Afghanistan is the Bastion of Women's and Children's Rights

[4PointOh]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-14249973.html

[Charles RB]

the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent... The law regulates personal matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and sexual relations among Afghanistan's minority Shia community. "It's about votes," Ms Karokhail added. "Karzai is in a hurry to appease the Shia because the elections are on the way."

British soldiers have been killed and injured to bring this about, while we were being told how we were bringing in freedoms and equality.

The most damning bit is

The provisions are reminiscent of the hardline Taliban regime

when the Taleban currently hold swathes of the country anyway.

What a fucking palaver.

[MartinRedmond]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_7827989.htm

I read she received death treaths from her neighbors and family members.

[Solaris]

Good Gods. That's HORRIBLE.

I hope they find a way to reverse this.

[Lester C.]

If this causes the guy to lose the election and put someone in place who is pro-woman civil rights then I will consider this a good thing as the new guy will be able to get rid of the law before it goes into effect and pass many new laws that make men and women more equitable. Should the bastard win then this is one of the worst stories I've read in a long time.

[Cam63]

I hope this isn't some dickhead's idea of an April Fools Day joke.

[Charles RB]

If this causes the guy to lose the election and put someone in place who is pro-woman civil rights then I will consider this a good thing

Unfortunately, the general concensus is that Karzai is the most likely person to win.

There was talk a few weeks back of the US wanting to install a "Prime Minister" they could deal with over his head.

[Corrina]

If this causes the guy to lose the election and put someone in place who is pro-woman civil rights then I will consider this a good thing as the new guy will be able to get rid of the law before it goes into effect and pass many new laws that make men and women more equitable. Should the bastard win then this is one of the worst stories I've read in a long time.

I do not think there are pro-women civil rights candidates in Afghanistan. At the most, I think you'd find someone neutral, sadly.

[king mob]

I hope this isn't some dickhead's idea of an April Fools Day joke.

No, it's very real and being going on for a long while, it's just that the mainstream media have only just picked it up.

[Lester C.]

This is hubris on our part. We invaded the country, toppled the Taliban and got them to hold free and clear elections. Had done our jobs better we would have won their hearts and minds but it looks like out attempt to convert the country to our way of life is going to fail along with everyone else over the past century and I do mean everyone.

[Astharis]

There was talk a few weeks back of the US wanting to install a "Prime Minister" they could deal with over his head.

Surely doing so would sort of go against part of the reason the US invades middle eastern countries; to bring democracy? Going above the system is not really a good example to set if they're already changing the rules... It simply says "Democracy is the best, until you don't like what it is that people say".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against women's rights, but the culture is extremely different over there than in the western world, so we can hardly expect them to start behaving themselves (to the same standards that we think of).

So, along with Lester C., I think that toying with the idea of how much of a democracy the country is won't help, because in many Afghanis' minds it's still okay that women don't have as many civil rights as the rest. You've gotta change that mindset before the democratic process will start showing the results that the western world expects.

[veracity]

Surely doing so would sort of go against part of the reason the US invades middle eastern countries; to bring democracy? Going above the system is not really a good example to set if they're already changing the rules... It simply says "Democracy is the best, until you don't like what it is that people say".

Well, America did that in the 1950s with Eisenhower' "New Look." Guatemala, South Vietnam, Iran and the attempt with Cuba. (Yay for textbook chapters we're just going over...as in still taking notes on it.) We've put quite few figureheads in our time during the 50s.

We see how that worked out for us. I think, perhaps, a new sort of help might be in order. Just don't ask what that is because poli sci and I are not friends for the most part.

I just wish women and children had the chance to be a part of the process without being the victims.

[oddballuk]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-14249973.html

Yeah I was reading about this yesterday evening on the BBC.

This law really sickens me.

[Solaris]

This is hubris on our part. We invaded the country, toppled the Taliban and got them to hold free and clear elections. Had done our jobs better we would have won their hearts and minds but it looks like out attempt to convert the country to our way of life is going to fail along with everyone else over the past century and I do mean everyone.

Part of the problem is we invaded "Bush style": John Wayne, guns blaring, and "get out of my way" to the populace.

You can't force people to enact permanent change in their culture at gunpoint.

If you want to change the mind of the average citizen, you have to do two things:

1. Protect them from the violent elements of their own society.

2. Provide them with both immediate aid and longterm ways of making a living, having good healthcare, having food available, shelter, etc.

Basically, you go in as a *partner*, rather than an oppressor.

You show them you care. You show them you care for people that they themselves may not care about (i.e. wives and children), and help them learn to care about them and their rights, too.

I know that's the simplified, boiled down answer to a complicated process---but if that's the core of your approach, you'll win a lot more to your viewpoint... especially if you also protect their fledgling ventures into change from the violently fanatical, making it safer for them to do so.

[Charles RB]

re showing you care:

Three years later military commanders and ministers admit that the situation in Afghanistan was little understood. General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the army, suggests the tactics were crude and self-defeating. He said that "in the early days the troops probably wound up - maybe still are - killing lots of farmers".

These are the people who must now be won over and persuaded to switch from growing opium poppies to wheat.

...

US special forces were also accused, not least by the president, Hamid Karzai, of killing civilians, in their own raids and in action where they called up US gunships.

Grey says British forces from the Special Boat Service also killed civilians in raids. There was outrage, he says, over one SBS raid on an alleged drugs smuggler in the Nad Ali, in which a villager and his six- year-old son were killed. A soldier said he thought the man had been reaching for a gun but the latter proved unarmed.

General Sir David Richards, who takes over from Dannatt in the summer, is quoted as questioning "take down" operations which, he said, risked "alienating a lot of people".

Meanwhile British troops have not done reconstruction work because it is considered only for civilians - yet civilians can not do it because of the lack of security.

To be blunt, civilian deaths and horrible fuck-ups are inevitable in this sort of conflict, but the amount of them here is beyond the pale, and it's damaging.

Surely doing so would sort of go against part of the reason the US invades middle eastern countries; to bring democracy?

Yes, it would be.

The same time that talk was going on, there were reports that the US is moving away from talking about making Afghanistan a Euro-style democracy and more focusing on "stability" - i.e. "it's horrible, but at least the Taleban aren't shooting things now!".

Course, even achieving that is currently beyond us.