First case registered under Women’s Protection Act

[SMC]

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

The "harsh provisions" should be gender neutral. The problem with the law being misused is that it makes it incredibly easy and leaves a lot of room for interpretation to allow it to be misused, and such interpretation can be used in courts to create plausible deniability to argue whatever abuse of the law was done was not illegal.

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.

This bill can be called whatever, what needs to be look at are the actual clauses. My comparison to west was only limited in scope in how similar laws get misused there and how frequently, and providing examples for how they'll be misused in Pakistan. Also, I AM talking about giving the equal status in society... by treating them equal to men.

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

I take it, you're planning on misusing the law against some guy who wouldn't give you attention and hoping to have him thrown in jail as a payback?

 

[Edevelop]

The law is simple. If a guy commits a crime he should be charged and put in jail. Not sure why people here are making it so controversial. Perhaps they have something of their own to hide.

 

[Salik]

The "harsh provisions" should be gender neutral. The problem with the law being misused is that it makes it incredibly easy and leaves a lot of room for interpretation to allow it to be misused, and such interpretation can be used in courts to create plausible deniability to argue whatever abuse of the law was done was not illegal.



This bill can be called whatever, what needs to be look at are the actual clauses. My comparison to west was only limited in scope in how similar laws get misused there and how frequently, and providing examples for how they'll be misused in Pakistan. Also, I AM talking about giving the equal status in society... by treating them equal to men.



I take it, you're planning on misusing the law against some guy who wouldn't give you attention and hoping to have him thrown in jail as a payback?

Assumptions. No case of misuse is reported yet.

We need a separate section to discuss which laws can be misused as a whole not only this which is just beginning.

We've been literally fukced by other laws and we even don't know. This bill is directly hitting the manhood nerve so we are waking up.

 

[Hell hound]

it is not as simple as you thinks.guys read the complete bill first and then come back and tell me how is it not direct attack on ownership rights, privacy and right to bear arms.if you don't have the bill i can provide you with the link but pls reply my post after reading it thoroughly so we can discus it on legal merits.because otherwise there is no point in further discussing it.
@Salik @guy sach @cb4

 

[Salik]

it is not as simple as you thinks.guys read the complete bill first and then come back and tell me how is it not direct attack on ownership rights, privacy and right to bear arms.if you don't have the bill i can provide you with the link but pls reply my post after reading it thoroughly so we can discus it on legal merits.because otherwise there is no point in further discussing it.
@Salik @guy sach @cb4

Yes the rights are temporarily seized. Take it as trial period. You must be thankful you are not in station for that purpose.

 

[Hell hound]

Yes the rights are temporarily seized. Take it as trial period. You must be thankful you are not in station for that purpose.

bro now you are just being an apologist.it is not a trial period this bill is already a bloody law(at least in punjab) and do you even know how hard it is to amend the law.god forgive me but i have to side with mullahs on this one not because i agree with there point of views on this bill but because i see no other way of protecting my rights (i can't believe i am saying this). i pray Council Of Islamic Ideology throw this bill out of the window.

 

[Edevelop]

Exactly ... if a "guy" commits the crime ... what if its the girl whose commiting the same crime ?? Oh I forgot... the same crime when committed by women is made in to comedic skits and laughs on shows like Hasb-e-hal etc. So when a guy commits the same act, its a crime ... when a woman does it .. its comedy ...

The Quran states women have equal rights as men. But this is a country called Pakistan where people misinterpret it due to lack of education and we follow cultures which were never part of our culture. We are so messed up as a society, we let terrorists like Taliban roam around and become all powerful.

Ask yourself these questions. In Pakistan, Do men get harassed by women ? Do men get acid thrown in their face ? Are men killed for honour ? Are women allowed to get education as easily as men ? Are all women allowed to work ?

By the way the law clearly states that if there is false complaint, the women will be charged. So stop being biased. Its a fair deal and come to senses we live in the 21st century.

 

[Hell hound]

The Quran states women have equal rights as men. But this is a country called Pakistan where people misinterpret it due to lack of education and we follow cultures which were never part of our culture. We are so messed up as a society, we let terrorists like Taliban roam around and become all powerful.

Ask yourself these questions. In Pakistan, Do men get harassed by women ? Do men get acid thrown in their face ? Are men killed for honour ? Are women allowed to get education as easily as men ? Are all women allowed to work ?

By the way the law clearly states that if there is false complaint, the women will be charged. So stop being biased. Its a fair deal and come to senses we live in the 21st century.

fair do you really think this bill is fair.for god sake read it first.this bill is anything but fair.

 

[Salik]

bro now you are just being an apologist.it is not a trial period this bill is already a bloody law(at least in punjab) and do you even know how hard it is to amend the law.god forgive me but i have to side with mullahs on this one not because i agree with there point of views on this bill but because i see no other way of protecting my rights (i can't believe i am saying this). i pray Council Of Islamic Ideology throw this bill out of the window.

Maximum 90 days in extreme cases and you get your rights back. You have to cooperate in this period, till the matter is settled. It won't happen again and again, most probably once in life time as couples will learn that fight is not the option, live peacefully or separate.

 

[Hell hound]

Maximum 90 days in extreme cases and you get your rights back. You have to cooperate in this period, till the matter is settled. It won't happen again and again, most probably once in life time as couples will learn that fight is not the option, live peacefully or separate.

period is not specified in bill so until a precedent is set it is indefinite.

 

[curious]

Maximum 90 days in extreme cases and you get your rights back

Yes it does trample basic human rights on grounds that are quite vague, just needs to be shown that "violence has been committed or is likely to be committed".Imagine how easy it will be to establish that in a domestic violence case. Once that is established, and the man fails to rebut it, the court can proceed to impose the penalties in the bill.

If the woman's protection is the goal, then there are other ways to ensure it without resorting to such draconian measures.
If they need to be separated temporarily to ensure the woman's safety, then she can be taken into some sort of protective custody, shifted to a rehabilitation center or to her relative's home if she feels safe there.If reconciliation can happen, then great, if not then she can have divorce declared.
Problem solved without questioning either party's basic rights.

Only if we consider social engineering as the goal or one of the goals on part of the government, then this bill makes sense.It seeks to artificially establish women at the helm by relegating men to a subservient role, as whenever theres a conflict between them this law can be invoked, changing the traditional structure of marriage/man-woman relationship and so the society.This is of course not the case in nature, so it is being done artificially, using the power of the state.

They seen to be going the same path the west took, claiming women rights, women protection etc. but the real aims are somewhat less noble and more sinister.

 

[Sana R]

I take it, you're planning on misusing the law against some guy who wouldn't give you attention and hoping to have him thrown in jail as a payback?

I'm sure the courts are more professional than that. They wouldn't just dump men in jails because some woman comes complaining that she isn't receiving attention. If people out there are just opposing the law because it is likely to be abused, I think they should revolt against every law in Pakistan. With all due respect, we are misusing the ECL, cyber crime laws, tax laws and what not. What would you say about that?

 

[Salik]

Yes it does trample basic human rights on grounds that are quite vague, just needs to be shown that "violence has been committed or is likely to be committed".Imagine how easy it will be to establish that in a domestic violence case. Once that is established, and the man fails to rebut it, the court can proceed to impose the penalties in the bill.

If the woman's protection is the goal, then there are other ways to ensure it without resorting to such draconian measures.
If they need to be separated temporarily to ensure the woman's safety, then she can be taken into some sort of protective custody, shifted to a rehabilitation center or to her relative's home if she feels safe there.If reconciliation can happen, then great, if not then she can have divorce declared.
Problem solved without questioning either party's basic rights.

Only if we consider social engineering as the goal or one of the goals on part of the government, then this bill makes sense.It seeks to artificially establish women at the helm by relegating men to a subservient role, as whenever theres a conflict between them this law can be invoked, changing the traditional structure of marriage/man-woman relationship and so the society.This is of course not the case in nature, so it is being done artificially, using the power of the state.

They seen to be going the same path the west took, claiming women rights, women protection etc. but the real aims are somewhat less noble and more sinister.

