One-night stands will be illegal at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar | Hacker News Reader

One-night stands will be illegal at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar

marca.com

182 pointsKoftaBob390 comments

https://gctpnews.org/qatar-2022-world-cup-death-toll/

"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.

The gulf states are modern-day slave societies.

And why don't we in the west sanction them or refuse to trade with them for this practice? Not only that but we're actively supporting these regimes and selling them cutting edge weapons. Why is that?

'checks notes'

Oh, right, oil.

> And why don't we in the west sanction them or refuse to trade with them for this practice?

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 always be a dependency on resources or products from other countries - especially if we truly respect the rights of self-determination of arbitrarily small nations and city-states. True sovereignty of these states also means that they have the right to not trade with us for any reason, does it not?

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?

Most countries on earth simply cease to function as they are doing now with alternative eco-friendly energy sources.

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)

I do not know, whether this is true, but: When I was in school, we learned in geography class, that one could power the whole EU, if we occupied some area of the Sahara desert with solar panels, at least when looking at raw energy output, disregarding day night differences and possibly hot and cold environment that a desert is.

I guess humanity is still not ready for such projects of enormous cooperation between countries, or, that there are too many things in the way, like said temperature rise at day and fall at night, the vast distance the energy would need to be transported (is that a problem?) and maintenance work somewhere in the desert. One can still hope, that some day we will be able to think globally and solve problems that way.

> we learned in geography class, that one could power the whole EU, if we occupied some area of the Sahara desert with solar panels

I sometimes hear that too. The YouTube channel "Real Engineering" did a video about the idea: [1] The TLDR is: the Sahara definitely gets enough sun, but transmitting the power into Europe would be hard.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o

In the long term, most countries on earth will not be able to function as they are now if they don't switch to alternative energy sources.

This will involve a mix of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and nuclear on grids that span continents with massive battery stores to balance supply with demand. Between climate change and petroleum-fuelled kleptocrats, ditching fossil fuels is a necessity, not a choice. And the long term here is on the order of decades, not centuries, so within most of our our lifetimes.

On the contrary, what many people in the West are realizing, is that abstaining from oil and gas leaves you poor or broke.

< in poor taste, feel free to delete @dang >

What?

Is it poor taste? I certainly have never had any issue complaining. It's widely reporter on in sports journalism, and the BBC etc.

Probably talking about their own comment, pre-edit to current version.

I was referring the original pre-edit although I can't remember what it actually said.

Well we could produce it all locally instead of having the president begging them to pump more

We do, effectively.

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.

I'm of the impression that we can't use our own oil because our refineries largely aren't equipped to process it (different kinds of oil require different kinds of refineries, which is to say oil sort of isn't fungible), but rather our refineries are equipped to process foreign oil. So we can pump to our heart's content, but without the refineries we aren't able to use that oil.

I mean, someone is using it.

Everything is about cost. Back in the 90's, we couldn't get to our fracked oil because our existing equipment wasn't able to extract it. Then prices spiked and it made sense to build/invent new equipment. Refineries are changing too, to accommodate the state of the market they serve.

The bottom line is that "we" (in the sense the upthread poster meant) have plenty of oil. We pump plenty of oil. People saying we need to pump more oil are ultimately just reflecting the desires of companies who want to pump (and sell!) more oil and not the putative nativist needs of "our" oil consumers.

The bottom line is that no matter what the US does, oil prices are on a steady, inexorable rise[1] as the world exhausts its cheap supplies and needs to transition to difficult sources (again, fracking is the poster child here). Everything else is just crony politics.

[1] Though at this very moment they're experiencing an external shock due mostly to the war in Ukraine.

It’s actually the opposite: our refineries are great at processing shale, and Texas is the best place to deal with Albertan shale oil as well (hence why they wanted keystone XL so badly). We also have enough clean crude that can mix with heavier dirtier crude to enable that to be processed (so Venezuela had to import American oil to process their own). The oil industry is weird.

One thing is that shale oil is expensive to extract and refine. It wasn’t until recently when prices rose again that it became profitable.

Yeah our willingness to sanction Russia and all their oil, plunging europe into shortages kinda falsifies that theory. I wonder what the actual reason is :)

You mean everything but their oil?

I have the privilege to come into contact with migrants. I have seen things that should not happen in a wealthy European country.

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.

The major difference you left out is scale...

As are the "Western" states; we just mostly keep our slaves in Asia, America, and South America, for efficiency.

I sort of agree on Asia--we shamefully send a lot of our manufacturing over there to exploit their lack of labor or environmental protections, but I don't think the west exploits South American labor to a particularly high degree? And the US doesn't have anything that could reasonably be called "slavery" (I suspect you're conflating poverty or incarceration with slavery, but those are different things).

The far more important question is why our authorities have been totally willing to subject potentially countless of our citizens to arbitrary and unlawful imprisonment?

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.

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.

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

>you still need the passport to enter anywhere else, even your home country

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.

They can (and often do, at least for deportations from the UK) demand to see evidence that the deportee is, in fact, one of their citizens. Which can be difficult to prove without a passport. We have people who have been in immigration detention for years because they won't cooperate in getting an emergency travel document, or their 'home' country doesn't accept that they have a right of admission there.

A passport will allow you to go from anywhere in the world to anywhere else in the world and its usually hard to get.

"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.

Makes me think that the home countries are fairly complicit. Any country with robust consular services wouldn’t allow that to happen.

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....

