Saudi Arabia is very annoyed with Sweden. How dare Sweden. Sweden has one hell of a nerve.
Saudi Arabia said on 19 March 2015 it will not issue any new visas for Swedish business people, in retaliation for comments made by the Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström.
Diplomatic ties between both countries have been severed since Sweden accused Saudi Arabia of blocking Wallström from speaking at an Arab League meeting earlier this month. However, her cancelled remarks were published by the Swedish foreign ministry. While they did not mention Saudi Arabia, Wallström’s statement stressed women and human rights.
Well! Did you ever!? No wonder Saudi Arabia is angry. Women and human rights; have you ever heard anything so filthy and forbidden.
In retaliation, the Scandinavian country then said it would not renew a lucrative defence cooperation deal with the oil-rich Middle Eastern Kingdom because of its poor record for democracy and civil liberties.
Bad. Its bad record. Its record is not just poor, it’s bad; very bad.
The diplomatic row between Sweden and Saudi Arabia over military ties and human rights escalated on 11 March when Riyadh recalled its ambassador from Stockholm.
Dozens of other Arab nations criticized Sweden’s decision, soon after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Sweden and accused the Nordic country of “flagrant interference in internal affairs”.
Yes, and the police shouldn’t interfere with domestic violence, either, because that’s internal affairs.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which represents 57 Muslim nations, released a statement in which it accused Wallström of “degrading Saudi Arabia and its social norms, judicial system and political institutions”.
The OIC was initiated by Saudi Arabia and its headquarters are in Jeddah; it’s hardly a neutral observer.
“The world community, with its multiple cultures, diverse social norms, rich and varied ethical standards and different institutional structures, can not, and should not, be based on a single and centric perspective that seeks to remake the world in its own image,” the statement continued.
Uh huh, those rich and varied ethical standards that include the total subordination of women, FGM, child marriage for girls, stoning, death for gays, lashes, amputation – rich and varied indeed.
Go stone yourself, Saudi Arabia.
I prefer my ethical standards non-varied, please.
–
I was talking to a man I know yesterday who used to work in the ME. He still has scars on his rear & legs from when the religious police found him near a women’s market. He hadn’t realized he was headed into a gender segregated area until they were running at him, shouting. When he first arrived in Saudia Arabia, he and all of the other foreign employees were forced to attend a public lashing, to make sure they understood what would happen if they violated these ‘diverse social norms’.
Holy shit.
Yeah, no kidding. He hated it, and blames much of it on too much wealth and not enough work. I always appreciate his perspective on global issues because of his unique background. He is from Denmark originally, worked in the ME and later immigrated to the US.
You know, Saudi Arabia, if you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. So if they can’t handle criticism they don’t belong at the grown-up’s table
“
“The world community, with its multiple cultures, diverse social norms, rich and varied ethical standards and different institutional structures, can not, and should not, be based on a single and centric perspective that seeks to remake the world in its own image,”
Unless it’s them that’s doing it, I guess.
Oy – I totally overlooked the opportunity to ask why they lavish all that funding on Salafist organizations then. Well spotted.
If that’s all it takes for Saudi Arabia to sever diplomatic ties, think about what that says about all those other countries with which Saudi Arabia maintains diplomatic ties.
A perfect opportunity to revisit this Jesus and Mo.
Shouldn’t Saudi Arabia be chummy with Sweden?
After all, Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of Feminism!
So says Our Reverend Julian Assange, and he would never ever lie…
“Varied ethical standards” is quite the oxymoron. If it varies from place to place, it follows that some of them will be less ethical than others.
#9
That doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.
Varied ethical standards isn’t any more an oxymoron than varied dress codes. It is, however, a view of ethics that I agree is wrong.
The relativist worldview sees different systems of ethical norms as essentially self-referential and closed. You wouldn’t impose the rules of one sport on another or say that an impressionist masterpiece is of poor quality because it doesn’t follow the rules of neo-classical painting, for example.
Some people (though ironically NOT the Saudi authorities) see morality as little more than convention and custom. You drive on the left side of the road in one country and the right in another. The acceptability of floggings and stonings would be a similar matter if this “when in Rome” view was taken to its logical conclusion.
Hopefully, consequentialist moral reasoning will replace both relativism and dogmatic absolutism.