Long, but very worthy, set of observations on the current troubles in France from a frequent American visitor. Get a fresh refill of coffee, snuggle up and spend an hour to be educated and entertained. This is what the Sunday NY Times might have been.
Nous sommes tétanisés, said my French friend. [We are paralyzed.]
The French are beginning to wake up, beginning to lift up their Ostrich head from the sand. As opposed to the frequent dismissals I ran across in the past when it wasnt accusations of racism I now met an increasing number of people willing to say, we dont disagree (the French really dont like to say youre right). But, as my friend put it, we dont know what to do. Were paralyzed.
I have been visiting France fairly regularly all my life, but particularly since 2000, the nature of those visits has changed, and Ive watched a radical split occur between the Jewish community in France (which has grown increasingly alarmed at the violence against them) and your typical Frenchman and woman, who consider Jewish alarm if they even notice it as, well, alarmist. (For earlier posts on what I noticed, see here.)
I havent been in France since last Spring, so a number of factors played in the mixture. Obviously the Fall (Ramadan) 2005 riots that started in the Parisian suburbs and spread through France sobered people considerably, despite the official position of the media, political, and academic elites that this was not a religious or cultural issue, but one of socio-economic inequities that could be solved by addressing those inequities. But more recently, there had occurred two things that sobered them considerably. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
03/26/2006 09:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Nous sommes tétanisés" is not we are paralyzed. Paralized is paralisés.
In the mediacl sense Tétanisés is the state you are after an electric shock or when you get tetanos. You are paralyzed but all muscles are contracted while the muscles of "paralysés" (ie people who are in a wheel chair due to a spinal lesion) are flaccid
It is never used when implying you are blocked from taking action because the other side is much more powerful than you, has an unassailable contract or can can blackmail you.
It is exclusively used for a sudden emotional blow who leaves you temporarily unable to react: when the twin towers crumbled America was "tétanisée" but certainly not "paralysée" ie unable to move due to Jihadist strength.
By Ahmad Faruqui For the seventh year in a row, the nation observed Pakistan Day under military rule. Pervez Musharraf showed up at the Minar-e-Pakistan dressed in muftis and spoke at what was in every sense of the term a pre-election political rally. And theres the rub. While talking of democracy, the army continues to be sovereign.
On March 18, Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Sadaat symbolically handed over the command of the PAF by giving his sword to his successor, marking the completion of his tenure. On the same day, the army chief whose tenure had run out in October 2001, showed no sign of handing over his sword to his successor. While speaking to the troops in Bahawalpur, General Musharraf promised to give them state-of-the-art weaponry so that they would acquire a qualitative edge over the non-existent external enemy.
At the Corps Headquarters, he was greeted by generals who appeared over-burdened with medals and ribbons. The corps commander pinned honorary badges on Musharraf, who had shown exceptional courage in visiting the town that had taken the life of the last army chief-turned-president. To prevent any recurrence, police and security personnel had sealed off the entire city.
This sombre military ceremony was in sharp contrast to a joyous meeting that had taken place in Lahore 66 years ago. The All India Muslim League had passed a resolution calling for the creation of a sovereign Muslim state. Seven years later, Pakistan appeared on the map. Its very name exuded the purity of Iqbals ideology. In its birth, there was not a hint that it was destined to become a garrison state.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john ||
03/26/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
As I was preparing for this article, I asked a friend who is Jewish if it was appropriate to use the term "holocaust" to portray the worldwide violence against women. He was startled. But when I read him the figures in a 2004 policy paper published by the Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, he said yes, without hesitation.
One United Nations estimate says from 113 million to 200 million women around the world are demographically "missing." Every year, from 1.5 million to 3 million women and girls lose their lives as a result of gender-based violence or neglect.
How could this possibly be true? Here are some of the factors:
In countries where the birth of a boy is considered a gift and the birth of a girl a curse from the gods, selective abortion and infanticide eliminate female babies.
Young girls die disproportionately from neglect because food and medical attention is given first to brothers, fathers, husbands and sons.
In countries where women are considered the property of men, their fathers and brothers can murder them for choosing their own sexual partners. These are called "honor" killings, though honor has nothing to do with it.
Young brides are killed if their fathers do not pay sufficient money to the men who have married them. These are called "dowry deaths," although they are not just deaths, they are murders.
The brutal international sex trade in young girls kills uncounted numbers of them.
Domestic violence is a major cause of death of women in every country.
So little value is placed on women's health that every year roughly 600,000 women die giving birth.
