| Submit your comments on this article | |
| U.S. May Veto Islamic Law in Iraq | |
| 2004-02-16 | |
| KARBALA, Iraq (AP) - The top U.S. administrator in Iraq suggested Monday he would block any interim constitution that would make Islam the chief source of law, as some members of the Iraqi Governing Council have sought. L. Paul Bremer said the current draft of the constitution would make Islam the state religion of Iraq and "a source of inspiration for the law" - as opposed to the main source. Still a sell-out. Many Iraqi women have expressed fears that the rights they hold under Iraq’s longtime secular system would be rolled back in the interim constitution being written by U.S.-picked Iraqi leaders and their advisers, many of them Americans. U.S. lawmakers have urged the White House to prevent Islamic restrictions on Iraqi women. Asked what would happen if Iraqi leaders wrote into the constitution that Islamic sharia law is the principal basis of the law, Bremer suggested he would wield his veto. "Our position is clear. It can’t be law until I sign it," he said. Good. Bremer must sign into law all measures passed by the 25-member council, including the interim constitution. Iraq’s powerful Shiite clergy, however, has demanded the document be approved by an elected legislature. Under U.S. plans, a permanent constitution would not be drawn up and voted on until 2005. Thus delaying the clerical grab for power. Bremer used the inauguration ceremony at a women’s center in the southern city of Karbala to argue for more than "token" women’s representation in the transitional government due to take power June 30. "I think it is very important that women be represented in all the political bodies," Bremer said. "Women are the majority in this country, in this area probably a substantial majority," he said, referring to the Saddam Hussein’s 1991 purges of Shiite Muslim men. Those killings left the holy city of Karbala and other Shiite cities dotted with mass graves and brimming with thousands of widows. Sorta like the Soviet Union after WWII. In a speech to about 100 women - most dressed in flowing black abayas and some with tattooed chins - Bremer cited a 2003 United Nations report that found that productivity in Arab countries was being strangled because women had been kept out of the work force. Bremer suggested that women’s participation did not run counter to Muslim values. "Women who can read and write and understand mathematics are not prevented from being good mothers. Quite the opposite," Bremer told the gathering. "No son is better off because his mother and sisters cannot read."
No different than a single mom anywhere else in the world. Enshrining women’s rights in a constitution could be difficult. U.S. observers have predicted liberal reforms introduced in the transitional law could well be rolled back in a future constitution. Bremer acknowledged that U.S. influence on an Iraqi constitution would fade after the June 30 handover. "There will be a sovereign government here in June. The Iraqis then will then have responsibility for their own country," Bremer said. "There’s a real hunger for democracy in this country. It may not look like American democracy, but there’s a real hunger for it and we’re encouraging that." We seem to have handled post-war Japan differently, and they turned out allright. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #3 I agree completely with Traveller (gulp!) and mojo - this is very big magik, IMHO. What have we accomplished in Iraq if it becomes a Shari'a Law / Tribal Clan / Same-old-shit Arab shithole called Demokratic Irak? We've come too far to let anyone, Sistani or anyone else, turn this effort into their vision of the same old shit. They sat on their fucking hands or collaborated with Saddam for 35 years. They didn't do dick. If they don't like what we offer when we did all of the heavy lifting, tough shit. They can try 35 years of a Republic and then, if they don't like it - by a 2/3 majority of no-shit registered voters, we can talk. Meanwhile, do it right. Anything less makes a mockery of the effort of bona-fide heroes - and will make any future effort down the road a failure - in advance. No way, no how. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-16 9:04:55 PM |
| #2 "State religion" is an invitation for discrimination against other religons. It does not disconnect government from Sharia, it merely papers over the join. Take a lesson from the American Civil war, guys - get that stuff straight up front so you don't have a big bloody mess down the road. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-2-16 8:17:22 PM |
| #1 Dear Steve: This is the most important story of the year so far. Nothing has made me so crazy as the possible but formal institution of Shari'a. That Bremmer is showing some backbone on this vital question is significant. It is not the what I would of recommended...(a Constitutional based Government of limited authority as against heavily protected Individual Rights), but it is at least a step in the right direction. |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-2-16 3:44:59 PM |