Afghan Rapes & Canadian Soldiers' Duty

[the 48th regulator]

I agree with The Ruxted Group:

Thursday, September 7. 2006- The Afghanistan Debate
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/24-The-Afghanistan-Debate.html

But is that the current mandate of the Military Mission there?

http://www.dnd.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703

Wy are we there? /b]
Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government, along with 36 other nations, and as part of a UN-sanctioned mission to help build a stable, democratic, and self-sufficient society.

About 2500 members of the Canadian Forces (CF) are currently serving as part of Joint Task Force Afghanistan (JTF AFG). They play a key role in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission whose goal is to improve the security situation in Afghanistan and assist in rebuilding the country.

Canada’s continued engagement in Afghanistan helps create the conditions for longer-term reconstruction. All CF operations in Afghanistan are conducted with the consent and at the request of the Afghan government to:

Provide the people of Afghanistan with the hope for a brighter future by establishing the security necessary to promote development and an environment that is conducive to the improvement of Afghan life;
Conduct operations in support of Afghan National Security Forces;
Help strengthen and enhance Afghan Governance capacity;
Help extend the authority of the Government of Afghanistan in the South;
Facilitate the delivery of programs and projects that support the economic recovery and rehabilitation of Afghanistan; and
Assist in addressing humanitarian needs of Afghans by supporting Canadian governmental organizations and NGOs whose efforts meet Canada’s objectives.
The Afghan people are relying on the international community to help them rebuild their lives and their country after having suffered through decades of instability, oppression and insurgency.

But, you this right?

dileas

tess

 

[The Bread Guy]

I agree with The Ruxted Group ...

So do I, but we have to go by what the government says is the rationale....

I'm going to add to Tess' quote from the same ref as the last post - in fact the next paragraph on the same page....

"By supporting the rebuilding of institutions such as independent courts, police and an army, Canada is on the ground laying the foundation for Afghans to govern themselves and secure a better future."

Do we help rebuild in the old mode, or in a "they'll trust you more" mode?

 

[Fusaki]

Sounds good to me, Tess.

I don't see the point you're trying to make, though.

I think we both agree that ANA guys keeping boy toys is wrong, but the only solution I see is a short term sacrifice for long term goals.

Do we help rebuild in the old mode, or in a "they'll trust you more" mode?

What do you mean?

 

[TrexLink]

Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the
following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed
against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) murder;
(b) extermination;
(c) enslavement;
(d) deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law;
(f) torture;
(g) rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other
grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law,
in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) the crime of apartheid;
(k) other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering,
or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

www.iccnow.org/


dileas

tess

Sorry, but I think I must agree with Vern.  As nasty as rape is, the way the above citation reads, individual acts of rape which are not as part of a widespread deliberate campaign of rape do not fall under the category of crimes against humanity.  Using rape as a means of mass intimidation, to encourage ethnic cleansing, etc would indeed be such, but that's not the case in question.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Sounds good to me, Tess.

I don't see the point you're trying to make, though.

I think we both agree that ANA guys keeping boy toys is wrong, but the only solution I see is a short term sacrifice for long term goals.

What do you mean?

My point is we do not turn a blind eye. If we witness, or come by information that the abuse of the civillian population is happening whether by Police, ANA, Combatants or Beligerents it is our duty to act and report this through our chain of command.


This has nothing to do with imposing our views or laws, but uphold international law and mainting the mission handed to us by our government, detailed by the link I gave.

dileas

tess

 

[the 48th regulator]

Sorry, but I think I must agree with Vern.  As nasty as rape is, the way the above citation reads, individual acts of rape which are not as part of a widespread deliberate campaign of rape do not fall under the category of crimes against humanity.  Using rape as a means of mass intimidation, to encourage ethnic cleansing, etc would indeed be such, but that's not the case in question.

Can you please quantify the amount of rapes it takes before we take action?

dileas

tess

 

[Fusaki]

Can you please quantify the amount of rapes it takes before we take action?

What action would we take?

 

[the 48th regulator]

What action would we take?

Without knowing what your ROE are, How would you handle an attack on a civilian by an armed combatant?

Another step that comes to mind would be Report it through my chain of command.

dileas

tess


edit for grammar and spelling...

