308 and the original sin

Ever since Adam took a bite of the forbidden fruit, for which he and his family were banished from the Garden of Eden, woman has been viewed as the root of all evil in most of the world’s cultures.  She is portrayed as the temptress and the originator of sin, while man is the hapless victim who innocently succumbs to her wiles.   Rape, as a result, is almost universally seen as the fault of the wicked seductress while the perpetrator of this vile crime is dismissed as her victim.  So, to protect her family honour from her shameful deeds, she was forcibly married to her rapist.  It was like punishing Mr Stickyfingers, the thief, by giving him free access to the bank account of his victim. 

Even in non-monotheistic societies, victims of rape in East Asia during the World War II and their progeny were held in shame by their own societies who had failed to protect them.

I did not attend the parliamentary vote last Tuesday because I expected Parliament to uphold Article 308, as they voted in the past to uphold the law that sanctions murdering women in the name of honour.  Those who went told me that the session was not Parliament’s finest hour.   This is not surprising; it would have been surprising had Parliament conducted itself with dignity befitting of its name.  

No one in Jordan has any doubt that Article 308 was annulled purely thanks to the influence of our enlightened monarchy, and all Jordanians have every reason to be proud of this. 

But annulling Article 308, assuming that the Senate approves it, will not be the end of the story.  Clearly the matter of woman being the root of all sin and therefore responsible for any woe that befalls her is so deeply entrenched that the law is now far ahead of public morality.  

To push the annulment through was right and important because Jordan needs to be an enlightened nation, not one of the aberrations of this world that are strapped in backwardness by antiquated traditions.  Furthermore, enacting legislation that empowers women, despite opposition, has in the past produced successes where these gains for women’s rights quickly became irreversible.  

One very good example was appointing women as judges despite strong public opposition at the time.  One friend of mine, who was fiercely opposed in principle to women ruling over men, converted immediately upon the appointment of his daughter as a judge and now he swells with justifiable pride every time a lawyer refers to her high competence in her position.

The point here is that a considerable section of society still believes that Article 308 is good.  They need and deserve to be educated through a serious public awareness campaign regarding three points: First, that rape is a crime; second, that woman is the victim not the culprit; and third, that rape is not an act of sex but of violence and should be treated like any other violent assault.