Worse Than the Taliban
Jon Boone
The Guardian
March 31, 2009
Afghanistan’s President Karzai reportedly signed a law last month that contradicts the country’s own constitutional provisions for equal rights for women. The new law, which was rapidly passed with little debate, and has not been published, allows for the Shia sect to have its own jurisprudence regarding family law, much to the dismay of some female parliamentarians. This law is also in conflict with international treaties. The new law comes out in time for the upcoming presidential elections in Afghanistan, which are expected to be a close battle this year, as Mr. Karzai has become increasingly unpopular. It is believed that the new legislation curries the votes of Shia Muslims, which comprise about 10% of the Afghani population, as well as the Hazara, who are also Shia, and a powerful minority in Afghanistan. The Hazara represent about 20% of Afghanistan’s population.
The articles of the new law are believed to include provisions that women are required to have their husbands’ permission in order to leave the house, seek work or education, or visit the doctor. Additionally, women are not allowed to refuse sex when demanded by their husbands. The law also gives custody of children to fathers and grandfathers. Some female parliamentarians argue that, although the law is not perfect, it is an improvement over earlier drafts of the law, which included a proposed marriage age of nine for girls (it was raised to 16) and provisions for temporary marriages. According to the ministry of justice, the law still has “technical problems” that must be resolved before it will be published.
The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) have decried the new law but the international community appears to be avoiding the issue, Presdident Obama included, hiding behind the shield of cultural sensitivity. I have to admit I was truly disappointed as I watched Mr. Obama’s response to a reporter’s question regarding the new law at a news conference following the NATO summit in Strasbourg, France this weekend. The president appeared to lose his customary poise and articulate fluidity, as he hesitated, stammered, and fidgeted with his notes. He referred to the law as “abhorrent” but he was clearly discomfited by the question as he requested that the reporter remember the reason for our being in Afghanistan and the culturally sensitive nature of the issue.
Cultural sensitivity is a very important issue, and I understand the delicacy of the situation, but it can also be a cowardly excuse not to address the basic human rights of women…again. Shouldn’t women, who comprise roughly half of humankind, have equal say in the direction that their culture is taking? Yet the abuse, rape, and false imprisonment of women and girls and the disregard for women’s basic rights continues to be systematically sanctioned by societies and governments, to greater or lesser degree. Sexism is the most insidious of injustices because it begins in the family and permeates every aspect of life. Men behave the way they do because they can—it is the world boys’ club sanctioned by religion and tradition.
The rights of women (followed by children and animals) are the last to be acknowledged, codified, and enforced in every society. Women suffer twice in an oppressive society: first at the hands of the law, then at the hands of their husbands and fathers. Human rights in general take a back seat to economics (especially oil). Remember Uganda, Rwanda, Darfour? What about China? The United States (reluctantly) had sanctions against South Africa during Apartheid, where half the population were oppressed—how is this different? (Kudos to us for taking action in Kosovo in the 1990s: they didn’t even have oil!) I’m not declaring war: I am asking for awareness and action on the part of the international community. No society will ever be whole, ours included, until every voice is heard, and has weight, and the rights of the most vulnerable are protected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The problem here Donna, lies in the culture and the religion of the people in Afghanistan. To prevent or prohibit this law, would ultimately be a strike at these people culture/religion of which they've practiced for thousands of years. The question would then become, should we impose our beliefs/practices on someone else? Should not everyone have the right to practice their chosen religion? The women of this culture would not speak out against this law for fear of reprecussions (I hope I spelled that right) from their husbands and the law. When I read, "Princess: A True Story of Life Behind the Veil in Saudi Arabia," I was amazed at the treatment of women in that culture, and outraged that women anywhere were being treated in this way. But many women in the book did not view this treatment as being harmful or negative. They were raised in this culture, and found no fault in the way they were treated versus the treatment of their husbands and sons. In this book, there were numerous accounts of how much better the sons were treated than the daughters, with the sons able to even beat or kill their sisters, if they dishonored them in any way. In one case, a daughter was banished from her house because she had pre-marital sex with a boy who was not of their culture. She, later, was killed by the men in her family. But her mother, her grandmother, and other women saw this as fitting punishment. So, I say all this to ask this question. If these women have been raised in this culture and don't see the way they are treated as wrong, what right do we have to force our society rules upon them? Should not these people have the right to live as they want? Isn't that what freedom of religion is about? But, on the other hand, when does freedom of religion become an issue? That would bring up the case of those women who live in those polygamous compounds. They too were raised in this culture and they don't know any other way to live. Should we also not protect them? The lines here are blurred and confusing. The debates would be carried on for centuries. Even in this debate, the situation was happening in the US. If these principles are happening in another country, do we have the right to step in and tell them how they should behave? Will that then give that country the right to step in and tell us how to behave? What if Afghanistan see our practices as unethical or immoral? Does that give them the right to enforce their laws upon us? I think the scale can push both ways. But what, if anything, can be done? We only can help those who want to be helped.
Well, yes, that is the very problem, Christina, and why the international community doesn't intervene. I see the situation as very similar to the Stockholm syndrome. These girls and women are raised to be subservient and to think that they deserve what is meted out to them. Other women support this behavior because it creates safety for them and deflects attention from behaviors they may be exhibiting that might draw punishment. I think women can be more sexist than men and often turn on each other for men's approval and greater power even in the US because they don't see their power as coming from within. Women keep each other down as well as men do. To take your argument further, if this is the case, what right did lawmakers have to intervene with the Mormon sect that was practicing polygamy and underage marriage - that was part of their culture, too - shouldn't we be practicing religious tolerance there, too? Also, what of those women who want to take their culture to a new, more modern direction? Those women who are hungry for education and a glimpse of the larger world? They are often the ones who are persecuted, punished, and even killed. What rights do they have as world citizens? Even if this is a cultural situation, it still goes against the constitution of Afghanistan and international treaties, which are supposed to elevate the situation of women in Afghanistan. I would be willing to bet that the majority of girls in Afghanistan would like a chance to live to their fullest potential - has anyone thought to ask them what kind of future they would like to fashion for themselves? I would be willing to wager that the vast majority of women and girls, if given the opportunity for life in a freer society, then asked where they would rather be, would choose to remain in the free society rather than go back to their previous, more restrictive lives. As I mentioned in my blog, sexism is so insidious because it is so woven into the fabric of family and culture and it is so difficult to extricate it from that context. But it is a human rights issue and deserves the attention of the international community. This issue must be addressed - the problem is how, and it is indeed a huge problem. I strongly recommend a wonderful memoir, The Bookseller of Kabul, which is written by Norwegian journalist Åsne Seierstad about her experience living with a progressive Afghan family. If this is an accurate portrayal, which the writer affirms it is, it can give some insight to the challenges of life for women in Afghanistan. It reads like a novel and it's well worth it.
Post a Comment