One-night stands will be illegal at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar
marca.com
marca.com
"The name of the current [migrant worker employment] system is kafala, a system forcing all migrants to be sponsored and subsequently tied to an employer. The kafala system has been frequently described as modern day slavery due to its exploitative nature. This employer controls housing, wages, travel, and the well being of each employee."
"[...] an estimated 4,000 migrant workers will die, making this event the deadliest in sporting history."
90% of Qatar's population and 94% of its workforce are foreign workers.
Google tells me that the population of Qatar is 2.881 million. If 90% of that is foreign workers, that's 2.593 million foreign workers.
The timespan for those 4000 deaths in your link is not given. I'd guess it is over several years since the construction projects for the World Cup are taking place over several years, but let's put them all in one year just to make sure we aren't giving Qatar the benefit of the doubt. I'm also going to assume that most of the workers are young but not children.
4000 deaths among 2.593 million people in a year is a death rate of 154 per 100k per year.
For comparison, the death rates in the US [1] for males ages 15-24 is 100 per 100k per year, and for ages 25-34 it is 177 per 100k per year.
Without more to go on, it looks like the 4000 deaths might just be about the normal number of deaths one would expect in a group that large.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age...
tl;dr: It could be that the fatality estimates aren't well made; supporting the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, however, supports well-documented abusive work conditions of foreign workers.
I've tried to dig up some sources on the numbers.
The 4000 deaths estimate was originally made in the ITUC Special Report [1] from 2013-2014, based on how many foreign workers from certain countries where numbers were available. This report mentions "These cases documented by our legal team, show the serious abuses of 1.4 million migrant workers in Qatar."
I don't know if they mean that only 1.4 million of 2.6 million migrant workers are abused, or if they assume different base numbers. I also don't know how they reach the number 4000, but on page 15 of the report you can see that they claim that this number is connected to the construction of the one dozen stadiums for the world cup, since they compare the number 4000 to numbers for similar sporting events in the past where fatalities range 0-40. (0 is London in 2012, 40 is Athens in 2004.)
The report does not spend a lot of time justifying the 4000 deaths estimate, but a Washington Post article from 2015 [3] mentions another report from 2015 by Engineers Against Poverty [2] (404s, fetched from archive.org) that reads:
> Overall, a report commissioned by the Qatari government shows 964 deaths of migrants from India, Nepal and Bangladesh in 2012 and 2013.
Subsequently, the number 4000 was controversial and was estimated both as high as 6500 in 2021 [4] (still only for certain countries where numbers were available), and as low as 3 if you ask FIFA.
Interestingly, BBC was thrown in jail for reporting on this. [5] Can't have all those fake news.
Maybe you're right and there isn't an unusual amount of deaths in Qatar. Maybe there is, and the numbers don't add up. Maybe they don't add up because they're super imprecise, and maybe they don't because they didn't account for statistical factors such as average deaths in construction work world-wide.
[1]: https://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/the_case_against_qatar_en_w... [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20151024015052/http://www.engine... [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/27/a-bod... [4]: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r... [5]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32775563
'checks notes'
Oh, right, oil.
I wish we would. Possibly the one good thing coming out of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a realization that depending on oil and gas leaves you very vulnerable and that alternative sources of energy must become more common.
There will also always be disagreements on fundamental ethical issues between countries. Even between the states in the US you can see such disagreements.
What we seem to lack is a principle for dealing with such situations. Instead, ad-hoc, inconsistent measures tend to be taken. It seems like if the true principle guiding such decisions were publicly announced, the general public would find it unpalatable. Are we living in willful denial?
Can such a principle then exist, that would both be consistent with our declared values, without compromising our ability to survive and defend ourselves and act according to it?
Applying alternative energy sources where it doesn't make sense to do so ends up throwing billions of dollars on having solar panels where they can never generate the energy they theoretically could (Germany, I'm looking at you)
North America produces enough petroleum today to meet its own needs[1]. But the rest of the world doesn't, middle east oil is cheap relative to offshore or (especially) fracked petroleum, and at the end of the day fuels are a fungible commodity and our local prices reflect demand in the rest of the world.
The bit about "dependence on foreign oil" you're hearing is largely spin. Supply is not the problem. Pump more and we'll just use more.
[1] Which is not to say we don't import or export any. Markets are markets.
Everything the media writes about Quatar I know is going on right here. The outrage is minimal. As long as desperation for money exists someone will exploit it.
I was selected for a project in a Gulf country and we had a preliminary session where I got an eye opener. Basically, no women or gays, no non Islam religious paraphernalia, no atheists, no Jews and if you have Israeli stamp the company would help you get a new passport, no drinking, cover up tattoos. Never noped the fuck outta something as fast as declining that project. No money is worth working for these savage nations.
It’s gross how much these corporations act woke in the west and then basically bend to these kinds of countries. Disgusting, and yet everyone in the west eats up the marketing propaganda.
Men were sent to the country in their stead, and had to pretend they were the ones responsible for building the thing.
The women were told it was for their safety, but the rumor was that a week before we were set to travel, the customer had apparently said, "by the way, we don't do business with women."
As it should be. Corporations should not have many opinions and should operate within the law. If corporate leaders or employees don’t like it then they can spend their free time lobbying or campaigning for politicians that want to change things. Only after the law is changed should the company make a change. Until then, business as usual.
That would almost be ok if corporations weren't allowed to lobby the government, have their employees, owners or board members go work in politics or have other types of influence on politicians.
But they have tremendous influence on the laws that they themselves ostensibly have to follow.
Not to mention that:
- even when they break laws they tend to get just a slap on the wrist
- the corporate execs responsible for the lawbreaking rarely go to jail
- even if they're unlucky enough to go to jail the jails tend to be cushy country clubs
- execs have golden parachutes that let them cash out even if they screw the company, and can easily get jobs elsewhere (not that the people at the top who bear ultimate responsibility for the company even have to work another day in their life)
- corporations manipulate voters' opinions through (perfectly legal) advertising, PR, media ownership/influence, sponsorship, greenwashing, astroturfing, etc
I'm curious where this view comes from. The last time I checked, corporations are composed of people, and people are fraught with opinion.
Corporations should operate within the confines of non-discrimination law. If these business opportunities aren’t open to their Jewish or female employees, they are partaking in discrimination.
Just because one university is very “woke”, and another university forms a partnership with Qatar does not mean that universities in general are hypocritical, or even that any specific university is hypocritical.
If you are going to make such a broad argument as “American universities are hypocritically supporting the Qarar government” as you seem to be, you need to give more examples than just one university forming a partnership with Qatar.
- Northwestern University
- Cornell University
- Carnegie Mellon University
- Georgetown University
- Texas A&M University
- Virginia Commonwealth University
That’s just the ones I know of in Qatar, there’s also a bunch more in other gulf region countries (like the UAE).
> Kipnis was the subject of yet another Northwestern Title IX investigation earlier this year — this time for writing “Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus,” a book about being investigated for saying there are too many Title IX investigations.
https://www.thefire.org/breaking-laura-kipnis-second-title-i...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/laura-kipniss-endle...
For many institutions, the idea of being green is to dump their crap in other countries. So much that in many cases, it is better for the environment to put plastics in the regular trash to end up in a proper landfill rather than in the oceans by unscrupulous "recyclers" in countries where regulations are conveniently not enforced.
China used to be one of these dumpster countries, but now, they start caring a bit about the environment, which is a good thing, but there are still plenty of poor countries accepting our trash only to dump it in the oceans or in nature.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...
In fact, if we take them at a face value, they suggest incredibly low death rates among immigrant workers in Qatar.
