281–290 of 420 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not about the Kafala system, since even the West has similar systems. It is that they treat migrant workers that are not highly skilled specially from specific backgrounds bad.
Like Blacks and Mexicans in US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, and elsewhere in the region migrant workers have their passport taken by the employer and thus can’t leave the country. They are stuck. In most other countries the employer does not confiscate your passport. It’s weird to me that one needs a passport to leave a country. In the U.S. you don’t need a passport to leave.
you still need the passport to enter anywhere else, even your home country
"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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how they would verify that with foreigners, especially those with a history of poor record-keeping. I surmise that there must be at least a couple of countries where a marriage certificate is nothing more than a plain sheet of copy paper with something along the lines of "I hereby declare that X and Y are married" in their local legalese. Although I can't help but snicker at the image of a bunch of poor cops…
I think I’ve mentioned it here before but I once traveled to a country with laws hostile to LGBTQ+ people with three friends: another hetero woman and two gay men who were a couple. For safety reasons we pretended we were two hetero couples which included checking into our hotel rooms as “couples”. Unbeknownst to us there was also a law that unmarried heterosexual couples couldn’t share hotel accommodations. In some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends what you mean by “think twice”. It could be that you’re saying that you should not be reckless - to be extra sure you both have the same expectations from the encounter, that you both consent, that neither one of you is beyond the point of being able to properly give that consent (ie you and partner aren’t completely intoxicated), that nobody else’s feelings are going to be hurt and a few other things, tha…
If alcohol is involved, there is no way to be sure
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not pretend that Russia got kicked out due to their less than ideal stance on gay rights, freedom of the press or straight up murders of dissidents in foreign countries. Mounting a full on invasion of a neighboring country is not the same.
Indirectly they did. Let's consider this hypothetical case: Russia as fully established democracy with all individual freemdoms anyone can think of. Then Russia invades Ukraine, e.g. to fight corruption there, or for the rights of minorities. In that case, would Ukrain fight back the same they do in reality? Large part of their motivation is not to end up in the non-free Russian system. But what if the agressor does…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I love is that institutions like universities will happily link arms with Qatar for the $$$, despite the neo-slavery: https://www.qatar.northwestern.edu . Really puts their woke messaging at home in context.
“Institutions” in general don’t have woke messaging, specific institutions do. “Universities” in general don’t have partnerships with the Qatar government, specific universities do. 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…
Why is no one trying to kick Qatar out of the Swift network?
Probably the fact that it's not at war with one of our "allies". And because it's not threatening to use nuclear weapons, bombing civilians, taking children hostage, disrupting food supply chains...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only everything were so black and white. Every country has facets of barbarism.
Whataboutism won’t change the barbarity of imprisoning consenting adults for having sex or being gay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol it’s also every single company ever. Look at the US/Western twitter accounts of major corporations and they’re all rainbows. Then look at their Middle East or other regions twitter accounts.. the only color they care about is green. Everything else is marketing backed by legal. 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, n…
> the only color they care about is green. 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.
Until we start crucifying corporate lobbyists in the public square, mass criticism is the only weapon we have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol it’s also every single company ever. Look at the US/Western twitter accounts of major corporations and they’re all rainbows. Then look at their Middle East or other regions twitter accounts.. the only color they care about is green. Everything else is marketing backed by legal. 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, n…
> the only color they care about is green. 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