Damn. I was all set to take back much of what I’d said about Prince Charles, because newspaper headlines were saying he was going to urge the Saudi king to stop Raif’s flogging. For a few seconds I was elated, because that would surely make a difference – coming from a fellow monarch and an important ally. But then I read the body of the story and it turns out it’s all just claiming.
Headline in the IB Times: Prince Charles to urge Saudi king to halt blogger Raif Badawi’s flogging
Body:
Prince Charles is rumoured to discuss jailed Saudi activist Raif Badawi’s floggings with Saudi Arabia’s new King when he visits the Kingdom this week, reported Reuters.
According to the official itinerary of Prince Charles’s six-day Middle East tour, he is due to meet senior members of the royal family in his 12th official visit to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday (10 February).
Clarence House, however, declined to comment if he will be meeting King Salman and said reports that the Prince will discuss Badawi’s case were “speculation”.
Oh really. Then why present it as fact in the headline?! Tricksters.
Reuters has more (and a less deceptive headline):
Britain’s Prince Charles will intervene in the case of a jailed Saudi blogger sentenced to 1,000 lashes and urge Saudi Arabia’s new king to halt the punishment, the Mail on Sunday newspaper reported.
Charles embarked on a six-day tour of the Middle East this weekend beginning in Jordan and is expected to also visit Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. His office is not commenting on his exact agenda and the content of any meetings until they are underway.
But the Mail on Sunday, without citing sources, said the heir to the British throne would intervene in the case of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, who was arrested in June 2012 for offences including insulting Islam, cyber crime and disobeying his father, which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
It cited unnamed British diplomatic sources as saying the intervention might carry more clout given his royal status.
So it might be true.
I’m trying to be generous and attribute it to trying to affect the outcome of the headline by shaming Chucklehead into actually doing it. No idea what the reputation of the IB Times, and it certainly isn’t journalism, but it needn’t be malicious.
Maybe he’s planning to do it and somebody leaked that, but they don’t want to officially admit it just yet???
Reaching, here. I want it to be true.
“It cited unnamed British diplomatic sources as saying the intervention might carry more clout given his royal status.” LOL
Yeah, sure, “the opinions of Kuffar royals are very important to us”…….”click!”
If there’s ever been a time for Charles to use his luck-of-the-genetic-draw privlege and speak out using whatever influence his position as a member of a royal family gives him, now is the time.
Chuckles and I are within a couple of weeks of being the same age. Other than a Y chromosome and pale skin, that’s all we have in common.
I’ll repeat my previous prediction that the Saudis will stop flogging Raif (for “humanitarian” reasons) but will NEVER let him out of prison. At least not alive.
And I’ll repeat that you don’t know that. And it’s a bit annoying to be so insistent about it when you don’t know.
Personally, I think the only problem for Charles is finding a way to say the words. He certainly wasn’t backward about being forward on some matters in his younger days, though I admit it’s probably a bit different when countries are or aren’t part of the Commonwealth. It was a big deal when he turned his back on Idi Amin rather than shake his hand at Kenyatta’s funeral back in 1978.
I doubt there are such easy golden opportunities in behind the counter diplomacy in this case with a non-Commonwealth country.