As we noted in Part One, some Muslim men — in the U.K. that means mostly Pakistanis — also go abroad to find a wife selected by family members. Often the girl chosen is a cousin of the man, unsurprising in a culture that places such value on cousin-marriages. Having been raised in a Muslim land, the girl selected will, it is believed, be suitably docile, meek and mild, not having been influenced, as Muslim girls in the U.K. have been, by Western ways.
As for the girl in Pakistan who has been chosen by her family to marry a cousin from the U.K., for her an arranged marriage was inevitable, and she may see little difference between an arranged marriage with someone in Pakistan or with someone in the U.K., but should come to realize that there are benefits to living in the U.K. British law provides a limit to Muslim misogyny: the husband cannot “beat” his wife for her supposed “disobedience.” Her children will receive Western educations, rather than being limited by a school syllabus saturated with Islam. Polygamy is forbidden. A husband cannot divorce merely by uttering the triple-talaq; under British law, a wife has the same rights to divorce as does a husband. All of this improves the wife’s condition.
These cousin-marriages, however, weigh heavily on health care in Great Britain, for they result in many more children with congenital defects, that cost the NHS (National Health Service) huge sums for lifetime care. Shouldn’t those marriages be discouraged by the British government?
While during the first four months of reporting visitors to the website did not see any reporting from the Gaza Strip that was not specifically related to those events or other security-related issues, in the four months between August and November 2018, some more generalised reporting from Gaza appeared on the BBC News website.
Interestingly, all those reports included at least one of two specific themes. [emphasis added]
“I’m still training but because of the siege I cannot go outside the Gaza Strip. I cannot compete in international races.” […] “For the past four years no athlete from Gaza has been able to take part in any event outside.”
View original post 710 more words
When Indonesian politician Grace Natalie pledged her party would not support discriminatory local laws based on “the Bible or sharia”, she probably did not expect to be investigated by police.
But on November 22, 11 days after the ethnic Chinese Protestant addressed members of her Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) and their guest, President Joko Widodo, she was summoned for seven hours of questioning.
Eggi Sudjana, a politician from the National Mandate Party, which supports Widodo’s opponent Prabowo Subianto – had reported her comments, which also included a call for an end to the forced closure of places of worship.
Sudjana claimed Natalie’s position on sharia went against the Koran and was potentially blasphemous….
Some are amazed at the apparent support that exists for the farthest leftist causes and how they inundate companies resulting in sufficient influential force to have these companies alter their business practices. The greatest example of this has been the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) efforts against Israel. Such charities as Oxfam have been pressured to forcing a choice upon their chosen international representative, Scarlett Johansson. The problem is that the well-known actress, Scarlett Johansson, was also in advertisements for the company SodaStream, which at the time had a factory in the Shomron which many claim is rightfully belonging to the Arab Palestinians. Scarlett Johansson chose to remain the representative for SodaStream and stepped down from Oxfam. There is a further development on this story. When SodaStream built a new factory, they also bent to the pressures and built the new factory within the Green Line. This resulted in hundreds…
View original post 2,062 more words
On November 21, the election of a new President of Interpol will take place. The leading candidate for this post is the representative of the Russian Federation, Major General of the Russian Police Alexander Prokopchuk. The Standing Committee of the Free Russia Forum expresses its categorical protest against the election of this candidate to the post of head of Interpol. Such an influential organization as Interpol cannot be led by a representative and functionary of an unfree nation that violates the rights and freedoms of its own citizens, violates its international obligations, annexes the territories of other states, and is currently the protagonist of several wars of aggression.
It is well-established that Russia has abused Interpol as a tool to persecute abroad the political opponents of the ruling Russian regime who have been forced to emigrate. Critics and other targets of the Putin regime residing outside of Russia have repeatedly been victimized by Interpol mechanisms such as Red Notices and “diffusion” notices, as a result of which they were detained and put through lengthy legal procedures before they managed to convince Interpol of the political nature of their persecution — often requiring political intervention on their behalf.
A few examples: members of the Standing Committee of the Free Russia Forum Leonid Nevzlin and Ilya Ponomarev, founder and CEO of the Hermitage Capital Management investment fund William Browder, employee of the Anti-Corruption Foundation Nikita Kulachenkov, anti-fascist Peter Silaev, Voina activist Oleg Vorotnikov, Izhevsk journalist and activist Andrei Nekrasov, Ulyanovsk blogger Sergey Kryukov, former head of the Tutaevsky municipal district of the Yaroslavl region Jan Andreev.
In a telephone call with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif vowed his country’s continued backing of the “Palestinian resistance movement” — the euphemism used by the Tehran regime to describe anti-Israel terror groups.
The conversation took place as the US was seeking to gather support for a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Hamas.
The semi-official state news agency Fars reported that Zarif promised Haniyeh Iran would “make its utmost efforts” to “prevent approval of the resolution in coordination with other Islamic states and progressive countries.”
Zarif — the face of the Tehran regime during the negotiations that led to the July 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers — also “blasted certain regional states for their policies which have emboldened the US to adopt such measures,” according to Fars.
Syrian Regime closes accounts with west- and Israel-linked rebels, as Iran builds and expands its presence in the area.
Evidence emerging from south west Syria indicates that the Assad regime has begun to ‘close accounts’ with former rebels who worked with Israel and with western countries during the years that this area was outside of regime control. A number of prominent former rebel commanders in Deraa and Quneitra Provinces have recently disappeared after being apprehended by regime forces. Other former rebels have been prevented from leaving the area for opposition-controlled Idleb province in the country’s north east.
The regime’s measures against those it deems unfit for ‘reconciliation’ are continuing parallel to the integration of rank and file former rebels into the regime’s security structures. What is returning to Syria’s south, however, is not the status quo ante bellum. Iran and its allies have a central role in the emergent power structure. Indeed, the emergent reality is one in which it is difficult to discern where precisely the Syrian state ends and Iran and its allies begin. Syria’s south west, which was the cradle of the uprising against Assad, is now being transformed into the birthplace of a new Syria, in which Iran and its allies form a vital and inseparable component.
Theresa May presented her Brexit deal to her cabinet on November 14, 2018 and to the House of Commons the next day. It consists of two documents, the “Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community” (585 pages) and the “Outline of the political declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” (8 pages). The documents were released to the public only after the conclusion of that cabinet meeting.
The Problematic Protocol
The Members of Parliament hardly had time overnight to read the Draft Agreement in its entirety. Instead, they rushed to read the “Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland” because they knew that this had been the most controversial element in the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The Protocol recalls in its preamble that “the Withdrawal Agreement… does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom” while noting that both parties recognize the need to maintain the “soft border” that exists between Northern Ireland, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, and the Irish Republic. Although it is hoped that that “permanent future relationship” will have been negotiated by the end of the “transition period” during which the United Kingdom completes its withdrawal from the EU, this may not happen. The aim of the Protocol, therefore, is to serve, if necessary, as a “backstop” arrangement to preserve the soft border even after the transition period while negotiations on the permanent future relationship are completed.