The EU should be stronger and more united. Great Britain should belong to the Union.
Die EU sollte stärker und geeinter sein. Großbritannien sollte der Union angehören.
L'UE devrait être plus forte et plus unie. La Grande-Bretagne devrait appartenir à l'Union.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
La Californie devrait rejeter l'appel de Polanski
TRIBUNE DE GENÈVE: LOS ANGELES | Le procureur général de Los Angeles a déclaré vendredi que l’appel déposé en Californie par le réalisateur Roman Polanski, arrêté en Suisse le 26 septembre, devrait être rejeté et qu’aucun «exposé des moyens devant le tribunal» ne devrait se tenir.
Roman Polanski est incarcéré en Suisse en attendant l’examen de son dossier, une décision n’étant pas attendue avant «plusieurs semaines», selon la justice Suisse. Crédits photo : Tribune de Genève
La requête avait été faite en réponse à une lettre des avocats du cinéaste, adressée à la cour d’appel en début de semaine et demandant un «exposé accéléré des moyens devant le tribunal». Ses avocats soutenaient que la justice californienne ne devrait pas chercher à extrader Roman Polanski de Suisse, parce qu’il avait déjà purgé sa peine pour avoir eu des relations sexuelles avec une mineure en 1977.
Les procureurs ont expliqué que la seule question en suspens, avant qu’il comparaisse devant le tribunal, était de savoir s’il y aurait une audience, sans que Roman Polanski soit présent, pour examiner sa demande d’annuler les accusations retenues contre lui. Mais maintenant qu’il a été arrêté et fait l’objet d’un mandat d’extradition, cette question est sans importance, ont-ils ajouté. >>> AP | Samedi 10 Octobre 2009
Prix Nobel de la Paix : Un cadeau empoisonné?
J'ai levé les yeux vers le ciel. I looked heavenward. Ich schaute zum Himmel empor.
LE TEMPS: Lauréat du Nobel de la paix après seulement neuf mois de présidence, Barack Obama se déclare «étonné» et «touché». Il voit dans ce prix un appel à relever des défis
La caméra s’attardait sur son visage. A travers la vitre du Bureau ovale, on voyait le président concentré sur les feuilles de son discours, l’air un peu interdit, visiblement mal à l’aise à l’heure d’interpréter un rôle si mal préparé. L’attribution du Prix Nobel de la paix à Barack Obama est plus qu’une surprise. C’est un choix risqué, un défi, une gageure. En le cueillant à son réveil (l’annonce a été faite à Oslo tandis que l’Amérique dormait), le Comité du Nobel a désarçonné le président des Etats-Unis en exercice. Et, derrière lui, une bonne partie de la planète.
Le Prix Nobel de la paix? Ce n’est pas de paix que l’on parle ces jours à la Maison-Blanche. L’agenda du président incluait vendredi une réunion avec son Conseil de sécurité consacrée à la meilleure manière de poursuivre la guerre en Afghanistan. A Washington, l’atmosphère est ces jours à une autre guerre, de tranchées, entre les démocrates et les républicains à propos de la réforme du système de santé américain. Au Proche-Orient, dans le même temps, l’émissaire de la Maison-Blanche n’a pu que constater à quel point le climat est lourd aujourd’hui à Jérusalem, après que le monde s’est mis à rêver à l’avènement d’une paix prochaine. >>> Luis Lema | Samedi 10 Octobre 2009
Dieter Ruloff: Jetzt braucht er Erfolge
NZZ ONLINE: Mit dem Nobelpreis hat der weltweite Beifall für US-Präsident Obama einen neuen Höhepunkt erreicht. Doch innenpolitisch steckt Obama im Popularitätstief. Wenn es ihm nicht bald gelingt, sichtbare Erfolge zu erzielen, könnte die Präsidentschaftswahl 2012 für ihn zum Drama werden.
