Women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy

[Qikdraw]

A Neo-Con Republican talking head said that women's rights are not important to democracy on Meet the Press.

Transcript is here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/). (its down at the bottom)

Here is a profile for the man who said it. Reuel Marc Gerecht (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/gerecht/gerecht.php)

This is what he said:

MR. GERECHT: Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

So according to a big time neo-con a woman's rights are not important to democracy.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

A Neo-Con Republican talking head said that women's rights are not important to democracy on Meet the Press.

Transcript is here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/). (its down at the bottom)

Here is a profile for the man who said it. Reuel Marc Gerecht (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/gerecht/gerecht.php)

This is what he said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MR. GERECHT: Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So according to a big time neo-con a woman's rights are not important to democracy.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Democracy was once only available to property owners, not women, not slaves but the concept does tend to have a capacity to expand itself to include both sexes. I believe under the draft constitution women will vote and they will have a pre-set number of seats reserved for them in the assembly which in many cases will be a higher proportion than those in many Western countries. The concern is marriage and family laws being under Islamic law.

And QD you miss that he is talking about the 'evolution of democracy'.

[Qikdraw]

So I guess you don't think women's rights are critical to democracy either eh?

Typical.

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

Well now, wouldn't it be an interesting "evolution of democracy" if in a free Iraq women end up being less free than they were under a brutal dictator?

Still worth it as long as oil company profits are high.

-Mark

[Trailscout]

Swiss women did not get the vote until 1971, yet Switzerland is one of the world's oldest democracies. It is surprising what a recent phenomenon women's suffrage is, even in European countries.

[hm0504]

Not that we hear about it much, but it is interesting to note that Kuwaiti women now have the right to vote and run for offices thanks largely to the Vital Voices Democracy Initiative established in 1997 by by then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

[Boreas]

I didn't read the whole article right now since it was quite long and I don't have a lot of time in here just now.

The thought that came to my mind is the quote by M.L. King (?) "When one of us is chained, none of us is free" (or similar). In a situation where women cannot vote they may not be in literal chains. They have their voices "chained" however, and that is a serious deficit for the community.

Women are equally human and equally able to contribute to society. It is a shame that this discussion is even raised in 2005. Of course I do know that Iraq has a different society. I still believe though, that if someone in another country is chained, I am not free.

Cheers.

[Qikdraw]

The thing is, it is most probable that women in Iraq will be allowed to vote according to the constitution, but they'll have lesser rights than men will. It is up to debate as to if they'll even be able to cast their own vote as well. The men mat take their vote and vote as they please. So while women "technically" have the right to vote, will they be able to exercise it?

Iraq was the most progressive country in the Arab world under Saddam. What Mark said about women being less free now is a very real possibility.

How many times does democracy have to evolve? We know now what works, and who needs rights and what type of rights are needed for a democracy to work. Its not democracy until all the facets of a democracy are there.

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

Iraq was the most progressive country in the Arab world under Saddam. What Mark said about women being less free now is a very real possibility. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is true that in terms of social freedoms Iraq was the most progressive Arab nation - especially for women. It was certainly the best educated large Arab nation (The small oil rich Emirates and Kuwait may have done better). But not in terms of political freedom. Not that that is saying much, I've heard that until very recently the only real Arab democracy was Dearborn, Michigan.

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Iraq was the most progressive country in the Arab world under Saddam. What Mark said about women being less free now is a very real possibility.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what's called a gross overstatement. You will see from the attached link that Saddam was strictly an equal opportunity tyrant. Women and even children were treated in an equal fashion to men:

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Iraq was the most progressive country in the Arab world under Saddam. What Mark said about women being less free now is a very real possibility.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what's called a gross overstatement. You will see from the attached link that Saddam was strictly an equal opportunity tyrant. Women and even children were treated in an equal fashion to men:

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, thats what is called facts. What you are doing is JUST focusing on the negative, and using that to say that women losing a few rights is ok because at least they aren't getting killed by Saddam. Sorry but you're wrong. Women are getting killed by gangs, women need to be accompanied by a male relative or friend when they go out. Women are being accosted if they are not wearing the "proper" Islamic clothes. Women are being denied jobs they had before, women are afraid to to go university because of Islamic radicals whoaccost them. All things they did not have to worry about under Saddam.

Qikdraw

[hm0504]

I think the point is that if you were a woman who valued your human rights and personal freedom and could pick a major Arabic, Islamic state to live in, pre-war Iraq would have been one of the better choices, preceded perhaps by Syria, and Jordan, and maybe Egypt.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:No, thats what is called facts. What you are doing is JUST focusing on the negative, and using that to say that women losing a few rights is ok because at least they aren't getting killed by Saddam. Sorry but you're wrong. Women are getting killed by gangs, women need to be accompanied by a male relative or friend when they go out. Women are being accosted if they are not wearing the "proper" Islamic clothes. Women are being denied jobs they had before, women are afraid to to go university because of Islamic radicals whoaccost them. All things they did not have to worry about under Saddam.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ARE correct. Women didn't have to worry about anything under Saddam because as Orwell said the future could only be imagined as "a boot stamping on a human face forever."

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
You ARE correct. Women didn't have to worry about anything under Saddam because as Orwell said the future could only be imagined as "a boot stamping on a human face forever." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh huh. Kirk, why don't you stick to the topic of the debate instead of pulling things out of thin air?

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
You ARE correct. Women didn't have to worry about anything under Saddam because as Orwell said the future could only be imagined as "a boot stamping on a human face forever." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh huh. Kirk, why don't you stick to the topic of the debate instead of pulling things out of thin air?

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is 'thin air"?..listen to Iraqi women themselves tell you what life was like under Saddam.

http://www.barzan.com/upcoming_events21.html

Or here from a pre-war report of the US state department:


In Iraq under Saddam, if you are a woman, you could face:

Beheading. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Fedayeen Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim's head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services. (Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria)

Rape. The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor." (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)


Torture. The Iraqi Government routinely tortures and kills female dissidents and the female relatives of Iraqi oppositionists and defectors. Victims include Safiyah Hassan, the mother of two Iraqi defectors, who was killed after publicly criticizing the Iraqi Government for killing her sons after their return to Iraq. Women in Saddam's jails are subjected to the following forms of torture: brutal beatings, systematic rape, electrical shocks, and branding. (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; U.S. Department of State, Iraq: A Population Silenced, December 2002)



Murder. In 1990, Saddam Hussein introduced Article 111 into the Iraqi Penal Code in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime. This law exempts men who kill their female relatives in defense of their family's honor from prosecution and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called "honor killings" since Article 111 went into effect. (UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, January 2002)

[Qikdraw]

How is that different from what is happening now?

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
How is that different from what is happening now?

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because you said things were better under Saddam (for women). Are you now changing your position and saying they are merely the same? (they are not)

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
How is that different from what is happening now?

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because you said things were better under Saddam (for women). Are you now changing your position and saying they are merely the same? (they are not) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I said that those same things are happening now. (and they are) You are the one trying to say I am changing my position, although I'm not.

I'll make it clear to you since you can't seem to grasp it.

Under Saddam, women were subject to all those thing you mentioned. However women were allowed more freedom with jobs, university, clothes, walking alone, etc...

Now, Women are subject to all the things you mentioned AND can't walk alone, are berated (and worse) if not wearing the "proper" clothes, can't go back to work because of radical Islamists, are afraid to go to university, although some women are and they are brave indeed.

Under the new Constitution it looks like women's rights in Iraq are going backwards. I find this to be bad news, you seem to like it.

Qikdraw