Support NeoGAF

[Spyware]

So who will benefit from new buses? The government only? The people of Iran?

Should everyone stop doing business that is good for the people just because they don't agree with the government? Does selling buses while grudgingly wearing a scarf on your head because it's the law mean you are completely fine with the law? Does it mean that you are not a "true feminist"?
That is insane to me.

These people are, like most swedes, outspoken about what they think of the laws and views in these places. Following laws don't mean you like them and while it's a "show of respect" it's in this case only because our economy needs it.

If they were selling weapons I could agree, but this specific case is just... wow.

 

[adamsapple]

Some of the replies in this topic SMH ..

you go to a place, you take on their customs as a sign of respect.

It's *THAT* simple. No hidden agenda behind it.

 

[Dalibor68]

Some of the replies in this topic SMH ..

you go to a place, you take on their customs as a sign of respect.

It's *THAT* simple. No hidden agenda behind it.

Interesting. What if you exchange the headscarves with burqas? Still take on their customs as a sign of respect? If no, why not? Where is the line and why?

Point being that you can not simply draw arbitrary lines and act like all cultural norms are equal.

 

[adamsapple]

Interesting. What if you exchange the headscarves with burqas? Still take on their customs as a sign of respect? If no, why not? Where is the line and why?

What if you stop looking into this as some kind of Iranian conspiracy ? Where is the line to stop jumping to conclusions ?

 

[Charles Brandon]

Interesting. What if you exchange the headscarves with burqas? Still take on their customs as a sign of respect? If no, why not? Where is the line and why?

Point being that you can not simply draw arbitrary lines and act like all cultural norms are equal.

The line is that if there is a custom that is so morally repugnant to you that you cannot abide by it in good conscience then you shouldn't be there trying to sell stuff in the first place. You stay at home and you make a statement that you will not be doing business with country x because they do practice y. That's the way to make your concerns heard.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Of course I believe in gender equality and I believe that the world would be a better place if gender equality existed everywhere (or even anywhere!) but that does not mean that when I travel to a country with different values, I should seek to impose my own. If I want to be in that country, I have to respect their customs and if I refuse to do that I shouldn't be there at all.

Honestly, this sort of attitude is exactly what has entrenched these backward practices in the first place. Iran never used to be like that but it became a conservative muslim nation in part because of a reaction to western cultural imperialism.

I'm not saying we should impose our values on them, although I am convinced ours are better in this case. But there is a difference between going along with oppressive laws like this and imposing our own values.

There is also a difference between personal visits and government visits. If someone travels to Iran for personal or business reasons, that is their call. If a government representative goes, then the expectations are different because they represent their country there.

 

[Charles Brandon]

It's no different at all. You are a representative of your country and as such you are expected to do what is required to carry out your objective, sell some buses in this case, and put your personal misgivings aside. Which is what happened.

 

[Dalibor68]

It's no different at all. You are a representative of your country and as such you are expected to do what is required to carry out your objective, sell some buses in this case, and put your personal misgivings aside. Which is what happened.

And why should they be the ones to do that, when it's not the case in the opposite scenario?

The line is that if there is a custom that is so morally repugnant to you that you cannot abide by it in good conscience then you shouldn't be there trying to sell stuff in the first place. You stay at home and you make a statement that you will not be doing business with country x because they do practice y. That's the way to make your concerns heard.

Being forced to wear loose clothing and headscarves because the country considers you lesser is not morally repugnant? This appeasement towards backwards theocracies is astounding.

 

[mnz]

Some of the replies in this topic SMH ..

you go to a place, you take on their customs as a sign of respect.

It's *THAT* simple. No hidden agenda behind it.

They didn't have to go there. They could have met in Sweden or a third country.

 

[ClosingADoor]

It's no different at all. You are a representative of your country and as such you are expected to do what is required to carry out your objective, sell some buses in this case, and put your personal misgivings aside. Which is what happened.

These are not personal misgivings, since they are representatives of the Swedish government. If it was a personal visit, it would be their call. The criticism they face is because they are their in official capacity.

Yes, the objective was sell some buses. And apparently you are OK with going along with these oppressive laws as long as it makes some money for the government. I think some criticism against that is more then fair.

 

[APF]

The West used to have "values" just like these. It doesn't anymore.

Yes, there are no longer any restrictions on women's choices in the west.

 

[Charles Brandon]

These are not personal misgivings, since they are representatives of the Swedish government. If it was a personal visit, it would be their call. The criticism they face is because they are their in official capacity.

Yes, the objective was sell some buses. And apparently you are OK with going along with these oppressive laws as long as it makes some money for the government. I think some criticism against that is more then fair.

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you are not OK with going along with these oppressive laws then by all means leave the deal on the table. But you can't have it both ways.

 

[ClosingADoor]

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you are not OK with going along with these oppressive laws then by all means leave the deal on the table. But you can't have it both ways.

That is up to Iran then to turn people away or not, you are right about that.

 

[Dierce]

I mean, the right wingers cry when immigrants don't adjust to their culture. So why are you crying now?

Right wingers don't want anyone that isn't white (or part of their particular ethnic group) in the country they reside in. It never is and never has been about adjustment. Right wing ideology is founded on racism and there is no other way to look at it.

 

[Isotropy]

Yes, there are no longer any restrictions on women's choices in the west.

Is this a reference to abortion? If so, then yes, most of the West no longer treats this in a draconian fashion. Are you trying to establish a strawman regarding parts of the United States that still cling to backwards, abusive views of women, homosexuals etc? Because don't worry, I won't be defending those parts.

 

[Onlinehero]

The mistakes you make are that a) it's not a two way street, as Iran as shown multiple times. You come to their house - you must confirm to their stances. They come to your house - you also must confirm to their stances (see handshake issue and italian statues). And b) that both things are equal when they are clearly not. There's a huge difference between having to accept that people live in a free society vs having to accept that you are a second-tier citizen because of your gender and thus have to cover yourself up.

Of course it was a pragmatic decisions because they want the money aka business deals and connections. Doesn't make the bending over backwards any better though from a moral perspective.

Didn't know handshakes were required by law in Sweden, could you point out the paragraph?

Or you could stop making bullshit arguments.

 

[Dude Abides]

I don't think foreign diplomats should have to comply with idiosyncratic customs of countries they visit. It's not like male diplomats who visit Saudi Arabia wear turbans. These women aren't Iranian and shouldn't have to pretend they are.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Didn't know handshakes were required by law in Sweden, could you point out the paragraph?

Or you could stop making bullshit arguments.

Shaking hands is a social norm. People from all over the world do it, but some refuse to shake hands with women. You don't see a problem with that, because it is not required by law?

 

[APF]

Is this a reference to abortion? If so, then yes, most of the West no longer treats this in a draconian fashion.

Do you not know what a strawman is? You can't simultaneously say we no longer have these issues while saying you acknowledge there are huge swaths of the US that still has these issues. The point is that despite your claim, "the West" hasn't resolved choice or equality for women. In the US there are many "draconian" laws cropping up to this day (eg http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagel...cle_49117995-d51f-50b8-b930-add9afe41449.html). Even in relatively minor issues outside of the pro-choice movement there are differences between men and women in, say, public indecency laws, that prevent breastfeeding in public for example. All I'm saying is, we still deal with this shit.

I don't think foreign diplomats should have to comply with idiosyncratic customs of countries they visit. It's not like male diplomats who visit Saudi Arabia wear turbans.

The picture of Obama donning a white headdress and robes during the 2006 visit of Wajir appeared on a US website and instantly became a political fodder against his presidential campaign. The Sheikh was also captured in the photo.

"It was wrong to depict the then Senator in the light he was captured in the US Websites. To the Wajir residents Obama did very well by embracing the Somali culture and I hope that he visits Wajir again during his visit," the Sheikh said on Tuesday.

 

[adamsapple]

They didn't have to go there. They could have met in Sweden or a third country.

By that logic they could have just declared war and gotten it over with .. diplomatic visits happen, it's how trade agreements and shit get made.

I'm sure both parties had something to gain here.

 

[TTOOLL]

Some of the replies in this topic SMH ..

you go to a place, you take on their customs as a sign of respect.

It's *THAT* simple. No hidden agenda behind it.

Interesting. What if they moved to Iran? What should they do? Just comply?

 

[Jokab]

Interesting. What if they moved to Iran? What should they do? Just comply?

If you move to Iran you better wear the scarf, yes. Unless you want to be thrown in jail of course.

 

[Septic360]

Wearing a headscarf is in conflict of gender equality?? And in an Islamic country?

FML....