Man kann auch in die Höhe fallen, so wie in die Tiefe», sagte der Dichter Friedrich Hölderlin. Mitunter passiert beides, und zwar nacheinander, wie jetzt bei Obama, dem jungen, charismatischen Politiker, dem Mann mit Visionen, dem brillanten Rhetoriker mit messianischer Aura, der den Wandel predigte und schliesslich, die politische Schwerkraft überwindend, in eineinhalb Jahren vom Jungsenator zum mächtigsten Mann der Welt und Nobelpreisträger in die Höhe fiel.
Die neueste Ehrung potenziert nochmals die Erwartungen an ihn. Er habe seinem Volk «Hoffnung auf eine bessere Zukunft» gegeben, lautet die Begründung in Oslo. Faktisch läuft es für Obama an allen Fronten jedoch zunehmend schlecht, Erwartungen und Erreichtes klaffen je länger je weiter auseinander. Der Fall in die Tiefe, zumindest jene der Umfragen, kam postwendend: Die Zustimmung von anfangs fast 70 Prozent im Februar schrumpfte auf jetzt nur noch gut 50 Prozent. Das ist noch immer massiv besser als die zuletzt nur 22 Prozent Zustimmung für George W. Bush. Aber es schmerzt doch, gerade weil Bush ja die Hauptschuld trifft – hat er seinem Nachfolger doch ein schier unvorstellbares Desaster hinterlassen. Zwei glücklose Kriege, die Wirtschaft im freien Fall, das Ansehen weltweit ruiniert, die Geheimdienste demoralisiert und last, but not least Schulden über Schulden.
Nach hundert Tagen schien die Bilanz Obamas noch glänzend, die Hoffnungen auf ihn mehr als berechtigt: Bankenrettung und Konjunkturprogramm; Politikwechsel um 180 Grad bei Guantánamo, in der Umwelt- und der Sicherheitspolitik; die Subventionsschlucker Chrysler und GM auf Trab gebracht; Charmeoffensive in Europa und im Nahen Osten mit durchschlagendem Erfolg.
Man hat Obama noch im Frühjahr Hyperaktivismus vorgeworfen, er packe zu viel zu rasch an, werde das Tempo nicht durchstehen können. Dies ist wohl nicht das Problem, denn Obama dominiert so gut wie täglich die Medien in den USA und der Welt. Aber die Meldungen werden kritischer, der Präsident muss immer öfter mit Appellen an die Öffentlichkeit, erklären, reparieren, gegensteuern. Die Absage an Chicago bei der Vergabe der Olympischen Spiele – trotz grossem Engagement des Präsidentenehepaars – war nur die letzte in einer Reihe von Niederlagen. Der Nobelpreis lenkt im besten Falle etwas ab; den politischen Alltag mit all seinen Widrigkeiten verändert der Preis nicht. >>> Von Dieter Ruloff | Sonntag, 11. Oktober 2009
UE : Lisbonne: Et Varsovie qui fait 26
leJDD.fr: La République tchèque est le dernier pays européen à ne pas avoir encore ratifié le traité de Lisbonne. Après le "oui" irlandais la semaine dernière, le président polonais, Lech Kaczynski, a, à son tour, ratifié samedi matin le texte censé améliorer le fonctionnement des institutions de l'UE.
Lech Kaczynski a tenu parole. Le président polonais, qui avait conditionné la ratification du traité de Lisbonne à son adoption par le peuple irlandais - exigence remplie le 2 octobre dernier - s'est exécuté samedi matin. Solennellement, dans une cérémonie retransmise par la télévision nationale, le chef de l'Etat polonais, eurosceptique déclaré, a apposé sa signature au bas du texte censé relancer la machine européenne par la modernisation de ses institutions. Avant cela, Lech Kaczynski en avait profité pour rappeler à ses partenaires ses exigences en matière de construction européenne: "Une union stricte d'Etat-nations" appelée à s'étendre davantage. "L'UE, une expérience couronnée de succès sans précédent dans l'histoire humaine, ne peut être fermée à ceux qui souhaitent la rejoindre (...) non seulement dans les Balkans mais aussi des pays comme la Géorgie", a-t-il précisé.
