And now for some good news: repealing sharia rape law in Pakistan
Pakistan has taken a step forward after taking several steps backward. Yesterday Pakistan’s legislature voted to end the sway of sharia in dealing with the crime of rape.
Ah, sharia. That famous Muslim legal system, steeped in a religion that’s so very respectful of women and human rights. But it’s not, you say? Ah, but we need to respect a different culture, as the British imperialist warmongers so famously did not regarding the quaint and ancient Hindu practice of suttee:
When General George Napier was governor of Sind province in India in the 1840s, he vigorously enforced the ban on suttee, the practice of throwing a Hindu widow on to the funeral pyre of her husband. A delegation of Brahmins came to him to explain that he must not prohibit the practice at the funeral of a particular maharaja, as it was an important cultural custom.
“If it is your custom to burn a widow alive, please go on,” Napier responded.
“We have a custom in our country that whoever burns a person alive shall be hanged. While you prepare the funeral pyre, my carpenters will be making the gallows to hang all of you. Let us all act according to our customs” The Brahmins thought better of it, and the widow lived.
Old-fashioned imperialism is dead–at least, of the Western variety–despite leftist claims that we are the worst imperialists ever. So Napier’s solution is not available to us.
But even Leftists and feminists ought to be privately rejoicing in their publicly multi-cultural hearts at the news from Pakistan. No longer does a raped woman require the corroborative testimony of four Muslim men to confirm her account of a sexual assault. And, praise be, judges are now able to consider forensic and circumstantial evidence of rape, as well. Not only that, but flogging and stoning to death will no longer be on the books for consensual sex outside marriage.
But all is not well in Pakistan for those who want to mess around; far from it. All extramarital sex is still punishable by five years in prison and fines. And we only got a tongue-lashing from our parents, and fear of pregnancy (although I seem to recall that, when I was in college, the crime of fornication was still on the books in several states).
Members of Parliament from Islamist parties boycotted the vote, but it still passed. And President Musharraf, who has pushed for this change for years but always backed off in the past when Islamist groups threatened protests, seems to have gotten his way this time.
Why success now? Perhaps the key was international embarrassment:
Pakistan’s rape laws came under international scrutiny when last year when a high court overturned the convictions of five men accused of gang-raping villager Mukhtar Mai, as a form of punishment for an adulterous act by her brother and another woman. She had to flee the country because of the backlash against her.
I’m not sure whether pressures like that would work in a country less Westernized than Pakistan. It’s also interesting to note that sharia has not held sway there for very long; these laws were part of a legal “reform” movement that was introduced in 1979. It was a very good year–for turning back the clock to a medieval version of civil rights: 1979 was also, of course, the year of the Iranian revolution.
Keep up the pressure, Neo. If you hoarde enough potential energy, you will be able to pierce the Veil Of Illusions that are held up by the Spanksters of the world. Veil of Illusion, wasn’t that an Indian Mahatma something?
Heck, I’ll ask it.
In India the Matrix has yet another reason for its popularity other than its archetypal strengths. That is because the popular Indian belief in Maya (see our glossary) finds the Matrix to be the perfect example of it. Life is unreal and a conjob; one day you will wake up and find the truth. This is the popular understanding about Maya – and it is all wrong. Nevertheless it is a reality,even though it is not the truth. The Matrix was a very up-to-date version of the belief that the world is an illusion.
http://www.indiayogi.com/content/mythology/f_matrix1.asp
Down with the Veil, Neo. Oh wait, didn’t Middle Easterns have veils too? Oh well. Mixed metaphors.
I’d be curious to see a comparison between what the Shari’a actually says about rape, and what the Bible says about rape, and then a comparison between, let’s say, Pakistan and US approaches to rape throughout history. I wouldn’t be surprised, I must admit, if regardless of what either religious text actually stated, people in either or any culture are more than happy whenever possible to do whatever they want and then justify it by selective interpretation later. See also: the recent ruling by a Maryland court which declared (in the hopes that the Maryland Supreme Court would declare the law unconstitutional) that in rape, legally, the real crime was the penetrative act, since this reduces the chattel value of a woman.
I’d also be curious to know if you checked to see if those crazy feminists and liberals were just rejoicing in their hearts, as you assume, or if they’ve actually publically said anything about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter were true.
There are plenty of online Bibles, Spanky, conveniently translated into English. Good luck.
Ymar never misses a chance to point out that all of his knowledge of the world comes solely from sci-fi movies and mass-trade paperbacks!
If the bible was the basis for law in the US then you would see just as horendous judicial behavior here as you see in countries governed by sharia law. Thankfully the bible has no place in US law. So you see, as you well know, it is religion-based law that is the problem. All “belief” is equally delsional (in a Bayesian sense).
You’re setting up a strawman, Neo-neocon. No liberal or leftist that I know of supports of horrendous laws against women.
You also say — correctly — in your post that the abrogation of civil rights in Pakistan and the gradual islamization of the country, including gradual Shariafication of the laws — started in the late seventies.
