Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Draconian dress laws echo the Taleban, claims MP

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 April 2008
AFGHAN MPs have moved to ban women wearing make-up, men wearing jeans and couples talking together in public, in a series of Draconian proposals reminiscent of the Taleban.
It comes a day after the supreme court passed almost 100 death sentences despite grave concerns about corruption in the country's courts.

The plans to crack down on women's rights – and men's fashion – have prompted calls for Britain to withdraw i
ts support for the Afghan government.

Bashar Dost, a presidential hopeful, said: "The international community needs to do something strong. It is time the international community said, 'We are giving our money, we are giving our soldier's blood, it's time we had a good government'."

The Taleban-style proposals are the work of a parliamentary committee on antisocial behaviour and measures against narcotics. The group, which is chaired by a mullah, argued women should not wear make-up at work, men should not wear designer jeans, let their hair grow long "like a girl's" or wear jewellery.

It also said men and women should be forbidden from speaking to each other in public, unless they are related.

The hardline Taleban regime banned television and forbade women leaving their homes without a male relative. But television and music have boomed since the regime collapsed in 2001, and women are now free to go outside on their own, although many still wear all-enveloping burqas.

Mr Dost, an MP from Kabul, added: "This proves that the Afghan government and the Afghan parliament doesn't believe in human rights."

But another MP, Pir Bakhsh Gardiwal, a member of the committee who helped draw up the proposals, insisted they were not an attack on women's rights.

"Afghanistan is an Islamic country. That's why we were discussing these things. It is nothing to do with the Taleban. We are discussing the law according to our constitution," he said.

A spokesman for the British embassy in Kabul insisted it would not affect their support for the government.





The full article contains 337 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 April 2008 10:19 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

truthsleuth,

18/04/2008 01:13:08
What the h### are our soldiers doing over there.
We should bring them back immediately.
2

Fanling,

Hong Kong 18/04/2008 02:18:36
That medieval male-dominated mindset will never ever change. They are welcome to empty the UK and elsewhere of its fellow travellers to enforce their sick philosophy.
3

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta; . CA.....a place in the Sun 18/04/2008 04:34:44
WE have 45,00 US troops in that hell hole called Afghanistan.

And we are getting ready to send in another 30,000 US troops. They will be move out of IRAQ.

All because of POPPY Fields and a band religious fanatics who live in caves .

Great logic I think not

We could in one week from any of our 5 carriers in the Gulf region, Launch an attack on their poppy fields and incinerate them . And flatten their mountain caves.
Turn Afghanistan into a dust bowl.

Before such an attack, Use military GPS satellites, to ring the borders of that country and destroy any movement out of the country. There would be no escape for the Taleban or anyone else.

Ground troops in Afghanistan don't work the Soviet Union found that out. All rag heads look the same friend or foe.

So if they want annihilation. we can give it to them. With the permission of PUTIN .

get a grip dudes.

GC
4

Mashimaro,

China 18/04/2008 05:50:07
Wow, this must be such a victory for the UKUS. I hope they are proud.
Galactic Cannibal - once you make it out of your mommy's basement you might find that what a country grows in its borders IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If you have a problem with opium POLICE YOUR OWN BORDERS. It's a strange I idea, I know but you look after your people and the rest of the world will look after their's.
Oh and... It's the oil, stupid.
5

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 09:02:05
Is this the new democratic US placed government for Afganistan?? You can lead a horse to water apparently.
6

Iain's,

18/04/2008 09:27:44
Our presence in Afganistan has the support of the British people.

Unless of course the last election results were false.

Just hope and pray that New Labour does not go war mongering against a country that can hit back!

You voted for them. ENJOY!
7

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 09:41:26
7

The last election put Labour in power on a 35.7% minority. It wasnt a democratic election. We havent had one of those in the UK for decades.
Now we have a Prime Minister who wasnt even elected at all and we are trying to tell other countries how to behave?? I would be pi**ing myself laughing if it wasnt so sick.
8

Alonso,

Aberdeen 18/04/2008 09:49:53
#9

I take your point Bob, but whose to say that any of the other parties would have acted differently? The Conservatives were in support of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you add the votes for Conservatives and Labour together as 'Parties that supported War' then the British public did vote as a majority for parties that supported the war effort.

