Iraqis Turn Women' Rights over to the Clerics

[rimrocker]

This gets better all the time... how could I have doubted The Bushies?
___________

Iraqi council endorses rollback of women's rights
Pamela Constable
Washington Post
Published 01/16/2004

BAGHDAD -- For the past four decades, Iraqi women have had some of the most modern legal protections in the Muslim world, under a civil code that prohibits marriage below age 18, arbitrary divorce and male favoritism in child custody and property inheritance disputes.

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out, ordering in late December that family laws shall be "canceled" and such issues placed under the jurisdiction of Islamic legal doctrine, called sharia.

This week outraged Iraqi women -- including judges and Cabinet ministers -- denounced the decision in street protests and at conferences, saying it would set back their legal status by centuries and could unleash clashes among various Islamic strains that have differing rules for marriage, divorce and other family issues.

"This will send us home and shut the door, just like what happened to women in Afghanistan," said Amira Hassan Abdullah, a Kurdish lawyer. Some Islamic laws, she noted, allow men to divorce their wives on the spot.

"The old law wasn't perfect, but this one would make Iraq a jungle," she said. "Iraqi women will accept it over their dead bodies."

The order, narrowly approved by the 25-member council in a closed-door session Dec. 29, was made while Abdul Aziz Hakim, a conservative Shiite Muslim who heads the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was chairing the council under a rotating leadership system. The order is being opposed by several liberal members as well as by senior women in the Iraqi government.

The council's decisions must be approved by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, and aides said unofficially that his imprimatur for this change is unlikely. But experts said that once U.S. officials turn over political power to Iraqis at the end of June, conservative forces could press ahead to make sharia the supreme law.

"It was the secret way this was done that is such a shock," said Nasreen Barawi, Iraq's minister for social welfare and public service. "Iraq is a multiethnic society with many different religious schools. Such a sweeping decision should be made over time, with an opportunity for public dialogue." There is no immediate threat of the decision becoming law, she said, "but after June 30, who knows what can happen?"

[giddyup]

One minute we chide nation-building; the next minute we demand it.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup One minute we chide nation-building; the next minute we demand it.

LOL, you mean like this?

"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." George W. Bush, 2000



"America now pledges to help Iraqis build a prosperous and peaceful nation, and we will keep our word again." George W. Bush, 2003


Oh wait, I forgot: 9-11 changed everything, of course, since Bush planned to invade Iraq prior to September of 2001 ("Go find me a way to do this") that now rings especially hollow, doesn't it?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher LOL, you mean like this? "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." George W. Bush, 2000 "America now pledges to help Iraqis build a prosperous and peaceful nation, and we will keep our word again." George W. Bush, 2003 Oh wait, I forgot: 9-11 changed everything, of course, since Bush planned to invade Iraq prior to September of 2001 ("Go find me a way to do this") that now rings especially hollow, doesn't it?

No, I meant this: "
This gets better all the time... how could I have doubted The Bushies?"

What are you doing up at this hour?

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by giddyup No, I meant this: " This gets better all the time... how could I have doubted The Bushies?" What are you doing up at this hour?

It's like the Bush team is a bunch of ten year olds that climb into the cab of an 18-wheeler and lock the doors. You're yelling at them to come down and begging them to not start the engine and take off on a joy ride. When they do leave the driveway you're really hoping they can stop the rig without any damage. Instead, they drive it off a cliff.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by rimrocker It's like the Bush team is a bunch of ten year olds that climb into the cab of an 18-wheeler and lock the doors. You're yelling at them to come down and begging them to not start the engine and take off on a joy ride. When they do leave the driveway you're really hoping they can stop the rig without any damage. Instead, they drive it off a cliff.

Yeah, and to think we have 5 more years of this.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by rimrocker It's like the Bush team is a bunch of ten year olds that climb into the cab of an 18-wheeler and lock the doors. You're yelling at them to come down and begging them to not start the engine and take off on a joy ride. When they do leave the driveway you're really hoping they can stop the rig without any damage. Instead, they drive it off a cliff.

