Iraq is working on its Constitution, and someone has leaked a copy of Bill of Rights. A number of versions have been circulating recently, so there may be a newer one than what I am commenting on here.

If the final version of their Bill of Rights looks anything like the ones in circulation it looks like we are going to be jump-starting a socialist republic. It does have its good points, but key rights such as freedom of the press, firearms and security are all exempted with the clause ‘in accordance with the law’.

Instead of protecting the basic rights of its citizens they have thrown in a load of social welfare crap, including free education and free medical care. The goal of their society is ’social justice’, whatever that PC term means.

In the original draft that I saw they had exempted Israelis from becoming Iraqi citizens. This has now been removed.

It does have fairly strong property rights -

Section 10
a. The Iraqi citizen has a complete and unconditional right to ownership in all parts of Iraq without limitation.
[Oddly, this is one of the few rights that is absolute, not depending on implementing legislation.]
b. Private ownership is protected. Nobody may be prevented from using his property except within the boundaries of law. Nobody may be deprived of something he owns except for purposes of public welfare in cases specified by law and in the manner stipulated therein and with the condition of just and prompt compensation.

Strong prohibition on torture (understandable, given what they endured for the previous 35 years) -

Section 11
e. The dignity of the individual must be honored and protected. All forms of bodily and psychological torture are forbidden. Those harmed have the right to demand compensation for the material and moral harm they suffered in accordance with law.

I don’t agree with the ‘…psychological’ part. I don’t have a problem with playing mind-games with suspects to try and get them to reveal information.

Their ‘free speech’ clause is a bit weak -

15. All individuals have the right to express their opinion and publish it in any manner in accordance with the law, provided it does not disturb the public order of public morals.

As with many of the other sections, they recognize, or as is more likely give, a right but then qualify it with the ‘in accordance with the law’ exception. This means that their constitution is going to be up for grabs to the group with the power to change ‘the law’.

I understand their need to integrate their cultural views into their founding documents, but I think that without a basic framework similar to the US Constitution they will be setting up a socialist republic that is more concerned with entitlements from the State than with the citizen’s basic rights. I would suggest that they start with our constitution and modify it to fit. (Some are joking that they could use ours since we obviously aren’t, but I’m ready to go that far yet).

Hat tip to Joe Huffman for the link.