^^^ :eek: Very offensive to Women!

To be honest i'm skeptical on this. I believe the rumours!

I dont think so chaps. They have more to lose if the Somalis in Ethiopia get itchy feet. They are already struggling to keep calm and dont want to set another fire. As long as Somalia doesnt go into Ethiopia, they will simply say good bye to the TFG at the border.

They will protect the TFG to an extent,,,,,they will not enter Somalia in a full scale war.

A fourth Australian detained in Yemen along with 1 Dane on weapon smuggling charges, authorities say The Associated Press Published: October 29, 2006 SAN'A, Yemen A fourth Australian was detained in Yemen along with one Dane for allegedly trying to smuggle weapons to Somalia, a security official said Sunday. All five are Muslims and have been studying at the Islamist Iman University, which is run by Sheik Abdul-Majid al-Zindani, who is listed as an al-Qaida supporter by the United States. Earlier reports had said three Australians and a Dane were arrested. But the security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release information to media, said the arrest campaign was still going on and that at least eight foreign nationals and 20 Yemenis have been arrested so far. He did not specify the nationalities of the other three foreigners and said investigations were ongoing. The arrests are part of a state security campaign launched last month against members of an al-Qaida cell. On Thursday, a Danish Foreign Ministry official confirmed the arrest of the Dane but refused to identify him. Danish media said the suspect is a 23-year-old man who converted to Islam and moved to Yemen two months ago with his wife and child. The security official said another detainee, Ibrahim Abdullah al-Sinhi, also known as Abu Dujana al-Misiki, admitted he'd been assigned to carry out an attack with an explosive-laden car on San'a international airport. Yemen is believed to be a frequent route for smuggling arms to Somali factions. Al-Qaida has an active presence in Yemen, the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden, despite government efforts to fight the terror network. The al-Qaida was blamed for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Aden that killed 17 American sailors and the attack on a French oil tanker that killed one person two years later. str-my SAN'A, Yemen A fourth Australian was detained in Yemen along with one Dane for allegedly trying to smuggle weapons to Somalia, a security official said Sunday. All five are Muslims and have been studying at the Islamist Iman University, which is run by Sheik Abdul-Majid al-Zindani, who is listed as an al-Qaida supporter by the United States. Earlier reports had said three Australians and a Dane were arrested. But the security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release information to media, said the arrest campaign was still going on and that at least eight foreign nationals and 20 Yemenis have been arrested so far. He did not specify the nationalities of the other three foreigners and said investigations were ongoing. The arrests are part of a state security campaign launched last month against members of an al-Qaida cell. On Thursday, a Danish Foreign Ministry official confirmed the arrest of the Dane but refused to identify him. Danish media said the suspect is a 23-year-old man who converted to Islam and moved to Yemen two months ago with his wife and child. The security official said another detainee, Ibrahim Abdullah al-Sinhi, also known as Abu Dujana al-Misiki, admitted he'd been assigned to carry out an attack with an explosive-laden car on San'a international airport. Yemen is believed to be a frequent route for smuggling arms to Somali factions. Al-Qaida has an active presence in Yemen, the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden, despite government efforts to fight the terror network. The al-Qaida was blamed for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Aden that killed 17 American sailors and the attack on a French oil tanker that killed one person two years later. str-my

Baashi Good luck and enjoy your trip. Is it for an interview or just to get a feel for the place? I can imagine you have never been to an Arab country before. For whatever position you apply, make sure the contract terms are right for you. Look into schools etc (there are plenty) and get a BIG 4X4 – a must! Ps it would be good to meet up for a coffee

Theres a Qatari Basketball player and some Somalis play for the Omani national team

Clock change 'would save lives' Hundreds of lives would be saved if Britain's whole time system was shifted forward an hour, say council leaders. The Local Government Association wants winter to be GMT +1, equivalent to British Summer Time. Summer, under the proposals, would be GMT +2. Campaigners for change believe lighter evenings would make the roads safer for children and cyclists. But any move to change the time system would be likely to face fierce opposition in Scotland. The LGA, which covers England and Wales, wants a three-year trial of Single/Double Summer Time (SDST). The call comes as the clocks are due to go back at 0200 BST on Sunday. The SDST has previously received backing from some MPs and a variety of road safety groups. But in Scotland there would be concern over darker mornings affecting children on their way to school. Rush hour LGA spokeswoman Hazel Harding said: "Councils are committed to helping people get safely through their day, and shifting our clocks an hour forward would prevent more than 450 deaths and serious injuries on our roads each year." She said the evening rush hour was the most dangerous time for road users and this was when school children were more likely to have a club or activity . "Their increased exposure to road traffic together with tired drivers can lead to serious consequences," she said. "There has been widespread support for this change from different organisations over the years, and also much opposition. "But unless we are given the chance to see for ourselves what the impact would be today, we cannot know for certain that our roads are as safe as they possibly could be." Ms Harding added that in the height of summer the sun rises at 0400 BST, while most people are asleep and "sets while we are still enjoying our evenings". "Matching the daylight hours more closely with our living patterns would give us a greater opportunity to enjoy ourselves, get active and stay healthy," she said. However, last October the Scottish National Party (SNP) education spokeswoman Fiona Hyslop, said any change in policy would put more Scottish children at risk as they travelled to school. Ms Hyslop tabled a motion at Holyrood backing the current Daylight Saving Time system. ------------------------------------------------- Now i have to watch the football at a later time! :rolleyes:

Colour blind Tiger Woods opened America's eyes to the inaccuracy of seeing ethnic identity in terms of black and white. In Britain, the debate has not begun - but, in a series of exclusive interviews, Observer Sport reveals a surprising depth of feeling Anna Kessel Sunday October 29, 2006 The Observer When Tiger Woods went on Oprah to declare himself mixed race, not black, it caused outrage across the United States. Many saw Woods's declaration as a rejection of his black heritage. In America, a country where the 'drops of blood' mentality still exists - measuring black identity into halves, quarters and eighths - one drop means you are black. Even senior political figures, such as the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, weighed in. 'In America,' said Powell, 'when you look like me, you're black.' But Woods rejected such polarisation. His heritage is Caucasian, Black, Native American and Asian. He has invented a word to describe himself: Cablinasian. The debate in the US highlighted that, hidden behind the idea that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant, there is a real issue for people who consider themselves neither black nor white - and, partly thanks to Woods, sport has become the focal point of the debate. In the UK this debate has not begun, even though Observer Sport has discovered a surprising depth of feeling. You have only to look at England's World Cup squad this summer. Six out of seven of the players described as 'black' were mixed race, but this was not mentioned on TV or in the written press. Mixed-race people account for about 1.4 per cent of Britain's population, so for mixed-race footballers to make up 26 per cent of England's elite is a huge achievement. Theirs is the fastest growing ethnic minority in the country and yet 'mixed race' was included in the UK census for the first time only in 2001. Factor in that a high number of mixed-race children are raised in single-parent households and that mixed-race people are more likely to be victims of crime than any other ethnic group in Britain and it becomes all the more apparent as to why their achievements should be applauded. This year, football's anti-racism campaign, Kick It Out, launched their week of action around the slogan 'One Game, One Community'. But mixed race challenges conventional notions about community. The very different stories of the six World Cup players gives an indication of how diverse that term can be - from David James's and Theo Walcott's experiences of growing up in predominantly white rural areas, to Rio Ferdinand's and Ashley Cole's urban experience of multi-ethnic London estates. Cole is a good example. He isn't offended by being described as black. 'But,' he says firmly, 'I call myself mixed race.' Cole was raised by his mother in east London. 'It was a predominantly white home environment. I didn't really see my black family. At home we ate English food; when we went to parties we didn't listen to soca or reggae, it would be English music. But in football you're just seen as black or white; I don't think people realise the difference.' But being either black or white in football can be difficult, as Stan Collymore's autobiography, Tackling My Demons, explains. 'Show me two rooms,' he wrote, 'one with black footballers, one with white footballers, and I would pick a room on my own.' Collymore, who grew up with his white mother in Cannock, felt alienated by the urban black culture he encountered at his first club, Crystal Palace. He says he felt 'torn apart' and 'isolated'. Paul McGrath told of similar stories and such experiences often form a stereotype. One well-known Premiership manager, who has worked with mixed-race players past and present, labelled them difficult, 'less stable' and 'confused'. If a respected manager thinks this way, what other forms of prejudice do mixed-race footballers face? One of the most common, and offensive, terms to describe mixed race is 'half-caste'. Heather Rabbatts, born to a Jamaican mother and an English father, is the recently appointed vice-chair at Millwall. 'I haven't heard the word half-caste for many years, but I have heard it in football,' she says. 'I've heard it used by white managers, although I don't think they realise that it's racist. There's a long way to go before football understands how to talk about race.' Palace winger Jobi McAnuff grew up in north London with his Jamaican father and white English mother. He feels strongly about the term half-caste. 'It's something mixed-race people have been labelled as for years,' he says. 'If you polled a cross-section of society I bet the majority of people would say half-caste. I don't like the word, but then you get people who are so used to it they are blind to its offensiveness.' He agrees the term is common in football. 'All the clubs I've been at I've been called half-caste. It's routine. I make a point of asking people not to call me it, though.' Of all those interviewed for this article, opinion was divided on whether the term is offensive, although most agreed that 'it doesn't sound good'. Interestingly, many guessed at the true meaning of the word. Don Walcott, father of the Arsenal striker Theo, likened it to 'a fisherman who can't quite cast his line across a pond'; the Portsmouth goalkeeper David James offered, 'inhumanely manufactured'; McAnuff said: 'It means you're half of something, like there's something missing.' In fact, half-caste is not far off the appalling term half-breed, one that Rabbatts remembers hearing growing up in Kent. Caste comes from the Latin castus, meaning pure, and the derivative Portuguese casta, which means race. Caste was first used in India in the sixteenth century to describe the Hindu system of hierarchy. The term half-caste indicates how pure you are racially and echoes the days of colonial slavery when words such as mulatto, quadroon and octoroon were commonplace in sales ledgers and even in post-emancipation days in the old United States census. Curtis Davies, the West Brom defender, whose mother is English and father is from Sierra Leone, says he is so used to hearing half-caste it doesn't bother him, but he objects to the term quarter-caste. 'Half-breed is the worst, though,' he says. 'People say it in banter to me, but if they said it seriously I would be offended.' Being described in fractions is like being seen as abstract parts, says James. 'It was a subtle prejudice that I felt,' he says, 'but people always commented on pieces of me - my hair, my colour - no one ever said anything nice about the whole of me.' Growing up surrounded by white faces in Welwyn Garden City in Hertfordshire, James was the only non-white child at his junior school. 'I was called a coon and a black *******,' he says. 'I lived with my white mum so I couldn't go back to an ethnic home and relate the experience. At school I was asked if I was adopted. I got confused and I'd go home and ask my mum if I was divorced.' James believes that there was a direct correlation between bullying because of his mixed-race background and his low self-esteem. 