PDA

View Full Version : To “get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped”.



Hari_Om
15 Sep 05,, 09:44
Musharraf also became animated when he spoke about the case of Mukhtar Mai, a 33-year-old illiterate woman who spoke publicly about having been gang-raped on the orders of village council in 2002. Mai, bucking taboos, won public sympathy and government support after she demanded that the men be charged and convicted. But earlier this year Musharraf earned the ire of the Bush administration when he blocked her from traveling to the United States to publicize the case.

Musharraf said that Mai was free to travel now -- though she has never left Pakistan -- and that he had no regrets about how he handled the incident. He said Mai had come under the sway of organizations determined to harm Pakistan's image and he did not think Pakistan "should be singled out when the curse is everywhere in the world." He noted he had seen reports or figures about rape in the United States, Canada, France and Britain showing that "it is happening everywhere."

"You must understand the environment in Pakistan," Musharraf added. "This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped."

Extract from Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091201724_pf.html)


An unstatesmanlike comment even if that is the prevailing sentiment, which I hope is not the case.

Over at the New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff is not amused. (See post No. 881.) (http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/editorialsoped/kristofresponds/index.html?page=recent)

lemontree
15 Sep 05,, 10:13
This is the second howler from Musharraf from the same article... :biggrin: :biggrin:

"Leave the developing world aside; I think we are better than all of them," Musharraf declared. "Bring the developed world and let us compare Pakistan's record, under me, a uniformed man, with many of the developed countries. I challenge that we will be better off."

Ray
15 Sep 05,, 10:27
What is objectionable is:


He noted he had seen reports or figures about rape in the United States, Canada, France and Britain showing that "it is happening everywhere."

Because rapes happen everywhere, it does not mean that it can be justified.

However, he does not mention, that the Mukhtar Mai's rape was ordered and sanctified by the village council and sanctified by the law that the village council exercises.

Nowhere in the civilised world is Rape ordered or sanctified by any council or law!

She was ordered to be raped since her brother or a relative was cavorting with one individual of the more powerful of the clans that made up the village. A very odd and illogical law.

Equally disgraceful is:


"You must understand the environment in Pakistan," Musharraf added. "This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped."

In other words, he is letting down his country and boosting his own person image at its expense by stating that it is a practice to get raped in Pakistan to get out of Pakistan!

Is he suggesting that one would enjoy being raped? Or that getting raped is worth the shame just to get out of Pakistan? Is the situation in Pakistan that bad? If so, what is he doing to rectify it?

While personally I think he is doing a good job for Pakistan, yet I feel that these type of statements malign Pakistan more than it does Pakistan good.

I just hope he has not be misquoted or quoted out of context since no one could in his senses say such ridiculous stuff or as a President be so disloyal with such sweeping statements.

Some may have used rape for a visa, though I doubt since Islamic society is very strict amnd unforgiving about such conduct (zani), but it sure cannot be a common practice that warrant his statement that it is the environment in Pakistan!

indianguy4u
15 Sep 05,, 10:42
No trouble. There is circulation of just 300,000 english newspaper. This is for rich people's consumption only. Afterall if literacy of pureland is just 40 odd % & how many would be english educated :biggrin: .

Ray
15 Sep 05,, 18:02
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-9-2005_pg7_25


Asma condemns Musharraf’s statement against NGOs

LAHORE: Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) chairperson Asma Jahangir has strongly denounced President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s statement, which he reportedly made in New York, that certain women and non-government organisations (NGOs) at home were highlighting baseless rape incidents just to draw dollars from abroad.

Addressing a press conference along with alleged rape victim Sonia Naz at Lahore Press Club on Wednesday afternoon, Jahangir said such statements would bring a bad name to the country and that President Musharraf’s statement hurt the sanctity of his office.

“We all salute rape victims Mukhtar Mai, Dr Shazia and Sonia Naz who stood for their rights and justice. Rapes have become a routine but the government never bothers to address the issue. ”

Jahangir, who is also Naz’s attorney, said the government should ensure that rape victims had access to justice instead of defaming them. Naz condemned what she called attempts to malign her in the press as concocted stories. “The media should verify such stories before bringing them out into the open,” she said.

