Is it a good idea for Western countries to push hard on other countries to adopt LGBT rights?

2»

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.

    Why choose that particular point to draw the line though? Should we have kept quiet about Brunei's recent stoning to death law? It's not genocide or mass murder, but people stoned to death are just as dead as victims of genocide.

    Again, what should we have said? Bearing in mind that they haven't stoned anyone to death and in all possibility won't.

    That was hardly my point; I'm exploring the rationale for line drawing in a particular place.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.

    Why choose that particular point to draw the line though? Should we have kept quiet about Brunei's recent stoning to death law? It's not genocide or mass murder, but people stoned to death are just as dead as victims of genocide.

    Again, what should we have said? Bearing in mind that they haven't stoned anyone to death and in all possibility won't.

    That was hardly my point; I'm exploring the rationale for line drawing in a particular place.

    My apologies KarlLB. And even that line is not drawn.
  • When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.
    So you're happy that the UK and US (among many) say absolutely nothing about the lack of basic rights for citizens in most of the Gulf states, and the total lack of any rights for the millions of migrant workers employed there?

    Who is to say which set of "basic rights" are the right ones? Why would the current US, Canadian, or UK set of "basic rights" be deemed to be absolute? They have evolved over time, and all three of those are different. It is beyond arrogance to say that one is absolutely correct to the point of imposing their opinions on others.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.
    So you're happy that the UK and US (among many) say absolutely nothing about the lack of basic rights for citizens in most of the Gulf states, and the total lack of any rights for the millions of migrant workers employed there?

    Who is to say which set of "basic rights" are the right ones? Why would the current US, Canadian, or UK set of "basic rights" be deemed to be absolute? They have evolved over time, and all three of those are different. It is beyond arrogance to say that one is absolutely correct to the point of imposing their opinions on others.
    On what basis then do you conclude that "the cases of mass murder and genocide" are different?
  • Dave W wrote: »
    On what basis then do you conclude that "the cases of mass murder and genocide" are different?

    Then we should not intervene in those either. I personally don't believe that, but then, I think you were just being difficult.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    On what basis then do you conclude that "the cases of mass murder and genocide" are different?

    Then we should not intervene in those either. I personally don't believe that, but then, I think you were just being difficult.

    How many murders constitute a ‘mass murder’?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    On what basis then do you conclude that "the cases of mass murder and genocide" are different?

    Then we should not intervene in those either. I personally don't believe that, but then, I think you were just being difficult.

    How many murders constitute a ‘mass murder’?

    Four.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    On what basis then do you conclude that "the cases of mass murder and genocide" are different?

    Then we should not intervene in those either. I personally don't believe that, but then, I think you were just being difficult.

    How many murders constitute a ‘mass murder’?

    Someone else being difficult - but then it is a good way to be involved in the discussion while providing no useful information or opinion.

    I mean government mass murder - hundreds, thousands - although not rising to the level of genocide. I don't mean a random terrorist shooting up a shopping mall.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    On what basis then do you conclude that "the cases of mass murder and genocide" are different?

    Then we should not intervene in those either. I personally don't believe that, but then, I think you were just being difficult.

    How many murders constitute a ‘mass murder’?

    Someone else being difficult - but then it is a good way to be involved in the discussion while providing no useful information or opinion.

    No. I just don't think it's a useful qualifier -- I can see 'extrajudicial killing' being a useful marker, but if your standard is based on a number then everyone can quibble as to why X deaths are acceptable, but X+1 isn't.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.
    So you're happy that the UK and US (among many) say absolutely nothing about the lack of basic rights for citizens in most of the Gulf states, and the total lack of any rights for the millions of migrant workers employed there?

    When the US ensures basic rights for its own citizens and the migrant workers toiling here, then we might, after a while, have the moral ground to talk to other countries about the rights people should be guaranteed.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    On what basis then do you conclude that "the cases of mass murder and genocide" are different?

    Then we should not intervene in those either. I personally don't believe that, but then, I think you were just being difficult.
    If by “being difficult” you mean “pointing out a glaring inconsistency in sharkshooter’s position”, I suppose you’re right.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    When the US ensures basic rights for its own citizens and the migrant workers toiling here, then we might, after a while, have the moral ground to talk to other countries about the rights people should be guaranteed.
    Thank you, and amen.


  • It'd be good to stop drone killing in countries which shouldn't have been invaded too.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    On what basis then do you conclude that "the cases of mass murder and genocide" are different?

    Then we should not intervene in those either. I personally don't believe that, but then, I think you were just being difficult.

    How many murders constitute a ‘mass murder’?

    Someone else being difficult - but then it is a good way to be involved in the discussion while providing no useful information or opinion.

    No. I just don't think it's a useful qualifier -- I can see 'extrajudicial killing' being a useful marker, but if your standard is based on a number then everyone can quibble as to why X deaths are acceptable, but X+1 isn't.