'Trying to break records in goal was all about proving that I was valuable.' Sitting in a quiet pub garden in Hemel Hempstead, Don Walcott muses on the subject. Next to him is Theo's older brother, Ashley. Although it is the father who is being interviewed, it is interesting how often he defers to his son for an opinion on being mixed race. It is refreshing. Most of those interviewed said they had never spoken to a parent about their identity. 'I'm black British and it's very defining,' says Walcott senior, born in Britain to Jamaican parents. 'But people often look at my kids - Holly, Theo and Ashley - and wonder, "What are they?" They've been asked if they're Moroccan and Asian. It shouldn't matter what they are. It's a shame that it does to some.' The term half-caste starts an interesting exchange between father and son. Walcott senior says he doesn't find it offensive, 'but maybe that's because I'm black', he says. 'It's to do with your age as well,' says Ashley. 'Maybe,' says his father. 'Does that term offend you?' he asks. Ashley thinks for a moment before saying: 'It's not a big problem, but I prefer to be called mixed race.' The distinctions are important to Davies. 'I'm as much white as I am black,' he says. 'People have got to acknowledge that. My mum is white and I don't want people to discount that.' Davies has an older half-brother who is white. 'Every time we went to football people couldn't believe we were brothers,' he says. 'They couldn't take that I could be related to a white person.' McAnuff says the same of his white cousins who sometimes watch him play for Palace. 'My mum's side of the family are from Portsmouth. But I don't think many of the lads at football can imagine me sat round eating a traditional English roast dinner with my white uncles and aunts. People tend to see me as black, but there's a big difference between black and mixed race. I can identify with Tiger Woods on that.' McAnuff celebrates his fluid identity, but he admits that in football there are racial cliques. 'From my experience I get seen as one of the "brothers". You walk into the canteen and there's a table of black boys and the white boys are up the other end, but I don't see it as a negative. I'd like to think it's easier for me to cross between groups, but my white friends at Palace still see me as black. People only see skin deep and society says I look more black than white.' Tottenham striker Jermain Defoe is not mixed race but grew up around mixed-race families in the East End. He says that half-caste is derogatory. He sees his mixed-race team-mates as black, he says. 'If we were messing about, having a kick around, and someone said let's play black v whites, I'd expect JJ [Jermaine Jenas] and Aaron [Lennon] to come with us. I don't think they'd even stop to think about it.' Surrey cricket captain Mark Butcher was born to a Jamaican mother and an English father. 'There's often a tribal thing in sports teams where all the black players go out together, but I never got into that. Often music will split a room, but in our house there was never anything you shouldn't listen to. I remember sitting up Sunday nights, we'd get the stereo and crank it up. Mum would put on Deep Purple and dad's got the reggae on.' For Davies, a fluid identity can also raise difficult questions. 'If I'm walking down the street with black mates, it's cold and we've got our hoodies up, we are likely to get name-checked by the police. I've been with my white mates, same area, same hoodies and it's never happened. The police don't even look or slow down. I guess that's another aspect about the split in my race,' he says. England women's striker Rachel Yankey grew up in west London with an English mother; her Ghanaian father did not live with them. Sometimes it is the small things about a mixed-race background that make the most impression. 'I've been in a shop with my mum and they've looked at both of us and gone, "I can see you're related", and I'm thinking, "Why say that?" Or hairdressers, that's the most common one. I remember going to white hairdressers with my mum and they couldn't cut it right, or they put the wrong products in.' Yankey says she feels uncomfortable when people assume things about her because of how she looks. She tells the story of an African mother to a child who attends her coaching sessions. 'She brought in some traditional African food for me and asked if I knew what it was. She wasn't quizzing me, but I felt that being half-African I should know. It bothered me that I didn't. I felt I had to explain. I said that my dad didn't bring me up, I didn't grow up eating African food.' The example of Collymore and his rooms full of black and white people elicits interesting responses. James says he would probably hang out on his own, while Davies is aghast at the idea of having to choose. 'Choosing which room to go into?' he says. 'That's like choosing who to save from a burning building, your mum or your dad.' Yankey's view is more complex. 'When you go in the white room you know you're different looking, but I've grown up with white people so that's probably where I'd feel most comfortable. When you go in the black room you look similar but you don't feel as comfortable inside. I'm happiest when I'm surrounded by a mix of people.' Rabbatts says: 'For many years you had to be in one camp or another, but it's becoming less about a singular choice these days. My son is able to support four different national football teams. When I was working in diversity groups not long ago it was all about the cricket test: if you didn't support England you were in trouble. For me at Millwall it's about being with my black players and my white players. If I have any advantages in life it's that I can understand and be part of both of those spheres.' So how does football's anti-racism body, Kick It Out, view the position of mixed-race individuals in the game? Director Piara Powar says the use of the term half-caste is a form of abuse. 'If a player came to us with a complaint about it we would support their case,' he says. 'It's an issue the industry needs to be educated on.' Still, Powar believes that had Ron Atkinson abused a top mixed-race player using the term half-caste, in the way that he abused Marcel Desailly - in an unguarded moment, he called the Frenchman a '******* lazy, thick nigger' in April 2004 - there would have been nowhere near as severe repercussions for the former ITV pundit. Kick It Out do not currently educate on mixed-race issues, but Powar says that the term half-caste could be introduced into steward training packages as a primary step. So what does the future hold? Cole is not confident that much will change. 'It's the adults that are teaching the kids the word half-caste; to get them to change you need to re-educate them first,' he says. McAnuff says the media is a vital tool in this. 'I don't think people realise saying mixed race would make such a big difference to mixed-race players like us. The media is powerful. Imagine if they started using it in the newspapers and on Match of the Day. It would educate people. I think it's something we could look at.' In Britain, mixed race is the youngest age profile of any ethnic group, with about 50 per cent aged 16 and under. It is likely many more top footballers will emerge from this group. Walcott senior says it takes a generation for people to be educated on these issues. His son Theo, nicknamed Tiger Woods at school, may just be part of the next generation to effect that change.

