The Writ Hits The Fan

krizon

krizon

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
16,263
Location
Dahn sarf
This from ABC News Online tonight:

The ruler of Dubai came to Kentucky to buy racehorses, but ended up being served with a lawsuit alleging he enslaved thousands of small boys as camel jockeys. Sheikh Mohammed al-Maktoum was served on Monday with the court papers while attending a horse show in Lexington, Ky., where he spent an estimated $30 million on Thoroughbred yearlings.

The lawsuit brought is a class action, and alleged that Sheikh Mo and his brother were part of a conspiracy "to buy boys in the slave trade, hold them in bondage in brutal camps in the desert" as part of a flourishing camel racing sport among Arab sheikhs.

The US State Dept in a report on human trafficking last year cited the practice of forcing young boys (some as young as four, prized because they weigh less than 44 lbs) to perform as camel jockeys. "Children trafficked to the Gulf States are forced to race camels for the entertainment elite. These children were training under the shdow of Dubai's skyline in early 2005", the State Dept report said. While not specifically naming the Sheikh, the report says the trafficking of young boys as camel jockeys has burgeoned in the Gulf States due to oil wealth turning a traditional Bedouin sport into a multi-million dollar activity. It also says that the government of the United Arab Emirates (which includes Dubai) "has failed to take significant action to address its trafficking problems and protect victims".

From what I know, the buying of tiny Indian boys goes back well beyond 2005: camel racing was being shown, if briefly, on Saudi tv back in the 1980s, and the use of very young, light boys from primarily India was already endemic. In fact, Bedouin boys were already complaining that they were being eased out of the traditional desert sport by upstart imports who were much lighter (possibly because they were seriously undernourished). There had already been several voices raised in concern about the conditions in which they lived, the injuries they incurred, and their disposability once they grew - one accusation was that they were being underfed in order to keep them tiny. However, the WHO, UN, UNICEF, etc., hasn't done anything really concrete to stamp out the practice, and one draws the unpleasant inference that they won't interfere if the parents of the children - poor peasants desperate to see some sort of income - aren't complaining.

If the allegations are true, and I've no doubt that most of the report is founded in fact, then perhaps boycotting the UAE for luxury holidays and duty-free goodies which would probably buy most of the kids out of bondage, would be a start?
 
As I've said, I'm quoting ABC News online as of tonight. You can Google it up and read it - and the actual Writ wot woz wrote - for yourself and decide if ABC is lying!
 
Thought it might have been posted on the wrong thread and should have been under jokes..........or perhaps they have April 1st on September 15th in America! :shy:
 
The Saudis were, and possibly still are, notorious for 'importing' very young Indian boys, and got a right roasting from some journo who visited several years back, for TYING them onto the saddles so that they couldn't drop off from exhaustion - bearing in mind that these 'races' are over 20 miles and more in desert heat, and that the little tykes would ride more than one race in a day, it makes today's fussing here about riding two meetings in a day look pretty tame! The little jockeys had been up since dawn and had probably ridden for over four or five hours before being allowed a meal and a rest - and bear in mind that these are really YOUNG kids - as young as 4, but mostly around 7 or 8, who were kept in herded conditions, singularly unlike the pampered brats of the moneyed elite.

The money spent on good racing camels, including breeding stock, regularly goes into five big figures (dollars or pounds) and possibly more for a really outstanding animal. Money is wagered between the sheikhs - in frequently enormous amounts, of course - although it has been known for the onlookers to be wagering among themselves. As Islam proscribes all forms of gambling, these transactions are all seen as 'friendly' and 'private' in an effort to deflect religious criticism. Brides are still exchanged for both riding and racing camels among the Bedouin, although it's more customary nowadays to offer a top-of-the-range 4x4 with all the trimmings, plus a sackful of hard cash and jewellery.

And, just as a TB is lighter in build than the usual riding horse, so are camels. The racing type is much lighter-built and less tall than the riding camel and they are asked to run, not dawdle, Lawrence of Arabia-style, across the desert sands when they race. And forget all the tribal brass and braid trimmings - they race in lightweight bridles with tiny seats for their riders. Long, thin leather whips are used to keep them up to scratch, but there are no bans for over-use!
 
"to buy boys in the slave trade, hold them in bondage in brutal camps in the desert"
Click to expand...

Kri- I checked this - it is a mistake. The quote above indicates they thought he was George Bush and their problem was with Quantanamo Bay.
 
