21 Comments

1. chuck:

Looks to me like the Times writer doesn’t know the difference between Iran and Iraq. Or perhaps the editors fell down on this one. Rather odd, anyway.

Feb 22, 2005 - 11:18 am 2. Maggie:

I thought I heard a report that something like 30% of the seats in the new Governing Council was being reserved for women….I doubt they are going to give away rights that they had during Saddam’s regime….

They’ve come a long way baby, and plan to keep on going!

Feb 22, 2005 - 11:38 am 3. Matt Evans:

While I don’t discount the fact that Sistani and his political cronies could always bail on the deal, he seemed credible several weeks ago when he said his party wanted a secular government. Assuming that secular also means “non-sharia”, I sincerely doubt the new PM will or could continue espousing those views in the new government.

Trust but verify.

Feb 22, 2005 - 11:42 am 4. Knucklehead:

Well, if Canada is willing to consider sharia for family and other civil law, why is it suprising that Iraq would?

Feb 22, 2005 - 11:48 am 5. PeterArgus:

Good point Maggie.

Also is this the same fellow who told the world the US and allies would have to leave Iraq immediately but has now backtracked and emphatically argues for keeping our troops there until peace is secured and/or Iraq security can handle the situation?

It seems to be a Western bias on our part to take statements by Arab leaders or “the street” at face value. I don’t think it works that way over there.

Feb 22, 2005 - 11:49 am 6. Kyda Sylvester:

Last fall at the Spirit of America meet & greet for Omar and Mohammed in Palo Alto, during the Q&A after their formal presentation, I asked what steps would be taken to guarentee equal rights for minority religions and women. Mohammed gave a long and generally satisfactory answer regarding minority religions but rather neatly sidestepped the issue of women’s rights. So, I prompted again, “And women?”. Mohammed smiled and offered (enigmatically) that women comprise over 50% of Iraq’s population. Not exactly an inspiring response, but I did not press further. Did this come up at all at your place, Roger?

(My husband wanted to know if I asked about Israel. I told him that there’s a certain protocol attached to this kind of event and I perhaps was pushing it enough without bringing in the Jews, but maybe I just didn’t want to hear the answer.)

Feb 22, 2005 - 11:59 am 7. Morgan:

Here is a nice piece on the Iraqi Constitution. A discussion of shari’a law, and how it might be worked into the constitution, starts on page 7.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/PO10.brown.final.pdf

Feb 22, 2005 - 12:04 pm 8. Knucklehead:

Morgan,

Thanks for the link! The real game to watch is how the courts get packed, heh.

Feb 22, 2005 - 12:25 pm 9. Morgan:

Knucklehead:

That’s what I took away from it, as well as a modest degree of confidence that the judges will be secular in outlook. I’ll have to go back and give it a good read-through sometime.

Feb 22, 2005 - 12:34 pm 10. PeterArgus:

Morgan:

ditto Knucks thanks.

Here’s one interesting bit in the Carnegie study about the possibility of Iran

as a model (I added bold emphasis):

There are some models for a more ambitious interpretation of such provisions

available in neighboring Iran. One is the current Iranian constitutional order,

which gives religious authorities a supervisory role over the political process.

But all of Iraq’s Shi’i parties – even those with a religious bent – have disavowed

this model. Another possible system is one adopted in theory in pre-revolutionary

Iran but never fully implemented until after the Islamic revolution: appointing

a body of religious authorities to review legislation passed by parliament.

There is little evidence to date of Iraqi Shi’i interest even in this more

modest approach. Indeed, the Shi’i leadership has been extremely effective

in getting its way by mobilizing its supporters rather than enshrining its

influence in constitutional terms.

I think the authors of the paper are on to something when they say in reference

to "personal status law" (can someone translate this I have a guess

what this is – marital rights maybe – but not sure) that the laws will be fought

out in the legislature. Turkey is probably a good example of this in their recent

legislative referendum on severe penalites for adultery (voted down). You know

its kind of funny to think about this in the current context of Iraq but it

would have been better for our country if we had the abortion debate in our

legislature rather than through a divining of hidden meaning in the constitution.

Feb 22, 2005 - 12:54 pm 11. Byron00:

“Islam makes a woman the responsibility of her father until she marries,” he said, “and then she is the responsibility of her husband.”

Only the explicit religious sanction makes that different from standard issue Latin American machismo. The quote above, minus the reference to Islam, could have come from Guatemala and many other places.

But, as in Latin America, there is likely to be a large and constantly increasing amount of slippage between this “ideal” and everyday practice. The combination of political rights for women and economic development puts a lot of pressure on traditional norms, and everywhere eventually overcomes them.

Feb 22, 2005 - 1:20 pm 12. Terrye:

It was the 20th century before women could vote in federal elections in the US. The Muslim culture is conservative in terms of traditional roles of women and men.

But there is a huge difference between a paternalistic society that allows women the right to political representation and the Taliban which denies them any rights at all.

Feb 22, 2005 - 1:40 pm 13. Joe Schmoe:

Iraq is 97% Muslim and has a 50% literacy rate. Its closets neighbors include Iran and Saudi Arabia.

