Tahir Hussain and the women freed


by Al-Hack
16th November, 2006 at 8:58 am    

Prez Musharraf sees some sense shock.

A Briton sentenced to death in Pakistan has had his punishment commuted, according to a Pakistani official.

He will now be eligible for release having served 18 years in a Pakistani jail for the crime. The request for his life to be spared was reportedly made by Prince Charles, who recently toured Pakistan.

Mushy looks like he’s had an attack of common sense recently. Pakistan is also finally doing something about the blasted hudood laws. About f*cking time.

Pakistan’s national assembly has voted to amend the country’s strict Sharia laws on rape and adultery. Until now rape cases were dealt with in Sharia courts. Victims had to have four male witnesses to the crime – if not they faced prosecution for adultery. Now civil courts will be able to try rape cases, assuming the upper house and the president ratify the move.

Religious parties boycotted the vote, saying the bill encouraged “free sex”.

What they actually said was: “Oh no! No more free sex!” The journalist was just being polite.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Pakistan






67 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. El Cid — on 16th November, 2006 at 12:29 pm  

    So where’s the hat tip to El Cid and Anas?

  2. Robert — on 16th November, 2006 at 1:16 pm  

    This is a real worry for all of us who wish to portray the influence of Islamic Fundamentalism as always increasing, always encroaching.

  3. Jagdeep — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:06 pm  

    Good news about the Leeds chap, heard his brother being interviewed on the BBC and it was very moving, the love he had for his brother. He had sold his house, spent hundreds of thousands to save his life. I am glad he has been spared.

  4. Electro — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:19 pm  

    The legislation in Pakistan will change nothing. The gov’t simply has no authority in large areas of the country.

    Sunny, do you seriously think the tribal elders of, say, Wairistan will act on this?

    Pakistan has faced enormous international pressure to change its rape laws, but that change of law will remain largely unheeded and western liberals, feeling they’ve accomplished their goals, will do no follow-up to see if the law is even applied. .

    Were the pressure groups to go back in five years time and do an assessment, they’d see that nothing has changed.

    What these changes do allow, though, is for the Pakistani dectatorship to save face.

  5. Jagdeep — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:26 pm  

    Electro, there are huge tracts of India in which the laws barely have writ. Where feudal law rules and the kind of society and justice expected by the middle class of Bombay or Chandigarh does not exist. That doesnt mean you dont change things in order to do what is right. It’s a first step. I’d rather listen to the words of Pakistani womens activists than peple like you, so cynical and arrogant to dismiss it, simply because you want to have a pop at Musharaff and Pakistan in general. And the Pakistani womens activists are happy this has happened, and so am I.

  6. raz — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:28 pm  

    Once again, Musharaf leads the way for the rest of Asia to follow. What a great man.

  7. Cheetah — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:32 pm  

    LoL! yes the rest of Asia should follow Musharaff and install unelected military dictators as their leaders. hahaha!

  8. raz — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:33 pm  

    This is only the beginning though. The entire infrastrucure of Islamic tyranny created by Zia-ul-haq needs to be dismantled. Sadly, after nearly 30 years of this idiocy, it is not going to be changed overnight. Nevertheless, this is an important step. We won’t rest until the entire Hudood Ordanace is removed.

  9. raz — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:35 pm  

    I’m glad you agree Cheetah :) One of my Indian friends remarked to me the other day, “if only we had a leader like Musharraf”. I have to say, I agree.

  10. Cheetah — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:39 pm  

    raz, god bless you for being so clueless! Democracy for all its flaws is always better than rule by the Army, no matter what your Indian friend said, and your description of Musharaff being a model for Asia has me in stitches!

    India! Bangladesh! China! Hong Kong! Vietnam! Indonesia! Malaysia! Sri Lanka! Lets all install an army general as an unelected dictator just like Pakistan! Everyone in Asia wake up!

    ROFLOL!!

  11. raz — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:43 pm  

    “! Democracy for all its flaws is always better than rule by the Army”

    Yeah right. Try looking at Benazir and Nawzaz ROFLMAO :)

  12. raz — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:45 pm  

    “China!”

    LOL when did China, Malaysia and Vietnam become democracies? Are you thick or something?

  13. Cheetah — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:49 pm  

    raz, thick is the man who claims that asia should take an unelected military dictator as their example to follow! My reference to China / Malaysia / Vietnam was to the huddled masses of those countries not to seek democracy in the future, for the future is a moustachioed army general who is the messianic model for the whole of asia!

    You’re too funny man!! ;-)

  14. raz — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:51 pm  

    It’s impossible to take anyone seriously who thinks China is a democracy. LOL. What a retard! What country do you come from Cheetah? I bet its a shithole :)

  15. Neil W — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:55 pm  

    I think we can all agree that Musharaff is the exception when it comes to military rulers rather then the rule.

    The rule being they are usually corrupt and/or incompetant and an easy score for banks and financial institutions to loan funds to for big infrastructure.

    Anyway, good riddance to these laws and I am definately on the side of the Pakistani womens activists.

    I mean seriously, what is it with, in this case Pakistani Islamists, but Islamists generally that makes them hate women so much? Any suggestions?
    IS this femaphobia and oppression driven by religion or culture? Or a toxic mix of both?

  16. Cheetah — on 16th November, 2006 at 2:55 pm  

    LoL!

    raz, you really are stupid. I know china is not a democracy. As I just explained to you, I referred to those aspiring democrats of all nations of asia who should not seek democracy, but must look to the model of an army general ruling as an unelected dictator — they should move from politburo rule to generalissimo dictatorship! ROFLOL!

    But anyone who can say with a straight face that musharaff is a model for asia has to be either a moron or incapable of critical thought, or just a comedian in disguise!

    And the country I come from is England :-)

  17. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 16th November, 2006 at 3:47 pm  

    Thailand managed to install military rule recently, bizzarely everyone seems to think that this is a good thing.

    TFI

  18. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 16th November, 2006 at 4:04 pm  

    Incidentally I think that this is excellent news and is progress in the right direction.

    Who knows, with steps like this it is posible that Pakistan may yet join the 20th century ;)

    TFI

  19. Electro — on 16th November, 2006 at 6:46 pm  

    Jagdeep, I’m happy too, but let’s remember these laws have yet to be passed. When and if they do it’s doubtful they’ll ever be applied in the conservative tribal areas….about one half the country.

    Canada’s national braodcaster (CBC) did a documentary on this whole issue earlier this year. The reporters first talked to gov’t officials in charge of women’s affairs. All were clearly upper-class females and NONE even wore a headscarf. When asked by the CBC reporters about the relationship between Islam and women’s rights all were agreed that Islam was a boon to the overall social staus of women.

    You know the drill.

    The reporters then went to the head Immam in Islamabad and posed him the exact same questions. The good immam thunderously replied; “MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, ISLAM CLEARLY STATES THAT WOMEN ARE INFERIOR”. Now remember, this wasn’t just any old run-of-the-mill islamic cleric, but rather one of the country’s top dogs.

    Woof! Woof!

    These laws were passed in 1979….years after independance…. in an effort to do away with British law and to implement sharia. Those underlying factors are still present, if not even stronger, and as long as the country adheres to an ossified, unreformed and conservative Islam the danger that these yet-to-be- passed laws can be quickly overturned is always around.

    That said, we are seeing some progress, it’s just that it’s very tenuous.

  20. Jagdeep — on 16th November, 2006 at 10:41 pm  

    Electro, I can’t believe you are being cynical about a law which is for the benefit of Pakistani women, a law that Pakistani womens activists have welcomed. You don’t really care about Pakistani women or you would be happy with this small step. You just want to diss Pakistan.

  21. Sajn — on 16th November, 2006 at 10:54 pm  

    Who is the “head Imam of Islamabad”?

  22. Sahil — on 17th November, 2006 at 12:31 am  

    Completely off thread, but Milton Friedman just died. As much as I didn’t agree with him, economics would have remained in the dark ages without him. He also said something quite similar to Marx once: that himself was no pure monetarist.

  23. Anas — on 17th November, 2006 at 12:40 am  

    Not Imam, Sajn, rather “Immam.”

  24. Anas — on 17th November, 2006 at 12:42 am  

    Bill Hicks once said that you shouldn’t be allowed to criticise something you can’t pronounce, maybe that should be extended to include things you can’t spell.

  25. Clairwil — on 17th November, 2006 at 12:57 am  

    Or we could just note that this immam is only one person and isn’t the final word on Islamic belief. Muhammad, the Hadith and the Qu’ran all make very positive statements about women along with a few howlers.

    It might suit the Muslim male agenda to focus on things that allow them to oppress women but that is no reason for women or anyone else to buy it, let alone tolerate it.

    God made two genders both equal but different, neither have the authority to rule the other.

  26. Electro — on 17th November, 2006 at 1:39 am  

    You’re wrong, Jagdeep. I’m not dissing Pakistan, I’m just being cautious.

    Everyone should slow down for a minute. As I stated earlier these laws still haven’t been passed and are presently the object of some very vigorous opposition by the Islamic authorities.

    If those religious leaderss manage to wring more concessions from the gov’t, then these laws may be little more than window-dressing.

    This is like one of those “Dewy defeats Truman” headlines.

    Still, if they are passed in their present form it WILL mean there’s been an improvement.

  27. Vikrant — on 17th November, 2006 at 7:05 am  

    LMAO @raz… spare us Indians the corrupt, lying, conceited freak called Musharraf.

    Once again, Musharaf leads the way for the rest of Asia to follow.

    For one rest of Asia doesnt have 7th century Shariat laws. Pakistan is just catching up.

  28. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 17th November, 2006 at 11:15 am  

    Bill Hicks once said that you shouldn’t be allowed to criticise something you can’t pronounce, maybe that should be extended to include things you can’t spell.

    Lets not forget that Mr. Hicks was a comic before you use his words to silence perfectly reasonable comments.

    Considering his stance on Religons in general, if he were alive today I doubt he would have anything positive thing to say about Islamists, let alone Islamic dogma in general.

    Go on, critise my spelting if you wish.

    TFI

  29. Jagdeep — on 17th November, 2006 at 12:36 pm  

    Naah, I reckon you’re dissing Pakistan and using womens issues to do that Electro.

  30. Anas — on 17th November, 2006 at 1:20 pm  

    Lets not forget that Mr. Hicks was a comic before you use his words to silence perfectly reasonable comments.

    The comment was intended to be a light-hearted one Mr TFI.

  31. Anas — on 17th November, 2006 at 2:08 pm  

    This is weird. They’re banning books in Iran because they offend the Iranian Christian community? It’s probably cause the authorities have gotten a taste for banning works of literature, but a strange reason nonetheless.

  32. sonia — on 17th November, 2006 at 2:40 pm  

    oh thank goodness. about f**cking time is right as well!

    ill drink to all this. hooray

  33. Electro — on 17th November, 2006 at 2:43 pm  

    Baseless accusation, Jagdeep!

    Here’s a hint; I’m much older than you and have learned, over the years, to hold back and to remain cautious before deciding whether or not to endorse something.

    We’ll see who has a better take on these developements as the months pass.

  34. Jagdeep — on 17th November, 2006 at 2:57 pm  

    Decide whether to ‘endorse’ a law that is to the benefit of Pakistan women? There is something funny about the presumption about that, but it just endorses my point about the cynicism you have — filtering everything through your anti Pakistan sieve.

  35. sonia — on 17th November, 2006 at 2:59 pm  

    vikrant – hardly as if india’s not got it’s share of dodgy practices – i think a india vs. pakistan fight in who’s dodgier than whom is – frankly – quite amusing.

    clairwil – good point.

    and any step in a positive direction is a good thing – but i think it’s hardly out of order to be a bit cynical – it’s hardly dissing the ‘women’ if one is cynical – it’s more like dissing the mullahs and politicians and what have you.

  36. Jagdeep — on 17th November, 2006 at 3:07 pm  

    well, yeah, but Electro hopes that more white boys in Glasgow get killed by Muslim thugs so that he can rub his hands with glee and rub Clairwill’s face in the truth of a global virus of Muslim Zombies waiting to rape and enslave all infidels. In other words a critical stance on issues is not the same as wishing for bad things to happen to endorse a generalised desire to see a worldview confirmed. Whatever Musharaffs motives, it is good that the law was passed.

  37. miraxx — on 17th November, 2006 at 4:54 pm  

    Jagdeep , methinks you are being too quick to jump upon Electro.

    The recent amendments to the hudood ordinances are welcome for sure, but how much real, practical benefits are they going to produce? To ponder this question is not to diss Pakistan or Musharaff”s efforts. With all due respect to raz, the 79′ ordinances got passed because they were much more in tune with the culture and the thinking of the majority of pakistanis than this round of amendments,which, as Electro was trying to point out, serve to ameliorate the embarassment of an (irreligious)elite.

    lets’s not take the example of how fucked up (parts)of India are to make ourselves feel better about the likely outcomes of these amendments, hard won as they were. The pertinent point of comparison is that there were NO such laws to start with in India.

  38. Jagdeep — on 17th November, 2006 at 5:12 pm  

    Miraxx, the comparison with India is pertinent when Electro makes the stupid point that just because some backwards regions will not change overnight, the ONLY reason for this legislation can be a cosmetic one, and is therefore mere posturing.

    The recent amendments to the hudood ordinances are welcome for sure, but how much real, practical benefits are they going to produce?

    This is an inane question. Do you have an idea of how many real practical benefits they are going to produce? What do the womens activists in Pakistan want? Do they welcome this legislation? Do they view it as a good first step? That is all that matters.

  39. miraxx — on 17th November, 2006 at 5:12 pm  

    “For one rest of Asia doesnt have 7th century Shariat laws. Pakistan is just catching up.”

    Trouble is that there are parts of Asia where there are groups very , very committed to institutionalising these backward laws(very sorry, clairwill, but if you really know summin about hudud laws, you would not be waffling about mohd and the hadiths’ “benevolence” towards women). I live between two such bits of Asia. I couldn’t care less about Islamist terrorism( i should more likely be struck down by lightning before a terror bomb), but I do know how the sharia creep threatens minorities and women.

  40. Sid — on 17th November, 2006 at 5:52 pm  

    There is a world of difference between the Sharia laws of the various Madhab (schools of jurisprudence) and the Sunnah of the Prophet, and that lies in Ijtihad – Arabic for “Interprtation”. That’s a nuance that escapes Islamophobes, a catgeory miraxx falls into quite comfortably. And yes, I expect to be called a Taqqiyah-dealing dissemblist very shortly.

  41. miraxx — on 17th November, 2006 at 5:57 pm  

    >>Miraxx, the comparison with India is pertinent when Electro makes the stupid point that just because some backwards regions will not change overnight, the ONLY reason for this legislation can be a cosmetic one, and is therefore mere posturing.>>

    It appears that you are not as aware as electro or , indeed the wholly admirable women activists of pakistan, who know just how far the writ of the pakistan government runs. A comparison with India is not fair(actually really stupid) as the state, both federal/local, has not lost a comparable amount of authority.Er, really. The women activists of Pakistan will let you know, if you bothered reading up on their dreary, depressing reports, that abuse runs as deep in metropolitan areas – which is indeed where most of them operate- as elsewhere.

    “This is an inane question. Do you have an idea of how many real practical benefits they are going to produce? What do the womens activists in Pakistan want? Do they welcome this legislation? Do they view it as a good first step? That is all that matters. ”

    It is a first step in a horrendously bad situation. But a signature on a piece of paper means nothing if the government of pakistan does not put even the meagre resources at its disposal to effect real change. To call the government to account is not to sneer at them. Raise your standards jagdeep! This is a long war of attrition where you don’t flop back into your couch after after the first, teeny weeny baby battle.

  42. miraxx — on 17th November, 2006 at 6:07 pm  

    So there you are again, Sid ,tediously predictable, calling me an islamophobe but having nothing more subtantial in argument than in airily discounting the entire school of islamic jurisprudence over the cenruries as well as EVERY SINGLE instance of sharia/hudud in practice from Nigerai to pakistan to Malaysia, in favour of ‘ijtihad’ – something I am very much in favour of if, truly, it means making an individual like yourself your OWN fucking mind up, mind ya- but which i find not a single mainstream muslim authority indulging in, apart from maybe Amina W.
    Not lost that chip on the shoulder yet eh?

  43. miraxx — on 17th November, 2006 at 6:10 pm  

    ‘over the centuries as well as EVERY SINGLE instance of sharia/hudud in practice from Nigeria to Pakistan to Malaysia, in favour of ‘ijtihad’ – something I am very much in favour of truly, IF it means an individual like yourself making your OWN fucking mind up,’

    too many typos, sorry.

  44. Sid — on 17th November, 2006 at 6:44 pm  

    i love the sound of islamophobes back-peddling furiously.

  45. raz — on 17th November, 2006 at 6:55 pm  

    Vikrant,

    50 million slaughtered Indian women say hello. India is the only nation on earth to make the Taleban look like feminists.

    mirax,

    Electro’s point about Waziristan is foolish. The tribal areas are a tiny part of Pakistan’s population, and more importantly are semi-autonomous. Even the British empire never established authority there, despite ruling the of the rest of the enormous subcontinent What goes on there has no relation to the rest of Pakistan whatsoever. Until tribal areas of FATA are incorporated into NWFP (which Musharraf wants to do, but this is not something which is going to happen overnight) tribal areas will be a law unto themselves. And as far as the writ of government goes, you should know that there are large parts of India’s North East which are under de facto Maoist control.

    “With all due respect to raz, the 79′ ordinances got passed because they were much more in tune with the culture and the thinking of the majority of pakistanis”

    Again this is not true. Nobody wanted any Sharia law in Pakistan until the ASSHOLE Zia-ul-haq showed up with his Islamisation programme. No Pakistani religous party ever won more than 5% of the vote prior to the last elections, so its certainly not accurate to portray Pakistan as a historically radical country. Coupled with the mass production of Arab-imported Sunni fanatcism as taught in the hundreds of madrasas (all part of the West’s anti-Soviet masterplan in the 80′s), and the unfortunate result is a total radicalistion of certain elements of Pakistan’s society, which not only created violence and hatred but has also granted the Mullah’s political power which they never dreamed of before. But with these latest events, the tide is turning. Granted, it will be a slow process, but I believe nobody can stand in the way of modernity forever. I assure you, we moderate Pakistanis will not rest until these barbaric Hudood laws are gone once and for all.

  46. Jagdeep — on 17th November, 2006 at 7:26 pm  

    Raise your standards jagdeep! This is a long war of attrition where you don’t flop back into your couch after after the first, teeny weeny baby battle.

    Uhhh, OK miraxx, whatever you say! Nice debating style you have there, by the way.

  47. miraxx — on 17th November, 2006 at 7:32 pm  

    Sid,
    backpeddling? who where what?? I am glad though that you have dropped irritating snide remarks about myself and come clean with the islamaphobe word at last. Must a relief laying that little burden down , hmmn?

    Raz, I am really glad and grateful that you are anti hudud. I agree it was an unfortunate confluence of events – the ’79 soviet afghan invasion, Haq’s islamisation of pakistan- but the western ‘masterplan to radicalise’ did not take shape as early as haq’s own plans and actions- and an observer must look elsewhere for the roots of islamic radicalisation in pakistan. It is not so much that religious parties never quite won electoral support – there is much to be said for people’s innate sense of self-preservation!- but a nation founded on religion and suffering from chronic political instability, to put it politely, was and is no position to strongly resist a dictator’s religious dictat. Was there really any popular element of resistance to Sharia/ hudud in ’79? What was the form of this resistance?

  48. raz — on 17th November, 2006 at 8:02 pm  

    mirax,

    Undoubtedly, Zia was the prime architect of Pakistan’s Islamisation. The Western policy in Afganistan was a real ‘bonus’ for him, as it dovetailed nicely into his own agenda. One cannot underestimate the devestating impact that a determermined and powerful man can have on the direction of a nation, as witnessed, for instance, during the rise of Nazi Germany.

    “t is not so much that religious parties never quite won electoral support”

    Well thats putting it too lightly. The truth is the idea of an Islamic Pakistan had been totally rejected by the Pakistani people. Jamat-I-Islam had been around since the 1940′s with no success or mass support. There was no Sharia law, no Blaspemy law , no Hudood or Zina laws, alcohol was available freely – you get my point. Zia’s lucky break was that he was able to implement his ‘reforms’ at a time when Pakistani society was being suddenly radicalised by events in Afganistan and by the proxy war which Saudia Arabia and Iran were waging in Pakistan via their backing of hardline Sunni/Shia terrorist groups. Thus not only did he Islamicise Pakistan, he gained, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, a generation of young men who actually subscribed to his reactionary views. This is why even many years after his death, the legacy of Zia lives on in the religious extremism and instability of modern day Pakistan.

    “Was there really any popular element of resistance to Sharia/ hudud in ‘79? What was the form of this resistance?”

    There was plenty of resistance to Zia, but you must remember one thing – Zia was a genuine
    dictator and a real bastard to boot, nothing at all like Musharraf whatsoever. The litany of torture, lashinks, executions, extrajudical murdersm etc against people who stood aginst him during Zia’s time is well documented. Also, Zia deliberately formented the Sunni-Shia conflict which had broken out in order to distract the general population from himself.

    I’ve always said that if Jinnah had lived longer, he would have been able to put down his marker for what he wanted Pakistan to be – a place where all would be respected and tolerated. Sadly, shitheads like Zia have managed to throw Pakistan off course. I am 100% sure that Musharraf knows what the real identity of Pakistan should have been – a nation founded on religion – yes, but not a religious state. Other nations have been through worse periods than Pakistan under Zia and have survived – we haven’t lost hope.

  49. Desi Italiana — on 17th November, 2006 at 8:09 pm  

    I’m just waiting until this thread veers into Pakistan-India rivalry:

    -”Who’s better???? Pakistan is!”

    -”No! India is! We treat our women better!”

    -”Not at all! The Taleban treat their women much better!”

  50. Anas — on 17th November, 2006 at 8:15 pm  

    Given the two countries involved it’s not a question of who’s better, but who’s less worse.

  51. raz — on 17th November, 2006 at 8:17 pm  

    Why does Desi Italiana always have to show up and make me feel guilty :(

  52. Desi Italiana — on 17th November, 2006 at 8:32 pm  

    To jump into the discussion:

    While I agree with Jagdeep’s post #38, I would also agree with Miraxx’s point about the effects in real terms. No doubt that the ordinances are a step forward– but that’s on paper. What remains to be seen is how much women and the judicial system put it into effect, and just how much these ordinances will be accessed by women. Having laws is not the same as those laws being practiced. And given some of the social forms of “justice” that is carried out by people in Pakistan (as in other places- Pakistan is not alone in this), just how easily women will recourse to these ordinances is the issue (for me, at least).

    Re: the point about how much the Pakistani people want Islamicization of society, I think this is a bit tricky, and often the matter of subjective opinion. I was reading the Dawn about how mullahs and some parties were threatening protests and whatnot. The question that popped into my mind is: how much mass support, weight, and mobilization do religious parties have in Pakistan?

    “I am 100% sure that Musharraf knows what the real identity of Pakistan should have been – a nation founded on religion – yes, but not a religious state”

    Are you marking the difference between founding history and contemporary and/or future direction? Because I’ve always been a bit cautious to believe that nation-states founded on religion will somehow “respect” and “tolerate” others, given the exclusionary nature (and the same goes for using others criteria of nationhood, such as ethnicity). I PARTIALLY agree with Mirax that if citizens themselves want a certain religion to be a defining factor at the national level, than so be it (but this is definately very sticky terrain, since other issues come up). I think my problem is when it is imposed from the top- but then do the top down decisions reflect the desires of citizens?

  53. Desi Italiana — on 17th November, 2006 at 8:34 pm  

    To expand on my assertion, “The question that popped into my mind is: how much mass support, weight, and mobilization do religious parties have in Pakistan?”

    Do they reflect large segments of society or is it that we hear of them more often than not because they are more vociferous, and the western media amply reports on them, leading us to believe that they basically run the society?

  54. Desi Italiana — on 17th November, 2006 at 8:44 pm  

    From the newspaper The Dawn on Nov. 16:

    “The demonstration was arranged by the CSOs on the day the parliament took up the controversial Women Protection Bill seeking amendment to Hudood laws.

    The protesters, however, rejected the bill, particularly amendments introduced at the behest of the religious parties.

    According to a press release, the protesters said the government had succumbed to the pressure of ‘Mullahs’ by accepting their amendments, which would further water down the already flawed text earlier put forward by the National Assembly Select Committee.

    Holding placards inscribed with demands for the repeal of Hudood Ordinances and condemning the MMA for undermining human rights in the name of religion, the protesters said the Women Protection Bill would not bring any relief to women. In fact, they said, the “Mullah-recommended” amendments would further worsen the rights situation in the country, leaving women at the mercy of police and judiciary.

    The rally demanded that the government should not engage in politicking in the name of women rights and should not make compromises that might hurt women who were already socially, economically and politically vulnerable and weak.”

    http://www.dawn.com/2006/11/16/nat6.htm

    From what I understand, don’t the said amendments privelege the authority of Sharia over the judicial arm in specific instances? Or am I getting it wrong?

  55. raz — on 17th November, 2006 at 9:38 pm  

    “Do they reflect large segments of society or is it that we hear of them more often than not because they are more vociferous, and the western media amply reports on them, leading us to believe that they basically run the society?”

    I think you have a point there, because the only thing the Mullahs are good at is making a lot of noise. To be honest, though, many of the Islamist protests which the Western media heavily publicise (e.g against the Mohammed cartoons or against US actions in Afganistan) only attract 5-10 thousand people at most, which in a country the size of Pakistan (160 million) is hardly a big deal.

  56. Don — on 17th November, 2006 at 10:45 pm  
  57. raz — on 17th November, 2006 at 10:56 pm  

    Er, Don, there is nothing in that link to disprove my contention that the numbers of protestors in Pakistan were in the thousands. What’s your point?

  58. Sid — on 18th November, 2006 at 2:00 am  

    mirax

    My comment #40 – just wanted to start another one of our cross-purpose crouching tiger wirework battle scenes to get the old juices flowing. you know, get it out the way. nice to see you back. ;-)

  59. Vikrant — on 18th November, 2006 at 7:08 am  

    50 million slaughtered Indian women say hello. India is the only nation on earth to make the Taleban look like feminists.

    Raz shut the f*** up. Your organismic rants carry no weight with me. For one female infanticide is imho a Punjabi-Hindi practice. Which includes Pakistanis aswell… BTW stop disgressing from the point. Pakistan has mysogynist laws enshrined into its constitution UNLIKE India no matter what masochists like Jagdeep think.

  60. Vikrant — on 18th November, 2006 at 7:11 am  

    Raz the problem with nationalists like you is that you are only concerned about your country’s ‘image’ like our insensitive freak a.k.a Mush who not so long ago gloated that Pakistani women get raped to obtain Canadian visas. Your “concern” for your country’s problem’s sounds only like an afterthought.

  61. Vikrant — on 18th November, 2006 at 7:15 am  

    Er, Don, there is nothing in that link to disprove my contention that the numbers of protestors in Pakistan were in the thousands. What’s your point?

    Hellooooo… what about about MMA ruled NWFP?

  62. Don — on 18th November, 2006 at 10:27 am  

    Raz,

    My point was implication that the media blew up the whole incident. Normally I have scant regard for the media, but in this case the media was the story.

  63. Jagdeep — on 18th November, 2006 at 1:37 pm  

    no matter what masochists like Jagdeep think

    Have you been drinking too much Limca? There’s alot of sugar in that stuff, gives you an energy rush.

  64. Vikrant — on 18th November, 2006 at 1:51 pm  

    Have you been drinking too much Limca? There’s alot of sugar in that stuff, gives you an energy rush.

    Naay dude, tequilla actually. Rs. 500 a shot.

  65. Vikrant — on 18th November, 2006 at 1:53 pm  

    Anyways I really do believe there is no need for self-flagellation just to make raz feel better.

  66. Vikrant — on 18th November, 2006 at 1:54 pm  

    Btw sorry for the adjective i really didnt mean it.

  67. Desi Italiana — on 20th November, 2006 at 1:51 am  

    Ha! I knew it!

    Indo-Pak flamewar is being fanned…

    I think that commentators on PP should be able to place bets on threads.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.