NationStates Jolt Archive

From Part 3: "Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status."

Here are the drafts (I can't find part 12):

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text1_1 - Part 1

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text2_1 - Part 2

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text3_1 - Part 3

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text4_1 - Part 4

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text5_1 - Part 5

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text6_1 - Part 6

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text7_1 - Part 7

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text8_1 - Part 8

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text9_1 - Part 9

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text10_1 - Part 10

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text11_1 - Part 11

Hmm.

But it still doesn't include an article on "exit strategy".

This thread is intended for display of this constitution that has been so carefully written. Exit strategy will come in later, when the structure of the Iraqi republic are strengthened.

This is supurb! Excellent to see that they got their proverbial shit together!

"1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."

"1st — Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality."

Punitive law shall not be applied retroactively unless it is best for the defendant.

The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the parliament members.

:rolleyes:

I can't believe no one has any interest in this? Kinda sad.

I guess I don't see what the rush is to get a constitution for Iraq. I guess they could borrow ours; we're not using it at the moment.

Seriously, the U.S. didn't have a "real" constitution until 1789, eight years after the revolution finished. It took two years for the states to ratify it.

The EU still doesn't have one.

What's wrong with Iraq working with a temporary constitution for as long as it takes to draft and ratify one that is acceptable?

Hey Fass, it also says there will be no discrimination against women, or people of different religions. Please understand, Iraq is a muslim country. Iraq has written a pretty damn good constitution... and I'm hoping it succeeds.. it guarantees the rights of all citizens.

You gotta love the muslims. They've got the "all animals are equal but some more equal than others" principle down to an art from.

oh and I got part 12:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_constitution_text12_1

"Article (150): Laws legislated in Kurdistan since 1992 remain in effect, and decisions made by the government of the Kurdistan region — including contracts and court decisions — are effective unless they are voided or amended according to the laws of the Kurdistan region by the concerned body, as long as they are not against the constitution."

That's perhaps something I've been keeping an eye on...

"1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."

"1st — Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality."

Punitive law shall not be applied retroactively unless it is best for the defendant.

The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the parliament members.

:rolleyes:

A little disappointing, yes, but expected. You have to remember that separation of church and state is a completely foreign concept to most of Middle Eastern culture.

Islam - one
Civil justice - nil

Hey Fass, it also says there will be no discrimination against women, or people of different religions. Please understand, Iraq is a muslim country. Iraq has written a pretty damn good constitution... and I'm hoping it succeeds.. it guarantees the rights of all citizens.

Having a clause in the constitution that basically says "if your law is against Islamic law, it is invalid" negates all of that nice speech in the rest. With a Supreme Court filled with "Sharia experts" and civil rights contingent upon "general morality," and the nice ability to make laws and their punishments retroactive if it's "good for you," you don't need to be Dionne Warwick to see where this is headed...

A little disappointing, yes, but expected. You have to remember that separation of church and state is a completely foreign concept to most of Middle Eastern culture.

A very valid point. This constitution nonetheless is very advanced for a middle eastern country... remember... their culture isn't compatible with ours. They need to come up with a constitution that best suits their culture and respects human rights. And this one in fact does, no matter what Fass says.

Having a clause in the constitution that basically says "if your law is against Islamic law, it is invalid" negates all of that nice speech in the rest. With a Supreme Court filled with "Sharia experts" and civil rights contingent upon "general morality," and the nice ability to make laws and their punishments retroactive if it's "good for you," you don't need to be Dionne Warwick to see where this is headed...

We should have let the Sunnis write the Consitution rather than those Shiite nutjobs who think an Iranian theocracy is a good idea; it would be a lot better for US, and we'd be fighting Iran much more than just insurgents from the other Sunni countries. The Sunnis are much more secular, and that's what we need for Iraq.

A very valid point. This constitution nonetheless is very advanced for a middle eastern country... remember... their culture isn't compatible with ours. They need to come up with a constitution that best suits their culture and respects human rights. And this one in fact does, no matter what Fass says.

