Kuwait to Allow Women to Vote

[Monte Smith]

Great news: Kuwait is scheduled to enter the early 20th century sometime in 2007.

Kuwait grants women right to vote
By Haitham Haddadin




KUWAIT (Reuters) - Kuwait's parliament passed a law on Monday granting women the right to vote and run in elections for the first time, after pressure from the pro-Western Gulf Arab state's reformist government.

"We made it. This is history," prominent activist Roula al-Dashti told reporters. "Our target is the parliamentary polls in 2007. I'm starting my campaign from today."
Outside parliament, people danced and cheered, passing drivers hooted their horns in support and fireworks lit the sky.

Parliament speaker Jassim al-Khorafi said a majority of the all-male parliament passed the law after a marathon nine-hour session. Thirty-five voted in favor, 23 against and one abstained in a vote that had met fierce resistance from Islamists and conservative tribal MPs.

The United States has pressed its allies in the Middle East to reform, saying a lack of freedom had fostered Islamic militancy. The Kuwait government wanted the bill passed before a likely trip by the prime minister to Washington next month.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters in Washington: "We think this is an important step forward for Kuwait, for the women of Kuwait and for the nation as a whole."

Islamist and conservative lawmakers, who wield enormous influence, narrowly defeated a similar women's rights decree issued by Emir Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah in 1999.

"Thank God we finished with this issue," Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah said. "I want our womenfolk to help us build our beloved country and our future."

He said women could be appointed to the 15-member cabinet.

"This is a celebration for democracy even though it is 45 years late," said Jassim al-Gitami, a former MP and head of the Kuwaiti Human Rights Association.

TOO LATE FOR THE ELECTIONS

Women activists said it was too late for women to vote and run for local elections set for June 2, after parliament earlier this month delayed a vote on the issue.

On Monday, Islamist MPs added a clause stipulating women must abide by Islamic Sharia rules when voting or running for office. MPs and women activists said this could include issues such as separate polling stations for men and women.

Islamist MP Faisal al-Muslim told Reuters he voted against the law. "An MP position in parliament would make women responsible for the masses and that is anti-Islamic," he said.

Kuwaiti women, traditionally more liberal and educated than their Gulf Arab counterparts but lagging behind in political rights, have demanded a greater say for years.

Parliament met to discuss a bill only allowing women to participate in municipal elections.

But in a surprise move, Sheikh Sabah's government instead asked the house for an urgent vote on granting full political rights to women.



Analysts said the government had tempted some Islamist and tribal and other lawmakers by agreeing to a popular bill to raise salaries for most public and private employees.

"MPs are being pressured from all sides ... locally and externally, to grant political rights to women," Islamist lawmaker Ali al-Deqbasi told the house.

Daifallah Buramia, another Islamist MP who also voted against the bill, said: "Anyone who supports the passage of this law would bear the sin until Judgement Day."

But veteran lawmaker Ahmad al-Saadoun challenged these MPs to come up with a single Koranic verse or saying of the prophet Mohammad that opposes voting rights for women.

"This is a historic moment for women," Sheikha Suad al-Sabah, a member of the ruling family told Reuters. (Additional reporting by H. Hashim Ahmed and Mahmoud Harbi)

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Pretty cool. I remember them talking about it right after the Gulf War. Took about 15 years to pull it off.

Now if the Saudi's would let their women drive...

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Pretty cool. I remember them talking about it right after the Gulf War. Took about 15 years to pull it off.

Now if the Saudi's would let their women drive...

Don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia. My aunt and uncle, who recently moved from Saudi to Bahrain, are in town for a few days and the stories they tell are insane. What a society.

I'm sure this will be taken the wrong way, but broads shouldn't be allowed to drive.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I'm sure this will be taken the wrong way, but broads shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Wrong way? But how could that be possible?

My aunt can't drive over there, of course. Can't go outside without a man to "protect" her. Crimony.

Originally Posted by Satan

Wrong way? But how could that be possible?

Well, you know....

The whole closed minded misogynist pig type thing.

But that's not the case at all.

[Tom Storer]

That's great news indeed.

Hopefully the medievalists will sound pretty funny a generation or two from now:

On Monday, Islamist MPs added a clause stipulating women must abide by Islamic Sharia rules when voting or running for office. MPs and women activists said this could include issues such as separate polling stations for men and women.

Daifallah Buramia, another Islamist MP who also voted against the bill, said: "Anyone who supports the passage of this law would bear the sin until Judgement Day."

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

That's great news indeed.

It is good news. You can tell by the general ambivalence.

General ambivalence?!

Them there's crickets you hear, my friend.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

General ambivalence?!