Naz denied that the government was funding her. She also rejected allegations that the Faisalabad deputy inspector general of police was supporting her indirectly and held the government and the National Assembly speaker responsible for her (alleged) rape. She appealed to President Musharraf to provide her with justice.

WAF condemns Musharraf’s remarks: Women’s Action Forum (WAF) on Wednesday condemned President General Pervez Musharraf’s remarks in an interview with the Washington Post on September 13, who responding to questions about Mukhtar Mai stated that Pakistani women pretended they were raped in order to get asylum abroad.

WAF, a renowned group of human rights activists, denounced the president’s claiming that the Mukhtar Mai issue was raised by organisations to harm Pakistan’s image and people supporting women victims were motivated by money. staff report

I am glad there was this rejoinder since the President's comments surely was not truly representative of the environment in Pakistan.

Ray
15 Sep 05,, 18:04
Who is this Sonia Naz and what's the case about her?

Ray
15 Sep 05,, 18:07
EDITORIAL: Unbecoming remarks by President Musharraf

Talking to a newspaper in New York, President “General” Pervez Musharraf has said that it was important for him to keep wearing the uniform of a general while conducting the affairs of the state, and that “he had not ruled out keeping it on past 2007”. One thought that he had a craving for the presidency, but now it appears that given a choice between being president or army chief he would prefer to be the latter. “We will cross that bridge when we come to it” was a dangerous remark to make.

His reading is that “a president cannot be a president in uniform, and should not be, but the environment of Pakistan dictates that I keep it on until 2007 ... the regional and international environment demands that I keep it on. So why should I be bothered to remove it now?” One may therefore ask: what is the environment like? Apart from facing the hazards of terrorism — of which as many people are critical of his performance as are supportive — he has been crowing about having “totally turned Pakistan around” and making key advances in “fostering democracy, including protecting freedom of the press, empowering local government, improving the position of women in society and giving greater representation to minorities”. He then went on to claim that Pakistan is much better (in some undefined sense) than many developed countries. This immodesty is unbecoming of any leader.

The next question from the newspaper was not late in coming: What about the travel-ban he had personally placed on the Pakistani rape victim, Mukhtar Mai? He said she was free to travel now and that he had no regrets about stopping her earlier because she had “come under the sway of organisations determined to harm Pakistan’s image”; and he did not think Pakistan “should be singled out when the curse is everywhere in the world”. Then he launched into a misguided reference to rapes being committed in “the United States, Canada, France and Britain”. He said: “It is happening everywhere”, adding “You must understand the environment in Pakistan. This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.” These remarks are most unbecoming. They demonstrate unwarranted arrogance and ignorance at the same time and reflect terribly on his commitment to the cause of women in Pakistan.

Let’s also not be legalistic about President Musharraf because there it is impossible to defend him; let’s examine his strategy to see if that is what will save him from international opprobrium and in the process save Pakistan from getting a bad name. He has been a little embarrassed by the way he promised to the mullahs of the MMA that he would step down or “separate his two posts” at the end of 2004 and finally did not, offering nitpicking textual excuses from the Constitution that few in Pakistan accepted. His next promise was what suggested itself to him as a part of the infamous referendum that gave him till 2007. The politicians who side with him have been pledging to the public in all seriousness that he would go honourably in 2007. Now saying that even that is doubtful is not going to inject serenity in the national politics. The environment he protests will in fact be rendered further unfriendly to him by his remarks.

The next thing he said about the uniform is not only politically gauche but also dangerous. He has been dishing out death sentences to army personnel convicted of trying to kill him because they believe he has abandoned jihad. There has always been talk of how his retention of the top job beyond his tenure has caused anxiety and lack of joy in the upper echelons of the army, among competent officers who could reasonably expect promotion up the ladder. We don’t know who killed General Zia in 1988 but one suspicion expressed by his family was that it was someone from within the army. One can see that he has “cleared the decks”, so to speak, for indefinite extensions of his army tenure through careful senior promotions in recent years, but he should not forget that the MMA leader Qazi Husain Ahmad continues to protest his love “for the rest of army” in the expectation that some disgruntled elements there might stage a coup and oust Musharraf.

