Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 24th March, 2012 and can be found here.

Pakistan and the United States of America may seem like polar opposites, but when you push aside the semantics, you’ll find the same people everywhere: insecure, intolerant, injudicious and irrational.

In Pakistan:

The Domestic Violence Bill was first proposed in the Senate in 2009 and has since been lying dormant and the subject of much disapproval and suspicion. Members of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) [extreme-right-winged religious party] have said that the Bill was unislamic for promoting “western-style freedoms”. At first glance, the fact that the JUI-F are opposing something named Domestic Violence Bill seems to be self-serving.  Take a deeper look and you’ll find that they’re not wrong in opposing the bill as it is currently drafted – however, their grounds for rejection are more than flawed. Beside the abysmal state of drafting (e.g. the definition of “sexual abuse” contains the phrase “any kind of sexual abuse”), I have the following problems with the Domestic Violence Bill  as it is posed today and I’ll leave you to make up your own opinion on the matter.

First, its application seemingly is only in Islamabad Capital Territory – acts committed outside the jurisdiction are non-actionable under this Bill. Section 7 states that an “aggrieved person” shall not be evicted from the household without consent “whether or not he or she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.” Household is not defined.

Where most people seem to have taken issue is the clause defining Domestic Violence, to include “Emotional, psychological and verbal abuse” which is further explained as “repeated exhibition of obsessive possessiveness or jealousy constituting serious invasion of the victim’s privacy, liberty, integrity and security”.

The Bill means well – it aims to cover all forms of domestic violence, whether they relate to a married couple or an adopted child or a member of the family with special needs (coming under the definition of a “vulnerable person”). However, the potential that the Bill be misused and abused – as it is framed right now – is vast. It appears that it has been drafted on emotion and not on prudent understanding of the real issues. Much like the disinterest that was seen in Parliament during the passing of the Women’s Protection Bill (which has somewhat done away with the hudood ordinance backlash that left women at the mercy of the interpreters of the rape laws) – when female members of parliament were against this bill only because it was said to be against the injunctions of Islam. Why didn’t they take the time to do their job and understand the issue or even understand the purported injunctions of Islam that were the backing of such legislation? Because they were unfazed by its repercussions.

Similarly, those who have drafted this Bill, although meaning well, have not done so in the most sensible fashion. Legislation proposing to give the weaker members of society a voice is bound to be criticized and delayed; just like in the Acid Control and Crimes Act took a year to pass and the Anti-Women Practices Act which took three; it’s a shame reckless drafting is only further hampering the process.

In America:

The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization. Since is enactment in 1994, there’s been a reported 50% fall in spousal abuse cases. The reauthorization would continue the current grants program, expanding efforts to reach the Native American Indian tribes and further allow safeguards to lesbian, bisexual and transgendered victims alike. In the words of Senator Patrick Leahy, “a victim is a victim.”

Some Republicans (or the American version of the JUI-F, however you wish to see it) think the reauthorization would widen immigration avenues (immigrant victims may claim battery) and “dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples”.  The NY Times reported that “the conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called the Violence Against Women Act a slush fund ‘used to fill feminist coffers’ and demanded that Republicans stand up against legislation that promotes ‘divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.’”

Vice President Joe Biden is pushing this re-authorization. “Imagine now the message it sends if [the law is] not reauthorized. Just ask yourself, what message would be sent to every one of our daughters, every one imprisoned in her own home?”

Granted, the debate in the U.S. Senate is on how much funding is going to be afforded to this program and who all shall be entitled to claim benefit under it, which is a step ahead of where Pakistan’s Domestic Violence Bill rests. The National Task Force to end Domestic Violence Against Women said that the reauthorization had been filed as “motion to proceed” in the Senate and is likely to be debated on the Senate floor next week.

Coming together:

An argument in the Pakistani Senate was that if the Domestic Violence Bill were passed, a spouse couldn’t question the other as to where they had been even if they come home at four in the morning, drunk. To this, Mr. Abbas Nasir, writer for a leading Pakistani newspaper said, “If his contention hadn’t been so sad, it would have been laughable. Doesn’t he know that if your spouse (man or woman) arrives home at four in the morning and you haven’t the foggiest where they have been and why, your relationship may well be over anyway and is best terminated?”

The president of Concerned Women for America, Penny Nance, wrote members of the U.S. Congress to oppose the Violence Against Women Act. “It pits husbands against wives,” said Janice Crouse, spokeswoman for the group. She said elements of the law were triggered by “very flimsy” claims of abuse. “A woman can, with the barest evidence and no evidence at all, claim abuse and get him out of the house.”

Moral of the story:

We’re all the same, save our preference for fashion.

'Til Kingdom Come

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 20th February, 2012 and can be found here.

It’s never a dull moment in Pakistan, but various moments filled with dull people. A rally was held on January 28, in the city of Rawalpindi, against the establishment of a place of worship by the Ahmeddia community. The Ahmedi’s are a minority community who consider themselves a sect within Islam, but were declared non-Muslims in 1974 by the government. A place where Ahmedi’s had been praying for the past 17 years (it is illegal for them to call their place of worship a “mosque”) became a central point of contention when, in the words of the official press release of the Ahmeddia Community, “miscreants” wanted to deprive them of the right to pray there.

