Women's Rights in the New Iraq

[Sgt. Pepper]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0723-06.htm

The link explains how women's rights are not guaranteed in the New Iraq, as the current draft of the constitution forbids any law contradicting Islam. That's right, we gave them a chance for democracy and they blew it. What are we shedding all this blood for just to guarantee the rights of half the country? just over a year ago, Bush said (and I'm paraphrasing) that inside every person is the yearning to be free and that is the reason that the Iraqi people will rise above the oppression they knew in the past and embrace a healthy democracy. Well, it turns out that he's dead wrong.

If Iraq does become an Islamic republic, how can anyone justify our actions there?

Sgt. Pepper Reviewed by Sgt. Pepper on 08-25-2005. Women's Rights in the New Iraq http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0723-06.htm The link explains how women's rights are not guaranteed in the New Iraq, as the current draft of the constitution forbids any law contradicting Islam. That's right, we gave them a chance for democracy and they blew it. What are we shedding all this blood for just to guarantee the rights of half the country? just over a year ago, Bush said (and I'm paraphrasing) that inside every person is the yearning to be free and that is the reason Rating: 5

[ermitonto]

Bush doesn't really care about the level of "freedom" or "democracy" in Iraq. To him, those are just meaningless buzzwords used to garner support for American economic interests. Of course any country which accepts shari'a (Islamic law) as the basis of its legislation is not going to have democracy: the rules are coming from official religious doctrine, not from the people. This is not only unfair for the non-Muslims in Iraq who are forced to conform to Islamic religious tenets, it undermines the ability of the Iraqi people to improve on rules established over a millennium ago, such as the aforementioned irreconciliable problems with women's rights. Shari'a and freedom obviously cannot co-exist, since shari'a draws no distinction between political and religious life. It is submission to the religious opinions of the theocrats in power, the submission of the present to the dictates of the past, and contrary to the core principle of any democratic theory of organization â?? that the people should possess the power to run and change society as they see fit. The new Iraq, if it accepts shari'a law, is bound to become just as brutal as the previous régime.

[Fengzi]

I don't neccessarily see this (women's rights are not guaranteed in the New Iraq) as a bad thing, certainly not as a failure. The lack of women's rights in Iraq was not something instituted by Saddam Hussein. A woman's position in Muslim society is deeply ingrained in their culture. This isn't going to change overnight. This is also different from what we saw in Afghanistan were the women were suddenly "liberated" when the Taliban fell. The extreme suppression of women under the rule of the Taliban was not somehting that existed for hundreds of years. The Taliban were only in power from 1996 until 2001 and when they fell womens rights simply returned to what they were in pre-Taliban days. Much like what they will probably be in Iraq as well as every other Muslim country.

I wonder what do the Iraqi women really want. I'm sure they want the right not to be picked up off the street by an evil dictator's son and raped repeatedly. But do they really want the right to wear daisy dukes and a halter top? Not likely. Americans tend to be extremely ethnocentric, thinking that everyone else in the world wants the exact thing we do. This isn't always the case. We can't think that just because Iraq doesn't turn into a carbon copy of America that their "democracy" is a failure.

[ermitonto]

Well, I for one think freedom is meaningless without equality. Freedom isn't just the right to put a check mark on a ballot every few years. Part of freedom is the freedom from other people's religious tenets being imposed on you.

[Fengzi]

Well, I for one think freedom is meaningless without equality. Freedom isn't just the right to put a check mark on a ballot every few years. Part of freedom is the freedom from other people's religious tenets being imposed on you.

Exactly erimonto! You hit the nail on the head. "Part of freedom is the freedom from other people's religious tenets being imposed on you." Part of freedom is also not having other people's values and belief systems forced on you. Iraq is 95%+ Muslim, they have their own religous tenets, values, and beleifs. I agree that freedom is meaningless without equality. But that is what we, as Americans believe. If it is not what they believe, however, and we try to impose our values on them, as logical as they may seem to us, are we not guilty of the very thing we are trying to prevent??

[ermitonto]

So what if the vast majority of Iraqis are Muslim? They can choose to live according to whatever religion they want. That does not give them the right to force the other 5% to conform to their religious beliefs, however. If they don't want women to wear halter tops, they don't need a law against it. They just need to practice their religion and not do that. Church + state = theocracy, not democracy.

[Fengzi]

"So what if the vast majority of Iraqis are Muslim?" Well, for one this is going to have an enormous impact on their culture. Like it or not much of our culture is based on Christian values. I personally wouldn't have anything against walking down the street in the nude and wouldn't care if someone else did. Yet it is illegal. Why? Cultural values of the majority of Americans, most likely based on some Christian value about modesty.

Anyhow, I'm getting away from the point I was originally trying to make. All I'm trying to say is that whatever form the new Iraq takes, it will mostly be based on their cultural values. It seems that anytime anything happens over there that goes against what we believe in everybody gets all exited. Ultimately, it is what they, the majority of Iraqi's beleive in that counts. We shouldn't consider it a failure if it is not a carbon copy of the United States.

[ermitonto]

I don't think a carbon copy of the United States would be good for any country, but freedom of religion is just as important here as anywhere else. I have no delusions of Iraq (or the US for that matter) achieving true freedom anytime soon, that is, the ability to do whatever we want so long as we don't infringe on that ability for others, even if it goes against the dominant religious beliefs. The useless laws against nudity, like the useless Iraqi laws ensuring the continuation of gender inequality, must be opposed if we are ever to achieve true freedom as I define it.

[Fengzi]

Oh, I get it now. They'd be better with no government and no laws at all. So would we for that matter. Why didn't I see the light sooner? Duh..

[ermitonto]

Well, that's how I view the situation. (By the way, anarchy doesn't necessarily imply absence of laws, just absence of centralized, hierarchical law enforcement; murderers and rapists would still have to be dealt with by the members of the community through some sort of collective organization.)

Not that it would work in a society full of shari'a-devoted Muslims, but it's a goal to be striving towards.