For another, Karzai is at least allowing the the law might not be the final word on the matter.

The Afghan president said Saturday he had ordered a review of a new law that critics say makes it legal for men to rape their wives, responding to criticism from around the world that included sharp comments from President Barack Obama…

Asked about the law at a news conference Saturday following the NATO conference in Strasbourg, France, Obama described it as “abhorrent.” He said the U.S. is communicating its views to the Karzai government.

“We think that it is very important for us to be sensitive to local culture but we also think that there are certain basic principles that all nations should uphold, and respect for women and respect for their freedom and integrity is an important principle,” Obama said.

Even before Obama’s comments, Karzai said he ordered the Justice Ministry to review the law, and if anything in it contravenes the country’s constitution or Shariah law, “measures will be taken.”

That is of course worth the paper its printed on, but still, it at least indicates that Karzai is being opportunistic here, rather than a raving ideologue with whom a rational discussion can’t take place.

Small consolation maybe, but consolation nonetheless.

Which comes first: civil rights or a civil state?

None of this is really directed at you, certainly not as refutation or rebuttal. Really, it’s an expression of envy that you have a line to draw where I can find only spider threads billowing in the wind. Which is why, not having any comfort in my own ability to find that line and stick to it (or, for that matter, America’s ability), I tend towards an intentionally artificially rigid system domestically—the Ron Paulian model say—coupled, ironically perhaps, with a more robust international system (admittedly moderated to death by debate and geopolitics). But those are pretty hard standards to apply to Afghanistan, where we do (unfortunately) now have a giant moral stake in a cohesive government existing which has a monopoly on the use of force. How to do that in any way approaching a democratic one—wherein, let’s face it, most of the voting population tends more towards Karzai’s view than yours (not even getting into how few women probably actually vote, or will in the future)—well, beats the fuck out of me.

I think I’ll leave this thread now. Sorry to muck it up. :(

And I did know that about Canada. Canada, however, did not pass a law that 1 – makes a woman obligated to put out at least once every 3 or 4 days, 2 – restricts her movements to the house unless given explicit permission and 3 – takes away a woman’s right to custody of her own children, even at the death of her husband. It isn’t really comparable.

Do we oust him? Do we just express our dissatisfaction with this particular law and write a strongly worded letter? What happens if we do back another guy, and in so doing back Karzai into a corner wherein he becomes more hardline on Islamic moral tropes than he might have otherwise, and he wins anyway? What happens if our choice is a candidate who is more progressive on women’s rights but less able to deal with the basic stability of the country (i.e. more likely to create a civil war)? Is it worth the moral high ground if in taking it we ensure a greater risk of the disintegration of the government and national political fabric altogether? Do we then have that blood on our hands?

I too would prefer we didn’t back anybody, but that’s not exactly where your line of thought leads I don’t think. In fact, that’s a lot closer to the “armed neutrality” line of thought that I tend towards, but in many ways that really can be seen as a legal encapsulation of moral relativism. And as far as slavery of women, Canada didn’t declare marital rape a crime until 1993. Female genital mutilation was not declared a crime in America until 1995 (technically anyway). And whether or not parents can deny life-saving medical care to their children, say, is still very much an open question legal question in America. NONE of that mitigates what you’re saying in terms of the “wrongness” of this kind of thing, but it does significantly cloud the idea that we can have a standard list of human rights violations and a standard set of responses to each. And hell, maybe we can. Like I said I don’t know.

I know it isn’t easy. Personally, I’d rather we didn’t have a preferred candidate at all – it isn’t our business. But our blatant support of Karzai as he is actively pursuing this policy is wrong.

And outrage over rape is not merely a “Western conception of civil rights”. That reduces it into a culture clash as opposed to a brutal act of violence.

The world is a very grey, very complicated place, but there are still things that are right and things that are not. We would not support a candidate that was pushing a law to enslave a race, so why is it acceptable to dismiss the slavery of women as differing opinions on civil rights?

It seems to me that, even for those who are afraid that the perfect might be made the enemy of the good, the legalization of marital rape is probably a bit much to tolerate.

I would say it’s an easy answer if Afghani Leader X is, say, a misogynistic asshole and Afghani Leader Y is a relatively liberal progressive, and all else is equal and it’s only a matter of which one we back. But pretty clearly, it’s not even in the same ballpark as that simple.