because it rejects LGBT (Western) Human rights vs Islamic law
Abdullah al Andalusi – Should Qatar World-Cup be boycotted
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the upcoming World Cup in Qatar, addressing the "hating of gay people" and the need for diversity in sport. They stress the importance of privacy and privacy for men and women, as well as the need for strong evidence to prove legitimacy. They also express support for the women's movement and encourage others to use their voices to advocate for human rights. The speakers discuss the issue of racism and the use of hate messages in politics, as well as the potential for groups like the women's movement to influence political climate.
AI: Summary ©
The FIFA 2022 World Cup has kicked off today in Qatar and widespread criticism of its attitude towards LGBT people. In Qatar there is Sharia law. They say that human rights are important and that competing nations must oblige people have a right to
love who they want to dress the way they want to be treated as equal citizens under the law, human rights Okay, great according to whose definition, your definition her definition, she said human rights which she supports is about the right to choose to dress, and yet she is the person who said I think every secularist and women's rights defender should support a burqa and niqab ban. So clearly she's a hypocrite. When it comes to Muslims choosing what they want to wear, she can tell Muslim women what to do, they can't tell them so you are a Hebrew. banning things that are detrimental to human rights and human values is actually a step in the direction of defending human
rights. A twisted argument wherever you have the Chinese government banning people go into mosques, banning Koran banning or no number of things in the name of defending Chinese values and rights. So percent of Muslims who live here in the UK would like to see homosexual homosexuality made illegal here in the UK. Now I worried must I condemn my own religion to live here. Well, that's your Robbie Williams, Naomi Campbell. They've all taken 30 pieces of silver from Qatar. They've been bought by Qatar they're sold their principles for money. The Islamic perspective, is a worldview based on the creator of the universe being the source of good and bad and you can have up to three wives
and girlfriends and junior wife and
what about this and what sometimes women get stoned in the streets in some of these countries? Where's the decency? Where's the public decency that Where's for people to go out on the street and somehow stone women that's ridiculous absolutely ridiculous. When gay people are determined as a separate group from straight people now you now make these new groups up which the West did and then it began that's when discrimination began the West discriminated sorry, by your account they just see you can't just ride roughshod on people's beliefs and ideas without making a solid argument if you say somebody's human right show us from Flasco first principle Why is universal and even
rational I know you have an axe to grind because your ex Muslim I'm a Christian
who says you have a right to commit adultery and cheat on your partner
because they have * outside of marriage so it has been understand that it has the monopoly
operation oh this is against the western values I love that imbibe I'm sorry better argument this people can have whatever the beliefs they want, but they cannot shove those beliefs down people's throats. Listen you are defending we should killing people so don't you dare tell me I take my advice
No, no no be consistent when you criticize someone else have consistent three principles. There's no water battery I demand from you, Madam says consistency when you when you criticize you to hold the same principle
the FIFA 2022 World Cup has kicked off today in Qatar, with England having just won its first match against Iran. But this is not a World Cup like any other. The competition has been mired in controversy since it came to light that the wealthy Gulf state bribed FIFA officials and international governments into supporting its bid to host. Since then, focus on the country has intensified with reports of 1000s of migrant workers dying while building the events infrastructure and widespread criticism of his attitude towards LGBT people. So much so that 60% of Brits believe that Qatar should not have been allowed to host the World Cup in the first place. And now that it is
almost 40% think that we should boycott the competition entirely
since yesterday's opening ceremony, and the event has gotten off to a rocky start, with Qatari officials banning alcohol from the stadium just two days before the first match, and FIFA threatening to give yellow cards to play as wearing one love inclusivity armbands. So, is it a mistake to get involved? Should players commentators and celebrities be out there in Qatar right now endorsing the World Cup? And what about you at home? Should you be watching? That's what we're asking the table tonight. And to answer that question, I'm joined by veteran LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
Iranian human rights activist Maryam Namazi talk TV host Christo fulvous and co founder of the Muslim debate initiative, Abdullah Al Andalus ng So, let's get into it. Should we have boycotted the games? Peter? Peter, I'll start with you. Well, there's no doubt
That hosting an event like the World Cup is a privilege, not a right. And with that privilege come certain obligations. FIFA has own statutes prioritize human rights. They say that human rights are important, and that competing nations must oblige and abide by them. Now, if you look at these particular games, you can see that despite the pledge of FIFA that no discrimination will be allowed. In fact, there are seven competing nations where homosexuality is totally illegal. And if a star footballer from any of those seven nations was outed as gay or came out voluntarily, he would almost certainly be jailed, rather than be selected to play for the national team. So that is
discrimination. It's against FIFA thralls. But FIFA is allowing it to happen. Okay, interesting. I felt there was some reaction over here. True from Qatari Lord. They don't recognize a term called heterosexual or homosexual. Those these are Western terms. And so they wouldn't own prison. Anybody who says I'm homosexual, because it's meaningless, according to katri law, being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, what have you. So that's actually incorrect. As for sports and human rights? Well, I suppose some might argue that it's about sports, but the game is not about anything political around that you're just bringing that in to, to kind of just stir the pot a little bit.
But another argument we made that human rights Okay, great, according to whose definition right your definition her definition, England's definition, if you if you took out all the players or all the all the games of all the teams, we took all the teams who then nations were involved in human rights abuses, you'd have no one maybe except maybe bending, perhaps playing. And but most of the countries we would have to be withdrawn because most countries are guilty of what you might human rights violations, by your definition. And by many other people's definitely can I just pick you up? Sure, in Cata, people are picked up on the streets on the metro and in shopping malls, because they are
perceived to be gay, not even proven to be gay, but they are arrested on the assumption that they look or their mannerisms
are obligated in nature. And and they and they are then subjected to brutal interrogations. Human Rights Watch has reported a whole series of cases where LGBT plus people have not been arrested because of sexual acts, but because of who they are because of their identity. On top of that, when you talk about human rights, I'm not seeking to impose western values on cattle only country, I'm asking all the countries of the world to uphold the principle of universal human rights, which apply here in Britain, but as well, as well as in Qatar, and as a member, the United Nations CaTiO is signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that every person is entitled to
equal treatment and protection against discrimination. And it's not doing that and actually, with regard to migrant workers, or LGC. Firstly, I'm not I'm no defender of Qatar, I'm not defender of many of the countries in the Middle East. I'm actually a very strong critic of them. I don't think they actually are fully Islamic. Actually. There's a potential to be, but I think what you said is now as for what the Qatar security forces do, maybe that's debatable, indisputable, I'm not the defendant of Qatar. However, according to katri law, there is no crime for identifying as homosexual or heterosexual whatever, because the terms are not recognized. These are Western terms introduced
in the 19th century before which, from most of human history, there was no term for someone who had a desire of any particular kind, sexually speaking, there wasn't those terms, these are anachronistic brand new, they were actually unfortunately exported to the Muslim world, by colonialist West activity. So they've got nothing to do with with Islam got nothing to do with with with Qatar law. Now, I'm only talking about Qatar law here. Right, as we will cut it does the state, you know, the you can debate that discuss that everyone gives you a different answer, perhaps. But I'm only here to talk about Qatar law, and also Islamic law.
