Shahin and Juan Cole have an op-ed article in the 03/07/04 Los Angeles Times on the situation of women's rights in Iraq: Veil of Anxiety Over Women's Rights.
The Fundamental Law just approved by the Iraqi Governing Council, which may serve as a model for the Iraqi constitution, contains important contradictions on matters affecting women. Quite apart from laws on paper, Iraqi women suffer from the devastated condition of the country's economy, from the stupefying unemployment rate and from an alarming crime wave that includes the kidnapping of girls for ransom. Armed fundamentalist movements on the ground, often hostile to women's rights, care little for secular laws and constitutions.
Iraqi civil law has been among the more favorable to women's rights in the Arab world, though social reality often diverges from the ideal. Contrary to many statements by Bush administration officials, it's not at all clear that women are better off since the Iraq war. The United States appointed few women to the Governing Council and those who were chosen were quickly marginalized by powerful male expatriates, including several U.S.-backed clerics. The U.S. could not even prevent Aqila Hashimi the most experienced of the women, from being gunned down last fall. American attempts to appoint women judges were blocked in the Shiite holy city of Najaf. There are only seven women judges in Iraq.
AOL Journaler Armandt ridiculed Hillary Clinton a few days ago for expressing concern about the status of women's rights in Iraq. But the Coles' article is a reminder that the world isn't really set up in black-and-white, right-and-wrong choices. Saddam's Baathist regime was a dictatorship, but a self-consciously secular dictatorship.
One of the old regime's top experts in "weapons of mass destruction" was a woman. (Of course, since they didn't have any WMDs, that wasn't necessarily the highest-status position available!)
On his blog, Cole also recommends this article on the subject: An empty sort of freedom Guardian (UK) 03/08/04.
6 comments:
Hillary "expressed her concern" for Iraqi women by stating they were better off under Saddam - where rape rooms were commonplace. Interesting spin you have here.
Hillary Clinton never defended "rape rooms." She was expressing a very legitimate concern about the kind of issues raised in the articles referenced here. - Bruce
You claim I "ridiculed" Hillary for expressing concern. If reporting the truth and providing a link to her complete transcript constitute ridicule, then so be it. She didn't defend the rape rooms, but she generalized them away when she said women had it better under Saddam. Comparing only the current "bad" to only the historical "good" is sorely irresponsible. Surely you see through this?
I think you're getting so lost in generalizations and Clinton-bashing that you're missing the long-term and short-term considerations of what kind of principles the democratic countries want to promote in the Islamic world. Like it or not, secularism in government and protecting the rights of women are two important elements in democracy in today's world. The extent to which those principles will be protected in a post-occupation Iraqi government is very much an open question. - Bruce
Generalizations? Have you read the transcript? Don't take my word - take hers. I am not lost on the future of Iraq nor the importance of the Democracy I defend with my life. If Hillary chooses to forget (read: ignore) the past, then wouldn't you suppose she is doomed to repeat it?
I didn't generalize historical fact away... Hillary did.
Armand accusing someone of spinning? I needed the laugh!
Check out the comments here http://journals.aol.com/happyb8888/MarciaEllenLifeAsItOughtToBe/entries/189
to see how he pins the anti-gay marriage movement on liberals.
Last time I take anything he says seriously. I recommend you don’t either.
Post a Comment