But then you say — in an ominous way, as if we’re to deduce something from it — that “1979 was also, of course, the year of the Iranian revolution”.
What you conveniently do not say, however, is that the Palistani ruler who presided over the gradual Islamization of the country, General Zia-ul-Haq (who came to power in a coup and Islamized as way to distract people from the illegitimacy of his rule) was, in the 1980s, the darling of the US, heavily supported by Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the neocons. (Because India tilted more towards the USSR, Reagan built up Pakistan as a bulwark — no matter if it meant mollycoddling evil dictators liek Gen. Zia, who was Islamizing to boot! And then, of course, given the Afghanistan situation, the Pakistani dictator was appeased by the US).
That the civil rights of the Pakistanis were being abrogated by the dictator he was mollycoddling, did not concern Ronny Reagan at all. The Cold War interests of the USA predominated over any other concerns at that time!
It’s progress…slow, but progress nevertheless.
I think “da ‘Net” is educating people about how things really are, and they’re not as certain countries would have their people believe…
at least we can still stone and hang homosexuals. Regardless of what your Bush says you people don’t get your way in everything.
“But even Leftists and feminists ought to be privately rejoicing in their publicly multi-cultural hearts at the news from Pakistan.”
I remember, quite quite clearly, sitting in a Cultural Anthropology recitation in college, arguing with a girl about Female Genital Mutilation in Africa. My position was that FGM was wrong irregardless of culture and that the west had a duty to try to eliminate it. She took the relavist tack that one culture can’t impose its standards on another, and basically called me a cultural imperialist. And the whole time, in the back of my head I was thinking: “But…. but… you’re a GIRL!”
OMG a girl once was a cultural relativist, that means all Lefties hate freedom!!!!1! It’s the only logical explanation.
Brandon,
I recall it happened about fifteen years ago.
Feminists who abhored such things in other countries began a kind of tentative dance with cultural relativists. It wasn’t a fun dance. It was tricky, since the dancers were frequently feminists-who-abhored on odd-numbered days and cultural relativists the rest of the time.
There was, IMO, a growing split between the two views. The split slammed shut when George Bush and a bunch of thick-necked, steely-eyed professional soldiers actually did something about the situation.
Again, IMO: You don’t get multiculti toleration points for tolerating the unexceptional. Nobody can earn a pat on the back for not condemning the French for eating snails. To get a really good score, or, perhaps, to get on the board at all, one must ostentatiously tolerate the intolerable. And this gives us a constant: The things that cultural relativists tolerate with the most self-congratulaton have one thing in common; victims.
that means all Lefties hate freedom!!!!1!
Actually, it’s only the majority, meaning the depraved left of our time.
Speaking of which, Perry is possibly just being naive when he says that “No liberal or leftist that I know of supports of horrendous laws against women.” These days, of course, the visceral hatred of their own culture that so pervades the left lead a great many to support cultures and regimes that support “horrendous laws against women” (as well as homosexuals, children, men, human beings, other animals, etc.), whether or not Perry knows them. A significant part of this heightened “sensitivity” (as they like to call it) toward Islamic cultures in particular, in fact, is a more recent product of pure fear and awe.
These days, of course, the visceral hatred of their own culture that so pervades the left lead a great many to support cultures and regimes that support “horrendous laws against women” (as well as homosexuals, children, men, human beings, other animals, etc.), whether or not Perry knows them. A significant part of this heightened “sensitivity” (as they like to call it) toward Islamic cultures in particular, in fact, is a more recent product of pure fear and awe.
Some of us care to know who exactly we are killing….
Sally | 11.16.06 – 10:30 am | #
Gotta say I can’t quite agree with you there, Sally.
There’s nothing visceral about criticizing your own government’s policys – especially if they are aggressive, criminal and immoral – or what you percieve as such through a careful examination of evidence.
That’s not hatred for one’s country – if a country’s only real draw is it’s half-arsed group of nitwit power mad braintwats – then it has to be one lame arsed country, so to speak.
Nor does this monolithic left support these regimes outright. The deal is support against aggression, gross violations of sovereignty and human rights abuses and the disintegration fo the democratic process.
We generally understand that this causes more wars, more oppression in the countries facing U.S intervention and creates alot of hatred around the world for those policies and the double standards quite obvious to those with a grade school level education.
Fear and awe? I wouldn’t call that a fact but that could be for some. Or it could be to seek something more substantial and informative(truthful) than that provided by agenda driven propagandist’s, or the offical government line..
“Some of us care to know who exactly we are killing….”
Sorry that was meant for my post –
Actually, tequila, you were banned. And still are.
Why do you care, tequilamockingbird 11.16.06 – 11:36 am? You (claim to) have left the board, despite several subsequent and duplicate posts that (you claim) are not your fault.
Hello Khalil,
Doesn’t killing a woman sinner make you a murderer and isn’t murder a sin as well?
You’re setting up a strawman, Neo-neocon. No liberal or leftist that I know of supports of horrendous laws against women.
Ahh, but they defend such treatment of women through their silence. Granted, they do so because they hate the West. I’m sure that some would speak up if they could do so while making the US look even worse.
At least some think Western women need to adapt:
Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Unni Wikan, said Norwegian women must take responsibility for the fact that Muslim men find their manner of dress provocative. And since these men believe women are responsible for rape, she stated, the women must adapt to the multicultural society around them.
There’s nothing visceral about criticizing your own government’s policys – especially if they are aggressive, criminal and immoral – or what you percieve as such through a careful examination of evidence.
When your hatred of your government is such that you can’t speak out against those who rape and then punish the victim . . . it’s visceral indeed, particularly if you make claims to defending women’s rights.
No liberal or leftist that I know of supports of horrendous laws against women.
You think you know somebody, Neo, you think you know… heh.
Talk about parochialism.
Actually, tequila, you were banned. And still are.
tequilamockingbird | 11.16.06 – 11:24 am | #
Spam it Neo, more power! Full Steam ahead! Wasn’t that what Cheney said? Shouldn’t he be saying, full shotgun ahead?
That’s not hatred for one’s country – if a country’s only real draw is it’s half-arsed group of nitwit power mad braintwats – then it has to be one lame arsed country, so to speak.
You know, you have to say this for our lefty Anonymous — he does represent the present day left at its most intellectual. So to speak.
Sally is still the apprentice Coultergeist I see. *Snigger*.
Feminists did, in fact, used to stick up for women in other countries. Prior to 9-11 and our subsequent invasion of that country the plight of women suffering under Taliban rule was a *liberal feminist* cause. Women and girls in that country were prohibited from education and employment and actually going *anywhere* without a male family member. The men had to work so that meant that many women never left their small apartments. House arrest in the most literal sense, a required cell encompasing their world.
Maybe not so bad for women lucky enough to live in family compounds with multiple buildings and a variety of people and things to do, but the law was the same for those living in tiny high rise apartments, from which some women threw themselves to their deaths.
So what happened?
Why are there no calls to *do* anything about it anymore?
War happened and politics happened and people, feminists, were forced to chose and chose to throw their sisters under the train in order to oppose cultural imperialism and other henious sins.
Though certainly, as imperfect as it still is, Afghanistan is *vastly* improved.
Admitting that would be politically distasteful.
Propagandists can tell the truth too, you know. In fact, the truth is often the most effective propaganda, if it happens to be on your side.
Sam, Bible actually do not contain any particular norm of law. In biblical times they were a part of oral tradition rather than of scriptures themselves, and later, when this tradition was written, it was included in Talmud. And if you seek real codification of Hebrew law, see Halaha, or Shulkhan Arukh, comprised by Maimonides – this was done in 12 century and is as close Hebrew counterpart of Sharia as it can be. You’ll be surprised, though, how enlightened it really is. But Maimonides really was one of the most enlightened men of his time, an expert in Aristotelian tradition.
“Propagandists can tell the truth too, you know. In fact, the truth is often the most effective propaganda, if it happens to be on your side.”
Agreed to an extent – I’d say though that truth in itself doesn’t constitute the most ‘effective’ propaganda – after all it has political motive and it usually involves conflict of some sort.
Proganda with a a fair degree of truth coupled with an appropriate amount of contextual spin, and emphasis on one particular area at the exlusion of others, is probably the most effect form ….
The reason why truth is the best propaganda is because the more lies and distortions you introduce into your message, Tatter, the more you have to cover things up. This tends to affect your other operations, namely aid and military operations. The more conflict between your message and what you are doing, the more friction there is. And in war, you don’t want a lot of friction.
Also if you tell lies, then it isn’t backed by reality, and if it isn’t backed by reality, you tend to have to suppress the real information from getting to the people. This produces a sort of looping totalitarian system. Anyone that believes the truth is not the best propaganda, will eventually get into that loop one way or another.
Propaganda is there to convince. Which do you find more convincing. America dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan as a way to convince you that America is dead serious about you surrendering. Or, do you find more convincing when Jihadists talk about how they are fighting for their very existence against the Jewish throat slashers that collect the blood of Christian boys for their rituals as the jihadists cut off Nick Berg’s head?
Reality has a say in propaganda. Not much, true, but this is the 21st century after all. There is no way you can separate your message from your actions, not with the internet and videos. Because it is too easy to see what someone HAS done, as opposed to what he has said. That means your message MUST be consistent with your actions. Otherwise, well, it gets harder and harder to convince people to be on your side.
Actually, tequila, you were banned. And still are.
tequilamockingbird | 11.16.06 – 11:24 am | #
Huh? A message purportedly signed by me that I didn’t send? Who’s impersonating me?
Tequila, you need help, and I don’t think it should come from, Neo. You’ve had problems before. Namely that “memory” problem where you didn’t remember that you posted 28 in a row comments under one post.
You have a habit of lying, making things up, and then backtracking when you are found out.
So there’s two possibilities. Either you weren’t really banned and just put a post up that said you were, and then attempt to claim that it wasn’t you. Or you were really banned and Neo edited your post, and now you forgot about the fact.