Archived version

A proposed bill in Iraq’s parliament has sparked widespread outrage and concern, as it seeks to reduce the legal age of marriage for girls to just 9 years old. The controversial legislation, introduced by the Iraq Justice Ministry, aims to amend the country’s Personal Status Law, which currently sets the minimum age for marriage at 18.

The bill would allow citizens to choose between religious authorities or the civil judiciary to decide on family affairs. Critics fear this will lead to a slashing of rights in matters of inheritance, divorce, and child custody.

If passed, the bill would allow girls as young as 9 and boys as young as 15 to wed, sparking fears of increased child marriage and exploitation. Critics argue that this regressive move would undermine decades of progress in promoting women’s rights and gender equality.

Human rights organizations, women’s groups, and civil society activists have vehemently opposed the bill, warning of serious consequences for young girls’ education, health, and well-being. They argue that child marriage leads to increased dropout rates, early pregnancies, and a heightened risk of domestic violence.

According to the United Nations children’s agency, UNICEF, 28 percent of girls in Iraq are already married before the age of 18.

“Passing this law would show a country moving backward, not forwards,” Human Rights Watch (HRW) researcher Sarah Sanbar said.

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    That’s contradicted by the link content.

    Michigan: The age of consent is 18. With parental consent, a person can marry at 16.

    Mississippi: The age of consent is 21. With parental consent, males can marry at 17, and females can marry at 15.

    Washington: The age of consent is 18. With judicial approval, a person can marry at 17.

    The others you listed do set minimum ages, usually as age of consent, but those can be overridden with a court order.

    Also, you put that text in quotes, but I don’t see it anywhere in that page, which is very misleading to do.

    Edit: I was mistaken, this line was at the end of the article.

    • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The major, glaring issue of an instance not allowing downvotes is that bad/misleading information is free to be posted unchallenged. Be better, Beehaw.

      • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Instances that don’t allow downvotes do it so that they don’t get totally ratioed for their whack political views.