Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Worthington

GET UPDATES FROM Peter Worthington
 

Canadian Soldiers Couldn't Save Afghan Rape Victim

Posted: 12/06/11 09:06 AM ET

Anyway you look at it, it's hard to imagine a more outrageous case than the 21-year-old woman in Afghanistan being sent to prison because she was raped.

The story has been newsworthy for some time now, but every time one reads or hears about it, it somehow gets worse.

To recap: The woman, identified only as Gulnaz, was initially sentenced to two years in prison for adultery after she was raped and impregnated. She appealed -- and the sentence was boosted to 12 years.

She then was told she would be freed if she agreed to marry the rapist, who was already married.

Gulnaz has already spent two and a half years in prison for her "offence" -- an offence that apparently has hundreds of women in Afghan jails whose crime is that they were raped.

In Gulnaz's case, public pressure (mostly from abroad and from human rights groups) forced Afghan President Hamid Karzai to become involved. He initially ordered Gulnaz released on condition that there be mediation between her and the guy who raped her.

What sort of "mediation" one wonders? Like a marriage counsellor, perhaps? Maybe mullahs seeking to convince the woman that this was love at first sight by the rapist, who was so beguiled by her burka, or silhouette, that he couldn't restrain himself?

Who knows? Under Sharia law, the rape victim generally seems to be at fault for what happens to her, because somehow she's a temptress.

Apparently, Gulnaz reluctantly agreed to marry her rapist -- not to get herself out of prison, but so her child wouldn't be branded "a bastard." That, too, is outrageous.

The BBC has since reported that President Karzai has granted the woman a full pardon, with no conditions. She can marry whoever she want. Chalk one up for international condemnation.

The case first came to public attention when a documentary being funded by the European Union to highlight the plight of Afghan women was cancelled for fear that such publicity would rebound on Gulnaz. Also, because the EU feared the film might offend the Afghan regime.

Documentary or no documentary, the raped woman's case has reverberated around the world, invoking varying degrees of horror.

It makes one wonder about our role in Afghanistan. For close to 10 years Canadian soldiers have been putting their lives on line to help the country, with 158 Canadians killed in the process. Killed for what? To put raped women in jail?

Despite optimistic rhetoric from those in command, progress in human rights seems negligible. In 2002, when the Princess Pats first arrived in Afghanistan, they built schools and insisted that girls by included. Sometimes reluctantly, village elders agreed. But changing cultural habits is slow -- and really not the role of soldiers.

Now our combat role in Afghanistan is finished. The thousand or so soldiers left are training the Afghan National Army, and the question raised again is whether the mission has been worthwhile, considering the barbaric cultural mores of Afghanistan?

Honour killings, death by stoning and imprisoning pregnant rape victims seem more the normal than aberrations. Look at the trial in Kingston, where an Afghan father and son are charged with killing three daughters and first wife -- presumably for "honour."

Changing cultural habits can be a slow and evolutionary process. Put bluntly, we kid ourselves if we think our involvement will persuade Afghans that women are the equal of men.

 
Anyway you look at it, it's hard to imagine a more outrageous case than the 21-year-old woman in Afghanistan being sent to prison because she was raped. The story has been newsworthy for ...
Anyway you look at it, it's hard to imagine a more outrageous case than the 21-year-old woman in Afghanistan being sent to prison because she was raped. The story has been newsworthy for ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:37 AM on 12/07/2011
First of all, was it Canada's mission or were Canadian forces acting as auxiliaries for a foreign superpower there? Second of all, can civilization be introduced by means of a military attack? Thirdly, does the fact the intent of an attack killing tens of thousands over time is supposedly intended to bring about "civilization" not give "civilization" a bad name and aid in the creation of the harm the attack is purportedly intended to remedy? In my view, one of the major reasons for the war was that the military, particularly the US military, needed enemies to kill as their raison d'etre.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montezaro
08:51 PM on 12/06/2011
Mowich, "we left troops to help train Afghan soldiers." Who are those soldiers? A "small" detail was hidden from us. In an interview, (CBC TV, Peter Mansbridge) with Pakistani president (at the time) we found out that NATO is training only members of ONE tribe. What can we expect to happen? This is proven tactic. Romans called it "Divide et impera" - divide and rule. ( I know, it is translated "divide and conquer", but "rule" is the exact translation. - for nitpickers)
07:19 PM on 12/06/2011
It's the sad truth, Peter. The Shafia trial that you mention is bitter proof that some people simply don't want to change. They cling to an outmoded, outdated, misogynistic and narrow interpretation of their religion flying in the face of the laws that govern of our country. I find the death of the Shafia women to be even more troubling taking place as it did in Canada, a country where they thought they had a chance at freedom only to find death instead.
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
04:00 PM on 12/06/2011
All died in vain and only now do "media" consider the consequences?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:50 PM on 12/06/2011
Mr. Worthington, we had no business invading Afghanistan. Many of us were against the war, but our voices were not listened to by those we put into power. Our soldiers died for our government's agenda. Which was to support the US, for apparently we must do what they do. Whether it is legal or moral, or makes any sense at all, it doesn't seem to matter.
Bringing democracy to the ME? A noble idea, but: 1. The ME culture is so different and their life is so deeply rooted in religion that what works for us will not work for them, 2. It is not up to foreign powers to bring on regime change in any country, and the Afghanis never asked us to invade them. I am proud of my country for many reasons, but am deeply embarrassed about our involvement in the invasion of Afghanistan, and hope that all leaders of the invading countries will eventually be taken to international court and tried for crimes against humanity.
You want to "take" democracy to Afghanistan? Fairness and human rights? You can't. It is not our role to do so, it is theirs. Send diplomats not armies if you want to help, for the armies only know how to kill, and sadly, we have done quite well in that department. Look at the number of civilian deaths and the people who've been turned into refugees because of the war.
We screwed up. All those lives sacrificed for nothing. Very sad.
03:39 PM on 12/06/2011
Tajeetah hit the nail on the head.

Human rights and democracy are the modern justification for Western imperialism. Whatever changes are to occur in the Middle East must come from within. Anything else is but change imposed at gunpoint by Western powers.
07:25 PM on 12/06/2011
Good luck with the trial being that the war is sanctioned by the UN.

Armies only know how to kill? You really should get out more. You might find that our soldiers are daily involved in many humanitarian enterprises.

Best you remember how many civilian death are directly attributed to the Taliban - ie their own people.

We didn't screw up at all. We went to Afghanistan. We did our job. We left troops to help train the Afghan soldiers, and we brought the rest of our soldiers home. End of story.
04:33 AM on 12/07/2011
"Teach 'em how to vote and how to bomb" -Leon Russell song, 1971. It is naive to think that the primary job of an army is other than to exercise the state's monopoly on violence, i,e, to kill people.