Mali women's rights bill blocked

[klr]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8223736.stm

The president of Mali has announced that he is not going to sign the country's new family law, instead returning it to parliament for review.

Muslim groups have been protesting against the law, which gives greater rights to women, ever since parliament adopted it at the start of the month.

President Amadou Toumani Toure said he was sending the law back for the sake of national unity.

Muslim leaders have called the law the work of the devil and against Islam.

More than 90% of Mali's population is Muslim.

Some of the provisions that have proved controversial give more rights to women.

For example, under the new law women are no longer required to obey their husbands, instead husbands and wives owe each other loyalty and protection.

Women get greater inheritance rights, and the minimum age for girls to marry in most circumstances is raised to 18.

One of the other key points Muslims have objected to is the fact that marriage is defined as a secular institution.

Tens of thousands have turned out at protests in Bamako in recent weeks and there have been other demonstrations against the law across the country.

It is a political defeat for President Toure, who was a strong backer of the new law.

It has only been the continuing angry protests by Muslim groups that have forced him to send the law back to parliament.

In his statement on national television the president was forced to admit that the population is yet to be convinced by the new code.

"After extensive consultations with the various state institutions, with civil society, with the religious community and the legal profession, I have taken this decision to send the family code for a second reading to ensure calm and a peaceful society, and to obtain the support and understanding of our fellow citizens."

It was clear from his speech that the president also thinks there has been a lot of false information circulating about the code and the government will no doubt also try to address this in the coming weeks.

The head of Mali's High Islamic Council says he was pleased with the president's decision.

Women's groups are heartbroken - they have been trying for more than 10 years to get the law changed.

Why am I not surprised?

[Sisifo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8223736.stm

The president of Mali has announced that he is not going to sign the country's new family law, instead returning it to parliament for review.

Muslim groups have been protesting against the law, which gives greater rights to women, ever since parliament adopted it at the start of the month.

President Amadou Toumani Toure said he was sending the law back for the sake of national unity.

Muslim leaders have called the law the work of the devil and against Islam.

More than 90% of Mali's population is Muslim.

Some of the provisions that have proved controversial give more rights to women.

For example, under the new law women are no longer required to obey their husbands, instead husbands and wives owe each other loyalty and protection.

Women get greater inheritance rights, and the minimum age for girls to marry in most circumstances is raised to 18.

One of the other key points Muslims have objected to is the fact that marriage is defined as a secular institution.

Tens of thousands have turned out at protests in Bamako in recent weeks and there have been other demonstrations against the law across the country.

It is a political defeat for President Toure, who was a strong backer of the new law.

It has only been the continuing angry protests by Muslim groups that have forced him to send the law back to parliament.

In his statement on national television the president was forced to admit that the population is yet to be convinced by the new code.

"After extensive consultations with the various state institutions, with civil society, with the religious community and the legal profession, I have taken this decision to send the family code for a second reading to ensure calm and a peaceful society, and to obtain the support and understanding of our fellow citizens."

It was clear from his speech that the president also thinks there has been a lot of false information circulating about the code and the government will no doubt also try to address this in the coming weeks.

The head of Mali's High Islamic Council says he was pleased with the president's decision.

Women's groups are heartbroken - they have been trying for more than 10 years to get the law changed.

Why am I not surprised?

Actually, I am. Toure has achieved great things in the country in the past years, mainly the secularization of the constitution and the law. Although is still a VERY corrupt country, they have opened some windows of hope in the very recent years. Besides, Toure is seen as a hero, since he installed the democracy after a coup d'Etat and stepped down for the first elected president. Unfortunately, if he hasn't been able to pass the law, it won't pass in many years.
I don't believe that the pressure that changed his mind is within the country. 50% is less than 15 yo, and 10% is touareg and nomadic (who care little about politics). After being an analyst in West Africa, I dare to say that the pressure is from the islamic donors. A very great deal of the development funds that run the infrastructure and education in West Africa, comes from the Middle East Foundations: mainly Kuwait, Emirates and Saudi Arabia. And the rottweiler of Africa is Gaddaffi, who changed years ago his pose from militar genius to Saint of Islam and crusader for the faith and the Panafricanism.
It's sad, but who pays the bill, chooses the menu. If we want western values in developping countries, we need to get more involved economically to them or more conditional. But the status of LDC of Mali doesn't allow much conditioning from the multilateral donors.

[Trolldor]

Western Values? You mean like interest groups controlling congress through 'political funding'? Or do you mean like Australia where we had one Prime Minister walking hand in hand with one of the most corruptive and secretive sects of Xtianity? Of course, you mean England where the choice is between conservatives or racist conservatives.

[RPizzle]

Western Values? You mean like interest groups controlling congress through 'political funding'? Or do you mean like Australia where we had one Prime Minister walking hand in hand with one of the most corruptive and secretive sects of Xtianity? Of course, you mean England where the choice is between conservatives or racist conservatives.

I was nearly blinded by your optimism...

[klr]

Western Values? You mean like interest groups controlling congress through 'political funding'? Or do you mean like Australia where we had one Prime Minister walking hand in hand with one of the most corruptive and secretive sects of Xtianity? Of course, you mean England where the choice is between conservatives or racist conservatives.

Red Herring. Just because "western" societies are less than perfect, it doesn't mean that any individuals and/or groups from "the west" - or even countries, or even blocs - are somehow debarred from offering critical commentary on what goes on elsewhere, or that their commentary should automatically carry less weight (or none at all) because of it.

In this context, the term "western values" is shorthand for "high levels of personal freedom and choice". As for the shenanigans you've mentioned: They are just as prevalent in non-western countries, if not more so, or even much more so.

[Trolldor]

They're not red herrings at all. "Western values" is arrogance at it's highest.
Do you mean the Western Values where either a minority or a majority can stop another party from enjoying a freedom which has no detrimental effect on society? Or the Western Values which only decided in recent decades that Rape within marriage was possible, or Western Values which promote a system which requires there to be a working poor in order for the economy to survive, or Western Values which encourage segregation of communities on an institutional level?
Or do you mean the myth of Western Values spouted by those who fail to see that the values we cherish are cherished by people all around the world in all different environments and conditions? The right to free speech, to love freely, to live with a full belly and a roof over our heads, the right to an education. You think they're exclusively Western? Let alone the myth they're of Western invention.

[klr]

They're not red herrings at all. "Western values" is arrogance at it's highest.
Do you mean the Western Values where either a minority or a majority can stop another party from enjoying a freedom which has no detrimental effect on society? Or the Western Values which only decided in recent decades that Rape within marriage was possible, or Western Values which promote a system which requires there to be a working poor in order for the economy to survive, or Western Values which encourage segregation of communities on an institutional level?
Or do you mean the myth of Western Values spouted by those who fail to see that the values we cherish are cherished by people all around the world in all different environments and conditions? The right to free speech, to love freely, to live with a full belly and a roof over our heads, the right to an education. You think they're exclusively Western? Let alone the myth they're of Western invention.

Whoever said they were? You think you can package all that meaning into a single phrase?

Incidentally, if you are so het up on the semantics here, you might want to lodge a complaint with no less a personage than Richard Dawkins. In River Out Of Eden, he extols the virtues of "Western Science", when compared with cultural relativism. Now, I know full well that many elements of "Western Science" did not actually originate in "the West". Our system of counting for example, or the algorithmic concept - to name just two. So when I first read that comment it immediately leapt out at me as being inaccurate, possibly arrogant - but more likely just being a bit sloppy. But the most likely explanation is that he was just trying to be as concise as possible in his language, and was assuming that most people would know that he was using a form of shorthand.

As for all the other faults of western society that you've mentioned: To the extent that they have been purged, that is mainly through the exercising of personal freedoms (including the right to openly speak and campaign) that are at the core of what we understand as "western values". It's also those "western values" that allow you to criticise whatever you think is still fundamentally wrong in your society or country. This a process supported by basic concepts, not a utopia.

BTW, there are plenty of people around the world - including many in western societies - who don't cherish all those things that you've mentioned, and who are quite adamant about it. But then you've pointed that out yourself ...

[Trolldor]

Western Values means WESTERN Values. Nothing more or less, there are no alternative meanings nor connotations. That's why there's a "Western" at the front, with a capital. And if you're going to use that term to identify 'Western Values' despite well knowing they're not 'Western' then any and all corruption in the West has to be included in the term.

[klr]

Western Values means WESTERN Values. Nothing more or less, there are no alternative meanings nor connotations.

Who on earth are you to impose such a concrete, inflexible definition on the rest of us?

That's why there's a "Western" at the front, with a capital. And if you're going to use that term to identify 'Western Values' despite well knowing they're not 'Western' then any and all corruption in the West has to be included in the term.

