The country’s principal blasphemy law is vague and liable to misuse: Rights activist
been the abduction in January of the six prominent bloggers, whose websites were critical of the army’s operations in Balochistan and the tribal areas. Not only were they abducted, they were accused of blasphemy by pro-army elements.
“In Pakistan, being accused of blasphemy is enough. That itself can get someone killed today or maybe some time from now. It’s a death sentence that hangs on your head waiting for someone to execute it,” said a rights activist who didn’t want to be named.
Some rights activists, who asked not to be identified because of fear for their lives, said the bloggers were only criticising social injustices and identifying ills in Pakistan’s powerful establishment, and their material was not intended to hurt any religious beliefs.
This month, Islamabad high court justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui – one of the country’s most notorious judges who was also counsel for Mumtaz Qadri – ordered blasphemous content removed from social media and broke down in tears while issuing his ruling. His dramatics worked.
The government had to comply, and none other than Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif issued a statement that blasphemers would be dealt with an iron hand.
Siddiqui, however, appears to have a hidden agenda – he is being investigated by the Supreme Judicial Council for corruption and misuse of power. “Now no one will be able to touch him,” a leading lawyer commented.
Soon after, the parliament passed a resolution condemning blasphemous material and authorised a special committee to suggest measures to block “sacrilegious and blasphemous” content on social media.
Prime Minister Sharif said he expected daily updates from officials and told them to contact international social media platforms, such as Facebook, to seek their cooperation. The government has requested help from Interpol to trace the sources of such content.
In all this, the biggest victim has been free speech. Under the garb of religion, free speech is being stifled in Pakistan. A growing online community that was gaining importance because of the self censorship practised by mainstream media, is now also being silenced.
“It is a tragedy of our own making,” said Salahuddin. blasphemy cases were lodged till 2016. A majority are against Muslims, followed by around 150 Christians and two dozen Hindus. cases were reported between
1927 and 1986.
Only one case reached the stage of judgment. A mentally unstable person was sentenced to death by a sessions court but the HC quashed the sentence. In 2014, the Lahore high court upheld the death sentence given by a lower court to Aasia Noreen, a Christian woman.
people have been murdered extra-judicially as a result of blasphemy allegations since 1990
Since 1990, more than 62 people have been extra-judicially killed in blasphemy cases, according to Islamabad-based Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS).
But the principal blasphemy law – Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code – is vague and hence liable to misuse, says prominent rights activist IA Rehman.
For example, what is meant by defiling the name of Prophet Mohammed is not defined at all though Islamic texts, quite a few of which are carried in judgments by the Shariat Court, carry a long list of the forms a cognisable insult could take.
The matter has been left to the discretion of police officers at the time of registering the complaint and some grounds used by them to invoke Section 295-C have been found to be ambiguous.
Advocate Ismail Qureshi, under whose advice a bill was moved in parliament in 1986, and on whose petition the Shariat Court declared the death sentence mandatory under Section 295-C, has himself presented a case for changes.
Retired judge Fakhruddin G Ebrahim, one of Pakistan’s most respected legal minds, says judges have wide powers to interpret the law.
The judge can take the plea a law has not been passed by the competent authority or that it is in conflict with fundamental rights assigned in the Constitution, he said.
He added the quality of the judiciary is poor as it has always surrendered to authority.
Contrary to the belief that judges are under pressure, Ebrahim said many judges who pass the death sentence do so because of their religious state of mind and less out of fear for their safety.