Human rights: Saudis treat domestic staff like ‘virtual slaves’

July 9, 2008

· Migrant women routinely abused, says watchdog

· Call for labour law to protect household staff

Asian domestic workers in Saudi Arabia face routine human rights abuses that in some cases amount to slavery, with employers often escaping any punishment, according to a new report.

Abuses include months or years of unpaid wages, forced confinement and physical and sexual violence, while some workers suffer imprisonment or lashings for spurious charges of theft, adultery, or “witchcraft”, says Human Rights Watch.

Saudi households employ an estimated 1.5 million domestic workers, mostly from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Nepal. Thousands of complaints of abuse are made every year.

“In the best cases, migrant women in Saudi Arabia enjoy good working conditions and kind employers, and in the worst they’re treated like virtual slaves. Most fall somewhere in between,” said Nisha Varia, senior researcher in HRW’s Women’s Rights Division. “The Saudi government should extend labour law protection to domestic workers and reform the visa sponsorship system so that women desperate to earn money for their families don’t have to gamble with their lives.”

Excessive workloads and unpaid wages, for periods ranging from a few months to 10 years, are among the most common complaints. The Saudi labour law excludes domestic workers, denying them rights guaranteed to other workers, such as a weekly rest day and overtime pay. Many domestic workers must work 18 hours a day, seven days a week.

A restrictive sponsorship system ties workers’ visas to their employers, which means employers can prevent workers changing jobs or leaving the country. Employers often take away passports and lock workers in the home, increasing their isolation and risk of psychological, physical and sexual abuse. After interviewing 86 foreign domestic workers, HRW concluded that 36 faced abuses that amounted to forced labour, trafficking, or slavery-like conditions.

Poor investigations and criminal proceedings that often last for years mean that abusive employers are rarely punished. For example, after three years of proceedings, a Riyadh court dropped charges against the employer of Nour Miyati, despite the employer’s confession and medical evidence. Miyati, an Indonesian domestic worker, had her fingers and toes amputated as a result of being starved and beaten daily by her employers.

Haima G, a Filipina, said her employer called her into his bedroom soon after she had arrived and told her she had been “bought” for 10,000 riyals (£1,350). “The employer raped me many times. I told everything to madam. The whole family, madam, the employer, they didn’t want me to go. They locked the doors and gates,” she told HRW.

Rather than seeing their abusers brought to justice, domestic workers are more likely to face counter-accusations of witchcraft, theft, or adultery, said the report. And in such cases, domestic workers often face severe delays in getting access to interpreters, legal aid, or consular assistance, or are denied help.

Witchcraft and moral crimes such as being in the presence of unrelated men are punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and 60 to 490 lashes, so many women decide not to seek justice.

Continued . . .

BBC Hit Piece Edits Silverstein Comment In Dirty Tricks Scam

July 8, 2008

Glaring and damning errors already apparent in new BBC WTC 7 hit piece

No BBC, WTC 7 Did Not Collapse “Due To Fire” & The Final 9/11 Mystery Is Not Solved

Movies I Made To Counter The BBC’s Argument That “The Final Mystery Of 9/11″ Has Been Solved

WTC 7 isn’t the final mystery, it is one in a row of mysteries

BBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth

Paul Joseph Watson | Prison Planet | Tuesday, July 8, 2008

The BBC’s embarrassing attempt to dig itself out of a hole that keeps getting deeper was again exemplified during their latest yellow journalism hit piece on 9/11 truth, in which they played Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” comment but edited out the most important part of the statement, and in doing so changed its context altogether.

An army of informed truth activists are almost tripping over each other to point out the gargantuan number of errors, ad hominem smear tactics, bias and shoddy investigative techniques displayed in the program which aired Sunday in the UK.

Just one such example concerns WTC complex leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s infamous “pull it” comment which can be viewed in its entirety below with other clips included for context in confirming that the term “pull it” is industry jargon for deliberately demolishing a building.

Watch the clip.

However, in the BBC’s attempt to convince the viewer that “pull it” meant to withdraw firefighters from the building, despite the fact that according to NIST’s WTC collapse lead investigator Shyam Sunder, “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” and additionally the FEMA report, which stated “No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY,” the editors carefully snipped out the last portion of Silverstein’s comments where he states, “and then we watched the building collapse.”

Cycle through to 20 minutes into the clip to spot the edit.

[to be added later]

By deliberately removing “and then we watched the building collapse,” the BBC has performed a hatchet job on the whole context of the statement by censoring the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 was a consequence of the decision to “pull” the building.

The BBC’s zealous efforts to redeem its name by ceaselessly attacking the 9/11 truth movement accelerated after the broadcaster was shamed when footage from 9/11 emerged of their correspondent Jane Standley reporting that WTC 7 had collapsed even as it remained standing in the shot behind her head.

Questions as to how this could have happened and allegations that news corporations, whether wittingly or unwittingly, were being fed a script on the day of 9/11 as it unfolded were met with hostility, and the BBC claimed it had “lost” the tape.

The tape was miraculously “discovered” again on the eve of the broadcast of their latest hit piece but the footage was not shown in the program, presumably to avoid further embarrassment.

Below you can read articles concerning the mountain of other lies contained in the hit piece and watch a discussion about the program with Alex Jones and Jason Bermas.

We will be picking apart the BBC’s latest atrocious effort to claim they have “solved the final mystery of 9/11″ over the course of this week with multiple investigative reports and as we did last time – debunk this latest hit piece as nothing more than the revolting stench of yellow journalism.

Iran: The Threat

July 8, 2008

The New York Review of Books, Vol. 55, No. 12, July 17, 2008

By Thomas Powers

At a moment of serious challenge, battered by two wars, ballooning debt, and a faltering economy, the United States appears to have lost its capacity to think clearly. Consider what passes for national discussion on the matter of Iran. The open question is whether the United States should or will attack Iran if it continues to reject American demands to give up uranium enrichment. Ignore for the moment whether the United States has any legal or moral justification for attacking Iran. Set aside the question whether Iran, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently claimed in a speech at West Point, “is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.” Focus instead on purely practical questions. By any standards Iran is a tough nut to crack: it is nearly three times the size of Texas, with a population of 70 million and a big income from oil which the world cannot afford to lose. Iran is believed to have the ability to block the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf through which much of the world’s oil must pass on its way to market.

Keep in mind that the rising price of oil already threatens the world’s economy. Iran also has a large army and deep ties to the population of Shiite coreligionists next door in Iraq. The American military already has its hands full with a hard-to-manage war in Iraq, and is proposing to send additional combat brigades to deal with a growing insurgency in Afghanistan. And yet with all these sound reasons for avoiding war with Iran, the United States for five years has repeatedly threatened it with military attack. These threats have lately acquired a new edge.

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are the primary authors of these threats, but others join them in proclaiming that “all options” must remain “on the table.” The option they wish to emphasize is the option of military attack. The presidential candidates in the middle of this campaign year agree that Iran is a major security threat to the United States. Senator Hillary Clinton in the last days of April threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran—presumably with nuclear weapons—if it attacked Israel. Senator Barack Obama dismissed Clinton’s threat as “bluster” in the familiar Bush style but agrees that Iran cannot be permitted to build nuclear weapons, and he too insists that a US attack on Iran is one of the options which must remain “on the table.” The presumptive Republican candidate, John McCain, takes a position as unyielding as the President’s: Iran must abandon nuclear enrichment, stop “meddling” in Iraq with support for Shiite militias, and stop its sponsorship of “terrorism” carried out by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Any of these threatening activities, in McCain’s view, might justify a showdown with Iran.

Continued . . .

