One of the many areas for concern with the new Iraqi constitution, when there’s an Iraqi constitution, is how the law will respect the rights of women. Fears that women will be second-class citizens are clearly justified, given what we’ve seen in recent days.
Under a deal brokered Friday by the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, Islam was to be named “a primary source of legislation” in the new Iraqi constitution, with the proviso that no legislation be permitted that conflicted with the “universal principles” of the religion. The latter phrase raised concerns that Iraqi judges would have wide latitude to strike down laws now on the books, as well as future legislation.
At the same time, according to a Kurdish leader involved in the talks, Mr. Khalilzad had backed language that would have given clerics sole authority in settling marriage and family disputes. That gave rise to concerns that women’s rights, as they are enunciated in Iraq’s existing laws, could be curtailed.
Alarm over the legal rights of Iraqi women worsened over the weekend when conservative analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht said on Meet the Press that he’s “not terribly worried” about how women’s rights would be protected under the law, adding, “[W]omen’s social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy.”
So, what does the president think about all this?
Q: If [the Iraqi constitution is] rooted in Islam, as it seems it will be, is that still — is there still the possibility of honoring the rights of women?
Bush: I talked to Condi, and there is not — as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not “the religion,” but “a religion.”
That clears things up, right? Bush “talked to Condi,” Iraqi women “have got rights,” and then there’s something about religious law in there, but we shouldn’t worry about it.
I’m sure women throughout Iraq feel better all ready.