Karzai accuse of legalizing rape

[Heathen Hammer]

Afghan leader accused of move to 'legalize rape'
March 31, 2009
The Independent, London
AFGHANISTAN (Mar 31, 2009)

President Hamid Karzai has signed a law which "legalizes" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shiite Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights."

The law regulates personal matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and sexual relations among Afghanistan's minority Shiite community.

The provisions are reminiscent of the hardline Taliban regime, which banned women from leaving their homes without a male relative.

The bill lay dormant for more than a year, but in February it was rushed through parliament as Karzai sought allies in a constitutional row over the upcoming election.
http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/540098

It seems most likely that NATO is supporting pot over kettle.

[Arto]

LOL, @ those Afghans

[s.rwitt]

It seems most likely that NATO is supporting pot over kettle.

It's a democracy, what do you propose we do? Tell them what they can and cannot legislate?


Sure it's ****ed up but if we moved to stop it the Afghan government truley would be our puppet.

[Heathen Hammer]

It's a democracy, what do you propose we do? Tell them what they can and cannot legislate?


Sure it's ****ed up but if we moved to stop it the Afghan government truley would be our puppet.

I'm pretty sure that current Afghan government is compeletly subversive to US in many issues, and I'm even more sure that its far from democracy.
But weren't rights of women an issue when US was criticising Saddam?

[Каие]

Further proof that the Afghan war, unless things change rapidly will simply always be remembered as a political failure masquerading as a just cause of freedom.

[IrishHitman]

It's a democracy, what do you propose we do? Tell them what they can and cannot legislate?

Sure it's ****ed up but if we moved to stop it the Afghan government truley would be our puppet.

The Afghan government already is NATO's puppet.
Letting this happen would be a crass betrayal of what the West is supposed to stand for, but of course the politicians simply don't have the bottle to stop it.

We can't directly tell them to change it though.
Threaten Karzai with withdrawal or shifting of NATO military resources to severely disadvantage him, that should do it.

It's a basic principle that people have rights that can't be altered by a mere parliamentary vote.

[Adrian]

It's a democracy, what do you propose we do? Tell them what they can and cannot legislate?


Sure it's ****ed up but if we moved to stop it the Afghan government truley would be our puppet.

And what do you propose let this stand ?

Let them enslave the people a little more and turn into a ing fundamentalist regime after you leave.

I consider the US especially has to take a hard line with these people you wanted to install democracy ? well install it with western values and rights for the people and preserve it that way.

So i consider this a setback and the USA not determined enough to actually help those people live free from such oppression..

[Ahlerich]

It's a democracy, what do you propose we do? Tell them what they can and cannot legislate?


Sure it's ****ed up but if we moved to stop it the Afghan government truley would be our puppet.

if its democracy who voted karzai?

[Dayman]

It's a democracy, what do you propose we do? Tell them what they can and cannot legislate?

Most republics tend to have constitutions that assert inalienable rights, that cannot be taken away be legislation. I'm not aware of the Afghan constitution, but just because there is a democratic system in place doesn't mean a legislature can do what it wants.

[s.rwitt]

I'm pretty sure that current Afghan government is compeletly subversive to US in many issues, and I'm even more sure that its far from democracy.

I'm pretty sure that saying "I'm pretty sure" in front of an argument dosen't prove said argument.

But weren't rights of women an issue when US was criticising Saddam?

I suppose had it been the US that passed this you would have a point. But it wasn't so you really don't.

BTW: I don't really remember anyone criticizing Saddam of violating women's rights, he was an equal opportunity rights violator wasn't he?

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm pretty sure that saying "I'm pretty sure" in front of an argument dosen't prove said argument.

Laws that are being passed in Afghanistan prove that it is not democracy.

I suppose had it been the US that passed this you would have a point. But it wasn't so you really don't.

BTW: I don't really remember anyone criticizing Saddam of violating women's rights, he was an equal opportunity rights violator wasn't he?

I remember that before invasion it was often mentioned by politicians. Also it was used as argument against Taliban as well.

[s.rwitt]

Laws that are being passed in Afghanistan prove that it is not democracy.

Have they taken away the right to vote?

And how are they a US puppet?

I remember that before invasion it was often mentioned by politicians. Also it was used as argument against Taliban as well.

I don't think it was with Saddam, but the main reason for taking out the Taliban was their refusal to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11. There was criticism of the Taliban for gross violations of women's rights but it was hardly one of our reasons for invasion.

Even with this nonsensical law, however, women are much better off then they were under the Taliban.

