--- Ok, this is disturbing.

Here̢۪s the link, but I̢۪m reprinting it here for those of you who can̢۪t afford to pay for the Economist̢۪s premium content.

Discrimination rules
Nov 6th 2003 | ANKARA From The Economist print edition
Controversy over the law on rape
IF A rapist marries his victim, he can walk free. It sounds an
outrageous notion. Yet it is what the law says in Turkey. And if the
country's justice minister, Cemil Cicek, heeds one of his advisers, the
law will not be changed. Recently Professor Dogan Soyaslan declared,
during a parliamentary debate on changes to Turkey's penal code, that
“nobody would want to marry a girl who is not virgin.” Mr Soyaslan
concluded that it was fine for a victim to marry her rapist, rather
then face a lifetime of spinsterhood. Mr Soyaslan would have been
sacked in most countries. Not in Turkey. Instead, the professor spouted
more wisdom in an interview with a conservative daily, Milliyet. His
boss, Mr Cicek, has yet to utter any reproof. When a member of the
opposition Republican People's Party suggested that Mr Soyaslan's words
might encourage sexual assault, he was accused of ignoring “Turkey's
realities”.
It was modern Turkey's founder, Kemal Ataturk, who gave Turkish women
the right to vote in 1934 and told them to jettison their veils. Over
the past year, the Turkish parliament has been approving legal changes
that would further promote equality. Today, for example, a Turkish man
is no longer automatically treated by law as the head of the family,
and women are entitled to an equal share of joint assets after a
divorce. Perpetrators of so-called honour killings of women who have
been accused of tainting the family name are no longer eligible for
reduced sentences.
Yet even with these changes, traces of old attitudes linger. Mothers
who murder infants can still get reduced sentences if the babies were
born out of wedlock, though a relative who does the job will no longer
be able to. “That's meant to be progress,” sniffs Feride Acar, a
sociologist. Another provision making kidnapping a married woman a
graver crime than kidnapping a single one remains untouched. So long as
men who think with “organs other than their brains” continue to
have a say over such laws, says Halime Guner, head of a women's-rights
group, there is little hope of a change of mentality in Turkey.

Step up and speak out against this sort of thing, Turkey, or you̢۪ll never gain entrance to the EU, which is something you̢۪ve claimed you wanted in the past.

--- Good.
I used to like Rosie. I thought her talk show was fun. That is, until
the day she ambushed Tom Selleck about his NRA membership. It was a few
days after Columbine, so, yes I can understand that she was upset about
the massacre and struck out, but it was the way
she struck out against him, like he was responsible for the bloodshed
because he chooses to go hunting on the weekend, was deplorable. I
remember watching the interview (if you can call it that); she threw
out a statement, then before Selleck could reply, she threw out another
attack, then another and another. The poor man was completely baffled
that he was being hung out to dry. He was an easy target, and that she
took full advantage of his status as such, shows to me that she really
isn̢۪t interested in debate. Her positions on gun control aside, the
whole debacle truly showed us a side of Rosie that we hadn̢۪t seen
before: she̢۪s Nellie Olson. You remember who Nellie was, right? Little House on the Prairie?
Is any of this ringing a bell? Nellie was the blonde, ringlet-laden,
suck-up who was nasty, but when an adult came around, she was childhood
perfection defined. Her father never bought her act, but her mother was
suckered completely. Well, where Rosie O̢۪Donnell is concerned, I̢۪m
going to take the position of the father who never bought the nice act.
But it seems everyone else is the mother, convinced that her child is
truly the best person around. Gag. Open your eyes people. Now, I̢۪m
glad the judge in this case had a lot of common sense. He ruled
correctly and no one̢۪s going to appeal this verdict because it̢۪s
favorable to both sides. It̢۪s disappointing that it had to go to
trial, but if Rosie̢۪s side actually wanted to settle this thing, I
would be really surprised. Please. You expect us to believe that she
kept offering “peace, but they wouldn’t take it”? Urgh. How dumb
does she think we are? This is a woman who told a cancer survivor that
only “liars get cancer” when confronted with something she didn’t
like? I don̢۪t give a rat̢۪s ass if she apologized to the editor
afterward: if she really were the Queen of Nice, as people have titled
her, she never would have said, let alone thought, of that sort of
comment in the first place. Let̢۪s just put it this way: I̢۪m pleased
with the verdict, she can go into obscurity for a time, and maybe, just
maybe people will now realize that this personality she̢۪s built up
for herself is a sham. --- Oh, God, not again.

--- Oh, so Putin̢۪s spinning now?

