Slums in Southall

Known as ‘Little India’, Southall is home to a huge South Asian population, one of the biggest concentrations outside India.

The town has dozens of Indian restaurants and a huge Asian shopping centre.

It was used as the location for hit 2002 British film Bend It Like Beckham, starring Keira Knightley and Parminda Nagra.

It also boasts a royal connection – Kate Middleton’s mother Carole was born there, moving away when she was 11.

However, its history contains darker patches.

In 1981 it was the scene of devastating race riots, which saw a pub burnt down and hundreds of Asians and right-wing skinheads fighting in the streets.

Sixty police officers and 120 rioters were injured during the violence.

In 1997, meanwhile, tragedy struck when a high-speed train smashed into a stationary freight train near the town, leaving seven dead and 139 injured.

Sukhvinder Singh, who is originally from the Punjab in northern India, shares a shed with three others for £500 a month in Southall Green.

The Indian labourer, who arrived in Britainon a student visa, told The Sun: ‘I’m here to work. If I wanted to study I could have stayed in India.’ Sukhvinder told how if the council raided the shed where he pays rent then there are ‘a thousand other places like this we can stay in’. He also told how he thinks rogue landlords flout planning rules. ‘You just have to say you’re building a shed for tools. Once you’ve got the doors on, you can do what you like.’

Another immigrant explained how he had been there for nine years and had never had a visit from the council.

It is believed there are 10,000 similar shacks in Londonand the Home Counties.

Many people who live in them are cash-in-hand manual workers who pay no tax.

A man claiming to be the landlord told the newspaper how he was currently building a shed at the bottom of his garden. He had built another five years earlier and charges £40 per person per week.

‘It’s up to you how many tenants you put in,’ he said. ‘I’ve had no problems from the council – not yet. You just say you are bulding a garage.’

Planning permission is always needed if a homeowner builds or converts an outbuilding for people to live in.

The Housing Act states that council officers must give 24 hours’ notice before visiting properties.

This means evidence of people living in the garages and sheds can easily be removed, which has led to criticism of the system by some Ealing councillors.

An Ealing Council spokesman told The Sun: ‘This is a growing problem across London. We wrote to the Government in July to highlight flaws in the law that mean we have to give written notice before we can enter a property, making it hard to prove buildings are being used as accommodation.’

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said local authorities already had a wide range of enforcement powers to clamp down on beds with sheds.

The spokesman added: ‘Ministers are however in discussion with local authorities on this issue.’

PM Was Driving a Vehicle With a Fake Number Plate

Dear Mr. Bani-Amin Khan, IG Police, Islamabad

Using a fake license plate on a vehicle is a crime in all civilized countries including Pakistan.

An important function of the traffic police is to ensure that they spot this crime and take action against the offenders.

It is embarrassing for me to inform you, that you and your many hundred policemen failed to notice that the PM of Pakistanon 19^th January 2012 was driving a vehicle with a fake number plate.  His obscene fuel guzzling truck-looking vehicle  bearing a religion loaded number plate LRZ 786, was in fact  registered against another car owned by Muhammad Riaz Ahsan, a resident ofLahore.

This violation of law was seen by most Pakistanis on TV and also covered in newspapers (http://tribune.com.pk/story/325046/did-gilani-use-a-fake-number-plate-when-he-went-to-court/).

If an ordinary citizen was to indulge in this unlawful act, it would be assumed that either the vehicle is stolen, smuggled, evading taxes or indulging in terrorism.

One wonders which of these four categories does the Prime Minister of Pakistan fall into.

One would also like to know if there is not a single person in Islamabad police (including you) who had the conscience or the courage to stop the PM,  confiscate his vehicle and register an FIR for using a fake number plate?

Alternately did you ever think that you should be better off spending your time with your grand children instead of  leading  a helpless and clueless  police force?

The institutions of the state should stop pretending to be blind or adopting canine loyalties towards the real perpetrators of lawlessness.

Naeem Sadiq

Think About It; We Are a Confused Nation, Aren’t We?

It’s a confused nation we live in…

A nation where Rice is Rs.40/- per kg and SIM Card is free.

Where a pizza you have ordered reaches home faster than an ambulance or police, even if you were being murdered or having a heart attack.

Where a car loan is charged at 5% but an education loan, so necessary for our youth is charged an interest of 12%.

