Kuwait to probe women ministers over headscarf - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#1560933
MPs walkout of parliament to protest 'uncovered' women

Kuwait to probe women ministers over headscarf

Kuwait's new conservative-controlled parliament voted on Sunday to refer the case of two women ministers not wearing the hijab headscarf to its legal committee to establish if they broke the law.

The vote followed a token walkout by nine Islamist and tribal MPs in protest at the two women's failure to wear the hijab.

Thirty-three MPs voted for the proposal put forward by a number of Islamist and tribal lawmakers during the first session of the parliament that was elected on May 17 in the oil-rich Gulf Arab state.

The proposal was opposed by 21 members, including liberal MPs and cabinet ministers who are ex-officio members of parliament.

The legal committee will now have to establish if the two ministers violated a law that requires women to "abide by Islamic regulations while voting or contesting the elections."

Earlier nine MPs walked out of the chamber in protest against the two women ministers after members of the new cabinet began taking the oath.

One, Islamist Jaber al-Azemi, told reporters that the two ministers violated the law and that this was a challenge by the government to parliament.

The two are Education Minister Nuriya al-Sebih, retained from the previous cabinet, and state minister for housing and administrative development Mudhi al-Humoud, a first-time appointee.

Kuwaiti women were granted political rights in May 2005. Fifty-four female candidates contested the last two general elections but none has yet been elected.

As well as its 50 elected members, the Kuwaiti parliament also comprises 15 cabinet ministers.

Al Arabiya

I don't know where in Kuwaiti law it states that women need to cover their heads. All it states is that people need to abide by Islamic law or some vague bullshit like that.

:knife:
User avatar
By Nets
#1561011
The vote followed a token walkout by nine Islamist and tribal MPs in protest at the two women's failure to wear the hijab.

Thirty-three MPs voted for the proposal put forward by a number of Islamist and tribal lawmakers during the first session of the parliament that was elected on May 17 in the oil-rich Gulf Arab state.

The proposal was opposed by 21 members, including liberal MPs and cabinet ministers who are ex-officio members of parliament.


The fact that 21 parliamentarians voted against the Hijab proposal is a testament to the positive direction the Middle East is moving in.

Especially in light of this fact:

Kuwaiti women were granted political rights in May 2005.


---

Edit: above optimism before seeing Abood's other thread, here. :*(
User avatar
By Vanasalus
#1561036
I don't know where in Kuwaiti law it states that women need to cover their heads. All it states is that people need to abide by Islamic law or some vague bullshit like that.


That is where problem starts. Laws and the constitution of a nation must be written plain and well, with a language minimizing the different interpretations and confusion coming as a result of that.

Placing Koran, or any other religious text, in place of constitution and laws indirectly means granting right to certain people to interpret it as they wish, because it is so complicated and there are tens of different interpretations of even the easiest verses of Koran.

So, if Kuwaiti rulers really had wanted to start some reforms, they should have started with a secular constitution instead of planting few women MPs into parliament. But, quite possibly, they (Kuwaiti rulers) foresaw today's reaction before and it was precisely what they aimed at the beginning.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1561164
The Kuwaiti MPs are basing their claims on religion, which in essence, draws its necessity and power from Allah. There is nothing "legal" in basing such claims on religion, not even in an anti-democratic religion that tries to control every aspect of a person's life (i.e. Islam). "Legal" implies that humans must make rules to govern themselves and such rules must be based on science and reason and the power to execute these rules must originate from the people, the sovereign nation.

Unfortunately, some people people emphasize religious rights even though these rights generally contradict the necessities of a democratic society and, more often than not, promote backwardness and bigotry, some people still insist on liberating such dangerous doctrines.
That is where problem starts. Laws and the constitution of a nation must be written plain and well, with a language minimizing the different interpretations and confusion coming as a result of that.

What if someone with enough power and "legitimate backing of the people" tries to change it?

they should have started with a secular constitution instead of planting few women MPs into parliament.

Where else have we seen that? Hmmm...
User avatar
By Vanasalus
#1561190
What if someone with enough power and "legitimate backing of the people" tries to change it?


The basic truth is overwhelming majority of people living in free societies never demand something which can hinder their liberties. There is no example of it in the world.

Where else have we seen that? Hmmm...


1876 constitution (Kanun-i Esasi) of Ottoman Empire is a good example.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1561252
1876 constitution (Kanun-i Esasi) of Ottoman Empire is a good example.

I am under the impression that is also true for Iran and Muslim countries in general.

The basic truth is overwhelming majority of people living in free societies never demand something which can hinder their liberties.

What about "Muslim Greeks" living in, say, Western Thrace? They live in a liberal, democratic country but still want sharia and do practice it. Should we take that as an exception to the truth?

The very existence of a state, of central authority contradicts the principle of liberty. The contract is, in essence, a form of limiting the rights and freedoms to the extent that we all have some basic rights and liberties but we are not completely at liberty to act as we wish. Technically speaking, the truth you mention is actually a lie - or rather, the illusion that we are in charge of our lives and no one is interfering with our activities. The "basic truth", though a logical product of human nature of wanting to preserve one's self, does not take into account the desire of people to seek protection from others, nor does it take into account the irrationality of some people who want to do what is contrary to their interest... or what is contrary to the law of nature.

But that ^ is a bit too philosophical, I admit. The point is, all societies are founded on a principle that aims to limit human freedom so the "basic truth" is very ironic or is a very witty joke.



(btw, what's wrong with PoFo?)
User avatar
By Abood
#1561942
Doom makes a good point. I'd love to have a discussion on that topic, but I think it's slightly off-topic... and would go beyond that.

Vanasalus wrote:That is where problem starts. Laws and the constitution of a nation must be written plain and well, with a language minimizing the different interpretations and confusion coming as a result of that.

Placing Koran, or any other religious text, in place of constitution and laws indirectly means granting right to certain people to interpret it as they wish, because it is so complicated and there are tens of different interpretations of even the easiest verses of Koran.
I agree. Like I said in the other thread, the Quran can be interpreted in many different ways, but every Muslim likes to believe that his/her way is the one and only true way. So in essence, they all argue that their beliefs are the law. So a Salafi who believes that enforcing the hijab is the Islamic thing to do believes that that's the law, while a Muslim with a different interpretation is going to believe that that interpretation is the law. Then, the decision is just made by the majority opinion, I assume--which gives the idea that the majority opinion is the right opinion.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]