As a professional standup comedian, I am in as good a position as any critic of the Women’s Protection Bill to pass judgment on it, and pass judgment I shall.
The bill is shambolic, unnecessary, vulgar, vile, anti-nationalistic and anti-religion, and it is all these things before I have even read any of it.
God only knows how terrible I will think the bill is after I read it. And I am convinced God will be angry about women being protected because the clergy has told me so. There is no one better than a group of old men to decide what women need because they are the ones women need protection from.
The only reason the common man has been unable to understand this complex issue is because the Punjab government made the mistake of not comparing a woman to a lollypop in the bill.
Let me clarify the issue for the masses. The clergy rightfully points out that nobody wants an uncovered lollypop. The liberals want the lollypop to decide whether it wants a wrapper on it or not. And the government has this insane idea that if somebody takes a lollypop home, punches it repeatedly, tramples upon it and pushes it into the stove in the kitchen then the lollypop should get legal redress.
Liberals - the most dangerous people in Pakistan
In a country marred by violence, terrorism and civil strife, the government is focusing its resources on building metro buses and protecting lollypops. Lollypops have no rights; even lollypops know that. For once, prevention is not better than cure because we do not want to cure it at all. Only liberals insist on always using protection.
The liberals use their absurd principles of logic derived from the Greeks. What have the Greeks even done recently apart from winning Euro 2004, making yogurt and putting on a musical at the Arts Council named after their country?
Even the liberal fountainhead of logic, Socrates, claims that he knows nothing. This is how you know Socrates was against Pakistan: A Pakistani man would never admit to his own ignorance. The man who sits at the corner of my street and smokes hash all day claims that he knows everything. He has concrete evidence that Voldemort planned 9/11.
I, for one, will always choose knowledge over ignorance, familiarity over ancient logic, and hash over the Greeks. I prefer to post angry statuses and condemn people to hell rather than wasting my time reading a bill I have been told specifically is the devil.
Facebook is anti-nationalistic and un-Islamic: the Government should ban women from rejecting a man's friend request
Words are complicated and sentences are long; opinions are so much easier. Why bother researching a matter to better inform myself and place things in their historical and cultural context when I can just rely on a religious leader to tell me how to think?
They have a beard - they must know what they are talking about. You know what kinds of people do not have beards? Babies. The liberals will have us follow babies just to try and protect 50% of the population from violence. These liberals do not understand the concept of sacrifice. Next they will have us cancel Bakra Eid and I for one choose beef kabab over the Protection of Women against Violence bill.
Socrates - the original 'bey-ghairat liberal extremist'
What do women even need protection for? It is not like Pakistani women will go out and win cricket matches against India, win Oscars and Nobel prizes and discover gravitational waves if we do not systematically oppress them. Pakistan should focus on its own issues rather than worrying about the world. Bad biryani is a bigger issue for Pakistan than proving Einstein’s theories. Einstein was not even Muslim. The only theory of relativity that Pakistani women should focus on is which relative cousin-brother they will eventually marry.
They should let men do the real work. Look at how well the world has turned out thanks to years of patriarchy. Systematic racism, terrorism, colonialism, wars, climate change, capitalism - men are responsible for all this progress man has made.
I am convinced all men will agree with my logical arguments. Any men who do not, I will call them women to not only insult them but to also belittle women in general - one bird, two stones.
There is a reason why only women are supporting the bill. It is because they lack the rational abilities of a man. If women had rational abilities then the Prime Minister of Pakistan would have been a woman instead of Nawaz Sharif. I know the naysayers will bring up Benazir Bhutto and Fatima Jinnah but I do not believe in studying history so those examples cannot refute my arguments. This is why Donald Trump is defeating Hillary Clinton; thanks to his rational arguments.
Politically motivated religious parties who use the name of Islam to accumulate wealth and power have no such barriers to free thinking. They can make reasonable judgments - on whether a four-year-old girl can marry or whether a man can marry twelve times - without ever thinking of their own interests. They are doing this for the greater good of humanity and not because Shagufta rejected their friend request. Facebook is anti-nationalistic and un-Islamic: the Government should make a law banning any woman from ever rejecting a friend request from a man on Facebook.
The government needs to take my reservations under consideration. The only good thing they have done is form a committee under the Law Minister Rana Sanullah to address all reservations. Men know they have an ally in Rana Sanullah.
Why buy a lollypop if you cannot take it home and maim it as you please? Has the Punjab Government not watched Game of Thrones?
The bill is against the fundamental rights of man. It allows the District Women Protection Committee to forcefully enter any place to rescue women victims. Can a man not even play WWE with his wife in private anymore? How would the committee even know that a woman is distress after hearing her scream? Maybe she enjoys the violence. I present both the original and the Pakistani version of 50 Shades of Grey as evidence for my arguments, which are very logical.
Salman Sufi even had the audacity to claim that the word “man” has never been used in this bill. Who does he think is perpetrating all this violence against women in the first place? Aliens? Bacteria? Commander Safeguard?
If the bill is trying to protect women against violence, obviously it is anti-men. The bill will force the aggressor to leave the premises if the woman is in danger in his or “her” presence. If the bill was genuinely equitable than no woman would ever be allowed at any sale of lawn ever; all women at a lawn sale are aggressors.
The government has till the 27th of March to stop this gender-cleansing against men. 30 religious groups threaten to protest like in 1977, which is a huge compensation from them, since usually they threaten to take society back 2000 years.
I agree with their reservations; the law will make every man insecure. Men are raised in Pakistan to believe it is their responsibility to protect society against the evils of women and to protect the honour of the house. By society intervening to protect women against men, “or women”, we are destroying the entire patriarchal system. It is so nice to look below from the top; why are men being forced to consider women as equals?
It feels good as a man to do whatever pleases me as the women are responsible for the izzat (honour) of the family, the house, the nation and the world. It makes me feel so good about myself to write hateful comments on Qandeel Baloch’s Facebook page every day. I am happily convinced that men are better than women. Any bill that challenges my entire belief system is bound to make me insecure.
And that is the crux of my argument. I am sure you have logically followed it so there is little need for me to spell it out, which is also partly because I do not understand it myself but all I know is lollypops give you cavities ergo there is no need for a bill to protect women.
I would like to conclude with the words of the great man philosopher Himesh Reshammiya,
