Yeah it can be interchangeable with obey on loose vague terms but I think in the case of the minister it may have been a specific choice of word.
Foreign secretary advice to LGBT fans.... Be respectful
- Thread starter GaryLifo
- Start date
Yeah it can be interchangeable with obey on loose vague terms but I think in the case of the minister it may have been a specific choice of word.
That's the same as saying "if a host country has laws in line with the moral compass of western culture".
Sure. I am happy to abide by moral compass of western culture if it means not discriminating on the basis of race and religion.
There's nothing wrong with that as long as you realize it's unrealistic and a bit elitist to expect non-western countries quickly conform to the value system of the West. If you think the solution is to punish them by not allowing them the host global events, then that is your opinion but, in my POV, a naive one.
Fair to expect one or two staged acts from small groups aimed at demonstrating / provoking the hosts’ police?Football fans away from home in groups often think they get into terrafranca scenarios or a gigantic theme park, only to complain when they are asked (more gently than not…) not to thrash monuments or squares. Here we are going to have the added inflamatory set up abundantly discussed in the West. Considering their recent trend, I fear the Dutch contingent, among others, might find themselves in some unconvenient trouble first hand.
I think it's already been said in this thread that most of the disagreement here is simply a semantic issue on the word 'respect'
Unless I missed it, I haven't seen anyone trying to defend the Qatari laws in any way
It's just the simple message that if you go there then you should understand and follow their cultural norms - for me that's not controversial and just obvious advice for any traveller to any country in the world
Yeah, if it's an error then it's a simple mistake that could have been immediately clarified.
I strongly disagree if those cultural norms are discriminatory and codified into law.
I personally wouldn't have to deal with it because I'd never enter a country with such oppressive laws.
Last edited:
And I assume the vast majority of LGBT community will feel the same and have no interest in going to Qatar anyway
I have actually been to Qatar and would have gone to this World Cup if there was any decent accommodation available - of course that doesn't mean I endorse their laws or norms but I try to follow them while there
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/s...ed-qatars-capital-ahead-world-cup-2022-10-28/
There, you got space again. Try not to step on the homeless workers when you're there.
Have fun.
Yeah, of course. I don't even endorse or obey all the laws in the country I live in, but if I was to visit Qatar during the world cup then they would spin my presence as an endorsement. Its basically the point of the whole debacle.
That's a shame, though. The World Cup should be for everyone who loves football and wants to go. LGBTQ fans should not have to avoid the event for fear of reprisal from the host nation over their sexual preference.
Well of course, that goes without saying - just the same as many black or Asian football fans had to think hard about heading to Russia 2018 due to a history of racism
Did the minister specifically ask LGBTQ fans to be respectful? I can't seem to make that out from the article. If Qatar punishes PDA regardless of if it's homo or heterosexual, why would the foreign secretary not warn all fans but only LGBTQ? Is he just misinformed on the issue like so many people in the thread seem to be implying?
because it’s not illegal to be heterosexual
Because he was asked a specific question in the interview about about safety of gay fans at the World Cup
I doubt it did tbh. 'Obey' seems like a word that has fallen out of the government's lexicon because it sounds harsh and respect sounds softer.
Obviously myriad reasons it shouldn't be held in Qatar exist, but for me it was basic safety advice that's seemingly come to symbolise the wider debate on the folly of the decision.
Why is everyone making a fuss about a small handheld device equipped with a microprocessor that is used especially for storing and organizing personal information (such as addresses and schedules)?
I totally disagree that the word was landed on by accident, mainly because of how compromised most governments are in this discussion. Yes obey would have been closer to what was meant but for obvious reasons couldn't be used. Comply or adhere the same. If it was a law that didn't have such obvious moral issues you could use obey or comply really easily. The speed limit is 80, and we would like visitors to adhere. Likewise to use respect with an obvious or sensible law would jar.
Also the false equivalency of asking both sides to compromise might also cause an issue with the LGBT community.
Last edited:
Nobody asked anybody to respect the racism. And nobody got annoyed at the protests to Russia. It the outrage at the outrage so to speak that is new here.
Last edited:
Fair point - although I don't believe that he was asking people to respect the homophobia either, no fan of Cleverly but he's not THAT thick
Amazingly the religion is where everyone draws the line right?
The fact slavery exists and has paved the way for the WC to even exist in Qatar is something that can be tolerated, but "mu-MY rights" is where you draw the line?
Self absorbed much
I don't know him at all to be honest but yeah, without a doubt he didn't mean respect homophobia, but the wider context of unease is why it was particularly tone deaf to say anything like he did. I think he tried to get the least offensive word to all involved as he saw it. And again that alone is operating within an equivalency that again could be offensive. Governments can't land on the correct phrasing even if they want to because of wider compromises. Its a disaster for anyone in government who has to make any sort of statement.
I think people often over analyse these kind of things - he's asked questions off the cuff in a radio interview, it's not a pre-prepared statement
Similar to post match press conferences where fans read too much into every word that's said on the spur of the moment
Anyway it's highlighted the issue of discrimination in Qatar (and the Gulf in general) which can only be a good thing in the long term and hopefully step by step it leads to some change
No I see where you’re coming from, and some of it was worded too strongly. Albeit coming off Western imperialistic, which wasn’t my goal. I fully recognise the West’s faults in their actions especially so in that region in recent history.
But there are definitely boundaries to that. Certain elements of “culture” absolutely the West has no right to judge or influence; it is neither better or worse, simply different. However when it is matters of basic humanity I feel there is an obligation to push for progress. Now obviously imperialism isn’t the answer, but neither is pandering to it and just shrugging our shoulders and going “oh well their choice not my problem.” But generally I don’t think globalism is a boogey-word and there ate massive benefits in intertwining cultures, people and economies however I think sharing some base values is important in that.
Bigotry and oppression certainly isn’t “culture”.
Because most people didn't think it was needed to state the bleeding obvious
I'm quite sceptical about whether James Cleverly's use of language is that precise and planned if it was in a live phone in.
There's no good way to say LGBT fans going there need to basically hide their identity for their own personal safety because of Qatar's archaic laws.
Maybe he could have said Fifa have plumbed new depths of corruption by agreeing to feck world football over and hold it there, so now people are forced to adhere to these reprehensible restrictions.
The guy is pretty dullwitted though and normally only really wheeled out to defend the government's latest u-turn/feck up.
EDIT: The 'compromise' on both sides comment is stupid and indicative of both his stupidity and having zero scruples or morals.
Last edited:
Someone mentioned it a few pages earlier in this thread - respecting something can mean having due regard for it. It can also mean admiring something, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Cleverly was intimating.
Ah I think if human rights are at play it's not thd same as a post match press conference at all.
Anything is possible. Pretty convenient that the word happened upon jarred with the LGBT community but luckily didn't cause any tricky conversations for anyone at government level in conversations with the gulf states. I be pretty skeptical the words to be used didn't come up in conversation at some point. Nobody I know of at government level has erred on the side of insulting the Qataris.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,557
- Supports
️
Is it illegal to be homosexual there and if so what happens if you are?
cohabitation is illegal and sex between men is illegal, punishable with a fine and a few years in prison
The semantics and meaning is moot anyway and turns into a debate about 'style' over substance. . Respect for or obedience for an illegal law are both abhorrent words for what is basically an illegal law according to international law.
https://www.unfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/International-Human-Rights-Law.pdf
"Moreover, United Nations human rights treaty bodies have confirmed that sexual orientation and gender identity are included among prohibited grounds of discrimination under international human rights law. This means that it is unlawful to make any distinction of people’s rights based on the fact that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT), just as it is unlawful to do so based on skin color, race, sex, religion or any other status. This position has been confirmed repeatedly in decisions and general guidance issued by several treaty bodies, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committee against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. "
https://www.unfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/International-Human-Rights-Law.pdf
"Moreover, United Nations human rights treaty bodies have confirmed that sexual orientation and gender identity are included among prohibited grounds of discrimination under international human rights law. This means that it is unlawful to make any distinction of people’s rights based on the fact that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT), just as it is unlawful to do so based on skin color, race, sex, religion or any other status. This position has been confirmed repeatedly in decisions and general guidance issued by several treaty bodies, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committee against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. "
In light of the bolded part, maybe the choice of words from MPS about Qatar is not that random.
"Qatar has spent more money on gifts and trips for British MPs in the past year than any other country, according to Observer analysis that reveals the Gulf state’s lobbying efforts ahead of next month’s football World Cup.
The Qatari government made gifts to members of parliament worth £251,208 in the 12 months to October 2022, including luxury hotel stays, business-class flights and tickets to horse-racing events."
"During a debate about preparations for the World Cup earlier this month, Alun Cairns, who chairs an informal parliamentary group set up to “foster good relations between the UK and Qatar”, made a speech praising Qatar, including “paying tribute” to its response to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...h-250000-worth-of-freebies-ahead-of-world-cup
"Qatar has spent more money on gifts and trips for British MPs in the past year than any other country, according to Observer analysis that reveals the Gulf state’s lobbying efforts ahead of next month’s football World Cup.
The Qatari government made gifts to members of parliament worth £251,208 in the 12 months to October 2022, including luxury hotel stays, business-class flights and tickets to horse-racing events."
"During a debate about preparations for the World Cup earlier this month, Alun Cairns, who chairs an informal parliamentary group set up to “foster good relations between the UK and Qatar”, made a speech praising Qatar, including “paying tribute” to its response to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...h-250000-worth-of-freebies-ahead-of-world-cup
So all they have to do is have separate rooms, not have any sex, and just generally deny who they are for a month. How hard can that be?
Yep fair point and wouldn't be surprised if we're trying to negotiate a trade deal with Qatar.
Shows how toothless the UN is, if we didn't know already, given about 70 countries still outlaw gay relations.
You can do anything you want … just don’t be gay, that’s respect.
Until recently we were one, and as far as I remember nobody accused anyone of being anti Islamic to get the laws changed. There was opposition from the church but basically sense prevailed. Nobody outside the church mentioned respect for the church. The really annoying about this whole debate is that the adherence to the law and respect for culture circus is to me a lot of thinly veiled homophobia and misogyny?
The Russia world cup was voices against the state intolerance, a joint nod of agreement and a collective shrug of resignation that the powers that be don't give a feck. Now we have people in Government and subsequently in discourse asking us to accept and respect oppression on cultural grounds. It's really depressing.
If people feel so strongly just don`t go or boycott the games, how can you change a culture and value that opposes same sex relationship. These are deep seated believes that are fundamental to lots of people religious and non religious. Lots of people have issues with gender identity that is taught to children in school, last week Utd fans were apparently singing songs at Chelsea which was deemed inappropriate and that's coming from a people who are supposed to have been educated on these matters for the past 20 years. There are countries where women/ girls can`t cover their heads with a piece of cloth because they think it oppresses women.