Hamid Karzai Signs Law ‘Legalising Rape in Marriage’
April 1st, 2009Via: Telegraph:
President Hamid Karzai has signed a law the UN says legalises rape in marriage and prevents women from leaving the house without permission.
The law, which has not been publicly released, is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor’s appointments with their husband’s permission.
Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women.
Opponents of the legislation governing the personal lives of Afghanistan’s Shia minority have said it is “worse than during the Taliban”.
Mr Karzai has been accused of electioneering at the expense of women’s rights by signing the law to appeal to crucial Shia swing voters in this year’s presidential poll.
While the Afghan constitution guarantees equal rights for women, it also allows the Shia community, thought to represent 10 per cent of the population, the right to settle family law cases according to Shia law.
The Shiite Personal Status Law contains provisions on marriage, divorce, inheritance, rights of movement and bankruptcy.
The bill passed both houses of the Afghan parliament, but was so contentious that the United Nations and women’s rights campaigners have so far been unable to see a copy of the approved bill.
Shinkai Zahine Karokhail, a female MP, said the law had been rushed through with little debate.
She told the Guardian newspaper: “They wanted to pass it almost like a secret negotiation, “There were lots of things that we wanted to change, but they didn’t want to discuss it because Karzai wants to please the Shia before the election.”
The Afghan justice ministry confirmed the law had been signed, but said it would not be published until technical difficulties had been overcome.
A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai would not comment.
FOR THE RECORD: no, I don’t think this sounds like a good law. But let’s be real: unless we’re willing to go into the Muslim world and do what Ann Coulter prescribed shortly after 9/11 — “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” — the people of those countries are going to have to evolve at their own pace, whether we like it or not. And that includes installing “democracies” there because we think Democracy is better than whatever the hell they’ve got.
And yeah, I know, the “spreading democracy” thing is a smokescreen, but it’s what’s sold the American people to get them to support our occupation of those lands, so we might as well start the education process with something they can handle, ie, “yeah, ok, let’s assume we’re there for Democracy’s sake, but here’s the thing, it ain’t gonna work (see above).”
end of ramble
Thanks, W. You brought the “Rule of Law” to Afghanistan.
@anothernut
From my experience, I don’t think the American people had a choice about going into Afghanistan, but for the most part, were emotionally bashed into supporting the invasion so that we could kill all of them, as directed by W, in revenge for 9/11.
I for one don’t know anyone who gives two shits about the war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, or what Karzai does. In my perverted way of thinking,the boyz have their heroin crop and Afghanistan is now a narco state, so really, who gives two shits about the bitches being raped? Hmm. Harsh, I know, but mostly likely. Lets see if Hilary/Obama get their bowels in a uproar over any of this. Someone wake me up when that happens.
@Eileen, I don’t disagree about “going into” Afghanistan, but what makes people complacent about it now, 8 years later (assuming said people at least claim to care about right and wrong w/regard to our foreign policy)? Answer: “we’re helping those poor people throw off the shackles of Taliban oppression, and live in the modern bliss known as ‘democracy'”. I guess my point is, that rationale/rationalization doesn’t hold up, and anybody willing to take an honest look at the situation will admit it. But “willing to take an honest look” is a huge leap for most Americans.