That's not legal, and it doesn't happen in cases of the kind of workers you are talking about. Taking passport or treating to be accused of rape and similar things happen (not commonly) to domestic workers and drivers. In occasions they buy the right of Kafala from the Kafil for a couple of $1000s and you leaving before your contract ends feel to them like a loss of money, I would say the situation here is indeed similar to slavery. For industry workers, every worker is replaceable and the company hiring you has 0 incentive to force you to stay.

The real issue in gulf is not paying livable wages mainly. Anything else is comparable to farm workers in Europe.

According to the following link confiscating of passports is common in Bahrain for migrant workers.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/30/bahrain-abuse-migrant-wo...

If you’ve ever been to a GCC country, you’ll notice that passport control when leaving is extremely long. It’s filled with South Asian men (and some women) who are put through the ringer by the officials and often pulled aside for extra questioning before being able to board a flight. They all seem to be on pins and needles

It is in fact illegal to confiscate for a private entity to confiscate a passport in most Western countries.

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.

It's not just migrant workers thought, my one cousin who is a white collar worker, making significantly more than me, lived under similar conditions with respect to passport and living...they even go through his mail. I have had other cousins in the are who have worked as labourers and the first hand accounts as bad as we've heard.

That makes your cousin a migrant worker too? no?

Like Blacks and Mexicans in US?

Like North African farm workers in France.

No, the West does not have similar systems. There is plenty of injustice in the Western treatment of immigrant workers, but it's nowhere close to the outright slavery taking place in the Saudi peninsula. To point out injustice in the West is fair, but to use that to excuse the level of injustice in Qatar is delusional.

UAE had the most vaccinated people. Except they only counted citizens, foreign workers didn't count. I suspect Qutar did something similar.

I got vaccinated in UAE with a low-skill worker visa, no issues.

> "[...] an estimated 4,000 migrant workers will die, making this event the deadliest in sporting history."

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.

Early 2021 numbers suggest 6500 had died by then.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...

Those numbers make no sense at all, as previously discussed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30930117

In fact, if we take them at a face value, they suggest incredibly low death rates among immigrant workers in Qatar.

I read the discussion you linked and then calculated a bit and compared with my country. Turns out as you say, that this number isn't very high if it's all-cause mortality.

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.

sad but very very normal, unfortunately.

Talking about companies eschewing ethics to get at the money: newspapers are companies.

> a system forcing all migrants to be sponsored and subsequently tied to an employer

So, like an H1B?

H1B sponsors don’t hold your passport.

H1B visas have a similar effect of promoting longer employments and lower wages compared to the local workforce with regular liberty.

"similar effect"s are not relevant here. H1B are free to go back to their home country at will.

That assumes a lot of things that aren't true of the H1B holders I've met through work.

I am on H1B and know tons and tons of people who are on it. you can absolutely pack your bags and leave the very same day if you wish.

Do you mean financially they aren't able to? To me that's a different situation than literally not allowed to leave by your employer, because they won't return your passport.

I’ve always wondered, what does “holding a passport” entail? Can’t you just go to your embassy and make a new passport as if you’ve lost the old one? How can some other guy holding your documents make you a slave unable to leave if you want?

Another poster in this thread suggested¹ that there must be some degree of collusion with the migrant worker’s home state(s) for this practice to be widespread.

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.

¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834976

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 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.

Is NorthWestern not very woke? Isn't that the campus that launched multiple Title IX inquisition against a law professor on the basis that the law professor criticized Title IX?

> 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...

It doesn't have to be a case of a university signalling to the world that they are embarking on a formal partnership with government of Qatar, it just needs to be one of many indirect mechanisms through which they take a large amount of money that originates from Qatar, and a department or scholar or research foundation or a commercial partnership confers kudos upon a Qatari foundation or the royal family, or indicates patronage. There are a million ways of dressing it up, universities have PR departments and strategic communications consultancies to keep bad news at bay, and few students or academics are going to go to all that trouble to bite the hand that feeds them. You just end up with a state of the art new department building or facility that has been funded by a foundation with an Arabic name (perhaps an Emir or a sheikh's wife or daughter), and some dignitaries attending an opening ceremony on a Saturday morning to a hand-picked crowd while most of the students on campus are sleeping in. None of this is at all remarkable in today's landscape of intense inter-university competition. Also, they're not going to fund sociology departments; it's often directed towards the hard sciences or Arabic language/literature/history/cultural studies. And that's before you get onto endowments from Blue Chip companies that are actually vehicles for wealthy investors.

I’m thinking of a specific school that has a prominent, and very liberal, journalism school that has deep ties with Qatar: https://freebeacon.com/national-security/inside-qatars-multi...

I’m not getting involved in the debate over what’s a “woke” university and what isn’t (partly because everyone’s definition is different), but here is a non-exhaustive list of American universities partnered 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).

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, 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.

> 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.

> Corporations should not have many opinions

I'm curious where this view comes from. The last time I checked, corporations are composed of people, and people are fraught with opinion.

I respectfully disagree. A company is just a group of people, and thus, it has common goals and opinions, like any other group of people.

> As it should be. Corporations should not have many opinions and should operate within the law.

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.

some real IBM in the 1930s energy here

IMO this is a terrible take on what companies should be doing. "Unless there's a law against it we should be doing it" is not how people who make up a corporation should be thinking.

Corporations should not have many opinions and should operate within the law.

Until we start crucifying corporate lobbyists in the public square, mass criticism is the only weapon we have.

"Corporations should not have many opinions and should operate within the law."

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

Weird take in a forum for an industry built on “disruption”

This implies that one should set aside moral values when joining a corporation, and that laws can and should enforce morality. Both of those propositions are dubious.