I don't think it's disputed though that migrant workers are treated inhumanely there. Not that Qatar would be the only community to treat migrant workers as second class people. It seems to be a case of a newspaper resorting to touting some numbers to make a point instead of reporting good information, which is sad.
Talking about companies eschewing ethics to get at the money: newspapers are companies.
The US state department is happy to let governments know that US passports are property of the US government and may only be held under very limited circumstances. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/51.7#:~:text=CFR-,%C....
The real issue in gulf is not paying livable wages mainly. Anything else is comparable to farm workers in Europe.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/30/bahrain-abuse-migrant-wo...
Unfortunately it's not well policed, many hotels and office receptions try to do so when they issue you a badge but I always refuse.
"An emergency travelling document" will allow you to go from anywhere in the world to ONLY your home country and its usually easier to get.
Your home country can't refuse you entry, regardless of identification. Deportees don't get to stay in the US just because they lost their passport.
So, like an H1B?
It’s possible that if they try to obtain a new password from their embassy or consul that they’re told they should retrieve their original one from their “employer”. They may have to prove it was lost or stolen by filling out an official police form – which would likely be a criminal offence if done so knowing that the passport was not lost. This is all conjecture: I’m imagining how there could be rules that appear to be fair on the surface but are actually enforced in such a way as to unfairly restrict the human rights/freedom of the worker.
Isn’t that exactly like how the L1/H1B system in US work? Employer sponsoring and being tied to the employer till the lottery?
Every games for fairly obvious reasons has been shagtastic.
We shouldn't go.
Edit"countless" because you might not need to count just assume everyone single will be arrested. I don't dare look up their laws pertaining to LGBTQ+ folks.
Edit2: add in installed NSO and other deep inspection wares plus terrorist motivations internally against their state (for much the same objections natch) and we're going through'72 again.
This is a silly fabrication, as discussed before in another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30930117
Not sure why this circlejerk is so popular on HN, the facts do not support it in the slightest.
All of these numbers are supposed to reflect overall mortality among immigrant workers, but they’re actually far too low to be accurate.
Some sources say 400,000 gladiators died in the arenas in ancient Rome. It was during multiple events of course, but that number does not include deaths of constructions workers.
Not trying to make any excuses for Qatar, but "deadlies" seems to be exaggerated.
Qatar has over 2m migrant workers.
In 12 years, 6500 have died. 550/2m/yr .27/1000/yr
In USA the rate for age 20-30 is about 1/1000/yr.
That usually means any sexual relation outside of marriage is forbidden, even between life partners.
A quick Google tells me they probably practice temporary marriage as well but call it something else (and details differ).
Anyone actually knowledgeable, please chime in.
> If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,
> you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death--the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
> But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
> Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor,
> for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
> If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
> he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
It is a very harsh punishment, I do not agree with it, but intended to punish adultery not to punish women specifically. That is why the provision for country vs. town. A reasonable reading is if a woman is raped/resists she should not be punished, if she is committing adultery she should. Probably happened because of a problem with women would be caught and say they were raped. But religion bad amirite fellow men of culture tips fedora
Although I can't help but snicker at the image of a bunch of poor cops desperately trying to memorize marriage certificates from around the world.
Unbeknownst to us there was also a law that unmarried heterosexual couples couldn’t share hotel accommodations. In some places this meant the men had to share a room and the women had to share a room because, when asked, we couldn’t provide a marriage certificate. (Ironically their strict enforcement of the law intended to prevent premarital sex would have the opposite effect.) But in some hotels the way they got around this was to simply note that we were married. Often without even asking. And in one instance when things got a bit dicey the hotel manager was sufficiently satisfied of our “marriage” by seeing the receipts of our other hotel stays.
All of that is to say I got the impression it’s a very subjective and selectively enforced thing.
If you're caught, then you, as the foreigner, will have to verify it. So it's not their problem.
But on the plus side, you'd have all this time while awaiting trial or in jail to do it...