At least it does until the human rights run directly contrary to Islamic Law, then watch out. I see another potential Iran in the making. Not Good! I hope it doesn't happen, but I think it all to easily could.

At least it does until the human rights run directly contrary to Islamic Law, then watch out. I see another potential Iran in the making. Not Good! I hope it doesn't happen, but I think it all to easily could.

I don't. In fact I see a country that'll emerge in a secular manner despite these religious parts of the constitution. This isn't going to turn into another Iran. That's just a fallacious argument.

I don't. In fact I see a country that'll emerge in a secular manner despite these religious parts of the constitution. This isn't going to turn into another Iran. That's just a fallacious argument.

No it isn't. The fallacious comment is to claim secularity in a constitution which enshrines Islam and Sharia as supreme law of the land. You can continue touting this as whatever you wish, but the rest of us will just simply read your links and see that your touting is condradicted by the constitution itself. This is not the creation of a secular state - far from it.

No it isn't. The fallacious comment is to claim secularity in a constitution which enshrines Islam and Sharia as supreme law of the land. You can continue touting this as whatever you wish, but the rest of us will just simply read your links and see that your touting is condradicted by the constitution itself. This is not the creation of a secular state - far from it.

We are dealing with a islamic country here, and to guarantee a completely secular government would not be possible. You are overblowing certain parts, and not emphasising the fact that discrimination would not be allowed. It is pretty close to a complete secular state, not far from it. Nice try really. You need to actually read the damn thing. The whole thing like I have.

And this one in fact does, no matter what Fass says.

No matter what the constitution itself says as well, apparently. :rolleyes:

No matter what the constitution itself says as well, apparently. :rolleyes:

You don't know what you're talking about. Unlike you, I've actually read the whole thing. You shouldn't be so ignorant.

We are dealing with a islamic country here, and to guarantee a completely secular government would not be possible. You are overblowing certain parts, and not emphasising the fact that discrimination would not be allowed. It is pretty close to a complete secular state, not far from it. Nice try really. You need to actually read the damn thing. The whole thing like I have.

I have read it. I even managed to add a "12" to the url to read the last part, a feat that took you a while to figure out, and the parts I picked out are the parts which practically invalidate all the nice speech you wish to tout: Iraqi law will be Sharia law. The Supreme Court will be filled with Sharia experts. This is undeniable. If you call that "close to being a secular state," then I will just have to question if you understand the meaning of "secular."

You don't know what you're talking about. Unlike you, I've actually read the whole thing. You shouldn't be so ignorant.

And you should stop it with the name calling. One more time, and I will suffer your indignity no longer. Either you show me respect, or this discussion ends now!

I have read it. I even managed to add a "12" to the url to read the last part, a feat that took you a while to figure out, and the parts I picked out are the parts which practically invalidate all the nice speech you wish to tout: Iraqi law will be Sharia law. The Supreme Court will be filled with Sharia experts. This is undeniable. If you call that "close to being a secular state," then I will just have to question if you understand the meaning of "secular."

This is like arguing with someone who runs in circles. You need to get the facts in your head: Iraq is an islamic country and this constitution is the best it will be until there is a more permanent one written up. You are just being unnecessarily negative as usual.

Hey Fass, it also says there will be no discrimination against women, or people of different religions. Please understand, Iraq is a muslim country. Iraq has written a pretty damn good constitution... and I'm hoping it succeeds.. it guarantees the rights of all citizens.

A country cannot be muslim and have no discrimination against women. Or guarantee the rights of all citizens. If the law comes from Islam everyone is screwed, Itl be another Iran. Under those kind of laws it would probably be illegal to look at this very forum.

I guess I don't see what the rush is to get a constitution for Iraq. I guess they could borrow ours; we're not using it at the moment.

Seriously, the U.S. didn't have a "real" constitution until 1789, eight years after the revolution finished. It took two years for the states to ratify it.

The EU still doesn't have one.

What's wrong with Iraq working with a temporary constitution for as long as it takes to draft and ratify one that is acceptable?

Heck, Canada did not get around to making one for over a hundred years! And even at that many say we still screwed up.

Cheers

A country cannot be muslim and have no discrimination against women. Or guarantee the rights of all citizens. If the law comes from Islam everyone is screwed, Itl be another Iran. Under those kind of laws it would probably be illegal to look at this very forum.

That's nice. I happen to think that Islam isn't incompatible with democracy. And islam can be moderate.

I'm all for a secular state, but this is the best we will get as far as Iraq is concerned.

This is like arguing with someone who runs in circles. You need to get the facts in your head: Iraq is an islamic country and this constitution is the best it will be until there is a more permanent one written up. You are just being unnecessarily negative as usual.

I needn't be negative to see this constitution for what it is, I need only read it and see what it says. It is not a good constitution. It is not a constitution that liberates the Iraqi people. It is a constitution which subjects them to Islamic law. My heart goes out to all the Iraqis that will learn first hand how brutal it is.

I needn't be negative to see this constitution for what it is, I need only read it and see what it says. It is not a good constitution. It is not a constitution that liberates the Iraqi people. It is a constitution which subjects them to Islamic law. My heart goes out to all the Iraqis that will learn first hand how brutal it is.

That's your opinion on whether it is good or not. Personally I don't think it is perfect.. but it is far from brutal. It is pretty decent..

Hypothetical:
Shiite Muslim controlled Iraqi legislature passes law that require all women to wear burkas and denies them the right to an education. A woman's group challenges the law as a denial of her "equal rights." The case goes to an Iraqi Supreme Court composed of Islamic Anton Scalia wannabee experts in Islamic Law - ruling? That such a law is compatible with Islamic law which is the fundamental basis from which the constitution and all other law derives its authority and therefore such a law is perfectly ok and doesn't violate anything since it is in accord with Islamic law.

Far out possibility - maybe. Possible, Absolutely no question.

That's your opinion on whether it is good or not. Personally I don't think it is perfect.. but it is far from brutal. It is pretty decent..

Your low expectations are but yours to see met. Seeing as we will not get beyond this point, I see no reason to continue this.

Is there any discussion on other parts like recognization of kurdish autonomy?

Having a clause in the constitution that basically says "if your law is against Islamic law, it is invalid" negates all of that nice speech in the rest. With a Supreme Court filled with "Sharia experts" and civil rights contingent upon "general morality," and the nice ability to make laws and their punishments retroactive if it's "good for you," you don't need to be Dionne Warwick to see where this is headed...
Which means that the Constitution is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

BTW, it still has to be voted on by Iraqis in a referendum. How does a country hold a referendum on a document as important as a constitution, while the country is on the verge of civil war?

Which means that the Constitution is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.This rather salient point will no doubt provoke claims of 'ignorance' from the apparently 'well-read' Mes. Of course, I see precisely what you're saying, and it is, and you are, completely correct, sir.

BTW, it still has to be voted on by Iraqis in a referendum. How does a country hold a referendum on a document as important as a constitution, while the country is on the verge of civil war?It doesn't, not one that's on the level, anyway. I wonder who'll be scrutineering that referendum?

"1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."

"1st — Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality."

Punitive law shall not be applied retroactively unless it is best for the defendant.

The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the parliament members.

:rolleyes:

Don't forget, however, that this is a society that could never separate a religion and a government. Nor did it ever preach it. Those that tried, like Egypt, had a roiling insurgency for many decades, and it still isn't entirely gone.
Besides, the role of Islam for Iraq is incredibally vague. The Constitution never did specify the sect of Islam, and it is not an Islamic state. Sweden is not a Christian state, even though there is a state church. Even Iraq's legislators don't have to be Muslim, and I believe a few of them are Christian. While I do wish for more secularity to protect the Christians and Druze of Iraq, I think that this is an improvement over much of the junk from the area.

Sweden is not a Christian state, even though there is a state church.

No, there isn't. That last vestige of official religiosity was shed several years ago. Also, it is an invalid comparison.

The Constitution is higher political theory, and quite frankly, it isn't gonna work with the bare survivalist mentality of the Iraqi government right now. Nevertheless, I found it better than most crap from the Middle East. Modern Western political thought is evident in the fact that it feels the need to be detailed, and mandates several programs. However, I am very pleased to see that it has affirmed individual rights, even if it isn't quite to the extent that I'd like.
That being said, barring a calamity like a coup or civil war, the constitution will not survive a decade. The Council of Union is vague, and subject to wild sectarian changes. No wonder the Sunnis hate it. It also seems to demand an expiration date by having several laws that may work now, but will either fail or be ineffective. A new one is needed, and because the security situation will probably improve by that time, people will definitly debate it, and it'll be scrutinized heavily. But for now, the document works.

Let them run thier country how they want. It's not our job to dictate/influence how they treat thier women or what the laws of Islam are/how they relate to humanitarium laws, etc. We shouldn't have even been over there in the first place, so we need to mind our own business and stay with our own problems here in the US.

...
BTW, it still has to be voted on by Iraqis in a referendum. How does a country hold a referendum on a document as important as a constitution, while the country is on the verge of civil war?
In Chechnya, we hold referendums and elections all the time. ;)

Don't forget, however, that this is a society that could never separate a religion and a government. Nor did it ever preach it. Those that tried, like Egypt, had a roiling insurgency for many decades, and it still isn't entirely gone.
...
On the whole, Turkey managed to effect such a separation.

I guess I don't see what the rush is to get a constitution for Iraq. I guess they could borrow ours; we're not using it at the moment.

Seriously, the U.S. didn't have a "real" constitution until 1789, eight years after the revolution finished. It took two years for the states to ratify it.

The EU still doesn't have one.

What's wrong with Iraq working with a temporary constitution for as long as it takes to draft and ratify one that is acceptable?

Becuase the Neocons want to push the issue as a nice shiny example of how wonderful the reasons for invasion really were..

"See...see the shiny new constitution!!....Were not so bad after all huh?"

I could give you a more eloquent reason of you wish...but I think that sums it up nicely.

I guess I don't see what the rush is to get a constitution for Iraq. I guess they could borrow ours; we're not using it at the moment.

Seriously, the U.S. didn't have a "real" constitution until 1789, eight years after the revolution finished. It took two years for the states to ratify it.

The EU still doesn't have one.

What's wrong with Iraq working with a temporary constitution for as long as it takes to draft and ratify one that is acceptable?
Although I tend to disagree with most of your posts, I sincerely support your view here, except the "borrowing" of the US Constitution, although I believe you meant that as a joke.

Democracy takes time. Trying to force a constitution in a few months time leads to problems.

The trouble with Iraq is the whole country is really series of minorities with a Shiite majority and ex-ruling Sunni minority. Anything they agree will really be a compromise, but no one will ever be happy.

We should have let the Sunnis write the Consitution rather than those Shiite nutjobs who think an Iranian theocracy is a good idea; it would be a lot better for US, and we'd be fighting Iran much more than just insurgents from the other Sunni countries. The Sunnis are much more secular, and that's what we need for Iraq.

Sunnis are the minority. Democracy hater are you?

Sunnis were the ruling class for since the brits came in (admin and stuff was done by them). That's just asking for trouble.

Anyone else expecting Kurdistan to have another go soon?

Let them run thier country how they want. It's not our job to dictate/influence how they treat thier women or what the laws of Islam are/how they relate to humanitarium laws, etc. We shouldn't have even been over there in the first place, so we need to mind our own business and stay with our own problems here in the US.

But when the US acts the goat it needs results to justify the action.

Oooh, shiny constitution, they must be good, we've got a constitution and we're good, right?

A little disappointing, yes, but expected. You have to remember that separation of church and state is a completely foreign concept to most of Middle Eastern culture.
Yeah, but if we'd wanted to create an Islamic state. we could have left a year ago and one would have formed on its own.

And for an update--no vote on it today, and no vote planned.

On the whole, Turkey managed to effect such a separation.
Yes and no. When Mustafa Kemal founded the Republic, he did so because the military was in his back pocket. Even though he was democratically elected, the military was (and still is) so powerful in Turkey that it created, if it is possible, a state of democracy sumissive to military control. In fact, the military took control of the country three times, and prevented the election of a PM not too long ago. In affect, it creates governments to its liking without being wholly authoritarian.
That's what happened in the twenties. The military supported Kemal made major changes without fierce opposition at the time. However, by the middle of the last century, there was a surge of Islamic extremism and fierce nationalism of Turkey's diverse groups. The Kurds fought, in part, because they figured that Ankara's secularization campaign went too far. Today, the good news is that it is so ingrained into society that, with the exception of a few moderate Islamists, it isn't really an issue.

Yes and no. When Mustafa Kemal founded the Republic, he did so because the military was in his back pocket. Even though he was democratically elected, the military was (and still is) so powerful in Turkey that it created, if it is possible, a state of democracy sumissive to military control. In fact, the military took control of the country three times, and prevented the election of a PM not too long ago. In affect, it creates governments to its liking without being wholly authoritarian.
That's what happened in the twenties. The military supported Kemal made major changes without fierce opposition at the time. However, by the middle of the last century, there was a surge of Islamic extremism and fierce nationalism of Turkey's diverse groups. The Kurds fought, in part, because they figured that Ankara's secularization campaign went too far. Today, the good news is that it is so ingrained into society that, with the exception of a few moderate Islamists, it isn't really an issue.
I didn't want to say that the Turkish system is without its flaws--only that it's secular. It is an exception among the Muslim countries, of course.

I'd prefer if Kurdistan seceded from Iraq to strike it on their own, and then maybe lobby for either land recllamation from other countries or mass migration - either way cause I'm a geography buff and I love when new countries are formed!

I particularly like the parts (Articles 109 and 110) where it says that the oil wells will be nationalised.

For anyone who cares, here's an interesting op-ed I read today on the new constitution. Of particular relevance to the discussion at hand, I think, is this section:

Gerecht is also upbeat about this constitution. It's crazy, he says, to think that you could have an Iraqi constitution in which clerical authorities are not assigned a significant role. Voters supported clerical parties because they are, right now, the natural leaders of society and serve important social functions.

But this doesn't mean we have to start screaming about a 13th-century theocratic state. Understanding the clerics, Gerecht has argued, means understanding two things. First, the Shiite clerical establishment has made a substantial intellectual leap. It now firmly believes in one person one vote, and rejects the Iranian model. On the other hand, these folks don't think like us.

What's important, Gerecht has emphasized, is the democratic process: setting up a system in which the different groups, secular and clerical, will have to bargain with one another, campaign and deal with the real-world consequences of their ideas. This is what's going to moderate them and lead to progress. This constitution does that. Shutting them out would lead to war.

I particularly like the parts (Articles 109 and 110) where it says that the oil wells will be nationalised.
Blimey, that's good. What will the Bechtels and Halliburtons make of this? I haven't time to read it at the mo - what of education, healthcare and the like?

I didn't want to say that the Turkish system is without its flaws--only that it's secular. It is an exception among the Muslim countries, of course.
I just pointed out that Turkey achieved secularization under the threat of autocracy. Iraq is a democracy. As long as elements are there to oppose it, a secular state will take a while to form. It will happen, of course, but not overnight.