We had a project in a relatively modernized Islamic country, and all the women were basically ripped off the project right before go-live.

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."

Same idea as for the environment.

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.

An institution has more than one person with more than one personality in it? Weird!

Yeah, how stupid are they for trying to be better than the Qatari government. What a bunch of dopes.

Is 4000 people dying per decade a lot?

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.

>"[...] an estimated 4,000 migrant workers will die, making this event the deadliest in sporting history."

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.

The comment you linked has an extremely narrow focus, on proven deaths during the building phase. There's all sorts of related problems like kidney illness that will kill many of those workers due to the terrible conditions; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/qatar-2022-dying-for-the-...

You’ve misread what I linked. None of the numbers being discussed are “proven deaths during the building phase” as you claim.

All of these numbers are supposed to reflect overall mortality among immigrant workers, but they’re actually far too low to be accurate.

> 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.

Isn’t that exactly like how the L1/H1B system in US work? Employer sponsoring and being tied to the employer till the lottery?

Even worse in China. They will hold your passport and force you to stay in dorms.

It's a significant difference of degree. First of all H1B visa holders are not close to 90% of the US population, nor are they exploited to the degree that migrant workers are in Qatar (look at the death rates of those workers compared with US H1B visa holders). Similarly, the US doesn't allow H1B companies to take custody of the worker's passport, thereby locking them in the country. We should reform our H1B system, but these two things aren't particularly comparable.

Qatar is a terrible place, but I'm not sure the math checks out in that article.

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...

Thanks for scrutinizing the numbers.

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

The title downplays this a lot. The first sentence in the article reads "Any extramarital sexual encounter (...) could result in a seven-year jail sentence."

That usually means any sexual relation outside of marriage is forbidden, even between life partners.

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 desperately trying to memorize marriage certificates from around the world.

That might be your problem, not theirs. They could jail anyone they aren't sure about

Yeah, some people are so used to "my rights" that they forget there are places where you don't have any.

Nitpick, but everyone has rights. The difference is there are many places that don't protect them or otherwise infringe upon your ability to exercise them.

American or philosopher?

> I wonder how they would verify that with foreigners

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.

>I wonder how they would verify that with foreigners

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.

"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."

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.

> 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.

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.

They killed 3000-4000 Indian slaves every year for their stadium. You really think they'll treat you with such care ?

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.

Oh, give me a break, treat the Indian Muslims half as good as the Hindus are treated in Qatar then we speak.

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 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 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.

Why did you decide to travel to such countries?

Like the apocryphal tale of Muhammad I’ve had little success in asking the mountains I wish to hike to come to me.

As there's no such thing as "life partners" in sharia law.

It seemed clear they were saying common law marriages (assumed after a period of time) aren't respected there.

In which country a marriage is assumed after a period of time? That's news to me...

Some parts of the US still have a concept called "common-law marriage"[1]. Most of the west seems to have abolished it by the 1700s, but there have been a few jurisdictions that are stragglers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_Uni...

Actually I meant it as in "partners for life", i.e. the idea that 2 people can partner up and be loyal and faithful to each other orthogonally to the lawful status of the relationship.

It's also the case that if a couple isn't married then they need to stay in separate accomodation while in the country.

If you get raped and report it as though you were in a civilized place you will be arrested and charged with adultery. For being raped.

Deuteronomy 22-22:29 is good stuff

You rather not be married if you are to be raped I guess? Do I read the rules correctly?

It depends on if you’re ok being sold off to your rapist. Can’t see how that could go wrong.

This is one of the things that only makes sense if you go to a mindset where women are chattel. A raped woman is "damaged goods", the man has damaged the property of her father. He now can't get a dowry because other men will not marry her. This also means the women may end up cast out, homeless, starving, destitute so not good for her either. The fucked up part is women being chattel though, which was just that time, this seems well intentioned aside from that.

I think the intent is not only making the father right by giving him 50 shekels, but also making sure the women isn't disadvantaged. Since she is "damaged goods" as you put it she would have problems finding a husband, making her life rather difficult. But conveniently there's somebody right there who we can make responsible of taking care of her for the rest of his life.

From today's point of view the solution sucks, but people back then had a very different view of marriage (and life as a single men or women). Marriage could be about love, but it was often just a transaction that establishes how people cohabitate and share roles in a household.

Ye that one sucks. Talk about perverse incentives ...

I was wondering if married rape victims would be executed, or if it is implicit that they get the same blameless treatment as engaged rape vicitims. It is not clear from the context if you read litteraly.

Deuteronomy 22-25 says literally the opposite. Only the rapist is punished.

> If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

> 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

Temporary marriage is probably the way people in Qatar get around that. It's probably an alien concept for a lot of Westerners who wouldn't know or would balk at the idea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut%27ah

Probably not, Qatar is mostly sunni islam.

http://nirmukta.com/2011/10/13/misyar-temporary-marriage-in-...

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.

In rules of sunni islam, a woman can't get remarried after a divorce for at least 4 and a half months (to wait for unexpected pregnancies to show). Making the practice of "temporary marriage" very impractical.

Are you saying that waiting 5 months between sexual partners is very impractical?

It is quite common around the world, just as a matter of distribution of dating success events.

And of course law enforcement isn't 100% efficient.

The article you link pretty clearly identifies this form of "temporary marriage" as being the equivalent of a long-term mistress relationship rather than an encounter with a prostitute.

>> The article you link pretty clearly identifies this form of "temporary marriage" as being the equivalent of a long-term mistress relationship rather than an encounter with a prostitute.

No, because legally the spouse then has all the rights of a marriage (alimony, etc.) Prostitutes do not get alimony.

Mistresses do not have all the legal rights of a marriage.

And this is why you don't take "google searches" seriously. Anyone can write anything, let alone a clearly anti-Islamic website like the one you linked to. Many many scholars have spoken against the validity of such a marriage, and called it out as what it is.

From the article:

---------------------------

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.

if a man travelled to USA with a 10 year old wife he could end up in prison for decades, while in many cultures such an arrangement is normal and accepted. if we wanted to achieve "absolute tolerance" we would simply have to remove all laws because they are all intolerant in some way against someone.

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

Tolerant means being able to tolerate (and respect) people with different ideas and opinions about how the world works.

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.

> if a man travelled to USA with a 10 year old wife he could end up in prison for decades, while in many cultures such an arrangement is normal and accepted.

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)

Who defines "fundamental human rights". I think once you start poking, you'll easily see that such a definition is frail and subjective.

> Who defines "fundamental human rights".

The United Nations do. Why?

Why do I (or anyone) have to abide by what the UN says?

Because what UN says is voted by member countries and (partly) incorporated into their laws.

Seems to be as tolerant as most people I talk to:

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.

Interesting that with something as big as football, the organisers can get away with a lot of bad taste decisions. They can host wherever they want and they will be guaranteed a sufficient turnout thanks to the absolute massiveness of the fanbase.

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.

FIFA is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world so it is hardly a surprise. Anything is for sale. It is widely documented.

Here is an OK starting point, if you want to dig deeper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FIFA_corruption_case

FIFA can only operate this way as long as the country organizations tolerate it, it’s interesting how something like sports that is commonly considered as representing a country is so massively corrupt and everybody is ok with it (and I’m thinking of the big sponsors, where you probably have massive background checks to get hired, but it’s alright to invest in such organizations)

They are setup to defend against it, Several countries have reacted against the blatant corruption and Fifa will instantly suspend them for political interference.

Well then they should leave. If corruption is such a no-no in the EU, US, etc., and businesses like Mastercard and Heineken, then this would have to become a tournament of the Qatars and Chinas of the world.

> countries have reacted against the blatant corruption and Fifa will instantly suspend them for political interference

the U.S. has shown it’s more than capable of holding FIFA to account when it wants to [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FIFA_corruption_case

It's not about this being football. It's because those guys are friendly governments to western interests.

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).

I mean just look at this thread; most people are already unloading their frustration on Qatar and the UAE. I don't agree with a lot of stuff that they do, I should say. But it's FIFA that let them do this. If fans are gonna let them do that then host countries are free to do what they want. Corruption is the problem

I think that this World Cup will have one of the lowest attendances in recent years due to a myriad of factors ( wrong season, no alcohol/partying/etc. and yes, the horribleness of it all).

This is where ethics and money collide. If you participate, you’re complicit. The players are comfortable enough to say no, and the punters can stick to the local pub or even bite hard and “stay home” entirely - let the advertisers know.

Talk it cheap. Actions mean more but both have costs. Willing to pay?

> The players are comfortable enough to say no

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.

Well, it's not just comfortable money you wont miss that one can sacrifice...

There’s other ways to be bought than money. Very few athletes have risked their careers to take a stand or do the right thing. Their sincerity is really undercut by never taking a risk. Unless they’re just part of the bread and circuses…

“Xxx is bad, unless it hurts me” isn’t a defensible moral position. Better they drop the sermonizing if it’s just feel good.

>Very few athletes have risked their careers to take a stand or do the right thing. Their sincerity is really undercut by never taking a risk.

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.

"Just doing my job" hasn't been a valid excuse for accepting crimes against humanity ever since 1945. Sometimes doing the right thing comes with a cost, and sometimes, that cost is non-negotiable.

If you are a footballer in Europe or South America, the World Cup doesn't have to be the biggest tournament. There are big names in football which haven't played in a World Cup at all [1]. If you want to earn the big bucks, you will have to play at a big club in Europe and play Champions League. There's where the money is.

1. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1116241-ranking-the-top-...

It's not about the money, but the prestige. Champions League is plenty prestigious, but the World Cup/Euros/Copa America provide an extra stage, a national one at that.

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.

They shouldn't even have to. No player should be forced to go to a country that thinks they should die just because of who they love.

Why anyone would risk prison or death to watch a soccer game is beyond me

Taking another example - I HIGHLY doubt every single BLM kneeling player actually agrees with it. But they do it because their priority is playing football, and it's better to stay silent and focus on the football.

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.

Well, to draw examples from the US, Curt Flood tossed his baseball career to break the reserve clause. Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali lost years of work due to Vietnam. Colin Kaepernick tossed his football career to showcase racism. I'm sure there's non-US examples but those are what came to mind. I don't mind people "going along to get along", but I respect those who put themselves at risk if they're talking RL issues.

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?

Muhammed Ali is perhaps a good example, because he really did have something to lose.

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.

Flood was good, possibly Hall of Fame good. Ended his career at that instant.

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?

> Flogging is used in Qatar as a punishment for alcohol consumption or illicit sexual relations. According to Amnesty International, in 2012 at least six foreign nationals were sentenced to floggings of either 40 or 100 lashes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar#Legal_sy...

Singapore uses public caning. This stuff seems common in city-states.

Small area means less space to put large prisons on it - which means punishment moves to more corporeal and less incarceration. Especially with "morality" laws, where there is no real reason to protect society from a "criminal", that may be a good way to handle things. I'd guess many folks sitting in prison in the US for smoking weed would much rather have a few whips with a cane than losing years and years doing nothing productive.

> Small area means less space to put large prisons on it - which means punishment moves to more corporeal and less incarceration

Did you just make it up?

>>> would much rather have a few whips with a cane than losing years and years doing nothing productive.

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.

Although it is going to hurt, you probably won't forget your lashes till your death. Actually works.

> Singapore uses public caning.

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...

As someone who has watched every possible minute of each world cup since 2002 I plan on avoiding this one entirely.

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

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.

Certainly you would agree there are bounds to personal liberty.

If you are not harming anyone, there is no limit. E.g.: I would not want to see people murdering each other even if they are consenting. I would not ever eat dog meat, but I am fine with other people eating dogs or cows or pigs or whatever.

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.

By that logic is incest ok with you?

Yes. As long as all the people involved are adults.

There you go

Is following pedo prophet ok with you?

> 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?

> If you are not harming anyone, there is no limit. Yes, I am sure your opinion is the one should be enforced everywhere, but excuse my rudeness, because of what exactly? Because you feel entitled? or what?

I will try to flag all companies in my mind that are advertising on this event and then continue to avoid them if possible.

To the neighbour that I cannot reply to:

> 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.

Who said that such decisions are personal, and won't affect society?

I say they are personal, because they affect the individual much more than anyone else. Of course everything we do is affecting society somehow, but that does not eliminate personal freedom. If it affects me more than it affects you, my opinion weighs more than your's and vice versa.

> Of course everything we do is affecting society somehow

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.

> Yeah, somehow Europe is now aging, weird, ha?

Populations have a lifecycle too. Forcing people to reproduce does not seem like a worthwile solution to me.

> So, Who defines or measures this?

It is self-organizing, for humans ideally by debate, since they can. Since you mention animals above: they are much more straight-forward about their laws than humans. We overcomplicate things, but if I can make a call, it would be to simplify laws to the most basic level and try to keep them clear of religion and cultural norms.

> 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.

I think a better example would be a corporation that gives people cancer for profit, because in the case of the drug dealer it is not always clear if any harm was actually caused. Just judging it by CancerCorp's profit would be obviously ignorant and binary, because it would not take the harm that was directly caused into consideration. At the end, some kind of balance needs to be established. This is what nature does, right?

okay, this got me mad.

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 dead is detrimental to enjoying materialism, as well as not being free.

Being detrimental to other people's materialism is detrimental to being free and alive.

All these comments remind me of this incident in Dubai. Tangentially related, I know: Dubai not Qatar. Probably similar rules apply.

> 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-...

Technically, while these acts may well be deemed illegal in that country, throughout the World Cup authorities will be turning a blind eye to these indiscretions.

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.

Please refresh my memory - why is the World Cup being held in Qatar???

Money

Millions and millions of dollars in bribes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FIFA_corruption_case

It's not only FIFA. Formula 1 loves to drop historical circuits to go race at some intolerant and filthy rich Middle Eastern country. We've dropped Germany and soon France, and got Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain.

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...

oh don't forget all of the Americans that just played golf in the Saudi LIV tournament

The title is a bit weird, since I think this will be more of an issue for people who are in a serious/long-term relationship but aren't married.

More than half people I know in Europe are. A lot of Americans are, too.

can't hold themselves for a week till they're back? my heart goes for them, God lord, how can one spend a week without sex, horrible, must invade the country and establish democracy.

One can "hold themselves" for not a week but for months.

But to be forced to hold oneself for even one hour is something I don't take so kindly.

Oh ofc, one should never take such a thing so kindly, only the Muslims in the west should respect the cultures and the traditions and learn religious tolerance. weird how the westerners actually don't tolerate others and it's you either agree with me or you're an enemy sort of attitude.

I thought this attitude usually stems only from these hateful religious zealots who refuse to "integrate" or "tolerate" others.

Westerners have problems with themselves being forced to do things they don't want.

Muslims have problems with others eating pork or having premarital sex. Or how MAGA people and Muslims both have problems with others being gay or lesbian.

Westerners don't force immigrants Muslims or others Muslims to have pre-marital sex, but Muslims force Westerners to not have pre-marital sex.

Westerners will tolerate or won't pay attention at all if Muslims or whatever other group are abstaining from pre-marital sex, but Muslims won't tolerate Westerners having pre-marital sex.

The sole focus is on living and letting live, and not forcing anything on others.

Liberalism is about tolerating people different from you. And it should go both ways.

(By Muslims, here, I mean, practising, Sunnah abiding, conservative Muslims. I do not mean to pigeonhole.)

> Liberalism is about tolerating people different from you. And it should go both ways.

No it should not, Islam isn't liberal, nor it is some conservative nationalistic ideology. It's a religion, a strict one.

When people tolerate your set of ideas about life you should tolerate theirs too, unless you'd be fine with Muslims pushing Islam down your throat in your country, or well do you accept allowing Muslims to marry 4 women in your country? It's all done with consent tho, nothing is forced really, so will you support that? it's personal for us, is it not? I accept to be properly executed by the terms specified in Islam if I commit intentional -ps. first degree- murder, and If for any reason I do that to a Muslim his family might rightfully ask for me to be executed, and if they end up not accepting money or forgiving me, who are you ( by your own standards ) to step in and tell me and them that this is wrong? by what logic will you do that? that if you actually care to be consistent here and go to the fullest with the "it's personal" thing.

