Legalized Rape in Afghanistan

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by johnnyluv

- I figured that courts were refusing to prosecute sexual predators, or something like that (before reading, of course).

They just don't have to prosecute the rapist who happens to be married to his victim....because there is now a law protecting them.

Bizarre.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by moon

I am not squirming my way out just don't need to go back and forth in an argument that it appears nobody is going to change their opinion and really in the end both agree that the law is wrong.

I am still interested in hearing what you think the difference is between rape and non-consensual intercourse?

[johnnyluv]

Originally Posted by First Lady

They just don't have to prosecute the rapist who happens to be married to his victim....because there is now a law protecting them.

Bizarre.

The funny thing (but not remotely funny) is that those rapists not protected by law are protected by family expectations. I've heard of rape victims being killed by family members in order to protect the family honour. Some countries don't need to create laws to promote twisted values.

[moon]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I am still interested in hearing what you think the difference is between rape and non-consensual intercourse?

When have I talked about non-consensual intercourse?

I don't see that there is a difference but really don't see what it has to do with the article or anything that I have said in this thread.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by johnnyluv

I've heard of rape victims being killed by family members in order to protect the family honour.

Well of course...she had sex outside of a marriage.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by moon

I am not squirming my way out just don't need to go back and forth in an argument that it appears nobody is going to change their opinion and really in the end both agree that the law is wrong.

I don't see the point in arguing over the semantics of whether saying rape is legal or some rape is legal is really worth it on the CP Off Topic board.

Not non-challant just not going to be bothered arguing petty things. Done that enough on this board to know where it goes. (Nowhere)



Agree with this and never have said anything to indicate that I did disagree with it.

Actually I think you should consider changing your opinion. I consider you to be perhaps a free thinker.

Taliban society is a Rape Culture. The main objective of Sharia Law is subjugation of women. Do all women in that society feel subjugated? Probably not. Some have adapted to the situation.

I will even go further and say that males cannot be totally and truly free where ever females are subjugated.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by First Lady

It doesn't say he can't force himself either. It does say, she has no right to say "no". The law uses language like "obey" and "demands"; one is lead to believe that he is within his means to take whatever steps necessary and it is within his legal right.

In that country a wife would be lucky to get off with just a divorce; more likely punishment would be a stoning.

We havn't seen the law. We've read an article that provides no translation of the law but, rather a negative opinion of it. That negative opinion could be a very accurate one but, it may also be biased. Remember these people are in the middle of an election campaign. Think of all the negative press on everything imaginable that flooded the internet before the US and Canadian elections last year. How much of that was accurate?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by moon

When have I talked about non-consensual intercourse?

The whole law is about the husbands ability to demand non-consenual sex from his wife ! ! !

I don't see that there is a difference but really don't see what it has to do with the article or anything that I have said in this thread.

Well if you don't see a difference; then you should be ok with the news articles using the word rape; because the law strips the wives of their right to say NO.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

We havn't seen the law. We've read an article that provides no translation of the law but, rather a negative opinion of it. That negative opinion could be a very accurate one but, it may also be biased. Remember these people are in the middle of an election campaign. Think of all the negative press on everything imaginable that flooded the internet before the US and Canadian elections last year. How much of that was accurate?

True enough. I have been searching other articles; however they are all in the same vein.

Sadly though this country has a pretty solid record in this regard and I doubt it is very far of base.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Actually I think you should consider changing your opinion. I consider you to be perhaps a free thinker.

Taliban society is a Rape Culture. The main objective of Sharia Law is subjugation of women. Do all women in that society feel subjugated? Probably not. Some have adapted to the situation.

I will even go further and say that males cannot be totally and truly free where ever females are subjugated.

My opinion is with the wording of how this law affects the legal status of rape and in my view it does not legalize all rape in Afghanistan.

Of course it contributes to the subjugation of women and makes a already horrible situation worse, but to me there is still another step that would need to be made to make it completely legal and to me there is a distinction between this law and one that made rape against any woman legal.

[Yeah_Baby]

First Lady and Reggie are right on. You can dress it up in all the legal mumojumbo that you want. We're still talking about the right and wrong. Marriage does not change that fact.

[moon]

Originally Posted by First Lady

The whole law is about the husbands ability to demand non-consenual sex from his wife ! ! !



Well if you don't see a difference; then you should be ok with the news articles using the word rape; because the law strips the wives of their right to say NO.

But I acknowledge the fact that it allows husbands to demand sex from their wives. I have never discounted that.

I have no problem with the use of rape and think that it should be used.

I have a problem with the use of the term legalizes rape in Afghanistan. I think there should be a qualifier in there to point out that it isn't an complete endorsement of any rape in the country.

I don't discount the fact that husbands can now "rape" their wives and never had anywhere in the thread.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

First Lady and Reggie are right on. You can dress it up in all the legal mumojumbo that you want. We're still talking about the right and wrong. Marriage does not change that fact.

Who is saying it is right?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by moon

But I acknowledge the fact that it allows husbands to demand sex from their wives. I have never discounted that.

I have no problem with the use of rape and think that it should be used.

I have a problem with the use of the term legalizes rape in Afghanistan. I think there should be a qualifier in there to point out that it isn't an complete endorsement of any rape in the country.

I don't discount the fact that husbands can now "rape" their wives and never had anywhere in the thread.

You weren't quite that clear in your first post.

Originally Posted by moon

It doesn't sanction rape but it is a lot more sensational to phrase it like that.

The law is obviously stupid and not great for women but "legalized rape" is a pretty misleading phrase and really an outright lie.

Either way, I think we are pretty much on the same page...now...


I am going to call it a night, go to bed and see if I can try the reverse of this law....

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by moon

Who is saying it is right?

Fair enough, but if we're living in world in which we give institutions such as the UN a moral right to act for "Human Rights" then we are talking about a moral imperative. I suppose listing rape as a war crime says its right or wrong. Look, I realize that inflicting western morality on non western cultures is the heart of Imperialism, but we can't have it both ways. Either we believe in universality of human rights, and we act on it. Or we believe in the sanctity national sovereignty and cultural relativism. I think the debate we are having right now goes far deeper than legal semantics.

[moon]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You weren't quite that clear in your first post.

Rereading the first post I can see how it came off that way.

I certainly think that the law supports rape and never meant to question that part of it.

[Calgaryborn]

It probably should be pointed out that in our advanced highly educated society most of us would run out of fingers before we could finish counting the number of people we know who have experienced rape. We might have better laws but, we havn't yet arrived where we should be ourselves.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It probably should be pointed out that in our advanced highly educated society most of us would run out of fingers before we could finish counting the number of people we know who have experienced rape. We might have better laws but, we havn't yet arrived where we should be ourselves.

But it's more fun to judge other societies and not think about reforming out own.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

"The most controversial parts of the law deal explicitly with sexual relations. Article 132 requires women to obey their husband's sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least "once every four nights" when travelling, unless they are ill. The law also gives men preferential inheritance rights, easier access to divorce, and priority in court."

The article doesn't give a direct quotation of the law(translated to English). Above is the most specific the article gets concerning the content of the law. It doesn't sound good for women but, I'm not sure it actually sanctions rape.

Thats obviously just a part of it,,not the entire law CB.

A report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Unifem, warned: "Article 132 legalises the rape of a wife by her husband".

[Cheese]

....on the new law, opponents say the legislation, the full text of which has not been made public outside limited parts of Afghanistan's parliament, is "worse than during the Taliban" and reportedly stipulates that "women can only seek work, education or doctor's appointments with their husband's permission."

There's more at the Guardian here, including the depressing revelation that some female politicians are considering the law as passed a minor victory since the original proposal was even worse, and they at least succeeded in changing some details, like raising the minimum marriage age of girls from 9 to 16: "It's not really 100% perfect, but compared to the earlier drafts it's a huge improvement," said MP Shukria Barakzai.

article


The law, opposed by the UN, is viewed as a major step backward for women in a nation whose constitution supports equal rights. Observers believe Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed the law to curry conservative support to win reelection. An Afghan senator called the changes "worse than during the Taliban."