Saudi king appoints first women to Shura Council, decrees that one-fifth of the Council must be wome - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20986428[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has appointed 30 women to the previously all-male consultative Shura Council.[/B] Two decrees reconstituted the council, which advises the government on new legislation, for a new four-year term - and stated that women should always hold at least a fifth of its 150 seats. The king took the decisions following consultations with religious leaders. The council has had female "advisers", but women still have little role in public life in the conservative state. They are forbidden from driving, are currently excluded from holding high political office, and will get the vote for the first time in 2014. They are also unable to travel without permission from a male guardian and may not mix with unrelated men. King Abdullah first announced that he was planning to name women to the Shura Council in 2011, when he also said they would be allowed to vote and stand as candidates in the 2015 municipal elections. One of the royal decrees published on Friday by the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) amended an article in the Shura Council's statute to guarantee women representation on the body, while the other named the 150 members, among them 30 women. The king said he had consulted religious scholars, who had approved the participation of women in accordance with Sharia (Islamic law). "Women... will enjoy full rights of membership, be committed to their duties, responsibilities and assume their jobs," he added. The first decree also stated that special seating would be allocated for women inside the Shura Council building, and that a special entrance and exit would be built to ensure segregation of male and female members. Two of the women appointed are princesses. One is the daughter of the late King Faisal; the other is the daughter of the late King Khaled. The council will also have four Shia members, one of whom is a woman. This represents an increase of one seat for the minority community, which makes up about 10% of the population. [B]'Opening doors'[/B] Jeddah-based journalist Maha Akeel described the announcement as "a very big step forward". She told the BBC that the women on the Shura Council would be "under pressure from conservative elements" within the kingdom, but she was confident they would be more than able to defend themselves. However, there was a sense of disappointment on social networking websites, with users expecting little change from previous councils. On Twitter, people began using the hashtag "#The_new_Shura_Council_does_not_represent_me". Ms Akeel said that while she could understand their frustration, young Saudis needed to be "more realistic, more optimistic". "These women will bring fresh energy and insights to the council. Their participation will open doors for women," she added. The announcement comes two days after the Saudi authorities controversially beheaded a Sri Lankan domestic worker convicted of killing a baby in her care. On Friday, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed her deep dismay at the execution, and said she was deeply troubled by reports of irregularities in Rizana Nafeek's detention and trial. Her birth certificate also allegedly showed she was a minor when the baby died. The commissioner expressed concern at the sharp increase in executions in Saudi Arabia in recent years, rising to 79 in 2012 from 27 in 2010.[/quote] The Shura Council of Saudi Arabia now has a higher proportion of women than the US Congress :v:

Finally, some respect for women. Glad this happened.

Interesting... I've always seen Saudi as the most strict of countries when it comes to Sharia Law.

It's another baby step, along with women getting the vote. It at least shows a willingness to reform

Good thing it's "at least" still, it'll probably only be about 30

In Saudi Arabia? Really?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39193099]In Saudi Arabia? Really?[/QUOTE]Abdullah's quite the reformer, at least compared to what one would expect from such a deeply conservative country.

Can women drive yet? Are young people allowed to flirt with each other yet, etc. Baby steps.

Good on them. This doesn't change the fact that it's a monarchy and such a a council holds no power.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39193762]Good on them. This doesn't change the fact that it's a monarchy and such a a council holds no power.[/QUOTE] Considering it's the Middle East and the King knows his shit pretty well, what is wrong with this?

This is actually amazing, as long as he slowly liberalizes and doesn't upset too many people, I'd love for them to become a bigger UAE without the income gap.

[QUOTE=Midas22;39193057]Interesting... I've always seen Saudi as the most strict of countries when it comes to Sharia Law.[/QUOTE] [quote]Women in Saudi Arabia openly breastfeed their infants even though they may be fully veiled.[14][15][/quote] Mothers are freer to breastfeed their young in Saudi Arabia than in the United States.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39193762]Good on them. This doesn't change the fact that it's a monarchy and such a a council holds no power.[/QUOTE] The Saudi monarchy is actually a surprisingly well oiled machine, I'd prefer a monarchy over a democracy any day at least then you know who is fucking you over.

[QUOTE=person11;39193751]Can women drive yet? Are young people allowed to flirt with each other yet, etc. Baby steps.[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly from my saudi friend, he said women can drive only if there's a man in the car.

Yes.

Gradualism in action.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;39193110]Abdullah's quite the reformer, at least compared to what one would expect from such a deeply conservative country.[/QUOTE] he is better than his brother who died in 2005 and pretty much hated any kinds of reforms, but he still bad overall.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39197848]he is better than his brother who died in 2005 and pretty much hated any kinds of reforms, but he still bad overall.[/QUOTE] If people get progressively less-bad over time, within a few generations, it'll be quite good. Kind of better than a clusterfuck of death and violence like Syria, no?

Although It's good that Saudi Arabia is taking the first steps to gender equality, would it not be better to base appointment on merit?

