Photo Reuters
L'auteure Shirin Ebadi fait part de ses inquiétudes dans le Wall Street Journal.
"I do not agree with the phrase "Arab Spring." The overthrow of dictatorships is not sufficient in itself. Only when repressive governments are replaced by democracies can we consider the popular uprisings in the Middle East to be a meaningful "spring."
Since women make up half of the region's population, any democratic developments must improve the social and legal status of women in the Arab world. It appears the Tunisian society has strong civil institutions, and there is much hope that democracy can take hold there. But in Egypt, many political actors are talking about returning to Islamic law, which could result in a regression of rights for women and girls similar to what we experienced in Iran in 1979.
There are interpretations of Shariah law that allow one to be a Muslim and enjoy equal gender rights—rights that we can exercise while participating in a genuinely democratic political system. Shariah law and women's rights do not have to be mutually exclusive. Although the 1979 revolution in Iran is often called an Islamic revolution, it can actually be said to be a revolution of men against women. Before the revolution, women's rights were recognized to some extent. But the revolution led to the enactment of numerous discriminatory laws against women.
After the revolution—even before drafting a new constitution or establishing parliament—the revolutionary councils changed the laws. When I first read the Islamic Penal Code instituted after the revolution, I couldn't believe my eyes. The drafters of this document had effectively taken us back 1,400 years.
Before the revolution, I was a presiding judge. When the revolution broke out, I was initially on the side of the revolutionaries and I believed in their cause. I was shocked when the revolutionaries decided that women could no longer hold my position. I was demoted to secretary—while many of my male colleagues who were not as professionally qualified were appointed judges.
La suite:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577265840773370720.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire