Top photo: Afghan women protest an earlier version of this law, in April 2009, from the New York Times. Second photo, also from April: Hazara women in Europe protest the Afghan law. From Hazaritan Times.
From Human Rights Watch:
“Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “So much for any credentials he claimed as a moderate on women’s issues.” […]
The law gives a husband the right to withdraw basic maintenance from his wife, including food, if she refuses to obey his sexual demands. It grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers. It requires women to get permission from their husbands to work. It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying “blood money” to a girl who was injured when he raped her. […]
The law regulates the personal affairs of Shia Muslims – who make up between 10 and 20 percent of the population – including divorce, separation, inheritance, and the minimum age for marriage.
Amazingly, the earlier version of the law was even harsher on Shia women’s rights, and was softened in response to internal protests and international pressure (including protests by Hazaras women of many nations):
The initial version of the law included articles that imposed drastic restrictions on Shia women, including a requirement to ask permission to leave the house except on urgent business, and a requirement that a wife have sex with her husband at least once every four days. […]
In a rare move, Afghan women took to the streets in April to protest, braving threats and violence. President Barack Obama of the United States, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, and many other world leaders condemned the legislation. As a result of pressure, Karzai submitted the law to a consultation process with civil society groups in May, which resulted in some improvements. The legislation still contains some of its most repressive measures, though.
Remember back when we first invaded Afghanistan, when hawks were criticizing feminists for not favoring a war that was, we were told, going to free the women of Afghanistan from misogynistic oppression?
I’m genuinely sorry the hawks were wrong — but not surprised. The problem with hawks in the US is that they think of the US army as a magic wishing lamp, which can be waved at any problem to produce good results. But the truth is, you can’t invade a culture into accepting women’s rights, or — I suspect — into genuine democracy.
I’m also genuinely amazed at the enormous courage of women in Afghanistan who took to the streets to protest in April. I hope that if there are further protests, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, we’ll hear about in the US.
See also: The Czech, Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Gullibility is Bad for You.
Actually, I don’t believe the hawks ever really cared about women or women’s rights in Afghanistan. Before 9/11, the Bush administration was in negotiation with the Taliban over access for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. They were willing to sell out women then, as well as now, if it suits their interests.
Agreed. It was a talking point, just one more way to use “protection” of women to justify aggression. Old as time.
“Remember back when we first invaded Afghanistan, when hawks were criticizing feminists for not favoring a war that was, we were told, going to free the women of Afghanistan from misogynistic oppression?”
Exactly. Women are not better off. One could argue they are worse off. Of course, the hawks never cared about Afghan women. Afghan women and their rights were only a bargaining chip in their political game on either side. Conservatives just used Afghan women’s struggles as a way to rile up feminists and doves. They never actually cared about what happened to the women.
PS. Thanks for the link!
Someone objected to the original post title, “Afghanistan Gives Husbands Legal Right To Starve Wives.” Since I can’t find a direct translation of the law in question, I can’t judge if my original post title was defensible or not; so I’ve changed the title.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/afghanistan-womens-rights-rape
As far as I understand, this law is only for married Shia women, and in Afghanistan only 20 percent or so are Shia, most are Sunni Muslims.
Why this law is only for Shia women, I have no idea.
The Taliban are not Shia Muslims either.
Afghanistan remains a chaos, it is a war-zone, a wild-west area.
A crazy place.
It is a “personal law” similar to what I described in the other thread as how Indian law operates — people of different religions live under family law that accords with their own religious tradition, instead of all being forced to live under the family law that would accord with the majority group’s preference. It’s not a question of the Taliban, but of gaining Shia support in a contested democratic election.
I wonder if Karzai has a statue that can be torn down so we can push through a CIA led revolt under the pretense of finding poppy plants of mass destruction.
I am thoroughly shocked that US nation-building led to a controlling, power-grabbing, me first, stay in charge at all costs leader.
Does this law represent a liberalization (however inadequate) of an existing repressive situation? Or is it a constriction of rights that actually do now exist?
That is – to take the most glaring provision of the law – do Shia women have a right to food and/or sexual autonomy NOW? Or is this codifying something that’s already a standing practice?
I don’t recally improvement of women’s rights being held out as a general justification for the war against the Taliban. If it was part of a specialized dialog with feminists all I can say is that I quite agree that such an expectation was foolish. I also suspect that Robert is correct; all this does is codify an already-existing practice.
Which doesn’t justify it. I find such a violation of human rights awful. Of course, I opposed the whole concept of having civil and criminal laws vary on the basis of the religion of the involved parties outrageous in the first place, regardless of whether it’s in Afghanistan or Britain or anywhere else.
But what the overthrow of the Taliban has done is create an environment where people can at least protest such a practice without being killed on behalf of the State and created a mechanism that in time – as public opinion changes – can change this and eliminate such a practice. It’ll take some time, just as it did in the U.S. and Europe.
The political judgement of the time on the part of the U.S. was quite likely “let’s take what we can get” – an at least partially democratic state that is more likely to be concerned with internal issues, rather than a theocracy that was even more repressive than this inside it’s borders while dedicating more resources to fomenting violent activities outside them. The Obama administration would be wise to consider a similar philosophy, especially with respect to such issues as health care. Recent changes in it’s proposals would indicate that it is.