You say drastic measures,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Congress battle sinks into the dirt Sex, racism ... the stakes are so high in the US midterms that for both parties, any smear will do Paul Harris in New York Sunday October 29, 2006 The Observer With less than two weeks to go in a bitterly fought campaign, America's midterm elections have turned into one of the dirtiest and most negative fights in recent history. A slew of 'attack ads' has hit airwaves across the nation as rival candidates seek to claw back points in the polls. And one key theme has emerged in many of them. It is not Iraq. Or terrorism. It is sex. Candidates have been accused of using sex phone lines, going to Playboy parties, writing books that encourage paedophilia, assaulting their ex-lovers or paying for sex. Most, but not all, the advertisements are Republican campaigns attacking Democrats, who appear poised for a historic victory. 'These elections are probably the most negative midterms in recent memory,' says John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University and author of a book on negative political advertising. There has been no let-up in the stream of sexually themed attacks. Late last week, in a fierce Senate race in Virginia, campaigners for embattled Republican George Allen issued lengthy excerpts from novels penned by their Democratic opponent Jim Webb. They contained graphic scenes of sex, child abuse and prostitution. 'Webb's writings are disturbing for a candidate hoping to represent the families of Virginians,' an Allen spokesman said. Webb's campaign retorted that Allen was simply launching 'smear after smear'. Webb's books are historical novels, often set in Vietnam, and the candidate is himself a decorated war veteran. Many other examples of sex-themed attack ads have sprung up. In New York a Republican group ran an advert accusing Democrat Michael Arcuri of using taxpayers' money to ring sex lines. In language not often seen in political debate, the advert has an actress posing as a sex line operator say: 'Hi sexy, you've reached the one-on-one fantasy line.' In fact, an Arcuri staffer had simply dialled a wrong number while trying to get through to the New York division of the Department of Criminal Justice. The traffic is not all one way, however. Democrats have attacked Pennsylvania Republican Don Sherwood with allegations from a former mistress that he tried to choke her. They are also running TV ads against New York Republican John Sweeney for attending a fraternity party that show a mock Sweeney dancing with young girls like a lecherous old man. Even in a political process used to scandal-mongering, the huge emphasis on sex is a new development. 'A lot of this stuff on sex is new. Sex sells this year,' said Geer. Experts believe that the huge emphasis on negative adverts in this campaign has its roots in several causes. Study after study shows that negative ads are far more effective than positive ones and so in a tight race campaigns are much more likely to use them. As there is so much at stake in this year's midterms, the emphasis on attack has been there from the beginning. Also, neither side has much of a serious agenda on which to campaign: the Republicans have seen President George W Bush's second term fall apart in a wave of scandals, while Democrats have failed to provide a unified opposition on many issues, especially crucial topics such as Iraq and immigration. But the negative adverts are not just attacking on the issue of real or perceived sexual indiscretions. They are also attacking on the issue of race. In Tennessee, the black Democrat Harold Ford has been the target of an attack ad that was so controversial that even the opposing Republican candidate tried to distance himself from it. The ad listed a long line of personal attacks on Ford before showing a blonde white woman who reminisces about meeting Ford at a Playboy party and then winks at the camera, saying 'Harold - call me!' The advert outraged many because it plays to an old racial/sexual stereotype that still has a powerful resonance in southern states such as Tennessee: accusations of sexual relationships between black men and white women were often used as excuses for lynchings in the Deep South. The ad also comes at a time when some senior Republicans have publicly disavowed a previous 'Southern strategy' of deliberately courting whites. Yet that progressive move has apparently been reversed because the midterms have become so tight. A spokesman for the Republican National Committee said the accusations of racism were 'not fair, not serious and not accurate'. But many experts disagree. They believe the Republican campaign knew exactly what it was doing by invoking race - in the same way as a controversial ad featuring a black rapist, Willie Horton, who had been freed from jail under a programme Michael Dukakis had supported, was used against Dukakis in the 1988 presidential race. 'That Tennessee advert makes the Willie Horton ad look like child's play. It is racist. That is the bottom line,' Geer says. For many Americans, the litany of negative adverts is often depressing. Even when the allegations do not involve out-and-out sex, they are extreme. Democrats have been accused of advancing a 'homosexual agenda' and Republicans have even been accused of selling guns to child rapists. On terrorism, Republicans have frequently used pictures of Osama bin Laden. One ad, aired nationally, showed a variety of videos of bin Laden and other terrorists and a soundtrack that was just a ticking bomb timer. Many experts see the Republican tactics as a measure of desperation. Democrats need to gain just 15 seats in the House of Representatives and six in the Senate to win control of all of Congress. Most polls have them in reach of their targets and the mood among many party strategists is probably at its most optimistic since Bill Clinton was in power. In order to prevent that Democrat takeover, Republicans have to mobilise their conservative base and extreme attack ads - especially those on social issues such as sex, gay rights or abortion - are often thought of as the best way to do that. But Republicans do have other tricks up their sleeve. Bush's political guru Karl Rove is famous for creating a national network of activists geared to the final 72 hours of any Republican campaign. The network is primed to maximise voter turnout among conservatives and is generally seen as far superior to Democrat organisations, which rely on organised labour unions. The Republican machine also makes far more use of sophisticated targeting techniques developed by marketing firms that identify their likely supporters and the issues they care about. Republicans have also raised almost $200m since the 2004 elections, almost double the $108m raised by Democrats. But some politicians definitely have clean hands US politicians are keeping it clean for the midterm elections. At least germwise. Democrats and Republicans alike are routinely rubbing their hands with sanitiser Purell after shaking hands with thousands of likely voters. 'Many people in politics have become obsessive about using hand sanitiser,' the New York Times reported yesterday. Out of the public gaze, high-profile politicians like Vice-President Dick Cheney rub their hands with antiseptic gel provided by an aide. Avoiding the germs of the public has become so common that now aides ensure people who greet their favourite candidate use Purell too. Even President George Bush is reported to use the antiseptic, which claims to kill '99.99 per cent of most common germs that may cause illness'. 'Good stuff, keeps you from getting colds,' Bush told Senator Barack Obama, at a White House encounter last year, after which Obama too started using Purell. Other prominent figures spotted using the gel include former US President Bill Clinton (during his 1992 presidential campaign after eating a pie with dirty hands); and Arizona's Republican Senator John McCain, (after observing former presidential hopeful Bob Dole's excessive use of it). But not every US politician is happy about the practice. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said it was 'condescending to the voters'.

