'GENDER DISCRIMINATION' .... a crisis in developing countries.

When a boy is born in most developing countries, friends and relatives exclaim congratulations. A son means insurance. He will inherit his father's property and get a job to help support the family. When a girl is born, the reaction is very different. Some women weep when they find out their baby is a girl because, to them, a daughter is just another expense. Her place is in the home, not in the world of men. In some parts of India, it's traditional to greet a family with a newborn girl by saying, "The servant of your household has been born."

A girl can't help but feel inferior when everything around her tells her that she is worth less than a boy. Her identity is forged as soon as her family and society limit her opportunities and declare her to be second-rate.
A combination of extreme poverty and deep biases against women creates a remorseless cycle of discrimination that keeps girls in developing countries from living up to their full potential. It also leaves them vulnerable to severe physical and emotional abuse. These "servants of the household" come to accept that life will never be any different.

In developing countries, the birth of a girl causes great upheaval for poor families. When there is barely enough food to survive, any child puts a strain on a family's resources. But the monetary drain of a daughter feels even more severe, especially in regions where dowry is practiced.

The developing world is full of poverty-stricken families who see their daughters as an economic predicament. That attitude has resulted in the widespread neglect of baby girls in Africa, Asia, and South America. In many communities, it's a regular practice to breastfeed girls for a shorter time than boys so that women can try to get pregnant again with a boy as soon as possible. As a result, girls miss out on life-giving nutrition during a crucial window of their development, which stunts their growth and weakens their resistance to disease.

Statistics show that the neglect continues as they grow up. Young girls receive less food, healthcare and fewer vaccinations overall than boys. Not much changes as they become women. Tradition calls for women to eat last, often reduced to picking over the leftovers from the men and boys.

Even after infancy, the threat of physical harm follows girls throughout their lives. Women in every society are vulnerable to abuse. But the threat is more severe for girls and women who live in societies where women's rights mean practically nothing. Mothers who lack their own rights have little protection to offer their daughters, much less themselves, from male relatives and other authority figures. The frequency of rape and violent attacks against women in the developing world is alarming. Forty-five percent of Ethiopian women say that they have been assaulted in their lifetimes. In 1998, 48 percent of Palestinian women admitted to being abused by an intimate partner within the past year.

Discrimination against girls and women in the developing world is a devastating reality. It results in millions of individual tragedies, which add up to lost potential for entire countries. Studies show there is a direct link between a country's attitude toward women and its progress socially and economically. The status of women is central to the health of a society. If one part suffers, so does the whole.

You can have more information below.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,27102,27404&xhr=t&q=gender+discrimination&cp=8&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=gender+d&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e1e5bf14d885c19c

Abu Naser Bablu

Firing for Facebook message 'illegal'

The US National Labour Relations Board has accused a company of illegally sacking an employee after she criticised a supervisor on her Facebook page.

In a groundbreaking case, the board stepped in to argue that a worker's criticisms of bosses on a social networking site are a protected activity and that employers would be violating US law by punishing workers.

The labour relations board announced that it has filed a complaint against American Medical Response of Connecticut, which had sacked an emergency medical technician, accusing her of breaching a company policy that bars employees from depicting the company "in any way" on social media sites.

The case involves Dawnmarie Souza, who had to prepare a response to a complaint about her work.
Ms Souza, the board said, was unhappy that her supervisor would not let a representative of her union the Teamsters help her.

She then criticised her supervisor on Facebook in her own time and on her own computer.
The board's acting general counsel Lafe Solomon said: "This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labour Relations Act (NLRA).

"Whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that."

The NLRA gives workers a federally protected right to join a union and it prohibits employers from punishing workers - whether union or non-union - for discussing working conditions or unionisation.

The labour board said the company's Facebook rule was "overly broad" and improperly limited employees' rights to discuss working conditions among themselves.

The board also said another company policy barred employees from making disparaging or discriminatory comments when discussing the company or superiors and co-workers.

The decision sent US employment lawyers into a spin.

One company representing hundreds of clients emailed out a "lawflash" saying: "All private-sector employers should take note" regardless of whether their workers are unionised. 

You can find the full report below.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/97527
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101110/facebook-firing-101110/20101110?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Abu Naser Bablu

Save the girl child

'How sad, many girls missing from India are found buried in some graveyard....

India is growing dynamically in every fields. Today, the boom in economy, innovative technologies and improved infrastructure has become nation’s pride. The country has witnessed advancements in all fields but bias against a girl child is still prevailing in the country.

This social evil is deep rooted in Indian ethos and the most shocking fact is that the innovative and hard high end technologies are brutally killing the Indian girl child. Innovative techniques, like biopsy, ultrasound, scan tests and amniocentesis, devised to detect genetic abnormalities, are highly misused by number of families to detect gender of the unborn child. These clinical tests are highly contributing to the rise in genocide of the unborn girl child.

Amniocentesis started in India in 1974 to detect fetal abnormalities. These tests were used to detect gender for the first time in 1979 in Amritsar, Punjab. Later the test was stopped by the Indian Council of Medical Research but it was too late. The benefits of these tests were leaked out and people started using it as an instrument for killing an innocent and unborn girl child.  Many of the traditional women organizations also took up cudgels to stop this illegal practice but all failed and with the passage of time these tests became a major contributor to bias against a girl child.

Female feticide and infanticide is not the only issues with a girl child in India. At every stage of life she is discriminated and neglected for basic nutrition, education and living standard. When she was in the womb, she was forced to miss the moment when she was supposed to enter the world. At the time of birth her relatives pulled her back and wrung her neck. After killing her she was thrown into a trash can.

During childhood, her brother was loaded with new shoes, dresses and books to learn while she was gifted a broom, a wiper and lots of tears. In her teenage, she missed tasty delicious food to eat and got only the crumbs. During her college days, she was forced to get married, a stage where illiteracy, lack of education resulted in high fertility rate, aggravating the condition of females in the country. Again if this female gives birth to a girl child, the journey begins once again. She missed all roses of life and was finally fitted to a graveyard. That’s where she got peace of mind.

The nation of mothers still follows a culture where people idolizes son and mourns daughters. UN figures out that about 750,000 girls are aborted every year in India. Abortion rates are increasing in almost 80% of the India states, mainly Punjab and Haryana. These two states have the highest number of abortions every year. If the practice continues, then no longer a day will come when Mother India will have no mothers, potentially, no life.


http://www.indianchild.com/girlchild/save-the-girl-child.htm


 Abu Naser Bablu

Guantanamo Bay - "war for national security"?

The United States has signed and ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits arbitrary detention and ensures due process rights for those detained. The United States has also a signed and ratified of the Third Geneva Convention regarding the laws of war and the treatment of prisoners of war. These are two of the treaties that the United States has been accused of violating in the detentions in Guantanamo and of US citizens declared "enemy combatants" in the United States.

Despite a major international outcry and expert condemnation of US government policy, hundreds of people of around 35 different nationalities remain held in a legal black hole at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, many without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits. Denied their rights under international law and held in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the detainees face severe psychological distress. There have been numerous suicide attempts.

The detainees, a few of them children, are strapped, shackled and blindfolded, into transport planes. Some are forced to urinate and defecate on themselves during the long flights to an island military base. In this offshore prison camp they are held incommunicado in tiny cells, denied access to lawyers, relatives or the courts, and subjected to repeated interrogations and a punitive regime aimed at encouraging their "cooperation". A presidential order announces plans to try some of the detainees in front of executive bodies with the power to hand down death sentences against which there would be no right of appeal to any court.

Would the USA tolerate this treatment of its citizens by another government? Would the international community accept this threat to the rule of law and human rights? Surely not, and yet the USA continues to perpetrate just such abuses in the far from hypothetical Guantánamo Bay prison camp in Cuba, where almost 550 detainees of more than 30 nationalities remain detained without charge or trial. On 11 January 2005, the Guantánamo prison will enter its fourth year. In its more than 1,000 days of executive detentions, Guantánamo has become a symbol of a government's attempt to put itself above the law. The example it sets is of a world where basic human rights are negotiable rather than universal. Such a world, although built in the name of national security, is dangerous to us all.

As more evidence surfaces that the abuse of Guantánamo detainees has been widespread, it is ever more urgent to end the plight of the detainees. US authorities must bring all detainees to trial, in full accordance with international law and standards, or else release them immediately and unconditionally.

You can find more information in the links below.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ECC6D058DBAB4C8C80256F80005829F3

http://www.amnestyusa.org/counter-terror-with-justice/guantanamo-bay---a-human-rights-scandal/page.do?id=1108202

Abu Naser Bablu.

UK violates rights of terror suspects with ‘unfair’ control orders

Amnesty International has accused the UK government of developing a "shadow justice system" that imposes severe restrictions on the rights of individuals suspected of terrorism-related activity.

In a new report, Five years on: time to end the control orders regime, the organization repeats its call on the UK government to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA) and abandon the use of control orders that violate the individual’s rights to liberty, freedom of movement, expression, association and privacy.

"The measures used under the PTA have created a parallel, unfair and secretive shadow justice system for individuals who are suspected of terrorism-related activity," said Nicola Duckworth, Director of Amnesty International's Europe and Central Asia Programme.

"The effect of the control order regime has been to bypass the ordinary criminal justice system in order to impose severe restrictions on the rights of individuals. Five years on, it is time for an end to the control orders regime."

Control orders, which are imposed by a UK government minister, have been used as an alternative to prosecution or deportation of terror suspects who have not been charged with any criminal offence.

Restrictions can include house arrest, wearing an electronic tag, bans on contacting others and attending public events, limits on using bank accounts and restrictions on employment, academic study, travel, telephone and internet use. 

Amnesty International has opposed the control orders regime under the PTA since the legislation was drafted.

“Control orders, which are imposed by the executive with only limited judicial scrutiny in unfair procedures, can exert a profound negative effect on the lives of individuals subject to them and their families,” said Nicola Duckworth.

"The secret court procedures in control order hearings undermine the individual's right to a fair hearing and the restrictions the control order imposes on a person can amount to a deprivation of liberty."

The Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism in the Home Office has recently embarked on a “rapid review” of six key counter-terrorism powers, including the use of control orders.

Amnesty International has urged the UK government to fully consider human rights implications in the “rapid review” of counter-terrorism legislation.

"The UK has an obligation to prevent and protect against attacks on civilians but counter-terrorism laws must uphold and respect human rights and the rule of law, rather than compromising or eroding them, including by resorting to secrecy and using unfair alternatives to the ordinary criminal justice system."


http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/uk-violates-rights-terror-suspects-%E2%80%98unfair%E2%80%99-control-orders-2010-08-12


Abu Naser Bablu

Some research on CIF contract

I have done some research on CIF contract, which i have uploaded on slideshare.net. I have given the link below, you may find it quite interesting and informative too.

http://www.slideshare.net/abunaserbablu/cif-contract-analyzed

Abu Naser Bablu

CIF CONTRACT – simply a sale of document?

It is commonly said that a CIF contract is nothing more than a sale of documents, as the goods can be paid for and sold on the strength of the documents.

According to Scrutton J, “….…CIF sale is not a sale of goods but a sale of documents relating to goods. It is not a contract that goods shall arrive, but a contract to ship goods complying with the contract of sale, to obtain, unless the contract otherwise provides, the ordinary contract of carriage to the place of destination, and the ordinary contract of insurance of the goods on that voyage, and to tender these documents against payment of the contract price….....”(Arnhold Karberg v Blythe, Green, Jourdain and Co)[1916]2KB379.

However, the above statement was expressly rejected by Bankas and Warrington LJJ in the Court of Appeal. They described CIF contract as a contract for the sale of goods to be performed by the delivery of documents.

Although  Scrutton J’s statement got some valid points; for instance the buyer’s obligation to pay against the tender of documents, and the right to reject a bad tender of documents suggest that documents do play an importand role in CIF contracts. The CIF contract is still a contract for sale of goods rather than a sale of documents. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Arnhold Karberg v Blythe[1916]1 KB 495, a CIF contract is a sale of goods that is performed by the delivery of the documents.

Moreover the sellers obligations in a CIF contract in respect of goods and tender of documents covering the goods was reiterated in Hindley and Co Ltd v East Indian Produce Co Ltd[1973]2 Lloyd’s Rep 515. In this case the seller bought goods from a third party tendered the bill of lading(obtained from the third party) to the buyers. On arrival, it was found that no goods had been shipped. The sellers argued that they were not liable since a sale on CIF contract was a sale of documents and performance took place with delivery of the documents. Kerr J stated that it is an oversimplification to perceive a CIF contract as a sale of documents. It is instead a contract for the sale of goods to be performed by the delivery of documents. It was held that the seller did not performed his obligation properly.

Although CIF contract seems to be a sale of document but it is a contract for the sale of goods to be performed by the delivery of documents.

 I Carr,International Trade Law,4^th edn, Routledge-Cavendish publication.

J Katalikawe,Law of International Trade, 5^th edn, OBP.

P Todd, International Trade Law, Sweet and Maxwell limited.

C I F Contract problems

Under s.20 of the Sales of the Goods Act 1979 risk of property passes to buyer after the delivery of property to him, on the contrary in a CIF contract risk passes to the buyer at the time he pays and takes up the document. Generally if the seller ships goods for the buyer then the risk passes at the time of shipment.  However, if the contract is made after shipment, risk passes at the time of contract but retrospectively the goods are deemed to have been at the buyer’s risk since the time of shipment, this seems to be very harsh on the buyer.

Moreover as the risk passes on shipment, if the goods are lost in sea or being damaged while loading into cargo still the buyer has to pay for all, although the seller may knew about the lost when he tenders the shipping document(Manbre Aaccharine CO Ltd v Corn Products Ltd)[1919]1KB198. The buyer is also unable to discharge the goods at his desired destination, because he cannot obtain an import license; but this is no concern of the seller and will not create a frustrating event (Congimex vTradax)[1983]2 Lloyd’s Rep250.

As a matter of international custom there is a risk transferred when goods pass the ship's rail. The seller's duty to ship may be performed by actually shipping goods, by allocating goods which he has already shipped  , or by buying and allocating such goods afloat. According to CIF risk is transferred on shipment (if the goods are sold and then shipped) or as from shipment (if the goods are afloat at the time of sale or allocation without further specifying the exact point of the passing of risk. Such a situation occurred in Couturier v Hastie where it was held that the buyer was not bound to pay the price on tender of shipping documents where at the time of the contract there was nothing to be purchased. It is obvious that in English law the seller's fault or fraud is of importance only as regards tortuous liability.   If specific goods (or part of them) have perished at the time the contract of sale is concluded, the contract is void for mistake.

Moreover sometime the CIF term in contract seems to be very vague, while determining whether it is a CIF contract or not. For example, where the goods are shipped in bulk and remain unascertained until the ships arrival, in that case the documents can not cover the goods sold. In those scenarios the question arise whether this is an CIF contract after passing of documents or is it an ‘arrived’ or ex ship contract ;e.g. Comptoir d’Achat v Luis de Redder[1949]1 LL E.R. 269(H.L.).

 

You may find these sites interesting to know:

  

http://www.law-essays-uk.com/free-essays/cif-and-fob-contracts.php

P S Atiyah, John N Adams, Hector MacQueen, ATIYAH’S SALE OF GOODS, 12edn418.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1089255