To a certain extent, we'd have been lied to whoever had been in charge - evidence of the similarities between the two centre right parties, neither of which are a viable option anymore.
9

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 10:26:46
10

The invastion of Iraq wasnt mentioned in anybodies manifesto therefore nobody voted for it did they??
10

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 11:03:38
Yes, I don't recall being asked if we wanted to be in Afghanistan. It is impossible to have an election based on one issue in this country.
11

Fortunado,

18/04/2008 13:29:38
Mashimaro,China 18/04/2008 05:50:07

Dumb
12

Fortunado,

18/04/2008 14:10:51
Foulkes Off the CyberNat,
Edinburgh 18/04/2008 09:41:26

35.7% or any other number you may care to quote: that is the result produced by the “democratically” chosen system in place now. Hence I do not think that you can say that the elections were not democratic. You may have a point that the results were not representative of the view of the majority that either did not vote or voted for some other party. But that is a criticism of the UK’s “first passed the pole” system – it is not that the government came into power by a non-democratic process – which is what I suspect you implied. The process is democratic: only that sometimes it may produce results that are not to everyone’s taste or reflect an absolute majority. Other systems such as proportional representations have their own peculiarities which renders them better in some ways, but worse in some others. Proportional representation, for example, does not render that system intrinsically more democratic than the UK’s first passed the pole. A major advantage of UK’s system is that once the government is in power with a workable majority, it can do its work. In the proportional representation system a lot of time, energy and opportunities are lost quibbling in balancing acts for self centred minority interests that are not necessarily those of the country or for which they were elected. A number of the European countries that have that system, often speak in an envious manner of the much more clearly defined and workable system in the UK.
13

mike - across the pond,

mashimaro.... 18/04/2008 14:57:26
your geography is lacking....

last I heard Afghanistan had no oil....

there was some talk about an oil pipeline from Kazakstan (sp?) thru Afghanistan... but I dont know what the status of that was... and I personally wouldnt put a pipeline thru Afghanistan on a bet.... for the very reasons pointed out in this article... they appear not likely to form a stable government any time soon...

as far as WHY they are having trouble with democracy and human rights... they've spent generations killing off their "great thinkers" like Descartes... Jefferson.... Madison.... it is going to take some time to grow them... these thinkers would be more like Redwood trees... than poppies....
14

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 15:15:40
14

NO NO NO. How on earth can the first past the post system be described as democratic when it continuously produces governments elected by the minority?? not only that it can be manipulated by changing constituency boundaries in favour of a sitting government at any time.
I am not implying our system is not democratic I am stating it as fact.

"A major advantage of UK’s system is that once the government is in power with a workable majority, it can do its work"

And a major disadvantage is it can ignore its manifesto promises and add new policies such as illegally invading a sovereign state on behalf of another government without going to the country.

Referendums would help make it more democratic on all major issues not giving governments a free hand to do what they like when they like.

15

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta; . CA.....a place in the Sun 18/04/2008 15:48:15
4
Mashimaro,
China
----------------------------

Dude ,
Try not to be so nasty . its very juvenile.

F.Y.I. my girl friend and I will be leaving on a 3 week vacation begining next Tuesday.

We have very personal and specific goals to accomplish on this trip. My girl friend is 24, and therefore at the zenith of her reproductive instincts.

So GC will be closing down for 3 weeks , maybe longer

Happy Wild Shroom Day
to all my fans and my detractors

GC
16

Alonso,

Aberdeen 18/04/2008 18:32:30
11 and 12

Fair enough for the initial invasions but...

The Iraq war was a central issue at the 2005 general election - the people of this country had a choice to vote for political parties that advocated immediate withdrawal but 70% of the people voted for parties who wished to continue the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...therefore, the people of this country voted democratically with an overwhelming majority to continue the misery of Iraq and Afghanistan.
17

John Blackley,

Florida 18/04/2008 20:49:31
Just a thought: I wonder how many - of those who commonly cry, "These muslims in our country ought to abide by our rules" - are ranting at a muslim country making its own rules for its own population?
18

Silence of the Yams,

18/04/2008 21:24:17
I'd say bomb them into the stoneage but that would be an evolutionary step!
19

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 19/04/2008 09:46:36
18

Let me just repeat myself again because ye seem awfie slow.

ONLY 35.7% OF THE POPULATION VOTED FOR LABOUR AT THE 2005 ELECTIONS MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN AND THE SLEAZE AND CORRUPTION AND EVEN LESS FOR THE TORIES.
OVER 50% OF THE COUNTRY DIDNT VOTE AT ALL SO THAT IS 37.7% OF 50% OF THE TOTAL VOTING PUBLIC.

SO WHERE DID THE 70% COME FROM???????

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.