Back To The Burkha?
Maureen Dowd writes of one of the possible unintended consequences of "liberation" of Iraq:
Americans like it when the president talks up women's rights in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he does it often. It helped him sell the invasions of those two countries. But W. the fundamentalist Taliban are recrudescing in Afghanistan, young girls in Iraq are afraid to leave the house because there are so many kidnappings and rapes, and women's groups in Iraq are terrified that the new constitution will cut women's rights to a Saudiesque level.
Some Shiite politicians are pushing to supplant civil courts with religious courts operating on Shariah, or Islamic law. One of the crucial articles in various drafts of the constitution is: "The followers of any sect or religion have the right to abide by their religion or sect in their personal affairs, and a law should organize this."
That little provision could jeopardize any chance for women's equality. Clerics running religious courts based on the Koran could legitimize polygamy, honor killings, stonings and public beheadings of women charged with adultery, and divorce by "talaq" - where all a husband has to do is declare, "I divorce thee," three times.
Saddam Hussein repressed Islamic politics, so under him, Iraq was one of the most secular countries in the Middle East. It has become far more fundamentalist since the United States took over.
The back-to-burka trend has been widely reported throughout Shiite-dominated southern Iraq, and young women activists told The Los Angeles Times that their mothers had more freedom in the '60s. Najla Ubeidi, a lawyer in the Iraqi Women's League, agreed: "During the 1960s, there was a real belief in improving women's conditions. We could wear what we liked, go out when we liked, return home when we liked, and people would judge us by the way we behaved."
If W. liked exercising his mind as much as his body, he could see that his mission to modernize Muslim countries is backfiring on women. The most painless way for Muslim men to prove that they have not abandoned Arab culture and adopted Western ways is to tighten the burka.
To us, the "liberated" but repressive Iraq is a paradox. To the women, it's a prison.
Let those people who clamor for "democracy" in the United States take example: democracy means the majority can tell you what to do and when to do it. Never mistake a Constitutional republic for a democracy!
Radwaste at August 15, 2005 3:06 PM
Does the author really think that W cares about women's rights? As IF! He's working very hard to eliminate a woman's right to choose here in this country, and establish a xtian theocracy where subjugation of women is the norm!
People are disposable to this man - dead bodies are simply a way of keeping score in the war (hey, we're WINNING! WAY more Iraqis are dead! Hooray!). What a disgusting, sick, warped way of thinking.
This surprises people? Please. Give me a break.
Grrrrr.
Goddyss at August 16, 2005 12:42 PM
Well, which came first, the killing or the Americans?
There is no doubt in my mind that if someone else had knocked off Hussein, Iraq would be going nuts with no hope of establishing their own Constitution - and certain Americans would be wringing their hands about why Americans weren't in Iraq to stop the killing. They'd beg the UN to do something - which would bring Americans to Iraq, of course.
You'd still be faced with the loss of rights of Iraqi women; it would be much more likely than is the case now, as those rights are being considered today.
I wonder: who would say, "Iraq and the Middle East would be better off if we just left today - or, better yet, if we had left Hussein alone." Hm?
Radwaste at August 16, 2005 4:51 PM
However this turns out, Iraqi women will be better off under the Iraqi constitution than they were under Saddam and his boys. There's something about a visit with the official government rapist that can ruin your whole day, I imagine.
Richard Bennett at August 17, 2005 2:10 PM
Leave a comment