Life imprisonment for girls
Female people are basically just their genitals. They’re useful holes for men, and (sadly) they’re the only way to make children. Other than that they’re garbage.
Iraq votes to legalize the rape of 9-year-old girls.
BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq’s parliament passed three
divisive[bad] laws Tuesday, including amendments to the country’s personal status law that opponents say would in effect legalize child marriage.The amendments give Islamic courts increased authority over family matters, including marriage, divorce and inheritance. Activists argue that this undermines Iraq’s 1959 Personal Status Law, which unified family law and established safeguards for women.
Iraqi law currently sets 18 as the minimum age of marriage in most cases. The changes passed Tuesday would let clerics rule according to their interpretation of Islamic law, which some interpret to allow marriage of girls in their early teens — or as young as 9 under the Jaafari school of Islamic law followed by many Shiite religious authorities in Iraq.
Proponents of the changes, which were advocated by primarily conservative Shiite lawmakers, defend them as a means to align the law with Islamic principles and reduce Western influence on Iraqi culture.
Sometimes Western (or Eastern or Northern or extra-terrestrial) influence on culture is a good thing. If you have a shit culture that treats women like rebellious evil children, then outside influence is desperately needed.
Intisar al-Mayali, a human rights activist and a member of the Iraqi Women’s League, said passage of the civil status law amendments “will leave disastrous effects on the rights of women and girls, through the marriage of girls at an early age, which violates their right to life as children, and will disrupt the protection mechanisms for divorce, custody and inheritance for women.”
Allah and Mohammad hate women.
This. It can’t be said too often. The knee jerk “it’s western, it’s imperialist, it’s colonialist” is a sign of sloppy thinking and lazy ethics.
It’s worth recalling some background to this:
The “as young as 9” interpretation derives from the mainstream account of the life of Mohammed, which says that at the age of 56 he married Aisha who was then aged 6 and that he first had sex with her when she was 9.
Since, in Islam, Mohammed is regarded as the perfect example of a human being — the three sources of Islam being his writings (the Koran), his sayings (the Hadith) and the example of his life — anything that he did must be held acceptable. Hence Sharia must permit marrying and sex with 9-yr-olds.
A while ago, an Austrian lady (who is the daughter of a diplomat, and so brought up largely in Islamic nations, and who had become a critic of Islam), commented to a journalist (in a closed room, in private): “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.
She was convicted and fined under an Austrian law against “disparaging religious doctrines”. So she appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, under Article 10 which grants a right to free expression.
Open and shut case, right?
Nope. You see, European courts, like many courts, have long been prone to mission creep. They don’t see their job as interpreting the law, as written by legislators, they see their job as making up the law, turning it into a “living document”, especially where (in their sole judgement) they regard the legislators as being somewhat tardy and not having got round to re-writing the law as they (the judges) think it should be.
And, in the spirit of the times, they do this by identifying the favoured identity (in this case the poor little oppressed Muslims) and the dis-favoured identity (in this case a white, European lady who had the temerity to think less-than-laudatory thoughts about Islam), and then ruling in favour of the former.
So, in a quite ludicrous example of making stuff up, they pointed to Article 9 (free expression of religion) and argued (with a straight face) that a Muslim cannot be said to have the right to freely manifest his religion, including reverence for the life of Mohammed, if somewhere in the nation (in a closed room, in private), someone asks “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”. So they rejected the appeal.
Hence, under current European case law, as adjudicated by the highest court, you do not have the right to say that in Europe.
This is the state of “freedom of speech” in Europe nowadays. This is what happens if one appeals to the very bodies entrusted with upholding free speech. This is why some of us will gratefully welcome any influential people standing up for free speech (and indeed welcome them commenting on Europe!), even if they are eccentric and imperfect.
Good example of that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Sati_Regulation,_1829
Indeed. There’s a book about the kind of thing, titled Does God Hate Women?
Coel – a link to a source would have been helpful.
https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2018/beyond-the-permissible-limits-of-an-objective-debate/