Pakistan

Sultan said:
I'm confused - we maybe at cross purposes with legal terms. I'm no lawyer, but I understand a thought can never be prosecuted. Below is a link what I'm talking about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/advice/factfile_az/racism
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that link is specific enough for me to understand, can you maybe give an example?



What I mean by hate crime laws is this...


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States



If someone assaults a black person because they are racist, they should be prosecuted for assault. Adding more charges or punishment because of the motivation behind it is punishing thoughts.
 
Eboue said:
I'm not sure that link is specific enough for me to understand, can you maybe give an example?



What I mean by hate crime laws is this...


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States



If someone assaults a black person because they are racist, they should be prosecuted for assault. Adding more charges or punishment because of the motivation behind it is punishing thoughts.
Click to expand...
UK laws are very different. Sentencing is more severe if race is proved to be a motivation.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/engla...acially_and_religiously_motivated_attacks.htm

Racially and religiously aggravated criminal offences
If a criminal offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the court can impose a more severe sentence than if it was not racially or religiously aggravated. Some examples of offences which can be racially or religiously motivated are:-

  • criminal damage
  • assault, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm
  • harassment.
An offence is racially or religiously aggravated if, at the time it is committed, the offender is insulting about the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or the offence is motivated by hostility towards members of a particular racial or religious group.

There may have been previous attacks in the area which could help to indicate that an attack was racially or religiously aggravated. There may also be a local organisation, for example, a community group or the Citizens Advice Bureau, which can confirm that there is a history of such attacks in the area. Evidence of a history of attacks in an area may help to prove to the police that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated.
 
Sultan said:
UK laws are very different. Sentencing is more severe if race is proved to be a motivation.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/engla...acially_and_religiously_motivated_attacks.htm

Racially and religiously aggravated criminal offences
If a criminal offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the court can impose a more severe sentence than if it was not racially or religiously aggravated. Some examples of offences which can be racially or religiously motivated are:-

  • criminal damage
  • assault, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm
  • harassment.
An offence is racially or religiously aggravated if, at the time it is committed, the offender is insulting about the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or the offence is motivated by hostility towards members of a particular racial or religious group.

There may have been previous attacks in the area which could help to indicate that an attack was racially or religiously aggravated. There may also be a local organisation, for example, a community group or the Citizens Advice Bureau, which can confirm that there is a history of such attacks in the area. Evidence of a history of attacks in an area may help to prove to the police that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated.
Click to expand...

That's actually exactly what I an talking about. In that situation, the law is saying that not only are you punished for the attack but we are ask punishing you for having racist thoughts.
 
Eboue said:
I'm not a lawyer but obviously not. I'm not sure what you are getting at. If the law is as you have just posted then that is criminalizing thoughts.
Click to expand...
No, it's not criminalising thoughts. It's criminalising acting on those thoughts.
 
I'm pretty sure you both agree, actually. It's a purely semantic issue.

It's a bit misleading to describe hate crime laws as "criminalizing thoughts". For reasons of public policy, the law treats committing assault with bigotry as your motive as a separate genus of offence from assault because you were, say, drunk. It's no different from the law treating people who killed someone because it was fun differently from someone who killed because the other had provoked him with fighting words.

To say that the thought itself is criminalized is wrong, since you can go around thinking "I'm going to kill that black/Asian/Jewish/white because I hate black/Asian/Jewish/white people" all day and nothing'll happen to you. That's what I think Sultan is referring to.
 
Eboue said:
The action is already criminalized.
We already have laws for assault and murder. Added features of the law that increase punishment due to the thoughts held by the perpetrator is criminalizing thoughts.
Click to expand...
Well, we're different in the UK.

naturalized said:
To say that the thought itself is criminalized is wrong, since you can go around thinking "I'm going to kill that black/Asian/Jewish/white because I hate black/Asian/Jewish/white people" all day and nothing'll happen to you. That's what I think Sultan is referring to.
Click to expand...
Quite. Thoughts alone cannot constitute a crime.
 
Sultan said:
Well, we're different in the UK.
Click to expand...

No, I think that may be incorrect, actually. I'm pretty sure that while the exact wording of your two countries' respective hate-crimes legislation is different, the substance and intent is the same.

Eboue is trying to say - perhaps maladroitly - that if someone, say John, commits murder for a generic reason (argument gone wrong, for instance), and someone else, say Terry, commits murder for a hate-related reason (dislikes Asians, for instance), the law will punish Terry far more severely, and hence it was the thought in Terry's head ("f*ck this Asian bastard") that was criminalized. Unless I'm very much mistaken, your laws in the UK function exactly the same way.
 
naturalized said:
No, I think that may be incorrect, actually. I'm pretty sure that while the exact wording of your two countries' respective hate-crimes legislation is different, the substance and intent is the same.

Eboue is trying to say - perhaps maladroitly - that if someone, say John, commits murder for a generic reason (argument gone wrong, for instance), and someone else, say Terry, commits murder for a hate-related reason (dislikes Asians, for instance), the law will punish Terry far more severely, and hence it was the thought in Terry's head ("f*ck this Asian bastard") that was criminalized. Unless I'm very much mistaken, your laws in the UK function exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I'm saying.




:lol: at John Terry
 
Zarlak said:
Maybe we've crossed wires. It came across like you were in favour of the laws in Pakistan and their purpose but against it being legal to air your thoughts in the USA. I probably misunderstood.
Click to expand...
I am in favour of blasphemy laws in countries where religion forms a major part of everyday life, and culture. Obviously US, and Europe are of different make up and not needed due to more liberal leanings.
 
Zarlak said:
But what punishment are you in favour of?
Click to expand...
It's a deterrent, Z. Posters living in these countries will understand were I'm coming from.

Imagine a Christian/Muslim belonging to a minority in India starts blaspheming against one of the Hindu Gods? I cannot imagine the backlash against those communities. Similarly a Christian in Pakistan blaspheming would have severe consequences on his community.
 
I guess we just disagree. Maybe it's just my Western mind but I really don't think there's that much wrong with it. Most of the stuff that we see classified as 'blasphemy' is laughable.

If the culture is that deeply rooted in something that it forgoes all common sense and sacrifices human rights at the expense of a leap of faith when it isn't our duty to self appoint ourselves to carry out Gods justice even if he even did exist in the first place, then surely it's a sign that it needs to grow up.

Sentencing shoplifters and car thieves to death would act as a deterrent, but it's not necessary.
 
@Zarlak I'd say someone deliberately blaspheming to cause anarchy is very likely to be on par with a person promoting terrorism. The consequences could be severe in both cases in loss of life and property.

PS: These are my personal thoughts.
 
To be honest though Sults, someone blaspheming to cause anarchy is a different kettle of fish to the majority of 'blasphemy' that we see reported which is the equivalent of someone being sent to court for saying they didn't believe in God or because someone who had a vendetta reported that they said God was a bell end.

I'm with you that someone intending to actually cause harm should be punished, but I still think sentencing them to death is ridiculous. The reason that it's a deterrent could be used for any crime.
 
Zarlak said:
I guess we just disagree. Maybe it's just my Western mind but I really don't think there's that much wrong with it. Most of the stuff that we see classified as 'blasphemy' is laughable.

If the culture is that deeply rooted in something that it forgoes all common sense and sacrifices human rights at the expense of a leap of faith when it isn't our duty to self appoint ourselves to carry out Gods justice even if he even did exist in the first place, then surely it's a sign that it needs to grow up.

Sentencing shoplifters and car thieves to death would act as a deterrent, but it's not necessary.
Click to expand...
I completely understand where you're coming from, Z. It's a different world out there. That's why I said people living in these countries will understand what I am trying to say.
 
I understand where you're coming from, I believe that it really is a big deal out there but I just agree with what Eboue said in reply to you saying we shouldn't cast stones and should sort our own back yard out first. Just because they're behind us doesn't mean we can't try to help them catch up.
 
Zarlak said:
To be honest though Sults, someone blaspheming to cause anarchy is a different kettle of fish to the majority of 'blasphemy' that we see reported which is the equivalent of someone being sent to court for saying they didn't believe in God or because someone who had a vendetta reported that they said God was a bell end.

I'm with you that someone intending to actually cause harm should be punished, but I still think sentencing them to death is ridiculous. The reason that it's a deterrent could be used for any crime.
Click to expand...
There's no compulsion in religion. No one should ever be convicted for non belief. That would be just daft.
 
Zarlak said:
I understand where you're coming from, I believe that it really is a big deal out there but I just agree with what Eboue said in reply to you saying we shouldn't cast stones and should sort our own back yard out first. Just because they're behind us doesn't mean we can't try to help them catch up.
Click to expand...
The problem arises in determining who and what culture is right. We cannot impose any of our ideals and beliefs on others.
 
Sultan said:
I completely understand where you're coming from, Z. It's a different world out there. That's why I said people living in these countries will understand what I am trying to say.
Click to expand...

This is quiet true. Recently, all copies of a book questioning the Hindu Gods were destroyed in India. We don't have practice complete freedom of thought, but in a society such as India and Pakistan, there needs to be some kind of control over what you can say and what you can't. Unfortunately, that's how the system works and our society isn't mature enough to handle the freedom enjoyed in the western world. It doesn't mean nothing offensive is every said though, Mulayam Singh Yadav just said that 'boys will be boys, and he'll work to get some of the anti rape laws repealed'.
 
Zarlak said:
I would agree with you if doing so served no purpose, but I think that we can when it leads to the saving of lives.
Click to expand...

The very purpose and thinking behind these laws is very much to do with saving lives, and to keep peace within these ultra religious communities. My life revolves around religion which involves holding in high esteem certain central figures of my faith. However, If someone offended these people I'd definitely not be beating my chest. It's very likely to do with my UK upbringing, and education.

Europe, and the USA were not very tolerant of those blaspheming just a few decades back. I'm sure that will be the case in Africa, Middle East and Asia in the not very long future.
 
Pak honour killing
Lahore, June 28 (Reuters): A young couple in Pakistan were tied up and had their throats slit with scythes after they married for love, police said on Saturday.

The 17-year-old girl and 31-year-old man married on June 18 without the consent of their families in eastern Pakistan’s Punjabi village of Satrah, police said. The girl’s mother and father lured the couple home late on Thursday with the promise that their marriage would receive a family blessing, said local police official Rana Zashid.

“When the couple reached there, they tied them with ropes,” he said. “He (the girl’s father) cut their throats.”

Police arrested the family, who said they had been embarrassed by the marriage of their daughter, named Muafia Hussein, to a man from a less important tribe.

Cultural traditions in many areas of Pakistan mean that killing a woman whose behaviour is seen as immodest is widely accepted.

Immodest behaviour that sparked recent killings included singing, looking out of the window or talking to a man who is not a relative. For a woman to marry a man of her own choice is considered an unacceptable insult by many families.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said 869 so-called “honour killings” were reported in the media last year — several a day. But the true figure is probably much higher since many cases are never reported.

The weak Pakistani government, battling with a troubled economy and a Taliban insurgency, does not collect centralised statistics and has no strategy to combat the killings.
 
A must watch for all pakistanis (well except kashmir should have gone to pak part ;))

 
crappycraperson said:
That was great. Hopefully this view will be dominant in Pakistan in coming 10-20 years.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but he's been labelled as a traitor and is in exile. It doesn't help matters when supposedly liberal and educated people like imran khan start parroting the taliban line!
 
Imran Khan in his desperation has become a band wagon jumper. Wouldn't take him seriously in anything now. A bit like Liberal Democrats.
 
Sultan said:
There's no doubt Pakistan are at crossroads at present. It's always been particularly a particularly volatile nation since the partition (which should never have happened). Pakistan have also been in an unfortunate situation because they are bordering Afghanistan and Iran. The refugee problem over the last decade has seen a few million political and religious refugees flood into Pakistan causing more problems to an already difficult situation.
Click to expand...
I was talking to a Pakistani friend not long ago who concurred with this. He said that even before the US occupation that the Taliban and terrorists had them fleeing from Afghanistan. When it then became a war zone there was a mass exodus, with Pakistan immigration able to do little in accepting afghan refugees. My mate said that the US crusade against select Muslim nations was costing bordering countries millions in aid that they simply didn't have. He concluded that the US waged 'war on terror' has an unlimited budget and pays no attention to the affect it has the on the socioeconomics of other nations, which can then turn into humanitarian issues as well.

Pakistan is one nation, but some of the other countries bordering the occupied war zones will be facing similar refugee crises as a knock on effect of this ongoing US occupation. UN, WHO, world powers etc should be working faster to put a govt/police/army in place a bit quicker than it's happening imo. The US need to pull out...but realistically, can they just pull out like that, even if they wanted to? But until they do work something out, the refugees will continue to pour in.
 
brewlio said:
I was talking to a Pakistani friend not long ago who concurred with this. He said that even before the US occupation that the Taliban and terrorists had them fleeing from Afghanistan. When it then became a war zone there was a mass exodus, with Pakistan immigration able to do little in accepting afghan refugees. My mate said that the US crusade against select Muslim nations was costing bordering countries millions in aid that they simply didn't have. He concluded that the US waged 'war on terror' has an unlimited budget and pays no attention to the affect it has the on the socioeconomics of other nations, which can then turn into humanitarian issues as well.

Pakistan is one nation, but some of the other countries bordering the occupied war zones will be facing similar refugee crises as a knock on effect of this ongoing US occupation. UN, WHO, world powers etc should be working faster to put a govt/police/army in place a bit quicker than it's happening imo. The US need to pull out...but realistically, can they just pull out like that, even if they wanted to? But until they do work something out, the refugees will continue to pour in.
Click to expand...

Before the usa started actively supporting militants in afghanistan against ussr the pakistanis and saudis were already destabalizing afghanistan thereby prompting the then socialist afghan govt to call for assistance from the soviets. So you see pakistan is not a innocent victim, they have provided services willingly to usa and gotten more than 40 billion dollars excluding the military goodies they've received plus the bling eye from usa when it received nukes from china. After the soviets left they didn't disband the training camps for militants and themselves used it further to target India. Now that the snake is biting the hand that fed it they are crying foul! See the video i posted above to get a clearer picture.
 
Discounting the historical background, the current situations is that I still think the country is on verge of imploding and the local administration is helpless or does not want to stop the change. It has become a hotbed for radicals and terror mongers.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Discounting the historical background, the current situations is that I still think the country is on verge of imploding and the local administration is helpless or does not want to stop the change. It has become a hotbed for radicals and terror mongers.
Click to expand...

I once heard a pakistani claim pakistan is not a nation but rather a large scale machli mandi.

I dont think he's wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.