Freedom Lost - women in Iraq

[Lt_Ripley]

Freedom Lost

By Mark Lattimer

The Guardian UK

Thursday 13 December 2007

After the invasion of Iraq, the US government claimed that women there had "new rights and new hopes." In fact their lives have become immeasurably worse, with rapes, burnings and murders now a daily occurrence.

They lie in the Sulaimaniyah hospital morgue in Iraqi Kurdistan, set out on white-tiled slabs. A few have been shot or strangled, some beaten to death, but most have been burned. One girl, a lock of hair falling across her half-closed eyes, could almost be on the point of falling asleep. Burns have stretched the skin on another young woman's face into a fixed look of surprise.

These women are not casualties of battle. In fact, the cause of death is generally recorded as "accidental", although their bodies often lie unclaimed by their families.

"It is getting worse, especially the burnings," says Khanim Rahim Latif, the manager of Asuda, an Iraqi organisation based in Kurdistan that works to combat violence against women. "Just here in Sulaimaniyah, there were 400 cases of the burning of women last year." Lack of electricity means that every house has a plentiful supply of oil, and she accepts that some cases may be accidents. But the nature and scale of the injuries suggest that most were deliberate, she says, handing me the morgue photographs of one young woman after another. Many of the bodies bear the unmistakable signs of having been subjected to intense heat.

"In many cases the woman is accused of adultery, or of a relationship before she is married, or the marriage is not sanctioned by the family," Khanim says. Her husband, brother or another relative will kill her to restore their "honour". "If he is poor the man might be arrested; if he is important, he won't be. And in most cases, it is hidden. The body might be dumped miles away and when it is found the family says, 'We don't have a daughter.'" In other cases, disputes over such murders are resolved between families or tribes by the payment of a forfeit, or the gift of another woman. "The authorities say such agreements are necessary for social stability, to prevent revenge killings," says Khanim.

In March 2004 George Bush said that "the advance of freedom in the Middle East has given new rights and new hopes to women ... the systematic use of rape by Saddam's former regime to dishonour families has ended". This may have given some people the impression that the American and British invasion of Iraq had helped to improve the lives of its women. But this is far from the case.

Even under Saddam, women in Iraq - including in semi-autonomous Kurdistan - were widely recognised as among the most liberated in the Middle East. They held important positions in business, education and the public sector, and their rights were protected by a statutory family law that was the envy of women's activists in neighbouring countries. But since the 2003 invasion, advances that took 50 years to establish are crumbling away.

In much of the country, women can only now move around with a male escort. Rape is committed habitually by all the main armed groups, including those linked to the government. Women are being murdered throughout Iraq in unprecedented numbers.

In October the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (Unami) expressed serious concern over the rising incidence of so-called honour crimes in Iraqi Kurdistan, confirming that 255 women had been killed in just the first six months of 2007, three-quarters of them by burning. An earlier Unami report cited 366 burns cases in Dohuk in 2006, up from 289 the year before, although most were not fatal. In Irbil, the emergency management centre had reported 576 burns cases since 2003, resulting in 358 deaths.

cont ............

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/121307WA.shtml

[__Kratos__]

How can you blame Bush for the culture?

[Lt_Ripley]

How can you blame Bush for the culture?

Bushco is the one spouting off on how much better it is for women when it hasn't been. These are the same people that lived there under Saddam.

While Saddam wasn't a saint by any means , women did have it better overall under his rule. That is what this points them out.

If it was a matter of culture alone this wouldn't have mattered who was in control. But an illegal invasion for a lie , without thinking it through and by putting in a leader that one thought would play 'good dog' but in fact has more in common with Iran has made the religious culture worse.

[Michelle]

Rapes, burnings and murders of woman were not a daily occurence before?

Oh, no..it was okay as long as it was Saddam and his sons that were participating in it and letting it happen by others.

You can't just snap you fingers and change an entire country "like that".

You have no idea how many "disappeared" while Saddam was in control because news wasn't allowed in the country before.

[Pinky Floyd]

Rapes, burnings and murders of woman were not a daily occurence before?

Yes they were..they have always been there..

You just didn't hear about them in the news because Saddam would not have allowed such news to be released..

[girty1600]

Faceless, godless sh*theads are just picking up where Saddam's killer sons left off before they were executed by their own Islamic people. These sh*theads use the rape and murder of women, who live as third-class citizens as cannon foder. Its like these women were no one's mothers, daughters and sisters as far as these blood-thirsty killers are concerned.

The radical followers of the nation of Islam are afraid; their women, as they educate themselves are learning that the world is listening. Many of them will die, yes. But what follows their death is a wave of understanding that women in the ME won't remain slaves forever.. WE WAIT WITH BAITED BREATH.

And on another note; how is it ok to blame Mr. Bush for the mass killings of females in the ME is recent months and years? May I remind you of what you barf-back to me...... that this is their culture and we as bystanders are not supposed to interfere..... At least that's what some of the left/liberals keep telling me on this board over and over and over again and again and again.

These men are weak and scared and their entire world is falling apart right before their eyes. Rumor has it they need a few good men. Good luck with that.

[Bill Hill]

Even under Saddam, women in Iraq - including in semi-autonomous Kurdistan - were widely recognised as among the most liberated in the Middle East[/b]. They held important positions in business, education and the public sector, and their rights were protected by a statutory family law that was the envy of women's activists in neighbouring countries.

It's funny that... because that's the first thing that used to 'pop into my head' when someone would mention Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq.

At least the women had rights...which were the envy of that region

goes and finds a wall and repeatedly bangs head..

Freedom Lost

By Mark Lattimer

The Guardian UK

The Guardian Nuff said...

any pics of Mark Lattimer-

Nuff said.

Interesting to note..he also has a Thai bride. He's worried about women's rights? and yet goes and buys one

Edited December 15, 2007 by Billy of the Hill

[bathory]

i call BS that suddenly things are worse for the iraqi women than under Saddam, simply because, this article is referring to the Kurdish north which has been pretty much autonomous for the last decade or so.

I also don't see how Saddam would have kurtailed such behaviour and why it would suddenly arise after his removal from power.

Why would a regime that had no problems systematically raping hundreds of women suddenly have a problem with honor killings?

Especially if as we see now, they can easily be classed as nothing more than 'accidents'

[Atheist God]

How can you blame Bush for the culture?

While Saddam may have been a ruthless dictator in regards to womens rights in Iraq he was actually ahead of his time. Women under Saddam never had to wear a veil, they could work, got to school and so on. While women were still somewhat oppressed they certainly had more rights then say women in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

One thing people must also remember is that many women in the region voluntarily like their lifestyle as well.

[Bill Hill]

That's true and we must respect that. It's not like they're brain-washed zombies or something and it would be racist to say so.

Ooops... sorry about that love.. I've only gone and spilt hot oil everywhere..oh no and some of it has gone all over your face.

I am such a

DONG! accidents will happen!

[el midgetron]

I find it rather pathetic how people justify the suffering of women to suit their political views.

[Bill Hill]

I find it rather pathetic how people justify the suffering of women to suit their political views.

Yeah...it is pathetic. Totally pathetic the way some people use women to try and score political points, as well as child prostitution in Syria. like wtf?

How low will you go?

You might, not agree with the war.. but does anyone seriously think... women's right were fine and dandy under Saddam?

[Bob26003]

Yeah...it is pathetic. Totally pathetic the way some people use women to try and score political points, as well as child prostitution in Syria. like wtf?

How low will you go?

You might, not agree with the war.. but does anyone seriously think... women's right were fine and dandy under Saddam?

No, but there weren't 2 million refugees either.

Quality of life has done nothing but deteriorate since the invasion.

Worrying about the impact of this illegal War on the Iraqi population is not a low blow. And I believe by calling that a low blow, you yourself are throwing a low blow.

Of course we should be concerned with the impact of this criminal endeavor on the Iraqi people.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Bob26003

[Bill Hill]

I'm not pro-Bush nor am I a warmonger... but it's too early to say..give the new Iraq a chance. .

Otherwise lots of people died in vain.

I know you've already decided that...but long did it take you to decide?

Some of us haven't decided and we won't be persuaded by dodgy bloggers or biased anti-American websites either.

It's too easy to past judgment from the complacent comforts of living in a western world.

At the moment...on this website... I'm seeing 'Syrian child prostitution' and 'women's rights were better under Saddam Hussein' being used as some kind of counter-arguments.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Billy of the Hill

[Bob26003]

I'm not pro-Bush nor am I a warmonger... but it's too early to say..give the new Iraq a chance. .

Otherwise lots of people died in vain.

I know you've already decided that...but long did it take you to decide?

Some of us haven't decided and we won't be persuaded by dodgy bloggers or biased anti-American websites either.

It's too easy to past judgment from the complacent comforts of living in a western world.

At the moment...on this website... I'm seeing 'Syrian child prostitution' and 'women's rights were better under Saddam Hussein' being used as some kind of counter-arguments.

They are legitimate counter arguments. Iraq is a mess, the people are suffering and have suffered tremendously.

We have been there what 5 years or so, and the people are still suffering. Many have less electricity and water than before the attack. This War has caused unmeasurable amounts of suffering...........

and after 5 years, Iraq is a still a mess.

Thats a legitimate counter argument in my opinion.

[bathory]

Thats a legitimate counter argument in my opinion.

the argument being, let iraq stay a mess?

nice one

[Princess Serenity]

Rapes, burnings and murders of woman were not a daily occurence before?

Oh, no..it was okay as long as it was Saddam and his sons that were participating in it and letting it happen by others.

You can't just snap you fingers and change an entire country "like that."

You have no idea how many "disappeared" while Saddam was in control because news wasn't allowed in the country before.

I agree, Michelle.

Things don't change overnight.

And the other parties just want to pack up & leave. Leave the country the way it is now. And let the terrorists take over the country again. Which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[Bob26003]

the argument being, let iraq stay a mess?

nice one

No, the argument being, and as demonstrated by five years of chaos.

That we are doing more harm than good.

[AROCES]

Bushco is the one spouting off on how much better it is for women when it hasn't been. These are the same people that lived there under Saddam.

While Saddam wasn't a saint by any means , women did have it better overall under his rule. That is what this points them out.

If it was a matter of culture alone this wouldn't have mattered who was in control. But an illegal invasion for a lie , without thinking it through and by putting in a leader that one thought would play 'good dog' but in fact has more in common with Iran has made the religious culture worse.

They hanged Saddam, your fantasy of Saddam is better for the Iraqis been rejected by the Iraqis.

Find another Saddam then and present it to the Iraqis and tell them it is better for them than the Americans.

[AROCES]

While Saddam may have been a ruthless dictator in regards to womens rights in Iraq he was actually ahead of his time. Women under Saddam never had to wear a veil, they could work, got to school and so on. While women were still somewhat oppressed they certainly had more rights then say women in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

One thing people must also remember is that many women in the region voluntarily like their lifestyle as well.

You been talking to the terrorist then, the Iraqis already hanged Saddam.

I say get over it, the paradise you are claiming that Saddam gave the Iraqis made them hang him.

[AROCES]

No, but there weren't 2 million refugees either.

Quality of life has done nothing but deteriorate since the invasion.

Worrying about the impact of this illegal War on the Iraqi population is not a low blow. And I believe by calling that a low blow, you yourself are throwing a low blow.

Of course we should be concerned with the impact of this criminal endeavor on the Iraqi people.

Illegal war? Says who?

[Bob26003]

Illegal war? Says who?

US Law for one. International Law for two.

We are signed on to the UN charter.

And by not getting security council authorization, that makes it illegal.

[KingTomis]

Fun note on this one - everything we did was within UN regs and after the invasion the UNSC passed a resolution recognizing the US and the UK as occupying powers. Their failure to condemn the action is the equivalent of condoning it when it comes to international politics.

So if the one forum where something like war can be declared illegal failed to do so, then how exactly was it a crime again?

But then again looking at the facts has never been a strong point of yours bob.

[The Silver Thong]

Here again is another case of looking in your own back yard befor criticizing someone else's back yard.

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html

It's pathetic, one looks at the M.E. and is in disgust with "there" treatment of women when this is going on right at home. Where are the laws that keep the people behind bars that do this? It's so easy to point a finger at someone else, why not stand infront of a mirror while doing it.

[The Silver Thong]

They hanged Saddam, your fantasy of Saddam is better for the Iraqis been rejected by the Iraqis.

Find another Saddam then and present it to the Iraqis and tell them it is better for them than the Americans.

Thats exactly what is going to happen. There will be another Saddam, put in place by the American's just as befor. Again history repeats itself.