    Why exclude judicial killing?
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    It'd be good to stop drone killing in countries which shouldn't have been invaded too.
    Ever since that started (with Barack Obama labelled "the assassin in chief" on at least one of my news sources, because he insisted on personally deciding which individuals were to be offed in that manner), I have feared that it was only a matter of time before other countries started going after their declared enemies with their own drones over here. The feelings of horror that raises in us should be some indication of what a Bad Idea it is in any country.


  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 10
    Drones are working out to be something of an equalizer in irregular warfare as the Saudis are learning. They are generally cheap (even though the US found a way to make one for 200 million).
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited August 10
    Gee D wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    On what basis then do you conclude that "the cases of mass murder and genocide" are different?

    Then we should not intervene in those either. I personally don't believe that, but then, I think you were just being difficult.

    How many murders constitute a ‘mass murder’?

    Someone else being difficult - but then it is a good way to be involved in the discussion while providing no useful information or opinion.

    No. I just don't think it's a useful qualifier -- I can see 'extrajudicial killing' being a useful marker, but if your standard is based on a number then everyone can quibble as to why X deaths are acceptable, but X+1 isn't.

    Why exclude judicial killing?

    I'd be happy to include it - I just can see it being more contentious, so didn't bring it up in the context of this particular thread.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    When the US ensures basic rights for its own citizens and the migrant workers toiling here, then we might, after a while, have the moral ground to talk to other countries about the rights people should be guaranteed.
    Thank you, and amen.
    Yes, I agree with both of you there. As I said myself further back on this thread, when we were still discussing the OP,
    "... for reasons that ought to be self-evident to all shipmates and that have nothing to do with this particular issue, the UK has forfeited all right to claim to be entitled to tell other countries how they ought to behave."
    I sort of apologise for saying this. Although I can't speak for the US. It's not my country. I can only speak for where I am. But while it's led by the Orange Cookie Monster, I don't see why I or anybody else should take seriously any high ground it, or prominent people in it, might claim to speak from.

    And I still think that since June 2016, not only has the UK forfeited any title to tell other people how they ought to behave, but as its citizens, by totally failing to find ways of putting our own house in order, and bringing our governments to book, we have too.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited August 10
    Who is to say which set of "basic rights" are the right ones? Why would the current US, Canadian, or UK set of "basic rights" be deemed to be absolute? They have evolved over time, and all three of those are different. It is beyond arrogance to say that one is absolutely correct to the point of imposing their opinions on others.
    Well, I think a most people in the US, Canada and UK (plus a lot more countries) would agree that the right for women to be able to leave the house without permission, the right to be able to marry her own choice of partner, the right of her to wear clothes of her choice, might be a start.

    Moving on from there you could argue for the right not be imprisoned without trial, for foreign workers to be paid promptly and in currency, for foreign workers to be able to retain their own passport.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    The US is okay on the things you want for women. On the rest, not so much. Cash bail means unconvicted poor people sit in jail while others go free. Foreign workers are regularly abused here. They're rarely held prisoner, but they can't count on being paid.
  • Most of us around the world also think that abortion is a woman's right, and that it should be available as a medical service within certain regulated bounds. Should we not push hard for this basic health service to be available? Which is me being stupidly rhetorical because the USA under their current president, like they did under the last Republican ever since Reagan, cut off the funding for any medical agency or clinic in the developing world which offers anything whatsoever that alludes at all to abortion. Worse with trump: "For the first time, groups that treat HIV, malaria and other illnesses will also have to pledge to have no role in promoting abortion — or forgo American aid."

    My point is why is LGBT highlighted as the rights to be pushed hard about? Why not others. We could also talk death penalties for crimes, except that this is popular in America so would never be done.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited August 10
    Who is to say which set of "basic rights" are the right ones? Why would the current US, Canadian, or UK set of "basic rights" be deemed to be absolute? They have evolved over time, and all three of those are different. It is beyond arrogance to say that one is absolutely correct to the point of imposing their opinions on others.
    Well, I think a most people in the US, Canada and UK (plus a lot more countries) would agree that the right for women to be able to leave the house without permission, the right to be able to marry her own choice of partner, the right of her to wear clothes of her choice, might be a start.

    Try choosing to wear the Niqab or Burka and come and say that again. Conversely try breastfeeding in public a few times. Or working in certain professions without wearing heels. Either situation is likely to get people telling women what they should wear very quickly, and support for applying legal measures in the first case is very high.

    I also think if the woman's partner happens to be female you will still encounter strong opposition, particularly but not exclusively in the US.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    I imagine it matters where in the U.S. you are talking about. I nursed in public whenever my sons wanted and never got any problems but I live in Chicago.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Most of us around the world also think that abortion is a woman's right, and that it should be available as a medical service within certain regulated bounds. Should we not push hard for this basic health service to be available? Which is me being stupidly rhetorical because the USA under their current president, like they did under the last Republican ever since Reagan, cut off the funding for any medical agency or clinic in the developing world which offers anything whatsoever that alludes at all to abortion. Worse with trump: "For the first time, groups that treat HIV, malaria and other illnesses will also have to pledge to have no role in promoting abortion — or forgo American aid."

