Women Can Wear Trousers

I never realised that the Islamic authority in Cario were so fashion aware:

Egypt's top Islamic authority defended women's rights to wear trousers in public following a high profile court case in neighbouring Sudan were women were flogged for dressing in pants, the local press reported Wednesday.

Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa said in response to a question during a public lecture that trousers covering women's bodies are permitted, though they should be loose and not see through. He specified that "stretch" pants were in particular unacceptable.

Good call sir, stretch pants, particularly the sparkly, pink or animal print ones are unacceptable. It's not the 1980s ladies, it's about 1900, two world wars to prove you are just as capable as a man and a social revolution later, and then you may be able to wear those leggings. In the mean time, they're not the most protective choice of clothing for the flogging, not such absurd advice from Grand Stylist Mufti after all.

Torture Parliamentary Committee

Craig Murray* has given evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. He's enforced what we already know, the UK government regularly received intelligence obtained by torture. Both Murray and Philippe Sands who spoke said, the time of which Britain knew about torture is at the heart of whether they were complicit, also brought into question is whether Britain out sourced torture. Murray's statement echoes the information being released in America, disagreement on policy was repressed, and he felt there was "an appetite for false information".

An interesting article by Frank Rich joins the dots of the torture time line, to focus on the British side though. A piece of information to put in context now, is the July 2002 Downing Street Memo, worth noting that July 2002 is the earliest time we know that torture started in America, and "C" is an agent that's briefing Tony Blair:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Committee are questioning if there should be a bigger investigation, I think it's clear from just what's in the public domain, it's not a case of "if", but there should be an investigation. There were many lies taking place, and we have a right to know what the truth is.

*H/T Blairwatch