NationStates Jolt Archive

So let me get this straight, they are angry that the fact that President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is making it easier for rape victims to have their rape trail heard, and for the raptist to get a fairer sentance if found guilty? The horrors, the horrors! Next thing you know, women will want to DRIVE! Ahh those crazy people.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2715462

Thousands Rally Over Pakistan Rape Law

By ZARAR KHAN

KARACHI, Pakistan Dec 11, 2006 (AP)— More than 20,000 supporters of an Islamic alliance rallied Sunday, demanding the government withdraw changes to a controversial rape statute that they say go against Islam.

The protesters condemned President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, many chanting "Death to Musharraf." One carried a sign reading, "No to conspiracy for indecency and obscenity."

Musharraf last week signed into law some amendments to the Hudood Ordinance, a 1979 law against rape that human rights activists said punished rape victims while providing legal safeguards for their attackers.

The ordinance required a rape victim to produce four witnesses in court to prove her assault claim. Under the new amendment, judges can choose whether a rape case should be tried in a criminal court where the four-witness rule does not apply or under the Islamic ordinance.

The new law also drops the death penalty for sex outside of marriage. The offense now would be punishable with five years in prison or a fine of $165.

Human rights groups have hailed the amendments but Muslim groups claim the changes go against Islam. Opposition Islamic groups have held a series of protests against the new law since it was passed by Parliament last month.

"We will not only force Musharraf to withdraw the bill through a people's movement, but we will end all the illegal acts of Musharraf's government," said Maualana Fazlur Rahman, a senior figure in the religious alliance and leader of the opposition in the lower house of Parliament.

More than 300 riot police were deployed to keep the peace in Karachi on Sunday, said police officer Mohammed Khurram. No violence was reported.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

the four witnesses to sexual "crimes existed as a protection of privacy long before classical liberalism created modern civil rights. the four witnesses are also required in order to condemn a homosexual offender. they aren't defending rape, they're defending a very ancient form of privacy law and civil rights. in many ways the standard 4 witness requirement renders safe people who would otherwise be tried and punished for victimless crimes. I had no idea it was also applied to rapists, but it's a rough parallel to the bill of rights, in the context of the sharia. this is not just about people loving rape and wanting to protect rapists - this is about people protecting a long held tennent of muslim culture that privacy in the home is held sacrosanct. muslim law in this respect is more liberal than many sexual promiscuity laws on the books in the US until quite recently. 50 years ago police could drag me out of my bed in the middle of the night for sleeping with a man and put me in jail. that was illegal under the sharia *500* years ago. again - I suspect they are protesting a violation of an ancient form of civil rights, not that rapists are being held accountable.

I'm not even that familiar with islam jurisprudence, but it seems obvious to me that the people reporting on this are trying to twist it to show islam in a worse light than is strictly true. the stiff requirement for proof is an ancient safegaurd *against* the death penalty for things like adultery and homosexuality. the protestors are upset not because of the rape thing, but because the insistance on 4 witnesses is a very very ancient civil rights protection. choosing to report on this the way these people did is deliberately casting a negative light on muslim culture. I'm pretty damn sure the followers of islam have no more love for rapists than we do.

Then how do you explain this?

Musharraf last week signed into law some amendments to the Hudood Ordinance, a 1979 law against rape that human rights activists said punished rape victims while providing legal safeguards for their attackers.

Then how do you explain this?

As far as I understand it, they aren't protesting against that side of it.

Then how do you explain this?

"punish the victim" is an EXTREMELY subjective way of putting it. the implication is that because the victim does not see retribution against her attacker, she is "punished" - the laws do not do anything against the victim, they are just a stiff protection of the rights of the accused. that sucks when they accused is guilty, but it's a very very good thing when the accused is innocent. many muslim nations now interpret the 4 witnesses thing to be "either 4 people say it, or one peice of hard evidence proves it" - most muslim jurists will now accept that DNA testing and the like in the case of rape makes the 4 witnesses pointless. others will insist that a "witness" is any peice of material evidence. again - this is about the right to a fair trial, and considering the traditional punishments for most things, that is VERY important. as far as the punishments - they are in now way unique to islam, they are a cultural thing. look up some traditional punishments for things like theft or identify fraud in england even 300 years ago, and you'll realize islamic jurisprudence is not very backward at all.

They're apparently not only protesting the dropping of the 4 eye witness, but that the sex outside of marriage (does not equal to rape in many cases) does not mean death anymore. As for the 4 eyewitness account, while that may have to do with privacy, how often does a rape have 4 eye witnesses?

They're apparently not only protesting the dropping of the 4 eye witness, but that the sex outside of marriage (does not equal to rape in many cases) does not mean death anymore. As for the 4 eyewitness account, while that may have to do with privacy, how often does a rape have 4 eye witnesses?

how do you know they're protesting the lack of death penalty more than the lack of civil rights? I garentee you when our ancestors finally gave up biblical punishments for adultery and fornication, there were a few religious folk protesting. hands down 300 years ago you'd rather be gay in pakistan than gay in massachusetts. cut them some slack - they've been too busy worrying about cleaning up after the mongol invasions to modernise their legal code. besides, it was *technically* legal to shoot a mormon on sight in Illinois until 2002. it was *technically* legal to arrest a man and imprison him for sex with another man in texas within my lifetime. technically I can be legally be kicked out of my apartment or fired from my job here in arkansas because I'm gay. when the jews and gypsies were freed from concentration camps, because of the modern german laws, american soldiers escorted the gay guys right back into prison after they got out of the camps. the letter of the law is rarely followed - and frankly america is not one to be pointing fingers. women had better legal standing in Islam than in america or europe until about 100 years ago...and the western legal system has only very, very recently become anything less than a horror. ever seen Les Miserables?

---

and again, as far as the four eyewitnesses - most muslim jurists accept that a "witness" can be material evidence. the victim's testimony, a dna sample, a fingerprint, and a bruise could be enough to convict the raptist. that's not any worse than our legal system here in the US. many jurists will accept a *single* peice of material evidence to be equivolent to 4 eyewitnesses. in ancient times there *were* no material evidences, and if you weren't aware, unmarried girls have long made a habit in certain cultures of accusing men they liked of raping them, so they would be forced into marriage. this practice is, actually, rather more common than actual rape itself. there is *far* more to these protests than meets the western eye, and it pisses me off that the journalists were not responsible enough to commicate that muslims are not out defending rape...:headbang:

I think the protests are probably more because punishment for sex outside of marridge has been reduced - thus in some eyes opening up the doors to 'indecency and obscenity'.

But Musharraf has long been criticised for altering criminal law that relates to morality and/or that goes through the Islamic courts.

But of course there will be the few religious extremists who cling to tradition at all costs. Much like the Christians in the USA who are prepared to commit terrorist attacks against abortion clinics and the staff that work there.

Oh, and you might want to unquote the article. Or at least the bit that says you're in breach of US copyright law... "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."

to vegan nuts.

first of very interesting replies. gives a nice bit of perspective.

The only point i make with your arguments is your reference to the past. Yes maybe the 'sharia' system had its benefits compared to som western systems in the past. they don't now.
Its an interesting first step, but alot more needs to be done, not only in pakistan but in the rest of the muslim world, where the laws are still....archaic.

to vegan nuts.

first of very interesting replies. gives a nice bit of perspective.

The only point i make with your arguments is your reference to the past. Yes maybe the 'sharia' system had its benefits compared to som western systems in the past. they don't now.
Its an interesting first step, but alot more needs to be done, not only in pakistan but in the rest of the muslim world, where the laws are still....archaic.

I agree - believe me, I'm dead under quite a few of these laws! but perpetuating stereotypes that all muslims are backwards misogynistic fanatics is not going to help open up a dialogue or change anything. unless we understand the culture when we try to engage it, it's just going to react hostilely.

Musharraf is the best thing that ever happened to that country. They just don't know it because they're utter twats.

Just out of curiosity, would someone like to take a guess as to when Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment?





1995.

that's right: in this very nation, the ban on slavery was not complete until little more than a decade ago.


If the dispute over this is any worse than the civil rights riots of the 20th century in the USA, let me know.

that puts Pakistan just about on par with us.

Just out of curiosity, would someone like to take a guess as to when Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment?





1995.

that's right: in this very nation, the ban on slavery was not complete until little more than a decade ago.


If the dispute over this is any worse than the civil rights riots of the 20th century in the USA, let me know.

that puts Pakistan just about on par with us.

:fluffle:
thanks...considering 40 years ago people were rioting *across the street* from where I am sitting right now, because black kids were trying to go to school in the same building as white kids, I find it rather distressing when people claim that the muslim world is particularly backward.

:fluffle:
thanks...considering 40 years ago people were rioting *across the street* from where I am sitting right now, because black kids were trying to go to school in the same building as white kids, I find it rather distressing when people claim that the muslim world is particularly backward.

Yeah, and in some parts of my country, people are still vociferously decrying desegregation, I'd tend to agree that we're in a glass house over here in the West when criticising other countries.

Just out of curiosity, would someone like to take a guess as to when Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment?





1995.

that's right: in this very nation, the ban on slavery was not complete until little more than a decade ago.


If the dispute over this is any worse than the civil rights riots of the 20th century in the USA, let me know.

that puts Pakistan just about on par with us.

Except that id did not matter wether they approved it in 1995 or not.

I think its good that they're getting rid of Sharia law in this area. It does protect rapists as it currently stands. They just charge the woman with adultery and give her the death penalty. Lets remember that if you have been raped, you are the victim, not the guilty party. Should I also mention that the rapist often gets let off because there isn't enough evidence for a conviction?

hey im not saying rape is good but i dont think u should say its the muslims saying this i mean im muslim and this is what i think of rapist :upyours: so what i say is DEATH TO RAPIST!!!!!!! :mp5:

They're apparently not only protesting the dropping of the 4 eye witness, but that the sex outside of marriage (does not equal to rape in many cases) does not mean death anymore. As for the 4 eyewitness account, while that may have to do with privacy, how often does a rape have 4 eye witnesses?

Yes! When the 4 eye witnesses are helping the rapist commit the crime ...

I worked for a county clerk for a while, and I have to say that this kind of attitude toward rape and rape victims just isn't surprising at all. I don't know why people seem to think that this kind of hatred of women is unique to Muslim countries.

Every day I would deal with people who felt that it's far too easy for women to file charges against a rapist, and who ranted endlessly about the men who have their lives ruined by false rape charges. (Never mind that such false charges are extremely rare, far more rare than false theft charges or assault charges, and the fact that more rapists end up getting away with their crime then ever are caught and convicted.)

Every day there would be some man explaining why women aren't to be trusted. Why women lie, and make up stories, and do anything they can to trap poor, innocent men. If a woman claims she's been raped, why, she must have just changed her mind after the fact! Women are all like that!

Every day there would be somebody insisting that she must have consented because she was dressed for sex, or because she flirted, or because she agreed to dance with him or take a ride in his car.

And this was in a major city in a blue state in the USofA.

I say we in the west need to clean our own damn house before we yell at the Muslims about the filth in theirs.

Snip with very valid points.

Even then, it's a small percentage of both muslims and Americans that go about naturalizing rape and standing against laws that oppose it. I'd say about the same percentage in both.

I agree - believe me, I'm dead under quite a few of these laws! but perpetuating stereotypes that all muslims are backwards misogynistic fanatics is not going to help open up a dialogue or change anything. unless we understand the culture when we try to engage it, it's just going to react hostilely.

Well, and what you're bringing up is important...because if we can look at a system and say..."it was always bad, look at how it is now, that is a reflection of how terrible it must have been in the past, because as we know, things can only get better, not worse"...then it is much easier to dismiss this system, and seek to destroy it. And that is EXACTLY what so many people are pushing these days...the idea that it's always been so horrible (compared to the west, what a laugh) and that since it obviously can't be fixed, it must be destroyed and replaced with Western thought (which has been cleaned up, or the terrible history of human rights abuses ignored completely).

I worked for a county clerk for a while, and I have to say that this kind of attitude toward rape and rape victims just isn't surprising at all. I don't know why people seem to think that this kind of hatred of women is unique to Muslim countries.

Every day I would deal with people who felt that it's far too easy for women to file charges against a rapist, and who ranted endlessly about the men who have their lives ruined by false rape charges. (Never mind that such false charges are extremely rare, far more rare than false theft charges or assault charges, and the fact that more rapists end up getting away with their crime then ever are caught and convicted.)

Every day there would be some man explaining why women aren't to be trusted. Why women lie, and make up stories, and do anything they can to trap poor, innocent men. If a woman claims she's been raped, why, she must have just changed her mind after the fact! Women are all like that!

Every day there would be somebody insisting that she must have consented because she was dressed for sex, or because she flirted, or because she agreed to dance with him or take a ride in his car.

And this was in a major city in a blue state in the USofA.

I say we in the west need to clean our own damn house before we yell at the Muslims about the filth in theirs.

