|
August 09, 2006
Section 111? Article 111? Number 111? But where?
Earlier this week, a Canadian British antiwar activist journalist writing in the Observer cited "Iraq Penal Code Section 111" for the proposition that not only is there a religious honor killing exception to Iraq's laws against murder, but the killing homosexuals is considered honor killing. In trying to find the statute, I provided this link to the Iraqi Penal Code (which is being used in current criminal proceedings), as well as a link to another version in Arabic. Now, thanks to the invaluable Clayton Cramer, I'm closer to the answer to a seemingly unsolvable problem. Mr. Cramer has found a specific State Department reference to an "Article 111" added by Saddam Hussein in 1990, which deals with honor killings: Murder. In 1990, Saddam Hussein introduced Article 111 into the Iraqi Penal Code in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime. This law exempts men who kill their female relatives in defense of their family's honor from prosecution and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called "honor killings" since Article 111 went into effect. (UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, January 2002)It says nothing about religion (which it would not, as Saddam Hussein's regime was secular in nature), nor is it listed in any of the Penal Codes. Nowhere can anyone seem to find any actual text of this alleged "article." Mr. Cramer also cites this from the State Department: Article 1 of the Iraqi Penal Code No. 111 of 1969, however, mandates that criminal penalties can only be imposed by law. Thus, despite the Shari'a punishment for conversion, the Iraqi penal code does not import the Shari'a penalty, nor does it contain a similar penalty. The Law of Civil Affairs No. 65 of 1972 explicitly allows non-Muslims to convert to Islam.To make this analysis easier, I downloaded the Iraqi Penal Code and placed it online here. It begins with the following preamble: THIRD EDITIONAs can be seen, "No. 111" seems to be the title of the entire code, and not any particular section. That explains why I'm not seeing "Section 111" anywhere. But it still does not explain the unreferenced text. Stay tuned. UPDATE: In 2002, an "Article 111" allowing honor killing of women was described as "repealed." In another report the article is described as not repealed, and is actually quoted: So-called “honor killing,” the murder of a family member by a relative to protect the family’s reputation, often occurs in Iraq when a man is believed to be gay, according to the Human Rights Ministry.Once again, where is this "article" to be found? MORE: Here's another version of "Article 111": In 1990, Article 111 was introduced into the Iraqi penal code; the decree reduced prison sentences from eight years to no more than six months for men who kill their female relatives and plead family “honor” as justification, thus reviving the practice of “honor killings,” which had been on a decline in Iraq.4 MORE: It's probably worth pointing out that according to SodomyLaws.org, "sodomy" per se is not a criminal offense in Iraq: Homosexual behaviour between consenting adults is not an offence under Iraq's Penal Code. However homosexuality is taboo, and there is no visible support for lesbian and gay rights. (PB). AND MORE: In case anyone understands who Arabic might be able to help, I have uploaded the Arabic version of the Code of Criminal Procedure (PDF file). Regardless of whether there is or was a "Section 111," "Article 111" or "Number 111", or whether it has been repealed, by most accounts, it dates from 1990. What I fail utterly to see is how this alleged law (or the abominable behavior of certain Iraqis in killing women or homosexuals) can in any way be construed an argument against the Iraq War. If anything, it means the job is not over. MORE: It gets more and more muddled. A very confusing Wikipedia article cites not "Article 111," but a purported "Paragraph 111" (followed by a "citation needed" caveat), but also states that there has been a "reversal of the criminal code back to its original 1969 status." The 1969 code is the one claimed to be current by the U.S. Judge Advocate General Corps, and it is the one I have made available here. I've read through the code, and see no mention whatsoever of the section, article, and paragraph no one can find. My tentative conclusion is that without a citation, it does not exist. (Whether it ever existed other than in the minds of activists who claimed it did is a subject for debate.) In any event no such provision appears to be legally in effect. Unless the Observer's Jennifer Copestake can provide a definite link to the statute, I'm going to consider her claim that there is one to be unsubstantiated. (Quite coincidentally, there is [or might be -- if you can believe anything anymore] an "Article 111" in the IRAN Penal Code which prohibits sodomy.) posted by Eric on 08.09.06 at 05:14 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Are you saying that arguments against the war have to be logical or make sense?? Silly you....