the hypocricy just makes me sick... and alot of americans are still sucking up all the fucking lies being fed to them daily... this isnt an ally of mine! and neither is my current government that claims pakistan to be an ally

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asi ... 521834.ece

Pakistan Rape Reform Fails After Musharraf Caves In
By Jerome Taylor
The Independent UK

Tuesday 12 September 2006

In a setback for women's rights in Pakistan, the ruling party in Islamabad has caved in to religious conservatives by dropping its plans to reform rape laws.

Statutes known as the Hudood ordinances, based on sharia law, currently operate in Pakistan. They require a female rape victim to produce four male witnesses to corroborate her account, or she risks facing a new charge of adultery.

The ruling party in Islamabad, made up of a coalition of groups allied to President Pervez Musharraf, had hoped the new Protection of Women Bill would place the crime of rape within the country's secular penal code, which works in tandem with sharia.

But the government said rape would remain a crime punished by Islamic law yesterday after conservatives in an opposition group, Muttahida Majlis-I-Amal (MMA), threatened to walk out of parliament in protest if the government pushed ahead with reforms.

"If there are four witnesses it will be tried under [Islamic law], if there are not, it will be tried under the penal code," said the law minister, Mohammad Wasi Zafar. "In the case of both adultery and rape, the judge will decide how to try the case." A new amended bill will now be presented to parliament on Wednesday.

The news is a significant victory for the MMA, which have vehemently opposed any attempts to lessen the influence of sharia.

The Hudood ordinances were enshrined in Pakistani law in 1979 by General Zia ul-Haq in an attempt to appease the country's powerful religious elite following his military coup. They have been routinely criticised by local and international rights groups. Previous governments under Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have tried to repeal the laws but failed.

General Musharraf had told rights groups he was willing to back plans for rape to be tried in the secular courts as part of his much trumpeted "enlightened moderation" ideology. The timing of the amended bill will be embarrassing for the President, who is touring Europe and the United States. Pakistan's Western allies have pressured General Musharraf to improve the rights situation in his country, particularly for women.

The failure of the new bill will be also be a bitter disappointment to women's groups in Pakistan, which have campaigned against the Hudood ordinances. Most women refuse to report a rape for fear they will be treated as a criminal. Under current laws, a victim risks courting punishment if she reports a rape allegation as the Hudood ordinances criminalise all extra-marital sex. A woman who fails to prove that she was raped could then be charged with adultery under the same legislation.

According to a 2002 report by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a woman is raped every two hours and gang raped every eight hours. However, because of social taboos, discriminatory laws and victimisation of victims by police, campaigners say that the scale of rape is almost certainly higher.

Despite the dangers, Pakistani women had begun to fight back. In 2002, a woman named Mukhtar Mai forced the government drastically to reassess women's rights in Pakistan after she dared to speak out publicly. She had been gang-raped by a number of men on the orders of a village council.

The Protection of Women Bill was, until yesterday, part of the government's attempts to reform Pakistan's laws following her rape.

Read an interesting little article on Pakistan's military ruler:

Ziauddin Sardar on Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan

President Pervez Musharraf does not see himself as a dictator. On the contrary, he projects himself as a modern, tolerant, enlightened man tirelessly working to restore democracy to Pakistan. This country needs my leadership, he has declared on numerous occasions.

Musharraf came to power in 1999 after ousting the civilian government of Nawaz Sharif. Sharif had brought the country to its knees: corruption was endemic, ethnic warfare was tearing Pakistan apart, the economy was near collapse. The army had to take over, Musharraf told the country, "as a last resort to prevent any further destabilisation". Since then, he has ruled Pakistan with as much cunning as brute power.

Musharraf is the third of the great military dictators who have ruled Pakistan, on and off, for more than 30 years. Like his predecessor, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, he is a shrewd operator, skilful at manipulating his political opponents, congenial, is fond of lecturing his nation, and has a short fuse. Like Ayyub Khan, the first military dictator of Pakistan, he believes in "guided democracy", a historically established euphemism for army rule.

After coming to power, Musharraf began implementing an elaborate plan to introduce grassroots democracy. He established regional and city assemblies, promoted the participation of women and peasants, and held elections. He went on to introduce parliamentary democracy and set up a National Assembly. But all this was done, in the true Pakistani military tradition, after he had introduced a few notable constitut ional changes. Musharraf's constitutional amend ments, the Legal Framework Order (LFO), give him the power to sack prime ministers, dissolve parliaments and make him both head of the army and head of state.Not surprisingly, the National Assembly refused to endorse his amendment. So Musharraf went directly to the voters, who had, by now, warmed to him. A referendum in April 2002 extended his rule for five years.

There is little doubt that the "war on terror" has given Musharraf added respectability. Wash ington loves him because he is just the kind of authoritarian leader they like to do business with. He is not only a vital ally but someone with deep inside knowledge of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the jihadi movements - indeed, his army and intelligence services helped to create them in the first place. Musharraf has used his privileged position to gain considerable benefits. He had sanctions against Pakistan, imposed because of its nuclear programme, lifted; secured a $1bn aid package; and negotiated the purchase of new weapons.

