President Karzai's Taleban-style laws for women put troop surge at risk

President Karzai of Afghanistan provoked international outrage yesterday with draconian Taleban-era restrictions on women and laws that explicitly sanction marital rape. 

A leaked copy of the laws obtained by The Times details new strictures for Afghanistan’s Shia minority. Women are banned from leaving the home without permission. A wife has the absolute duty to provide sexual services to her husband, and child marriage is legalised. 

Details of the legislation emerged as President Obama and other world leaders wrapped up the G20 summit to fly to a Nato summit marking 60 years of the alliance. Mr Obama is pushing for an increase in Nato troop numbers in Afghanistan, but many allies have already rebuffed his calls. The new laws may provide an excuse for remaining waverers to join them. 
Related Links
Video shows radicals beating girl in Pakistan 
Right and wrong 
ANALYSIS: Karzai is an inconvenient ally 
Multimedia
Articles of Faith : persecution index - Afghanistan 

Canada, which is the third largest contributor of forces to the Nato mission in Afghanistan, has already warned that it may rethink its troop contribution if the law was not repealed. 

Opponents of the Afghan President accused him of selling out basic human rights for women in return for the votes of hardline Shia conservatives for the presidential election in August. Although the Shia minority, which comprises 20 per cent of the population, is considered religiously moderate, their political leaders are conservative. Community leaders are relied on to deliver their people’s votes and women are presumed to vote in accordance with their husband. 

International reaction has been slowed by secrecy surrounding the law, which was passed without a formal debate and signed off by President Karzai this week, but is yet to be made law. 

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, became aware of it only when it was raised by her Finnish counterpart at the Afghanistan conference in The Hague on Wednesday. She is said to have raised the issue with him but without the full text President Karzai was spared her opprobrium. 

Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, said he was troubled by the law and would lobby other leaders to support him in seeking to have it repealed. “This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan,” he said. Stockwell Day, the Canadian Trade Minister, who is chairman of the Cabinet committee on Afghanistan, warned that if Kabul did not back down Canadian support for the Government could be imperilled. “If there is any wavering on this point, this will create serious difficulties, serious problems for the Government of Canada,” he told reporters in Ottawa. 

Canada has 2,800 troops fighting in southern Afghanistan and has suffered the highest relative number of casualties of any contingent with 116 of its soldiers dead. Britain, with 8,000 troops, has lost 152 in Afghanistan. 

Mike Gapes, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, called the law deplorable. “We did not go into Afghanistan to remove the Taleban only to have Taleban-style policies reimplemented by the Government,” he said. “But this raises big question marks about the nature of the Afghan Government.” 

The Afghan Government refused to comment until Saturday, which is after the Nato summit. Speaking yesterday both Mrs Clinton and General James Jones, Mr Obama’s national security adviser, denied that they had given up on getting more Nato soldiers for the fight against a Taleban insurgency in Afghanistan. 

The legislation is based on the Shia family code first brought before Parliament two years ago, to the horror of women legislators who make up more than a quarter of the assembly. 

Under the same constitution, each religious group is to have its own family law. Opponents said that it contravenes the founding charter in many ways — not least Article 22, which enshrines equality of the sexes before the law. 

One of the most controversial articles stipulates that the wife “is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires”. 

Later it explicitly sanctions marital rape. “As long as the husband is not travelling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night,” 

Article 132 says. “Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.” 

Article 133 reintroduces the Taleban restrictions on women’s movements outside their homes, stating: “A wife cannot leave the house without the permission of the husband” unless in a medical or other emergency. 

Article 27 endorses child marriage with girls legally able to marry once they begin to menstruate. 

Sayed Hossain Alemi Balkhi, a Shia lawmaker involved in drafting the law, defended the legislation, saying that it gives more rights to women than even Britain or the US does. 

Women MPs said that they had been powerless to challenge the passage of the Bill. “The majority of the men agreed to support the laws without any discussion,” said Azita Raffat, an MP from Badghis province. “The law says it is the right of men to have sex — even by force. You can’t complain because they are husband and wife and this is the duty of a wife. This is the belief of all Afghan men.” 

Western leaders, including the former US President George Bush, have boasted frequently about the advances in women’s rights since the Taleban were overthrown in 2001. Although millions more girls have been able to go to school and women now sit in Parliament and work, there are fears that these gains may be eroded. 

