Re: The King maker - Malik Riaz
One thing which is not clear to me is that many people here condemn Zardari , Gilani etc for corruption. When son of CJ is inovolved in shady deals/corruption, same people trumpeting that it is conspiracy against CJ and supreme court at the same time they say that CJ is not responsible for what his son has done, without discussing the corruption done by son of CJ. Can someone explain this phenomenon or should I say hypocrisy.
May be you can elaborate on how it is hypocricy? Zardari is long known for corruption, Gillani recently joined the bandwagon out and loud, his defense of President, his wife's huge shopping spree, son's involvement etc. CJ's son doesn't have history of corruption, if this case does prove him to be actually corrupt then of course he will be counted amongst Zardaris, Gillanis, Sharifs.
I don't get this loooooooooooooong known thing. The guy hasn't been convicted yet it is assumed that he is guilty. Why then are others imune from such assumptions. For example, the Sharifs have benefitted a great deal since they entered politics as has every other politician. Yet zardari is considered the face of corruption. Why then should the CJ's son be imune from such assumptions? Remember his name has come up before.
Malik Riaz is actually complaining because his bribes to CJ's son did not bring the intended 'results'. If the CJ was corrupt and did give benefits to Malik Riaz or Bahria Town, then he MR would not be in such a pain. The son is guilty of misleading a shady businessman into thinking he can buy the dad using money, and that's about it. He should be punished for lying to Malik Riaz and the crime is nowhere near what uncle Zardari or Doctor Rehman Malik do.
If, however, it is found the CJ or another judge was lenient with Malik Riaz or Bahria Town and passed judgements in their favor, then they should be punished severely.
Coming to Hypocrisy: Hypocrisy is declaring CJ 'corrupt' without any proof and not saying anything about dear friend of the president who is openly admitting that he tried to bribe CJ and his son.
Come on now. Malik Riaz's complaint, whether true or false, is that he was blackmailed. He says that Arslan threatened him with unfavorable verdicts in cases before the SC but if he paid up, Arslan would make sure that the verdicts were favorable.
The guy who is the de facto ruler of the country was handed over something by the court during his contempt of court hearings, and he asked them to tell him what's written in the note as he cannot read English.
Where is the proof that he is the de facto ruler? Assumptions are all fine and dandy as long as they are about the people we don't like. However, certain people are innocent until proven guilty.