>Although I can't help but snicker at the image of a bunch of poor cops desperately trying to memorize marriage certificates from around the world.
Cops wont have to memorize anything. If it comes to that, and someone is reported and arrested or questioned for this reason, then he would need to provide the certificate, and some clerk will have to verify it.
This while much of the emirates is serviced by a slave-class Indians, who can't practice their religion, build temples (exceptions: Oman, UAE), or anything "disallowed" by the savage law-system they practice. Then these same good-for-nothing oil sheikhs preach to India!
Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood it rears really are the worst threats to humanity. Alas, most Islamists take their training again from India's UP (no better way to develop anti-kafir theology when surrounded by them I suppose). Ah the many manifestations of India's savage colonizers.
people were being killed in the streets, with sticks, no legal protection women getting raped, not to mention the obsession with raping kids in temples and whatnot in India not long ago I think someone published here on HN an article about the Indian police planting evidence on victims computers.
Not to mention taking the citizenship from the Indian muslims Not to mention street shitting, not to mention praying for covid and for toilets and every single dirty thing one can think of. Not to mention bathing in cow dung. Not to mention the extremely cruel caste system which has no basis but inner discrimination and separating the society.
will you rage against these practices or show any sign of disagreement to the Indian government? we don't see any such efforts on your side so If anything I would say Qatar should stop accepting Hindus.
You've done nothing to the muslims but murdered them, raped their women, offended them, mocked their religion and prophet lately too, and you don't even deserve to have temples built in their land, you're the only danger to humanity because if things get out of hands you will make the whole planet a one big literal shithole.
I do not think, this is how it works around there. "The poor cops" will have no problem locking anyone in, until they can proof in a way that pleases the cops, that their papers are allright.
I doubt this law will be enforced strictly as this would cause too much bad press, when important people(from rich western nations) are getting problems, but some poor workers are probably have to get their papers right, translated, locally certified, etc.
This isn't really about consensual heterosexual hooks up, more like someone gets raped, tries to report to the police and ends up in prison for adultery. It happens all the time in Dubai with western tourists or expats.
That's why these laws really exist, to deprive females of any agency.
Furthermore, married or not according to sharia law, homosexual intercourse is automatically adultery.
Aside from using something other than “copy paper” and added ornamentation, this could describe all of my US legal documents including my marriage and birth certificates.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_Uni...
---------------------------
Nasser Al-Khater, chairman of Qatar's 2022 World Cup organising committee, has said that all World Cup attendees will be safe regardless of their sexual orientation or culture.
In December 2021 Al-Khater did confirm that "homosexuality is not allowed" in the emirate, but promises that LGTBIQ+ fans will have the right to travel to the country and attend matches.
"Qatar and the region are a lot more conservative," Al-Khater told CNN.
"And this is what we ask fans to respect. And we're sure that fans will respect that.
"We respect different cultures and we expect other cultures to respect ours.
"Qatar is a tolerant country. It's a welcoming country. It's a hospitable country."
---------------------------
Al-Khater seems to define "tolerant", "welcoming" and "hospitable" differently than I do.
tolerance does not mean that we have to accept the behavior of people who act in ways which are offensive to us. tolerance is the mutual respect of eachother's boundaries, namely that the people who visit Qatar respect the culture and laws of the country, and the people of Qatar in return respect the rights and freedom of those visitors
This isn't about whether or not to wear shoes indoors or not. It's not about regional cultural quirks, but about fundamental human rights. What actually constitutes fundamental human rights depends on the framework, but the correct one (and importantly the one FIFA follows obviously) is the "liberal/progressive/secular" one. Which is why an organization that supposedly values those rights shouldn't let a country that doesn't value them host a world cup.
> tolerance is the mutual respect of eachother's boundaries, namely that the people who visit Qatar respect the culture and laws of the country, and the people of Qatar in return respect the rights and freedom of those visitors
That loses the context of the World Cup. Basically saying "we want to host the world cup" is synonymous to saying "we don't mind gay people holding hands". If not, then FIFA isn't actually championing the values they say they are (which is probably the case)
The United Nations do. Why?