[QUOTE=Riller;39197976]If people get progressively less-bad over time, within a few generations, it'll be quite good. Kind of better than a clusterfuck of death and violence like Syria, no?[/QUOTE] except his "bad" is still the horrible kind of bad, and it isn't so much to actually reform, as it is to maintain his position of power, in other words, the saudi royal family is afraid of losing its power, they know they need to appease the west to get support to remain in power, saudi youth is also getting more restless, and saudi goverment has created "separate" areas that allow you to say drink beer and do things that are generally forbidden in the rest of the country to the rich/middle-class. migrant workers in saudi arabia are essentially slaves i could go on, seriously the entire country is all kinds of fucked up, makes you wonder what will happen if the west no longer needs the saudis for oil.

[QUOTE=Ruskie;39198019]Although It's good that Saudi Arabia is taking the first steps to gender equality, would it not be better to base appointment on merit?[/QUOTE] Men and women are more or less a 50/50 split in the population worldwide. It varies by region, but it's a nice round number to use. This is a council that advises the government on legislation, so to be effective you'd want it to be as close to a cross-section of society as possible. Previously it was 100% male. Now it's required to be at most 80% male. You cannot make the argument that the appointments were made solely on merit before unless you also want to make the argument that women are 100% less likely to possess the merits for this position. In fact, the current 80/20 mandate [i]still[/i] implies that women are less capable in politics than men. Anything other than a 50/50 split of men/women suggests that the appointments were not, and currently are not, being made based on merit but instead by whether or not the person has a penis. Fun thing to take away from this post: the above point applies to any kind of affirmative action policy, be it in regards to sex, race, sexuality, etc. If the breakdown of people within any sizable organization is not proportionate to the breakdown of people in the society that the organization draws people from, and their race/sex/sexuality does not affect their ability to be in that organization, it cannot be argued that the admission to said organization is being made based on merit but is instead being affected by some sort of bias.

[QUOTE=zombays;39195476]Considering it's the Middle East and the King knows his shit pretty well, what is wrong with this?[/QUOTE] Don't talk to Tiger he's an obvious troll. He goes in all the Sensationalist threads, says something retarded, and it starts a shitstorm pretty easily.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39198546]Men and women are more or less a 50/50 split in the population worldwide. It varies by region, but it's a nice round number to use. This is a council that advises the government on legislation, so to be effective you'd want it to be as close to a cross-section of society as possible. Previously it was 100% male. Now it's required to be at most 80% male. You cannot make the argument that the appointments were made solely on merit before unless you also want to make the argument that women are 100% less likely to possess the merits for this position. In fact, the current 80/20 mandate [i]still[/i] implies that women are less capable in politics than men. Anything other than a 50/50 split of men/women suggests that the appointments were not, and currently are not, being made based on merit but instead by whether or not the person has a penis. Fun thing to take away from this post: the above point applies to any kind of affirmative action policy, be it in regards to sex, race, sexuality, etc. If the breakdown of people within any sizable organization is not proportionate to the breakdown of people in the society that the organization draws people from, and their race/sex/sexuality does not affect their ability to be in that organization, it cannot be argued that the admission to said organization is being made based on merit but is instead being affected by some sort of bias.[/QUOTE] I find a flaw in this logic. Take [I]one[/I] man at random from Saudi Arabia. Now take [I]one[/I] woman at random from Saudi Arabia. The man is much more likely to be well-read, educated, knowledgable of history. Is this caused by his male sexuality? No. Is it caused by his status as a male in the otherwise-oppressive Saudi society? Yes. It's a damn shame but perhaps the appointments will not really be made out of merit. The 100 most eligible Saudi Arabians to run the country, taken from all Saudi Arabians, would not be 50% male and 50% female.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39198909]I find a flaw in this logic. Take [I]one[/I] man at random from Saudi Arabia. Now take [I]one[/I] woman at random from Saudi Arabia. The man is much more likely to be well-read, educated, knowledgable of history. Is this caused by his male sexuality? No. Is it caused by his status as a male in the otherwise-oppressive Saudi society? Yes. It's a damn shame but perhaps the appointments will not really be made out of merit. The 100 most eligible Saudi Arabians to run the country, taken from all Saudi Arabians, would not be 50% male and 50% female.[/QUOTE] That's a whole other can of worms but probably still an argument [i]for[/i] this kind of thing if it'll help improve the status of women

Thats it? Still a fucked up backwards shithole. How about they turn it into a state where everyone is treated equally and Islam is purged from the constitution.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39199681]Thats it? Still a fucked up backwards shithole. How about they turn it into a state where everyone is treated equally and Islam is purged from the constitution.[/QUOTE] Baby steps, and it's not that fucked up it's actually one of the more civilized middle eastern nations, I don't think that they have such a terrorist problem as the others do

King Abdullah must be horny.

[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;39199842]Baby steps, and it's not that fucked up it's actually one of the more civilized middle eastern nations, I don't think that they have such a terrorist problem as the others do[/QUOTE] It is fucked up. I'd go as far to say its one of the most conservative countries in the middle east. Its so god damn extreme. The only thing they have is oil.

I think those "atleast x percent of y must be women"-rulings are utter bullshit, especially for certain jobs. Sometimes there are men which are better qualified than women applying for the same job, but they will have to be rejected simply because they're men. Gender equality my ass.

[QUOTE=smurfy;39193067]It's another baby step, along with women getting the vote. It at least shows a willingness to reform[/QUOTE] This is Saudia Arabia. This is comparable to the moon landing, it's not just a baby step.