I think that the issue is that there is no Western homosexuality and Qatari homosexuality or being a woman in the UK versus being a woman in Iran or Qatar. You know, these are characteristics of people based on * based on sexuality. And people have a right to
love who they want to dress the way they want to be treated as equal citizens under the law. Now in Qatar, there is Sharia law. And it's not just a question of discrimination against gay people, and LGBT, but also women are considered second class citizens. For example, under Sharia, like
In Iran, like in Saudi Arabia, like in Sharia courts here in Britain, a woman's testimony is worth half of that of a man's a women have very limited rights to divorce and child custody. This is not about Western versus Eastern, because there are many women, many gay people who live in Qatar who live in Iran, who live in Saudi Arabia, who are fighting for their rights and for basic human dignity. So I think the issue here is about human rights, not Western on Eastern human rights, universal human rights. And I think all those people who are in jail in Iran, or in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and who are being abused and mistreated because they're gay, because they're women, because
they're religious minorities, sexual minorities, they would beg to differ that this is, you know, a Western thing. No, because they, they want that dignity here. And now. And I think, when we stand with you, it's a choice. You either stand with the Qatar state, the Iranian state, the Saudi state, in its abuse of and discrimination against and violence against women, LGBT, migrant workers, or you stand with those who want their basic human rights. And I think from our perspective, human rights matters. Of course, you don't want to ruin football for fans, football, and sport should be a way in which people all over the world unite with each other. But but the fact is,
the fact is, you know, the fact that sorry, don't talk over me. I know you're used to doing that. But don't just talking. No, I haven't finished. But the point is that look, you know, there sports is meant to go beyond all of that. But we can also use sports as a way of bringing human rights up for everyone respecting human rights up for everyone. And I think that is the job of FIFA, that is the job of the World Cup. And from my perspective, as an Iranian, you have the Iranian regime now massacring protesters on the street. So it is, you know, it's not good enough to say this is a, again, we carry on with business as usual, why people are dying, and the Islamic regime is allowed
to be at the World Cup. But also I think what we need to bear in mind is that Qatar have given assurances, albeit vague, assurances that, you know, everyone would be welcome. And now it feels like actually, things are shifting right now close to the kickoff, well, 48 hours we saw before, where they're saying actually, because it's FIFA, they have said the one the one love armbands can't be worn because they're seeing it as a political statement. Now they've known about this, FIFA have known about these armbands for a long time. So the Qatari government would have known about this for a long time the same with the beer. They knew this back when the contract was awarded when the World
Cup was awarded. Why are they making that decision? Now? It feels like an A, a Doa insider, said apparently it's a big fu to the west to be like, we'll do things our way now. Well, firstly, before I answer that, I want to understand she said was quite egregious. She said, human rights which she supports, ostensibly, and she claims, a Western definition of it is about the right to choose to dress. And yet she is the person who said couple years ago that she would ban the burqa, and she said that I think every secularist and women's rights defender should support a burqa and niqab ban. So clearly she's a hypocrite when it comes to Muslims choosing what they want to wear, because she
feels that Muslim women making that choice is somehow subjugating themselves and she knows better she can tell Muslim women what to do. They can't tell themselves. You are a hypocrite.
pointing your finger at me. Why not? I mean, the point is, look, of course women have the right to avail Everyone has the right to clothing, the point of the boycott, and is that it's a body bag on women, if men are so offended by women's hair and bodies, you know there are these these
masks that they put on donkeys so that their eyes will be covered. Men are free to wear those if they are so offended by women's hair and bodies. The point of the it's not that women don't have the right to wear the veil or the right not to wear it if they choose. The point is that in countries under Islamic law, women don't have that right to unveil their imprisoned. As we know in Iran Massa I mean, a 22 year old Kurdish woman was recently killed because a few strands of her hair were showing the differences though with the board call. It is a female body get back it is a you know a
fabric erasure of women from the public space. And also it reduces women to sexual objects because men must desire them and it also reduces men to being the kind of people that can't control themselves around women knew this might make the same argument nudist might say to all those clothes, you're wearing our body bags, which are sexualizing the human being and only if we embrace nudism and everyone shouldn't shouldn't should be deprived of the rights to work
clothes to protect them from subjugation, then they can be liberated and de sexualized. So that same silly argument you made, and then a nudist could sit here, and probably hopefully with clothes on and make the same argument against you guys that you're wearing body bags.
So this is ridiculous. Why can't women choose? Why can't women choose to wear the niqab? The ban? I think that marry? Because I think that's an interesting question. But isn't it? Aren't we all saying what sounds like we're all saying pro choice, we want the woman to have the choice. The issue is when they don't have the choice. Now I'm really it's highlighting her double standard and hypocrisy. She says it's not a writes about people having the right to choose what to dress, except Muslim women who want to wear and maybe they feel more protected. Just said, my family is I have a Muslim, some in my family are veiled. This is not the point. The point is, look, you can be opposed to FGM,
for example, because it is a violent way of controlling and degrading and violating women's bodies. That's not the same as attacking women and girls are mutilated. It's the same with breast ironing. It's the same with foot binding. These are ways of controlling
and denying women's bodily autonomy. The veil is very different from the burqa and niqab. And I think that if men who promoted the burqa and niqab actually wore that they wouldn't be as supportive of it. And also, the Borg are never are very much an Islamist flag, which is why they are so supportive of it constantly. And if you even imagine walking around in something like that, where you can't see where your movement is restricted, so can I just jump okay, just jump jump into say, I think we're arguing over your your problem here. Your contention is with the banning, is with her inconsistency when it comes to Muslims, denying Muslim Rights in the West, and yet strongly calling
for rights for people in according to her definition. In the last Hangout, I thought this discussion was about the World Cup. It is straying far away.
Christo, can I just make a point, though, sorry, is that look when we defend human rights, we often call for bans, for example, the ban on smoking in public spaces, because it's detrimental such secondhand smoke is detrimental to public health, we call for a ban on child labor, because you support a ban on torture a ban on execution. Because banning things that are detrimental to human rights and human values is actually a step in the direction of defending human rights. And it's the same with the burger, the burger is a body bag for women, it is women carrying that wall of gender segregation on their very backs. And therefore, calling for a ban is actually in line with defending
women's rights and human rights. Okay, let's close this twisted argument, wherever you have the Chinese government who wanted to get rid of extremism by banning people going to mosques, banning Koran banning or no number of things in the name of defending Chinese values and rights. So please, please spare us nobody's supporting because I can make the same argument against you. I could say that that society has a right to public decency, and therefore, public displays of * or sexual affection of more than just holding the hand should be banned to protect people's rights and your public decency, I can turn that argument right back against you. Anyone can make the argument that
we're banning anything because of a I'm going to insert right here. And then that means I have to ban a whole bunch of things. So give me a justified basis by which Islamic rights. It makes sense. The digital model makes sense. And Western rights is somehow rational, even though and not just an imposition.
