Thursday, April 2, 2009
The use of women
Chris Selley's Full Pundit:
The Globe and Mail's Adam Radwanski dismisses Lord Malloch Brown's contention that protecting women was 'one of the reasons the UK and many in the West threw ourselves into the struggle in Afghanistan' as the utter nonsense that it is...
If politicians had actually looked honestly at the prospects for social improvement in Afghanistan instead of just trotting them out when they needed to boost public support for the mission, they might not be as shocked, scandalized, appalled and at a loss for answers as they are now, in the face of proposed legislation that would effectively legalize intramarital rape.
Like the politicians, the National Post's editorialists admit to having 'fall[en] back' on women's rights as a justification for the mission when it was faltering militarily. And they say Canadians, having heard such arguments, can't now 'be faulted for wondering: What, exactly, are our soldiers fighting -- and dying -- to protect?'
The Globe and Mail: Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was accused of supporting a law that legalizes rape within marriage. But in Canada it was only 26 years ago that the law changed to make spousal sexual assault an offence...
Prior to 1983, rape was considered an offence outside of marriage... A year before the change to legislation occurred, NDP MP Margaret Mitchell raised the issue of violence against women. She was laughed at my MPs in the House of Commons when she demanded the government take action to stop domestic violence. The outcry from women's groups brought attention to the issue.
Image source here.