First case registered under Women’s Protection Act

[Salik]

Either you are responding to the wrong guy or have serious issues with comprehension

There is some misunderstanding. Better leave this thread

 

[Yousuf Farhan]

Though I do support legislation on domestic.violence, this bill is ridiculous and should be opposed for the following reasons:

• It does not cover name male victims. So if a wife hits her husband and the husband strikes back, he goes to jail, and can be blackmailed because of this.
• The women protection officers can remove the husband from his house without probable cause or evidence. So even if there is no abuse, he can be removed. And he can't Sue them for bias since they are granted immunity as long as they acted in good faith, rather than as long as they have a .reasonable amount of evidence.
• It forces the accused to wear an ankle monitor prior to a conviction.
• The maximum punishment for a false accusation is three months, which is ridiculously low.
• It is non bailable.

This law treats the genders differently. That is enough reason to ask for the law to be amended. Simply said, two crimes committed with similar intents and similar outcomes should result in the same punishment, without regard to the gender of the perpetrator or the victim. This is lacking, hence one reason to question this law. I don't care if 100% of women are affected by a crime and only 0.0001% of men are affected by that same crime.

This law even accounts for "emotional, psychological" violence as something that only happens to women. There can be no reasonable argument made for that claim, especially since it's not backed by any studies. I find it hard to believe that even in Pakistan women do not perpetrate a large minority of that particular act, if not the majority.

I agree, only a man hater would support this.

How do authorities determined if the allegation of assault is true or not?

And are husbands made to leave their houses just due to allegation of assault or after conviction?

I only see women rights bill making things even worse for women in society and everybody else.

Due to an allegation. Which is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Salik]

lets clear something here. first gov want to throw husband out of his own property and give it to the women who don't own a single percent of it(ownership rights down the drain).then they force him to either retain that property or sell it to his wife(freedom to trade assets solely under his legal possession undermined).then confiscation of his fire arms (no regards for his constitutional right to bear arms).in the end forcing him to retain that family unit instead of letting him leave so both can have better life without each other(knowingly putting the life of wife in danger).bro its a free world you just can't force some one to do something against his will.its not governments responsibility to enforce every family unit to function properly all the can do is to encourage them to make it work but legally they just can't force it on you by passing such bills.
come on guys this bill is a legal mess.don't support every thing just because it has label of female protection on it.read it understand it on legal merits and then try to form an unbiased opinion about it.guys i am not totally against this bill it do have few great points which protect female right without undermining the male rights.like moving her to another place and forcing her husband to pay for all the bills and rent because it was his fault she is in this position etc.

Bro there're different natured husbands. They don't divorce the wife but hang her in the middle else they have to pay her due amount of 'haq mahar'. This bill is solution to all kind of husbands, a real safety and will be applied accordingly.

 

[SMC]

Good Progress, this will help women a lot. But still i didn't understood why some people are opposing it that men will unnecessarily punished.If a person hits his wife no matter the reason, all the punishment he deserves. Its not about men vs women, but consider if your own sister or daughter gets same treatment, will you still oppose the law

Because this bill does not treat the genders equally. The same thing done by a woman is not covered in this bill. Second, throwing someone out of their own house is illogical and inhumane, that too without evidence (i.e. just based on a complaint). If the state wants to separate the couple they should provide their own accommodation or tell the one that doesn't own the house to find accommodation with an acquaintance. And notice how I did not specify a gender. What I said can work both ways.

I think most people supporting these particular clauses think this can never happen to them, i.e. the law used against them because they would never harm their wives. Similar laws are frequently misused in western nations and throw innocent men out of their houses into jail and encourage a culture where men very seriously think about marriage and many won't marry, even when they mean no harm to a woman. I am not big on marriage but clearly Pakistanis are.. and if they want to maintain their culture they need to amend the bill to be both gender neutral, to only punish someone based on evidence and to not throw someone out of their own house.

 

[Brickwall]

Because this bill does not treat the genders equally. The same thing done by a woman is not covered in this bill. Second, throwing someone out of their own house is illogical and inhumane, that too without evidence (i.e. just based on a complaint). If the state wants to separate the couple they should provide their own accommodation or tell the one that doesn't own the house to find accommodation with an acquaintance. And notice how I did not specify a gender. What I said can work both ways.

