In today’s paper edition of DN a small note can be found in the International section. The headline is set to guarantee a small readership – “Karzai sanctions law hostile to women” (Karzai godkänner kvinnofientlig lag). I searched for the online version, but it isn’t important enough to have been published in the web edition.
The law only applies to shia muslims, and maybe that’s why it’s so unimportant. And – let’s not he shy about it – laws and customs like these are abundant around the globe. The extent is rather such that it’s amazing some of us can live in relative freedom. That don’t diminish the horrors of this new Afghan law as millions of women will suffer from it.
An example (and now I’m citing the article) is the one I used in the headline. Another one is that a husband now has the right to deny his wife food as punishment for her denying him intercourse.
A clause that has been deleted said a wife has to make herself pretty and to put on make-up for her husband. It would be worth a laugh only if it wasn’t a fact that somewhere on this planet, in this case in Afghanistan, a group of men think they have the right to demand such of women.
The politician who in some sense led the protests against this law, Shinkai Karokhel, has been faced with death threats and she lives surrounded by bodyguards.
The article says Karzai, the president, is opposed to the law but that political considerations have forced him to accept it. That he sacrifices the women to stay in power.
It’s unworthy of any human being, and unworthy of a society trying to become politic.
re:considering 