THE BLOG

Was the Attendance of David Cameron and Prince Charles At King Abdullah's Funeral, Acceptable?

26/01/2015 15:39 GMT | Updated 26/03/2015 09:59 GMT

In this day and age, is it really better to keep a political ally rather than to metaphorically stick up the V's to a morally corrupt government? David Cameron and Prince Charles obviously agree with the former after attending the funeral of the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

When Abdullah took the throne in 2005, he had already been ruling the country in all but title for around a decade. When he first came to power, the world looked on, hopeful, in regards to the country's attitudes to women as he gave 30 women titles within his Shura Council. He also took the huge step of allowing women to vote - well I suppose they had to catch up eventually. However, this positive outlook soon turned bleak as it continued to be the case that women were obliged to ask permission from either their fathers or their husbands before they could open a bank account, leave the country or get married. This country is often overlooked by the media in regards to the repression of women, attention usually being paid to the large amount of honour killings, rapes and domestic abuse in other countries so perhaps it's easy for the public to forget about events within Saudi Arabia.

The status of women is quite probably closer to that of 'pets' rather than actual human beings considering they're expected to ask for permission from men every day of their lives. They're essentially slaves, who aren't allowed to drive or have any sort of freedom - which of course means that the crimes committed in other countries against women - hugely covered by the world's media - will be going on ten-fold behind closed doors.

Executions and floggings continue to be the punishment for certain 'crimes' and yet our leaders think it acceptable to attend the funeral of the man who has been responsible for the upkeep of this immoral and despicable government for over a decade. As the public, are we supposed to lay back and accept that this is merely political leaders paying respect to a country who benefit them financially?

In 2015, is money more important than morality? Should we ignore the attendance of our Prince and Prime Minister at the funeral of someone who was no less than a dictator running a terrorist organisation? Surely with the general election coming up, Cameron should have perhaps considered the outrage that might be voiced in the UK rather than the importance of international relations with a corrupt, murderous government. Especially when taking into consideration that the entire adult population of the UK is eligible to vote for or against Cameron, half of whom are women.

The public and the media have taken in a hurry to Twitter to condemn the actions of the UK's leaders, suggesting that their attendance at the funeral was an insult to the beliefs and morals of the people of our country. Many saying they hope Cameron doesn't think he is representing the democratic society of the UK by attending this man's funeral.

So this is the question - in 2015, which matters more; international relations, peace and financial income or the rights of women internationally and morality?