Negotiating Human Rights

Ferozk #38:

Thanks re: Bradley.

At that time he did not plead the fifth. When pressed he clearly said he did not know the source.

Missed that interview on CNN -- well not really ---- how can I say delicately? --- all the tv screens in my house met a certain fate about three years ago --- now I have access to Larry or Oprah or others only in waiting rooms or lounges --- so I am less informed --- good or bad is a matter of conjecture.

rgds,

t

Re sigalph235 #21: ``The bottomline is this: there is no Pakistani way and no Islamic way of human rights. Human rights are human rights and only the Mullah Umars of the world will try to fudge the issue by constantly denying that there exists a universal standard of human dignity.``

Recently read two pieces that are relevant to the above comment. (I apologize for straying from the general thrust of the discussion that the article has generated, and do not wish to diminish the importance of the core issues in any way.)

Jermey Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1796):

``In proportion ot the want of happiness resulting from the want of rights, a reason exists for wishing that there were such things as rights. But reasons for wishing that there were such things as rights, are not rights ... - wants is not supply - hunger is not bread.``

``Of a natural right who has any idea? I, for my part, I have none: a natural right is a round square, - an incorporeal body. What a legal right is I know. ... Right is with me a child of law ... A natural right is a son that never had a father.``

Jeremy Waldron, The Law (1990):

``Though they are often expressed in simple slogans, human rights are not a simple matter. There are endless disputes about what counts as torture, whether pornography is free speach, what`s required for a fair trial, which rights can be overridden in a public emergency, what counts as a public emergency, how conflicts of rights are to be resolved, and so on. Think about the issue of abortion. Do foetuses have rights, and if they do, how do they weigh against a woman`s right to control her own body? These are awfully difficult issues on which honest disagreement is more or less inevitable. When such disputes crop up, how are they to be decided?``

ras #32

nice comments...exactly the point that I was trying to get across in my comments...

Re: Temporal # 37

Temporal, Lee Bradley the former editor of the Washington Post knew of the Deep Throat`s identity and he admited to this fact on Larry King, when Larry was interviewing him on his retirement.

As to the identity of the author, that is a minor concern in contrast to the message of the article and yes, the author`s real name would help, but in such cases, people who give such info do not like to be burned in the sun of publicity and secondly, if the info is credible, then the identity is never asked so as not to expose the source.

Ciao!

TO SUM UP THUS FAR

I think the discussion is wearing away from the original intent. I read this as a general thrust following the directions of Radhika’s Women in India piece.

aakar patel #20:

[..whether this was out of bashfulness or fear i cannot say....],

* * *Come on aakar, bashfulness? You mean you DID NOT read the article before jumping in?

[if chowk were a print product exposed to libel charges, i`m not so sure this would have been published.]

* * *Depends on the country. Though generally you are right. Here libel charges are increasingly used as an intimidating tool.

[.... anonymity... substantially takes away from the gravity of the charge.....]

* * *Most of the times. But then there are exceptions where the Editor has to listen to his gut feelings. For instance, legendary Pakistani journalist/editor Razia Bhatti, were she alive today would have run this story. She would have read the story carefully, make two phone calls to ascertain the substantive allegations and then run away with the story: name or ghost would not factor in the decision.


Saima Shah 25:

[......papers in India and Pakistan SHOULD print outcries against abuse and violence....]

* * *Who can argue against this?

[... most of the stuff that papers in India and Pakistan print is lies, subterfuge, the nudges of politicians with titillating pictures of women......]

* * *Shall we say on second thoughts you will reconsider this statement?

[...the people who have genuine stories of abuse to tell? Where do they go for justice? ..]

* * *The key word here is GENUINE. Aakar my friend, what would your mentor M J Akbar would do? After a few years under the belt any half decent editor can SMELL a good story, distinguish between the wheat and the chaff, blind folded.

Also, to be fair, Saima, they come to share their plight and agony and make us aware of it. so that hopefully we are better prepared -- they DO NOT come for justice. Justice depending on where one is located is provided by somber men and women in black gowns or through the barrel of the gun NOT through public outcry.

[Manufacturing consent is not something Chowk will ever be good at. And I am proud of that.]

* * *Is it not ironic that the publication (of Chowk) in a way leads to consent manufacturing? It is an inevitable outcome of any mass medium effort.

aakar patel #35:

[...i do not want Chowk Contributor`s name to be revealed. he or she may be worried about personal safety or may not be sure of the facts at hand or have other reasons for sending this piece in anonymity. however, i do not think it right that it be published as an article.]

* * *Aaakar, if the ediotrs at the Washington Post shared your views, there would be no Watergate. Only Woodward and Bernstein knew -- the EDITOR did not know the identity of the deep throat.

[...i do not believe journalists, especially editors, should see themselves in messianic terms ..]

* * *Well put. Agree fully.

[...i see journalism as reportage and not as activism, which i think is dangerous and damaging to the causes it seeks to take up. ]

* * *Debatable. Where would you place Asghar Ali Engineer’s efforts from your fine city?

[..i do not see the media as dispensers of justice, which again i feel is dangerous and damaging.]

* * *Very well said. Full agreement here.

[regards and apologies to all for this rather long and, on a reread, rather pointless post.]

* * *Again, barring the last phrase, am in full agreement. May say the same, if and when I come to the end here.

Zehri #33:

[....the focus of this discussion should remain on the important issues: gender based violence; unjust imprisonment; and misuse of government powers by individuals who are public officials. Furthermore, unveiling the author will not serve any productive purpose in improving our lives here in Pakistan and will not assist us in our blatant outcries for justice and integrity within our bureaucratic system.]

Sir/Madam: Very well said.

Ras Siddiqui #32:

[But this unfortunate domestic and now international incident does not warrant magnification to ``It is common in Pakistan for law enforcement organizations to raid in the early morning hours to either rape, torture and possibly murder relatives of suspects under interrogation in order to extract false confessions``]

AND

[Domestic violence must be condemned. Police brutality should be similarly exposed and given
back the third degree that it dishes out in countries like Pakistan. But let us not hang an
entire country out to dry on CHOWK because one man has a problem with his wife.]

* * *We are not reading from the same page Ras. Please read carefully the quote I reproduced above from Zehri #33.

amjad5 #31:

[....assigning this type of treatment of women as being a character of Pakistan is totally unjustified. ........ blame the individuals, not the government...]

* * *Please read carefully Zehri’s quote reproduced here. We should not be examining the tree and ignoring the forest.
taimurmalik -various

[..he should have been more open, personal, truthful and maybe a bit more AGGRESSIVE, abusive and outright in his expression!]

* * *Thank you for your passionate participation. There are moments in our personal lives when we cannot be totally brutally honest with our mothers, friends, lovers ---not for any fear but for the love we have for them. That is why I will have to disagree with you.

In this article, there have been enough names mentioned on either side that any resourceful editor can verify in ten minutes the substantive veracity of this story. The name of the writer therefore need not figure in the decision to run the story.

[... WHY IS IT that a nation of 150 million can`t stand up to the ruling elite of 150 families..]

* * *That day of reckoning, my young friend, is round the corner. Though am not sure our Gods will help us much then.

bg #28:

[...please, let us not pretend that journalism and media exist in a social and political vacuum...]

* * *Hard to disagree.

Please forgive the length,

regards,

temporal

Re: Aakar

Hi Aakar,

I think we are arguing the same point from different angles; the halo of objectivity is false in my opinion...I do not think that any paper can be objective; plural; diverse yes but objective no!.

Sure I can pick out why u think there is a halo in my post; but I can pick out your objectivity halo.

Well, to cut an endless argument short, I feel that media acts in situations where the justice mechanism falls short. Public communication is the first court in any case--through out history there is a connection. Numerous examples come to mind as I am sure you can think of too. However, I have a big bone to pick with the media in Pakistan and have extended that to India. I feel that we must have a diverse bunch of people writing a lot about issues in ordinary lives and definitely way more idealism. I am tired of cynical so-called objectivity which lets everybody know what is current, hip and cool. Acts as a mechanism of social control and a means to subjugate the masses.

Interactive media has a different ambit than print journalism, that is for sure. I hope that clarifies some of my previous reaction.

Regards

Saima

zehri #33

``It is truly unfortunate that a few learned readers of Chowk are asking that the name of the author, ``Chowk Contributor``, be revealed.``

dear zehri,

i do not want Chowk Contributor`s name to be revealed. he or she may be worried about personal safety or may not be sure of the facts at hand or have other reasons for sending this piece in anonymity. however, i do not think it right that it be published as an article.

that is my opinion -- i do not WANT anything to be revealed or not done. i am only voicing my disappointment.

i also strongly object to being referred to as ``learned reader`` :)

saima #25

``With all due respect to you. Maybe papers in India and Pakistan SHOULD print outcries against abuse and violence. Maybe then we would be closer to some form of democracy. The court of the public needs to be established and our media has sadly neglected its foremost role.``

``...Infotainment is not Chowk`s calling.``

``Let`s engage in dialogue by all means--lets have justice here.``

dear saima

i do not believe journalists, especially editors, should see themselves in messianic terms (please read through your post to me carefully and let me know if you can spot that halo).

i see journalism as reportage and not as activism, which i think is dangerous and damaging to the causes it seeks to take up.

i do not see the media as dispensers of justice, which again i feel is dangerous and damaging.

in any case, i do not see how by putting up an unattributed (unverified?) report, the purposes of justice are being served.

also, i actually have great respect for my fellow hacks, and a lot of the journalists i have worked with and for are outstanding professionals. the majority of our media does a very good job, so i disagree with you when you said that most of what we print is: ``lies, subterfuge, the nudges of politicians with titillating pictures of women.`` i think that is just a little too sweeping.

``...But according to you a family`s genuine plight because they defended a woman is libel?``

i never said it was libel: i said if chowk were a publication exposed to libel charges, it may not have printed this anonymous article. i could be wrong, of course.

i`m not sure why or against whom you have launched your diatribe against ``infotainment``. i must however confess that not all the pages of the newspaper i work for are filled with reports on injustice and the murder of democracy.

we`re a tabloid (yes, we have a page 3 girl), and we do great stories -- some of them are even on (choke) celebrities.

but we put our name to our work.

regards and apologies to all for this rather long and, on a reread, rather pointless post.

aakar patel

ps: saima, we did try to being `quality` into our paper, but you turned us down!

re fuzair #24

Right on, brother!

Thanks for reminding me about the depth of hatred felt by the Jamaatis and their cohorts towards Pakistan in 1946-47. Now they are the big defenders of the Pakistani ideology. And plenty of idiots believe that conversion.

It is truly unfortunate that a few learned readers of Chowk are asking that the name of the author, ``Chowk Contributor``, be revealed.



Taimurmalik states in his:

Reply # 14: ...the Author `chowk contributor` should have written this under his own name...

Reply # 29: ...he should have been more open, personal, truthful and maybe a bit more AGGRESSIVE, abusive and outright in his expression!

Akaar Patel states in his:

Reply # 20: I also think the fact of the anonymity, and this has not be remarked upon, is that it substantially takes away from the gravity of the charge -- which is reduced to no more than gossip.

Perhaps in countries where freedom of speech is considered one`s basic human right (Reply # 13 by Taimurmalik: Article # 19 of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS), then it can be safe to state the names of authors who write such controversial articles. But, unfortunately, the reality is that in Pakistan, and numerous other countries, if you openly discuss unlawful activities partaken by an Army General, an Acting Foreign Secretary, a Brigadier, a Major, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, and numerous other high-level government officials who have proven themselves to be atrocious in reacting to such charges, then exposing your name simply means that you have signed your own ``death certificate``.

For the information of any idealistic reader of Chowk, not only the author of such articles can be killed, but their well-wishers, friends and relatives may be ``kidnapped`` in un-marked cars and their eyes covered before being taken to special cells where they are interrogated for more than 15 days -- all in the name of ``defending Pakistan``! The truth remains that when one reveals incredulous actions taken by high-ranking public officials in Pakistan, a person faces possible death, torture, rape, or at the very least, life imprisonment. So, before criticizing someone for not revealing his or her name, please be realistic to the fact that such a foolish move could prove to be injurious for the author (if still residing in Pakistan).

Therefore, in my opinion, the focus of this discussion should remain on the important issues: gender based violence; unjust imprisonment; and misuse of government powers by individuals who are public officials. Furthermore, unveiling the author will not serve any productive purpose in improving our lives here in Pakistan and will not assist us in our blatant outcries for justice and integrity within our bureaucratic system.

Zehri

There are idiots in every society. And some of them are powerful or well connected to boot.
This ``report`` is an unfortunate reflection of ills that exist within humankind which are possibly more acute in third world countries where the old agrarian background is reluctant to accept the equal rights of the female gender.
But this unfortunate domestic and now international incident does not warrant magnification to
``It is common in Pakistan for law enforcement organizations to raid in the early morning hours to either rape, torture and possibly murder relatives of suspects under interrogation in order to extract false confessions``
Is this a report on domestic violence which
should be condemned to its fullest or an attempt
to malign a country?
If I wanted to judge all of America by a report
that I recently read in the Sacramento Bee where
a man was convicted of killing his wife and kids
(burned them to death, if I remember the report correctly), would that remain my prism to see
ALL of America with from now on?
Domestic violence must be condemned. Police brutality should be similarly exposed and given
back the third degree that it dishes out in countries like Pakistan. But let us not hang an
entire country out to dry on CHOWK because one
man has a problem with his wife.

Ras

i agree that this incident is very unfortunate and disturbing. However, assigning this type of treatment of women as being a character of Pakistan is totally unjustified. Domestic abuses similar to this one occur all over the world. Even in ``The Great United States of America``, a guy can slice and dice his ex-wife, run away from the cops in a White Ford Bronco and be able to walk away from the whole thing a free man..

My point: blame the individuals, not the government...

To me this incident is about the POWER GAME that the influentials of our country are soo fond of playing...

ONE top family trying to get another equally well backed resourceful one!

SPEAK FOR THE RIGHTS OF THOSE who live in misery and die in misery...those who haven`t been lucky enough to get educated or haven`t got any relatives with links to the appointees of Uncle Sam!

SPEAK for those who wake up each morning fearing it to be their last!

SPEAK for those whose lives ended a lot earlier than they should have!

SPEAK for if even we don`t speak MORE basma`s will meet this fate..more naghma`s would die..

and the world will still move on...

and their abusers will still live to see another day...NOW only we don`t want that!

MORE POWER TO PEOPLE!

Saima Shah #25:

You are right about the freedom of press and the freedom of speech..and yes i agree that chowk has been playing its part in providing a platform for free speech and expression...and that is exactly why youngsters like me,seasoned proffesionals like Aakar and others hang out at this place we so fondly call `chowk`.

BUT the fact remains that the AUTHOR`s hiding behind false identities just goes to show the fear that has accumulated in the hearts and minds of an average Pakistani.

AND more importantly the fact that he choose CHOWK as the platform to lend ears to his outcry..he should have been more open,personal,truthful and maybe a bit more AGGRESSIVE,abusive and outright in his expression!



The day I have an incident to narrate I would let it be known to everyone that its ME whos calling the shoots!...LET GO OF THE FEAR!...

Fear is the reason this nation and its people have NEVER been able to make their ruler accountable for their wrong-doings....

WHY IS IT that a nation of 150 million can`t stand up to the ruling elite of 150 families..

Is it death that we fear or is it loss of worldly things,connections and people that we hold dear.

I think it is the fear of ones own guilt being made public that keeps us from speaking out!

It is actually cuz we ourselves are not clean!

May God be kind to us.Amen.

regards,

Taimur.

re saima shah`s response to aaker patel

i couldnt agree more. journalists play the ``neutrality/objective reporting`` card and say they need names of both parties to print articles. many who fear for their lives get silenced as a result.

i appreicate the fact that chowk printed this article. of course the author`s name would have helped, but that`s not the point. in any event, do you blame the author for being afraid? look what this family has done to basma and her relatives?

please, let us not pretend that journalism and media exist in a social and political vacuum. lets ``compromise`` our so-called standards, or re-think them, if a story needs to be told. otherwise we`ll have the usual tripe -- this govt blaming that intelligence agency, vacuous ``bayaans``, and an obsession with the toe nails and nostril hair of celebrities.

regards

Re: All

I have a simple question. Mary and her husband had the US Embassy to protect them and thanks to Uncle Sam`s influence, escaped the web of death laid out for them. What about the average Pakistani who has no one to support him against the lies, who cries for him/her?

Yes, I am trully saddened by this incident and even more so, because it would seem that you need influence to be saved from being wrongly accused by influential persons!

Maybe Pakistan needs an Oskar Schindler of its own; maybe Pakistan needs to die before it can have another rebirth and; maybe Pakistan is just a perception which conflicts with reality!

Yes, we have our problems and those problems are a result of our own misdeeds of greed, indifference and immorality. If we have to slove these problems and better ourselves to that the point that we can call ourselves as human beings, do we need to change ourselves or do we need more laws? What good is a law, protecting us, when we willing disobey that law or sell it to the highest bidder? Can we change for the better? A waterfall starts out with one drop of water and great storms always announce themselves as a simple breeze first, but who will fan our gentle breezes of social equality and when will the rains come promising that one drop of water for which we are thristing? We hear the thunder, but where are the rains? Where are the rains?

I hope the rains come and I hope a gentle breeze whispers our way...

Ciao!

fuzair #24:

Mullahcaust?

Aur Khuda ka kiya karo gay?

On a serious note, I am loathe to blame the mullahs for all that ails us. To me they are usurpers par excellence by default. When people of the Book stop reading, stop learning, sub-surface bearded creatures will fill the vacuum.

To reiterate with perhaps a degree of over-simplication: Islam is not at fault - Muslims are.

rgds,

t