World Cup 2022: Qatar

[Brumstopdogs]

 

 

[sne]

Hope people are OK.

 

[Panto_Villan]

3 hours ago, sne said:

We clearly follow different media sources which kinda makes sense since I'm in Sweden. There has been years of massively critical coverage of FIFA gifting the WC to Qatar (and Russia) with the FA getting critique for not raising their voice against it.

Now that it started thou I think it's only natural for the critique to be aimed at the stuff happening in Qatar with the last minute changes and them going back on things they promised. All abetted by FIFA and Infantino.

Having any critique against Qatar framed as racist is exactly what FIFA will want.

 

That's fine. I notice many of the people debating this point with me are from the scandi countries and if your media and population has been equally critical of human rights abuses in other countries hosting sporting events then I'm not suggesting any racism is present. Then it's just a consistent principle being applied to all countries equally, which is fine. Obviously any criticism of Qatar / FIFA due to the award process and the logistics of hosting a football tournament there is also fair game too.

My issue is specifically with people who apparently have a real problem with the human rights situation in Qatar but were nowhere near as bothered by the human rights situation in Russia, given Russia is a much worse place. And just as I can't comment on how the scandi media and population have treated that issue and will have to take your word for it, I don't think people from abroad can comment on the situation in the UK.

And ultimately what FIFA want here is kinda irrelevent, it's not a sensible approach to try and brush things under the carpet because they might help out FIFA.

[El Zen]

6 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

My issue is specifically with people who apparently have a real problem with the human rights situation in Qatar but were nowhere near as bothered by the human rights situation in Russia, given Russia is a much worse place.

But don’t you think it’s far more plausible to think that these people have simply become more aware and better educated on these issues, rather than assigning them sinister motives without any evidence to back it up? 

[sne]

2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

That's fine. I notice many of the people debating this point with me are from the scandi countries and if your media and population has been equally critical of human rights abuses in other countries hosting sporting events then I'm not suggesting any racism is present. Then it's just a consistent principle being applied to all countries equally, which is fine. Obviously any criticism of Qatar / FIFA due to the award process and the logistics of hosting a football tournament there is also fair game too.

My issue is specifically with people who apparently have a real problem with the human rights situation in Qatar but were nowhere near as bothered by the human rights situation in Russia, given Russia is a much worse place. And just as I can't comment on how the scandi media and population have treated that issue and will have to take your word for it, I don't think people from abroad can comment on the situation in the UK.

And ultimately what FIFA want here is kinda irrelevent, it's not a sensible approach to try and brush things under the carpet because they might help out FIFA.

I'd imagine a lot of people from abroad follow UK media simply because a lot of people speaks English and follow English football. I mainly read Villa stuff but obviously other stuff too if they are interesting. When it comes to football I watch the Swedish coverage and studio stuff so I don't have to suffer through Neville's, Keane's, Shearers and so on. But if you say that the UK media critique is mainly down to racism and bitterness of missing out of the WC to Qatar then I'm sure you have grounds for it.

I try to link the Swedish articles I think people might be interested in. Google translate kinda works or at least it's really funny.

[Panto_Villan]

Just now, El Zen said:

But don’t you think it’s far more plausible to think that these people have simply become more aware and better educated on these issues, rather than assigning them sinister motives without any evidence to back it up? 

Not really, because you're talking about 2018 like it was a lifetime ago. Trump had been in office for 18 months at that point. Russia was an authoritarian police state with a terrible record on homosexuality, and had invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 where they shot down a civilian airliner. They'd been murdering tens of thousands of civilians in Syria since 2015, and they literally murdered a British citizen on British soil with a nerve agent about three months before the World Cup kicked off.

I really don't think it's plausible to argue that people didn't realise that any of that stuff was bad until George Floyd was killed or tanks started rolling across the Ukrainian border. Morality isn't a recent invention.

[Panto_Villan]

2 minutes ago, sne said:

I'd imagine a lot of people from abroad follow UK media simply because a lot of people speaks English and follow English football. I mainly read Villa stuff but obviously other stuff too if they are interesting. When it comes to football I watch the Swedish coverage and studio stuff so I don't have to suffer through Neville's, Keane's, Shearers and so on. But if you say that the UK media critique is mainly down to racism and bitterness of missing out of the WC to Qatar then I'm sure you have grounds for it.

I try to link the Swedish articles I think people might be interested in. Google translate kinda works or at least it's really funny.