Sometimes women get stoned in the streets in some of these countries. Where's the decency? Where's the public decency there? Where's the fact? In Qatar just six weeks ago, a female university student was stoned to death in a so called honor killing by her family, because she didn't follow the strict way in which women are supposed to behave. I've done a job today.
And that nor exist not in Qatar, and that is Oh, wait. It is done. It was not investigated by the Qatari authorities. The murder has gone away with women get raped on the streets of UK all the time. Oh, well, that's right. Right. Should I now put that as a indictment against the West or indictment against
what you're doing? You're saying? Criminals in the Muslim world do something bad this must mean all Muslims are bad or Islam is not. Your criminals do not represent your own state.
Again, hypocrisy and double standards. Let's have a real conversation about slump. It's a real conversation but what's happening is not having your axe to grind or you send your ex Muslim you declare yourself X you insult that woman who was stoned to death you
know, I call
Dahlia
did.
I condemn them women being raised?
Paycheck interrupting we need on the table, we debate things. But we debate things in a way that is polite and respectful. But he's interrupting everybody all the time and shouting, let's try. Let's try. Let's try and just rein this in a bit, calm it down. I appreciate it's very heated. Let's try and bring it back to the Qatar World Cup. I want to finish off this, that woman who was murdered by her own family in a so called honor killing, the Qatari authorities have not investigated the murder, they have not bought the perpetrators to justice, even though her murder has been reported to them. And earlier this year, something similar happened to a young gay man taken out into the
desert by his family beheaded, and buried in a shallow, dry grave, the Qatari authorities did nothing to investigate his murder, either, even though they were informed about it. And that's because of a state sanction. And that's unfortunately, because in many of the extreme Islamic countries, we do see the state endorsing this sort of behavior because they're not Islamic countries church, and well in that, in your opinion, but they have interest banking interest is condemned in the Koran. But that is the problem that we have. Well, I'm just going to finish this point. That is the problem that I think that many of these extreme Islamic countries have now back to the question
of whether the World Cup should be banned. My worry about the World Cup being somewhere like Qatar is that the human rights, it legitimizes a country that has appalling human rights. Now, it's not the only country in the world that has appalling human rights. And I think there is a valid argument to say, like it or not, although we might be outraged by what happens there. If you go to a country like Qatar, and their laws are that you can't show affection in the street, whether you are gay or straight or whatever they should be respected. The the issue is the that we've not gone to Qatar, Qatar has come to us, because a sporting event like this puts the country of Qatar, right in our
living rooms in our lap.
And it is a privilege to host one of these sorts of competitions. And I'm afraid to say that FIFA have lost the plot they are in a horrific ly corrupt organization, what I would like to see you are you talk about the standard of human rights, who makes the standard of human rights? Well, there is the world humanity world human freedom index, for instance, they come up with I think, 168 countries in the world, they come up with a ranking for their human rights based on the rights of women based on the rights of gay people based on the rights of migrant workers based on all of these things, I would like to see the bottom 30% of that list. And I would love to see the FIFA, the Olympic
Committee, all of those to say those countries do not get sporting events until they improve their score. That way, it's an independent way of verifying who would qualify and who wouldn't. And it's an incentive for those countries to improve their human rights. Just one point on that, I want to just pick up on that you may have done it very quickly. Just because there is a law in Qatar to say that you can't be gay, I think you're concentrating on the semantics. That doesn't mean that the gay experiences of 1000s of gay people of migrant workers of women in that country, you can't just dismiss their experiences, for instance, didn't dismiss him. Well, you said the law doesn't exist.
That was your response. That's absolutely awful. You said that? No, doesn't make clarify what I said. What I said was that the Muslim Muslim world generally before colonialism anyway, and Islamic law doesn't have a category for heterosexual homosexual. What this means is where you can't discriminate against a community, you don't differentiate from anybody else, that we're all the same. What do I
know that? No, that's Islamic law. Qatar law is somewhat influenced, but not entirely by Islamic law. And they've adopted that they don't homosexual heterosexual in the law, and therefore there's no there cannot be legal discriminations against them. However, here's the issue as to what people experienced in Qatar is a different discussion. Okay. So so we went to a talk about laws. Well, that's what the country law is the case they don't discriminate based on someone's professed identity, which they which has been mostly it was invented in 19th century to differentiate people into these new groups that didn't exist in in the ancient world and exist in medieval wall didn't
exist. We get that but there's an interpretation today, which is the problem merit and well, first of all, there, there has always been gay people throughout history. It's not a Western colonial,
you know, invasion. You know, gay people came because of colonialism. I didn't say that. That's tough. I did not say that. It's a lion in
can you just talk for fun
Minutes understand, don't make lies about me. You're lying through. I didn't say that. But
the point is that, you know that there was no homosexuality. So there's no discrimination. That's not true. There's been historically, a sexuality. The laws didn't come to colonial times is that what you what people did? Home, there's always been homosexual or regulated by the state. And there's always been homosexuals and religious laws in general are discriminatory and homophobic and Islamic law is no different. With regards on the issue of culture, I mean, I think it's not good enough to say, well, that's their culture. So this is the way they are, and we need to respect it. Because if we look at history and changes that have been made throughout human history, and for
human progress, it has all been as a result of challenging laws and rules that are discriminatory or homophobic violence against women. So we could say today, we would still have slavery, if there was not this fight against slavery, we could have said, that's their culture, we have to accept it, racial apartheid in South Africa. That was their culture, not giving women the right to vote here in Britain, that was their culture. And, you know, in that sense, I think cultures are not first of all, they're not homogenous, they're not static. They're constantly moving. They're constantly being challenged. And we have to recognize that when we're talking about data, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia or
even Britain, there is a difference between the state and its laws, and very often the impositions that are being imposed on the public versus those people who want to be gay, who want to be free. Who wants to be apostates and atheists and want to live without fear of their lives? Let's not forget that is it? What is it the the 10 Islamic countries where if you are an apostate 13 In total, that you would be at work? By turning away from how many executions have been happening in the last 50 years? How many posts been killed, I think by the
1000s, and Iran at least 1980. In the 1980s. There was one there was in 88 cases. In 88. They killed five to 10,000 political prisoners, they didn't have trials, any of those prisoners. They asked them, Do you believe in God? If they said no, they went and shot them? Do you pray? They said no, they went and shot them. This is documented in people's court called wrong. Okay.
I'm gonna bring it back to the question now. Okay, back to the World Cup. We've always got very strong feelings here. So what was the right thing to do? For Let's go? What was the right right thing for the England World Cup England football team, for example, to do? What's the right thing for fans to do? Should they be boycotting? What do we do? And is that the right thing to do to make a statement, it'd be very unfair to simply ask the England team to boycott, you know, the only way that would really be effective as if a whole group of nations got together and collectively decided not to participate. But you know, it's now too late, the World Cup is underway. So for me, the most
important thing, the most effective thing that any other teams can do is for their captains, in their post match press conferences, to devote just 30 seconds to make a statement in support of the rights of Qatari women, LGBTs and migrant workers, that would be incredibly powerful, it will reach an audience of hundreds of millions across the world, raising public awareness. And very importantly, it would be an a more normal psychological and emotional boost to Qatari people who support those human rights, who are striving in their own country for those kinds of freedoms. They want to hear that totally agree. In fact, Gary Neville received an awful lot of heat for taking the
job with being sports, which is the Qatari channel. And he had his debut today or yesterday was it and he actually did tear into these sorts of violations and fat leaders worldwide. You got it got it got carried away tonight talking about Trump.
But I think he actually he started to realize the error of his ways potentially was trying to make that statement, whether we're going to expect that or whether we can expect that from the footballers. David Beckham, I mean, yeah, very, very disappointing. From David Beckham, Robbie Williams, Naomi Campbell. They've all taken 30 pieces of silver from Qatar. They've been bought by Qatar. They're sold their principles for money. It's truly truly shameful. Because the most important thing is they are betraying those people in Qatar who are suffering under that regime who will have a terrible time as well when the dog and pony show all leaves. And everyone say, you know,
because at the moment, and it is fair to say that the
the Qatari authorities are all saying, Well, look, everyone's welcome, we're not going to arrest anyone, it's all going to be fine. But what's going to happen when, when, when the World Cup has gone that's that is going to be the real fear for gay people in Qatari, who are often as you have alluded to entrapped by the authorities on gay dating apps, let's not forget that the laws against * and the like do exist. And if you are accused of such a thing in Qatar, so therefore, you know, you can be a good gay and not live like a gay person at all, and then you might just be okay. And so it's it's going to be awful for those people when this is all gone.
I'd like to just chime in about the issue of
the Qatar banning beer drinking. Now they banned beer drinking before the World Cup is their rules they're against it's against taking your tokens for us for Islamic perspective is no different to crack cocaine. In fact, alcohol kills more people than crack cocaine does, but and yet it's allowed in the West. They tried at some point to ban it didn't work out so well. They just live today. And now I'm really confused why they allow it in some parts of saying Dubai, for example, it's allowed if you're wealthy enough to be able to frequently called the corporate boxes.
The Emirati government are hypocrites, and they don't really, some would say they don't really care so much about standard rules or laws anyway, they're, they're here to make money. They've learned that from Western cronyism very well. But my point being is this, it's not about culture. It's not about some arbitrary set of traditions, that's people just happen to be with and, and we don't want to change them know, the stomach perspective, is a worldview based on the creator of the universe, being the source of good and bad is good and bad, has no meaning other than purpose, the purpose of human beings, what is good is your purpose, filling your purpose, what is bad is going against your
purpose. There is no definition of good car is a car that fulfills its purpose, bad cars, and so on. So good and bad, has no meaning in the materialistic worldview that these guys inhabit, right. But but they assert rights merely because it's whatever is currently in vogue in the West. And that's why as Muslims, we would disagree, we say, look, give us your arguments we up for debate, we up for discussion. In fact, I tried to debate my romancey once on a few things that she actually backed out in debate. He's here now. Great, exactly. Have an open debate, have a discussion. Arif, it's up for discussion. But but here's the here's the thing, from the Islamic perspective, we believe that
fornication so any * outside of marriage is an abuse of the property of God, because the property owner does not give consent for it to be used in that sense. So instead of fornication and so, no, so the issue is you can have up to three wives.
Can I mean girlfriend and she and your wife? And
what about this? And what about what about
over there? What's happening rather than I
don't have a right to have a right to their worldview, of course will have a right to be to their worldview. People have a right to religion to be Muslim to be atheist, apostates. blasphemers, like myself, that that's a basic human right. The point is, though, that when that view is part of the law, and the state, which is the case in Iran, which is the case of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, we saw ISIS and its rules, then you know, this idea that fornication is haram means that therefore stoning is permissible. And in Iran, it's not illegal to stone a woman to death but the size of the stone is what's illegal, it needs to be can't be too big, so she dies too quickly. Can't be too small, so it
takes too long. So alcohol is banned, but child marriages Okay, from the age of puberty, children can be married. A man can have a four wives and she Islam you can have innumerable temporary wives as well. Men can have unilateral right to divorce, they say Talaq Talaq, Talaq three times, they are divorced. Women have very limited rights to divorce child custody is given to men at a preset age. Women need male guardians. So even if you don't have a husband or father, your child was a boy is your guardian, he can decide whether you can work, whether you can go out whether you can travel, whether you can get a passport, a male guardian decides that
this represented Yes, quite a lot. But we do disagree. We'd need a whole hour to go through which which rows would you condemn? Out of all of that there are quite a few. I wish I made a list of all the things she said but pretty much everything that she said has misrepresented what stoning women you can Denmark completely? No, he just said it's women's. She said the Prophet Zico in Iran for people to go out on the street and somehow stone women. That's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
No,
no, I don't. I'm not defender of the Iranian regime. Again, I'm not a non Islamic regime. It allows interest banking as well like
The rest of them do Saudi Arabia, many other countries talking about condemned in the Quran very strong about the women's rights. But what's the thing is we all believe that women are men, right? You're dodging this
answer. I just want you to be able to give a real honest account for yourself. Thank you. So on the women's stoning, for example, and women's rights, what's your what's your interpretation of it, then? Men and women have rights. Yes. That complimentary not equal rights. Be honest. Speaking over.
So
you're all up for shouting and speaking over people when it when it suits you? Amen. Okay. So anyway, my point is this, that
when we talk about discrimination, or firstly about gay people, or so on, you don't think you understand my point? My point is that discrimination of gay culture in the question, let me just say about the stone, I want you to know and I promise you, I'll get right to that. My second point, let me finish my first okay, because they're related. Yeah. Okay, thank you. So the first point is simply that when gay people are determined as a separate group from straight people now you now make these new groups on which the West did and then it began that's when discrimination began. Because once you labeled them as separate and different as the other right, then you get to discriminate the
West discriminated, sorry, but by your account, they just cease to exist, they're not recognized. Now by then you already creating an other because they are not recognized in your religion. The laws let me give you an analogy. Perhaps the best way of putting it is that McTell doesn't care about Marmite lovers, a mama haters. Do Marmite lovers exist? Yes. Do mama lovers, Mama Mama he is exists? Yes. Does Islamic law even care? No. If you eat the marmite, you
know,
the what is prohibited by what the state can regulate? Is anyone who has * in public, whether their streets, their homosexual, wherever it's normal *, or suddenly, that's what's permitted people in Istanbul. Excuse me. Excuse me, madam, would you let me finish? Yeah, you're speaking over me. Let me finish, right. So in Islamic law, the state can't ask what's happened inside the privacy of your own home, it is not the business of the state. There are multiple, I can bring you multiple Islamic texts that argue that point. That's the first point I want to get to the second point I'll just go back to the problem is that it feels like you are quoting text. And if it worked that way,
great. But the text was the problem. No, but if it worked this way, for Islam, I'm not totally wrong, the way that those those countries I can only ever speak about under the Islamic perspective. I can't speak about defending Qatar. So now Qatar has some influence from it from Islamic perspective. That's true. That's true. But the point is this, you can't just ride roughshod on people's beliefs and ideas without making a solid argument. If you say somebody's human right, show us from Flasco first principles, why is universal and even rational and the idea because once a belief and one one is inherently the way you
get I just the second answer. So there was a lot of words to say I condemn women being stoned in any country, so I'm waiting for that.
