Women's Rights in Iraq Today

In my local paper, I love to read the Letters to the Editor. Often, the information contained in those letters is interesting to me, as they reflect all the different opinions and thoughts of those in my community that I might never have the opportunity to meet and speak with. But this month, I read a letter that just made me, well, angry. I still can't believe that there are people who believe all the Republican rhetoric on Iraq, i.e. the WMDs, the bringing the war to them, and so on. But what really chafes my hide is when men tell me how much better off the women of Iraq are.

Anyway, reading this letter prompted me to write the following retort. Hopefully, it will be printed in all it's glory in the Letters to the Editor I so dearly love to read.

-------------------------------

I'm responding to Mr. Hagler's letter to the editor, specifically the change in circumstances for women in today's Iraq.

Contrary to Mr. Hagler's belief that Iraqi women were peering behind their veils during Saddam's reign, the opposite was true. Although there is no doubt that women wore and continue to wear the Niqab (face veil) in the outskirts of Iraq's big cities, Baghdad and other large cities were teaming with unveiled women. In fact, before the Iraq war, the women in Iraq enjoyed more freedoms than any other Arab women in the Middle East. Fact is Saddam Hussein, although a tyrrant to his foes, was a secular leader. Unlike our "ally," Saudi Arabia, there were no religious laws and mutawa’een (religious police) -- women could drive, women could walk unchaperoned, women could travel, etc. This is what separated a Saddam Hussein, who had a non-religious agenda, from an Osama bin Laden, who is wholly religiously motivated.

Per writer Jo Wilding on pre-War Iraq, "...there is a strong tradition of women involved in Iraqi public life, stretching back several decades. Zakia Hakki, Iraq’s first woman judge, was appointed in 1959. In that same year the Personal Status Law was passed, making women and men substantially equal in law. By 1970 they were declared as such in the constitution. Iraqi women were among the most advanced in the region in terms of education and rights. By 1980, women could vote and run for election indeed, some 20 per cent of Saddam Hussein’s Government were women. This compares with 14 per cent in the US and an average of 3.5 per cent in Arab countries."

Now, post-war Iraq is, at best, an Islamic Republic. On "Meet the Press," Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA official, said that while he hoped the new Iraqi constitution would protect women as much as possible, "women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy." He added that 100 years ago, the United States was a democracy but women did not have the right to vote, and said, "If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled." Does this sound like an advancement in women's rights?

The downfall of Saddam Hussein has allowed the uprising of religious leaders, such as Moqtada Al-Sadr, whose supporters are threatening women's rights groups throughout Iraq. College students in Iraq are now receiving threatening letters of suspension if they do not wear a veil. Women in Shiite ruled cities throughout Iraq can now NOT leave their homes without wearing the Niqab. And in January 2003, the Iraqi Governing Council, as it was then known, passed Order 137 which reversed the 1959 Personal Status Law and submitted family, matrimonial and related financial matters to religious, rather than legal, jurisdiction. Due to international protest, this order was revoked.

With the diminishment of women's rights, the growing Iraqi casualty count (over 100,000 with researchers blaming American air strikes for many of the civilian deaths) and the insurgency, which is estimated to be made up of 90-96% Iraqis, women's lives, especially those of mothers, are affected negatively every day by this war. With all the documentation that has been released, including the Republican chaired 9/11 Commission's report and Charles Duelfer's report, both which have stated that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were never aligned, it's clear that we did not enter Iraq with the intention of fighting Al-Qaeda. In fact, let's remember that Al-Qaeda was not the reason for going to Iraq in the first place. The reason was that Saddam Hussein, particularly WMDs, was a direct threat to the United States. This fact, also disproven in Duelfer's report, lead not to the disbandment of Saddam's WMD program (which had already been disbanded due to lack of funds during the UN sanctions) or a direct confrontation with Al-Qaeda, but a war between the Iraqi Sunni and Shiite factions -- an Iraqi civil war.

In regards to a "face-to-face confrontation" with the terrorists, let's not forget that one, the time span between the two previous attacks by Al-Qaeda on American soil, both at the World Trade Center, was almost nine years, and two, Hurricane Katrina made it blatantly clear that in the event of a disaster, we need our troops here on American soil.