 

[TTOOLL]

If you move to Iran you better wear the scarf, yes. Unless you want to be thrown in jail of course.

So it's ok with we in the west don't accept this kind of restriction or its propagation here, right?

 

[Jokab]

So it's ok with we in the west don't accept this kind of restriction or its propagation here, right?

No, you should not be thrown in jail for not wearing the scarf. Yes, you should be allowed to wear the scarf. What are you trying to get at?

 

[TTOOLL]

No, you should not be thrown in jail for not wearing the scarf. Yes, you should be allowed to wear the scarf. What are you trying to get at?

I'm saying these religious restrictions have NO place in western society and we should not accept any kind of change in western behavior.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Western society is permissive. It's up to the individual to choose whether they want to wear a head scarf or a burka.

 

[TTOOLL]

Western society is permissive. It's up to the individual to choose whether they want to wear a head scarf or a burka.

That's another issue, if these women really want to wear a scarf or a burka or are just forced.
Anyway, it's funny, again, to see so much contradiction. "We are so permissive we allow women being segregated and oppressed in our lands because religious reasons".

 

[Charles Brandon]

That's another issue, if these women really want to wear a scarf or a burka or are just forced.
Anyway, it's funny, again, to see so much contradiction. "We are so permissive we allow women being segregated and oppressed in our lands because religious reasons".

It's kind of difficult to make that assumption. Many women wear head coverings out of choice. Some are pressured to do so.

 

[CadetMahoney]

It's kind of difficult to make that assumption. Many women wear head coverings out of choice. Some are pressured to do so.

That's what he said in the first line.

 

[Coriolanus]

Absolutely disturbing. Reminds me of that incident from last year in Italy where they hid the naked statues. Stop subjugating under these oppressive regimes' outdated customs.

the only thing the dude had requested was that people didn't take pictures of him with the statues in the back. Italy took it upon themselves to hide the statues.

 

[Charles Brandon]

That's what he said in the first line.

No, he said "if". I'm saying they do choose to wear it. In some cases.

 

[CadetMahoney]

No, he said "if". I'm saying they do choose to wear it. In some cases.

It's a non-rebuttal to his second point, some do some don't. ok.

 

[Charles Brandon]

It's a non-rebuttal to his second point, some do some don't. ok.

The implication, which I would have thought was obvious, was that if people choose to wear head-coverings it then becomes very difficult to say that they should not be permitted. Which was the point of the discussion

I'm saying these religious restrictions have NO place in western society

 

[TTOOLL]

The implication, which I would have thought was obvious, was that if people choose to wear head-coverings it then becomes very difficult to say that they should not be permitted. Which was the point of the discussion

Man, head-coverings are a RESTRICTION in those countries, they are not a choice, it's a fact and I don't think these restrictions should be allowed in the west. It's not a right, it's a restriction.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Man, head-coverings are a RESTRICTION in those countries, they are not a choice, it's a fact and I don't think these restrictions should be allowed in the west. It's not a right, it's a restriction.

They can be both a restriction and a choice.

 

[ClosingADoor]

They can be both a restriction and a choice.

Not if there is a law that says you have to wear it. Then it is a restriction.

 

[Onlinehero]

Shaking hands is a social norm. People from all over the world do it, but some refuse to shake hands with women. You don't see a problem with that, because it is not required by law?

He likened not shaking hands to breaking a law in another country, a bullshit argument that needs to be called out. Agree? Thought so.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Not if there is a law that says you have to wear it. Then it is a restriction.

If the law wasn't there some/most of the head-coverings still would be. But we are talking about how the west should deal with these customs. There is no law in the west but there are still head-coverings. For many woman, that is a choice and it should not be legislated against.

 

[TTOOLL]

If the law wasn't there some/most of the head-coverings still would be. But we are talking about how the west should deal with these customs. There is no law in the west but there are still head-coverings. For many woman, that is a choice and it should not be legislated against.

In the west sure, no government laws about it. But you must understand that these customs come from places where laws exist, so women end up having to wear them, otherwise...

 

[Charles Brandon]

I understand that, and I find the practice regressive both as a legal requirement and religious custom. I do not support the use of a law to regulate dress standards, which ever way that goes. They shouldn't have to wear them in Iran, they shouldn't be forced not to wear them in the west.

 

[TurnipFritters]

Well, think of it like this.

The West used to have "values" just like these. It doesn't anymore. Why?