With the US midterms coming up, what chance a new tape will be screened on Al Jazeera from the mountain areas of Afganistan/PAkistan from the usual suspect? Then, the Republicans regaining the upper hand in the house? Watch this space!

that Robin Van Persie is quality, been playing some good stuff of late!

Good to see some of the sisters back in action! A woman is safer in a miniskirt in New York City than she would be in a burka in Cairo Now, that is an interesting discussion!

India abolishes husbands' 'right' to rape wife By Justin Huggler in Delhi Published: 27 October 2006 For the first time, women in India have legal protection against abuse in their own homes under a law which came into force yesterday. It is the first time Indian law has recognised marital rape, sexual, emotional or verbal abuse of a woman by her husband as crimes. India is a country where the streets are safe - but a woman is not safe inside her own home. There is a remarkably low rate of violent crime against strangers in most of the big cities, and it is safe to walk the streets of Mumbai or Bangalore late at night. But every six hours, a young married woman is burnt to death, beaten to death, or driven to suicide by emotional abuse from her husband, figures show. More than two-thirds of married women in India aged between 15 and 49 have been beaten, raped or forced to provide sex, according to the UN Population Fund. One of the most common causes of violence against women is dowry-related. In most of India, women's families are still expected to provide their husbands with dowries when they marry. Husbands - or their families - who are dissatisfied with the dowry beat, emotionally abuse and often even kill the women. Last year 6,787 cases were recorded of women murdered by their husbands or their husbands' families because of their dowries. Many die in "stove burnings": set alight by husbands or in-laws who then claim it was a kitchen accident. Domestic violence against women is already illegal, under a 1983 law. But the new law marks the first time India has recognised marital rape. Previously it was impossible to prosecute a man for raping his wife, which was considered to be within his conjugal rights. The new law also for the first time recognises emotional, verbal and economic abuse of a woman by her husband as a crime. Punishment can include a jail sentence of up to one year and a fine of up to 20,000 rupees (£230). Existing law already provides longer sentences for physical violence. But more importantly, the new law also provides a share of an abusive husband's earnings and property for the victim, and medical costs. Crucially, it also guarantees abused wives the right to continue living in the family house. Houses are still shared by extended families in much of India, and abused wives are often thrown out by their husbands' in-laws, leaving them destitute and homeless. "It's going to orient women to stand up for their own rights and take the necessary precautions to empower themselves," said Renuka Chowdhury, minister of women and child development. Previously many women are believed to have been afraid to speak out because they risk losing their husband's financial support for themselves and their children. But concerns remain that even under the new law, many cases of abuse will still go unreported, unless attitudes towards domestic abuse change. The UN Population Fund's 2005 report found that 70 per cent of Indian women believed wife-beating was justified under certain circumstances, including refusal to provide sex, or preparing dinner late. Woman killed after refusing sex Tripla, born in eastern India Tripla was born in the jungles of eastern India. But she died hundreds of miles from home, in the scrubby fields around Delhi, murdered by her husband because she refused to have sex with his brother. She was born into a penniless family. So when a man came looking for a wife and offered £170 for her, her parents accepted. She never saw her home or her family again. Her husband took her to his village in Mewat district, an hour's drive from Delhi. There is a shortage of women in the area, because of the practice of female foeticide. They lived together as husband and wife for six months. Then Ajmer ordered her to sleep with his brother, who could not afford a wife. When Tripla refused, Ajmer dragged her to a field near the village and beheaded her with a sickle. Tripla's story was uncovered by Rishi Kant, a women's rights campaigner. When he told her parents in Jharkhand what had happened, her mother wept. "But what could we do?" she asked him. "We are facing so much poverty we had no choice but to sell her." Her husband is now facing trial for murder. Hers is one case among thousands. Every week, in the villages of Mewat alone, Mr Kant rescues more women who have been bought as wives and face lives of abuse. For the first time, women in India have legal protection against abuse in their own homes under a law which came into force yesterday. It is the first time Indian law has recognised marital rape, sexual, emotional or verbal abuse of a woman by her husband as crimes. India is a country where the streets are safe - but a woman is not safe inside her own home. There is a remarkably low rate of violent crime against strangers in most of the big cities, and it is safe to walk the streets of Mumbai or Bangalore late at night. But every six hours, a young married woman is burnt to death, beaten to death, or driven to suicide by emotional abuse from her husband, figures show. More than two-thirds of married women in India aged between 15 and 49 have been beaten, raped or forced to provide sex, according to the UN Population Fund. One of the most common causes of violence against women is dowry-related. In most of India, women's families are still expected to provide their husbands with dowries when they marry. Husbands - or their families - who are dissatisfied with the dowry beat, emotionally abuse and often even kill the women. Last year 6,787 cases were recorded of women murdered by their husbands or their husbands' families because of their dowries. Many die in "stove burnings": set alight by husbands or in-laws who then claim it was a kitchen accident. Domestic violence against women is already illegal, under a 1983 law. But the new law marks the first time India has recognised marital rape. Previously it was impossible to prosecute a man for raping his wife, which was considered to be within his conjugal rights. The new law also for the first time recognises emotional, verbal and economic abuse of a woman by her husband as a crime. Punishment can include a jail sentence of up to one year and a fine of up to 20,000 rupees (£230). Existing law already provides longer sentences for physical violence. But more importantly, the new law also provides a share of an abusive husband's earnings and property for the victim, and medical costs. Crucially, it also guarantees abused wives the right to continue living in the family house. Houses are still shared by extended families in much of India, and abused wives are often thrown out by their husbands' in-laws, leaving them destitute and homeless. "It's going to orient women to stand up for their own rights and take the necessary precautions to empower themselves," said Renuka Chowdhury, minister of women and child development. Previously many women are believed to have been afraid to speak out because they risk losing their husband's financial support for themselves and their children. But concerns remain that even under the new law, many cases of abuse will still go unreported, unless attitudes towards domestic abuse change. The UN Population Fund's 2005 report found that 70 per cent of Indian women believed wife-beating was justified under certain circumstances, including refusal to provide sex, or preparing dinner late. Woman killed after refusing sex Tripla, born in eastern India Tripla was born in the jungles of eastern India. But she died hundreds of miles from home, in the scrubby fields around Delhi, murdered by her husband because she refused to have sex with his brother. She was born into a penniless family. So when a man came looking for a wife and offered £170 for her, her parents accepted. She never saw her home or her family again. Her husband took her to his village in Mewat district, an hour's drive from Delhi. There is a shortage of women in the area, because of the practice of female foeticide. They lived together as husband and wife for six months. Then Ajmer ordered her to sleep with his brother, who could not afford a wife. When Tripla refused, Ajmer dragged her to a field near the village and beheaded her with a sickle. Tripla's story was uncovered by Rishi Kant, a women's rights campaigner. When he told her parents in Jharkhand what had happened, her mother wept. "But what could we do?" she asked him. "We are facing so much poverty we had no choice but to sell her." Her husband is now facing trial for murder. Hers is one case among thousands. Every week, in the villages of Mewat alone, Mr Kant rescues more women who have been bought as wives and face lives of abuse.

