|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Political ... changing my mind on the U.N. |
| 1-12 of 12 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 11-10-10 12:08pm - 5118 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Political ... changing my mind on the U.N. I've always been a supporter of the U.N., even though they are not too effective at times, but thought there was a place for them (through peace keeping, sanctions etc.) when it came to keeping things reasonably civilized on the international stage, but talk about disillusionment. On a new panel for Women's Rights Saudi Arabia gets a seat! SAUDI ARABIA!!! Where women are not allowed to drive, where women are not allowed to vote, where women are not allowed to go out by themselves, where women can be arrested by the religious fashion police if they don't wear the traditional garb in public?? Are they kidding us? This is almost enough to turn me into a conservative! http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/10...cy-iran.html?ref=rss | |
|
||
| 11-10-10 12:50pm - 5118 days | #2 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I couldn't agree more. I've always respected the U.N., but this story undermines that respect. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is also in the running for a seat. The DRC has a record on violence agaisnt women that would probably make Iran blush. If you're interested in the story, there is a great interview on the CBC website with Canada's former ambassador to the U.N., Stephen Lewis. It is an excellent listen. Search "cbc as it happens" and look for part one of the Monday, November 8, 2010 show. | |
|
||
| 11-10-10 02:39pm - 5118 days | #3 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
The Democratic Republic of the Congo? Have they all gone crazy? And thanks for the tip. I visit the CBC site on a daily basis, as you might gather from the link I supplied! | |
|
||
| 11-10-10 03:47pm - 5118 days | #4 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I'm a regular visitor there too. | |
|
||
| 11-17-10 06:06am - 5111 days | #5 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster  Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
I agree too, BUT on any panel shouldn't you allow both people who are for something (ie women's rights) and people who are against it, to get a representative range of views on a subject? Whilst I firmly believe that women should have equal rights, I also believe that the UN should be a democratic organisation. It's a tricky situation. It's rather like I hate the existence of the BNP political party here in the UK (their views and aims are scary) BUT in a democracy people should be free to stand for election, and everyone else should be free to vote for them. In that sense their views (providing they are legal) are irrelevant. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 11-17-10 07:24am - 5111 days | #6 | |
|
Denner (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,217 Registered: Mar 03, '07 Location: Denmark |
Well spoken, messmer - what else can I say....? "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle" | |
|
||
| 11-17-10 12:04pm - 5111 days | #7 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
You make some good points, Ed2009. I took "panel" to mean a new body that ensures women's rights or speaks up for them, world wide. If it is just a forum where people simply express their opinions then, yes, both sides should be heard. | |
|
||
| 11-17-10 01:28pm - 5111 days | #8 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The article that messmer links to talks about a board, not a panel. Normally, a board is a few people who set the policy of an organization. This board will help set/determine the policy of "a new United Nations agency meant to promote equality for women." Anyone in favor of equality for women would not vote for, or elect, board members who are against equality for women. That's why the United States and Canada worked against against Iran getting a seat (a membership) on the board: In the opinion of the United States and Canada, Iran's views on women's equality should not be promoted. 1. In Iran, it is difficult for a woman to get a passport. 2. In Iran, the testimony of two women is equal to that of one man. 3. Iran sentenced a woman to death by stoning for adultery. The woman has not yet been executed, because there was an international protest over what many believed was cruel and barbaric treatment for a woman. Iran is still trying to decide what is the proper way to treat this woman: should she be executed by stoning, kept in prison, or what? After all, a woman who is unfaithful is an abomination before God, and must be cleansed. What better way to cleanse her than to kill her by stoning? 4. In Iran, a women in public must wear a hijab (head covering), or she is considered a prostitute. If you believe that Iran has the correct way to treat women's rights, then write your UN representatives and demand that Iran be given a seat on the UN board that deals with women's rights. | |
|
||
| 11-17-10 08:01pm - 5111 days | #9 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
while I agree that there should be equality for all, it might not necessarily be a bad thing to have some of these nations on such a board. it might help to promote nations to change their views on women, probably wouldn't but you never know. Certainly a difficult problem to tackle, but by including them in the conversation there might be a little more leverage to convince them to comply with whatever resolutions they come up with. Of course the counterpoint to that is that with them on the panel, whatever resolutions they come up with will be worthless. Of course, they might all just be stupid... Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited. | |
|
||
| 11-17-10 08:29pm - 5111 days | #10 | |
|
Goldfish (0)
Active User  Posts: 265 Registered: Jan 19, '08 Location: Boston, MA |
Has anyone considered why Saudi Arabia made it on while Iran didn't? Both have terrible track records in women's rights so why take one but not the other? I'm guessing it has to do with politics in other areas between the U.S. and Iran -- which is sort of disgusting in itself. | |
|
||
| 11-17-10 09:32pm - 5111 days | #11 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I hope everyone is aware that Iran is still ahead of Saudi Arabia in terms of human rights--including the rights of women, however limited they may be to our Western values. Including Saudi Arabia while keeping Iran off the board is more of a political decision than anything truly concerned with human rights. I know it's a Bush-era cliche, but remember Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil" and that really explains why Saudi Arabia can win over it. They're one of our allies and Iran is not, thus the propaganda tells us to be more upset over their theocracy. The differences may seem subtle but they are still different and it seems to show, at least to me, more of a concern for politics than the treatment of women. Reminds me of the controversy over a Time magazine cover depicting an Afghan woman missing part of her face with the words "What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan." But the U.S./NATO occupation of Afghanistan has never been about the treatment of women. Yes it's a gruesome, disgusting image of just how "advanced" our species is when it comes to how we treat one another, but the ultimate and minimum goal of occupying that country is about preventing it from degenerating back into another clusterfuck of instability in an already unstable region. With nuclear weapons in neighboring Pakistan (and probably Iran in the future) the idea of a Taliban-run, or just staunchly anti-American, government in power makes a lot of people very nervous. If a somewhat stable government rules Afghanistan, or at least most of it, without harboring al Qaeda, other terrorists, or building a cache of WMDs, our government could really care less about what it does with its women. It's sad but true--women's rights are not a priority right now. They would certainly be nice but don't get your hopes up, and don't plan on taking your girlfriend or wife to the region anytime soon.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 11-18-10 09:59am - 5110 days | #12 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
You know, I wondered about that myself. Why lobby against Iran while at the same time keeping silent about Saudi Arabia? Could it be oil? But then Iran has oil as well so why? Is it because the Saudi Princes are a tad more enlightened than their subjects and try to bring about a snail's paced change while Iran's top leaders actually promote and encourage fundamentalist Islamic values? But what do I know, much in this world doesn't make sense to me. | |
|
||
| 1-12 of 12 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