Afghan culture is conservative, with tribal custom mingling with religious law to produce one of the most oppressive social atmospheres for women anywhere in the world. 

Women’s rights are a continuous source of tension between the country’s conservative establishment and more liberal members of society, with hardliners viewing them as a social toxin forced on them by Western backers. 

The US warned that the law shows how human rights, and not just women’s rights, had worsened in Afghanistan. 

Oppression 

Taleban rule: 1996 to 2000

Women had to wear a burka and could not leave the house unless they were with a male relative 

Girls were banned from school 

Women were not allowed to work outside the home 

The sentence for adultery was stoning 

In 1997 hospitals were ordered to stop treating women and discharge all women employees. This was partially overturned 

Now

More than half of students enrolling for teacher training are women 

Many Afghan women have their own businesses 

A Department of Women and Reproductive Health was established 

Women held 121 out of 420 provincial council seats in 2005 

Of registered voters, 44 per cent are women 

Source: US Bureau of Democracy, Rights and Labour, Amnesty International, UN Development Fund for Women, Times Archive 

The laws

Article 27 The age of maturity (and thus marriage) is 15 for boys; for girls it is when they have their first period 

Article 132 The couple should not commit acts that create hatred and bitterness. The wife is bound to preen for her husband, as and when he desires. The husband, except when travelling or ill, is bound to have intercourse with his wife every four nights. The wife is bound to give a positive response 

Article 133 The husband can stop the wife from any unnecessary, un-Islamic act. The wife cannot leave the house without the permission of the husband 

Article 177 The wife does not have the right to the provision of maintenance by the husband unless she agrees to have intercourse with him and he gets an opportunity for doing so 

— Obedience, readiness for intercourse and not leaving the house without the permission of the husband are the duties of the wife, violation of every one of them will mean disobedience to the husband 

— One provision of the law appears to protect the woman’s right to sex inside marriage, saying that the “man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months”

India tops the retail shrinkage survey for 2008

Before you think that it is something good, let me tell you what shrinkage means. It is the politically correct term for shoplifting. So, the headline should have read “India tops Global Retail Theft Barometer 2008“. But, that would too straight forward for us.

Among the 920 retailers surveyed across 36 countries, India came out trumps with a shrinkage rate of 3.1% for 2008. India is closely followed by Mexico, Thailand, South Africa and Malaysia. (source)

The top 5 list : 
India - 3.1% shrinkage of retail sales - equivalent to $2.54 bn
Mexico - 1.68%
Thailand - 1.59%
South Africa - 1.59%
Malaysia - 1.53%

The lowest shrinkage rate is found in Japan, Austria, Switzerland, Germany and Denmark.



$2.54 bn is a lot of money for a very fragmented retail market in India. The study is prepared by Center for Retail research and is funded by Checkpoint Systems Inc. Checkpoint provides solution for shrinkage reduction for many retailers. Pantaloons, Lilliput and Koutons are few of Checkpoint’s customers.

This retail shrinkage can be further classified into several categories. 
Customer theft
Employee theft
Suppliers / Vendors
Administrative errors

Of these, 44% losses are coming from Customer theft.

In times like these, shrinkage prevention should be the top priority for the retailers. Consumer spending has reduced drastically in the last 2 months and if retailers cannot stop this outflow, it would pinch their bottom line like never before.

On a funny note though, we have some serious skills don’t we?

"This is a joke, isn't it?" My Ex-Nazi Father's Reaction to Fox News

An Intersting observation by a old man .....

origina post by makieh

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/3/715956/-This-is-a-joke,-isnt-it-My-Ex-Nazi-Fathers-Reaction-to-Fox-News

In response to a request from BrandonM and buckeyekarl, I am going to expand on a comment I made the other day in response to GregMitch's diary "Colbert went where 'NYT' feared to tread on Glenn Beck."

Before you follow me below the fold, I should probably give you a Godwin's Law-related warning: the N-word (the other N-word, that is) will come up.

Well, here it is, the long version:
MaikeH's diary :: :: 

Whenever Pope Benedict comes up in conversation, someone (at least here in America) will bring up his Hitler Youth past. Actually, though, he was a rather reluctant member (automatically enrolled by being a public school student) who went to meetings only if he absolutely had to. He did not turn into Germany's equivalent of Pat Robertson until the late 1960s.

