Sunday, August 16, 2009

Our Troops Are In Afghanistan In Support of This?!?

Let me get this straight - Canadian troops are part of the force that is occupying Afghanistan right now. Many times, I have seen people who defend this occupation by saying how much better things are for women than they were under the Taliban.

So ... would somebody care to explain to me why our troops are propping up a government that proposes blatantly misogynistic legislation that would make the most rabid of the Taliban proud?

Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and 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 US charity Human Rights Watch said.


Around about this time, I think it's time for the Canadian Army to pack up and leave. Our tax dollars should not be used to prop up any government which is willing to pass legislation that allows women to be starved to death because they won't have sex with their husbands, or that allows rape to go unpunished.

At this point, our presence in Afghanistan is implicit endorsement of the legislation just passed...this is acceptable how?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Q: So what has all of the rhetoric, dead soldiers, and expense, around 'improving the lives of Afghans' actually got them?

A: NOTHING, it actually looks like it is worse now than what it was before Afghanistan was invaded.

Hey, HARPER FU*K, pull out of Afghanistan NOW!!

SB

VĂ©ronique said...

I'm appalled by the misogynistic legislation. However, with this government, international pressure (and probably more close-up pressure) should force this legislation, which contravenes the Afghan constitution, to go away. Try that under the Taliban.

MgS said...

I'm not so sure about that. This is the second time around for the bill - supposedly after "revisions" to address international pressure the first time around.

Second, because of the way the most objectionable clauses are tied to specific religious groups, I'm not sure that it actually does violate the Afghan constitution. I have vague memories of some very broad exclusions being granted to allow various "religious" practices that differ between sects.