Over at Teekay’s

An editorial in today\’s Times makes a point that bears repeating in these days, where everyone is giving off about the Kurds wanting this and the Sunni that and the Shia something different still:

As the draft constitution heads toward an October referendum, it is important to recognize that most Iraqis are not exclusively defined by the narrow religious and ethnic categories - Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurd - that dominate the constitutional debate. Although a majority of Iraqis are Shiites, a majority of those Shiites are either female or secular and should therefore not be counted as automatic supporters of state-enforced Sharia law.

One doesn\’t need to deconstruct this passage to see the inherent contradiction here; mere logic will do. (I wish the editors would have used some, though.) If females should not automatically be counted as supporters of the Sharia, does that mean that males can, or should? Or that every religious Shia is automatically in favor of chopping off thieves\’ hands? Seems to me rather like the view the piece criticizes — the view held by those who talk about Kurds and Shia and and Sunni as if that explained all the politics going on as the constitution is being debated. But the point this passage makes is valid, and worth repeating: this constitution is about politics; it\’s not a census.