Arab spring for who?

And as proved by the mixed responses I guess people had/have contradistinct reasons to support the Arab spring. Personally I was one of those, who having learnt about the oppression faced by the people of the said nations at the hands of their dictators, hoped that the revolutions will end the tyranny and give all the people the ability to live their lives without fear and despotism.And that the Muslims of these countries too will be able to practice their religion without persecution. Now it's left to be seen what will actually be the result of this historic uprising and who will really benefit from it all. As always my prayers are with the innocents!

i don't know exactly where are you from bachus from S.Africa i guess, but imposing foreign standards on some nation and calling this democracy! this was an American Doctrine that created extremism and terrorism ! there is no default modal for democracy i believe ! going to some kind of african tribes asking them to change the way they live just because you think it doesn't really fit to democracy ! that's colonization dude !

and returning to the subject ! i'm a tunisian and i've lived this debate ! don't believe a bunch of morons sitting overseas thousand mile aways watching few posts on the internet and making reviews and articles about things that they didn't see or witness ! few pages on FB posted comments criticizing the way this woman dress and how mellouli drinks in Ramadan ! we can call this freedom of expression ! but i invite you to check what's happening in ur country with police killing more than 30 miners because they claimed their rights ! now that's democracy haa!!!

How does it matter? As long as the Tunisian government is happy with the participants, nobody can touch them. All kinds of opinions are infact expected to come out from people in a democracy. Does it not show that democracy is at work?

I generally agree with Brit's point about not restricting participation in democracies, but I think there should be limits. For example, parties that explicitly advocate violating laws that protect rights of others should be banned. For example, a white supremacist party in Austria that calls on its followers to kill all black people; or a Islamist group that calls on its followers to carry out attacks on women who go to school. Therefore, I agree with no merci that the constitutions of democracies should be based on secular laws but I would add that these enable the free expression of religion and for religious beliefs to influence policy and practice (I think the US's separation of church and state goes too far at times).

We have to remember that democracy is amoral in that it only reflects the will of the majority. But sometimes that majority can be tyrannous, such as those that elect tyrants or allow the genocide of the minority.

Turkey is a very good example as is their leader. When elected to power, he was labeled Islamist and his wife not allowed to attend official functions.

In the last three years, he has transformed the economy and made Turkey a leading force in the region.

brit, I agree. Never the less, as religion can be interpreted as per "gusto", I believe a democracy should be based on secular laws.

I also agree with fubar about Turkey.

There always will be religious and non-religious affiliations. As time passes, extremists will be sidelined..

I think Turkey serves as a good model for how a country that has individual citizens with strong religious beliefs can also operate a secular democracy.

Of course Turkey has it's problems, but I think it can serve as a model to other countries.

yes yes yes

I think to make democracy work, religion must be taken out of the equation.

I don't think its right to dictate who can participate. The society must be allowed to find its own way.

That's right Brit. And a few 'radicals' on Facebook getting upset about something petty is hardly news.

But we can't forget that we come from countries where we all have different opinions on various matters, but importantly, 99.9% of the populations of our countries all agree that we should be democratic.

In a country like Tunisia I would assume that there would exist a portion of the population that doesn't fundamentally believe that the country should be democratic, and that there should be gender equality, religious tolerance, and so on.

That poses a bit of a weird thought experiment. Should those in favor of democracy, accept and embrace the right of people to join parties that do not themselves accept and embrace democracy? Should one of the conditions of partaking in political discourse in democratic countries be an acceptance that democracy must be preserved?

Is it right to dictate who can participate in a democracy, or is that undemocratic?

Personally I can't see a way to reconcile and resolve that sort of problem.

I find it amazing that people jump on the "islamist" bandwagon and forget that democracy takes time to embed itself in society and flourish.

It's no good saying, yes, there should be democracy and then saying that certain groups should be excluded.

Sorry Bachus, just saw FOX and thought the worst.

I should have been more careful.

I find it really weird that FOX, the most Anti-Muslim broadcaster in the world, is 10% owned by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Why is he so willing to put his money into an organisation that has done more to harm the image of Islam than anyone I can possibly think of?

As usual, I find it amazing what kind of priorities some people have.

fubar--it's AP story on Fox Sports, which is completely different than Fox News (about whom I share your disregard).

This is the sort of story you'd expect to see on Fox - a few morons in Tunisia condemn a sportswoman for wearing running gear and condemn a man for drinking juice in Ramadan, with the sole intention of portraying Muslims as crazy fanatics.

They don't say how many of these idiots there are, or if their sentiments are broadly representative of the Tunisian population.

I would be surprised if it's more than a dozen or so people, but this story would give you the impression that all Tunisia is abuzz with hatred for their Olympic heroes.

the only "Body" capable of stripping a medal from a an Olympic competitor is the IOC. (provided a full investigation has been performed and proved that the "individual" is at fault)

Nevertheless this is going to be an issue for the country; the government and the sport authorities; as well as for those religious groups.

Regards!!

What is Arab spring for you... for those in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya is the freedom from the dictators, they ruled (ripped) the country more than 40 years, no religiouse freedom available, eventhough they named as Islamic country, ex: Mubarak, Ben ali, or Gaddafi.

you can compare their lifestyle, then study the arab spring... if you think freedom mean, stripping womens cloths... for us (Muslims) it means practice our religion withou fear....

Another step back in the Arab spring. These are truly brave women who like their sisters in KSA, Qatar and elsewhere have accomplished far more than their medals reveal.

They are true role models for a new generation.