Human rights

[Cocacolajojo1]

Teachers and lawyers, they fucked it up in France in the 1790s and now they're doing it again:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/25/uae-free-speech-under-attack

and

http://www.refworld.org/docid/5171047527.html

[Cocacolajojo1]

Indeed an excellent post, and that's why I specifically asked for the views of people either living or who had lived in the UAE.

Of course, it could be argued that those living in the UAE can't be critical without risking arrest?

Oh please

http://www.freedomhouse.org/article/rev ... expression

Posting on a City forum isn't going to lead to arrest. That's just being sensationalist, tabloid style.

From one of the links I've posted:

In the UAE, in early April authorities arrested five activists, known as the “UAE 5,” after they allegedly posted statements on the internet forum UAE Hewar, which authorities have banned.

Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're not. I wouldn't say that claiming that people can be arrested for what they post online is sensationalist though. Look at China for example.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Look at China? Why? What have they got to do with Abu Dhabi?

I take everything I read on a subject like the UAE with a major pinch of salt as they are sitting on a black gold mine therefore there's a number of vested interests spinning propaganda left, right and centre.

[Cocacolajojo1]

Look at China? Why? What have they got to do with Abu Dhabi?

I take everything I read on a subject like the UAE with a major pinch of salt as they are sitting on a black gold mine therefore there's a number of vested interests spinning propaganda left, right and centre.

They've made a habit of arresting people for what they post online ;). That was the link between China and UAE.

As for your second point you'll be happy to know that all the sites I've put up (I think) are non-profit NGO's who have no monetary interests in the UAE.

[Beefymcfc]

Anybody bothered to look into those who were arrested, and their motives?

David Conn surely didn't.

[ant london]

It's a funny one talking about the contrast between various states and that state of affairs within each.

I honestly believe that you cannot just discount how "young" some of the countries in question are. And by "young" in some cases I mean either in terms of the length of time that the state itself has existed (as in the case of the UAE) or in terms of the length of time since that state has existed in its current (usually post totalitarian/autocracy) status.

As others have very eloquently put, the UK (and many other western democracies) have got to their current state after centuries of bondage, human rights abuses, bloodshed and turmoil. The effect of globalisation and the perceived transparency of other states to these "new" countries (and our perceptions, in turn, of them) is that a smooth and speedy transition to a normal democracy should be possible. I don't think it is remotely possible and, whilst I don't think we should just turn a blind eye to blatant abuses and not question practices in other countries, I really don't think we should think we can use benefit of our 20/20 hindsight and centuries of painful experience to sit on a high horse and criticise.

It's a tricky balancing act to know when to judge/intervene/criticism and when to know when we should allow countries to make their own mistakes and when standing by makes us complicit in abuses but its a balance we should try to strike.

It's funny having lived in Egypt and now spending time in numerous ex-Soviet republics and Russia itself I guess I may have an optic on some of these issues that many don't get chance to experience.

In Mubarak's Egypt the force of "the state" was very palpable (and I guess you can draw some parallels to the UAE and other gulf states but in Egypt it was even more extreme due to the levels of poverty there) due to the fact that, as a Westerner, I have rarely felt so safe in any country in my life. Sure, death in a road accident was an everyday very real risk but, the risk of person on person crime affecting me (or other westerners) when Hosni Mubarak was in charge was almost non-existant. That tells you everything you need to know about the prevelance of security forces and severity with which they acted. Goes without saying that most techniques and practices would horrify "civilised society". Brutal but very effective.

In the ex-Soviet countries, similar safety levels in a way but not just geared to Westerners. Misbehave in this part of the world and you will not enjoy the consequences and there is not an awful lot that your Embassy/Consulate can do to extricate you from bother. Everyone knows that the police are heavyhanded and behaves accordingly. The one very strange (but positive) quirk is that sexual violence/assault against women in this part of the world is very very rare from everything I can gather. You might say that "no-one wants to live in a Police State" but, after having lived in a couple, honestly there are definite positives.

In terms of democracy itself. My view is that certain countries/societies are just not ready for it or suited to it. In the Middle East I put it down to a certain extent to tribal heritage to an extent but everything I saw about attempts to democracise Egypt screamed out that people just wanted to follow a definitive and strong leader. Maybe Stockholm Syndrome to an extent after decades of Mubarak but very palpable. Equally in the rest of the Middle East people appear happy with a figurehead and to have one person mainly running things.