 

[armyvern]

Vern,   I guess I was just wondering if rather than being "culturally accepted" by ALL  are there "pockets"  in the  Afghan population that would  decry the practice of the prostitution of young boys  if they had a voice.  Their parents? the boys themselves  (if they had other ways to make $$)?, their teachers, local doctors?  It is a  complicated problem that cannot  have a military solution just as our  similar home grown issues are not solely a problem for the police. Our worst  Canadian social problems require a multi-pronged approach: with force,  with law, with education, with social support, etc.  One alone will not be as effective as everyone working together toward the same goal, understanding what each can contribute.    Does anyone know of any local Afghans, organized or not, who could address these issues, and then enlist the soldiers  to assist in  whatever approach they  advise, when the situation arises?   Is there a formalized arm of the DND  that is a link to local (Afghan)  social advocates  that can address the issues that ultimately do come back  for the soldiers to deal with anyway?

I'm unsure of the answer.

They certainly feel it's acceptable to "systemiclly practise" or "force" 14 year old females into sexual relationships/marriages that they are not ready for and have not consented to. And there is zero "consent" on the part of the girls involved in that, while the boys are prostituting themselves willingly. The girls aren't even getting paid for crying out loud ... and this is happening to them routinely, systemicly, and is known world-wide.

It is also an "abhorable" practise by our western "standards and ideals" and is also looked down upon by the United Nations ...

Do we start charging the ANA with war crimes if they should happen to have a wife of 14 or 15 in an arranged marriage? The first night of that marriage guess what happens? Rape. And, there's no other word for it. The girls are NOT there consensually OR voluntarily like the boys prostituing themselves are. And, why just charge the ANA?

I just find it funny that our "western" ideals are now dictating that we take action in one case (where the boys are acting consensually) and not in the case where actual RAPE of these young arranged brides is occuring systemicly. If boys prostituting themselves on a voluntary basis constitutes a war crime ... then certainly 14 year old females being forced into marriages and raped must.

Why, all of a sudden, and now that it's "boys" and "men" involved vice "girls" and "men" have our sensibilities become so much more offended?

Both things disgust me, but where's the orders to report the raping of these girls which is widespread (reporting the marriage will suffice - everyone is aware the "rape" occurs that first night as a result of that marriage), widely known, and sanctioned? Those girls are not volunteers ... unlike the boys. That just seems so wrong to me.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I'm unsure of the answer.

They certainly feel it's acceptable to "systemiclly practise" or "force" 14 year old females into sexual relationships/marriages that they are not ready for and have not consented to. And there is zero "consent" on the part of the girls involved in that, while the boys are prostituting themselves willingly. The girls aren't even getting paid for crying out loud ... and this is happening to them routinely, systemicly, and is known world-wide.

It is also an "abhorable" practise by our western "standards and ideals" and is also looked down upon by the United Nations ...

Do we start charging the ANA with war crimes if they should happen to have a wife of 14 or 15 in an arranged marriage? The first night of that marriage guess what happens? Rape. And, there's no other word for it. The girls are NOT there consensually OR voluntarily like the boys prostituing themselves are. And, why just charge the ANA?

I just find it funny that our "western" ideals are now dictating that we take action in one case (where the boys are acting consensually) and not in the case where actual RAPE of these young arranged brides is occuring systemicly. If boys prostituting themselves on a voluntary basis constitutes a war crime ... then certainly 14 year old females being forced into marriages and raped must.

Why, all of a sudden, and now that it's "boys" and "men" involved vice "girls" and "men" have our sensibilities become so much more offended?

Both things disgust me, but where's the orders to report the raping of these girls which is widespread (reporting the marriage will suffice - everyone is aware the "rape" occurs that first night as a result of that marriage), widely known, and sanctioned? Those girls are not volunteers ... unlike the boys. That just seems so wrong to me.

Oh great Vern,

Please do not try to turn this now from the "enforcing western culture" agrument to the Male and female debate.

Your point is valid, and if there are complaints of this happening, then we continue enforcing international law.  We have allowed Females from the region to return to school, a huge cultural no no.  Maybe we can show them too that the rights of children must be upheld.

dileas

tess

 

[visitor]

If  girls/ young  women are raped and bear children, they can develop fistulas,  which, if untreated,  contribute to  continually leaking urine and feces, making  them  undesirable  sexual partners ( even if they were consenting), sending their husbands to the boys... Fistulas are treatable but millions of women in undeveloped countries are silently affected. 

