things doesn't happen everyday or everywhere, these people only represent themselves,not the ME, nor Islam

Squeek

April 20th, 2008, 02:23

It was a featured story on CNN's site, and that's what triggered my decision to make a post about Middle Eastern justice. Where I live, those are the kinds of stories people often refer to whenever they discuss the Middle East. They shake their heads and wonder just what the heck is happening over there.

None of us really know much about the geography, the history or the politics over there. Unless you studied it in college (and I certainly didn't), it's just not what we're taught in school. So most of what we learn about it is from stories like that one.

I figured I'd avoid stating an opinion in order to try to avoid being controversial. I didn't anticipate the way some folks have reacted, and I think I learned something there. Next time, I'll be more careful.

Right now my honest opinion is that attitudes about justice there must be way behind those of the rest of the world, but I certainly won't make that argument. If we can move past the suspicion, I'm ready for earnest discussion and anticipating finding out a lot more.

magerette

April 20th, 2008, 02:27

LOL PJ my response was more to what magerette thought you ment rather than to what you ment :D

Sorry if I was assuming too much about what was and wasn't meant, there. :) Obviously, not being familiar with Jared Diamond and his research as cited by Prime J, I was advancing my own theories. Actually, it was really none of my business to respond anyway!

I think a case could be made that originating sciences, math precepts and so forth, might be a little more difficult than building on them as we do, but I certainly am not about to argue that we are less intelligent than earlier civilizations.

April 20th, 2008, 04:43

Corwin

April 20th, 2008, 05:03

magerette

April 20th, 2008, 06:42

Pretty sure they're not compleatly hypothetical, I can recall reading about one a while back but the refernece escapes me at the moment. It might have been the Mosuo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo

That was a fascinating article, V7. Thanks very much for drawing my attention to it. Your question about age isn't really addressed, but the 'walking marriage' concept sort of presupposes that it's a question of mutual choice and no one is being forced into any relationship before they are physically ready.

Interesting that the author indicates that there's a case to be made that the patriarchal nobility imposed this system on the matriarchal peasants--if so, I think the peasants, with their communal extended family structure, ended up with the best deal. :)

April 20th, 2008, 06:52

It definatly makes an interesting example, and certainly an exceptional case. WHile there's no disucssion of age in article it does point out that rape saddly still occurs.

magerette

April 20th, 2008, 07:21

It definatly makes an interesting example, and certainly an exceptional case. WHile there's no disucssion of age in article it does point out that rape saddly still occurs.

Yes, but it's "traditionally punished by execution." Not your typical patriarchal response. While this is an extreme punishment with which I don't agree, the viewpoint is definitely very different from a society that objectifies women.
Thanks again for the info.

April 20th, 2008, 07:43

Polygon, I understand where you're coming from, but what would be really helpful is if people like yourself posted more about what the situation is really like there, rather than leaving us at the mercy of the media with their own personal agendas!!

That makes an interesting question, I've been trying to think of a constructive way to address Squeek's more explanatory post explaining the topics he wished to address since he put it up. Even if we set aside the disagreements above its hard to know where to start, I'd consider 'Middle Eastern Justice' as a topic too broad for a doctoral dissertation let alone something that can be adequately addressed on an internet forum using examples from the popular media (as a thought experiment do you feel you could do address 'European Justice' adequately in a similar context? - and that’s a subject where we might think that we share similar cultural assumptions). Its good the question is raised if people are curious about it and willing to question their preconceived notions, I just don't know where to start without writing a dissertation on middle eastern history, culture and jurisprudence. Maybe someone smarter than I can deal with it more efficiently.

If anyone is serious about trying to understand the region my honest suggestions;

1) stop watching CNN, even when they get the facts right they don’t have the space to give you context (see the whole Yemen is not representative argument above), that goes for the rest of the American news media as well with the possible exception of reports relating to the American military.

2) the BBC is better, the British have a longer history in the region and are more aware of their baggage although again there’s not much room to give you context so it can be tricky to reach an informed opinion without background knowledge.

