At Democracy Arsenal, Suzanne Nossel writes:
Latest word is that Iraq’s draft constitution will roll back the rights and freedoms of women in the name of Shaaria (Koranic law). The draft provides that family law matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance would be governed by religious law based on the sect to which the woman’s family belongs.
This would require Shiite women to get their families’ permission to marry and give men, but not women, liberal rights to divorce. This would replace a body of law that has for the past few decades been among the region’s most progressive in its treatment of women, according them freedom to marry who they please and requiring judicial oversight of divorces.
Iraqi women are understandably up in arms, taking to the streets to protest. There’s still a chance that public and international outcry may lead to revisions in the draft before its adopted.
Apropos of all the discussion about the Bush Administration’s meddling in the Iraqi electoral process, its worth remembering that letting countries alone to set up their own democracies can open the door for infringement on principles we hold dear, even to the point of undermining what we see as precepts fundamental to democracy.
The conflict between democracy and women’s fundamental human rights is something that’s come up on this blog before (1 2 3 4). As I wrote a couple of years ago, I’m afraid I can’t even see it as a tough question. Maintaining the freedom for women – all women – to walk where they want, when they want, with whom they want, wearing what they want is what really counts. Next to that, the right to vote for a government that will most likely crush women’s rights and revoke future elections just doesn’t seem terribly essential.
I’m not saying Democracy isn’t important – it is. But there are prices too high to pay, even for Democracy. At the risk of sounding like a libertarian, fundamental liberties have to be secured first; only then is the right to vote meaningful.
Many conservatives have tried to justify the invasion of Iraq by saying that it spreads freedom. I But if the eventual result of our invasion is a curtailment of women’s freedoms, then the invasion of Iraq has reduced freedom, not spread it. The longer our occupation goes on, the more skeptical I am of the proposition that military invasion is an effective way of creating real freedom and democracy.
Of course, that’s all assuming – for argument’s sake – that the real purpose of this war was to spread freedom. Earlier, we were told that the purpose of the war was to curtail Saddam Hussain’s threat to the United States, but we now know that pretext was nonsense. Personally, I’m convinced that this was The War to Make Republican Penises Larger. That’s why they strapped George W. into a big ol’ codpiece and then posed him in front of a banner declaring “mission accomplished” – people have criticized that banner, but that’s because they failed to understand which mission it referred to. Looking at the codpiece, we could all rest assured that the real mission had indeed been accomplished.
The problem with making Republican Dicks Bigger is that those big wangs – neat as they are – come at a heavy cost to the world, without actually spreading freedom and democracy or making America safer. Plus, it’s a budget-buster. I wish they’d take up some cheaper, less destructive way of convincing themselves that their members are big enough. Maybe we should bring back dueling.
Lest I be accused of partisanship, by the way, let me point out that the Democrats are pretty obsessed with dick size, too. That’s what Democrats meant every time they said Kerry was “electable.” “Electable,” in this case, was a code word which meant “he’s shot people to death, so his dick must therefore be pretty big.” And who can forget Al Gore’s “how big is my package” Rolling Stone cover? I sure can’t.
The Democrats keep on hoping that if they find a candidate with a big enough penis, then they’ll at last be able to move back into the White House, and then maybe they won’t be totally irrelevant anymore. I think this strategy is wrongheaded – but even if it wasn’t, the Dems would still be screwing it up. They think dick size is about things like having actually had the guts to fight in a war and win medals and stuff like that; but actually, dick size is determined by things like a macho squints and perpetual sneers and the adoring wifely gaze. In contrast, nothing says “tiny dick” like an irrepressible wife, a Boston accent and a fluffy (fluffy!) hairdo. The hair alone was enough to damn Kerry to perpetual pansyhood, regardless of how many people he’d killed.
While reading about the gay teenagers recently hanged in Iran (see previous post), I came across the story of Ateqeh Rajabi, a sixteen year old girl executed last August for “acts incompatible with chastity” – and, apparently, for talking back to a judge. The man she committed the “acts incompatible” with, in contrast, was sentenced to 100 lashes. 
I want to put that WORDS poster on a t-shirt!