disrespectful western tourists and earthquakes

[Jub]

The problem is basically that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". You or I may disagree with imprisoning or prohibiting travel as a punishment for public nudity, bu that's what the laws are in that country, (whether these people are being targeted as a show of force/to make an example of, is another story). Similarly, I don't know how the legal system works in that country - is someone saying "they offended the gods" enough "evidence" to charge them with anything additional?

Why should we respect a set of laws regarding nudity any more than we would respect any other impediments to freedom of expression? If they were arrested fro quoting atheist propaganda on a holy site would your feelings towards this be any different?

[Simon_Jester]

It's public land though and that makes a pretty big difference as far as I'm concerned. Private property I tend to feel a bit differently on simply because you paid for the right to police this land. What did a nation do to earn any given patch of public land?

Live there.

The point is, if you are a foreigner to that country, then the public land of that country is STILL not your land. You are still obliged to act appropriately in accordance with the laws and customs of the country that owns the land.

"Public" does not mean "anyone in the world can do literally whatever they please, so long as they follow some nebulous body of 'universal law' that boils down to whether or not what they're doing bothers me."

Other people are obliged to take the time and effort to learn what your expectations are, and follow them, because they are guests on your property.

They do not have the right to decide that your wishes and customs are "illogical" and that they are therefore entitled to ignore your wishes and do whatever they please.

Except that nation states probably shouldn't own property as such and thus this shouldn't apply. Nations are a pretty shitty way to run things in the first place because if there's one thing that borders do it's prevent unity.

Nation-states serve several very useful functions. Unity is not a supreme virtue that takes precedence over everything else.

Among other things, nations (and smaller-scale governments than those) allow different areas to have different rules, based on what works for those people. Rather than having one random bunch of clowns arrogantly impose their rules on the whole world and get it wrong in ways that hurt the majority of the world's population.

Does this mean some groups of people will make 'wrong' choices? Probably. But the point is that you do not have a right to control them without their consent, and they have a right to autonomy. Autonomy not only as individuals, but as a functioning, integrated culture.

So you agree it is a crime just not with the degree of punishment?

No, being rude shouldn't be a crime nations just like home owners can ask people to leave for any reason they like criminal or not. I don't agree that this should be the case, mainly because I think the concept of nation states is flawed, but for now you can be asked to leave even if you have broken no laws.

When a nation asks people to leave that is called "deportation." It is treated as a punishment, a fairly serious one, and one that is applied to people who commit some form of crime. So if you think the appropriate response is for the host nation to "ask the tourists to leave," you are essentially saying that the tourists should receive a criminal punishment.

Also, many nations DO have laws about nudity in public places, so it is not a given that the tourists broke no laws... And even if they did not, then one might reasonably argue that the people of that area have the right to want and advocate such laws, if they object to public nudity.

The problem is basically that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". You or I may disagree with imprisoning or prohibiting travel as a punishment for public nudity, bu that's what the laws are in that country, (whether these people are being targeted as a show of force/to make an example of, is another story). Similarly, I don't know how the legal system works in that country - is someone saying "they offended the gods" enough "evidence" to charge them with anything additional?

Why should we respect a set of laws regarding nudity any more than we would respect any other impediments to freedom of expression? If they were arrested fro quoting atheist propaganda on a holy site would your feelings towards this be any different?

Nudity ties into sex and sexuality, and can have strong effects on the intimate personal feelings of many people. If you respect the wishes and feelings of other humans, you would do well to respect whatever level of nudity taboos they may or may not possess.

[Jub]

Live there.

So because I live in a certain space I'm able to declare any law I like? What makes a nation state different than a collective that wants to create a nation on some random uninhabited mountainside? Why should we bother to respect the laws of a nation-state aside from the fear of enforcement?

The point is, if you are a foreigner to that country, then the public land of that country is STILL not your land.