Same thing in the ex-Soviet countries. Again maybe due to the autocracy which preceeded but people here don't overly seem to be "demanding democracy". There are, in Kazakhstan, certainly those locals who think it's time for a change of president....but even though virtually all recognise that the system (cronyism, dubious elections, concentration of power and wealth) is flawed most just seem to want a fresh face and attitude at the top rather than a wholesale reform of the status quo. Same applies in some of the neighbouring 'stans....although the level of repression in (say) Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan is on a different level.

Maybe things will evolve in time and things will change with the local people demanding more reform and more say in whats going on and more accountability for those in charge but, from what I can see, those changes are a long long way off.

It's a bit like communism and our view of it I guess in retrospect. I was always amazed (and continue to be) when I first ventured into the old eastern bloc by how many people speak fondly about the system back in the Soviet Union. To our mind it seemed horrific and repressive with freedoms obliterated....but if you speak to those who lived through it lots will still extol its virtues and its not difficult to find quite a lot of people who wish things had never changed.

[Beefymcfc]

Abu Dhabi is the shining light in the area and the 'Jewel in the Crown' when it comes to economic and political clout. It's quite understandable why the Muslim Brotherhood would want to cause unrest and it's not rocket science understanding what the long-term goal is. These 'Sleeper Groups' are everywhere and need to be put back in their box when needed.

Keep up the good work Abu Dhabi, do things your way and don't let the bastards grind you down.

Oh, and you can keep directing your gains towards the City of Manchester and closer to home, Manchester City.

[Cocacolajojo1]

It's a funny one talking about the contrast between various states and that state of affairs within each.

I honestly believe that you cannot just discount how "young" some of the countries in question are. And by "young" in some cases I mean either in terms of the length of time that the state itself has existed (as in the case of the UAE) or in terms of the length of time since that state has existed in its current (usually post totalitarian/autocracy) status.

As others have very eloquently put, the UK (and many other western democracies) have got to their current state after centuries of bondage, human rights abuses, bloodshed and turmoil. The effect of globalisation and the perceived transparency of other states to these "new" countries (and our perceptions, in turn, of them) is that a smooth and speedy transition to a normal democracy should be possible. I don't think it is remotely possible and, whilst I don't think we should just turn a blind eye to blatant abuses and not question practices in other countries, I really don't think we should think we can use benefit of our 20/20 hindsight and centuries of painful experience to sit on a high horse and criticise.

It's a tricky balancing act to know when to judge/intervene/criticism and when to know when we should allow countries to make their own mistakes and when standing by makes us complicit in abuses but its a balance we should try to strike.

It's funny having lived in Egypt and now spending time in numerous ex-Soviet republics and Russia itself I guess I may have an optic on some of these issues that many don't get chance to experience.

In Mubarak's Egypt the force of "the state" was very palpable (and I guess you can draw some parallels to the UAE and other gulf states but in Egypt it was even more extreme due to the levels of poverty there) due to the fact that, as a Westerner, I have rarely felt so safe in any country in my life. Sure, death in a road accident was an everyday very real risk but, the risk of person on person crime affecting me (or other westerners) when Hosni Mubarak was in charge was almost non-existant. That tells you everything you need to know about the prevelance of security forces and severity with which they acted. Goes without saying that most techniques and practices would horrify "civilised society". Brutal but very effective.

In the ex-Soviet countries, similar safety levels in a way but not just geared to Westerners. Misbehave in this part of the world and you will not enjoy the consequences and there is not an awful lot that your Embassy/Consulate can do to extricate you from bother. Everyone knows that the police are heavyhanded and behaves accordingly. The one very strange (but positive) quirk is that sexual violence/assault against women in this part of the world is very very rare from everything I can gather. You might say that "no-one wants to live in a Police State" but, after having lived in a couple, honestly there are definite positives.

In terms of democracy itself. My view is that certain countries/societies are just not ready for it or suited to it. In the Middle East I put it down to a certain extent to tribal heritage to an extent but everything I saw about attempts to democracise Egypt screamed out that people just wanted to follow a definitive and strong leader. Maybe Stockholm Syndrome to an extent after decades of Mubarak but very palpable. Equally in the rest of the Middle East people appear happy with a figurehead and to have one person mainly running things.

