GetReligion.org - GetReligion » “The press . . . just doesn’t get religion.” — William Schneider
member of beliefnet's blogheaven

Recent Posts

Church and the single life | Did the pope soften his stance on nuns? | Splitting the Catholic labels really fine | Old Catholics vs. the pope | Didn’t CNN fact check the holy popsicles? | Slow-pitch screamer on the Godbeat | In the end, Summer worked hard for her Lord | Same-sex marriage, celebration and “core values” | Has Time printed the worst Anglican article ever? | That Gray Lady Catholic same-sex unions scoop 2.0 | 2012 Archive >


Thursday, January 13, 2011
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey
Share

Earlier this week, Mollie suggested that it’s a good time to cover religious liberty questions, as we’ve seen continual reports of violence in Egypt, Iraq and other countries.

In religious liberty issues, sometimes we’ll see an added dimension to violence, such as socioeconomics, race or sex. The New York Times has suggested sex differences may be part of Pakistan’s blasphemy law implications.

Unfortunately, the compelling piece falls under the headline, “In Realm of Religion, Women Lose Out.” The reporter probably did not write the headline, but some copy editor decided that it was fine to generalize that women lose out when it comes to religion. Can you imagine a headline like “In Realm of Men, Women Lose Out”? Doesn’t seem fair, does it?

The story still adds an interesting angle to the coverage of Asia Bibi, the woman who was sentenced to death under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

The exact words that led to Ms. Bibi’s prosecution under sections 295-B and C of the Pakistan Penal Code have not been disclosed. Since this was an accusation of blasphemy, to repeat the words would be to perpetuate blasphemy. But they were apparently enough to make her the first woman to be sentenced to death under this law.

Ms. Bibi is still in prison. Early last year, newspapers and human rights advocates said that she had been paraded in the streets and gang-raped in Nankana Sahib, a district in Punjab Province.

This appears to advance the story of Bibi’s sentence, showing how the blasphemy laws in Pakistan may have additional consequences for women. Further into the story, however, Nilanjana S. Roy uses some questionable sources.

The Pakistani novelist Kamila Shamsie notes blasphemy is considered unacceptable regardless of the gender of the accused. But the prohibition is part of a larger web of laws and practices that have served to restrict women’s rights.

Not to diminish Shamsie’s work (which I have not read) or what she is suggesting, but since when do journalists turn to novelists as authorities on the law? Has she done any research or reporting in this area? The reporter goes on to give examples of women in other countries who have faces threats related to religion.

For Asian women, the consequences of questioning or speaking out against faith can be particularly sharp. In the early 1990s, the Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen’s novel “Lajja” was banned, and she was forced into exile for her apparently blasphemous call for revisions to the Koran.

…In Britain, performances of “Behzti,” a play by Gurpreet Bhatti set in a gudwara, or Sikh temple, that explored sexual violence within the British Sikh community were shut down shortly after its opening in 2004. The play was not performed until 2010, six years after Ms. Bhatti had received abduction and death threats from other Sikhs.

We see a generalization of “Asian women” “speaking out against faith,” but not all countries are alike. It’s unclear whether these particular examples are a result of something like Pakistan’s blasphemy law, for example. Further into the article, we see another “expert” on how religion oppresses women.

“Religion is assumed to be the domain of men, and women do not have much role in it,” the Indian feminist writer and publisher Urvashi Butalia said in an interview.

“But women generally do not have the right to question religion—this is something men hold on to tightly, and it’s not only in Islam. Look at all those so-called honor killings in India—all of them under the guise of religious sanction and tradition.”

Again, Butalia is entitled to her opinion and perhaps she has done some research in this area, but why is she seen as an authority in this area? Does her title as a feminist writer and publisher in Asia qualify her to discuss sexual violence and blasphemy laws in Pakistan?

This is the context against which Aasia Bibi’s case should be understood.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have been used to persecute ethnic and religious minorities and to shut down free speech in general. But, as Ms. Butalia noted, there is a difference even here for women like Ms. Bibi and now Ms. Rehman.

…”If Aasia was let off, she would have to live all her life with the tag of ‘bad’ or ‘blasphemous’ woman,” she said. “The threat of rape—the traditional weapon of humiliation—is very real indeed.”

Despite some of the sources and generalizations, the story shows how laws with religious overtones can also carry implications for people based on their sex. Hopefully we’ll see more reporters continue to explore these kinds of angles.

Image of Pakistani woman via Wikimedia Commons.

Page Icon Posted at 3:49 pm | Print Print | Permalink | Trackback | Comments (7)
divider

7 Responses to “Religion and sexual violence”

  1. Eden says:

    “…since when do journalists turn to novelists as authorities on the law?”

    No kidding.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  2. Deacon John M. Bresnahan says:

    It is not surprising that the Times would say: “In the realm of religion..” and not “In the realm of Islam..” It is part of the media-academic ignorance (or maybe conscious bias) that all religions are basically the same so one word can be applied to all.
    I wonder if the Times braintrust sees no difference between Nazism and Jeffersonian democracy—after all they are both political ideologies???
    I just saw the true movie: “The Stoning of Soroya M.” It is about the recent torturous stoning to death of an Iranian Moslem woman for adultery (of which she was framed because her hubby wanted to marry a more nubile 14 year old girl.)
    No difference between Christianity and Islam here??? But I seem to remember Christ stopped a woman’s being stoned for adultery. And that event has become a model for Christian forgiveness and compassion that, needless to say, is not the Islamic model.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5

  3. John M. says:

    Deacon John,

    I don’t like the headline either, but the article was broader than just Islam.

    Additionally, in the vein of “who quotes a novelist in the context of a news story”, I’d caution you to be careful when using dramatic movies to inform your picture of a country, region or a religion.

    -John

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  4. Kell Brigan says:

    And, if only men can be clergy, or lawyers, or politicians, or judges, who other than the few women in the arts would you turn to? It’s not like there are women in universities or hospitals who could speak out without getting killed. She’s using the only source not vulnerable to honor killing or government charges.

    It’s disappointing that you would quibble over the sources in this instead of looking into the truths about women’s livees versus men’s lives in Pakistan. You’re arguing over a tiny, inconsequential tree and missing one big, bloody forest.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

  5. Bern says:

    I agree with Kell: it’s difficult for us in the West to imagine the danger involved in even discussing such things. For goodness’ sake don’t dismiss the opinions of those who are LIVING this reality because they aren’t “experts” in the usual sense of the word.

    I also agree it’s a lousy headline.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  6. Dave says:

    Perhaps these imperfect sources are the ones who have studied the issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Julia says:

    In many parts of the world novelists and poets are considered intellectuals whose opinions are valued and quoted on the front page of newspapers. They affect the politics of the day and sometimes run for office. The U.S. is unusual in not seeking our writers’ opinions on the problems of the day.

    This attitude is especially true in Latin America, but also in Europe and Russia. They are considered the observers and analysts of society.

    Garcia Marquez of Columbia, Vargas Llosa of Peru, Carpentier of Cuba, Carlos Fuentes of Mexico, Jorge Luis Borges of Argentina, Pablo Neruda of Chile, Umberto Ecco of Italy, Tolstoy of Russia, Jean Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault of France, and many, many others have had huge stature and influence on their cultures.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0