Women in Islam

The religious police in Saudi Arabia

women in Islam

The Iraqi Council of Representatives will vote to legalise Forced Child Marriage¹.

The specifics of the legislation (part of the Jaafari Personal Status Law) are terrifying:

• There will no longer be a minimum age to legally marry (it’s currently 18) but the law provides policies for divorcing a 9-year-old girl;
• A girl’s father would legally be able to accept a marriage proposal on her behalf; and
• The girl would be legally prohibited from resisting her husband’s advances and leaving the home without his permission.

It’s a recipe for a life in domestic and sexual slavery.

The law was sent to the Council of Representatives yesterday, and the vote could happen any time now. To prevent Iraq’s girls from becoming vulnerable to forced child marriage it is crucial that we act now.

Tell Iraq’s Council of Representatives not to legalise Forced Child Marriage.

Currently, Iraq has one of the most progressive policies on women’s rights in the Middle East -- setting the legal marriage age at 18 and prohibiting forced marriage².

Renewable energy programs

Germany's renewable energy revolution

Tim Smedley Guardian Professional, Friday 10 May 2013 17.58 BST

To many a casual observer, Germany's reaction to the Fukushima disaster seemed knee-jerk to say the least.

Nuclear power produces nearly 20% of Germany's energy, but in July 2011 (only three months after Fukushima) the German government vowed to shut down its nuclear capability within 10 years. Not just that, but to replace it with renewable energy, cut greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 40% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, ensure renewables contribute 80% of Germany's energy by 2050, and ensure energy consumption drops 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050. It even has its own word: 'Energiewende', or 'Energy Transformation'. And Angela Merkel, not known for hyperbole, has described it as a 'Herculean task'.

The sight of thousands of kilometres of power cables slicing through the German countryside, and the costs involved, are beginning to bite. A renewable energy surcharge has already seen the average family's energy bill increase by 47% in the past two years.

There are also question marks over the transportation and storage of intermittent wind energy.

While a lot of the media attention has been focused on large-scale wind farms (and Fischedick expects wind power to contribute half of the 80% renewable energy target by 2050), one of the most fascinating aspects of Energiewende is how it embraces micro-generation and micro-ownership. Public acceptance is, says Fischedick, much easier to maintain if it is paralleled with levels of individual ownership. Also known as a 'prosumer' model, over 50% of renewable-energy capacity is owned by individuals or farmers in Germany; the Big Four energy companies own just 6.5% (according to 2010 figures). "This is PV, co-generation... really small facilities," says Fischedick. "The prosumer aspect is vitally important... if you only have the chance to look from outside at the changes then you are much more [likely to be] complaining about what is going on."

This in turn is causing the big utility companies to reassess their role. Rather than continuing to rely on business-as-usual, they are significantly ramping up investment in biomass plants, offshore wind and large-scale photovoltaic plants, informs Fischedick. "In addition we have some utility companies looking at becoming a sort of service provider for the prosumer; RWE for instance provide a new service for the typical house owner to help them construct their own PV system on the roof, and to combine it with a small-scale battery. They have really changed their business portfolio in the last two years, just to be part of the game."

---

---

ISLAMABAD: Minister for Power and Water Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar has indicated that the government intends to invest in wind power to find a solution to the ever deepening energy crisis with at least 3,200 Mega Watts (MW) of power to be generated through it.

Mukhtar was addressing the launch ceremony of commemorative Postal stamp in Islamabad on inauguration of Pakistan’s first 50MW wind energy project by Fauji Fertiliser Company (FFC).

The minister said that 106MW is ready for commercial operation while projects to generate 150MW are under construction. He added that the next year will see at least 10 more projects with an investment of over $2 billion.

Mukhtar said that the commencement of commercial operation of FFC wind farm is the beginning of exploiting the wind potential of Gharo Keti Bandar Wind Corridor – an area that alone has 50,000MW power generation potential.

“I feel exalted that many more wind power projects are in pipeline and will commence their commercial operations one after another in the coming months,” he said.