3) Try the Economist (http://www.economist.com/) its fairly right wing, pro-American, pro-Israel which is worth keeping in mind but they do make an effort toward journalistic integrity and the news magazine format gives them room to include some background. They also tend to skip the sensational stories and concentrate on politics and current affairs.

4) after that hit the bookstore, start with a good general history and go from there. A couple of quick suggestions from my bookshelf;

Fisk, The Great War for Civilisation (Vintage, 2007)
Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms (Verso, 2002) – probably challenging for the patriotic
Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (Holt, 2001)

..and as a final note, there’s a lot of books on the shelves at the moment purporting to tell the ‘truth about Islam’, matching some of the more outspoken western commentators. In general they make some valid points and there are some serious issues involved but I’d suggest reading what’s being said on the other side before accepting their case wholesale.

POLYGON

April 20th, 2008, 07:56

Polygon, I understand where you're coming from, but what would be really helpful is if people like yourself posted more about what the situation is really like there, rather than leaving us at the mercy of the media with their own personal agendas!!

Believe me I try as much as I can, but people often attacks aimlessly with no common sense which makes me feel that they've already swallowed everything their media says to the extent that they've come to hate the Middle East and its people, and that's why when some talk about these stuff they about them as if they were facts which means to convince them otherwise I have to fight their common sense

JemyM

April 20th, 2008, 08:04

Islam is a diversive religion. Just like Christianity, the Quaran is interpreted by people influenced by it's country's own culture. Seeing Islam as one religion is a mistake, just like seeing Christianity as one religion.

It's perfectly possible to live a secular life having muslim traditions just like a liberal Christian. If you live up in or are exposed to a country with a such culture that is... If you live up in a country where everyone is "indoctrinated" with the Quaran, it's still a difference depending on which country you lived up in. The ones that oppress free speech and democracy are the worst since people in a such country are rarely exposed to the other perspective.

The greatest difference between "muslim countries" and "christian countries" is that there are no "christian countries". All countries that used to be "christian countries" have converted to liberal democracies with religious freedom and freedom of expression. People like to call them "Christian" out of habit, but legally they are not. The "Muslim countries" truly are theocracies, and almost indistinguishable from what was the norm a few hundred years ago in Europe.

Scanning through the legal history of Sweden, one do not need to go long back to find Swedish laws taken directly from the Old Testament. Initially the death penalty was common but punishments for breaking the OT laws were still in effect into the 1900. Some laws, like blasphemy, lasted to the 70'ies. Even after most of such laws were abolished, some churches kept traditions such as expelling "unclean" women temporary after childbirth, double the time if it was a girl. Some churches in small communities still discuss having this law back.

If middle east gained freedom today but kept muslim traditions, the bad practices would begin to drop out one by one, ending up keeping only the positive ones.

POLYGON

April 20th, 2008, 08:08

If middle east gained freedom today but kept muslim traditions, the bad practices would begin to drop out one by one, ending up keeping only the positive ones.

What bad practices?

JemyM

April 20th, 2008, 08:27

What bad practices?

Every act of restricting political freedom.

April 20th, 2008, 08:33

The "Muslim countries" truly are theocracies, and almost indistinguishable from what was the norm a few hundred years ago in Europe.

Not sure where to start;

1) If you stretch the definition was one theocracy in Europe a few hundred years ago (the Papal States), the rest were a mixture of absolute and constitutional monarchies with a few examples of democracies.

2) You could currently argue Iran is a Theocracy, although it has democratic elements the rest of the region is a mix of democracies, various forms of authoritarian and dictatorial government and monarchy.

3) Depending on how you define a 'Muslim country' not all middle eastern countries are 'Muslim' or not all 'Muslim' countries use religious law.

POLYGON

April 20th, 2008, 08:34

Every act of restricting political freedom.
Then believe me those acts have nothing to do with Islam, Islam states the exact opposite, regimes like those are hated even among their own people(except Syria maybe) but they can do nothing about it

JemyM

April 20th, 2008, 08:54

1) If you stretch the definition was one theocracy in Europe a few hundred years ago (the Papal States), the rest were a mixture of absolute and constitutional monarchies with a few examples of democracies.

The word Theocracy means being ruled by God. Initially it referred to the jews, but when it was introduced as a word in the English language it referred to the European states as well.

The monarchies was based on the idea that a king was chosen by God and this was actually widely believed until a few revolutions proved it was not so. In the catholic countries, the king had to get support by a pope who also could expel him (some kings was taken down that way). When Luther wrote his works he pointed out that the king was the religious leader of the country, an idea that many kings liked. Still today it's written in the Swedish constitution that the king must be a protestant, else he's not king.

2) You could currently argue Iran is a Theocracy, although it has democratic elements the rest of the region is a mix of democracies, various forms of authoritarian and dictatorial government and monarchy.

That's simply playing around with words.

3) Depending on how you define a 'Muslim country' not all middle eastern countries are 'Muslim' or not all 'Muslim' countries use religious law.

Secular countries are secular even if the population are Muslim or Christian.

JemyM

April 20th, 2008, 09:00

Then believe me those acts have nothing to do with Islam, Islam states the exact opposite, regimes like those are hated even among their own people(except Syria maybe) but they can do nothing about it

Like any creed, what Islam means is up to whoever interprets it. A culture that is exclusively influenced by the Quaran and the Hadith will interpret the religion different than a person living up in a liberal/secular country. The secular Muslims or liberal Muslims I have spoken who have explained Islam to me is actually explaining the humanist creed (and I recognize that one very well) and they explain their religion almost exactly like a secular Christian or liberal Christian explain their religion. The simple reason for this is that they are more exposed to humanist values than they are by their own religion. Such values are not just popular in free countries, they come from human feelings rather than being suggested by books.

And this is the problem I personally have with religions. They divide humans into separate groups with different labels and different books even if they share the same human values. It would benefit mankind as a whole if this religious apartheid was discontinued and the "clash of cultures" exposed as the myth it is.

April 20th, 2008, 09:06

The word Theocracy means being ruled by God. Initially it referred to the jews, but when it was introduced as a word in the English language it referred to the European states as well.

The monarchies was based on the idea that a king was chosen by God and this was actually widely believed until a few revolutions proved it was not so. In the catholic countries, the king had to get support by a pope who also could expel him (some kings was taken down that way). When Luther wrote his works he pointed out that the king was the religious leader of the country, an idea that many kings liked. Still today it's written in the Swedish constitution that the king must be a protestant, else he's not king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

JemyM

April 20th, 2008, 09:40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

I read it. Europe consists of numerous countries with their own history but most of them (if not all) have in common that they were once ruled by Christianity, even turkey. Getting killed for having the wrong religion or even the wrong perspective on Christianity was the norm and the Old Testament laws applied with full lethal force. When Calvinism and Lutheran protestantism was introduced they were a reinterpretion of the bible based on humanist ideas. That's what the whole "personal faith" is about. But Luther did not go all the way, he did point out the King as the religious leader.

What happened then was a religious war and revolutions all over Europe that lasted up to the 20th century. In some cases, the revolutions was bloody, in others the revolutions was peaceful. Britain and France got religious freedom much sooner than countries like Sweden who did not get the right to pick religion up to 1952.

These countries really was theocracies. When the first Swedish law was introduced back 300 years ago it was an old testament ripoff. The king was the leader of the church and thus the religious leader of the country. In the beginning of 1900, part of the "education" in Swedish schools still told every child that the King was elected by God. Besides that they taught "Lutheran labor morals", which basically meant "work hard, because God do not like you if you do not".

If you want to know what an European country would be if they were ruled by "middle east justice", just look at their history.

Prime Junta

April 20th, 2008, 10:57

4) after that hit the bookstore, start with a good general history and go from there. A couple of quick suggestions from my bookshelf;

Fisk, The Great War for Civilisation (Vintage, 2007)
Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms (Verso, 2002) – probably challenging for the patriotic
Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (Holt, 2001)

Seconded.

For a general history of the region, I'd suggest Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples (Faber & Faber, 1991).

Prime Junta

April 20th, 2008, 11:06

Then believe me those acts have nothing to do with Islam, Islam states the exact opposite, regimes like those are hated even among their own people(except Syria maybe) but they can do nothing about it

I think what JemyM was referring to is the way Islam is used to justify various restrictions on freedoms in various countries. To take some moderately extreme examples, consider the dress restrictions enforced by the religious police in Iran or the ban on preaching other religions than Islam in Saudi Arabia. Whether these *really* conform to what the Qur'an teaches, and what the general population in Iran or Saudi Arabia thinks of the bans, is sort of beside the point -- the point being that the stated justification is enforcing the "correct" practice of Islam.

It really is very similar to many Biblically-based laws that were in force in Europe and some parts of America until comparatively recently.

Prime Junta

April 20th, 2008, 11:12

Secular countries are secular even if the population are Muslim or Christian.

And many countries with Muslim majorities are secular in this sense. Syria is a secular dictatorship, Saddam's Iraq was a secular dictatorship, Turkey is a secular democracy, Lebanon is a multi-confessional mess that sort of defies categorization, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria are countries with Islam as the dominant religion but with legal and political systems that are not based on Islamic law, and so on. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and post-Saddam Iraq are the only major Middle Eastern countries with legal and administrative systems explicitly based on Islamic law, and of these, only Iran has clerics in an explicitly defined position of power.

April 20th, 2008, 11:18

If you want to know what an European country would be if they were ruled by "middle east justice", just look at their history.

I think you're confusing the divine right of kings with theocracy, while European civil and criminal law was influenced by religious law they weren't one and the same, note the separation of state and church courts in most countries. Not really on topic for this thread though.

(and if anyone is looking for an exhaustive explanation of all the political and religious debates and settlements Jemy is referring to I'd recommend - MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1190-1700 (penguin, 2003), absolutely brilliant especially if as I do you have trouble wrapping your head round subtle religious differences + at 832 pages its thick enough to beat heretics to death)

JemyM

April 20th, 2008, 12:39

I think you're confusing the divine right of kings with theocracy, while European civil and criminal law was influenced by religious law they weren't one and the same, note the separation of state and church courts in most countries. Not really on topic for this thread though.

A few things:
1. I would qualify the old testament as "middle eastern justice", but of course, that's a matter of perspective.
2. If a divine leader and a law system strongly based on religious law does not constitute as a Theocracy, I do not know what does.
3. When civil and criminal laws was introduced in European countries, they drew inspiration from different sources.

Prime Junta

April 20th, 2008, 13:36

A few things:
1. I would qualify the old testament as "middle eastern justice", but of course, that's a matter of perspective.
2. If a divine leader and a law system strongly based on religious law does not constitute as a Theocracy, I do not know what does.

The European kings weren't divine leaders, even though their right to rule was considered divine. Imperial China wasn't a theocracy either, even though the ruling dynasty was considered to have the "mandate of Heaven." It might seem like a minor distinction, but it isn't: in a theocracy, the clergy rules, and European kings were laymen.

But the precise definition of theocracy is really not that important for this discussion, IMO -- we're quibbling about semantics here. You're right in pointing out that the legal and political systems in pre-modern European societies were based on the Church's teachings and justified in religious terms.

JemyM

April 20th, 2008, 15:07

The catholic kings were placed by the clergy. Back then the roman-catholic church was the highest authority and could even expel kings who argued against them.

After the breakup with the roman-catholic church however, the idea of Divine Right of Kings was born. This pretty much made the king into a God. Louis XIV for example was named the "sun king" and was often depicted in political propaganda as a god. Whether this can be considered as a "Christian leader" or not is up to debate though. The church was used to promote kings as the highest hierarchy beneath god, just as it was before used to promote the heads of the roman-catholic church before that.

Romans 13:1-2 states: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

The idea that the king was a godlike figure was torn to pieces with the French revolution. It pretty much proved to the common people that the kings were mortal, not divine.

Anyway, it's beside the point. The point is that a ruler who use the Old Testament as inspiration for law building and churches for brainwashing is difficult to distinguish morally from a group who uses the Quaran and Mosques for the same purpose. For the middle east to catch up with the rest of the world they are going to need constitutions based on the human rights and freedoms such as religious freedom and freedom of expression.

Prime Junta

April 20th, 2008, 16:28

Anyway, it's beside the point. The point is that a ruler who use the Old Testament as inspiration for law building and churches for brainwashing is difficult to distinguish morally from a group who uses the Quaran and Mosques for the same purpose. For the middle east to catch up with the rest of the world they are going to need constitutions based on the human rights and freedoms such as religious freedom and freedom of expression.

Exactly.

I just have a sneaky feeling that these constitutions, rights, and freedoms need expressions that are a fair bit different from those in the West. The Western polities are based on the Enlightenment ideal of the individual. Middle Eastern societies are far more communitarian. If the political and legal structures do not recognize it, they're not going to succeed.

To pick a specific example, a Western model for democracy assumes that people vote according to their interests, values, and ideals as individuals. In Middle Eastern democracies, people tend to vote based on their identity -- religious, ethnic, or clan. That means that a Western-style constitution will quickly turn into a superstructure for the ethnic-religious-tribal-feudal system that's already there, and end up changing very little.

I really don't know what a Middle Eastern open society would look like, but then it's none of my business to try to design one.

dteowner

April 20th, 2008, 16:59

So, to bring this train back around... We all seem in agreement of a few basics:
1) Yemen is not representative of the ME
2) None of us here will publicly support pedophilia (there's a surprise) and we're not big fans of childhood marriage since that appears to be a mechanism to enable the pedophiles.

Now, a couple more thoughts that aren't quite as uniformly swallowed (I'm going to continue the numbering for reference purposes):
3) Shock stories invalidate the reliability of the US media
4) Because the original event occured in Yemen, there can be no connection between the event and the religious/political structure in which it happened.
5) If an American raises an issue, it's just because he's misled by the spoonfeeding US propaganda machine, and it can safely be dismissed as uninformed and juvenile.

I'll put the rest of my thought into a seperate post, to make quoting easier for those that choose to jump on the grenade.

dteowner

April 20th, 2008, 17:22

1) Generalizations are never technically correct, and yet everybody uses them all the time. In fact, to take any meaning from any event, it has to be generalized and referenced into the greater world. Why we get to pick and choose which ones are OK and which ones are not is a bit of a mystery to me. If we say, "The US media doesn't accurately report events due to a lack of depth and context", everyone here nods their head and we move forward. If we say "Middle Eastern Justice", it's like someone farted in church. I'm not saying the first generalization is untrue, nor am I saying the second is appropriate, but it's not exactly right to pick and choose, either.

2) while the event in Yemen certainly shouldn't be used to indict an entire culture, it's equally blind to give the culture an automatic free pass just because a certain event occured in a backwater of said culture. Specifically, just because codified law is a pipedream in Yemen doesn't mean there's no law. Just because this event happened in Yemen doesn't mean it doesn't reflect poorly on the society in which is occured.

3) I'm certainly no supporter of the US media, but it doesn't make much sense to write off the event simply because of who reported it. The report itself made no tie to the larger society, although I think it was certainly aimed to allow that tie to be made. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, and that doesn't mean that any thoughts based on the report are automatically invalid, any more than anything based on the BBC is automatically valid.

4) Fact: the event occured in Yemen. Fact: Yemen is geographically in the Middle East. Fact: Yemen is a feudal society supported with Islamic teachings. While it's certainly shaky reasoning to generalize the set based on a subset, it's equally shaky to deny that a subset has common ground with the whole simply because it's a small subset "off in the corner".

5) Sorry, couldn't resist. :p