Last week women were also allowed to enter a sports stadium for the first time.
Cool! Saudi Arabia is going forward .
Yeah, shame it took a male monarch to give women the legal right to drive a car and go to public places.
I do not understand this. Please elaborate? If my interpretation of this quote is the correct one, it seems kind of sexist that you think a male monarch wouldn’t give rights to women. What does it take then? A black transgender lesbian elected by 25% of a parliament for you to expect she would?
I dont blame them. It has been part of their culture that Women are worse than Men until now
Honestly, it just sounds like you’re trying to create an argument here.
It’s sexist for me to judge a country’s treatment of women by its track record? Sexist towards whom, exactly? I am not sure what you mean by any of this, it’s a confusing post.
Since you want me to elaborate, i’m not of the belief that one man, monarch or not, should have the sole supreme power to give and take rights from women. And not just rights either, minuscule personal freedoms that pretty much all of us take for granted. Obviously any gain for women’s personal freedoms in an extreme patriarchy like Saudi Arabia is a good thing - I am merely lamenting the fact it had to come about this way.
So it is the form of government that you are not happy with, now I understand. Thanks.
I was a tad confused myself. Maybe Super and I were confused because you worded it as “took a male monarch” instead of just “took a monarch,” as I don’t see why the monarch’s gender would matter in that case. Generally though, no monarch should be taking rights from anyone, yeah. Lol, Natural Rights. What a stupid concept.
Oh well, most likely my weakling white privileged american male brain can’t comprehend it.
Yep, very weird country, if only there was a reason why this country is so weird, why in the middle east generally they treat women like trash, if only there was a some link between these countries a common thing…
Men being power hungry and controlling is the common denominator.
Women are ill treated in all parts of the world and throughout time not just in the middle east nations with a relgion you are passively aggressively talking around.
Well for one, Monarchies are patriarchal by their very nature. Secondly, women are now only able to drive in Saudi Arabia because a man gave them the right to do so - As if women have no rights or personal freedoms that aren’t explicitly granted to them by a male authority figure.
That’s why I think it matters.
So, this happened recently:
Theresa May’s “voting agreement” with the DUP (You know, the one that cost a billion pounds in rerouted funds) is already showing signs of cracking. This is not built to last. Theresa May will not be in power for 4 years, nor will the Tories with no majority and no coalition partners. 12 months tops and we’ll have a new Government and a new Prime Minister.
If You Don’t wants power and controlling the you always will be a slave to those people who really wants these things…
Unfortunatelly nature works this way, Nothing wrong is to have power, real question is how you use this power, to make good or bad things?..and countries without government that have power won’t live long
So my point is its not about “men being power hungry” its’s all about a values which these men believes
Oh dear, this is in my city.
Keen to learn more about this.
Then those values must be somewhat universal because such regressive restrictions are not limited to any one specific religion or region of the world.
David Ellison told BBC Radio Bristol he saw officers fire between six and 10 shots through the passenger window using handguns.
“They surrounded it. They shot maybe five, six or ten times,” he said.
"Then they dragged a man from the car to resuscitate him.
“It came off the roundabout towards Portishead and then was boxed in by cars.”
What the h***? Not terror related, but what makes it necessary for the police to fire between 6 or 10 shots on a busy motorway/highway to kill a person?
It if was a suicide bomber or something i could understand it, because they needed to kill the person before the person was able to trigger the bomb, but in this case i have no idea why the police felt they needed to go full wild west.
Well, the regular Police Constables here don’t carry guns - Only specialist teams carry guns, meaning that this was likely part of a planned operation. You’d only have armed units attempting to arrest someone if it was planned in advance.
Absolutely no information has been released by the Police so far, other than to say that a man died during a shooting incident and the force has referred itself to the ICPP (Public body that investigates allegations of misconduct against the police - Pretty sure all Police forces have to refer themselves if someone is shot by an officer as a routine thing).
Officers are only supposed to shoot to kill if, quote, “there was some imminent threat to life and that the officer must be able to justify, under the law, that their action was reasonable force to protect themselves or others.”
Since no information is available yet, nobody is in a position to say anything. We don’t know who the man was, if he was armed and dangerous, etc. I am sceptical by default, however, so we will have to see.
Same as here in Norway .
Agree and since it was the special police it must or should be a dangerous situation for innocent and for the police and that they didn’t have any other option.