Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Pakistani Ambassador To The U.S. To Be Investigated For Blasphemy [View all]struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)21. The Kafkaesque reality of Pakistan's blasphemy laws
Sherry Rehman, Pakistans ambassador to the US, is under police investigation for alleged blasphemy after making the case on television for the law to be re-examined and for the death penalty to be removed.
By Samira Shackle Published 28 February 2013 13:23
... Blasphemy laws in and of themselves are not unusual: many countries across the world have legislation which restricts what one can say about religion. The problem in Pakistan comes from the exceptionally harsh penalties, and the light burden of proof. The law sets out no guidance on what constitutes blasphemy, no standards for evidence, no requirement to prove intent, and no safeguards to punish those who make false allegations. This means that, essentially, the standard for blasphemy is whatever offends the accuser ...
Witnesses can refuse to repeat the alleged blasphemy in court, in case they themselves become culpable. There have been stories of judges refusing to hear evidence defending the accused for fear of offending religious zealots. Blasphemy is a non-compoundable crime, meaning that cases cannot be settled out of court. Once a charge is filed, it is difficult for the case to be quashed, and the accuser cannot simply drop charges. It is not unthinkable that someone could be accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death without ever being told exactly what they are meant to have said and thus being unable to disprove it ...
... Given the aforementioned problems with the blasphemy legislation, the media cannot report what Rehman is supposed to have said, in case newspapers fall foul of the law ...
Of course, parliamentary privilege covers lawmakers while they are actually in parliament and when Rehman was speaking to Dunya TV, she clearly was not in the parliament building. But the fundamental fact remains: the blasphemy reform bill was passing through the legislature and a lawmaker is now facing charges for discussing it. A crucial part of a functioning democracy is the ability to openly and publicly debate significant legislative changes before they are passed into the statute book. If proposed legal changes cannot be openly discussed without politicians facing prosecution, it has serious ramifications for the very functioning of the Pakistani state. It is the public that will suffer if laws and policies cant be debated and scrutinised ...
Witnesses can refuse to repeat the alleged blasphemy in court, in case they themselves become culpable. There have been stories of judges refusing to hear evidence defending the accused for fear of offending religious zealots. Blasphemy is a non-compoundable crime, meaning that cases cannot be settled out of court. Once a charge is filed, it is difficult for the case to be quashed, and the accuser cannot simply drop charges. It is not unthinkable that someone could be accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death without ever being told exactly what they are meant to have said and thus being unable to disprove it ...
... Given the aforementioned problems with the blasphemy legislation, the media cannot report what Rehman is supposed to have said, in case newspapers fall foul of the law ...
Of course, parliamentary privilege covers lawmakers while they are actually in parliament and when Rehman was speaking to Dunya TV, she clearly was not in the parliament building. But the fundamental fact remains: the blasphemy reform bill was passing through the legislature and a lawmaker is now facing charges for discussing it. A crucial part of a functioning democracy is the ability to openly and publicly debate significant legislative changes before they are passed into the statute book. If proposed legal changes cannot be openly discussed without politicians facing prosecution, it has serious ramifications for the very functioning of the Pakistani state. It is the public that will suffer if laws and policies cant be debated and scrutinised ...
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/kafkaesque-reality-pakistans-blasphemy-laws
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
33 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I expect everyone here opposes criminalization of religious or irreligious views,
struggle4progress
Feb 2013
#4
The military dictatorship added the blasphemy law to the Constitution in 1986, so one can
struggle4progress
Feb 2013
#6
Your framing is most unwise: no one in Pakistan, for example, could argue against the blasphemy
struggle4progress
Feb 2013
#12
Human Rights First Submission to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
struggle4progress
Feb 2013
#14
Your political analysis seems naive to me. It is, first of all, entirely clear that politicians
struggle4progress
Feb 2013
#15
"it is to argue that the real object of the blasphemy law is not actually to fight blasphemy"
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2013
#16
"overwhelmingly being used to persecute religious minorities and settle personal vendettas"
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2013
#19
You omit to notice that the law requires government action for its operation and
struggle4progress
Feb 2013
#20
"your intervention in this thread seems to be an attempt to divert blame away from the religious.."
cleanhippie
Mar 2013
#23
Vague laws, operating opaquely, so that the accused may never even know the alleged factual basis
struggle4progress
Mar 2013
#24
I expect you'll never be troubled by having too many ideas or by the resulting problem
struggle4progress
Mar 2013
#28
Pastor in Pakistan Released on Bail After Blasphemy Accuser Admits to Mistake
struggle4progress
Mar 2013
#29
The prosecution here refused to drop the case after the complaint was withdrawn:
struggle4progress
Mar 2013
#32