Here are some interesting bits:
Article (2):
Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
Several people have focused on 1 above, but I think that 2 and 3 are just as important. Islam does talk about government being just, so this isn't necessarily a huge blow to women's rights. In practice, I think that it may not mean anything at all.
Entities or trends that advocate, instigate, justify or propagate racism, terrorism, “takfir” (declaring someone an infidel), sectarian cleansing, are banned, especially the Saddamist Baath Party in Iraq and its symbols, under any name. It will be not be allowed to be part of the multilateral political system in Iraq, which should be defined according to the law.
PART ONE: RIGHTS
FIRST: Civil and political rights.
Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.
So this would imply that women's rights are secured.
Article (93): Establishing private or exceptional courts is forbidden.
So no sharia courts?
Personally, you got me. I've been trying to draft Volokh into commenting, perhaps he will.
Anyways, this is still only a draft anyways.
Comments (4)
so no secret military tribunals for Iraqis huh? Wow they are more progressive than the freedom loving militarists in the USA. Imagine that. Yes, im sure grieving mothers like Cindy Sheehan are really disrespectful and traitorous to this glorious country since they cant see the uber-virtue in having their sons killed so women can conitnue to recieve second class status in an islamic state. How dare them! good thing theyknow that Bush never really said we needed to go to Iraq for WMDs!
They need to learn from the real patriots, the true americans that they should support their troops and support the president because he is the commnder in chief.
Ya know, that is the interesting thing, is that when reporters ask sheehan what her problem is she says, well, they killed my son with lies and deliberate manipulation…rich clark, paul oneill, downing street memo, yellow cake, mushroom clouds, links to al queada, PNAC, etc etc etc etc….
when the yask the counter demonstrators what they are aabout it is very simple…we support our troops and president…period. no premises, no justification, just unwavering support no matter what the facts are. this is truly religious and not within the realm of reason.
so we come to pat robertson, spokesman for angry jesus. he shows what kooks the right wing really is, theocratic nutballs on a stick. we should kill chavez, wait i never said that, oh ya yes i did, but i was misinterpretted…ahahahahhahahah
who would jesus assassinate? the moral values crowd in all their glory, a true spectacle of psychic neuroses…killing for peace, obeying hte holy dictates of the commander in chief…all under freedom, liberty…hahahaha good god.
ernie
Posted by ernie | August 27, 2005 10:18 AM
Posted on August 27, 2005 10:18
So I post something about the new Iraqi constitution, and you’re talking about Cindy Sheehan? Come on Ernie, focus!
I don’t want to talk about Sheehan, hence, I didn’t blog about her.
Posted by Opinionated Bastard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 27, 2005 10:28 AM
Posted on August 27, 2005 10:28
see i cant remember Bush saying back in march of 2003 that the USA was going to invade iraq to give them a constitution? this iraq story is truly becoming the ever changing goal post, aims, goals, intents, always in flux, never stabilizing as Bush rationale changes day to day.
anyway, what constitution? the one drafted by “representatives” from the “election” who cant leave the safety of the green zone for fear of being murdered once they leave US protection? Iraq is on fire and we commend a draft of an islamic based constitution? the absurdity is monumental here. do you still believe that the USA can use the military to invade countries and prop up democracies? Shia goon squads have created a new terror state in the south (with US support) and the sunnis fight the US occupation as they see it, illegal, unjust, and imperial domination.
The US already lost this war. The US lost this war before it was intitiated by refusing to utilize reason and discourse about REALITY. The only decisions now are when to leave (if ever…14 premanent bases being built) and how many more US soldiers will die before the US leaves Iraq. Meanwhile the US public grows more angry, unstable, and unpredictable in light of what the populace sees as massive crimes, lies, and deceptions. The draft wont work, the national guard is stretched thin and dealing with katerina. military recruitment numbers are down, the universities are growign with dissent, a new generation of politically charged activated youth arives…
the iraq war was a horrible strategic call on the part of conservative america, the backlash will be undeniable.
ernie
ernie
Posted by ernie | August 30, 2005 2:58 PM
Posted on August 30, 2005 14:58
One of the reasons I have been supporting this war is not because I think Bush has done that great a job. He hasn’t.
But critics like you have yet to offer any rational alternative. Should we not have started a constitutional process at all? Does one line in the constitution really matter? Cuba’s constitution gaurantees freedom of speech, but obviously their piece of paper doesn’t matter.
You’re just screaming, you have no plans and no alternatives, except a vague desire to turn back the clock to 2000.
The only way out of Iraq is to establish some sort of political process, and Bush is doing that. Is it pretty? No. Was it ever going to be? No.
Posted by Opinionated Bastard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 31, 2005 7:46 AM
Posted on August 31, 2005 07:46