Good thing we're fighting and dying for freedom

[Kelly the Dog]

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 19 - A working draft of Iraq's new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women's rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.

 

The document's writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.

 

The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not "violate Shariah," or Koranic law.

 

The Americans and secular Iraqis banished such explicit references to religious law from the interim constitution adopted early last year.

 

The draft chapter, circulated discreetly in recent days, has ignited outrage among women's groups, which held a protest on Tuesday morning in downtown Baghdad at the square where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by American marines in April 2003.

 

One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family's sect or religion.

 

Under that measure, Shiite women in Iraq, no matter what their age, generally could not marry without their families' permission. Under some interpretations of Shariah, men could attain a divorce simply by stating their intention three times in their wives' presence.

 

Article 14 would replace a body of Iraqi law that has for decades been considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East in protecting the rights of women, giving them the freedom to choose a husband and requiring divorce cases to be decided by a judge.

 

If adopted, the shift away from the more secular and egalitarian provisions of the interim constitution would be a major victory for Shiite clerics and religious politicians, who chafed at the Americans' insistence that Islam be designated in the interim constitution as just "a source" of legislation. Several writers of the new constitution say they intend, at the very least, to designate Islam as "a main source" of legislation.

 

 

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/20/internationa...artner=homepage

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/20/internationa...artner=homepage

386060[/snapback]

 

Of course, we can always just dictate that they can't practice Koranic law when it violates the freedoms of others...except that then we're denying them freedom of religion.

 

So which freedoms do you want to take away from them?

[RkFast]

Over 200 years, WE havent figured out OUR society.....our Consititution, how to handle the rights of women and minorities. But we expect THEM to figure out THEIRS in a few short months?

[Kelly the Dog]

Over 200 years, WE havent figured out OUR society.....our Consititution, how to handle the rights of women and minorities. But we expect THEM to figure out THEIRS in a few short months?

386111[/snapback]

No, the reason we were able to get the general populace behind this war was because the general populace was told and convinced that Saddam was a tyrant and we were going to spread democracy. The general idiots thought that meant freedoms like we have. One of my main reasons for being against this war in the first place, and I said it several times here (along with others) was that after we gave them all their freedoms they would likely vote to have Islamic law or vote in a guy we hated that was against us. And if the general idiots were told or knew that, they wouldn't have been behind it in the first place.

[RkFast]

No, the reason we were able to get the general populace behind this war was because the general populace was told and convinced that Saddam was a tyrant and we were going to spread democracy. The general idiots thought that meant freedoms like we have. One of my main reasons for being against this war in the first place, and I said it several times here (along with others) was that after we gave them all their freedoms they would likely vote to have Islamic law or vote in a guy we hated that was against us. And if the general idiots were told or knew that, they wouldn't have been behind it in the first place.

386128[/snapback]

 

Thats kind of absolute, dont you think? Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I doubt most got the impression that what would be set up in Iraq would be a carbon copy of what we have here. I think most, including myself, expected the new Iraq to have a good part of their Constitution based on Islamic Law. If thats the case and you take this debate a step farther, than one can argue that what they are getting is indeed very close to what we have, a Consititution written with reference to and guidance from the religious beliefs of the majority.

[Reuben Gant]

What are good arguments for creating a democracy in Iraq?

And why is this in our self interest? Given that they could

democratically choose what is not in our nations best interest?

(I am not just being silly here, I am just wondering what are the

good arguments? I am not trying to set anyone up.)

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What are good arguments for creating a democracy in Iraq?

And why is this in our self interest? Given that they could

democratically choose what is not in our nations best interest?

(I am not just being silly here, I am just wondering what are the

good arguments? I am not trying to set anyone up.)

386313[/snapback]

 

Personally, I think the right to self-determination is a good reason just on it's own; I don't believe that any people should be forced to live by the whim of another.

 

Of course, therein lies the paradox: if, in enforcing any Iraqi right to self-determination, we dicatate that they may not follow the laws they choose to make (e.g. Islam-based laws that limit individual rights to self-determination), we are in fact NOT allowing that right to self-determination ourselves. In effect, we'd be saying "You have only that freedom which we allow you to have"...which is frankly bull sh--.

 

So ultimately, being somewhat of an idealist...I say if they want to choose laws limiting individual freedom, we have little choice but to let them. Reasons being not only the conundrum I mention above and my desire NOT to see us limiting other nations' definition of rights, but also the belief that such societal change that we'd WANT to see in Iraq and the Islamic world has to develop from within, and would ultimately be futile if forced on them from without. In other words, even trying to enforce some US vision of what "freedom" in Iraq should be is doomed to fail at best. We've provided them an opportunity to figure things out for themselves...frequently, that's the most you can do.

