Iraq, the Islamist model?

[solarbird]

The latest draft of the Iraqi constitution, which subordinates the rights of women to Islamic law, is not making big news. This is disgraceful. Make no mistake: imposing Islamic law on women in Iraq would be a monumental failure. It would be a nightmare scenario. President Bush must be made aware that he will be held accountable if this disaster makes it through to final approval.

Improving the rights of 40% (men in Iraq) of the population does not make up for making the plight of 60% (women in Iraq) worse. This is putting women into religious bondage, in no uncertain terms, and this is not better. It is a huge step back, even for Iraq.

And yet, I've found a few people already trying to say it's okay. That it's an improvement, or at least, a step back worth taking. Their vile calculus declares women to be less than 2/3rds of the value of a man. It declares that the only people who count, the only people who are people, are male.

In race, we call this kind of thing an apartheid state. In Iraq, we cannot let it be called the future. But if the worst happens, and this is what we get, then we must hold those who put these events in motion responsible. Such a catastrophe, such a betrayal, cannot go unpunished. Impeachment would be the only acceptable answer.

In the meantime, if anyone has any firm data on what, if anything, can be done to help Iraqi women and secular groups fight this, please post it as a reply.

Here are a few more stories on the new Constitutional draft:

Iraq The Model is a blog out of Baghdad. He talks about this and is opposed to it, and mentions street protests that I haven't heard much about otherwise. The local fundamentalists have sent out their token delegation of self-hatred too, apparently, getting a few women in full-body all-black burkas out nearby to counter-protest.

JURIST Newsburst is put out by the University of Pittsburgh's School of Law; they're taking it very seriously, describing it as "harsh on women's rights." Harsh is a reasonable word; brutal might be another.

ChristianIraq.com isn't a blog I know anything about, but talks about one of the protests. They say they're native Iraqi ChaldoAssyrian Christians.

The Washington Times mentions the situation, but doesn't give it a lot of space. Bastards. There is much more coverage of this overseas than here, as any Google News search will reveal quickly.

Here's the New York Times story, for whatever that's worth. The LA Times story is similar.

al Mendhar, an Iraqi press which includes English translations of their stories, describes calls for representation in "constitutional symposiums and conferences" to be "additional rights" beyond equality, but has interesting details if you can get through the translation issues.

Comments

[clauclauclaudia]

I'm anti-Bush. I'm also opposed to the status of women being enshrined as in the current draft of the constitution.

But isn't the constitutional convention composed of Iraqis? I don't think Bush has any official sway over the process. There's no Paul Bremer now. Which is, in fact, as it should be.

[solarbird]

It's not the representation proportion. It's the imposition of Sharia in law, the part where it says women have equal rights except where Islamic religious law says otherwise.

And yes, the constitutional convention is composed of Iraqis, as it should be, and if that's what they write, we have to say "okay!" - and leave. And that will have been a complete disaster result for this war.

And those who led us into that war should take the appropriate punishment for catastrophic incompetence.

Americans will have some influence. I suspect that President Bush will be reluctant to use it. That's why he needs to know that he doesn't really have any option to let this just drift by. The administration at least has to try.

[clauclauclaudia]

Right. I didn't say this was about the women in the constitutional convention. I meant that this question is *up to* the constitutional convention, which is not under Bush's authority.

So, sure, impeach him, but not for *this*.

[solarbird]

Well, if he instigated this war, and this war led to, well, this, then this is his spectacular gamble, and if - IF - this is what that gamble leads to, why shouldn't he be held accountable?