Will you support allowing Muslims in your country to practice sharia law? including public executions for murderers, kidnappers etc? as far as the majority of them agree and ask for that? isn't this how democracy basically works? isn't this their "personal preference" for a ruling model as a group of people? or do you want to "STOP THEM" from getting their rights which they will all give consent to and agree on?

there is no such thing as "personal" because society is..? you guessed, yes, people, any sexual relationship outside Islam is forbidden, you disagree? feel free to leave or not to come, you don't have any right to bend the rules or force people to accept your ideas unless we have the same right to bend your rules in your own country, which is apparently not the case, if you plan on bringing Kamala Harris or any such figure such as any gay / feminist selfproclaimed Muslim, please don't.

Muslims aren't fond of living in a police state, there are actual recommendations against spying and doxxing or intentionally policing people to punish them, and originally if you admit a sin in the court and ask to be punished the actual response from the judge should be to refuse punishing you unless you keep asking 3 times afaik.

I am not an expert so take my word with a grain of salt, I might be wrong about some of the details but the general idea is how it should be.

And that is about the matters ( sins ) between people and God, hence when it's not related to hurting others.

That is the rule for the Muslims, for the nonMuslims I am not sure. But my point is, liberalism might make sense to you, for me, and lots of other people, secularism doesn't make any sense, unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation for how the universe was created without an intelligent creator, and any theory that would say it came out of nowhere, it makes no sense to me, yet I don't think I should force my ideology on you, you on the other hand, want to either force your ideology onto others or call them names.

once I can have all my sharia rights preserved in the USA or the west because I am a Muslim and that is my right, I will support LGBTQ+ rights in Islamic countries ( just a metaphor to state I will never do same as the USA or any secular state will never give the Muslims any rights besides of what they decide to be their rights ).

We also have the right to decide what rights the LGBTQ+ get and which rights they don't, or do we not? Because you think you're the only one entitled to do that?

Hope this clarifies the situation.

[ Edit ]: Sorry for the text-wall, I hate doing that but I had to.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220517-psg-player-idris...

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?

Please spare me all these “cultural” things. Their laws violate basic human rights. Not only women, gay, migrants, voting, etc. - also if you are in wrong tribe. Or a little different Muslim beliefs.

And they are hosting Word Cup.

In Qatar drinking alcohol in public is not allowed and being drunk in public is a crime.

Actually, it is the same in Norway. Though less enforced and lighter punishment.

Not really. Norway has pubs and restaurants though, and I imagine has a higher threshold for “being drunk” than Qatar

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.

You can drink in rooms, bars and restaurants in hotels, home bars in Qatar. Police do check for drunk driving. Haven't seen too many drunk people, but I assume if you are not causing others to complain, you would be fine.

This is how it is in other Gulf countries (if you are not causing anyone to complain it's basically ignored) and honestly I don't see why Western countries are so tolerant. If you are a taxi driver in the US taking drunk people home, and they are talking abusively to you, you pretty much have to just suck it up.

Because talking abusively is not a crime in Western countries, drunk or not. Taxi drivers can refuse to drive such people if they want to.

> If you are a taxi driver in the US taking drunk people home, and they are talking abusively to you, you pretty much have to just suck it up.

... no you don't? I've seen taxis refuse rides and/or kick people out, and have even been part of said group kicked out (thanks to other drunks).

I'm not sure about Qatar, but many Islamic countries got around such regulations by introducing or tolerating "one night marriages". They just marry before having sex, and divorce afterwards.

Islam doesn't forbid men to have more than one wife simultaneously, so it covers even already married customers.

What about married women?

I doubt there will be many there during the football World Cup, you Unmensch.

You specifically talked about "many other Islamic countries", and none of them are hosting the World Cup ;)

Let’s keep the conversation to the topic of the article.

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.

Adultery is also illegal in Dubai, yet it doesn't stop all the Emirati (plenty from Qatar and Saudi Arabia as well) to go have sex with white prostitutes in the so called biggest "yatching" hub in the world... the hypocrisy of these countries...

Its basically like Russia - rule by the law, not rule of law. Thats why the laws are so strict - they dont apply to the right people.

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.

Actually, why not just vote with your feet and watch it all in the comfort of your own home, with your new one-night-stand partner, while drinking copious amounts of high-strength alcohol? Or in a local bar, with the same situation?

That would save a whole lot of grief!

Why is the main source for this article a UK police officer's comments in a tabloid?

The Qatari government is interested in playing both sides. They want to enforce their law while appearing modern to the international community. Therefore you won't hear about this in Qatari news media, although it seems they'll be quick to punish any saucy post-match celebrations.

>although it seems they'll be quick to punish any saucy post-match celebrations.

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.

So, just get married for a night, then (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut%27ah: “Nikah mut'ah Arabic: نكاح المتعة, romanized: nikāḥ al-mutʿah, literally "pleasure marriage"; temporary marriage: 1045 or Sigheh (Persian: صیغه ، ازدواج موقت) is a private and verbal temporary marriage contract that is practiced in Twelver Shia Islam in which the duration of the marriage and the mahr must be specified and agreed upon in advance.”

And then the woman must wait and prove she is not pregnant before remarrying.

Just the woman.

Well the point is to see if an unexpected pregnancy arose from the marriage. It really wouldn't make sense for the man to wait too, practically speaking.

What happens if the woman is pregnant, but the man’s already remarried? Its not like the waiting period will change anything… the woman would still be screwed in such a culture.

If the woman is pregnant by him but the man remarried, he must pay her continuing child maintenance and pay for accommodations for the child as well, according to islamic law.

Qatar is Sunni, not Twelver Shia. Their rules don’t have such short term niqqahs.

This is not acceptable for the majority of Muslims, who are Sunnis. We have clear texts prohibiting such a marriage.

Why are countries that ban/criminalise/being negative to non heterosexual people using a computer?

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.

Just don’t go there and don’t watch it on TV. Problem solved.

Won’t go. Won’t watch.

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.

This World Cup has the potential to have some really wild consequences if they actually enforce all these laws against average football fans.

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.

I believe Qatar-Australia diplomatic relations were strained after women were forced invasive examinations:

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/australian-women-sue-...

Maybe this is true, or maybe it isn’t but I would question any news story where the source is the Daily Star via Marca.

how they can know? besides forbidding dating apps i don't think police officers will sit in the bars to make sure no one is going home with someone they just met. though the rules there are quite strict due to the fact this is islamic state

Don't worry, drinking and partying is outlawed too. And they will absolutely check. Can't provide proof of marriage? Straight to jail it is!

Doha has areas set aside for drinking, bars, etc.

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.

> But consenting sex between two middle class non-Muslims behind closed doors is a complete non issue.

> unless someone involved brings it directly to law enforcements attention and asks for their intervention.

Sure sounds like it.

This looks like a sort of dystopian version of the quote: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him".

Meaning everything is non issue until you have problems with someone, at which point they can just put you in jail because you've been willingly breaking the law even though it was a "non issue". Why anyone would choose to live under these conditions is beyond me.

This. States that push such legislation are also likely to be corrupt. It's fine until you run into problems with someone that happens to be in power.

The fact that there is any confusion about this, (and clearly there is!), makes this an issue.

For my part, I would never travel to a middle eastern country for any reason, specifically to avoid the possibility that something I never suspected could be an issue, becomes an issue.

What about upper class non-muslims? :P

I would not take that bet. And you might find out that your embassy can’t help you if you break a known law.

>how they can know?

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.

Ready to risk 7 years jail?

> how they can know?

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?

A 22 year old is a boy now?

I think so.

Yes.

Simone De Beauvoir said "One is not born a woman, but becomes one".

The idea is that "man" and "woman" are social roles you gradually grow into as you increase your responsibility for yourself and others. Things that may contribute towards becoming a man or woman are: Becoming a parent, becoming financially independent, becoming emotionally mature, participating in society on the level of your fellow grown-up peers, becoming fully grown.

We will also use the term "young man".

https://www.regain.us/advice/general/at-what-age-does-a-man-...

> Some mental health professionals do not uphold the notion of age-based maturity. They assert that maturity has more to do with your background, values, and even biology than years alone. How you mature and the things you consider mature will vary based on your raise, neurological development, and cultural framework. Some cultures value autonomy more than emotional depth, and maturity will be marked by the ability to take care of oneself. Other cultures value emotional depth, and dependence is not seen as a pitfall but a lack of emotional intelligence.

My seven year old changes the oil (I loosen the oil filter and remove the drain plug after he's told me to), works with (real) hammer and nails, and traverses overgrown hills without slowing down his infantry-serving father's pace. Is he a man at seven?

Or for that matter, my neighbor's six year old herds the sheep all day in the sun, unattended. He is responsible to bring his own food and water, and tend to the sheeps' needs such as food and water, and actively herding them. Is that six year old a man?

How is a 22 year old person who crosses an ocean and gains admittance to one of the most secluded nations on earth, by way of other nations, considered a boy?

> Is [my son] a man at seven? Is [my neighbor's son] a man at six?

No, a seven year old is not even close to being neurologically or physically mature. If your son happens to be a dog, even though he this is 6 x 7 = 42 human years, "man" usually refers to the human species only, but in this case I'd be willing to call him a dog-man.

There is a legal definition of "adult" which is somewhere between 16 and 21 depending on the age of majority in the country you live in. [1] I am not disputing that a 22 year old American is, by default, a legal adult, and I don't think you believe that this is what we're arguing about.

> How is a 22 year old person who crosses an ocean [...] considered a boy?

By not having finished their development physically, neurologically, emotionally, and socially.

https://bestlifeonline.com/age-adult/

"What we're really saying is that to have a definition of when you move from childhood to adulthood looks increasingly absurd," Peter Jones, Professor of Psychiatry and Deputy Head of the School of Clinical Medicine at the University of Cambridge, told the BBC. "It's a much more nuanced transition that takes place over three decades."

Jones admits that the age at which someone becomes an "adult" is different for everyone, but indicates that it would be inaccurate to call someone in their twenties an adult because they're still going through a lot of brain development. "There isn't a childhood and then an adulthood. People are on a pathway, they're on a trajectory," he said.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

Young man sounds okay to me. But boy? For a 22 year old? That's downright manipulative.

Based on everything I have seen over my lifetime (~50 years), the answer is yes.

At this point, it should be clear to all that we need to raise the age to purchase alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and to vote. I'm saying this as someone with who tends to lean strongly in favor of individual rights.

Either that, or acknowledge that these laws have very little to do with public health and safety, and more to do with profit and taxation.

Read the article? It's about extra marital sex. So it includes people who have known each other for a long time but are just not married.

lol. You’re assuming they’ll enforce the law truthfully (however stupid the law itself is). If they arrest some foreigners at random, claiming they broke some law, what are you going to do? Maybe they’ll think twice about messing with Americans or some other powerful country’s citizens, but what about other less powerful countries?

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.

Or better yet, don't even watch it and give them advertising revenue.