    My point is why is LGBT highlighted as the rights to be pushed hard about? Why not others. We could also talk death penalties for crimes, except that this is popular in America so would never be done.
    As I've commented on other threads to other shipmates, who are your 'us' and 'we' here?

    Shipmates, yes, perhaps, but however earnestly we expostulate to each other here, the governments and opinion formers in the countries this particular 'we' disapproves of haven't even heard of its existence, yet alone are likely to care or be influenced by what it thinks.

    If 'us' and 'we' means something else, who?

    In addition to what I've already said about the UK and those of us in it having forfeited any title to tell the rest of the world how to conduct itself - it's not for me to say whether whether US organisations have done the same - there's also a certain lack of credibility or legitimacy in countries or organisations based in them taking the high minded line on causes where public opinion in them has only very recently changed, or where it is still highly divided.

    You're a Canadian. You have the good fortune to live in a country which appears to have retained the sanity some others have abandoned. Perhaps, therefore, you retain a credibility nationals of some other states have lost.

    All the same, you say that 'Most of us around the world also think that abortion is a woman's right'. Irrespective of what you or I might happen to think on this, we both know that a lot of people around the world don't think that, and that until about 20 years ago, virtually nobody did, not even those who agreed with allowing abortions. This is a shift in opinion that is much more recent and much less complete than things like universal suffrage, freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest etc., all of which still have to be fought for to prevent standards slipping back.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Most of us around the world also think that abortion is a woman's right, and that it should be available as a medical service within certain regulated bounds. Should we not push hard for this basic health service to be available? Which is me being stupidly rhetorical because the USA under their current president, like they did under the last Republican ever since Reagan, cut off the funding for any medical agency or clinic in the developing world which offers anything whatsoever that alludes at all to abortion. Worse with trump: "For the first time, groups that treat HIV, malaria and other illnesses will also have to pledge to have no role in promoting abortion — or forgo American aid."

    My point is why is LGBT highlighted as the rights to be pushed hard about? Why not others. We could also talk death penalties for crimes, except that this is popular in America so would never be done.
    As I've commented on other threads to other shipmates, who are your 'us' and 'we' here?

    Shipmates, yes, perhaps, but however earnestly we expostulate to each other here, the governments and opinion formers in the countries this particular 'we' disapproves of haven't even heard of its existence, yet alone are likely to care or be influenced by what it thinks.

    If 'us' and 'we' means something else, who?

    In addition to what I've already said about the UK and those of us in it having forfeited any title to tell the rest of the world how to conduct itself - it's not for me to say whether whether US organisations have done the same - there's also a certain lack of credibility or legitimacy in countries or organisations based in them taking the high minded line on causes where public opinion in them has only very recently changed, or where it is still highly divided.

    You're a Canadian. You have the good fortune to live in a country which appears to have retained the sanity some others have abandoned. Perhaps, therefore, you retain a credibility nationals of some other states have lost.

    All the same, you say that 'Most of us around the world also think that abortion is a woman's right'. Irrespective of what you or I might happen to think on this, we both know that a lot of people around the world don't think that, and that until about 20 years ago, virtually nobody did, not even those who agreed with allowing abortions. This is a shift in opinion that is much more recent and much less complete than things like universal suffrage, freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest etc., all of which still have to be fought for to prevent standards slipping back.

    Not that you're wrong about the shift in opinion I think your timescale may be a bit off. I recall figures from the late 90s/early 00s putting US pro-choice sentiment around 60-40 and the rhetoric was much the same as today. Perhaps add another 10-20 years for being in favour of bodily autonomy for women being a "virtually nobody" position.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... Not that you're wrong about the shift in opinion I think your timescale may be a bit off. I recall figures from the late 90s/early 00s putting US pro-choice sentiment around 60-40 and the rhetoric was much the same as today. Perhaps add another 10-20 years for being in favour of bodily autonomy for women being a "virtually nobody" position.
    I'm possibly a few years out, but I don't think that much. I can remember being a bit shocked when a work colleague spoke of abortion in terms of rights rather than as a concession to human frailty, and a lesser of two evils, which would have been the normal framework for discussion before 1967 and between 1967 and then. I think that would have been about 1990, but it was novel and would not have been a widespread take on the subject then.
  • It was ubiquitous by the time I was at university in the early 00s.
  • The premise of this thread seems to be based on a huge tu quoque.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    And I still think that since June 2016, not only has the UK forfeited any title to tell other people how they ought to behave, but as its citizens, by totally failing to find ways of putting our own house in order, and bringing our governments to book, we have too.

    Are you actually saying that voting to leave the European Union was the watershed moment that caused the UK to forfeit any right to tell other countries how to behave? After all that colonialism and oppression and slavery and murder that's in the country's history, a fucking referendum is the deciding factor?

    Or have I read you wrong?
Sign In or Register to comment.