A nation where students with 45% get into elite institutions through the quota system and those with 90% are sent away because of merit.

A country where footwear is sold in AC showrooms, but the vegetables we eat, are sold on the footpath and very often next to garbage dumps.

Where everybody wants to be famous, not by doing good for others, but by looting others and finally getting their names in the newspapers through some scam or other!

It’s a strange nation we live in, where assembly complex buildings get ready within a year while public bridges, flyovers and sea links take several years even to get off the drawing board and another decade to be completed.

We have malls, and sky-rises, with slums forming their boundary wall.

A country where men and women squat on railway tracks, with no where else to go while watching them from windows, are couples with three bathrooms and one for the guests.

A country where politicians who are supposed to serve the people accept money from the same people they are supposed to serve, then take a salary from the government for their services to the people.

We are a nation where we talk in hushed whispers about the corruption in the country and then dig into our pockets to bribe a cop when we are caught cutting a red light.

 

Chief Justice SC Stops Asma Jehangir from Insulting the Army

Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry in the Memogate hearing had asked Asma Jehangir to refrain from disrespecting Pakistan Army officials and questioned her as to why should the court deem a foreign general’s statement more credible than that of ‘our own men’.

The chief justice was heading a nine-member bench of the apex court hearing the petitions filed by PML-N President Nawaz Sharif and others on the memogate scandal.

Asma Jahangir, counsel of former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani, read out former US National Security Advisor General James Jones’ to the court. According to the general’s statement Haqqani had no involvement in the memo, she said.

The CJ said: “Instead of giving importance to our own people (COAS and ISI DG) why should we consider the James’ affidavit more credible.’

Asma said army chief’s team brought the memo issue to his knowledge and on that basis he submitted his affidavit. The CJ said armed forces have rendered lot of sacrifices for the defence of the country and they have respect for Chief of Army Staff (COAS).

Asma said: “We also respect the army and are indebted to soldiers for their sacrifices for the defence of the country.” She said in fact the army officers rule while the soldiers are giving their blood for the protection of our frontiers. She said: “History tells that wisdom is not in the knees.”

The CJ asked Asma not to use such insulting remarks for anyone.

Husain Haqqani’s counsel said no one is infallible and everyone can make mistakes.

Asma said that memo scam has become a bone of contention between the civilian government and the army. The government cannot take a tough stand against the army because it in a transitional period.

She said Husain Haqqani has resigned. The CJ immediately pointed out that the resignation had been tendered in the presence of the president in that meeting after much thought. Asma reiterated that the memo is just a piece of paper and the court should not give much importance to it.

The CJ said if the federation considers the memorandum just a piece of paper then why a key meeting was held at the Presidency, which was also attended by the PM, the army chief and the director general of ISI, in addition to Husain Haqqani. Asma said such meetings were also held at the time of your resignation but bar, media and civil society’s stance was that there should be due process of law.

Asma, submitting the record of the articles written by Mansoor Ijaz, said Mr Mansoor for the last three years has been writing articles against the ISI in foreign press, but what persuaded ISI DG to probe Mansoor Ijaz on an article appearing in Financial Times in which highest official of the country – the president – was involved? She said why did ISI DG meet Mansoor Ijaz in London without the permission of the PM?

The court observed that in that article allegation were also made against the army, adding it was the responsibility of the ISI DG to investigate that matter.

Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said: “I still wonder from where Mansoor Ijaz has come and expressed his willingness to appear before the bench in this case.”

Asma said it was the same Mansoor Ijaz who has been quoted by a Hindu writer, who claimed meeting of Ijaz with RAW authority inKashmir.

Asma asked the bench that if you talk about credibility then how Mansoor Ijaz has become credible.

Justice Shakirullah Jan said if Mansoor Ijaz has such a bad reputation then why her client remained in contact with him. He said there was exchange of messages between Husain Haqqani and Mansoor Ijaz.

Asma, reading out some portions of the Blackberry messages, said Mansoor was the person who seemed to be keen to contact with Haqqani but her client on number of occasion did not respond to him.

Asma insisted that memo is a political and not legal issue therefore the court could not hear it. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said that they are not only judges but also Pakistani nationals, whose children are living here and in this perspective they could give relief to the petitioners.

