• 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 law will enable husband to starve wives who withhold sex

Laila

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law.
Click to expand...

It allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands; a woman must get her husband's permission to work; and fathers and grandfathers are given exclusive custody of children
Click to expand...

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Row over Afghan wife-starving law

Nice to know what we are fighting for in Afghanistan :doh
Seems they are using democracy just fine to oppress
 
Laila said:
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Row over Afghan wife-starving law

Nice to know what we are fighting for in Afghanistan :doh
Seems they are using democracy just fine to oppress
Click to expand...

The US needs to seek a very active role in Afghanistani politics; they should get themselves in the position where they can establish secularism and Democracy the way they did in Iraq and block such laws that go against the Human Rights bill. That country sickens me.
 
The U.S. will shape its foreign policy in reaction to laws like this, and it will affect our future relationship with the nation, like it has with Iraq and Iran.
 
Then that is not democracy Kaya.
 
Someone should tell them that they advance the wrong way.
 
Laila said:
Then that is not democracy Kaya.
Click to expand...

Neither is this. The US can use its power and military might to act like an authoritarian power in the country for its time being (heck, its invaded it), in the sense that it will have a major ability to guide the Afghanistani's policies and create a strong Democracy, not lead them. It would have the power, through the agreement and support of NATO member countries, to block policies that go against any UN charters, bills etc (human rights). When it leaves, or at least when it has put the country on the road to a decent/respectable Democracy, it can butt out.
 
We really need to just exile all oppressed women and literally leave all of these misogynists with their Johnsons in their hands.
 
kaya'08 said:
Neither is this. The US can use its power and military might to act like an authoritarian power in the country for its time being (heck, its invaded it), in the sense that it will have a major ability to guide the Afghanistani's policies and create a strong Democracy, not lead them. It would have the power, through the agreement and support of NATO member countries, to block policies that go against any UN charters, bills etc (human rights). When it leaves, or at least when it has put the country on the road to a decent/respectable Democracy, it can butt out.
Click to expand...

We said we went into Afghanistan to establish democracy.
Well they just passed a law through a democratic process and signed by the head. We have to accept it unless we wish to become hypocritical in our beliefs.

Do they not have a constitution?
 
Laila said:
We said we went into Afghanistan to establish democracy.
Well they just passed a law through a democratic process and signed by the head. We have to accept it unless we wish to become hypocritical in our beliefs.

Do they not have a constitution?
Click to expand...
This law is democratic by paper but not democratic by essence.
A democracy is a state that follows the democratic rules and laws, while embracing democracy's values.
Equality is one of the biggest values a democracy has to offer, and this law is against it.
So basically, this law is against Democracy, even though it was signed democratically.
I know it might be hard to understand, but you'll get to it one day. :2razz:
 
This is the problem with using the term "democracy" when what you really mean is "limited government that respects human rights".


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

That isn't what the USA is about, or supposed to be about. We're a representative Republic, with limited government constrained by the Constitution at least in theory.

Just because a majority votes for something doesn't make it right...this is an excellent case in point. Too much "democracy" can be just as oppressive as any autocracy.


G.
 
Goshin said:
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Click to expand...
Democracy can also be two sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner.

People tend to forget that when they bring up that line.
 
Apocalypse said:
Democracy can also be two sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner.

People tend to forget that when they bring up that line.
Click to expand...

The point was that pure democracy allows the majority to run roughshod tyranically over the minority.
 
Laila said:
We said we went into Afghanistan to establish democracy.
Well they just passed a law through a democratic process and signed by the head. We have to accept it unless we wish to become hypocritical in our beliefs.

Do they not have a constitution?
Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein even had a constitution...

The Chinese single party electoral process is also "democratic" in the sense there vote is counted, and is fair, and actually changes things, though it may not change much, but its a communism.
Just like i believe the Afghanistani's can pass any and all laws democratically, the end result is still a Tyranny. I dont believe a Democracy can solely be called that based on its electoral process (though without one, or a good one, i would not call it a Democracy). More things matter aswell. In the end, this law wasnt put to popular vote, its not what freedom wants, and most importantly of all, its not what the people want. We are here to promote humanism, not barbarianism.