Well, DNA evidence is gold in US courts, no matter what the human witnesses say.

Under sharia law, DNA is not admissible evidence.

That's a big difference...

So let me get this straight, they are angry that the fact that President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is making it easier for rape victims to have their rape trail heard, and for the raptist to get a fairer sentance if found guilty? The horrors, the horrors! Next thing you know, women will want to DRIVE! Ahh those crazy people.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2715462

Good laws or bad, isn't it interesting that the opponents think that it requires the death of Musharraf to rectify the situation? What kind of a commentary on the Pakistani culture is that?

Well, DNA evidence is gold in US courts, no matter what the human witnesses say.

Under sharia law, DNA is not admissible evidence.

That's a big difference...

The presence of DNA does not add up to rape.

The difference is not as large as you make it out to be.

Good laws or bad, isn't it interesting that the opponents think that it requires the death of Musharraf to rectify the situation? What kind of a commentary on the Pakistani culture is that?

Yeah no doubt! Kind of like...hmmm...oh, all the people who thought the Dixie Chicks should die for saying something scathing about Bush?

Bloody savages!

So let me get this straight, they are angry that the fact that President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is making it easier for rape victims to have their rape trail heard, and for the raptist to get a fairer sentance if found guilty? The horrors, the horrors! Next thing you know, women will want to DRIVE! Ahh those crazy people.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2715462
Actually the part about the rapist getting a fairer sentance is for Adultry, not Rape.
The new law also drops the death penalty for sex outside of marriage. The offense now would be punishable with five years in prison or a fine of $165.

Good laws or bad, isn't it interesting that the opponents think that it requires the death of Musharraf to rectify the situation? What kind of a commentary on the Pakistani culture is that?

It's a "So, 10,000 people out of 165,803,560 are morons" commentary. Your point being?

Yeah Myrm...I not going to judge your culture, or your society based on the bizarre rants and abhorent protests of The Phelps and his gang...

I'm not even going to lump all the religious freaks in your country TOGETHER and do that. But if I did...you can be sure it would look preeeettttttyyyyy bad.

Yeah Myrm...I not going to judge your culture, or your society based on the bizarre rants and abhorent protests of The Phelps and his gang...

I'm not even going to lump all the religious freaks in your country TOGETHER and do that. But if I did...you can be sure it would look preeeettttttyyyyy bad.

I think what you're missing is that Pakistan has the US beat hands down on the degree of religious freakism.

The presence of DNA does not add up to rape.

The difference is not as large as you make it out to be.

the presence of DNA does, however, add up to presence.

I think what you're missing is that Pakistan has the US beat hands down on the degree of religious freakism.

The American President claims to have been inspired by God to attack Iraq. You know that, right?

The American President claims to have been inspired by God to attack Iraq. You know that, right?

And I believe we were talking about religious zealotry, and its relationship to how easy it might be for a woman to prove that she was raped.

No matter what you think, it's far easier here than it is there.

You know that, right?

The American President claims to have been inspired by God to attack Iraq. You know that, right?

cite source where President GW Bush says that please.

And I believe we were talking about religious zealotry, and its relationship to how easy it might be for a woman to prove that she was raped.

No matter what you think, it's far easier here than it is there.

You know that, right?

Just pointing out that zealotry does exist in the US, a point also raised by Bottle.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Heh...

hey im not saying rape is good but i dont think u should say its the muslims saying this i mean im muslim and this is what i think of rapist :upyours: so what i say is DEATH TO RAPIST!!!!!!! :mp5:
Lessee... bad grammar, "upyours" smilie, all caps, multiple exclamation points, gun smilie. A perfect beginner's post. :rolleyes:

the presence of DNA does, however, add up to presence.

So do eyewitnesses.

Just pointing out that zealotry doex exist in the US, a point also raised by Bottle.

Not to the same extent. You can't get millions of Christian zealots to violently march in the streets here.

