Should we protect a Arab ruler's wife?

Please treat other members in a friendly and respectful manner: Our Community Guidelines.

  • Princess Haya: Dubai ruler's wife seeks marriage protection order

    The estranged wife of the ruler of Dubai - one of the most high-profile leaders in the Middle East - has asked for a forced marriage protection order in a UK court.

    Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum's wife, Princess Haya Bint al-Hussein, is the third female member of his court to apparently try to run away.

    This month she was reported to be in hiding in London and is said to be in fear for her life.

    None of the Arab rulers are pleasant fellows from supporting terrorism to hacking up journalists in embassies, but is this something we should be getting involved in?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Agreed, LW.


    I sympathise with any female in a Middle eastern country and I am eternally grateful that I am not one of them, but we cannot protect them all. Being selective and protecting only the 'elite' women would open up a whole can of worms and could cause a surge of similarly oppressed women from many parts of the world to our shores.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • Absolutely and it will also open up an "I'm tired of Mummy and Daddy and want to be free in the west" sort of thing that causes a mob of annoying Facebook adolescents to start claiming asylum on all sorts of bogus reasons because they want to spend their lives taking selfies of their half dressed selves and getting high.

    The vagabond who's rapping at your door

    Is standing in the clothes that you once wore

  • Isn't the sad truth here that we in Britain are wondering whether to avoid getting involved with protecting an "elite" because she's too hot to handle and will make diplomatic "waves", whereas if she was just another ill-treated Arab wife who no one previously had heard of, would we then be willing to provide sanctuary and protection? Hopefully the answer to that might be yes or at least positive consideration. But what do we do when the media discovers our humane response and the fearful wife becomes high profile? At that point does she becomes too hot to handle? The sudden conversion from Nobody to Somebody is serendipitous and out of control in the Whacky West.


    I presume the definition of "elite" used in this discussion is that the escaping fearful / mistreated / estranged wife is not one of hundreds or thousands arriving at our shores in a dinghy whom we debate as to whether to repel back to their embarkation. But I have gained the impression that most of these "unsanctioned arrivees" are either whole families or just blokes (including several who are 20-30 year old described and classified by Britain's liberal lugheads as "children"!), with very few fearful escaping wives travelling solo.


    In any case, if we do let (any of) these unsanctioned arrivees come on shore, they are usually detained and processed, which I presume is a slow way of inconspicuously absorbing most of them into Britain after that particular dinghy invasion has faded into yesterdays news - such is the con artistry of a spineless government.


    So if we want to be even-handed and non-elitist about this, couldn't we just place this ruler's estranged wife in a detaining-&-processing camp like the rest of them? (And during so-called "interrogations", out of the gaze of non-elite detainees, toss her little snacks of caviar and chilled champagne?!)


    Another argument advanced to stay out of all this is that it could open a floodgate to similarly oppressed women knocking on our door from across the globe. One can apply this argument to practically every Good Samaritan decision and liken it to a blanket decision to never feed pigeons because that just attracts more of them. But just because we might have a No-Hawkers sign on our front door surely does not signify we are incapable or disinclined to act charitably when moved to do so. Surely such exceptions need not prove the rule. Surely there are a few decent countries that could club together to finance such occasional humane gestures. The UN, thanks to its voting system of vetoes, has become f-ing useless for everything that needs repairing in these times of global disorder. It has come to a pretty pass when global strife has to rely on the helping hand of private citizens like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet et al rather than decent (democratically-elected) governments.


    Or is the decision ultimately determined by Britain preferring instead to have Dubai's oil? I would like to think the noticeable absence of that factor so far in this thread reflects our shame or embarrassment rather than ignorance.


    Welcome to Western capitalism!

  • Isn't the sad truth here that we in Britain are wondering whether to avoid getting involved with protecting an "elite" because she's too hot to handle and will make diplomatic "waves", whereas if she was just another ill-treated Arab wife who no one previously had heard of, would we then be willing to provide sanctuary and protection?

    Indeed. If she was a nobody, it wouldn't be a issue.


    Or is the decision ultimately determined by Britain preferring instead to have Dubai's oil?

    Whether a judge would use that as a factor in determining whether she stays or not, I would think would be very unlikely, but I suspect her status will ultimately be a political one, not a judicial one.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • How many western royal's wives are throwing themselves on the mercy of Muslim rulers? 8)

    The vagabond who's rapping at your door

    Is standing in the clothes that you once wore

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.