A méditer du côté des 27 même si, pour l'heure, l'urgence est ailleurs. En accordant son blanc seing au traité de Lisbonne, Varsovie est en effet devenue la 26e capitale à adopter le texte, laissant ainsi à Prague le redoutable privilège de clore un processus engagé en 2007, à l'initiative de Nicolas Sarkozy. Or, après le couac du "non" irlandais au référendum du printemps 2008, le paraphe du président Vaclav Klaus, lui aussi eurosceptique notoire, est espéré dans une certaine anxiété. "L'Europe attend impatiemment cette signature, l'Europe n'a pas besoin de retards supplémentaires", a ainsi déclaré le Premier ministre suédois, Fredrik Reinfeldt, présent à Varsovie samedi matin, et dont le pays assure actuellement la présidence tournante de l'UE. Prague veut gagner du temps >>> N.M. (avec Reuters) - leJDD.fr, Samedi 10 Octobre 2009
Fighting for Women's Rights in Iran
THE GUARDIAN: How the One Million Signatures campaign, winner of this year's Raw in War Anna Politkovskaya award, aims to change Iranian society
Watch Guardian video here | Mustafa Khalili and Emily Butselaar | Thursday, October 08, 2009
As Pressure Grows, Obama Addresses Gay Rights Group: He Promises to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
THE WASHINGTON POST: President Obama, struggling to keep promises he made during last year's campaign, renewed his pledge to end the military's ban on openly gay service members as he appeared at a fundraising dinner for the nation's largest gay advocacy group on Saturday night.
"I will end 'don't ask, don't tell,' " Obama said at the Human Rights Campaign dinner. Recounting the ongoing effort to bring full civil rights to gays and lesbians, the president said: "I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."
Obama did not offer specifics on how he would advance the cause of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, or of same-sex marriage, two areas where his inaction as president have disappointed many gay supporters.
But on the eve of a major gay rights rally in Washington, an event aimed in part at pressuring Obama and Congress, the president was met with a standing ovation and resounding cheers. Obama acknowledged the frustration of some activists, portraying himself as a forceful ally in a lengthy fight. And while he said that gay rights are only one part of his agenda, which is loaded down with domestic and international challenges, he said that would not deter him.
"My commitment to you is unwavering, even as we wrestle with these enormous problems," Obama said. "Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach."
Just days after winning the presidency, Obama vowed that he would be "a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans." >>> Michael D. Shear, Anne E. Kornblut and Ed O'Keefe, Washington Post Staff Writers | Sunday, October 11, 2009
USA : Obama face aux homosexuels
leJDD.fr: Barack Obama s'adresse ce samedi soir à la communauté homosexuelle, qui attend de lui des actes concrets.
"Ce n’est pas parce que nous entraînons nos enfants au foot ou au base-ball chaque week-end dans les Etats démocrates que nous n’avons pas de copains gays dans les Etats républicains! Nous formons un seul et même peuple!" Dans son discours à la Convention démocrate de Boston en 2004, l’étoile montante du parti, Barack Obama, avait eu cette phrase interprétée au sein de la communauté homosexuelle comme un engagement à donner aux "straights" et aux gays, aux hétéros et aux homos, les mêmes droits lorsqu’un jour il en aurait le pouvoir. Puis, George Bush, réélu, avait tout tenté pour faire échouer les revendications des gays et des lesbiennes, à commencer par le mariage homosexuel.
En devenant le candidat des démocrates en 2008, Barack Obama sait qu’il lui faut agir finement. Dépeint par ses adversaires comme un "libéral", quasiment un gauchiste, le sénateur de l’Illinois n’a de cesse de ramener le débat au centre, surtout sur les valeurs – peine de mort, avortement ou mariage homosexuel. Mais il prend malgré tout l’engagement d’abroger ou amender deux lois fédérales adoptées sous Bill Clinton. La première s’appelle le Defense of Marriage Act. Votée en 1996 par un Congrès à majorité républicaine, cette loi précise qu’au niveau fédéral, le mariage ne peut se comprendre qu’entre un homme et une femme et qu’aucun Etat fédéré n’est obligé de reconnaître la légalité d’un mariage homosexuel célébré dans un autre Etat. Trente-sept semaines après son arrivée, toujours rien >>> François Clemenceau, correspondant à Washington du Journal du Dimanche Samedi 10 Octobre 2009
Obama verspricht Homosexuellen mehr Rechte: Aufhebung von Einschränkungen in den Streitkräften versprochen
Obama bei seiner Rede vor der Homosexuellen-Organisation Human Rights Campaign. Bild: NZZ Online
NZZ ONLINE: Präsident Barack Obama hat sein Wahlkampfversprechen bekräftigt, die Diskriminierung von Homosexuellen in den Streitkräften zu beenden. Auf einer Veranstaltung in Washington sagte Obama am Samstag vor 3000 Zuhörern: «Wir sollten patriotische Amerikaner nicht bestrafen, die hervortreten, um dem Land zu dienen.» >>> ap | Sonntag, 11. Oktober 2009
Obama to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Military Policy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama on Saturday pledged to end a 16-year-old policy banning gay people from serving openly in the nation's military, in a gesture to a group that provided a major source of support during his campaign.
But the president didn't set out a timetable for reversing the policy. As a result, his pledge might not be enough to appease some in the gay community who feel that Mr. Obama hasn't moved quickly enough to address their issues -- even as his message could spark criticism from some conservatives and members of the military.
Speaking at a human-rights dinner in the capital, Mr. Obama vowed to end the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows homosexuals to serve in the military, as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it.
The law has long been criticized by gay-rights advocates as a half-measure that doesn't fully recognize the rights and contributions of gay service-men and women. Mr. Obama has in the past said he would work to overturn the policy.
"We cannot afford to discharge people from our ranks with critical skills," he told a cheering crowd of about 3,000 at the black-tie event sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil-rights group.
Mr. Obama also appealed to Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state and federal bodies can recognize domestic partnerships in providing government benefits. He also vowed to press for legislation that would extend health and other employment benefits to domestic partners of workers. But he again didn't provide a timetable.
Mr. Obama's statements are likely to be welcomed by many liberal Democrats, although some activists criticized his failure to provide more concrete details. >>> Elizabeth Williamson | Sunday, October 11, 2009
Pres. Obama Addressed "Human Rights Campaign" Dinner
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
What Do Gay People Think About Obama's Speech To Human Rights Dinner?
God Is Not the Creator, Claims Academic
THE TELEGRAPH: The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the Bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years.
The Earth was already there when God created humans and animals, says academic. Photo: The Telegraph
Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.
She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world -- and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.
Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at Radboud University in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole, and in the context of other creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia.
She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".
The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth[.]"
According to Judeo-Christian tradition, God created the Earth out of nothing. >>> Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent | Thursday, October 08, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Arrests as Rival Race Demonstrations Clash
TIMES ONLINE: Police have arrested 34 people amid tense scenes at an anti-Islamic demonstration in central Manchester.
The English Defence League (EDL), which opposes "radical Muslims" and Sharia Law, staged the protest, but the anti-far right group Unite Against Fascism (UAF) arranged a counter demonstration bringing both sides together in the city centre . >>> Simon Alford | Saturday, October 10, 2009
Cuba's Fidel Castro Hails Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
THE TELEGRAPH: Cuba's Fidel Castro is the latest world leader to opine on the controversial award of the Nobel peace prize to President Barack Obama.
But the endorsement of the veteran communist revolutionary may be the last thing Mr Obama wanted, as his words will only strengthen conservative complaints that the prize was an anti-American gesture.
The former dictator, who handed power to his brother Raul last year after falling seriously ill, made clear that he believed the award was primarily a repudiation of Mr Obama's predecessors.
"Many believe that he still has not earned the right to receive such a distinction," he wrote in a column published in state media. "But we would like to see, more than a prize for the US president, a criticism of the genocidal policies that have been followed by more than a few presidents of that country."
Mr Castro, 83, who has spent half a century railing at international bodies, said he had often disagreed with the choice of Norway's Nobel judges.
But this time, he noted modestly, "I must admit that in this case, in my opinion, it was a positive step". >>> Philip Sherwell in New York and Leonard Doyle in Washington | Saturday, October 10, 2009
President of Poland Signs Lisbon Treaty
THE TELEGRAPH: Lech Kaczynski, Poland’s president, has signed the Lisbon treaty, leaving the Czech Republic the only country yet to ratify the controversial European Union reform plan.
Flanked by José Manuel Barroso, the head of the European commission, and the Polish president of the European parliament, Jerzy Buzek, Mr Kaczynski put his signature to the treaty in Warsaw.
“The fact that the Irish people changed their minds meant the revival of the treaty, and there are no longer any obstacles to its ratification,” said Mr Kaczynski in a short speech, adding that it was a “historic” day for both Poland and the European Union.
The ceremony leaves the Czech Republic as the last outpost of opposition to the treaty among the governments of the 27 member states, with Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president and an ardent opponent of further European integration making an eleventh-hour bid to gain opt-out clauses from the European Charter of Human Rights, which forms part of the Lisbon text. >>> Matthew Day in Warsaw | Saturday, October 10, 2009
Prize Fools
TIMES ONLINE: The Nobel committee’s award to President Obama demeans the peace prize, appears politically partisan and should embarrass the White House
When Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, the satirist Tom Lehrer remarked that he saw no further need to perform as the award had made satire obsolete. By offering the world’s most prestigious political accolade to Barack Obama, a man who has held office for barely nine months, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is in danger of putting the entire comedy industry out of business.
The committee has put hope above results, promise above achievement. The prize undermines the selfless triumphs of earlier winners. Indeed, the award’s obvious political intent looks partisan, a signal of European relief at the end of the Bush presidency.
The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s action in “strengthening international co-operation between peoples”. That is a worthy aim and America’s re-engagement in multilateral diplomacy has been warmly welcomed by its allies. But it is hard to point to any substantive results yet. Much was promised to the Muslim world in the President’s speech in Cairo; on the ground, the failure still to achieve any tangible progress towards a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians has left all sides disillusioned. In Moscow, the talk of pressing the reset button in relations was welcome, as was Mr Obama’s abandonment of the US missile shield in Europe. But so far none of this has led to the scrapping of any more nuclear warheads.
The nomination of Mr Obama, among more than 200 other contenders, had to be made within weeks of his inauguration. Was this a message of support for the election of America’s first black president? Or was it a self-defeating way of trying to align the peace committee with the excitement that marked his first few weeks in office? Mr Obama yesterday responded with characteristic eloquence and modesty in announcing his acceptance. He would, however, have done better to have let it be known to those sounding out the White House beforehand that he saw the prize as premature, ill judged and embarrassing at a time when he is preoccupied with fighting a war in Afghanistan. >>> | Saturday, October 10, 2009
TIMES ONLINE: At 5.45am yesterday Robert Gibbs was woken by a network television producer calling him at home. “This’d better be good,” the White House press secretary grumbled. It was, the producer assured him. President Obama had just won the Nobel Peace Prize. “Oh, that is good,” Mr Gibbs replied.
At the end of an extraordinary whirlwind day that began for Mr Obama with a call to the Lincoln Bedroom moments later, he may justly be questioning his aide’s initial judgment. At home, admirers met the news with astonishment, bafflement and, in some cases, laughter. Across the globe, reaction ranged from polite congratulation and wild effusion to outrage and scepticism.
Conservative critics greeted the news with glee, an affirmation of their belief that Mr Obama is beloved in Europe just for being a celebrity, adored for what he says, not what he does — or, as his Texan predecessor would say, all hat and no cattle.
Without question, the choice is political. The Nobel Peace Prize is a notoriously difficult award to predict but one thread of consistency since 2000 has been the award committee’s implacable hatred of the Bush Administration.
Three of the past six peace awards have gone to Bush adversaries. In 2002 the prize went to Jimmy Carter as an explicit rejection of the Bush presidency in the build-up to the Iraq war. In 2005 Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN atomic agency chief who had clashed with Washington over the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was honoured. In 2007 Al Gore received the prize for his warnings on climate change, denounced by President Bush as a liberal myth.