The economic achievement of President Musharraf is undeniable but it has no relevance to how the people actually feel about it. This has been recognised all over the world: good economic performance may be obtained through tough macro-measures that impose pain on the people at the outset. Remember that the BJP — the achiever of eight percent GDP growth rate in India — lost the elections last year because the poor of India voted against it. And those remarks about rape in the West and the NGOs were most unfortunate. The Mukhtar Mai case was nothing like rapes in the West, it was an indictment of our society. In the West, rape victims are not put on exit-control lists. The West has not got its civilised image by putting a gag on information about what goes wrong; nor is the West lagging in the legal and social support available to raped women. *
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-9-2005_pg3_1

Ray
15 Sep 05,, 18:17
VIEW: Whew! —Kamran Shafi

There never was more wasteful expenditure than money spent on foreign lobbyists on retainers. Being foreign to the country they represent, they have no idea of what they are dealing with. More importantly, they cannot change the ground situation. I mean if women want to get raped to get visas, what the devil can a lobbyist do?

“A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada, or citizenship, and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.” So spake the Big General in an interview with the Washington Post as he arrived in New York for the UN summit. He was referring to the recent high-profile rape cases of Mukhtar Mai and Dr Shazia Khalid which were so written about in the world’s press and which contributed so much towards his government’s efforts to “soften” our country’s image.

Whew! The Big General does leave one speechless; does he not? He is maddening; is he not? What absolutely amazing audacity is his! What cheek! What effrontery! I mean, so absurd is his suggestion that the victims in the instant cases actually willed the rapes to happen so that they may “go abroad and get a visa and be(come) a millionaire(s)”!

While Chaudhry Shujaat’s trusted lieutenant, Mushahid “Mandela” Hussain is the all-time world champion for showing the most brass by comparing his three-month detention in an army mess with Nelson Mandela’s solitary confinement of 17 years in a cruel apartheid jail, the Big General is not far behind. I mean, for God’s sake, General; for God’s sake, sir!

It’s Dubya who is to blame; isn’t it, for the General’s verbal flights into the unknown; into the wild blue yonder? But of course he is to blame, for making it known that come hell or Katrina, General Musharraf will remain “tight” with him and he with General Musharraf. Making our man go overboard in no uncertain terms, without a care in the world. Not even for his own future health, when the United States government will, as surely as the sun rises in the East, dump him like it has dumped countless others before him heretofore; once he and our country have served their purposes; when, indeed, Dubya will no longer be president of the United States.


Neither did he limit his rather loud comments to the rape cases. In a further nail in the coffin of our nuclear programme, General Musharraf actually fingered the North Koreans by saying he was surprised that North Korea has denied having a uranium enrichment programme, because, according to himself, the Dr AQ Khan network run out of Pakistan sold North Korea designs and centrifuge parts needed for such a programme. Based on what he knew of Pakistani sales, the General said, “I think they do have an enrichment programme”. I ask you!

Why in heaven’s name did the General answer this question? Even if he is right about the exact number of “designs and centrifuge parts” the “Dr AQ Khan network” sold to North Korea unbeknown, in order of priority, to the government of the Islamic Republic; the myriad ‘agencies’; and the Pakistan Army which was/is the Chief Chowkidar of the nuclear programme, what was the whole point in acting as a US prosecutor who is trying to prove the US case against another country?

Now then, while on the one hand he will leave you stunned by tramping about where angels fear to tread (even very softly), on the other he will say just the right thing, hitting the nail on the head, so to say. According to the report: “Asked about Iran, Gen Musharraf said that it had a right to peaceful use of nuclear power. He was critical of the US invasion of Iraq, which had angered Muslims all over the world because of the televised images of towns being bombed and people dying, and cautioned against similar operations against Iran. Rather than report Iran to the UN Security Council, the international community should be looking for ways to help Iran, he said, adding that ‘Iran needs to show flexibility’ as well”.

This is the maddening aspect of the Big General: While even his best buddies would cringe at most of what he said in the interview, not even his worst enemies could find anything wrong with what he said on Iran and Iraq and the foolish American action that has already set the Middle East on fire. May one suggest, however, that he immediately withdraw his remarks on rape, and instruct his regime to immediately change its chauvinistic attitude towards women and crimes against women.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there are moves afoot to retain yet more very-expensive Public Relations lobbyists to help get this country a “softer image”, whatever that means. And compared to who? I mean just getting a softer image than that which is Pakistan’s today is a daunting enough task; to get a softer image than, say, India’s, will be well nigh impossible.

