Sunday, April 5, 2009

Yanar Mohammed asks: Would you marry your rapist?

"People of Iraq can never sign to an agreement of legalizing the status of US military forces in Iraq. [...] An anti-women era started with this occupation." -- an excerpt from the writing below by Yanar Mohammed

[I cannot locate the name of the photographer of this portrait of Yanar Mohammed, but found a version of this image here]

It is with apologies to Yanar that I have not yet posted about any of her excellent work on behalf of womankind, which is also to say--humanity. She is a front-line feminist if ever there was one, and certainly deserves to be honored and supported as such. She is among the women I most admire and respect who is living on the Earth today. I offer my deepest wishes for her safety and well-being, and extend those wishes to all who struggle against male supremacy's relentless violence.

For more information about her work and some recognition of it, please see this web page.

Just below is a recent piece by her, written in the last month of the Christian calendar year of 2008. It comes to me via Google translator, which again brings up issues of translation accuracy. Yanar speaks English fluently, however I cannot know if she reviewed this particular version of her writing that appears online.

Would you marry your rapist?

Yanar Mohammed

2009 / 1 / 3

The Iraqi penal code has an article which addresses the crime of rape. If the rapist decides to marry the woman whom he raped, there will be no charges against him. This criminal law makes a traumatized raped woman live with a monster who invaded her body and soul, someone who will have legal status to allow a daily rape, but under legal cover after signing the agreement of marriage.

After five years of forced military occupation, after filling hundreds of graveyards and ditches with dead bodies, after terrorizing people physically and imposing a most brutal inquisition-style religious rule, the occupiers seek to legalize their stay by an agreement which "humanizes" the permanent stay of their military bases in Iraq.

They claim to be defending the security of Iraq against terrorism, while in reality they only grant their never-ending economic interests, political control and hegemony over the area. They will always be a source of future military threat on the people of Iraq and the region.

People of Germany, Japan, and South Korea were never able to break loose from that grip; their countries still "host" more than 700 US military bases where the civilians and especially the female population pay the price.

Now that the rapist wants to stay for a lifetime in Iraq, he needs an agreement which makes him the "democratic" loving and friendly husband and father of the house.

A humiliated woman in Iraq usually swallows her pride and pain, and accepts her fate as the wife in such a marriage in order to avoid an "honour-killing" by her male chauvinist relatives.

But, why would a parliament of so called 100% Iraqi representatives compete in order to promote such a marriage which is realized through signing the SOFA agreement? Why would the public Iraqi television preach and brainwash millions over the "patriotic necessity" for the agreement of a so-called withdrawal when it is only legalizing and eternalizing a military occupation.

All the justifications about releasing Iraq from the seventh article of the UN charter[2] are hard to believe. Why should Iraqis be punished about Sadam s decision of aggression? And why should the punishment be prolonged while the US military committed an illegal act of aggression against Iraq?

The withdrawal of the troops from Iraq should be unconditional, with no strings attached.

People of Iraq can never sign to an agreement of legalizing the status of US military forces in Iraq.

An anti-women era started with this occupation. Killings of women by para-military affiliates of the government, writing an anti-women and anti-human constitution of the middle ages, and series of needless military and para-military clashes were all immediate consequences of this occupation. They all happened under the eyes of the US and British military occupation.

The SOFA signature is against the interest of the people and women of Iraq and will be repealed once there is direct representation of people in their government, and not an ethno-religious rule which is appointed by the occupation forces through scam elections.

Long live the people of Iraq free from all military, political, and religious aggression

Long live freedom and equality

Yanar Mohammed

OWFI, president

[1] Status of Forces Agreement is falsely called the withdrawal agreement while in reality it specifies the right to US military bases in Iraq.
[2] Article 7 determines an aggressor status to a country. It was used against Iraq during the Kuwait invasion, but was never mention against the US during the Iraq invasion.


Anonymous said...

I believe that I also heard about this sort of law in Mexico or a part of Mexico? I'm interested in doing research now to find out how many countries let rapists off the hook for marrying their victims.

Julian Real said...

If there are any Mexican women, in whatever area of the country where such a law exists, if it does, I welcome you to post information here about that.

I hope such laws also include the arrest and prosecution of U.S. white men capturing and raping Mexican women, whether with the intention to later marry them or murder them.

This blog will keep its focus on white men's violence, and Western white male supremacist violence against all women.

White U.S. men crossing the border into Mexico to exploit and rape Mexican women inside and outside of systems of prostitution, "for the fun of it" is a common practice among white U.S. men. I wish "law enforcement agents" monitoring the boarder would use their weapons to take out those racist-misogynist bastards, and that such men are considered to be U.S. migrants--or "vacationers" crossing into Mexico to commit crimes against humanity.