But seriously, the Protection of Women Against Violence Act was passed into law in Pakistan’s Punjab because it was pretty much open season for husbands to knock about their wives whenever they felt like it. The religios pushed back with their list of when husbands can beat their wives, based on argumentum ad verecundiam – the authority of God as interpreted by the religious elders.
One way of looking at it is that the religious push-back is an indication of Pakistan moving forward, dragging itself out of a religious mire. Another way of looking at it is that religion in Pakistan is a primary impediment to social development. These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.
It’s interesting to see how cultures progress at different rates. For example, Bangladesh and Pakistan were once a single Islamic nation that had a civil war. Bangladesh tends to have more in common with Hindu India, so although it is very much an Islamic nation, it is less extreme than Pakistan, which in turn is more influenced by the nutters in the mid-east. In the Christian world, it is interesting to see the same sort of thing – just look at what is going on the USA, or compare the USA to much of western and parts of non-Mediterranean Europe.
Would you stop peddling nonsense. Its not open season on anyone and how the fuck do you describe extreme? I have been a lawyer for 8 years and for 7 of them I have been working with NGO’s and government bodies who deal with vulnerable and abused women and children, and there is no one cause or reason for abuse. I have seen women from educated and well off backgrounds who were abused, and abusers with same situations. People who were poor, conservative, rich, liberal, male, female did not matter. Every abuse and violence story is different.
You cannot say there is an epidemic of violence anymore than you can say there is a epidemic of murder, because every DV case has its own unique facts.
You are also operating under a misapprehension. Domestic Violence is and has been plenty illegal. The Punjab Act does not make “violence against women” illegal as has been admittedly reported in media, it is concerned with *procedure * relating to investigation, preservation of evidence and preventative orders.It also streamlines and consolidates what was earlier a varied degree of rules, practices and regulations.The Punjab was not the first province to pass such an act, bothSindh and Balochistanhave passed such Acts.
At the Federal Level, a Court of Sessions can issue a Writ of Habeus Corpus for the production of a person before it (Ss 491 CrPC 1898), which has been used by Courts to deal with such cases and the Court of Sessions also has the power under Ss22A CrPC to direct criminal cases to be registered. I have brought dozens of applications under these several times.
The Punjab Act (full disclosure, I was one of the Advocates who gave written representations when this was first mooted) is basically following in the same situation.
As for the CII, they have no power to legislate or give directions. Its also hardly the strangest thing the have said all week. Or this year.
Never said it was sunshine and roses. And, statistics means sweet fuck all. For instance the statistic that you use, 5800 crimes against women were reported when there were 88,854 crimes against persons reported in 2013; so, in other words, women who are about half the population constitute about 6.5% of the crime victims, or at least crime against persons. That does not seem “open season” that seems protected and safe.
Neither is the case in reality.
[QUOTE=UberArchetype]
So what useful purpose does this so-called “council” serve?
[/QUOTE]
I really wish I knew.
One joke at the Bar is that they needed to get to 280 clauses in the constitution somehow and they just added as many things they could until the got there. (The Constitution had 280 articles because the Code of Hummrabi also has 280)
I support this proposal as applied to restaurants and other public places, with the proviso that wives can beat their husbands for the same offense, and strangers can beat the both of them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant amount of domestic abuse goes unreported (we have that problem here in Canada). It’s a pity that the act is named the Protection of Women Against Violence Act rather than something along the lines of the Protection and Support Women Suffering Domestic Abuse, for “violence” defined by the act is far broader than physical violence, and encompases tarious dimensions of domestic abuse: ““violence” means any offence committed against a woman including abetment of an offence, domestic violence, emotional, psychological and verbal abuse, economic abuse, stalking or a cybercrime . . . .”
It appears to me that the act focuses on making it possible for more women to seek and obtain relief from domestic abuse by making it possible for abused women to report the abuse to other women, rather than men who may slough off the complaint as a family matter (to a limited degree we still have that problem here in Canada), it puts in place comprehensive restraining orders, and it has a mechanisms for possession of residence (and emergency shelter) and financial support. That is far broader, and significantly different, from straight criminal law.
One of the big problems of domestic abuse is that the person who is abused will have many reasons for not ending the abuse, including emotional, financial and societal reasons. The act in question tries to address this head on.
The constitutionally mandated CCI, through its chairman has countered with instructions on when to beat women. Well beat him and the horse he rode in on.
Southern Baptists will cut off a woman’s hand if she touches a man’s nutsack?
Damn. That’s hardcore.
First, props to you for helping to get the Protection of Women Against Violence Act passed.
Serious question : Is there any danger of the Act being in any way amended because of the CII’s labelling of it as un-Islamic?
Even if their “(lightly) beat her when she sneezes” bill doesn’t affect law, how likely is it to affect social attitudes toward the Act?
I actually do have a problem with the definition of violence, I think its over expansive. As for DV being underreported, thats certainly something thats very likely, although by its nature its hard to quantify.
That’s the intention certainly. I am however not convinced that “reporting the abuse to other women” is really going to help much either way; as I have said earlier people react in unexpected ways to an abuse report, I have seen stereotypical mullahs react in horror and say “lock the bastard up” and I have also seen so-called modern liberal dodge the issue, even women. The converse is also true.
I am also uncomfortable with giving these powers to the family court, with its lower burden of proof and separate procedural rules. and unnecessarily
Where I am, the court part of most of this stuff is in family court, including family court restraining orders. Yes, there are also criminal court restraining orders when there are criminal prosecutions, but criminal prosecutions are for serious stuff and can lead to criminal records that trigger further problems that can make the family strife even worse. Most family matters are not at the criminal level, even though there is often abuse, so family law restraining orders come in handy. The lower burden of proof also comes in hand in family law, for more often then not, there is little if any proof of abuse. Given my druthers, for most matters I’d like to see more involvement of social workers and less involvement of police and lawyers. Something I quite like about your act is that it appears to address the needs of an abused women (to be listened to and be believed when reporting abuse, to not end up destitute and dispossessed, to have a safe haven, and to try to remedy the matter rather than chop the guy off at the knees – although that of course very much depends on the matter at hand and certainly does not work in some situations). The nice thing about dealing with most domestic abuse in a non-criminal context is that it provides an opportunity for parties to separate and get on with their lives without raising the stakes so high that it becomes an all or nothing battle between them the way it often does in criminal prosecutions (again, however, this very much depends on the nature and severity of abuse).
Although no law will immediately change the problem of abused people often not being able to walk away (physically, financially, societally, psychologically/emotionally) from their abusers, and often coming up with reasons/excuses for not walking away, I think that your act will make a very positive improvement in this aspect over the years, for it offers a sea-change in how domestic abuse will be dealt with, and in turn I expect will offer abused women more opportunities to deal with abuse. Will it be a panacea? Of course not, but I expect that you’ll find more women being able to escape abuse than prior to the legislation. As people learn more about the reasons why women remain with their abusers, that too can be addressed in future legislation/programs, but as a first step your act is pretty darn good.
