Why do human rights vary so drastically in the middle east-northern africa region

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Novelty_Bobble

I believe that the degree to which religion and ideology is codified into law is a pretty good indicator of how free a country will be. The less religion or ideology in law, the freer the country.

There’s no country, secular or otherwise, which doesn’t codify “ideology” into law. I don’t even know what such a country would look like.

Sweden often tops the rankings of these sorts of 'democracy / human rights" indices, but even Swedish political elites themselves are very up front about the fact that the goal of their political system isn’t to let everyone do their own thing, it’s to codify a particular ideology and set of values (social democratic / feminist / ecologist, etc…) Same goes for the United States although of course our set of values is quite different.

[g8rguy]

@Ramira

But of course Americans believe that only the past ten years exist and ignore actual history.

In your own words:

@you

Your supposisition was and is ignorant nonsense.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Hector_St_Clare

There’s no country, secular or otherwise, which doesn’t codify “ideology” into law.

Where did I claim otherwise?

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Ramira

Ideology is always in law, it is ridiculous to think otherwise,

I neither claimed nor implied that any law or society is free of religion or ideology, go back and read what I said rather than jumping to conclusions about what you think I said.

and the Christian religion frames the sourcing and the traditions -but of course you normalize this away…

A huge, unwarranted, prejudiced and incorrect assumption on your part. How can you possibly know what my opinion is on that?

[Ramira]

@g8rguy

In your own words:

And?

It is a sarcastic observation, some hyperbole of course, about the typical American blindness to history, very observable in the way Americans typically look at things - you are blind to your own blindness of course.

@Hector_St_Clare

There’s no country, secular or otherwise, which doesn’t codify “ideology” into law. I don’t even know what such a country would look like.

Sweden often tops the rankings of these sorts of 'democracy / human rights" indices, but even Swedish political elites themselves are very up front about the fact that the goal of their political system isn’t to let everyone do their own thing, it’s to codify a particular ideology and set of values (social democratic / feminist / ecologist, etc…) Same goes for the United States although of course our set of values is quite different.

@Novelty_Bobble

Where did I claim otherwise?

Funny, both Hector and I read this “I believe that the degree to which religion and ideology is codified into law is a pretty good indicator of how free a country will be.” as the kind of nonsensical idea that there is a non-ideological idea of law, otherwise it is just nonsensical.

@Novelty_Bobble

I neither claimed nor implied that any law or society is free of religion or ideology, go back and read what I said rather than jumping to conclusions about what you think I said.

No, what you wrote - it is not pure nonsense - as both Hector and I read it - is the iplciation that there is some fashion that the law can be non-ideological. That is merely being blind and it is impossible.

A huge, unwarranted, prejudiced and incorrect assumption on your part. How can you possibly know what my opinion is on that?

It is not an assumption, it is the conclusion from your blindness to the cultural-religious -ideological component inside the western laws. It is “normal” and you are blind to it.

[Doubticus]

“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

[Rick_Sanchez]

@Ramira

some hyperbole of course, about the typical American blindness to history, very observable in the way Americans typically look at things - you are blind to your own blindness of course.

Bigoted, ignorant nonsense.

[g8rguy]

@Ramira

and?

That’s up to you, but personally, if I wished to be taken seriously when railing against people blindly engaging in prejudiced stereotyping, I would try to avoid blindly engaging in prejudiced stereotyping.

[tomndebb]

ENOUGH!

EVERYONE stick to discussing the topic and stop making generalized insults about what (you think) your opponent believes or thinks.

[ /Moderating ]

[coremelt]

@Wesley_Clark

Small nations like Qatar or Kuwait have massive oil wealth and small populations, which I assume helps keep the population settled which means less brutality needed.

Your problem is thinking that any of the gulf states has better human rights than Iraq under Saddam. In Dubai, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait south indian workers are imported and kept in conditions with are not slavery only on semantic terms (their passports are taken from them and they can’t leave the country until the employer agrees, of course this is abused). Raping their maid (usually from indonesia or the philipines) is common and the police will do nothing if they report it. If they run away the police will bring them back to their “employer” ignoring any signs of abuse except for an occasional token court case when someone goes too far.

These countries have the illusion of better human rights, essentially because they bribe all of the majority ethnic population with cushy government jobs where they essentially do nothing while ex pats do all the actual work.

However the minorities are treated as second class citizens even if they are actually full citizens. Eg Bahrain has a Sizeable Shia minority and protests from them were put down violently. However it didn’t get that much media attention beccause Bahrain is a US ally.

Info here:

The real story of Bahrain's divided society | Tahiyya Lulu

2011 Bahraini uprising

All of the gulf countries have similar treatment of minorities, imported workers have almost no rights at all. But because they have big shiny shopping malls and seem peaceful on the surface it’s not paid attention to.

[Fuji]

@Ramira

Just what is needed, the Holocaust denier to come to “explain” something.

