Dutch Apologise For Being A Liberal Democracy To The Saudis Of All People

[Valmy]

I don't see the problem with the Dutch statement.

Same. Don't really mind a government making clear that they're not represented by x loony lawmaker.

Well they did that, which was fine, but then begged not for the righteous Saudis not to punish them for the sins of one lawmaker.

Pretty pathetic.

[Sheilbh]

What's the objectionable bit?

[The Brain]

Countries like Saudi Arabia often have a hard time (or claim to have a hard time) understanding liberal democracies and how in those not everything is decided by the government. Edumacating them seems inoffensive to me.

[crazy canuck]

I don't see the problem with the Dutch statement.

Same. Don't really mind a government making clear that they're not represented by x loony lawmaker.

Well they did that, which was fine, but then begged not for the righteous Saudis not to punish them for the sins of one lawmaker.

Pretty pathetic.

Is this the bit you are talking about:

He said he hoped the Saudi government would "understand you should not make an entire country pay for the adolescent behaviour of one lawmaker.''

If so, what is the problem?  One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing.  What am I missing?

[Sheilbh]

Countries like Saudi Arabia often have a hard time (or claim to have a hard time) understanding liberal democracies and how in those not everything is decided by the government. Edumacating them seems inoffensive to me.

Yeah I imagine Britain will have to spend some time explaining to Putin that Prince Charles doesn't represent the British government when he compares him to Hitler

That's not Britain apologising for being a constitutional monarchy. But the same goes for the press. I've read the British government routinely has to reassure countries that as we have a free press they've no control over what the newspapers publish.

[Valmy]

If so, what is the problem?  One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing.  What am I missing?

I think what I said was pretty self explanatory.  The ton of it all was pretty absurd.  Just disavow him, no reason to beg for leniency.

[Valmy]

Yeah I imagine Britain will have to spend some time explaining to Putin that Prince Charles doesn't represent the British government when he compares him to Hitler

The government controlled Russian press does that regularly to Britain, the US, and company so I don't see why the Russians would mind much.

[crazy canuck]

If so, what is the problem?  One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing.  What am I missing?

I think what I said was pretty self explanatory.  I mean besides calling out the voters who voted that guy in as adolescents.

Maybe self explanatory to you. But you appear to be reading in a lot that doesnt actually appear in the article.

[mongers]

Our country is a liberal democracy, everyone who lives here has the Freedom to think and say whatever they wish within certain limits, typically advocating the harming of others is an example of what isn't socially or legally acceptable.
Otherwise people have the rights to exercise their freedoms and get to vote on choose the government that 'runs' the country, rather than the state and it's people being the playthings of unelected, self-appointed guardians of God's will on earth.

The upshot of this is the opinions of the people are diverse, strong and persons don't fear to speak their minds. The government of the day holds 'opinions' that are often different to many of the people it serves, but which we hope are in their best interest.
And if the government's actions based on those 'opinions' turns out to not best serve the people, then they will, through the regular exercise of a legal, not violent process remove their representatives and government, putting in place one they feel will better serve them and their concerns.

This is democracy, we strongly recommend you give it a try one day, most advance countries eventually give it a go.

Possible alternative Dutch response?

[dps]

Is this the bit you are talking about:

He said he hoped the Saudi government would "understand you should not make an entire country pay for the adolescent behaviour of one lawmaker.''

If so, what is the problem?  One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing.  What am I missing?

If the Saudis don't know at this point that the views of one legislator don't represent the views of the entire government, there's no point in repeating it again--they're never going to get it.  If they do know it, then it doesn't need to be said.

[Admiral Yi]

Our country is a liberal democracy, everyone who lives here has the Freedom to think and say whatever they wish within certain limits, typically advocating the harming of others is an example of what isn't socially or legally acceptable.
Otherwise people have the rights to exercise their freedoms and get to vote on choose the government that 'runs' the country, rather than the state and it's people being the playthings of unelected, self-appointed guardians of God's will on earth.

The upshot of this is the opinions of the people are diverse, strong and persons don't fear to speak their minds. The government of the day holds 'opinions' that are often different to many of the people it serves, but which we hope are in their best interest.
And if the government's actions based on those 'opinions' turns out to not best serve the people, then they will, through the regular exercise of a legal, not violent process remove their representatives and government, putting in place one they feel will better serve them and their concerns.

This is democracy, we strongly recommend you give it a try one day, most advance countries eventually give it a go.

Possible alternative Dutch response?

Maybe when the country is run by five year olds.

[mongers]

Our country is a liberal democracy, everyone who lives here has the Freedom to think and say whatever they wish within certain limits, typically advocating the harming of others is an example of what isn't socially or legally acceptable.
Otherwise people have the rights to exercise their freedoms and get to vote on choose the government that 'runs' the country, rather than the state and it's people being the playthings of unelected, self-appointed guardians of God's will on earth.

The upshot of this is the opinions of the people are diverse, strong and persons don't fear to speak their minds. The government of the day holds 'opinions' that are often different to many of the people it serves, but which we hope are in their best interest.
And if the government's actions based on those 'opinions' turns out to not best serve the people, then they will, through the regular exercise of a legal, not violent process remove their representatives and government, putting in place one they feel will better serve them and their concerns.

This is democracy, we strongly recommend you give it a try one day, most advance countries eventually give it a go.

Possible alternative Dutch response?

Maybe when the country is run by five year olds.

That would certainly be a step-up in Saudi governance standards.

[crazy canuck]

Is this the bit you are talking about:

He said he hoped the Saudi government would "understand you should not make an entire country pay for the adolescent behaviour of one lawmaker.''

If so, what is the problem?  One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing.  What am I missing?

If the Saudis don't know at this point that the views of one legislator don't represent the views of the entire government, there's no point in repeating it again--they're never going to get it.  If they do know it, then it doesn't need to be said.

And so since everyone seems to realize that this guy doesnt represent the views of the government what is the harm in saying it?

[Valmy]

Maybe self explanatory to you. But you appear to be reading in a lot that doesnt actually appear in the article.

Ok in what way would you like for me to say it?  I was commenting on how they were begging for Saudi mercy, saying they should not punish them all for one lawmaker.  What about that is hard to understand?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Is this the bit you are talking about:

He said he hoped the Saudi government would "understand you should not make an entire country pay for the adolescent behaviour of one lawmaker.''

If so, what is the problem?  One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing.  What am I missing?

If the Saudis don't know at this point that the views of one legislator don't represent the views of the entire government, there's no point in repeating it again--they're never going to get it.  If they do know it, then it doesn't need to be said.

let's be honest: of course the Saudi's know how things are run in the Netherlands.
But they can play this at home as having humiliated a "decadent western infidel country, Allah rules and Islam is superior! Inshallah!".