PLANS to reform controversial Islamic laws dealing with rape and adultery, which have attracted condemnation in the West, have been watered down by Pakistan’s Government in a compromise with fundamentalist mullahs.
(a few paragraphs down)
Supporters of the compromise say that when the law is passed rape victims will be able to choose between prosecuting suspects under the four-witness rule or under Pakistan’s civil penal code. “If a woman has four witnesses she can file a case under the Hudood law, or if she does not have witnesses she can file a case under the penal code,” said Mr Zafar.
Under another change made after pressure from the Islamic parties, a man and a woman would be charged with lewdness if they indulge in wilful sex, an offence punishable with five years imprisonment.
The Muttehida Qaumi Movement, a secular party, had threatened to quit the ruling coalition if the Government presented the amended Bill. “We cannot support an anti-women Bill,” said Farooq Sattar, one of its leaders.
- Musharraf retreats on rape law
So, Musharraf compromised. Where’s the harm in that? After all, compromise is such a pretty word, alluding to give and take, to sharing and love. Compromise is fair. Compromise is good. Compromise makes everyone happy, yes?
(shrugs)
Compromising when choosing a restaurant to dine at with your best friend? A brilliant idea. Compromising when amending ridiculous rape laws? Well, perhaps not so much so.
The fairest possible outcome isn’t always the median of all possible positions, and it’s certainly not necessarily best to settle on the muddled middle between right and wrong. Sometimes, the fairest outcome has nothing to do with compromise, but instead with evaluating the situation and possibly just choosing what makes the most sense.
In this particular case, if the women have a choice in the matter, why should I be making such a fuss? Certainly, all women will choose to be evaluated in the matter fairest to them, correct? I’m not so sure about that. If religious law is a government sponsored choice, I’d imagine women will continue to experience pressure from their families and communities to submit to it rather than the secular law. Even if not, offering this as a choice is, at the very least, an implied government sanction of discriminatory absurdity.
Giving the same weight to Islamic law as secular penal law isn’t a compromise, it’s just crap. In this case, it’s also coercion. Antiquated, discriminatory religious law has absolutely no place within governmental law. It doesn’t belong as a choice. It doesn’t belong at all.
