Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his political allies have sparked controversy by recently passing a bill that was strongly opposed by the third largest group in their National Assembly. Opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman said, “This bill is against the Holy Koran. We will reject it and try to block it in any possible manner.”
The bill is so controversial that Rehman and his allies responded to its introduction by tearing up copies and storming out of a recent parliament meeting. Some chanted, “death to Musharraf” and “Allah is great.”
What's the big deal?
Most bills are met with political opposition, and fundamental Muslims aren't exactly known for their desire to appease ideological opponents -- but this one is a bit different. The bill that the Pakistani government just passed -- the same bill that united Rehman and his brethren in such passionate opposition -- is called the “Protection of Women” bill.
Before the Protection of Women bill, rape victims in Pakistan were required to produce four male witnesses in order to meet the burden of proof for a conviction --- and here come four words you’d never expect to follow that last sentence --- And that’s not all.
Before the bill, if a woman pressed charges for rape, but was unable to meet the "four male" burden of proof, she could then be prosecuted for adultery. As of this March there were over 4,600 women in Pakistani prisons awaiting trial for adultery. The former rape law (requiring the four witnesses) was one of a set of decrees known as the Hudood ordinance, that went into effect in 1979.
Reading this begs the obvious question; Has there been a single rape conviction in Pakistan since 1979?
I was thinking about the legislature’s intent when passing the Hudood laws. Did the discussion amongst Pakistani lawmakers in 1979 sound like this?
Senator 1 – “Look, I want to legalize rape as much as everyone else, but I think women should be raped behind closed doors. We don’t want to see rapes in public places. All of that screaming and commotion will be distracting to people trying to do business in the streets. And rapes may draw a lot of onlookers, and that'll slow down traffic in busier cities.”
Senator 2 – “So why not require the woman to produce four witnesses to the rape in order to convict? That’ll get people to do it behind closed doors.”
Senator 1 – “Make it four ‘male’ witnesses... just in case.”
Senator 3 – “Call it punishable adultery if she can’t produce the four male witnesses and you’ve got my support.”
No comments:
Post a Comment