lavendar_star: lol Onebar, well for me it does seem to be prescribed that woman must wear the bukka regardless of her religion or if she want to wear one. as well as the unequal treatment n punishment of woman under Sharia law.

lavendar_star: I appreciate what you are saying Jack but how many women were allowed to vote in this election, I am not see it emotionally either but how women are treated in Islamic countries with Sharia law and they are not at all favourable to women, maybe as a woman i am far more sceptical. I agree it is their country and their decision but one cant help but be concerned how women and non Muslim (the minority) will be treated under this system.

One Bar: It's a disgrace that so many women aren't allowed to show their beauty. Feminists burned their bras; Muslim women should cut little nipple holes in their burkas.

Comrade_: Looking specifically at Egypt they are making some changes as to the rights of women. The last election women were allowed to vote, etc ***http://modernegypt.info/national-developments/womens-rights/
These changes take time, you have to remember that this is a different culture from ours, deeply rooted with Islam but force really isn't the answer. You can't invade and hope to change things (we all know how that worked out). That's why I'm for sparking revolutions etc and taking things from there as a change.

***edit wrong link.

davidk14: .

Let’s get back to the word democracy…and what it means. I posted a thorough description of the word:

http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm

Please take a look and comment on the description and how it does or does not pertain to the Egyptian revolution.

.

lavendar_star: I'm not talking about force etc, Im just concerned about the role and treatment of women within a country that practice Sharia law of course men wont mind it and also what about the minority of non Muslims. Islam is a religion and not a culture and I have to say when that religion comes in contact with politics it seems to be all dominating in the public sphere. One has to remember countries like Egypt and others were all Pagan before they were ever Islamic and the way that man made religion has grown and come to dominate that region is quite unsettling.

The link you gave Jack is how it was now and before but you cant tell me in the context of Sharia law things will improve or stay the same for women given how Iran and Saudi Arabia are. Also both the major parties in that election seem to be overwhelming male and overwhelming Islamic there was really not much diversity other than moderate or fundamentalist. The rights of woman, non Muslims and gay people will not respect in the context of Sharia law considering how the Koran is.

I have to say the U.S has the powerful the Christian right are in twinned in their politics i.e. abortion, so its not something just in the middle east but there is something Sharia Law that makes me uncomfortable hopefully women might up-rise against any limitation of their freedom but do women in Iran or Saudi Arabia!!!! No so why would it be any different in Egypt.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100120905/egyptian-women-your-new-government-will-want-you-back-in-the-kitchen/

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Egyptian-Women-Search-for-Place-in-New-Government-119063689.html

lavendar_star: excuse me is this thread about Egypt isnt about world democracy its what you started lol!!!and what is world democracy??? that link you gave David14 is from an American perspective and what you guys consider democracy and how you choose to instil a first Arab democracy isnt that up to Iraqi or Arab people.

This what people talk of American government consider its self the self appointed leader of the world which its not, every country and citizens should have their own right to elect their own version of government; Communism, socialism capitalism etc. I Just have issue when religion and politics are intermixed, also we if that means the west can not have problem with whatever happens in Egypt, when we are best friends we Saudi Arabia who limit the rights and freedoms of women. Double standards and inconsistency seems to be the motto of western countries.

davidk14: .

Star said:

…excuse me is this thread about Egypt isnt about world democracy

David responds:

Did I ever use the two word’s together ‘world democracy’? No I didn’t so don’t put words into mouth.



Star said:

…that link you gave David14 is from an American perspective and what you guys consider democracy and how you choose to instil a first Arab democracy isnt that up to Iraqi or Arab people.

David responds:

There is only one description for democracy. You can not just create a description as you feel fits or doesn’t fit.



Star said:

This what people talk of American government consider its self the self appointed leader of the world which its not, every country and citizens should have their own right to elect their own version of government; Communism, socialism capitalism etc.

David responds:

Exactly correct but don’t try to change the description of democracy.



Star said:

I Just have issue when religion and politics are intermixed, also we if that means the west can not have problem with whatever happens in Egypt


David responds:

And that is why in the US there is a division of church and state.



Star said:

, when we are best friends we Saudi Arabia who limit the rights and freedoms of women. Double standards and inconsistency seems to be the motto of western countries.


David responds:

The US has diplomatic relations with all sorts and if we don’t, then we are blamed for being closed minded. Double standards by those that don’t understand.

.

unicorn1: Reading all thats been said, would have to say that Democracy has changed from its orignal meaning, and as a political ideal, will keep on changing and evolving as we do.....for example


What Do We Call Democracy? (taken from Ancient Cultures and Histories)

The world was stunned when Bush was first named winner of the U.S. presidential race, even after more U.S. voters had cast ballots for Gore. How could the U.S. call itself a democracy, yet not select its officials on the basis of majority rule?

Well, part of the answer is that the U.S. was not established as a pure democracy, but as a republic where voters elect representatives and electors. Whether there has ever been anything close to a pure and total democracy is debatable. There has never been universal suffrage -- and I'm not talking about voters disenfranchised by corruption or improper balloting and tallying. In ancient Athens, you had to be a citizen to vote. That left out more than half the population.

If we accept that the Greeks were the first country with developed ideals of democracy, and that they also keeps slaves, held women to be second class citizens, and anyone not Greeks as lower than Greeks themselves...then we would have to accept that the definition changes all the time, no?

lavendar_star: Ok, your confusing me you started a thread complain about who the Egyptian decided to vote in to government and now your debating what the word democracy means when people have stated this if what the people have chosen despite what you or America or any other western government may think on the matter.

Also why are you so american centric, my country is best friends we Saudi Arabia and if you dont understand why any nation can not have any moral stand point whilst it has relationship with one government that limits the rights of women and minorities but want to vilify others for the same thing. Then you David or your or my own government had no leverage to talk about democracy to any other nation whilst supporting ones who also dont have democracy also.

Also where did I change the description of democracy you gave a link that have particular political american centric reference not a straight forward English word dictionary definition of the word democracy.

democracy -this is a straight forward Oxford English definition of democracy. thank you

n noun (plural democracies) a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. Øa state governed in such a way. Øcontrol of a group by the majority of its members

davidk14: .

Bush senior had won the popular vote against Clinton but nobody said anything. Interesting.

But back to the description I posted. What do you or don't you agree with? This is the third time I've asked and everyone is just dancing around the question.


http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm


.

lavendar_star: because this is not what your thread is about and its from an american view point with political motives like I said and what has this got do with your original thread.

"Our desire is to see that Iraqis be free to choose their leaders and speak their minds, while living at peace with themselves and their neighbours."

"We do not wish to dictate who will rule you. That is for Iraqis to decide."

The Egyptian people have chosen their leader what's your problem.

Furthermore, that what a link from a American view in the context of Iraq how does this relate to the thread??????????????? Also lmao, some of those rule of laws some western countries i.e American and the UK don't live by.

No one may be arrested, imprisoned, or exiled arbitrarily.
Anyone charged with a crime has the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial by an impartial court.

Terrorist suspects or people accused of treason!!!

You have the right to assemble freely, and to protest government actions- Yet again they are trying to limit this in the UK and I think similarly in America and Australia.

There is freedom and pluralism in the mass media.- Yet again lol can this be true for mass media in the West which is not monopolised and dictated by the owners political views i.e Robert Murdock


I could go on>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

btw what's your point David14??????????????

davidk14: .

Star or anyone else,

Let's start the conversation section by section...

Do you agree or disagree with the following...



We can think of democracy as a system of government with four key elements:

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

Before I go on, do you agree or disagree with items one through four?

.

Comrade_: Go read what she said davidk14, she said nothing on the meaning of "Democracy". reread slowly

lavendar_star: OK, I still dont understand the poin of this,

I agree with all of that and like I said Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and has no democracy but its ok for the West because they are our friends so that ok but now we are going to criticise or have problem with Egypt!!!! Double standards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are we not being closed mined using your own words David14 if we don't accept what the Egyptians have chosen as I presume that what your getting at with this defining of democracy.

Comrade_: I guess now wouldn't be a good time to ask where was the call for 'democracy', when the back-then Egyptian dictator was maintained by the said people who chant for 'democracy'...

lavendar_star: Thats my point Jack, how can the West have issue with the results in Egypt and complain about democracy there, when there are countries like China and Saudi Arabia which have no democracy by Western standards but we are fine with that and with other countries in history like Egypt when they had a dictator or monarchies like Iran before. When we can pull the strings we dont seem to give a damn about democracy or the citizens of that nation just are own self interest. so I see no point in where David14 is going.

As it seems to me we only care for democracy in the west when the undemocratic support us if they don't then we have a problem, We also consider them undemocratic if we don't support the ideals or values of said country despite if that's what the people have chosen via a election like Egypt..

One Bar: I still think nipple holes in burkas is a good idea.

unicorn1: One Bar, that comment is irreverent, disrespectful, culturally insensitive, and fecking funny.....lol

Yan26: Personally I dont think having a constitution based on a particular religion,s laws is smart. I wouldnt want to live in such a country. But the Egyptians have to be given a chance to mature as a democracy.
We should remember that the West has also grown in a similar manner. Less than a 100 years back neither woman nor colored people would have been allowed to vote in an election much less stand as a candidate. But the people in these nations have changed gradually. So dont compare voting patterns and the governments in Egypt to the present day West. Instead compare it too the voting patterns in the West 100 years or so back . This is Egypts first election. Could a colored man or a woman have been possible presidential candidates during Americas first election? When you look at it like that you will see it is not so bad.

davidk14: .

Ok. Let's just look the other way when another stoning of a woman occurs. It might take 100 years for them to drop that but what the hey, it's only time after all.

.

.

Yan26: You are worried about what might happen in Egypt but turn a blind eye and even support the Saudi Arabian government which does carry out far more atrocities against women. Simply because they are a US "ally" .
Also as per your logic if the Egyptian government allows for the stoning of women , the discrimination of minorities ( religious or otherwise) they are a horrible form of government .and should not be called a democracy
So by that logic American presidents under whose administration slavery , anti-semitism and discrimination of women existed were also horrible people and their government should not be considered democratic? This would cover most of the American history I believe.
Even if you agree to the above ( which I doubt) the thing is you cant successfully intervene in Egypt. You can only increase cultural interaction with the populace and hope the ideas of democracy that the West cherishes rub off on them. If they dont it is their choice to live in such a condition and they have to bear its consequence.

StuckInTheSixties:

david says:
"Bush senior had won the popular vote against Clinton but nobody said anything. Interesting"

Popular vote count:
Clinton: 44,909,806 votes - 43%
Bush: 39,104,550 votes - 37.5 %
Perot: 19,743,821 votes - 18.9%

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992

http://www.100bestwebsites.org/alt/evmaps/electoral-maps.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

(That last one has a miniscule difference in the count.)

(Four corroborating references should be enough, I think ...)

The context in which you made that erroneous statement (in reply after it was pointed out that GW Bush won the election with fewer popular votes than Gore), and ending it with the one-word sentence "Interesting." seems to suggest that you're implying something with that comparison. Can you elaborate?

david says:
[lots of complaining about Egypt, democracy, Sharia law, etc.]

Other than accepting that things can't always go the way you'd like, what do you propose that the USA (or the world) should do about it?

One Bar: Perfectionist?