Okay, so he's got me Can I Can
you really love
Alright, answer the from the stomach perspective of stomach law. There's prohibitions on adultery. Okay? If he's made it public adultery, which is virtually impossible to prove, it's more of a symbolic law. And because because it's impossible to prove the point the law was meant to scare people from being adulterous. And why do we and it applies to both men and women, not to just women? Why do we only care if it only applies to it applies to men and women are adulterers in Islamic law from classical Islamic law? The when they make the adult Republic, which is virtually impossible? Yes, yes. That you you know that
it's also based on confession, you know, that you said you are not telling. So if somebody's telling the truth finish, let me finish you can talk now. If someone wants to come and say I'm an adulterous don't me, yes, because a man is a man has * outside of marriage or is raped and becomes pregnant, she can be stoned for adultery because no pregnancy has been of all if there are witnesses that is proof
Wait, wait wait, this stoning can be part of Islamic law didn't Mohammed say in the hadith of me again, Muhammad saying hey, look, I know you have an axe to grind because your ex most of our next question, but I thought
we would settle this much quicker just saying the damage was done. He just asked the question if you agree with stoning, that's your view and you're entitled to it but give us a solid it's not my view. I'm only reporting Samak law, which states that adulterous are executed they make their adultery public do that the stoning of Islamic women or men even who make them
Public in the way in which you've described are you telling me that do I condemn Islamic law? Do you condemn people being stoned that's what he's saying he can't because it's all No Wait wait wait wait a second Wait a second why is it relevant what I what I because you're here talking about
defending tyranny that's really because Because who says you have a right to commit adultery and cheat on your partner
to death because they have * outside of marriage state has you understand that it has the monopoly dare you you said that someone
I don't agree with executions in the US I don't agree with executions anywhere but you
exist
should be ashamed of God. We go, there we go. There
we go. I think it's sometimes what's not said that's most powerful. Got one thing to say, Oh, just you said homosexuality isn't illegal in Qatar, but under the Qatari Penal Code 2004 same activity is punishable by up to seven years in prison. No, it's by up to three it's between one to three years and
for *, and it's no different to fornication. Okay, so that means
straight couples and same * couples get the same punch the little five minutes
five minutes in prison okay, that 10 minutes how about an alleged it's actually two months and three days? It the point is it should it could you can either FaceTime them them? Yeah, apart from just your umbrage. And, oh, this is against the western values that I've learned and imbibe, I'm sorry, if it's your argument, they simply say, Oh, look at look at this Muslim who, who won't condemn his own religion? I'm sorry. No, I'm not ashamed. My beliefs is that we have a reason why we believe in God, we have a reason why we believe that good and bad is determined by the Creator, you have a right to believe you have to you can criticize if you don't, if you don't like it, you can believe
what you
don't just simply say that we Shibboleth questions. Do you condemn your minister not? Whatever your religion is, whatever your choice is, we're going to judge you on that free? No, you haven't given me an argument, you will make a decision to believe in that stuff. You have free will. And you have free will to believe in western human rights or not. But also the differences wishes. I wish you could justify it. But the difference. The difference is that if I if I don't like now, it's not a perfect system I have granted but if I don't like some of the human rights in this country, unlike Qatar, which is not democratic, I can say right, well, okay, I get power once every four or five
years I can I can vote out good luck in the PI System getting better than nothing is better than there being what this municipal council in Qatar advises the royal family.
On a problem.
Yes, yes. The majority that gives you a rights are the same majority that can take away your rights. Oh, well, let's get rid of it. But
I think what is important to acknowledge and understand is the fact that we can all have whatever beliefs we want. That is not the issue. That is not the issue. We are not discussing that people have a right to be Muslim, they have a right to be Satanist, they have a right to be, you know, political views, religious views, non religious views. That is a fundamental human right. The point that we're making here today is about Qatar. And that when those laws when those beliefs in any sort of beliefs become part of the law and the state, we have to recognize the fact that not everyone has those beliefs. Because the reality is that even for many Muslims, the laws against homosexuals is
intolerable. Because there are many gay people who live in countries under Islamic rule. The law of stoning is considered intolerable. So and there are lots of people fighting against these laws in the Middle East, in North Africa, in South Asia, against religion in political power. That's the point we're making so people can have whatever the beliefs they want, but they cannot shove those beliefs down people's throats in the law.
And also, you listen, you are defending wish you're telling people so don't you dare tell me I take my advice. You have said that you want offending? You have?
Dare you Dan Schoening of women and men to dental Muslims,
even speeches and how dare you even speak about
the point you are defending a day doses you are defending that? Islam
does not endorse a particular moral worldview to basis laws
to try and
we're going to move
the query inflammatory and it's been really interesting to be able to get very heated let's try and move on from LGBT and Islam. So what about the migrant worker?
Let's go back to them. So 6400 500 I think lost their lives in the build up to the World Cup where they were building the infrastructure. Is that a big enough course on its own to boycott?
Well, certainly it's a cause that has been disgracefully neglected by both Qatar and FIFA. We have that six and a half 1000 migrant workers dead in the last 12 years. Many of the families most of the families are still waiting for the promised compensation. Even today, migrant workers often complain of unpaid wages, being forced to live in overcrowded slum hostels and I've seen the pictures of up to eight men or sometimes 10 men living in a room 10 by eight with bunk beds. I mean, it's it's it's Dickensian. And then on top of that, although there have been some reforms to the Khalifa system, still, workers complain that they're denied permission to change jobs to escape abusive employers.
