Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Selective Outrage

By Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls, AlterNet. Posted March 30, 2006.


The Western world loudly opposed the death sentence given to a Christian convert in Afghanistan while ignoring the country's oppression of women.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Daily media reports over the case of Afghan Christian convert Abdul Rahman have revealed a sudden concern over Afghanistan's repressive human rights environment. But routine human rights reports of the ongoing oppression of Afghan women, suppression of the media and underlying Western complicity have barely been noticed.

In the West, government officials, media pundits and right-wing commentators have expressed vocal concern over the life of one Afghan man who chose, 16 years ago, to convert from Islam to Christianity. Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Rahman's arrest for apostasy (renunciation of faith), a crime that carries the death penalty was "beyond belief." U.S. President George W. Bush said he was "deeply troubled" by the case. The New York Times opined that "the case is more than deeply troubling, it's barbaric."

These same officials, whose governments underwrite the Afghan government, were apparently so moved by Rahman's situation that they pushed for President Hamid Karzai to have Rahman released. In what the Associated Press called "an unusual move," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice phoned Karzai to convey "in the strongest possible terms" her government's wish for a "favorable resolution." Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also appealed to Karzai and got positive results.

Three days before Rahman was released, Harper said, "[Karzai] conveyed to me that we don't have to worry about [Rahman's execution. He] assured me that what's alarmed most of us will be worked out quickly … in a way that fully respects religious rights, religious freedoms and human rights." Not surprisingly, the case was dismissed on March 27 due to "insufficient evidence.

Prior to the dismissal, Bush boasted, "We have got influence in Afghanistan, and we are going to use it to remind them that there are universal values." In other words, the Afghan courts are free to come to their own verdict, so long as the U.S. agrees with it. On CNN's Late Edition, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., warned, "Let's hope they make the right decision. If they don't, I think there are going to be a great many problems."

Behind Roberts' words was an unmistakable threat that the United States and other Western governments would withdraw their support for the fragile Karzai government. Gary Bauer, president of the conservative group American Values, sent an email to 250,000 supporters warning that Rahman's execution would "result in a complete collapse in support for the war." The New York Times echoed these sentiments: "What's the point of the United States' propping up the government of Afghanistan if it's not even going to pretend to respect basic human rights?" The newspaper's editors threatened, "If Afghanistan wants to return to the Taliban days, it can do so without the help of the United States."

The implication is clear: By "liberating" Afghanistan, the Christian West now stakes a claim in its internal affairs. Recognizing this influence, vocal leaders have discovered a sudden interest in international law and universal values -- but it is a piecemeal recognition, avoiding the systemic issues of human rights violations seen in Afghanistan on a daily basis. Before one applauds the outcome, it is important to understand that Rahman's religious freedom case is a symptom of a much larger problem.

While Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins laments that "such a 'trial' is a flagrant violation of Article 18 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights," he does not cite Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to education. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) reports that the number of educational facilities for women has actually been reduced in the past year. In southern Afghanistan, the United Nations reports about 300 girls' schools were burned down in 2005. Nationwide, women's literacy rates are half that of men. Some provinces report literacy rates of 3 percent for women.


Digg!

Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls are co-directors of the Afghan Women's Mission, and the authors of the forthcoming book, "Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence" (Seven Stories, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
On the Nature of Religious Oppression
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Mar 30, 2006 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As near as I can tell, all oppressive relgions to date have been patriarchic and misogynistic. Islamic and Christian ultra-conservatism are certainly both so. In recent years, however, christo-fanatics have squealed, from time to time, about an anti-Christian crusade around the world. I infer that the publicity about this incident stems from that. Of course christo-fanatics will savage their islamo-fanatic brethren for attacking one of their own, but will remain silent about those elements of oppressive Islam that mirror the ultra-conservative prejudices of Christianity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Honestly...
Posted by: Allison on Mar 30, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I've never heard about any of this. It's been very poorly covered in the media... and I've been reading Alternet almost daily for a couple of years and I didn't see it being exposed HERE either!

Good to see RAWA is still fighting the good fight. Clearly I should be visiting their site more often to see the real situation in Afghanistan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Honestly... Posted by: BlueTigress
Great Article!!
Posted by: janvdb on Mar 30, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are SO right.

It is sickening the way our government used and then abandoned the cause of the suffering women of Aghanistan, as it suited their agenda.

Women's rights are human rights!!

And it's not just about "helping others." It is the downbeaten situation of many Middle Eastern and African women which is directly related to the high rates of birth which persist in those places.

Those high rates of birth feed directly into the rapid increase of the labor force, after a shorter lag than you may expect -- 12 to 15 years. When an economy cannot generate sufficient jobs -- which require investment, education, and social and physical infrastructure -- to match the rate of increase in the labor force, high unemployment is an unavoidable result.

High rates of youth unemployment have been shown to be highly correllated with unrest, riots, wars and terrorism. Population Action International has recently produced a paper called The Security Demographic which goes over the relevant research.

We can never expect a stable, peaceful world as long as the mistreatment of women causes these high rates of birth, high rates of youth unemployment and underinvestment in the education of each child, which lead to violence, war and terrorism.

Any leader who thinks that "women's issues" are marginal is an idiot and a dangerous idiot.

We need a complete re-structuring of our foreign policy, following the lead of Europe, to focus on humanitarian investment in women's health, early childhood education and the alleviation of root causes of war and terrorism -- youth unemployment.

The violence, the bigotry, the aggressive, disrespectful, polarizing attacks, massacres and torture carried on around the world by our military are destroying our standing in the world and creating enemies.

We need a WHOLE NEW FOREIGN POLICY and that policy needs to focus first and foremost on women's health and women's rights.

For our own damn good.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Article!! Posted by: Aussie Kim
otto
Posted by: otto on Mar 30, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm side-stepping the main point, which I basically agree with, but the article mentions that the case was dropped against the Christian "due to insufficient evidence". I suspect that 90 percent of us Christians in the world could escape prosecution for the same "crime" - they wouldn't find enough evidence of us being Christians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: otto Posted by: Ambassador
Intolerance is Unacceptable
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 30, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The keystone of the values that we hold dear is that your personal freedom extends to the point where it impinges upon other people's rights.

I am so tired of our government rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, making deals with repressive governments. The list is long and shameful and has never done us one bit of good. It, in fact, has probably done more harm to the image of the US than any other single action it has taken.

Maybe my memory is flawed, but I remember a President that put the world on notice that Human Rights would be a cornerstone of our foreign policy. Implementation was not perfect, but it had a significant effect. We could use some of that now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The easy answer?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 30, 2006 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is much easier to whisk one man out of Afghanistan than it is to overcome entrenched, fundamentalist, and largely popular views and laws based on religion (and occasionally interpretations thereof).

Ground has been gained for Afghan women. As a baseline, I invite you to compare the number of women in Afghan government pre-Taliban to post-Taliban. Just because their government and society has not gone from RPG'ing scary 9,000 year old Buddhist statues to women in business suits and high heals in four years, doesn't mean that going from RPG'ing scary 9,000 y.o. Buddhist statues to women in parliament isn't progress. There are also women in cabinet positions (not just having been shoved in their husband's cabinets for showing too much toe nail, though I'm sure that still happens. and shouldn't).

Getting one man out of a country we (NATO) still (largely) control is a piece of cake, compared to changing a society. Not that we technically ought to be in the business of changing societies per se, but the stark contrast holds up nonetheless, and provides an easy answer to the question "Why did they whisk out a Christian convert, when the rest of the world isn't perfect yet???"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The easy answer? Posted by: janvdb
» No one seems to know... Posted by: BlueTigress
Religious Freedom?
Posted by: Cathyblj on Mar 30, 2006 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I seriously doubt anyone in the U.S. would have paid any attention if the man had been sentenced to death for converting to Buddhism, or anything other than Christianity. Bush claims he wants to spread freedom and democracy around the world, but obviously Christianity is what he really wants to spread.

It's too bad that Christianity (in its present form) is not concerned with women's rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

war is bad policy
Posted by: gladwyn on Mar 30, 2006 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its important to consider violence in its larger context.

The Iraqi Ayotollah has issued an order to murder gays.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1808863.php
And after the US took over we scrapped the Iraqi rules about impounding automobiles in traffic violations. So the fatality and injury rate for the poor, children, and the elderly, who walk and bicycle, has reached epidemic promotions in the last three years. And news of the civil war at 600 deaths a month has already been reported in some places for two years. Death squads, similar to our contra program in El Salvador, roam freely through the curfews. Like The Quiet American one wonders who's really responsible

Women are but one important consequence of war. There are many other evil consequences that result from the need to remove one of our ex employees from office on a pretext. But like the petro economy its distant and easy to drive by with our blinkers set on religion. We need to look at alternatives beyond war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Calling the Kettle Black
Posted by: Ambassador on Mar 30, 2006 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it quite interesting the amount of time spent by the U.S. government in chastising the human rights record of other countries. As long as the U.S. carries on its illegal occupation and genocide of the Hawaiian Kingdom, President Bush's waging of war in the name of freedom and democracy remains nothing more than a lie. It's oppression of the Hawaiian people and the media suppression of this issue is an international travisty. But because it's the U.S. Government, bad boy on the block, no other country is willing to hold it accountable.
U.S. Public Law 103-150 is a confession statement to its criminal act. No matter how many ribbons and balloons that they might tie to this document, it is the confession of an international criminal who does not feel that it should be brought to justice.
The U.N. refuses to address our peaceful efforts to right this wrong. Yet, at the request of the U.S., it will justify war as the acceptable method to address international issues.
It is easy to point a finger at someone else and call them barbaric to draw attention away from ones self. Peaceful resolution is no longer politically correct. It is simply a mechanical point to be addressed on the way to war.
By the faith that the U.S. President proclaims, his speeches about freedom and democracy, makes him a liar before his God. If he is willing to lie before his God, what good is his word to man?
The issue of woman's rights in Mid Eastern societies is a religious matter. Keeping fellow Christians prisoner in the U.S., is also a religious matter. Is there anyone willing to call the U.S. on the carpet for its human rights policy?
It is amazing that any country would take the U.S. serious about human rights records when the U.S. has skeletons in the closet of its own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Calling the Kettle Black Posted by: Aussie Kim
The fundies want to do much the same here.
Posted by: wli on Mar 30, 2006 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is no failure. It's the intentional result. The Taliban has more in common with the GOP than the GOP has with the rest of the US. The GOP knows it, and that's why this is happening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't forget that the Taliban have nearly recouped their loss of control in Afganistan to pre-911
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 30, 2006 6:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
levels. It's just that a puppet Karzai leadership coupled with a totally corrupt media here in the U.S. are doing their job of obstructing truth and justice from the American people who in their outrage and better knowledge would otherwise have none of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shari'a law/Koranic law
Posted by: BlueTigress on Apr 8, 2006 9:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See my comment above.

Adding to that, one thing that drives me nuts about Islam is that no one can quite seem to agree on what the Koran says about women's rights. When you listen to imams and other scholars that are in Europe or America, they insist that Islam is quite equal-opportunity and that Shari'a law backs this up.

Other scholars insist that Shari'a law is mostly codifying old nomadic tribal law and that it really is no base for a true Islamic society.

Okay people, which one is it??? Please explain to this poor American woman who is trying to make sense of it all which one is the most true representation of what Islam really is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]