More squirming from the Lib Dems: Danny Alexander on QT

Hat Tip Left Foot Forward

I'm ready for my close up ...Gorgeous George is off to Hollywood

Hat tip Liam .

David Camerwrong presents a new Vision for Britain

Hat tip Sukhwant on Facebook.

Sarah Brown and the politics of pedicures

For those stupid and shallow enough to base where they place their X in this election based on what Sam Cam or Sarah Brown wears or does, the Mail helpfully is running daily updates. This may very well be the clincher that sees Cameron walk through the doors of no 10:

The wife of Labour leader Gordon Brown should have been putting her best foot forward when she visited a temple in north-west London today.

Instead she unveiled a rather unsightly problem on her left foot - her little toe and fourth toe crossed over one another.

She has been placed in direct competition with David Cameron's wife Samantha, and this will do little to boost her credential's against 'SamCam'.

In fact, it's the kind of sight that will immediately put the Prime Minister's wife into second place behind the Tory leader's wife.

...

She would have been well aware that her toes were in such a frightful condition, however, and most likely decided against a pedicure...to her detriment.

Oh and Sarah, you really should have got knocked up as well a few months before the election. Very remiss not to do your duty there .

.

Sarah Palin a hypocrite, hell yeah!

Ahh, I have missed Sarah Palin, with her gaffes, cringe worthy interviews and good old home grown ignorance . So here is her latest:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada's health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and 'death-panel'-like rationing.

Hypocrisy more like .

Hat Tip Charlie Pottins on Facebook.

"Women against Fundamentalism" are a nutty group ...apparently

According to Islamaphobia Watch.

Yeah, listen to the male community leaders instead boys, rather than women who have fought in their respective religious communities for the rights of women. A group who campaigned alongside Southall Black Sisters , stood up to men who shouted them down when they dared speak out against censorship, who screamed at them on demos saying they should be at home when they dared speak out about the Fatwa on Rushdie.

Shame IW had to stoop to the level of insults such as cranks and nutty, used by men to dismiss women who are a bit uppity . Hey boys, why not go the whole misogynistic hog and ask if she has PMT.

Still I'm sure that has put Gita and the girls in their place, hope they sit down and shut up , else they will be called Islamaphobic. That should silence debate as usual.

The left really has lost the plot. I would rather stand with 'nutty' women than religious men and their apologists anyday.

Secular women, pah , nutty the lot of them.

Fuckwit of the year

In a day or two I plan to put up a poll.

Suggestions welcome for candidates?

Paddy of course will be on the list, but I do need more names, even though I'm sure he will be a front runner.

Guest post - Men's Societies in Universities

I have been sent this by Natalie, who asked if i could put it up on the blog .



Truth Not Fiction

When it comes to politics, it can seem as if some people live in a different world to the rest of us. Either this, or we must be forced to concede that amongst the attendees at one of Britain’s most prestigious Universities, are some of the most utterly clueless and dangerously idiotic folks in the world. I mean, how many people genuinely have trouble getting to grips with the fact that a) women are an oppressed group and b) men are not? You’d think the answer would be somewhere between “fairly few” and “no one could possibly be that impervious to reality”, but alas, it seems one particular group of individuals at Manchester University - the recently formed MENS Society - are really that naive.

Why yes, they genuinely appear to believe men are an oppressed group and no amount of pay gaps, glass ceilings and double burdens is going to shake their unshakable belief that we live in a woman’s world.

The Men’s Society was formed with a number of stated aims, including Top Gear viewing, mandatory pub crawls, beard growing contests, trips to gadget fairs and participation in “Tough Guy” contests. Assuming that there wouldn’t be genuine coercion involved in the mandatory pub crawls, these aims are all fairly harmless taken by themselves. But when they form the core activities of a Men’s Society which also subscribes to the aim of constructing a “male identity”, it’s clear why this is harmful. Some people (including such nominal lefties as Reuben at The Third Estate) have attempted to argue that the Men’s Society is going to open up a debate about society’s normative gender roles and how to conquer them. But if beard growing and proving oneself a “Tough Guy” are the vehicles through which gender can be openly debated, the women’s movement thus far has missed a big trick.

The founder of the Men’s Society - curiously enough an abstinent, teetotal evangelical Christian - has expressed interest in campaigning for a Men’s Officer in the Students’ Union and said that straight pride is “an idea”. He’s also OK in principal with the existence of a White Society, which at least shows he’s not as hypocritical as the Men’s Society cheerleaders who baulk at the idea of racism replacing sexism in our Students’ Unions.

The problem is, too many people - especially amongst the bureaucrats who control these Unions - have totally forgotten why Women’s Officers and Women’s Groups exist in the first place. They’re there because women still suffer oppression in society; they’re not there to promote knitting, shopping and makeup. The argument that we should have a Men’s Officer because we have a Woman’s Officer, or Men’s Groups because we have Women’s Groups is utterly fallacious; these things exist for women to help compensate for the oppression suffered under patriarchy and to advocate that men should have the same under the banner of “equality” represents a huge leap backwards in the struggle for genuine equality.

This notion of men’s oppression doesn’t stop with Manchester’s Men’s Society either. This week alone, articles have appeared in The Mail and The Times both arguing the needs for “men’s lib”. Hang on, you might be thinking, what happened to women’s lib? I’ll tell you: it’s on the back burner because the topic de jour is male oppression and the “examples” of it are rife. It’s not so upsetting that the paper which supported both Hitler and Mosley’s British Union of Fascists is in favour of the Men’s Society, but The Times, at least carries a bit more intellectual weight.

According to The Times, men are oppressed because there isn’t a “Ministry for Men” in government and there is a multibillion pound cosmetics market targeting men (the fact that it is dwarfed by the female cosmetics market and the beauty expectations placed upon the perfectly waxed, tanned and made-up women of the world, is neither here nor there). The slogan “Mums shop at Iceland” is another example of male oppression and nothing to do with the patriarchal society in which women are raised from birth with the intent of fulfilling all the roles of mother and housewife. Jo Brand is also, presumably by her very existence, listed as a man-oppressing force.

Well I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. There is a reason why if you ask someone on the street what “misandry” means, 9 times out of 10 they won’t have a bloody clue.

Unfortunately, the Men’s Society virus appears to be spreading. A group has now been formed at Oxford, where a number of men are also falling foul of the imaginary misandry plague. Now, just to be clear, in the regular world white male Oxbridge students are about as oppressed as the Royal Family or the Pope. If they are experiencing any social trauma, then they need to be seeing a Doctor or Counsellor, not banding together as men and organising under the unfortunate tagline “Have you got balls? Literally.” Fortunately, at Oxford Women’s President is campaigning against this grouping; at Manchester, the Woman’s Officer - the Students’ Union official whose job it is to campaign for the liberation of women students - has dogmatically refused to take a side.

Men’s societies, groups and clubs should be seen for what they are: part of the backlash against the gains made by the women’s movement. It’s no coincidence that they have hit the national headlines at the same time as the Policing and Crime Bill (penalising women sex workers) and the Welfare Reform Bill (attacking single mothers) were passed, and a Vogue Editor publicly stated that maternity rights have made women unemployable.

But what would I know? I’m just a “feminist Nazi dyke” as one of our opponents puts it.

More here at the Facebook group.

Picture nicked from Jim J , who also posts on this topic.

Troops to teachers ??

Arghh, what the fuck:


The shadow schools secretary set out a plan at the party's conference in Manchester to sideline local authorities, scrap the curriculum agency, sack the worst headteachers and return to traditional values in the classroom, with pupils expected to wear ties and ex-soldiers imposing discipline.

The state monopoly over schools would be removed, with every school offered the chance to opt out and become an independent academy.

Gove said the best schools would be automatically allowed to break away from local authority control while headteachers at the worst would be sacked and their schools taken over by existing academy sponsors.

He launched an attack on the "educational establishment", claiming it suffered from "defeatism, political correctness and the entrenched culture of dumbing down".

A Conservative government would champion school uniforms, including blazers and ties, setting by ability and traditional subject-based classes, while a new Troops to Teachers programme would be introduced, with former soldiers retraining as teachers, Gove said.

"We'll develop a Troops to Teachers programme to get professionals in the army who know how to train young men and women into the classroom, where they can provide not just discipline but inspiration and leadership," he said.

New shiny caring sharing Tories or same old reactionary bastards?
New Labour same as New Tories ?

Things CAN only get worse .

Hat tip Rory on Facebook.

Its not Friday, but how about Monday evening Fuckwit !

Without in any way associating with the mayor I have no quarrel with the Taliban, things are generally acknowledged to have been better under their watch than they are now. They are indisputably a lot more popular than they have ever been and have the imperialist invaders on their knees which they are only able to do precisely because their support is increasing.
I really wish that there was a better organisation to support in Afganistan but at the moment the Taliban seem to be the only game in town and while some of you may be troubled by the fact that they aren't exactly a gender obsessed discussion group they should be supported until something better comes along.

My response :No they aren't a gender obsessed discussion group, they are about action. Violence against women, killing teachers who teach girls, throwing acid in girls faces for daring to get an education, beating women who do not cover themselves etc etc.

You really are a shit...but then you're not a woman or girl facing that are you ? Ra ra the anti imperialists and tough if you're female and want to work, get an education and be an equal citizen and not the property of men .

With people like you no wonder many people are turned away from the left, when they see them defend such barbaric practices against women , never mind LGBT people.

I don't support their more reactionary elements. The primary aim is the military defeat of imperialism, fluffy issues can be sorted later when the conditions on the ground would be more conducive than they are at the moment.
What about having your weddings, homes, schools, hospitals and villages free from savage attacks from the occupying forces.
Ill bet they have murdered more innocent people than the Taliban ever have.
We can't be picky who to support here. You either support the resistance, of which the Taliban area part but not the only people involved or you side with imperialism, there is no sitting on the fence here.

My response :*****, you can't seperate the 'more reactionary elements".

Read this http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

and tell me what is fluffy ?

What is fluffy about a woman being able to leave the house without permission from a man, a girl to get an education? What is fluffy about not having acid throw in your face for going to schools? You talk about abuse of children, does this include girls under the Taliban?

The very fact that you dismiss the lives of these women and girls and the abuse , violence and oppression they face under the Taliban as fluffy shows underneath it all , you don't really care.

You really cannot imagine what life is like for these women, both under the Taliban and occupation, that you dismiss it as 'fluffy'.

You think the Taliban can be persuaded if they gain power?? Naive in the extreme.

My enemies enemy is not my friend of women in Afghanistan.

The left, or those that give a damn about women rather than macho posturing from the comfort of ******, should support those women facing oppression under the occupation. Should highlight the fact that the invasion has not liberated them , support them in their fight and be critical of the Taliban.

Guess who the fuckwit is .

Good girls and bad, the world of the Daily Mail.

I know, I know, I really shouldn't look at the Daily Mail. I'm like Mary Whitehouse was with sex on TV, just have to look and then be outraged.  But I looked and I went pah !

Yep, it was like being transported to the 1950s, good girls 'saving' themselves for Mr Right. What I'm talking about is the comments in the femail 'agony aunt' column. Now if you think the print version is bad, check out what the readers have to say in the online paper; Frothing Mr and Mrs angry, wittily  signing themselves as from "broken Britain."

Anyway, someone wrote to Rowan Pelling asking whether she should tell her boyfriend she had slept with 40 men by the age of 34 when he was shocked at 10 (she bottled out of telling the truth). 

The  comments included :

It goes to the heart of what kind of person you are. I suspect she is shallow, loose and lacks self respect and decency.
I wouldn't touch her with a bargepole.

Darling, I really wouldn't say anything. Nobody likes used goods.

For a man to sleep with lots of women, he needs to be witty, charming, attractive, wear nice shoes, be well-groomed, polite...I could go on.
For a woman to sleep with lots of men, she just needs to be there at the bar.

...if you are Man thinking of getting married you will be hard pressed to find a young (ish) woman in the UK who is likely to have had less than 10 partners, such a person is simply not marriage 'material' as you will surely be faced with a woman who after you have been married 10 years to and given at least 2 children, will turn around to you one day and say 'you're boring' , ' I miss the wild times we used to have ' , 'you are not the same person you used to be'
'I miss going out with my girlfriends and getting drunk and having casual sex with strangers in nighclub toilets', well she wont say that last part, but that is what she will mean, shortly after this she will walk out on you to take up home with a work colleague or your best friend !

Call me old fashioned but I think women and men who sleep around are cheap and nasty and I would have nothing to do with them. To have 40 sexual partners and to have never been married is a matter of shame.

I definitely wouldn't take her home to meet my mother.

If she wants repentance see a priest.

As a male who indeed judges women based on how long their past "hit list" is here is why MOST guys would ask the question.

1) ...guys want as little experience (numbers not skill) in a woman as possible. If a guy can get a girl who's been with 2 guys and learned how to please a Man from those experiences versus a girl who's been with 20 and all else equal, he's choosing the lower tally simply because she's less "dirty". It's just how most guys think.

2) ... some guys actually are selective about who they have sex with and will not tolerate relations with women they consider "loose" , now a loose woman doesn't mean a whore, it could be simply "more conquests than me" a standard , not insecurity.

Disgusting.

So for those that think there is real equality, this illustrates the double standards still operating in Daily Mail land  . Women are meant to learn how to 'please their man' whilst off course having as little experience as possible. They are 'dirty' if they have sex too much and with too many people and heaven forbid for fun. There are women that you just wouldn't take home to mother, who of course was a virgin on her wedding day , not.  They are 'damaged goods,' so when did a woman become a commodity rather than a person. Seems men want to have their fun and then find some woman that will be impressed with them, not have any ideas herself re sex and certainly not challenge them. 

Of course this is the same Mail that forever has men whining in the comments that their nice wifey isn't interested in sex (without ever wondering their role in that).  Hmm, well if you are that judgemental and have such reactionary views about women liking sex, and even having it with people before you, is that any wonder?

Bollocks to that.  Have they thought that not all women want the white dress, boring domesticity and are not grateful in the least to be taken off a "shelf "by some bloke that  belongs in the 1950s? Like it or not, women like sex as much as men and if they have lots of it with many people then so what ? Some actually prefer men, or women, that do not judge and are not so insecure in their sexuality to be threatened by women who like sex and know what they want.

I'll leave you with a quote from Mae West :

"When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better!" 

£250,000 salary for 'knocking off an article," well thats just chicken feed says Boris

Under Cameron the Tories try to make out they are all new, caring, sharing and in touch with ordinary people. Yeah right, we all went to Eton didn't we. Even the expenses scandal , where no party came out well, highlighted the class differences;moats , duck islands and country estates , never mind wanting to claim for servants!

In my last post I wrote about how low paid workers are asked to take a hit of up to £8000. Contrast that with Boris talking about his second job :


He told the BBC's Hard Talk programme that it was wholly reasonable for him take the second salary in addition to about £140,000 he gets as mayor.
He added: "Of course I make a substantial donation to charity".

When asked about the pay for the articles Mr Johnson said: "It's chicken feed.
"I think that frankly there's absolutely no reason at all why I should not knock off an article as a way of relaxation.
"I write anyway, I happen to write extremely fast.
"I don't see why on a Sunday morning I shouldn't knock off an article - if someone wants to pay me for that article then that's their lookout and of course I make a substantial donation to charity.
'Out of touch'
"Maybe that money shouldn't go to charity, maybe you'd rather I didn't make those contributions to charity," he added.




I do hope none of you are going to criticise Boris, I mean do you want to take money away from charity !!

This is of course a distraction, so he gives to charity, but he still trousers more in one year than most earn in 10 or 15. And lets get second jobs in perspective, many take them to make ends meet and I'm not talking about nice little lucrative newspaper columns. People who work all day doing a shitty minimum wage job and then head off to do something similar in the evening.


Boris may think this is all part of his 'charm, ' the mop haired buffoon. What it shows is he hasn't a clue what second jobs mean for most people and how insulting dismissing sums they can only dream of getting via a lottery win is .

Bishop of Rochester tells gays to "repent and be changed"

Stroppy tells Bishop to go fuck himself !

Sarah Palin resigns

What was I saying about needing inspiration ...I see lots of it coming up !!





Check out the second part, goobledook!



WTF is she going on about, she makes Bush seem articulate.

Hell yeah .

Hat tip Jim J.

Yvonne Ridley - founder of the Mahmoud Admadinejad fan club

Well some socialists are doubtful about the demos in Iran, but are still a bit mealy mouthed about Mahmoud Admadinejad...well he does hang gays from lampposts, deny the holocaust and oppress socialists, trade unionists and women but but but he *is* anti imperialist and so those Iranians will have to just suck it up for the greater good.


Well Yvonne Ridley goes further, cheerleading and no such qualifications (though how socialist it is to send your daughter to a private boarding school I'm not sure , but hey lets not quibble). Here she is swooning over Mahmoud Admadinejad:


I’m quite a fan of Mahmoud Admadinejad who is adored by the common man and woman in Iran. Anyone who vows to narrow the gap between rich and poor can’t be all that bad… unless you’re one of the rich!

Yeah viva the Theocrats, viva Basij!

Hat Tip HP

Galloway on Iran

Here.

Warning, strong stomach needed.

Defend Coatsey

Check out Coatsey's post about the YMCA not being too happy with a little criticism and threatening a suspension of benefits :

Some old habits die hard.

It had to come. It has come. YMCA bans Blogger.

This morning I went to Dencora House, Ipswich. For my ‘New Deal’ induction at YMCA Training. The first day in fact. A little while in and I was summoned. YMCA manager and colleague. Copies of this Blog, and Ipswich Unemployed Action’s, on the table. Nervous type. Points to print-out. Picture of medieval Bastille. Legend, “Storm Dencora House“. Liked he it not. Or calling it a “detention centre”. Oh dear. Next, famous (hundreds of viewings), New Deal: YMCA Training, A Major Scandal. Not too fond either.

Finally, their account of this (posted by anonymous, which may not his correct title),

“I have placed this website as the Home Page on all computers at Dencora House today. Hopefully some of my fellow detainees here will read it. There has also been print outs of your articles left around the centre. The staff have been going round ripping them off the walls. They then get put up again.

People who merely found this site as the home page have been undertaking these actions on their own. Hopefully more people will involve themselves in such sabotage. If we make it too much hassle for them to treat us like this then they will be forced to stop!”
Apparently, the chief said, some people are upset about this kerfuffle. Deary me.

The upshot is I face being suspended from all benefits for exercising my (see YMCA Induction Pack), “freedom of conscience”. Apparently human rights do not apply to the out-of-work on the New Deal. Still no doubt they’ll find some way of justifying themselves. YMCA Mission Statement, “Motivated by its Christian faith, YMCA Training’s mission is to inspire individuals to develop their talents and potential and so transform the communities in which they live and work.” Needs some creative re-writing.

Oh yes, one of our many invisible supporters tells us that they’ve blocked their computers’ access to our Blog.

Some faith.

Expenses - Same old Tories

The whole expenses malarkey has shone a light on the fact that scratch the surface and the Tories are as they always have been, arrogant and distanced from the reality of most people's lives.And yep New labour is also bloody disgusting, but Im bashing Tories today and others have covered this as I said earlier.

Moats, Duck Islands and now :


A Tory MP has agreed to repay £20,000 in tax and mortgage payments, much of which was claimed from public funds towards servants' quarters in his home.
Sir John Butterfill said he was given incorrect advice about what he could claim for a section of his house, later sold for £1.2m, occupied by a gardener.

.................

"The one mistake I made was that in claiming interest on the home, I didn't separate from that the value of the servants, or the staff, wing.
"And I claimed the whole of that and the whole of the council tax relating to that," he told Newsnight.
"I cleared that with the fees office at the time. I wasn't told I needed to separate out the part of the house that was being occupied by my gardener and his wife from the whole house.


Well shouldn't every home have servants quarters ??

Sarah Palin and rape victims

I have avoided posting on Palin as there are lots of other good posts covering just how bloody awful her politics are . Check out here, here and here for starters.

I'll just add something I found via Feministing which illustrates , as if we didn't know from the Thatcher experience, that purely being female does not mean a politician will act in the interests of other women . Op-Edna explains :

Of all of the things I’ve learned about Sarah Palin in the last week and a half, this has got to be the most disturbing. While Sarah Palin was serving as the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the city charged victims of sexual assault between $300 and $1200 for their own rape kits. A rape kit is a sexual assault forensic evidence kit, used to collect DNA that can be used in criminal proceedings to assist in the conviction of those who commit sex crimes. The kit is performed as soon as possible after a sexual assault or attack has been committed. It is usually humiliating and uncomfortable for the victim–imagine enduring that and then paying $1200 just so that the criminal who assaulted you might be caught.

