And this is country that in 1979 used to be considered one of the most progressive in Central Asia. US led Western meddling 1980-2015: Mission Accomplished *slow clapping*New Afghanistan law to silence victims of violence against women
Small change to criminal code has huge consequences in country where 'honour' killings and forced marriage are rife
A new Afghan law will allow men to attack their wives, children and sisters without fear of judicial punishment, undoing years of slow progress in tackling violence in a country blighted by so-called "honour" killings, forced marriage and vicious domestic abuse.
The small but significant change to Afghanistan's criminal prosecution code bans relatives of an accused person from testifying against them. Most violence against women in Afghanistan is within the family, so the law – passed by parliament but awaiting the signature of the president, Hamid Karzai – will effectively silence victims as well as most potential witnesses to their suffering.
"It is a travesty this is happening," said Manizha Naderi, director of the charity and campaign group Women for Afghan Women. "It will make it impossible to prosecute cases of violence against women … The most vulnerable people won't get justice now."
Under the new law, prosecutors could never come to court with cases like that of Sahar Gul, a child bride whose in-laws chained her in a basement and starved, burned and whipped her when she refused to work as a prostitute for them. Women like 31-year-old Sitara, whose nose and lips were sliced off by her husband at the end of last year, could never take the stand against their attackers.
"Honour" killings by fathers and brothers who disapprove of a woman's behaviour would be almost impossible to punish. Forced marriage and the sale or trading of daughters to end feuds or settle debt would also be largely beyond the control of the law in a country where the prosecution of abuse is already rare.
It is common in western legal systems to excuse people from testimony that might incriminate their spouse. But it is a very narrow exception, with little resemblance to the blanket ban planned in Afghanistan.
Human Rights Watch said it would "let batterers of women and girls off the hook".
The change is in a section of the criminal code titled "Prohibition of Questioning an Individual as a Witness". Others covered by the ban are children, doctors and defence lawyers for the accused.
Senators originally wanted a milder version of the law that would prevent relatives from being legally obliged to take the stand in a case in which they did not want to testify.
But both houses of parliament eventually passed a draft banning all testimony.
As most Afghans live in walled compounds, shared only with their extended families, this covers most witnesses to violence in the home.
The bill has been sent to Karzai, who must decide whether to sign it into force. After failing to block the change in parliament, campaigners plan to throw their weight behind shaming the president into suspending the new law.
"We will ask the president not to sign until the article is changed, we will put a lot of pressure on him," said Selay Ghaffar, director of the shelter and advocacy group Humanitarian Assistance for the Women and Children of Afghanistan. She said activists hoped to repeat the success of a campaign in 2009 that forced Karzai to soften a family law enshrining marital rape as a husband's right.
But that was five years ago, and since then Karzai has presided over a strengthening of conservative forces. In the last year alone parliament has blocked a law to curb violence against women and cut the quota for women on provincial councils, while the justice ministry floated a proposal to bring back stoning as a punishment for adultery.
"In the beginning they were a little scared with the new government and media," Ghaffar said, referring to the period soon after the Taliban's fall when women's rights were a focus of international attention. "Now they do whatever they want as they have seen the government is not very democratic or strongly in favour of women's rights."
Foreign troops are heading home in large numbers and will all be gone by the end of the year. A long-term deal to keep US forces on in small numbers to train Afghan soldiers and chase international militants along the Pakistani border is failing as a result of opposition from Karzai.
Ties with Washington, which have been bad for years, have worsened amid tensions over the deal, the release of dozens of prisoners who the US says are dangerous Taliban members, and feuding over insurgent attacks and civilian casualties.
Countries that spent billions trying to improve justice and human rights are now focused largely on security, and are retreating from Afghan politics.
Heather Barr, Afghanistan researcher with Human Rights Watch, said: "Opponents of women's rights have been emboldened in the last year. They can see an opportunity right now to begin reversing women's rights – no need to wait for 2015. The lack of response from donors has energised them further. Everyone has known since May that this law could be passed but we didn't hear any donors speaking out about it publicly."
Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
So now the entire Soviet invasion and occupation can be chalked up to Western meddling?US led Western meddling 1980-2015: Mission Accomplished
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
Invasion?Borgholio wrote:So now the entire Soviet invasion and occupation can be chalked up to Western meddling?
In case you missed it, Afghanistan repeatedly invited Soviet troops after backwards policies like ending usury, declaring equality of the sexes, and introducing mass public education sparked conservative uprisings in some of more backward regions. Afghanistan back then had female MPs and ministers, even of education, long before many first world states.
In what language we call situation where forces of inviting country and its ally fight common internal enemy, an invasion? Newspeak?
-
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 331
- Joined: 2009-10-24 01:13pm
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
You are aware that one of the first things the Soviets did when they entered the country was assassinate the Afghan president because they felt that they could not control him and put their own puppet in charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm-333 You cannot claim that you were invited in when one of the first things you do is assassinate the guy who alleged invited you into the country in the first place.Invasion?
In case you missed it, Afghanistan repeatedly invited Soviet troops after backwards policies like ending usury, declaring equality of the sexes, and introducing mass public education sparked conservative uprisings in some of more backward regions. Afghanistan back then had female MPs and ministers, even of education, long before many first world states.
In what language we call situation where forces of inviting country and its ally fight common internal enemy, an invasion? Newspeak?
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
The ruler of Afghanistan wanted Soviet help in crushing his opposition. He kept asking for more and more help and finally the Soviets said he's going too far. Rather than stop arms shipments they just seized control of the government for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war ... tervention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war ... tervention
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
I am aware he was replaced, but Soviet army was invited by whole of ruling party, PDPA, and the only thing that really changed was that the (in Soviet eyes) pro-Chinese president was replaced by pro-Soviet one. You might note Babrak Karmal didn't come out of nowhere, he was Afghan, not Soviet politician. This replacement changed continuity of power in Afghanistan less than typical election in democratic state does, IMHO, had it been a real invasion Afghanistan's army wouldn't say loyal to the state till 1992.stormthebeaches wrote:You are aware that one of the first things the Soviets did when they entered the country was assassinate the Afghan president and put their own puppet in charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm-333 You cannot claim that you were invited in when one of the first things you do is assassinate the guy who alleged invited you into the country in the first place.
-
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 331
- Joined: 2009-10-24 01:13pm
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
So much wrong here.I am aware he was replaced, but Soviet army was invited by whole of ruling party, PDPA, and the only thing that really changed was that the (in Soviet eyes) pro-Chinese president was replaced by pro-Soviet one. You might note Babrak Karmal didn't come out of nowhere, he was Afghan, not Soviet politician. This replacement changed continuity of power in Afghanistan less than typical election in democratic state does, IMHO, had it been a real invasion Afghanistan's army wouldn't say loyal to the state till 1992.
First of all, the Afghan army did not stay loyal until 1992. It is estimated that by 1980, roughly 60 to 75% of the army had either run away, or defected to the rebels. Secondly, PDPA was a puppet of the Soviet Union, long before it seized power in a military coup. Thirdly, the fact that Babrak Karmal was an Afghan politician proves nothing. Many invading countries will find a native ruler to act as their puppet. This was how the British Empire usually operated. The fact that Babrak Karmal was an Afghan does not change the fact that one of the main reasons for the Soviet invasion was to replace the current Afghan leader with one that they could control.
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
There was some turnaround, but the count remained relatively stable through the period.stormthebeaches wrote:First of all, the Afghan army did not stay loyal until 1992. It is estimated that by 1980, roughly 60 to 75% of the army had either run away, or defected to the rebels.
If it was a puppet, why they felt need to replace Afgan president, then? You don't notice you contradicted your previous (and this) post?Secondly, PDPA was a puppet of the Soviet Union, long before it seized power in a military coup.
And yes, they seized power, from king, in bloodless coup. Let me guess, the people who were actually elected had less democratic legitimacy than someone ruling by virtue of birth? Though, you're wrong, it was Daoud Khan who led the coup, PDPA merely supported him.
He was one of first elected non-nominated free Afghani member of parliament. Let me guess, by Soviets? So far, you're the one who was wrong on all counts.Thirdly, the fact that Babrak Karmal was an Afghan politician proves nothing.
Anyway, stupid nitpicking aside, the bottom line is: without advanced western weapons, PDPA most likely would have crushed dissent with the help of Soviet air support, Afghanistan would see at worst 2-3 years of war, not 30, 10 to 20 times less casualties and refugees, and would have been free country in 1991, like rest of the Soviet zone. Today, IMHO it would have resembled Mongolia or Kazakhstan, not become failed state like Somalia. A state with population having layer of educated middle class of both sexes, not free fodder for warlords.
-
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 331
- Joined: 2009-10-24 01:13pm
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
The count did not remain relatively stable. By 1980 the Afghan army shrunk to less than half its size due to desertion and defection. That sure as hell is not relatively stable.There was some turnaround, but the count remained relatively stable through the period.
Yes, Daoud Khan overthrew the monarchy in 1973. However, there was a second military coup in 1978 when the PDPA, under the leadership of Nur Muhammad Taraki) overthrow Daoud and took over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saur_RevolutionThis was the military coup that I was referring to, you ignoring it is very dishonest.And yes, they seized power, from king, in bloodless coup. Let me guess, the people who were actually elected had less democratic legitimacy than someone ruling by virtue of birth? Though, you're wrong, it was Daoud Khan who led the coup, PDPA merely supported him.
The Soviets felt the need to replace the Afghan president because, in 1979, there was a third coup, where President Nur Muhammad Taraki was overthrown and replaced with Hafizullah Amin. The Soviets felt that they could not control the new president so they had in assassinated and replaced with someone they could.If it was a puppet, why they felt need to replace Afgan president, then? You don't notice you contradicted your previous (and this) post?
Babrak Karmal was not elected. He was nominated because most of his political opponents are dead. It is you who has been wrong on all counts.He was one of first elected non-nominated free Afghani member of parliament. Let me guess, by Soviets? So far, you're the one who was wrong on all counts.
Doubtful, considering that the Afghan government lost around 60-75% of its forces due to desertion and defection.Anyway, stupid nitpicking aside, the bottom line is: without advanced western weapons, PDPA most likely would have crushed dissent with the help of Soviet air support, Afghanistan would see at worst 2-3 years of war, not 30, 10 to 20 times less casualties and refugees, and would have been free country in 1991, like rest of the Soviet zone. Today, IMHO it would have resembled Mongolia or Kazakhstan, not become failed state like Somalia. A state with population having layer of educated middle class of both sexes, not free fodder for warlords.
- Lord Falcon
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 163
- Joined: 2011-04-15 11:31am
- Location: Staring at my computer
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
I must confess, when I heard the word "honor" killings, I was expecting something different. Like when you see two medieval knights squaring off in an empty field. One rapes the other's wife, so the first knight challenge the other to a duel of honor. This type of honor killing makes that one seem downright pleasant by comparison.
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
Sure. It would say nothing good about the society that this "might makes right" mindset is accepted and like euthanasia it would be vital that you establish that the parties are giving their informed consent, but consenting adults entering into a duel or playing Russian roulette or anything like that is relatively harmless as homicide goes. This is just declaring open season for domestic abusers.Lord Falcon wrote:I must confess, when I heard the word "honor" killings, I was expecting something different. Like when you see two medieval knights squaring off in an empty field. One rapes the other's wife, so the first knight challenge the other to a duel of honor. This type of honor killing makes that one seem downright pleasant by comparison.
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
I must ask - how come if Afghanistan lost "75% of forces to defection" did the Najibullah government hold on its own after the USSR collapsed for quite a long time? Smells like bullshit to me.
Other than this - actually, Afghanistan's decline started before the American intervention. But of course giving money and training to people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was meant to spell trouble in the immediate future. I guess Americans just didn't understand how much trouble this would mean in the more distant future. Or maybe they did.
Other than this - actually, Afghanistan's decline started before the American intervention. But of course giving money and training to people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was meant to spell trouble in the immediate future. I guess Americans just didn't understand how much trouble this would mean in the more distant future. Or maybe they did.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
-
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 331
- Joined: 2009-10-24 01:13pm
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
When Majibullah came to power he passed several reforms that greatly improved the strength and loyalty of the Afghan army. Before then, the army remained very ineffective and was largely stayed in their barracks for fear that they would defect to the rebels or just run away. The 60 to 75% figure comes from the period of 1979 to 1980, long before Najibullah came to power.I must ask - how come if Afghanistan lost "75% of forces to defection" did the Najibullah government hold on its own after the USSR collapsed for quite a long time? Smells like bullshit to me.
America had very little say it where the money and weapons went. The US would give money to Pakistan's ISI and the ISI would distribute it as they saw fit. Unfortunately, the ISI gave weapons to extremists like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar because they thought that they could control him better, rather than moderates like Ahmad Shah Massoud.Other than this - actually, Afghanistan's decline started before the American intervention. But of course giving money and training to people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was meant to spell trouble in the immediate future. I guess Americans just didn't understand how much trouble this would mean in the more distant future. Or maybe they did.
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
I heard that the highest ever desertion rates were at 30%, and those were in the 1980s, actually. The Afghan army kept track of deserted troops - in tens of thousands, but still.
ISI loved the islamists and America knew it. Your leaders met with all of them. Also they didn't care so as long as they slaughtered the shuravi (Russians). Brzezhinsky admitted as much - he wanted to give Russia it's own Vietnam, and the means were irrelevant.stormthebeaches wrote:America had very little say it where the money and weapons went. The US would give money to Pakistan's ISI and the ISI would distribute it as they saw fit.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
-
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 331
- Joined: 2009-10-24 01:13pm
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
The highest rates for desertion and defection were in the year 1979 to 1980, which cost the Afghan army roughly 60 to 75% of its man power. Desertion and defection were considerably lower in the eighties because most of the Afghan army was kept confined to their barracks to make it much harder to run away. My source for this is Steve Coll's book, Ghost Wars, Steve Coll's uses two sources, the first claims that the Afghan army went from 100,000 in 1979 and dropped to 25,000 by 1980. His second source claims that the Afghan army went from 80,000 to 30,000. Meaning that the Afghan army had been reduced by 60 to 75% of its manpower, depending on which source you use. Another source would be David C. Isby's book, Russia's War in Afghanistan, which claims that in 1978 the Afghan army's nominal strength was 110,000 and its actual strength was 80,000 and by the end of 1980 it was down to 20,000.I heard that the highest ever desertion rates were at 30%, and those were in the 1980s, actually. The Afghan army kept track of deserted troops - in tens of thousands, but still.
Actually most documents show that the USA was largely ignorant of the islamists. Their in Afghanistan was limited and they had to rely on the ISI for information.ISI loved the islamists and America knew it. Your leaders met with all of them. Also they didn't care so as long as they slaughtered the shuravi (Russians). Brzezhinsky admitted as much - he wanted to give Russia it's own Vietnam, and the means were irrelevant.
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
He's wrong I guess, since after 1978 the Army already declined to 60 000. It was in the process of collapse way before the USSR's intervention - if anything, the rules implemented afterwards strengthened what remained of it, I guess, although it was never truly battle-worthy again.stormthebeaches wrote:Steve Coll's uses two sources, the first claims that the Afghan army went from 100,000 in 1979 and dropped to 25,000 by 1980. His second source claims that the Afghan army went from 80,000 to 30,000. Meaning that the Afghan army had been reduced by 60 to 75% of its manpower, depending on which source you use.
Oh come on. The USA was "ignorant" means it was just covering their eyes.stormthebeaches wrote:Actually most documents show that the USA was largely ignorant of the islamists. Their in Afghanistan was limited and they had to rely on the ISI for information.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
-
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 331
- Joined: 2009-10-24 01:13pm
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
Getting an accurate reading of the army is difficult because many of its divisions were not at full strength. Its paper strength was at about 100,000, but its actual strength was something less than that. You are indeed correct with your claim that the army was in the process of collapse before the USSR's intervention, which was part of the reason why the USSR intervened in the first place. I wouldn't say that Coll is wrong because is hard to pin point when exactly the army began to fall apart, although Coll says that the rot truly began in the spring of 1979.He's wrong I guess, since after 1978 the Army already declined to 60 000. It was in the process of collapse way before the USSR's intervention - if anything, the rules implemented afterwards strengthened what remained of it, I guess, although it was never truly battle-worthy again.
Either way, I think we have come to an agreement here. We both seem to agree that the Afghan army was falling apart due to desertions and defections prior to the invasion, that (with the exception of a small number of special divisions) it was not battle-worthy during the Soviet occupation and that it was not until Najibullah came to power and passed his reforms that the army was able to hold its own.
CIA presence in Afghanistan was limited and they were reliant on the ISI. If the US knew it would have tried to ensure that support went to moderates Ahmad Shah Massoud rather than lunatics like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (who spent so much time attacking other Mujahadeen leaders that at one point the CIA thought he was a KGB mole).Oh come on. The USA was "ignorant" means it was just covering their eyes.
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
The US supported lunatics like Sukharto directly with full knowledge of what he was doing. Compared to this Hekmatyar is like, peanuts. Although you may be right that if they deemed him too uncontrollable, they might have shifted the brunt of support to other factions and did it way sooner.stormthebeaches wrote:If the US knew it would have tried to ensure that support went to moderates Ahmad Shah Massoud rather than lunatics like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
-
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 331
- Joined: 2009-10-24 01:13pm
Re: Afghanistan: honor killings soon might be legal
Sukharto was a dictator in Indonesia. I'm not sure what is relevance is to Afghanistan. Either way, the US had very little say in which part of the Mujahadeen got the support as the ISI got to call the shots. The US (the west in general really) was also ignorant of the threat posed by islamists at the time, not just in Afghanistan but in the whole middle east. For example, during the Iranian revolution, the US thought that the uprising was a communist plot whilst Western Europe thought it was a democratic revolution. Only the USSR saw it as an islamist uprising.The US supported lunatics like Sukharto directly with full knowledge of what he was doing. Compared to this Hekmatyar is like, peanuts. Although you may be right that if they deemed him too uncontrollable, they might have shifted the brunt of support to other factions and did it way sooner.