Remove Saudi Arabia from The Council of Human Rights Now

[Alan H]

Remove Saudi Arabia from The Council of Human Rights Now

Saudi Arabia had a shameful start to 2016, executing 47 people in a day, after a year with one of the highest execution rates in its recent history. The death penalty is never the answer to crimes, and executing prisoners en masse further stains Saudi Arabia’s troubling human rights record.
With its historic disregard for human rights and civil liberties, it's renowned abuse of domestic workers, oppression of women and religious minorities, it's well known support to terrorists and terrorisms, its failure to provide fair and transparent trials etc it is both surprising and very alarming that a country like Saudi even has a seat on the very influential United Nations body, the Human Rights Council. This was and is a mockery of justice.

[Dave B]

I support the petition but have made it a new policy not to sign up for any that insist on asking for my street address.

Just do not feel comfortable wit that. Also I do not want any more unsolicited mail.

[Alan H]

No, no, no, no.... Saudi Arabia’s foreign affairs minister Adel al-Jubeir urges Britain to ‘respect’ the kingdom’s use of the death penalty

[Alan H]

Why are we still dealing with this barbaric regime? Saudi Arabia executions reach record high as beheadings set to double this year

[Dave B]

You always ask the difficult questions, Alan!

I take it that the question was half rhetorical?

I am sure that the answer a politician would probably give would be, "For security." Trouble is there is some truth in that, even if we do not like the methods they use to reduce the problem.

Saudi Arabia is balanced on a point, too many dimensions for edges here. A Sunni country embraeing bith Wahabist ahd Salafist doctrines - tgat may oppose, the first is a modern invention the second wants to take Islam back to the Middle Ages (I know, I know . . .)

Thus Al Q is said to have strong Salafist tendencies (at least) and is, effectively, against the Saud family, who it sees as too pally with the west. Thus the fall of the family will possibly trigger a worse wave of violence than any we have seen so far.

Then there is the fight with the Shia . . .

It would not be good for us either.

So what can the politicians do in this case? Follow our moral instincts? Would not stop the killings. Yes, chucking them off any humanitarian UN committees might make them think, but their pride is as thick as their country is dry. It might provoke the opposite effect to that desired. We simply do not think like them and they probably see us as weak people who deserve all the bombers we let slip through, what they might consider are, our far too gentle laws.

When it is impossible to save everyone the normal human thing is either to save our nearest and dearest or people who we consider important to the greater humanity. Everyone else comes in the lower orders.

Er, still got no meaningful answer to the direct question I fear.

[animist]

I assume that Alan's question was completely rhetorical, Dave. We should have as little to do with this regime as possible, and we are not more secure as a result of tolerating it, even if the arms for oil trade suffers - we need to reduce our dependence on oil anyway

[Alan H]

I assume that Alan's question was completely rhetorical, Dave. We should have as little to do with this regime as possible, and we are not more secure as a result of tolerating it, even if the arms for oil trade suffers - we need to reduce our dependence on oil anyway

I can see that some might think it's a dilemma: do we refuse to even talk to them or do we carry on with business in the hope some 'western values' rub off on them and they become nicer? Or somewhere in between. Remember that it would be illegal to deport someone from the UK to Saudi because they have capital punishment, but it's not illegal to ship them arms by the bucket load.

[Dave B]

I assume that Alan's question was completely rhetorical, Dave. We should have as little to do with this regime as possible, and we are not more secure as a result of tolerating it, even if the arms for oil trade suffers - we need to reduce our dependence on oil anyway

Certainly can't argue with the final clause of the above!

I can see that there is concern that a post Saud Saudi Arabia might fall completely under the influence of al Q or Daesh. This would almost certainly be more of a threat to the West than a Taliban/al Q Afghanistan ever was.

It is unfortunate that the more fundamentalist factions have a very large influence in Saudi Arahia. If what they claim is correct even the present, slightly more reformist, king has to bow to the religious right in some things to keep a worthwhile degree of authority.

This is the ugly side of pragmatism, to get a job done you sometimes have to work with really nasty people, whilst trying to ignore the things they do elsewhere.