Let’s look at that OIC statement on Margot Wallström’s remarks about Saudi Arabia.
First, you’ll want to refresh your memory of her talk. (The article is in Swedish but the talk is in English, just scroll down.) Here are the horrific three paragraphs that have Saudi Arabia and the whole OIC so distraught and furious:
Human rights are a priority in Swedish foreign policy. Freedom of association, assembly, religion and expression are not only fundamental rights and important tools in the creation of vibrant societies. They are indispensable in the fight against extremism and radicalisation. So is a vibrant civil society.
Yesterday was International Women’s Day. This is a day to celebrate women’s achievements, recognise challenges, and focus attention on women’s rights, women’s representation and their adequate resources. Our experience is that women’s rights do not only benefit women, but society as a whole.
More than 20 years ago, in 1994, the International Conference on Population and Development met here in Cairo to discuss various issues, including education of women and protection of women from all forms of violence, including female genital mutilation and sexual harassment. Many of these issues are still very much in play today and I urge you to contribute to upholding the agreements made here in Cairo 20 years ago.
That’s it; that’s all there is. The Saudis and the OIC are livid at being urged to pay attention to education of women and protection of women from all forms of violence, including female genital mutilation and sexual harassment. They’re enraged at being told that freedom of association, assembly, religion and expression are fundamental rights.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) expressed its reservations on the remarks made, in regard to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by the Foreign Minister of Sweden, Margot Wallström, at the Swedish Parliament last week. In her remarks, Ms. Wallström degraded Saudi Arabia and its social norms, judicial system and political institutions.
The OIC stressed that the world community, with its multiple cultures, diverse social norms, rich and varied ethical standards and different institutional structures, can not, and should not, be based on a single and centric perspective that seeks to remake the world in its own image; and conform all according to its convictions, references, historical background and philosophical, social and political roots.
The OIC Secretary General, Iyad Ameen Madani, stressed that relations between states should be maintained on the basis of respect, parity and appreciation; and that Islam, which Saudi Arabia – a founding member of the OIC – is governed by, is centered on the values of justice, compassion, equality, tolerance and the notion of human vicegerency.
Madani expressed his hope that Sweden will always be true to its history, policies and attitude that do not claim moral authority to pass one-sided judgments and moral categorizations of others.
So there you go. The OIC, which claims to represent all Muslims and all “Muslim nations,” thinks Foreign Minister Margot Wallström degraded Saudi Arabia and its social norms, judicial system and political institutions by saying that freedom of association, assembly, religion and expression are fundamental rights. What does that tell us about Saudi Arabia and the OIC? The OIC, which claims to represent all Muslims and all “Muslim nations,” thinks Foreign Minister Margot Wallström degraded Saudi Arabia and its social norms, judicial system and political institutions by saying that women’s rights do not only benefit women, but society as a whole. What on earth does that tell us about Saudi Arabia and the OIC?
I understand that The Kingdom is psychopathic, and the OIC is an organization of nutso blather. What I don’t understand is how they can make no sense in their own context. Officially, they say they’re “centered on the values of justice, compassion, equality, tolerance and the notion of human vicegerency.”
Sweden supports “Freedom of association, assembly, religion and expression” and also the application of rights to those people known as women.
That would seem to be the same as “justice, compassion, equality, tolerance.”
So how do they, OIC and Co., explain what they’re in a snit about? Does anybody here know what their explanation is for contradicting their own supposed principles?
Oh I understand it, it’s just straight up lying, that’s all. They say Saudi Arabia is governed by and centered on the values of justice, compassion, equality, tolerance and the notion of human vicegerency because they know the first four are what they’re supposed to say, but of course it’s just bullshit.
But it is exceptionally flagrant, absurd, surrealistic, fuck you bullshit. I mean who the hell is going to believe Saudi Arabia is governed by the values of justice, compassion, equality, and tolerance? Not one of those words applies.
“the notion of human vicegerency”?? WTH?? Who talks like this??
So I looked it up: vicegerency
The position, function, or authority of a vicegerent.
the office or jurisdiction of a vicegerent.
Not helpful O_O
Now for vicegerent
A person exercising delegated power on behalf of a sovereign or ruler.
A person regarded as an earthly representative of God or a god, especially the pope.
So why qualify it as “HUMAN vicegerency”? What other sort could there possibly be?? And given that so many people can’t seem to agree on which gods are the right ones and what they actually want, this sounds exactly like a theocratic dictatorship: “I will tell you what God requires and you will do as I say. Or else.”
Oh, Christ on a bike. They actually said that out loud.
Yup. It’s a gift, in a way.
Saudi Arabia was being terribly culturally insensitive when they objected to colonialism. Don’t those colonial powers have a right to oppress Saudi Arabia again?
@karmacat, “Saudi Arabia was being terribly culturally insensitive when they objected to colonialism. ” Bwahahaha.
@Ophelia. I understand they’re lying to a breathtaking extent. The thing I’m curious about is what is their official explanation when someone says, “You’re for justice and compassion, Sweden’s for justice and compassion, why are you objecting?”
I mean, they have to have some line of blather ready, don’t they? But, inventive as I think I am, I can’t even imagine what sort of Newspeak thing they could say.
Has anyone actually asked their spokesrobes directly why they object to human rights when they say they’re all for human rights?
Or does nobody even pretend to pretend that they’re not lying? That, too, would be unusual in diplomatic situations.
You mean face to face in real time, as opposed to in statements? I have no idea. Maybe it’s just…like something from Yes Minister, with everyone smiling blandly and exchanging bullshit?
Yes, I meant face to face. Now that you mention it, I can just see a real-life Yes Minister situation. That must be how they handle it. There’s no other way. Not even pretending to pretend. Except for Margot Wallström, bless her.
@4 Enzyme
Yes, they did, however they have Allah on their side and the godless Kuffars don’t.
I’m not sure whether that statement is a product of monumental arrogance, or perhaps, concern that the civilised world is finally taking notice, although it probably won’t make the slightest difference to the regime.
😯
O RLY