Female Afghan MP Expelled From Parliament

Peter Mackay in a National Post interview on Saturday:

A: What ever form of democracy they have -- and it comes in many packages and permutations -- the Afghan people are not going to go back to what they had. Women feel more empowered, I dare say, than they ever have in the history of that country. I met female members of parliament -- five years ago they couldn't vote, now they're sitting in a democratically elected institution where they have decision- making power.

Tuesday's Independent:

The most outspoken female MP in Afghanistan has been expelled from parliament after saying proceedings had descended to a level "worse than a zoo". The views of Malalai Joya, in a television interview, outraged fellow parliamentarians, who immediately voted to suspend her from the house for the rest of her five-year term. Some even demanded that she should be brought before a court for defamation and stripped of the right to stand again as a candidate.

This was not the first time that 28-year-old Ms Joya, a fervent advocate of women's rights, has angered male MPs with her criticisms. Some have thrown water bottles at her while she spoke in debates and others have threatened her with rape. She has also survived assassination attempts and has to regularly change her address after receiving death threats from Islamist groups.

Ms Joya's suspension yesterday came after a tape of her interview with Tolo TV, an independent station which has faced official wrath over some of its investigative reports, was shown to MPs. Describing what was happening in parliament, she had said: "A stable or a zoo is better, at least there you have a donkey that carries a load and a cow that provides milk. This parliament is worse than a stable or a zoo."
[...]
Most of Ms Joya's campaigning has been about women's rights, which have been severely eroded after initial gains made with the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Women activists, including the highest-ranking official dealing with female empowerment, Safia Amajan, have been murdered.

Ms Joya said: "Talking about women's rights in Afghanistan is a joke. There really have not been any fundamental changes, the Taliban were driven off by the Americans and the British but then they were allowed to be replaced by warlords who also simply cannot see women as equals."

I should have subtitled this post, Mackay and His Rose-Coloured Glasses.

Related:
Wiki profile of Malalai Joya
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
PBS: Afghanistan Unveiled:

Although the new Afghan government includes two women in ministerial posts, the ministers of public health and women’s affairs, only two women were nominated to serve on the country’s first post-Taliban loya jirga, or grand council. In 2003, a coalition of Afghan and Afghan American women drafted an Afghan Women’s Bill of Rights, demanding mandatory education for girls, equal representation in the loya jirga, criminalization of sexual harassment and domestic violence and the right to marry and divorce according to Islamic law. The bill was later presented to President Hamid Karzai, but despite assurance from leaders that it would be included in the constitution, it was not. Even the loya jirga’s conference began with the chairman proclaiming to women: “God has not given you equal rights because under his decision, two women are counted as equal to one man.”

In January 2004, the loya jirga ratified a constitution that included an equal rights clause referencing gender — something not included in the United States' constitution— proclaiming that all Afghan citizens, men and women, "have equal rights and duties before the law." However, this clause is open to interpretation and could be used to undermine women’s rights, as “the law” includes religious law. The Taliban’s treatment of women, for example, would have been permissible following its definition of the law. As many women registered to vote in Afghanistan’s first national presidential election under the new government, the country’s future—and their future—remains unclear.

Schwarzenegger: Democrat?

From the "You've got to be kidding!" file comes this:

Arnold Schwarzenegger (D-CA)
by kos
Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:38:05 AM PDT

Early this year, I found myself speaking to a California legislator high up on the leadership. Democrats had just lost a governors race that looked winnable six months before Election Day, but turned into an easy romp by the Terminator.

But rather than be upset, instead of gearing up for battle, this legislator was feeling quite optimistic and content. "We're going to be working with a Democratic governor," he told me.

And while not even a real Democratic governor is perfect, fact is that Schwarzenegger is for all intent purposes a Democrat to the consternation of Republicans and quiet glee of Democrats in the great Golden State.

kos has also dubbed Schwarzenegger with the "progressive" label on what is supposed to be a "progressive" Democrat site. Quick kos, define "progressive", because from what I've seen that term on your site equals "centrist" and it now appears that that applies not only to Dems, but to Republicans as well.