 

[johnnycanuck]

ashley mc assiac...pashton or acadian  and what about the U of T prof.'s gov't funded paper (I believe circa early 90's )Men Loving Boys  or the BC author's or artist's man/boy love stories /drawings that made supreme court headlines ... easier to finger- point outward than inward
and what about the roman catholic sex abuse scandal and our own native school saga(newly apologized for) we haven't dragged ourselves so far out of the cess pool that we can proclaim the dry moral high-ground ... hell we're barely out of the weeds ourselves
personally i find this as repugnent as teen-age girls /boys working our own streets

 

[TrexLink]

Can you please quantify the amount of rapes it takes before we take action?

Ma'am,

I am not minimizing the seriousness or nastiness of rape nor suggesting in any way that even one offense is acceptable. My point is merely that rape, per se, is not a crime against humanity. To qualify it as a crime against humanity, it must take place in a context of mass rape or organized rape, as occurred in FRY.  If all rapes were considered by law to be crimes against humanity, we would be sending Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen to The Hague. The reality is, while they are without question detestable scum, that they are not war criminals any more than a street goblin in Winnipeg is when he kills a rival dope dealer.

Given that, the entire question of the chain of command being criminally charged is moot.

As to our troops' reaction to individual cases, that as always depends entirely on ROEs, which are drafted by lawyers for approval by politicians on the advice of civil servants and implementation by soldiers.  Not trying to be funny, but that is the reality.  ROEs are classified, but would spell out what our troops may or must do in cases of serious criminal acts by one Afghan against another.

 

[armyvern]

Oh great Vern,

Please do not try to turn this now from the "enforcing western culture" agrument to the Male and female debate.

Your point is valid, and if there are complaints of this happening, then we continue enforcing international law.  We have allowed Females from the region to return to school, a huge cultural no no.  Maybe we can show them too that the rights of children must be upheld.

dileas

tess

I'm not trying to make this a girl vs boy thing Tess.

I flat out stated that both practises are deplorable (in line with my own personal value system).

I agree with you ... but who gets to decide what is the "right" standard? The west? Isn't that then "imposition?" Isn't that the exact opposite of what we keep telling the lefties we're doing over there? That we are NOT there to impose western standards -- that we are there to assist the Afghan nation rebuild etc?? I can find quite a few links on this site where we've stated that it was not our intent, nor our mandate to impose our standards/laws/rules and turn them into a mini-USA or Canada.

With arranged marriages now on the table, and with their cultural value of Man-Love Thursdays ... we may as well lock up the vast majority of the Afghan population. This IS their cultural norm. It's certainly not ours - but it is theirs.

Let's go back to your link from earlier ... right underneath the para G that you turned yellow ... read para H.

Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the
following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed
against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) murder;
(b) extermination;
(c) enslavement;
(d) deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law;
(f) torture;
(g) rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other
grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law,
in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) the crime of apartheid;
(k) other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering,
or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

www.iccnow.org/


dileas

tess

By enforcing our western values onto them because we don't agree with their cultural values ... aren't we now treading a pretty fine line of "Crimes against Humanity" ourselves?

We can not define someone's values for them, nor can we enforce our culture as "the correct one" upon them. Who made us God?

 

[the 48th regulator]

I'm not trying to make this a girl vs boy thing Tess.

I flat out stated that both practises are deplorable (in line with my own personal value system).

I agree with you ... but who gets to decide what is the "right" standard? The west? Isn't that then "imposition?" Isn't that the exact opposite of what we keep telling the lefties we're doing over there? That we are NOT there to impose western standards -- that we are there to assist the Afghan nation rebuild etc?? I can find quite a few links on this site where we've stated that it was not our intent, nor our mandate to impose our standards/laws/rules and turn them into a mini-USA or Canada.

With arranged marriages now on the table, and with their cultural value of Man-Love Thursdays ... we may as well lock up the vast majority of the Afghan population. This IS their cultural norm. It's certainly not ours - but it is theirs.

Let's go back to your link from earlier ... right underneath the para G that you turned yellow ... read para H.

