Are there any movies in the works that will show the American soldier as a hero?

The first thing you would have to understand is the make up of the political parties and those with the major blocks in the Iraqi Assembly. You have probably heard time and again that the Shia are the majority with something like 55% of the population.

The UIA or united Iraqi Alliance, was the Shia party that took appx the same amount of votes for the assembly seats. This group was largely made up of three groups, The SCIRI, DAWA and Badr organizations. All of these are Shia fundamentalist groups that are funded in large part by Iran. Hopefully, you are aware of the condition of women’s rights in Iran to understand the power and concern that this group must cause women in Iraq. Women who have lived in a secular society for generations.

The second thing is, although there was 25% representation guaranteed and obtained by women, since the UIA was the major winner in the elections, that meant that the women from their organization were mostly from the three hardline groups (largely because of the way the list was stacked, not because fundamentalist women are the majority) and they, like many women during the western suffrage movement, actually agree with the men about the roles of women.

The third thing that you have to know is that Shari’ah is not some monolithic law (even if it were, it’s contents would be objectionable). Sunni jurisprudence (or interpretation of Islam) have four main jurists/versions of Shari’ah and Shia have something upwards of six. Which means that there is no simple or singular concept of what even Shari’ah entails for women. Some are stricter than others (and it’s strict enough). If it were left open as “shari’ah” law that could be applied in courts, every court, depending on it’s location and demographic region, would have different laws which the courts would have to apply.

Much like the 19th and early 20th century where different states had different rules for women in property ownership, voting, divorce, etc, these women would be subject to the same kind of bizarre differences from not just 18 governances/provinces but hundreds of smaller regional courts.

And, with the 10 or more jurisprudence to pick from, some extremely unhealthy rulings and laws could take place, such as condemning women to death or prison for “adultery” who have been raped.

The other issue is that Shari’ah imagines a woman to be only worth 1/2 a witness in court. Certain entities within these controlling parties want to have that as the voting rule.

The fourth,and most important issue, is that, even if there is a two year window for amendments (two years? we can amend ours as necessary), that only gives them two years to fight if Shari’ah is implemented. In those two years, with Shari’ah as part of the law, men would effectively control the women, even if they were guaranteed some percentage of representation, they could be banned from public speaking or unable to meet with men in meetings because it would be unseemly and thus would impact their ability to participate in government and election activities.

This begins that ugly phrase “slippery slope” which means that men could enact laws under Shari’ah concepts to continuously limit women in every way, eventually leading to their exclusion from government, much less their rights. Thus, two years to fight it and get “amendments” or doing it “afterwards” will be too late for these women.

Without a single, civil law structure that guarantees specific rights across the board, these women will be at the mercy of every regional goon squad (such as Basra) that pops up.

That’s why it is important to do something now.

That is a good bit of history.

The author of Reading Lolita in Tehran also cries “don’t say this is our culture” because Iran has the same history of the expansion of women’s rights, until the mullahs took over. One of their first acts: lowering the age of ‘marriage’ for a girl to 9 years!

Women’s right in Iraq are so important because, as I believe, radical Islam is at heart about woman-hating and twisted sexuality. A constitution that guarantees equality will go a long way to defeating that dark strain across the Middle East.

I think it goes without saying that no society can live up to its potential if half the population is enslaved.

My understanding is that even the drafts include the right to make amendments. If this constitution does not make a point of giving women their rights, will the amendment process be available to them? And is there any compromise possible here?

It is difficult for me to believe we even have to worry about it.

Second, I would like to dispel any thoughts that this is a “cultural” thing that we are interfering in or something that has always been in Iraq and we should not press them to do more.

Iraq was a secular state long before Saddam and, even during his murderous reign, it remained so. Secularism and women’s rights are not “new” to Iraq. What is new is the attempt by organizations well funded and controlled by Iran to impose Shari’ah law. Iraq had a women’s rights movement in 1920, led by the educated daughter of an Imam. You’d be surprised to know that the same movement occured in about the same time in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Egypt just to name a few. Women were organized and had communication across all of these countries and their unified voices made the difference.

It has only been after many coups and the rise of fundamentalism in the last few decades that has seriously threatened these rights, if not removed them in many countries.

I would also say that it is a fallacy that we should not press for human rights for all citizens including freedom, democracy and basic protections. That is who we are. That is what we are fighting for. The Islamists who attacked us have written many manifestos and treaties that specifically state the thing they hated about us is the freedom we give to women that has infiltrated their cultures.

If there is ever a reason to support this, aside from supporting women, freedom and democracy, this is it.

I thank you for your time and would be happy to answer any questions.

I was due for a Spirit of America donation anyway and oh how I love contacting my elected representatives.

The next best thing would be a constituion that allows amendments to be done later when there is sufficient political support for such rights.

For me, as a woman, it is almost inconceivable that this is even an issue, but tradition is a strong motivater.

I live near a large Amish community. The Amish are good people and hard workers, but in spite of the fact that there is virutally no violence in that society the girls still wear traditional clothes, and live a life of domestic duty. They see that other world every day, but they are bound by tradition and family to the roles they live.

In other words, when I hear that women had more “freedom” under Saddam I think to myself that the majority of the Shia women were not walking around in a pair of jeans with their belly button showing no matter who was running the place.

I still hope the constitution a gives them full rights however.

In historical terms, this is a fairly quick progression. Freedom is both attractive and scary. But the practice of freedom becomes contagious. I wonder if we should celebrate the expansion of freedom Iraq rather than criticize for their hesitancy to go all the way.

Frankly, I’m not sure how to react.