I don't believe stepping out of the box once in a while to promote freedom, equality, and Democracy in a seriously troubled nation makes us hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
The US needs to seek a very active role in Afghanistani politics; they should get themselves in the position where they can establish secularism and Democracy the way they did in Iraq and block such laws that go against the Human Rights bill. That country sickens me.
Click to expand...
I think at this juncture I would prefer the US seek a very inactive role in Afghanistan. I think our role should be limited to arming every warlord to the teeth and letting them do what they want to do anyway and fight amongst themselves. Pull out the troops, pull out the civilians, develop a security agreement with Pakistan to keep the Taliban bottled up within Afghanistan, and let them have their little civil war.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
We really need to just exile all oppressed women and literally leave all of these misogynists with their Johnsons in their hands.
Click to expand...
You could always outlaw marriage, but then other countries would begin to complain. :mrgreen:
 
kaya'08 said:
I don't believe stepping out of the box once in a while to promote freedom, equality, and Democracy in a seriously troubled nation makes us hypocrites.
Click to expand...

In fact not doing anything at all seems far more Hypocritical to me.

celticlord said:
I think at this juncture I would prefer the US seek a very inactive role in Afghanistan. I think our role should be limited to arming every warlord to the teeth and letting them do what they want to do anyway and fight amongst themselves. Pull out the troops, pull out the civilians, develop a security agreement with Pakistan to keep the Taliban bottled up within Afghanistan, and let them have their little civil war.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, in essence its a little more hassle free your approach, but the Americans did the exact same thing in Iran. You see the problem is, when you take this approach, all you can do is cross your fingers and hope the Capitalists/Secularists rise victorious. Otherwise, we are adding an extra Theocracy to our list that funds terrorism.
 
Realist1 said:
Don't worry Laila. You'll soon have Sharia Law in England. Then you'll have first hand experiences alongside the Afgani Women.:roll: (Sarcasm).

Take care.
Click to expand...

That is not even worth a response.

So i will just say 'lol'
 
Laila said:
That is not even worth a response.

So i will just say 'lol'
Click to expand...

It's a scary thought though, isn't it? :roll: I've seen your Military coming back Home,,,and the Islamic Trash you've let into your Country is allowed to dishonor them. None of your Labour Leaders dare speak up.:roll:

What the Hell has happened to you Brits? Take care.
 
Realist1 said:
It's a scary thought though, isn't it? :roll: I've seen your Military coming back Home,,,and the Islamic Trash you've let into your Country is allowed to dishonor them. None of your Labour Leaders dare speak up.:roll:

What the Hell has happened to you Brits? Take care.
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right, Realist1. If only we had a nationalist party that didn't believe in the motto "keep the milk white", or had hardcore foreign policies, so that at least they can crush the lefts who swear allegiance to selling out there country for Europe and Political correctness, and sort out the streets of England, and just clean up the trash that have accumulated here for decades under Labour rule.
 
Laila said:
We said we went into Afghanistan to establish democracy.
Click to expand...

No. Actually we went into Afghanistan because al-Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. And the Taliban was allowing them to operate there.

Laila said:
Well they just passed a law through a democratic process and signed by the head. We have to accept it unless we wish to become hypocritical in our beliefs.

Do they not have a constitution?
Click to expand...

Democracy is more than just holding elections.
 
Kandahar said:
No. Actually we went into Afghanistan because al-Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. And the Taliban was allowing them to operate there.
Click to expand...

It was an attack on the west, not just the US.



Democracy is more than just holding elections.
Click to expand...

I share this belief also, though some people choose to disagree.
 
kaya'08 said:
It was an attack on the west, not just the US.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
It was a attack on the United States.

Since when was the twin towers British property? Or French? Or even Irish?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom