|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject: 'Worse than the Taliban' - new law rolls back rights 4 women |
 |
|
Remember Laura Bush and Cherie Blair speaking out against abuses of Afghani women, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan? Trying to persuade the voters of yet another good reason to go into Afghanistan - to free the women! Bollocks Bollocks Bollocks I thought at the time, and had several heated debates with friends/aquaintances/idiots I knew who were really sold on the 'we're going to help the wimmins!' rationale for invading Afghanistan. For several years prior to 911 I had followed the fortunes of a very brave resistance group called RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan), and I was interested to see what they thought of that particular rationale, seeing as they had fought for many years to improve the rights of Afghan women. So I sought out their view on it, and they too were saying "Bollocks Bollocks Bollocks - invading us is not going to help women, and will likely make our lives even worse etc - it just won't work so please don't come here..." Then after the invasion, Kabul was held up as a showcase to demonstrate how the invasion had improved the lot of women. The fact that outside of Kabul things were the same as ever or even worse than before was quietly ignored. The fact that Afghan women had been astonished that the allied warlords were considered any better (with regard to women's rights) than the Taliban was also ignored.
And today I happen across this:
'Worse than the Taliban' - new law rolls back rights for Afghan women
| Quote: |
Hamid Karzai has been accused of trying to win votes in Afghanistan's presidential election by backing a law the UN says legalises rape within marriage and bans wives from stepping outside their homes without their husbands' permission.
The Afghan president signed the law earlier this month, despite condemnation by human rights activists and some MPs that it flouts the constitution's equal rights provisions.
The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex.
A briefing document prepared by the United Nations Development Fund for Women also warns that the law grants custody of children to fathers and grandfathers only.
Senator Humaira Namati, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament, said the law was "worse than during the Taliban". "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam," she said.
The Afghan constitution allows for Shias, who are thought to represent about 10% of the population, to have a separate family law based on traditional Shia jurisprudence. But the constitution and various international treaties signed by Afghanistan guarantee equal rights for women.
Shinkai Zahine Karokhail, like other female parliamentarians, complained that after an initial deal the law was passed with unprecedented speed and limited debate. "They wanted to pass it almost like a secret negotiation," she said. "There were lots of things that we wanted to change, but they didn't want to discuss it because Karzai wants to please the Shia before the election."
Although the ministry of justice confirmed the bill was signed by Karzai at some point this month, there is confusion about the full contents of the final law, which human rights activists have struggled to obtain a copy of. The justice ministry said the law would not be published until various "technical problems" had been ironed out.
After seven years leading Afghanistan, Karzai is increasingly unpopular at home and abroad and the presidential election in August is expected to be extremely closely fought. A western diplomat said the law represented a "big tick in the box" for the powerful council of Shia clerics.
Leaders of the Hazara minority, which is regarded as the most important bloc of swing voters in the election, also demanded the new law.
etc
|
And some of you wonder why I think conservatives who harp on about women's rights in places like Afghanistan are absolute wankers. The fact is, when women (like the members of RAWA in the late 90s - and possibly before) were crying out for help, conservatives didn't give a shyte. It didn't figure on their radar. Not when it wasn't politcally expedient. Then suddenly the conservatives discovered a great concern of compassion for the ladies of Afghanistan. And then the bringers of enlightenment and women's emancipation stormed their way into the place and did...er....nothing much at all. It was all bollocks - though I would have been delighted if they'd have proved me wrong.
Will there be an outcry about this new law in the mainstream press? I hope so. But I seriously doubt it. After all, now we're looking for excuses to get out, not get in.
Conservatives mouthing off about women's rights are all words but absolutely no action. Just wankers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not sure if you're using the word conservative correctly. But anyways, us conservatives don't go around posting nonsense about nose-skin and niqabs. But I'm one of those conservatives who didn't want to help them then or now, didn't want to invade, didn't want to spread democracy and didn't want to occupy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Not sure if you're using the word conservative correctly. But anyways, us conservatives don't go around posting nonsense about nose-skin and niqabs. But I'm one of those conservatives who didn't want to help them then or now, didn't want to invade, didn't want to spread democracy and didn't want to occupy. |
I didn't have you in mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| By the way - you (and your girlfriend and a few others) never understood my intentions on posting that thread. You are another of these posters too reliant on cartoonish stereotypes, assumptions and prejudices when it comes to understanding anothers motivations/POV. One reason I don't often bother to get into debates with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm crying about it.
| Quote: |
| You are another of these posters too reliant on cartoonish stereotypes, assumptions and prejudices when it comes to understanding anothers motivations/POV. |
Though, given your op, what you just wrote is hypocritical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
I'm crying about it.
| Quote: |
| You are another of these posters too reliant on cartoonish stereotypes, assumptions and prejudices when it comes to understanding anothers motivations/POV. |
|
As mises you are slightly more tolerable than your younger version. Perhaps you have matured now you've entered your 4th decade?
| mises wrote: |
| Though, given your op, what you just wrote is hypocritical. |
Oh yes indeed. I had someone in mind.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please. I'm in my twenties.
But I've got to pull a big bird and remove myself from this. Excel followed me home today and I haven't the time. Mcgarret only stops by once a week or so, so you might not get the satisfaction you're looking for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Please. I'm in my twenties. |
As I recall, you are teetering on 30. On your 30th birthday, you'll enter your 4th decade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
a law the UN says legalises rape within marriage and bans wives from stepping outside their homes without their husbands' permission
The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex |
Okay, the Guardian . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
a law the UN says legalises rape within marriage and bans wives from stepping outside their homes without their husbands' permission
The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex |
Okay, the Guardian . . . |
In other words...? Spit it out, lad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
a law the UN says legalises rape within marriage and bans wives from stepping outside their homes without their husbands' permission
The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex |
Okay, the Guardian . . . |
In other words...? Spit it out, lad. |
No, no. Don't let my skepticism drown out your axe grinding.
Please carry on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| But I've got to pull a big bird and remove myself from this. Excel followed me home today and I haven't the time. |
From the Urban Dictionary:
To 'pull a big bird' is generally done in response to demanding and impatient web warriors insisting that one attend to an obscure political forum as though it were far more important than ones real life duties. An example of this might be: hounding a poster from thread to thread, posting petulant messages demanding to know why that poster has not yet taken the time away from her small children (or perhaps a nearly due essay) in order to attempt a response to a 10 point assignment you'd set for her only the day before. This kind of behaviour might inspire a 'big bird spectacular.'
But since nobody has demanded anything from you, like angrily scolded you for not posting on their most recent thread, or decried the fact that you have not bothered to search through old archives to compliment a news story you've just seen during a short glimpse of an online paper, or made any other unreasonable demands, you really have no grounds for pulling any big birds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: 'Worse than the Taliban' - new law rolls back rights 4 w |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
And some of you wonder why I think conservatives who harp on about women's rights in places like Afghanistan are absolute wankers. The fact is, when women (like the members of RAWA in the late 90s - and possibly before) were crying out for help, conservatives didn't give a shyte. It didn't figure on their radar. Not when it wasn't politcally expedient. Then suddenly the conservatives discovered a great concern of compassion for the ladies of Afghanistan... . |
The main reason that Afghanistan was invaded was NOT because of women's rights. It was invaded because it harbored terrorists which were involved in 9/11. Women's rights were never a main issue, then or now.
And I don't see anything in the article that says these "conservatives" approve of this law or bought it about.
And consider this point...during almost of Karzid's time in power, conservatives were in power in Washington, yet he never tried to pull something like this. Yet in a few weeks after a "liberal" gets in, he comes up with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: 'Worse than the Taliban' - new law rolls back rights 4 w |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
And some of you wonder why I think conservatives who harp on about women's rights in places like Afghanistan are absolute wankers. The fact is, when women (like the members of RAWA in the late 90s - and possibly before) were crying out for help, conservatives didn't give a shyte. It didn't figure on their radar. Not when it wasn't politcally expedient. Then suddenly the conservatives discovered a great concern of compassion for the ladies of Afghanistan... . |
The main reason that Afghanistan was invaded was NOT because of women's rights. It was invaded because it harbored terrorists which were involved in 9/11. Women's rights were never a main issue, then or now.
And I don't see anything in the article that says these "conservatives" approve of this law or bought it about. |
No, the invasion did not take place because of women's rights. That would be (and was at the time) quite laughable (in a sad kind of way). It was however deliberately and consciously pushed as yet another 'good' reason for the public to support the war. People opposing the war at that time were not infrequently accused (by conservatives) of not caring enough about women's rights.
As for the reason you give for the war - since all the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia or Egypt, and since the attack was planned from Europe (particularly Germany) why did Afghanistan have such importance? But that's for another thread another day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:24 pm Post subject: Re: 'Worse than the Taliban' - new law rolls back rights 4 w |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
[
As for the reason you give for the war - since all the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia or Egypt, and since the attack was planned from Europe (particularly Germany) why did Afghanistan have such importance? But that's for another thread another day. |
Not at all. Afghanistan was attacked because the masterminds who funded the terrorists were there. It doesn't matter what nationality a terrorist is (I've never understood people who harp on that) it matters where their group is located currently. This happened to be in Afghanistan. And the Taliban who were then in power were given the choice to avoid war by handing them over. They choose war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
