Sunday, August 21, 2005
Lowering the bar: On today's Meet the Press, after discussing Iraq with two senators, Russert David Gregory had a round table with Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institute and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute (how's that for balance?). After discussing the role of Islam in a future government, Gerecht said: ... one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective. So much for women's social rights. Corrected after being reminded in comments that Russert was not the host. Watched the program but wrote Russert out of habit.
posted by Quiddity at 8/21/2005 11:16:00 AM
8 comments
You are correct sir, it even says so in the linked transcript.
Let's see a show of hands from all the ladies out there who agree that their franchise is not so important. Oh, never mind, keep your hands down.
Democracy being defined as the voice of the people, how is silencing that 50% of that voice still democracy?
Just wait: Soon we'll see an Islamic Council to vet all candidates for public office, and a cleric judicial review council to vet all the laws and rulings for compliance with Sharia.
In other words, our soldiers fought and died to clone Iran. I wonder how that's going to sell among the Bush base.
Females voting is Western-Eurocentric. Who is the West to tell the Iraqis what their government should be?
"Females voting is Western-Eurocentric. Who is the West to tell the Iraqis what their government should be?"
Fuck your cultural relativism. It's a human rights issue that transcends culture, just like enslavement and genital mutilation. Maybe the reason the world has such a hard time with that idea is that so many of the powerful have a strategic stake in ignoring it.
And as far as telling Iraq who its government should be, that was the whole point of Bush's invasion in the first place. We blow the place up, destabilize the mid-East, create terrorism and more U.S. enemies than we had before, all because we wanted a different government, and now we balk at the idea of ensuring full human rights for the entire population? Please. The only time we have a problem with forcing what we want down other people's throats seems to be when it involves human rights.
The important difference between 1900 USA and 2005 Iraq is that in 1900 USA women lacked the vote and other rights but that was the way things had been. In Iraq woman had certain rights under Saddam's dictatorship and they had the right to vote under the interim govenement. So the new constitution takes rights away. That IS a big difference.
RIGGSVEDA: I think the post previous to yours regarding cultural relativism is meant to be sarcastic but if it's not I second your comment about it.
"In other words, our soldiers fought and died to clone Iran. I wonder how that's going to sell among the Bush base."
Faith does not flinch at facts. They'll be fine with that.
|
