Banning Fashion Shows

Urstruly # 50:

You got me. Your`re right, my reasoning is not solid when I state that the Order refers only to women in fashion shows. But what else could I do (one has to work with space, time and content restraints)? To be honest, my first draft of this piece had a riff along the following lines: If women are the reason why fashion shows are ``obscene``, would it be Islamic to have men in ghararas and saris walking down catwalks? But my wife objected (she is of milder disposition than myself).

In any case, I think the assumption - even though unsupported - is correct. What else about fashion shows could the government possibly object to?

Rafay Alam

re. rafay-alam #53:
``...In other words, the murderer can be said to have nothing more than a civil liability (in the form of the Diyat payment). This is true theortically, but not in practice. In my years of practice, I have never come across a case where the [killer`s] family (and here I speak of non-honor killing cases) has been spared.``

Alam sahib, what is true (in the sense of being valid) in theory is, by definition, also true in practice. It is another matter that most--not all, mind you-- killers` families are not spared. I think for anyone concerned with the law and justice, and not enamoured of seventh-century Arabian tribal jurisprudence, it is worrying enough that the practice of paying off the victim`s family is completely within the ambit of the law-- regardless of the frequency of such practice-- for all the temptations it affords the families of social `discontents` alone.

Manto:
Sad news indeed. But in a way, one to give thanks for little blessings too. May Alavi sahib`s soul rest in peace!

---

kaurasach:
You said what I would like to have, but bit my lower lip coz I`m not Indian. Good on ya!

---

Urstruly, re #50
`` One should keep in mind that fashion shows present both male and female models (and sometimes the middle sex as well). So I dont see that ``gender discrimination`` argument is a valid argument.``

I suppose Urstruly would have us believe that thise fashion shows would have been banned even if they featured males exclusively.

Oh the knots we tie ourselves up in! ~sigh!~

Re Bharatvaasi # 40:

Tort is from the old law French meaning hurt. The law of torts deals with legal obligations which exist between individuals based on the unwritten notion of a ``duty of care`` (for example, I have a duty of care not to hit someone with my car, or feed them something poisonous). The law of torts is the flip side of a coin, with the law of contract on the other side. The law of contract deals with the legal obligations which exist between people based on written agreements (for example, I have a contratual duty to pay someone I have bought a pair of shoes from).

Now, If I may be allowed to comment on Mantolives/YLH`s observation that murder in Pakistan is a tort and not a crime. I agree it`s a catchy phrase, but I don`t think it`s entirely correct.

A crime is an act which is so reprehensible that social norms, as reflected by the laws creted by the elected representatives of the people, proscribe it. Fraud is a good example. Think of a situation where I have bought a pair of shoes from you, but have refused to pay. This would normally be a contractual issue, and my liability would be in the form of damages to be paid for breach of contract (said to be a civil liability). But if it can be shown that I deliberately took the shoes from you and had no intention of paying, then social norms dictate that civil liability will not be enough to punish me: I will have to undergo a penalty of a fine along with a jail sentence (in other words, my act so violated the social fabric that I will have to have my liberty taken from me in order to restore order in the universe).

Civil liability also arises in tort cases. For example, if I breach my duty of care and drive my car rashly onto, say, a pavement and thereby injure someone, I have said to have rived negligently and will be legally bound to pay the injured person money to help him recover back to the point (or as close to it) before his accident. Still, however, my liability is civil and in the form of money. It is only if it can be shown that I intentionally drove onto the pavement in order to injure people will I incurr any criminal liability in terms of a jail sentence.

Anyway, I digress. Manolives/YLH`s point stems from the fact that the Qisas and Diyat Ordinances make it clear that even a murderer can be spared punishment if the victim`s family agree to be paid blood money. In other words, the murderer can be said to have nothing more than a civil liability (in the form of the Diyat payment). This is true theortically, but not in practice. In my years of practice, I have never come across a case where the victim`s family (and here I speak of non-honor killing cases) has been spared.

However, on the theoretical plane, I should add that all criminal acts involving (I think) injury to the body are liable to be forgiven under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinances. Thus, not only can murder be considered a tort, but so can assault, battery, rape and so on.

Rafay Alam

RE khotasikka ``Sounds just like amchi Pune. The local Shiv Sena tries each year to stop Valentine`s Day celebrations. They are successful to a large extent as well, terrorising teenagers outside college gates and setting greeting cards on fire. But it only serves to make it more appealing I think. Its funny how these clowns spit into the wind. ``

Shiv Senachi aai cha pu.... 20 years ago in Pune we had people outside the colleges giving out free roses for those who wished to give them to their Valentines....

Ref Field Marshal Romair #19

[If we follow purely Constitutional arguments, then Jamali, being the democratically elected head of Pakistan, should be supported on his banning of fashion shows (regardless of people’s personal opinion), with respect to Musharraf over-ruling him. One can make a Constitutional argument for or against Jamali on this. However, Constitutionally speaking, Musharraf shouldn’t even exist. Hence his over-rule should be opposed.]

Well, Mushy is only following Jinnah in giving orders to the elected Prime Minister.

## kaurasach #49
As far as shiv sena and other fundamentalists, i see it as one evil destroying the other.
##

Whether western influence in India is ``corrupting`` or not is something for each individual to decide. Change makes everyone uncomfortable. But to have a bunch of goons tell me about culture is really rich. Well if that was all they were doing, I`d probably give them the finger and move on. But no. These chaps rough up teenagers outside college gates and burn down cards in shops. That, my friend, is not acceptable.

Everyone has a right to be stupid. And it is enshrined in the constitution. The Sena has no business arm-twisting innocent Punekars. You are welcome to go watch the hijras. Just let me watch my FTV in peace.

fountainheader

Marathi grammar was always my weak point but I like to use Marathi nevertheless. And Punekars like us will have to discontinue being an@l-retentive about the usage. The DJs are simply reflecting a colloquialised version of the language. We have also b@astardised Hindi into Mumbaiyya. Ugich kashala bom marache. Aplya ithe spastha bolnare rahelet tari kiti. (Radio Mirchi sucks anyway.)

Rafay-Alam

This is a well argued thesis, however, at one point the argument is flimsy when you write that ``I would say that the government has not taken umbrage against fashion shows per se, but that it is the participation of women as models in fashion shows which it find objectionable. If this is so, then the Order is guilty of discriminating against women on the basis of sex alone, ...``. The argument is flimsy because Ministry has imposed restriction on fashion shows in general and not women`s participation in them in specific. One should keep in mind that fashion shows present both male and female models (and sometimes the middle sex as well). So I dont see that ``gender discrimination`` argument is a valid argument.

Generally, it is a commentary on the sad state of affairs in Pakistan. The country is virtually being run by the Presidential Orders since Zia took over the government in a coup against democratically elected Bhutto government. According to Constitution of 1973 (the original version prior to Zia) a Presidential order had to ratified by the Parliament within 3 months of its issuance otherwise it would become null and void; but Zia ammended constitution so that the PO can be ``renewed`` by the President as many times as he wants. This curse is a gift to Pakistani society by the military. And that is the reason, for the past 20 years, since Jonejo government the legislative performance of the Parliament has been pathetic. Military just do not want to give this authority to legislate themselves to civilians. They keep the parliament divided and corrupt and use Presidential (whenther in civilian disguise or in uniform) decrees to run the country.

Pathetically enough, thru this order President Musharaf has allowed Jamali to show some muscle but as you have pointed out Ministry does not have jurisdiction over the hotels to impose such order. It is shameless and miserable.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Renowned scholar, historian, a voice of secularism, Prof Hamza Alavi who had spent his life entire life straighterning out distortions of history and mullah`s lies about Pakistan has passed away. He was 82.

A great loss to Pakistan and south asia!!!

Bharatvasi,

What I meant by that comment...

Murder in most civilized countries is a crime against the state. It was so in Pakistan as well till General Zia showed up.

Tort is a civil suit ... the remedy for which is monetary compensation usually. By implementing `Qisas and Diyat` ordinance, the status for murder has become the same. The comment was a sarcastic one.

-YLH

Romair # 19 - A good point: Why don`t people object to the banning of religious organizations? And why are they up in arms when a couple of fashion shows are cancelled? After all, there are freedom of expression issues in both cases.

My basic point in the article is that Pakistan is a country which should be run by laws, not whims. There is no law in Pakistan which authorizes the government to ban fashion shows. There is no law which says that fashion shows cannot be held on religiously sgnificant dates. Unless and until there is a law which proscribes fashion shows, the Prime Minister`s Order remains a whim. I object to any country being run on a whim.

As far the sectarian and jehadi groups are concerned, there is a law (other than the Maintenance of Public Order legislations) which permits the Federal Government to notify certain organizations and illegal and allows it to take action against them. So, to the extent that there is a law permitting action against these groups, I can have no objection to the use of the law.

But I do have an objection to the law. Banning religious ``outfits`` (as they are fashionably referred to in the press) is an issue regarding freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, banning these groups does not eliminate the problem. Banning is a short sighted policy.

And I take the point that I have been silent. I shouldn`t have. Thank you for alerting me to the fact.

Regards,
Rafay Alam

rere: faizahussain

{what we need is more educated minds to go back to Pakistan}

..does that include people like you with college degrees who will shove religious blabber down everyone`s throats?...

dost-mittar #38, mantolives had an interesting take on this. In one of interacts he said that honor killing had something to do with TORTs. From what I know of TORT is has something to do with contractual obligations pertaining to goods, commodities and right to property. I wonder if Mantolives (YLH) could elaborate on his take. (he made this remark in the passing to Rafay Alam if I remember correctly)

What those who ban sexuality in the name of religion and “decency” don’t realize that they are creating a sexually repressed society, turning perfectly normal heterosexuals into homosexuals. It’s not by accident that Kundahar is the gay capital of the world, and Afghanistan perhaps the most anal country in the world.

I find it quite amusing (and ironic) that, for the pious and “decent”, homosexuality is perfectly acceptable but display of affection among hetroes is not!

//...you have a very superficial understanding of the whole issue. ...In any event I don`t have time for this...//

Actually - as I said, I don`t understand it at all. I have done some reading on it - but haven`t found any explanation that makes sense.

But you are right - a lot have already been said on this topic. Nobody has time for another round :)