Does it belong to the planet we live on? It did last I checked and thus should be free for anybody to use so long as that use doesn't damage the land or harm those already there.

You are still obliged to act appropriately in accordance with the laws and customs of the country that owns the land.

Only because they have guns and jails.

"Public" does not mean "anyone in the world can do literally whatever they please, so long as they follow some nebulous body of 'universal law' that boils down to whether or not what they're doing bothers me."

Why shouldn't it? My rules are basically so long as you aren't fucking the land up or harming people go nuts. What's wrong with the broad strokes of those rules?

Nation-states serve several very useful functions. Unity is not a supreme virtue that takes precedence over everything else.

Among other things, nations (and smaller-scale governments than those) allow different areas to have different rules, based on what works for those people. Rather than having one random bunch of clowns arrogantly impose their rules on the whole world and get it wrong in ways that hurt the majority of the world's population.

Does this mean some groups of people will make 'wrong' choices? Probably. But the point is that you do not have a right to control them without their consent, and they have a right to autonomy. Autonomy not only as individuals, but as a functioning, integrated culture.

People are people are people. People have generally the same needs all over when you get right down to it. Once you take shit like religion out of the equation is there really that much need for say Belgium to have different laws than the UK?

So we should let ass backwards primatives bulldoze historic sites and burn people at the stake then? Do you think the ruling class of North Korea should be allowed to continue running that nation? Do you think that Somalia is better off as autonomous as it is at present?

When a nation asks people to leave that is called "deportation." It is treated as a punishment, a fairly serious one, and one that is applied to people who commit some form of crime. So if you think the appropriate response is for the host nation to "ask the tourists to leave," you are essentially saying that the tourists should receive a criminal punishment.

No, you don't have to commit a crime to be deported. Period.

Also, many nations DO have laws about nudity in public places, so it is not a given that the tourists broke no laws... And even if they did not, then one might reasonably argue that the people of that area have the right to want and advocate such laws, if they object to public nudity.

Like I said in the thread where people got bent out of shape over some pictures on a shirt people need to learn to suck it up and deal with things they find uncomfortable. If I'm not comfortable wearing clothes why should I be forced to wear them for the sake of those that are uncomfortable with nudity? Why do their rights supercede my own?

Nudity ties into sex and sexuality, and can have strong effects on the intimate personal feelings of many people. If you respect the wishes and feelings of other humans, you would do well to respect whatever level of nudity taboos they may or may not possess.

That sounds like a personal problem for the person uncomfortable with nudity. Maybe they should examine their lives and get the fuck over themselves and their hangups.

[AniThyng]

I get that you feel that it's not actually racist to call them out on their stated beliefs.

I am not familiar enough with Malaysia to make judgements on what ethnic groups inside it are racist or not, nor do I recall uttering an opinion about the Malay people and their racism (or non-racism). So I don't really think dragging me into that serves any purpose as I was only talking from the western perspective.

Yes, I understand that you do not consider it to be racist to refer to the locals as "backwards and superstitious", and by extension it should not be problematic for other Malaysians, particularly those from more developed regions, to themselves refer to the locals as "backwards and superstitious" and go so far as to apologize for having "backwards and superstitious" fellow citizens.

In that sense then I don't have much more to add to that, other than I am curious as to how this differs in principle to other forms of "-isms" that can be considered offensive.

@Jub : "harming people" is such a nebulous statement I'm amazed you think this can be any sort of objective standard. The people who consider the mountain sacred would certainly consider themselves harmed, oh but it's stupid and irrational so they aren't really harmed, right?

[Jub]

@Jub : "harming people" is such a nebulous statement I'm amazed you think this can be any sort of objective standard. The people who consider the mountain sacred would certainly consider themselves harmed, oh but it's stupid and irrational so they aren't really harmed, right?

If we go down the route we shouldn't allow gays to be married because some Christians believe they are harmed by it. Maybe we should also outlaw public displays of affection because other people are harmed by that. How about we add cursing in public or discussing politics openly to the list because still others would claim to be harmed by that.

