| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Senators: Iraqi Women Could Lose Rights |
| 2004-02-03 |
| Iraqi women are in danger of losing many of their rights to Islamic law, and the U.S. occupation authority is not doing enough to prevent it, Democratic lawmakers said Monday. Having stood in opposition to the whole plan, they’ll now stand opposed to the consequences. The Iraqi Governing Council in December decided to abolish Saddam’s code and allow each religious group to apply its tradition. The decision has not been approved by U.S. occupation administrator L. Paul Bremer, who wields a veto. The 45 members of the House said Monday in a letter to President Bush that the administration must act now because it will be unable to reverse the council’s action after the scheduled June 30 transfer of power to Iraqis. "It would be a tragedy beyond words if Iraqi women lost the rights they had under Saddam Hussein, especially when the purpose of our mission in Iraq was to make life better for the Iraqi people," 44 Democrats and one independent wrote to Bush. Yep. So what do you propose to do about it? The letter echoes complaints that occupation authorities already have heard from Iraqi women. In December, about a dozen women wrote Bremer saying the coalition "created these male-dominated councils" and is obligated to "redress this discrimination." The U.S.-led authority has sought to raise women’s consciousness, sponsoring programs to advise women how to set up small businesses and organizing discussion groups on women’s issues. Many women still complain the coalition has failed to promote women’s rights as aggressively as its promises would suggest, and whatever gains they have made will diminish after the U.S.-led coalition transfers sovereignty to a new Iraqi government. So, you’re telling us you want us to stay, right? The lawmakers’ letter to Bush also appeared aimed at countering an op-ed piece in The Washington Post on Sunday in which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wrote about U.S. efforts for Iraqi women. Wolfowitz wrote that the United States "is giving special emphasis to helping Iraqi women," having allocated $27 million for women’s programs and trying to see to it that girls benefit from new education programs in Iraq. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said that in the newspaper piece, Wolfowitz "gushed over efforts to assist women in Iraq, but failed to mention the pending reversal of women’s rights laws on June 30. I would hope that Mr. Wolfowitz and this administration aren’t viewing this situation through rose-colored glasses. There is a women’s rights crisis on the horizon in Iraq, and we must take action while we still have a say in the matter," Maloney said. So you want us to stay and tell the Iraqis what to do. Isn’t that rather different from your party’s message lately? |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 actually, if they had a real secret ballot in Iraq on the question of Sharia I think it would lose; they problem is that if people get elected locally in the Shia areas, they will have to seek Sistani's approval to run in subsequent elections and thus would be more likely to vote for Islamist type positions this is why the CPA wanted to get a constitution voted on first |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-2-3 10:18:20 PM |
| #6 As was pointed out in a CPA briefing posted here in the last several days, this measure did not pass the Council. It will not go to Bremer. It's just one of many proposals that come up in a legislative body that go no where. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-2-3 9:13:25 AM |
| #5 Hiryu -- actually, I think the administration expected the Iraqis to act like civilized people. GK -- the reason Saddam didn't toss the old law is because the old law was meaningless under his rule. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-2-3 8:21:36 AM |
| #4 Of course it's a real problem as Iraq is going to wind up with some sort of Islamic republic if you have a vote. The administration seemed to expect the Iraqi people to lay around like lumps of clay and it's not clear why. Maybe just good old fashioned racism. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2004-2-3 7:42:26 AM |
| #3 Maloney is a blowhard. NYorkers, Why? Its hard to explain if you've never been to Long Island. Lots of people out that way like the sound of their own voices. I've heard that the most dangerous place in New York is the spot in between Senator Clinton and a television camera. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-2-3 7:15:46 AM |
| #2 The Iraqi Governing Council in December decided to abolish Saddam's code I hope the journalist is just being ignorant here because this 1959 civil code, governing family affairs, was in effect long before Saddam siezed power. 'Tho, to his credit, this is one thing the Baathists didn't run through the shredder. If Bremer has veto power then he should not hesitate to use it because this temporary council has no business establishing permanent laws. Particular one that adversely effects over half the population. |
| Posted by: Gasse Katze 2004-2-3 5:01:22 AM |
| #1 Maloney is a blowhard. NYorkers, Why? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-2-3 1:05:37 AM |