To highlight the persecution of women in Saudi Arabia
Well that clears that up.
A Saudi Arabian princess who had an illegitimate child with a British man has secretly been granted asylum in this country after she claimed she would face the death penalty if she were forced to return home…Her case is one of a small number of claims for asylum brought by citizens of Saudi Arabia which are not openly acknowledged by either government. British diplomats believe that to do so would in effect be to highlight the persecution of women in Saudi Arabia, which would be viewed as open criticism of the House of Saud and lead to embarrassing publicity for both governments.
Indeed – to do so would in effect be to highlight the persecution of women in Saudi Arabia. So…maybe the UK government shouldn’t be quite so affectionate toward Saudi Arabia? Yes I know that’s not a realistic question. But there it is.
She persuaded the court that if she returned to the Gulf state she and her child would be subject to capital punishment under Sharia law – specifically flogging and stoning to death. She was also worried about the possibility of an honour killing.
Hey! You can’t say that! This is The Independent! You can’t say harsh things about Sharia in The Independent – it’s forbidden. Just ask Sholto Byrnes.
So, now that this episode has been outed in the press, will the British government have the intestinal fortitude to be openly critical of the House of Saud? It strikes me as unlikely that they will do so.
Most unlikely. This isn’t the first outing.
Given that the British govt won’t even let its own police investigate alleged bribes to Saudi officials by the arms company BAE, I wouldn’t hold my breath in order to await ringing criticism of the Saudi record on human rights.
The well-known religious leader Tony Blair was responsible for the decision to abort this enquiry (and for the Iraq war too of course). And then they have the effrontery to claim the moral high ground?
[The BAE affair: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4962037.ece ]
When Bush was planning the Iraq war, why didn’t he think of invading Saudi Arabia instead? He could have actually passed that off as part of the war on terror, and then we wouldn’t have to pretend to like them for the sake of oil.
Stephen, Saudi had not invaded its neibours so how can it be as good a case as Iraq for invasion?
Saudi hadn’t invaded Kuwait or Iran, but there was support for Al-Qaeda from there (I’m not clear whether the support was official), and of course most of the hijackers were Saudi as is Bin-Laden. Saudi and Iraq also had exactly the same number of weapons of mass destruction programs (that is zero), and having invaded a neighbour wasn’t a criterion AFAIK.
Ending Saddam’s regime was a good thing of course, as would ending the Saudi one be a positive thing for its benighted people (in my opinion). But of course I’m not advocating another war.