Mr Obama’s is a fourth and perfect example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for. Obama ‘celebrity reward’ Nobel Prize is greeted with glee by critics >>> Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent, and Tim Reid in Washington | Saturday, October 10, 2009
Rush Limbaugh: The Nobel Prize Is Part of an Effort to ‘Neuter’ America
Italy's Gay Rights Pledge as Hate Crimes Rise
THE GUARDIAN: As tens of thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Italians prepared to demonstrate tomorrowagainst a string of homophobic attacks, Silvio Berlusconi's government announced a ground-breaking €2m media campaign against discrimination.
After meeting representatives of more than 20 gay rights associations, the equal opportunities minister, Mara Carfagna, said Italy's rightwing government would make "an unprecedented commitment to get across our message". The money would pay for TV commercials, newspaper advertisements and posters to be put up on hoardings and in buses and trains.
Her announcement was welcomed by homosexual rights groups. Imma Battaglia, the president of Gay Project, said: "I believe we are at a turning point in the struggle against homophobia." >>> John Hooper in Rome | Friday, October 09, 2009
Sarkozy's Son Sparks Nepotism Row after Being Tipped for Top Public Job
THE GUARDIAN: French president's son Jean tipped to head France's powerful La Défense development agency but critics say he lacks legitimacy
The Sarkozy dynasty was embroiled in another nepotism row today , after the French president's 23-year-old son Jean was tipped to head the public agency running Paris's La Défense , one of Europe's biggest business districts.
The young Sarkozy, who has not yet finished his university degree, is currently a local councillor in the wealthy Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Seine, where his father rose to power 30 years ago. Dubbed "Prince Jean" by his critics, he has had a meteoric rise to power in his father's old fiefdom and currently leads the rightwing council majority in the Hauts-de-Seine, the richest department in France. >>> Angelique Chrisafis in Paris | Friday, October 09, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Mitchell kommt in Nahost nicht voran
NZZ ONLINE: Friedensbemühungen sollen auf niedrigerer Ebene fortgesetzt werden
Der amerikanische Nahostbeauftragte George Mitchell kommt mit seinen Bemühungen um eine Wiederaufnahme der Friedensgespräche zwischen Israeli und Palästinensern nicht voran. Treffen mit dem israelischen Präsidenten Netanyahu und dem palästinensischen Präsidenten Abbas brachten offenbar keinen Fortschritt. >>> ap | Freitag, 09. Oktober 2009
Talk and Win
Barack Hussein Obama could hardly believe his luck this morning. In fact, he almost choked on his corn flakes when he heard the news! Less than a year ago, he duped the American public into believing that he could bring the American electorate change; though the voters forgot to ask him what kind of change he was talking about. Silly them!
Ever since, he has spent his time as sitting president moving around. There are so many places in America where he can use the gift he has been given: the gift of the gab. In fact, since taking office, he has done little else other than talk. He talks so much that there is little time to do anything else. And of course, without doing anything, he cannot achieve. Why does he talk so much? Because it is doubtful that he is capable of achieving anything, and anyway he loves the sound of his own voice. It sounds so sonorous to him. To him, that is!
Now this! He has learnt his lesson fast, though. We must grant him that. He has learnt that one doesn’t have to achieve anything real to get the Nobel Peace Prize. All one has to do is talk – talk, talk, talk, and loftily. Talk, talk, talk, and win, win, win, win. Win prizes here and win prizes there.
Oh yes, and Obama will sleep better tonight, since with this medal comes about a million euros. Plenty of sleeveless dresses there, Michelle! – Mark
Blair Listens as Archbishop Condemns Iraq War Decisions
THE INDEPENDENT: The Archbishop of Canterbury today criticised "policy makers" for failing to consider the cost of the Iraq war at a memorial service for the 179 British personnel who died in the conflict.
Dr Rowan Williams, who has previously described the decisions which led to the war as "flawed", praised the "patient and consistent" efforts of troops on the ground.
But he used his address at the national service of remembrance in St Paul's Cathedral to remind his audience that the conflict remained highly controversial.
Among those in the congregation listening to his words was former prime minister Tony Blair, who led the country into war.