Asma said Husain Haqqani performed his ambassadorial duties in difficult times and made earnest endeavours for the prestige of the country. But in return he was disgraced. She said her client has been sandwiched between the two institutions. She said the court’s December 1 interim order has banned Husain Haqqani from going out of the country, which is against the constitution. Justice Saqib said that Article 15 gave freedom of movement within and out of the country. The CJ said they have not stopped Haqqani from going out but ordered that he should inform the court before going abroad.

Asma also said that the memo was a figment of imagination of Mansoor Ijaz. She said that the memo had mentioned a national security team in the country, but “nobody has confirmed the presence of a national security team in Pakistan”. She claimed that this concept exists only in Ijaz’s mind as a national security team is present in theUnited States, and not in Pakistan.

Tariq Asam, a petitioner, in his rebuttal said that the contents of memo show that conspiracy was hatched against the sovereignty ofPakistan. It was violation of the citizens’ fundamental rights. Mr Tariq said Haqqani has termed him (Tariq) a doubtful person in his petition and prayed to the court to expunge those words. Asma said that she would file a written statement to expunge insulting remarks against Tariq.

Barrister Zafarullah pleaded that May 2 episode and memo scam could not be seen in different perspectives. Attack on Mehran Base and Salala checkpost was in the continuation of that incident. He prayed that if Mansoor Ijaz was involved in conspiracy then action should be taken against him. He said that except judiciary all the institutions have failed, therefore, the court should hold investigation.

Meanwhile Shafqatullah submitted a written reply through post. His stance was that the government’s resistance to the probe shows the involvement of some high officials.

Pakistan’s Proxy War in Afghanistan is Hurting it the Most

Americans like to use abbreviations. They like simplifying, which does not come from an inability to master sophisticated thought, but rather from a desire to pursue pragmatism to fix a problem.

If American diplomacy came up with the abbreviation “AfPak,” that was not just a simple simplification. On the contrary, it reflected a deeper analysis, highlighting a problem.

Afghanistan is a pawn in the regional geopolitical conflict between countries such asPakistan,India,Iran,Russia and China. But if the Americans are calling it AfPak, instead of AfIndia, or AfIran, it is not just a matter of phonetics. In comparison to other players,Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan is the most critical one. But so far, that role has been more of a destructive one, rather than a constructive one.

Pakistanis waging its proxy war with India in Afghan territories. But this is a war it cannot win. What’s more, while waging this war, it is fast becoming a failed state – if it is not one already – which could land it the category of rogue state.

TurkeyandPakistanare known to enjoy particularly warm, friendly relations, but cold winds have started to blow between the two due to the Afghan problem.

The Istanbul meeting tomorrow, which aims to lay the groundwork for positive relations among regional players leading to the transition in 2014 when security responsibilities will be transferred by NATO to Afghan authorities, seems to have rung alarm bells in Islamabad. WhilePakistanis not in theory against regional cooperation, in practice it does not want regional players, India especially, to become involved.

Looking at the articles written by retired Pakistani ambassadors (one from Tariq Osman Hyder was published in the Hürriyet Daily News; and never mind the fact that they were written by former officials, it certainly reflects the official view), Islamabad is quite annoyed at Turkey for its role in the conference.

The diplomatic initiative is ambitious in its sweep but confused in its emphasis and flawed in its approach and sequencing. Led by Afghanistan and Turkey, the plan is being driven by the US and its key NATO allies.

But at the end of the day, treatingAfghanistanas its backyard and waging a proxy war will be to the detriment of Pakistan’s own interests. Pakistan needs to change course and stop relying on its nuisance value.

 

President Should Not Enjoy Blanket Immunity

The Supreme Court appears set to interpret Article 248 of the constitution with reference to the non-implementation of the NRO verdict and the president’s immunity.

The money belonging to Benazir Bhutto and Zardari was generated through kickbacks received from SGS and Cotecna, two Swiss companies hired for pre-shipment clearance in Pakistan.

In a judgement delivered in 2003, Swiss judge Daniel Devaud held that this money belonged to the people of Pakistan. After establishing money-laundering offences under Switzerland’s penal code, he ordered suspended prison terms for the defendants and asked them to pay restitution. In 2008, the Pakistani government withdrew from the case and it was dismissed in August 2008 as there was no longer a claimant of laundered money.