"They say Khodorkovsky is not a murderer and that is certainly true.
He did not roam the streets with a big stick,'' he was quoted as
saying. But that did not take into account, he said, millions of
Russians living in poverty and denied pensions because of
Khodorkovsky's alleged misappropriation. "Let those who are still at
liberty think hard about what they are doing,'' he was quoted as
saying. Russia's natural resources should "belong to your children,
grandchildren and great-grandchildren.''
I don̢۪t really want to take the rich guy̢۪s side in this one, but
the charges, for me at least, seem weak enough that there is going to
be some manufacturing going on. (What did you expect from a Russian
prosecutor?) And the fact they̢۪re spinning like an Enron or WorldCom
situation does not sit quite right. First it was tax evasion and
fraud---now it̢۪s about the protection of natural resources so
they̢۪ll be around for the next generations. Pffft.
This is politically motivated and it does not bode well for Putin.
Khodorkovsky is refusing to back down. He resigned last week as CEO of
YUKOS. This has separated the company̢۪s current performance from his
political targeting by Putin, and has been seen as a favorable move on
the stock markets (doesn̢۪t hurt that the new CEO is an American,
either) shows me that he̢۪s not going anywhere. He did what was best
for the company to keep operating, which will provide him the power he
needs to beat off these charges. All of this is enough to prove to me,
at least, that Khodorkovsky isn̢۪t backing down. He̢۪ll stay in jail
for the two years, I̢۪ll bet anything. He wants Putin gone, and he
might actually succeed. Stay tuned for further developments. This is a
power struggle worth watching. --- I hope they take away his robes,
disbar him and if it̢۪s not too much to ask, fine him up the wazoo.
But that would be making a martyr out of a man who has no issues with
martyring himself upon the altar of Christian fundamentalism. And that
would probably just be playing into his hands. Perhaps it̢۪s best to
let him keep his job and then hope and pray the people of Alabama come
to their senses and keep this bastard from playing them in an effort to
push forward his causes, and his
definition of who God is.
--- Go and read Sullivan today. (Linkage on the upper right hand corner
of this page.) He has some very worthy comments about the Federal
Marriage Amendment. You̢۪ll have to scroll down to read it, but it̢۪s
well worth your time. I can understand why Gays and Lesbians are upset
about this proposed amendment: it̢۪s a ridiculous piece of legislation
that attempts to stick the government̢۪s nose into all sorts of things
that are none of its business. It̢۪s repulsive to me, and as a
heterosexual, married woman, I see absolutely no
reason why the “institution of marriage” has to be “protected.”
Claiming something has to be protected implies there is a threat to it.
Well, the threat to marriage is not coming from Gays and
Lesbians: it̢۪s coming from people who are allowed to marry, not the
ones who aren̢۪t. Over half the people who are married get divorced;
they don̢۪t think of marriage as something so precious it has to be
protected; they think of it as a disposable thing, like a dirty diaper;
something to be dumped when it gets too messy. If Gays and Lesbians
want to get married, I say let them. It̢۪s a violation of the 14th
Amendment: Equal Protection Under the Law (which also means equal
access under the law) to prevent them access to this most wonderful of
institutions. If they get married, then want to get divorced, well, let
them, is what I say. Equal opportunity under the law is exactly what
the 14th Amendment is meant to provide: let the law work. But Sullivan
gets it right today, although he doesn̢۪t go so far as he should. The
obnoxious clauses about celibacy that have been proposed for inclusion
mean that not only are they trying to dictate was goes on in
someone̢۪s bedroom, but that these people are trying to uphold marriage for heterosexuals as well.
It̢۪s no secret that fundamentalist Christians have long been in favor
of making it harder to divorce a spouse; they have also made it known
that they want it to be more difficult to obtain a marriage license, as
well. The “covenant marriage license” in Louisiana comes to
mindâ€Â¦you know, the one where the couple has to jump through more
hoops than just obtaining a blood test to get a license, and then they
are not allowed to divorce or something like that? I don̢۪t really
remember the details and am too pressed for time to go researching, but
it was a big deal in the media quite some time ago. I digress, but the
point would be that fundamentalist Christians are painting themselves
into a corner that will make this Amendment a moot point soon enough,
so I don̢۪t see the need to worry. Ok, I̢۪m sure I just enflamed a
few people on this one, but let me explain, and it̢۪s going to get all
technical and mathlike here, so I will try to simplify as much as
possible. According to the Constitution, Article V: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or
the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Ok, so to sum up, this Amendment, which has been introduced to Congress, must have two thirds of both
houses to support it. Two thirds of the House means it must have 287
votes; in the Senate, it must have 66 votes. Then we move over to the
legislatures, where three fourths of them must ratify this
amendment---that adds up to 38 states. Are there 38 states that would
honestly go for this? I don̢۪t think so, providing it goes that far in
the first place. It might pass the House, but not with all of this fundamentalist garbage in it (and if the fundamentalists insist
on having this garbage in it, well, they̢۪re doomed), but it will
never make it out of the Senate. And in the unlikely event that it
does, there is no way in hell that thirty-eight states will ratify this
amendment. If the congressional move fails, which is more than a
distinct possibility in my opinion, the next move would be to appeal to
the State Legislatures to propose this amendment, and that won̢۪t go
anywhere either. I truly believe it̢۪s doomed to
failure---particularly when you look at the math. No one---other than
ultra-conservative representatives---is going to vote for something so
discriminatory, not only to Gays and Lesbians, but to heterosexuals as
well. It̢۪s just not going to happen. But there are lessons to be
learned from this: we will see just how powerful and dedicated the
fundamentalist lobby is. We̢۪ve all heard the arguments that Bush has
to pander to these fundamentalists for the reason that they̢۪ll pull
their support and just won̢۪t bother to vote at all. It̢۪s an
oversimplification to say so, but some of them do work under the assumption that if their initiatives fail to gain support, well, the end is nigh! The Rapture is upon us; the world has gone to Hell and the second coming is soon to happen because of this failure. Well, that̢۪s just malarkey and is NOT a logical reason to pander for votes.

If nothing else, it will instruct us as to who these people are, what they want specifically and maybe, just maybe, give us insights in how to deal with people who claim to be non-negotiable.

--- Ok, I̢۪m off like a pair of smelly socks. Enjoy your day---it̢۪s been snowing off and on here. Ugh.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2281 words, total size 15 kb.