
Chess champion to miss Saudi Arabia tournament over women's rights - Nitishshah700
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/27/chess-champion-to-miss-saudi-arabia-tournament-over-womens-rights
======
CalChris
Nakamura is also boycotting the tournament [1]. Naka is currently #2 at rapid
and #4 at blitz [2].

[1] [https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fide-does-it-
again-...](https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fide-does-it-again-
boycott-time-including-nakamura)

[2] [https://2700chess.com/](https://2700chess.com/)

~~~
foobaw
Just an aside but I love Nakamura and his commentaries!

------
amriksohata
On a side note Saudis high cleric banned chess for civilians how hypocritical
they get to host a competition.
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-
ar...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabias-
highest-cleric-bans-chess-and-claims-game-spreads-enmity-and-
hatred-a6825426.html)

~~~
gumby
Islam is a distributed religion, sort of like Protestant Christianity. There’s
no “normal” form as there is with Catholic or orthodox Christianity, French or
Spanish languages, or SQL.

~~~
vowelless
Not exactly. I am not too familiar with christianity, perhaps they also have
"schools of jurisprudences"? In Sunni Islam, there are 4 major ones (Hanafi,
Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali). There are a few important ones in Shia too (I am
not too familiar with them). Here is a map showing the dominance of the
schools:

[http://lostislamichistory.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/Fea...](http://lostislamichistory.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/Featured-Page-Image2.png)

Saudi is also influenced by the Salafi movement, but it is nestled in the
Hanbali framework, which tends to put importance on imams (but not like
Shias). The ulema (made up of "important" dudes dressed in robes) in Saudi
Arabia has enjoyed a lot of importance.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Senior_Scholars_(Sa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Senior_Scholars_\(Saudi_Arabia\))

I am a /little/ surprised that Saudi would go so openly against the ulema.
Things might be changing there, with MbS at the helm.

~~~
pluma
I'm not sure I fully understand the distinction but I guess the big difference
is that very few Christian countries are theocracies (i.e. in these countries
Christian religious law has no impact outside the very limited authority held
by clergy, e.g. denying entry to places of worship).

But historically as an outside it seems that Islamic sects are fairly
analogous to Christian ones. There was an early split between Rome
(Catholicism) and Constantinople (Eastern Orthodoxy), later various reformers
led to Protestant sects, some of which eventually joined in alliances like the
Evangelical Church in Germany (which includes Lutherans and Calvinists but has
established a shared consensus).

At a glance, Christianity is defined by a split between Catholicism and
Protestantism, with Protestantism being a fairly diverse collection of various
groups ranging from Lutherans to Baptists.

Much of Christianity's present form is owed to the Peace of Westphalia, which
in a nutshell led to the widely accepted ideology that it's okay for other
countries not to share your religious beliefs (or even allow a diversity of
beliefs in their own territories).

~~~
vowelless
Thanks for expanding in that. I wasn't aware of Peace of Westphalia.

For what it's worth, early Islam is basically game of thrones. Worth checking
out what happened in the decades following the death of Muhammad SAW.

~~~
gumby
The modern conception of sovereign states that people seem to think is some
ancient invariant is actually the result of the Peace of Westphalia and the
Congress of Vienna. The post colonial borders were shaped by that
understanding.

Do people who grew up in former Ottoman territory have the same conception?
Within that empire the idea of nation was quite different.

------
NelsonMinar
As a gay person I can't safely visit Saudi Arabia either. International events
should not happen there.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
Hypothetically, is a gay person allowed to visit Saudi Arabia if they don't do
anything gay while in the country?

Or is a simple history of homosexuality enough to fear imprisonment?

~~~
rayiner
Saudi criminal laws aren’t codified. In theory, the Quran is the source of
law, with various royal decrees layered on top. In the Quran, it’s actual
homosexual acts that are the crime. So simply being homosexual should not, in
theory, get you in trouble. But in practice, the CPVPV has wide latitude.
People have been arrested for flying a rainbow flag:
[https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...](https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-
east/saudi-man-arrested-for-flying-pretty-rainbow-flag-unaware-it-symbolised-
lgbt-pride-a6955886.html%3famp). People have also been arrested for their
social media activity:
[https://www.google.com/amp/www.washingtonblade.com/2016/03/2...](https://www.google.com/amp/www.washingtonblade.com/2016/03/28/report-
saudi-authorities-seek-death-penalty-for-coming-out/amp/)

------
dandare
It is a great sacrifice and I absolutely supper her.

Just maybe it would get more media attention if she was physically there and
refused to play in abaya or the "high-necked white blouses" nonsense.

Also, where is the solidarity form champions like Magnus Carlsen?

~~~
gumby
> Also, where is the solidarity form champions like Magnus Carlsen?

 _Really!!_

~~~
reacharavindh
This is a great moment to show solidarity in the face to stupid and backward
policies. I sincerely hope the great minds choose to boycott this tournament
and support a meaningful cause.

~~~
gumby
Yes indeed! It seems the people down voting my comment don’t agree.

~~~
scott_karana
I read your post as _objecting_ , not agreeing. Perhaps others have the same
confusion.

~~~
gumby
Thanks. May be a cultural thing.

------
jonny_eh
The competitor from Israel was also barred from entering the country, and the
chess federation was fine with that.

~~~
bhouston
I think it is a backwards Middle Eastern country thing, Israel loves to ban
people too for all sorts of ridiculous reasons as well:

[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.827401](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-
news/1.827401) [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-
news/1.822554](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.822554)
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israel-bds-
la...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israel-bds-law-
immigration-refuse-entry-activists-british-hugh-lanning-palestine-solidarity-
campaign-a7630011.html)

Luckily this nonsense hasn't spread to Europe and North America for the most
part.

~~~
fahadkhan
> Luckily this nonsense hasn't spread to Europe and North America for the most
> part.

Isn't that what Trump's "Muslim ban" is?

~~~
bhouston
> Isn't that what Trump's "Muslim ban" is?

Actually you are correct, Trump promised this in his campaign and has tried to
enact it in a few different ways. I am unsure why you are being voted down.

~~~
oh_sigh
Source for this please. This claim is repeated quite often, but the only
'source' I've been able to find is when Trump was being mobbed by yelling
people(after a debate or a speech), some activist asked him about 'banning
muslims', and Trump started talking about how we need to build a wall and
secure our borders. Basically - Trump misheard or misunderstood the question,
and people take that as him advocating for a general Muslim ban.

~~~
yawaramin
Not exactly a campaign promise, but Trump did inquire about how he could
legally ban Muslims. One of his travel bans was even thrown out because a
judge interpreted this to be evidence that Trump really was trying to do a
Muslim ban [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-
commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.c30ff95882b1)

~~~
creaghpatr
Except that it wasn't- it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

[http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/supreme-court-
travel-...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/supreme-court-travel-
ban/index.html)

People will dishonestly refer to it as a 'Muslim Ban' despite overwhelming
evidence to the contrary, in the end it only diminishes the credibility of
those who want to allow immigration from those countries.

~~~
asr
Trump's most recent travel ban was not "upheld" by the Supreme Court--it was
allowed to take effect while legal challenges are pending.[1] At the same
time, the Supreme Court instructed the Courts of Appeals hearing the cases to
"render [their] decision[s] with appropriate dispatch," presumably so that the
Supreme Court can consider the case and issue a final ruling quickly (well,
"quickly" in legal time).[2]

Also, it is inaccurate to claim there is "overwhelming evidence" that the ban
is not a Muslim ban, and it is an unhelpful _ad hominim_ attack to call anyone
who thinks it's a Muslim ban dishonest. The US District Court in Hawaii held
that "EO-3 plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the
Ninth Circuit has found antithetical to ... the founding principles of this
Nation."[3] I.e., it's a Muslim ban. And the Ninth Circuit recently upheld
this opinion.[4]

The Supreme Court might overturn the Ninth Circuit decision, but you might
want to edit your comment so it's less wrong.

[1] read the article you linked to!!

[2]
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr1_j4...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr1_j4ek.pdf)
and
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr_4gd...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr_4gd5.pdf)

[3]
[http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015f-2bab-d519-a57f-7fabf1...](http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015f-2bab-d519-a57f-7fabf1450002)

[4] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/us/travel-ban-
court.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/us/travel-ban-court.html)

~~~
creaghpatr
>People will dishonestly refer to it as a 'Muslim Ban' despite overwhelming
evidence to the contrary

I stand by this statement, as 'Muslim ban' is semantically false; Muslims are
not banned from the US. If you can disprove this let me know.

------
abusoufiyan
I was reading the justifications of women who are attending and they generally
have 3 things to say:

1) All countries are at different places in the march towards human rights.
But participating in a women's sporting event in countries like Iran and Saudi
Arabia is a chance to help further women's rights in those countries as more
women might want to play, become very very good, and have a high profile from
which to challenge the regime. Refusing because you have to wear hijab or
abaya is not worth giving up that chance to help women in such countries.

2) Saudi seems to be sponsoring much more prize money and accommodations. One
ranked player complained that many participants had to fund their own travel
in the past, that European countries aren't willing to sponsor the tournament,
and only the top 4 players received any kind of compensation at all in the
past. In Saudi it is supposed to be a better prize and travel is comped. One
player said that such pitiful prize compensation as in the past is no less
oppressive than having to wear a hijab.

3) Only one player mentioned this but I think it was worth mentioning. She
said that human and women's rights are bad in Saudi but human and women's are
ignored in other countries (for example, China multiple times in the past 20
years, Russia right after its annexation of Ukraine) the championship is in,
and the 'principled' chess players never speak up then.

I think the last point is most revealing. Many of the players who boycott are
concerned with regulations that affect them personally (I have to wear this. I
won't be allowed to do this), and very few of them will ever care about the
human rights violations or even women's rights violations that don't affect
them. And of course we are not immune to this way of thinking either. It is
easy for us to empathize when we have to go through what others go through. In
China though (for example), when we are not having our family size culled and
we are not being ethnically replaced with Han Chinese in our homelands, and we
are not being suspiciously disappeared by the government like Ughyur Muslims,
then we don't empathize enough to boycott a chess championship. We are not as
up in arms about human rights and all this when it affects people who are not
us. How many of us actually take our respective governments to task for their
own rights violations (if you're American, a few years back, they bombed out
an active, operating Red Cross Hospital, just as an example)?

~~~
specialp
I salute those that stand up for human rights for others, even when the
oppression doesn't affect them. But then again, there is also nothing wrong
with refusing to do something based on direct oppression to the person. You
are right that people should stand up for rights of others too but this is a
different discussion.

Here we have a woman that is expected to go to a country where she has to be
escorted around by males, and is told how to dress. So this is directly
affecting her, and her dignity. Maybe some will take the higher cash payments
and not care if they have to become a second tier human for a bit, which is
also fine. But this woman doesn't want to regardless of what the Saudis are
paying.

I don't think she is trying to be a human rights champion, she is standing up
for her dignity. I am glad the Saudis are making some progress on women's
rights, but I also salute this woman for not wanting to take part while there
is still blatant discrimination towards women/

~~~
abusoufiyan
I never said it was wrong, nor did the female player who made that argument.
Good for her if she feels uncomfortable for voicing that and refusing to go.
Only wishing it extended to other marginalized groups.

It's also interesting that you become a second-tier human in Saudi because of
segregation but being paid pennies so little that you can't even pay for the
travel expenses to the World Women's Chess Championship doesn't make a you a
second-tier human. The fact that no other country even wants to host this
championship this year doesn't make the women second-tier humans.

------
cepth
FIDE, the world chess governing body, seems to have signed a long term
contract for the World Rapid and Blitz championships.
([https://www.chess.com/news/view/3-year-contract-fide-
saudi-a...](https://www.chess.com/news/view/3-year-contract-fide-saudi-arabia-
potentially-illegal)).

As long as it’s one country, one vote, you’re likely to get outcomes like this
one, where a wealthy federation can buy off a large number of smaller
federations. This is a perpetual problem in professional chess, hence the
existence of proposals like this one: [https://en.chessbase.com/post/one-vote-
per-rated-game](https://en.chessbase.com/post/one-vote-per-rated-game)

Edit: Also worth noting, Saudi Arabia was the ONLY bidder for this year’s
championships.

------
mikeokner
Women's US 2016 champion Nazí Paikidze also boycotted the 2017 world
championships in Iran over similar issues.

FIDE (the international chess governing body) seems to be about on par with
FIFA when it comes to planning events (and possible graft).

~~~
leroy_masochist
> FIDE (the international chess governing body) seems to be about on par with
> FIFA when it comes to planning events (and possible graft).

Ilyumzhinov is too busy hanging out with extraterrestrials to take bribes