The Supreme Court, while declaring the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) ultra vires and void ab initio in Dr Mubashir Hassan & Others vs Federation of Pakistan and Others, PLD 2010 SC 1, asked the government to revive the matter in Switzerland so that the money looted from Pakistani taxpayers and the masses could be reclaimed.

In the concluding part of his judgement, the Swiss magistrate mentioned that in its judgment of April 15, 1999, the Lahore High Court sentenced the defendants to five years’ imprisonment and $8.6 million in fines. But on April 6, 2001, the judgment was annulled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the case sent back to the first judges for a new decision. It is strange that from 2001 till the time of issuance of the NRO, no decision was taken by the court despite clear instructions from the apex court. In its judgement in Dr Mubashir Hassan & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others, PLD 2010, the Supreme Court did not touch the issue of delays by the lower courts in deciding this important matter even after the lapse of nine years.

The Swiss court, after considering the evidence, held that “precautions taken by Mr Asif Ali Zardari in concert with Mr Jens Schlegelmilch in order to keep the concluded agreement secret clearly demonstrate that he was aware of its illicit character.” He categorically concluded that the accused were “acting in a criminally reprehensible manner” to grab considerable sums in the sole private interest “at the cost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

In the light of above findings of the Swiss court, the defenders of Asif Ali Zardari must reconsider their stance of unqualified immunity under international law. Under the “doctrine of restrictive sovereign immunity,” no such immunity is available where financial crimes are committed through contracts signed by states or their agencies. In fact, international law prohibits sovereign immunity with regard to commercial activities of foreign states or their agencies, or with regard to property taken by a foreign sovereign in violation of international law.

Apart from purely legal and constitutional questions, there is the question of public sentiment.

A large section of the public views the president as corrupt. It wants his ill-gotten gains to be returned to the national exchequer, justice to be done, and the presumed guilty penalised. This obviously translates to a hope on the part of some that Article 248 is either struck down or at least interpreted in a manner that the current president can be prosecuted.

The two sets of arguments challenging the concept of immunity (as enshrined in Article 248) are rooted in fundamental human rights and principles of equality in Islam, and argue that Article 248 contravenes both by legalising inequality.

The logic of and desire for equality and justice are justifiable and need neither further elaboration nor advocacy. On the other hand, the wisdom of immunity for certain offices needs further exploration so that people might take a more considered view before reaching a judgment on whether or not they would like the president of Pakistan to be immune from criminal proceedings whilst in office.

First, there is the historical context to consider. Victimisation through false criminal cases is a matter of record inPakistan; it is easy to institute such cases based on the relative power of the two parties involved.

Democratic forces in Pakistan have always been weaker than the military establishment, and without the immunity clause political governments will become even more subordinate to the establishment, and be prone to destabilisation via the legal route.

Certain mala fide clauses in Articles 62 and 63 inserted into the constitution by Gen Ziaul Haq also aim to do just that. Apart from being subjective in nature (”, ‘sagacious’ and ‘morality’ etc being subjective terms), and making the judiciary the final arbiter of the moral character of elected representatives, it targets only representatives of the people. The same lofty character requirements do not apply to either the military or the judiciary, or to schoolteachers or mosque for that matter.

However, the security establishment has kept democratic forces so weak and under pressure, and the public so hoodwinked on selectively applied supposed Islamic injunctions, that the people’s representatives have not been able to undo even these outrageous piece of legislation.

Articles 62 and 63 may be used anytime to disqualify any legislator and thus thwart the people’s will. True, Pakistani politicians are not angels, but then neither are those belonging to other institutions of the state.

Yet the superior judiciary could serve as the final arbiter of the moral character of public representatives to disqualify them. Hence, it can be argued that a repeal of Article 248 could serve to tighten the same noose around democracy.

Article 248, especially read with Article 47, is a democracy-strengthening law that serves on the one hand to protect the will of the people from undemocratic onslaughts, and on the other encourages them to exercise their democratic duties with responsibility.

First, the immunity implies a warning to public representatives to consider seriously before voting a candidate into office, for once he is voted in he must remain unencumbered by criminal charges (potentially spurious and/or politically motivated) to carry out his duties for the duration of his office.

It prods them to take their democratic responsibility seriously, or bear the consequences – a fundamental aspect of genuine democracy.

Second, the provision to impeach (Article 47) provides the people with a means to rectify any lapse of judgment, or address any new circumstances, and remove the president. Clearly, if the president is impeached for suspicion of criminal culpability, he can immediately be taken to court after removal from office.

The five-year term of the president can be abrogated only through the will of the people. This is a precious preserve of the people that must not be given up.

To argue to excise Article 248 from the constitution is to argue for people to abdicate this right of theirs to the courts. It is a fact of Pakistani history that courts have endorsed the military’s attacks on the constitution and on democratic governments, thus on the political will of the people.

When the military brought criminal cases against ZA Bhutto, and Nawaz Sharif, the judiciary complied with alacrity (even today, memogate comprises treasonous allegations against both, the elected government and the ISI, but the courts are investigating only the role of the democratic government).

It’s a lazy, irresponsible and unwise polity that asks courts to decide on the eligibility of its representatives, instead of reserving and exercising this right and responsibility.

Thus, a polity too politically naïve to see through sophisticated manoeuvring to usurp its democratic rights under the garb of justice or religion would be doomed to autocratic rule with weaker accountability. The people can hold their representatives accountable through their vote. But they cannot vote out any military or judiciary that strays from democratic ideals.

The wisdom in Article 248, then, is that apart from protecting the will of the people by making them the arbiters of whether their president is to be ousted, it forces the public to become an active participant in the democratic process and discharge its democratic duty to effect change (via Article 47) – thereby nudging the democratic mechanism towards a more mature process, and away from being a façade mired in litigative intrigue.

Article 248 is one of those provisions of the constitution that seek to balance power between the people and a judiciary that might be manipulated by undemocratic forces. It needs to be recognised that certain clauses of Articles 62 and 63 are the ones that are discriminatory, unjust, and undemocratic in nature and in need of repeal, not Article 248.

The questions of Immunity to President Zardari and interpretation of Article 248 is now likely to be focused in the contempt proceedings against the PM Gilani, as after the judgment of NRO, there is indeed an ambiguity concerning immunity of President Zardari under Article 248 and SC is the right and proper forum for interpretation of Article 248, as to what extend the President enjoyed immunity

Whereas the President, Prime Minister and Law Minister are openly saying that President Zardari under Article 248 has a free license to do any thing he likes and no Court can summon him and opening of Swiss cases as directed by SC in NRO cases is against the spirits and meanings of Article 248.

The troika of President, PM and Law Minister are assumingPakistanas a monarchy state which is not true. Neither President Zardari nor his co-accused has any immunity under Article 248 for corruption cases against him either with accountability courts here inPakistanor inSwiss Court in Switzerland.

The critics are of the opinion that Article 248 does not give a free license to President to do anything he likes. Various SC judgments have interpreted Article 248 to restrict its boundaries and conditions.

They argue that if the president kills a human being” or is involved in a criminal cases of a heinous crimes” or involved in a criminal case of moral turpitude or involved in massive corruption cases or if he openly commit an act of High Treason under Article 6 and abrogates or subverts the Constitution, then he should not be protected under Article 248.

If it is accepted that President has a free license to do anything he likes than the whole Constitution of Pakistan becomes nugatory and redundant and this is against the basic spirit of the Constitution of Pakistan.

In China, for instance, which is a secular and non-religious state, neither its President nor Prime Minister has the immunity not to appear in any Court of law.

In China, vide its Article 41, the citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to criticize and make complaint to any state organ or functionary and courts are bound to summon and redress their complaints.

Under Islam, Holy Quran and Sunnah, not even caliphs or any rulers or persons have the right of immunity and protection as now allowed to certain extent in Article 248 of the Constitution, which, otherwise is a Muslim country known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

In recent times, international law has continued to move towards a restrictive doctrine of sovereign immunity. Until the 20th century, mutual respect for the independence, legal equality, and dignity of all nations was thought to entitle each nation to a broad immunity from the judicial process of other states. After World War I, the traditional rules of sovereignty placed the private companies of free enterprise nations at a competitive disadvantage compared to state-owned companies from socialist and communist countries, which would plead immunity from lawsuits. European and US businesses that engaged in transactions with such companies began to insist that all contracts waive the sovereign immunity of the state companies. This situation led courts to reconsider the broad immunity and adopt, instead, a doctrine of restrictive immunity that excluded commercial activity and property.

Western European countries began waiving immunity for state commercial enterprises through bilateral or multilateral treaties. In 1952 the US Department of State decided that in considering future requests for immunity it would follow the shift from absolute immunity to restrictive immunity. In 1976 the US Congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 USCA § 1601, et seq.) to provide foreign nations with immunity from the jurisdiction of US federal and state courts in certain circumstances. This act, which strives to conform to international law, prohibits sovereign immunity with regard to commercial activities of foreign states or their agencies, or with regard to property taken by a foreign sovereign in violation of international law. Customary international law has continued to move towards a restrictive doctrine.

In the Swiss case, the issue was retrieval of ill-gotten money from contracts signed by the government of Pakistan with the Swiss companies. It has nothing to do with Article 248(2) of the Constitution. In its NRO judgement, the Supreme Court did not ask the government to write for the president’s criminal prosecution in Switzerland. It only directed that the unlawful letter written by the-then attorney general be revoked. The questions that arise following the unlawful letter are: Who took away the unfrozen money? Is Article 248(2) meant for protection of plunderers of national wealth lying outside Pakistan?

The UK, from where we inherited our legal system, drastically altered its position on sovereign immunity through the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, that made the government generally liable, with limited exceptions, in tort and contract. Even before, it was possible to claim against the Crown with the attorney-general’s fiat (i.e., permission). This was called a petition of right. Alternatively, Crown servants could be sued in place of the Crown (and the Crown, as a matter of course, paid up). Further, mandamus and prohibition were always available against ministers because they were derived from the prerogative.

Article 248 cannot be interpreted the way it is being done by official quarters. If the president enjoys unqualified immunity from criminal acts, then he can escape punishment under Article 6 even after subverting the supreme law of the land. The ouster provisions of the Constitution, like Article 248, cannot be interpreted to condone any action that is violative of the supreme law of the land or constitutes a crime under international law. Money-laundering is a heinous crime under the international convention of the United Nations, of whichPakistan is a signatory. No head of state can claim immunity under any international law or convention if guilty of money laundering.

Immunity provided in Article 248 should not extend to illegal or un-constitutional acts. President is bound to obey the Constitution and law under Article 5(2) of the Constitution which is basic obligation of every citizen.

Asma Jahangir’s Stance Legally Untenable

Asma Jahangir has a redoubtable and well-earned reputation as a champion of human rights. Most recently, she has garnered much praise for her criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision to set up a commission on memogate. I yield to no one in my admiration of Madam Jahangir’s courage; but she is wrong in this case.

To briefly recap the memogate issues, an article appeared in the foreign press in which one Mansoor Ijaz claimed to have handed over a memo dictated by Husain Haqqani —Pakistan’s then ambassador to theUnited States — to Admiral Mike Mullen, the then head of theUS armed services. Mr Ijaz has further said that the memo was given to him on the basis that it represented the sentiments of Asif Ali Zardari, the president of Pakistan.

The memogate scandal — as this imbroglio has been dubbed — wound up in the Supreme Court courtesy of a petition filed directly by Mian Nawaz Sharif under Article 184(3) of the Constitution seeking an impartial probe into the alleged scandal. The petition was resisted by Husain Haqqani as well as the Federation of Pakistan mainly on the grounds that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction.

On December 30, 2011, the Supreme Court rejected the maintainability arguments and instead issued a short order directing the formation of a three-member commission composed of the chief justices of the Sindh, Islamabad and Balochistan High Courts to “ascertain the origin, authenticity and purpose of creating/drafting” the alleged memo.

Asma Jahangir’s response to the short order has not held back any punches. According to news reports, she stated that this was one of the darkest days in the history of the judiciary. She further alleged that the nine judges of the Supreme Court were acting under the influence of the security establishment. Finally, she has announced her resignation as counsel for Husain Haqqani on the basis that she lacked all confidence in the judiciary.

Let me first begin by saying that Asma’s views should not be treated as constituting contempt of court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan now occupies a central role inPakistan’s politics and it cannot both simultaneously seek to hold centre stage and demand that it be immune from all criticism. The standard response to this from the judges is that criticism must be moderate. I disagree; the very essence of criticism is that it must be allowed to be immoderate, otherwise there is too great a danger of it becoming stifled. I obviously disagree with Asma’s views but I certainly believe in her right to express them as freely as she wants.

Having said that, let us now go back to the underlying issue. So far as I understand, the fundamental argument advanced by Asma on behalf of Husain Haqqani was that the matter did not fall within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) (which provides that the court may directly hear a matter if it is a matter of public importance relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights.)

Let us look at those two requirements separately. So far as the issue of public importance is concerned, it was conceded by Asma that if the memo had actually been delivered on behalf of the president then the president would be liable to be impeached. Self-evidently, the authenticity of a document capable of justifying the impeachment of the president is a matter of public importance.

The tricky part, actually, is the fundamental rights prong. The problem here from Asma’s perspective is that this requirement has become so diluted through judicial activism that it has become essentially meaningless. Major issues of public importance thus regularly bypass normal channels and head directly to the Supreme Court. This is not a legal development which I particularly like. At the same time, it is a fact of life which has been established through any number of cases.

In this particular case, it is important to note two things. The first is that the existence, the contents and the delivery of the memo are not in dispute. Instead, the only dispute is whether Husain Haqqani had anything to do with the preparation of the memo or whether the memo is entirely a figment of Mr Ijaz’s imagination.

The second point is that the Commission set up by the Supreme Court cannot determine the authenticity of the memo. Instead, the most the Commission can do is investigate the authenticity of the memo and give its report. The conclusions in the Commission’s report may form the basis of criminal charges filed against Mr Haqqani, but those charges would still be adjudicated by a competent court after a full trial.

In short, what the Supreme Court has short-circuited is not the trial of Husain Haqqani but the investigation into his alleged crimes. Is this textbook procedure? No. Is it unprecedented? No.

Criticism of the Supreme Court’s order therefore boils down to the question of whether or not the court was justified in taking over investigation of the memo. Given the fact that the memo can realistically form the basis of a presidential impeachment — as conceded by Asma herself — I personally find the Supreme Court’s decision to try and ensure an investigation of the highest possible standards to be prima facie reasonable.

This, in turn, brings me to the final point. Asma Jahangir has summarily dismissed the Commission as not being independent. I do not think that the three honourable members of the commission deserve this treatment. Each of the three is a distinguished jurist with an impeccable reputation. In the absence of any specific, substantiated allegations of bias, they deserve better than to be castigated as establishment stooges merely because Madam Jahangir is unhappy with a particular decision.

Two years ago, when Asma Jahangir ran for president of the Supreme Court Bar, I proudly voted for her. I am still proud of her achievement as the first female president of the SCBA. I am not proud of her recent tantrum. As a senior and eminent lawyer, she owed a duty not only to her client but to the institution of the law. I think she failed that second duty.

Backpage.com Being Used for Child Prostitution

How Pimps Use the Web to Sell Girls

By Nicholas D. Kristof

January 25, 2012 / NYT

In November, a terrified 13-year-old girl pounded on an apartment door inBrooklyn,New York. When a surprised woman answered, the girl pleaded for a phone. She called her mother, and then dialed 911.

The girl, whom I’ll call Baby Face because of her looks, frantically told police that a violent pimp was selling her for sex. He had taken her to the building and ordered her to go to an apartment where a customer was waiting, she said, and now he was waiting downstairs to make sure she did not escape. She had followed the pimp’s directions and gone upstairs, but then had pounded randomly on this door in hopes of getting help.

Baby Face said she hurt too much to endure yet another rape by a john. She told prosecutors later that she was bleeding vaginally and that her pimp had recently kicked her down a stairwell for trying to flee.

That 911 call set in motion the arrest of Kendale Judge, then 21. Judge has pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking, kidnapping, rape and compelling prostitution. He is in jail, and we haven’t heard his side of the events yet.

The episode also shines a spotlight on how the girl was marketed — in ads on Backpage.com, a major national Web site where people place ads to sell all kinds of things, including sex. It is a godsend to pimps, allowing customers to order a girl online as if she were a pizza.

Lauren Hersh, the ace prosecutor inBrooklynwho leads the sex-trafficking unit there, says that of the 32 people she and her team have prosecuted in the last year and a half — typically involving victims aged 12 to 25 — a vast majority of the cases included girls marketed through Backpage ads.

“Pimps are turning to the Internet,” said Hersh. “They’re not putting the girls on the street so much. Backpage is a great vehicle for pimps trying to sell girls.”

Craigslist backed out of this sector after public protests. Pimps then moved to Backpage.com, which is owned by Village Voice Media, owners of The Village Voice weekly newspaper.

Attorneys general from 48 states wrote a joint letter to Backpage, warning that it had become “a hub” for sex trafficking and calling on it to stop running adult services ads. The attorneys general said that they had identified cases in 22 different states in which pimps peddled underage girls through Backpage.

The attorneys general cited a 15-year-old girl who was being forced to have sex with men in 2011 in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The pimp marketed the girl through Backpage.

But Backpage isn’t budging. Indeed, it has fought back with personal attacks on those, such as Ashton Kutcher, who have linked it to human trafficking.

Steve Suskin, legal counsel to Village Voice Media, gave me a lengthy statement in which he argued that the company is already cooperating closely with law-enforcement authorities. He cited a 16-year-old girl inSeattle who was rescued as a result of a tip the company had made.

“Censorship will not rid the world of exploitation,” Suskin asserted.

It’s true that there’s some risk that pimps will migrate to new Web sites, possibly based overseas, that are less cooperative. But, on balance, that’s a risk worth taking. The present system is failing. Pimps aren’t the shrewdest marketers, and eliminating a hub for trafficking should at least chip away at the problem.

Backpage suggests that it is battling censors and prudes. In fact, what drives it seems to be greed. In their letter, the attorneys general said that Backpage earns more than $22 million annually from prostitution advertising.

On Backpage, the pimps claim adult ages for the girls they market, but Hersh scoffs. “I see 19,” she said, “and I immediately think 13.”

“I’m not seeing a lot of cases where there’s not coercion,” she added. “The average age where a girl is forced into prostitution is 12 to 14. And most of these 16- or 17 year-olds are being run by pretty vicious pimps.”

While there are no reliable figures for human trafficking, the more we look, the more we find. The Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, says that in the year before he set up a sex-trafficking unit in June 2010, his office prosecuted no trafficking cases. Since then, the office has become a national model, indicting 32 people, with 10 convictions and no acquittals so far.

Among those rescued was Baby Face, who had run away from home in September. Judge found her on the street, bought food for her and told her that she was beautiful. Within a few days, he had posted her photo on Backpage and was selling her five to nine times a day, prosecutors say. When she didn’t earn enough money, he beat her with a belt, they add.

When Baby Face ran away from her pimp and desperately knocked on that apartment door inBrooklyn, she was also in effect pounding on the door of the executive suites of Backpage and Village Voice Media. Those executives should listen to her pleas.

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. 

 

Australian Captain Declares to Show Respect to Bradman

Aussie skipper Clarke declared when he was 329, probably 4 or 5 runs short of breaking Bradman’s record as highest Aussie scorer. He declared.

This is called respect.

Isn’t it great to know that in this age, some folks still have this quality!

1911 Versus 2011

Here are some statistics for the Year 1911:

The average life expectancy for men was 47 years.

Fuel for this car was sold in drug stores only.

Only 14 percent of the homes had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the home s had a telephone.

There were only 8,000 cars and only 144 miles of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower !

The average US wage in 1910 was 22 cents per hour.

The average US worker made between $200 and $400 per year ..

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,

A dentist $2,500 per year, a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births took place at home ..
Ninety percent of all Doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which
were condemned in the press AND the government as “substandard.”

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month,
and used Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
entering into their country for any reason.

The Five leading causes of death were:

1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars…

The population of Las Vegas , Nevada , was only 30!!!
Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn’t been invented yet.

There was neither a Mother’s Day nor a Father’s Day.

Two out of every 10 adults couldn’t read or write and only 6 percent
of all Americans had graduated from high school.

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter
at the local corner drugstores.

Back then pharmacists said, “Heroin clears the complexion,
gives buoyancy to the mind, Regulates the stomach and bowels,
and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health!”  Shocking?

Eighteen percent of households had at least one full-time servant or domestic help …..
There were about 230 reported murders in the entire USA.

WOW

I am now going to forward this to someone else without typing it myself.
From there, it will be sent to others all over the WORLD -
all in a matter of seconds!

Try to imagine what it may be like in another 100 years