• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Afghan Law Limits Womens' Rights

Orion

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Harper 'deeply troubled' by Afghan move to limit women's rights

Article said:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday that Canada remains committed to its mission in Afghanistan, but he voiced strong concerns about new Afghan legislation that would limit women's rights in that country.

"This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan," Harper said in an interview with CBC News.

The new Afghan family law would reportedly make it illegal for women to refuse their husbands sex, leave the house without their permission or have custody of children.
Click to expand...

While I support every nation's sovereignty and their ability to form their own customs, part of the reason why we are fighting for Afghanistan is not just the Taliban but also to bring democracy and civil liberties to the region. Why is the installed government taking social steps backwards? Is this simply to appease the religious right?
 
Orius said:
Harper 'deeply troubled' by Afghan move to limit women's rights



While I support every nation's sovereignty and their ability to form their own customs, part of the reason why we are fighting for Afghanistan is not just the Taliban but also to bring democracy and civil liberties to the region. Why is the installed government taking social steps backwards? Is this simply to appease the religious right?
Click to expand...

Hopefully it will either fail or be struck down as unconstitutional.

Article Twenty-two
Ch. 2, Art. 1

Any kind of discrimination and privilege between the citizens of Afghanistan are prohibited.

The citizens of Afghanistan – whether man or woman – have equal rights and duties before the law
Click to expand...

I forgot what we're dealing with here.

afghan-women-cp-w6373657.jpg


whoo boy...
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
Harper 'deeply troubled' by Afghan move to limit women's rights



While I support every nation's sovereignty and their ability to form their own customs, part of the reason why we are fighting for Afghanistan is not just the Taliban but also to bring democracy and civil liberties to the region. Why is the installed government taking social steps backwards? Is this simply to appease the religious right?
Click to expand...

According to the article the legislation was aimed at influencing a segment of shia swing voters in their upcoming election.
 
Last edited:
We may overthrow a Government/regime but we cannot force western ideals onto them like womens rights. Only they can do that.

If people wish to limit their freedoms, do we allow them?
 
Last edited:
Now I'm far from a silly universalist who thinks every gov't should be basically the same with the same organisation, laws and rights but I'm no relativist either and I don't find this move welcoming, particularly with British troops serving the region.
 
Laila said:
We may overthrow a Government/regime but we cannot force western ideals onto them like womens rights. Only they can do that.

If people wish to limit their freedoms, do we allow them?
Click to expand...

We don't in our country. There are millions of people in the US that are only being held back by the Constitution, and just barely so. The Afghan government enacted the Constitution, thus limiting their power perpetually (or until they can get activist judges to interpret the thing into meaninglessness).

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Constitutions. They prevent a tyranny of the majority. In this case, if husbands want to limit their wives like this than the wife can follow the rules if she so chooses. Just because there are cultural restrictions doesn't mean they have to enshrined in law.
 
BulletWounD said:
Yeah, I'm a big fan of Constitutions. They prevent a tyranny of the majority. In this case, if husbands want to limit their wives like this than the wife can follow the rules if she so chooses. Just because there are cultural restrictions doesn't mean they have to enshrined in law.
Click to expand...

I wish we did have a codified consitution, i say we just steal US's one. So much better than ours.

Seriously? :p
Culture overrides consitutional restrictions, what kind of stupid politican in Afghanistan or Iraq would go against cultural beliefs that is held in the majority just so they can appease the minority of pro wests?

Did you read what happened a while back?
A Afghan converted out of Islam to Christianity, it was taken to court if i remember correctly and the President to ensure he wasn't torn apart and killed by the country declared the convert crazy and mentally ill thus avoiding a crisis seeing the 'consitution' enshrines freedom of religion but the countries culture does not. Oh and people wanted the convert to be beheaded
 
Laila said:
I wish we did have a codified consitution, i say we just steal US's one. So much better than ours.
Click to expand...
Excuse me. We have an ancient constitution that has served us well for centuries. Maybe if liberals started actually defending it rather than running it down and undermining it. We don't need the US constitution, a constitution that is made for all nations is made for none as De Maistre once said.

Seriously? You kidding me? LOL
Culture overrides consitutional restrictions, what kind of stupid politican in Afghanistan or Iraq would go against cultural beliefs that is held in the majority just so they can appease the minority of pro wests?
Click to expand...
Here you are correct, any constitution should be built on local traditions and institutions.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
I wish we did have a codified consitution, i say we just steal US's one. So much better than ours.

Seriously? :p
Culture overrides consitutional restrictions, what kind of stupid politican in Afghanistan or Iraq would go against cultural beliefs that is held in the majority just so they can appease the minority of pro wests?
Click to expand...

It's not to "appease the minority of the pro west." It's to protect the rights of women who don't want the government to dictate what they can and can't do. I care infinitely more about their rights than the "right" of the tyrant to dictate.

Did you read what happened a while back?
A Afghan converted out of Islam to Christianity, it was taken to court if i remember correctly and the President to ensure he wasn't torn apart and killed by the country declared the convert crazy and mentally ill thus avoiding a crisis seeing the 'consitution' enshrines freedom of religion but the countries culture does not. Oh and people wanted the convert to be beheaded
Click to expand...

The problem isn't Islam, it's Islamism and the radical interpretation of Islam the Taliban has enforced for decades.
Click to expand...
 
Wessexman said:
We don't need the US constitution, a constitution that is made for all nations is made for none as De Maistre once said.
Click to expand...

I disagree, a US consitution is exactly what we should be aiming for. It is a joke that we have little to protect us from our government except the HRA and a few traditions. The constitution is little to worthless seeing it can be changed through a simple act of Parliament.
I want a bill of rights enshrined and i want limitations on the executive.
The Americans have no idea how lucky they are to have such a consitution whereas we do nothing when the Govt. spies on us
 
BulletWounD said:
The problem isn't Islam, it's Islamism and the radical interpretation of Islam the Taliban has enforced for decades.
Click to expand...

And it'll take decades to change it back to whatever it was previously
 
Laila said:
I disagree, a US consitution is exactly what we should be aiming for. It is a joke that we have little to protect us from our government except the HRA and a few traditions. The constitution is little to worthless seeing it can be changed through a simple act of Parliament.
I want a bill of rights enshrined and i want limitations on the executive.
The Americans have no idea how lucky they are to have such a consitution whereas we do nothing when the Govt. spies on us
Click to expand...
These things do not require a US style constitution. They can changed through a reform that still stresses the continuity of our ancient constitution. The problem is that with the Whig ascendancy of post-1689 and particularly after the reform act of 1832 the constitution was forgotten
in favour of the innovative, unconstitutional ideal of the power of parliament to an absolute degree that no Stuart would have dreamed of.

Unfortunately Blair did not help here with his replacing of our ancient hereditary peerage with life peer pawns of PMs and of course the interference of foreign powers, particularly the EUroplot despotism in our affairs.

What we do need is something to stress that the British are sovereign in Britain and that Brussels has no power over us.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Unfortunately Blair did not help here with his replacing of our ancient hereditary peerage with life peer pawns of PMs and of course the interference of foreign powers, particularly the EUroplot despotism in our affairs.
Click to expand...

The Europeans protect my rights more than the British Government does. One more reason i love the EU
 
Laila said:
The Europeans protect my rights more than the British Government does. One more reason i love the EU
Click to expand...

Aren't you a first generation migrant? I'm sorry if it isn't PC but I do find it a little impolite that you advocate the removal of your new homeland's sovereignty.

The EU is despotism. It does little to protect our rights, in fact half of what it calls rights are PC idiocy, it say protects our "rights" to diversity officers and our "right" to have our free speech invaded if the EUroplot considers it hate speech. But it takes our sovereignty and forces its authoritarian laws on our people which is not worth even what you claim, if that is correct. What is even the point of talking of the rights of Englishmen if we are beholden for them to some nightmare, supranational entity that can never be democratic and is authoritarian, corrupt, very bureaucratic and politically correct/social democratic.

You have to remember means and ends. The EUroplots means are not worth the ends.
 
Last edited:
BulletWounD said:
Hopefully it will either fail or be struck down as unconstitutional.



I forgot what we're dealing with here.

afghan-women-cp-w6373657.jpg


whoo boy...
Click to expand...
Every date is a blind date.
 
Wessexman said:
Aren't you a first generation migrant? I'm sorry if it isn't PC but I do find it a little impolite that you advocate the removal of your new homeland's sovereignty.