Let’s leave the lobbyists out of it for a moment; let’s just have a short reality check. How many foreign airlines land at Pakistani airports please? Precisely seven: British Airways, GulfAir, Thai, Emirates, Etihad, Saudia, and another? Or is it just six? May be nine? Indian airports receive virtually every airline there is in the world, leave alone KLM and Swissair and Lufthansa and JAL and Qantas and United and American, even Austrian and USAir and Virgin Atlantic (which may well be banned from landing in the Land of the Pure anyway because of the word ‘Virgin’ attached to its name!!). Get the picture, everyone? You listening, ‘Prime Minister’ Shaukat Aziz?

Now then, there was never more wasteful expenditure than money spent on foreign PR lobbyists on retainers, take it from an old hand who has always been against hiring them, who has written reams of notes on the subject to government. It is almost as bad as paid supplements in the newspapers. (This government of the Personal Banker has surpassed them all in this too: for a fee that goes into the hundreds of thousands of yummy dollars, it had a supplement published on the Internet edition, I repeat, the internet edition, of the New York Times recently! I mean who would read a paid supplement on an Internet edition, for God’s sake, when no one reads a printed one?).

It is foolish in the extreme, precisely because it is useless in the extreme to hire PR lobbyists on retainers. For several reasons actually, the foremost that being foreign to the country they represent, lobbyists have no idea of what they are dealing with. More importantly, no matter how good they are, they cannot change the situation on the ground. I mean if women want to get raped to become millionaires and get visas to go to Canada what the devil can any lobbyist do?

Instead of wasting more of the nation’s meagre resources on idiotic pursuits, far better for the government to spend its time giving the country better governance; to then choose the country’s representatives abroad with care; and to then arm them with sufficient funds (and other wherewithal) to sell the country to the hosts, and therefore give it a “softer image”. They may also hire lobbyists on a need-to basis, for specific tasks. About which, more later.

Bushism of the Week: “So please give cash money to organisations that are directly involved in helping save lives — save the life who had been affected by Hurricane Katrina” — President George W Bush, Washington DC, September 6, 2005.

Kamran Shafi is a freelance columnist
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-9-2005_pg3_4

Pakistanis, very correctly, are wild.

One does not wash domestic dirty linen on foreign soil!

Samudra
15 Sep 05,, 18:32
I dont see they being offered any other option.
Had Justice been served in Pakistan , there would be no reason for these poor people to go abroad!

You dont want to make too much noises against a ARMY that rules your country.Even if the Army is raping.

Would you advise a poor women to stay ?
If the women were you relative ?

Officer of Engineers
16 Sep 05,, 00:13
And which smart alec idiot here wanted me to welcome this bastard into NATO with open arms?

lemontree
16 Sep 05,, 05:14
Who is this Sonia Naz and what's the case about her?
Sir,
Sonia Naz is a rape victim. Her husband was arrested on charges of some petty theft case. Sonia had gone for his release/bail. She was reportedly rape by the SHO of a Faislabad policestaion on the orders of the Suprientendent of Police.

Hari_Om
16 Sep 05,, 06:51
And which smart alec idiot here wanted me to welcome this bastard into NATO with open arms?

Colonel,

You are not the only Canadian who is incensed by this unstatesmanlike comment on Canada by General Musharraf.

As for the motive for General Musharraf’s outburst, I can only speculate it was to preempt Canada offering asylum to Dr. Shazia Khalid who was raped by an Officer of Pakistan’s Armed Forces (See Ray's Thread) (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=4568). An appropriate Canadian response would be to grant Dr. Shazia Khalid asylum.

It is an unedifying spectacle to see a Head of State demonizing rape victim’s.


Canada's Martin blasts rape comments by Musharraf (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3412672a12,00.html)

16 September 2005

OTTAWA: Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday condemned reported remarks by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in which he said many people in Pakistan felt that one way of making money or moving to Canada was to "get yourself raped".

Pakistan is under fire for what human rights groups say is rampant violence against women. In one recent high-profile case, a woman who said she had been gang-raped fled to Britain and then sought permission to move to Canada.
Martin said he had raised the matter with Musharraf during a meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations.

"I stated unequivocally that comments such as that are not acceptable and that violence against women is also a blight that besmirches all humanity," Martin told a news conference at the United Nations.

"And the statement that was made – we did not appreciate (it) and we felt we had to deal with this. . . (Musharraf) took the position that that was not a statement he had made," Martin said. The news conference was televised live in Canada.

Musharraf told the Washington Post earlier this week that other countries had problems with rape as well.

"You must understand the environment in Pakistan. . . This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped," the paper quoted him as saying during the course of a long interview.

Hongkongfuey
16 Sep 05,, 08:21
He noted he had seen reports or figures about rape in the United States, Canada, France and Britain showing that "it is happening everywhere."

What is objectionable is:

Because rapes happen everywhere, it does not mean that it can be justified.

However, he does not mention, that the Mukhtar Mai's rape was ordered and sanctified by the village council and sanctified by the law that the village council exercises.

Nowhere in the civilised world is Rape ordered or sanctified by any council or law!

She was ordered to be raped since her brother or a relative was cavorting with one individual of the more powerful of the clans that made up the village. A very odd and illogical law.


Rape is never justified. Neither was Musharraf trying to justify it. He was saying that what is unjustifiable is the publicity provided to one person. You can look at the statistics, India has the highest number of rapes in South Asia, yet all you do is concentrate on Muktai Mai rather than the bigger picture. Case proven. ;)

What you say about Muktar Mai and the village council is just an attempt to mislead, nothing new there. The village council as you put it is not an offical council in Pakistan. It is not governmental, and as such has no authority. The village council's declaration of ordering a rape as payback was nothing short of illegal under Pakistani law, under any law in fact, and as such the men were brought before trial and convicted initially in an anti-terrorism court, where the burden of proof is lower than in a civil court in order to get convictions as quickly as possible. However, under appeal by the men in a civil court, there were found to be inconsistencies in the case, and all that happened was that the government said right, let us re-try the men again. Nothing wrong with that. Also, the government said you cannot travel to the US and start gossiping about the case until it's over. There's nothing wrong with that either. Even in the West, defendants are not allowed to talk about their specific cases to anyone whilst the case is ongoing in case it prejudices their trial. By going to the US at the behest of women's groups who would then start campaigning on her behalf this would indirectly prejudice her trial, if it has not already done so, since there the only people that are interested in this case are the women's groups in America. In Pakistan at least you have the media hearing the side of the case of the women's groups and that of the defendant lawyers. The case is not over as yet.

In summary, your assertion that she was raped by a governmental law is both pathetic and lame brained.





"You must understand the environment in Pakistan," Musharraf added. "This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped."


In other words, he is letting down his country and boosting his own person image at its expense by stating that it is a practice to get raped in Pakistan to get out of Pakistan!

Is he suggesting that one would enjoy being raped? Or that getting raped is worth the shame just to get out of Pakistan? Is the situation in Pakistan that bad? If so, what is he doing to rectify it?

While personally I think he is doing a good job for Pakistan, yet I feel that these type of statements malign Pakistan more than it does Pakistan good.

I just hope he has not be misquoted or quoted out of context since no one could in his senses say such ridiculous stuff or as a President be so disloyal with such sweeping statements.

Some may have used rape for a visa, though I doubt since Islamic society is very strict amnd unforgiving about such conduct (zani), but it sure cannot be a common practice that warrant his statement that it is the environment in Pakistan!

It really doesnt get through your head Ray. It's very simple. Mush is stating that people MAKE UP stories of getting raped. They dont actually go through the process of getting raped. Then it is up to a court to decide whether they have been raped. Under any court in the world, people are not allowed to prejudice their own cases by talking to media organizations (which US women's groups are indirectly), so she's not allowed to travel until the trial is over, when she is free to say what she wants.

Hongkongfuey
16 Sep 05,, 08:23
Pakistanis, very correctly, are wild.

One does not wash domestic dirty linen on foreign soil!

Not sure what you mean by wild. But if it's anything to do with rapes, India leads the region in that respect.
The following table shows reported rape rates by world regions (1994):
Countries reporting, 63
Median reported rate, 65 per million population
Rates of 90% of countries, Between 7 and 780
Rates of 75% of countries, Between 15 and 300
Eastern Europe, 63 per million population
Western Europe, 63 per million population
North America, 392 per million population
Latin America, 112 per million population
Africa (sub-Sahara), 34 per million population
Arab States, 7 per million population
South Asia, 14 per million population
South East Asia, 49 per million population
East Asia, 63 per million population
Pakistan, 7 per million population (2000-04)
Source: Global Report on Crime & Justice (1999)
http://nation.com.pk/daily/july-2005/28/columns4.php

So, Pakistani wild rape is about half the average for the region comprising mainly of India's billion or so.

Amount
1. United States 89,110 (1999)
2. South Africa 53,008 (2000)
3. Canada 24,049 (2000)
4. Australia 15,630 (2000)
5. India 15,468 (1999)
6. Mexico 13,061 (2000)
7. United Kingdom 8,593 (2000)
8. France 8,458 (2000)
9. Germany 7,499 (2000)
10. Russia 6,978 (2000)
11. Korea, South 6,139 (2000)
12. Spain 5,664 (2000)
13. Zimbabwe 5,567 (2000)
14. Thailand 4,020 (2000)
15. Venezuela 2,931 (2000)
16. Poland 2,399 (2000)
17. Italy 2,336 (2000)
18. Japan 2,260 (2000)
19. Colombia 1861 (2000)
20. Netherlands 1648 (2000)
21. Indonesia 1372 (2000)
22. Jamaica 1304 (2000)
23. Papua New Guinea 1295 (2000)
24. Turkey 1260 (2000)
25. Chile 1250 (2000)
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_rap

Though India has a very large population, much more so than any of those countries, which would make it's rape per capita much less, it still gives an indication of the extent of the problem. Over 15,000 rapes a year with a country population of over 1 bill makes it 15-20 rapes per million of the population. Pakistan's rape is 7 rapes per million of the population.

Confirmation here
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7242_1275109,001800080000.htm

2 rapes per hour.
2 * 24 * 365 = 17,520 rapes a year in India.

Imagine, just one of those is "Mukathar Mai" :rolleyes:

lemontree
16 Sep 05,, 08:37
Hongkong,
Take a break and eat some butter cookies. The article only shows that instead of improving the law enforcement situation in Pakistan, Musharraf is raving and ranting and putting the blame on others for Pakistans lack of justice to its women.
So if you agree with Musharaf while the world is cursing him for those remarks - it make you a jerk like him. Enjoy your "presidential" status. :rolleyes:

Hongkongfuey
16 Sep 05,, 09:07
Hongkong,
Take a break and eat some butter cookies. The article only shows that instead of improving the law enforcement situation in Pakistan, Musharraf is raving and ranting and putting the blame on others for Pakistans lack of justice to its women.
So if you agree with Musharaf while the world is cursing him for those remarks - it make you a jerk like him. Enjoy your "presidential" status. :rolleyes:

Cookies are for wimps. And the whole world is not laughing at him at all. he's made a very good point, namely, let's get things in perspective here, one rape is one too many, but all in all, Pakistan is much better off in those areas that others choose to criticize it. Nothing wrong with stating reality, and the broader picture.

The question of not allowing the woman abroad is a very obvious one that you fail to see.
1) Whenever results are pending, people are not allowed to leave the country as standard procedure, or to talk to groups that might prejudice their trials.
2) If Mukhtar Mai goes to the US before her trial is over, she may never come back if the women's groups kick up enough fuss and get her a green card. Wait till her trial is over, then the women's groups are free to do whatever they want with her.

lemontree
16 Sep 05,, 10:30
Cookies are for wimps. And the whole world is not laughing at him at all. he's made a very good point, namely, let's get things in perspective here, one rape is one too many, but all in all, Pakistan is much better off in those areas that others choose to criticize it. Nothing wrong with stating reality, and the broader picture.

The question of not allowing the woman abroad is a very obvious one that you fail to see.
1) Whenever results are pending, people are not allowed to leave the country as standard procedure, or to talk to groups that might prejudice their trials.
2) If Mukhtar Mai goes to the US before her trial is over, she may never come back if the women's groups kick up enough fuss and get her a green card. Wait till her trial is over, then the women's groups are free to do whatever they want with her.
YAWN.........

Hari_Om
16 Sep 05,, 11:30
The question of not allowing the woman abroad is a very obvious one that you fail to see.




Lemontree is not the only one to have not seen the “obvious”. I must confess that I also seemed to have missed the “obvious”………..