Now, that is completely not what FIFA and Cass are promised. When Castle got the World Cup. They promised substantive reforms, there'd been a bit of tinkering. Yes, in theory, the law is better. That's true. But in practice, it's often not. Agreed. Agreed. In fact, we had a very embarrassing speech. I think it was today by FIFA president Gianni Infantino who
tried to unite people I think and he stared down the camera during a press conference and he said, I am Qatari. I am a migrant, I am gay, I feel gay I feel disables is it sorry, I feel sorry. I feel actually he actually forgot women was reminded by the person to his left or whatever, to areas, but he's, I think FIFA have massively
these massive judge judge this hugely, and obviously, we understand that there was a whole string of corruption around why Qatar was given the World Cup in the first place. But um, my big fear is as well, though, that that that Qatar, getting this sort of it legitimizes all of this stuff that's going on, and it actually legitimizes it in in other countries as well, other countries might look at it and think, Well, hey, that's all right. There was a survey that said that, I do not believe by by any means, by the way. And I think this is a really important point. There are millions, billions of people who have the Islamic faith worldwide, who are I would consider moderate who do not
consider that who do not subscribe to what we hear from from extreme Islamic countries. But five, five or six years ago, there was the survey in 2016, saying that 52% of Muslims who live here in the UK would like to see homosexual homosexuality made legal here in the UK. Now, I worry that when a big sporting event like that is taking place in Qatar, it it legitimizes those sorts of opinions. It was back to that conference, that topic again, it seems okay, let's not miss what we don't know. Just take the wider picture here. Sure. And just LGBT, say if we decided to boycott any particular country, for its rights abuses, to say England and say, Well, you know, walls around the world
bombing Afghanistan wars in Iraq, America, voted out those governments, how long? How long, how long list you've got, we'd only hold the World Cup and maybe Ireland and EU Switzerland basically. Because
even then there might be issues. But so this is the issue is that if we are going to ask raise the question as to whether we should associate popular sporting events, with countries we disagree, we have to be consistent about it. My only argument to the other side, and this wherever else I might be, is just consistency. It's not what about race, it's like you have a position find apply it consistently. Don't just say we'll make an exception for us. But for these Muslim countries in these third world people and these former colonies, we're gonna be really hard on you guys are on insisting on standards. We were talking about, for example, we were condemning or I was personally
condemning, you know, having three or four wives or as you referred to them property. Now, over here, property issue did We did I refer to wives as property? Yes. You said, we've got on camera. I said wives are property, you refer to women being property.
From the Islamic perspective, we believe that fornication any * outside of marriage is an abuse of the property of God because the property owner does not give consent for it to be used in that sense. So instead of on one occasion, so no, so the issue is you can have up to three wives as
we were condemning, I was personally condemning, you know, having three or four wives or as you refer to them property.
Over here, for the most property issue did I refer to wives as properties? Yes. You said, you got on camera.
I said wives on property, we refer to women being property, your property of God. Okay? God owns all of us only, like God owns me. God owns I'm property of God. I don't mean property of human beings, for example, you were you were defending having four wives. But you were countering that with well over here, we can go and we can be unfaithful and we can cheat on our partners. There's a difference there. One is enshrined in law. And the other one is someone making terrible * decisions. Okay, well, here's the thing, right? If you believe that people should have the right to choose and consent, and so and so on, so forth, then if people want to consent to be part of a marriage, where
there's more than one of them, then I don't see how you can make an argument against it. And and you're gonna miss him if you cut me off. Because what I was saying was, that we are all the property of God alone. No human can be owned by any other human being and property from afar theological perspective. And so if you do something that's a sin, you are using God's property against the consent of the owner, which is only the Creator cannot not man, not women, no one else, no human being no animal, only the creator of other sin extend Sorry, can I just go back to this issue whether we should boycott the World Cup? I don't think that he's, I think that, unfortunately, it's
too late. I do think we should have boycotted the World Cup. But I do think that it is an opportunity to use the World Cup in order to promote human rights. I think that's key. From my perspective, of course, LGBT rights in Qatar, the rights of migrant workers in Gaza, the rights of women in Qatar, but also, I think, given the fact that there's a woman's revolution in Iran, and that as we speak, the Iranian regime has brought weapons of war into Iranian Kurdistan. There are massacring people as we speak. And as this World Cup takes place, I think it would be a great act of solidarity to show support the fans and the athletes to show support for the women's Revolution like
what we're seeing with this banning that happened today. So FIFA have said that they are stopping players wearing the one love armband. So actually any freedom of expression or speech is being cut down. So actually any any sort of stance like this, it sounds like it's not going to be able to actually occur. So what do you there's no rule against the team captains speaking out during the press conference agreed. There was no rule against the Iranian team refusing to sing the national anthem, hats off to them for that bravery and courage. That Solidarity was so important as if it probably could all do it ourselves. We can all do things ourselves we can amplify the voices for
democracy and human rights in Qatar use our social media, talk to our friends and families raise awareness that's so easy to do. FIFA can't stop you would love to stop you but they can't there needs to be a mobilized effort then doesn't it because the armband was essentially that and it's now been thought it so there needs to be something else but but some footballers are prosecutor persecuted we're not prosecute prosecute for wearing the Palestinian you know, kind of flags or arm battle colors and so on. So they are they're being political, so even Cuban being anti semitic. So we see that even in the west there is a denial of freedom of speech in many countries and France
were even worse than than others. Miracle not so much. So again if we're going to speak out against freedom of speech being denied in Qatar what have you we have to the same English start by refusing to accept stoning to death and then talk about freedom of speech because I think the right to life and people not being buried in a ditch up to their chest and have already legal in that country don't know what more you could ask for
a nation in which country would be lovely
so must I condemn my own religion to live here? Well that's your this is your choice that you will Muslims
are lots of Muslims who don't accept stoning in fact some of the people who are stoned to death are Muslims themselves. So it is very possible to be a Muslim and not to support to donate to the prison or to your child marriage most of the criminals there would probably disagree with the with the laws of why the man in the first place
no no no be consistent when you criticize someone else have consistent three principles is no water battery I demand from you Madam says consistency when you when you criticize you to hold the same principles legitimacy when you cannot even condemn stoning and have like there is no further discussion, I believe when direction or
the French Republic beheading people to 1972 I mean,
executions condemned that yeah, we run out to
Americans who don't who say it's very humane, and they are now also wrong and you know what you could do your perspective.
But what you could do in America to behead people now should be Buddha nature.
Republic, the French Republic better people to
22, the abolish the death penalty. They said that beheading was the most humane way of Exedy 22.
I couldn't vote out a government that does that kind of democracy that we have isn't brilliant, but in these countries, you can't do that. You can disagree. It is not
a reason why it's about
I assert that this is wrong. I asserted his route.
Arguments right. Give me rhetoric because it's your belief, you just, you've given rhetoric, believe that stoning is right. You think people starving to death is right, that says,
I believe that the state should have a monopoly on an executions and withdrew evidence and due process, and stoning can be one of them. And many Americans would agree with me. So that's it.
Okay, I was gonna ask, Are we any better? Is it hypocritical to criticize? Now, one thing I do want to bring into this is that we're all very focused here on these armbands, for example, or, you know, taking the knee or what have you, but actually, our government, Johnson's government did to trade deals with with Qatar, they've taken 10 billion pounds worth of their investment. We're also, you know, supplying the weapons that fall down in Yemen and kill innocent civilians and children and what have you. So actually, where is our like, Are we right to criticize? I think we have to make a distinction between governments and the public. I think, governments, I have no faith in any
government to be honest, not not the British government, because I think it is it comes down to a matter of money, and set an interest, and very often that money and interest is at odds with human rights. But I do have great faith in the public. And I think it is the public that can put pressure on both the Qatar government as well as the British government on FIFA to respect human rights. And I think that is what we need to do is to get the public involved in taking a stand, because football is a game, of course, but it doesn't happen outside of a context. When there are massive human rights violations. We need to care about it. And do you think that enough of that is happening now
that we would never see the World Cup awarded, again to one of these countries? That's index reading? I'm so distressed to see that, you know, Greece and Saudi Arabia, I plan on doing the joint bid in two years time. And I mean, I thought that that's awful. I think. I think that I would agree with Miriam Namazi. That if you thought the only time we should make a decision maker, we should make a distinction between governments and people. Unfortunately, again, she doesn't listen to her home principals advice. If it does, and someone because the toning that I'm talking about, Madam, don't talk about me finish. Respond now.
Because useful defense, like you, defense don't.
Please, thank you. So So when it comes to Muslim countries, both her and Peter's site, vigilante violence done by families to killing the children or the or what have you, and it's safe to say, they say, look how bad that is.
They said, let me finish, right. But if this advanced in the West, if a woman is raped and murdered, and the police don't really investigate it, or don't even care, and there's been many cases, no one, no one says, oh, that's an indictment against the entire UK society. Muslims seem to get this different treatment whereby if vigilante funds dumped by criminals, which I'm calling criminals, done by criminals, everyone gets to blame in our society, whereas whereas the vigilante violence is done in all, no vigilante violence, but criminal violence has done all the Western definition of honor killings and crimes of passion, because that's somehow no different. Then we say, Oh, well,
that's not the state to be to blame. And even if the police don't investigate it, and most rapes don't get prosecuted feminism, always this country and yet you dare go and talk about women's rights.
first before you go talk about how the police
don't have the democracy in order to then then show that if you're worried about Qatar ease, not wanting to to endorse the stakes and the state sanctioned pieces of violence that are being spoken about, well, what a shame What a shame that the Muslims in Qatari can't vote out the government called vote out the royal family was endorsing this stuff well, you know what, I would agree that the Muslim world after colonialism we have these these secular dictators, which we didn't choose and they do oppress us and they do deny us ability to even preach Islam openly is being denied in the in the same in itself same countries Saudi and so and so's Egypt. So, and that's in that sense, I
support that Muslims in the in the Middle East should have the right and ability to stomach right
to speak the truth and to call to stomach rights and principles against these governments, which are themselves the biggest breaches of Islamic rights and principles. First of all, not everybody living in Qatar or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Muslims, and there are deaf and there are their religious minorities, sexual minorities, and even when people are Muslim, they don't necessarily want Islamic law. And therefore, you know, to call it the Muslim world is inaccurate in a large extensive majorities, because even so, I have lots of family members who are Muslim, they don't agree with the Islamic regime of Iran. They don't agree with Saudi Arabia. They don't agree with the laws in Qatar.
And I think the fact is that here in Britain, there are, of course, the police doesn't follow up on * places, a lot of * cases don't get justice. But feminists are working against that. It's very different to saying that, well, that's the way our culture is in Qatar or under Islam. You know, in fact, under Sharia law, violence against women is considered legal and legitimate. It's in the Quran itself. Even in Sharia courts, here you have judges saying marital * is not a crime, because women are meant to be available to their husbands whenever they want. And then, and this is something that happens not just in Iran, but under Sharia courts here in Britain as well. So it's
not true to say that it happens everywhere, even if it happens everywhere. We can still focus on rights violations in one place and condemn it. That is a problem that people like Andalusi have. They are so busy defending Islam and Islamism, at the expense of human rights. The point is not that we're saying things are perfect in the West, of course, they're not. The West is definitely responsible for actually bringing Islamism to center stage in places like Iran, because during the Soviet Union, they wanted an Islamic belt around the Soviet Union at the time, they thought it was the greatest bulwark against communism. But the point is that we should be able to condemn things
that violate rights. You may not be gay, you may not even like gay people, but you do not have a right to persecute, imprison, torture, kill gay people. And to have that as part of the law and public policy. That is the difference and the distinction, which is made claims about Islam now, very briefly. So we'll start with women first. The Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu wasallam said, do not ins we've got them say what do you say about our wives? And he said, Yes, our wives are women do not insult them, and do not abuse a hit them. Right. He said this.
This is the narration for the Prophet Mohammed
says beat them. Yes. And then Prophet Muhammad himself in a hadith. If I misinterpreted that, no, you haven't. And yes, well, let's look at the case about please plainly, he can't, because Because to fully explain it without misrepresentation, I need a few more minutes, right. So if you give me that, I have to explain it. But that was the first point in the process. Having said this, so that's he's pretty much atoning to death on Muhammad Ali request set himself, finish again, Maryam, I know you're very fired up. With regards to minorities and non Muslims. Islamic law does not apply. It says it does not apply to non Muslims. Christians get used to get their own religious, religious
laws, Jews got their own religious laws. And so estrogens got their own religious laws, even if we disagree.
Me I know, I know, I know. She's not happy, because I'm giving facts now about I'm giving you nuances. I wish you would just answer directly. I know. But let me respond. First, I want to respond. And then you can't just say before you can respond to her, you have to answer my question. Well,
let me give a response. And then I will answer it.
I'm happy to answer a lot of answers. Oh, well, let me answer what she said. And then I'll answer your question. I know, if I may. Islam doesn't enforce Sharia on non Muslim minorities, historically, they had their own court systems even had their own police. Right. So Islam is most you could say it's only truly multicultural. Her organization has been it's cool for one law for all, because in a secular systems, there can't be multiple law systems, there has to be one law for all usually determined by the majority and hence, violence. In secular nation states. There's always a problem between the majority lording it over the minorities. What about violence against women
dictating the majorities values over minorities as we're in Islam? Everyone gets their own losses about violence defined by their own values, what is true multicultural What about so now I want to answer your question. Yeah, and sorting this out. So if I if I make right but I'm gonna need a minute because I can't just give you 30 seconds because we aren't we are running out of time. But yeah, one more question to ask. Okay. So the case
As by which it says that if a woman is guilty kind of commits no shoes, which in Arabic term, in essence so let's say that
the definitions, please definitions. So let's say there's a case where the there's a blanket prohibition on men even in assaulting the women or hitting women. But there's this case where if a woman commits no shores right so let's say she's basking saucepan and she's busy whacking her husband around the head with it, which would be nice shoes, right? Then he can he can, he can use appropriate force to restrain it from doing so. That's where it that's what he refers to in the Arabic word and assures is referring to things like that. Okay? If you just read it.
Read it a contextually, it's your interpretation of I mean, this Islamic scholar Yusuf al Qaradawi made it very clear that Islamic law interpretation, husbands have a
right to beat their wives if they are disobedient. So in other words, women must admit to husbands now
they don't submit to their husbands new husband shoes right to be what the shows means, like rebellion like
it's just a bit with that being the case. However, she mentioned I asked about American rates, but let me finish talking about the merits rate issue right.
We just want to respond to that rebellion. You just said that wouldn't shoes was was was around a woman being violent towards a man and restraining her but now you've just said actually, you've clarified that that word means rebellion with rebellion isn't the woman hitting them out? Rebellion has made has no way has a linguistic sense. And then it has an Islamic do you mean by rebellion? disobedience, the illegal yet yes. And
a woman get?