The problem is that we are all locked inside the trailer in the back.

[Refman]

Attention Revisionist Historians!!!!

Let me tell you the real story. What Bush stated was that we would overthrow Saddam and ensure that Iraq had a government of THEIR CHOOSING.

Bush did NOT say that it would be a government that ANY of us would agree with.

While we don't agree with the rollback of women's rights in Iraq (or anywhere else), this was voted on democratically by the council of Iraquis. Just because a people is given the opportunity to choose leaders does not ensure that they will choose leaders who have ideology that we like.

All we promised was the opportunity for them to choose. Seems as though that is precisely what is happening.

[Major]

All we promised was the opportunity for them to choose. Seems as though that is precisely what is happening.

I don't think the women chose this ... and given that they are over half the population...

So at the end of the day, we may very well have overthrown a regime only to allow the people of the country to install an even more authoritarian and brutal regime, if it turns into a hard-line Islamic country. Brilliant decision by Bush.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Refman Attention Revisionist Historians!!!! Let me tell you the real story. What Bush stated was that we would overthrow Saddam and ensure that Iraq had a government of THEIR CHOOSING. Bush did NOT say that it would be a government that ANY of us would agree with.

Then why did we earlier state that they could not become a theocracy...or that former members of the Ba'ath party were not eligible to run for political office, or serve as civil servants...even if those were THE CHOICES the Iraqis wanted?


Seems that this mandate limitation you're citing is applied a little selectively for our convenience...

[Refman]

I don't think the women chose this ... and given that they are over half the population...

The fact remains that the council of Iraquis voted on this. The result is not what I would like, but I cannot think of a better way to have them build their government than utilizing a council such as the one installed.

Then why did we earlier state that they could not become a theocracy...or that former members of the Ba'ath party were not eligible to run for political office, or serve as civil servants...even if those were THE CHOICES the Iraqis wanted?

Gee...I can't imagine why we wouldn't want members of the old regime running the country. This certainly must have been a sarcastic question.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Refman Gee...I can't imagine why we wouldn't want members of the old regime running the country. This certainly must have been a sarcastic question.

1) See if you can see an inconsistency here:

Statement A: What Bush stated was that we would overthrow Saddam and ensure that Iraq had a government of THEIR CHOOSING.Bush did NOT say that it would be a government that ANY of us would agree with.


Statement B: Gee...I can't imagine why we wouldn't want members of the old regime running the country.

Remember, I said that we wouldn;t let them even if if was THEIR CHOICE. Whether or not THEIR CHOICE makes sense to you is really besides the point...er, your point, originally...isn't it?

2) We weren't precluding people convicted, or even accused of crimes during Saddam's regime...merely people who had been a memeber of a political party...which comprises tens of thousands of people, including most of the educated and skilled memebers of Iraqi society.

[outlaw]

Originally posted by Refman The fact remains that the council of Iraquis voted on this. The result is not what I would like, but I cannot think of a better way to have them build their government than utilizing a council such as the one installed.

A council that was installed by who?

[Refman]

Originally posted by outlaw A council that was installed by who?

My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the council is comprised of persons from a broad spectrum of political ideologies in Iraq. These are the persons (similar to the Framers of our Constitution) who will be charged for drafting a similar document for a demcratic Iraq.

Remember...Rome was not built in a day. These things take time.

I hope that they reverse course on this issue.

[pippendagimp]

We have been propping up corrupt, oppresive, suppresive regimes in the Middle East for decades so this shouldn't be so suprising. This model has worked like a charm for us in states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq pre-1990, etc, etc. The people at the top of the foodchain guarantee us a steady supply of oil at stable prices and in turn get lots and lots of perks. Who knows what could happen to our arrangements and financial interests out there if the huddled masses were allowed to speak, vote, or otherwise influence the allocation of their country's natural resources. Heaven forbid.