Someone is bound to wheel out the old "no tolerance for intolerance" line, which is fine, but doesn't mean you can go to someone else's country and tell them that they're wrong and should be doing things the way you do them.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, so long as you act in accordance with ours laws.
This seems to be how many people view tolerance. Their laws are different. If you do not like that, do not go there.
Woman's rights or workers rights in a faraway country? Fat load of nothing issues for many who want to see their country in the semis.
Here is an OK starting point, if you want to dig deeper:
the U.S. has shown it’s more than capable of holding FIFA to account when it wants to [1].
If they weren't there would be 10x the media and government noise for 1/10 the bad stuff (if it wasn't cancelled or boycotted altogether).
Talk it cheap. Actions mean more but both have costs. Willing to pay?
Not if saying no risks ending your career. You don't become a pro football player and play in the world cup just for thr money.
1. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1116241-ranking-the-top-...
Iceland, Croatia, Denmark are recent national teams that went much farther than expected, to much national acclaim ( the whole country celebrating their success). For many players that makes them national heros, and brings them pride and prestige. And there were a lot of players on those teams who were not superstars winning the Champions League regularly.
“Xxx is bad, unless it hurts me” isn’t a defensible moral position. Better they drop the sermonizing if it’s just feel good.
This is a job for them. And most come from poor backgrounds with families to support. How many of us would stand up right now and call out our employers in public for doing evil things? Not many. We've got mortgages to pay and kids to feed. Ultimately they just want to get paid and go home, like anyone else.
Which I think is actually fair enough. You might actually destroyed your entire career in this case by taking a principled stand, and you are being forced to participate in something against your will. In the end you are a footballer wanting to play football.
Unfortunately though looking at it from the outside, it starts to really look like an authoritarian ritual that everyone is forced to participate in, like the 30 minute clapping that many dictators get after speeches because everyone is afraid to be the first to stop.
But that doesn't mean the system is good or people actually agree with the dictator.
But as I wrote previously, if you profit from the action your criticism is less valuable. Perhaps better to not make yourself look bad?
EDIT: I'm sure there's some in the HN community that have given up (big) bucks to work on things they find ethical and appropriate rather than taking the cash to sell ads and monitor people. Perhaps they can enlighten this discussion if they wish?
I think Colin Kapernick is not as good, he wasn't a good player, and in the current environment what he did was guaranteed to be embraced by the cultural leadership of the english speaking world, he was basically held up as a hero, and got his own TV show.
If a premier league player refused to kneel for BLM, he would be banished from football and public life forever, for being an evil racist. And would probably have a hard time finding any work for a long time.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/ho...
Imagine the kerfluffle if a national team passed on Qatar or if a Messi or similar just said no. It's being applied to Russia for international aggression, so maybe ethics-and-fairness might happen someday?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar#Legal_sy...
Singaporean here. I hope you're referring to public caning in schools [1][2], because canings in prisons [3] are, as far as I know, not open to the public.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore#School_can...
[2] https://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20091012...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore#Prison_can...
Did you just make it up?
I know people who have been caned (for alochol consumption) in the mid-east who still have problems walking today, so no that cannot be an alternative.
Everything about it is wrong.
When the depth of FIFA's corruption was uncovered a few years ago* I honestly thought the Qatar decision would be overturned. Giving the competition to a country with no footballing history and no recognisable players, teams or clubs was beyond comprehension.
*officially uncovered, I think everyone with a little interest in the game knew it was chock full of dodgy practices
Different culture, when used to subdue and forbid what others do, stops being a goal of a xenophilic society and starts being a nuisance to personal liberty.
I am a xenophilic person, and I am absolutely disgusted by things such as this.
