Talk:Human rights in Qatar

Can someone explain what is meant by women having the right to vote in a country with an absolute monarchy and whose PMs all bare the name al-Thani?

Also, is Iran not considered a "Persian Gulf nation?" Women have been voting there since 1963. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.176.17 (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Iran is considered a Persian gulf nation.110.175.85.10 (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

'Women having the right to vote' is a simple concept. They are allowed to cast ballots and run for election in government-sanctioned elections for legislative bodies such as the advisory (Majlis as Shura) and municipal (CMC) councils. General elections are not analogous for all countries, they are instead relative to the political system. As such, having the right to vote is not exclusive to countries with presidential systems.

You are right about Iran being the first Persian Gulf nation to enfranchise its female population - I see it has been corrected. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello all. The "Labour" section has a massive issue of repetition and redundancy, with various sub-sections discussing the same things. I would appreciate some feedback or advice on this subject.

I will try to get to work on this tomorrow.

@Elspamo4 as usual, would appreciate your thoughts :)

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It reads like a confused mess, with a lot of repetition as you said. It mostly needs some trimming and organizing. I will try to help with some changes when I have some free time. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I was going to make a bold restructure to the "Labour" section, deleting a ton of material (some of it anti-Qatar, a lot pro-Qatar), tons of redundancies, and greatly outdated paragraphs with ancient citations. I intended to place a permanent link here to the version right before my edit, to give people the opportunity to easily rescue or use parts that I had deleted. However, I have found that I cannot currently manage to get to a version that suffers publishing.

Instead, please see the current state of the draft: User:غوّاص العلم/sandboxHRLabour

Please feel free to edit this draft as you see fit (with helpful edit summaries as usual), and to give feedback on it (probably on this thread). I will also be back to work on this later, even if no-one else pitches in, but I thought that it would be nice if anyone could help and give feedback at this time as well.

Tagging the only WP:Qatar heavyweight regulars that I'm aware of, if you guys want to tag other people into this which you think might help I'd much appreciate it too: @Elspamo4 @DervotNum4

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The current version is all over the place, and somehow has both pro and anti-Qatar propaganda in the same paragraph as if that's what "neutrality" is. Your version is much more organized and focused, and seems much more objective and encyclopedic. Two possible suggestions: maybe the background section should have a sentence detailing societal challenges that foreigners from South Asia face such as huge job barriers (kind of similar to what I've wrote in Demographics of Qatar#Foreigners)? And should we give a very brief description of exactly what the Kafala system entails (once again as in Demographics of Qatar#Foreigners)? I see you've described some aspects of the Kafala system but many people reading might lack the context or specifics of what it is. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your characterization of the "neutrality" issues. I had written out my own characterization of some of these things that I removed in my original message here in far harsher words, then backspaced and tried to rewrite more dryly, civilly and AGFly, lol.

I definitely agree that a brief description of what the Kafala system is should be in here, since it is such a central term to the discussion, and features centrally in both HRW and Amnesty, as well as elsewhere. This would probably also be the place to mention that Qatar is not unique in its treatment of foreign workers, which is missing from my current version. All this should definitely be in the background sub-section.

I think that the issue of job barriers is important, and worth discussing and illuminating. I'm wondering about the matter of discussing it within the context of specifically labour rights, which is what this section is about. Is it a matter of labour rights? I guess we would maybe need to see it discussed within the context of labour rights, or at least human rights, in RS. But it definitely also bears mentioning in articles about the economy, demographics, etc. Maybe an article for "Foreign workers in Qatar" is justified.

I think that one thing that the section could definitely use is more details on the abuses/violations/difficulties faced by workers currently (after all the reforms etc). If there is any up to date RS about the human trafficking issue that I basically removed entirely from the section, that too is something that we should definitely look into adding back in, imo. Then, perhaps a history sub-sub-section (under "Rights of foreign labourers" that can reincorporate some Some of this can definitely already be found around Wikipedia, but would need some processing.

Another thing to do is to explain how the World Cup thing didn't only bring extra scrutiny to existing issues, but also brought some of its own, and we should definitely update and improve the paragraph about the deaths.

These are just some partial thoughts lol. I hope to get into doing this in the next couple of weeks. Any additional thoughts or actions from you and anyone else are welcome :)

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I definitely think we could use a Foreigners in Qatar article similar to Expatriates in the United Arab Emirates! And you're right, now that I think about it, sociological issues like job opportunities shouldn't really be discussed in the context of human rights. I do think it may be worth discussing the victim profile of those affected by the Kafala system so maybe a bit of demographic information is necessary – ie SE Asian blue collar laborers being the most vulnerable and exploited group. But obviously only if we find reliable sources explicitly stating this. I'll try and look for sources to expand the background section this weekend. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I've went ahead and made a bold edit adding detailed information about the Kafala system & retitled the section as well as other minor edits. Let me know if you think this is a step in the right direction. Part of me thinks that perhaps it might be best to have separate sections about the Kafala system and the rights of foreign workers, however I feel like they're so inextricably linked that it wouldn't make sense. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Adding the info on Kafala is definitely a step in the right direction. I do think that the coverage of Kafala should almost certainly stay within the labour section. Honestly, I think that perhaps what makes the most sense is to change the name of this section to "rights of foreign workers", since it's not just their labour rights that are being talked about, and the section doesn't really cover labour rights outside of this context. Other labour-rights matters are covered under "Women" and "Children".

Regarding the bits about the world cup - I've done some work finding good and up to date sources for them, but I don't currently have the time and attention to put it all together. I think that the claims included should be (and I have RS for most of it already):

1. The foreign worker situation has been problematic for a long time;
2. The World Cup hosting bid and selection drew a lot of attention to it;
3. The preparations for the World Cup hosting after the selection also led to X changes and conditions for foreign workers;
4. There have been some reforms for the better (hopefully we can nail down what genuinely has improved in practice), but the situation remains very problematic in X manners, and is still defined as Kafala by leading human rights orgs despite claims of abolishment.

So when it comes to the World Cup stuff mentioned above, don't worry about trying to improve it for now, because that will likely end up being wasteful duplication of effort.

Also, I'm wondering whether we should be getting into the odd arrangement between the government and the ILO... I'm starting to think that maybe it's not really avoidable. But this is not something I've gathered RS for yet. If you're interested and have the time, maybe you could start looking into that. Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, the gov has paid them a lot of money for the joint work to improve labour conditions in Qatar (giving them incentives to say that this process has been successful), and has also given the ILO a good bit of general cash outside of sponsoring their work in/with Qatar. Obviously if you're uninterested/don't have the time that's perfectly alright. I'll get to it eventually lol.

Thanks and good tidings as always, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was referring to the subsection of your sandbox page (I renamed it from "Rights of foreign labourers" to "Kafala system"). If you're in agreement with that change, then we're good – and I think you're referring to changing the section title from "Labour" to "Rights of labourers"? If so, I wouldn't object to that, but I do think "Labour" is appropriate as is.

As for the ILO and Qatar, I looked into and I think it would be a good addition, maybe in a different section from "Labour" though? There seems to be enough reliable sources for it. It could be in a separate section titled something like "Controversies involving human rights organizations"? Or "Influence and lobbying allegations"? I wrote a bit on Qatar–United Arab Emirates relations#2014 Riyadh Agreement about something similar involving the Global Network for Rights and Development and maybe it can be used when the section is created (or we can use just this bit for now if you think it's appropriate). Elspamo4 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, ok, that makes sense.

I didn't know about that GNRD thing! Funny and sad how much these governments always blame eachother of doing exactly what they themselves do, and that both sides thus end up being correct... I'll read some more into all this soon :)

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Elspamo4 I've reached a point I'm happy enough with to post here. It's currently very succinct, which I believe is more appropriate and useful. To you and to anyone else reading this, feel free to add more content that you think is important enough to include, including from previous version.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. This version is definitely more concise and less repetitive than the previous version. I can agree on keeping bloat to a minimum. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)