ICJ taking Taliban to court

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/25/taliban-to-be-taken-to-international-court-over-gender-discrimination

ICJ taking the Taliban to court over discrimination.

Agree with all of those points, Snowy.

The point of the case will also be to send a message to other countries to.not deal with or trade with Afghanistan, which makes.sense.

I didn't see any mention of that 'gender apartheid' phrase, by the by.

Gender apartheid was mentioned by the women's forum spokeswoman, who I have wrongly described as a spokesman, but it was not part of the legal case - also my mistake.
I will withdraw and repost.

My post at 10:27 is being withdrawn. I made factual errors, but missed the edit window.

Corrected post:
This seems good. The basis of the possible legal action is CEDAW, which is also good. But I am wary of the term "gender discrimination" because CEDAW is about sex discrimination and the rights of women.

I think the Taliban are most likely to stick two fingers up at the ICJ and the complainants, but it would mean something to Afghan women to know that other countries are trying to help them.

Also, why are we (UK) not part of this, I wonder?

And also also, I wonder if Canada or the other countries involved have considered that action could potentially be brought against them under CEDAW?

Also, why are we (UK) not part of this, I wonder?

Because our government is in the process of eradicating the gender Woman in this country so are in no position to criticize the Taliban.

Canada, Germany , Australia and the Netherlands are worse from that point of view.

There's probably a banal (perhaps legalistic?) explanation, but I just would have thought we'd be all over this.

I am also concerned over UK not acting. The question about defining gender apartheid as a crime against humanity is scheduled for the beginning of October. It will be interesting to see how the UN founding nations vote on that.
I'm disgusted by the response on David Lammy etc to the situation.

What are the consequences to them though? Let's say it's ruled they are guilty (which is obvious) then what?
Sanctions?

Gender apartheid is a dangerous road to go down, especially when we have gender persecution as an already existing crime against humanity.
@Imnobody4
Did you see that there have been further prosecutions for gender persecution? There was another thread on it recently. So arguably the law is starting to work.

I would prefer the UK got behind this initiative, which approaches the same problem from a different angle (ICJ and states'contractual obligations, not ICC and individuals' criminal liability) rather than create a new crime to target - in effect - only the few countries which have a biased system of law and justice.
Additionally, the new crime could be a double-edged sword where women's rights are concerned, which I've gone into on a previous thread.

The beauty of this ICJ idea is that because it's based on anti-discrimination and human rights obligations created by CEDAW, it could be used against states like Australia or Canada where the system doesn't apply different laws to men compared to women, but the effect of those laws on women is devastating.

Has Lammy commented on this ICJ idea, or did you mean his general attitude?

Sorry I think we disagree on that. I posted info on the first prosecution for gender persecution. It failed, he was found not guilty.
I don't share your faith in CEDAW following the recent case of Sal Grover in Australia. I note Australia is supporting this.

You say gender apartheid would cover only a few countries but it amounts to millions of women and girls suffering the most extreme systematic oppression I can think of. It doesn't replace CEDAW or gender persecution, it's in addition.

No, he hasn't commented on this ICJ as far as I know. There has only been a lukewarm response from the UK to the situation.

The systematic repression which would be covered by gender apartheid is also covered by gender persecution and any action based on CEDAW. Are you implying that I think nothing should be done to help Afghan and Iraqi women? I want the ICC to use the tool it already has - gender persecution - and I also welcome the proposed ICJ action which could be used everywhere. And countries like Canada, Australia, Netherlands and Germany are very likely to abide by an ICJ ruling.

CEDAW didn't fail Sall Grover. The judge decided the case on Australian anti-discrimination law, which is not compliant with CEDAW since the Gillard amendments. That is what will be challenged in Australia's highest court.

Captured governments don't see it the way we do - there is no conflict as far as they are concerned between TA type legislation and women's rights. That's why countries like Canada and Australia are leading this action.

Just clarify for me, are you against the CEDAW-based action?

From the article:

'Advocates of the course argue that even if the Taliban refuse to acknowledge the court’s authority, an ICJ ruling would have a deterrent effect on other states seeking to normalise diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Signatories to the ICJ are expected to abide by its rulings.'

Response from Taliban
The Islamic Emirate, in response to the joint statement of four European countries regarding human rights violations in Afghanistan, said that the rights of all citizens of the country are ensured.Hamdullah Fitrat, Deputy Spokesman of the Islamic Emirate, said that such remarks by Western countries against the Islamic Emirate are "strange and accusatory" at best.According to Fitrat, human rights are ensured in the country, and there is no gender discrimination.Earlier, the Islamic Emirate also highlighted that women's rights in Afghanistan are ensured within the framework of Islamic Sharia.

tolonews.com/afghanistan-190900

Well, ICJ it is,then!

Would they have responded differently to a charge of gender apartheid, do you think?

No not at all - I was just following on from the mention of gender apartheid.
I watched the UN session on Afghanistan and that stressed the fact that Afghanistan had been allowed to act with impunity. They are now refusing to allow the UN Rappoteur entry to the country.

Afghanistan are trying to inveigle there way into other international groups.

Fitrat said: "Afghanistan is a developing country and is currently experiencing economic growth. It is very important for Afghanistan to be present at this economic summit. The Islamic Emirate is keen to participate in the upcoming BRICS summit and has shared this desire with the host country."

https://tolonews.com/business-190889

I just think what is needed is discipline among the International community in shunning and condemning the Islamic Emirate.

I'm not arguing either or I just don't think there's a simple magic bullet and the more tools the better.

I just think what is needed is discipline among the International community in shunning and condemning the Islamic Emirate.
I'm not arguing either or I just don't think there's a simple magic bullet and the more tools the better.

Hurray - there's one thing we do agree on! The only point at issue is that I don't think that the new proposed law of gender apartheid is a useful tool.
I would hope that an ICJ ruling against Afghanistan/the Taliban could be used to put pressure on other countries to shun and condemn it. It will work with some countries, but there will have to be other approaches for other countries.

Came across this statement of support for CEDAW initiative. No UK.

We, Albania, Andorra, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Finland, Honduras, Ireland, Iceland, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Morocco, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, condemn the gross and systematic human rights violations and abuses in Afghanistan, particularly the gender-based discrimination against women and girls.

https://www.dfat.gov.au/news/media-release/launch-initiative-accountability-afghanistans-violations-cedaw-declaration#:~:text=Afghanistan%20is%20responsible%20under%20international,Afghanistan%20is%20a%20State%20Party.

No US either but I don't think they've signed CEDAW.

Very disappointing from UK Labour government.

By the way, Imnobody4, I see now my post at 17:32 might sound a bit goady, but I promise you I was just exasperated because I was labouring under the misapprehension that you thought of GA as a magic bullet, which I know not is not the case. No hard feelings, I hope?

It's pretty appalling that we haven't signed that statement, it's hardly controversial and the lack of signature concerns me.

I have noticed that recently there have been adverts on social media promoting Afghanistan as a holiday destination. I couldn't believe my eyes but apparently around 7,000 people went there on holiday last year...

Yes, I'd have expected the UK to be signatories.

"The UK government is not supporting the first legal action in an international court against the Taliban over gender discrimination in Afghanistan, Tortoise can reveal. "

UK not supporting legal action against the Taliban over women’s rights violations - Tortoise (tortoisemedia.com)

Well I suppose they reckon if Qatar and Saudi Arabia can get away with it...
This is how much governments worldwide don't care about women. Or care about money more.

Some people really are unteathered from reality.