Them there's crickets you hear, my friend.

If only there was some way we could prove that women being allowed to vote in an Arab principality was a triumph for the values of people who hate George Bush.

Perhaps you're familiar with a little saying about blood and a turnip?

[Tom Storer]

I think the failure of the crowd to burst into spontaneous applause is more that they're afraid women being allowed to vote in an Arab principality will be claimed as a triumph for the values of people who love George Bush as opposed to those who hate him. Which of course is ludicrous, in that both Democrats and Republicans, I believe, massively approve universal suffrage.

Another example of women's rights struggling forward in the Middle East can be found here. Still a ways to go but every little bit helps. It's a fine thing the Queen of Jordan is active on the issue and has the King's support.

Hard labor sentences for Jordanian honor killers

Stabbed pregnant sister "to get rid of the shame"

Thursday, May 19, 2005 Posted: 0151 GMT (0951 HKT)

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- A court issued Jordan's harshest punishment ever for an honor killing: 7 1/2 and 10-year jail terms for two brothers who stabbed their pregnant sister. But the judge said Wednesday while he wasn't setting a principle, he felt the men deserved hard time because they didn't act in a sudden fury.

The ruling comes amid a campaign led by Jordan's Queen Rania to amend lenient laws that provide for sentences as light as six months in prison for honor killings. An average of 20 women a year are killed by male relatives each year, some for simply dating, according to government figures.

Lawmakers of conservative tribal backgrounds, however, have rejected changes, saying they would give rise to more vice.

The brothers, Raed and Bilal Rabah al-Ajouri, were convicted of premeditated murder in the killing of their sister Amira in April 2004.

According to the indictment sheet, Amira was in a relationship with an Egyptian man without her family's knowledge. When they found out she was pregnant, her father gave his blessing for the union to go ahead, and she later left for Egypt. But she returned to Jordan to give birth in her home country.

The indictment sheet said when her two brothers learned that their sister was in town, they planned to kill her "to get rid of the shame." The elder brother, Raed, took his 25-year-old sister to his house and stabbed her to death, also killing the fetus.

A police official had said last year that the woman was eight months pregnant with a baby boy. The charge sheet listed her as three months pregnant.

Police said Raed confessed and said his brother Bilal knew of the plans. Once the trial opened, however, the two brothers retracted their confessions and pleaded not guilty to the charges. The court verdict was issued in March and made available to the press Wednesday.

Judge Mohammed Abu-Dalbouh commuted Raed's death sentence to 10 years in jail with hard labor. He sentenced Bilal to 10 years, but commuted the term to 7 1/2 years in jail with hard labor.

The judge underscored the severity of the sentences, saying that the two brothers had plotted the killing beforehand. "The case lacked the factor of the act of fury," he told The Associated Press.

"So far there is no general intention to deal differently with the honor crimes and impose harsher punishment," Abu Dalbouh said.

Since 2000 the government has been pushing for legislation that would impose harsher punishment on men who commit honor crimes.

To help combat domestic violence, the government -- under instructions from Jordan's King Abdullah II and his wife, Rania -- has been providing legal, medical and social support to abused women. A hotline has been set up, and a shelter is expected to open early next year.

On Monday a 24-year-old married woman was stabbed in the stomach and back with a kitchen knife, allegedly by her 19-year-old brother.

He claimed that he had killed his sister to cleanse the family's honor after finding a man in her house.

[Monte Smith]

Indeed, Tom. A long way to go but this case shows slow but positive progress in Jordan. You and I have long agreed on the centrality of women's rights to the issue of "what is wrong with Islam."

[Noj]

I find it very difficult to imagine caring about the rules of society enough to turn a knife on my own sister. Don't they love their families? It boggles the mind.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Noj

I find it very difficult to imagine caring about the rules of society enough to turn a knife on my own sister. Don't they love their families? It boggles the mind.

There are those who love "honor" more than they love their sisters, that's for sure.

[Monte Smith]

Most men in Arabic cultures do not view women as equals. Women barely rise to the level of pet, that's obvious. But look, the minds of the men are messed up. Their brutality towards women jeopardizes their own psyches as much as it does the freedom and the safety of the women. The culture is to blame. There needs to be change. Two hundred years ago when our own country tragically enshrined African slavery among its cultural institutions, plenty of our founders spoke out against the practice as a mistake--not just for the crime it represented against Blacks, but because of the damage it would do to the health of our republic and, for want of a better phrase, the souls of white folks. It's an imperfect analogy for the state of Arabic civilization, but no one will argue that the Arabs don't face at least a similar challenge--in fact, a much harder challenge. But if female equality arrives in the Arab world, it will help women, it will allow Arabic society to succeed and prosper, and it will free the men, also, from a sordid and self-corrupting patriarchal tyranny.

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

I think the failure of the crowd to burst into spontaneous applause is more that they're afraid women being allowed to vote in an Arab principality will be claimed as a triumph for the values of people who love George Bush as opposed to those who hate him. Which of course is ludicrous, in that both Democrats and Republicans, I believe, massively approve universal suffrage.

The toolboxes must be waiting for the NOW harridans to take off their burkhas and join in the celebration. Failing that I guess we have to assume that they're down with sharia law.

[Noj]

I don't know Monte. A society which produces the kind of creep who would shank his own sister (and a seemingly endless list of similar atrocities committed against women for similar stupid reasons) combined with the suicidal loonies who kamikaze attack their own to sabotage US efforts...it ain't worth it. These people aren't ready for change. We'll kill the whole stubborn lot before they fall in line.

[crawjo]

It is regrettable that seemingly every event in the world now has to be viewed by Americans through the prism of George W. Bush. He's not that important, people. You can disagree with him on all kinds of issues, but it does not mean that you have to reflexively dislike anything that will be good for him. If you reach the point where you silently seethe as previously disenfranchised peoples gain the right to vote, or privately celebrate when innocent civilians are slaughtered somewhere, simply because it makes him look bad, you are slipping into a nightmare where you are letting him define the world for you, and where the rise and fall of his political fortunes becomes the single most important factor in any event. It's like the bizarro version of some Bush-worship cult, and in the end is equally unattractive, I think.

[Noj]

It is hopefully a step in the right direction, but the fanatics have never failed to amaze with their brazen lack of value for human life. Just picture them taking the ball and running with this one...

'Islamist MP Faisal al-Muslim told Reuters he voted against the law. "An MP position in parliament would make women responsible for the masses and that is anti-Islamic," '

It's like, oh here we go...

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Noj

It is hopefully a step in the right direction, but the fanatics have never failed to amaze with their brazen lack of value for human life.

You definitely have a point, Noj. There is no shortage of steps back for every two steps forward. Witness:


Woman killed for pop music
By Catherine Philp
The (London) Times


SHAIMA REZAYEE was the face of a new generation of young Afghan women: she discarded her shalwar kameez and burkha for Western clothes and a glamorous job as a television presenter on Kabul’s answer to MTV.

But two months ago her bosses were forced to dismiss Ms Rezayee, 24, under pressure from conservative mullahs who were disgusted by the “unIslamic values” of her music show.

This week she paid for her unconventional choices with her life: she was shot dead in her home by an unknown assailant.

Police said that they believed the killing was linked to her former job as a “veejay” — video journalist — on Hop, which was broadcast by Tolo TV, one of a number of private stations set up since the fall of the Taleban.

Ms Rezayee was the only female presenter on the show, which won as many young urban fans as it did enemies among the mullahs. Her murder raises the stakes in the battle for the soul of Afghanistan’s young people.

Like other young women, Ms Rezayee was denied five years of schooling while the Taleban were in control and like them was forced to wear the burkha whenever she ventured out of the house.

When the Taleban were driven from power, she was one of the first to drop the veil. Then in October she burst on to Kabul television screens presenting an hour-long music and chat show airing videos of Western singers such as Madonna, as well as Turkish and Iranian pop stars.

Tolo TV was the latest private station to test the boundaries of acceptability in an Islamic republic — and the most controversial. The station was the brainchild of an Afghan who returned from Australia and who already owned Arman, a wildly popular youth radio station.

Tolo quickly became the most watched station in the city with a reported 81 per cent audience share and Hop was its No 1 programme. But it drew the ire of the country’s mullahs and members of the Supreme Court, who were still incensed after losing a battle last year to have women removed from the nation’s television screens.

In March the national Ulema Council, a government panel of religious scholars, issued a statement accusing the station of “broadcasting music, naked dance and foreign films, which are against Islam and other national values of Afghanistan”. Hop was at the top of their hitlist.

The information ministry asked the station to tone down the show, objecting specifically to the raciness of the pop videos and the “casual” chat between male and female presenters. In Afghanistan even conversation between men and women who are not related is regarded as suspect.

S.A.H. Sancharaky, the Deputy Minister for Information and Culture, told a foreign interviewer that the Government prided itself on not censoring the show but was compelled to ask for changes. One particularly offensive incident, he noted, was when a male presenter had complimented Ms Rezayee on her shoes. “He says, ‘Can you hold up your legs so everybody can see how good your shoes are?’” the official recalled. “ ‘Hold up your legs’ has a very bad meaning in our language.”

