Talk:Human rights in Saudi Arabia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saudi Arabia Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

If there is a specific, ongoing, NPOV dispute that justifies the tag on the front page then this should be made clear on this page or else the tag should be removed. 152.91.9.115 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the neutrality tag, as this question hasn't been answered in 3 months, and there is nothing else in the talk page pertaining to the it. Khukri 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] women work

"Implementation of a government resolution supporting expanded employment opportunities for women met resistance from within the labor ministry[3], from the religious police [4], and from the male citizenry[5]." the links doesn't exist i hope someone bring the References or it will be deleted and not from memri because it's famous for being anti-arabArabian soul 15:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding westerners eating during Ramadan

"Foreigners are forced to conform to Muslim practices in public, ..." It is only a reasonable courtesy to the Muslim people to refrain from smoking, eating, and drinking in public during Ramadan. Is this so unreasonable? From sun up to sundown, these people go without food or other refreshments. To partake of these in front of them is truly unfair. It's just typical western (especially American) arrogance to say that you are being forced to accept another culture's practices when you are merely being asked to behave decently and responsibly in a foreign culture. --LesAldridge 21:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are advocating their strict laws which is irrelevant to the article which simply states that the laws are strict. Whether the law is justified is out of the scope of the article but to call a spade a spade it is in fact humar rights violation not to allow basic needs such as eating or drinking no matter how obsessed the subjects of the country are in keeping with their traditions. It's simply the lack of choice that renders it so, because the locals choose to starve but the foreigners are forced to eat and drink in hiding. All countries have traditions but none of the developed ones force these traditions upon the foreigners. You would be allowed for instance to consume meat during fasting period in a Western country. The article therefore stands correct that foreigners are forced to conform (because they do) and there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about it. - Nick 15/07/06 15:20 GMT

I would like to add, by the way, that although Israel is a Jewish State, it does not incorporate into its law that non-Jews must fast on Yom Kippur, or any of the other Jewish fast days. To say that it is unfair for foreigners to eat while the natives cannot is unreasonable. If someone is a Muslim, he is so because he wants to be Muslim. Therefore, fasting during Ramadan should be something that he or she is honored to do, whether others fast or not. Non-Muslims should not be forced to fast simply because they happen to be in a Muslim country. Perhaps taunting that they are able to eat can be outlawed (Although I am against this as well, in a country, such as Saudi Arabia, this is not so bad), but to outlaw eating in its entirety is discriminatory.
Yes we westerners, especially us Americans (I am kind of American, wish I was but am more British) expect to be free when to eat and when not to eat. In the Western world, we practice a policy of not forcing others to follow a certain religion or its principles. That is why, us "arrogant" westerners do not understand why we should be forced to do something that is against our will. As an individual from the Middle East, I can understand the lack of understanding from your view. Tourskin 02:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SA is worse than Taliban Afghanistan??

"... this place is worse than the past Taliban Controlled Afganistan ..." In what way is it worse? Hotter in summer? Yes. More sand? Yes.

But, to say this has a worse human rights record than the Taliban is patently nonsense. The writer does not make any attributable references to prove this crazy assertion. Has the writer spent any time, as I have, in Saudi Arabia? While Saudi Arabia does have a poor human rights record, especially in it's treatment of women, overall it is far freer than the Taliban regime. --LesAldridge 21:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Earlier this year, King Abdullah was ranked number 7 in PARADE Magazine's annual listing of the world's ten worst dictators [1], and this was not his debut in the listings. Scott S 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with LesAldridge, that it is quite simply a lie to say that Saudi Arabia is worse than Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. If that were the case, why are there tens of thousands of Westerners and other foreigners currently living there? Many foreigners, including Westerners, have lived in Saudi Arabia for decades. While I will not deny that Saudi Arabia has a poor human rights record, it is not nearly as bad a place as JoeHenzi alleges it to be. I know this for a fact as I lived there for several years.

  • The reason is that economics tends to trump principle. Foreigners are living there because they are employed there. Scott S 04:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think that ranking places in terms of "worst" is kind of irrelevant and unencyclopedic. I have a friend who went to SA and worked for a few years, avoiding US taxes, to make money to put away for retirement. She didn't think it was bad. I personally woudld not be allowed to go there at all because of my religion. What is good from one person's pov is bad from another. I think we just need to describe the human rights conditions based on good sources using neutral language. The rest is just commentary. Elizmr 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This last reply is from someone from the Saudi government. Your "friend" was obviously so far removed from actual Saudi society as to make her 'commentary' useless and laughable.