Same thing in the ex-Soviet countries. Again maybe due to the autocracy which preceeded but people here don't overly seem to be "demanding democracy". There are, in Kazakhstan, certainly those locals who think it's time for a change of president....but even though virtually all recognise that the system (cronyism, dubious elections, concentration of power and wealth) is flawed most just seem to want a fresh face and attitude at the top rather than a wholesale reform of the status quo. Same applies in some of the neighbouring 'stans....although the level of repression in (say) Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan is on a different level.

Maybe things will evolve in time and things will change with the local people demanding more reform and more say in whats going on and more accountability for those in charge but, from what I can see, those changes are a long long way off.

It's a bit like communism and our view of it I guess in retrospect. I was always amazed (and continue to be) when I first ventured into the old eastern bloc by how many people speak fondly about the system back in the Soviet Union. To our mind it seemed horrific and repressive with freedoms obliterated....but if you speak to those who lived through it lots will still extol its virtues and its not difficult to find quite a lot of people who wish things had never changed.

Thanks for this post. I don't agree with some of it but it was a very good read, very thought-provoking.

I've had the same experience with all the russians I've come to speak to by the way. FOr them, democracy equals the disbandment of society, outrageous poverty, the breakdown of old trusted institutions and of up and down and left and right basically. Putin meant that some of the oligarchs got arrested, that law and order wasn't a thing of the past, that national pride got resurrected and that it wasn't totally wrong to say good things about Stalin again. Things people wanted and believed in. I don't agree with it one bit but I can totally see where they're coming from.

[ant london]

Yep I've certainly heard very similar sentiments from Russians re Putin.

And in terms of anyone agreeing with anything I've expressed I don't expect you or anyone else to mate! It's like Arjan's views/feelings on these topics. I've got massive respect for him personally and intellectually. On matters of politics and society and values though I agree with some of his views, ambivalent to some and disagree with others...I think that's ok though and I am interested in what he and lots of others like you have to say on this even if we don't agree.

[Im_Spartacus]

It took us in the UK 400 years to move from the wealth of empire, to having our own civil rights.

Essentially these places might be moving towards the position we occupy now, but all they have in reality is the wealth. The nation rarely has the political maturity or the mentality to go with the wealth that outwardly suggests this country should actually be classed as a developed state.

In reality, as Ant alluded to, often these countries are tribal with their own ways of doing things that will take decades if not centuries to change. For example, Saudi Arabia upto around 70/80 years ago was just a load of desert of no real significance other than for pilgrims. Despite the wealth of the country today, is it realistic to expect them to adopt our values in that space of time when it took the western world over 400 years to achieve the freedoms we enjoy today? Should Saudi Arabia be a pariah state, laughed at by the west for their archaic and repressive rules, or should they be given the time to develop.

FFS, you have to sit down and drink tea with the fuckers for an hour and have inane conversation about nothing before the 10 minute meeting you went for can take place - businessmen in Saudi Arabia are prisoner to tradition because it is centuries of conditioning which makes them like this. It will change, but slowly.

Too many people want to criticise what happens in other nations too readily, without actually thinking back on how long it took for real change to gain traction within our own country.

[Arjan Van Schotte]

It took us in the UK 400 years to move from the wealth of empire, to having our own civil rights.

Essentially these places might be moving towards the position we occupy now, but all they have in reality is the wealth. The nation rarely has the political maturity or the mentality to go with the wealth that outwardly suggests this country should actually be classed as a developed state.

In reality, as Ant alluded to, often these countries are tribal with their own ways of doing things that will take decades if not centuries to change. For example, Saudi Arabia upto around 70/80 years ago was just a load of desert of no real significance other than for pilgrims. Despite the wealth of the country today, is it realistic to expect them to adopt our values in that space of time when it took the western world over 400 years to achieve the freedoms we enjoy today? Should Saudi Arabia be a pariah state, laughed at by the west for their archaic and repressive rules, or should they be given the time to develop.

FFS, you have to sit down and drink tea with the fuckers for an hour and have inane conversation about nothing before the 10 minute meeting you went for can take place - businessmen in Saudi Arabia are prisoner to tradition because it is centuries of conditioning which makes them like this. It will change, but slowly.