By enforcing our western values onto them because we don't agree with their cultural values ... aren't we now treading a pretty fine line of "Crimes against Humanity" ourselves?

We can not define someone's values for them, nor can we enforce our culture as "the correct one" upon them. Who made us God?

Then we might as well pull out, as by your point, we are enforcing our views their with all of our actions.

The Taliban, was their legal Government, yet we are fighting them to keep out.  Why?

dileas

tess

 

[Fusaki]

Without knowing what your ROE are, How would you handle an attack on a civilian by an armed combatant?

Another step that comes to mind would be Report it through my chain of command.

Sure, I could report it through my chain of command - it covers my ass and it makes it someone else's problem. And I'm sure that the CoC would do everything it could to punish those responsible and ensure that it doesn't happen again. I don't think it would amount to much though. The Canadian Forces is there to assist the ANA, not administer it. We can advise them, but when you're dealing with an issue so deeply rooted in their culture I don't see them taking the whole thing very seriously.

To try and deal with the problem on the spot is asking to get into a TIC with the ANA. I've seen less serious situations turn into mexican standoffs. Again, it's a cultural thing. The ANA are willing to die for alot less.

 

[TrexLink]

Then we might as well pull out, as by your point, we are enforcing our views their with all of our actions.

The Taliban, was their legal Government, yet we are fighting them to keep out.  Why?

First of all, the Taliban were never the legal government of Afghanistan, any more than a street gang in Harlem is the legal government there, howver much influence they may have.  The Taliban held power, true, but in general, the legality of those running a country is determined by recognition by other established governments - rather like private club members agreeing that a new person is fit to join their club. This is seen in cartoons, movies and books, where a new junta is thrilled at having been 'recognized' by other nations. Naturally, the more important the nations who are doing the recognizing, the stronger the authority of that recognition (France counts for more than, say, Somalia).  Of the close to 200 nations on this planet, only three - three - recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE.  Given that lack of international recognition, Afghanistan was technically a failed state or in a state of anarchy. Bottom line is that the fact that the Taliban held the reins did not make them the legal government. Odd system, with much silliness, but there it is.

Our actions are directed to allowing the Afghan population to make their own choice. The odds of Afghanistan ever becoming a secular democracy such as you or I would feel comfortable in are infinitely small, but we can still make things better for them. To do that, we have to compromise. As just one example, do we accept polygamy, even though it is illegal here? It's a purely pragmatic issue - we cannot remake everything in our own image; it will not work. That does not mean that we approve of, for instance, prostitution, but we may need to accept it as a cultural thing to allow us to achieve success in more important areas, such as a pluralist democratic government, the independence of the courts, sexual equality and the rule of law.  Rape is another issue entirely, and it is easy to get sidetracked.

Forgive me if this seems like a lecture; it is not intended as such. Afghanistan is in such a catastrophic state that virtually everything is a problem. We cannot achieve everything at once and thus need to focus on the really important issues before we can influence the less important ones.

 

[the 48th regulator]

First of all, the Taliban were never the legal government of Afghanistan, any more than a street gang in Harlem is the legal government there, howver much influence they may have.  The Taliban held power, true, but in general, the legality of those running a country is determined by recognition by other established governments - rather like private club members agreeing that a new person is fit to join their club. This is seen in cartoons, movies and books, where a new junta is thrilled at having been 'recognized' by other nations. Naturally, the more important the nations who are doing the recognizing, the stronger the authority of that recognition (France counts for more than, say, Somalia).  Of the close to 200 nations on this planet, only three - three - recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE.  Given that lack of international recognition, Afghanistan was technically a failed state or in a state of anarchy. Bottom line is that the fact that the Taliban held the reins did not make them the legal government. Odd system, with much silliness, but there it is.

Our actions are directed to allowing the Afghan population to make their own choice. The odds of Afghanistan ever becoming a secular democracy such as you or I would feel comfortable in are infinitely small, but we can still make things better for them. To do that, we have to compromise. As just one example, do we accept polygamy, even though it is illegal here? It's a purely pragmatic issue - we cannot remake everything in our own image; it will not work. That does not mean that we approve of, for instance, prostitution, but we may need to accept it as a cultural thing to allow us to achieve success in more important areas, such as a pluralist democratic government, the independence of the courts, sexual equality and the rule of law.  Rape is another issue entirely, and it is easy to get sidetracked.