Just some two weeks after this rally, the Lahore Bar Association banned the sale of products produced by Shezan, a company owned by Ahmedi’s, in the cafeterias of the subordinate courts. Of course, drinking fruit juice that came out of the factory premises of someone you consider an infidel must be a crime. I can just see the next campaign: “Satan loves Shezan”. Speaking with a local paper, the Lahore Bar Association Vice President Rana Javed Bashir Khan said cafeteria managers at subordinate courts would be directed to stop buying or selling Shezan products. He said strict action would be taken against those who did not heed the ban.

Then there’s Difa-e-Pakistan (literally: Defense of Pakistan), an emerging political or social force – it is still unclear which – that neatly amalgamates the extreme right and some supposed progressives into one little group, sealed with an intolerant chant. On February 12th, Difa-e-Pakistan held a rally that had attendee’s carrying portraits of Mumtaz Qadri, the assassin of former Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer over a blasphemy controversy. They were chanting slogans against Ahmedis and their ‘uncalled for’ activities in Rawalpindi. Praying is uncalled for, apparently.

All the while it is estimated that some 150 people have died in terrorism-related violence in the month of February so far. The bigger issues: the feeding of this rage and this anger that is translating into terrorism, terrorizing Ahmedi‘s and non-Shezan-drinkers alike, go unnoticed. The fact that Difa-e-Pakistan was allowed to host such a large gathering of people, propagate an agenda that is clearly exhorting violence and get all the media coverage they want, should leave us in a panicky-dismay. Instead, we defend them with the right to free speech – not realizing the difference between speaking your mind and inciting terrorism. We brush that off and sit around and debate the rights and benefits of selling fruit juice.

Followers of any faith will tell you that ‘Til Kingdom Come, there can be no judgment and no condemnation. That’s God’s job. The Qur’an talks about how the Jews and the Christians before the Muslims thought they too were God’s chosen people and would be awarded Heaven for their lineage alone. The Qur’an also says that they are mistaken. Where do we as Muslims get off thinking we’d be given the benefit of a different yardstick? Where do we get the right to brand the other a non-believer, liable to burn for time immemorial?

Come Judgment Day, will we be able to substantiate our claim of a moral high ground? If not, should we not be more concerned about the rampant support of groups such as Difa-e-Pakistan instead of making the life of another, equally entitled, completely unbearable and void of spiritual rights?

I suggest we all discuss this over a carton of Shezan juice.

The Power Game Where Women Always Lose

Note: A version of this article was first posted on the Foreign Policy Blogs Network on 25th March, 2012 and can be found here.

Last year, a girl named Amina El-Filali was raped in her town of Larache, Morocco, where her parents filed a criminal complaint. The case was taken to court where, in accordance with Article 475 of the Penal Code the judge ordered the rapist to marry his victim, thereby absolving him of his crime. Since Amina was a minor, the court was required to obtain the consent of her parents before authorizing this marriage; Amina’s father now says he was pressured into agreeing to the marriage. Under the Family Code, once a decision is passed by the judge, it cannot be reversed.

Amina committed suicide last week. She was 16.

A bill was first introduced into the Moroccan legislature in 2008 to amend this law, but has been shelved since. Legislation, much like rape, is a power game. Since those who have the authority and power to change this law are unaffected by it, they do not pursue it with urgency. Requiring a woman to marry her rapist is telling her that her being is restricted to the honor (or dishonor) it brings to the family. No longer a virgin, she would only bring shame, so transfer her legal status to the man that started this mess to begin with – she’s his problem now. A hand-me-down.

It is this chauvinistic mentality that led to the creation of a law in Pakistan that required a woman to produce four witnesses before she could accuse someone of rape. This was the law of the land for some 27 years before it was amended in 2006. There were numerous movements in Pakistan throughout the years to change those laws, but they were always debated out of Parliament and vetoed by female parliamentarians just as much as men. Why? These women were from affluent families that remained sheltered from such crimes and they were told by clerics that changing this law (that was introduced in the garb of a religious mandate) would be against Islam – and these women blindly agreed.

Various countries have a law similar to Morocco, where the rapist gets away by marrying his victim. The fact that most of these countries are predominantly Muslim is often cited to be the reason for such codification; it is becoming a fad to blame all ill on Islam. I find no such injunctions in the Qur’an, and even though rape is not specifically mentioned, the Bible does address sex outside of the marriage contract:

“And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” (Exodus 22:16-17 – similarly, see Deuteronomy 22:25-30)

Whether based on religion or not, there is no argument for forcing a girl to marry her offender (or forcibly marrying anyone, for that matter – but that’s another debate all together) for shame of “losing her honor” for no fault of her own.

It wasn’t until 1991 that the English courts recognized marital rape as a crime; before such time, consent to sex was implied in a marriage. The House of Lords unanimously threw out this principle, calling it a “common law fiction” which was “absurd”. Many countries now recognize marital rape as a punishable criminal offense; many still, do not.

Moroccan women have taken to the streets to push the bill from 2008 into law. Let’s hope it doesn’t take the life of another Amina before we can discard these incongruous laws world over; because in the words of the House of Lords, they really have “no useful purpose to serve”.