Well, I personally think I have grounds for it. Other people in the UK are equally well placed to put forward other arguments. I'm just saying media coverage from abroad doesn't necessarily disprove my argument - although I do take your point that overseas people probably do read UK media more than vice versa.

[El Zen]

1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said:

Not really, because you're talking about 2018 like it was a lifetime ago. Trump had been in office for 18 months at that point. Russia was an authoritarian police state with a terrible record on homosexuality, and had invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 where they shot down a civilian airliner. They'd been murdering tens of thousands of civilians in Syria since 2015, and they literally murdered a British citizen on British soil with a nerve agent about three months before the World Cup kicked off.

I really don't think it's plausible to argue that people didn't realise that any of that stuff was bad until George Floyd was killed or tanks started rolling across the Ukrainian border. Morality isn't a recent invention.

No, but football politics and sports vs. social issues has become an increasingly hot debate, perhaps sparked by the debate that very much did take place about Russia 18. Sportswashing and authoritarian regimes’ involvement in football has certainly become an increasingly intense debate in England in particular over the past couple of years.

[DJ_Villain]

4 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Also, there’s another issue at play here. If we established that Qatar is an unsuitable host because of their human rights issues, where does that leave us in terms of acceptable hosts?

Africa is out. The few places that might have an acceptable human rights record don’t have the infrastructure and / or couldn’t guarantee security.

Middle East is out for social reasons. The best options would be somewhere like Jordan or Israel but neither would be considered appropriate.

Asia has a couple of democracies like South Korea and Japan that would work. Everywhere else is too small, or has human rights issues (China/India/Pakistan etc). Maybe Indonesia at a push.

South America has a lot of small countries that might struggle to afford it, many of which have security issues. Argentina would work (assuming they’re not being bailed out by the IMF), Brazil could work (depending on deforestation and indigenous rights), or Mexico (depending on security).

And then you’ve got the Western countries full of white peoples. USA, Canada, Australia, plus the EU (but not Poland or Hungary because they’re bad).

I get why moral concerns matter but if you make too much of them you end up with a situation where the Western world decides the only acceptable venues are rich white democracies plus a few select allies, and about 3/4 of the world population isn’t eligible to see their country host this world event.

That’s not to excuse the process of Qatar and Russia being awarded the World Cups, because that appeared to be naked bribery.

I still think Thailand would have been amazing.

Incredibly liberal, football mad, they actually have stadiums as well

[Hiney]

2 minutes ago, DJ_Villain said:

I still think Thailand would have been amazing.

Incredibly liberal, football mad, they actually have stadiums as well

June is rain season with some pretty extreme weather both hot and very wet which would make it unsuitable. 

Overall a better option than Qatar though! 

[Zatman]

10 minutes ago, DJ_Villain said:

I still think Thailand would have been amazing.

Incredibly liberal, football mad, they actually have stadiums as well

Also marred by political forces and a government that took over in a coup

[Panto_Villan]

30 minutes ago, El Zen said:

No, but football politics and sports vs. social issues has become an increasingly hot debate, perhaps sparked by the debate that very much did take place about Russia 18. Sportswashing and authoritarian regimes’ involvement in football has certainly become an increasingly intense debate in England in particular over the past couple of years.

Yes, I'd agree with that much. However I just think the extent of the change is disproportionate to how bad Russia is relative to Qatar, even taking into account the fact that it's a more prominent issue these days.

And while Qatar isn't up to Western standards, it's not *that* bad by global standards. The actual facts and figures behind the mistreatment of migrant workers and the number of deaths aren't quite as bad as they initially seem - e.g. the 6500 deaths widely reported is actually the number of deaths of migrant workers from any cause over a 10 year period, etc.

I don't want to whitewash them too much because it's still bad over there, but they just seem so much better than somewhere like Russia that the relative amount of condemnation they are getting seems wildly out of kilter. And the most obvious explanation to me is that some people are bitter at FIFA for having this joke of a World Cup and probably also all the Arab countries buying successful football clubs and are translating that into saying "this country has weird customs and the people that live there are bad and backward". And if so, that would be racism.

25 minutes ago, DJ_Villain said:

I still think Thailand would have been amazing.

Incredibly liberal, football mad, they actually have stadiums as well

As well as what Hiney said above, there's the military coup they had recently and their extremely strict laws on drugs and disrespecting the royals, etc. I really liked Thailand the times I've been and I think you're right it'd be a very fun place to have a World Cup, but there'd still be human rights issues to complain about.

Which is kinda the point I was making in that post; there's not actually many countries that are completely above board in terms of human rights and I think you have to give some leeway if you want to see the World Cup hosted in the developing world sometimes.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[DJ_Villain]

4 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yes, I'd agree with that much. However I just think the extent of the change is disproportionate to how bad Russia is relative to Qatar, even taking into account the fact that it's a more prominent issue these days.

And while Qatar isn't up to Western standards, it's not *that* bad by global standards. The actual facts and figures behind the mistreatment of migrant workers and the number of deaths aren't quite as bad as they initially seem - e.g. the 6500 deaths widely reported is actually the number of deaths of migrant workers from any cause over a 10 year period, etc.

I don't want to whitewash them too much because it's still bad over there, but they just seem so much better than somewhere like Russia that the relative amount of condemnation they are getting seems wildly out of kilter. And the most obvious explanation to me is that people are bitter at FIFA for having this joke of a World Cup and probably also all the Arab countries buying successful football clubs and are translating that into saying "this country has weird customs and the people that live there are bad and backward". And if so, that would be racism.

As well as what Hiney said above, there's the military coup they had recently and their extremely strict laws on drugs and disrespecting the royals, etc. I really liked Thailand the times I've been and I think you're right it'd be a very fun place to have a World Cup, but there'd still be human rights issues to complain about.

Which is kinda the point I was making in one of my other posts earlier; there's not actually many countries that are completely above board in terms of human rights and I think you have to give some leeway if you want to see the World Cup hosted in the developing world sometimes.

To be fair, the coup was nearly 10 years ago and it wasn’t exactly a bloodbath.

In comparison to their neighbours in Myanmar, Thailands military junta were like pussycats!

and they have just legalised weed, so their stance on that has softened in more recent times… even with the head of military junta which took over being the leader…

Harder drugs are illegal pretty much everywhere, that’s kind of par for the course - I’m fairly certain they wouldn’t say “Yeah, go on, you can have a bag of coke while you’re here” and then wait for everyone to arrive before they changed their mind…

[Rds1983]

Was the World Cup in Russia criticised at the time? 

Yes. 

 

Could the World Cup in Russia have been criticised more than it was? 

Yes. 

 

Is the Qatar World Cup receiving more criticism than Russia did? 

Yes. 

 

Is some of that increased criticism stemming from Islamaphobia? 

Yes. Some of it sadly will be. 

 

Are the criticism of the Qatar World Cup valid? 

Yes

 

Is all of the criticism stemming from Islamaphobia? 

No. There are a whole host of valid reasons why Qatar, Fifa and this World Cup are being critised. 

 

Is Russia being criticised less than Qatar a reason not to criticise Qatar and challenge everything wrong with this World Cup? 

Of course not. That would be repeating the mistakes of the past and not improving anything. 

 

[Rustibrooks]

John Barnes(yes I know) has raised some interesting points 

 

 

 

[El Zen]

53 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

And while Qatar isn't up to Western standards, it's not *that* bad by global standards. The actual facts and figures behind the mistreatment of migrant workers and the number of deaths aren't quite as bad as they initially seem - e.g. the 6500 deaths widely reported is actually the number of deaths of migrant workers from any cause over a 10 year period, etc.

I don't want to whitewash them too much because it's still bad over there, but they just seem so much better than somewhere like Russia that the relative amount of condemnation they are getting seems wildly out of kilter. And the most obvious explanation to me is that some people are bitter at FIFA for having this joke of a World Cup and probably also all the Arab countries buying successful football clubs and are translating that into saying "this country has weird customs and the people that live there are bad and backward". And if so, that would be racism.

Amnesty Intl’s latest report as adjusted the number of deaths among migrant workers to at least double the figure you quoted. And while you’re right, these deaths have various causes, we can’t just say ‘people die’ as migrant workers in Qatar are mainly young men. 

I think it’s also difficult to say Qatar are much better than Russia as far has human rights goes. If Russia is far worse, it’s only because they are much bigger and more powerful. 

Middle Eastern monarchies have an attrocious human rights record. These are just wierd customs, they are outright human rights abuses. Pointing that out can’t possible = racism. That’s absurd. Especially when, as I said, the vast majority of those suffering from the human rights abuse being criticised are non-white and predominantly muslim. 

[Genie]

 

Not even playing each other

[Talldarkandransome]

[Panto_Villan]

5 hours ago, El Zen said:

Amnesty Intl’s latest report as adjusted the number of deaths among migrant workers to at least double the figure you quoted. And while you’re right, these deaths have various causes, we can’t just say ‘people die’ as migrant workers in Qatar are mainly young men. 

I think it’s also difficult to say Qatar are much better than Russia as far has human rights goes. If Russia is far worse, it’s only because they are much bigger and more powerful. 

Middle Eastern monarchies have an attrocious human rights record. These are just wierd customs, they are outright human rights abuses. Pointing that out can’t possible = racism. That’s absurd. Especially when, as I said, the vast majority of those suffering from the human rights abuse being criticised are non-white and predominantly muslim. 

To be honest reading this makes me doubt the Scandi media is covering Qatar fairly after all. Apologies if this message sounds hostile but this is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about - drawing false equivalence between a really, really awful place and a place that’s just flawed.

Yes, there are Arab monarchies with genuinely atrocious human rights records. Saudi Arabia is worse even than Russia (although that’s almost entirely due to the way it treats women). But not all Arab monarchies are alike; all are autocratic police states but there’s a big difference between Saudi and Qatar or Oman or Jordan. Lumping them all together does you no favours.

If you want numbers for it, Freedom House is a nonprofit that measures the relative freedom of countries and they’ve scored Saudi as 7/100, Russia as a 19/100, Oman as 24/100 and Qatar as 25/100. For reference, China is 9/100 and Thailand is 29/100. Even if you’re talking only about how it treats people within it’s own borders, Qatar is markedly better than Russia.

Clearly the migrant worker situation needs improving, but you certainly can just say a certain number of healthy young people will die each year. Migrant workers are 90% of the population of Qatar and over 200 people die in road accidents there per year. Construction work is dangerous; in Thailand where they have better human rights 4500 people die on construction sites a year. Pro rated for population that’s another 180 expected deaths. I’m sure sinister forces were at work in some of the deaths (and that should be improved) but the statistics seem intentionally misleading. Lots of people do just die.

And then Russian foreign policy is murderous in the extreme, as I’ve already noted. I don’t think you can just assume Qatar would have attacked it’s neighbours three times in the past twenty years if it had a larger population, nor that it would be shooting down airliners, etc. Russia is one of the most aggressive countries in the planet and the stuff Russia (particularly Wagner) have got up to abroad is horrific, frankly.

Even the Amnesty report shows the gulf between the countries. Their examples of Qatari repression were that some political blogger got arrested and got a big fine, or that a journalist was wrongly imprisoned for a few days then deported. We both know Russia just murders critics of the Kremlin, even if they’ve moved abroad.

Other quick examples: Freedom House says torture is illegal in Qatar and rarely occurs. Russia frequently tortures Ukrainians to death these days (including civilians). Homosexuality is illegal in Qatar but rarely prosecuted, whereas in areas of Russia gays are tortured and / or murdered. Etc.

Ultimately if you think Qatar is as bad as Russia you’re just factually wrong. You can criticise both but don’t draw false equivalence between them. And if someone is doing that I think it’s worth asking why.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[El Zen]

28 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

To be honest reading this makes me doubt the Scandi media is covering Qatar fairly after all. Apologies if this message sounds hostile but this is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about - drawing false equivalence between a really, really awful place and a place that’s just flawed.

Yes, there are Arab monarchies with genuinely atrocious human rights records. Saudi Arabia is worse even than Russia (although that’s almost entirely due to the way it treats women). But not all Arab monarchies are alike; all are autocratic police states but there’s a big difference between Saudi and Qatar or Oman or Jordan. Lumping them all together does you no favours..

Indeed. 

Don’t need to ‘lump them all together’ any more than that to say they are terrible. I don’t disagree Qatar is less atrocious than Saudi, but that really doesn’t say much does it? 

But again, the point isn’t to argue who’s worst out of Saudi, Russia and Qatar. They are all bad, Russia very much so. Neither should have had/get to have the World Cup. If FIFA awarded the 2030 World Cup to Russia, I would boycott that too, with the awereness I have today about football politics that I didn’t have in 2018. I am 100 per cent certain this is true for most who boycott Qatar 22. Certainly those at the front of the loosely defined boycott movement. 

Edited November 26, 2022 by El Zen