[Serious] G-20 leaders, don’t forget the women’s rights advocates rotting in Saudi prisons

[WinterHold]

Why, do the members of the g20 have clean human rights records?  Who certifies the cleanliness of any given country in that regard?  If a country -isn't- in your alliance, pact, or agreement, what incentives and what legal recourse do you (or they) have to compel their (or your) actions?

This may expose a fundamental difference of opinion.  We in the west generally tend to believe that our political ideals will win out in a direct competition for hearts an minds.  We don't want to exclude people to make them comply, we prefer to include them, and once they're in, apply pressure from all sides.  There are pragmatic benefits to dealing with the authorities of a country as they are, rather than regime changing our way to what we want in every instance.

I said the following:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61620-p...pid1999267

[b]WinterHold said:[/b]

The G20 is in no position to change the culture of any country.

But it is in position to set rules that govern who joins it.
Saudi Arabia should never be allowed to join their meetings before having a clean human rights record.
That -as you see- is not changing of culture: that is enforcing a term for dealing with the kingdom -or any other country-,

Please stay on topic. Nobody spoke about "cleaning HR records" but you.
Thank you.

---

Yes. The G20 is in no position to change the culture of any country.
But it is in position to set rules that govern who joins it.

Saudi Arabia should never be allowed to join their meetings before having a clean human rights record.
That -as you see- is not changing of culture: that is enforcing a term for dealing with the kingdom -or any other country-,

If a clean human rights record is the standard, there would BE no G20.

I find it both amusing and sad that you want a gaggle of countries who - without exception - have blemished records on human rights (some of them countries which you persistently rail against for that very reason) to correct human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.

Boru

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/B...ptNote.pdf

CONCEPT NOTE Time to act: Governments as catalysts for business respect for human rights A key message from the 2018 UN Forum on Business and Human Rights was that governments must step up their action and leadership. Currently, they are not doing enough to meet their duty to protect against business-related human rights abuse. While important legal developments are evolving in some jurisdictions,and the number of countries developing national action plans on business and human rights continuesto grow, the effectiveness of current efforts and the lack of wider action are being called into question.

We are speaking about the time to act for g20 governments to stop HR abuses; just like the UN said to them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes. The G20 is in no position to change the culture of any country.
But it is in position to set rules that govern who joins it.

Saudi Arabia should never be allowed to join their meetings before having a clean human rights record.
That -as you see- is not changing of culture: that is enforcing a term for dealing with the kingdom -or any other country-,

You did, right there in the black and white, then quoted yourself. Was that some other asshole posting on your account, or do you have trouble understanding the words that fall from your own mouth?

[WinterHold]

Yes. The G20 is in no position to change the culture of any country.
But it is in position to set rules that govern who joins it.

Saudi Arabia should never be allowed to join their meetings before having a clean human rights record.
That -as you see- is not changing of culture: that is enforcing a term for dealing with the kingdom -or any other country-,

You did, right there in the black and white, then quoted yourself.  Was that some other asshole posting on your account, or do you have trouble understanding the words that fall from your own mouth?

Please if you have a problem with what I said earlier -which is the basis of the discussion here-, write your points. This is a [serious] topic, and the OP is quite clear, so as the "elaborations" provided by me which had to be repeated to face your questions.

[The Grand Nudger]

This isn't a serious thread, it's yet another example of abusing a serious tag.

If you can ever figure out why you insist that the ksa have a clean human rights record as a condition for belonging to a group that doesn't have a clean human rights record itself, you let us know.

[WinterHold]

This isn't a serious thread, it's yet another example of abusing a serious tag.  

If you can ever figure out why you insist that the ksa have a clean human rights record as a condition for belonging to a group that doesn't have a clean human rights record itself, you let us know.

It's not up to you to judge. If you have a problem, report the post.
Second of all, all the g20 countries are not even compared to KSA in terms of human rights ! the Sauds are cutting people in embassies and raping women in prisons without even trying to cover it !

Now you answer me, when did France or the UK have turned their embassies into a slaughter house ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Such a short memory. Both of those countries fed us gitmo detainees, for starters. Then we have Yemen.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This isn't a serious thread, it's yet another example of abusing a serious tag.  

If you can ever figure out why you insist that the ksa have a clean human rights record as a condition for belonging to a group that doesn't have a clean human rights record itself, you let us know.

It's not up to you to judge. If you have a problem, report the post.
Second of all, all the g20 countries are not even compared to KSA in terms of human rights ! the Sauds are cutting people in embassies and raping women in prisons without even trying to cover it !

Now you answer me, when did France or the UK have turned their embassies into a slaughter house ?

If you’re going to take one or two specific incidents, that’s rather a narrow view. To imply that France, the UK, and the rest of the G20 don’t routinely violate human rights and human  rights agreements to which they are signatory simply because they don’t dismember journalists in consulates is to display a shocking unawareness of the state of things.

This isn’t some sort of contest in which countries with a slightly less graphic record of human rights abuses get to dictate terms to others. Saudi Arabia's record on this issue is nothing short of reprehensible, no argument. But your insistence that they shouldn’t have been let into the G20 because of this and then expecting the G20 to fix it is both ignorant and hypocritical.

This is the same sort of screwy thinking that allows people to imagine that going to celibate priests for marriage advice is a perfectly sensible idea.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Need we mention China, Indonesia, Russia, and Turkey? Also G20 members. Talk about a bunch of murderous pots calling the amateur kettle black.

No thanks, I'd prefer that the g20 stick to coming up with forward looking financial policies which can help or harm more people than any secret police could ever hope to round up and chop to pieces. Concern trolling each other over human rights abuse is counterproductive. Does that mean that the g20 is stuck dealing with whatever lizard is currently sitting on whatever throne, sure does..but that's the reality of international politics outside of regime change. Tell you what, as a concerned citizen of a g20 country, I would prefer that you guys had a diffeent lizard on the throne, can we get an eta on when you're going to accomplish that, or should we let you and everyone else in the ksa rot on the vine as international pariahs on account of how mohamed bin sawin people up?

A more troubling question...by what mechanism can the g20 effect the outcome you desire? It has no formal ability to enforce any rule. It's not a sovereign entity, it can impose no sanctions, and it has no army. It can only suggest that it's member countries Do Better™ - which it does.