A few months ago, Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, drew fire for signing his name to a law which, essentially, obliged Shiite women in that country to have sex with their husbands every four days, at a minimum, without having a say in the matter. This law effectively condoned their rape by removing the need for consent to sex within marriage.
Under much pressure from the West (including President Barack Obama, who called the law â€œabhorrentâ€), Karzai, whose tenuous hold on the presidency is due only to the billions of dollars and thousands of American and foreign troops propping up his regime, agreed to put the law under review.
Now, just in time for Afghanistanâ€™s upcoming election, Democracy Now!â€™s resident Marxist Amy Goodman reported that Karzai has ratified an updated, revamped version of the old law. Goodman brought us up to speed on the new version:
A new law has gone into effect that allows a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex. The law also prohibits women from working without their husbandâ€™s permission. Critics of the bill have accused President Karzai of selling out Afghan women for the sake of support from conservative Shiites in this weekâ€™s election. The bill also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and it effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying â€œblood moneyâ€ to a girl who was injured when he raped her.
So this “new andÂ improved” version of the law appears to be worse than the old, with married women now facing the possibility of being starved to death if they donâ€™t consent to being raped, and single women being at the mercy of any rapist who can afford to payÂ their family â€œblood moneyâ€ after the dirty deed is done. The passage of this law will, no doubt, give Karzai enough Shiite votes to win the election, and all will go back to 12th century normal in Afghanistan.
For those of you looking for any outrage from Goodman and her comrades over at Democracy Now!, however, you must look elsewhere, as you wonâ€™t find any. Goodman, stone-faced and without the slightest bit of commentary before or after the report, delivered the entire story in an expressionless monotone usually reserved for a piece on local traffic conditions.
How could it be that Goodman, who is never at a loss for words when it comes to demonizing America and its ideals, finds herself suddenly unable to find anything bad to say about an evil law that will certainly lead to countless rapes and deaths of innocent Afghan women? Is the passage of this law really less important, say, than the ouster of Hondurasâ€™ Marxist dictator-in-training Manuel Zelaya, of which Goodman runs a tiresome, never-ending nightly parade of so-called exclusives?
Pity the women of Afghanistan, as the message from Goodman seems to be quite clear: youâ€™re on your own.