It was to be Ms Rezayee and not the male presenter who would pay for this exchange.

As they prepared to go national with satellite broadcasting, the station dropped her. Young viewers expressed disappointment but not surprise. In an interview three months ago Ms Reyazee noted that the split in attitudes towards women on television was generational, pitting the urban young, who delight in their freedom to watch satellite television and foreign movies, against their conservative elders.

She acknowledged that she was pushing boundaries that other young Afghan women were afraid to challenge. She hoped others would follow.

[crawjo]

How awful. It's a shame that the left hasn't done more to confront this kind of misogyny and bigotry. It would be nice to have more (genuinely) liberal proposals to counteract conservative rhetoric on reforming the Middle East.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

if female equality arrives in the Arab world, it will help women, it will allow Arabic society to succeed and prosper, and it will free the men, also, from a sordid and self-corrupting patriarchal tyranny.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

The toolboxes must be waiting for the NOW harridans to take off their burkhas and join in the celebration. Failing that I guess we have to assume that they're down with sharia law.

Who do you mean by "the toolboxes"? In any case, we can't assume they have a particular position just because they have expressed no position--whoever they are. Also I object to your reference to "the NOW harridans." Admit that it's kind of ironic to accuse unnamed others of approving misogyny and at the same time toss around casual anti-feminist insults like "the NOW harridans" (whom, to boot, you rhetorically place under bhurkas, which is hardly nice, is it?)!

Originally Posted by Noj

I don't know Monte. A society which produces the kind of creep who would shank his own sister (and a seemingly endless list of similar atrocities committed against women for similar stupid reasons) combined with the suicidal loonies who kamikaze attack their own to sabotage US efforts...it ain't worth it. These people aren't ready for change. We'll kill the whole stubborn lot before they fall in line.

All kinds of societies produce all kinds of creeps who commit all sorts of crimes. Lumping everyone in the Islamic Middle East together as "these people" and deciding what they're collectively worth (i.e. not the effort of killing them all) is too easy. That profound change in this area won't come easily is axiomatic; we can do what we can to encourage that change but obviously we can't force it by military might.

In addition, think of what a discouraged dismissal of the whole lot means in terms of solidarity or support for the women who are suffering this medieval oppression. "Sorry, ladies, if we can't intimidate the menfolk into revolutionizing their worldview overnight, to hell with it!" Immediate results are what we're conditioned to want in life these days but sometimes you just have to be realistic.

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Also I object to your reference to "the NOW harridans." Admit that it's kind of ironic to accuse unnamed others of approving misogyny and at the same time toss around casual anti-feminist insults like "the NOW harridans" (whom, to boot, you rhetorically place under bhurkas, which is hardly nice, is it?)!

You can object all you want; insulting those hypocritical crones is no more anti-feminist than criticizing Jesse Jackson is anti-black. NOW is no more than a subsidiary of the Donks that has somehow lost their way in the pursuit of power. They've remained silent about liberating women from burkhas and genital mutilation; the only thing they appear to care about is proselyting for abortion. Young people see through their charade and their new memberships are drying up as much as they are.

[walto]

Originally Posted by crawjo

It is regrettable that seemingly every event in the world now has to be viewed by Americans through the prism of George W. Bush. He's not that important, people. You can disagree with him on all kinds of issues, but it does not mean that you have to reflexively dislike anything that will be good for him. If you reach the point where you silently seethe as previously disenfranchised peoples gain the right to vote, or privately celebrate when innocent civilians are slaughtered somewhere, simply because it makes him look bad, you are slipping into a nightmare where you are letting him define the world for you, and where the rise and fall of his political fortunes becomes the single most important factor in any event. It's like the bizarro version of some Bush-worship cult, and in the end is equally unattractive, I think.

I look at this threads like this a bit differently. I take Monte's celebration of the right of women to vote in Kuwait as an example of precisely a type of version of Repug worship you refer to. It's simply an example of "See!? Bush was right!" and would (IMHO) have been started by a partisan Dem rather than a Monte, if Gore had been president today. As Tom well illustrated with my buddy Hate's post, it's not so much interest in women's rights that propels threads of this type.

What is expected of those who don't like Bush with respect to a thread of this nature? Do such people have an obligation to check in and say "Yeah, this is a good thing." and swallow the "But (a) it doesn't have anything to do with Bush, and (b) I still don't like him."? What's the point?