[Heathen Hammer]

Have they taken away the right to vote?

They have taken their right of not getting raped.

And how are they a US puppet?

US occupies Afghanistan. Karzai is supported by US. Also he was a top contact for CIA in 1980s.

I don't think it was with Saddam, but the main reason for taking out the Taliban was their refusal to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11. There was criticism of the Taliban for gross violations of women's rights but it was hardly one of our reasons for invasion.

Even with this nonsensical law, however, women are much better off then they were under the Taliban.

Well, its obvious that US is not there for taliban, otherwise they'd finish them off years ago.
However current government is going in the same direction as taliban. But I guess as long as it obeys US, american leadership will be okay with that.

[s.rwitt]

They have taken their right of not getting raped.

Are you even trying to prove a point now? This legislation dosen't take away from the fact that they are a democracy.

US occupies Afghanistan. Karzai is supported by US. Also he was a top contact for CIA in 1980s.

NATO occupies Afghanistan. The British government is also supported by the US. Sadam was a top contact for the CIA in 1980's.

None of that makes them a puppet government. They elected their leaders.

Well, its obvious that US is not there for taliban, otherwise they'd finish them off years ago.

Really? Then who are we fighting in the Helmand province? Do you even know?

However current government is going in the same direction as taliban.

Not even close.

But I guess as long as it obeys US, american leadership will be okay with that.

Wow, more baseless speculation. At least be accurate in your baseless speculation and say "as long as it obeys NATO...blah blah blah".

---------------------------

Further proof that the Afghan war, unless things change rapidly will simply always be remembered as a political failure masquerading as a just cause of freedom.

Masquerading? Seriously? Afghanistan is one of the most justifiable wars in history.

[Каие]

Masquerading? Seriously? Afghanistan is one of the most justifiable wars in history.

Only if we looked at it from the point of view of an angry American who had no clue as to why his country just got bombed on September the 11th, 2001. Go on tell me it wasn't for 9/11 revenge/making it look like the government was doing something. Go on, tell me it was for the freedom of Afghans.

[Scar Face]

Only if we looked at it from the point of view of an angry American who had no clue as to why his country just got bombed on September the 11th, 2001. Go on tell me it wasn't for 9/11 revenge/making it look like the government was doing something. Go on, tell me it was for the freedom of Afghans.

Uh...it was for the Freedom of the Afghans. And it was for revenge/protection. No one has ever claimed otherwise...

[Heathen Hammer]

Uh...it was for the Freedom of the Afghans. And it was for revenge/protection. No one has ever claimed otherwise...

Last thing it cares about is "freedom of the Afghans. Right now US supports regime that is far from being labelled free. And its not there to fight Taliban either.

[Mikelus Trento]

The whole Islamic world really needs to come to grips with modern day womanhood. It's not going to go away, and the expanded liberties and opportunites for women in the west will only make the divide grow.

I'm curious (seriously)....are there sexual positions that are encouraged/frowned upon? For example, woman on top seems like it might not be in harmony with their beliefs, doggie style seems like it might fit right in. (no pun intended).

[Каие]

Uh...it was for the Freedom of the Afghans. And it was for revenge/protection. No one has ever claimed otherwise...

It wasn't for the freedom of afghans.

Didn't see when I said this did you? "but the main reason for taking out the Taliban was their refusal to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11."

Because, right, we gave them ample time to do so? In other words we negotiated his hand over, right?

BTW: Has your argument deteriorated to one in which you are now saying we weren't right to invade after 9/11?

I wish we never went. I have never made any bones about that view of mine. I wish to win or leave. Since the former is impossible, the latter is the only option.

[Heathen Hammer]

Are you even trying to prove a point now? This legislation dosen't take away from the fact that they are a democracy.

No, they deny rights to women.

NATO occupies Afghanistan. The British government is also supported by the US. Sadam was a top contact for the CIA in 1980's.

None of that makes them a puppet government. They elected their leaders.

If US occupied UK and install some guy, who earlier was their intellegence contact, thatn it would be a puppet.

Really? Then who are we fighting in the Helmand province? Do you even know?

The question is not "who?", but "why?" and "who benefits?".

Not even close.

So denying women their rights is something democratic and progressive?

Wow, more baseless speculation. At least be accurate in your baseless speculation and say "as long as it obeys NATO...blah blah blah".

If US wasn't there, NATO wouldn't be there either.

Masquerading? Seriously? Afghanistan is one of the most justifiable wars in history.

To US - maybe. But not to NATO.