Doing what you shouldn’t

It is understood that every male member of our society can take a pee anywhere he pleases. Period. On the wall of any given house, under that giant tree where people come and sit for picnic perhaps, right next to the footpath or whatever. Anyone who’s property is being urinated upon, likewise, has the ‘right’ to try to stop this natural act from taking place – OR if you are late – find the urinator’s place and watermark his wall, perhaps with a Z like Zorro or something, in revenge. But what happens when someone of authority, say, your city nazim, comes to stop you?

‘You can’t pee here, it’s the law.” says the Nazim.
“But he started it!”
“Due process, my dear semaritan, And besides, I caught you, not him.”
“What about justice and fair play?”
“Ok, we will arrange for someone to piss on his wall, OK?”
“Hmm. Ok, yeah, that will do.”
“Any chance of you forgiving him? Or taking some sort of compensation from him?”
“No, that wall really tied the house together!”
“Ok, ok, the court will decide the matter.”

The court collects the evidence. In your favor, the judgement is passed.

That’s fair play. That’s justice.

Now you are satisfied. Because of that certain peace of mind that only revenge can deliver, you can sleep at night. And it is through due process, which you really don’t care about, but understand to be better on a ‘collective level’, yeah whatever. But his wall will be watermarked as well, so you chill.

But later, someone commutes his sentence. No one will be pissing on his wall. Why? Because your city law gives your nazim the power to do that. Practically, to decide in this specific peeing matter, to either reduce the ‘punishment’ or completely withdraw it. Why do that? Why give someone else the power to override justice? You are the one who has been ‘annoyed’, so you should have the right, facilitated by your government, to either (a) annoy the annoyer in the same way you were treated – revenge! (b) completely forgive, or (c) to settle for some sort of reasonable compensation. But where does ANYONE else figure in all of this?

President commutes the death sentence of a proven murderer, exercising his constitutional right. Nowhere is it mentioned about the family of the long-dead victim, no body seems to care. And it is ‘presented’ as a gift to the soon-to-visit Blair (WitchProject), for the murderer has British citizenship. All nice, all nice. See, how ‘understanding’ we are? See how compassionate? We don’t want to kill people, no nooo. So what if justice gets a back seat, way, way back? It is this treatment of justice that conjured up images of our constitution pissing on justice itself, that lead me to write with respect to a urinator’s analogy. Or maybe I’ve been drinking too much water.

15 Comments so far

  1. Monkey (unregistered) on November 16th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

    In no way am I endorsing what the President has done, nor do I think that he has any right to intervene in the matters of the judiciary, but I’m just wondering that even if this Tahir person was hanged, had it brought the murdered taxi driver back to his family?

    I don’t think so.

    Personally, I think the death penalty is another one of those things that needs to be altered. With this kind of justice, what msg are we trying to send to our nation? ‘Revenge is the way to go’? Hardly a healthy idea to an already violent nation.


  2. iceCube (unregistered) on November 16th, 2006 @ 5:35 pm

    I’m not entirely sure what conclusion to draw from your blog but dude, it was written beautifully!


  3. Momekh (unregistered) on November 16th, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

    @MONKEY: Revenge may ‘seem’ to be the ‘way to go’ in my post perhaps, but that is not what the actual ‘system of justice’ is all about. It is about options, really. Think about it, the justice system DOES give you the CHOICE of either ‘tooth for tooth (revenge)’, full pardon or compensation. Any number of people choose from any of the three, all three being ‘fair’ to the victim or the victim’s family. Just my $0.02 :)

    @ICECUBE: the current conclusion that you have drawn is a very good start, my friend :P… thanks though, appreciated. :)


  4. Haseeb A (unregistered) on November 16th, 2006 @ 11:54 pm

    Extremely well written. And I AGREE!!
    For a moment I thought the Lahore nazim caught YOU peeing at someones wall. lolz.


  5. Yasir (Entrepreneur Balloon ~ 2) (unregistered) on November 17th, 2006 @ 3:56 am

    Pee or not to pee, I’m against death penalty. Imagine everyone else peeing (who hasn’t been peeing yet) in revenge; we’ll have some serious sanitation problems, dude. Perhaps, you should also appreciate that after all the killings, President at last saved a life. Isn’t it beautiful! (imagine some/any/all stupid hollywood movie with emotional ending)


  6. Momekh (unregistered) on November 17th, 2006 @ 10:47 am

    @HASEEB: thankyou :)

    @YASIR: I agree with you but only partially; I do not agree with death. But just consider yourself in the victim’s shoes. Or rather, in the victim’s family shoes. Justice requires that the choice of forgiveness or equal punishment be given to you. Forgiving is OF COURSE the best way to go, but not the only way.

    peace n pray,

    God Bless


  7. salman (unregistered) on November 18th, 2006 @ 2:41 am

    One option is still left for the victim’s family.

    Guess what ?

    Bomb any army-mess in lahore ! like DARGAI


  8. Karachiite (unregistered) on November 18th, 2006 @ 11:14 am

    There are two issues here:

    1) Whether this man was guilty. I think that he was probably innocent. He was acquitted by a secular court and then convicted by an Islamic court. Think about it. An 18 year old just arriving from Europe will not likely to be carrying a gun. When I was around 20, I had a taxi driver try to make moves on me right in the middle of the city.

    2) Should Pakistan be succumbing to threats from Blair? No. Blair should be told to shove his threats up his own backside.

    Pakistan’s tragedy is that the ignorant stone age mullas have corrupted Islam and made a monstrosity out of it. That’s why we need to get rid of the jahil mullah version of Islam and implement the real one.

    Once we’ve implemented the real Islam then we should defend it with every ounce of our strength and not allow war criminals from abroad to lecture us.


  9. Momekh (unregistered) on November 18th, 2006 @ 5:04 pm

    @SALMAN: yea, and we have recently subsidised fertilizer rates, so making a bomb wont be as expensive as it used to be in the good ol days… Allah khair!! :P

    @KARACHIITE: I understand your stance my friend, and I think that is the way to go, in terms of ‘moving ahead’. But please, my friend, we can not ‘second guess’ a court judgement. Just throwing caution here, that for example, none of us are in a position to challenge as such, any decision by any court. Only a cursory glance will tell you that as far as ‘independent judiciary’ is concerned, PK’s Islamic related judiciary is much, much more independent than our so-called secular mockery-of-a-court. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point is, we HAVE to take things on facevalue for we just do not know. I really do not see anybody relying solely on our judiciary and getting a fair deal; it’s possible but unlikely, but the thing is, like you said, presenting a gift to Blair saab! And MORE IMPORTANTLY, the unfairness in the law itself, which allows someone else to pardon or not-pardon someone else’s criminal. Anyways…
    the point about mullahs is understood. I really hope that people like me and you can ‘actually understand’ the SOLUTION to this PROBLEM, that Pakistan in specific, and Islam in general, NEEDS US – you and me – to ‘take it to the next level’. Of course, not all Mullahs are bad, just like not all policemen are shits (:P ok, maybe all of em are! :P), but we need to ‘take control’ of our own self and surroundings first. God help us all…


  10. Hasan Mubarak (unregistered) on November 18th, 2006 @ 8:01 pm

    The person has already been flown out of the country by a charter flight.

    Even if the victim’s family go to court against Mr. President’s decision; does anyone think the British authorities will be cooperative enough to send him back to face renewed charges?? Just like the way Pakistan has been catching so-called terrorists and handing them over to Uncle Sam without caring if they even are guilty or not!


  11. Bulla (unregistered) on November 18th, 2006 @ 10:10 pm

    The saddest part of this episode is the fact that he’s been let off the hook only because he had a British passport! I doubt the president would’ve ever pardoned someone from, say, Ethopia!
    Injustice runs rife within our society! :~(


  12. d0ct0r (unregistered) on November 19th, 2006 @ 12:21 am

    ONE thing i have noticed about Mush over the years…. he seriously can’t take pressures… one call from Colin Powel and he melts and even Powel was amazed that just one call worked that too of secretary of state and not president of US… and now pressure from britain and again he wasn’t able to bear the pressure(and just imagine every now and then he boasts and threatens innocent people in Balochistan and tribal areas that he is a cammando and he’ll crush every one) and when the time comes to show what he is really made of he simply melts…
    atleast Ex Prime Minister(no matter how much some of you might hate him) had the courage to ignore a phone call from then president of US Bill Clinton on the eve of nuclear tests, had Nawaz succumbed to the pressure back then, we could have “earned” more dollars and economic aid as compared to whatever peanuts we’re currently getting post 9/11 for killing our own people and taking U turns one after another…


  13. alibhae (unregistered) on November 19th, 2006 @ 12:34 am

    You have to consider the possibility that he was innocent. As mentioned earlier, he was acquitted by the civil court in normal trial. Do you think his Ahmadi faith might have played a part in his conviction in a retrial by a religious court.

    That brings me to the question? What exactly is the point of having a religious court in the first place. Paralel courts, be they military or religious, only work to confuse judicial issues and prevent justice.

    His britishness, should not be used to cloud the issue. The executive branch in all countries has the authority to pardon convicts. Our commonwealth laws are the same as in 55 other countries. We have made a mess of it by pandering to the mullahs.

    And Momekh, I think all mullahs are corrupt and many are criminals. Islam does not need anybody. If it is the true religion, Allah will protect it. We are the ones who need Islam. And we don’t need politicised mullahs to get to Islam. It already lives in our hearts. All answers are there. Allah is closer to you than your shah-ragh. We are smarter than the mullah, more educated, why would we surrender our lives to these jahils.


  14. Momekh (unregistered) on November 19th, 2006 @ 7:33 am

    @DOCTER: the point you have made, I have never seen anyone make before, and your point actually makes sense… :)
    @ALIBHAE: Friend, you have been meeting the wrong ‘mullahs’ :) … Of course, we NEED Islam as in that we NEED a perfect system… but when I said that Islam needs us, I meant it that people like you and me need to UNDERSTAND it in terms of ‘WHYS’, and not ONLY in terms of ‘hows’ and ‘whats’, so it can be implemented properly. Understanding the ‘WHYS’ will lead us to understand the essence behind the rituals, and that’s what it’s all about, I think. And I do hope that you realize that you have generalized every Mullah by saying that ‘we are smarter than the mullah’ and that …’all Mullahs are corrupt’… coz seriously, that is just not the case, you need to get out more. :P


  15. alibhae (unregistered) on November 19th, 2006 @ 9:42 pm

    So doing the right thing at the urging of others is his weakness. I wish, I were as weak.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.