Afghan Women Protest Marital Rape Law
There are some things I don’t like about American culture, but stories like this one in the Times Online really make me glad to live here:
A group of Afghan women who braved an enraged mob yesterday to protest against an “abhorrent” new Afghan law had to be rescued by police from a hail of stones and abuse.
The protest by about 200 women, unprecedented in recent Afghanistan history, was directed at the Shia Family Law passed last month by the Afghan parliament which appears to legalise marital rape and child marriage.
The rally, staged by mostly young women with their faces exposed, was a highly inflammatory act of defiance in a country as conservative as Afghanistan. It provoked a furious reaction from local men and a rapidly expanding mob threatened to swamp the demonstrators as they tried to approach the Afghan parliament.
The Times Online article quotes supporters of the law:
Those in favour of the new law chanted “Down with the Christians. Down with the apostates.” At one stage both sides chanted “We want honour and dignity for women” — reflecting their starkly different interpretations of the new law.
“We think those who oppose this law in fact oppose the Koran,” said Nesa Naseri, a female student of Sharia Studies who took part in the women’s counter-demonstration.
“This law does not approve rape, it is rather about loyalty of wife to husband and husband to wife. Rape is what you can see in the West, where men don’t feel responsibility for their wives and leave them to go with several men.”
If “loyalty of the wife to husband” implies that she must have sex with him when he demands, I’m thinking the word ‘rape’ is appropriate. It might also have something to do with the statistic quoted in the Times Online article that 57% of all Afghan brides are under the age of 16. By the way, in the first line the word ‘abhorrent’ is in quotes because that was President Obama’s reaction to the bill. I’m with him.
New Development:
In an article today entitled “Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai vows to change Afghan marital rape law“:
KABUL, Afghanistan – President Hamid Karzai said Thursday that the controversial law permitting men to rape their wives will be changed.
…
The law has drawn international criticism, and Karzai’s comments came a day after several hundred protesters demonstrated against it. Critics say the law bars women from opting out of sex, effectively legalizing marital rape.
The measure applies to the 20% of Afghans who are Shiite Muslims. It was part of a massive piece of legislation aimed at bolstering the nation’s Shiite minority.
Jesse, the law only applies to the 15 percent of Afghans who are Shi’a Muslims number one. Two, do you know the details of that law, and what happens if a women refuses; is she raped or what? The reason I ask is that sometimes it’s best not to write about something when you really don’t know the complete details. Third, the law was passed last month, and there were no protest. It appears that some American groups got involved to organize the protest, so this is why there’s anti-American speech during the anti-protest.
Let’s be fair, the current Jewish Laws against an entire people (Palestinians) are no better, so why not write about what you do know?
BFBF
BFBF; you tout writing what one knows? try that yourself.
You wrote:
Let
You just set yourself up!
Jewish Law #1
The Law of Return:
grants preferential status to some non-Israeli Jews in immigration matters. In 1948, David Ben-Gurion met with religious Jewish leaders to establish a status quo that provides broad guidance on the role of religious institutions in Israeli life, and concessions made to religiously observant Jewish interests.
NOT SO GOOD FOR THE PALESTINIANS!
Jewish Law #2
Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty
* Section 2: There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person as such.
* Section 3: There shall be no violation of the property of a person.
* Section 4: All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and dignity.
* Section 5: There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise.
* Section 6:
* (a) All persons are free to leave Israel.
* (b) Every Israeli national has the right of entry into Israel from abroad.
* Section 7:
* (a) All persons have the right to privacy and to intimacy.
* (b) There shall be no entry into the private premises of a person who has not consented thereto.
* (c) No search shall be conducted on the private premises of a person, nor in the body or personal effects.
* (d) There shall be no violation of the confidentiality of conversation, or of the writings or records of a person.
NOT SO GOOD FOR THE PALESTINIANS!