Jon:
I am thoroughly shocked that US nation-building led to a controlling, power-grabbing, me first, stay in charge at all costs leader.
Afghanistan already had suich leadership before the U.S. showed up. At least the new guy is subject to election and by all accounts to being influenced by public protest. That’s an improvement, and a significant one.
Your assertion that this guy is a “stay in charge at all costs” tyrant is unproven. The fact that he is facing realistic opposition in the upcoming election without reacting by having the head of said opposition imprisoned or shot indicates that you’re wrong. If he loses the election and answers by sending the troops into the streets, then I will change my mind. But I suspect not – both because I don’t think he’d give such an order, and because I suspect the troops wouldn’t follow it.
[shrugs] Bush said he was spreading democracy (elections ASAP), not liberal institutions such as guaranteed, not-subject-to-a-vote rights of free speech, religion, press, sex equality, etc. and an independent judiciary.
You ask a majority of people in 45 U.S. states to vote on same-sex marriage, and they reject equality. You ask a majority of people currently able to vote (mostly men) in Afghanistan to vote on women’s status, and they reject equality. Democracy without liberal institutions will tend to perpetuate an existing power structure so long as that structure was remotely majoritarian.
RonF:
Afghanistan already had suich leadership before the U.S. showed up.
Right — the Taliban and before that warlords after the defeat of the USSR. If I recall the Taliban were in part funded and armed by the US government leading up to their control over the government, right? 2001 is not exactly ‘before the US showed up’ since the CIA was stirring the pot since 1979 (and likely before)
At least the new guy is subject to election and by all accounts to being influenced by public protest. That’s an improvement, and a significant one.
I’m afraid being subject to election isn’t enough of a reason for me to consider one government better than another. As far as being influenced by public protest I’ll admit that I have not followed Afghanistan very closely – certainly not as closely as I should – to know about the upcoming election and protests. I’ll do some reading on this. Perhaps Afghanistan has achieved a glorious “Democracy” now with their US provided “Freedom” and I just missed reading about it between the deaths, poverty, & violence that seems to surround most stories of Afghanistan these days.
Your assertion that this guy is a “stay in charge at all costs” tyrant is unproven. The fact that he is facing realistic opposition in the upcoming election without reacting by having the head of said opposition imprisoned or shot indicates that you’re wrong. If he loses the election and answers by sending the troops into the streets, then I will change my mind. But I suspect not – both because I don’t think he’d give such an order, and because I suspect the troops wouldn’t follow it.
To be fair, I called him a leader — not a tyrant. I wanted to like the guy, I really did, but I think it’s fair to say that one of the top items on his agenda since he was appointed in 2001 (and not doubt earlier in order to get the position) was to keep himself (and his allies) in power. I don’t particularily like this quality in a US-appointed leader. In the case of Karzai, what I have read about the increase in Opium production, it’s effect on the (now free and democratized) Afghan populous, and how he uses it to maintain and strengthen both his political power and his personal power/wealth is not what I envision for a ‘founding father’ figure for a new Afghan Democracy. Of course this is just one issue, but Afghanistan isn’t exactly exploding into the 21st century — I place a larger portion of the blame for this on Karzai & his ruling group than others might.
If you think the Taliban was evil enough to justify a US (and UN no less) overthrow of the ruling authority I guess I can only say congratulations on the mission accomplished. I hope it works out better for the people than 1978-2001 did. Frankly I would have preferred that the US not gotten involved in 1978 and not repeated what I feel is a mistake in 2001.
Following my last post I started to look into more information about the upcoming elections. The first article I read from CNN on 8/11 didn’t exactly paint a picture of a President that is according to RonF “by all accounts to being influenced by public protest”.
Human rights activists accuse the Karzai government of making deals with some of the country’s most notorious warlords ahead of the August 20 presidential elections.
“A lot of Afghans are telling us they’re quite disappointed that Karzai’s not even running on a platform of promises or performance, but just an old fashioned Afghan cutting of deals,” said Sam Zarifi of Amnesty International.
“Karzai has really regressed over the past seven or eight years,” Zarifi said.
Many Afghan observers argue this culture of impunity runs directly to the presidential palace. For years, Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali, has been dogged by accusations that he is a major player in the booming drug trade in southern Afghanistan.
This month, Karzai made a rare trip outside his presidential palace to woo voters in Baghlan province. He conceded that Afghanistan is still far from stable, but promised that if re-elected he would redouble his efforts to rebuild the country.
“Terrorism is still harassing us. It is still killing us. It is still destroying this land,” he told a crowd of several thousand supporters. “The moment I become the president of Afghanistan — again — through your vote, through your able hands, my first attempt will be to ensure perpetual peace.”
Well that’s good — at least he’s made a campaign promise to work towards perpetual peace the next time around instead of plundering the country by flooding the world with Opiates. Definitely a progression from his first term.
What are they going to do to the women who violate this law? Throw them in prison? Sounds like they’re already there.