Rape legalized in Afghanistan by US-Puppet Government

[Nightmare Doom]

The U.N. warns that Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has legalized rape.

Directed towards the Shia minority, the Shia Family Law allows for sexual intercourse between married couples without consent and requires a husband's permission for a woman to leave the home, work or pursue education. And in the event of divorce, the father or grandfather is granted custody of the children.

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/afghanistan-legalizes-rape/

KABUL – A new Afghan law makes it legal for men to rape their wives, human rights groups and some Afghan lawmakers said Thursday, accusing President Hamid Karzai of signing the legislation to bolster his re-election prospects. Critics worry the legislation undermines hard-won rights for women enacted after the fall of the Taliban's strict Islamist regime.
The law — which some lawmakers say was never debated in parliament — is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan's Shiite community, which makes up about 20 percent of this country of 30 million people. The law does not affect Afghan Sunnis.
One of the most controversial articles stipulates the wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_women

Afghan women's legally enforced status as sexual slaves of their husbands: paid for by the U.S.A!

[Csonicgo]

From reading the article, it seems that even the lawmakers were against this--- after realizing the bill ACTUALLY EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

This bill was 263 pages long. You expect me to believe all that is about fucking every 4 days? Bullshit. Someone with a sick sense of humor tried to sneak this in into a bill no one gave a shit about (problem No. 1) and somehow it passed -- and was sent to the President to sign! Are you serious? If that's the case, you could pass anything with those bozos in parliament!

[Quasar]

Hooray for spreading the corrupt, broken system of US government where every bill is full of half-secret riders that the legislators don't even know they're voting for.

[Bucket]

I don't see the problem here guys. If you don't to follow the law you're free to leave the country. Unless of course you happen to be a woman-- in which case your husband/boyfriend/total stranger who is a male might stab you to death for trying to leave and get off scot free-- but barring that, you're free to leave any time.

[fraggle]

How is this "paid for by the USA" exactly?

By our moral standards this is a disgusting law; by the standards of the Afghans, clearly it isn't. How about we just leave them to it and stop interfering with their culture? If this is how they want to live then let them do it I say. In the end, laws like this will do more harm to them anyway. Let them make their own mistakes.

[40oz]

fraggle said:

How is this "paid for by the USA" exactly?

I was about to ask the same question. As fucked up as it is, I have to be sided with fraggle on this one.

[exp(x)]

fraggle said:

Let them make their own mistakes.

At the expense of how many women? Perhaps the men are OK with this, but I doubt the women who are beaten, raped, and murdered are.

[myk]

fraggle said:
How is this "paid for by the USA" exactly?

Well, they are certainly financing the government and supporting it militarily:

After the fall of the Taliban, the U.S. supported the emergence of a broad-based government, representative of all Afghans, and actively encouraged a UN role in the national reconciliation process in Afghanistan. The U.S. has made a long-term commitment to help Afghanistan rebuild itself after years of war. The U.S. and others in the international community currently provide resources and expertise to Afghanistan in a variety of areas, including humanitarian relief and assistance, capacity-building, security needs, counter-narcotic programs, and infrastructure projects. The U.S. also supports the Afghan Government in its efforts to establish a framework for a vibrant civil society, one that emphasizes democratic principles through a rule of law and creates accountable and transparent forms of government. The United States and its international partners remain committed to helping Afghans realize their vision for a country that is stable, democratic, and economically successful, and to an Afghan Government committed to the protection of women's rights, human rights, and religious tolerance.

By our moral standards this is a disgusting law; by the standards of the Afghans, clearly it isn't. How about we just leave them to it and stop interfering with their culture? If this is how they want to live then let them do it I say. In the end, laws like this will do more harm to them anyway. Let them make their own mistakes.

That seems to imply that: a) everyone there agrees with this sort of behavior and legislation, b) their culture is isolated from the world and they don't have relatives or friends knowing their Afghan cousin or whatever is being raped daily and whatnot, and c) there's no form of influence but bombing, abuse and control that eventually incites reactionary behavior. In any case, I agree the current form of intervention or influence is not very desirable; it's either failing its objectives (see quote above), or hypocritically ignoring them.

[AndrewB]

fraggle said:

How is this "paid for by the USA" exactly?

By our moral standards this is a disgusting law; by the standards of the Afghans, clearly it isn't. How about we just leave them to it and stop interfering with their culture? If this is how they want to live then let them do it I say. In the end, laws like this will do more harm to them anyway. Let them make their own mistakes.

This is not far from saying USA should have allowed the Nazis to make their mistakes in Europe. There comes a point where a sense of moral duty overrides a respect for other nations to operate however they want. Where that point should be, I don't know.

[Butts]

Something seems to be awry here...

[Catoptromancy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Women.27s_rights

"The cultural argument within Sharia for the rights of women states that Muslim women by virtue of accepting Islam voluntarily submit themselves to obeying their husbands and the veil."

[AndrewB]

Accepting religion is rarely voluntary as it is usually done at a very young age when a person is held in dominion by their guardians.

[exp(x)]

Catoptromancy said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Women.27s_rights

"The cultural argument within Sharia for the rights of women states that Muslim women by virtue of accepting Islam voluntarily submit themselves to obeying their husbands and the veil."

As if not accepting Islam is a real choice.

[Stupid Bunny]

fraggle said:

How is this "paid for by the USA" exactly?

By our moral standards this is a disgusting law; by the standards of the Afghans, clearly it isn't. How about we just leave them to it and stop interfering with their culture? If this is how they want to live then let them do it I say. In the end, laws like this will do more harm to them anyway. Let them make their own mistakes.

The magic of cultural relativism...

Women are oppressed in U.S.: This is an unforgivable encroachment on their rights as humans.

Women are oppressed in Afghanistan: It's their culture and so it's all good.

Seriously though, I understand the importance of letting them have their cultural differences but some things are quite simply wrong. It would be like saying slavery in north Africa is okay because they've done it for centuries there.

EDIT: I think I misinterpreted your point. Never mind.

[Jello]

Yeah, usurping a government which practices executions in a public football stadium for crimes such as being seen outside with a man who isn't your relative is surely a bad thing. Yes the US helped create the current government, and I wouldn't say Karzai wasn't pushed into office without US help. But the fact that women can actually go to school speaks volumes about how we've helped them. The reason Afghanistan had the security it had before the US invasion was because it operated in this same archaic Islam law. Men didn't complain because they could rape whoever they wanted, and the women didn't complain because they would be killed if they did. It's really disappointing to see them revert to that attitude though, and we need to do everything to stop it. Yes they have sovereignty, and they can create their own laws, but when so many people have died to oust the Taliban government, either Afghan, US, British, German, Polish, French, what have you, we can't let Karzai just revert back to Shia law to gain votes. It might just be because I'm a citizen of the western world, but I can't fathom allowing raping your wife, or raping any woman to be acceptable. There are sects of Muslims which are bass-ackwards, and we can't allow it. Abusing another person is unacceptable, and it should be punished. I really wish the US wouldn't push such dickheads into power. See Ngo dinh diem.

[myk]

Jello said:
Yes the US helped create the current government, and I wouldn't say Karzai wasn't pushed into office without US help. But the fact that women can actually go to school speaks volumes about how we've helped them.

A few volumes in that sense, maybe, but probably less than the volumes listing the dead and the damage to society from the invasion and occupation. Social gains were secondary to a rather berserk binge to get rid of the Taliban because of the associations they had with Bin Laden, who was reputably behind the attack on the twin towers. The mediocre results after the hot-headed reaction are not surprising.

It's really disappointing to see them revert to that attitude though, and we need to do everything to stop it.

Considering the radical Islamists take the US as an enemy, it's not unpredictable that anything the US does will give them an excuse to do something themselves. You can kill them, too, which may give their relatives a reason to join them. They are like trolls; feeding them violence is an incentive. Not that I think leaving them alone is wise, but there are other ways to encourage their moderation. The more it relies on the middle eastern world, the more effective it can be.

[WillWater87]

Rape + legalized = Fucked up
And payed by the USA? Makes it worser than it hasn't.

[Catoptromancy]

tubers93 said:

Rape + legalized = Fucked up
And payed by the USA? Makes it worser than it hasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape

Many United States rape statutes used to preclude spousal prosecution, including estranged or even legally separated couples. In 1975, South Dakota removed this exception.[citation needed] By 1993, this was the case throughout the United States.


Terrible people we were before 1993.

[Csonicgo]

Catoptromancy said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape

[citation needed]

[Catoptromancy]

Csonicgo said:

[citation needed]

Until the late 1970's, most states did not consider spousal rape a crime. Typically, spouses were exempted from the sexual assault laws.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701

On July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.

http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=248

Prior to the passage of these laws, "rape" within a marriage or co-habituating relationship was not considered rape. In the 1980s, a California legislator shocked many citizens when he asked, "If you can't rape your wife, who can you rape?" Today, most states have reformed this exemption, making marital rape a specific offense, but exemptions still exist in some states.

http://www.ojp.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa99/chap9.htm



Ya wiki fails, Do I need more or is an article from the doj enough?

[myk]

Csonicgo said:
[citation needed]

LIES!!!

[Maes]

StupidBunny said:

The magic of cultural relativism...

If you try and discover whether there is a common value among different human cultures, you'll be disappointed: the closest to such a value that you will find and that even most ethnologists agree upon, is that no culture tolerates murder without a morally justifiable reason behind it.

Of course, what constitutes a "morally justifiable reason" is fair game and subject to the full extent cultural relativism: it may be spousal infidelity, offending one's "honor", ritual sacrifice, or even just for food. Even in so called "civilized western societies" a murder in cold blood and without an apparent justification is treated very differently (usually harsher) than one due to "honor" or "passion" reasons.

So e.g. if one day you decide to go totally postal and do a Columbine-style school massacre but live to a trial, expect no sympathy from the jury. Only claiming insanity will somehow reduce your sentence.

On the other hand e.g. if you beat up someone badly or shoot him in the face because he called you an "asshole", you will have the undeniable justification that you were insulted. Even street gangs and muggers have been absolved on the grounds that their victim "didn't respect them" or "provoked" them.

[Csonicgo]

Catoptromancy said:

Ya wiki fails, Do I need more

I think that's enough proof to take anything WP states with a grain of salt, and that Wikipedia needs more people (like YOU) to make it worth a damn.

That's why the only articles I use in research from WP have to have the "Approved" seal (that is, factually sound and to be included in the WP CD set) and with sources easily obtained - which seems to be a problem even with some Featured articles . Using sources that are almost impossible to verify after so long just hurts the article using that material as citations.


Wikiality, a clever foe.

myk said:

LIES!!!

Could they have picked a better color for that graph?

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

So wait let me get this straight:

Paul: Remember that you love each other! Help each other, don't just have sex and let everything else go to Hell! But don't be prudes either! Infidelity is very bad. Remember, you're in this together!

Corinthians: RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE

You're telling me that Paul somehow hid "Bitch ain't puttin' out, she gonna pay" somewhere in that sentence? Either people take things completely opposite from what was intended, or Paul was the first Advice Dog:

I really don't see how this could be skewed to allow rape at all since doing so would be against the first and second sentences!

Finding justification for such acts in such teachings is really really low, and this is a great example of that.

[myk]

Csonicgo said:
I think that's enough proof to take anything WP states with a grain of salt, and that Wikipedia needs more people (like YOU) to make it worth a damn.

Who reads a wiki without any skepticism? Perhaps those who do not understand how they work and what they are. This form of encyclopedia expressly asks for a critical reading, because that is how it's produced day by day. The citation needed tags were merely pointing out the statements, which seem to be true, were not backed by a reference. In any case, I take anything with a grain of salt. Wikis have their idiosyncrasy one must be careful about, but so do other publications, especially as most are clearly less transparent.

Note that one of the reasons we can criticize wikis easily is because we can change them. We know how the process works and thus expect more to be done, and they are also a public thing; people post about their development openly. Other encyclopedias have little or nothing of this. We either buy them and take them for granted as made and packaged or ignore them.

Using sources that are almost impossible to verify after so long just hurts the article using that material as citations.

What do you mean?

That's why the only articles I use in research from WP have to have the "Approved" seal (that is, factually sound and to be included in the WP CD set) and with sources easily obtained - which seems to be a problem even with some Featured articles .

Beware of assumed authority; it's the most comfortable of beds to bias.

You're telling me that Paul somehow hid "Bitch ain't puttin' out, she gonna pay" somewhere in that sentence? Either people take things completely opposite from what was intended,

Finding justification for such acts in such teachings is really really low, and this is a great example of that.

Why not read the whole paragraph when it makes a relation to commonwealth law and a specific case where the quoted material was used during a case? No, Paul did not write "RAPE YOUR WIFE", he set forth certain concepts (mainly "a concept of spouses' conjugal rights to sexual intercourse with each other") that under certain conditions were used to ignore marital rape in the legal sense, making it non-punishable. Is it blaming Paul himself? Rather, it's analyzing how a certain sort of conception about marriage allowed marital rape to escape accusation. Surely if the article were beefed up more the idea could be expanded, as even now the article implies Paul wasn't the only one working around the concept taken into account.

[Csonicgo]

myk said:

Who reads a wiki without any skepticism? Perhaps those who do not understand how they work and what they are. This form of encyclopedia expressly asks for a critical reading, because that is how it's produced day by day. The citation needed tags were merely pointing out the statements, which seem to be true, were not backed by a reference. In any case, I take anything with a grain of salt. Wikis have their idiosyncrasy one must be caseful about, but so do other publications, especially as most are clearly less transparent.

I know a lot of people, some personally, that seem to imply it's more accurate and legit than World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. :(

What do you mean?

Nothing is worse than a source you can't access. If the sources cannot be verified by the average user, is that source then verifiable? This seems to be a big deal with research papers and other materials used as sources that must be paid for to access, or do not exist anymore - do we automatically assume trust with such material?

myk said:

Beware of assumed authority; it's the most comfortable of beds to bias.

While things like this have been revealed as fraudulent, a peer review by experts on the topic at hand usually counts toward GA/FA status. Usually by that time the article is pretty much close to "completion", or ready for publication. But you are right on the money with your statement.

he set forth certain concepts (mainly "a concept of spouses' conjugal rights to sexual intercourse with each other") that under certain conditions were used to ignore marital rape in the legal sense, making it non-punishable.

Heh, I should have clarified that I was talking about how people have interpreted this scripture to suit their means, not as I did when reading it.