Rula Ghani is one amazing lady. She is a Christian in a Muslim Country and she is standing up for women’s rights. She couldn’t do it without the support of her husband and fortunately for her she has it.
France’s niqab ban is PRAISED by Afghanistan’s new First Lady as she begins campaigning for women’s rights in the country
Rula Ghani said the niqab and burqa prevent women from moving freely
Afghanistan’s cosmopolitan new first lady has backed France’s controversial ban on the niqab, comparing the full veil to ‘blinders’ as she prepares to campaign for more respect for women in her conservative adopted homeland.
Rula Ghani shocked Afghan observers earlier this year when she appeared with her husband during the country’s presidential campaign, a rare example of a political wife sharing the spotlight.
Now the Lebanese-American of Christian heritage is set to carve out a role for herself as the patriarchal and deeply Muslim nation’s first high-profile first lady.
In an interview with AFP at the presidential palace, Ghani, who speaks five languages, reminisced about her time as a student at the prestigious Sciences Po university in Paris which she attended during the late 1960s.
Wearing a vintage Hermes scarf over her hair, she recalled in fluent French that ‘all the young women at Sciences Po had their headscarves which they would wear as they stepped out of school’.
‘When issues began to arise around the veil and hijab in France, I was a little shocked, people seem to not have a very long memory.’
Wearing the full veil in public was banned by French law in 2011, igniting a fierce debate over the value of religious freedom against social cohesion.
Ghani said she supported the ban.
‘Regarding the French law against the niqab and burqa which prevent women from being able to move freely and see, because the niqab is a bit like blinders, I am in full agreement with the government of France,’ Ghani told AFP.
The banning of the rull veil in France ignited a fierce debate over the value of religious freedom against social cohesion
When you read the article at the NZ Herald about the 11 year old rape victim in Afghanistan being disowned by her family for dishonouring them then you really do have to wonder why we entertain letting Islamic immigrants into NZ.
All around the world we see the perils of such immigration where enclaves and no-go zones are formed and shariah law imposed.
We do not tolerate the subjucation of women in New Zealand yet we remain silent with increasing numbers of burqa clad females strolling our cities, subjugated by stone age belief systems….in New Zealand.
This wouldn’t be an issue but for the fact that Islamic migrants in particular tend to not want to integrate into our society, instead they want to apply their belief systems upon us.
It is time to have a re-think….otherwise we will be importing beliefs like this into NZ…at least if we did continue down this path then Tania Billingsley would actually have a real rape culture to deal with…unfortunately for her though they will simply tell her to shut up and put her burqa back on or face stoning.
An Afghan cleric has been jailed for 20 years for raping an 11-year old girl, after the child confronted her attacker in court despite fierce family opposition.
Activists said the girl appeared in court after being taken to a women’s shelter for safety from some members of her own family, who had threatened to kill her for bringing “dishonour” on them.
The sentence, passed by a court in Kabul on Saturday, came just weeks after five men were hanged for the gang-rape of four adult women and was hailed as a victory by activists. Â Read more »
Caution: Â Language
Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is the current ruler of Dubai and he has penned an opinion piece on ISIS.
ThatÂ alone makes me want to read it. A Middle East leader of a vibrant modern nation commenting on ISIS…its worth a read in full.
The global financial crisis taught the world how profoundly interdependent our economies have become. In todayâs crisis of extremism, we must recognize that we are just as interdependent for our security, as is clear in the current struggle to defeat ISIS.
If we are to prevent ISIS from teaching us this lesson the hard way, we must acknowledge that we cannot extinguish the fires of fanaticism by force alone. The world must unite behind a holistic drive to discredit the ideology that gives extremists their power, and to restore hope and dignity to those whom they would recruit.
ISIS certainly can â and will â be defeated militarily by the international coalition that is now assembling and which the UAE is actively supporting. But military containment is only a partial solution. Lasting peace requires three other ingredients: winning the battle of ideas; upgrading weak governance; and supporting grassroots human development.
Such a solution must begin with concerted international political will. Not a single politician in North America, Europe, Africa, or Asia can afford to ignore events in the Middle East. A globalized threat requires a globalized response. Everyone will feel the heat, because such flames know no borders; indeed, ISIS has recruited members of at least 80 nationalities.
An Al Qaeda operative is having a sook about being tasered, blindfolded and bundled into a vehicle as he was kidnapped by Delta Force troops in Tripoli.
Boo hoo, he’s lucky to be alive.
They should have just double tapped him and saved the effort.
Swarmed, Tasered, and trundled into a vehicle blindfoldedâand that was just the beginning for alleged al Qaeda member Abu Anas al-Liby. Now heâs complaining about his treatment.
Poor little jihadi!
Just listen to the accused al Qaeda operative Abu Anas al-Liby recount how he was treated by men who suddenly swarmed him outside his home in Tripoli as he returned from morning prayers last October.
âI was Tasered in both my legs and hands,â he says at the start of a tale told in an affidavit unsealed this week in a motion to suppress incriminating statements about his alleged complicity in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
He rightly assumes that his captors were members of the U.S. Army Delta Force. He recalls that one of them spoke to him in English with an American accent:
âWe know you can understand us, just keep quiet.â
He was then trundled into what he says was either a minivan or an SUV.
â[I] had ear muffs placed over my ears, my eyes were blindfolded, and I was placed in handcuffs,â he reports. Â Â Read more »
From the post about ISIS, Olivia Pierson writes:
I’m so glad you put this up Cameron. I have to say I felt a twinge of disgust when I read Andrea Vance’s op-ed; again with the staggeringly militant ignorance of NZ journalism on geopolitical issues which deeply matter!
Firstly – Vance says; “In the last two decades, Iraq has not been far off the military radar.
Military intervention to eliminate weapons of mass destruction was builtÂ on a fallacy, years of slaughter failed to remove the threat of terrorism or install democracy.”
The removal of the psychopathic Saddam Hussein Baathist regime was inevitable and appallingly long-overdue, a reality which Tony Blair knew along with President Bush – hence the Anglo-American coalition to overthrow it. The questions around WMD was only ONE of the reasons which put this coalition on the right side of history.
According to the United Nations, there are four egregious acts where breaking even one of them, can and should result in regime change; Saddam broke all four:
1 – committing genocide (against the Kurds),
2 – the invasion of a neighbouring state (Iran & Kuwait),
3 – proliferating nuclear weapons (Saddam himself boasted that Iraq was on its way to acquiring a centrifuge (we now know he only had a blueprint) and remember the 550 metric tons of yellow cake airlifted out of Iraq and shipped straight to Canada in 2008? Should the world have just taken a violent psychopath’s word that the enriched uranium was intended for peaceful purposes only?)
4 – aiding and abetting terrorism (Saddam was a renowned and prolific supporter of terrorism to many Islamist militant organisations, among them Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who moved freely between Afghanistan, Syria, Jordan and Iraq – a fact which obviates Saddam’s blessing.) Read more »
There are many commenting now on whether or not NZ should get involved in the fight against ISIS.
Andrea Vance has an opinion piece in the Sunday Star-Times about the issue where she takes the side of the cowards and insists parliament must debate the issue.
This of course plays into the hands of the jihadists and Islamists, who don’t ever have to worry about the niceties of a parliamentary democracy.
In 2001, Helen Clark took a resolution to Parliament to supplyÂ SASÂ troops to the War on Terror which passed 112-7. In fact the offer was made in Washington a month earlier, and Clark insisted the approval of Parliament was not necessary, but she wanted troops to know they “had the full support ofÂ MPs.” It was the beginning of the end of New Zealand’s ”independent foreign policy.”
NewÂ ZealandÂ faces a tough choice. Stand by impotently as many more hostages are murdered by a network of death? Or join another US-led crusade in a Muslim country?
With one foot in the West and one in the East, and vying for a seat on the UN Security Council, it must be remembered that not all nations choose the US as their global policeman.
In the last two decades, Iraq has not been far off the military radar. Military intervention to eliminate weapons of mass destruction was built on a fallacy, years of slaughter failed to remove the threat of terrorism or install democracy.
The conflict in Afghanistan also saw mission creep. Initial action was targeted at taking outÂ OsamaÂ Bin Laden and dismantling AlÂ Qaeda, but became a protracted quest to implement democracy and destroy theÂ Taleban. Key admitted NewÂ ZealandÂ paid a ”heavy price” – the death of 10 soldiers.
The latest strikes on Iraq have been condemned worldwide for lacking strategy and tactics. All the warning signs are that taking on ISIS will be a long, bloody war, with complex and unpredictable consequences.
At the very least all this is worthy of a parliamentary debate.
Tablet has an essay about the media manipulations in reporting the Israel/Gaza conflict.
It is by Â Matti Friedman who isÂ aÂ former AP correspondent who explains how and why reporters get Israel so wrong, and why it matters. What she writes echoes what I saw in Israel.
The lasting importance of this summerâs war, I believe, doesnât lie in the war itself. It lies instead in the way the war has been described and responded to abroad, and the way this has laid bare the resurgence of an old, twisted pattern of thought and its migration from the margins to the mainstream of Western discourseânamely, a hostile obsession with Jews. The key to understanding this resurgence is not to be found among jihadi webmasters, basement conspiracy theorists, or radical activists. It is instead to be found first among the educated and respectable people who populate the international news industry; decent people, many of them, and some of them my former colleagues.
While global mania about Israeli actions has come to be taken for granted, it is actually the result of decisions made by individual human beings in positions of responsibilityâin this case, journalists and editors. The world is not responding to events in this country, but rather to the description of these events by news organizations. The key to understanding the strange nature of the response is thus to be found in the practice of journalism, and specifically in a severe malfunction that is occurring in that professionâmy professionâhere in Israel.
She looks at the disproportionate staffing and reporting on Israel compared with other countries.
Staffing is the best measure of the importance of a story to a particular news organization. When I was a correspondent at the AP, the agency had more than 40 staffers covering Israel and the Palestinian territories. That was significantly more news staff than the AP had in China, Russia, or India, or in all of the 50 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined. It was higher than the total number of news-gathering employees in all the countries where the uprisings of the âArab Springâ eventually erupted.
To offer a sense of scale: Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the permanent AP presence in that country consisted of a single regime-approved stringer. The APâs editors believed, that is, that Syriaâs importance was less than one-40th that of Israel. I donât mean to pick on the APâthe agency is wholly average, which makes it useful as an example. The big players in the news business practice groupthink, and these staffing arrangements were reflected across the herd. Staffing levels in Israel have decreased somewhat since the Arab uprisings began, but remain high. And when Israel flares up, as it did this summer, reporters are often moved from deadlier conflicts. Israel still trumps nearly everything else.
The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 livesâthat is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of Americaâs safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.
News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 womenÂ murdered in Pakistan last yearÂ (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoingÂ erasure of TibetÂ by the Chinese Communist Party, theÂ carnage in CongoÂ (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or theÂ Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012:Â 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners ofÂ IndiaÂ orÂ Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.
That is an indictment in itself right there. That is a massive news imbalance. Â Â Read more »
With Islamic fundamentalism on the rise in Australia and Â radicalised Australians joining various jihad it is hard not to agree with those that want to prevent Muslim immigration into New Zealand.
Australia is far further down the track on this and as a result you are witnessing increased anti-semitism, creation of no go areas in major cities and not far off seeing demands for Sharia law in those same areas.
Australia has a problem and I don’t think we will escape it either.
Their former Army boss says Australia needs to prepare to fight, and on their own soil too.
AUSTRALIA needs to prepare for an increasingly savage, 100-year war against radical Islam that will be fought on home soil as well as foreign lands, the former head of the army, Peter Leahy, has warned.
Professor Leahy, a leading defence and strategic analyst, toldÂ TheÂ Weekend AustralianÂ the country was ill-prepared for the high cost of fighting a war that would be paid in âblood and treasureâ and would require pre-emptive as well as reactive action.
âAustralia is involved in the early stages of a war which is likely to last for the rest of the century,â he said. âWe must be ready to protect ourselves and, where necessary, act pre-emptively to neutralise the evident threat. Get ready for a long war.â
Senior intelligence officials have moved to shore up public support for the Abbott governmentâs tough new security laws, including enhanced data-retention capabilities enabling agencies to track suspect computer usage.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation director-general David Irvine said the proposed data laws, which require phone and internet companies to retain records for two years, were âabsolutely crucialâ to counter the jihadist terror threat.
The governmentâs security package also includes a $630 million funding boost to intelligence agencies and police to help prevent domestic terrorist attacks. Â Read more »