Banning Fashion Shows
Rafay Alam December 1, 2003
#65 Posted by dost_mittar on December 3, 2003 8:47:48 am
...and you thought Pakistan had problems:
December 03, 2003, 8:40 a.m.
European Dishonor
Sharia on the Old Continent.
By Lorenzo Vidino & Erick Stakelbeck
Young women killed for dating. Limbs amputated for petty theft. Makeshift courts deciding the fates of members of local Muslim communities. The Western world has grown accustomed to hearing about the brutalities of Islamic law. However, these primitive practices are no longer limited to the remote tribal areas of Pakistan, the backward kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or oppressive, mullah-dominated Iran. Today, thanks in large part to a massive flow of immigration from Muslim countries, sharia law and medieval customs are becoming increasingly common in the heart of Christian Europe.
One of the most shocking examples of this new reality occurred in Sweden last year, when a Kurdish woman was killed by her father for having a romantic relationship with a Swedish man. Fadime Sahindal, 26, had taken her father and brother to sharia court in 1998, alleging that they had threatened to kill her for refusing to marry a Kurdish man the family had chosen for her. The two received only light sentences, however, and continued to abuse Fadime until, in 2002, her father shot and killed her. Disturbingly, the young woman was well aware of the fate that awaited her, as she said during the 1998 trial: ``The only way for the family to regain its honor now that I have spread dishonor over it is to kill me.``
Cases similar to Fadime`s have been reported in France and Denmark. In England last September, a Kurdish father slit his daughter`s throat because he disapproved of her Christian boyfriend and Westernized way of life. And, recently, in the port town of Taranto in southern Italy, a Muslim man who suspected that his wife had committed adultery decided — after consulting with members of his local Muslim community — that she should be stoned to death. The tragedy was only averted thanks to the intervention of local police.
Honor killings are not limited to Muslim countries and are, in fact, a common practice in several third-world cultures. Not all Muslims approve of them, and, according to some Muslim scholars, they do not reflect ``real Islam.`` Nevertheless, the Koran itself permits men to beat their wives (Chapter 4, Verse 34), and the sharia-inspired penal codes of most Muslim countries give the benefit of the doubt to a man who kills his wife, daughter, or sister for engaging in adulterous or immoral behavior. This barbaric practice, which has not been seen in European countries in well over a century, is making an unsavory return within the Old Continent`s Muslim communities.
The effects of the application of sharia in Europe are not limited to Muslim women. Last year, in the small Italian town of Eboli, hospital workers treated a young Algerian man whose fingers on his right hand had been chopped off. Under questioning, the man refused to reveal how he had sustained his injuries, but investigators have no doubt that he was the victim of punishment carried out according to Islamic law. Authorities in southern Italy, where many migrants from North Africa flock to work in agriculture, are becoming accustomed to such incidents. A Sicilian doctor revealed to the Italian magazine Panorama that victims of violent sharia justice go to the hospital only as a last resort, ``when the bleeding is serious.`` He added that he had become knowledgeable about how amputations must be made according to Islamic tradition (the hand has to be chopped off piece by piece, without breaking any bones).
While these incidents may seem isolated, in actuality, several Muslim groups in Europe openly advocate the introduction of sharia in the West. Uneducated immigrants might use sharia simply because it is a system they are more familiar with, but militant Islamic organizations push for the introduction of Islamic law because they believe it is a superior system, the law revealed by God, and therefore the only acceptable law.
In Germany, Milli Gorus, a militant Turkish Islamic organization with more than 200,000 members, is accused by German intelligence of promoting Islamic law among Turkish immigrants in Europe. The August 2001 issue of Milli Gorus`s official publication, Milli Gazete, featured an article stating that ``A religious Muslim is also at the same time an advocate for sharia. The state, the media, and the courts have no rights to interfere. The allegiance of a Muslim to sharia cannot be condemned or questioned.``
In Britain, the rapid spread of radical Islam in urban areas has led to major social exclusion and the development of sharia among England`s Muslims. Al-Muhajiroun, a London-based fundamentalist group with sympathizers throughout Britain`s burgeoning Muslim communities, has made the struggle against ``man-made law`` one of the key points of its agenda, declaring that its members do not recognize English law, but only Islamic law. (Nevertheless, al-Muhajiroun`s leaders do not disdain collecting unemployment benefits generously granted by English ``man-made law.``)
In Italy, mainstream Muslim groups have asked for the introduction of Islamic marriages with no legal effects under Italian law, a de facto subtraction of the wedlock from the control of authorities. This request is aimed at creating a situation where two different legal systems regulate the lives of two different groups of citizens within the same state. In European legal history, it would represent a jump back to the Middle Ages, when different laws applied to different ethnicities. In practical terms, it would mean that Italian citizens of Muslim faith would be subtracted from the guarantees that the Italian legal system provides to its citizens. Therefore, while Christian Italian women would have the same rights as Italian men, Muslim Italian women would have very few rights. While a Christian woman would have the right to obtain a divorce simply by filing papers, a Muslim woman would have to go to great lengths to prove ill treatment at the hands of her husband.
Multiculturalists and leftist defenders of uncontrolled immigration, uneasy when confronted with episodes of the brutal application of sharia in Europe`s Muslim ghettoes, are quick to predict that these incidents will disappear once Muslims are wealthier and better integrated into Western society through marriage to native Europeans. Unfortunately, it doesn`t appear that these predictions will come true in the foreseeable future. Muslims in Europe account for the vast majority of those living under the poverty line, and Muslim neighborhoods are the poorest areas in nearly every European city. Furthermore, statistics show that the majority of European Muslims are not marrying indigenous Europeans but other Muslims, either from their country of origin or from within local Muslim communities.
Politically correct European politicians, ever mindful not to offend their newly arrived Muslim brethren, have done little to aid in the assimilation process. As a result, immigrants who settle in Europe`s Muslim communities are often greeted with the same sharia-inspired mayhem that they left behind in their countries of origin. From England to Holland to Greece, many European Muslims have managed to segregate themselves from society at large and maintain harsh traditions ill-suited to the West. As the number of unassimilated Muslims grows and Europe`s elites continue to remain silent, the ultimate victim may turn out to be Western civilization itself.
— Erick Stakelbeck is head writer and Lorenzo Vidino is an attorney and terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project, a Washington, D.C.-based counterterrorism think tank.
December 03, 2003, 8:40 a.m.
European Dishonor
Sharia on the Old Continent.
By Lorenzo Vidino & Erick Stakelbeck
Young women killed for dating. Limbs amputated for petty theft. Makeshift courts deciding the fates of members of local Muslim communities. The Western world has grown accustomed to hearing about the brutalities of Islamic law. However, these primitive practices are no longer limited to the remote tribal areas of Pakistan, the backward kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or oppressive, mullah-dominated Iran. Today, thanks in large part to a massive flow of immigration from Muslim countries, sharia law and medieval customs are becoming increasingly common in the heart of Christian Europe.
One of the most shocking examples of this new reality occurred in Sweden last year, when a Kurdish woman was killed by her father for having a romantic relationship with a Swedish man. Fadime Sahindal, 26, had taken her father and brother to sharia court in 1998, alleging that they had threatened to kill her for refusing to marry a Kurdish man the family had chosen for her. The two received only light sentences, however, and continued to abuse Fadime until, in 2002, her father shot and killed her. Disturbingly, the young woman was well aware of the fate that awaited her, as she said during the 1998 trial: ``The only way for the family to regain its honor now that I have spread dishonor over it is to kill me.``
Cases similar to Fadime`s have been reported in France and Denmark. In England last September, a Kurdish father slit his daughter`s throat because he disapproved of her Christian boyfriend and Westernized way of life. And, recently, in the port town of Taranto in southern Italy, a Muslim man who suspected that his wife had committed adultery decided — after consulting with members of his local Muslim community — that she should be stoned to death. The tragedy was only averted thanks to the intervention of local police.
Honor killings are not limited to Muslim countries and are, in fact, a common practice in several third-world cultures. Not all Muslims approve of them, and, according to some Muslim scholars, they do not reflect ``real Islam.`` Nevertheless, the Koran itself permits men to beat their wives (Chapter 4, Verse 34), and the sharia-inspired penal codes of most Muslim countries give the benefit of the doubt to a man who kills his wife, daughter, or sister for engaging in adulterous or immoral behavior. This barbaric practice, which has not been seen in European countries in well over a century, is making an unsavory return within the Old Continent`s Muslim communities.
The effects of the application of sharia in Europe are not limited to Muslim women. Last year, in the small Italian town of Eboli, hospital workers treated a young Algerian man whose fingers on his right hand had been chopped off. Under questioning, the man refused to reveal how he had sustained his injuries, but investigators have no doubt that he was the victim of punishment carried out according to Islamic law. Authorities in southern Italy, where many migrants from North Africa flock to work in agriculture, are becoming accustomed to such incidents. A Sicilian doctor revealed to the Italian magazine Panorama that victims of violent sharia justice go to the hospital only as a last resort, ``when the bleeding is serious.`` He added that he had become knowledgeable about how amputations must be made according to Islamic tradition (the hand has to be chopped off piece by piece, without breaking any bones).
While these incidents may seem isolated, in actuality, several Muslim groups in Europe openly advocate the introduction of sharia in the West. Uneducated immigrants might use sharia simply because it is a system they are more familiar with, but militant Islamic organizations push for the introduction of Islamic law because they believe it is a superior system, the law revealed by God, and therefore the only acceptable law.
In Germany, Milli Gorus, a militant Turkish Islamic organization with more than 200,000 members, is accused by German intelligence of promoting Islamic law among Turkish immigrants in Europe. The August 2001 issue of Milli Gorus`s official publication, Milli Gazete, featured an article stating that ``A religious Muslim is also at the same time an advocate for sharia. The state, the media, and the courts have no rights to interfere. The allegiance of a Muslim to sharia cannot be condemned or questioned.``
In Britain, the rapid spread of radical Islam in urban areas has led to major social exclusion and the development of sharia among England`s Muslims. Al-Muhajiroun, a London-based fundamentalist group with sympathizers throughout Britain`s burgeoning Muslim communities, has made the struggle against ``man-made law`` one of the key points of its agenda, declaring that its members do not recognize English law, but only Islamic law. (Nevertheless, al-Muhajiroun`s leaders do not disdain collecting unemployment benefits generously granted by English ``man-made law.``)
In Italy, mainstream Muslim groups have asked for the introduction of Islamic marriages with no legal effects under Italian law, a de facto subtraction of the wedlock from the control of authorities. This request is aimed at creating a situation where two different legal systems regulate the lives of two different groups of citizens within the same state. In European legal history, it would represent a jump back to the Middle Ages, when different laws applied to different ethnicities. In practical terms, it would mean that Italian citizens of Muslim faith would be subtracted from the guarantees that the Italian legal system provides to its citizens. Therefore, while Christian Italian women would have the same rights as Italian men, Muslim Italian women would have very few rights. While a Christian woman would have the right to obtain a divorce simply by filing papers, a Muslim woman would have to go to great lengths to prove ill treatment at the hands of her husband.
Multiculturalists and leftist defenders of uncontrolled immigration, uneasy when confronted with episodes of the brutal application of sharia in Europe`s Muslim ghettoes, are quick to predict that these incidents will disappear once Muslims are wealthier and better integrated into Western society through marriage to native Europeans. Unfortunately, it doesn`t appear that these predictions will come true in the foreseeable future. Muslims in Europe account for the vast majority of those living under the poverty line, and Muslim neighborhoods are the poorest areas in nearly every European city. Furthermore, statistics show that the majority of European Muslims are not marrying indigenous Europeans but other Muslims, either from their country of origin or from within local Muslim communities.
Politically correct European politicians, ever mindful not to offend their newly arrived Muslim brethren, have done little to aid in the assimilation process. As a result, immigrants who settle in Europe`s Muslim communities are often greeted with the same sharia-inspired mayhem that they left behind in their countries of origin. From England to Holland to Greece, many European Muslims have managed to segregate themselves from society at large and maintain harsh traditions ill-suited to the West. As the number of unassimilated Muslims grows and Europe`s elites continue to remain silent, the ultimate victim may turn out to be Western civilization itself.
— Erick Stakelbeck is head writer and Lorenzo Vidino is an attorney and terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project, a Washington, D.C.-based counterterrorism think tank.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#64 Posted by mumbaikar on December 3, 2003 7:57:58 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#63 Posted by kaurasach on December 3, 2003 7:57:58 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#62 Posted by rsridhar on December 3, 2003 7:57:56 am
re:#49 by kaurasach
I agree with you when you say that India should not ape the west in matters of culture. Fashion show is just one instance.
But then, who is to define what India`s culture is. Go to Goa and you see a very different (and highly westernised) culture as compared to, say Madras. Culture will keep changing depending on people`s choice and there is nothing one can do about it.
Are the Fashion shows bad? They are in as far as they showcase women as sex objects. If women do not object, then who is to stop them. Let us not forget that this kind of openness is not new to India. India is the land of Kamasutra and all those erotic sculptures in Khajraho (spell?) did not drop from the heavens. So, there was a time when these things were ``passe``. Why should the present be different?
As Gandhiji once said ``we will welcome all cultures like fresh breeze through the window but refuse to be blown away by it`` ( i do not remember the exact quote but i think i am close).
Sridhar
I agree with you when you say that India should not ape the west in matters of culture. Fashion show is just one instance.
But then, who is to define what India`s culture is. Go to Goa and you see a very different (and highly westernised) culture as compared to, say Madras. Culture will keep changing depending on people`s choice and there is nothing one can do about it.
Are the Fashion shows bad? They are in as far as they showcase women as sex objects. If women do not object, then who is to stop them. Let us not forget that this kind of openness is not new to India. India is the land of Kamasutra and all those erotic sculptures in Khajraho (spell?) did not drop from the heavens. So, there was a time when these things were ``passe``. Why should the present be different?
As Gandhiji once said ``we will welcome all cultures like fresh breeze through the window but refuse to be blown away by it`` ( i do not remember the exact quote but i think i am close).
Sridhar
#61 Posted by MantoLives on December 3, 2003 7:39:23 am
Harimau,
No doubt you will agree that post of Governor General existed via constitution, and the first governor general of Pakistan came to power through a legal succession enacted by the British parliament`s Government of India act and Independence of India Act. In other words unlike in General Musharraf`s self proclaimed presidency, there was no army and army coup then.
On the contrary, Musharraf is a not a leader who enjoys popular support or the legitimacy of a system.
Personally I would prefer to have an elected president who can over rule any idiotic decisions of a prime minister Jamali who is a confused fatso.
-YLH
#60 Posted by dost_mittar on December 3, 2003 4:11:47 am
PM/rafay_alam:
I wonder if either of you or anyone else knows the answer to this question. In case of murder and diyat, has the govt. of Pakistan fixed the amount of compensation? If so, is compensation the same for everyone or vary with the gender and religion of the victim and perpetrator? I am asking this question because I believe the sahria has different compensations for various categories.
I wonder if either of you or anyone else knows the answer to this question. In case of murder and diyat, has the govt. of Pakistan fixed the amount of compensation? If so, is compensation the same for everyone or vary with the gender and religion of the victim and perpetrator? I am asking this question because I believe the sahria has different compensations for various categories.
#59 Posted by rafay_alam on December 3, 2003 4:04:27 am
In re PM # 57
Fair enough. Got me again.
Rafay Alam
Fair enough. Got me again.
Rafay Alam
#58 Posted by fountainheader on December 2, 2003 11:56:59 pm
khotasikka
You can`t really call ``amchi`` Pune as colloquial because the common Punekar does not say it. We still say ``amche`` Pune. The ``amchi`` is introduced by journalists and RJs who dont know marathi well enough, and thought that since mumbai is ``amchi mumbai``, hence pune would be ``amchi pune``.
Not that it ``offends`` my marathi-ness if someone keeps saying ``amchi`` pune. However I can`t help but correct the error. If despite it people want to keep saying ``amchi``, it`s a free country. :)
You can`t really call ``amchi`` Pune as colloquial because the common Punekar does not say it. We still say ``amche`` Pune. The ``amchi`` is introduced by journalists and RJs who dont know marathi well enough, and thought that since mumbai is ``amchi mumbai``, hence pune would be ``amchi pune``.
Not that it ``offends`` my marathi-ness if someone keeps saying ``amchi`` pune. However I can`t help but correct the error. If despite it people want to keep saying ``amchi``, it`s a free country. :)
#57 Posted by rafay_alam on December 2, 2003 9:57:15 pm
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
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
#56 Posted by PM on December 2, 2003 9:57:15 pm
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.
``...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.
#55 Posted by PM on December 2, 2003 9:33:41 pm
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!~
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!~
#54 Posted by rafay_alam on December 2, 2003 9:27:40 pm
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
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
#53 Posted by subroto on December 2, 2003 9:27:40 pm
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....
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....
#52 Posted by harimau on December 2, 2003 1:53:34 pm
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.
[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.
#51 Posted by khotasikka on December 2, 2003 11:21:44 am
## 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.)
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.)
#50 Posted by Urstruly on December 2, 2003 10:47:21 am
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.
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 Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun38: HP is commenting on... The Correct Turn
- laddu: Hamidm, You would deserve the... The Correct Turn
- jang: we have an obama... The Indian Obama!
- MatloobZaman: http://www.chowk.com/unplugged/t/60360... The Indian Obama!
- laddu: Re: # 111 Vaibhav, You did... The Muslim Protagonist and
- PKSZ_shadbad: Of course Saudis want... Hop Aboard the Interfaith
- laddu: I would have struck... The Indian Obama!
- HP: India’s program is all... The Correct Turn
