Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only known countries that consider eye-gouging a legitimate judicial punishment. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, has stated that “any form of corporal punishment is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Far be it for me to dehumanize a saudi. They have their own version of ‘human rights’. And if they stick to applying their version of sharia law to their own citizens, frankly, I don’t give a damn how many heads, arms and legs they chop off. In chop-chop square, in broad daylight.
If there’s any ‘dehumanizing’ going on, the muzzies are doing a very good job of it without our help.
Far be it for me to dehumanize a saudi. They have their own version of ‘human rights’. And if they stick to applying their version of sharia law to their own citizens, frankly, I don’t give a damn how many heads, arms and legs they chop off. In chop-chop square, in broad daylight.
Well said Fred.
The KSA and human rights? LOL... it's like discussing poetry with a pig.
A recap from my post here:
They ignore the UN Declaration of Human rights whenever they see fit, and came up with their own rules, in effect conceding that islam is not compatible with human rights no matter how much lip service they pay to agreements.
...It is clear that Islamic militants are quite aware of the incompatibility of Islam and The 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. For these militants met in Paris in 1981 to draw up an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights which left out all freedoms that contradicted Islamic law...
In 1990 the IDHR became the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam," and was backed by the OIC itself.