 

(And yes, I know a bunch of people are going to chime in saying I've ignored the GWOT issues concerning Iraq, and that we can't risk Iraqi self-determination ultimately booting us out of that strategically important location. Yes, I did ignore that. Pointedly. Because if the case is that we have to dictate to the Iraqis what there laws must be in order to maintain a strategic presence, the Iraqi Constitution won't be worth even a roll of toilet paper anyway, and Iraqi self-determination will be subjugated to the whim of the American military effort...and the argument in this thread is then moot anyway.)

[boomerjamhead]

I am troubled by this article as I do not see any wording in it pertaining to a woman's right to choose and the rights of gays to marry. When are they going to address the issues that really matter to Americans?

 

But in all seriousness:

 

One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family's sect or religion.

 

Amibguous as this sentence may seem, I interpret it to infer religious divergence.

[stuckincincy]

No, the reason we were able to get the general populace behind this war was because the general populace was told and convinced that Saddam was a tyrant and we were going to spread democracy. The general idiots thought that meant freedoms like we have. One of my main reasons for being against this war in the first place, and I said it several times here (along with others) was that after we gave them all their freedoms they would likely vote to have Islamic law or vote in a guy we hated that was against us. And if the general idiots were told or knew that, they wouldn't have been behind it in the first place.

386128[/snapback]

 

The general idiots? Wow, you are *quite* the eliteist...

[Kelly the Dog]

But in all seriousness:

Amibguous as this sentence may seem, I interpret it to infer religious divergence.

386340[/snapback]

It certainly ain't "All men are created equal" or "everyone has equal rights under the law".

[Kelly the Dog]

The general idiots? Wow, you are *quite* the eliteist...

386345[/snapback]

There may be one or two exceptions, but I would call the general populace who thought that Iraq would have a democracy like we have and all of our freedoms and elect a government that looks like ours and is friendly to us and gives women's rights and separates mosque and state "general idiots" yes. Do you take umbrage?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Do you take umbrage? 

386355[/snapback]

 

Of course he does. What general idiot wouldn't?

 

 

Cincy, I'm the elitist here. KTFABD's just an elitist wanna-be.

[blzrul]

There may be one or two exceptions, but I would call the general populace who thought that Iraq would have a democracy like we have and all of our freedoms and elect a government that looks like ours and is friendly to us and gives women's rights and separates mosque and state "general idiots" yes. Do you take umbrage? 

386355[/snapback]

You give people too much credit. Most didn't think it out that far, including Fearless Leader. It was all about kicking Saddam's ass. That's the kind of sound bite that polarizes them.

[boomerjamhead]

It certainly ain't "All men are created equal" or "everyone has equal rights under the law". 

386347[/snapback]

 

You mean "all white men are created equally"?

 

Just kidding you elitist as I agree, they have some more work to do. But first they need to quit assassinating the guys trying to hammer this thing out.

[boomerjamhead]

You give people too much credit.  Most didn't think it out that far, including Fearless Leader.  It was all about kicking Saddam's ass.  That's the kind of sound bite that polarizes them.

386358[/snapback]

 

I hear the sounds of a skill saw in very close proximity to my ear every time I read one of your posts.

[blzrul]

I hear the sounds of a skill saw in very close proximity to my ear  every time I read one of your posts.

386362[/snapback]

Then don't read them. Duh.

[stuckincincy]

There may be one or two exceptions, but I would call the general populace who thought that Iraq would have a democracy like we have and all of our freedoms and elect a government that looks like ours and is friendly to us and gives women's rights and separates mosque and state "general idiots" yes. Do you take umbrage? 

386355[/snapback]

 

Indeed I do. You are not annointed to determine what is or is not orthodox in politics or in other's opinions or motivations, or to assume you speak for the citizenry. You can have your own opinion; what do ya gain by impunging that of others - evidently en masse?

 

I hope you don't use such terms because some citizens dissent from your thoughts.

Hubris can sneak up on the best of us...it's terribly addictive.

 

Kelly, have a bit of trust in me and the other idiots. We've muddled through, riddled with faults, but our Nation is not a disaster.

 

I know we remain friends, right?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Then don't read them. Duh.

386365[/snapback]

 

I'm sure he tries to avoid them...but the noise of a skill saw really carries...

[stuckincincy]

Of course he does.  What general idiot wouldn't? 

Cincy, I'm the elitist here.  KTFABD's just an elitist wanna-be.

386356[/snapback]

 

Can you ship me a marble bust of yourself for my drawing room? If they are currently out of stock, I'll understand...

[RkFast]

I'm sure he tries to avoid them...but the noise of a skill saw really carries...

386425[/snapback]

 

Not if youre in a room full of tools.