The evolution of a conspiracy theory

July 8, 2008

BBC News, July 4, 2008

Twin Towers

A large number of Americans question what happened that day

It wasn’t only the Twin Towers that collapsed on September 11. A third World Trade Center tower that wasn’t hit by the planes also fell. As a report into Tower 7 prepares to publish its findings, Mike Rudin considers how this conspiracy theory got to be so big.

9/11 is the conspiracy theory of the internet age.

Put “9/11 conspiracy” into Google and you get 7.9 million hits. Put in “9/11 truth” and you get more than 22 million.

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.

A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

In the UK a survey by the BBC’s The Conspiracy Files, carried out by GfkNOP in 2006, found that 16% of those questioned thought there was a “wider conspiracy that included the American government”.

For very good reason a lot of people are very suspicious about what went down that day
Dylan Avery
Director of Loose Change

This summer will be a key moment for those who question the official explanation of what happened on 9/11, the self-styled “9/11 truth movement”.

Nearly seven years after the terrible events of that September day, the US authorities are due to publish the final report on a third tower that also collapsed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, this 47-storey, 610-foot skyscraper was not hit by a plane.

And Tower 7 has become a key issue for “truthers” like Dylan Avery, the director of the internet film about 9/11 called Loose Change.

“The truth movement is heavily centred on Building 7 and for very good reason a lot of people are very suspicious about what went down that day,” he says.

Avery points out that Tower 7 housed some unusual tenants: the CIA, the Secret Service, the Pentagon and the very agency meant to deal with disasters or terrorist attacks in New York – the Office of Emergency Management. And some people think Tower 7 was the place where a 9/11 conspiracy was hatched.

FIND OUT MORE…
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower is on BBC Two on Sunday 6 July at 2100 BST
Visit The Conspiracy Files website or catch up using the iPlayer

The official explanation is that ordinary fires were the main reason for the collapse of Tower 7. That makes this the first and only tall skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Yet despite that all the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were carted away and melted down.

The way official bodies have investigated Tower 7 at the World Trade Center has made some people think they’re hiding something. Its destruction was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Continued . . .

MIDEAST: Gaza Locked In Despite Truce

July 8, 2008

By Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani

CAIRO, Jul 7 (IPS) – Despite a torrent of mutual recriminations, the fragile truce between Israel and Palestinian resistance faction Hamas survived into its third week. Israel, however, has been slow to fulfil its pledge — as laid down in an Egypt-brokered ceasefire agreement — to allow desperately-needed humanitarian supplies into the outdoor prison that is the Gaza Strip.

“Repeated closures of the border crossings (by Israel)…are indicative of Israel’s lack of seriousness regarding the Egyptian ceasefire agreement,” Ismail Heniya, head of Gaza’s ruling Hamas government, told reporters Friday (Jul. 4). “If the ceasefire is to survive, Israel must open the crossings (into the Gaza Strip) and lift its siege.”

After several months of indirect negotiations in Cairo, Israel and Hamas — along with smaller Palestinian resistance factions — accepted a Tahdia, or “calming” of hostilities, early last month. Despite stated reservations by both sides, the truce officially took effect Jun. 19.

The arrangement calls for a halt to Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip in exchange for the cessation of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from positions within the strip. The ceasefire, however, does not extend to the West Bank, governed by the U.S.-backed Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas.

Most importantly for Hamas — and the Gaza Strip’s roughly 1.5 million people — the scheme also calls for the gradual reopening of border crossings into and out of the territory. Along with five Gaza-Israel crossings, this includes the flashpoint Rafah terminal, which represents the strip’s sole transit point into Egypt and the outside world beyond.

Ever since Hamas wrested control of Gaza one year ago (after winning elections in 2006), Israel has kept its shared crossings with the enclave hermetically sealed. The Egyptian government, meanwhile, citing the lack of a formal treaty regulating border protocol, put the finishing touches on the blockade by sealing the Rafah terminal as well.

Backed by the U.S. and the EU, the de facto siege has destroyed the Gaza Strip’s economy and deprived much of its population of vital commodities, including foodstuffs and medicine. The situation has prompted a number of commentators to describe the embattled territory as the world’s largest concentration camp.

Continued . . .

Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands US withdrawal timetable

July 8, 2008
The Times, July 8, 2008

Iraqis want an end to the immunity that US troops have from prosecution

Iraq said for the first time yesterday that it wanted to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from its territory.

President Bush has long resisted a schedule for pulling his 145,000 soldiers out, arguing that it would play into the hands of insurgents. Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who boasted last week that he had crushed terrorism in the country, suggested that it was time to start setting time-lines.

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Mr al-Maliki said during a visit to the United Arab Emirates. He rejected efforts by Mr Bush to hurry through an agreement on vital issues such as the immunity of US troops in Iraq and use of the country’s airspace. Mr Bush had hoped to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July to establish the basis for a long-term presence of US troops in the country.

The Iraqi parliament has bridled at pushing through such a binding deal with the outgoing and unpopular Bush Administration, saying that the negotiations have been secretive and could undermine Iraq’s sovereignty. “I don’t know anything about this agreement and neither does parliament,” said Ezzedine Dawla, a Sunni MP. “We’re going to pass something we don’t know anything about.”

Continued . . .

Hebrew tablet ‘predates Bible on resurrection’

July 8, 2008

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem | The Independent, Tuesday, 8 July 2008

Change font size: A | A | A

A pre-Christian Hebrew text shows that the idea of a messiah rising from the dead after three days was already in Jewish tradition before the birth of Jesus, a prominent biblical scholar will argue today.

The controversial theory of Professor Israel Knohl, citing his new reading of a tablet inscribed in the 1st century BC discovered nearly 10 years ago, is expected to trigger a new Judaeo-Christian debate over the meaning and origin of the most central tenet of Christianity, the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Professor Knohl, a professor of biblical studies at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, will unveil his interpretation of the text at an Israel Museum conference of scholars, saying that it quotes the Archangel Gabriel telling an earlier “Prince of Princes” that: “In three days you shall live, I Gabriel, command you.”

Using other lines in the text that refer to blood and slaughter as routes to righteousness, along with the overall context of the Jewish revolt against the Romans at the time, Professor Knohl suggests that it refers to the death and resurrection of a Jewish leader.

The tablet, known as Gabriel’s Vision of Revelations because it contains an apocalyptic text ascribed to the angel, has attracted the intense interest of scholars. It came to light after it was bought from a Jordanian antiquities dealer by an Israeli-Swiss collector, David Jeselsohn, who kept it in his Zurich home. The location of the original discovery is not clear, though it may have been in Jordan on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea.

Continued . . .

Benazir Bhutto told BBC that Bin Laden was murdered

July 7, 2008

Spidered News

UPDATE: Tried to email Al-Jazeera for clarification of this claim. As yet NO response. After the BBC censored this clip and then reinstated it, then some of them now claiming they NEVER censored it, the mystery DEEPENS. With Benazir Bhutto assassinated the motive arises in that she quite clearly leads not only her death to the door of the Pakistanis but also responsibility for the 9/11 attacks are implicated as well. Aired on 2nd November 2007,David Frost the presenter did not challenge her on her assertion (2:14) that Bin Laden was murdered, so maybe he was and the West has not announced it.

It would make sense that the West would cover up such a truth, as Bin Laden is needed as a “bogeyman” to continue the farcical “War on Terror”

Related video : BACK TO BACK: Uncensored and censored Benazir Bhutto

This video is a call to arms for us Bloggers. This video is dynamite proof of covert editing of an important news story. There can be NO EXCUSE for this editing. Join the move to actively complain and DEMAND answers from the BBC

Also see videos on setfree70

Civilian and military deaths at new highs in Afghan war

July 7, 2008

By James Cogan | WSWS, July 2008

Three Afghan men and 19 women and children were slaughtered on Sunday when US aircraft bombed a wedding party in the remote Deh Bala district of Nangarhar province, in the country’s east close to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The killings were reported by the district governor and confirmed by survivors who were being treated at a hospital in Jalalabad, the provincial capital. Afghan officials have also reported that as many as 12 civilians were killed by air strikes last Friday in the nearby province of Nuristan province.

Following standard operating procedure, the US military has categorically denied that any civilians were killed during the bombing raid in Nangarhar. Captain Christian Patterson insisted to Agence France Presse that “it was not a wedding party, there were no women and children present”. Another spokesman alleged that five to 10 anti-occupation insurgents had been killed.

However, the latest incidents follow the release of a report by John Holmes, the head of United Nations humanitarian affairs operations in Afghanistan, which found that the number of documented civilian deaths has increased by 62 percent this year compared with the first six months of 2007. The agency had recorded a total of 698 civilian fatalities. The UN blamed the actions of US, NATO and Afghan government forces for 255 deaths and anti-occupation insurgents for 422.

The figures are further evidence of the expanding insurgency against the US military and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and the desperate character of the fighting over recent months. More than six years after the US-led invasion in October 2001, the occupation forces have proven incapable of subduing the armed resistance to their presence and are ever more reliant on air strikes to disrupt insurgent activity.

Guerillas loyal to the former Taliban Islamic regime, which was overthrown in 2001, as well as various tribal militias from both Afghanistan and Pakistan, are taking advantage of the summer months to increase operations across the south and east of the country. The number of attacks on US troops in the eastern provinces has increased by 40 percent this year, according to American commander, Major General Jeffrey Schloesser.

More US and NATO troops lost their lives in Afghanistan in June than in any other month since the country was invaded. A total of 45 soldiers were killed, 27 American, 13 British, two Canadian, one Polish, one Romanian and one Hungarian. The death of a US Army specialist Estell Turner on July 2 in a roadside bombing pushed the overall toll for 2008 to 124 and the total number of US/NATO deaths in the Afghan war to 873. More than half the deaths have been caused by roadside bombs.

The fatalities are only one aspect of the cost of the conflict. As of June 28, 2,167 American soldiers had been wounded-in-action in the Afghanistan theatre. As of June 18, the British military had reported 510 wounded-in-action as well as 1,130 non-battle or disease injuries. The number of Canadian wounded is now well over 350.

Continued . . .

US blamed for second Afghan raid

July 7, 2008
Al Jazeera, July 7, 2008

Afghan medics carry a boy out of a van after allegedly suffering injuries in Sunday’s attack [AFP]

Members of an Afghan wedding party have been killed in a second air strike over three days, local officials say.

Witnesses said at least 20 civilians, travelling to the wedding in Nangarhar on Sunday, were killed. Women and children were among the dead and injured.

The US said the air assault was targeting fighters. It comes a day after at least 15 people were killed and seven injured in an air raid in Nuristan.

Captain Christian Patterson, the coalition media officer, said: “It was not a wedding party, there were no women or children present. We have no reports of civilian casualties.”

The US-led force said in a statement earlier that “several” fighters had been killed.

One witness, Lal Wazir, whose tunic was covered in blood after carrying some of those wounded to hospital, said the attack came at about 6.30am (0200 GMT).

“The wedding participants were on their way to the groom’s house,” Wazir said outside the hospital.

“They stopped in a narrow location for rest. The plane came and bombed the area. There were between 80 to 90 people altogether.

“We have carried six of the injured to this hospital, and more might be coming. The exact number of casualties is not clear,” he said.

A male survivor who escaped without injury, told Al Jazeera: “We saw the plane overhead and we heard the sound of the bombing.

“I asked one person to see what happened and he came back with an injured child. Then we went there ourselves and there were dead bodies everywhere.”

James Bays, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Afghanistan, said the incident would cause deep concern for Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s president, as it was the second time in two days that residents had reported civilian deaths at the hands of the US military.

“This latest attack claimed the lives of between 20 and 30 people. The Americans claim they were militants, but in the local hospital there are women and children.”

Continued . . .