As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night, Article 132 of the law says. “Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.Thinkprogress.org reported that the President was asked what he thought about the new law, and although he stated that he found the laws abhorrant he didn't speak out against them the way, I believe, a President of a civilised nation should. Obama very quickly went from condemning the law to speaking about how Al-Qaeda was at the top of the American foreign policy, and thus, paid little time answering Fox News' Major Garrett's question.
It's very distressing that an individual with the charisma of Barack Obama, who not only strongly condemned anti-same sex marriage protests as well as standing up on behalf of the African American community in the US, cannot, because of the constrains of diplomacy, speak out more strongly against such a law being conceived in the 21st century. It seems clear that the Millennium Development Goals drawn up between September 2000 and 2005 have taken a step back in the areas where it is deemed less important by so many world leaders. One of those areas is clearly gender equity. I find it interesting that while the MDGs outline criteria to be fulfilled regarding equity in the workplace as well as education for females these are so easily and proudly publicised, but issues regarding basic human rights are so flippantly ignored when such objectives are being thought up.
At the end of the day, diplomacy does has a place in world politics. But in times when the rights of people are being deemed flexible so as to permit such a sick and disgusting violation of a being's person, diplomacy has no seat at the dinner table, action is necessary... using the word abhorrant will not right this horrific wrong.