As this commenter and others point out, Arnold is hardly worthy of the label "progressive" or "Democrat" (unless you're referring to the Blue Dog Dem sellout bunch who might as well be Republicans).

We have a feisty Conservative premier here in Canada, Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador, who fiercely opposes our Conservative prime minister, but none would ever slap the label "Liberal" beside his name, suddenly believing he'd undergone some political conversion on the road to Damascus. Williams sees the hard right turn Harper is taking but Williams is a Conservative. Period. And Schwarzenegger is a Republican, unless and until he quits the party or says otherwise.

The fact that the owner of what is (incorrectly) dubbed as the biggest "liberal" site in Amercian politics* would so heartily throw his support behind a Republican - any Republican - and shill for the party of death, destruction and torture speaks volumes.


*kos is currently working on a book that will define his new political label: "Libertarian Democrat" - whatever that is supposed to mean. See if you can figure it out.

(h/t to Marisacat's blog for this story.)
 

NATO Chief Meets With Bush

It was a nice photo op anyway and it's the thought that counts, I suppose.

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on Monday pledged to try to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan but blamed the Taliban for using human shields.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has protested the rising civilian death toll from U.S. and NATO operations trying to defeat a spring offensive by the Taliban.

Afghan officials say dozens of civilians have been killed in recent weeks. The growing death toll has triggered protests by Afghans demanding Karzai's resignation and the expulsion of American troops from Afghanistan.

"The Taliban likes to surround themselves with innocent civilians," Bush said. "They don't mind using human shields because they devalue human life."

Karzai has said Afghanistan could no longer accept civilian casualties, and a U.S. military commander apologized for the killing of 19 civilians by U.S. soldiers during an attack in March.

But, the US military has a history of justifying civilian casualties and then thinking that a weak apology and a few bucks handed out to survivors' relatives makes up for their incompetence.

Over the past month, Afghan officials reported 50 civilians killed in US air strikes in fighting in the western province in Herat, and another 21 in south central Helmand province. They followed a string of similar incidents last year as fighting intensified between NATO and Taliban forces, many of them involving air strikes called in by troops in the heat of battle. “Every time that happens someone walks away .. with a bad feeling either to NATO or the United States or its coalition members. That’s what we don’t want to happen,” General Bantz Craddock, NATO’s supreme allied commander, told reporters Friday.

The deaths have sparked public outrage at a time when NATO is facing a major challenge from the Taliban, creating a dilemma for commanders over whether the gains offered by air strikes are worth the loss in public support. Some analysts say too few troops on the ground, coupled with allied sensitivities about using ground forces and taking casualties, have made air power an irresistible option. “The problem is when you don’t have enough forces on the ground, and when those forces - especially with the variety of NATO countries - are restricted and there are deep concerns about casualties, air power is all you have left,” said Seth Jones, an analyst at the Rand Corporation, a think tank with ties to the US Air Force.

This is what happens when you fight a war on the cheap after you've decided that Iraq is where you're really supposed to be:

US special forces called in unusually heavy aerial support in fighting April 27 through April 30 in the remote Zerkoh Valley of Afghanistan’s western Herat province.

Air force B-1B bombers and F-15E fighters dropped 2,000 pound and 500 pound satellite-guided bombs on Taliban positions and on at least one compound that had been used as a firing position, according to air force summaries. A US military press release said an AC-130 gunship also was used to kill a large number of fighters. It put the total Taliban dead in two days of fighting at 136. Later, though, Afghan and UN officials said the bodies of 50 civilians were recovered, and differing accounts have emerged over whether US forces engaged Taliban fighters or armed villagers fighting off foreign intruders.

The US military has provided no explanation of what happened, or acknowledged any civilians were killed in the fighting. Officials said the commander on the scene used “appropriate level of force” to protect his unit. The rules under which a commander is required to operate are classified, so it is not known what restrictions are placed on them. Military officials say they go to great lengths, using surveillance aircraft and “eyes on the ground” to positively identify their targets, and hold back if they cannot.

Obviously, that's not working.
 

The Plot to Kill al-Sadr

Via Patrick Cockburn in The Independent. This is what a "political solution" in Iraq looks like to the Bush administration:

The US Army tried to kill or capture Muqtada al-Sadr, the widely revered Shia cleric, after luring him to peace negotiations at a house in the holy city of Najaf, which it then attacked, according to a senior Iraqi government official.

The revelation of this extraordinary plot, which would probably have provoked an uprising by outraged Shia if it had succeeded, has left a legacy of bitter distrust in the mind of Mr Sadr for which the US and its allies in Iraq may still be paying. "I believe that particular incident made Muqtada lose any confidence or trust in the [US-led] coalition and made him really wild," the Iraqi National Security Adviser Dr Mowaffaq Rubai'e told The Independent in an interview. It is not known who gave the orders for the attempt on Mr Sadr but it is one of a series of ill-considered and politically explosive US actions in Iraq since the invasion.

The attempted assassination or abduction took place two-and-a-half years ago in August 2004 when Mr Sadr and his Mehdi Army militiamen were besieged by US Marines in Najaf, south of Baghdad.

Dr Rubai'e believes that his mediation efforts - about which he had given the US embassy, the American military command and the Iraqi government in Baghdad full details - were used as an elaborate set-up to entice the Shia leader to a place where he could be trapped.

I think this goes without saying: "The US authorities appeared to have little understanding of the reverence with which the Sadr family was regarded by many Iraqi Shia." Bushco doesn't seem to understand any of political complexities involved in Iraq. No wonder they have no idea how to use political means to help end this conflict. If they'd made al-Sadr a martyr for his cause, not only would they have killed any hope for reconciliation, they would have put their own troops in even more jeopardy as targets for retaliation. But, as we've seen with the failure of this so-called "surge", the troops are just disposable pawns for a US government that thinks it can ride this all out until something happens while trying to pin the blame for the major woes in Iraq on Iran.

Meanwhile, as the Washington Post reported this weekend:

NAJAF, Iraq -- The movement of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has embarked on one of its most dramatic tactical shifts since the beginning of the war.

The 33-year-old populist is reaching out to a broad array of Sunni leaders, from politicians to insurgents, and purging extremist members of his Mahdi Army militia who target Sunnis. Sadr's political followers are distancing themselves from the fragile Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which is widely criticized as corrupt, inefficient and biased in favor of Iraq's majority Shiites. And moderates are taking up key roles in Sadr's movement, professing to be less anti-American and more nationalist as they seek to improve Sadr's image and position him in the middle of Iraq's ideological spectrum.

"We want to aim the guns against the occupation and al-Qaeda, not between Iraqis," Ahmed Shaibani, 37, a cleric who leads Sadr's newly formed reconciliation committee, said as he sat inside Sadr's heavily guarded compound here.

Sadr controls the second-biggest armed force in Iraq, after the U.S. military, and 30 parliamentary seats -- enough power to influence political decision-making and dash U.S. hopes for stability. The cleric withdrew his six ministers from Iraq's cabinet last month, leaving the movement more free to challenge the government.

"Our retreating from the government is one way to show we are trying to work for the welfare of Iraq and not only for the welfare of Shiites," said Salah al-Obaidi, a senior aide to Sadr. He said the time was "not mature yet" to form a bloc that could challenge Maliki, who came to power largely because of Sadr's support.

If al-Sadr is able to pull off such a huge coalition, that could be a formidable challenge to a failed al-Maliki and the occupation.

Sadr senses an opportunity in recent moves by Sunni insurgent groups to break away from militants influenced by al-Qaeda, and in the threats by the largest Sunni political bloc to leave the government, which opens the possibility for a new cross-sectarian political alliance, his aides said.

If the sectarian war can be stopped, if the Mahdi Army and Sunni insurgent groups can join hands and break al-Qaeda in Iraq, there will be less reason for U.S. forces to stay, said Shaibani, wearing a black dishdasha, a traditional loose-fitting tunic, and clutching a Nokia cellphone during an interview in late April. "The American argument is we can't have a timetable because of al-Qaeda," he said. "So we're going to weaken al-Qaeda for you."