The same cannot be said for my Dad. He loved Hitler Youth meetings. It was great fun, like being in Boy Scouts. My father's young brain absorbed the ideology like a sponge. He was not the only member of his family who had bought into the party line. His father (my grandfather), even though he had Jewish ancestry (his parents were not married, and his Jewish father had been left off the birth certificate), was a Nazi with all his heart and soul.

During the war, when my father's hometown was bombed and 80% of the infrastructure destroyed, all public schools were evacuated. My father and uncle spent two years in a camp in Austria, with government-approved teachers, where they experienced the end of the war and the so-called Thousand Year Empire. Abandonded by the adults, the boys fended for themselves until one day they decided to take a chance and try to find their way back home, not knowing whether their parents were still alive.

In Germany, my grandparents' house was completely flattened and my grandfather was in a mental hospital, where he would stay for the rest of his life. The rest of the family, though, was reunited, and my grandmother found a job as a cook on the British base. My father, whose education had been seriously disrupted, left school after tenth grade and started a clerical apprenticeship in a publishing house, where he stayed until his retirement in 1996.

My Dad eventually completely abandoned his former political views. In fact, he became a progressive. In their younger days, he and my mother were both active in their union, and my mother is a member of the SPD to this day (when former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder visited San Antonio, I got to have a beer with him). When my father moved up in the company, he would be conflicted during labor disputes since he was now middle management and couldn't participate in strikes anymore.

In spite of his complete 180, my father never forgot the propaganda he was subjected to in his childhood. Whenever he was really drunk, he would start singing Nazi songs, and my mother had to drag him home before he got beaten up.

In 2004, my father visited me in San Antonio for the last time. Due to his strong opposition to the war in Iraq and the death penalty, he was not crazy about coming to Texas, but he was curious to see the new condo that I had bought. So he and my mother came for Christmas.

One day, we had the TV on, and for whatever reason (that I have forgotten), we were watching Fox News. My father watched for about ten minutes, then he said, "What is this?" 
"Fox News," I answered. 
"This is some kind of joke, right?" 
"Uhm, no." 
"You mean this is an actual news show? Not satire?" My father obviously thought I was pulling his leg. 
"No, it's not satire. Why are you asking?" I said. 
"Because all you have to do is change a few adjectives, and it's Nazi talk."

Wow. I had never thought about why "conservatives" had always made me cringe. But he definitely had a point. Now I am not saying that Republicans are Nazis, but they do employ totalitarian rhetoric, and sometimes... well, they do sound like Nazis. Here are some eerie parallels:
- "homeland" and all the imagery connected to it (also prominently featured in patriotic songs)

- Invocation of patriotism, of which there is supposedly never enough - Glorification of the military while regarding actual soldiers as disposable

- Glorification of motherhood with ulterior motives (the Lebensborn movement got started with homes for unwed mothers to prevent abortions) - "We" are the good guys, not because of what we do (or don't do) but because we say so

- "We" are superior at anything and everything, again because we say so - Discrimination against a particular minority is morally justified to preserve national security

- Even though racism and gender discrimation are considered morally right, ideology supercedes racial, ethnic, or gender affiliation. Minority members are tolerated ("We decide who's a Jew") and women can have careers if they are useful to the party - A crime or injustice was committed against us, so we must punish somebody, whether they had anything to do with it or not

- If we lose a war, it's the left-wing traitors' fault - Everybody else is out to get us, and we must get them first

- Messed up grammar and nonsensical sentence structures interrupted by bumper sticker-style slogans. If you ever tried to read Mein Kampf in the original (I don't recommend it), you would be reminded of a Sarah Palin speech. - speaking of Sarah Palin rallies, need I say more...


The one ingredient that the wingnuts are missing is the personality cult. They simply have not found a charismatic figure to build a movement around. There is Ronald Reagan (a.k.a. St. Ronnie), who is good for mytho-historical legend building, but, being that he's dead, he cannot go out and campaign. What they need is a Barack Obama with a military/war hero background. Alas, the characters they have been trying to sell us have come across as caricatures of what they were supposed to represent.

My father died in 2006, so obviously he missed last year's elections. If he had witnessed the McCain campaign, he would remind us daily what a bullet we dodged.