Later during the day, Mukhtar told the media that a formal agreement has been reached between Pakistan Post and Alternate Energy Development Board to issue special postage stamp to save energy.

He said that the main reason for the current power crisis is the shortage of water in dams and assured that the government has taken adequate steps to overcome the shortfall.

---

Saudi Arabia Plans $109 Billion Boost for Solar Power

By Wael Mahdi - Nov 22, 2012 4:53 PM GMT


Saudi Arabia plans to produce electricity from its first nuclear plant by 2020 and begin operating a solar farm by 2015, said an official at the agency developing the country’s renewable energy program.

Double standard

Published on Jun 9, 2013

A Saudi prince who murdered his servant at the culmination of a campaign of "sadistic" abuse was today jailed for life and lambasted by a judge for telling a "pack of lies" in an attempt to conceal his crimes.

Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud, a grandson of the billionaire king of Saudi Arabia, was ordered to serve a minimum of 20 years for strangling and beating Bandar Abdulaziz to death at a five-star London hotel.

The prince bit the 32-year-old hard on both cheeks during the attack, which happened in their suite in February and was said to have had a sexual element.

He had been drinking champagne and cocktails when he began the ferocious beating after a Valentine's night out.

The Old Bailey had heard that the murder of Abdulaziz was the last act of a "deeply abusive" master-servant relationship in which the prince carried out frequent attacks on his aide "for his own personal gratification".

Saud initially believed he had diplomatic immunity, but his status as a Saudi royal could not save him from arrest and prosecution.

Sentencing him today, Mr Justice Bean said: "It is very unusual for a prince to be in the dock on a murder charge.

"No one in this country is above the law. It would be wrong for me to sentence you either more severely or more leniently because of your membership of the Saudi royal family."

During the trial, jurors were told that, by the early hours of 15 February, Abdulaziz was so worn down and injured he let Saud kill him without a fight.

The prince then spent hours on the phone to a contact in Saudi Arabia, trying to decide how to cover up his crime.

Bean said Saud had told a "pack of lies" to paramedics and police before finally admitting that he carried out the killing. He said he could not be sure whether Saud had intended to kill Abdulaziz, but added: "I think the most likely explanation is that you could not care less whether you killed him or not."

He told Saud he had treated his victim "as a human punchbag" and had never shown any regret. "If you had any remorse, you would have sought medical help immediately. But you were only concerned for yourself," he said.

The 34-year-old prince, who stood in the dock with his arms crossed, showed no emotion as the sentence was handed down.

He was found guilty of murder yesterday after the jury had deliberated for an hour and 35 minutes. He was also convicted of a second count of grievous bodily harm with intent, relating to a previous incident in a lift at the Landmark hotel, in Marylebone, London, where the men were staying.

Saud tried to conceal the true nature of his relationship with his servant, claiming they were "friends and equals", but a porter at the hotel said Abdulaziz was treated "like a slave".

The prince claimed he was heterosexual and had a girlfriend in Saudi Arabia, but he had booked appointments with at least two male escorts and one gay masseur and looked at hundreds of images of men on gay websites.

Photographs of Abdulaziz in "compromising" positions were found on his phone.

Saud denied killing his servant until shortly before the trial, when he admitted he had caused his death. Jurors rejected a claim by his barrister, John Kelsey-Fry QC, that Saud was guilty only of manslaughter.

His lawyers also failed in a last-ditch attempt to stop details of his encounters with male escorts being revealed during the trial. In a sign of the anxiety about his sexuality becoming public, the prince's legal team initially argued that the legal argument about the escorts should be held behind closed doors.

War Business

Published on Feb 4, 2013

Written and spoken by Michael Rivero. 

The written version is here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTI...

Video by Zane Henry.

This video is in the public domain. The producers have waived their copyright to this video.
Listen to a post production conversation between the producers by clicking on this mp3: https://soundcloud.com/eonitao-state/...

