3 ms·

LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

blattimwind 8y ago
KSA is not exactly under the rule of law.
- int_19h 8y ago
  I believe it technically is, in a sense that Sharia (which is the supreme law) is supposed to be applicable even to the royal family. But I doubt that's how it works in practice.
  - piva00 8y ago
    That is almost exactly what it means to not be under the rule of law, when laws can be applied selectively you technically aren't under the rule of it, if there is a group above it they also can get away of going against it.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      What I mean is that formally, those laws (Sharia) are not applied selectively. The practice is different, but that's not quite the same thing. Historically, when the concept of rule of law was first introduced, it was to counter the then-prevailing idea that laws officially don't apply to kings, who are above the law. In places like Russia, this was even manifested as part of the title - "autokrator" grew to specifically mean that the ruler is not subject to anyone else's will (including any laws).
    - joel_ms 8y ago
      How does that differ from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... ?
      - int_19h 8y ago
        You can still sue any specific person, just not the office they represent. E.g. if the Senate passes a law, all senators are still subject to that law as individuals. The other side to rule of law is that the government can't punish you arbitrarily - they need to have an applicable law, and they can only apply it to you as written (including penalties etc). In a system without rule of law, a subject can be charged with wrongdoing on the whim of the ruler. That part is also missing in KSA.

blattimwind 8y ago

KSA is not exactly under the rule of law.

int_19h 8y ago
I believe it technically is, in a sense that Sharia (which is the supreme law) is supposed to be applicable even to the royal family. But I doubt that's how it works in practice.
- piva00 8y ago
  That is almost exactly what it means to not be under the rule of law, when laws can be applied selectively you technically aren't under the rule of it, if there is a group above it they also can get away of going against it.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    What I mean is that formally, those laws (Sharia) are not applied selectively. The practice is different, but that's not quite the same thing. Historically, when the concept of rule of law was first introduced, it was to counter the then-prevailing idea that laws officially don't apply to kings, who are above the law. In places like Russia, this was even manifested as part of the title - "autokrator" grew to specifically mean that the ruler is not subject to anyone else's will (including any laws).
  - joel_ms 8y ago
    How does that differ from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... ?
    - int_19h 8y ago
      You can still sue any specific person, just not the office they represent. E.g. if the Senate passes a law, all senators are still subject to that law as individuals. The other side to rule of law is that the government can't punish you arbitrarily - they need to have an applicable law, and they can only apply it to you as written (including penalties etc). In a system without rule of law, a subject can be charged with wrongdoing on the whim of the ruler. That part is also missing in KSA.