We can’t reasonably expect the Iraqis to share our views on women’s liberation right away. The average Iraqis is probaly incredibly conservative and, frankly, sexist by our standards. It will take a while for them to get used to the idea of the modern age.

This undoubtedly also includes many Iraqi women. While they presumably don’t want to be second-class citizens, I bet a lot of them also regard Western women as “pushy” and “unfeminine.” They want their daughters to dress and behave modestly, and are disgusted the decadence of Western popular culture. Heck, I have only boys and I too am disgusted by this. I wouldn’t want my boys to date some of the teenage hootchies I see at the mall.

These Iraqi women are devoutly religious and would never dream of running for office. Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Condi Rice might seem like nice people, but they would never in a million years consider following in their footsteps. Their primary interest is their family.

In this environment, it is not surprising to see Iraqi politicans making statementst that we Americans regard as sexist and even reactionary.

But it’s not a problem. Why?

Because if Iraqis hold regular elections, women’s rights will be protected. Regular elections are the key to everything.

We will insist on universal women’s sufferage. And while a little Islamic inheritance law is fine, we won’t permit Iraq to become too theorcatic.

And if the women can vote, they can protect themselves from oppression.

Feb 22, 2005 - 1:44 pm 14. dougf:

One small introductory observation —– LA Times

That said,the time(if ever there was such a time)when anyone but Iraqis can decide these issues has long passed.Even if we could force a structure on the Iraqis,if they did not accept it as valid,it would eventually self-destruct.Iraq,outside of Baghdad and the Kurdish areas,appears to be a conservative country.Many people believe in very conservative(reactionary)value systems,and we cannot change these attitudes by fiat.Family and tribe are important in Iraq,and will be for the foreseeable future.Institutional systems must take this factor into account.

Education,education,education,will allow Iraq to reach its full potential,and with the advent of a ‘federal’internal structure in Iraq,even if some areas remain ‘backward’,those who want something different can always move to Baghdad if they find Najaf too confining.What we need to keep pressing is respect for diversity and tolerance for others.After Saddam those are relatively easy sales to make to a motivated populace.If a culture of mutual respect arises,we will not have to worry about ‘women’s rights’,as they will be merely a part of the ‘human rights’Iraqis will both demand and respect.

Iraq will NEVER be NYC or LA,and to be frank — GOOD.

Feb 22, 2005 - 1:53 pm 15. Knucklehead:

While I believe there’s far more to women’s rights than the just sufferage, here’s a women’s sufferage timeline. I have no ability or desire to factcheck the thing so I’m taking it with a grain of salt, but I find it immensely amusing that Switzerland and Bangladesh arrived at women’s sufferage at pretty much the same time (give or take a year).

Feb 22, 2005 - 1:58 pm 16. Patrick Tyson:

Knucklehead—

In its defense, Bangladesh didn’t become a sovereign nation-state until late in 1971. Women got the vote in Pakistan with partition and independence. It took a few years for India to get with the program.

You’re welcome, as always.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:13 pm 17. Knucklehead:

Patrick,

Bangladesh isn’t the source of my immense amusement. The fact that it took so long for someone to finally climb the Alps and tug on the Swiss’s coats to let them know the 20th century was movin’ right along and they might wanna think about getting on board with the whole women’s sufferage thing is what I find amusing. I can’t fathom how it took Heidi so long to get Marti to cough up the vote – I woulda thought “Well then milk your own freakin’ goats!” would carried a lotta weight there in Bern.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:34 pm 18. Patrick Tyson:

Knucklehead—

I know. Now you know that I know and I know that you know that I know. We’re very knowlegable…and immensely amused.

Best.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:54 pm 19. Patrick Tyson:

Now if I could only spell. Knowledgable?

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:55 pm 20. mcg:

I once went to a Greek Orthodox wedding in Athens. (Well, just outside of Athens.) I didn’t understand a word of it, but with the help of friends was able to follow.

At one point in the ceremony, the priest makes mention of how the woman shall “fear” her husband. Traditionally, about half the time, the woman discretely (but still, noticeably) digs her heel into the man’s foot at that point, to remind him that, well, they’re just words, you know. That portion of the ceremony always draws a laugh as a result—whether or not the woman does it. (In this case, she did not.)

While I don’t wish to minimize the genuine horror of regimes like the Taliban or the genuine abuse that happens within many homes with a tradition of male dominance, I have to agree with a previous poster when he says that, as long as women’s suffrage is assured, they’ll make out OK in the end. Perhaps not immediately—we can’t reasonably expect that—but eventually.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:56 pm 21. Maggie:

Sorry for this “spotty” recount, but I heard two Congresswomen, one a Republican and one a Democrat, give an interview on MSNBC recently. They were both very excited about their meetings with Iraqi women and made comments to the following:

(1) Iraqi women were intelligent

(2) They all had numerous questions about democracy and how it worked.

(3) They were stunned about how two members of opposited parties could work so well together to reach a common goal.

(4) They were interested in full participation in their government….they saw it as their children’s future.

NO, I repeat NO, opposite point of view was espoused in this report. Both Congresswomen were amazed by the Iraqi women and very hopeful for women being strong voices in Iraq.

It was an amazing interview…sorry I was so intent on the content that I forgot their names.

Feb 23, 2005 - 9:42 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: