There's FREEDOM in Afghanistan! ...except when there's not.

[shanek]

Okay, so courtesy of George W. Bush, Afghanistan now has a Constitution, a Supreme Court, and equal rights for women...right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3396283.stm

Woman singer angers Afghan judges

Afghanistan's supreme court has complained to the government over the appearance of an Afghan woman singing on state television.

"This has to be stopped," Deputy Chief Justice Fazel Ahmed Manawi told the Reuters news agency.

Afghan state television broadcast old footage of a rural song performed by popular artist, Salma, on Monday.

Afghan women singers have not been seen on state TV since 1992, when they were banned for being un-Islamic.

Afghanistan's Supreme Court has often accused media in the country of violating Islamic principles.

The proliferation of Indian movies and cable television have been heavily criticised in the past.

The appearance of Salma on state TV led to the first criticism of the media by the supreme court since a new constitution was adopted earlier this month.

The new constitution declared Afghanistan an Islamic republic in which women enjoy equal rights to men.

"We are opposed to women singing and dancing as a whole," Judge Manawi told Reuters.

"This is totally against the decisions of the Supreme Court and it has to be stopped."

Uh-huh. Of course, given W's idea of freedom (which is consistent with the Patriot Act and stifling the free speech of protestors and those challenging political candidates), one could argue this is just what we could expect...

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, so courtesy of George W. Bush, Afghanistan now has a Constitution, a Supreme Court, and equal rights for women...right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3396283.stm

Woman singer angers Afghan judges







Uh-huh. Of course, given W's idea of freedom (which is consistent with the Patriot Act and stifling the free speech of protestors and those challenging political candidates), one could argue this is just what we could expect...

I dont think you can blame this on Bush. The people complaining are the Afghans. Bush may have had some part in getting the supreme court nominated/elected whatever, but I dont think you can blame him for every opinion they have.

[Luke T.]

I think you have an unreasonable expectation for Afghanistan to jump over the 200+ years that it took America to get where it is today. Look at our early days, shanek. Even though we also had a Constitution, there were plenty of injustices occurring just like the example you gave.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston


I dont think you can blame this on Bush. The people complaining are the Afghans. Bush may have had some part in getting the supreme court nominated/elected whatever, but I dont think you can blame him for every opinion they have.


Yes he can. Afghanistan has had a Constitution for over a week now, and despite US help in writing it, Afghans are still not as free as, say... the Swiss.

Who else can be held responsible for this outrage other than Bush?

[richardm]

And she was allowed to do it in the first place. I guess the important thing is to see that she and others are still allowed to do it in future.

[epepke]

That evil Bush! First he was attacking a Muslim nation with proud cultural traditions, next thing you know he's forcing the proud cultural traditions back on them, with zoobie rays no doubt!

[Luke T.]

Dred Scott.

"Separate but equal."

Jim Crow.

Women couldn't even vote until 1920. That's, what, 130+ years after the Constitution was written?

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by aerocontrols



Yes he can. Afghanistan has had a Constitution for over a week now, and despite US help in writing it, Afghans are still not as free as, say... the Swiss.

Who else can be held responsible for this outrage other than Bush?

Halliburton.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Dred Scott.

"Separate but equal."

Jim Crow.

Women couldn't even vote until 1920. That's, what, 130+ years after the Constitution was written?

And look at some of the things Scalia and friends say even now. Judges are allowed to have their opinions. You can't expect a country, especially one under the boots of an extremist religion for so long, to suddenly forget the things they've had beaten into them from childhood.

Jeremy

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Dred Scott.

"Separate but equal."

Jim Crow.

Women couldn't even vote until 1920. That's, what, 130+ years after the Constitution was written?

Actually, women could vote in some states when the Constitution was written, but they gradually lost the rights over the next couple of decades, state by state. Then they started to get them back, gradually, state by state. Ignoring limited rights, such as school elections (where women could vote quite commonly), the timeline for women getting the right to vote goes like this:

1869-Wyoming Territory
1870-Utah Territory
1893-Colorado
1895-Utah (a state now)
1896-Idaho
1910-Washington
1911-California
1912-Michigan, Kansas, Oregon, Arizona
1920-US Constitutional Amendment

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by epepke


Actually, women could vote in some states when the Constitution was written, but they gradually lost the rights over the next couple of decades, state by state. Then they started to get them back, gradually, state by state. Ignoring limited rights, such as school elections (where women could vote quite commonly), the timeline for women getting the right to vote goes like this:

1869-Wyoming Territory
1870-Utah Territory
1893-Colorado
1895-Utah (a state now)
1896-Idaho
1910-Washington
1911-California
1912-Michigan, Kansas, Oregon, Arizona
1920-US Constitutional Amendment

Right. A very gradual process. Didn't happen overnight. Or even over one century.

I don't expect Afghanistan to take as long since there are modern workable examples of democracy and what works and what doesn't. Nevertheless, it will be quite a long time before they level out into a true democracy/republic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
I dont think you can blame this on Bush. The people complaining are the Afghans.

No, the people complaining are the Afghan Supreme Court. There's a difference.

Bush may have had some part in getting the supreme court nominated/elected whatever, but I dont think you can blame him for every opinion they have.

But the whole idea of all of this was to bring freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq (at least, now that all of his other excuses have been shown to be lies). It certainly is valid to point out that, if his goal was freedom, how it's not working.

[epepke]

Originally posted by toddjh


And look at some of the things Scalia and friends say even now. Judges are allowed to have their opinions. You can't expect a country, especially one under the boots of an extremist religion for so long, to suddenly forget the things they've had beaten into them from childhood.

Yeah, but you're assuming that's the point.

I think shanek's article is a perfect example or at least a wonderful metaphor of what I keep saying, that the US left has voluntarily gone from a vibrant and essential political force that did much good to almost ostentatiously vapid neener-neener-boo-booism.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I think you have an unreasonable expectation for Afghanistan to jump over the 200+ years that it took America to get where it is today. Look at our early days, shanek. Even though we also had a Constitution, there were plenty of injustices occurring just like the example you gave.

Good point, but it's also true that we were trying something radical that had never before been attempted in the history of the world. Now, we have a proven, working model to go by. Yes, we can expect it to take a long time for the people to adjust, but the government should, from the start, follow that model as it was designed to do. Remember it was some Afghans who VOLUNTARILY put these women on the air and had them sing. Now the GOVERNMENT is trying to stop that. That's hardly the same thing as, say, government trying to stop slavery when so many of the people are resistant to it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Women couldn't even vote until 1920. That's, what, 130+ years after the Constitution was written?

Not quite true. States could (and some did) permit women to vote. I believe women have always been able to vote in New Jersey, or at least they could up until the early 1800s. What the 19th Amendment did was stop states from prohibiting women from voting, which many did. Prior to that time, women were not expressly forbidden from voting, but since there had been nothing in the Constitution stopping the states from making such prohibitions, many (probably most) of them did just that.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by epepke


Yeah, but you're assuming that's the point.

I think shanek's article is a perfect example or at least a wonderful metaphor of what I keep saying, that the US left has voluntarily gone from a vibrant and essential political force that did much good to almost ostentatiously vapid neener-neener-boo-booism.

:confused: Shanek's a leftist now? Did I miss a memo somewhere?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Good point, but it's also true that we were trying something radical that had never before been attempted in the history of the world. Now, we have a proven, working model to go by. Yes, we can expect it to take a long time for the people to adjust, but the government should, from the start, follow that model as it was designed to do. Remember it was some Afghans who VOLUNTARILY put these women on the air and had them sing. Now the GOVERNMENT is trying to stop that. That's hardly the same thing as, say, government trying to stop slavery when so many of the people are resistant to it.

I guess you didn't see my last post.


I don't expect Afghanistan to take as long since there are modern workable examples of democracy and what works and what doesn't. Nevertheless, it will be quite a long time before they level out into a true democracy/republic.


And toddjh made an excellent point.


You can't expect a country, especially one under the boots of an extremist religion for so long, to suddenly forget the things they've had beaten into them from childhood.

The government of Afghanistan has one major flaw. It is comprised of human beings. So when you say " we can expect it to take a long time for the people to adjust, but the government should, from the start, follow that model as it was designed to do," you are forgetting the "government" is make up of these people who have to adjust.

[richardm]

Originally posted by shanek


Remember it was some Afghans who VOLUNTARILY put these women on the air and had them sing. Now the GOVERNMENT is trying to stop that.

Small nitpick: the Afghan Supreme Court is trying to stop that - they are the ones who complained to the Government. The Government, to their credit, are defending the singer:

"We are endeavouring to perform our artistic works regardless of the issue of sex," - Information and Culture Minister Sayed Makdoom Raheen.

[RussDill]

http://www.u.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/ws200/1014.jpg

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by shanek


No, the people complaining are the Afghan Supreme Court. There's a difference.



But the whole idea of all of this was to bring freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq (at least, now that all of his other excuses have been shown to be lies). It certainly is valid to point out that, if his goal was freedom, how it's not working.

Is the Afghan Supreme Court not composed of Afghans? My point was that Bush is not the one trying to stop the singer, Afghans are. Yes, they are on the supreme court, and yes Bush may (i have no idea who chose them) have had a hand in putting them on the supreme court, but he doesnt participate himself does he? Also, what does Iraq have to do with Afghanistan? I think our goal there was always to get rid of the Taliban. Ie, I'm not quite sure what lies you are referring to regarding Afghanistan.

[Ladewig]

Women's sufferage would double the irresponsible vote

I'm trying to understand this accusation. Is the writer saying that every woman that votes will vote irresponsibly - if so then the "doubling" implies that all votes cast by males are irresponsible as well.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I'm trying to understand this accusation. Is the writer saying that every woman that votes will vote irresponsibly - if so then the "doubling" implies that all votes cast by males are irresponsible as well.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it. Stripped of the rhetoric, the only thing it could possibly mean is that a woman's vote is just as responsible as a man's.

Jeremy

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Ladewig


I'm trying to understand this accusation. Is the writer saying that every woman that votes will vote irresponsibly - if so then the "doubling" implies that all votes cast by males are irresponsible as well.

I'm sure the live debates were equally, if not more exciting

[richardm]

Originally posted by richardm
I guess the important thing is to see that she and others are still allowed to do it in future.


... unfortunately, the broadcasters have bottled out. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3402283.stm)