I think most people supporting these particular clauses think this can never happen to them, i.e. the law used against them because they would never harm their wives. Similar laws are frequently misused in western nations and throw innocent men out of their houses into jail and encourage a culture where men very seriously think about marriage and many won't marry, even when they mean no harm to a woman. I am not big on marriage but clearly Pakistanis are.. and if they want to maintain their culture they need to amend the bill to be both gender neutral, to only punish someone based on evidence and to not throw someone out of their own house.

If these excuse that law can be used against them is reason for opposing it, it's most stupidest and illogical excuse I have heard.

Tomorrow anybody will say scrap one by one law, all the laws can be misused only factor is trust is judiciary.

Consider this , if in future some terrorist starts saying scrap anti-terrorism law, because it can be misused and it's most inhumane law, will u support it?

 

[SMC]

If these excuse that law can be used against them is reason for opposing it, it's most stupidest and illogical excuse I have heard.

Tomorrow anybody will say scrap one by one law, all the laws can be misused only factor is trust is judiciary.

Consider this , if in future some terrorist starts saying scrap anti-terrorism law, because it can be misused and it's most inhumane law, will u support it?

And where did I say scrap the law? I say amend it to make misuse harder and to treat genders equally. This law in particular has very high potential of misuse because nothing needs to be proven for the the guy to be thrown out of the house.

 

[ashok mourya]

good move....

 

[Brickwall]

And where did I say scrap the law? I say amend it to make misuse harder and to treat genders equally. This law in particular has very high potential of misuse because nothing needs to be proven for the the guy to be thrown out of the house.

Amend it all by means to make it fair, but not to dilute the provisions of Harsh punishment for men who abuse their wife.

Also if u r so sure that law can be misused against particular gender then it's not problem with law, but those who implement it. In my opinion ,your ire is directed at wrong place budddy

 

[Salik]

On one hand people say male is head of the family, being head brings more responsibility. He must face harder laws.

@SMC sir how can you compare women of west and Pakistan. Remember this is 'women protection bill' not 'women empowerment bill'. First educated the women, give them equal status in society and then talk about equal and genderless laws.

 

[Sana R]

Those who are opposing the law need the bracelets. Now.

 

[Brickwall]

Having a law that explicitly protects ONLY 50% of the population....is kind of sexist don't you think ...especially when the problem i.e domestic violence is not gender thing at all ... or is that, in your logical and clever mind ... it's only sexist when something doesn't favor women and not the other way around ?Lastly, a plethora of false accusations stems from such bills, even the US, which is light years ahead of 3rd world countries when it comes to due process faces such problems...

But since your so up for it, lets take an example because countries like India and Pakistan are similar as in how we treat women in general. So, if a girl goes in the middle of the street that this guy harassed/hit me, I suppose you will be among the dudes that will come to her "rescue" by hitting the accused as is often seen in streets.Lets just make one substitution to this situation, what if you were walking down the street, and a girl said give me your wallet otherwise .... I'll scream that you harassed me .... so what would you do ?? take a beating like a man ... based on the words of a woman ... which are ALWAYS true right ??

As I said earlier this is not problem with law, but justice provider , use your energy to create robust and just law enforcement agencies.

Don't get me started by with 50% person populations theory , if such is case then let the everything in society be equal between two genders. Why does only men occupies more then 90% of all decision making. Let us give them their fair share and then come to this populations theory.

Problem is we men have abused and harassed women for generations , it's her right to stand with men. And we are starting to think it is our rights

 

[Brickwall]

I don't take this word lightly, but that was quite stupid of a reply ... you say we should create robust law enforcement agencies ... to do what exactly ?? ... oh yes implement sexist laws .. right ??

By that, the problem doesn't just die out if you have better enforcement ... the problem is solved when you form laws that treat both genders equally since the problem is not faced by women alone, but also men. Now coming to your reply .. you cant force a society to become 50-50 ... the best thing you can do is give equal opportunity ... which means if someone is qualified enough, can do the job and outperforms the competition he or she has the right to that post ... and last I checked, both Pakistan and India have had female heads of state which btw is the highest authoritative position anyone can hold ...

Occupying certain positions and laws that govern a society are two different things entirely. But then again, if you base your case on the fact, that women have been subjugated all these years etc etc. Then lets have special laws for African Americans, lets have special laws for Native Americans ... the list can go on and on ... the fact of the matter is the responsibility of the state extends to a 100% of its population, not a mere 50% because of a sob story ... Lastly, if your going to present this excuse over and over again, I assume you would also be in favor of "workplace safety laws for MEN" seeing as how the overwhelming majority of workplace injuries and deaths are of men and this has been the way it is for generations... right ?

Yup stupid answer to stupid query. If your not able to create the good enforcement agency but want to curtails any law which gives little bit power to woman. You decide what kind of response is warranted.

And coming to 50-50 theory, read the sentence again I said 90% of time decision making powers lies with male unless you consider few women more than 50%. Tell me you don't agree in written or unwritten history women are mostly at receiving end.

I agree laws and authority are two different things, but unless people who are affected is in position to change laws in their favour, how will law will be equitable.

By all means bring laws to make it safer to men and women, if it's not already there go to your elected representative. But arguing one thing is negatively effecting certain gender so we will not allow other law for them. That's childish

 

[Brickwall]

Your argument of the betterment of enforcement agencies without having to neutralize laws that give power to a set percent of the population is the same as someone arguing in the early 1800's that empowering enforcement agencies would end up abolishing slavery ...

Secondly, coming to your own contradictory narrative, you say that unless the power is 50-50 shared, women would not have equitable laws ... yet in the same supposed 90% male decision making framework somehow a law that explicitly favors women over men was passed .... that basically puts the entire theory of yours out of commission ..

Why "men AND women" ... last I checked we were favoring one gender over the other based on historic maltreatment when it came to women ... but suddenly when the script changed and the maltreatment was of men at the work place ... it went from protection for women to "protection of men AND women" ... Just check out the following video to see a bit of the other side as well ...

Lastly, there is this thing called election, it gives you the power to bring whom so ever you want, man or woman ...

So you want law to repeal just because your unable to make sure law enforcement agencies are robust enough, then I suggest next ban all cars as many people are incompetent to drive.

Suppose considering your assumption that law favours women, So out of 1000 of men favouring laws, one law favouring women is created u want that to be scrapped without giving chance to it or rectifying it.

If maltreatment is done at workplace or for that anywhere it has to be punished , no question about it. but using that as excuse to scrap this law is simply idiotic

 

[Brickwall]

Not repeal it ... Make it gender neutral ... like I've said time and again ... the problem (domestic violence) is faced by BOTH genders .. hence the solution i.e the LAW should benefit BOTH the genders and false accusations BY ANYONE should have severe repercussions ...

Enforcement matters only come after something is law/regulation. When you have a law that explicitly favors one over the other, enforcement doesn't matter ... even the best enforcement will yield bad results because the core of the solution to a problem is designed in a way that it only takes care of 50% of the problem ...

Like I've said before, why do you insist maltreatment of "anyone" at the workplace, meaning both male or female, but when its domestic violence you defend a law that favors women .. that is hypocrisy101 right there ..

As said earlier repealing law is just stupidity but amending it all means, that's your right . Any law has to be fair btwn sexes,caste , religion etc...But don't amend such it's actual purpose is lost.

Yes fair law is used by enforcement agencies, but more important is fair judicial process.

Any place were discriminatory policy is applied has to condemned, be it home or office

 

[Salik]

Your argument of the betterment of enforcement agencies without having to neutralize laws that give power to a set percent of the population is the same as someone arguing in the early 1800's that empowering enforcement agencies would end up abolishing slavery ...

Secondly, coming to your own contradictory narrative, you say that unless the power is 50-50 shared, women would not have equitable laws ... yet in the same supposed 90% male decision making framework somehow a law that explicitly favors women over men was passed .... that basically puts the entire theory of yours out of commission ..

Why "men AND women" ... last I checked we were favoring one gender over the other based on historic maltreatment when it came to women ... but suddenly when the script changed and the maltreatment was of men at the work place ... it went from protection for women to "protection of men AND women" ... Just check out the following video to see a bit of the other side as well ...

Lastly, there is this thing called election, it gives you the power to bring whom so ever you want, man or woman ...

'Election' is the bottom line, it gives you power to bring whatever law you want, protecting man or protecting woman. So its done, protecting the later. As it was required urgently. You want a law that protects the former, which is not a burning issue in male dominant society, still elected govt may think about it. You can wait a bit. No?