To gain control of Sadr city, where the Washington Post reports that the US military still hasn't deployed enough troops (however many "enough" is supposed to be), the rhetoric is chilling:

If political avenues are exhausted, the U.S. military has formulated other options, including plans for a wholesale clearing operation in Sadr City that would require a much larger force, but commanders stress that this is a last resort.

Sounds suspiciously like ethnic cleansing to me.

Col. Hamoud, a police liaison who has lived in Sadr City for 19 years and spoke on condition his full name not be used, said residents welcome aid from the United States brought peacefully, but warned that if U.S. troops use force, they will meet opposition.

"If they put their boots on people's heads," he said, referring to a highly insulting gesture in Iraqi culture, "there will be fighting."

Sunday Food for Thought

“When you have come to the edge of all the light you have
And step into the darkness of the unknown
Believe that one of the two will happen to you
Either you'll find something solid to stand on
Or you'll be taught how to fly!”

-Richard Bach

Saturday Nite Video Flashback: Venus and Mars/Rock Show

It wasn't exactly Venus and Mars tonite. Close enough though.

The So-called 'Moral' Majority: Out to Convert Everybody

Newt Gingrich speaking at Falwell's Liberty University:

Gingrich said after his speech that Falwell's death would not slow the Christian right's efforts.

"Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created," Gingrich said.

Doesn't that sound exactly like what the fearmongers say about radical Islamists? That they're out to convert everybody using their madrasahs as training grounds?

Falwell intended Liberty to be his most enduring legacy. He envisioned it as a "Protestant Notre Dame," projecting fundamentalist Christianity for generations. It was to be a training ground for conservative politicians, lawyers and judges - warriors in what Falwell perceived as a cultural war against liberals, gay rights, legalized abortion and forces he saw as a threat to Christianity.

Same agenda, different religion.
 

Quote du Jour: The Conservative Cult

"I'm starting to wonder if it's not a cult."

- Liberal MP Marlene Jennings on the outing of Steve's Rules of Disorder Book

There's more...

Write Your Own Caption: Steve's World

Today the parliamentary committees, tomorrow the world!

Just do the right thing...

I rarely write about celebrity issues, but this story about my favourite painter bothers me.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- Actress Elizabeth Taylor can keep a Van Gogh painting that might have been illegally seized by the Nazis because the family who once owned it waited too long to ask for it back, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday.

Taylor, 75, bought the 1889 painting "View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Remy" at a Sotheby's auction in London in 1963 for 92,000 British pounds -- about $257,000 at the time. She keeps it in her Los Angeles-area home.

The painting, made by van Gogh near the end of his life, is worth many times more in today's red-hot art market.

The Orkin family, South African and Canadian descendants of Margarete Mauthner, a Jewish woman who fled Germany in 1939, sued Taylor in 2004, claiming that the work had been confiscated by the Nazis and should be returned to them under the 1998 U.S. Holocaust Victims Redress Act.
[...]
In their decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backed a lower court and ruled the Orkin family waited too long in claiming the painting that was long known to be in Taylor's possession.

There are times when the law should be set aside (not by the courts, but by the defendant involved at least) so that true justice can occur - especially in this case when a person like Elizabeth Taylor, whose net worth must be astounding and who obviously does not need the money, could have chosen to return the painting to its rightful owners who lost it through such horrendous circumstances.

The judge also said the painting's tangled history may reflect van Gogh's.

"Vincent van Gogh is said to have reflected that 'paintings have a life of their own that derives from the painter's soul,' " Thomas wrote. "The confused and perhaps turbulent history of his painting 'Vue de l'Asile et de la Chapelle de Saint-Remy' may prove the truth of his observation."

It's also ironic that the title of the painting is "View of the Asylum..." considering the crazed love of money that so permeates our society.

Van Gogh also said:

It is not the language of painters but the language of nature which one should listen to, the feeling for the things themselves, for reality is more important than the feeling for pictures.

And reality, in this instance, is that the picture was worth more than the justice to Ms Taylor.