Anyhow, when Monte starts a thread celebrating the good being attempted by his mortal enemies (not the Muslims, really, the Democrats), I'll eat this post. In my view this quoting of the Times of London just represents some sort of weird triumphalism. Monte and Cap would be better off making some contributions to NOW (rather than bashing it) if they're really concerned about these matters. I expect they've had as much to do with progress in this area as Pres. Bush has.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

You can object all you want; insulting those hypocritical crones is no more anti-feminist than criticizing Jesse Jackson is anti-black. NOW is no more than a subsidiary of the Donks that has somehow lost their way in the pursuit of power. They've remained silent about liberating women from burkhas and genital mutilation; the only thing they appear to care about is proselyting for abortion. Young people see through their charade and their new memberships are drying up as much as they are.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had substantive objections to NOW's policies or activities in all this (about which I am uninformed). That makes me read your post in a different light altogether.

[walto]

From the NOW site: (I love the shouting "Shame!" part myself.)

GLOBAL FEMINISM
The Foundation coordinates efforts to communicate with feminist leaders around the world and to educate the public in the United States about the status of women worldwide. As an on- going project, we have been particularly active on the issue of violence against women around the world, publicizing the plight of millions of women maimed by the practice of female genital mutilation.

In addition to the Women's International Symposium on Health (see above), the Foundation co-sponsored two events as part of the World March of Women 2000—the first on October 15th, 2000 in Washington, D.C. and the second on October 17th in New York City. Both events focused on the problems of poverty and violence.

On October 15th, the NOW Foundation co-sponsored the United States' event in D.C. for the World March of Women 2000. Women from around the world marched in unity and shouted "Shame!" at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund buildings in protest of institutions whose policies keep women and children in poverty. Women from so many different cultures, speaking so many different languages, all came together in solidarity to raise our voices against the common enemies threatening all women throughout the world: poverty and violence. Speaker after speaker at the D.C. event told of atrocities in her country, such as rape as an act of war, the sexual trafficking of women, female genital mutilation, so-called honor killings, the killing of female babies, unjust incarcerations, the oppression of women by repressive regimes like the Taliban, and the worldwide oppression of women through domestic violence and sexual assault. Speakers from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe reported a universal truth: that violence is used to keep women in their place. Yet, while women shared their stories of brutal violence and devastating poverty, there was also joy—and lots of colorful clothing, signs and banners, noisemakers, singing and dancing as we celebrated our unique opportunity to be together, finally able to acknowledge each other's plight, while recognizing that sisterhood is global and powerful and that we can and will make progress to improve the lives of women.

Immediately following the World March of Women 2000, NOW Foundation staff participated in the New York action on October 17th, the United Nations' International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Thousands of women attended from over 150 nations, chanting in many languages. A total of 6.7 million petition signatures were presented to a representative of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, containing 17 specific demands for ending poverty and violence. The U.N. event was the culmination of seven months' of actions that began on International Women's Day in March 2000. From then until October, women from over 4,500 women's groups held World March events in 159 countries and territories. While women were marching at the United Nations in New York, other marches were taking place in Brazil, Mexico, India, Rwanda, Jamaica, Bangladesh and the Philippines, all demanding an end to poverty and violence. The World March of Women was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Staff and officers also participated in the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China, with NOW Foundation Secretary Karen Johnson serving on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Network for the Fourth World Conference on Women and Beyond. Two officers and two staff members attended the Conference and the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Forum and presented two workshops: one on organizational development and one on consciousness-raising—the link between the personal and the political. The Foundation works for policy changes based on the Platform for Action and for the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women.

The NOW Foundation also held a Global Feminism Conference in 1992, which brought together hundreds of grassroots feminist leaders from forty-five countries to exchange ideas and resources. We continue to meet regularly with women leaders from around the world.

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

Failing that I guess we have to assume that they're down with sharia law.

Naaa....just the Southern Baptists are..

[Slurpy]

Fixed.

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Sorry, I didn't realize you had substantive mis-informed objections to NOW's policies or activities in all this.That makes me read your post in a different light altogether.

[Noj]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

All kinds of societies produce all kinds of creeps who commit all sorts of crimes. Lumping everyone in the Islamic Middle East together as "these people" and deciding what they're collectively worth (i.e. not the effort of killing them all) is too easy. That profound change in this area won't come easily is axiomatic; we can do what we can to encourage that change but obviously we can't force it by military might.

In addition, think of what a discouraged dismissal of the whole lot means in terms of solidarity or support for the women who are suffering this medieval oppression. "Sorry, ladies, if we can't intimidate the menfolk into revolutionizing their worldview overnight, to hell with it!" Immediate results are what we're conditioned to want in life these days but sometimes you just have to be realistic.

Thanks Tom. I cringed as I typed "these people," and backpedalled with "fanatics."

"we can do what we can to encourage that change but obviously we can't force it by military might."

Someone cc Bush on that one, he hasn't figured it out.