New Afghan Law Rolls Backs Womens Rights

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Since the fall of the Taliban, Afghan women in theory have had the
right to wear what they want. Photograph by : OMAR SOBHANI, REUTERS

A new Afghan law saying Shiite men can demand sex from their wives every four days and keep them indoors indefinitely is causing an uproar.

Hillary Clinton's State Department is trying to force a repeal of a law more restrictive than even the old Taliban regime.

The passage of what some call "legalized rape" means American women have died fighting in Afghanistan to give men there the right to subjugate women.

Clinton and Afghan President Hamid Karzai met privately Tuesday at The Hague, but Wood could not say if she pressed him to reverse the law he just signed.

"She may have. I don't know," Wood said. "President Karzai is certainly well-aware of our views with regard to this legislation."

The law - which has not yet been published but was leaked by a UN agency - rules that a Shiite woman must seek her husband's permission to go outside.

"Obedience, readiness for intercourse and not leaving the house without the permission of the husband are the duties of the wife," states the law.

"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," it says.

In a divorce, a father always gets custody of any children, according to the law.

The law also attempts to protect Shiite women from sexual neglect, mandating that men must take their wives to bed "at least once every four months."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_w...to_demand.html

International reaction has been slowed by secrecy surrounding the law, which was passed without a formal debate and signed off by President Karzai this week, but is yet to be made law.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, became aware of it only when it was raised by her Finnish counterpart at the Afghanistan conference in The Hague on Wednesday. She is said to have raised the issue with him but without the full text President Karzai was spared her opprobrium. (opprobrium??: public disgrace or ill fame that follows from conduct considered grossly wrong or vicious)

[...]
Mike Gapes, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, called the law deplorable. “We did not go into Afghanistan to remove the Taleban only to have Taleban-style policies reimplemented by the Government,” he said. “But this raises big question marks about the nature of the Afghan Government.”

The Afghan Government refused to comment until Saturday, which is after the Nato summit. Speaking yesterday both Mrs Clinton and General James Jones, Mr Obama’s national security adviser, denied that they had given up on getting more Nato soldiers for the fight against a Taleban insurgency in Afghanistan.

The legislation is based on the Shia family code first brought before Parliament two years ago, to the horror of women legislators who make up more than a quarter of the assembly.

Under the same constitution, each religious group is to have its own family law. Opponents said that it contravenes the founding charter in many ways — not least Article 22, which enshrines equality of the sexes before the law.

[...]
Afghan culture is conservative, with tribal custom mingling with religious law to produce one of the most oppressive social atmospheres for women anywhere in the world.

Women’s rights are a continuous source of tension between the country’s conservative establishment and more liberal members of society, with hardliners viewing them as a social toxin forced on them by Western backers.

The US warned that the law shows how human rights, and not just women’s rights, had worsened in Afghanistan.
[...]

Full article with more on the "laws": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6025362.ece

Also in those laws, it declares the age of majority for boys to be 15 and for girls it is when they get their first period.

I can't tell from the first article where they got the idea "Hillary Clinton's State Department is trying to force a repeal" but it sure doesn't look like it yet (or where they got the idea it's HER State department).

[HijabiGirl]

I don't know why Karzai would sign such a ridiculous document, the Shia are considered "kufur" (nonbelievers) by the majority of Muslim scholars. The Shia make thier own laws not based on Qu'ran or Hadith and commit many acts that would be considered apostacy. (most of these laws are based of misogyny and hedonism...not a good mix for the women)

Hopefully international pressure will force Karzai to repeal these "laws" and start getting Afghanistan out of the dark ages.

[Castille]

opprobrium - like reproach. Her opprobruim = her reproach.

And I don't know why the bristle over "Hillary Clinton's Department of state." I mean, obvious the agency is the US Department of State, but it's a figure of speech, in the same way it was Condoleeza Rice's State Department, Colin Powell's State Department, Albright's, Baker's, etc. We also talk about the white house that way - the Obama White House, the Bush White House, the Clinton White House. Secretaries of State drive state department policy - emphasizing the priorities of their respective White Houses, one assumes. When we talk about a policy decision - like focusing resources on trying to repeal a certain law in another country - it isn't the State Department as an organization that decides to do that, it's the top down policy that directs the dept's attention, so it's fair to ascribe the policy to the *current* department ("Hillary Clinton's State Dept.,) since under the next Secretary, the same thing may warrant no special attention at all.

And the whole Afghan law thing? Well, it takes a bit to outdo the Taliban, doesn't it? I have to say, underneath it all, I think I didn't vocally object to invading Afghanistan at the time because, in the interest of women and children in particular, I wanted to see the Taliban gone. Painfully ironic if human rights conditions should only become worse. There's probably a lesson there I don't really want to see.

[Athena]

And the whole Afghan law thing? Well, it takes a bit to outdo the Taliban, doesn't it? I have to say, underneath it all, I think I didn't vocally object to invading Afghanistan at the time because, in the interest of women and children in particular, I wanted to see the Taliban gone. Painfully ironic if human rights conditions should only become worse. There's probably a lesson there I don't really want to see.

Due to a lack of education, wealth and secularism, many Middle Eastern nations are still fundamentally barbaric. Providing them with democracy only provides them the means to democratically oppress one another. We certainly saw it in Iraq; when Saddam's regime toppled, women's rights became practically non-existant. Today, Iraq prepares to execute 100 homosexuals.

Progress cannot be forced without unprecedented bloodshed. If we are unwilling to wipe out significant chunks of their populations in an attempt to create a watershed moment, we must be willing to sit back and watch them live like animals. Eventually, their own displeasure with circumstances will drive them to change their own environment, which, really, is the best way.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

opprobrium - like reproach. Her opprobruim = her reproach.

I defined it in my post because I didn't know what it meant... a word I felt was not commonly used. If I had to look it up, I assumed others did too... just tried to save them the trouble. I also liked the definition of "public disgrace or ill fame that follows from conduct considered grossly wrong or vicious"... seems fitting for the topic.

And I don't know why the bristle over "Hillary Clinton's Department of state."

I "bristle" over it in all the other uses you cited, too. It was meant more of an "aside" than anything else... like the definition. When talking about the current White House, I never assume they are talking about anyone other than the current administration. Only when used in historical context does the designation need to be used.

I often find it amusing how reporters write.

And the whole Afghan law thing? Well, it takes a bit to outdo the Taliban, doesn't it? I have to say, underneath it all, I think I didn't vocally object to invading Afghanistan at the time because, in the interest of women and children in particular, I wanted to see the Taliban gone. Painfully ironic if human rights conditions should only become worse. There's probably a lesson there I don't really want to see.

The whole point of my posting the article.