Karzai's secret U-turn on Afghan rape law
President sneaks through legislation without approval of parliament
FRADIOON POOYA / AP
Afghan President Hamid Karzai gives his supporters the signal for silence during an election rally in Herat, west of Kabul, yesterday
A law that lets Afghan husbands starve their wives if they refuse to obey their sexual demands has been quietly slipped into effect, despite promises from Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, that it would be reviewed and rigorously debated in the country's parliament.
Women's activists have accused the President of abandoning human rights in a bid to appease hardline clerics who support the law, in exchange for votes in the presidential elections next week.
Mr Karzai ordered a wide-ranging review of the legislation after The Independent revealed that it negated the need for consent within marriage, effectively condoning rape. The law included a requirement that a wife have sex with her husband at least every four days, as well as a range of other measures that imposed drastic restrictions on the freedoms of Shia women.
The story caused international scorn, with President Barack Obama branding it "abhorrent," and Gordon Brown said Britain would "not tolerate" it. Other Nato countries threatened to withdraw their troops unless the legislation was drastically rewritten.
Human Rights Watch last night demanded that Afghanistan's international paymasters intervene to protect the country's oppressed women. "Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election," said Brad Adams, the group's Asia director. "So much for any credentials he claimed as a moderate on women's issues."
Civil society groups, say the law, which regulates the personal affairs of Afghanistan's minority Shia community, still includes clauses which allow rapists to marry their victims as a way of absolving their crime. It also tacitly approves child marriage.
Hundreds of Afghan women took to the streets to protest against the legislation. They were met by mobs of angry men outside parliament who pelted them with spit and stones.
Mr Karzai is widely believed to support women's rights, but analysts fear his personal principles have been overruled by political ambitions. A new poll issued yesterday showed Mr Karzai with 44 per cent, and his nearest challenger, the former foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, on 26 per cent. That lead, if replicated at the ballot box next week, would not be enough for Mr Karzai to avoid a presidential run-off.
To try to shore up support, the incumbent has made a series of backroom deals with tribal leaders, pledging them jobs and concessions in exchange for the votes they control.
Most of Afghanistan's Shias are ethnic Hazaras. They are Afghanistan's third largest ethnic group, with about six million people, and like most Afghans, they vote according to orders from community leaders. With a roughly 50-50 split between Afghanistan's southern Pashtuns and the rest of the country, the Hazaras are seen as the kingmakers. Mr Karzai is understood to have promised their leaders five cabinet positions in his new administration in return for their backing,
The legislation that is causing offence was sent back to parliament last month, when the review finished, even though it still included clauses which let men deny their wives food if they refuse to have sex. It has still not been debated, but it has since been "gazetted", effectively making it law.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited



Comments
An the law need to be repel immediately or British troops should start pulling out, we all no what would happen to his political ambitions then, he brains would be spattered over a payment in Kabul by a Taliban bullet and that if the Taliban are feeling nice that day and will to wast the ammo.
Getting rid of Kazai for someone who is more under the west control and influence and less likely to release drug barons would be helpful at the moment. As I said Kazai is getting to big for his shoes, time to get someone new and less interested just maintaining power, as power is all Kazai seem to be interested in at the moment.
And Kazai can hardly be call defending democracy anyhow, he trying to buy off the other candidates. Which should be enough to bar him from the election.
The Afghans will not support us it we do not support them.
they really dont get it! why the hell we have our soldiers in there propping up this load of crap i cannot fathom.
as i have said before they are not worth the death of one soldier let alone 200 of our best.
they are a backward, violent, women hating, corrupt, stupid, primitive goup of nutters.
we should get out (please don't come at me with the heroin thing) and soon.
these people with their crappy religious ideas should be allowed to get on with it and do what they are used to doing ie. living in caves and scratching a living out of the desert. until they ditch the islamic thing they are always going to be living in the middle ages whilst the non islamic world moves on leaving them further and further behind.
tossers!
i think your generalizations are barbaric and disgusting just because those in power do not follow ideals that would be beneficial to their country doesn't mean that the people support them and also why should they have a western style of governance this does not work for every country
"i think your generalizations are barbaric and disgusting just because those in power do not follow ideals that would be beneficial to their country doesn't mean that the people support them and also why should they have a western style of governance this does not work for every country"
i think the religion of islam is barbaric and disgusting.
the people seem to strongly support islam, the mullahs appear to be the voices of islam so the government is implementing the mullahs dictats therefore i assume the people in general support this.
i agree a western style of government is of no use to an islamic government (regime) as usually westerners have freedom of speech and thought this of course wouldn't suit the mad mullahs who generally rule (unelected) in these places.
Sorry, I just got married please and I am only 18. Sir. I need the kids 4 at least in three years. How do I do this? Are you forcing m to go sleep with husband and Taliban in secret, sir?
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Tom