New Iraqi Law Legalizes Rape, ‘Feminists’ Too Busy Banning Words to Care

No Beyonce-backed campaign as 10 million women set to be classified slaves

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 14, 2014

While feminists were busy telling the world about the dire need to ban the word “bossy,” the Iraqi parliament was considering the implementation of a new law that would legalize rape, prohibit women leaving home without the permission of their husband, and legalize marriage for 9-year-olds.

Image: Iraqi Woman (Wiki Commons).

“If passed, the law will apply to Iraq’s Shia Muslims, the majority of the population. Provisions include prohibiting Muslim men from marrying non-Muslim women, legalising rape inside marriage by declaring that a husband has a right to sex regardless of consent, and prohibiting women from leaving the house without their husband’s permission,” reports Breitbart.com.

The law, which has been denounced by Human Rights Watch as a violation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), would also lower the age of marriage to nine years old for girls and 15 for boys.

Despite the fact that the law represents an egregious assault on women’s rights and wouldn’t look out of place in the stone age, you probably didn’t hear about it because self-proclaimed feminists were too busy concentrating on more pressing atrocities being inflicted upon women – such as people using the word “bossy”.

Don’t expect to see slick PSA videos featuring Abeyance decrying a law that would render some 10 million Shia Iraq women as slaves. Don’t expect the mainstream media to afford wall to wall coverage to an issue that could rock the boat of the United States’ puppet government in Baghdad.

Feminists will give this issue exactly the same level of attention they devote to the myriad of other actual attacks on women’s rights – little or none – because establishment-controlled feminism can never risk uniting women around the fact that true oppression always comes from the state.

Once again, the true motivation behind top down feminism is revealed as having nothing to do with genuine women’s right abuses and everything to do with advancing cultural marxism – the false notion that culture and language, not the state, is responsible for oppressing women.

Mainstream feminist groups do not care about real oppression when it emerges from the state or from a religion like Islam, which politically correct leftists are loathe to criticize.

Whereas the drive to “ban bossy” is being funded by the likes of Bank of America, Chevron, Citibank and JP Morgan, there are no multi-million dollar campaigns backed by huge transnational corporations, banks and PR firms to combat things like female genital mutilation or the characterization of female drivers in Saudi Arabia as terrorists.

That’s because second wave feminism is not about protecting women’s rights, it’s about stirring up a contrived gender war and impugning western culture, the middle class and the family unit as the source of all sexism and oppression, thereby making women more dependent on the government and hiding the true source of all oppression – the state.

http://www.infowars.com/new-iraqi-law-legalizes-rape-feminists-too-busy-banning-words-to-care/

The U.S. government’s plan to give away authority over the Internet’s core architecture to the “global Internet community” could endanger the security of both the Internet and the U.S. — and open the door to a global tax on Web use.

“U.S. management of the internet has been exemplary and there is no reason to give this away — especially in return for nothing,” former Bush administration State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton told The Daily Caller. “This is the Obama equivalent of Carter’s decision to give away the Panama Canal — only with possibly much worse consequences.”

The U.S. Commerce Department announced late Friday it would relinquish control of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) — the organization charged with managing domain names, assigning Internet protocol addresses and other crucial Web functions — after its current contract expires next year.

In response to months of mounting criticism from the global community over sweeping National Security Surveillance programs leaked by former agency contractor Edward Snowden, the administration surrendered to allegations it had too much influence over the Web through ICANN, which designates the roadmap from web-connected devices to websites and servers across the globe.

“While the Obama administration says it is merely removing federal oversight of a non-profit, we should assume ICANN would end up as part of the United Nations,” Whiton said. “If the U.N. gains control what amounts to the directory and traffic signals of the Internet, it can impose whatever taxes it likes. It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there.”

ICANN’s Lebanese-born CEO Fadi Chehadé had already recently discussed setting up an office in Geneva — the location of the largest U.N. presence outside New York. If folded into the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union, the organization would have access to a significant revenue stream outside of member contributions for the first time.

“What little control there is over the U.N. would be gone,” Whiton said.

The greater danger posed by the giveaway lies with the security of the Internet itself. While the U.S. has never used ICANN in a war or crisis situation, the potential exists for it to obstruct Internet commerce or deter foreign cyber attacks – powerful tools in the globalized information age.

After numerous recent widespread and successful cyber attacks against the U.S. have already been linked to emerging world powers like China, it isn’t difficult to image a future scenario in which management of ICANN could help ensure intellectual property, economic, national and international security.

“Under invariably incompetent U.N. control, it could mean a hostile foreign power disabling the Internet for us,” Whiton said.