Council of Islamic Ideology decree ‘insensitive to rape victims’

0

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) on Friday expressed alarm and disappointment over a declaration by the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) that DNA test results are not acceptable as primary evidence in cases of rape.


The human rights watchdog called the assertion “regressive, unfortunate and unkind to rape victims.”

“HRCP wants to unequivocally state that the latest pronouncement of the CII is regressive, brings no credit to this body and certainly not to the country, but most important of all it is exceptionally insensitive and unkind to rape victims,” said a press release by the commission.

On Wednesday, a meeting of the CII had declared DNA tests not acceptable as primary evidence in cases of rape, but could be used as a supporting evidence for confirmation of the crime.

The CII was also of the view that Islam has set procedures to determine cases of rape and said Islamic procedure should be adopted during investigation.

Written By: Dawn.com
continue to source article at beta.dawn.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. Islam has set procedures to determine cases of rape and said Islamic procedure should be adopted during investigation.

    Let me guess: These “procedures” involve blaming the victim, imprisoning her without a trial, beating her up if there’s time for that, and finally giving her a lashing sentence. The evidence to prove her guilt includes hearsay, rumours and…well, that’s about it.

  2. Err – am I missing something here? Surely DNA evidence isn’t primary evidence of rape but is only supporting evidence.
    The mullahs have got it right.

    It is pretty good evidence to imply sex has taken place, but says nothing about consent or lack thereof.

    Edit – the article could have been about what Islamic procedure considers should be the primary evidence, but it has missed the real story entirely.

    • In reply to #2 by MickeyDroy:

      Err – am I missing something here? Surely DNA evidence isn’t primary evidence of rape but is only supporting evidence.
      The mullahs have got it right.

      It is pretty good evidence to imply sex has taken place, but says nothing about consent or lack thereof.

      Edit – the article could have been about w…

      The man might claim no sex took place at all.

    • In reply to #2 by MickeyDroy:

      Err – am I missing something here? Surely DNA evidence isn’t primary evidence of rape but is only supporting evidence.
      The mullahs have got it right.

      It is pretty good evidence to imply sex has taken place, but says nothing about consent or lack thereof.

      Edit – the article could have been about w…

      Err – Yes, what you’re missing is elucidated by folks commenting on the article as follows:

      Bakhtawer BIlal:
      “Of course! dna cannot be proof enough. Only 4 men, who watched the complete episode, and then has the audacity to come forward and tell the Qazi that they saw it, is proof enough.”

      Allaisa:
      “What do these four ‘pious muslims’ do while the rape is happening?”

      MOHAMMAD:
      “dear your question is illogical. i think that it is a system to prevent rape.may be i am not able to understand you/”

      Irma:
      “I think you are not able to understand a lot of things. It’s actually a system to prevent prosecution of rape. Bet you didnt get that either.”

      Khalid:
      “They make sure it is a rape and witness everything so they can give a good account of what has happened. As they are brave men of God, they go the court next day after exchanging notes on what had happened. What a perfect picture of Muslim men…..”

      aamir: “And the 4 men have to be impeccable reputation. So you would need for someone to rape before an audience of pious men. How realistic is that?”

  3. If these animals are going to act like this, they should have to sit on the floor and not use glasses and should be holding this meeting outside.
    Futhermore they shoud be wearing bear furs and living in a cave.

    • In reply to #7 by Fouad Boussetta:

      Pakistan. What a beautiful country. No wonder so many people flee the horrible United States to live in Pakistan!

      One of the reasons people flee Pakistan is that if you live there and are unlucky enough to show up at the wrong place at the wrong time you might get blown up by a US drone.

      • In reply to #9 by Red Dog:

        One of the reasons people flee Pakistan is that if you live there and are unlucky enough to show up at the wrong place at the wrong time you might get blown up by a US drone.

        This is Obama’ drone speech: [here] (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html?pagewanted=all)

        A short excerpt: “But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties — not just in our cities at home and our facilities abroad, but also in the very places like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold. Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing nothing is not an option.”

        He’s right!

        • In reply to #14 by Fouad Boussetta:

          In reply to #9 by Red Dog:

          One of the reasons people flee Pakistan is that if you live there and are unlucky enough to show up at the wrong place at the wrong time you might get blown up by a US drone.

          This is Obama’ drone speech: [here] (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of

          Its a straw man argument. He is presenting it as if the alternative are 1) Use drones or 2) Do nothing about terrorism. Those are hardly the only options.

          The thing that bothers me about the drone program also has nothing to do with using drones. That is a distraction that gets people’s attention. The real crime is that the US has decided we have the right to kill people unilaterally with no real judicial oversight. Essentially if you aren’t a US citizen the right of Habeus Corpus no longer applies to you. If the US decides to kill you too bad for you and also too bad for anyone around you who will end up “collateral damage”.

          Before 9/11 this would have been unthinkable. And if another country crossed our borders and killed US citizens we would respond with outrage and force. There are many other options (international courts, have Pakistan try them in absentia) that could be used instead.

          • In reply to #15 by Red Dog:

            have Pakistan try them in absentia

            Red Dog, pretty much every single time the US warned Pakistan in advance about an action they were about to take against Islamic militants, the militants get away. This happened countless times. For example, they once were about to raid a big illegal weapons factory: of course, the factory was totally empty and silent when they arrived. Why do you think they arranged a surprise visit to that mass murderer Osama Bin Laden?

            I am so liberal a free-market-loving quasi-libertarian friend keeps calling me a “commie”. Liberal yes, naive and innocent not.

            You can’t trust Pakistan.

          • In reply to #20 by Fouad Boussetta:

            Red Dog, pretty much every single time the US warned Pakistan in advance about an action they were about to take against Islamic militants, the militants get away.

            If you are a nation you can’t say “but one of our enemies won’t die unless we do that” and consider it an excuse for violating international laws about things like torture and habeus corpus.

            I also question how useful this really is in the long run as a strategy anyway. The analysis I read (people like Scott Atran and Steven Pinker) say that terrorism is losing favor anyway, people are sick of it for understandable reasons and murdering them illegally only ends up radicalizing more people. I don’t know if that’s true but its at least debatable. But in any case it shouldn’t matter. There are just some things a nation shouldn’t do and arbitrarily killing people with no due process is one of them.

      • One of the reasons people flee Pakistan is that if you live there and are unlucky enough to show up at the wrong place at the wrong time you might get blown up by a US drone.

        Yes. People should be careful not to accidentally attend terrorist training camps.

        • In reply to #16 by Capt. Bloodeye:

          One of the reasons people flee Pakistan is that if you live there and are unlucky enough to show up at the wrong place at the wrong time you might get blown up by a US drone.

          Yes. People should be careful not to accidentally attend terrorist training camps.

          Even if every person killed was a terrorist and every strike was against a terrorist camp it would still be illegal. It wasn’t that long ago that the US wouldn’t even publicly admit they were doing this. Think about that, not only did they claim the right to kill whomever they want with no legal framework but they wouldn’t even talk about it publicly. If that isn’t Imperial power, something we fought a revolution against, I don’t know what is.

          And the thing is not everyone killed is a terrorist. Not by a long shot. Since the US still barely talks about this I don’t think they are on the record for number of civilians killed but people who talk off the record admit that many people killed are not terrorists or in any way connected to terrorism. And experts who are not from the US government say that as well. Here is some evidence, a CNN article, source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/u-n-drone-objections

          Farmers are on their way to tend their crops when a missile slams into their midst, thrusting shrapnel in all directions.
          A CIA drone, flying so high that the farmers can’t see it, has killed most of them. None of them were militants.
          Such attacks by U.S. drones are common, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights said Friday in a statement on strikes in Pakistan’s tribal region of North Waziristan.
          The rapporteur, Ben Emmerson, told CNN the actions are of dubious international legality, despite the United States’ assertions.
          “I’m not aware of any state in the world that currently shares the United States’ expansive legal perspective that it is engaged in a global war — that is to say a non-international armed conflict with al Qaeda and any group associated with al Qaeda, wherever they are to be found, that would therefore lawfully entitle the United States to take action involving targeted killing wherever an individual is found,” Emmerson said.

          Here is an article that cites a study by Columbia Law school that says civilian casualties are significantly higher than reported and that the majority of people killed are civilians: http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

  4. If they mean “doesn’t prove the woman was raped” then I suppose I have to agree with them.

    If they mean “doesn’t prove the identity of the man”, then as well as all the things the HRCP pointed out, the CII’s statement is WRONG.

    As this is occurring in an Islamic country as well as being disbelieved, the woman runs the risk of being the target of an “honour” killing as well (translation: we’d rather have murderers in our family than crime victims).

  5. Their brains are so small, they have to enlarge their apparent sizes with large headgear; all to no avail however – their pronouncements reveal the brains’ true sizes! What a bunch of primitive morons!

  6. DNA proves sexual congress took place, but it doesn’t determine the nature of the act.

    Sex can be rough and tumble without even approaching being rape.

    A child happening upon adults having sex may find it difficult to tell whether they are making love or fighting.

    My only question would be do these men know what DNA stands for and what it is?

  7. Evidence for rape:
    DNA (could have been consentual)
    witness
    wounds and bruises
    confession
    cell phone video or equivalent technology, perhaps digital audio device
    male DNA on female clothing
    torn clothing
    injuries on the male penis

    anti-rape weapons:
    animal tranquiliser dart
    micro gun that sprays pellets from disk the size of a silver dollar.
    help call button

  8. If a person is raped by someone they don’t know, the police use that dna evidence to help convict rapists, but only along with Coroboration of other evidence especially Victim statements and witnesses to the complaint must all be gathered together to proove rape, DNA alone is not proof of rape – but it is primary evidence…On the issue of consent or not…its always one persons word against the other and its very difficult to proove, although i’m on the side of the victims, Their own Law is not

    • In reply to #27 by Light Wave:

      DNA alone is not proof of rape – but it is primary evidence.

      Exactly, I think this point needs to emphasised.

      Primary evidence is:

      “An authentic document or item that is offered as proof in a lawsuit, as contrasted with a copy of, or substitute for, the original.”

      Note that they “declared DNA tests unacceptable as primary evidence in cases of rape” and not unacceptable as the primary evidence that a rape has occurred. The first is not just insensitive, it’s stupid. The second is true, but trivially so.

  9. MickeyDroy: #2.

    I agree; especiallly about missing a trick by not saying precisely what Islamic procedure would be employed.

    The article could also have revealed what they know about deoxyribonucleic acid; that would really be interesting to know.

    • In reply to #30 by Drat:

      Just one look at this picture is enough to tell me that whatever issue is under consideration will be resolved in favour of the facile prejudices of the pious.

      One would have hoped that by now such simple heuristics would be available to almost everyone here. Sadly, it seems not.

  10. I could think of an example where the DNA alone could be evidence for rape – and that would be related to the nature of the DNA itself.

    If it were from a parent of the victim then the nature of that relationship is evidence for coercion.

Leave a Reply