Critics assail Afghan law that 'legalizes rape'

SAWYER

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,742
42
91
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...7AFVQ00&show_article=1
KABUL (AP) - A new Afghan law makes it legal for men to rape their wives, human rights groups and some Afghan lawmakers said Thursday, accusing President Hamid Karzai of signing the legislation to bolster his re-election prospects.

Critics worry the legislation undermines hard-won rights for women enacted after the fall of the Taliban's strict Islamist regime.

The law?which some lawmakers say was never debated in parliament?is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan's Shiite community, which makes up about 20 percent of this country of 30 million people. The law does not affect Afghan Sunnis.

One of the most controversial articles stipulates the wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."

"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."

One provision also appears to protect the woman's right to sex inside marriage saying the "man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months."

The law's critics say Karzai signed the legislation in the past month only for political gains several months before the country's presidential election.

The United Nations Development Fund for Women, or UNIFEM, said the law "legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband."

"The law violates women's rights and human rights in numerous ways," a UNIFEM statement said.

The strongest criticism came from Canada, a country that has lost 116 soldiers fighting the Taliban and spent up to $8 billion to support the Karzai government.

"The concept that women are full human beings with human rights is very, very central to the reason the international community is engaged in this country," Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week in London, where he's attending the G-20 summit.

Canada's Defense Minister Peter MacKay said he will use this week's NATO summit to put "direct" pressure on his Afghan counterparts to abandon the legislation.

The issue of women's rights is a continuous source of tension between the country's conservative establishment and more liberal members of society. The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 banned women from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa and a male escort from her family.

Much has improved since then. Millions of girls now attend school and many women own businesses. Of 351 parliamentarians, 89 are women.

But in this staunchly conservative country, critics fear those gains could easily be reversed.

Fawzia Kufi, a lawmaker who opposed the legislation, said several of its articles undermine constitutional and human rights of women as equals and take the country backward.

"All the efforts that were made in the last seven years to enhance women's rights will be undermined," Kufi said.

Karzai has not commented on the law. A spokesman, Waheed Omar, said the president is "aware of the discussion surrounding the law, and is looking into the matter."

Brad Adams, the Asia director for the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said the law is a "dramatic setback for women's rights."

"It directly contradicts the freedoms enshrined in the Afghan constitution and the international conventions that Afghanistan has signed up to that guarantee the rights of women," Adams said.

Safia Sidiqi, a lawmaker from Nangarhar province who condemned the legislation, said she cannot remember parliament debating or even voting on the law and she does not know how it came to be signed by Karzai. She called for the law to be recalled to parliament for debate.

"It is impossible in a two-month session for parliament to pass a law more than 200 pages long," she said of the 263-page law.

Sayed Hossain Alemi Balkhi, a Shiite lawmaker involved in drafting it, defended the legislation saying it gives more rights to women than even Britain or the United States does. He said the law makes women safer and ensures the husband is obliged to provide for her.

As Karzai seeks re-election later this year, he is courting voters in the Shiite community, Kufi said. Women voters are presumed to vote as their husbands do.

"Women's basic freedoms are being sacrificed for the political and electoral gain of a few parliamentarians," Human Rights Watch's Adams said.


Such barbarians, will we ever see an end to the madness that some religions embrace?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I thought Bush took care of the Taliban and installed a good puppet?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Meh, I dont' know but saying it legalizes rape looks like a stretch.

But certainly is legislating peoples behavior to an extreme degree.

A look at their anti-rape laws and how this new rule works in conjuction with them would be a better indicator. Not too mention what is the punsihment for the man or woman who doesn't abide by this new rule?

Fern
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Meh, I dont' know but saying it legalizes rape looks like a stretch.

"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night"

Being obliged to have sex within marriage is considered rape by most western women. Why they would want to stay married if they don't want sex is beyond me, but that point hardly applies here, becasue divorce is not allowed in Afghanistan.

Why am I considering joining the army again?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: Fern
Meh, I dont' know but saying it legalizes rape looks like a stretch.

"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night"

Being obliged to have sex within marriage is considered rape by most western women. Why they would want to stay married if they don't want sex is beyond me, but that point hardly applies here, becasue divorce is not allowed in Afghanistan.

Why am I considering joining the army again?

Well we're missing a key point and jumping to assumptions.

So he has that right, does it say he can enforce it by raping her? I doubt it or that would be mentioned.

What if he's denied that right. what is his recourse? It doesn't say AFAIK.

I've always heard that rape wasn' really about sex anyway. So there's a disconnect of sorts here.

I'll agree it's definately coercive and intrusive. But 'leaglizing rape'? Still that's a stretch unless somebidy can show this law is an absolute defence against a rape charge made by the wife. AFAIK, that hasn't been done yet.

Fern
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
It doesn't matter how many times you've had sex before, if you love each other, if a divorce is available or desired, if she consented before and has retracted consent, or any other reason. Forced sex is rape.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: Fern
Meh, I dont' know but saying it legalizes rape looks like a stretch.

"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night"

Being obliged to have sex within marriage is considered rape by most western women. Why they would want to stay married if they don't want sex is beyond me, but that point hardly applies here, becasue divorce is not allowed in Afghanistan.

Why am I considering joining the army again?

Well we're missing a key point and jumping to assumptions.

So he has that right, does it say he can enforce it by raping her? I doubt it or that would be mentioned.

What if he's denied that right. what is his recourse? It doesn't say AFAIK.

I've always heard that rape wasn' really about sex anyway. So there's a disconnect of sorts here.

I'll agree it's definately coercive and intrusive. But 'leaglizing rape'? Still that's a stretch unless somebidy can show this law is an absolute defence against a rape charge made by the wife. AFAIK, that hasn't been done yet.

Fern

It is not a stretch at all. Men are legally permitted to have sex with non-consenting wives. That is rape, and it is legal. Please do not be dense.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I don't understand any of this. This is Afghan. Did you guys get world history in school . This ia a nation of crimnals. IT always has been . Its never lost a war. THese are the scum of the earth. But ya know what? Its their country. ITs their sovienty. Its been going on sense time kept.

This is not about terrorist its about genicide. WE can never have a secure pipeline threw that country. Unless we Kill its people they do not know defeat. When ya see that domb ass in movie say till your die breath . These guys mean that History backs it up.

This is about the WEST projecting its power on a country that stands in its way.

AS I said who the terrorist are is determined by perspective. Don't let need blind you to the trueth. Lets be honest and straight forward about . DO this or were going to do this.

I think this is were we shall see the first one go off.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I don't understand any of this. This is Afghan. Did you guys get world history in school . This ia a nation of crimnals. IT always has been . Its never lost a war. THese are the scum of the earth. But ya know what? Its their country. ITs their sovienty. Its been going on sense time kept.

This is not about terrorist its about genicide. WE can never have a secure pipeline threw that country. Unless we Kill its people they do not know defeat. When ya see that domb ass in movie say till your die breath . These guys mean that History backs it up.

This is about the WEST projecting its power on a country that stands in its way.

AS I said who the terrorist are is determined by perspective. Don't let need blind you to the trueth. Lets be honest and straight forward about . DO this or were going to do this.

I think this is were we shall see the first one go off.

Have another drink.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

It is not a stretch at all. Men are legally permitted to have sex with non-consenting wives. That is rape, and it is legal. Please do not be dense.

No one here has said that sex with non-consenting women is NOt rape. But thanks for the 'strawman'.

What I dont see in the article is anything that says they are (allowed to have sex with non-consenting women).

We have all kinds of laws here that say you must do something (insert whatever you like, e.g., visit your parole officer or rent an appartment to your tentent with whom you have a legally binding leae). Hoever, you cannot be forcibly compelled to do so. E.g., if you don't show up at the parole officer, police do not come get you and drag you to his/her office. If you signed a lease, they won't force you to let the renter in.

Instead, you face some penalty, or damages, for not doing what you are required to do. You are not compelled (by force) to do so. In the Afgan case, to say that they can be raped is to compel by force.

Now, they may well allow that, their laws may work differently. But I'm NOT jumping to that conclusion; I need to to see something other than an UN person paraphrasing it as they wish without support.

And there is nothing is the above, other than the UN person's unsupported claim, that says their law permits the concept of 'compelling by force' (rape).

Many people think we have that here (forcibly compelling), but we don't.

Fern
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: Fern

We have all kinds of laws here that say you must do something (insert whatever you like, e.g., visit your parole officer or rent an appartment to your tentent with whom you have a legally binding leae). Hoever, you cannot be forcibly compelled to do so. E.g., if you don't show up at the parole officer, police do not come get you and drag you to his/her office. If you signed a lease, they won't force you to let the renter in.

Um....its called a warrant, and you get dragged to Prison.


