|
QUID PRO QUO,
DO GOOD AND HAVE GOOD
Barrister Amjad Malik writes on an attack on French magazine
and publishing cartoons
Muslim as well western countries are in
the grip of latest stir caused by the attack on ‘charlie Ebdo’ a satirical
magazine known for its slur and satire publishing cartoons considered to be
anti Muslims. Previously Sam Bacile’s fiction on the life of Prophet and knighthood
status granted to ‘Satanic Verses’ fame writer Salman Rushdie which created
an uproar in the Islamic world though the stalwarts of Ummah are quietly
observing these developments.
Several organizations and world leaders
have expressed dismay at the blatant disregard shown to the 1.5 billion Muslims
sensitivities in the world by Charlie Ebdo’s publication in a tit for tat style
post attack on its magazine’s office which was condemned worldwide. The
culprits behind were identified and were eliminated forthwith.
Publication of cartoons is putting
uninvolved Muslims on the edge. Bridging the gap between two communities
after the events of September 11th in USA and 7 July in UK.
Muslims of Britain as well as the Western World are already subject to
victimization via various heavy handed laws and at this junction refusing to
take the film on prophet off the YouTube and publication of cartoons will
contribute to widen the gulf between two cultures and will alienate the
main stream Muslim community.
Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) of 1860
dates from the British colonial period: Sections 295 to 298 of the PPC
dealing with religious offences ates back to that period and were
intended to prevent and curb religious violence. The offences listed are:
defiling a place of worship (s.295), acts insulting religion or religious
beliefs (s.295 A), disturbing a religious assembly (s.296), trespassing
on burial grounds (s.297), and utterances wounding religious feelings
(s.298). These sections have a lot in common including the intention of
the offender to hurt the religious susceptibilities of others which is
considered integral to the offence; they also share a universal
application, whereby hurting the religious feelings or any group is made
an offence. In particular S. 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code says, “
whoever by words either spoken or written or by visible representations
or in any manner whatsoever, or by any imputation, innuendo or
institution, directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the holy
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with death or imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable to fine.”. Islamic Shariat Bench later
declared that imprisonment can not be granted in Blasphemy proven cases
and only death sentence is the right sentence for the convicted.
However these offences have little value to the West who take freedom of
expression as a superior force to all other political and religious
compulsions. Their Blasphemy law though covers Christianity but does not
cover Islam. Article 10 of European Convention of Human Rights 1950 which
is a bit similar to Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 says
as following: “1. Every one has the right to freedom of expression.
This right shall include freedom to hold opinion and to receive and
impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and
regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from
requiring the Licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”
During the Salman Rushdie affair in 80’s after writing a book ‘Satanic
Verses’ Britain never prosecuted Salma Rushdie under Blasphemy Laws of
Britain for defiling the Prophet of Islam as British laws only covers
Christianity. Under Ex Parte Choudhary, private prosecution was not
allowed either by British Courts due to lack of legal provisions. Britain
since has introduced the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which
intends to curb preaching religious violence, however it still does not
address the core and causes of igniting religious hatred albeit blasphemy .
However in the west denial of holocaust as to whether or not Jews were
oppressed by Hitler’s Nazi regime is a criminal offence in most part of
Europe. Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries: In
_Austria_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria)
(article 3h Verbotsgesetz 1947) punishable from 6 months to 20 years, _Belgium_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium)
(_Belgian Holocaust denial law_(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Holocaust_denial_law)
) punishable from Fine to 1 year, the _Czech Republic_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic)
under section 261 punishable from 6 months to 3 years, _France_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)
(_Loi Gayssot_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_Gayssot)
) punishable from Fine or 1 month to 2 years, _Germany_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)
(_§_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/§)
130 (3) of the penal code) also the Auschwitzlüge law section 185
punishable from Fine or 1 month to 5 years, _Lithuania_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania)
, _The Netherlands _ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Netherlands)
under articles 137c and 137e punishable from Fine or 2 years to 10 years,
_Poland_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland)
, _Romania_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)
, _Slovakia_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia)
,and _Switzerland_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland)
(article 261bis of the Penal Code) punishable from 6 months to 3-5 years.
In addition, under Law 5710-1950 it is also illegal in _Israel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)
and punishable from 1 year to 5 years. Italy enacted a law against racial
and sexual discrimination on January 25, 2007 punishable from 3 years to
4 years.