It occurred to me, too, AC! I'm not sure that anyone in the horse racing world will get too up-in-arms over the issue, as it doesn't affect them, but there will be some serious sheikhly disgruntlement if they have to revert to heavier home-grown boys. One feels for them, one does.
 
All of which nicely leads me around to the latest depths that the US appears to be plumbing. I believe its next week that Bush has a proposal going before the Senate that allows him to "re-interpret" the Geneva Conventions, since his administration is concerned that as things stand, it offers prisoners "vague protection". So far as I can gather, this means with holding evidence from defence counsel, which given that you could be executed and not know the precise reason why, yet alone conduct a defence by way of rebutal, is a severe and significant departure I'd suggest. It would also seemingly permit the use of evidence extracted under torture, (which we all knew was the reason for Guantanamo anyway) to be used in any hearing.

I think its symptomatic of a power structure out of control that it can abandon with such impunity the high moral ground that it might have held shortly after 9/11. I just don't see how it can present itself as the upholder of virtuosity and decency in the eyes of the world and the 100 plus signatories of Geneva (no shortage of whom have questionable human rights records of their own) and then act with such a flagrant unilateral attitude that's tantamount to a declaration of "rules don't need to apply to us".

Lets not forget this is a President who said "you're either with us or against us" and periodically chastises the world community for its luke warm response to him with what I think is a genuine puzzlement at times on his part, such is his sincere sense of self righteousness. Periodically he appeals for other global bullet blockers to join him on his "crusade" and yet seems incapable of reconciling why there isn't a crush at the White House doors with volunteers. This President is a serial 'ripper upper' of a whole range of treaties and protocols ranging from trade agreements to the environmnet. Who could trust him? I think his attitude to the seeking of a resolution at the UN regarding Iraq, was probably a crystalising moment. Blair was apparently insistant on doing so and the Americans couldn't understand why? and what the point of bothering was?. Both parties must have known it made no difference as they'd act anyway, but Blair was probably more conscious of the importance of being able to be seen as presenting a legitimate front, that embraced a wider world endorsement. Now you could argue that the Americans were more honest, as Blair's move was little more than a PR charade, and the Americans duly saw it for the unnecessary distraction that it doubtless was to a country that would do what 'God damn hell we like' anyway. It ended of course in farce, and cartoons.

So now it seems the Geneva Conventions are latest victim in his treaty cull. I should also say for balance that the Clinton administration sabotaged the 4th convention when it became clear that protecting/ or trying to protect, civilians in war time would implicate Israel.

Evidence gained under torture is of questionable value too, but has been predominantly used for extracting information/ intelligence previously. Bush it seems (in the finest traditions of his Christain believes) now wants to extend this to legal hearings. I suspect he'd bring back crucifixition screened as a peak time pay per view event by Fox if it ever occurred to him.

What will it take for people to turn around and say, that America has finally forfeited any claim to being the moral world guardian of decency and freedom etc.

"And the star spangled banner, in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free, and home of the brave"

rings hollower and hollower with each passing Super Bowl (though I'm not so sure they sing the last verse?).

She is wantonly abandoning this myth thus, which eventually makes redundancy of claim look inevitable, and with it, a sad indictment and reflection on the rest of us through association. It's not so much their application of double standards, and selective disregard of world opinion (they aren't unique in this respect). Its the insight of a wider and unashamedly 'we don't care what you think' neurosis that worries me most.

Slightly surprisingly, Senate Republicans are foremost in opposing this proposal, Sen John McCain, himself a victim of torture, and Colin Powell, who as more of an internationalist out of Eisenhower mould can see how badly this will play out. As a military man too, the latter is also concerned about the fate of captured US personnel, were the US to abandon (sorry re-interpret) the Geneva Convention.

We shall see, but the projections are for a close vote
 
Thinking about it. Would Sheikh Mohammed not have Diplomatic Immunity? If my friends can invoke it, much to the chagrin of Rudy Gulliani and the NYPD, I'm sure the UAE will ensure that he never faces a charge?
 
Don't call America 'she', Warbler, please! It's an it, but if it isn't an it, it's a 'he' since it's been driven by male - no, testosterone - desires and urges to fight, bully, and dominate since this appalling baboon was let loose on the Oval Office.

To make you despair further, please think about watching Channel 4 tonight, showing from 7-9 pm 'The Doomsday Code' where Tony Robinson meets mad Christofundies convinced that the world is headed for Armageddon via a newkiller war between Israel and the Islamic world, and are doing their level best TO BRING IT ON. It should be thought-provoking and it sounds as if there are some serious parallels with Bush's agenda and certainly those of the fundamentalists he's so enamoured of. Quite how this desire to hasten global mortality sits alongside their 'pro-life' stance on matters like abortion, I don't know, but I'm willing to be informed.
 
:lol: The feminisation of the US from my original androgynisation assignation was the subject of one my edits.

One of the things I've never understood about them is that they've enjoyed the material gains of technology, and built a society and country that owes much to the pushing back of the boundaries of scientific exploration and the application of method and rational thought, and yet so many of them (and more importantly their powerful individuals and institutions) are so hopelessly marooned in a backward mentality that shows all the enlightenment of the superstistious Dark Ages.

I remember arguing this apparent contradiction with an American who pointed out rather smugly that;

"we don't need to take any lectures from a country who had a civil war over the divine right of rulers"

I pointed out that this was about 350 years ago, and science has by and large moved us on since then. Its just a shame that the USA hadn't caught up yet, but then since these events occured approximately 130 years before the USA existed it was probably too much to expect
 
Originally posted by krizon@Sep 16 2006, 12:29 PM
To make you despair further, please think about watching Channel 4 tonight, showing from 7-9 pm 'The Doomsday Code' where Tony Robinson meets mad Christofundies convinced that the world is headed for Armageddon via a newkiller war between Israel and the Islamic world, and are doing their level best TO BRING IT ON.
Click to expand...
Now I realise that "A fish called Johnny" was raptured in the second race at Newbury today
 
Must admit to permiting myself a wry smile that these rapturists think the Secretary General of the United Nations is "the Antichrist", given who's widely tipped to be replacing Kofi :lol:

Even today his writing of letters to European leaders regarding Dafur and the role of the UN in the Sudan makes me think he's setting out his store out
 
Originally posted by krizon@Sep 17 2006, 01:11 AM
With that placing, I think he's more likely to be ruptured, Warbs!
Click to expand...
Johnny the Fish certainly was, bladdered as well, esp as Maid of Ale also trailed in at Warwick. He collapsed into a chair, grabbed my bottle, and moaned incoherently about losing c£50,000 off the value of the two at the sales next month in under an hour. He seemed to have cheered up a bit today however, maybe the Hills' vino did the trick :lol:
 
Those sections of the media spreading rumours that Tony Blair is after Kofi Annan's job are guilty of sloppy journalism. Although it's not forbiden in the rules, permanent menbers of the UN Security Council never put forward candidates for the post of Secretary-General.
 
Until Warbler's posting, I didn't have a clue as to who might be up for the Chair. Chair Blair? :brows: Hmmm...
 
The composition of the permament council is archaic and the subject of yet another review, the two might even dovetail with Blairs appointment being used as the reason to finally restructure the thing on a reform agenda?. Like Brian says, there's nothing in the constitution to prevent Blair becoming the antichrist, so no reason for them to invoke it as a definitive barrier.

If he hasn't encouraged journos to talk him up, he's done little to scotch the suggestion, beyond usual protocols. I've always suspected his anodyne overtures on world poverty owed something to trying to secure African support (sub Saharan) though I'm not sure that Zimbabwe will be voting for him, or Namibia for that matter, although Sam Nujoma isn't president any more. His promotion of a UN resolution over Iraq won't necessarily have done him any terminal harm, given that John Negroponte (or Bush to be more accurate I suppose) was more than happy to simply sideline the idea. Admittedly it came to zilch :lol:

He should be able to carry some European votes, and the US will doubtless bend votes his way through the OAS or whatever mechanism they use these days. At face value he'd stand a chance, but this decision is rarely transparant and its not normally well received to openly lobby for the position.

We'll see, but my instinct and questionable judgement says it won't come to pass.
 
I'm not sure that anyone on here has been following what has been happening at the UN. Kofi Annan retires on 31st December this year and the fifteen member countries of the Security Council, including the UK and the USA, have nominated four candidates to replace him. Early voting should start soon.

The whole method of selection is flawed but it's the one they have at present. The choice of UN S-G tends to go geographically and it is Asia's "turn". No surprises then that the candidates are all from that part of the world:

Ban Ki-Moon, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade in South Korea. Ki-Moon would be favourite in my book.

Shashi Tharoor, from India, UN Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Information.

Jayantha Dhanapala, Chief Advisor to the President of Sri Lanka.

Dr Surakiart Sathirahai, the Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand.
 
Back
Top