Words and phrases are ambiguous at times, and yes, that includes "western values", "western society" and "western ..." whatever else you're having. It's an uncertain world we live in, no matter what you say. I've said what I think was meant in this context by the phrase in question, and my assessment was based in no small part on what sisifo has said elsewhere in other debates - as well as the specific context in which he used it here. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll be along at some point to tell me that, yes, he did mean the arrogant, blinkered, overbearing, hyrocritical construct that you seem hell-bent on ascribing.

[Trolldor]

I'm 'hellbent' because people are content to sit with misleading and bias constructions. The label of Western Values refers to Western culture, the Western World. If it didn't then the word 'Western' wouldn't be there, it's that simple. It's a label with narrow definitions because of the words employed.

[klr]

I'm 'hellbent' because people are content to sit with misleading and bias constructions. The label of Western Values refers to Western culture, the Western World. If it didn't then the word 'Western' wouldn't be there, it's that simple. It's a label with narrow definitions because of the words employed.

It's narrow because you choose to make it narrow, and then to argue on that basis. Not my problem.

[Trolldor]

You've yet to explain why 'Western' is there if not to imply that these values are of Western origin.

[Sisifo]

You've yet to explain why 'Western' is there if not to imply that these values are of Western origin.

Well, I used the term without thinking in its philosophical meaning. I just meant that there were conditions like freedom of the press, democracy and equal rights that western countries demanded to other countries to grant donations or market preferences. Middle East countries put different conditions, more related to the teaching of Islam and the Q'ram.
And before you point it out, yes; they are just a demagogic fog, as the real negotiation is usually trade, investment, or political advantages.

Now... About the term western... well. The aforementioned values, as far as I understand, are the result of first: A succession of western philosophers, thinkers and writers that addresssed issues like freedom of the individuals, limits to the government, human rights, social order, etc. Those thinkers have shaped our way of thinking. Middle Eastern and Eastern philosophers had other priorities to address, usually more spiritual and pro-status quo.
Second: A historical wave of social movements and revolutions that managed to incorporate those issues into the system.
Third, the fact that one should think hard to find western countries that don't have those values into the Constitution or base law. Whereas it would be easy to list exceptions in any other cultural area.

That those values have been bent and whored to be currently a mockery? Yes. Without question. Democracy has turned into Plutocracy. Freedom of the press, into lobbist pamphlets, and the matter of equality of rights is broken over and over and over again. But they are still values because even when whoring them, they must keep the appareances.

[Trolldor]

You've yet to explain why 'Western' is there if not to imply that these values are of Western origin.

Well, I used the term without thinking in its philosophical meaning. I just meant that there were conditions like freedom of the press, democracy and equal rights that western countries demanded to other countries to grant donations or market preferences. Middle East countries put different conditions, more related to the teaching of Islam and the Q'ram.
And before you point it out, yes; they are just a demagogic fog, as the real negotiation is usually trade, investment, or political advantages.

Now... About the term western... well. The aforementioned values, as far as I understand, are the result of first: A succession of western philosophers, thinkers and writers that addresssed issues like freedom of the individuals, limits to the government, human rights, social order, etc. Those thinkers have shaped our way of thinking. Middle Eastern and Eastern philosophers had other priorities to address, usually more spiritual and pro-status quo.
Second: A historical wave of social movements and revolutions that managed to incorporate those issues into the system.
Third, the fact that one should think hard to find western countries that don't have those values into the Constitution or base law. Whereas it would be easy to list exceptions in any other cultural area.

That those values have been bent and whored to be currently a mockery? Yes. Without question. Democracy has turned into Plutocracy. Freedom of the press, into lobbist pamphlets, and the matter of equality of rights is broken over and over and over again. But they are still values because even when whoring them, they must keep the appareances.

Actually, you'll find it wasn't Western Philosophers at all. They were not just philosophers, but rules of ancient civilisations, of Greece and Rome and yes the Middle Eastern societies, and the Oriental societies. You can find the will and desire for free expression in a number of places, expressed independantly in different periods. What we adopted does not make them Western, and their origins do not come from Western education. The religion that gripped the Middle East also gripped Western Society, and respectively the pursuit for freedom was cut off during those periods, the only difference is that the Middle East is gripped by Islam which is, by comparison, a very new religion, and a far more fevered one. It's not 'Western Values' that they are missing, it's Islamic values which are being enforced, values which can be very easily related to the Christian values that once gripped the Western World.
My objections is only to the labelling of them as 'Western Values' - it's precisely that kind of language which stops people from adopting what are Universal Values.