The violation of human and of women's rights, Hudood Ordinances, blasphemy laws, jirga justice and many other bad discriminatory laws, rules and regulations concerning all this fill our statute book.

Over the years, men have met and met again and again, commission after commission has sat and recommended repeals and amendments, but the bullies and bigots have forever held sway. And now, what does our all-powerful president-general do?

We must assume that some sort of popular demand, surely that of all the national human rights groups and possibly of many such international groups, and of our various bodies that protect the rights of women, prompted President General Pervez Musharraf to call for yet another review of the Hudood Ordinances while speaking on May 15 at a convention on the "Sensitization and Adoption of Human Rights Standards".

By a review and re-examination he obviously means the setting up of yet another commission. Now, we know he is a busy man, we know he has myriad problems that beset him, but surely he has not forgotten that in September 2000 he himself established a National Commission on the Status of Women, nominating as its chairperson the retired high court judge, Majida Rizvi. Her mission, and that of her fellow members, was to "review" the laws and policies that undermine the status of the women in Pakistan and to eliminate "all forms of discrimination against women."

In September 2003, the report of Musharraf's own commission was made public. These were later explained in public in October 2003 by Musharraf's chosen commission chairperson. Whilst addressing a seminar on the Hudood Ordinances in Lahore, Ms Rizvi clearly stated that these pernicious ordinances must be repealed because they are "unIslamic on the one hand and make a mockery of Islamic justice on the other." Her commission recommended the repeal of the ordinances as they are "against the injunctions of Islam and discriminatory against women and minorities." The laws promulgated by General Ziaul Haq had "promoted injustice instead of justice and denied women the rights given to them by the Holy Quran."

As clear as daylight. How can the general ignore the recommendations of his own commission? Reportedly, of the 15 members appointed to this commission, 12 recommended the repeal of the ordinances, two wished them to be amended and one asked that the recommendations be "given effect". What does that tell the general? So why on earth is he calling for yet a further "review"?

Let us go back in time to other commissions which have recommended that the Hudood Ordinances be repealed. The first was in 1982, set up under none other than President General Ziaul Haq, maker of these ordinances. He appointed Zari Sarfaraz to chair the commission, which ultimately very strongly recommended amendments to the ordinances. The commission's report was finalized in 1985, it was suppressed, and only released in 1988 after the good general had departed from this world.

The Hudood Ordinances promulgated in 1979 are four: Offences against Property, Offence of Zina, Offence of Qazf, and Prohibition.

Certain comments of Zari's report are reproduced hereunder. They serve to illustrate the illogicalities and the contradictions (some could be taken as comical were they not so inherently vicious) which abound.

On Zina and the requirement that proof on Zina liable to Hadd shall be at least four Muslim male eye-witnesses: "...the limitation introduced is an unwarranted addition to the Quranic injunctions in the field. The address of Quranic injunctions generally is in the masculine and it is agreed on all hands that unless clearly specified they apply to males and females alike. Secondly, the requirement of four witnesses appears to be designed to punish the offence of Zina when the participants therein blatantly disregard social moralities so that the actual act can be seen by as many as four witnesses.

It is no principle of the Islamic law that an act of shamelessness is so only if committed in the presence of four males. It has also been brought to the Commission's notice that women are convicted and punished for Zina, including whipping, even in cases where the male accused goes free. This is a crime which can only be committed by two persons and punishment can only be awarded to a couple. In this behalf note has to be taken of the fact that under the law as drafted women complainants of rape have been convicted for Zina.

The Ordinance is making it dangerous for the victim and her family to file a complaint...We assert that excluding women is denying them their Islamic right to give evidence. We further assert that there is nothing in the Quran and the Sunnah to deny women this basic right. Exclusion of the testimony of women as well as of non-Muslims in the Hudood offences has created great unrest among women and non-Muslims."

On Qazf and the requirement that two Muslim adult males be witnesses: " It is not understood as to why women have been debarred from giving evidence of the offence of Qazf. Keeping them out of the ambit of being witnesses in effect is tantamount to asserting that the attributes required of male witnesses cannot be found in women. The allegation of Qazf in any society harms women much more than men; more so in an Islamic society. In the contemporary situation wherein many women work side by side with men out of sheer economic necessity to exclude their evidence in such crime cannot be justified."

On Property: "Women rather than men are more likely to be in the house when thefts are committed. It would defeat the purpose of Shariat if the thieves were to feel bold in committing a crime where women witnesses alone are present as they would in such situations escape punishment because of Hadd. It is obvious that the law as it is made would, with the passage of time, fail to deter commission of the very offences against which it is directed."

On Prohibition, which again prescribes as proof of the offence of drinking that at least two Muslim males be witnesses: "Most persons would be drinking at home as a result of prohibition. How would a habitual offender, for example, who is (seen) every day drinking by his wife and two grown up daughters and a son aged 17 years be brought to book, as evidence of all these persons is not admissible. There is no reason why a woman's honesty, intelligence, observation, comprehension, good retention, clear and truthful reproduction, and integrity is challenged by excluding her from giving evidence when the Holy Quran does not debar a woman from exercising her right of giving evidence."

These observations were made by a woman instructed by the then president-general to look into the merits and demerits of his Hudood Ordinances. If he took no note of them then his successor in office may, as a matter of interest and to clarify his mind, like to examine Ms Sarfaraz's report.

Next to come was a commission of inquiry into the state of women set up in 1994, during Benazir's second coming, under the chairmanship of retired Supreme Court justice Saad Saoud Jan. There was disagreement (the usual prejudices were aired) over the composition of the commission and its chairman and it was not until 1996 when former Supreme Court justice Nasir Aslam Zahid was appointed chairman that serious work on the subject began. Judge Zahid and his commission thoroughly examined the Hudood Ordinances and in his report published in August 1997 repeal of the offending ordinances was strongly recommended.

So, in toto, three commissions set up by the head of government or head of state have all stated that the ordinances do not reflect Quranic injunctions and should therefore be repealed. Any new commission appointed, under the chairmanship of a sane and rational person, comprised of experts in the field well versed in the law and the Quran, will surely do likewise.

General Musharraf himself is also on record in a speech he made in February this year at a summit meeting of the first ladies of the Asia Pacific Regional Steering Committee for the Advancement of Rural and Island Women, as having more or less tacitly admitted that the Hudood Ordinances, as they stand, are not in conformity with the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah. But rather than announcing that he would repeal them, he suggested the initiation of an "open debate".

Surely by now, enough is enough. Parliament is paralysed and packed as it is with feudals and bigots; it can do nothing to rid the nation of any of the repressive discriminatory laws which prevail and which most certainly have little to do with "enlightened moderation". Open debates, commissions, reviews will help not a whit. Whatever Musharraf wishes done, he can do, including the passing of a constitutional amendment through an "elected" upper house within three and a half minutes. Should he mock the people?