I'm not bowing to a bunch of backwards and superstitious morons who believe a geological formation has a will and personality any more than I would bow to any other religious nut who wants to ban some activity because their imaginary friend says so.

[Thanas]

I get that you feel that it's not actually racist to call them out on their stated beliefs.

I am not familiar enough with Malaysia to make judgements on what ethnic groups inside it are racist or not, nor do I recall uttering an opinion about the Malay people and their racism (or non-racism). So I don't really think dragging me into that serves any purpose as I was only talking from the western perspective.

Yes, I understand that you do not consider it to be racist to refer to the locals as "backwards and superstitious", and by extension it should not be problematic for other Malaysians, particularly those from more developed regions, to themselves refer to the locals as "backwards and superstitious" and go so far as to apologize for having "backwards and superstitious" fellow citizens.

Holy shit, I didn't think that I would have to spell this out. Obviously if there is a history of Malaysians using this as an excuse to discriminate against or exploit them, then that is of course not okay. Context matters.

[AniThyng]

Holy shit, I didn't think that I would have to spell this out. Obviously if there is a history of Malaysians using this as an excuse to discriminate against or exploit them, then that is of course not okay. Context matters.

Touche, that line of argument would probably be more relevant if you were English (the most recent former colonial power in the region) instead.

[salm]

It is obvious that the Norwegian reporter did provoke people otherwise she would not have been jailed.

No, it is not obvious to me. Perhaps you can explain how the situations are even similar?

Well, she knowingly went to a country where womens rights are nor very progressive. She got raped, went to the police and even there was told that nobody would believe her. She was then convicted for extra mariatial sex and only avoided jail because she was pardoned by the emir on international preasure. Prison for extra mariatial sex is absurd to us but before you go there you know the deal. Or at least you should know.

It´s the same with holy mountains and naked idiots. Locking people up for being naked is rather silly. We actually punish naked people in so called progressive nations as well but that´s besides the point. But since you went there and know or should be familiar with the law of the counry you visit you shouldn´t be surprised if they lock you up for causing earthquakes or similar nonsense.

That´s how the two cases are similar. Both involve bizarr ideas of what a crime is but it is possible to know this before going there and if you go there you decide that you accept that they handle stuff the way they do even if it is bizarr.

Or you can say that they are wrong for handling it the way and protest their ways they handle things. But because of the similarities of the cases mentioned above I´d like to hear some reasons why we can critisize the rape case but not the mountain case. Obviously the severity of the punishment is different but that shouldn´t influence the principals on which we decide which way of handling things is morally wright or wrong.

[Thanas]

Well, she knowingly went to a country where womens rights are nor very progressive. She got raped, went to the police and even there was told that nobody would believe her. She was then convicted for extra mariatial sex and only avoided jail because she was pardoned by the emir on international preasure. Prison for extra mariatial sex is absurd to us but before you go there you know the deal. Or at least you should know.

It is not the same thing because she was actually the injured party - and the only injured party there. She also didn't chose to get raped.

It´s the same with holy mountains and naked idiots. Locking people up for being naked is rather silly. We actually punish naked people in so called progressive nations as well but that´s besides the point. But since you went there and know or should be familiar with the law of the counry you visit you shouldn´t be surprised if they lock you up for causing earthquakes or similar nonsense.

Are you actually reading my posts or debating some strawmen where I sent it was okay to lock them up for causing an earthquake? I said I wouldn't mind them getting punished for offending and disrespecting the local culture in the most arrogant way possible. While a local was standing next to them telling them this would not be ok. So give them the same punishment they can get in any western nation for disrespecting a holy ground.

[salm]

Well, she knowingly went to a country where womens rights are nor very progressive. She got raped, went to the police and even there was told that nobody would believe her. She was then convicted for extra mariatial sex and only avoided jail because she was pardoned by the emir on international preasure. Prison for extra mariatial sex is absurd to us but before you go there you know the deal. Or at least you should know.

It is not the same thing because she was actually the injured party - and the only injured party there. She also didn't chose to get raped.

In our eyes she was the injured party. In the eyes of Dubai she was the offending party.

Are you actually reading my posts or debating some strawmen where I sent it was okay to lock them up for causing an earthquake? I said I wouldn't mind them getting punished for offending and disrespecting the local culture in the most arrogant way possible. While a local was standing next to them telling them this would not be ok. So give them the same punishment they can get in any western nation for disrespecting a holy ground.

I´m not saying that. I´m saying that they have customs/laws/beliefs there which when offended lead to punishment. Our perception of these customs/laws/beliefs is irrelevant because if we go there as guests we have to accept them no matter if we find them good or bad.
The same is true for Dubai. If we go there we have to accept that extra maritial sex can lead to punishment.

[Thanas]

I do think we can easily hold Dubai in contempt and sympathize with the locals in Malaysia though, simply based on the reason that they'd get punished for the stunt they pulled in western society as well, whereas there is no moral justification whatsoever for punishing a rape vitim and letting the attacker get off. Or in other words, Dubai went out of their way to be idiots, the locals meanwhile were just living there.

[salm]

Ok, fair enough.

[Simon_Jester]

It is not the same thing because she was actually the injured party - and the only injured party there. She also didn't chose to get raped.

In our eyes she was the injured party. In the eyes of Dubai she was the offending party.

Ah, but if we are to be consistent in our expections of Dubai, then in the eyes of Dubai there was still another offending party. And, given the rape allegations, it is entirely possible that it was this offending party who committed the greater evil... because even under Islamic law, forcing a woman to have extramarital sex is more sinful than being a woman who was forced to have extramarital sex.

But the Dubai courts ignored this and declined to pursue the person who under their own law was the greater evildoer, in favor of punishing the lesser one. At which point their commitment to justice even under their own rules is dubious and they lose all claim to our respect.

Live there.

So because I live in a certain space I'm able to declare any law I like?

Yes- because you will have to live with the consequences of those laws, and others will not.

What makes a nation state different than a collective that wants to create a nation on some random uninhabited mountainside? Why should we bother to respect the laws of a nation-state aside from the fear of enforcement?

If the mountainside is terra nullius, there is not necessarily a difference. But ultimately... you have to respect the laws of the nations because you have to live with the consequences of those laws.

I mean, I teach at a school. My students may ask me "why do we have to do homework?" The answer is not really "because I said so." The answer is because "for the rest of your life, you will have to live with the consequences of doing your homework, or those of not doing your homework." The consequence of doing it is that you learn useful things- the consequence of not doing it is that you don't.

Likewise, there are consequences for all sorts of other laws. Sometimes the consequences are invisible to certain people. For example, libertarians are often in denial about the idea that there are consequences to removing, say, food safety regulations. But the consequences are still there- people drop dead of food poisoning.

The consequences of allowing people to break contracts exist. The consequences of NOT having laws restricting banks exist. The consequences of allowing people to copy each other's intellectual property without interference exist. It may be a matter of debate what the consequences are... but they exist, and the people who live in any given nation are the ones who have to live with whatever the consequences turn out to be.

Thus, sovereignty is a necessary safeguard for the people. It protects them from at least some of the interference they might otherwise experience from foreign people trying to tell them how to order their society... when those foreigners do NOT have to live with the consequences and can leave on the next jetliner even if they've left chaos in their wake.

Now, when I say "consequences of ignoring laws" you may think 'enforcement.' But that's not really the idea here. Enforcement is not the only consequence of a law. Rather, it is the only artificial consequence. Artificial consequences are created so that there will be a visible reason to not do illegal actions... And that this is true even if someone is blind to the consequences of an illegal act (i.e. a thief who doesn't understand or care about the consequences of wide scale fraud and stealing)

The point is, if you are a foreigner to that country, then the public land of that country is STILL not your land.

Does it belong to the planet we live on? It did last I checked and thus should be free for anybody to use so long as that use doesn't damage the land or harm those already there.

It is no more your planet than it is theirs- and that patch of it is far more their patch than it is your patch.

Moreover, there may be categories of 'harm' and 'damage' that you do not believe in, but which are still real and still have real impact. It is the height of arrogance to assume that when other people say "stop that, you're hurting me," that they aren't really being hurt because you don't see anything wrong with your actions.

You are still obliged to act appropriately in accordance with the laws and customs of the country that owns the land.

Only because they have guns and jails.

No- see above. The reason you are obliged to respect their laws and customs is that these customs serve them in the place that they live- a place where you are a guest.

If you are incapable of honoring the obligations of a guest, you should not travel.

"Public" does not mean "anyone in the world can do literally whatever they please, so long as they follow some nebulous body of 'universal law' that boils down to whether or not what they're doing bothers me."

Why shouldn't it? My rules are basically so long as you aren't fucking the land up or harming people go nuts. What's wrong with the broad strokes of those rules?

Because you are neither mentally nor morally qualified to be supreme ruler of the Earth- no one is, even a god would be hard pressed to do it.

Therefore, while your "broad strokes" may be fine and good, the interpretation you apply to those 'strokes' is of uncertain value. It behooves you to be a bit more humble about telling other people what to do, because of this.

Among other things, nations (and smaller-scale governments than those) allow different areas to have different rules, based on what works for those people. Rather than having one random bunch of clowns arrogantly impose their rules on the whole world and get it wrong in ways that hurt the majority of the world's population.

Does this mean some groups of people will make 'wrong' choices? Probably. But the point is that you do not have a right to control them without their consent, and they have a right to autonomy. Autonomy not only as individuals, but as a functioning, integrated culture.

People are people are people. People have generally the same needs all over when you get right down to it. Once you take shit like religion out of the equation is there really that much need for say Belgium to have different laws than the UK?

How the hell would you know?

You are neither a Belgian nor a Briton.

Perhaps the Belgians want to experiment with some custom or social organization that is abhorrent to the Britons, or vice versa. Perhaps the Belgians have unique natural assets they want to preserve with unique laws. Perhaps the Belgians' traditional culture has handed down to them values that they prize and feel help them cope with modernity, and which they wish to uphold and preserve for the benefit of future generations.

All these reasons and more might exist to justify different laws in different places. So by what right do you say "no, let's homogenize everything, so that I don't have to worry about honoring and respecting other people's wishes."

So we should let ass backwards primatives bulldoze historic sites and burn people at the stake then? Do you think the ruling class of North Korea should be allowed to continue rtunning that nation? Do you think that Somalia is better off as autonomous as it is at present?

I would argue that, within the confines of social and moral philosophy, there is no such thing as an absolute principle that is never overridden by any other principle.

When we talk about sovereignty that has two consequences:

1) Sovereignty isn't an absolute. Some other factor might justify ignoring sovereignty; this is a matter open for debate. But sovereignty isn't something to ignore all the time, or for trivial and petty reasons like "obeying your laws is so boring."

2) Other things aren't absolute, which is why we need sovereignty in the first place... Because there is no one set of absolute principles that really does work for all people.

When a nation asks people to leave that is called "deportation." It is treated as a punishment, a fairly serious one, and one that is applied to people who commit some form of crime. So if you think the appropriate response is for the host nation to "ask the tourists to leave," you are essentially saying that the tourists should receive a criminal punishment.

No, you don't have to commit a crime to be deported. Period.

That doesn't mean deportation isn't of the same order as a criminal punishment.

I mean, strictly speaking you don't have to commit a crime to go to jail, either- you just have to be arrested. But we still treat jail as a criminal punishment, and not something Country A can do to Country B at will.

Also, many nations DO have laws about nudity in public places, so it is not a given that the tourists broke no laws... And even if they did not, then one might reasonably argue that the people of that area have the right to want and advocate such laws, if they object to public nudity.

Like I said in the thread where people got bent out of shape over some pictures on a shirt people need to learn to suck it up and deal with things they find uncomfortable. If I'm not comfortable wearing clothes why should I be forced to wear them for the sake of those that are uncomfortable with nudity? Why do their rights supercede my own?

Needs of the many, needs of the few, et cetera.

[shrugs]

You seem awfully comfortable with the idea of imposing universal laws about what is and isn't acceptable on others for someone who feels so uncomfortable with having such laws imposed on you.

Nudity ties into sex and sexuality, and can have strong effects on the intimate personal feelings of many people. If you respect the wishes and feelings of other humans, you would do well to respect whatever level of nudity taboos they may or may not possess.

That sounds like a personal problem for the person uncomfortable with nudity. Maybe they should examine their lives and get the fuck over themselves and their hangups.

Maybe they have rape trauma in their past and "get the fuck over themselves" is nowhere near as simple as you pretend.

Maybe they and everyone around them have a whole complicated interlocking network of customs and organizations (in other words, a culture) and nudity taboos are part of one element of that network, and they can't just casually blow up that one part of the network without the whole thing starting to fall out of balance. Because cultures evolve organically, not mechanically- and you can't take a part out of an organism, swap it out for a new part, push a button and have anything run.

[salm]

Ah, but if we are to be consistent in our expections of Dubai, then in the eyes of Dubai there was still another offending party. And, given the rape allegations, it is entirely possible that it was this offending party who committed the greater evil... because even under Islamic law, forcing a woman to have extramarital sex is more sinful than being a woman who was forced to have extramarital sex.

But the Dubai courts ignored this and declined to pursue the person who under their own law was the greater evildoer, in favor of punishing the lesser one. At which point their commitment to justice even under their own rules is dubious and they lose all claim to our respect.

So they fucked up for not punishing him as well.
However, had they punished him this would still be very wrong in our eyes because punishment for extramaritial sex is generally considered a bad thing.
The fact that they appear to add sexism and decide to punish a woman more than a man shouldn´t surprise anybody who decides to go and work there, though. She should have and probably did know better.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, punishment for rape is generally considered a good thing, so I don't think Dubai having punished him would have made things worse. The basic problem is that they're treating a woman reporting a rape as a woman confessing to the "serious crime" of extramarital sex, rather than as a woman complaining that she is the victim of a crime herself.

Which is so perverse that even someone familiar with Dubai law might have trouble grasping that this is how their courts sometimes (often?) do business.

[salm]

If the guy is guilty it would be good to punish him for rape. It would be bad to punish him for extramarital sex because the latter shouldn´t be a crime in my eyes.
The same goes for the "serious crime" of people getting naked. Countries like Malaysia, Europe and the USA punish you for being naked in public. I find that absurd but that´s how things are so I won´t be surprised if people are punished for it.

Which is so perverse that even someone familiar with Dubai law might have trouble grasping that this is how their courts sometimes (often?) do business.

Is this so? If you search for similar articles you find them, so at least this doesn´t seem to be an isolated case.
The whole UAE isn´t exactly a beacon of progressive womens rights.

Similar case with Austrian woman

Simalar case with Australian woman

Apparently about half of the female population of the UAE would not report rape out of fear that they´d be accused of extramaritial sex
Source

So, this seems to be normal. It is not troublesome to grasp either. It´s a place that shits on womens rights, it´s really that easy and if you go there to work or on vacation then you should know what kind of a place you are going to.

I think both cases are principally the same. The difference is only in severity. The Dubai case is more important because it infringes the rights of a large group of people on a daily basis while not being able to strip naked in public is something I can live with and an injustice I can probably ignore my entire life.