[edit] Religious freedoms

"It is absurd ..." Crown Prince Abdullah ... in New York City, New York on 6 September.

But which year? --Liberatus 23:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably 2000, because the article says "Millenium summit". By googling there was apparently a summit in New York between 6 - 8 September, 2000. But maybe there are others.- THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibiting Sattelite television?

I don't know where the writer found that Saudi Arabia prohibits Satellite TV. I'm a saudi arabian living in Saudi Arabia, the goverment itself airs four diffrent satellite channels. Burning phoneix 09:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please edit using verifiable sources. Elizmr 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I have also lived in Saudi Arabia and I'm of South Asian descent. Satellite dishes are commonplace and people watch channels from the South Asian subcontinent without penalty. (UTC)

[edit] Quality issues in Introduction

Please clean up the introduction. Seperate your run-on sentences. Should the West be discussed in the first or second line? Does that represent a worldwide view? I don`t mean to reprimand or anything, but I`m honestly not sure where that stands with Wikipedia policy. Also I doubt ``The Muslim World`` supports SA completely, as laws in the Muslim world are generally far more lax than to justify that sweeping statement. (Jiggssaw)

[edit] Women's rights

The testimony of a woman is not regarded as fact but as presumption. The reasons women are forbidden to testify in criminal proceedings are (quote):

No source is given for this quote. Also references 1-4 lead to unavailable pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakashi10 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Here is a source: http://www.jeansasson.com/LawandGovernment.htm just do a google source. P.S. sorry i'm not very good at editing wikipedia :( 68.104.246.73 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are two more sources i found that looked pretty good: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1286471 and http://www.yourish.com/2006/10/23/2176 68.104.246.73 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments:
Perhaps the article emight say something like, "According to Jean Sasson, an American writer who lived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for 12 years from 1978 until 1990 and who has written several well-received books on middle-eastern society and culture:
“ ... the testimony of a woman is not regarded as fact but rather as presumption. The court may decide whether the testimony is valid according to the circumstances.

Why Women Are Forbidden to Testify in Criminal Proceedings

There are four reasons given why women's testimony is not valid in a Saudi court:

1. Women are much more emotional than men and will, as a result of their emotions, distort their testimony. 2. Women do not participate in public life, so they will not be capable of understanding what they observe. 3. Women are dominated completely by men, who by the grace of God are deemed superior; therefore, women will give testimony according to what the last man told them. 4. Women are forgetful and their testimony cannot be considered reliable.

 ”
and support this by citing your first source. -- Boracay Bill 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please see the merger discussion here

Thank you--Victor falk 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging from Apartheid in Saudi Arabia

To discuss the proposed merge please go to Talk:Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Proposal Lothar of the Hill People 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women and driving

Women are not allowed to drive or ride bicycles on public roads in large cities. However, most women are capable of driving...

What are we talking about here? Physical capability? Or actual knowledge? I doubt the latter since you don't learn to drive without practice. So unless someone brings some reference for that (and possibly even: how) women learn to drive, I'll delete the phrase. (It's already marked with "citation needed", but those tend to be in articles forever before anything ever happens...)

As for apartheid, I don't see any reason for having that section in its current form: It's some odd assortment of different topics, partly already covered in other sections of the article. And I simply don't see what informational value it has whether something is called "apartheid" (or "holocaust" or whatever). What interests is, in my opinion, whether the human rights are infringed (which they seem to be here) rather than what somehow calls that. If anyone believes that the section on women somehow profits from adding that this is considered apartheid--feel free to add it there. Else I would simply delete that part and all that talks about "apartheid" and rename the entire section "Religious and ethnic minorities".

I feel that the first section is actually an intro to the article, so I'd like to delete the section header (so that the section becomes the article intro). If someone has objections, please suggest a different header as the current one seems misleading, being identical to the article title--logically, it would suggest that the rest of the article talks about something else.

As always, I'll be happy to hear different views and/or get convinced otherwise, else I wouldn't write these lines.--Ibn Battuta 04:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literacy

The article makes a note of literacy between men and women under "Women's rights". What does this have to with women's rights? Women are allowed to learn. If they choose not to because of social circumstances, that is deplorable, but it is not like their rights are being violated. Bless sins (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)