Now we see no Islamic countries
in this list which outlaw holocaust denial as if you wish to enact the
law in those countries you are called to scratch their back too and amend
your home blasphemy laws to include the respect for Islam and its
Prophet. Now looking at this tendency the way the West is showing
insensitivity to the Muslim World’s feelings, It will be quite illogical
if Islamic countries in a fit start a similar nasty exercise to fuel the
fire on the name of ‘freedom of expression’. Iran already did open a completion
of cartoons on ‘holocaust denial’ and is not the right way and forum to take it
forward. These sentiments though exist in the even educated circles which call
for serious consideration by OIC and West to sit together and find a
solution to this hugely charged issue as common man of each society calls
for peace and harmony between ancient civilizations. the
awarded writer Rushdie’s contribution is disputed as it is not only conflicting
but has caused hurt to scores of human souls around the world, so as the
publication of cartoon by Charlie Ebdo. Its a one step forward and two
backwards. Whilst urging communities to remain calm and use their right
to protest in a maximum peaceful manner, I feel the time has come for two
ancient civilization to sit together and try to form a group of countries
to have a joint ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ to
identify and not to allow harbouring each other’s common criminals who defile
each other’s religious faith. Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) did something
similar 1400 years ago and made a pact with his opponents known as
‘Hudabiya Pact’ and here too the Western world must have a dialogue to
secure interfaith harmony in order to bring two extremes to the middle to
avoid future conflict.
There is no point that blasphemy
law in Pakistan, Iran and Saudi is punishable to death and writers of
such books walked free in British run India for writing ‘Colourful
Prophet’ around 100 years ago, and now for writing ‘Satanic Verses’ and
publishing ‘Danish Cartoons’ and or Charlie Ebdo doing the same ridiculing the
Prophet. Similarly denying holocaust, that Nazis did or did not oppress
the Jews, is a criminal offence in the West but in the Islamic world if
not penalized then it does not carry international validity and criminals
of one society will keep seeking refuge in other’s protection
indefinitely and may cause a mayhem one day. If a joint attempt to ‘give and
take’ policy is not adopted, a chain of uncalled events may emerge from
within these episodes which will be regrettable but will be disastrous to
the efforts of bringing the unity in this global village. When law
does not address public anxiety and no forum is available where a
complaint can be lodged then those who mutilate public feelings on the
name of freedom will deepen the gulf further and clash of civilization begins as was quoted by
the US president wrongly or rightly at the time of 9/11 referring to
crusades.
We must all discourage any attempt
to use or stir violence on religious basis, however realizing the nature
of situation OIC and Western World including European Union, US, Russia, China,
and India must consider setting up a forum to adjudicate such matters and
give serious thought to the calls of Muslim countries &
West for interfaith harmony. Islamic countries jointly must come up
with a unanimous unstinted resolution as to where no negotiation is possible
and where there is a compromise possible on the name of freedom of
thought and expression and or to include protection to Western belief.
Little late and there was no dearth of individuals like Ghazi ilam Din
then in India, or Amir Cheema now in Germany in this day and age who were
and are willing to take law into their own hands on the name of love for
their religion and their Prophet when no law or legal forum is available to
address their concerns instead countries show blatant disregard to their
sentiments. The decision is simple, its one man’s freedom against 1.5
billion Muslims sensitivities. Muslim world unanimously banned the film
‘Passion of Christ’ which fantasized Jesus Christ in a fiction, same
reciprocal concession must be offered from the West which does not cost
them a penny on the issue of Sam Bacilli’s fiction on prophet and or Charlie Ebdo’s
cartoon. Why both societies do not act together to fill the
lacuna so that any frenzy writer or satirical
comedian may not stir religious sentiments and defile each others
sacred belief as current law does not address those common grouses of each
community. This way we can save the clash of civilization and nip the
evil in the bud in order to save the humanity as one man’s unnatural
death is the death of the whole of humanity.
In 2013 Association of Pakistani Lawyers (APL)
sought Chief justice’s intervention drawing his
attention towards ever increasing blasphemous material circulating in the
internet domain whether it is Face book, YouTube and or other modem of internet
communications having far reaching implications on the minds, the lives and
liberties of the main stream Muslim population. APL requested the office of the Chief Justice for necessary
direction(s) to PTA, Govt, and the institution(s) to block those individual
objectionable page(s) promoting blasphemy on the name of freedom of expression,
and take meaningful steps for an international covenant to protect the name of
the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) and I believe necessary action was taken.
Britain bans almost 10,000 sites every year by internet watch organisation
which contain unwanted indecent images and material damging teh minds
APL
prayed that : “We herewith ask the Honourable Chief Justice to take action
under Article 184(3) and consider this a matter of public importance and order
an enquiry as to what steps have been taken at Govt level and at the levels of
PTA (technical level) and/or foreign office level to block, deter and defeat
efforts to defile the name of the beloved Prophet and what efforts are taken if
any to promote a culture of tolerance where name of the above remains protected
internationally. We ask the following directions in the interim on this human
rights action:-
1. Kindly Direct PTA for an action to block all
blasphemous pages at social media networks (Face book, twitter, YouTube) in the
jurisdiction of Pakistan;
2.
Kindly
direct the Federal Govt of Pakistan to seek international cooperation through
OIC/USA/UNO to block the said blasphemous film and seek to deter and defeat
efforts to defile the name of the beloved Prophet (PBUH)
3.
Kindly
direct the Federal Govt of Pakistan to seek an international cooperation to
enact an international covenant to block, deter and defeat efforts to defile
the name of the beloved Prophet and other prophets and to promote a culture of
tolerance where name of the above remains protected internationally.
4.
Kindly
direct the Govt of Pakistan and PTA to scrutinise the above page and order it’s
blocking if that page is deemed slanderous.”
In
2013, On the application of APL an action to remove contents defiling Prophet
Muhammad PBUH (ref HRC No. 20789/2013) was taken up by supreme court. On 10
June 2013 Chief Justice Iftikhar
Muhammad Chaudhry took suo motu notice on an application of a United
Kingdom-based Pakistani, Barrister Amjad Malik regarding blasphemous content
circulating on the internet and has sought a report from chairman Pakistan
Telecommunication Authority (PTA) within a week , and PTA took necessary
actions post superior court directions to avoid multiplication of unnecessary
material on web. I confirmed on behalf of APL that , “upon several
complaints a meaningful action is sought to bridge the gap and seek amicable
resolution nationally and internationally of such humiliation and ever
increasing violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens who
feel aggrieved by unscrupulous and unorthodox elements defiling the name of the
sacred without any justification and bona fide”. For this we were criticised as
if we wish the ban on modern technology not at all, it was meant to have
effective laws to promote tolerance than allowing these incidents every now and
then to highjack the work of many for peace and stability in our regions.
In 2015 Western world learnt with
sadness the terrorism incident resulting in dozen of killings in the capital by
extremist outlawed at the offices of Charlie Ebdo a satirical magazine and wider
condemnation supported their right to express freely. However, their publishing
the cartoons of the Holy man the very next week showed aggression &
retaliation and lack of tolerances to the belief of 1.5 billion whose
sensitivities are hurt by such untoward publication. Charlie Ebdo was attacked
by few outlawed, but it took revenge from 1.5 billion Muslim which is
disproportionate, careless and un thoughtful when Muslims condemned the attack.
Unless the exercise meant something else to fuel fire , shake the tree, and
assess and root out radical individual and groups, only God knows.
Pakistani Govt's announced strict action
to curb such outlawed terrorists post an attack on a school on 16 December 2014
killing over 140 children in Peshawar. Govt vowed to end networks, their handlers and masterminds and
started executing hard core criminals post sentence by a court of law which will
give a strong message of state commitment to curb increasing radicalisation and
religious based violence.
Unfortunately publication of cartoon
will stir religious tensions and incite radicalisation as pope Francis rightly
said you ‘mock the Muslim’ so ‘expect the punch’, but we do not want that. The
Pope denounced “provocateurs” who mocked religion and said that they could
expect to receive a punch, as he weighed into the aftermath of the Paris terror
attacks. Pope Francis criticized the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for
insulting Islam and said that he understood why Muslims reacted with violent
anger and that can be a good starting point to have a dialogue, a debate, an argument
and a possible plausible ‘memorandum of understanding’ of live and let live.
Pope sadly is branded as a mullah
pope for his remarks which is to me is unnecessary and uncalled for.
We want to
bridge the gap and have peace with a quid pro quo. We must not allow mockery of
religious faith(s) and leaders unnecessarily and or threatening words or
behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening to the faith
of billion people and one does not gain anything. He has no authority of such
ridicule and no gain either except that its his right to say as he please. Both
societies must not promote not encourage and incite and or shelter the mockers
and firebrands and ‘law of the land must prevail’ as ‘no religion teaches to
take life of a fellow human being’, and calm protest on both incidents of
communities is a way forward and a dialogue to move from the stated stance to
have an amicable resolution to attain a position where we respect each other
and their faith and sensitivities. Retaliation either by west or east will
smite the argument as history shows that on blasphemy, people burn their own
houses in Muslim states.
Barrister
Amjad Malik is a chair of Association of Pakistani Lawyers UK and has done LLM
on national security Law
17
January 2015
|