Pakistan's blasphemy laws have left even judges in fear of their lives

[fd24]

So if Pakistan came up with a version of religiously motivated apartheid on the South African model, which was based on skin color, would that be okay by this logic?

I think im misunderstood. I dont believe the law is being implemented in the correct manner VCheng. The judiciary system is perhaps flawed and may need changing. One can only work within the parameters stipulated.
Im a great believer no one should be allowed to disrespect other people due to what beliefs and religion they hold.Its easy for me to say that but in practice we have shown in the past to be sheep and follow the one bashing the loudest drum and appointing leaders that make empty promises. btw point taken VCheng

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think no one should be allowed to disrespect any other persons religous belief

So if a Christian or Hindu says that Mohammed is not a prophet and they don't believe in him, what would you consider that?

What gives the government of Pakistan and its non-Ahmadi Muslim population the right to 'insult' the Ahmadi faith and their prophet by not just openly calling him a 'False Prophet' and making derogatory comments about how he died etc., but by legalizing discrimination and insults of 'false prophet' through decreeing the entire community 'non-Muslim'.

These so called 'stalwarts of respect all religious beliefs' turn out to be lying hypocrites when confronted by examples of open insults and discrimination against other religious groups.

but I take your point its not easy and or practical to formulate these in practice and can lead to a slippery slope when applied as in pakistan

It is a 'slippery slope' only if you are afraid of an open society with freedom of expression and equality for all, and only if you have no 'faith' in your 'faith's ability to stand up to open discourse and an open society'.

---------- Post added at 11:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------

I dont believe the law is being implemented in the correct manner VCheng.

I agree, because if it was being implemented fairly and correctly, the law would punish every single living legislator who voted in favor of legalized discrimination and insults against the Ahmadi, and would punish people like Aamir Liaquat and other so called Islamic scholars who spew abuse and ***** against the Ahmadis.

 

[lem34]

Even if we are to argue 'majority rule', those who disagree with the policies and laws adopted by the majority should have the freedom to campaign for and promote their ideas.

So the Blasphemy law cannot be said to be a 'majority law', since those calling for its repeal and change are threatened, silenced and killed, and therefor there is no open and fair discussion in society about the laws.

Currently these laws are the result of 'thug rule', not 'majority rule'.

Islamic parties to my knowledge have never got more than a few per cent of votes in pakistan elections. I think the people who are to blame are our political leaders that are weak and pandour to the whims of the biggots and fanatics who want to enforce their very harsh interpretation of islam on all of us. political leaders like bhutto in relation to ahmedis here we had an alcoholic pushing thru laws telling us who are muslims and not muslims

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Islamic parties to my knowledge have never got more than a few per cent of votes in pakistan elections. I think the people who are to blame are our political leaders that are weak and pandour to the whims of the biggots and fanatics who want to enforce their very harsh interpretation of islam on all of us. political leaders like bhutto in relation to ahmedis here we had an alcoholic pushing thru laws telling us who are muslims and not muslims

From the reports that I read, the initial protest rallies against Manhoos Qadri's death sentence were barely a few hundred - probably primarily brainwashed Madrassa students.

I don't see how any of these thugs can claim that there is the kind of 'majority support' for these laws, when even in such a repressed environment with limited discourse on the issue, they can barely manage a few hundred to rally in favor of their cause.

 

[TruthSeeker]

"Democracy" is only a short-hand word for a system wherein the citizens hold the ultimate power. However, a pure democracy is tyrannical as has been pointed out above. The innovation of the Founding Fathers of the USA was the so-called "Bill of Rights" that were amended to the US Constitution as first written. A majority of the original thirteen US states would not ratify the Constitution until these individual rights were added. These rights protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority in specific ways, such as the freedom of religion. The US Constitution is a balance between the will of the majority and the rights of an individual, enforced by the rule of law. The US Supreme Court is the guardian of individual rights over encroachment by the "democratically" elected Congress and President.