You can throw your punch anywhere, as long as my nose is not in there. (Take this sentence literally)
Please do not get into the metaphysical debate of what harm will mean broadly. Not in the mood.
Adult people having a fun night in a hotel room is not harming anyone.
Are you sure? What if they publicize it? And why is "harm" (as vague as that can be) the main determinant of how one should act? What if such harm is not immediately obvious to us?
> Please respect conservative views on life too. I think it is a good idea to marry first especially if you are a woman.
I respect all kinds of viewpoints as long as they respect other viewpoints as well. A viewpoint that tries to jail people for their very personal decisions is inherently not respectable, because it is itself by definition lacking respect.
why do you think killing your child and eating him is a bad idea.
animals do that, and we're animals, so give me a reason as why to this being a bad idea and you will gladly get me to agree with your very self-contradictory opinion.
You don't have values, nor a measurement to define what's good and what's not, not to mention "respect" ideas or people.
You only have one thing to appreciate as an atheist, which is materialism and anything that serves your goals by any means necessary.
Am I wrong?
Being detrimental to other people's materialism is detrimental to being free and alive.
Yeah, somehow Europe is now aging, weird, ha?
> If it affects me more than it affects you, my opinion weighs more than yours and vice versa.
So, Who defines or measures this? you? great, should start a "you religion", this is starting to take shape.
Now If a drug dealer says his actions do affect him far more than his buyers, it should make sense for his opinion to outweigh the court's opinion because he's getting much more money hence his trade is affecting him much more than the little amounts he sells individually to people.
Totally makes sense.
> Man faces 3yrs in jail for touching another man’s hip in a busy bar
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/man-...
The whole Qatar bid has already been tainted with accusations of FIFA corruption, so they both can't afford for this World Cup to be anything but a complete success.
Countries like France, Germany, Holland, USA or any of the major football nations that qualify for this World Cup are not going allow their citizens to be sent to prison for seven years over a one-night stand.
Saudi Arabia had a dress code guide for fans and media, for instance. Women should refrain from wearing indecent clothes, like short sleeves.
https://www.marca.com/en/f1/2021/10/18/616dba0122601dfc398b4...
But to be forced to hold oneself for even one hour is something I don't take so kindly.
I thought this attitude usually stems only from these hateful religious zealots who refuse to "integrate" or "tolerate" others.
dude merely refuses to play, gets viral because "homophobia is not an opinion, it's a crime" and they were discussing sanctioning him.
speaking of the slavery issues, doesn't the west do the exact same thing meanwhile keeping the slaves in their countries? ps. China and India etc.
Anyways, I think any player refusing to wear a shirt with the Islamic slogan "No God But Allah" should be considered to be sanctioned, because "Islamophobia isn't an opinion, it's a crime", Also I would argue you can't really call the majority of muslims "privileged".
So, when will that be? hopefully France will start first, because secularism isn't discriminatory, right?
And they are hosting Word Cup.
edit: huh I mixed up my middle-east countries I think, I didn't realise you could normally go out for a beer. I still think that suggesting the two places are equivalent is a little bit of a stretch though.
Islam doesn't forbid men to have more than one wife simultaneously, so it covers even already married customers.
It’s still unclear how Qatar will go about this, but looking at other countries in the GCC, there seems to be willingness to let things slide or setup up special zones.
I would expect some sort of World Cup village, that would be off limits to Muslim and serve alcohol and look the other way with regards to sex before marriage.
And it’s not like World Cup fans don’t regularly break laws about public intoxication and hosting nations usually let’s that slide. So why not Qatar on one night stands?
They must know what kind of crowd they are inviting, when the decided to spend billions and billions of dollars to prepare for the invites.
I doubt Qatar police is preparing for mass incarceration of football fans or that the organizers will be surprised at seeing drunk and horny fans.
Every time someone in the west makes excuses for rule breaking by their government (and it. Usually seems to be the right that does so, so much for freedom), this is what they are moving towards.
