It's the sheer hypocrisy that gets me. You might think that outside the UAE the entire world was a sort of Camelot, where everyone was treated with justice and respect. It's more the case that you struggle to think of a country that is "clean". Norway or Denmark, maybe, but I bet they've got some marks against them. The UK has more marks against it than my old Maths school book, and the USA and Russia are a whole lot worse again.
Nowadays, to own a Premier League club you need to be a billionaire, and you don't get to be a billionaire by working down the salvation army hostel. You have to shit on people from a great height, and, more often or not, break the law and fiddle taxes. Unless you've inherited it from your Dad and then put it all straight in the Post Office.
As for the people who run countries - fuck me, they're the biggest selection of cnuts known to man. Again, you don't generally get to run a country by being a nice guy.
So to pick on the UAE specifically, or Sheikh Mansour in particular, is hypocrisy, with (probably) a nice side helping of racism.
Yep.
This is the potted definition of moral relativism...
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. ... Societies make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the values that exist in their own culture.
Problem with that is that all sorts of horrors can be justified by using the moral relativism argument, and the real shitheads and crappy countries can bat away any criticism by hiding behind the cultural imperialism argument...
The imposition of a foreign viewpoint or civilization on a people.
To cut through the babble, a number of organisations, most notably the UN, have worked to create and promote universal rights, first and foremost human rights...
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.
Problem with that is there are very few countries, if any, that tick all the boxes. Nevertheless, as a goal for humanity to strive towards it cannot be seriously questioned.
Problem with all this is that accusations of human rights violations in the hands of politicians and vested interest, tend to be very selective, so regimes the "West" don't like get human rights accusations thrown at them all the time, whereas regimes that are "Pro Western" get a bye.
Then there are those in the media, other club owners, opposition supporters and footy governing bodies, with a clear and obvious agenda against City, who choose to highlight our owners "alleged" human rights abuses, not out of moral outrage, but as a stick to beat the club with.
And then there are those that genuinely seek to promote human rights, who highlight City and Sheikh Mansour, not because of the severity of human rights abuses in the UAE, but simply because our high profile with the man in the street, means they can reach an audience not normally vexed by such issues.
Given all this noise, it is important to use accusations of human rights violations judiciously, without agenda and for maximum effect, otherwise the accusations are lost in a sea of hypocrisy and liberal outrage babble.
Which brings us back to the UAE.
By any objective analysis, free of any ulterior motive, is the UAE so heinous, so uniquely horrible, so flagrant in its human rights abuses, that the criticism it is presently receiving is justified in a rational and dispassionate way?
The answer is emphatically no.