Afghanistan passes Barbaric Law

[Betty Boop]

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," said the U.S. charity Human Rights Watch.

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier versionlaw legalized rape within marriage, according to the U.N.

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.

The law has been backed by the hardline Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohseni, who is thought to have influence over the voting intentions of some of the country's Shias, which make up around 20% of the population. Karzai has assiduously courted such minority leaders in the run up to next Thursday's election, which is likely to be a close run thing, according to a poll released yesterday.

Human Rights Watch, which has obtained a copy of the final law, called on all candidates to pledge to repeal the law, which it says contradicts Afghanistan's own constitution.

The group said that Karzai had "made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election".

Brad Adams, the organization's Asia director, said: "The rights of Afghan women are being ripped up by powerful men who are using women as pawns in maneuvers to gain power.

"These kinds of barbaric laws were supposed to have been relegated to the past with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, yet Karzai has revived them and given them his official stamp of approval."

I thought the UK and America were fighting in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, a brutal and repressive regime. Karzai is just as bad! :grr:

[Twa Cairpets]

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," said the U.S. charity Human Rights Watch.

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier versionlaw legalized rape within marriage, according to the U.N.

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.

The law has been backed by the hardline Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohseni, who is thought to have influence over the voting intentions of some of the country's Shias, which make up around 20% of the population. Karzai has assiduously courted such minority leaders in the run up to next Thursday's election, which is likely to be a close run thing, according to a poll released yesterday.

Human Rights Watch, which has obtained a copy of the final law, called on all candidates to pledge to repeal the law, which it says contradicts Afghanistan's own constitution.

The group said that Karzai had "made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election".

Brad Adams, the organization's Asia director, said: "The rights of Afghan women are being ripped up by powerful men who are using women as pawns in maneuvers to gain power.

"These kinds of barbaric laws were supposed to have been relegated to the past with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, yet Karzai has revived them and given them his official stamp of approval."

I thought the UK and America were fighting in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, a brutal and repressive regime. Karzai is just as bad! :grr:

Thats where religion gets you...

[da-robster]

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," said the U.S. charity Human Rights Watch.

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier versionlaw legalized rape within marriage, according to the U.N.

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.

The law has been backed by the hardline Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohseni, who is thought to have influence over the voting intentions of some of the country's Shias, which make up around 20% of the population. Karzai has assiduously courted such minority leaders in the run up to next Thursday's election, which is likely to be a close run thing, according to a poll released yesterday.

Human Rights Watch, which has obtained a copy of the final law, called on all candidates to pledge to repeal the law, which it says contradicts Afghanistan's own constitution.

The group said that Karzai had "made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election".

Brad Adams, the organization's Asia director, said: "The rights of Afghan women are being ripped up by powerful men who are using women as pawns in maneuvers to gain power.

"These kinds of barbaric laws were supposed to have been relegated to the past with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, yet Karzai has revived them and given them his official stamp of approval."

I thought the UK and America were fighting in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, a brutal and repressive regime. Karzai is just as bad! :grr:

Just out of intrest do womrn have the vote in Afghanistan because if they do I think Karzai should be worried. Anyway if this law is not repealed I doubt We can justify this illegal war anymore.

[AndyP]

Just out of intrest do womrn have the vote in Afghanistan because if they do I think Karzai should be worried. Anyway if this law is not repealed I doubt We can justify this illegal war anymore.


Why should he be worried, the women will vote the way their husbands/fathers tell them to :rolleyes:

Afghanistan is a tribal land and those allegiencies and obligations still hold very strong within the country.

To get back to the OP though, I would rather Kharzai addressed the more serious issue of under 16s being forced into marriage sometimes to settle a familys debt of honour:bitchy:

[Beefster]

I obviously don't condone this law and it's horrendous but surely a country should be free to pass its own laws as long as it has no impact on other countries?

Certain states in America maintain the death penalty. Most people in other countires don't agree with that but it's their right to do so.

[marinello59]

I obviously don't condone this law and it's horrendous but surely a country should be free to pass its own laws as long as it has no impact on other countries?
Certain states in America maintain the death penalty. Most people in other countires don't agree with that but it's their right to do so.

Consider South Africa and the years of Apartheid. A large part of the population legally repressed because of the colour of their skin. That only ended because the International community made a stand against them. Here we have half the population of a country being legally repressed because of their gender. Of course the rest of the world should condemn this and put pressure on the Afghan government.

[Dashing Bob S]

The biggest myth about Afgahistan, peddled by the west for propaganda purposes, is that the Taliban are no longer in power. A close friend who works for an NGO there tells me that it's essentially the same officials with beards shaved off.

They maintain the same reactionary views about women. You can put in any sort of regime or any ballot box window dressing you like (and shed many lives in the process) but its an exercise in futility.

[Dinkydoo]

I obviously don't condone this law and it's horrendous but surely a country should be free to pass its own laws as long as it has no impact on other countries?

Certain states in America maintain the death penalty. Most people in other countires don't agree with that but it's their right to do so.


I understand where your comming from but in this day and age to let a country pass a law as primative as this is a crime in it'self surely.

I personally feel that nobody should have the right to treat another human being in this manner.

What I don't understand is that the majority of the middle east are very religious yet none of them fear that passing such a law could anger their god since women are "gods" creation too.

I honestly have no idea what kind of logic these people are operating on

:wtf:

[Dashing Bob S]

I understand where your comming from but in this day and age to let a country pass a law as primative as this is a crime in it'self surely.

I personally feel that nobody should have the right to treat another human being in this manner.

What I don't understand is that the majority of the middle east are very religious yet none of them fear that passing such a law could anger their god since women are "gods" creation too.

I honestly have no idea what kind of logic these people are operating on

:wtf:

By their very nature the two concepts are incompatible. One is about faith and belief, the other about reason, thought and consideration.

They aren't operating on any logic whatsoever.

[Dashing Bob S]

I obviously don't condone this law and it's horrendous but surely a country should be free to pass its own laws as long as it has no impact on other countries?

Certain states in America maintain the death penalty. Most people in other countires don't agree with that but it's their right to do so.

If we are fighting to install a 'democracy' there, that word surely infers certain pretexts.

It would mean a separation between church and state, and therefore not passing bigoted laws like this one, which are based on religious reactionary views.

There is no place for sharia law in a democracy, or any other faith based tenets. Democracy is, or should be, about discussion and debate, not oppression

[Beefster]

If we are fighting to install a 'democracy' there, that word surely infers certain pretexts.

It would mean a separation between church and state, and therefore not passing bigoted laws like this one, which are based on religious reactionary views.

There is no place for sharia law in a democracy, or any other faith based tenets. Democracy is, or should be, about discussion and debate, not oppression

Without getting into the rights or wrongs of the occupation of Afghanistan, the war was primarily about removing the Taliban. The 'democracy' part is/was an after-thought.

Considering Karzai's (and his family) historical role in that country, I'd argue whether NATO are actually that worried about true democracy or just a government that is sympathetic to Western needs. I don't see any military dash into Saudi Arabia or China to install democracy - despite the terrible things that go on in those countries.

Again, I'm not condoning the new law or any discrimination/oppression.

[Twa Cairpets]

If anyone has any doubt about Afghanistan being a backwater of tribal/religious/factional extremism, this law should surely dispel any myth.

Western politicians can rail against its injustice, but it wont change diddly - in a perverse kind of way, at least the west have accepted the "real-politik" of the situation, knowing they wont change it.

Interestingly, about 160 years ago, Britain installed a puppet leader on the throne in Kabul called Shah Sujah - it led to tragedy and disaster on a huge scale. I would invite any politician to read "Kabul Catastrophe" by Michael MacRory, "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk or even "Flashman" by George Macdonald Fraser to get a wee bit of historical perspective.

Its a war we've not won three times before.

[--------]

I obviously don't condone this law and it's horrendous but surely a country should be free to pass its own laws as long as it has no impact on other countries?

Certain states in America maintain the death penalty. Most people in other countires don't agree with that but it's their right to do so.

Fair enough. But I don't see why the British army should be fighting, and british soldiers dying, to keep the regime responsible in power.


The biggest myth about Afgahistan, peddled by the west for propaganda purposes, is that the Taliban are no longer in power. A close friend who works for an NGO there tells me that it's essentially the same officials with beards shaved off.

They maintain the same reactionary views about women. You can put in any sort of regime or any ballot box window dressing you like (and shed many lives in the process) but its an exercise in futility.

Why does that NOT surprise me? :rolleyes:


Without getting into the rights or wrongs of the occupation of Afghanistan, the war was primarily about removing the Taliban. The 'democracy' part is/was an after-thought.

Considering Karzai's (and his family) historical role in that country, I'd argue whether NATO are actually that worried about true democracy or just a government that is sympathetic to Western needs. I don't see any military dash into Saudi Arabia or China to install democracy - despite the terrible things that go on in those countries.

Again, I'm not condoning the new law or any discrimination/oppression.


It's the Great Game, Beefster.

It's about who controls the passes through the Hindu Kush, who controls the approaches to the Caucasus, who holds the area around the Caspian Sea.

Nothing whatsoever to do with ordinary people, or democracy, or freedom.

[shamo9]

Seems like we're comparing two very different cultures here. I'm sure women here view there counterparts in the Middle East as repressed individuals and while that's not altogether false, it's not altogether true. A lot are quite content with their positions and consider women in the West as the ones in the wrong (trust me, I've asked them myself).

You can argue that they've been indoctrinated or whatever but that's just their belief system. The West should be a little more delicate when they try to push the East to think like them.

You can't kill a belief, it doesn't operate under the parameters of logic, it operates under faith. Trying to change that through force will only ever breed resentment and more passionate belief.

I wouldn't be surprised if American makes a deal with the Taliban eventually because it's a fight you just can't win conclusively.

I'm not stating that this law is right because it's not in my opinion - I have no time for religion. Just stating that this sort of thing isn't all black and white.

[Betty Boop]

Seems like we're comparing two very different cultures here. I'm sure women here view there counterparts in the Middle East as repressed individuals and while that's not altogether false, it's not altogether true. A lot are quite content with their positions and consider women in the West as the ones in the wrong (trust me, I've asked them myself).

You can argue that they've been indoctrinated or whatever but that's just their belief system. The West should be a little more delicate when they try to push the East to think like them.

You can't kill a belief, it doesn't operate under the parameters of logic, it operates under faith. Trying to change that through force will only ever breed resentment and more passionate belief.

I wouldn't be surprised if American makes a deal with the Taliban eventually because it's a fight you just can't win conclusively.

I'm not stating that this law is right because it's not in my opinion - I have no time for religion. Just stating that this sort of thing isn't all black and white.
I doubt any woman from a different culture or not, would appreciate being starved because she didn't fancy sex! :bitchy:

[marinello59]

Seems like we're comparing two very different cultures here. I'm sure women here view there counterparts in the Middle East as repressed individuals and while that's not altogether false, it's not altogether true. A lot are quite content with their positions and consider women in the West as the ones in the wrong (trust me, I've asked them myself).


And a lot would not be content and a few Muslim women, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are brave enough to speak out.
No matter what your culture is, this law would be barbaric.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Seems like we're comparing two very different cultures here. I'm sure women here view there counterparts in the Middle East as repressed individuals and while that's not altogether false, it's not altogether true. A lot are quite content with their positions and consider women in the West as the ones in the wrong (trust me, I've asked them myself).

You can argue that they've been indoctrinated or whatever but that's just their belief system. The West should be a little more delicate when they try to push the East to think like them.

You can't kill a belief, it doesn't operate under the parameters of logic, it operates under faith. Trying to change that through force will only ever breed resentment and more passionate belief.

I wouldn't be surprised if American makes a deal with the Taliban eventually because it's a fight you just can't win conclusively.

I'm not stating that this law is right because it's not in my opinion - I have no time for religion. Just stating that this sort of thing isn't all black and white.

Whoever came up with Cultural Relativism really should be taken outside and given a swift kick to the testicles...

To quote (the often stupid but occasionally bang-on-the-money) Paul Berman...

Today people say, out of a spirit of egalitarian tolerance, "Social Democracy for Swedes! Tyranny for Arabs!" And this is supposed to be a progressive attitude?

[hibsbollah]

Whoever came up with Cultural Relativism really should be taken outside and given a swift kick to the testicles...

To quote (the often stupid but occasionally bang-on-the-money) Paul Berman...

Today people say, out of a spirit of egalitarian tolerance, "Social Democracy for Swedes! Tyranny for Arabs!" And this is supposed to be a progressive attitude?

Cultural relativism makes sense. To argue it doesnt suggests you believe that all countries (and their histories, politics and belief systems) are inherently the same.

(Although in other respects i agree with Betty about the wrongs of this particular case)

[LiverpoolHibs]

Cultural relativism makes sense. To argue it doesnt suggests you believe that all countries (and their histories, politics and belief systems) are inherently the same.

(Although in other respects i agree with Betty about the wrongs of this particular case)

Hmm, I should really have said 'moral relativism' rather than 'cultural relativism'.

[(((Fergus)))]

Why not let the Afghans decide how to run their own country?

Apart from the fact we expect the same courtesy from them, it has been shown many times that they get their own way in the end anyway.

Also, is our country really in a position to be lecturing others on how to live?