That would save a whole lot of grief!
Is there any source for this beyond a UK police officer talking to a tabloid? As yes it violates their laws, but they've held all sorts of events and I've never heard of a massive crackdown on tourist adultery.
Qatar's laws are dumb and/or inhumane, and are a reason the World Cup should not be hosted there. Still, they're willing to sell alcohol to tourists so I doubt they'll strictly enforce this law either.
Just the woman.
After all Alan Turing was supposed to have been gay and his input is all over computers and smart phones!
Now I also hope this is actually designed to cut down on people trafficking and the exploitation of the less fortunate, because there have been some nasty diseases going around and virus hide in parts of the body where the immune system cant go, like the testes, ovaries, eyes and brain.
I’d boycott it if I ever went or watched football generally, but it’s one of those things I am absolutely uninterested in, so unfortunately I’m not even able to take an active stand against this bullshit.
I'm sort of assuming they look the other way and give wrist slaps out for stuff they find it hard it ignore. But at the same time half the fans will be assuming that's the case and with enough narcissists assuming the rules don't apply to them it could setup an interesting show down.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/australian-women-sue-...
This reminds me of the American boy who stole a poster in North Korea, after which he was imprisoned and presumably tortured for 15 months, and died a week after returning home, after having been in a coma for a year: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40335169
I could fear a few football fans are going to end up in the Qatari prison system because they don't understand that the consequences of their actions are different than in their home country. After all, how can they know?
I've read a story about a Swedish girl that had been date-raped while staying on one of Gulf states. Having been used to European legal standards, she reported this incident to the police, only to find out that not only her case was dismissed, but she was found guilty of extramarital affair.
Creepy as hell.
Pro lgbtq+ laws have far worse consequences.
A trans sexually assaulted an American man's daughter in the school bath then they triggered the dad in the court and when he couldn't take it anymore they accused him of DV, it was pretty traumatizing to even watch the video of the man raging for what happened to his daughter only to be accused of DV.
another man got 16 years for merely taking down a flag and burning it, arson I know but also 16 years, I think nowadays you'd get around that for murder.
I am sure I can bring you more examples of Sweden pulling children from their families if they suspect they're teaching them anything related to Islam as in to oppose going out on school trips or as in refusing to wear half naked clothes when going to school etc, heard a lot of them and kids where crying to get back to their family, I am sure an actually oppressed kid won't look so comfy and happy with his abusers or even get red face crying just wanting to get back to their families, the difference is, the media doesn't care about these because they're not seculars, me not hearing about these from a dude on the youtube I would have had no clue.
Nothing creepy tho, as far as it's all under the umbrella of secular western standards.
Even if you do get the case thrown out, do you really wanna go through the Qatari legal system? Get harassed by sexually repressed cops, especially if you are a woman?
The most sensible thing to do is stay home and watch the games on TV. It is not worth going to fucked up places just to watch soccer, imho.
There is plenty of entertainment around that doesn't support a medieval dictator.
In actuality, it was a small rural college town with minimal criminal activity, and the night desk was used to catch, arrest, and fine college students returning to their dorm to sleep after a night of drinking.
Qatar will likely enlist hotels to police this law.
Say you go to your Airbnb, walk the stairs with a woman that could look like a sex worker, the neighbors will consider that disrespectful to be done "in front of their kids", and they will call the police on you. However not sure if that's enough to warrant the police entering your house, so they might just talk to you and ask you to be considerate or give you a warning.
They don’t enforce rules about sex between tourists / western expats unless someone involved brings it directly to law enforcements attention and asks for their intervention.
Don’t let anyone know you’re gay or the victim of sexual assault. But consenting sex between two middle class non-Muslims behind closed doors is a complete non issue.