I do not think this is arguing in good faith. I am familiar from other threads here with Chen019’s position on the Holocaust, which I find to be wrong and regrettable. However, as regards the current discussion here, he is one of the few posters who is actually seeking to answer the OP by means of argument and academic citation. The PDF he linked to in post #10 of this thread is a citation from The American Economic Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Having actually read the article in question (it is brief, only 4 pages), I find it to be an interesting possible factor contributing to the historically-evolved differences between Europe and the Near East.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Ramira

Ah the wiki Scholarship - with a Map! so impressive.
The map is inaccurate
For example Morocco, the personal family law, the Moudaouana is civil code incorporating in this standard civil code framework the framing of the Islamic law, such as the marriage, but it is not direct sharia law, it is a civil code intepretation - and indeed imposes directly secular law restrictions as that do not exist in the sharia. The same is the case for the majority of the North African countries (the yellow coded). The purple coding on that map is very dubioius and inaccurate, the Yemen it is claiming direct application but it is noting “Law 20/1992 regulates personal status. The constitution mentions sharia” - this is not direct application it is civil code incorporating some of the features. As the article I link to discusses, despite the pious constitutional political hand waving, the actual application is not there, the law codes are effectively code civil with some of the islamic law retouches.

In the same fashion on Iraq, the purple is a ridiculous coding, from the wiki page own discussion
There is one country where “sharia” is the direct law, it is Saudi Arabia.

This article is a more useful overview, and you will notice the wikimap is inaccurate in the fundamental details.

Your supposisition was and is ignorant nonsense.

Hardly. From your own cited article (snipped bits and paragraph spacing removed):

The constitutions of the most Arab countries including Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, U.A.E. and Yemen refer to Sharia either as: A primary source of law or the source of law. Consequently, and in cases of legislative lacuna where the law lacks a provision, the Sharia principles are to fill the gap either as the first source or as one of the sources of law2.

Where the constitution describes Sharia as “The” principal source of legislation, the hierarchy implies that all other laws and statues must comply with the principles of Sharia. Whether this has been complied with is another question, as we shall see later.

…

Arab Constitutions:

Egypt:

Article 2 of the amended Egyptian constitution, which was amended in 1980, stated that: “The principles of the Sharia are THE main source of legislation in the Arab Republic of Egypt&…”

Kuwait:

Article 2 of the Kuwaiti Constitution provides that: “The religion of the state is Islam and the Islamic Sharia is a principal source of legislation&.”

UAE:

In UAE the matter is somewhat ambiguous, because, while Article 7 of the UAE Constitution has the Sharia as a principal source of legislation, Article 75 of the Law of the Union Supreme Court of 1973 provides that the Supreme Court shall first apply Sharia and other laws in force if conforming to the Sharia principles. It may also apply custom, if such custom does not conflict with the principles of the Sharia.

Saudi Arabia:

In Saudi Arabia, the Basic Law of 1992 confirmed that Quran and Hadith are the sole sources of law and that all laws and regulations must conform to Sharia, which is the common law of the country. It follows that no foreign judgement nor any contractual provision contrary to Islamic principles may be enforced in Saudi Arabia.

You might want to read your own cites, other than the one paragraph that supports your point of view. Especially when you set yourself up as an authority and call differing opinions ignorant.

[Tamerlane]

Here’s the thing - Ramira is perhaps not being super-diplomatic in her arguments, but she has a point. Colibri, much more succinctly, does as well.

I’m going to carefully cherry-pick a quote here, but for a reason.

@Johnny_Ace

Egypt:

Article 2 of the amended Egyptian constitution, which was amended in 1980, stated that: “The principles of the Sharia are THE main source of legislation in the Arab Republic of Egypt&…”

This is true. However what that has meant up until now is really very, very little. Here’s the wiki on the Egyptian Civil Code, which is worth a read. It also explains why I cherry-picked Egypt as an example. Egypt’s heavily French-influenced 1949 civil code is basically the backbone of a surprising proportion of the ME/NA legal codes. What this has meant in practive is that French secular law has had a rather more important practical influence on legal codes in the area than Islamic jurisprudence.

Note that the above amendment to the Egyptian constitution came in 1980, post-Nasser. And to date it has been used to do pretty much jack shit to alter the 1949 legal code as it stands. The concern about it is the potential to overturn secular laws, a real issue as the nation grapples with law in the post-2011 world.

But the OP was asking about what caused disparities, i.e. the history of why a shithole is a shithole. And the argument that the implementation of sharia is a good guide pretty much fails, because historically sharia hasn’t had much effective sway outside of a handful of countries ( and those, while grossly repressive of human rights in some respects especially the rights of women and minorities, also tend to be functioning civil societies with very low crime rates ). The rise of Islamism as a political force is very much a late 20th century phenomenom and doesn’t adequately describe why some countries suck.

Is Iran worse off because of the implementation of velayat e-faqih? Absolutely IMHO. But it was repressive as hell under the Shah as well, just in different ways.

Is Afghanistan a shithole because of the Taliban’s imposotion of their retrograde variety of sharia from 1996-2001? Hell no - Afghanistan was a shithole well before that.

Syria and Iraq, as Colibri so correctly pointed out, are shitholes created by explicitly secular regimes.

Basically this:

@Johnny_Ace

My first thought would be how strictly they adhere to sharia law.

…is an interesting notion as a point of enquiry, don’t get me wrong. But in the end it doesn’t really pan out as a hypothesis. Because by and large sharia historically just hasn’t been that important or dominant in the region. It’s not that the map you cited is wrong, so much as it overstates the state of affairs and isn’t a historical overview. Honestly you’d be better off in a lot of cases blaming the widespread, half-assed and incredibly corrupt state socialism of the 1950’s-1970’s which didn’t due a tremendous amount of good to most of the regional economies.

The real answer to the OP is going to be different for every country and endlessly debateable. And personally I try to avoid endless debates these days ;).