I dont know why you are trying to defend this. Human rights groups are calling it forced rape...
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Fern

We have all kinds of laws here that say you must do something (insert whatever you like, e.g., visit your parole officer or rent an appartment to your tentent with whom you have a legally binding leae). Hoever, you cannot be forcibly compelled to do so. E.g., if you don't show up at the parole officer, police do not come get you and drag you to his/her office. If you signed a lease, they won't force you to let the renter in.

Um....its called a warrant, and you get dragged to Prison.

I dont know why you are trying to defend this. Human rights groups are calling it forced rape...

I'm not defending it. I hear too much stuff exaggerated. This might well be one.

As I said before, if someody shows me that this new law works as a perfect defense against a rape charge, then I'll agree. We haven't seen what the law permits, nor I have not seen what the penalty is for noncompliance.

The warrent compels the officier to come get you. As in search warrent, it doesn't actually compel you to bring your records, you are moved out of your office and they take them. A warrent permits them to do something.

You can't even be forcibly compeled to testify. They won't beat you or give sodium pentathol until you do it. Your option is to sit in jail.

Fern
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: Fern

The warrent compels the officier to come get you. As in search warrent, it doesn't actually compel you to bring your records, you are moved out of your office and they take them. A warrent permits them to do something.

You can't even be forcibly compeled to testify. They won't beat you or give sodium pentathol until you do it. Your option is to sit in jail.

Fern

If there is a binding law that says women have to have sex with men X amount of times, there will be consequences. Attaching consequences to force men or women to have sex, no matter what they are, is rape.

I dont think you are getting what people are trying to say. If the wife says "Oh shit, its Friday, I have to screw him", and does it, even if he didnt force it, it is rape.

Scaring someone with consequences to "willfully" have sex with you is the same thing as forcefully doing it.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Fern

We have all kinds of laws here that say you must do something (insert whatever you like, e.g., visit your parole officer or rent an appartment to your tentent with whom you have a legally binding leae). Hoever, you cannot be forcibly compelled to do so. E.g., if you don't show up at the parole officer, police do not come get you and drag you to his/her office. If you signed a lease, they won't force you to let the renter in.

Um....its called a warrant, and you get dragged to Prison.

I dont know why you are trying to defend this. Human rights groups are calling it forced rape...

I'm not defending it. I hear too much stuff exaggerated. This might well be one.

As I said before, if someody shows me that this new law works as a perfect defense against a rape charge, then I'll agree. We haven't seen what the law permits, nor I have not seen what the penalty is for noncompliance.

The warrent compels the officier to come get you. As in search warrent, it doesn't actually compel you to bring your records, you are moved out of your office and they take them. A warrent permits them to do something.

You can't even be forcibly compeled to testify. They won't beat you or give sodium pentathol until you do it. Your option is to sit in jail.

Fern

I think the key word is "right." The law says that men have the right to sex every four days. They aren't required to take advantage of this right, but if they choose to do so, how is the woman going to say no when the man has the right to sex?

Let's use some rights that we enjoy as an example. The second amendment gives me the right to own a firearm. I don't currently take advantage of this right. But if I decided I wanted to go buy a gun, the law says I have a right to do so, and thus cannot be stopped. They can craft legislation to regulate that right, say by making pass a background check or not being able to purchase automatic weapons. But at the end of the day, I have a right to bear arms.

When a man is said to have the right to have sex with his wife every four days, she is pretty much required to consent. There could be restrictions (no anal, missionary only, five minutes max, whatever), but regardless of any restrictions, the law is flat out saying that women have to give consent to their husband at least one time every four days. If they don't, they are violating his rights. I think the courts would have a hard time saying a rape had occurred if a husband legally has the right to have sex with his wife in a certain period of time.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
(no anal, missionary only, five minutes max, whatever)

I would love to see how a lawyer would word that :laugh:
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
IMO to be in a relationship where you have to get the 'law' on your side to get your wife to have sex with you shows that there are problems in that marriage in general. Sponsoring such a bill basically says, "Ignore the problems that most likely exist". IMO any women forced into that situation and tired of the old fart should simply divorce (which, as most Muslim haters here don't know -ie: the OP, is completely allowed and reserved as a right for women) and take advantage of the religious rights that do exist.

At 200 + pages I'd love to get an English translation of what it says....is "Have sex with me once a week!" copy and pasted a few thousand times? ;)
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
This is the same government we're there to protect, and we'll be sending even more troops there soon to do an even better job of it.

And we wonder why they hate us so much.