Afghan 'Rape Law' Reconsidered Due To Global Outcry

Following global public and political outcry, the Afghan government is now reviewing "Taliban-style" legislation from last month, which has not yet passed into law, that would essentially legalize marital rape. From the Times Online:

"The Justice Ministry is reviewing the law to make sure it is in line with the Afghan Government's commitment to human rights and women rights conventions," Sultan Ahmad Baheen, a spokesman for the ministry in Kabul, said.

...

The Afghan Government is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines equality in dignity and rights regardless of religion or sex. Article 22 of the Afghan Constitution also explicitly reiterates the equality of men and women before the law.

Human rights activists cited a large number of provisions in the law that appeared to disregard those commitments in a draft leaked to The Times.

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

Afghan President Karzai has been inundated with criticism for the past week, mostly from Western nations who see passage of the law as a thudding indication that no gains have been made for human rights in Afghanistan since the NATO invasion in 2001. Canada, in particular, has been especially vocal and generally represents a consensus among NATO members who have sacrificed blood and treasure. According to the Canadian Press:

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

"That's unacceptable -- period," he said Wednesday. "We're fighting for values that include equality and women's rights. This sort of legislation won't fly."

...

Story continues below

advertisement

Canada has lost 116 soldiers and spent up to $10-billion fighting to support the Karzai government.

Canadian officials have contacted Mr. Karzai's office and also raised their concerns with senior Afghan cabinet ministers. They say it's not yet clear what's in the law, but they're trying to find out.

According to the AFP, Canada's spirited remonstration seems to have directly and immediately stymied the legislation for the time being while it is subjected to review by UN human rights standards:

The confirmation [to subject the law to review] came after Canada said Sunday it had received assurances from Afghan Foreign Minister Dadfar Spanta that the process of enforcing the law "has been halted."

"The law is not enacted yet," foreign ministry spokesman Sultan Ahmad Baheen told AFP Monday.

However, it is prudent to note that the law has not in anyway been defenestrated altogether. Varying interpretations of different drafts of the legislation are circulating. According to Afghan officials who support the principles behind the legislation, the draft that has drawn such excoriation has since been replaced by a more lenient version that would allow a woman to refuse marital sex under certain circumstances. From the AFP:

A copy of the draft bill, seen by AFP, said: "It is the responsibility of the wife to prepare for sexual satisfaction of her husband and not leave the house without permission, unless there is the need or difficulty."

Critics interpreted this as making it illegal for a woman to refuse her husband sex and only in an emergency leave the house without permission.

But the version signed by Karzai says a wife can refuse sex on the basis of "lawful or logical excuses or with permission of her husband," influential Shiite parliamentarian Sayed Hussain Alimi Balkhi said last week.

The changes, which have been seen by AFP, also allow her to leave home without permission "for any lawful purpose within the boundaries accepted by custom," said Balkhi, who has been involved in drawing up the law.

As Tracy Clark-Flory writing for Salon notes, the change in the law's language tends to make it far more ambiguous, but not necessarily a vast improvement by Western critics' standards. Only with further elucidation on how "lawful or logical excuses" is to be interpreted will this legislative saga be resolved. From Salon:

Temporarily, at least, because my blind faith is fleeting. Karzai claims the fury boils down to a wee misunderstanding: You see, the version of the law he signed is different from the one that garnered all the bad press. It's unclear why, if it's all that simple, the law needs to be reviewed. (Not to mention, I'm not all that sure that a mere revision could fix a law that endorses rape.) In any case, the controversial draft holds that a wife cannot refuse sex unless she is ill, while the revised version allows a wife to refuse sex if she has "lawful or logical excuses or with permission of her husband," according to the Afghan administration. Neither version has been made public, so I'm left to wonder what exactly is meant by "lawful or logical excuses."

Comments

[RavenWest]

This is a VERY good statement made by Obama. As poor of a law as this is, we can not let ourselves become distracted from the real goals we had going into a foreign country. It is up to their government, once freed from any physical interference by the Taliban or Al Qaeda, to make laws that respect women, not ours.

We fight to protect our country, not to extend our country into theirs. Regardless of how bad the law seems, these lawmakers are not stupid and most certainly aren't going to regress provided we keep them from intimidation.

[Ibis3]

This isn't over yet:

[The] law [...] cannot be changed, one of the drafters of the legislation said. Comments by Mohammad Asif Mohseni, a top Afghan cleric, [...] contradict the message from Canada's foreign minister. [...]

Mohseni said that women and men are not equal in Afghanistan and shouldn't be treated as equals, arguing that men are the breadwinners and that rural women are illiterate, making it difficult for them to provide financial support to the family.

"It is not possible for all women to pay the same amount of money as men are paying. For all these expenses, can't we at least give the right to a husband to demand sex from his wife after four nights?" he said.

Mohseni defended the legislation, saying a woman can refuse sex with her husband if she is fasting for Ramadan, preparing for a pilgrimage, menstruating, or has just given birth.

But he stressed that "it is essential for the woman to submit to the man's sexual desire."

"If she is not sick, and if she does not have another problem, it is the right of a man to ask for sex and she should make herself ready for it. This is the right of a man," Mohseni said.

"The Westerners claim that they have brought democracy to Afghanistan. [...] It means government by the people for the people. They should let the people use these democratic rights," he said.
---
-from CBC.ca

[theresedefarge]

The fact that Karzai would even consider a law that because it also approves child marriage, in effect legalizes child rape is in and of itself an abomination, especially when he has done it in the furtherence of his own political career.

I continue to maintain that the only solution in Afghanistan is to put something in the water supply that de.stroys the Y chromosome.

[thetrajectory]

If this is what the Ambassador has to say then what about the statement from a top Shi'ite Cleric that the Afghan government has no right to declare the law unconstitutional? (http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-38995420090411)
http://thetrajectory.com/

[LeeCalif]

It's disturbing to know President Karzai, a former oil company executive installed by the CIA, signed this law into effect as a boost to his own election campaign.

[kinoptikation]

This is THAT TIME in which the U.S. should get involved... Hillary Clinton and Obama should attack this issue fully

[LITU]

To paraphrase the author of the bill, men pay the expenses and should be entitled to sex ever fourth day.

Add to that the compaint that the west (U.S.) promotes democracy provided it is in a form acceptable to the west, and you have two roots to the problem for women.

Women will always be the losers in a patriarchy and a theocracy (one and the same).

[jdlund]

I would like to point out for all the people who were so shocked by such a barbaric law or calling these people backward and cruel that marital rape is still legal in many states in this country. Rape is still defined in many jurisdictions as forced sexual intercourse with a woman, 'not his wife.' There really isn't a difference not making something a crime and explicitly making it legal as they did there. I know the language of their proposed legislation is more horrifying, but the result is the same.

Here, in most states, a man could rape his wife and not be charged with a crime because of the marital exception to rape and without a statute saying he has committed a crime, he hasn't. Now you might be able to charge him with domestic violence, it really depends on the circumstances. But it still remains a legal reality here that raping your wife isn't rape. So why people are up in arms about the Afghani law and not making a fuss about the legal reality of a woman's plight here? I find the marital exception here to be abhorrent yet few people seem to care about it.

[Bendit]

"we are fighting for values..." said the Canadian minister.

Well now. ARe we fighting because we want to eradicate the extremist elements of Taliban and al Qaida or are we fighting to institute our values?

The problem with everyone is that all of us do not understand what the mission really is. It keeps changing or getting blurred.

[jrfunkenstein]

Couldn't agree more.

[omobob]

Laws enacted by the US supported Afghan Government do not extend beyond Kabul. Outside of Kabul, Afghans run their own communities as they have for centuries, under Islamic law. The Russians made the same mistake. Now it’s our turn. Kabul and the Karzai government are meaningless and ineffective to the rest of Afghanistan.

[Independent voter]

I can't believe that we're sending our children to die for these kind of people

[jrfunkenstein]

Your kind of people still sanction capital punishment and have no problem when women still make less than men in the same capacity in our enlightened part of the world.

[mergina]

Women of Afghanistan, indeed Women of All Islamic Nations. You are BETTER than the men you serve and fear, and at the very least, ARE THEIR EQUAL. Freedom comes with a price, it always has, and it always will. The FREE WOMEN OF THE WORLD ARE BEHIND YOU. Stand up for yourselves. The men who suppress and abuse you are INSIGNIFICANT WRETCHES.

[who38]

I can assume that you didn't support the Equal Rights Amendment as you felt that it was not needed. If women in the US are all that equal, why do they, on the average make 1/3 less than men? FREE WOMEN OF THE WORLD, conditionally. And name-calling doesn't help.

[who38]

FREE WOMEN OF THE WORLD, conditionally. All religions are paternalistic.

[MED1025]

That's why they don't let them go out alone. They probably wouldn't come back.

[NevaforLeadership]

"Respect local culture," Mr. President?

A culture that creates dire consequences for women who dare to venture out without wearing burqas?

A culture that insists on concealing women from men lest the men are tempted and can't control themselves.

We are so indoctrinated into being politically correct about culture and women, we act like cowards when confronted with abuse of women under the guise of religion.

Almost every week I observe women covered from head to toe -- just eyes showing -- walking Western streets, while their male companions, in the latest fashion trends, cast their eyes over pretty young western women.

And we say nothing. Why would we? It's custom and religion. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

And before anyone responds that women choose to dress that way, I put it to you that if there were dire legal consequences for any man who puts pressure on a woman to dress that way, the custom would very quickly disappear altogther -- it is not natural to dress that way.

[Paulo1]

Want to bet ?

Since when has an Ambassador been the final arbiter of law in any country? His job is to sooth ruffled feathers and make nice. In this case saying things that the number one military force and check writer for his poor country want to hear. Do you really think he would have an interview in the United States and say he was backing a law he knows drives even Republicans nuts with indignation??

When I hear it announced in Kabul by Karzai I will believe it.

[who38]

My initial reaction as well. However, he DID say it and it DOES open a door.

[jrfunkenstein]

'When I hear it announced in Kabul by Karzai I will believe it.'

Don't hold your breath; he's the one who signed it into law.

[obamanomics]

Law won't go into effect, but nobody will ever be brought up on charges for doing it.

[NYC123]

We are invaders and occupiers, and should stay out of the bedrooms in Afghanistan. Only Americans would call that law, "a rape law (of wife)!" It seems that if that law passes, it would shrink Western support in many fronts.
I find it outrageous that it is okay by us (Americans) and the rest of the Western world that in Afghanistan, Muslin converts to Christianity can be put to death!! That practice alone is reason enough "why we should leave Afghanistan to the Afghans!" Christians should not be sacrificing their blood, time and treasure to promote Christian base freedoms in Afghanistan if their government and culture (people) think it is okay to kill Muslins that converted to Christianity! With allies like that "who needs enemies!"

[mollymac]

Yeah except they want money, protection, defense troops, blah, blah. The taliban and their extremist and their horrid treatment of women has insulted the rest of the world. IF they want our help, we have to help in more ways than money and troops. Have you seen pictures of women being buried up to their shoulders while men stand around and throw boulders at them until dead? Last I heard, a 13 yo little girl who was raped by 3 men and made the unfortunate decision to "tell" was stoned to death for her sexual deviance. Yeah, great country. Let's leave 'em alone.

[who38]

As is true in numerous countries throughout the world.