Prince Philip in belly-dancer insult gaffe

Prince Philip in belly-dancer insult gaffe

By Nick Allen
Last Updated: 2:14am GMT 08/03/2008

The Duke of Edinburgh has added to his growing list of gaffes after meeting a group of belly-dancers and saying: "I thought Eastern women just sit around smoking pipes and eating sweets all day".

His outburst stunned the dancers who had dressed up in full costume and tassels to greet the Duke and the Queen as they toured a school in south Wales.

One of the dancers, Beverly Richards, 47, said: "I replied that we do that as well, and he looked us over and said with a twinkle in his eye 'I can see that'.

Mrs Richards said: "We were not insulted. I think that it's great that he said it. He is very down-to-earth.

"To be honest it's an honour to be insulted by royalty. It is something to tell the grandchildren.

"When you're a belly-dancer, believe me, you have heard it all before. Some might say we are a little overweight, but we are certainly full of Eastern promise."
The Welsh belly-dancing group, known as the Suhayla Dancers, also included Rachael Barry, 45, Janet Chillcott, 49, and Alison Dugmore, 41, and had gathered at the Swansea's St Thomas Community Primary School for the royal visit.

It was the latest in a string of foot-in-mouth moments for the Duke which famously included his pronouncement that "British women can't cook".

In 1998 he told a student visitor to Papua New Guinea that he had done well not to be eaten and in 1984 he asked a Kenyan woman "You are a woman, aren't you?".

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

Fareed Zakaria's "Expertise" and the Elite's Insulting Dishonesty

areed Zakaria, as his Newsweek biography is happy to tell you, is a Very Important Person looked to as an "expert" on international issues. Somehow, he retains this billing despite advocating for the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation, hiding his dual role as simultaneous "journalist" and Bush administration adviser, insisting that the Iraq War is "over," and publishing fact-free columns like this week's on international trade.

Zakaria is alarmed that presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actually giving voice to the concerns of the vast majority of Americans who polls show are unhappy with our current lobbyist-written trade policies -- policies that pundits like him have jammed down the country's throat. Really, Zakaria says, how dare presidential candidates have the nerve to actually represent the people and not the Punditburo.

This is disdain for the majority is standard fare for a magazine bloviator typing out columns from the comfortable confines of a Manhattan office. But what's striking is Zakaria's attempt to wrap elitism in altruism.

To review: Our trade policy includes no labor, environmental or human rights protections, but includes restrictive protections for corporate profits -- patent protections that keep drug prices high in the developing world, intellectual property protections that hurt innovation in the developing world, etc. Our trade policy also includes massive agricultural subsidies rigged to reward multinational corporate agribusiness over family farmers both here and abroad. None of this is news -- and you might think such basic facts would be well known to "experts" like Zakaria.

But think again. In his column, he cites a mythical "struggling farmer" in the developing world who he says believes "access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs." Apparently, Zakaria hasn't noticed that many of those farmers that he supposedly cares so much about are right now in the process of revolting against the final implementation of NAFTA and the Peru Free Trade Agreement. He apparently also never saw the acclaimed documentary "Life and Debt" which charts how developing-world farmers are thrown into poverty when their markets are opened up to taxpayer-subsidized agribusiness -- and how that poverty then breeds insurrections that requires violent military interventions to crush. Then again, that's how elitists like Zakaria like their policies implemented -- they believe "freedom" in the Mideast should be ushered in at gunpoint, and "free" trade brought about at the tip of a bayonet. Ah, the joys of neoconservative "freedom."

Zakaria goes on to lament that in pushing for labor and environmental standards, Democratic presidential candidates "are pandering to the worst instincts of Americans, encouraging a form of xenophobia and chauvinism and validating the utterly self-defeating idea of protectionism." He says this hurts America's image because "what is said in Ohio is heard in Ghana and Bangladesh and Colombia as well." Yet, Newsweek's "expert" apparently didn't have 5 minutes to actually research the topic at hand. Because had he spent that small amount of time actually "reporting" (I know, an outdated endeavor for today's pundits), he would have quickly found this recent worldwide public opinion study from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showing majorities all over the globe "think trade harms the environment and threatens jobs and want to mitigate these effects with environmental and labor standards." Yet according to Zakaria, presidential candidates expressing those exact feelings run the risk of engendering an anti-American "backlash." In truth, the only "backlash" they are creating is one from elitists like Newsweek's economic "expert."

