Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst addressing a crowd of listeners – an action that is forbidden to female candidates in Saudi municipal elections.

The struggle of the Suffragettes in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries to get Britain’s women the right to vote was a long and bitter one. The cause of votes for women was difficult and campaigners were divided about whether militancy was helpful or not, but was ultimately a success. There are a very few people from civilised countries who would or even could be able to find concrete and evidence-backed reasons why women should not vote and take part in the political process. From 1918 onwards, the franchise was widened, first to include all men and women over 30 years of age and subject to a property qualification and then in 1928 when the franchise became universal with all men and women, without any property qualifications, being given the vote.

The battle for universal sufferage has, at least in Britain, been won. But what of some of the other, more benighted places in the world, places like Saudi Arabia for instance, what’s happening with regards a political voice for women there? Well, as usual Saudi Arabia is at least a century behind the civilised world. The UK was late to the table when it came to women in the political sphere, but in no way was the UK ever as backward and socially retarded as Saudi Arabia. If ever the women of a nation in the modern world needed some simulacrum of Mrs Pankhurst to help them out, then I truthfully say that it’s the Saudi women who do.

In response to both internal and external pressure the Saudi government has, for the first time, allowed women to vote in what are the equivalent of local council elections. Whoo hoo, you might say. Success! Women in Saudi can vote! It’s a victory for feminism! Not quite so fast. Just because women can vote and can stand for election for a local council in Saudi doesn’t mean that all is well. As the excerpts from an article on the Saudi elections from Brietart shows, there are a whole heap of restrictions on women when they vote or when they stand for election. There are a restrictions on women’s movement and appearance during the Saudi municipal elections that are far and away much more oppressive than anything experienced by women in Britain in the early 20^th century.

Here are some of the restrictions on women in the election as collated bySimon Kent of Brietbart. As usual the quotes are in italics and my comment is in plain text.

“….strict gender segregation rules will apply.”

Did anyone expect anything else to be the situation in the home land of the mentallist and misogynist ideology of Islam?

Female candidates will not be allowed to address voters directly or publish photos of themselves in campaign material,

So, Saudi women can stand for election but can do nothing to actually promote their candidacy. No pictures of candidates and no public meetings or anything else that could breach strict gender segregation rules.

Also, the segregation rules are being applied not only in public spaces but also the private and semi private sphere of campaign headquarters. Brietbart said:

must ensure strict segregation between the sexes at their campaign headquarters.

That’s going to make for a highly effective campaign machine – NOT. How much effort is going to be have to be wasted by female candidates in monitoring and managing the gender segregation policy? I reckon quite a lot.

all female candidates must acquire special permits for their advertising campaigns.

And what’s the betting that the rigmarole that the female candidates have to go through is onerous, expensive and time-consuming?

Male agents will also be required to be appointed by women to act on their behalf in public spaces or face a fine

How is a Saudi woman supposed to recruit a male representative whom she trusts? Or will she be pointed towards favoured male ‘helpers’ who may be more interested in preserving the status quo, rather than representing the views of Saudis in general and Saudi women in particular?

Oh and to cap it all, women in Saudi whether they are voters or candidates, are forbidden to drive themselves to the polling station, they have to get a male guardian or relative to drive them there. I don’t doubt that there are many Saudi men who would refuse to drive their female relatives to the polling station if it became known that the women were intending to vote for someone with whom the males disagreed.

It’s not often that I agree with the, once respectable, but now deeply politically compromised, human rights group Amnesty International, but I find it difficult to disagree with their statement that the changes in Saudi with regards women’s suffrage are welcome, but don’t go far enough.

This is Islam, this is Shariah and it stinks. If ever the women of a nation needed a Mrs Pankhurst-a-like militant champion to fight their corner then, it is the Saudi women who appear to need it most at the moment.

The Saudis are at least a century behind those nations and states such as New Zealand which first gave the vote to women in 1893, although I’m not surprised about this as Islam is a definite ‘social retardant’. I suppose being just one century behind the civilised world is better than being 6 centuries behind, which is too often the default position for Islam and Shariah.

Link

Original story from Breitbart on Saudi municpal elections

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/12/women-told-cover-not-meet-voters-saudi-arabia-local-elections/