This was overturned by the Democratic Mayor in 2000 . I'll add what was said at the time as it shows a pretty callous attitude to the victims of rape from the police. From Fontiersman , via Op-Edna :

ANCHORAGE - Gov. Tony Knowles recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.
...........

The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence, Knowles said. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.
While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

Rape victims as a 'burden' on taxpayers ?? Have very selfish of them to go get themselves attacked.

Arghhh

I am going for a lie down after I have taken two paracetamol as Paddy the Puritan has made my head hurt.

Sometimes I despair. We are talking about people's lives, not some sort of game. See comments in the post below as to why I am ranting !

Do some on the left see their anti imperialist goal as a bloody nose for the US? is that more important than the lives of the oppressed in places like Afghanistan.

I want to see troops out of there and now.

I won't though cheer if they are replaced by the Taliban.

What exactly is the point if all we do is replace one oppression for another?

As socialists shouldn't we be humane, want an end to poverty, war and oppression?

Have we as a left really lost sight of what sort of world we want?

I know I don't want one where women are forced into marriage, often as children, raped and pregnant at 11. Where they are imprisoned if raped or have sex or love the wrong person. Where girls cannot have an education and are more or less imprisoned in their homes as chattel.

I don't admire them as paddy does. I don't admire people who oppress women.

Would Paddy and others still admire them if you replaced 'women' with 'black' people or any other oppressed group?
I hope not, so why do when it is women?

Paddy says it wouldn't be worse for women under the Taliban. OK, how about this :

The following list offers only an abbreviated glimpse of the hellish lives Afghan women are forced to lead under the Taliban, and can not begin to reflect the depth of female deprivations and sufferings. Taliban treat women worse than they treat animals. In fact, even as Taliban declare the keeping of caged birds and animals illegal, they imprison Afghan women within the four walls of their own houses. Women have no importance in Taliban eyes unless they are occupied producing children, satisfying male sexual needs or attending to the drudgery of daily housework.



Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:

1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors."

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden".

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only").

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.

Apart from the above restrictions on women, the Taliban has:

- Banned listening to music, not only for women but men as well.

- Banned the watching of movies, television and videos, for everyone.

- Banned celebrating the traditional new year (Nowroz) on March 21. The Taliban has proclaimed the holiday un-Islamic.

- Disavowed Labor Day (May 1st), because it is deemed a "communist" holiday.

- Ordered that all people with non-Islamic names change them to Islamic ones.

- Forced haircuts upon Afghan youth.

- Ordered that men wear Islamic clothes and a cap.

- Ordered that men not shave or trim their beards, which should grow long enough to protrude from a fist clasped at the point of the chin.

- Ordered that all people attend prayers in mosques five times daily.

- Banned the keeping of pigeons and playing with the birds, describing it as un-Islamic. The violators will be imprisoned and the birds shall be killed. The kite flying has also been stopped.

- Ordered all onlookers, while encouraging the sportsmen, to chant Allah-o-Akbar (God is great) and refrain from clapping.

- Ban on certain games including kite flying which is "un-Islamic" according to Taliban.

- Anyone who carries objectionable literature will be executed.

- Anyone who converts from Islam to any other religion will be executed.

- All boy students must wear turbans. They say "No turban, no education".

- Non-Muslim minorities must distinct badge or stitch a yellow cloth onto their dress to be differentiated from the majority Muslim population. Just like what did Nazis with Jews.

- Banned the use of the internet by both ordinary Afghans and foreigners.

Is that really the point of being a socialist and anti imperialsit, to see this as some sort of victory?


Check out Jim's post on morals and the secular left. He states :


Whilst some may see wrangling over moral issues as unscientific weakness I think it's important to recognise that the left is on the left precisely because of a moral standpoint. When we see war, oppression, starvation and intolerance we rail against it rather than looking for ways to make money out of it. We are not coolly objective but scathing in our attacks on injustice. We think it's wrong.




And that means railing against oppression even if the perpetrators are also giving the Americans a bloody nose.