But Musharraf is aware that his supporters in Washington and London are embarrassed by the fact that he is, after all is said and done, an unelected, military ruler. He is about to put that right too, by holding presidential elections when his current term ends next year. Given the make-up of national and regional assemblies, he is assured of re-election; and he can then announce his democratic credentials to the world.

There's only one problem. Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, the disposed and discredited leaders living in exile, are plotting against him. The two heads of the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Pakistan Muslim League are the only grass-roots politicians who can stand against Musharraf. They have now put their differences aside and signed a "Charter for Democracy" calling for the repeal of the LFO, the return of the army to the barracks and the restoration of full democracy to Pakistan. Bhutto and Sharif also want an independent election commission to be set up to ensure free and fair polls.

Proud to be Pakistani

Musharraf has threatened both leaders with dire consequences if they return to Pakistan. Sharif has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for corruption and there are numerous warrants against Bhutto. But in all probability, he will call their bluff. He could call an election in April, leaving Bhutto and Sharif unprepared to participate in a full-blown election. Even if he allows them time to prepare, he will find some way to short-change them. The champion of "enlightened moderation" is determined to be around for some time.

Musharraf may be a dictator, but he is strictly not of the tin-pot variety. He has survived two assassination attempts and numerous political upheavals. Under him, Pakistan has achieved high rates of economic growth but he has not accumulated any personal wealth, something that ordinary Pakistanis appreciate. He has also not muzzled the press, which aggressively maintains its independence. The leaders of other Muslim states hold him in high esteem. He is seen by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (the Muslim world's counterpart to the UN) as a "man of action" who gets things moving. And he is one of the few leaders in the world who has a finger on the nuclear button.

Last year, I bumped into him in the restaurant of the Intercontinental Hotel in Islamabad. He came over to my table and patted me on the back. "I am very interested," he said, "in the opinions of learned Pakistanis like you." "I am British," I replied. "And I think Pakistan is a failed state." "We will change your mind," he shot back. "We will make you proud to be a Pakistani." The only way he can do that is to hang up his military uniform.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040030

My be worth checking out the website; they did a list of "worst" dictators in the world recently.

thanks for posting this, very disturbing

i have hope that one day the american people will come out of there terror filled slumber and actually start taking a look at what is happening in their name with their wealth

the true ALLY !

I am not defending the human rights violations that take place in Pakistan, but it should not be overlooked that Musharraf has stuck his neck out to aid the United States in the War on Terror. The majority of high-value Al-Qaeda operatives have been captured in Pakistan and Musharraf has survived at least two assassination attempts as a result.

i do not agree...they refuse to let our guys on the ground, and it widely accepted that al-queda is operating out of pakistan with imunity...not to mention the head of their Nuke program was selling information to EVERYONE

So in light of Pakistan's refusal to allow US troops to violate their sovereignty, what should we do.....invade?

Sadly, you have to choose your battles. If we chose not to work with Pakistan over this, our efforts to fight terrorism would greatly suffer.

now now....you know as well as i do that the world of politics is black and white, cut and dry, theres no give or take what soever.

sadly, its more, with every action there is an opposite action elsewhere. this is what gives me a chuckle about all the monday morning qb's on here on what the foreign policy should be. they have not a clue

What?

Did Peeps just complain about people seeing things only in black and white?

ill dumb it down, even further for you

for every action theres an oppsite reaction. if we pull all our money away from the holy land, there will be repercussions, no matter how easy it may appear to do else wise

Please, enlighten the despots that wallow in the shadows of ignorance.

C'mon now - everybody in N&D (including you) is backseat driving. It's more fun this way.

I'd say we've got too much on our plate already to start up a beef with Pakistan. Let's save that lollipop for later.

i think im one of the few that believe we cant just pull out our support for our jewish friends, something alot figures have to do with the middle east hating us, because there would be ramifications placed upon us that people are not considering

for example

I (the US) am giving you (Israel) $10 (a bajillion). out of that ten, you give your mother (saudia arabia) $2, your brother (sudan) $3, your sister (egypt) $1 and you keep $4 of that for yourself.

so if i take away my aid to you, I am not just affecting you, but others to, cause your mother (saudia arabia) is also giving money to her cousin, her aunt and so on.

so while its easy enough to say we should stop giving aid to Israel, it would have a more global effect on the world than anyone considers.

the ways of the world are never black and white. everyone is always scratching somone else back as they pass a few dollars around

For 3rd PSC I lived next to a tent full of high ranking Pakistani special forces officers.

I gotta be honest, at first I was a little suspicious and leery. But once we got to know them my outlook changed. When it came to work, they were extremely professiona. Not only that, but they were proficient too. They were extremely intelligent and knowledgable as well. When it came to time off...they were like one of the boys. Quite friendly and outgoing if you took the time to talk to them. They were interesting people with interesting lives to talk about.

They certainly didn't strike me as the servants of a dictator type.

I don't think a woman should need no more than THREE male witnesses to a rape in order to avoid adultery charges.

You probably didn't talk about rape laws.