Posted on 10/18/2005 8:55:11 PM PDT by churchillbuff
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 16, 2005 -- The constitution voted on yesterday in Iraq may well constitute an obstacle to securing human rights and individual liberties should it be approved, Freedom House said today. Immediate and comprehensive efforts should be undertaken to ensure that post-referendum amendments and enabling legislation for the constitution address the most problematic provisions.
On October 15, Iraqis voted in a national referendum on whether to adopt a constitution that emerged in mid-September after months of negotiation and was expected to be approved. A political agreement reached last week commits Iraq's leaders to consider new amendments to the constitution in the very near future.
While the Constitution contains numerous positive attributes that may contribute to the emergence of a democratic state, including strong language asserting religious freedom and democratic principles, Freedom House analysts have assessed that the provisions relating to the creation of the Supreme Federal Court could empower sharia experts on that court. They could suborn universal standards of individual liberties and principles of equality to a particular and restrictive religious interpretation of rights based on the religious affiliation of individuals.
"The implications for dissidents, including religious dissenters, as well as for legitimate political opposition, women, religious minorities and non-believers, are quite troubling and ominous," said Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor." There is a real risk that all these groups will face serious dangers in the new Iraq, " she said.
Iraq now joins three other states with constitutions that provide for sharia experts who are not required to have civil law education on their Supreme Courts: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. "These are not the models that new democracies should be emulating," said Ms. Windsor.
A constitutional provision related to the composition of the Supreme Court poses a threat of rule by Islamic jurists in Iraq, which could directly contribute to sectarian divisions within the country. Protections of the rights of women, and freedom of expression and belief are also in danger, as suggested by the case of Afghanistan, where the first act of the chief judge of the Supreme Court was to bring blasphemy charges against the only woman cabinet member on the basis that she criticized sharia.
Freedom House also expressed concern about the lack of protection for freedom of expression in the constitution, which declares that free speech is guaranteed within the bounds of public morality and public order. Such a provision is woefully inadequate, given that most infringements on free expression in autocracies across the globe are rationalized on the grounds of order and morality.
"We know that many people -- in the US government, in the international community and especially among Iraqis -- tried and failed to correct these defects as they emerged," said Ms. Windsor. "That work must continue. Given the likelihood of the passage of this constitution, friends of Iraqi democracy should focus renewed energy and commitment on trying to shape the enabling legislation yet to come, following on the December elections," she said. "The newly negotiated provision that allows constitutional amendments to be considered next year, where previously there was to be an eight-year moratorium, also offers hope for improvement. Along with many others, we at Freedom House will be there with Iraqis to work for a better result in the future."
In Freedom House's latest global survey of political rights and civil liberties, Freedom in the World 2005, Iraq is rated Not Free.
Now BTD- surely, those atrocities you mentioned were not committed against Iraqi Christians- who Churchillbuff defends on this thread. It is only the New Iraq Constitution that threatens the poorly represented Iraqi Christians. Although, He has always been truly/deeply concerned & miffed by such shortcomings. Just ask him...
Sounds like legitimate concerns are brought to light in the article. Needs to be presented, and I appreciate your posting of this article.
I'm glad for the great progress in Iraq so far. Hopefully, these concerns can be addressed and corrected too in the near future.
you're going to trust what comes out of a Soros-affliated organization?
Jeez Chamberlinbuff, I figured you had learned when you were banned....
Gee, these very same people didn't seem to have too much concern about the "civil rights" of the people of Iraq while Saddam was in power...
Mark
Are you saying that lawyers should be the only ones with the right to interpret a Constitution and by extention the law itself?
It is that sort of thinking that has created so many legal problems in the U.S.
Sorry this is so long, but the following is from a later FR thread, from The Spectator:
"The other beef is that the country will become an Islamic dictatorship along the lines of Iran. Critics cite the following from Article 2:
1st: Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation.
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
This is absurd unless one ignores the next three sections and nearly the entire document:
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
2nd: This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices.
In a document of over 10,000 words, the word "Islam" is mentioned five times, while the dreaded "Sharia" appears once (Article 90), in reference to experts in same that will sit on the Supreme Court along with judges and other legal authorities. Indeed, if the country were truly run under the strict rule of Sharia, the document itself would be impossible since Sharia forbids man-made law."
Doesn't sound like they're going to rush right out and start tromping on the religious freedoms of others.
Stupidity is Bipartisan.
What the heck is Freedom House, and, why are they reporting on themselves?? (in the third person!!!!)
Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded over sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, and other Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right.
Non-partisan and broad-based, Freedom House is led by a Board of Trustees composed of leading Democrats, Republicans, and independents; business and labor leaders; former senior government officials; scholars; writers; and journalists. All are united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom.
Over the years, Freedom House has been at the center of the struggle for freedom. It was an outspoken advocate of the Marshall Plan and NATO in the 1940s, of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, of the Vietnam boat people in the 1970s, of Poland's Solidarity movement and the Filipino democratic opposition in the 1980s, and of the many democracies that have emerged around the world in the 1990s.
Freedom House has vigorously opposed dictatorships in Central America and Chile, apartheid in South Africa, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the brutal violation of human rights in Cuba, Burma, China, and Iraq.
It has championed the rights of democratic activists, religious believers, trade unionists, journalists, and proponents of free markets. In 1997, a consolidation took place whereby the international democratization training programs of the National Forum Foundation were incorporated into Freedom House.
Today, Freedom House is a leading advocate of the world's young democracies, which are coping with the debilitating legacy of statism, dictatorship, and political repression. It conducts an array of U.S. and overseas research, advocacy, education, and training initiatives that promote human rights, democracy, free market economics, the rule of law, independent media, and U.S. engagement in international affairs.
Freedom House is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that relies upon tax-deductible grants and donations under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code. Major support has been provided by:
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation | The Byrne Foundation | |
The Carthage Foundation | The Eurasia Foundation | |
The Ford Foundation | The Freedom Forum | |
Grace Foundation, Inc. | Lilly Endowment, Inc. | |
The LWH Family Foundation | National Endowment for Democracy | |
The Pew Charitable Trusts | Sarah Scaife Foundation | |
The Schloss Family Foundation | Smith Richardson Foundation, Inc. | |
The Soros Foundations | The Tinker Foundation | |
Unilever United States Foundation, Inc. | US Agency for International Development | |
US Information Agency | Charles Stewart Mott Foundation | |
Whirlpool | U.S. Steel |
Those are some major, questionable contributors there.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Also, please see The Backside of American History
You'll love this 187 page .pdf (1.99 MB)
(Denny Crane: "I like nature. Don't talk to me about the environment.")
I would add the Pew Charitably Trust to that questionable list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.