What's new

Featured Govt moves amendment bill in NA: Ridiculing armed forces, personnel to be a crime

PakFactor

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 30, 2019
2,893
2
4,576
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
A bill introduced against the blaspheme of Armed Forces and its members.
View attachment 670292

View attachment 670293

View attachment 670294


What would be the definition of "member"; army personals? Retired or serving??
What if someone want to initiate a criminal case against any army personal??
Criminal case is different than berating and insulting ones armed forces. I fully support this bill and strict action against liberal Patwaris
 

muhammadhafeezmalik

FULL MEMBER
Jan 21, 2015
144
0
66
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Criminal case is different than berating and insulting ones armed forces. I fully support this bill and strict action against liberal Patwaris
I have no objection for Armed Forces but for retired personnel or personnel involved in politics, which is against their oath or personnel or personnel involved in embezzlement??
 

PakFactor

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 30, 2019
2,893
2
4,576
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I have no objection for Armed Forces but for retired personnel or personnel involved in politics, which is against their oath or personnel or personnel involved in embezzlement??
If they did wrong yes prosecute them to the fullest the law provides, retired officers shouldn’t be allowed near politics for a certain period of time but you can’t prevent them from completing a civic duty either.
 

muhammadhafeezmalik

FULL MEMBER
Jan 21, 2015
144
0
66
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If they did wrong yes prosecute them to the fullest the law provides, retired officers shouldn’t be allowed near politics for a certain period of time but you can’t prevent them from completing a civic duty either.
Why this whole chapter was not enough for them??

CHAPTER XXI
OF DEFAMATION


499. Defamation:
Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. 188[] 188
Explanation 1: It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputator would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2: It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3: An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4: No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered a disgraceful.
Illustrations​


(a) A says: "Z is an honest man, he never stole B's watch", intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.

First Exception - Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published: It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question off act.
Second Exception - On Public conduct of public servants: It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Third Exception - Conduct of any person touching any public question: It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and. respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustration​
It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z's conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending as such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested.
Fourth Exception - Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts: It is not defamation to public a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation: Justice of the peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice is a Court within the meaning of the above section.
Fifth Exception - Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and other concerned: It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and not further.
Illustrations​


(a) A says: "I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest," A is within this exception if he says that in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness, and no further.
(b) But if A says: "I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity." A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness.
Sixth Exception - Merits of public performance: It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation: A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author, which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
Illustrations​


(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.
(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.
(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public.
(d) A says of a book published by Z. "Z's book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind." A is within this exception, if he says this in good faith, Inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book, and no further.
(e) But if A says: I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine. A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book.
Seventh Exception - Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another: It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
Illustration​
A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under this orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in service;' a banker censuring in good faith, the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier are within this exception.
Eighth Exception - Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person: It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation.
Illustration​
If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child-Z's father A is within this exception.
Ninth Exception - Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interest: It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Illustrations​


(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business—"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty." A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the good, A is within the exception.
Tenth Exception - Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good: It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
500. Punishment for defamation:
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
501. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory:
Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to relieve that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
502. Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter:
Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
 

Cuirassier

FULL MEMBER
Nov 15, 2017
1,142
5
1,140
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

thin-skinned as usual. this is not North Korea ffs! If you want to transgress your limits then expect flak. Instead of this just counter with your own arguments. this is a sign that you can't handle the criticism. sign of weakness from moral aspect. If politicians or civil servants are involved in scandals like AS Bajwa, they'd be news headlines every hour reporting on the incy-bincy of the details and investigation. Why not in his case? Why the double-standards? Do you think we're stupid? Do you think the people are deaf and dumb? Be careful not to dig your own grave while you're at this hybrid project. Hiding behind the sacrifices of our rank & file, expecting to get treated like demi-gods.

I know scum like Goraya, the PTM guys and others are trash. Every country has them. Sure I'd like to mute them, but a mature guy would never want to silence them. That is an indication of weakness. Then there are a lot who criticise but at the same time praise when things are done right. They have good intentions. Don't silence them.

the day we'll get honest with ourselves is when we'll start to progress in real sense.
 

muhammadhafeezmalik

FULL MEMBER
Jan 21, 2015
144
0
66
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
ابھی سوشل میڈیا پر ایک لطیفہ گردش کررہا ہے کہ عمران خان کے پرانے بیانات کو شئیر کرنے پر دو سال قید اور پانچ لاکھ جرمانہ ہوگا
 

Jungibaaz

RETIRED MOD
Jul 4, 2010
7,241
87
14,677
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Ridicule is a part of free expression, which in turn is one of the cornerstones of democracy. This sounds draconian and vague by nature, I understand all speech has its limits but come on. I think my signature applies quite well here.
 

Faqir of ipi

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Dec 26, 2018
21
0
7
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Why this whole chapter was not enough for them??

CHAPTER XXI
OF DEFAMATION


499. Defamation:
Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. 188[] 188







Illustrations​


(a) A says: "Z is an honest man, he never stole B's watch", intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.


















500. Punishment for defamation:
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
501. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory:
Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to relieve that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
502. Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter:
Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
So they are technically just adding Army in it 🤔
 

Faqir of ipi

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Dec 26, 2018
21
0
7
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

thin-skinned as usual. this is not North Korea ffs! If you want to transgress your limits then expect flak. Instead of this just counter with your own arguments. this is a sign that you can't handle the criticism. sign of weakness from moral aspect. If politicians or civil servants are involved in scandals like AS Bajwa, they'd be news headlines every hour reporting on the incy-bincy of the details and investigation. Why not in his case? Why the double-standards? Do you think we're stupid? Do you think the people are deaf and dumb? Be careful not to dig your own grave while you're at this hybrid project. Hiding behind the sacrifices of our rank & file, expecting to get treated like demi-gods.

I know scum like Goraya, the PTM guys and others are trash. Every country has them. Sure I'd like to mute them, but a mature guy would never want to silence them. That is an indication of weakness. Then there are a lot who criticise but at the same time praise when things are done right. They have good intentions. Don't silence them.

the day we'll get honest with ourselves is when we'll start to progress in real sense.
We all know where the propaganda against Bajwa started and how not only gaurav arya used it but also which other indians were involved in helping noorani set up the news... funny thing is they left out many details just show it as if Bajwa had links to Bajco and Bajco was a family business..

1) They didn't provide any direct link between Bajwa and Bajco... they used his getting higher in rank to implicate that he was the reason for Bajco to grow and somehow he helped Bajco (not showing that somehow) but if so.. then how come Shoukat Dahani grew 2 Gas Pump/Restaurant into 1100 within 50 years which are 2 billions worth... keeping in mind that Bajco is only around 150 in 20 years

2) They deliberately hid total number of investors in Bajco and to make it look as if it was a family owned business... number of investors in Bacjo are more than 50... so how is it a family business?

Lastly the price assumption of assets is way over even normal price to set up a food business here in west
 

ARMalik

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2017
3,067
4
5,797
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
The government has its priorities wrong. Instead of introducing such idiotic laws, it is better if media and social media is properly controlled. Most of the media in Pakistan is getting its funding from oversea agencies. Why does the government not ban such media outlets?
 

muhammadhafeezmalik

FULL MEMBER
Jan 21, 2015
144
0
66
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
In October 2004, Sherafgun Niazi proposed to hold two posts of President & COAS in the National Assembly and the Senate. The bill was passed. After this bill, General Musharraf was declared eligible for both the posts of head of state and employee.
His son Amjad Ali Khan has introduced a bill to punish the general public for questioning General.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Top