The rest of the column whines on much like this, with Zakaria firing out most of the tired fallacies of the right -- my favorite of which is the one where he channels John McCain -- the man who recently said "NAFTA has created jobs, and I think it's been good for our economy, I think it's been good for the Canadian economy, and I think it's been good for the Mexican economy." Zakaria one-ups McCain, saying "NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy." Yes, folks -- forget about the Mexican election that just took place under a shroud of controversy, forget about the Chiapas unrest, forget that a million Americans have been put out of work because of NAFTA and forget that 19 million more Mexicans now live in poverty than the pre-NAFTA era. McCain and Zakaria say NAFTA has been terrific for Mexico -- and so we should just accept that as fact.

Back in November, Time magazine's Joe Klein was humiliated for passing off patent lies as facts, and responded by saying "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right." One journalism observer called it a low-point in the profession's history. But I would say Zakaria takes that distinction. In this column about trade, he actually comes right out and declares that when it comes to "the facts about trade," he has no interest in "go[ing] into them in any great detail."


Like the rest of his well-paid cronies in the media Establishment who rail on populism, he expects us to believe -- without a shred of actual factual proof or "reporting" -- that the poor farmer in the developing world is eager to be thrown off his land by subsidized multinational agribusiness companies; thrilled that the protectionist provisions in America's trade policy make medicine prices unaffordable for him and his family; upset that any American political leaders would talk about protecting his labor and human rights so as to prevent ongoing exploitation; and in awe of that supposedly great economic and political utopia known as Mexico -- a place where economic inequality, poverty and political unrest runs rampant.

This is the "expertise" of Fareed Zakaria -- the Very Important Person who helps dictate the terms of debate on international economic issues. And this is why that debate is so divorced from reality.

Cross-posted from CAF
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/fareed-zakarias-experti_b_89586.html?view=print

Father-of-two suspected of terrorism faces deportation

By Adam Morris
A FATHER-of-two from Edinburgh is facing deportation after being detained on suspicion of terrorism.
Algerian Bachir Mohammed, 45, who has lived in the Capital for six years, was stopped by police on his way to Northern Ireland for a short break. Mr Bachir, who is registered disabled after contracting polio as a child, was held in Stranraer under the Terrorism Act on February 17.

He has since been moved to Dungavel detention centre in Lanarkshire and was due to be flown to Algeria tomorrow, where he claims he faces certain death. However, he was granted an eleventh-hour reprieve yesterday.

His lawyers now hope he can be reunited with his wife Nacera and Edinburgh-born children, Hafsa, six months, and Safia, two, at their Leith Walk home.

Mr Bachir recently got a licence to drive a private cab. He has a permit to work in the UK, was married here and has a house, although he is classed as "officially without status".

He said he was set to apply for asylum under new Home Office guidelines when he was detained.

Speaking from his room in Dungavel, he said: "I went with a friend whose bathroom I had carried out some work on and we were about to get on to the ferry when we were stopped by police.

"I was called a terrorist and held there, and sworn and shouted at. They said my plan was to get into Northern Ireland then go to Dublin to commit terrorism.

"That is ridiculous. I didn't carry my passport because I had no intention of leaving the UK. I had all my Home Office papers and other documents which I have signed at the police station every month in Edinburgh."

Mr Bachir has
written extensively about what he calls "atrocities and wrongdoings" in his
homeland – which he says would lead to him being killed if he goes back. He said: "When people like me who have criticised the regime go back there, we can just disappear."

He said he was accused of having links with the Islamic Salvation Front through his work with the Algerian Community in Britain, but he categorically denied any links to terror organisations. "Yes, I am anti-war, but I hate death," he said. "I'm no terrorist, I know nothing of this."

Scotland Against Criminalising Communities, a charity which has been lobbying on Mr Bachir's behalf, said: "If he is returned to Algeria there is a real risk that he will be tortured or even executed."

The Border and Immigration Agency wouldn't comment on his specific case, but said foreign nationals would be sent home if they had no right to be here.


The full article contains 454 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Last Updated: 08 March 2008 11:18 AM
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Fatheroftwo--suspected-of-terrorism.3858373.jp

Lebanese women suffer under outdated laws

BEIRUT (AFP) — Lebanese women may be known as the Arab world's most liberal but they are by no means the region's most liberated considering antiquated laws that reduce them to second-class citizens.

"The law in this country still considers a woman as being inferior," complained sociologist Rafif Sidaoui.

From domestic violence to rape to adultery, the rights of women often fall by the wayside in this multi-confessional sectarian society, nonetheless deemed avant-garde in the mostly conservative Middle East.

"One of the absurd laws on the books allows a rapist to be exempt from prison if he marries his victim," said Ezzat Mroue, vice-president of the Women's Rights Committee (WRC).

"A few years ago, there was a major scandal when a young man, who was after his cousin, kidnapped her from her university," she added.

"He raped her and then brought her before a sheikh who married them.

"The result was that he was not guilty in the eyes of the law," Mroue said.

And although so-called "honour crimes" are not widespread in Lebanon, as in some other Arab countries, every year a number of women are killed by male relatives under the pretext of defending the family honour.

Under the law, the murderer can benefit from "mitigating circumstances".

But "murder is murder and you cannot apply different penalties" depending on gender, insisted Mroue.

She said when it comes to adultery, the picture is not brighter.

A woman can be sentenced to two years in prison if a third party accuses her of cheating on her husband, whereas a man has to be caught red-handed before being hauled to court.

If a man admits to adultery but apologises, he is usually pardoned. The same does not apply to a woman.

As far as domestic violence, the law offers no protection to women.

"If a woman in Lebanon is beaten or humiliated at home, there is nothing she can legally do about it," said Sidaoui.

"The husband has to break her neck, arm or leg, for her to be able to claim injury or damage, as you would for any car accident," said the sociologist.

Many women who do turn to the police become the object of ridicule by officers who pat them on the cheek and suggest they deal with their problems "at home".

Sidaoui said that one of the main problems in changing the status quo is the lack of legislation to protect women's rights and the fact that religion permeates most aspects of life in Lebanon, including marriage and divorce.

For example, there is no civil marriage in Lebanon, although the government recognises such a union as long as it is celebrated outside the country.

A woman also cannot transfer citizenship to her husband if he is foreign or to children born of such a union.

And in the event of divorce, a Lebanese man automatically gets custody of the children.

"For the religious and political communities determined to hang on to their prerogatives, this issue is a red line not to be crossed," Sidaoui said.

Labour laws are another issue that rights groups have been battling to change.

A married Lebanese man who works receives tax exemptions whereas a married woman does not.

A man with children is also given a family allowance by the state whereas a woman can only receive it if she is widowed or if her husband is handicapped.

"If these laws are not changed, they will perpetuate this mentality through generations and a woman will always be considered inferior to a man, whatever her social status," Sidaoui said.
Hosted by Google
Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Al Jazeera apologises for comments against Islam

Web posted at: 3/7/2008 2:30:48
Source ::: The Peninsula

Doha • The Aljazeera Arabic News Channel has apologized to its viewers for offensive comments against Islam made by "Wafa Sultan, a Syrian- born lady" a guest of its last Tuesday programme Al Itijah Al Mu'akis (The Opposite Direction).

The live debate programme was on the reprinting of cartoons in Denmark that insult the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). The channel had also cancelled the rerun of the programme which was to be telecast on Wednesday and Thursday.

The programme had drawn a massive reaction through telephone calls, faxes, and email from inside and outside Qatar criticizing and denouncing the comment made by the guest, Al Sharq daily has said it learnt, adding that the programme had further generated a strong outrage among the channel's staff.

Muslim scholars have, too, strongly criticized the programme, rejecting the argument by some people to defend freedom of speech.

Mowafi Azab, a scholar working with Ministry of Awqaf, said: “We hope for an international law to be in place to curb such cultures which would only increase hatred among people and youngsters, in particular.” He added: "It would be good if the channel had stopped the live debate that day."

Ahmed Al Bouaynen, another scholar and Imam of an Al Wakrah Mosque, said that it was better not to host such guest who has been known for her "offensive" remarks against Islam.