Iraqi Women's Eroding Freedoms
When George Bush went to war in Iraq, one of his justifications was the need to bring freedom to the Iraqi people.
Unfortunately, if those who are writing the new Iraqi constitution have their way, one group of people could find their freedoms being eroded: women.
A working draft of a chapter of the new Iraq constitution has language that gives a strong role to Islamic law and could be used to curb women's rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.The document's writers are also debating whether to drop a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, that requires at least a quarter of the Parliament to be made up of women.
Even if changes are made before 15 August, the deadline for the Iraqi National Assembly to approve a draft, it does not bode well for the future. It would be a bitter irony if the Iraqis were to use the democratic freedoms given to them by the Americans to become an Islamic state whose women had fewer rights that they did under Saddam Hussein.
Archives By Date
In the spirit of true democracy, it would be more than a bitter irony, if that were to happen.
The other side of the coin perhaps, is that it is arrogance on our part to expect every nation in the world to accept/adopt in full the western concept of democracy?
What makes us think that "we" are right?
Posted by Martin on 24.07.05 at 20:05
It is notable that the US supports quotas, universal health care etc...except on their own soil.
Posted by sleepy on 24.07.05 at 20:08
Martin,
I understand your point and it's been said before, and it's true that some aspects of western democracy may not be applicable for every country around world.
But can't we all agree that equality of all persons regardless of gender, race, tribal allegiance is one of the better aspects of our democracies and that women aren’t second-class citizens, even when it’s been enshrined by religious dogma and/or advocated by religious leaders and their male practitioners.
Posted by Cancundreaming on 24.07.05 at 20:30
Sleepy...
You are right. I recall after one of the great "we must bring democracy to Iraq" speeches, and some one in the US said..."why not... oh...and while we are at it, could we have some of that too?"
Posted by Martin on 24.07.05 at 20:33
Sleepy,
I think we one should distinguish between the current US Government, both Congress and the Presidency, and the US in regards to its citizens.
I think there are many Americans that support both quotas in regards to women's representations in government and a universal health care system. Yes the US democracy has some problems which it can improve on, but is that not the case for all democracies? At least many of them.
And while i do support Universal health care, and am unsure about quotas in regards to political representation; I don’t think either is a necessary requirement of a good democracy. Although there is probably an argument to be had suggesting otherwise.
Posted by Cancundreaming on 24.07.05 at 20:46
Hah, Now we are beginning to see what was prophesised by all of the people all over the world who were against this war for this very reason.
Mark my words, Iraq WILL turn into a country like Iran, with most of the same laws.
Posted by Steve Moffat on 24.07.05 at 21:22
Cancun...
Yes - we can agree that- not a problem.
It's "off-topic" - but the religious dogma you mention is an interesting one.
As a disenchanted Catholic, I find the Catholic church's view of women in the world quite ...mmm...well.....interesting. I can see every Pope saying..."women are important to the Church...after all, we need Nuns to wash, clean, teach"
And is it still the case that Jewish women are not afforded the same place as men in the synagogue?
Strange how in the democratic West, we loose sight of the basics of democracy when it suits?
Posted by Martin on 24.07.05 at 22:07
Martin,
No i don't think it's off topic at all, i think when you're speaking about women's rights in the middle east, among other things, i don't think you can leave the table without talking about religious dogma
Posted by Cancundreaming on 24.07.05 at 22:16
"But can't we all agree that equality of all persons regardless of gender, race, tribal allegiance is one of the better aspects of our democracies"
And if there is ever a democracy where everyone is treated equally, then, maybe, we can push 'our democracy' on others...until then , we're just hypocrits.
Posted by curious on 25.07.05 at 07:28
"And if there is ever a democracy where everyone is treated equally, then, maybe, we can push 'our democracy' on others...until then , we're just hypocrits."
Then you're for despotism then? The oppression of women is ok merely because we haven’t got it perfect. If you're waiting for our democracies to become perfect then you'll be waiting for a long time. I don't know anything that’s perfect, capitalism, our justice system or our political system, they don’t work exactly the way they were envisioned, they don’t perfectly implement their ideals. But i don't think that means we don't promote those same ideals.
Posted by Cancundreaming on 25.07.05 at 08:37
Look up the meaning of hypocrit.
Posted by curious on 25.07.05 at 08:52
"No entry found for hypocrit."
Posted by Cancundreaming on 25.07.05 at 09:14
This proposed institutionalization of downgrading women is not new. It is the 'tyranny of the majority' that is inherent in any democracy. The West hasn't managed to get around this problem, but we still think, by and large that democracy is a good thing. If we truly want a real democracy in Irag than we have to give them the autonomy to set up whatever rules they want. The US was not a utopia of gender equality 200 years ago, but the beauty of democracy is that it allows change from the bottom up.
It would be foolhardy to expect a liberal democratic state to appear overnight. It would be realistic to expect an extremely conservative society that has the mechanisms in place to adopt change.
Posted by tilti on 25.07.05 at 09:27
Likewise the wonders of religion still amaze me.
In Iran, they recently publicly hung two boys - one age 18 the other 16 - after a religious court found them guilty of having a homosexual relationship.
Posted by Martin on 25.07.05 at 12:59
I think that is tragic.
Posted by jake on 25.07.05 at 15:03
I wonder if any of the dire prognostiposters on this topic have ever bothered to read a sample of opinion from Iraqis who actually live there... you know, the folks whose lives are at stake? I thought not. We're just running on MSM-filtered opinion? I thought so. Just for the heck of it, take an hour or so - are they worth that much? - and go to the www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com. Then check out a selection of the Iraqi blogs listed in the right-hand pane there. You won't find consistency of opinion all all topics - but that's democracy, right? However you will find men and women who along with millions more who voted freely for the first time in generations, are determined to take their destiny in their own hands, now that the USA-led coalition has given them the opportunity. And I'm betting that they will do it. Iraq will have a strong Islamic component - what would you expect - Buddhists? - but it will be a secular democracy.
As for women's rights... a reference to women's rights in Saddam's Iraq is an obscenity. There were no human rights under his regime -so how could there be women's rights? The new government has a Department for Women's Affairs. They do not run rape rooms,as Saddam's government did. Women currently have more rights in Iraq than in any nearby country, except (perhaps) for Turkey, which has been a secular Islamic state for decades... that's one reason why the surrounding regimes are terrified that they will succeed. There are more than two thousand voluntary non-government associations in Iraq now, many of them comprised of women working of women's issues. If you can't actually wish these folks well as they make sacrifices we can barely imagine - which would require, indirectly, giving GBW credit for putting the ball in play - yeah, we can forget THAT - then at least have the decency not to disparage their sacrifice and hopes.
Posted by skepto on 25.07.05 at 16:22
Anyone interested in an on-the-ground evaluation of the process whereby womens' rights in the new Iraq are being defined - just as a supplement to pre-digested mainstream media pap - might take a look at
"Iraqi women discuss the constitution..."
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Posted by skepto on 25.07.05 at 17:50
Skepto, GWB does not play Tennis.He only serves at the pleasure of his cronies. Women all over the world have been subjected to this crap for too long.
Stay at home mothers, if they have a home. Working mothers, if they have work. Riplings beielve it or not , page 95:- The Old White boys Club.
Hell I am White, or whatever they call me today.
Join the Club, Na. Have a nice day.......
Posted by Terry on 25.07.05 at 18:02
As requested by skepto I went to the website and copied the following portion.
"How could female assembly members support law 137? They want a full vote in the assembly but they want other women (and themselves) to have only half a vote and be treated as half a person before law!!"
Her observation is very interesting and requires stopping at because frankly speaking, I see that some women are acting against women's interests to satisfy the parties they follow which are of course religious parties.
However, what's good here after all is that we can all share and exchange thoughts in public and without fear. We're learning democracy and practicing it at the same time and this can make our steps rather slow and confused but I believe that we have passed (forever) the times where a dictator can rule Iraq.