1)Whenever results are pending, people are not allowed to leave the country as standard procedure, or to talk to groups that might prejudice their trials.

Now it may not be “obvious” but there is a distinction between a defendant in a crime and a victim in a crime.

Yes it is certainly practise that the rights of defendants to travel abroad is circumscribed.

However even in that circumstance travel abroad despite the trial not being completed, is permitted. And no I am not talking about the laws of Burundi, but that of Pakistan.

If a precedent where a defendant was permitted to travel abroad while the trial was underway is required, you might want to look up the case of Pakistan People’s Party Secretary General Jehnagir Badr.

That brings us to the question if in Pakistan by a quirk in jurisprudence it is indeed “standard procedure” for victims not being allowed to travel abroad.

If such be the case please advise how President General Musharraf managed travelling abroad while his would be assassins were under trial?


2) If Mukhtar Mai goes to the US before her trial is over, she may never come back if the women's groups kick up enough fuss and get her a green card. Wait till her trial is over, then the women's groups are free to do whatever they want with her.

Once again you are confusing defendant and victim.

The civilized apply “flight risk” to defendants not victims.

Now if flight risk of a victim of a crime is indeed a concern ,please advise why it was not applied in President General Musharraf's case.

Afterall he has the clout to get a Green Card from the State Department ASAP and the strong motive of self preservation. :biggrin:

lemontree
16 Sep 05,, 12:49
Though India has a very large population, much more so than any of those countries, which would make it's rape per capita much less, it still gives an indication of the extent of the problem. Over 15,000 rapes a year with a country population of over 1 bill makes it 15-20 rapes per million of the population. Pakistan's rape is 7 rapes per million of the population.

Confirmation here
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7242_1275109,001800080000.htm

2 rapes per hour.
2 * 24 * 365 = 17,520 rapes a year in India.

By your calculation the percentage of rapes in India are 0.0017% of the population, while in Pakistan the rapes are 0.0019% of the population of 150 million, which is higher than India.
Assuming (not counting the 4 honour killings per day) 8 rapes in 24 hrs.
8*365 = 2920
...including honour killings
12*365 = 4380 , which takes it to 0.0029%.
Reference....

Nationwide, at least eight rape cases are reported every 24 hours.
The Jung (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/apr2005-daily/17-04-2005/oped/o3.htm)

Besides, the point being discussed is that in Pakistan the rape victim is harrased by the state while in all other countries that you listed out the rapist is punished as far as possible. I hope you can understand this simple difference.

bull
16 Sep 05,, 13:16
Though India has a very large population, much more so than any of those countries, which would make it's rape per capita much less, it still gives an indication of the extent of the problem. Over 15,000 rapes a year with a country population of over 1 bill makes it 15-20 rapes per million of the population. Pakistan's rape is 7 rapes per million of the population.

2 rapes per hour.
2 * 24 * 365 = 17,520 rapes a year in India.

Imagine, just one of those is "Mukathar Mai" :rolleyes:

I think u understand that the above statistics are based on the rape cases reported and not occured.

Western societies are much more transparent and such issues/rapes get reported much better than in any other part of the world.

And now as usual dont make it a pakistan Vs india rape match.Neither of us is better off.

The present comments by posters here was on the comment was on what mushraff said.Now by saying that the best way to be a millionaire is to get one selves raped mushraff has insulted the full female pop.How may cases are known in pakistan where rapes are fabricated by the woman?Does ushraff have any record which proves it.

That statement of mushraff was totally stupid

Jay
16 Sep 05,, 14:18
How may cases are known in pakistan where rapes are fabricated by the woman?Does Mushraff have any record which proves it.

Actually its the other way, women will be scared to complain as the victim will either be harrased to commit suicide or leads to honor killing.

Jay
16 Sep 05,, 14:20
Yes it is certainly practise that the rights of defendants to travel abroad is circumscribed.

However even in that circumstance travel abroad despite the trial not being completed, is permitted. And no I am not talking about the laws of Burundi, but that of Pakistan.
Exactly my thots. Just becoz there is a trial by/against you in a court of law doesnt bar you to travel overseas. "I think" the opponent has to make a formal application to the Judge to restrict the travel.


The civilized apply “flight risk” to defendants not victims.
:rolleyes: