UPDATE to: "Christians Under Sharia Law: Forced Conversions, Beatings, Rape"
An update on kidnapped 13- and 10-year old Pakistani Christian girls. A Muslim judge declared that they have converted to Islam and cannot see their family again.
The Judge never saw them.
Update about the adolescent girls who were kidnapped and forced into conversion. Seems they did so "voluntarily." "Kidnapped Christian girls, judge ratifies marriage and conversion," by Qaiser Felix, for Asian News, July 16:
The district of Muzaffargarh rules in favour of the Muslims, rejecting the request from the family that wants to bring home the two sisters - 13 and 10 years old - kidnapped last June 26. Christian associations charge that they could end up as prostitutes.
Jihad Watch: Muslim "judge" rules kidnapped Christian girls "converted to Islam and cannot return home"
What's CAIR's stand on this?
by pat
iamge: asian news
"Miss Rawlins, I Need Help"
In 1999 the British Labour Party, in one of those boneheaded acts that the left excels at, made a seemingly minor adjustment to it's immigration policy that doomed many thousands of young girls to death, beatings, and a nightmare life. In January 2000 The Independent reported that thousands of young U.K. Muslim girls were being forced into marriages to foreigners, primarily Pakistanis. Many of these girls were third generation Brits, with only a rudimentary understanding of their new language. The groom was often a cousin, a visa seeker--or something worse. And it is not only her life that is affected. A great number of the reported kidnappings involve U.K. fiances or boyfriends.
Huge Rise In Forced Marriages
"The biggest rise came after the new Labour government, in one of its first measures last year, simplified the procedures for a British person wanting to bring their spouse to settle in Britain. They abandoned the hated "Primary Purpose Rule," which made consular staff rule on whether the main purpose of the marriage was to gain entry into the UK before issuing a visa.
In February last year, before the rules were changed, the High Commission in Islamabad, Pakistan, issued 255 visas to spouses. This year it issued 1,132, nearly five times as many.
Critics say the result is a flourishing trade in forced marriages, with British-born and educated women spirited abroad to lives of misery married to men they have never met. Often, they are virtual prisoners in remote villages.
Those that return to Britain while their new spouses apply for visas - which take about two months to process - often beg the Foreign Office to reject their husband's application.
'We've received 440 such letters in the past year,' said a member of the High Commission in Islamabad. 'More arrive each day. But there's nothing we can do unless the woman is prepared to go public.'"
into marriage in some countries, such as Afghanistan.
The U.K. Muslim community and politicians ensured that not only would the immigration policy not be changed, but anyone who challenged it would be labeled a racist, in a fine display of Muslim Grievance Syndrome.
'Jahangir Mohammed, deputy leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, said: 'There are problems in a tiny minority of marriages and perhaps they are increasing, but to force anyone into a marriage is totally un-Islamic.
'These are difficult times for the Muslim community. We see problems with crime and drugs for the first time, but we believe these are linked to unemployment brought on by racism against Muslims.
'The unemployment rate among Muslim graduates is 60 per cent. That is a much bigger problem to be dealt with.' "
Despite the joy of an Islamic community in Britain that cowed the government into inaction to protect these girls, the problem has only worsened for the women involved.
By 2005, law enforcement authorities in the U.K. received more than 5,000 complaints of which 300 were investigated. Interestingly enough, some of those calling for help--not likely to be forthcoming--were males. It seem Muslim males are no more happy to marry an unknown cousin from a rural Pakistani village; they find the proposition no more palatable than marrying their sister.
But, a male is unlikely to suffer the incredible physical beatings common to females after marriage, as well as the inevitable rape. He only gets beaten up before the marriage, which is sometimes performed at gun point.
"Britain’s Forced Marriage Unit, established in 2005, receives around 5,000 calls and deals with about 300 cases each year—figures that officials fear are just the tip of a very large iceberg."ears old."
"The cases typically involve women aged 15-24, forced under extreme physical and emotional duress to marry relatives in a culture and country they were not brought up in, with the threat of being thrown out of the family—or worse—if they do not cooperate.
But what about the plight of young men similarly forced into marriage?
Men account for just 15 percent of the FMU’s cases. Around 30 percent involve minors, including boys, some as young as 10 y
And that is where Helen Rawlins steps in.
A diplomat's struggle against forced marriage
Rawlins travels with an armed guard. Dressed in a diplomat's suit, she awaits calls for help. She then, in a two vehicle caravan, travels through all of Pakistan, attempting to rescue child brides, grooms and women with British passports who are being forced into marriage.
The British government views forced marriages, often performed after beatings or threats of violence, as a human rights abuse--far different from arranged marriages to which the bride and groom consent.
It is Rawlins's job to stop them. In an age of increasingly fluid migration, and aided by instant communication, the British diplomat works 3,700 miles from London to help women from her own country."
An actual case:
A 17-year-old girl, born and raised in Scotland, had taken shelter in the British High Commission, as the embassy is known in this former colony.
Rawlins listened as the British official explained the details. The girl said she hadn't realized that her parents had brought her to Pakistan to marry. She wanted to choose her own life. She has a boyfriend back home in Britain.
Her mother, furious and wailing, had followed her. She was demanding to see her daughter. But the girl was refusing to talk to her, terrified her family might kill her. They had already taken her passport.
"We have to get her out of the country quickly," David, the security agent said.
The girl's boyfriend in London, desperate to stop the marriage, arranged to have friends drive her to the embassy after she sneaked out of her family's home. In retaliation, the family filed kidnapping charges with the Pakistani police, who threw the boyfriend's Pakistani father and brother in jail, a blunt tactic to force the girl to comply.
The 17-year-old Scottish girl who had taken refuge in the British Embassy was on her way to the shelter.
Her boyfriend in London -- whom she met by chance at a restaurant counter -- had already wired money for a flight. She was booked to leave for London at 4:40 a.m., in just a few hours.
Working his cellphone, David smoothed things over with the Pakistani police, arranging for release of the boyfriend's father and brother. He would personally go to the airport, despite the hour, to ensure that the girl walked safely onto the plane.
The United Kingdom is a country so terrified of it's Muslim populace that it cannot voice criticism of any thing Islamic. Indeed, such criticism is largely against the law. Yet, in the midst of all this self-abasement, a few brave souls fight back.
Realists in a country of make-believe: Ms Rawlins is one of those people.
Well-spoken, armed and dangerous, when she hears the call for help she acts instantly. Often juggling more than one case at a time, Helen Rawlins sports an incredibly high success rate.
A toast is in order.
A non-wedding toast, if you may.
by pat
images:
* scotland
* msnbc
Sources:
* http://www.wluml.org/english/pubsfulltxt.shtml?cmd[87]=i-87-2732
* http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/nov/07/yehey/opinion/20071107opi7.html
* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25311065/
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/21/AR2008062101782.html
Benazir Bhutto was released from house arrest, but it will likely do nothing to quiet the voices shouting for the Musharraf government to pack up and leave.
Bhutto was briefly placed under house arrest and the stories of outrage from Internet pundits were legion. It remains to be seen if as many stories are written about the release. Using the short quarantine as another opportunity to bash the Musharraf's government, many commentators leaped at the chance.
More on another opportunity from CNN:A house arrest order for Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has been lifted, police sources told CNN Friday, bringing to an end a day-long standoff between the former Pakistani prime minister and security forces.
Amid the many curses heaped upon the head of President Musharraf during the state of emergency, one tries to remember where this story has been seen before.
Hundreds of police who had lined up outside her home Friday left after the order was withdrawn. A smaller number of police who had previously been outside her home providing security remained.
The lifting of the order came as Pakistan suffered its first deadly blast since a declaration of emergency by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
The attack, possibly a suicide bomb, at the house of Amir Muqam, Minister for Political Affairs in Peshawar, northwestern Pakistan killed four people Friday, police told CNN. The minister escaped unharmed.
Earlier Friday Washington had called for restrictions on Bhutto to be lifted. Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said: "Former Prime Minister Bhutto and other political party members must be permitted freedom of movement and all protesters released. It is crucial for Pakistan's future that moderate political forces work together to bring Pakistan back on the path to democracy."
A Middle Eastern country is ruled by a autocratic figure, but has many democratic features and the people enjoy many freedoms. Unrest occurs and the ruler cracks down to maintain order. Forces purporting to work for democracy link hands with those working to instill an Islamic state. U.S. media and government types advise that the leader "must be moderate".
The leader then, caught between increasing public disorder and U.S. calls to be a force for democracy while restraining undemocratic elements, loses control and leaves. The democratic forces working for his ouster then quickly lose control to their one-time comrades, the Islamist faction.
Pakistan in 2007 is not the United States. Neither was Iran in 1979.
by Mondoreb
[image:CNN]
Our sit-down with author Marcus Wilder must have attracted some attention. The Wilder interview was a Q and A session with author about his travels and wanderings in Pakistan, the people and the riveting things he observed.
Apparently, some of DBKP's readers had their interest piqued. Naive and Abroad: Pakistan, Travel in a Land of Mullahs moved up almost 90,000 notches at Amazon, where the book can be obtained.
After some of the eye-openers Marcus disclosed here this past weekend, we're not surprised. Read the interview, get the book. That's our take in the nutshell.
by Mondoreb
Back to Front Page.
Pakistan's nukes in the hands of terrorists has India--and other countries--uneasy.
Pakistanis aren't the only ones worried about the turmoil created by the state of emergency in the country. Amid rumors that the state of emergency may have been a move against President Musharaf, others are keeping a nervous eye on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
India is closely watching events unfold--as well as al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
What could turn into an opportunity for terrorists could prove to be a nightmare for India or the United States. In short, any country worried about nuclear weapons in the hands of a small group with scores to settle.
More on this from the India Express:Nuclear-armed Pakistan is teetering on the verge of chaos after the imposition of emergency and US officials fear that the result could be every American's nightmare -- nuclear material or know-how, or even a nuclear bomb, falling into the hands of terrorists.
"If you were to look around the world for where al-Qaeda is going to find its bomb, it's right in their backyard," Bruce Riedel, the former senior director for South Asia on the National Security Council, was quoted as saying by Newsweek.
Pakistan is caught between trying to keep order while at the same time presenting a face of democracy to the rest of the world. The United States has been putting pressure on Musharraf to increase rights, step down and restore democracy in the wake of Saturday's declaration of a state of emergency.
India and Pakistan have fought a string of wars since both received their independence from Britain in the late 1940s. Both India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons in the last 20 years--at least once it appeared they both might use them, before tensions cooled.
So India will continue to keep a close eye on her neighbor to the west.
At least, until things quiet down.
by Mondoreb
& Little Baby Ginn
[image:awakenedwarrior]
Back to Front Page.
We asked the question Saturday. We ask it again on Monday: Is the State of Emergency in Pakistan a coup?
Forbes has now reported what Death By 1000 Papercuts put up on Saturday (Pakistan's State of Emergency: Is This a Coup?) No one listened--except Reuters, who yesterday posted our BNN article as related content yesterday, where it was still up this morning.
Forbes asked as we did on Saturday and was answered by a Pakistani statement:Pakistan's government on Monday denied rumours sweeping the country that the deputy army chief had placed military ruler President Pervez Musharraf under house arrest.
What we wrote on Saturday:
'This is not true. There is no truth in it. He is at Aiwan-e-Sadr (the presidential palace) and has met with foreign diplomats,' a senior government spokesman told Agence France-PresseState of Emergency or a coup? The Constitution is now suspended: is this an Army take-over? Though the Washington Post and others are saying President Musharraf is declaring a state of emergency, other sources are saying that Musharraf is not fully in charge here. It's the Chief of Army Staff who declared the State of Emergency, not President Musharraf.
That was on Saturday. This is Monday and still, questions about who is in charge in Pakistan continue.
[NOTE: We also posted this article on Diggs on Saturday. However, their users wouldn't have known it--it was quickly buried.]
by Mondoreb
Back to Front Page.
State of Emergency a coup? The Constitution is now suspended: is this an Army take-over? Though the Washington Post and others are saying President Musharraf is declaring a state of emergency, other sources are saying that Musharraf is not fully in charge here. It's the Chief of Army Staff who declared the State of Emergency, not President Musharraf.
UPDATE at 15:43 GMT from the BBC:Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule and suspended the country's constitution.
So apparently at this moment, it was President Musharraf who's in charge and declaring the state of emergency. Events are moving fast in Pakistan. First it was the Red Mosque; last month it was an attempt on the life of candidate Bhutto. Now it's a state of emergency has been declared.
Troops have been deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels have gone off air.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who condemned the moves, has reportedly been sacked and is being confined to the Supreme Court with 10 other judges.
It comes as the court was due to rule on the legality of Gen Musharraf's re-election victory in October.
The Court was to decide whether Gen Musharraf was eligible to run for election last month while remaining army chief.
Now comes news from Noblesse Oblige that the state of emergency is coming from the Chief of Army Staff. Coup-time anyone?UPDATE: The Chief of Army Staff declared the state of emergency, not President Musharraf — this could be a Coup in the shaping; or it could be a ploy to get the court to finish the deliberations on the challenges prior to the November 15th date when Musharraf’s holding of two offices definitely becomes unconstitutional.
The Washington Post is reporting that Musharraf is still in charge and has declared the state of emergency, but other sources dispute this. From the Washington Post:Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared emergency rule Saturday, suspending the constitution amid a heavy security presence including armored personnel carriers on the streets of the capital.
Musharraf, who instituted a provisional constitution, was expected to address the nation later and cite continuing fighting in the turbulent Swat Valley as his reason.
We'll let the sources sort themselves out over the day. Major news channels are off the air, at last report, so news may be slow coming.
by Mondoreb
Back to Front Page.