Forgive me if this seems like a lecture; it is not intended as such. Afghanistan is in such a catastrophic state that virtually everything is a problem. We cannot achieve everything at once and thus need to focus on the really important issues before we can influence the less important ones.

I can not believe I have had to read a long winded jusification of a Holocaust that is happening in Afghanistan.

Children and women are being oppressed, however, you are advocating the ignoance of this to justify a militaristic mission.

We are not there to Vicingr our way to win a war, we are there to liberate these people.  Yet, you say turn a blind eye until we finish the "war" and walk away so they can solve their own problems.

For the third time, why were we sent there.  Can someone elaborate?

dileas

tess

 

[TrexLink]

I appreciate your concerns and the last thing I would want to do is minimize your – very legitimate – points.  There is however an old story about two clergymen meeting at a conference. Over lunch, Father O’Malley asks his tablemate and friend, “Rabbi Feldstein, when are you going to drop this ridiculous superstition and have some of this wonderful ham?”  The rabbi smiles and replies, “At your wedding reception, Father.”

Leaving aside such clearly violent and aggressive acts as murder or rape, my point is that we cannot agree even here in Canada what is ‘sinful’ or ‘wrong’.  We here would condemn the arranged marriage of a 14-year-old girl and hold up those involved as monsters.  A good, respectable Afghan might easily accept that, but would be aghast at our sitting down to a meal which included wine and baked ham – utterly Godless! The mental maps are different – and who’s to say who is right and who is wrong?

Moreover, at the risk of coining a phrase, it’s not a perfect world and we cannot expect perfection.  In a perfect world, perhaps, the Afghans would be thrilled to adopt our values and our way of thinking. In reality, we are facing a nation so far down the flusher that any improvement is grounds for enthusiasm. Had we marched in and demanded that the Afghans immediately adopt all of our attitudes, we would have gained nothing but universal resistance. There would have been no progress for the nation as a whole.

Look at what has been achieved to date – women have the vote and sit in Parliament. (OK, they are to some extent marginalized, but it is still a great leap forward and hopefully a precursor to even more.)  80 percent of the population now has access to some basic health services, including for the first time in many of their lifetimes, women.  Over 2,000,000 girls are now legally attending school for the first time. Unemployment (75% under the Taliban) is dropping and there are a quarter of a million microloans out there, allowing families and individuals to support themselves.  These are significant advances, advances for the entire country that would have been impossible if we had attempted to impose our own values across the board.

There is, of course, the very real philosophical question of whether an advance for the many justifies toleration of the mistreatment of the few.  Arguably not, I will admit, but I also know that millions of people are better off now than they were, and that’s significant.

 

[armyvern]

For the third time, why were we sent there.  Can someone elaborate?

dileas

tess

To deal with the terrorist organization (Al-Qaida) who attacked the WTC on 9/11. These terrorists were harboured within the borders of Afghanistan by the Taliban Regime.

Further to routing Afghanistan of terrorists and extremists, we are mandated to train and assist ANA, Police and to provide security and security that enable reconstruction efforts that are occuring. In doing so, we are expected to abide by and respect the laws, tradition and culture of our host nation and to also ensure that we conduct "ourselves" IAW Canadian law and CF regulations concurrently.

No where ... are we expected to have those citizens of that sovereign nation conduct "themselves" IAW Canadian Law and CF Regulations.

We are obligated to report crimes such as rape etc.

We are not obligated to report a cutural tradition that accepts and allows boys to prostitute themselves to men (this does NOT constitute rape)because that is not a War Crime or a Crime against Humanity unless that prostitution is "ENFORCED" prostitution which was indeed the case in the FRY, but is not the case in Afghanistan. If the boys prostituting themselves are under age "X" we may have a valid arguement for interfering in that cultural occurance as the child may not be old enough to "provide consent" -- but again -- What is that age?? You have yet to answer that? You said 18 originally -- so what about those Crimes Against Humanity occuring in your local high school parking lots - have you reported them yet (because, again, Canadian Law says 16 in this country)? What standard do you want?

I don't like it Tess either, but it is not a war Crime, nor is it a Crime against Humanity ... no matter how much our western ideals see us wishing that it was.