Jewish Law #3
The Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law
The law allows the Government to claim the property of lands which are not in the possession of its owner as of 1 April 1952. Article 2 (a) states:
Property in respect of which the Minister certifies by certificate under his hand–
(1) that on the 6th Nisan, 5712 (1st April, 1952) it was not in the possession of its owners; and
(2) that within the period between the 5th Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948) and the 6th Nisan, 5712 (Ist April 1952) it was used or assigned for purposes of essential development, settlement or security; and
(3) that it is still required for any of these purposes
NOT SO GOOD FOR THE PALESTINIANS!
That’s just a couple of laws that are not so good and quite fucked up for the PALESTINIAN! Therefore In the word’s of Jesus Christ speaking to the fake Jews that stated they were never in bondage as a people (even while under the present Roman rule), I say to those converted European Jews in Palestine participating in murder,”OH YE HYPOCRITES!”
The last time I checked Missy, Israel was a Theocracy, and most of you Separation of Church and State people support them emotionally and with your tax dollars. OH YE HYPOCRITES!
European Racist sending Jewish Zionist immigrants from Europe, the U.S. and other parts of the world to Paliestine, establishing a totally Racist Israeli government against the ORIGINAL LAND OWNERS, for the sake of “Jewish” suffering, is in no way moral. The entire government stink!
So like I said before, don’t talk about something you know nothing about. Please anyone, show the so-called Afghan RAPE law in it’s entirety, instead of regirgitating sound bites.
BFBF
“Let
Actually, nevermind. This thread is about the Afghan women protest, and I don’t want to hijack the topic. I apologize.
Well you did ask! One Law does not allow CITIZENS to marry within the country if one is jewish and the other is not. That’s because Zionist israel is for Zionist israelis. We complain about abnormal marriage request rights in this country, and don’t look any deeper into israels laws. We talk about Islam, but the worlds true problem is a Zionist one!
BFBF
While I don’t support the law you describe, it’s not accurate to cite it as a Jewish law “against an entire (Palestians) people.” Its purpose is to promote the survival and culture of Judaism–not to repress Palestinians.
Israel is a THEOCRATIC nation, not democratic. You do know what a Theocracy is. If so Israel is not governed with Christianity or Islam, therfore it’s JEWISH Laws!
I just find it hypocritical for Humanist in the US to support a Theocratic nation abroad. Well atleast one Humanist Group does not.
BFBF
I’m pretty sure it says the exact same thing in the bible… that if a man wants to have sex with his wife, she should agree, and vice versa.
I think it’s supposed to keep couples from cheating.
that said, rape is not acceptable.
“that said, rape is not acceptable.” You won’t get any disagreement from me on that one.
Interestingly, here’s a passage from the Times Online article:
Can you imagine if the United States had a clause which stated that a religious person (man and woman) could not marry a non-religous person (man and woman). Hell, the israeli government said “what’s love got to do with it”, One religion one country!
BFBF
Yeah I can imagine it. In the state constitutions of some southern states it is forbidden for blacks and whites to marry. These provisions were nullified by the 1967 US Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia.
That’s my point! Worry about this country and state out of others!
Like Israel???
William,
Afghanistan has not shaped our foriegn policy for decades or put us in harms way because of A “HYPOCRITICAL ALLIANCE” like I with ZIONIST Israel! Zionist Israel is the greatest problem to world peace!
It would seem to me that letting Israel fight its own battles would be the way to go. But you want the US to involve itself in the matter by siding with the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim allies. I don’t really see the difference?
Israel is, strictly speaking, not a theocracy as you claim but does have theocratic aspects. A Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state’s supreme civil ruler,or in a broader sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[3] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy)
Israel is not lead by rabbis but rather secular leaders. However since Israel fails to separate church and state in a significant way and this mixture of church and state is the source of its man abuses.
Other examples of theocratic governments are: Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, Saudi Arabia, The Vatican and Tibet prior to its invasion by China. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy).
Groups like Hamas and Hezzbollah want to install an Islamic Republic, modeled after Iran, in Palestine. what I don’t understand is why you want the US to stop supporting one theocratic-ish government (Israel) to support the establishment of the theocratic-ish government of Hamas or Hezzbollah. Why not just get out all togther and leave them both to their own devices?