It does and doesn't there isn't a single Saudi government there is a family and a few non blood related oil barons.
And family trumps ideology so you have a mixture of ideals which are supported and are more often than not contradictory.
The ruling family also uses religion to control the people so if it stops all support it will find it self under the bus rather quickly, so even the most moderate have to extend some support to the fringe elements.
If what you say is true (that at least some members of the royal family are moderates who would change things for the better if they could), then it seems to me we should be broadcasting harsh criticism of the current policies to sway more voices rather than talk about how they're not all bad and what not.
"Moderates" as in not going to fund suicide bombings, it doesn't mean they are someone who would you want to have afternoon tea.
What people seem not to understand that for the most part moderates in that part of the world as still antithetical to western values; the ones who aren't aren't moderates are extremists just ones who we share values with.
Also as mentioned "family" and keeping power is more important to the moderates than pretty much anything else.
The House of Saud is huge, where you have 1000's people of the royal family all of which have immense power, wealth and royal privilege you'll have a full spectrum of opinions from princes that get drunk and snort cocaine off the backs of prostitutes in a Macao casino to hard core celerics.
But what they all care about the most is to keep their name, title, wealth and power.
"Presumably it knows what it's doing so why should it want to stop?"
Because the #1 threat to the power of the House of Saud are terrorists :).
Since 1777 there have been revolutions going on everywhere, one way or another. The ideologies have varied. But where there was not 'progress', some 'leader' used an ideology to validate their revolution. In E. Europe and Asia it was Communism, in ME it's one brand of Islamism or another.
Al Queda is very much against House of Saud and would want to overthrow them 'first', type thing.
They're stuck. On the one hand they fund many thousands of Islamic schools and charities across the Sunni world. If they stop doing that, it would be disastrous for maybe millions of people that benefit from or rely on them. The cost in publicity and good will would be catastrophic.
On the other hand, standards of governance and accountability at these schools and charities are weak to non-existent. It's trivial for extremists and terror networks to tap into them for their own purposes and the Saudi government and their agents are utterly incapable of doing anything about it. They just don't have the skills, experience or culture to even begin to try.
> The cost in publicity and good will would be catastrophic.
So we're gonna excuse them funding terrorist because they run some madrasas? Maybe actually helping with the whole problem of Islamic terrorism would make up the good will.
Doesn't really sound like they're stuck. If they don't have the skills or experience, talk to and hire people who do. It's a completely approachable problem, if they want to approach it.
What is not widely appreciated is that such laws are not necessary to silence expression or round up dissidents, because due process is so weak in these repressive regimes to begin with. Rather, these laws serve more to deflect criticism from foreign governments and human rights groups.
Also, the law is often a tool of last resort. There are much more effective ways to silence expression and enforce conformity in these societies, such as fostering a culture of fear and of self-censorship. If you say or do the wrong thing, you shouldn't be surprised when well-connected individuals threaten your reputation and livelihood, or when they apply pressure on your friends and relatives to correct your errant behavior.
A written or documented law is not the last resort, it is ultimate justification for execution of that law or process. The tools to carry out the law are: torture, imprisonment and death.
Fear, censorship, and peer-pressure are merely side-effects.
By due process I am talking about the legal protections that individuals can expect in the system, not whether the laws are selectively applied. Before cyber-crime and counter-terrorism laws were passed in China, there were many documented cases of dissidents being jailed under vague laws and unrelated charges. Yet it was no secret their real crime was "inappropriate speech". So even if the enforcement of laws is arbitrary or politically motivated, it does not change the fact that such laws are not necessary to restrict speech.
> it does not change the fact that such laws are not necessary to restrict speech.
It does. That's my whole point. It's not rare to see HN comments about Chinese citizens self-censor themselves. Those behaviors do have a causal relationship with such laws.
19 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 60.7 ms ] threadAnd family trumps ideology so you have a mixture of ideals which are supported and are more often than not contradictory.
The ruling family also uses religion to control the people so if it stops all support it will find it self under the bus rather quickly, so even the most moderate have to extend some support to the fringe elements.
What people seem not to understand that for the most part moderates in that part of the world as still antithetical to western values; the ones who aren't aren't moderates are extremists just ones who we share values with.
Also as mentioned "family" and keeping power is more important to the moderates than pretty much anything else. The House of Saud is huge, where you have 1000's people of the royal family all of which have immense power, wealth and royal privilege you'll have a full spectrum of opinions from princes that get drunk and snort cocaine off the backs of prostitutes in a Macao casino to hard core celerics.
But what they all care about the most is to keep their name, title, wealth and power.
Because the #1 threat to the power of the House of Saud are terrorists :).
Since 1777 there have been revolutions going on everywhere, one way or another. The ideologies have varied. But where there was not 'progress', some 'leader' used an ideology to validate their revolution. In E. Europe and Asia it was Communism, in ME it's one brand of Islamism or another.
Al Queda is very much against House of Saud and would want to overthrow them 'first', type thing.
It's a complex issue.
On the other hand, standards of governance and accountability at these schools and charities are weak to non-existent. It's trivial for extremists and terror networks to tap into them for their own purposes and the Saudi government and their agents are utterly incapable of doing anything about it. They just don't have the skills, experience or culture to even begin to try.
So we're gonna excuse them funding terrorist because they run some madrasas? Maybe actually helping with the whole problem of Islamic terrorism would make up the good will.
Also, the law is often a tool of last resort. There are much more effective ways to silence expression and enforce conformity in these societies, such as fostering a culture of fear and of self-censorship. If you say or do the wrong thing, you shouldn't be surprised when well-connected individuals threaten your reputation and livelihood, or when they apply pressure on your friends and relatives to correct your errant behavior.
Look at China, there are similar laws. If you just random rubble online, because the enforcement is weak, no one is hurt.
But once a while, someone goes to jail because some inappropriate speech, etc. That effectively serve the same purpose.
It does. That's my whole point. It's not rare to see HN comments about Chinese citizens self-censor themselves. Those behaviors do have a causal relationship with such laws.