The people will rule from now on and although the people might make a wrong choice once, they cannot go completely corrupt."
This must be a huge dilema for all women in Iraq. I've heard of seperation of church and state but seperation of body and soul?
By the way skepto, why such a negative tone towards other posters? I can't see where anyone's been knocking Iraqi women's efforts other than being a little "skeptical" about the final outcome.
Posted by SmokingGun on 25.07.05 at 18:11
Martin,
In Iran those fundamentalist zealot bastards or Mullahs whatever, should have it pointed out that technically masturbation is a homosexual act then they could hang each other and solve so many problems.
Posted by Bill Cook on 25.07.05 at 20:19
Bill...
I guess it's a case of "where there's a w..k - there's a way!
On a serious note - it's pretty frigtening. My friend who works for Amnesty, sent me the story and the pictures. Very sad.
Posted by Martin on 25.07.05 at 21:54
The infamous article 137, which may or may not have been excised from the most recent draft constitution, seeks to turn "family matters" over to religious courts. The splendid irony is that in Canada, the Ontario government is actively considering allowing Muslims to request that matters such as divorce be settled in special Shari'a courts. Naturally, most Muslim women in Canada are furious at this proposal... see here:
http://www.nosharia.com/
So, can we logically decry the Iraqi proposal, but not the Canadian one? And are we "skeptical" about that outcome, as well?
SmokingGun, I was careful to address my comments to "dire prognostiposters", not to all posters on this topic. Of course this entire Iraq project is incredibly difficult, with no guarantee of success. If you consider the dozens of dire pre-liberation predictions that have not come to pass, there are several miracles in the bag already.
It doesn't take a genius to point to all of the remaining hurdles or assume an ongoing skeptical stance... but I suspect that if you asked any Iraqi who's putting everything on the line to see it through, encouragement from well-wishers in the West would be rather more helpful. It would also reflect better on those of us who had others fight these battles for us long ago.
Posted by skepto on 25.07.05 at 22:37
In my op. as an agnostic religion is harmful to your health and Islam is very complex but one thing is certain it has a history of armed conflict dating back to its origins.
It may be all up to interpretation but the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac or Jew and Muslim plus the further split in Islam of Sunni and Shi-ite will not be settled anytime soon regardless of democracy.
Only the profoundly naive would think for one moment that Bush,Cheaney, and Wolfowitz went to Iraq for any noble purpose.
100,000 plus innocent men women and children were killed plus all the young Americans and history will recall this as a catastrophe.
The first step in any solution is to face reality and recognise the duplicity of the perps.
Religion should be kept away from state and law, in fact the reason why Palestinian or one reason is that the interpretation of the Torah makes it impossible to share as there is not serparation of church and state
Posted by Bill Cook on 25.07.05 at 23:38
Bill,
I struggle to accept any religion - looking at the mayhem and damage that has been caused over the centuries in the name of religion.
I also wish they would keep their nose out of politics.
No doubt others will violently disagree with me -but that's life.
Posted by Martin on 26.07.05 at 08:39
Not at all. I have always thought that religion was a crutch for society. Too many actions, or inactions are done "In the name of my God". Which is crap. While I admire religion (no I'm not religious in any way, however I was brought up to be, and do have insight into it), and respect people's faith, I fail to see why someone's faith in something that is supposed to be good makes men/women do things so terrible to their fellow human beings. This makes religion nothing but a farce. Even most of today's "Kinder gentler" religions in one shape or form institute or kling to some form of prejudice, whether it be against another religion, faith, way of life or sex. This is one of the main reasons why I stopped practicing in my teenage years. I refuse to blindly believe in something, especially when it's wrapped up in hypocracy...
Of course none of this will matter when the aliens get here. Maybe that's when everyone will truely unite.... :)
Posted by Full Fullish on 26.07.05 at 09:11
Martin,
You can bet that some will disagree with you, but arguably one of the most scientific logical minds of all time Albert Einstein was non religious.
Faith v/s science ?
Science recognises change and will change when it finds its needed but faith is stuck in a time warp and change would indicate fallibility not good for controlling the masses.
Why did God give us logic if never intended us to use it ?
Posted by Bill Cook on 26.07.05 at 09:18
"but I suspect that if you asked any Iraqi who's putting everything on the line to see it through, encouragement from well-wishers in the West would be rather more helpful. It would also reflect better on those of us who had others fight these battles for us long ago."
Posted by: skepto | 25.07.05 22:37
So true. It gets back to supporting all those, Iraqi or not, who truly are working to get the country back on it's feet and with an agenda that is inclusive of all it's people.
As far as seperation of church and state, how can you seperate it when the church is a state of mind? Those who try to accomodate others are simply seen as heathens and must be destroyed. The troubling question we must ask is are they just madmen hiding behind perceived or real persecution? Is this simply tit for tat with no way out.
Posted by SmokingGun on 26.07.05 at 10:28
I disagree with your conclusions on faith, logic, and intelligence.
Violence is a part of the human experience and can be seen inside and outside of religion. Certainly religion has been used to justify great violence, but does that make violence the essence of religion.
Logic has been used in the same way; socialism and capitalism too. Are you capitalistically agnostic too?
Einstein was a great physicist. A terrible heart surgeon. I don't think he has global authority on matters of faith.
True religion and faith that I see is in the sacrifice and charity that millions of unsung heros practice everyday. It is my Grandmother working in the church from 17 - 94 without pay so that the organ fund would be full. It is Mother Theresa working with the forgotten. It is what people show when they forgive people who have done unspeakable things to them and thereby move on.
It is not buring people at the stake or hanging two boys because they are gay. True religion comes in many forms, but is pretty consistant.
Posted by jake on 26.07.05 at 10:40
Albert Einstein was religous. His famous quote "God doesn't play dice" highlights his belief in the direct role of God in everyday life. Betrand Russel was also deeply religous, just not part of an organized congregation. So too was Hawking. Science and religion aren't exclusive of each other.
I'm not religous but I don't question the religous beliefs of people I know nothing about. If I did I would instantly alineate those religous people and make them more religous. Exactly the opposite of what I would want. In such a case there would be no cultrual exchange, and cultural exchange over 20-30 years is the only lasting way that change in these countries will happen.
You can't ever have any social harmoney when you expect people to discard their way of life for your 'enlightened liberalism'. In a sense your areligiousness is a new form of religion, and you end up being just as radical, exclusive and unaccepting as the religions you put down.
Posted by tilti on 26.07.05 at 10:40
Bill wrote: "Islam is very complex but one thing is certain it has a history of armed conflict dating back to its origins."
That is my impression too. I went to a lecture a couple of years ago by an educated Islamic woman (her intent was introducing us to her religion). In the handouts she gave us I noticed that at one point the Prophet Mohammed had counseled his followers not to engage in civil war because those energies would be needed to fight and conquer non-believers. I don't have the exact quote in front of me right now, but I remember the initial reading and my response being that it was basically a very war-like statement.
I questioned the lecturer, and the woman did not deny my perception of what I'd read. She waved it off, saying something to the effect that sensible followers of Islam don't follow things like that. That's certainly true of other followers of Islam that I know, but the problem is there are a lot of followers who read the Prophet's words and DO follow them exactly.
If for some reason I've not clearly understood what I read, I'd love to hear someone else's opinion. It seemed pretty straightforward in meaning. At some point I would like to read the Quran for myself.
Although horrible violence has been done in the name of Christianity, I do not believe Jesus advocated attacking and killing non-believers.
Posted by Raptor on 26.07.05 at 10:50
Raptor,
Muslims believe that Islam is the superior religion as according to their teachings the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammadas as the last of the prophets and the actual words of the Koran were given to him by Gabriel over a period of 20 yrs in both Mecca AND Medina and as Muhammad reportedly could not read he memorised the words of the angel which were written or memorised by his followers.
Only after his death was the Koran written,and to best of my knowledge has not been given the sams scientific treatment as the Bible to date.
If one is to accept Islam as the final revelation to superceed all other religions esp that of similar monotheistic beliefs then obedience from all others as the Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim and should follow the teachings, and submit to Allah.
Therin lies the danger to non believers and the beginning of conflict.
Posted by Bill Cook on 26.07.05 at 11:19
"Muslims believe that Islam is the superior religion "
So do the Jews.
Posted by curious on 26.07.05 at 11:31
Logic opens the way to debate faith does not.
Einstein wrote.
"Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of TRUTH "
Mother Theresa was a great HUMANIST and never let her religion get in the way of her HUMANISM unlike others whose religion gets in the way of it.
Faith does not erase contradictions and absurdities; it merely allows one to believe in spite of them.
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed many philosophers.
As our frequent visitor Mark Twain said " Faith is believing in what you know ain't so "
Posted by Bill Cook on 26.07.05 at 11:43
"So do the Jews". Every religion as of today ofers redemtion and forgiveness and Salvation. Even the new Coffee house meetings do. It's what you do with your new found faith, or 1000 year old faith. We can offer, proffer but can't gaurentee anything.
Helping our fellow man is what should keep us going, not telling them how too live or what to believe. 'Old fashion' you may say? Well at least I can relate to something, and its a good relationship.
Now, lets get back to Iraqi Women and their plight. After all these years of not being recognised, stamped on, trampled on, they actually feel somethng happening. It makes them feel good, and yes, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for them, we can be that light and help recharge things that were left unpluged for too long.
Good day to all.
Posted by Terry on 26.07.05 at 11:51
Raptor,
Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."
Posted by Cancundreaming on 26.07.05 at 12:01
Terry,
have you ever been to Iraq? Perhaps a little research would help you to understand the country...seems you get your information from american news media....which is to say, you're not getting any (honest)information about Iraq, or it's people.
Your comments are not based in reality.
Posted by brit on 26.07.05 at 12:15
Cancun, 'Spiritual death', could be an interpretation. The again, is'nt it what it is all about? When was the last time, Mohamed, Jesus Christ, and all the others spoke too you?
Lost in translation? Or, convenient to self serves.........................
Posted by Terry on 26.07.05 at 12:17
Brit, according to you, I do not deal with reality. Great. I guess you have been there and you are an authority on all current and past events. Please enlighten me, since you know it all. Have you been to Selma Alabma? You know first hand how Black women are still treated there? There is a corrilation here. Brit, stand up and be counted instead of telling others how to count and what the final product is.
God/Alah bless you.
Ps. No I don't get all my news from the US etc.
I read the Bible and it says that this is happening and will continue. Oh. Almost forgot, stupid me, I was in Turkey two weeks ago on a mission. Almost the same, just differant borders.
Posted by Terry on 26.07.05 at 12:29
"Have you been to Selma Alabma?"
No, I haven't been slumming lately.
"I read the Bible "
...and that's better then US media?....wow,you really do have your head in the sand.
Posted by brit on 26.07.05 at 12:47
Brit, get your own site. "Slumming". I will not have a sling match with you. "head in the sand".
Yep, just lying lying here on the beach next to my condo just trying to figure out where your head is. I won't get rude cause that may give you a worse toooood.
Se ya Brit.
Rule Britania.....
Posted by Terry on 26.07.05 at 12:55
brit, trust me, TRUST me, ignore is the best policy.
Posted by Cancundreaming on 26.07.05 at 13:08
"Now, lets get back to Iraqi Women and their plight. After all these years of not being recognised, stamped on, trampled on, they actually feel somethng happening. It makes them feel good, and yes, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for them, we can be that light and help recharge things that were left unpluged for too long.
Good day to all."
Posted by: Terry | 26.07.05 11:51
Not for nothing Brit & Cancun, but what in the world kind of problem do you happen to have with Terry's post regarding Iraqi women?
He may throw out some funny/bizarre comments on occasion but this is pure, simple and honorable commentary.
Posted by SmokingGun on 26.07.05 at 14:28