Comments on: Discriminating Law; Legalizing Injustice

By: 7iber Dot Com » Websites and the Publication Law المواقع الالكترونية وقانون المطبوعات والنشر

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:23:24 +0000

[...] Discriminating Law; Legalizing Injustice [...]

By: My Favorite Blogs of 2009 « 7aki Fadi

My Favorite Blogs of 2009 « 7aki Fadi — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:17:59 +0000

[...] Discriminating Law; Legalizing Injustice [...]

By: Ameera

Ameera — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:18:52 +0000

i would argue that this approach works in certain circumstances and not all. That is what the west fails to see sometimes, the approach of consensus and democracy in general works if there is a liberal and freedom-protecting base to begin with. If you apply this approach when the majority of your audience is radical, you will end up with a disaster. Do you actually think that this reservation would have been lifted if it was voted on? i really doubt it.
I found the following two books especially great in addressing this issue: “World on Fire” by Amy Chua and “The Future of Freedom” by Fareed Zakaria.. they both address it on a state level but I think you can apply the same logic to smaller debates like this.

By: Naseem Tarawnah

Naseem Tarawnah — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:58:09 +0000

it's not excusable, but the issue here is that when you're left out of the debate, you shift further to the right. there's no wiggle room. its the slow boiling of hard eggs, battling it out.

if a national debate was created, if this was part of a much larger advocacy and awareness-raising approach, if they were brought in to the folds, you'd have better and more moderate results.

let them in. have the debate. raise awareness. let them disagree. at least they're at the table. sell it well. and if they're convinced or if there's a reached consensus, the IAF alone brings in the support of their enormous constituency.

this is where the state fails to see the benefit. they approached cedaw like everything else. shut out the opposition in hopes that they shut up.

By: Ameera

Ameera — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:52:04 +0000

1) i don't think they were idiots, they are smart but some criminals are super smart too.. smart is not a virtue on its own, when combined with sound judgment it becomes a virtue.
2) they feel alienated because they don't agree with the changes, if they saw them as positive developments they would not feel the need to jump in just to contradict. They actually believe that a woman should be governed by a man. Now that is not excusable no matter what way you look at it, in my opinion at least

By: Naseem Tarawnah

Naseem Tarawnah — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:41:14 +0000

here's the thing about the IAF and the muslim brotherhood at large - they're not idiots. quite the contrary.

we have to put such comments in larger contexts, which means factoring in where they're coming from. to the IAF and other conservative groups, there seems to be an onslaught of conventions and various social reforms that are "imposed" or "dictated" to by the international community, and the jordanian state, in the name of reform or showmanship, happily adopts them (financial aid usually follows).

hence these conventions lack any form of public debate and conservative groups are left out of the process. from their point of view, it feels like someone comes over to your home and tells you exactly how you should live. that's how they see it. whether they're right or wrong is another ballgame. however, my main point is, if such groups are continuously left out of the process, they will continuously feel further alienated and provide greater opposition.

in my opinion that should be the discussion when it comes to the IAF.

By: Naseem Tarawnah

Naseem Tarawnah — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:35:49 +0000

as noted in the article…some reservations have been lifted…not all

By: Ameera

Ameera — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:04:23 +0000

thanks for positing the article. it seems they lifted reservation on mobility and property ownership rights but not the rest of the reservations. I was struck when I read the following piece from the article:

"Families in Jordan face the threat of total collapse under CEDAW," warned the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to IAF activists, the clause contradicts the teachings of Islam, under which authority over women's mobility is in the hands of their husbands if they are married, and in the hands of brothers or fathers if they are single.

I can't believe a rational person who lives in the 21st century would even say something like that. It is truly disappointing.

By: Eyas Sharaiha

Eyas Sharaiha — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:42:22 +0000

I thought jordan lifted all reservations on the CEDAW, no?

see: http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=16860

By: 7iber Dot Com » Have Your Say: Child Abuse

7iber Dot Com » Have Your Say: Child Abuse — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:15:28 +0000

[...] Discriminating Law; Legalizing Injustice [...]

By: Check Out Hend on 7iber « my treasure

Check Out Hend on 7iber « my treasure — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:19:20 +0000

[...] Women and children suffer from easy-divorcism and lack of sufficient financial support in the US too, but there are laws against such blatant gender-bias. Most of my Jordanian friends who have divorced have done so due to an unacceptable level of domestic violence directed toward them, and to their children. So it’s either live with rage and eat, or live in peace and starve? Read it all here. [...]

By: Mohanned

Mohanned — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:00:40 +0000

but aren't relegious text enablers to such injustice? Lets not bury our heads in the sand..call a spade a spade.To choose one thing that isn't “clearly” stated in relegious texts and represent it as a more serious injustice than,say, forcing hijab or inheritance is misleading to say the least.

Keyword: enablers.

By: kinzi

kinzi — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:04:08 +0000

Thank you, Hend. This is tragic.