Too many people want to criticise what happens in other nations too readily, without actually thinking back on how long it took for real change to gain traction within our own country.

I don't disagree mate, but this is about a ruling family using the club to project a modern image, as lev has said. Is it still none of our business?

Just to reiterate, what i find strange is that Bolton fans for instance protest strongly about a morally dubious, but perfectly legal company from throwing them some cash, whereas at city our very owners are ultimately responsible for many documented human rights violations, but there's barely a whimper.

What I find doubly strange is that if I was to take a large banner saying something fairly banal such as "sheikh mansour, please treat your guest workers fairly", I get the feeling I'd be banned, and probably battered by fans?

Is there anyone in the world that city fans would object to as owners (if they were throwing us lots of cash..)?

Ant - an excellent post, and I agree with much. I was in Romania 3 days after the revolution and have visited many times since, as well as keeping in touch with friends there. I'd say life for the average person is definitely worse than it was pre-1989, but therein lies the quandary. If, for example, you are on the wrong side of a police state, it's not so pleasant I guess. I'm actually trying to leave my political views to oneside here, and focus on this particular issue, but it's interesting that if the UK spent the same on police as old school "dictatorships" do, there'd probably be a lot less crime here too. It's always about the money innit, and who has it.

[Beefymcfc]

It took us in the UK 400 years to move from the wealth of empire, to having our own civil rights.

Essentially these places might be moving towards the position we occupy now, but all they have in reality is the wealth. The nation rarely has the political maturity or the mentality to go with the wealth that outwardly suggests this country should actually be classed as a developed state.

In reality, as Ant alluded to, often these countries are tribal with their own ways of doing things that will take decades if not centuries to change. For example, Saudi Arabia upto around 70/80 years ago was just a load of desert of no real significance other than for pilgrims. Despite the wealth of the country today, is it realistic to expect them to adopt our values in that space of time when it took the western world over 400 years to achieve the freedoms we enjoy today? Should Saudi Arabia be a pariah state, laughed at by the west for their archaic and repressive rules, or should they be given the time to develop.

FFS, you have to sit down and drink tea with the fuckers for an hour and have inane conversation about nothing before the 10 minute meeting you went for can take place - businessmen in Saudi Arabia are prisoner to tradition because it is centuries of conditioning which makes them like this. It will change, but slowly.

Too many people want to criticise what happens in other nations too readily, without actually thinking back on how long it took for real change to gain traction within our own country.

I don't disagree mate, but this is about a ruling family using the club to project a modern image, as lev has said. Is it still none of our business?

Just to reiterate, what i find strange is that Bolton fans for instance protest strongly about a morally dubious, but perfectly legal company from throwing them some cash, whereas at city our very owners are ultimately responsible for many documented human rights violations, but there's barely a whimper.

What I find doubly strange is that if I was to take a large banner saying something fairly banal such as "sheikh mansour, please treat your guest workers fairly", I get the feeling I'd be banned, and probably battered by fans?

Is there anyone in the world that city fans would object to as owners (if they were throwing us lots of cash..)?

Ant - an excellent post, and I agree with much. I was in Romania 3 days after the revolution and have visited many times since, as well as keeping in touch with friends there. I'd say life for the average person is definitely worse than it was pre-1989, but therein lies the quandary. If, for example, you are on the wrong side of a police state, it's not so pleasant I guess. I'm actually trying to leave my political views to oneside here, and focus on this particular issue, but it's interesting that if the UK spent the same on police as old school "dictatorships" do, there'd probably be a lot less crime here too. It's always about the money innit, and who has it.

Fuck me, does anybody actually bother to understand the reality of the story? Sounds like a few have just taken Conns story as fact and decided that Abu Dhabi have 'a Black hole of abuse'.

Fucking unreal that people on here, who I assume to be at least within the facts, have no understanding of the wider issue.

Banned now eh, fuck me!

[Arjan Van Schotte]

It took us in the UK 400 years to move from the wealth of empire, to having our own civil rights.

Essentially these places might be moving towards the position we occupy now, but all they have in reality is the wealth. The nation rarely has the political maturity or the mentality to go with the wealth that outwardly suggests this country should actually be classed as a developed state.

In reality, as Ant alluded to, often these countries are tribal with their own ways of doing things that will take decades if not centuries to change. For example, Saudi Arabia upto around 70/80 years ago was just a load of desert of no real significance other than for pilgrims. Despite the wealth of the country today, is it realistic to expect them to adopt our values in that space of time when it took the western world over 400 years to achieve the freedoms we enjoy today? Should Saudi Arabia be a pariah state, laughed at by the west for their archaic and repressive rules, or should they be given the time to develop.

FFS, you have to sit down and drink tea with the fuckers for an hour and have inane conversation about nothing before the 10 minute meeting you went for can take place - businessmen in Saudi Arabia are prisoner to tradition because it is centuries of conditioning which makes them like this. It will change, but slowly.

Too many people want to criticise what happens in other nations too readily, without actually thinking back on how long it took for real change to gain traction within our own country.

I don't disagree mate, but this is about a ruling family using the club to project a modern image, as lev has said. Is it still none of our business?

Just to reiterate, what i find strange is that Bolton fans for instance protest strongly about a morally dubious, but perfectly legal company from throwing them some cash, whereas at city our very owners are ultimately responsible for many documented human rights violations, but there's barely a whimper.

What I find doubly strange is that if I was to take a large banner saying something fairly banal such as "sheikh mansour, please treat your guest workers fairly", I get the feeling I'd be banned, and probably battered by fans?

Is there anyone in the world that city fans would object to as owners (if they were throwing us lots of cash..)?

Ant - an excellent post, and I agree with much. I was in Romania 3 days after the revolution and have visited many times since, as well as keeping in touch with friends there. I'd say life for the average person is definitely worse than it was pre-1989, but therein lies the quandary. If, for example, you are on the wrong side of a police state, it's not so pleasant I guess. I'm actually trying to leave my political views to oneside here, and focus on this particular issue, but it's interesting that if the UK spent the same on police as old school "dictatorships" do, there'd probably be a lot less crime here too. It's always about the money innit, and who has it.

Fuck me, does anybody actually bother to understand the reality of the story? Sounds like a few have just taken Conns story as fact and decided that Abu Dhabi have 'a Black hole of abuse'.

Fucking unreal that people on here, who I assume to be at least within the facts, have no understanding of the wider issue.

Banned now eh, fuck me!

beefy, what "understanding of the wider issue" do you actually have? I ask, as you've displayed none so far.

And I have mentioned a number of issues a long time before Conn wrote this, forget this story if you like - what about all the other issues mentioned?

and yes, banned, i think i or anyone else would be, at least temporarily.

[Blue Since 76]

What have the rags got to do with Guantanemo? Has the red nosed one been sending journalists there when they don't agree with him?

Rags owned by Americans - torture/lack of trials at Guantanamo. Every bit as relevant as us being owned by someone from Abu Dhabi ie it's not. But the British press ignore the foreigners (some of them British) at Guantanamo but pick on the same techniques when used by regimes we're less friendly with.

[Blue Since 76]

They have nothing to do with Guantanamo. But some people are fucking ignorant.

If you can't see the comparison...

[Arjan Van Schotte]

What have the rags got to do with Guantanemo? Has the red nosed one been sending journalists there when they don't agree with him?

Rags owned by Americans - torture/lack of trials at Guantanamo. Every bit as relevant as us being owned by someone from Abu Dhabi ie it's not. But the British press ignore the foreigners (some of them British) at Guantanamo but pick on the same techniques when used by regimes we're less friendly with.

I'm with you on the guantanamo front. But the major difference is one person doesn't rule the country, and the other has complete control over laws and their application. That's quite a difference.

[Blue Since 76]

It's amazing though, how we (the West) try to lecture other countries on how they should run theirs. Sounds like a guilty past to me.

Exactly, although guilty present as much as past.

We live in a society (the West) where people have been arrested and kept imprisoned without trial (my reference to Guantanamo) and are still imprisoned many years later. I'm sure we all think most of the people in there had done something wrong or had an agenda against the west, but the main tenant of British an US law is innocent until proven guilty, but we've chosen to ignore that when it suits.

You can't move more than a few hundred feet outside in the UK without being caught on camera, which is kept until??? We've recently discovered that the governments think it's their right to listen to any phone call or review any email or website visit. We've had Cameron deciding which web sites we'll be allowed to see unless we tell him first - wonder where that one's heading.