Six thousand girls undergo genital mutilation every day, according to the World Health Organization. Many die; others live the rest of their lives in crippling pain.
According to the WHO, one woman out of every five worldwide is likely to be a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime.
What is happening to women and girls in many places across the globe is genocide. All the victims scream their suffering. It is not so much that the world doesn't hear them; it is that fellow human beings choose not to pay attention.
It is much more comfortable for us to ignore these issues. And by "us," I also mean women. Too often, we are the first to look away. We may even participate, by favoring our sons and neglecting the care of our daughters. All these figures are estimates; registering precise numbers for violence against women is not a priority in most countries.
Going forward, there are three challenges:
Women are not organized or united. Those of us in rich countries, who have attained equality under the law, need to mobilize to assist our fellows. Only our outrage and our political pressure can lead to change.
The Islamists are engaged in reviving and spreading a brutal and retrograde body of laws. Wherever the Islamists implement Shariah, or Islamic law, women are hounded from the public arena, denied education and forced into a life of domestic slavery.
Cultural and moral relativists sap our sense of moral outrage by claiming that human rights are a Western invention. Men who abuse women rarely fail to use the vocabulary the relativists have provided them. They claim the right to adhere to an alternative set of values - an "Asian," "African" or "Islamic" approach to human rights.
This mind-set needs to be broken. A culture that carves the genitals of young girls, hobbles their minds and justifies their physical oppression is not equal to a culture that believes women have the same rights as men.
Three initial steps could be taken by world leaders to begin eradicating the mass murder of women:
A tribunal such as the court of justice in The Hague should look for the 113 million to 200 million women and girls who are missing.
A serious international effort must urgently be made to precisely register violence against girls and women, country by country.
We need a worldwide campaign to reform cultures that permit this kind of crime. Let's start to name them and shame them.
In the past two centuries, those in the West have gradually changed the way they treat women. As a result, the West enjoys greater peace and progress. It is my hope that the third world will embark on this effort. Just as we put an end to slavery, we must end the gendercide.
(Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch legislator, lives under 24-hour protection because of death threats against her by Islamic radicals since the murder of Theo van Gogh, with whom she made the film "Submission" about women and Islam.)
This woman has displayed more resolve in the struggle to preserve the values of Western civilization than any other European legislator that I'm aware of. If only more politicians - there and here - had her gonads!
Maybe it's the species' natural means of population control? You have to eliminate a LOT more men to have the same long-term population limiting effect. The sub-groups she cites as examples of 'gendercide' seem to have a significant correlation with the groups with the highest/most rapidly growing overpopulation (and the least 'civilization'.)
#2
Legal standards at The Hague, impose "command responsibility" on leaders and military officers and oblige "prevention and punishment" of offenders of the Genocide Convention, etc. That mechanism could assist the war against women. The problem is: the authority of international law tribunals is based on a "statute of the tribunal," which is enforceable only when trial participants are prepared to back that statute with their own statute, as in the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials. The US participates on a case by case basis, where the cause is judged to be right, as in the Slobo case. The US doesn't accept Tribunal sovereignty over US law, because that would enable arbitrary enforcement of successful moonbat claims. Numerous Israelis cannot travel in Europe because specious ex parte indictments for "war crimes" have been issued, and the EU states are under obligation to prosecute. The EU turns a blind eye to general Arab oppression of women, unless the oppressor is pro-US, because Arabs are a protected minority in Europe. All persons are equal, but Arabs are more-equal than women.
#4
Even to a cynic like me this is appalling. While we read the individual cases here, it's sor t of like the 14 year olds in the hills of Appalachia who get married. It happens, but how much is there? Some times it's good to see the tree, sometimes it's good to see the forest.
#6
I'm not sure if Asia or Africa is the worst, both are terrible. But if these nombers are even close, and they don't mention the child trafficking horrors, it is something that needs action. Identify the countries that condone this and embargo them through the UN for starters.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/26/2006 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
For the seventh year in a row, the nation observed Pakistan Day under military rule. Pervez Musharraf showed up at the Minar-e-Pakistan dressed in muftis and spoke at what was in every sense of the term a pre-election political rally. And theres the rub. While talking of democracy, the army continues to be sovereign.
As I was preparing for this article, I asked a friend who is Jewish if it was appropriate to use the term "holocaust" to portray the worldwide violence against women. He was startled. But when I read him the figures in a 2004 policy paper published by the Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, he said yes, without hesitation.