Dr Williams said: "Many people of my generation and younger grew up doubting whether we should ever see another straightforward international conflict, fought by a standing army with conventional weapons.
"We had begun to forget the realities of cost. And when such conflict appeared on the horizon, there were those among both policy makers and commentators who were able to talk about it without really measuring the price, the cost of justice."
The Archbishop alluded to the controversial nature of the campaign, known as Operation Telic, which brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets in protest in the run up to the war.
He said: "The conflict in Iraq will, for a long time yet, exercise the historians, the moralists, the international experts.
"In a world as complicated as ours has become, it would be a very rash person who would feel able to say without hesitation, this was absolutely the right or the wrong thing to do, the right or the wrong place to be."
Iraq veterans and bereaved families joined the Queen, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and senior military leaders for the poignant service. >>> Tony Jones and Sam Marsden, Press Association | Friday, October 09, 2009
You Have Blood on Your Hands, Blair Told
THE INDEPENDENT: The former Prime Minister Tony Blair was told today he had "blood on his hands" by a bereaved father at a reception following a memorial service for those killed in Iraq.
Peter Brierley, whose son Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, 28, was killed in March 2003, refused to shake Mr Blair's proffered hand and said: "I'm not shaking your hand, you've got blood on it."
The former prime minister was ushered away and afterwards Mr Brierley, from Batley, West Yorkshire, said: "I understand soldiers go to war and die but they have to go to war for a good reason and be properly equipped to fight."
He added: "I believe Tony Blair is a war criminal. I can't bear to be in the same room as him. I can't believe he's been allowed to come to this reception.
"I believe he's got the blood of my son and all of the other men and women who died out there on his hands.
"It comes back to me every day, every time I see a coffin come off a plane; it reminds me of what happened to Shaun." >>> Laura Harding, Press Association | Friday, October 09, 2009
Allowed by Allah. Acceptable to Allah. Not forbidden: حلال
Halal Is Big Business: Germany Waking up to Growing Market for Muslim Food
SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERNATIONAL: Germany has four million Muslim inhabitants but the market for halal food -- produced according to Islamic law -- is still in its infancy, partly because firms fear the wrath of animal rights groups. But companies are slowly waking up to this fast-growing market.
Gehlenberg is a sleepy village in northern Germany. It has a population of 1,600 and boasts a church, community hall, war memorial and a pub, along with a few wooden crosses by the roadside and a tiny chapel. It's a staunchly Catholic village, but on three days of the week, the Prophet Muhammad makes the rules -- in a white factory building on the outskirts of the village, that is. That is where the Meemken family business produces a broad range of sausage that follows Islamic food standards. The company supplies almost 100 tons of salami and various other types of sausage each week to food retailers in Germany and abroad.
International food companies such as Nestle and Unilever have for years offered a range of products that meet so-called halal food standards. Halal is an Arabic term that means pure, or permissible. The term refers to a way of life that follows Islamic law. German companies are gradually realizing that catering to faith-oriented consumption is a good way to make money. In these times of economic crisis, finding new markets is more tempting than ever.
The potential market for halal food in Germany is huge. An estimated four million Muslims live in Germany, and the community is pre-programmed to grow because Muslims have a higher birth rate than non-Muslims. Halal already accounts for 17 percent of the global food market, according to the World Halal Forum based in Malaysia.
Food Companies Worried About Animal Rights Groups
Market experts say the halal segment is growing faster than any other part of the food market. Sales of food that meets Islamic standards are expected to reach $641 billion in 2010, up from $587 billion in 2004. The European halal food market is expected to reach sales of $67 billion in 2010.
Food companies in other European countries with many Muslim residents have already adapted to their needs. In France, the Casino chain of supermarkets supplies halal meat products. In Britain, halal food is easily found in the top chains like Tesco and Sainsbury's. French delicatessen stores sell halal goose liver pate and British pharmacy retailer Boots sells halal baby food. It's a different story in Germany, where supermarkets offer only a meagre range of halal food. … >>> Daniela Schröder | Wednesday, June 10, 2009
For All My Good Intentions
I would like all my visitors to know that I want all people in this troubled world to live in peace and harmony, and I want them to love one another. Poverty must be eliminated. Moreover, all weapons of any kind must be destroyed. There will be no more wars. I intend to continue working towards these goals.