And you know that it's easier for a woman to report rape here, and easier to get a conviction here, than it is in Pakistan (or any other place where there is sharia law).

the four witnesses to sexual "crimes existed as a protection of privacy long before classical liberalism created modern civil rights. the four witnesses are also required in order to condemn a homosexual offender. they aren't defending rape, they're defending a very ancient form of privacy law and civil rights. in many ways the standard 4 witness requirement renders safe people who would otherwise be tried and punished for victimless crimes. I had no idea it was also applied to rapists, but it's a rough parallel to the bill of rights, in the context of the sharia. this is not just about people loving rape and wanting to protect rapists - this is about people protecting a long held tennent of muslim culture that privacy in the home is held sacrosanct. muslim law in this respect is more liberal than many sexual promiscuity laws on the books in the US until quite recently. 50 years ago police could drag me out of my bed in the middle of the night for sleeping with a man and put me in jail. that was illegal under the sharia *500* years ago. again - I suspect they are protesting a violation of an ancient form of civil rights, not that rapists are being held accountable.

I'm not even that familiar with islam jurisprudence, but it seems obvious to me that the people reporting on this are trying to twist it to show islam in a worse light than is strictly true. the stiff requirement for proof is an ancient safegaurd *against* the death penalty for things like adultery and homosexuality. the protestors are upset not because of the rape thing, but because the insistance on 4 witnesses is a very very ancient civil rights protection. choosing to report on this the way these people did is deliberately casting a negative light on muslim culture. I'm pretty damn sure the followers of islam have no more love for rapists than we do.

It really is amazing the lengths certain elements will go to make excuses for Islam :rolleyes:

BTW: It's good to know you're "pretty damn sure" what Moslems think of rapists. I'm sure you've conducted extensive research on the issue.

On the subject of Islamic law and rape, I've found this article which helps to clears up some errors being made in the muslim world today.

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/does-islam-require-four-witnesses-for-rape/

So do eyewitnesses.

1) Not as well. DNA doesn't lie. DNA doesn't forget details. DNA doesn't get distracted. DNA didn't forget its glasses that day. DNA didn't have one or two drinks before hand.

2) not a whole lot of rapes are witnessed.

1) Not as well. DNA doesn't lie. DNA doesn't forget details. DNA doesn't get distracted. DNA didn't forget its glasses that day. DNA didn't have one or two drinks before hand. Oh, no doubt. But the original post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12073476&postcount=24) seemed to be insinuating that if you have DNA, you can prove rape. Not so. DNA may prove that there was intercourse...but not that it was non-consensual. So not quite the holy grail.

Oh, no doubt. But the original post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12073476&postcount=24) seemed to be insinuating that if you have DNA, you can prove rape. Not so. DNA may prove that there was intercourse...but not that it was non-consensual. So not quite the holy grail.

What you're skipping over is that it isn't even acceptable evidence in a sharia court.

Oh, no doubt. But the original post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12073476&postcount=24) seemed to be insinuating that if you have DNA, you can prove rape. Not so. DNA may prove that there was intercourse...but not that it was non-consensual. So not quite the holy grail.

Right, as I said. DNA, except in rare occassions, does not prove GUILT.

DNA only ever proves PRESENCE. And it does it a whole lot better than an eye witness.

What you're skipping over is that it isn't even acceptable evidence in a sharia court.

Yes, yes I am. (skipping that)

Yes, yes I am. (skipping that)

Cutting Islam a break, are we?

Cutting Islam a break, are we?

So that the 'DEMONIZE THEN ALL' isn't the only voice heard, yes. Balance. There are good, and bad, and wonderful, and horrible things to say about every society. When it comes to rape, our society still needs improvement...that's not to say we can't comment on what happens elsewhere...but just as long as we remember that "them bad" doesn't equal "us perfect". This polarisation against Muslims tends to extremes, and it really doesn't have to be that way.

So that the 'DEMONIZE THEN ALL' isn't the only voice heard, yes. Balance. There are good, and bad, and wonderful, and horrible things to say about every society. When it comes to rape, our society still needs improvement...that's not to say we can't comment on what happens elsewhere...but just as long as we remember that "them bad" doesn't equal "us perfect". This polarisation against Muslims tends to extremes, and it really doesn't have to be that way.

Oh, I'm not demonizing them when I say that sharia law concerning rape is appalling - much more so than Western laws.

I'm demonizing their laws. Not saying we're perfect, but in this case, far and away better.

Oh, I'm not demonizing them when I say that sharia law concerning rape is appalling - much more so than Western laws.

Current western laws. The Biblical ones were not that pretty either.

Current western laws. The Biblical ones were not that pretty either.

You know what I mean... :rolleyes:

You know what I mean... :rolleyes:

That up till the 1950s many western countries had equally moronic laws concerning rape, but that we finally evolved beyond those in a mere 2000 years ?