Kuwaitis still getting payouts for damage of 1990 Iraqi invasion By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor Published: 27 October 2006 Fifteen years after the first Gulf War, and three years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a UN commission is still paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to the victims of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The latest payments, totalling $417.8m (£220m), were made yesterday to governments and oil companies for losses and damages stemming from the Kuwaiti occupation, bringing the total paid out to more than $21bn (£11bn). The total claims that have been approved run to $52bn (£27.5bn) and will take many more years to complete. The transfers by the Geneva-based Compensation Commission are not the only hangover from the Saddam era to be funded by Iraqi oil revenues. The UN weapons inspectors, now known as UNMOVIC, have never been wound up by the Security Council and still have $114m in their coffers - despite $200m having been shifted from their escrow account in June last year into the Iraq development fund. That was only months after $9bn went missing from the development fund. The 34 arms monitors are still contracted to ensure the disarmament of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Until the 15-member Security Council tells them to stop, or decides to use their expertise in another way, they are continuing to produce a three-monthly disarmament report. "Every three months we go to the council, and they wring their hands and move on to the next piece of business," said one inspector. Saddam's forces rolled into Kuwait in August 1990 at the start of a seven-month occupation which ended with the Iraqi soldiers blowing up Kuwait oilfields and pouring 10 million barrels of oil into the sea, causing an environmental disaster. The final deadline for most compensation claims passed in 1997, but missing persons claims and those stemming from landmine or ordnance explosions were subsequently accepted by the Geneva-based UN Compensation Commission. It has received more than 2.6 million claims since 1991, totalling $368bn, seeking compensation for deaths, damage and losses. Despite the overthrow of Saddam, the Security Council decided in June 2003 that the fund should not be frozen but would receive 5 per cent of all Iraqi oil and gas and petroleum products export sales. Initial payments went to individuals and have now all been processed. Yesterday's pay-outs, which included environmental claims, went to corporations, international organisations and the governments of Bosnia-Herzegovina, India, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the US. The largest amount - $335.5m - went to Kuwait to pay for 38 claims, while the US was paid $10m for a single claim. The proportion of corporations which have claimed damages from the occupation was not known, but the commission has received $44bn worth of compensation claims from oil companies with operations in the Persian Gulf. The governments listed for yesterday's transfer had filed claims covering their costs in evacuating nationals from Kuwait, providing relief aid, damage to diplomatic property and harm to the environment. Other claims include damage to government buildings, loss of equipment as well as estimates of the value of work carried out by contractors before the invasion. The commission has also received 170 environmental claims stemming from the oil fires and the discharge of oil into the sea, that total $80bn. * The number of US troops killed in Iraq in October reached the highest monthly total in a year yesterday after four marines and a sailor died after being injured while fighting in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, where the insurgency is strongest. The Pentagon said 96 US troops have died so far in October, the same number that died in October 2005. The highest monthly death toll prior to that came in January 2005, when 107 US troops were killed. Fifteen years after the first Gulf War, and three years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a UN commission is still paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to the victims of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The latest payments, totalling $417.8m (£220m), were made yesterday to governments and oil companies for losses and damages stemming from the Kuwaiti occupation, bringing the total paid out to more than $21bn (£11bn). The total claims that have been approved run to $52bn (£27.5bn) and will take many more years to complete. The transfers by the Geneva-based Compensation Commission are not the only hangover from the Saddam era to be funded by Iraqi oil revenues. The UN weapons inspectors, now known as UNMOVIC, have never been wound up by the Security Council and still have $114m in their coffers - despite $200m having been shifted from their escrow account in June last year into the Iraq development fund. That was only months after $9bn went missing from the development fund. The 34 arms monitors are still contracted to ensure the disarmament of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Until the 15-member Security Council tells them to stop, or decides to use their expertise in another way, they are continuing to produce a three-monthly disarmament report. "Every three months we go to the council, and they wring their hands and move on to the next piece of business," said one inspector. Saddam's forces rolled into Kuwait in August 1990 at the start of a seven-month occupation which ended with the Iraqi soldiers blowing up Kuwait oilfields and pouring 10 million barrels of oil into the sea, causing an environmental disaster. The final deadline for most compensation claims passed in 1997, but missing persons claims and those stemming from landmine or ordnance explosions were subsequently accepted by the Geneva-based UN Compensation Commission. It has received more than 2.6 million claims since 1991, totalling $368bn, seeking compensation for deaths, damage and losses. Despite the overthrow of Saddam, the Security Council decided in June 2003 that the fund should not be frozen but would receive 5 per cent of all Iraqi oil and gas and petroleum products export sales. Initial payments went to individuals and have now all been processed. Yesterday's pay-outs, which included environmental claims, went to corporations, international organisations and the governments of Bosnia-Herzegovina, India, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the US. The largest amount - $335.5m - went to Kuwait to pay for 38 claims, while the US was paid $10m for a single claim. The proportion of corporations which have claimed damages from the occupation was not known, but the commission has received $44bn worth of compensation claims from oil companies with operations in the Persian Gulf. The governments listed for yesterday's transfer had filed claims covering their costs in evacuating nationals from Kuwait, providing relief aid, damage to diplomatic property and harm to the environment. Other claims include damage to government buildings, loss of equipment as well as estimates of the value of work carried out by contractors before the invasion. The commission has also received 170 environmental claims stemming from the oil fires and the discharge of oil into the sea, that total $80bn. * The number of US troops killed in Iraq in October reached the highest monthly total in a year yesterday after four marines and a sailor died after being injured while fighting in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, where the insurgency is strongest. The Pentagon said 96 US troops have died so far in October, the same number that died in October 2005. The highest monthly death toll prior to that came in January 2005, when 107 US troops were killed.

^^If this was a sermon, how did it become public? Was it recorded? Where are the 'freedom of speech' brigade?

Al-Jazeera, a media revolution Ten years on, al-Jazeera is the indisputed voice of the free in an Arab world that remains in shackles. Azzam Tamimi Articles Latest Show all Profile All Azzam Tamimi articles About Webfeeds October 25, 2006 06:18 PM | Printable version As al-Jazeera International, which will be predominantly in English, prepares for its launch this coming November, its older Arabic service al-Jazeera celebrates its 10th anniversary. The first of November 1996 witnessed a media revolution not just in the Arab world but across the globe. Al-Jazeera, which was born out of the abortion of a joint venture between the BBC and Saudi Arabia, soon attracted the attention of Arab viewers worldwide to an exciting style in broadcasting never ever before adopted by an Arab sponsored media outlet. A year or so earlier, the Saudi Orbit Satellite bouquet sought to provide Arab satellite viewers with a reasonably "respectable" Arabic TV news service by means of contracting the news and current affairs segment to the BBC, well-respected in the Arab world for its Arabic radio service that is listened to by millions from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Peninsula. For several months London-based Arab experts and commentators were hosted by the service in its BBC TV Centre studios at White City. At times guests would be warned not to be too harsh on Saudi Arabia if the news they were commenting on or the issues they were discussing had anything to do with it or its royals. A mild indirect critique of Arab governments was acceptable but not a direct blunt criticism of the Gulf states. Yet, the BBC kept receiving complaints from the Saudis objecting to the appearance of certain guests or to the way in which certain issues were addressed. They were particularly annoyed at the appearance on the news bulletins or the talk shows of members of the Saudi opposition. Riyadh authorities preferred to pretend they never existed. Guest commentators could not help but perceive the growing tension that eventually ended in an abrupt divorce between the BBC and Orbit. Certain influential players within the ruling family in Saudi Arabia's much smaller neighbour Qatar had apparently been following the deterioration of the BBC-ORBIT marriage upon whose collapse they moved in, contracted the bulk of the BBC Arabic TV service staff and flew them to Doha. The Qataris, who suffered no shortage of money, seized the opportunity to acquire an entire team of highly professional and experienced TV producers and presenters. Anyone looking to launch a near perfect satellite service would not have been luckier. To guarantee the success of the project, the Qataris added to the professionalism of the team and the generous budget they allocated for the operation another essential element: editorial freedom. Unlike the Saudis, the Qataris did not suffer internal problems that might be considered threatening or even news worthy. With a small population sitting on an ocean of oil and natural gas, governor-governed relations have been at their best since the current Amir seized power from his father. Since then, poverty in Qatar has been, literally, nonexistent and political dissent is considered an internal family affair that is usually resolved in a traditional fatherly fashion that leaves all those concerned happy and content. Each Qatari citizen is guaranteed a job and a minimum standard of living - including all essential services such as housing, health, education and even recreation - that is well above anything a western liberal society may dream of. In a nutshell, Qatari citizens have little to complain from. One of the earliest decisions taken by the current Amir upon coming to power was to cancel the Information ministry and end all forms of government control over the media. It was in this climate that al-Jazeera was born with the declared objective of giving platform to "the opinion and the other opinion". Indeed, all kinds of ideas and personalities from the extreme right to the extreme left and from among the Islamists and the secular nationalists have regularly been debating issues on al-Jazeera. Hundreds of Arab activists and thinkers, whose own national media would never give them platform, rose to fame because al-Jazeera hosted them. In many instances, other media outlets, who otherwise would not have been bothered, were soon forced to pay attention to these rising stars. The liberal west initially welcomed al-Jazeera seeing it as a tool of greatly needed and long-aspired-for liberalisation of the Arab region. Indeed, the channel's news bulletins and talk shows seemed to leave no stone unturned in the Arab political and social terrain. However, Arab regimes that are usually identified as close friends and strategic allies of the leading power in the west, the USA, could not conceal their anger and frustration at what Qatar's al-Jazeera was doing to them. The suppressed voices of political activists, opposition leaders and spokespersons for NGOs - particularly in the field of human rights and civil liberties - struggling for reform across the Arab region found in al-Jazeera a powerful agency to communicate their ideas, concerns and hopes to the millions of viewers who had free uncontrolled access to the channel via the satellite dish. The al-Jazeera TV debates about some of the most taboo issues in Arab politics encouraged members of the public to think loud and discuss freely. News and current affairs programs produced by national television stations, which were tightly controlled and severely censored, became deserted. Pressure was building within these institutions in order to ease the restrictions so that viewers could be won back. Technology, money and political will combined together to provide al-Jazeera with an edge that was almost impossible to surpass. The United Arab Emirates tried to pull the rug from underneath al-Jazeera by liberalising its Abu Dhabi satellite channel. Initially, Abu Dhabi seemed to compete well; some of al-Jazeera's staff were lured by extremely generous packages that were, at times, more than double the salary they had been earning. With such irresistible offers some of them resigned their jobs at al-Jazeera and joined Abu Dhabi. However, soon most of them regretted the decision; some of them jumped re-applied to al-Jazeera and asked for their jobs to be given back to them. The authorities in the UAE could not maintain the open platform for long; their channel could compete in many ways except in the ability to maintain such a wide margin of freedom; only al-Jazeera was prepared to guarantee its staff and viewers alike such freedom. In another bid to outdo al-Jazeera the Saudis opened their al-Arabiya satellite channel and the Americans their al-Hurra. The Saudi owned al-Arabiya did quite well in the beginning and managed to take away a chunk of viewers from al-Jazeera but that too was short-lived. It became clear soon that the purpose of al-Arabiya was not to compete with al-Jazeera but rather to settle scores with the critics of the Saudi Royal family. It is widely believed the US created al-Hurra Arabic satellite TV channel for the purpose of providing Arab viewers with the US side of the story in contrast to what al-Jazeera offers. The project has anything but succeeded. The US contentment with al-Jazeera started fading away soon after 9/11 with the launch of the war on terrorism that started with the invasion of Afghanistan followed by the invasion of Iraq. Al-Jazeera's coverage of events in both arenas annoyed the US and prompted several US senior officials in the George W. Bush administration to openly criticise the channel. Sensing the US unease with al-Jazeera, an Arab leader, who al-Jazeera had also apparently annoyed, was reported to have suggested during the US invasion of Afghanistan that the US president should spare one of his Tomahawk missiles for al-Jazeera headquarters in Doha. Several Arab governments, including Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had at different occasions expressed anger that at times manifested itself in the closure of al-Jazeera offices or the brief detention of its correspondents and at times took the form of calling back their own ambassadors in Doha. Soon, the US frustration with al-Jazeera manifested itself in more than verbal condemnation of the channel; its offices in Kabul and then in Baghdad were shelled by US occupation troops. In the latter instance al-Jazeera correspondent in Baghdad Tariq Ayoub was killed. Two of al-Jazeera's staff members have been accused of terrorism as a result of their coverage of events in Afghanistan: correspondent Taysir Allouni, who was arrested, charged, tried and imprisoned in Spain for interviewing Osama bin Laden; and cameraman Sami Al-Hajj, who was kidnapped while still in Afghanistan and has been held in Guantanamo Bay detention centre for the past five years. The US administration considered further drastic action. Citing a Downing Street memo marked top secret, the British Daily Mirror reported in November 2005, that the US President, George Bush, planned to bomb al-Jazeera operation in Doha. According to a five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and the British prime minister, Tony Blair, during Blair's 16 April 2004 visit to Washington, Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station. Now we know this was not just an American concern. In an interview for Channel 4's Dispatches the former British home secretary, David Blunkett, indicated that he thought the bombing of al-Jazeera's Baghdad TV transmitter was, in his opinion, justified. When I visited al-Jazeera in Doha for a talk show in 1997, it occupied a very small compound consisting of a few administrative offices, a newsroom and a studio. Today al-Jazeera is an empire with a huge operation in Doha and scores of offices around the world. Ten years on, al-Jazeera is the undisputed voice of the free in an Arab world that remains in shackles.

^^you dont contribute much these days do you old chap? I half expecting an Eid/ramadan boredom piece. What is it? Getting slow up top aswell as your hearing?

lol amin Tried to fast today (Thurs) but too lazy,,,,enjoyed a fish biryaani for lunch!

Serenity, May it be a happy 30th of many more,,,,,,,

interesting, keep them coming,,,,

Bu'aale is in the hands of the UIC according to bbc world

Mashallah

In that case UIC UIC UIC UIC UIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!