In the USA, a blasphemy law would be struct down by the Supreme Court, even if passed by the Congress and signed by the President, as an unconstitutional infringement of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. A blasphemy law could only be passed by amending the US Constitution which requires 2/3 majorities in the Congress, the President's signature, and ratification by 3/4 of the 50 states, a very high hurdle.

 

[untitled]

So the Blasphemy law cannot be said to be a 'majority law', since those calling for its repeal and change are threatened, silenced and killed,

So if the majority of people of Pakistan want this law to stay in its current form (through the democratic process) would it be acceptable ?

 

[fd24]

AgNoStIc MuSliM

Who do you hold accountable - the judiciary system or those that apply it. Is their a separation of powers in Pakistan? I dont believe their is. I also believe the law is molded and manipulated so much that one may go to sleep and by the morning another sentence or 2 have been added to the law book. I am not being hyper critical i am frustrated with the implementation

 

[VCheng]

So if the majority of people of Pakistan want this law to stay in its current form (through the democratic process) would it be acceptable ?

As acceptable as apartheid was in South Africa, and we all know how that story ended.

 

[lem34]

"Democracy" is only a short-hand word for a system wherein the citizens hold the ultimate power. However, a pure democracy is tyrannical as has been pointed out above. The innovation of the Founding Fathers of the USA was the so-called "Bill of Rights" that were amended to the US Constitution as first written. A majority of the original thirteen US states would not ratify the Constitution until these individual rights were added. These rights protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority is specific ways, such as the freedom of religion. The US Constitution is a balance between the will of the majority and the rights of an individual, enforced by the rule of law. The US Supreme Court is the guardian of individual rights over encroachment by the "democratically" elected Congress and President.

I think we have to be honest and accept that the concept of democracy in this world can not be thought of in absolute term but relative. No country has yet arived nirvana or utopia. Some countries are further down the road than others. perhaps the UN should be tasked with producing a minimum common denominator arrived at by consensus by all countries that we could accept as right or wrong without ulterior motives.

 

[fd24]

So if the majority of people of Pakistan want this law to stay in its current form (through the democratic process) would it be acceptable ?

I think the people of Pakistan must realise that appointing flawed characters in our system is the weakness brother. The people of Pakistan want to believe everything they hear but to hear everything is good, but to believe is debatable.

 

[lem34]

So if the majority of people of Pakistan want this law to stay in its current form (through the democratic process) would it be acceptable ?

I think in priciple not disrespecting any religion is a good idea. but the problem is that in practice it seems or the examples that are publicised seem a harsh and draconian

 

[untitled]

As acceptable as apartheid was in South Africa, and we all know how that story ended.

Is that not what democracy is all about ... if the majority wants to shoot itself in the foot so be it ?

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

I think in priciple not disrespecting any religion is a good idea. but the problem is that in practice it seems or the examples that are publicised seem a harsh and draconian

This law like any law in Pakistan is not implemented

The question is of tolerance in society .... which our country unfortunately lacks

 

[lem34]

Is that not what democracy is all about ... if the majority wants to shoot itself in the foot so be it ?

nope. Yaar dont you remember in school if the teacher gives you a question just cos maijority says 2 plus 2 is 5 dont make it 5

---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

Is that not what democracy is all about ... if the majority wants to shoot itself in the foot so be it ?

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------



This law like any law in Pakistan is not implemented

The question is of tolerance in society .... which our country unfortunately lacks

so we should simply shoot all corrupt political leaders and start all over again lol

 

[VCheng]

Is that not what democracy is all about ... if the majority wants to shoot itself in the foot so be it ?.................

Have you looked around lately? After shooting the feet, knees, belly, and chest, the "majority" is about to shoot itself in the head, taking Pakistan down with it.

 

[untitled]

But what I am saying that the Blasphemy law is not new law in the world.... it can still be found around the world.... just Google Blasphemy law .... you will still be surprised where it is still implemented

If the blasphemy law is removed as we speak/type/argue will their be tolerance in our society ?