Slang Power

I'm pissed, yo.

This phrase is a normalized part of the English language for me. Not to say I am pissed all the time - but when I am, I rarely will express it as: Well, I am angry.

Slang is associated with many things - the evolution of language, the re-appropriation of terms and the misappropriation of terms.

Slang can be so whacked out in your own language, so why does it always seem even stranger in other languages? The connection from the slang term to the actual term seems so much more distant in other languages because of our own ignorance of the language and it's many intricacies.

So, while visiting my dear friend Andreea in Spain, she mentioned to me that the word for variety store here is Paki. And for dollar store, Chino.

Huh?

Those who grew up in Spain have assured me these are not racist terms. They simply refer to the short-form term for ethnicities that tend to own these kind of stores. They are perceived as innocuous terms with no latent negative meaning.

I am most interested in the use of Paki, given it's long ugly history. The power to create this slang and make it a mainstream phrase is not with Pakistanis, but most seem to think Pakistanis likely don't mind.

So how do the Pakis feel about this?

Andreea and I have decided to explore the subject further. Stay tuned.

International Women's Day and the F-word

International Women’s Day always brings gender issues into the mainstream media, providing a rare reason for a broad audience to talk about how to eliminate violence against women, ensure greater political representation, or guarantee reproductive rights.

As happy as I am to see those issues be discussed by a wider audience than the usual “progressive” crowd, I can’t help but think: Will I ever live in a world where we don’t need a day to speak about these issues? Where the population at large simply cares to ensure particular privileges exist for women and men alike?

This gets me thinking about the “women’s movement”. I am not sure it is a singular movement anymore since every issue has a gender angle to it - poverty, climate change, economic development. Many people that cringe at the use of the “f-word” often wonder why, in a society where women have equal rights, do women have to be so annoying and talk about gender – it’s a non-issue right?

I always keep a few responses in my back pocket:

1. It is about gender – men and women are NOT the same, therefore have different needs.You cannot have a conversation about gender without talking about men.

2. Fixation on the pay issue is always a favourite for many people in North America. “Women work, they make the same money, have the same opportunities” is something I hear all the time. Women are now attaining higher levels of education, but still make less – across almost every field. It’s still an issue as economic means remain a determinant of other opportunities available to an individual.

3. Women “here” are connected to women “there” – those faraway places that we don’t like to think about because unpleasant things such as genital mutilation and forced marriage happen.

4. Women “here” experience many of the same things – do we truly believe there are no forced sex workers, women experiencing violence, or systemic poverty in our society?

5. This isn’t about making women victims. Every society I can think of in today’s world (I am sure I have knowledge gaps – this is a blog not a thesis, get over it) patriarchy reigns. We need to work towards a world where victimizing a woman isn’t normal and advocating tooth and nail for a fair shot at life is no longer the case. The power for a woman to choose her own destiny is all we ask for.

Work life, family life, sex life – whatever, is all affected by gender relations. For many, the status quo provides benefits- making individuals blind to its effect on others, or the status quo is so completely normalized it becomes difficult to imagine any other type of society.

We pesky women (and men) have imaginations. We can imagine worlds that do not exist but can exist. One where your genitalia does not determine your destiny.

Moreover, us pesky feminists believe it will exist.

To women all over – mothers, sisters, friends and lovers, have a lovely International Women’s Day.

To fund or not to fund - that is not simply not the question.

Bev Oda, the minister responsible for Candian International Development Agency, altered a recommendation made by staff within the agency. By hand-writing "NOT" in a document produced by a civil servant, Oda altered the recommendation from reading a contribution to the organization Kairos be approved, to reading the contribution not be approved. See the document here.

Oda has now come under fire by opposition parties for previously denying any knowledge about who had altered the memo.

PM Harper has defended Oda by saying that it is the minister's decision whether or not to fund an organization and not the bureaucracy's.

Once again, Harper relies on the lack of knowledge in the general public around the role of bureaucratic arm in relation to the political arm. The civil service is certainly not composed of decision-makers, rather, it is composed of those who have the academic, technical, and institutional knowledge to advise politicians on making decisions.

By changing the recommendation, Oda was not taking responsibility for her decision and rather was trying to shift that responsibility to the poor bureaucrat who wrote the memo (in all likelihood in good faith).

Part of being a politician is the privledge of making these types of decisions. That being said, the politician also bears the responsibility for that decision- especially in cases when decisions are contrary to what has been recommended by the bureacracy. Given that every recommendation that comes up to the political level must be buttressed with an appropriate amount of evidence to clearly demonstrate why the recommendation is in fact in the best interest of the public, that same burden must fall on a politician when he or she decides to take another course of action.

So either our PM is trying to pull a fast one on the public with his justification of Oda's actions, or he simply misunderstands the intended model of a relationship between a cabinet and the bureacracy. Either way - it's NOT looking good.

Hope grows.

As the tentacles power grew in Egypt and strangled citizens, they found their strength to struggle against this force, at first nibbling, then gnawing - rapidly becoming more assertive. I have watched this scene unfold and remain transfixed on whether or not they will be able to truly oust the beast.

The police have been dealt their karmic cards - stations burned, authority stripped.

The military remains the wildcard. Whether or not the military will support the people or the government will help shape the outcome.

The president is deposing the government as he plans to be the lone horse riding into town at dawn after this long, long night. Brave or stupid? Either way, his karmic card will be dealt.

Part Four - Politics, People and Prayer: Behind the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan

Implications for the Nation

Sherry Rehman has recognized that support for the blasphemy law is a symptom of the increasing extremism in Pakistan that has led to increasing disregard for human rights: “Even with full repeal, the abuse of minorities won’t stop. Most cases are perpetrated by mobs.”

She goes on to say, “They, too, must know the law will take cognizance of their behaviour as criminal and liable for punishment.” However, authorities have turned a blind eye to the mobs, perhaps out of fear, ideology or lack of capacity. The weakness of the judiciary is exposed as the public enforces the blasphemy law rather than the courts.

The implications of this are far-reaching. Democracy in Pakistan is weak to say the least – Pakistanis may be able to vote, but stale political choices and lack of protection for minority rights reveal the regressive nature of the political system.

The deep political divide, however, is not as clear as it may first appear. Those who oppose the blasphemy law face a muzzle on their freedom of speech – the price of removing the muzzle proved too high for Mr. Taseer.

The true failure of the nation lies in the irony of a country created to protect a population from becoming a sidelined minority to later rearing its ugly head as a mob majority.

Part Three - Politics, People and Prayer: Behind the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan

Real Politik

Pakistan has not been afforded the luxury of a stable political system. Between the military dictatorships of ul Haq in 1988 and Musharraf in 1999, the pendulum of power has swung between governments led by Benazir Bhutto as leader of the Pakistani’s People Party (PPP) and Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistani Muslim League – Nawaz Group (PML-N). Battling constant allegations of corruption, satisfying the electorate and appeasing the religious elements of society has left little time for action on the blasphemy law.

During Bhutto’s second term in office, she was unable to make procedural changes to the law, let alone abolish it. Musharraf was similarly unsuccessful in 2005. After the fall of Musharraf in 2008, and the introduction of another PPP government under Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's widower, the law remains intact.

In November 2010, PPP Member of National Assembly (MNA) and former Information Minister Sherry Rehman brought a private member’s bill to the National Assembly to amend the blasphemy law. The most important amendment Rehman proposed was to replace the death penalty in section 295-C with a 10-year sentence. The government has maintained that the PPP is not associated with the bill and it should be viewed as a private member’s bill.

On January 1^st, a strike in Pakistan’s largest urban centre, the port city of Karachi, was organized in condemnation of the proposed amendments. The city was virtually shut down as businesses and transport operators stopped service to protest the amendments.

In addition to this opposition is the added complication of the support of lawyers, religious leaders, and political parties of the actions of Mumtaz Qadri, Salman Taseer’s killer. Public rallies held in support of Qadri’s cause have put the government further on edge.

The PPP government is already in a minority position, and needs the support of coalition parties in order to effectively lead the country. With the withdrawal of key support from the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) earlier this month, the government cannot afford an unpopular move. Amending the blasphemy law may prove to be political suicide, even if the act itself is in line with the ideology of the party. This paints a bleak picture for those that hope the blasphemy law will be repealed and dark implications for the possibilities of a true democracy in Pakistan.

Part Two - Politics, People and Prayer: Behind the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan

Consequences of the law

Interestingly enough, protective measures for minorities exist within Part XV of the PPC. For instance, sections 295 and 295-A of the PPC speak against offences made against “religions of any class”, unlike later sections that refer specifically to Islamic symbols. Unfortunately, time has proven that sections such as 295B and 295C, which refer to the defilement of the Quran and defamation of the Prophet, have received far more attention by the public and judicial system.

The National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP) is a human rights advocacy organization founded in 1985 by the Pakistan Catholic Bishops’ Conference. It has been in strong opposition to the blasphemy law and has advocated on behalf of those wrongfully accused under it since 1990.
According to the NCJP 2009-2010 Human Rights Monitor, there were an increasing number of blasphemy cases in 2008 and 2009, and further research indicated that a number of cases exploited the law for personal reasons. In 2009, the government compensated victims for loss of property and loss of life at the hands of extremists in relation to blasphemy cases, but the government has not identified a long-term strategy to stop the abuse of the legislation.

The NCJP has also reported that 479 Muslims, 340 Qadianis, 119 Christians, 14 Hindus and 10 people who identify with other religions were charged under the blasphemy law from 1986 to 2009. Although Muslims have not been excluded from prosecution under the law, the minorities who have been charged, even if they have escaped conviction, have paid a high price.

In 1993, Rehamat Masih, Manzooh Masih and Salamat Masih (just 11 years old at the time) were accused under the laws for allegedly writing offensive phrases on a wall of a mosque in the province of Punjab. In 1994, Manzoor was shot after one of his court hearings. Salamat Masih and Rehamat Masih were sentenced to death in February of 1995. Later that same month, both were acquitted of charges by the Lahore High Court. Justice Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti, who was one of the judges involved in the case, was killed two years later. His killer was later caught and cited the acquittal of Salamat and Rehamat as the motivation behind his brutal act.
Following international attention brought to the blasphemy law in 1995, the government proposed amendments to the law to avoid further abuse. The first proposed amendment was the implementation of a 10-year jail sentence for false blasphemy accusations. The government also proposed a requirement that sufficient evidence must be presented to the satisfaction of a magistrate before a case could be formally registered.

In May 2005, there was a nationwide strike supported by conservative political parties against the changes. This resulted in the government dropping the proposed amendments and the Interior Minister announcing that the mandatory death penalty under section 295-C would remain intact.
Despite the growing division over the law, hundreds of individuals continued to be charged. And although none of these individuals were given the death penalty by the state, the sentence was often carried out extrajudicially.

Samuel Masih, a Christian, was charged with blasphemy in 2003 for allegedly spitting on the wall of a mosque. Masih was accused of defiling a mosque. While in prison, Masih became sick with tuberculosis and was transported to a hospital. A police officer who was designated as Masih's guard, Faryad Ali, killed Masih by striking him with a brick cutter. Ali claimed that it was his duty as a Muslim to kill Masih. Masih was 27 years old at the time of his death.

Others accused of blasphemy, such as Anwat Masih who was charged in 2003 but later acquitted, have been forced to go into hiding to avoid the fate faced by Manzoor Masih and Samuel Masih. Dr. Younas Sheikh was also charged in 2000 and was later acquitted. Sheikh was re-tried in 2003 and was acquitted once more, finally leaving Pakistan for Europe the same year.

The abuse of the law against minorities by those seeking to settle scores, as is suspected in the case of Aasia Bibi, is also of increasing concern. In 2006, two elderly Christian men were tried and then acquitted for allegedly burning pages of the Quran, charges that were conveniently raised during a land ownership dispute.
These are just a few examples of the deep impact this law has had on individuals. The United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are just a few organizations that have identified Pakistan’s blasphemy law as hugely problematic for human rights. Given the long history of abuse of the law, its impact on minorities and international outcry, it is unusual that no government after 1990 has taken the opportunity to remedy the issues the blasphemy law has created in Pakistani society.