Afghanistan passes 'barbaric' law diminishing women's rights

[ccharles000]

Rehashed legislation allows husbands to deny wives food if they fail to obey sexual demands

Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work.

"It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying 'blood money' to a girl who was injured when he raped her," the US charity Human Rights Watch said.

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier version of the law legalised rape within marriage, according to the UN.

Although Karzai appeared to back down, activists say the revised version of the law still contains repressive measures and contradicts the Afghan constitution and international treaties signed by the country.

Islamic law experts and human rights activists say that although the language of the original law has been changed, many of the provisions that alarmed women's rights groups remain, including this one: "Tamkeen is the readiness of the wife to submit to her husband's reasonable sexual enjoyment, and her prohibition from going out of the house, except in extreme circumstances, without her husband's permission. If any of the above provisions are not followed by the wife she is considered disobedient."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/afghanistan-womens-rights-rape

[Mari333]

1. Could we please get the FCK out of there????

jesus christ, our soldiers are over there to protect a US run puppet govt that treats women like total shit..
GTFO!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. +1 nt

[bemildred]

17. +2 nt

[Mari333]

2. k

[Merryweather]

3. THIS is what our soldiers are dying for?

What the fuck was the point in removing the Taliban if the replacement is going to be just as bad, and possibly worse? Bring them home now.

[Boojatta]

7. If I may answer what appears to be a rhetorical question...

There's hope for change in a democracy. Legislation can be changed. In a theocracy controlled by the Taleban, it would first be necessary to have a revolution and/or civil war to remove the theocracy before any positive change is possible.

It's like rescuing women of various East Asian nationalities who were being used as sex slaves by the Japanese military. Before any such rescue was possible, it was necessary to defeat the Japanese military.

Now, if you are suggesting that Afghanistan is like Zimbabwe and the elections are rigged, then that's another kettle of fish. Since there remain US troops in Afghanistan, I suspect that such a problem could be solved without too much difficulty.

[ccharles000]

4. kick

[Mari333]

6. k again for anyone who still supports this bullshit occupation

[Warpy]

5. Don't forget the laws were equally barbaric here

until a very few decades ago. Even now, it's difficult to get convictions for rape, marital or stranger.

I'm not trying to justify the war against women either there or here. I'm just pointing out the moral ground we stand upon is not solid.

[Boojatta]

9. The moral ground you stand upon is the history of your country?

[Warpy]

10. It is if you're using it to invoke international policy

However, I do agree with other posters. We need to wreck what's left of Al Qaeda and get the hell out of there before it manages to destroy us like it's destroyed all other Empires who tried to tame it.

[Boojatta]

13. Who was using US history?

Who was using it "to invoke international policy"? Also, what does "to invoke international policy" mean?

For example, can you provide a sentence that is equivalent to what you mean and that doesn't use the phrase "to invoke international policy"? I would have had a somewhat less vague understanding if you had used the words "to invoke history", but then it wouldn't be using history to invoke history, would it?

[Merryweather]

12. Low number of convictions and legalizing rape = apples and oranges

And that's a very dodgy line of argument to take. On that basis one could argue that we have no right to condemn terrorist attacks today, because we practically wiped out Native Americans back in the 1800's. And the low conviction rate is the result of these cases all too often being the woman's word against the defendant's, and the juries being leery of sending a man to jail based on that. Not because our society condones rape.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Yay!! Yet another glorious success for neo-colonialism and nation building.

Any survivors of our efforts will..someday...maybe...be ever so appreciative.

[Boojatta]

14. What is neo-colonialism?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. See Afghanistan for an example.

And, (failed) western efforts to install American style "democracy" there.

[Boojatta]

18. Perhaps you should provide some counter-examples.

For example, perhaps someone believes that something is an example of neo-colonialism. However, you can demonstrate that it definitely isn't an example of neo-colonialism. It seems unlikely that you could provide such a demonstration unless you explain what you mean by "neo-colonialism."

After all, if you're trying to explain the meaning of "neo-colonialism" by providing a single example, then what's the point in opposing the war in Afghanistan on the grounds that it is an example of "neo-colonialism"? Your explanation of what you mean by "neo-colonialism" seems to rely heavily upon the assumption that Afghanistan is an example of it. It smells like circular reasoning.

Furthermore, you should identify aspects of the democracy in Afghanistan that strike you as "American-style." After that, you can explain why "western efforts" are inherently bad. The UK and the US are both west of Germany, but I don't see how that demonstrates that it was wrong to fight against Nazi tyranny.

[ccharles000]

16. one more kick

[Mari333]

19. 2 k

and lets not forget why the hell we are sending our young people over there to die for nothing...and set up our bullshit hand picked assholes like karzai..

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/oilwar/

always follow the money