The human rights cup in Qatar

I think that whole paragraph is tongue in cheek, as he clearly implies that they were complicit.

comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 2 minutes ago
People in uk can’t really be throwing stones when this nation has committed endless killings and supports such. The public have just pretend that nothing heinous is happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it ever possible to do an article on something bad in one part of the world without 'whataboutery'.
This is about the corruption that enabled Qatar to get the world cup, and the people who profited.

Do your own article on your own hobby horse. Otherwise nothing ever gets debated because 'yes, but what about.....

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 2 minutes ago
People in uk can’t really be throwing stones when this nation has committed endless killings and supports such. The public have just pretend that nothing heinous is happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it ever possible to do an article on something bad in one part of the world without 'whataboutery'.
This is about the corruption that enabled Qatar to get the world cup, and the people who profited.

Do your own article on your own hobby horse. Otherwise nothing ever gets debated because 'yes, but what about.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two things MU52... Firstly, although the linked article isn't really about human rights, your headline & some of what you said in the OP does pertain to human rights.

Secondly, I'm afraid to say you're not understanding the concept of whataboutery correctly. Whataboutery is when you deflect from ones own crimes/actions and say "but what about them over there!!". UUW is a total wally most of the time, but what's he's said is fundamentally true and is the opposite of whataboutery. Focusing primarily on ones own (or one's own state's) actions is adhering to an elementary moral principle (that we're responsible for the likely & predicted consequences of our own actions, we can most do something about them and we should therefore focus on them primarily & more stringently than others' and exposing the hypocrisy of those who are happy pointing elsewhere.

As for corruption... frankly I'm no expert on how countries come to host WC's etc but I've little doubt that some level of corruption exists far more than we know about. It's likely not unique to the Qatar world cup. I'm sure there's a few posters who have their finger much more on the pulse than I do on that topic!

Mmm, not sure about that Berba. Whataboutery is not a real word or concept.
For example, before Russia actually invaded.
Someone could do an article on Chine claiming rights over Taiwan.
Another poster could then say. But what about Russian claims to Ukraine, that's worse because....

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Mmm, not sure about that Berba. Whataboutery is not a real word or concept.
For example, before Russia actually invaded.
Someone could do an article on Chine claiming rights over Taiwan.
Another poster could then say. But what about Russian claims to Ukraine, that's worse because....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's different. If no one in the discussion is Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese or Taiwanese, then potentially they fall foul of 'whataboutery', but it would really depends on the specifics of what they said, the intended point and the relevance/accuracy. It's not whataboutery by default to invoke another comparable or equivalent issue to make a particular point. As I said, it depends on the details.

A Brit asking why concerns over Qatar's human rights challenges their suitability to host a WC when no such concerns about our own country's role in the world is ever mentioned when it comes to hosting similar sporting competitions is not engaging in 'whataboutery'; it's a legitimate question that arises from an obvious moral and logical inconsistency.

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Mmm, not sure about that Berba. Whataboutery is not a real word or concept.
For example, before Russia actually invaded.
Someone could do an article on Chine claiming rights over Taiwan.
Another poster could then say. But what about Russian claims to Ukraine, that's worse because....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's different. If no one in the discussion is Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese or Taiwanese, then potentially they fall foul of 'whataboutery', but it would really depends on the specifics of what they said, the intended point and the relevance/accuracy. It's not whataboutery by default to invoke another comparable or equivalent issue to make a particular point. As I said, it depends on the details.

A Brit asking why concerns over Qatar's human rights challenges their suitability to host a WC when no such concerns about our own country's role in the world is ever mentioned when it comes to hosting similar sporting competitions is not engaging in 'whataboutery'; it's a legitimate question that arises from an obvious moral and logical inconsistency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus making it impossible to talk about Qatari human rights.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Mmm, not sure about that Berba. Whataboutery is not a real word or concept.
For example, before Russia actually invaded.
Someone could do an article on Chine claiming rights over Taiwan.
Another poster could then say. But what about Russian claims to Ukraine, that's worse because....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's different. If no one in the discussion is Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese or Taiwanese, then potentially they fall foul of 'whataboutery', but it would really depends on the specifics of what they said, the intended point and the relevance/accuracy. It's not whataboutery by default to invoke another comparable or equivalent issue to make a particular point. As I said, it depends on the details.

A Brit asking why concerns over Qatar's human rights challenges their suitability to host a WC when no such concerns about our own country's role in the world is ever mentioned when it comes to hosting similar sporting competitions is not engaging in 'whataboutery'; it's a legitimate question that arises from an obvious moral and logical inconsistency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus making it impossible to talk about Qatari human rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not true at all. For example, I think it would be interesting to discuss David Beckham's paid position as promoter-in-chief of Qatar. I think it's interesting to discuss the issues and challenges that we face when applying any semblance of consistency when discussing something like Qatar's suitability for hosting the WC - we're acknowledging Qatar's poor human rights whilst recognising something quite hypocritical about it as we enjoy a Euros on home turf with no hint of comparable concern.

Ultimately, what do you want people to say about human rights in Qatar. "It's bad"? Sure, it is, but that has little practical or even moral value - only marginally at best.

On the other hand, we have previously issued large amounts of arms & military equipment to Qatar (I'd have to check for the up-to-date info). So what's the use in discussing their human rights record outside of the context of our *support* for that state? Our support for brutal human rights abusers is simply the most important aspect the story given that we are Brits!

What I was hoping for was what people's views were on holding the tournament there. What they thought of the article and the amount of corruption involved getting it there. Comments about the people involved.
Bearing in mind the reported deaths of workers there should there be compensation paid out of the slush fund.
Should Fifa be closed and a new more open organisation bu put in its place.
Should more people be investigated. Views on holding it in a 'non footballing nation where is is so hot it has to be played when it shuts down European leagues mid season.
What are suitable punishments for the corrupt.
Things like that.
Where should the profits go.
And more.

Sport is a better way of bringing countries into the fold and better at countries opening up and potentially "modernising".

Much much better than forcing democracy etc through war.

These tournaments should absolutely be held in places like Qatar India, Pakistan etc.

The boxing in Saudi shows how much more money and how well it can be done.

It creates communication which you hope can be kept going forward.


For me the Qatar issue is less about football and more about them muslamic ray guns (not OP or those who have commented) stirred up by the media and because the backhanders from prince Willie and Becks didn't work. If it wasn't sour grapes and/or hypocrisy then the WC in Brazil would have and should have raised similar questions

comment by Ertugrul bey (U19849)
posted 12 hours, 54 minutes ago

For me the Qatar issue is less about football and more about them muslamic ray guns (not OP or those who have commented) stirred up by the media
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There probably is a bit (or a lot more) of that than we may realise.