There is plenty of entertainment around that doesn't support a medieval dictator.

Such laws have some far-fetched, surprising (at least for Westerners) and very creepy consequences.

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.

Excuse me but this is laughable, the logic not the case, I am sorry for the girl who've been through this but corruption exists everywhere and you're coming for far-fetched conclusions based on hearsay.

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.

The "trans" student is a kindergartner who doesn't identify as trans, and the assault likely didn't happen: https://decaturish.com/2018/10/u-s-department-of-education-i...

The flag burning is a problem with over-imprisoning, that is widely regarded as a big problem with America, and I'm not sure why pro-lgbtq+ laws are an issue here.

I didn't bother to try to research your rant about Sweden.

EDIT: If you're talking about this other event, the student doesn't appear to be trans either, but went into the girls' bathroom despite identifying as male: https://loudounnow.com/2021/10/26/teen-convicted-in-sexual-a...

okay I think I was wrong on the trans issue, he seems to be actually a male and he either brute forced his way to the bathroom or identified as gender fluid but anyways I will cut it and say I was wrong.

they're at the very least trying to force a minority ideology over the general majority.

And that is quite the opposite of democracy and freedom. pushing the ideas of a minority as taken for granted is how authoritarian systems work.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/lgbtq-american...

this is in the states, I am sure the case is similar everywhere else.

https://www.statista.com/chart/6466/europes-lgbt-population-...

the issue is also pushing the "European standards", Muslims are not opposed to gays if they get treated, quite the opposite the Islamic opinion is that God will reward them because they're struggling and they should be treated and taken care of.

speaking of the European standards, I don't buy it anymore, used to, but not anymore.

Their lies clearly show up when the European values make the LGBTQ+ / feminist struggles heroic after years of secular oppression of the Muslims only to blame all the failures and mistakes of the secular ruling systems on the Muslims and Islam.

Anyone called the SA prince a terrorist when he chopped off Khashoukji to pieces and put his body parts in trash bags? No, not really.

Have any humanitarian organization shed any lights on the Muslims being thrown in jails and tortured and murdered and the women probably raped? Nope, they'd probably support the local narrative by claiming these to be fanatics or terrorists etc.

all I am attempting to do is to show you that corruption doesn't only exist in Qatar, it does exist outside too despite that you're trying to be overdramatic about it.

Also it's their country, if you refuse to comply with the local laws you can refrain from travelling.

same as if a Muslim refuses to comply with the laws of a western country he or she can go back to their country or to a more culturally appropriate place for them.

What's mindboggling is the amount of criticism of such a little thing.

ps. you won't need to stay more than a week probably, and unless you have issues I doubt it would be hard to refrain from banging someone for a week till you get back.

Weird how so many people feel entitled to change the laws and ideologies of others but would call out any such attempts being done onto them as brainwashing or fanaticism etc.

I think that's called "whataboutism".

Yes it probably is, but I don't think it's bad in this context because I am not trying to gaslight anyone I am trying to give a sight on the other side.

You mentioned one story, and I will take it for granted, yes laws can be abused, don't date in Qatar, you can go out, have fun, go on trips etc. But don't expect them to change their laws for you, unless I can expect your country to change their laws to allow me to practice my religion to the fullest.

By the way, a rapist can face execution if he did it under the threat of a gun / knife, if not he's supposed to get 80 / 100 lashes iirc. But also getting out half-naked, dating, staying in a room alone with a female isn't allowed either. That is under Sharia rule ( which doesn't exist nowadays ), not sure about the laws in Qatar.

Once I see the west supporting and cheering a man with 4 obeying, covered up wives and calling anyone who disagrees Islamophobic and any player who decides not to support that idea will be considered to be sanctioned like what happened to Idrissa Gueye when he refused to show support for LGBTQ+, I will support the LGBTQ+ rights (neither will ever happen).

And no, you can't force women into marriage and they can ask for divorce.

They will respond to complaints.

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.

When I was in college, our dorms had a 'night desk' immediately after you entered the dorm to keep out criminals. Two people would sit there all night, and you had to manually 'check in' with them to be allowed to return to your room.

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.

Perhaps there will be a surge in temporary marriages?

https://www.interestingfacts.org/fact/temporary-marriage-in-...

Qatar is Sunni, they do not do temporary marriages, which is a Shia thing.

Why is no one trying to kick Qatar out of the Swift network?

It's not a rival empire.

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...

Saudi was doing quite a few of those things

The middle east isn't exactly a garden full of fruit and sunshine.

I don't think that whataboutism is helping, do you?

You said explicitly "it's because it's not doing these terrible things", but it is doing terrible things (like practicing slavery). Clearly those are not the reason.

Because it has oil.

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 not intend to remove freedom? Without significant resistance, the west would not have had time to react to support. Media would not help people to form an oppinion that support is needed. It would be over quickly, soon forgotten like Crimea, and Russia not kicked out if swift.

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.

> But what if the agressor does not intend to remove freedom?

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.

A few years back, John Oliver did a piece on FIFA and Qatar [0]. This will probably be the first World Cup that I don’t watch.

8 years ago! I’m getting old.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJEt2KU33I

I’ve never been interested in football, I’ve never watched it, and this basically ensures I never will.

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?

Is it ok if you have sex the night after and then split up?

this is barbaric

it's disgusting to organize public, worldwide events in barbaric countries.

Is "World Cup" public? I assume this is an event organised by private (for-profit) entity (FIFA).

FIFA is actually registered as a non-profit organisation.

...despite making profits of around $250M/year with cash reserves of over $2.5B.