Nick Cohen gets it exactly right.
A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia. As the theocratic kingdom prevents women from travelling, conducting official business or marrying without the permission of male guardians, and as girls can be forced into child marriages where they are effectively raped by old men, she was telling no more than the truth. Wallström went on to condemn the Saudi courts for ordering that Raif Badawi receive ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for setting up a website that championed secularism and free speech. These were ‘mediaeval methods’, she said, and a ‘cruel attempt to silence modern forms of expression’. And once again, who can argue with that?
Who could? Quite a few Islamic states could.
The backlash followed the pattern set by Rushdie, the Danish cartoons and Hebdo. Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador and stopped issuing visas to Swedish businessmen. The United Arab Emirates joined it. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Muslim-majority states, accused Sweden of failing to respect the world’s ‘rich and varied ethical standards’ — standards so rich and varied, apparently, they include the flogging of bloggers and encouragement of paedophiles. Meanwhile, the Gulf Co-operation Council condemned her ‘unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’, and I wouldn’t bet against anti-Swedish riots following soon.
You know what’s interesting about that, though? The strong response tells me that they’re at least a little embarrassed.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine that a Saudi foreign minister made a speech in which he was aghast that Americans let women drive cars and choose who they marry; that the US has laws against pedophilia; that bloggers are allowed to say almost anything they want against the US president, and they aren’t even jailed. Would we then turn around and condemn Saudi Arabia for stating those terrifying facts about our country? No, we’d say “Damn right,” and some of us would also point out that we aren’t quite liberal enough yet.
If flogging people for writing criticisms is part of their “rich and varied ethical standards”, why aren’t the representatives of Saudi Arabia saying, “Damned right, we think it’s important to punish anyone who does not worship Islamic values”? Why are they censuring Sweden for saying up front what they object to in their “rich and varied ethical standards”?
I also find it ironic that they’d be so indignant at a Swedish foreign minister for pointing out that the way they treat their own citizens is cruel and barbaric that they’d start severing ties with that country. I consider the brutal campaigns of the US against citizens in Islamic countries to be far more cruel and barbaric — bombing people via drones and cruise missiles is far worse than criticizing cultural practices.
Or how about this? Here’s John Yoo testifying before congress that he thinks the president has the right to have the testicles of children crushed before their parents’ eyes.
Come on, Saudi Arabia. Talk to us about severing ties with the United States. I can think of plenty of things that you could wave in our faces and we’d be ashamed and be forced to admit that we’ve failed to live up to our own high-minded standards. Blustering at Sweden for speaking the truth is pure chickenshit.
Here’s John Yoo testifying before congress that he thinks the president has the right to have the testicles of children crushed before their parents’ eyes.
In his defense, 24 was very popular at that time…
“…pure chickenshit.” Yes.
It is worth noting that Iran, the islamic theocracy we are supposed to be directing our three minutes of hate toward, allows women to vote, to run for office, to attend free university, to drive, and to generally do their business without literally following a man around.
Two other notables chimed in:
Pope Francis expressed dismay at Wallström’s use of ‘mediaeval’ as a pejorative. “Sure, in that era, Europe was mired in superstition, a suffocating class system, and violence, but how super-awesome was it to be the pope back then, amirite?”
While George W. Bush expressed hope for the future, saying someday he hoped these two cultures would adopt each other’s best ethical ideas. “As President, I embraced the inhumane treatment of people, innocent or guilty, who were different from me, and that was neato. And someday, I think our Saudi friends will realize, as we have, that giving women the right to drive means Dad doesn’t have to be the one to take the kids to soccer practice.”
“Pope Francis expressed dismay at Wallström’s use of ‘mediaeval’ as a pejorative. ‘Sure, in that era, Europe was mired in superstition, a suffocating class system, and violence, but how super-awesome was it to be the pope back then, amirite?'”
I hate to agree (even slightly) with a Pope, but most of the things we castigate as “mediæval” are actually renaissance/early modern and related to the end of the Middle Ages!
Women’s safety is always negotiable, especially when there’s money to be made by selling weapons to those who think women are property.
I would have thought “Petulant child with violent tantrums holding a loaded gun” would be a better description of Saudi Arabia. It’s not because I don’t agree with describing the regime as barbaric, but because many will falsely equate criticism to racism or “lack of respect of our culture”, as already seen in the backlash quoted above.
I commend the minister for her comments. Sometimes people just need to point out the white elephant in the room. Silence enables bad behavior.
The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Muslim-majority states, accused Sweden of failing to respect the world’s ‘rich and varied ethical standards’ …
Notice the implication that only the “ethical standards” of Islamic nations matter. It’s the neolithic ethic in full force.
@5: I was aware of that, so I did try to pick three things that were true of “mediæval” Europe even if also true of Renaisance Europe, and for that matter, the modern US to a distressing degree.
So telling. So telling!
It’s like neonazis invoking the right to free expression, which is the very first thing they’d abolish if they could.
I’m struck at how little talk there has been about this. WTF!?
Thanks PZ for posting this, and yeah, you make a damn good point: they lack the balls to stand by their own beliefs.
“balls” -> whatever gender-neutral the native speakers would like to suggest me.
I still have to clean up my language (and learn to think before I write).
F.O.
How about ‘spine’?
chigau (違う)
*plegics?
Depends.
Do they speak Greek?
throwaway
I was thinking of vertebrates as opposed not non-vertebrates but … yeah.
Re balls: Watson suggested “gonads” in Köln. We all have them. And balls are actually pretty fragile and vulnerable.
True.
But what do sex organs have to do with bravery?
@chigau:
Ask a trans* person who has ever had to choose between sexual relationships and safety.
Other questions: just what was in the censored sections of the report on 9/11 that discussed the Saudi Arabian role in the attack, and where did ISIL/ISIS/Daesh get its start-up money from, as a Sunni group outraged by Shia dominance in the new disaster — thanks George and Dick– we call Iraq?
What does having sex organs of any kind have to do with bravery?
How are any sex organs associated with bravery?
Why would testicles make you braver?
FO (#13) –
Spine. Heart. Stomach. Intestines.
Everybody has those, regardless of identity.
On that note, my understanding is that some surgeries associated with transition result in the removal of one’s gonads…and transition, unfortunately, in our society requires a great deal of bravery, which makes the “gonads” generalist suggestion contradictory as well as exclusionary.
Some non-gonadal words that work just as well: courage, gumption, audacity, bravery, fortitude, grit, mettle, pluck, conviction.
I’m currently living in Italy, where a lot of people would say it’s the “rich and varied ethical standards” of not paying your taxes if you can avoid it, impunity for politicans and the rich, and money-laundering for the Mafia, that have brought the country to the brink of disaster.
Saudi-Arabia’s response: …women…!!