Who cares,
a) it's not really worth the risk of participating, let alone participating and then knowingly breaking rules,
and b) no single person can ever have a good enough knowledge of the security systems of a state-level actor that they can confidently say that they aren't at risk.
if it were me i'd be hesitant to take the risk of personally traveling there, let alone breaking their rules.
https://www.interestingfacts.org/fact/temporary-marriage-in-...
Therefore, Russia got kicked out of swift due to lack of democracy, human rights etc. Of corse they needed to start a war, too, but neither war nor lack of freedoms alone would not have been sufficient.
If you invade another country this is not the tone you will be setting.
> Russia got kicked out of swift due to lack of democracy, human rights etc.
Russia got kicked out of Swift because the US believed it would make them capitulate. Now it's just another diplomatic disaster in a long, long line of disasters perpetrated by the US. Therefore, I must conclude Russia got kicked out of Swift because the US did not like them and had (to them) good pretext to do so.
8 years ago! I’m getting old.
Basically it means that if I and my girlfriend went there we’d be considered criminals if we had sex? This is absolutely absurd. I understand that this is all about money and that FIFA is probably one of the most corrupt organisations in the world, but how on Earth did they come to think that westerners worldwide would be OK with this?
I'm in two minds about his story, it was a much smaller scale event and sounded well run. This World Cup though sounds flat out awful, mainly due to the throwaway slave labour in building the infrastructure and the rampant corruption from both sides. If the infrastructure wasn't built with slave labour, and if the country won the right to host fairly maybe I'd be OK with it.
Availability bias at its most obvious.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar aren’t going anywhere if they can’t get World Cups.
...despite making profits of around $250M/year with cash reserves of over $2.5B.
In disputes, WMF has argued that it should not necessarily be liable for content written by 3rd-party contributors, which doesn't appear to be an entirely unreasonable position. It has lobbied for consumer rights in Copyright legislation hearings, and it has lobbied against governmental mass surveillance in which it was joined by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
It has also been criticised for some software projects being late, over budget, and not living up to expectations (so, par for the course for a typical software project?), or being developed with insufficient transparency. Which, OK, isn't great.
But you're comparing that to FIFA, whose officials have been repeatedly charged (with some guilty pleas, some convictions, and other cases ongoing) of multiple counts of political corruption, bribery, match fixing, racketeering and money laundering. Also, they lobby for exemptions to workers rights protections, and for special case tax exemptions beyond those normally afforded by it's non-profit status.
If you were trying to make the point that FIFA "isn't that bad, actually", I don't think comparing them to WMF does them any favors. (Or, it does make WMF look pretty good, in comparison.) Maybe try comparing FIFA to the IOC or the NRA if you want to make them look better next time.
They're embroiled in politics at the highest level because football / soccer arguably is the world's most popular (spectator) sport, which is something politicians gladly make use of to promote their own agendas and careers.
FIFA World Cups more often than not involve large public infrastructure programs.
FIFA and its high-ranking officials on the other hand profit in various ways, too, from "mere" tax holidays to downright corruption.
I think it may be useful to remember the origin of the word. Barbarians in ancient Greece were simply the non-Greek. People of different culture, speaking a different language. And of course, they were considered inferior and unrefined by the Greeks, who called themselves citizens.
For the Romans, Barbarians were those who were neither Roman nor Greek. It included Germans, Gauls, Persians,...
So I think it is useful to remember that in addition to the idea that "barbaric" means primitive, brutal or cruel, there is also that idea of looking down on cultures that are not our own.
/s
That, I agree with.
I would have thought that was obvious.
It's because it smells, spreads disease and is seen as a general disregard for others that have to be near what's left behind.
Do I sound too conservative if I say that it's often a good idea to think twice before having a one-night stand?
But if you mean that people shouldn’t ever be having one night stands, yeah I think that is a little more conservative than the average person.
In this context though, the Daily Star means that this is something people might not even consider is illegal, having not grown up or otherwise lived in a strictly religious state
But going out in typical "pride" outfit is insensitive and propably bad idea. Like wearing SS uniform in Germany.