SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (56258)7/26/2004 1:10:32 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794366
 
Bin Laden's former sister-in-law has written a heck of a book. A review:

theglobeandmail.com

By MARGARET WENTE

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - Page A15

When your name is bin Ladin, life becomes more difficult. People you meet wonder whose side you're on. Your children will have trouble finding jobs. "There is no escape from that name," says Carmen bin Ladin over a cup of tea in Toronto. "It is too notorious."

Ms. bin Ladin (she spells it with an "i"), tall, slender, chic and jittery, did manage to escape from the bin Laden family, along with her three daughters. Now she has written Inside the Kingdom, a book about life with the in-laws as seen from the women's quarters. When it was published in February in France, it became a bestseller. The book depicts the stifling, rigid Saudi culture as few Westerners have seen it.

The author also has a chilling message for the rest of us. Despite official protestations, she says, the vast majority of Saudis support Osama's extremist world-view. "Osama bin Laden is considered a true Muslim. They don't have any doubt about that," she says in a husky, French-accented voice. The Saudis, she maintains, are essentially Taliban with money.

Ms. bin Ladin, who is half Swiss and half Iranian, was married for 14 years to Yeslam bin Ladin, the 10th son of the family patriarch, Sheik Mohamed. Osama is Yeslam's younger brother. Ms. bin Ladin lived in the Kingdom with the extended bin Laden clan from 1976 to 1985. Today, she lives in Switzerland, where she's still in a bitter, protracted divorce battle with Yeslam. The family have cut off all contact. "I know they're not very happy about the book," she says. "But they know it's true."

The book's a scorcher, not for its fleeting glimpses of Osama (who recoiled in horror when she once answered the door unveiled), but for its depiction of the utter oppression and submissiveness of Saudi women and the dysfunction of the elites. While Saudi princes rake off billions in business kickbacks, their neglected and depressed wives abuse drugs, drown their sorrows in extravagant shopping sprees, and turn to lesbian affairs for comfort. Many of them have bone density problems because they never go outside or exercise. When their husbands divorce them, they may never see their children again.

The bin Laden women "did nothing, read nothing, and were like pets kept by their husbands," she writes. They were fanatically religious. Because Yeslam was thoroughly westernized, she was far freer than they were. (They had met and married as students in California and had their first child there.) She played tennis and entertained people from the diplomatic corps. She dressed her daughters in T-shirts and shorts. Even so, she couldn't speak to any unrelated Saudi man, and life was so constrained that she was rarely able to go outside. There was, literally, nothing to do but raise her young daughters and wait for her husband to come home from work, where he was rising fast in the bin Laden construction empire.

How could she stand it?

"I loved him," she says. She also was certain that the Kingdom was on the verge of liberalizing. Meantime, "I had the impression I could protect my daughters from all of that."

But, gradually, it dawned on her that she could not.

One day, she found herself with a group of wives who included a timid young woman called Najwah. Najwah was Osama's wife. She was trying to spoon-feed their baby with water in the stifling heat. The infant was too small to take water from a spoon, and Carmen urged her to use a bottle. But Najwah refused, because Osama had decreed that rubber nipples were un-Islamic. The baby was in terrible distress, but none of the women dared to intervene.

Afterward, Carmen tried to express her fear and rage to her husband. He didn't understand. And that was when she began to realize how powerless she really was.

One day, she threw a birthday party (frowned on as irreligious) for her older daughter, Wafah. She was shocked when a nine-year-old cousin arrived veiled. "Already?" she thought. But soon it would be her daughters' turn. "I watched that society as a mother of two daughters. I thought, what will be the future of my daughters because they are girls?"

She knew they might not be lucky enough to marry men as westernized as Yeslam. Besides, even the most westernized Saudi men had a way of becoming Saudi again, as she was finding out. Meantime, if anything were to happen to him, neither she nor her daughters would have any rights at all. To save the girls, they would have to leave.

In 1985, the bin Ladins relocated to Geneva, where they had a third daughter. But Yeslam became more and more controlling. The marriage crumbled, and Carmen, who used to be phenomenally rich, began a long fight for financial support. Today, Yeslam still lives in Geneva and runs a successful business empire. He has cut off all contact with his daughters. "They are not the Saudi daughters he thought he should have," she says.

She wrote this book for them, to explain why she acted as she did, and also for the world, to explain where they stand. She hopes it will ease the burden of their notorious name. "Since 9/11, things have been hard for them," she says. Wafah, now 26, is an American citizen. She has two law degrees and travels between Geneva and London. Najia, 24, has gone into business with a friend. The youngest, Noor, is still in school. "I've achieved the most important thing," Carmen bin Ladin says. "I've given my daughters freedom of choice."

She is deeply pessimistic that Saudi society is capable of reform. "I have never seen Saudis questioning their culture and principles." And that's bad news for the rest of us.

"When Osama dies, I fear there will be a thousand men to take his place," she writes. "The ground of Saudi Arabia is fertile soil for intolerance and arrogance, and for contempt toward outsiders. It is a country where there is no room for mildness, mercy, compassion or doubt. . . . Their way has been chosen by God.

"They are eager to understand our technology, and they understand our political systems. But inside them, there is nothing but scorn for what they perceive as the godless, individualistic values and shameless freedoms of the Western way of life."

One senses that it's not pleasant to cross the bin Ladens. But, in her view, the risk is worth taking. "I don't want to shut up," she says defiantly, "because that means they have won."



To: LindyBill who wrote (56258)7/26/2004 1:10:33 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 794366
 
MAKING IT BIG [Stanley Kurtz] - The Corner

Yesterday's allusion to me in Daniel Okrent's critique of liberal bias at the New York Times is certainly the most satisfying press attention I've ever gotten. Who cares if I wasn't mentioned by name. To be cited in the Times as proof of bias at the Times is an ultimate honor. My arguments about the effects of gay marriage on Scandinavia and The Netherlands have been out there for about six months. In that time, there have been radio ads quoting me, and attack articles in The New Republic and Slate.

I've testified on this issue before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee. A second hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution featured feuding over my argument. (This was followed by a pair of dueling letters to the subcommittee from me and Barney Frank.) Two weeks ago, during debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Scandinavia-Netherlands argument was put forward by a number of senators from the floor.

Yet, to my knowledge, not a word about the dispute over gay marriage in Europe has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the weekly news magazines, or on any of the networks. Given the salience of this issue in the gay marriage debate-particularly the recent senate floor debate-that has to be counted as a serious reportorial omission. And certainly none of the big outlets has invited me to do an opinion piece. NPR has been the great exception here. They have allowed me to make my case, and I am grateful for that. At the height of the controversies in Boston and San Francisco, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Boston Globe also permitted me to do Op-Eds. But Okrent is right. The gay marriage issue is one of the defining debates of our day. You would think a serious argument about the effect of gay unions on Europe deserved coverage-and fair coverage-by major outlets. Yet big media has frozen this argument out.



To: LindyBill who wrote (56258)7/26/2004 10:03:34 PM
From: Dayuhan  Respond to of 794366
 

In "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia," I show that gay marriage has helped hasten the decline of marriage.

Unfortunately, the article shows nothing of the kind. Bunch of panic-stricken babble. Their social compass is shifting, and the results of that shift show in many spheres. Trying to point to a shift in one sphere and claiming that it has caused the shifts in other spheres is absurd.

Wait a few decades, the pendulum will probably start to swing back. These things have a way of evening out over time. Meanwhile, let the hand-wringers wring in peace. They have far worse problems than gay marriage to deal with overr there.



To: LindyBill who wrote (56258)7/26/2004 10:09:44 PM
From: Dayuhan  Respond to of 794366
 

1) Is it mere coincidence that in districts of Norway where de facto gay marriage (your phrase) is most accepted, marriage itself is virtually dead? 2) If this is not pure coincidence, how would you explain the connection? (Remember, your marriage-lite theory doesn't work.) 3) Would it be possible for gay marriage to be an effect of the decline of marriage, without also becoming a contributing cause?

This guy needs to go back and study logic, or remove his ideological filters. It is not "coincidence" that birds fly south at the same time that leaves fall off trees. That does not mean that one phenomenon causes the other. They are multiple effects of the same cause.

Whether unfortunate or not, the cause in the case Kurtz is discussing is the free exercise of choice by free people, which means there is not one damned thing that government can, or should, try to do about it.