Iraqi women are still fighting for their freedom which was seized from them in the current constitution.
They launched their own Radio Station called Al Mahaba.
‘‘We want to affirm women’s rights,” said Ruwaida Kamal, 30, a producer at the station. ‘‘We’re in a dangerous period. There are many movements, many groups that aren’t taking women’s rights seriously. Women are being marginalized.”
Nothing new in this because Iraqi women are really active and asking for their rights seriously but the news is American women are asking Iraqi women for freedom inspiration, you can see that clergies are clergies doesn’t matter if it was in Iraq or the USA.
Bush’s call for Iraqi freedom should apply to U.S. women.
I can’t be the only American slack-jawed over the mind-numbing hypocrisy of the Bush administration when it comes to its treatment of Iraqi and U.S. women. The president denies the new Iraqi constitution will force women to adhere to the most repressive interpretation of Islamic law. At the same time, he supports the most repressive interpretation of Christian dogma and expects American women to adhere.
An Iraqi leader said women and families must be able to make their own choices and not have “other people’s choices” forced on them. This is a laudable goal, and Americans have paid for it in blood and treasure.
But while we are dragging Iraqis into the 21st century, we are forcing Americans back into the Dark Ages by allowing “other people’s choices” to become law. If the majority of Americans think birth control, including the morning-after pill, should be readily available, why isn’t it? If the majority wants to support stem cell research, why can’t they? If the majority understands the difference between scientific inquiry and faith-based wishful thinking, why are we allowing religious extremists to undermine our educational system?
The General Assembly will soon meet in special session to pass more laws making it almost impossible for women to decide for themselves whether to continue a pregnancy. These mean-spirited restrictions on women’s reproductive rights tell us more about the lawmakers than about democracy. I hope Iraqi women are strong and vocal enough to demand their rights. Maybe someday they will inspire us.
Pingback: Alive in Baghdad
I agree with this writer, and it’s bad; but it’s not hypocracy on Bush’s part, it is perfectly consistent. Bush is overly religious at home (IMO), and the very same attitudes that lead to his over-religiousness here also lead to him being less sensitive than he should be about Islamist attempts to take Iraqi women back to the dark ages. We can agree on that. If you want to talk hypocracy though, talk about the hypocracy of people who say America should not “impose American” or impose “western” or “relativistic” ideas on the Iraqi constitution, and yet who in the same breath criticise this trend on women’s rights in Iraq. If the people the Iraqis elected want to do this, who are we (by Jon’s logic) to say our ideas are better? Who died and made America the arbiter of how to interpret Islam? Is America expected to interfere more? If we did, would we get credit for that, or would we be accused of meddling? Be hones, wouldn’t the Shia conservatives use America’s very meddling as an excuse to undermine support for those seeking a more moderate version of Islam and rights for women? By that logic, isn’t doing nothing pretty much the only and best choice America has?
25% of the delegates ARE required to be female right? There’s no law like that in the US. I’ll be surprised if that is not maintained in the new Iraqi elections.
Meanwhile, the Coalition’s removal of Saddam HAVE guaranteed that 100% have got/will have the chance to vote and have those votes mean something. Right? Right, LB?
I agree with CMAR II, but now there is little else that can be done without undermining the moderates. And might I add, that this 25% rule (if that is the exact number) was added because of American and Kurdish pressure — greatly against the opposition of many Iraqis, particularly Shias, who accused the US of meddling in the process.
This of course was all done simply so that the women of Iraq would be less angry about America stealing Iraq’s oil, right Michael?
I’m afraid anger about the USA being in Iraq for the oil isn’t going to go away Ken. Even the Iraqi oil workers have taken industrial action over concerns that the oil revenue is finishing up in American hands. This Constitution will not change that.
Michael: “Even the Iraqi oil workers have taken industrial action”
Wow, even the fact that they are now legally capable of such a thing — quite amazing. Basically, we have set up a system whereby we allow ourselves to be sued for allegedly stealing oil. Wow, I can certainly see how that system furthers our ultimate goal of stealing oil.
BTW, is there a thirty page article about that that you could post in full here please? If you decide to do so, could you please put the whole thing in bold font? That would make me happy.
Do you actually have any knowledge that oil workers were unable to strike before the illegal invasion?
One thing is for sure, any Iraqi involved in demonstrations in Iraq are now shot, whilst demonstrations were allowed pre-illegal invasion
No matter what I put down, you’ll say it’s fabricated. I’ll no longer play that game with you. How about you answer the substance of what was said above?
we have set up a system whereby we allow ourselves to be sued for allegedly stealing oil.
You have set up a system where production is not limited by OPEC oil quotas, it’s totally controlled by American companies who will have the right, if required, to sell at below market prices to the US.
The mountain of crap grows, and all we can do is step back and shake our heads in awe…
Earth to mensa mikey:
Some rough numbers comparing opec/non-opec production volumes (countries >2MBPD, 2004).
OPEC: 25.1
Non-OPEC: 33.81
Those numbers don’t include the approximately 2MBPD Iraqi production.
Even if you added Iraq to opec, the non-opec folks would still be greater.
The US did not create this system.
“Mikey”
have you ever put a pickle in it?
Earth to Charlie , Iraq could in theory produce 50% of the USA’s requirements. That is what the NewWorldNazis hoped for.
Before we get side-tracked into the utterly different question question of American women by our ever-alert anti-American racist blog owner, let’s look at one angle from which a muslim correspondent of The Times of India views the difficulties of women under Islam:
“The rich, middle-aged Arabs increasingly stalk the deprived streets of Hyderabad like medieval monarchs would stalk their harems in days that we wrongly think are history. These Viagra enabled Arabs are perpetrating a blatant crime under the veneer of nikaah, the Islamic rules of marriage. Misusing the sanctioned provision which allows a Muslim man to have four wives at a time, many old Arabs are not just marrying minors in Hyderabad, but marrying more than one minor in a single sitting.” this extract from an article by Mohammed Wajihuddin
Times of India | September 9, 2005 at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19385
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19385
Not quite the same quandary as non-muslim US women find themselves in…
Damn… Just Damn…
It’s no wonder Ladybird lives in Amsterdam and Nadia lives in Sweden.
Ken– “by Jon’s logic”
Actually, I plan on throwing my support behind Senator Santorum’s soon-to-come “Barefoot and Pregnant” bill.
Michael– Haven’t you learned what the Iranians have figured out already? Americans won’t give you any respect unless you have nuclear armaments. Better start researching now.
That’s a great theory.
Really, really great.
Whereas most reasonable people would consider evidence and then draw a conclusion, Mike will draw a conclusion and then cherry pick parsed facts and plain lies to act as surrogate evidence.
“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’”
–Abraham Lincoln
Note to Suicide Bombers–
Please take the above quote by Abraham Lincoln into account when you are picking targets to blow up in the US please. Please try to avoid making any casualties of people who’s only crime is that they are stupid.
Pingback: Bed Denim Sofa
Keep up the great work on your blog. Best wishes WaltDe
Pingback: This Fucking War: September 2005