---

Cora Currier writes for ProPublica via Juan Cole
The United States is loosening controls over military exports, in a shift that former U.S. officials and human rights advocates say could increase the flow of American-made military parts to the world’s conflicts and make it harder to enforce arms sanctions.
Come tomorrow, thousands of parts of military aircraft, such as propeller blades, brake pads and tires will be able to be sent to almost any country in the world, with minimal oversight – even to some countries subject to U.N. arms embargos. U.S. companies will also face fewer checks than in the past when selling some military aircraft to dozens of countries.
Critics, including some who’ve worked on enforcing arms export laws, say the changes could undermine efforts to prevent arms smuggling to Iran and others.
Brake pads may sound innocuous, but “the Iranians are constantly looking for spare parts for old U.S. jets,” said Steven Pelak, who recently left the Department of Justice after six years overseeing investigations and prosecutions of export violations.
“It’s going to be easier for these military items to flow, harder to get a heads-up on their movements, and, in theory, easier for a smuggling ring to move weapons,” said William Hartung, author of a recent report on the topic for the Center for International Policy.
In the current system, every manufacturer and exporter of military equipment has to register with the State Department and get a license for each planned export. U.S. officials scrutinize each proposed deal to make sure the receiving country isn’t violating human rights and to determine the risk of the shipment winding up with terrorists or another questionable group.
Under the new system, whole categories of equipment encompassing tens of thousands of items will move to the Commerce Department, where they will be under more “flexible” controls. Final rules have been issued for six of 19 categories of equipment and more will roll out in the coming months. Some military equipment, such as fighter jets, drones, and other systems and parts, will stay under the State Department’s tighter oversight.
Commerce will do interagency human rights reviews before allowing exports, but only as a matter of policy, whereas in the State Department it is required by law.
The switch from State to Commerce represents a big win for defense manufacturers, who have long lobbied in favor of relaxing U.S. export rules, which they say put a damper on international trade. Among the companies that recently lobbied on the issue: Lockheed, which manufactures C-130 transport planes, Textron, which makes Kiowa Warrior helicopters, and Honeywell, which outfits military choppers.
Overall, industry trade groups and big defense companies have spent roughly $170 million over the last three years lobbying on a variety of issues, including export control reform, a ProPublica analysis of disclosure forms shows.
The administration says in a factsheet that “spending time and resources protecting a specialty bolt diverts resources from protecting truly sensitive items,” and that the effort will allow them to build “higher fences around fewer items.” Commerce says it will beef up its enforcement wing to prevent illegal re-exports or shipments to banned entities. The military has also supported the relaxed controls, arguing that the changes will make it easier to arm foreign allies.