If I may, please, why? Why are you so worried about what I will say you keep speaking over me, right? I'm not worried about what you say. But I just don't worry, basically, basically, the baseline is that men are prohibited from even using verbal insult in the West, you can verbally insult your partner. And it's not against the law, and Islamic law, it's against the law to insult your partner, right. It's the problematic prohibited the beating of women and he prints so and also that women should be the man is also permitted. If a woman begins to beat her husband or abuse him, then then the Quran talks about reasonable force.
In this example, and as for as far as for marital *, that is, again, is you're bringing some you're trying to in language that we know is incorrect or incorrect. In Islam and Islam. In Islam, men and women have a mutual right to each other's bodies. However, here's the point. You can't gain that by physical assault or or physical violence. Okay? That's the difference. So just because you have a right in the stomach moral right doesn't mean it can be gained any which way, like the Sharia judge here. So call it marital *, calling it a * is the actual act of aggression. Because in a marriage, there's no such thing as *, because men have the rights over their wives, you are
lying.
It would be violent, violent assault and is prohibited. I think goodness me I'm disobedient with my husband every day promote me. Are you lucky? All?
Right.
Brilliant. Final question. I think we only have a short amount of time on this. But we're again steering away from LGBT steering away from
human rights. Let's not talk about Yes. Is this whole thing? Is the whole thing the World Cup in Qatar? Is it just an exercise in PR, like Dubai, Qatar nice diversify from oil and gas starting to run a bit dry? So are they looking for another boost here by international tourism? I know for me, what I will say is actually the World Cup being held in Qatar has highlighted to me all of the things that I don't quite like, I don't like it is put me off going there. So actually, it's had the counter effect. But would it was that potentially was this an exercise in PR to get more people going there on the holidays? Did it work? There's absolutely no doubt that Qatar saw the World Cup
as a chance to burnish its international image to sell itself as a holiday destination as a way to get investment and to encourage other countries to allow it to invest in them as well. It's a bit of a business model from the very get go. But thankfully, because of the human rights issues being raised, that has now gone down the Swanee and quite rightly, I mean, I love cat. I love Qatari people, I just don't like dictatorship. I don't like human rights abuses. That's the problem. And you know, cat could have actually made some modest reforms, which may have alleviated some of the criticisms, but they didn't even try since they got the World Cup in 2010. Despite promises that it
would be an agent for reform. There's been not a single reform
women's rights, not a single reform on LGBT plus rights, and only patchy margin reforms, in reality, for migrant workers. That's the problem.
What about you, you can the whole day so Qatar and I don't, I've never chosen to spend my money on the sorts of regimes, I would never go to a place like that. And I'll just return to the point I made at the start that the sorts of events, the Olympics, the World Cup, it's, it legitimizes places that have terrible human rights. And there needs to be a way in which these sporting organizations sign up to independent human rights organizations that that say, Look, if you don't have your I mean, it's, it's almost I could get my head around it if if they had a democratic system. And the people there said, Well, this is actually what we want. But because there's no means in many of
these countries for the people. And you're right, the people in state are different, because there's no means in these countries for the people to say, actually, we don't like it this way. Unfortunately, democracy has got to be a big part of that human rights conversation and the top bottom 30% of countries, they simply do not get a look and they cannot bid. They don't get to bid and then say they'll improve. They don't they don't actually part of the attraction Christo. So actually, what a FIFA spokesperson said this is an article I read today, actually is easier for them dealing with less democratic countries, because they get to just push things through quicker.
There's less of a process by committee, for example. So it's a they see it as a plus, which explains why we've got Qatar having this World Cup and also don't forget Russia. The last World Cup Russia had the last cup in 2018, four years after they invaded Crimea, and they got the Winter Olympics, as well. Beijing. Beijing, though, interestingly, was boycotted. Beijing was boycotted this year the Winter Olympics was boycotted by UK, USA, Australia, no other country can't remember.
And yet, we didn't
mobilize and we didn't do that this time around. Well, as Winston Churchill said, I think I think goes into treasurer might be wrong, actually. Britain does not have feminine allies as permanent interests. And those interests are only somewhat aligned with principles where it is convenient for many Western countries to have principles but when it's with a rich ally that can benefit them then they don't care so much now. That is a very fair point i operasi on one hand condemning when we have a terror attack in the name of radical Islam in this country that kills say gay people were absolutely up in arms about it but then we will quiet country so there was a terror attack that
killed gay people in this country so there was a reading attack which killed three gay men who are sitting on a common in in the name of radical Islam yet we will be we will be horrified when we that was about three four years ago something like that. But they were talking about the Soho attacks were that were far right guy, Neil Barnard I laughed at a nail bombs. That was 29 years ago. That was the avenue Duncan and that was a far right terror attack. But what we don't do what we do then is we are we will witness these absolutely awful ism is to tax in this country. When that happens to gay people yet will then trade with the countries that decide to execute them when they want. And
the same thing as far as I'm concerned, they are radical and they are wrong. Again, I object to the term Islamist because it implies that Islam can dosed terror attacks when Islam has rules of warfare that prohibit the killing of non combatants. And it is it is actually it is a agreed upon on all schools of thought in Islam, that killing a non combatants also such a terror attacks involve is categorically prohibited. Osama bin Laden made an argument he's only a
sudden,
his argument was diffused, if you see his there was a book about compilers with sayings. He argued that the West doesn't care about civilians when it bombs Muslim countries. So he argued that he has permission to imitate the West, in using Western tactics against themselves. That was his argument. If he said that the Quran he knows what the Quran says he knows what the Prophet Muhammad said just agree with that.
Well, he goes against Aquinas and Prophet Muhammad by his own admission, but he said that he has special permission to do so because the West, he's retaliating to the west against the injustice and so he will adopt their tactics and I'm against adopting the Western tactics which are brutal, monstrous, against non combatants, bombing civilians, I think is wrong.
We got the government to do that. Can I just add something which is interesting, because Islam is say that they do not attack non combatants. But actually, politically, they say that everyone, for example, in Israel is a combatant. And therefore that's, it's again, that sort of doublespeak and watching lottery, which justifies their Jihad and their terrorism. But going back to the point of Bataar, again, and human rights, I think one of the issues is that why maybe
immobilisation was not as strong with this regard is because of this sort of bogus accusations of Islamophobia, where any criticism of Islam, which is a belief and all beliefs should be open to criticism and criticism of far right movements, which is what the Islamists are,
and is very often equated with bigotry against Muslims. And of course, that's not the case you can oppose the Christian right? You're not attacking Christian want to ban the burqa, and you can't use a bright stoning. So I wouldn't talk if you want to ban but you want to ban Muslim women's rights want to choose to
defend violence against
hypocrisy? All right.
Now, it's been a while do it. I think embarrassing. I think this is okay. I think she's wrong about Israel thing as well. But we don't have time and it that this has been the most How can I call it a passionate, lively discussion that we've had. But that is all that we have time for tonight. So thank you so much for watching. And for the very lively debate very heated. It's been quite a debate at the table and I don't think we're leaving all agreed on, but what did you think? Did anyone change your mind and get you thinking? Let us know in the comments. And we'll see you back here at the table next week. Good night.