Please be so kind as to nominate me for the Nobel Peace Prize of 2010. I surely deserve it. After all, the road to Oslo is paved with good intentions. – Mark
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
The stunning choice made President Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. President Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
The committee said it attached special importance to President Obama's vision of, and work for, a world without nuclear weapons.
"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play," the committee said.
Theodore Roosevelt won the award in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson won in 1919. Former President Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002, while former Vice President Al Gore shared the 2007 prize with the U.N. panel on climate change. >>> Associated Press | Friday, October 09, 2009
Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize. For What?
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: This is completely bizarre. President Barack Obama has just won the nobel peace prize. It is unclear why. For making peace, of a kind, with Hillary Clinton? For giving up the missile shield and cheering up the Iranians? For preparing a surge of troops and weaponry in Afghanistan? >>> Iain Martin | Friday, October 09, 2009
AFP: KABUL — The Taliban Friday condemned Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, saying rather than bring peace to Afghanistan he had boosted troop numbers and continued the aggressive policies of his predecessor.
"We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP.
"We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama," he said by telephone from an undisclosed location.
"When Obama was elected president, we were hopeful he would keep his promise to bring change. But he brought no change, he has continued the same old strategy as (President George W.) Bush. Taliban condemns Obama's Nobel Peace Prize >>> Waheedullah Massoud (AFP) | Friday, October 09, 2009
TIME: The last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise.
Inspirational words have brought him a long way — including to the night in Grant Park less than a year ago when he asked that we "join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years — block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."
By now there are surely more callouses on his lips than his hands. He, like every new president, has reckoned with both the power and the danger of words, dangers that are especially great for one who wields them as skillfully as he. A promise beautifully made raises hopes especially high: we will revive the economy while we rein in our spending; we will make health care simpler, safer, cheaper, fairer. We will rid the earth of its most lethal weapons. We will turn green and clean. We will all just get along.
So when reality bites, it chomps down hard. The Nobel committee cited "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." His critics fault some of those efforts: those who favor a missile shield for Poland or a troop surge in Afghanistan or a harder line on Iran. But even his fans know that none of the dreams have yet come true, and a prize for even dreaming them can feed the illusion that they have. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize: The Last Thing He Needs >>> Nancy Gibbs | Friday, October 09, 2009
«Un prix encombrant pour la poursuite de son mandat»
LE FIGARO: ANALYSE VIDEO - Selon Philippe Gélie, chef du service international du Figaro, le jury du Nobel n'a peut-être pas fait un cadeau à Obama en lui attribuant ce prix à la surprise générale.
Pour Philippe Gélie, chef du service international du Figaro, Barack Obama n'a pas encore d'énormes succès diplomatiques à son crédit, «c'est sans précédent je crois qu'un chef de l'Etat soit primé aussi tôt dans son mandat».
Il souligne également que ce prix pourra être lourd à porter pour un président dont le monde attend déjà énormément : «Est-ce qu'il a besoin, dix mois après le début de son mandat, d'être aussi prix Nobel de la paix?»
TIMES ONLINE: The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.
The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.
East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.
The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities. Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize >>> Michael Binyon | Friday, October 09, 2009
Open for comments.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Robert Spencer: Obama Declares War on Free Speech
HUMAN EVENTS: The Obama Administration has now actually co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council last Friday, the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
What could be wrong with that? Plenty.
First of all, there’s that little matter of the First Amendment, which preserves Americans’ right to free speech and freedom of the press, which are obviously mutually inclusive. Any law that infringed on speech at all -- far less in such vague and sweeping terms -- would be unconstitutional.
“Incitement” and “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder -- or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as “hate speech.” The Founding Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be.
Now no less distinguished a personage than the President of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny; the implications are grave. The resolution also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,” which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- for that, not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language, is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and allied groups. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that’s “negative stereotyping.” >>> Robert Spencer | October 08, 2009
