At the
rate the US$ is sinking, we'd prefer Canadian.
I
don't even dare look up the Swiss franc!
Cheers,
Lawry
Is
the bill payable in US$ or Canadian $ ??
Whew! Arthur, my guess is that we agree on many things, but we
focus in those where we don't. So the content of our exchanges doesn't
reflect accurately the degrees to which we agree and don't agree. I think of
you as a friend, and have thought how enjoyable a get-together with you
would be.
And I haven't forgotten your portion of the bill for Bush's
folly. The total tab, so far, is running about 425 billion, which
divided by 270 million citizens plus you,
equals.... IF you don't that subset of Bush's
folly called Afghanistan, than the bill to you is of course less.
<grin>
Cheers,
Lawry
At last Lawry and I agree on something.
arthur
Sampson seems to have missed the fundamental point: that
every country has its rules of conduct for its residents. For example,
in the US, residents are not allowed to fornicate in public, and they
are not allowed to distribute alcohol privately.
In Saudi Arabia, the possession and consumption of alcohol is
illegal, somewhat like 'drugs' are in the US. When foreigners go to
Saudi Arabia, they are routinely told by their employers, Saudi customs
and immigration, etc, that alcohol is illegal and possessing and
distributing it is a crime. Sampson evidently decided to disregard
the rule, and was caught. All too many Westerners in taking up
employment in foreign and especially in 3rd world countries approach
local rules with contempt and a belief that they are somehow above the
rules. I imagine Sampson's attitude, so vividly suggested in your
account, failed to evoke sympathy among Saudi officials and police and
prosecutors. It would certainly fail to evoke sympathy from me. I
have seen too many of these yahoos show up with their attitudes of being
superior to the 'natives'.
Westerners are paid a LOT of money to work in Saudi Arabia. They
know the rules. One would think that instead of complaining and breaking
the rules they would abide by them. Or did they think they could have
their cake and eat it too? Everybody else has to obey the rules.
Why not Sampson and his buddies? Are Canadians -- or this
Canadian -- exempt? If he was so needy of his alcohol, he should
have stayed home where he could drink himself blotto to his heart's
content.
Lawry
Last night I watched Peter Mansbridge of the CBC interview William
Sampson, a Canadian, who had been held in a Saudi prison for two and a
half years for a crime he did not commit. He was finally released in
mid-August. Mr. Sampson alleged that he had been severely beaten and
tortured. Judging by the difficulty and obvious pain he experienced in
recalling it all, what he said was credible. Under extreme torture, he
had made a public confession of his "crime", feeling that he might be
able to save some of his co-accused who had wives and children whereas
he did not. He was sentenced to beheading.
His brief descriptions made Saudi Arabia sound like a nightmare.
Foreigners, like himself, live in compounds. Since liquor is not
officially allowed, people in the compounds bring it in clandestinely
or make their own beer and wine. Their biggest worry is the religious
police, who, in making arrests, appear all to ready to use extreme
force.
How could what occurred to Mr. Sampson happen? One explanation
might be that who calls the shots in Saudi Arabia is becoming less and
less certain. For about two centuries, the house of Saud has been in
an intimate relationship with Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of
Islam. Using its oil revenues, it has funded Wahhabist schools
throughout the Islamic world. It has also used such revenues to fund
terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad on grounds that they
also undertake charitable works. As well, it has made a pact with the
"great Satan", permitting American military bases on Arabian soil,
which many Moslems regard as holy because of its historic role in the
history of Islam. But while doing all of these things, it has not done
very much for its own population, which now contains many seethingly
angry young people.
The House of Saud is in a bind. As one source puts it:
… the House of Saud finds itself split between two antagonistic
forces. On the one hand, it desires to keep the United States as an
ally, and certainly not as an enemy. In order to do this, it must
crack down on the militancy brewing within Saudi society. On the other
hand, by tightening the leash on militant groups within Saudi society
-- both physically and financially -- Riyadh makes itself a target for
these groups, thus risking domestic stability. ( http://www.pinr.com/)
All of which suggests that what happened to Mr. Sampson and his
co-accused could happen because no one is quite sure of who is in
charge or just what to do. Those who feel they are in charge can, for
whatever reason, exercise their inhuman rights if they choose to do
so. Some of the things Mr. Sampson said suggested that he was being
used as a personal punching bag.
Another case of the exercise of inhuman rights involves another
Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, who happened to route himself via New
York in coming home on an international flight. For some
incomprehensible reason, even though he was traveling on a Canadian
passport, the Americans deported him to Syria, of which he is also
considered a citizen because he was born there. He spent a year in
prison even though he was never charged with anything. He is now on
his way home, though presumably not via New York. It will be
interesting to hear what he has to tell.
Ed Weick
|