Anyone looking in could say that our regimes are pretty poor in terms of human rights.

[Beefymcfc]

It took us in the UK 400 years to move from the wealth of empire, to having our own civil rights.

Essentially these places might be moving towards the position we occupy now, but all they have in reality is the wealth. The nation rarely has the political maturity or the mentality to go with the wealth that outwardly suggests this country should actually be classed as a developed state.

In reality, as Ant alluded to, often these countries are tribal with their own ways of doing things that will take decades if not centuries to change. For example, Saudi Arabia upto around 70/80 years ago was just a load of desert of no real significance other than for pilgrims. Despite the wealth of the country today, is it realistic to expect them to adopt our values in that space of time when it took the western world over 400 years to achieve the freedoms we enjoy today? Should Saudi Arabia be a pariah state, laughed at by the west for their archaic and repressive rules, or should they be given the time to develop.

FFS, you have to sit down and drink tea with the fuckers for an hour and have inane conversation about nothing before the 10 minute meeting you went for can take place - businessmen in Saudi Arabia are prisoner to tradition because it is centuries of conditioning which makes them like this. It will change, but slowly.

Too many people want to criticise what happens in other nations too readily, without actually thinking back on how long it took for real change to gain traction within our own country.

I don't disagree mate, but this is about a ruling family using the club to project a modern image, as lev has said. Is it still none of our business?

Just to reiterate, what i find strange is that Bolton fans for instance protest strongly about a morally dubious, but perfectly legal company from throwing them some cash, whereas at city our very owners are ultimately responsible for many documented human rights violations, but there's barely a whimper.

What I find doubly strange is that if I was to take a large banner saying something fairly banal such as "sheikh mansour, please treat your guest workers fairly", I get the feeling I'd be banned, and probably battered by fans?

Is there anyone in the world that city fans would object to as owners (if they were throwing us lots of cash..)?

Ant - an excellent post, and I agree with much. I was in Romania 3 days after the revolution and have visited many times since, as well as keeping in touch with friends there. I'd say life for the average person is definitely worse than it was pre-1989, but therein lies the quandary. If, for example, you are on the wrong side of a police state, it's not so pleasant I guess. I'm actually trying to leave my political views to oneside here, and focus on this particular issue, but it's interesting that if the UK spent the same on police as old school "dictatorships" do, there'd probably be a lot less crime here too. It's always about the money innit, and who has it.

Fuck me, does anybody actually bother to understand the reality of the story? Sounds like a few have just taken Conns story as fact and decided that Abu Dhabi have 'a Black hole of abuse'.

Fucking unreal that people on here, who I assume to be at least within the facts, have no understanding of the wider issue.

Banned now eh, fuck me!

beefy, what "understanding of the wider issue" do you actually have? I ask, as you've displayed none so far.

And I have mentioned a number of issues a long time before Conn wrote this, forget this story if you like - what about all the other issues mentioned?

and yes, banned, i think i or anyone else would be, at least temporarily.

I try not to put too much across but in this case it's a wider issue. I'm not going to educate you on politics as I think you're big enough and ugly enough to educate yourself. However, this issue is one that pushes my buttons as inevitably we blame the person/corporation/country that has alledged issues. All I'll say is try to understand the wider issue and what the individuals in question were aiming for; why try to put Abu Dhabi under pressure and what did they have to gain out of it? It definately wasn't to highlight the Human Rights issue.

Just to give you a wider reference, check out the group that call themselves Al-Islah and who they are part of.

[JamieMCFC]

They have nothing to do with Guantanamo. But some people are fucking ignorant.

If you can't see the comparison...

The rag owners have no control over the laws or policies of the their country. The majority of Americans don't even know who they are. They are more well known in England than they are over here.90% of NFL fans over here couldn't tell you who owns the Tampa Bay Buccaneers but I bet at least 90% of football fans in England could tell you who owned the rags. The answer is the same for both teams.

[Arjan Van Schotte]

Just to give you a wider reference, check out the group that call themselves Al-Islah and who they are part of.

were the UAE 5 all part of al-islah?

Why were the trials held in secret? Why were accredited NGO officials refused entry? Why was the father of an emirati accused jailed for 10 months for an innocuous tweet about the trial?

What do you think of the other issues? Indentured labour, the case of sheikh issa, routine torture?