The EU is despotism. It does little to protect our rights, in fact half of what it calls rights are PC idiocy. But it takes our sovereignty and forces its authoritarian laws on our people which is not worth even what you claim, if that is correct. What is even the point of talking of the rights of Englishmen if we are beholden for them to some nightmare, supranational entity that can never be democratic and is authoritarian, corrupt, very bureaucratic and politically correct/social democratic.

You have to remember means and ends. The EUroplots means are not worth the ends.
Click to expand...

The EU is just another step in the march towards world federalism and a one world government.
 
BulletWounD said:
The EU is just another step in the march towards world federalism and a one world government.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you might be correct but we have to fight the good fight even if we are likely to fail. I will defend English sovereignty, the ancient English society and fight the EUroplot with all my strength.
 
Wessexman said:
Aren't you a first generation migrant? I'm sorry if it isn't PC but I do find it a little impolite that you advocate the removal of your new homeland's sovereignty.

The EU is despotism. It does little to protect our rights, in fact half of what it calls rights are PC idiocy. But it takes our sovereignty and forces its authoritarian laws on our people which is not worth even what you claim, if that is correct. What is even the point of talking of the rights of Englishmen if we are beholden for them to some nightmare, supranational entity that can never be democratic and is authoritarian, corrupt, very bureaucratic and politically correct/social democratic.

You have to remember means and ends. The EUroplots means are not worth the ends.
Click to expand...
Well you know how it is these days, immigrants don't come to be part of a country anymore, they come to change the country into whatever they feel it should be. Look at the illegals we have in the US, they raise Mexican flags in honor of the country that wouldn't do for them what we do. It's total bull****.
 
American said:
Well you know how it is these days, immigrants don't come to be part of a country anymore, they come to change the country into whatever they feel it should be. Look at the illegals we have in the US, they raise Mexican flags in honor of the country that wouldn't do for them what we do. It's total bull****.
Click to expand...

Well, there are problems with the English Constitution that allow the government to get away with murder as long as they have the majority vote. I'm not saying they should change it, I'm just suggesting that they take a critical look at it.
 
BulletWounD said:
Well, there are problems with the English Constitution that allow the government to get away with murder as long as they have the majority vote. I'm not saying they should change it, I'm just suggesting that they take a critical look at it.
Click to expand...

The problem is that this is the view of it that prevails among the public and media.

The lords, before Blair butchered it, or the monarch or the church etc cannot do their role because the media will scream things about it being "undemocratic"(whereas a parliament in Brussels that represent 500 million people will be oh so democratic), and the people will generally agree.
 
Wessexman said:
The problem is that this is the view of it that prevails among the public and media.

The lords, before Blair butchered it, or the monarch or the church etc cannot do their role because the media will scream things about it being "undemocratic"(whereas a parliament in Brussels that represent 500 million people will be oh so democratic), and the people will generally agree.
Click to expand...

For instance? I'm not suggesting you strip anything away, but I think the UK could desperately use a "right to privacy" provision for instance. The Labor Party has been trying to build a big brother database state.
 
BulletWounD said:
For instance?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are asking.

I'm not suggesting you strip anything away, but I think the UK could desperately use a "right to privacy" provision for instance. The Labor Party has been trying to build a big brother database state.
Click to expand...
What I'm basically saying is our constitution or ancient constitution is ignored, and partially butchered with the removal of the hereditary peers, because many people, even Tories, can't accept anything but the supposed mass, majority or at least the party voted by the mass majority getting its will. The lords has its constitution role, even today, and could block such measures but if it blocked anything that wasn't drastically unpopular if would raise shouts of being "undemocratic".

Basically a constitution takes a certain amount of respect for it to mean anything. At the moment I don't think the British public will endorse anything but a simple mass, majority assembly having almost all power on most issues.

One can look at Australia which does have a written constitution somewhat like the US and see the due to the lack of respect for the separation of powers and bicameralism and federalism here among the media and people that the constitution is not too meaningful.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
I'm not sure what you are suggesting.


What I'm basically saying is our constitution or ancient constitution is ignored, and partially butchered with the removal of the hereditary peers, because many people, even Tories, can't accept anything but the supposed mass, majority or at least the party voted by the mass majority getting its will.
Click to expand...

So do you want Kings and Queens in a position of power?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom