Barbaric oppression is only right when it's legislated through parliament

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/afghanistan-womens-rights-rape

On the day the British death toll in Afghanistan reached 200 among other things. Imperialism may be wrong but maybe it's time we pull the "hey, guess what, we have 68,000 troops in your country, you're gonna do what we say instead"

 

If you're not willing to shoot the other county's rulers, then you can't run that other country.

The options are:

1) Stay, knowing that this law exists and will be enforced.
2) Leave, knowing that this law exists and will be enforced.
3) Ask the current Afghan government to reconsider this law.
4) Replace the current Afgan government with a puppet who do our will and overturn that law.

 

I read something similar to this. It was about how Afghan women had to have sex at least three times a week with their husbands - BY LAW. In other words, legal rape. I also read that this law was being passed to please the religious morals practiced by I guess what would be their "religious right" in that country.

Well, if the women in that country are able to join together and oppose those laws, then they should. And they should be helped, too.

 

That isn't true. I posted something about this a while ago...
I'll see if I can find it. But, I can say with confidence, it isn't true.

 

I saw the piece on the news about the denial of food and sustenance. Not uncommon in societies that see women as the property of their husband, father, older brother or whatever. When you couple this mentality with religious fanatisism you have a recipe for disaster because the women in question ( apart from a very few enlightened souls who have to keep their thoughts and actions clandestine) are unprepared both mentally and physically to stand up and be counted and form any kind of cohesive group to resist.

 

It's true, but some of the details are slightly off. The law affects the Shiite community in Afghanistan, and a man is allowed to demand sex with his wife up to every four days. She is not allowed to say no, and he does have the power to rape her. The law also says that a man should not deprive his wife of sex for longer than four months.

Search Google News for info.

 

Spousal rape was legal in most states until the late 90s. It was legal in England until 1991. It's also difficult to get a conviction for it in either country. The reason why neither of these governments are going to do anything about this law in Afghanistan is because too many people from both countries still don't believe in spousal rape. How much do you want to bet that most Americans' response to this law is "Well, denying food is extreme, but a wife shouldn't deny her husband sex"? It's not right. The problem is that it's true. We still need to convince enough people that spousal rape is as bad as any other form of rape before we can convince them to do anything about it.

 

Rape is a power thing not a sexual thing so even if a wife denies her husband his conjugal rights there is absolutely no excuse to resort to rape and the law should reflect this. The problem is though that usually the victim needs to have some kind of corroborating evidence and if the rape took place at home it's almost impossible to prove unless the woman has also been the victim of a serious physical assault and then the police have to act.

 

I searched google before, I read that the husband could refuse her food and money.
The legislation was arcane, but I don't think that arcane.
It seems to have been turned into lawful "rape" by activists who wanted "our" level of rights for women in Afghanistan.
So picked on this part to draw more attention to the whole legislation.
It seems to have: worked:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8141420.stm

 

This isn't "our" level of rights for Afghan women, this is Afghan women being stripped of their humanity

 

I think you misunderstood me...
I meant "western" critics of the legislation saw it as - pretty much - legalising rape...
But, perhaps, it wasn't actually that at all.
The critics, perhaps, chose to interprete it as "rape" because they were unhappy - rightfully so - that the legislation fell short of "our" standard of rights.

 

Ahhh I see. But still while it might not technically legalize rape, it's only about 2 steps behind it

 

Lets say, it was too open to interpretation.
I am glad it has been removed, so there is no room for other interpretations.

 

Oh, that's amazing! Funny how none of this was publicised like the original story.

 

I've looked at quite a few versions of this story, it tended not to make it to the headlines, but be buried somewhere in the articles, but yeah, sometimes just left out.
It struck me that while looking into this, not even the UN made reference to the interpretation, merely commented on the whole legislation (which barely made it out of the dark ages.)
So perhaps it was a good thing that this was pushed into the focus, even if it may have been slightly wrong, it helped to alter the rest of the legislation.