The muslems at least are progressing much faster.

That up till the 1950s many western countries had equally moronic laws concerning rape, but that we finally evolved beyond those in a mere 2000 years ?

The muslems at least are progressing much faster.

Looks like they're behind to me. Most of them are still in the 10th Century...

That up till the 1950s many western countries had equally moronic laws concerning rape, but that we finally evolved beyond those in a mere 2000 years ?


It's a good point, Eve...it means, change is possible, and in a short period of time...so for the ones who DO demonise...'destroy the Muslims' isn't necessary.

It's a good point, Eve...it means, change is possible, and in a short period of time...so for the ones who DO demonise...'destroy the Muslims' isn't necessary.

Only when we pressure them to do so.

But if we pressure them to change, isn't that cultural chauvinism?

It really is amazing the lengths certain elements will go to make excuses for Islam :rolleyes:

Abu Ghraib
Civil Rights ONLY in the 60s
Fred Phelps
Fundamentalist Christians
Guantanamo
Support of dictatorships all over South America, including my own country, Brazil.

It really is amazing the lenghts certain elements will go to make excuses for America.

Dictatorship 1964-1984
Slums
Poverty
Corruption

It really is amazing the lenghts certain elements will go to make excuses for Brazil.

Inquisition
Standing against contraception and AIDS prevention
Intollerance

It really is amazing the lenghts certain elements will go to make excuses for Christianity.

Now, prithee, what the fuck is your point, "element"?

BTW: It's good to know you're "pretty damn sure" what Moslems think of rapists. I'm sure you've conducted extensive research on the issue.

Because you did?

Only when we pressure them to do so.

But if we pressure them to change, isn't that cultural chauvinism?

That pressure isn't just coming from without.

And it's always more powerful coming from within.

So no, I don't believe it's only when WE pressure them.

That pressure isn't just coming from without.

And it's always more powerful coming from within.

So no, I don't believe it's only when WE pressure them.

Most of it is external, or driven by external information.

Musharraf is doing well to de-theocratise Pakistan, though it is a very difficult job in such a conservative country.

they are in now way unique to islam, they are a cultural thing. look up some traditional punishments for things like theft or identify fraud in england even 300 years ago, and you'll realize islamic jurisprudence is not very backward at all.
Punishments in England 300 years ago were most definitely backwards.

:fluffle:
thanks...considering 40 years ago people were rioting *across the street* from where I am sitting right now, because black kids were trying to go to school in the same building as white kids, I find it rather distressing when people claim that the muslim world is particularly backward.
If you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you will generally find that the west has a better record than Pakistan in terms of legal protection of human rights.

This does't mean perfect. But it means that we are further ahead in terms of development than Pakistan.

I don't see why Wilgrove wrote "Muslims" instead of Pakistanis.

I say we in the west need to clean our own damn house before we yell at the Muslims about the filth in theirs.
As a member of Amnesty international I think you're wrong to suggest that we should not criticise human rights abuses.

There will always be people who don't agree with human rights, everywhere. What matters is the government's views.

If you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you will generally find that the west has a better record than Pakistan in terms of legal protection of human rights.

This does't mean perfect. But it means that we are further ahead in terms of development than Pakistan.

I don't see why Wilgrove wrote "Muslims" instead of Pakistanis.

You're violating the NS General Rule #1 = "It's always the fault of the West, because they are the most evil."

Please correct your post.

The American President claims to have been inspired by God to attack Iraq. You know that, right?
75% of Pakistanis think Americans are insufficiently religious. (The Economist, August 2006)

You think that America is equally theocratic as Pakistan?

Even I'm not this blinded by my anti-Americanism, you're just pathetic to be saying illogical things like this.

75% of Pakistanis think Americans are insufficiently religious. (The Economist, August 2006)

You think that America is equally theocratic as Pakistan?

Even I'm not this blinded by my anti-Americanism, you're just pathetic to be saying illogical things like this.

1- I'm not anti-american. Countries, as far as I'm concerned, are abstract concepts, and, to me, being against the USA or Belize or Turkey would be like being against elves. Elves with people that DO believe in them fighting over them, but non-existant elves nonetheless.

2- I never mentioned a measure, I only pointed out that claiming only they do this or that in the name of religion isn't that smart. I knew people like Mit would try to use this thread to further their agendas (QED) and I wanted to counter with some points before they did.

3- Nice ad hominem you got there.