Because people came to understand that this sort of oppression is wrong. Do you think we should be forced to live this way in the west? I'm not saying that there's no point to "going along" with certain backwards traditions when visiting, to smooth things over, but that doesn't make those traditions okay. Personally, I don't "respect" backwards attitudes. I may go along with them to get my business done and get out, but those traditions are still bullshit. These sorts of countries would literally hurl me from the top of a building if I was honest about who I was, so no fucking sympathy for them at all.

I mean, I see where you're coming from but let's not pretend that anti-LGBT violence doesn't occur in The West, and let's definitely not pretend that The West isn't responsible for exporting violent anti-LGBT values to various places in Africa under the guise of Evangelical Christian mission work.

It's just like, IMO, no one should be painting "Western Values" (as vague a concept as that is) as some sort of magical egalitarian system where everyone is treated fairly.

 

[adamsapple]

Interesting. What if they moved to Iran? What should they do? Just comply?

If you move anywhere, you're expected to at least respect the cultures and norms of that place. If you're moving to a location with intent of being a rebel there, you're probably not going to have a good time.

 

[ant_]

I mean, I see where you're coming from but let's not pretend that anti-LGBT violence doesn't occur in The West, and let's definitely not pretend that The West isn't responsible for exporting violent anti-LGBT values to various places in Africa under the guise of Evangelical Christian mission work.

It's just like, IMO, no one should be painting "Western Values" (as vague a concept as that is) as some sort of magical egalitarian system where everyone is treated fairly.

That's what western values strive for, no one is claiming that western values are completely adopted by everyone in western societies (which covers many countries other than just the US). "Western values" is a very common term to describe cultural investment in freedom, equality, and a democratic process.

I have no problem saying that western values are superior for the human condition. I have no problem saying that Iran would be better off if they adopted western values (hey, you can even look at their history!)

Countries that have adopted western values should promote them around the world. It's sad that we still choose to work with authoritarian regimes who oppress their citizens. This goes for all diplomatic relationships: just as I condemn Sweden for working with Iran, I condemn the US for working with Saudi Arabia and Russia. We have a moral obligation to the peoples in those countries to stand up for equality and freedom not just in our homeland; but the world.

 

[Dude Abides]

The picture of Obama donning a white headdress and robes during the 2006 visit of Wajir appeared on a US website and instantly became a political fodder against his presidential campaign. The Sheikh was also captured in the photo.

"It was wrong to depict the then Senator in the light he was captured in the US Websites. To the Wajir residents Obama did very well by embracing the Somali culture and I hope that he visits Wajir again during his visit," the Sheikh said on Tuesday.

I missed the part where he was required to wear that as a condition of his visit.

Wearing something as a bit of cultural tourism isn't the same thing as wearing it because the host country makes it legally compulsory.

 

[MUnited83]

They didn't have to go there. They could have met in Sweden or a third country.

I don't think you know how business deals work, but sometimes one of the sides has more leverage than the other, and one of the sides might want the deal more than the other. Those sides need to compromise if they want to actually make the fucking deal. Sweden probably really wants to sell those buses. Iran probably doesn't give a shit from where they are buying it, so if Sweden isn't willing to compromise they can easily find a crapload of countries willing to provide them with buses that will.

 

[Shambalakan]

There was a banquet in Sweden embassy in Iran after this meeting, women didn't have headscarves there, and some Iranian hardliners wanted Iran government to apologize for that! lol

 

[Koodo]

There's a gross western imperialist angle to suggesting elected diplomats, or anyone else really, should go into a foreign and autonomous country and fail to comply with or disrespect the host's customs.

I find Iran's social policies appalling, which is why I would criticize their government, avoid going to that country and pressure my elected representatives to voice these concerns in my government. But that's it.

These diplomats should perhaps be criticized for patronizing a country whose human rights are subpar just to sell some damn buses – but to suggest they should do what they want in a country that is not theirs is WRONG, lest we forget the destruction white western society has already caused in this region and elsewhere when they've tried to force their ideals.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

I really think this discussion gets more interesting once you think about how women who wear headdresses in the west are a group who are attacked often cause of that headdress.

 

[radios shipping overview]

There was a banquet in Sweden embassy in Iran after this meeting, women didn't have headscarves there, and some Iranian hardliners wanted Iran government to apologize for that! lol

Hardliners gonna hardline.