Paul Martin slams Pervez Musharraf

[kimmy]

While I have often criticized our prime minister for lacking courage, I will give credit where it is due:

Martin blasts Musharraf for rape comments.

It has been a pretty good week. First, Dalton McGuinty telling religious arbitration to step off, and now Paul Martin asking his Pakistani counterpart "WTF was that?" I find it inspiring to see our leaders actually standing up for our values. Since when have our politicians had the spine to stand up to swarthy peoples and religious lobbies?

related story: Musharraf opens mouth; crap comes out.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

From your second link...

"Pakistan should not be singled out when the curse is everywhere in the world," he said adding that reports or figures about rape in the US, Canada, France and Britain show that "it is happening everywhere".

I thought 'the curse' was a euphemism for the menstrual cycle....

[August1991]

Let me get this straight. (All quotes from links above.)

If I understand properly, a Pakistani woman, a victim of rape, has applied for immigration to Canada:

Pakistan is under fire for what human rights groups say is rampant violence against women. In one recent high-profile case, a woman who said she had been gang-raped fled to Britain and then sought permission to move to Canada.

I gather that approval of the woman's immigration application is dependent on the fact that she is a rape victim.

In response, Musharraf said:

You must understand the environment in Pakistan. This has become a moneymaking concern...a lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.

So, Musharraf is saying that Pakistani women deliberately get raped so that they can emigrate to Canada.

In response to Musharraf, Martin said:

''I stated unequivocally that comments such as that are not acceptable and that violence against women is also a blight that besmirches all humanity,'' Mr Martin told a news conference at the United Nations.

So, Martin is saying that rape is bad.

----

I'm still confused: Does Canadian immigration policy have a special category for rape victims?

Why does Musharraf believe a woman would choose to get raped to leave Pakistan?

[PocketRocket]

Why does Musharraf believe a woman would choose to get raped to leave Pakistan?

The second link indicates that may indeed be the case.

Good for PM. It seems he's developing some stones.

I heard yesterday that he blasted the UN as well.

Nice to see somebody at least TRYING to change the UN from the inside out, rather than simply blathering about its "insignifigance".

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

This from the BBC news,

The Lahore High Court had in March acquitted the five who are accused of raping Mukhtar Mai in 2002, allegedly on a village council's order.

I'm still confused: Does Canadian immigration policy have a special category for rape victims?

No, but they have one for victims fleeing persecution, though. If you'll recall, Ms. Mai was gang-raped under orders of a villiage council (as punishment for the alleged transgressions of her brother) and I for one would think that being a victim in these circumstances would be grounds for fleeing the country. If you'll also recall, Musharraf also tried to prevent her from leaving the country in order to prevent her 'stirring up trouble'.

I do not know the details of the case, but two things must be present for this to be a legitimate immigration case. Firstly, rape must be systemic, and secondly, condoned by the gov't or police. It sounds as though both might be true.

If Musharraf is of the mind that rape is a reasonable and lawful punishment, especially when it is in a judgement against a different family member, I would say this would qualify as 'undue persecution'.

Why does Musharraf believe a woman would choose to get raped to leave Pakistan?

I believe it would have to be a combination of ignorance and misogyny. How does anyone 'choose to get raped'? Choosing implies consent, and therefore isn't rape. I suspect there is more to the story, such as 'a woman chooses to speak out against injustices against women, for which the punishment is rape' for example.

[kimmy]

Doing some reading on the incident which prompted Musharraf's outburst, it turns out that Musharraf's government did give Mukhtar 500,000 rupees in compensation for the incident to which Fleabag refers. 500,000 Pakistani rupees is apparently worth about $8000, which makes the "millionaire" comment seem like a bit of an exaggeration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtar_Mai

The incident is apparently something of a sore-spot for Musharraf, and he banned her from travelling outside the country because he was upset that western activist groups were using her to embarrass his country.

The article seems to indicate that the "village council" was more along the lines of members of one family that claimed to have been wronged by a member of Mukhtar's clan or family. Another article indicates that the family that gang-raped Mukhtar had also been using gang-rape as a means of intimidating another family, trying to get them to leave so that their land could be taken.

Is this "systemic"? The wiki article indicates that only with the urging of a local Imam did Mukhtar even come forward to file charges. It sort of gives me the impression that the issue is an inability to maintain law and order in isolated areas.

I gather that the statement that set PM Paulie off was this:

He further said that Pakistan should not be seen in isolation as far as rape cases are concerned, as it happens even in the US, Canada, France and the UK also.

"Pakistan should not be singled out when the curse is everywhere in the world," he said adding that reports or figures about rape in the US, Canada, France and Britain show that "it is happening everywhere".

I have no idea what expertise Musharraf might have to comment on rape cases in Canada. Perhaps he might be of the impression that rape cases in the west result in victims receiving big settlements. (Did Kobe Bryant's alleged victim get a bunch of money? I can't recall.) I suspect Musharraf, embarrassed by the negative publicity over the Mukhtar Mai incident, was trying to deflect criticism of his nation. Trying to downplay the issue by questioning the motivations of women in his own country is bad enough, but impugning the motives of Canadian women really crosses the line, in my opinion.

-k

[PocketRocket]

Every day we hear of something like this going on in some country or other.

Kind of makes all our little troubles here seem rather small.

And yet we also hear nearly every day about some group or other who wants to split up Canada.

I would encourage all who advocate such a thing to spend a year living in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq or Kenya or China or North Korea or Zimbabwe or .........

[err]

Dear August1991,

This from the BBC news,

The Lahore High Court had in March acquitted the five who are accused of raping Mukhtar Mai in 2002, allegedly on a village council's order.

Excellent clarification... There are those who would distort the story .... and say things like "lets be clear", "IOW", etc, before they know what the story is about. Thanks theloniusfleabag....

[August1991]

I am utterly confused by this thread.

Is there any evidence that the woman, noted in the very first article of this thread, who is apparently requesting immigration to Canada is the same woman, Mukhtar Mai, in the wikipedia article? Does this detail matter?

So far, all that I can gather is that Musharraf seems to believe that women will get raped to emigrate or to become millionaires. And Paul Martin is against rape.

Both statements strike me as unhelpful in trying to understand what's going on here, other than the facile interpretation that Musharraf is apparently a bad guy and Paul Martin is a good guy.

[err]

I am utterly confused by this thread.

Look at fleabag's post... I remember this being in the news.... You can probably find lots of information (on the internet).

[kimmy]

I am utterly confused by this thread.

Is there any evidence that the woman, noted in the very first article of this thread, who is apparently requesting immigration to Canada is the same woman, Mukhtar Mai, in the wikipedia article?  Does this detail matter?

Are they the same incident? Maybe not. The wiki article indicated that Mukhtar Mai had been put on a no-fly list by Musharraf's government and had her passport confiscated. The woman mentioned in the first article was said to have fled to Britain before attempting to emigrate to Canada; Mukhtar Mai is apparently unable to leave Pakistan.

But why would it matter? Musharraf was responding to questions regarding a specific incident when he made his remarks, but he answered in broad generalizations about not only women in his own country, but also in Canada, the US, and the UK.

Musharraf was responding to questions about the Mukhtar Mai incident when he made the comments that drew Martin's ire. The case of the woman attempting to emigrate was not refered to by either Martin or Musharraf, as far as I know; it was mentioned only by the Indian newspaper from which the first article came, in the context of describing criticism of Pakistan's womens rights problems and perhaps explaining Canada's interest.

So far, all that I can gather is that Musharraf seems to believe that women will get raped to emigrate or to become millionaires.  And Paul Martin is against rape.

Both statements strike me as unhelpful in trying to understand what's going on here, other than the facile interpretation that Musharraf is apparently a bad guy and Paul Martin is a good guy.

I'm not sure that Musharraf is a bad guy; to date he's struck me as a beacon of moderation and enlightenment compared to some of the hardline kooks who want to be running that country. Musharraf might have put his foot in his mouth on the issue of womens' rights, but I suspect womens' rights will be a lot safer under Musharraf's leadership than the alternative.

As for the issue of whether Canada does or should consider sexual violence as a legitimate claim for persecution and cause for immigration... I would say, "maybe". If a country has a chronic inability to protect womens' safety, then why shouldn't we? For instance in some Latin American countries, a guy can apparently kill his wife or girlfriend with minimal legal repercussion if he thinks she's cheating on him. Well, if we were looking at some country where it was basically legal to harm or kill members of some religious or ethnic group, we'd consider that a legitimate claim to persecution. So, same logic.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

other than the facile interpretation that Musharraf is apparently a bad guy and Paul Martin is a good guy.

Both are politicians, full of bluster and good photo-ops. Also, remember you are mostly reading Western news sources.

Is there any evidence that the woman, noted in the very first article of this thread, who is apparently requesting immigration to Canada is the same woman, Mukhtar Mai, in the wikipedia article? Does this detail matter?

I do not believe that they are the same woman. That detail does not matter. What really matters (to the purpose of this thread) is whether or not rape is systemic, condoned, and a legal or legitimate claim to 'persecution' for immigration purposes, and whether or not Paul Martin thinks so.

I gather that approval of the woman's immigration application is dependent on the fact that she is a rape victim.

If the problem is systemic and condoned or endorsed by state or religion, you can leave the word 'rape' out of the sentence, as it is incidental.

Don't forget, the PM P.M. can call an election at any time, so if he appears to be taking 'a tough stance' on things, you can be sure the election call will be sooner rather than later.