A woman gives bigger sacrifice when she leaves her parents home. You want to make her life a joke by sending her to rehabilitation center or her brothers home or anywhere else. Her brother's wives treat her not very nicely, its a general fact. Why do we say 'Ladies First'? because we give them respect. Your sinister brain doesn't understand it. The woman must stay at home and husband must find a place if temporary separation is required.

Now come to the strategy of this bill. See; Marathon is a slow and steady race. But if you have ever participated, in start of the race when there's gun fire signal, the athletes make a short sprint of first 100 metres and then keep running sometimes fast sometimes slow taking rest while running. This first sprint gives them a push to have a good race.

The bill is just a beginning, you will see many amendments till it sets a tone.

 

[curious]

A woman gives bigger sacrifice when she leaves her parents home. You want to make her life a joke by sending her to rehabilitation center or her brothers home or anywhere else. Her brother's wives treat her not very nicely, its a general fact.

So thats why its ok for the state to get involved in marriage and trample over basic rights?? because she makes a "bigger sacrifice" as declared by you or inconvenience she may face in rehabilitation center or elsewhere?

Why do we say 'Ladies First'? because we give them respect

So you admit the fact that this law tramples over basic rights but now you try to justify it by using "Ladies First"? that women have special rights and privileges simply because they were born women? so much for equality...
"Ladies first" in informal, private environment is one thing, but institutionalizing it, formally enforcing it through legislation is totally different because now your formally acknowledging that women have special rights and privileges simply because they were born women. Not to mention that "Ladies first" is from an age when society was clearly male dominant. It appears your 'white knight' brain has difficulty understanding it.

If the government's agenda is social engineering, replacing Patriarchy with some sort of pseudo Matriarchy, as it appears to be the case, then they should be honest about it and come clean, so that the society can openly debate
these ideas can come to a decision. Don't make fools of the people and enforce it from the back when they are not looking.
If they try to emulate the west, then the society will become more and more like the western society, that is inevitable, given time. Marriage rates will go down, divorce rates will go up, number of man-woman relationships outside marriage will dramatically go up as marriage will look less and less attractive to people, gay and lesbian relationships will dramatically increase too. So if they want to follow the west, then be honest about it, instead of trying to enforcing from the back door.

 

[Salik]

So thats why its ok for the state to get involved in marriage and trample over basic rights?? because she makes a "bigger sacrifice" as declared by you or inconvenience she may face in rehabilitation center or elsewhere?


So you admit the fact that this law tramples over basic rights but now you try to justify it by using "Ladies First"? that women have special rights and privileges simply because they were born women? so much for equality...
"Ladies first" in informal, private environment is one thing, but institutionalizing it, formally enforcing it through legislation is totally different because now your formally acknowledging that women have special rights and privileges simply because they were born women. Not to mention that "Ladies first" is from an age when society was clearly male dominant. It appears your 'white knight' brain has difficulty understanding it.

If the government's agenda is social engineering, replacing Patriarchy with some sort of pseudo Matriarchy, as it appears to be the case, then they should be honest about it and come clean, so that the society can openly debate
these ideas can come to a decision. Don't make fools of the people and enforce it from the back when they are not looking.
If they try to emulate the west, then the society will become more and more like the western society, that is inevitable, given time. Marriage rates will go down, divorce rates will go up, number of man-woman relationships outside marriage will dramatically go up as marriage will look less and less attractive to people, gay and lesbian relationships will dramatically increase too. So if they want to follow the west, then be honest about it, instead of trying to enforcing from the back door.

I am not in favour of separate laws as Prophet Muhammad PBUH has said that his daughter Fatima RA would face the same punishment if she would commit a crime.

That said. If a husband is ok with it that his wife should go from home and live somewhere else, its better that he divorce her. Govt action is last attempt to save the unit. It will work only if the husband is some kind of high level moron because no sensible person will like to wear a tracker. So Mainly this bill will work as deterrent.

Lastly you sir are looking at two extremes, patriarchy and matriarchy. You may very well reject matriarchy but we also reject your patriarchy where a husband has right to slap or abuse his wife even minor.