An interview with Commerce Department officials was canceled due to the government shutdown, and the State Department did not respond to questions.
The shift is part of a larger administration initiative to update the arms export process, which many acknowledge needed to be streamlined. But critics of the move to Commerce say that decision has been overly driven by the interests of defense manufacturers.
“They’ve cut through the fat, into the meat, and to the bone,” said Brittany Benowitz, who was defense adviser to former Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., and recently co-authored a paper on the pending changes.
“I think it’s fair to say that the views of the enforcement agencies and actors charged with carrying out the controls haven’t won the day,” said Pelak, the former Justice Department official.
Current controls haven’t prevented the U.S. from dominating arms exports up to now: In 2011, the U.S. concluded $66 billion in arms sales agreements, nearly 80 percent of the global market. The State Department denied just one percent of arms export licenses between 2008 and 2010.
At a recent hearing, a State Department official touted the economic benefits, saying the “defense industry is going to become even more competitive than they are already.”
Under the new policy, military helicopters, transport planes and other types of military equipment that typically need approval may be eligible for license-free export to 36 allied governments, including much of Europe, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand.
According to Colby Goodman, an arms-control expert with the Open Society Policy Center, once an item is approved for that exemption, it’s not clear that there will be any ongoing, country-specific human rights review. (The State Department hasn’t yet responded to our request for comment on that point.)
Goodman is particularly concerned about Turkey, where in the last year authorities violently suppressed protests and “security forces committed unlawful killings,” according to the most recent State Department Human Rights report.
Under the new system, some military parts can now be sent license-free to any country besides China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan or Syria. Other parts that are deemed not “specially designed” for military use, while also initially banned from those countries, have even fewer restrictions on re-exports.
Spare parts are in high demand from sanctioned countries and groups, which need them to keep old equipment up and running, according to arms control researchers. Indonesia scrambled to keep its C-130s in the air after the U.S. blocked exports for human rights violations in the 1990s. In a report on trade in arms parts, Oxfam noted that by the time of the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, Muammar Qaddafi’s air combat fleet was in dire shape, referred to by one analyst as “the world’s largest military parking lot.” Goodman said Congolese militia members may be using aging arms that the U.S. sold decades ago to the former Zaire.
Pelak says the changes will make enforcement harder by getting rid of part of the paper trail as parts and munitions exit the U.S.: “When you take away that licensing record, you put the investigation overseas.” His office handled dozens of cases each year in which military items had been diverted to prohibited countries. The Government Accountability Office raised concerns last year about Commerce’s enforcement abilities as it takes control of exports that once went through the State Department.
The president is authorized – in fact, required – to revise the list of items under State Department control. But the massive shift to Commerce means that laws and regulations that were designed with the longstanding State Department system in place may now be up to presidential prerogative.
Vetting for human rights compliance is one such requirement. The Commerce Department said it will also continue to publicly report the sales of so-called “major defense equipment.”
Other laws may not get carried over, however. For example, if firearms are moved to Commerce, manufacturers may no longer have to notify Congress of foreign sales.
Several organizations, including the Center for International Policy, the Open Society Policy Center, and the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights, have called on the administration to hold off moving some military items from the State Department, and have asked Congress to apply State’s reporting requirements and restrictions to more of the military items and parts soon to be under Commerce control.
In one area, the administration does appear to have temporarily backed off – firearms and ammunition. Any decision to loosen exports for firearms could have conflicted with the president’s call for enhanced domestic gun control.
According to a memo obtained by the Wall Street Journal last spring, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security both opposed draft versions of revisions to the firearms category. (The Justice Department press office is out of operation due to the government shutdown, and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.) Shifting firearms was also likely to be a lightning rod for arms control groups. As the New York Times’ C.J. Chivers has documented, small arms trafficking has been the scourge of conflicts around the world.
Draft rules for firearms and ammunitions were ready in mid-2012, according to Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for gun manufacturers. The Commerce Department even sent representatives to an industry export conference to preview manufacturers on the new system they might fall under.
But since the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., last December, no proposed rule has been published.
Keane thinks the connection is irrelevant. “This has nothing to do with domestic gun control legislation. We’re talking about exports,” he said. “Our products have not moved forward, and we’re disappointed by that.”
The defense industry has long pushed for a loosening of the U.S. export controls. Initial wish-lists were aimed at restructuring and speeding up the State Department system, where the wait for a license had sometimes stretched to months. The current focus on moving items to Commerce began under the Obama administration.
The aerospace industry has been particularly active, as new rules for aircraft are the first to take effect. Commercial satellites had been moved briefly to Commerce in the 1990s, but when U.S. space companies were caught giving technical data to China in 1998, Congress returned them to State control. Last year, satellite makers successfully lobbied Congress to lift satellite-specific rules that had kept them from being eligible for the reforms.
Newer industries want to cash in, too. Virgin Galactic wrote in a comment on a proposed rule that the “nascent but growing” space tourism industry was hindered by current rules. At a conference in 2011, the chief executive of Northrup Grumman warned of “the U.S. drone aircraft industry losing its dominance” if exports weren’t boosted. (Drones are regulated under missile technology controls, and are mostly unaffected by the current changes.)
Lauren Airey, of the National Association of Manufacturers, named two main objections to the current system. First off, fees: Any company that makes a product on the State Department list has to be registered whether or not they actually export, with yearly costs starting at $2,500. There’s no fee for the Commerce list.
Secondly, any equipment that contains a listed part gets “lifetime controls,” Airey said. If a buyer wants to resell something, even for scrap, they need U.S. approval. (For example, the U.S. is currently debating whether to let Turkey re-sell American attack helicopters to Pakistan.) Under Commerce, “there are still limitations, but they are more flexible,” Airey said.
Airey’s association (and other trade groups) makes the case that foreign competitors are “taking advantage of perceived and real issues in U.S. export controls to promote foreign parts and components – advertising themselves as State-Department-free.” Airey demurred when asked for an estimate on the amount of business lost: “It’s hard to put a number directly on how much export controls cause U.S. companies to be avoided.”
An Aerospace Industries Association executive noted at a panel this spring, “We really did not move the needle at all by complaining about the fact that we weren’t making as much money as we wanted to.”
But at a recent hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, members of Congress highlighted economic impact.
“In my district in Rhode Island,” said David Cicilline, D-R.I., “as many of our defense companies are looking to expand their business, really, to respond to declines in defense domestic spending, international sales are becoming even more important and really critical…to the job growth in my state.”
William Keating, D-Mass., said that “with declining defense budgets, arms sales are even more critical to the defense industry in my state to maintain production lines and keep jobs.”
“That would not have been the response a decade ago,” said one staffer who works on the issue. “National security hawks would have been worried about defense items moving to the Commerce list. The environment on the Hill has dramatically changed.”
One concern came from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which believes that easing controls on military technology and software could actually lead to more outsourcing of production.
William Lowell, who spent a decade of his 30 years at the State Department directing defense trade controls, told ProPublica that the move represents a major shift in the U.S. attitude towards international arms trade. U.S. policy has long been aimed at “denying the entry of U.S. military articles of any type into the international gray arms market – for which small arms and military parts are the lifeblood,” Lowell wrote in comments opposing the new rules. “Commercial arms exports have never been considered normal commercial trade.”
Follow @coracurrier

---

U.N. Arms Trade Treaty...Not only would it violate Texans’ Second Amendment rights, including the right to self defense, it also raises U.S. sovereignty and national security concerns.

Senator John Cornyn

On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the landmark Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The treaty will foster peace and security by putting a stop to destabilizing arms flows to conflict regions. It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools.

Saudi human trafficking

The case of Saudi Princess Meshael Alayban, accused of human trafficking in the U.S., has caused a stir throughout the world. But do you know how the story was uncovered?
A few weeks ago, the victim, identified as 'Jane Doe,' escaped Alayban’s home where she alleges she was forced to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week; her passport held by Alayban to prevent escape. Jane Doe then flagged down a bus, explained her situation to another passenger who helped her phone police. When the police went to investigate, they found four other women at the home claiming to be in the same situation¹.
Modern slavery is a crime that survives hidden from the view of the public, but occasionally, it’s there, right in front of us. It could happen overtly – a woman escaping a home in which she was trapped or a boy summoning the courage to trust a stranger – or a more subtle scene in an airport where something just doesn’t look right. The bottom line is, at any moment, a person trapped in the nightmare of modern slavery could be trying to get our attention and we all need to be ready to help.
Hours ago, Princess Alayban was supposed to face charges of human trafficking in a California court but didn't show up. Annoyed, the judge moved her court date.

Send a message of solidarity that we all stand with the passenger on the bus who took action to protect another by ensuring millions of people know how to spot a problem AND what to do.

women in Saudi Arabia

This weekend, two people were in a car accident. One was hurt, one was killed. If this had happened in the US, it would be tragic, but it likely wouldn't be news. This incident, however, happened in Saudi Arabia, and the two involved were women.

Saudi Arabia's still the only country in the world that bars women from driving. If a Saudi woman wants to venture out on the road, she either needs to hire a male driver or convince a male relative to serve as her chauffeur. Some women use cabs when they need to leave the house, but cabs aren't plentiful and some refuse to drive unchapheroned women. Walking from place to place isn't always and option, and even then, they may be asked to cover their eyes if a member of the all-volunteer Committee for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice deems them "too alluring." Fed up, many women do what two ill-fated women did this weekend and take to the remote desert regions of the country.

They're not the first or the most famous to defy the driving ban; back in the spring a 32-year-old computer security consultant named Manal al-Sherif was arrested and detained for 10 days after she posted a video of herself driving and explaining why she thought Saudi women should be allowed to drive on YouTube. Other women have gotten behind the wheel as well, citing the fact that there's no law against Saudi women driving, but issuing driver's licenses to women is forbidden, and thus if a Saudi woman holds an international driver's license, she should be allowed to drive. No dice, says the government. Several women have been arrested and lashed as punishment, including Shayma Jastaniah, who was given 10 lashes for being caught driving in Jeddah.

The Saudi government recently gave women the right to vote, and now they want to drive? That's just greedy, ladies. You get one basic right per year.

Saudi female driver who defied ban dies in car accident [Telegraph]

a very transient set of data

Tech Talk - Current Oil Production and the Future of Ghawar

Posted by Heading Out on June 18, 2012 - 12:17pm
There is a growing impression being given in the discussion of oil and natural gas supplies that the world is moving into a period where there will soon be such a plentiful sufficiency of crude that the US may consider exporting some of its production (h/t Leanan). But if one looks behind the headlines, and particularly at the current status of the largest oilfield contributing toward this rosy picture - the Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia - that optimism becomes more evidently built on a very transient set of data that, as this series of posts seeks to show, will not be sustainable for any significant period into the future.

The three major oil producers (i.e. those producing more than 5 mbd each) are currently seeing surges in production as the world moves to an overall production of 90 mbd. The OPEC June Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR) notes that this has brought Russia to 10.33 mbd in May, some 100 kbd over the same period in 2011; and Saudi Arabia is reported to have averaged 9.917 mbd in May, up 40 kbd over April. The United States is running at 6.236 Mbd of crude (from the EIA TWIP), while importing 9.117 mbd. The MOMR reports US oil supply at 9.66 mbd on average, but counts more than just crude in this value. The gain over the past year is around 600 kbd. It is interesting to note, in regard to OPEC production the continued difference between the volumes that OPEC reports from direct contact with the suppliers, and that when the numbers are obtained from “secondary sources.”

B Movie plot, what's the sequel?; Analysts question that the Quds force would behave as the US government claims

Given the power struggle pitting Khamenei and his supporters against Ahmadinejad and his camp, and given the extreme hostility that some former Ahmadinejad supporters have toward him and their fear that he might be able to establish some form of diplomatic relations with the United States, the possibility of such a rogue operation cannot be discarded. But the indictment against Arbabsiar and Shakuri claims that they are members of the Quds force, and given the discipline that the Quds force has demonstrated in its operations throughout the Middle East, I still find it difficult to believe that they would embark on what seems to be a useless, dangerous, and relatively easy-to-discover operation.

Thus, at this point, I find the claim that the IRI was involved in the plot highly unlikely. The more information that becomes available, the more it appears like a frame-up of Manssor Arbabsiar, a classic case of entrapment. But, once again, there is nothing the IRI might do that would surprise me.

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/10/post-6.html#ixzz1aiKULJZg


We need to worry. What  is this a pretext for?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/10/post-6.html

There is a small chance that some rogue elements in the Revolutionary Guards decided to carry out such a plot. There is precedence for such an operation. During Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's second term as president, rogue elements of the Ministry of Intelligence led by Saeed Emami -- leader of the gang that assassinated numerous dissidents in what is now known as the infamous Chain Murders -- tried to smuggle missiles out of Iran to Brussels to attack the NATO headquarters. The plot was discovered, and Rafsanjani later acknowledged it. Its discovery set back relations between Iran and the European Union for several years.