tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post8349152472632931260..comments2024-03-27T15:36:44.737-07:00Comments on Haq's Musings: Can Secular Laws Promote Tolerance in Pakistan?Riaz Haqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-55186045792427922762011-02-10T22:21:05.993-08:002011-02-10T22:21:05.993-08:00Here are excerpts from a piece by Beena Sarwar on ...Here are excerpts from a piece by <a href="http://beenasarwar.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/personal-political-manufacturing-a-%E2%80%98hero%E2%80%99/" rel="nofollow">Beena Sarwar</a> on the role of Pakistani media in the aftermath of Gov Taseer's assassination:<br /><br /><i>..<br />... To top it all, how was the opportunity created to transform Qadri into a celebrity? Who informed people about his court appearances, resulting in crowds gathering, chanting slogans and showering him with rose petals? Television cameras broadcast all this, further glorifying the murderer. These slogans, and the banners and posters supporting Qadri that have cropped up around the country, have not only turned this man’s cowardice – in shooting at an unarmed victim – into some kind of heroism, it has resulted in further intimidation of anyone who supports amendments to the controversial, man-made ‘blasphemy laws’.<br /><br />Such was the manufactured hype and the propaganda around Qadri’s supposed act of valour that a group of lawyers (mostly supporters of the PML-N and PML-Q) hailed him as a hero and vowed to fight his case pro bono. And these are the people who are supposed to uphold rule of law.<br /><br />Then there was the preposterous video clip of the murderer in police custody, singing a ‘naat’ (religious song), apparently filmed by policeman on his cell-phone and released to the media and the internet.<br /><br />The glorification of Qadri’s criminal act of murder could not be possible without the vilification of Salmaan Taseer’s supposed ‘blasphemy’ – for which there is not an iota of evidence anywhere. The build-up to the murder owes much to the Pakistani TV talk shows and channels that perpetuated this false propaganda against the Governor. This propaganda is what led to the widespread belief that the Governor was somehow, preposterously, guilty of his own murder – in much the same way that attention is diverted to what a rape victim was wearing or doing.<br /><br />The media editors and bosses belatedly realised the effect that the constant exposure of Qadri was having. According to a senior inside source at a major TV channel, they have since got together and agreed informally to cut down on such coverage that was serving only to glorify the murderer.<br /><br />The 24/7 news channels amplified the outrageous propaganda of the ‘religious right’ that preceded the murder of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer apparently because he took up the case of Aasiya Noreen, the poor Christian woman sentenced to death by a sessions court for ‘blasphemy’. Taseer tried to obtain a presidential pardon for her even before her case came up for hearing before the Lahore High Court, which must confirm the death sentence or acquit an accused. Taseer did not say anything that human rights organisations like the HRCP have not been saying for years but he was flamboyant about it, while being a political thorn in the side of the Punjab government.<br /><br />There was propaganda also against Sherry Rehman, the PPP parliamentarian who has submitted a bill to amend the ‘blasphemy laws’ in order to prevent their abuse and misuse. The propaganda against her included the outright lie that she was acting alone and had not taken other parliamentarians into confidence. The truth is that she had lobbied extensively behind the scenes and even got the opposition PML-N to agree not to oppose the bill once it was tabled.<br /><br />The agreement of the TV channels to avoid publicising Qadri’s words and deeds, although belated, is a welcome step. The next step is to take criminal action against all those indulging in hate speech and incitements to murder. Some citizens have begun to register such complaints with the police. Will the government stand by them?</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-37509664030626299282010-06-07T11:48:12.734-07:002010-06-07T11:48:12.734-07:00anon: "You CANNOT for instance via an amendme...anon: "You CANNOT for instance via an amendment to the US constitution take away the power of the Supreme court to declare a law ultra vires via the process of judicial review."<br /><br />It's common practice to limit judicial discretion through laws in the US...the simplest example is mandatory sentences for various crimes, and three-strike laws. <br /><br />Under certain circumstances, the executive can also suspend fundamental rights, including habeas corpus. <br /><br />If no one challenges the constitutionality of over-reaching laws, such as the Patriot Act which essentially trashed the Bill of Rights, then the courts continue to abide by such laws. <br /><br />The US history is full of instances where the executive has flouted Supreme Court order. The most glaring one related to the forcible eviction of the Cherokees from their lands which is often remembered as the "trail of tears". <br /><br />And the US Supreme Court itself has violated the US constitution by approving the mass incarceration of Japanese-Americans during the WWII.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-27676135416020354382010-06-07T11:37:01.738-07:002010-06-07T11:37:01.738-07:00'The US constitution today is fundamentally ve...'The US constitution today is fundamentally very different from what the founding fathers envisioned.' <br /><br />Obviously but they were amended in a manner prescribed in the US constitution itself which was not subject to a popular vote.That is exactly what I am saying.<br /><br />Ditto French,Canadian,Irish and other constitutions.<br /><br />Also the fundamental division of powers between the judiciary via judicial review,executive and legislature are enshrined in the constitution whose basic features are again not subject to amendment.<br /><br />You CANNOT for instance via an amendment to the US constitution take away the power of the Supreme court to declare a law ultra vires via the process of judicial review.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-77302600028944439862010-06-07T11:27:40.336-07:002010-06-07T11:27:40.336-07:00anon: "There was no popular referendum on whe...anon: "There was no popular referendum on whether the US constitution is acceptable to the people of the united states in 1789 just as there was no popular referendun in France after de gaulles fifth republic constitution was enacted."<br /><br />The US constitution today is fundamentally very different from what the founding fathers envisioned. <br /><br />Just the Bill of Rights alone has fundamentally changed its characters through a series of amendments that required massive support of the people. <br /><br />As to some of actions of the executive branch such a dropping of A-bomb or the UN, the constitution clearly delineates the powers and limitations of each branch. <br /><br />The US executive has the power to wage war, but all the international treaties, including UN foundation, are subject to approval by the US Congress. <br /><br />Some of the US states like California allow voters to force actions by the government through various propositions which are voted on in every election.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-28096033404361382422010-06-07T11:01:32.211-07:002010-06-07T11:01:32.211-07:00There was no popular referendum on whether the US ...There was no popular referendum on whether the US constitution is acceptable to the people of the united states in 1789 just as there was no popular referendun in France after de gaulles fifth republic constitution was enacted.<br /><br />A constitution can only be amended in a manner mentioned in the constitution itself.<br /><br />A country is a democracy because its constitution dictates it to be not the other way round.It is the bedrock on which democratic institutions and checks and balances and powers of the vital organs of a state are determined and is referred to in case of conflict.<br /><br />'Nothing can be approved without massive support.'<br />really ? dropping of A bomb,berlin airlift,NATO,marshall plan,korean war ,United Nations etc etc were initiated by executive decree of Harry S Truman.There are many other examples.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-9150980577266621752010-06-07T10:09:29.582-07:002010-06-07T10:09:29.582-07:00anon: "A few basic points here a constitution...anon: "A few basic points here a constitution is a sacred document which contains the ideals that the founding fathers of a nation stives it to be.Its not a popularity contest."<br /><br />Passing a constitution and amendments is a popularity contest in a democracy. <br /><br />US constitution and amendments require two-thirds majority in both houses, and approval by two-thirds of the state legislatures. <br /><br />Nothing can be approved without massive support. The case in point is the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) failed miserably because of lack of sufficient support.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-14684892481762214662010-06-07T09:47:54.076-07:002010-06-07T09:47:54.076-07:00'Besides, you can not pass a constitution or m...'Besides, you can not pass a constitution or make laws that do not have the support of the majority in a democracy.' <br /><br /><br />A few basic points here a constitution is a sacred document which contains the ideals that the founding fathers of a nation stives it to be.Its not a popularity contest.<br /><br />The average American didn't have a clue what democracy was when the then founding fathers of the united states made it the world's first democracy.<br /><br />The anti miscegation laws and desegregation laws similarly were wildly unpopular with the majority of americans acording to most opinion polls of that era but America in the 20th century had an unusual abundance of great leaders who saw beyond pety politics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-64172968674667479752010-06-06T21:32:54.508-07:002010-06-06T21:32:54.508-07:00"Besides, you can not pass a constitution or ..."Besides, you can not pass a constitution or make laws that do not have the support of the majority in a democracy. "<br /><br />--> I dont subscribe to that theory. I dont see how Secularism will annoy the majority of Pakistanis. <br /><br />Secularization of the Constitution is largely symbolic which will smooth-en the wheels of governance in Pakistan. It'll lead to a healthy debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-58237119145939373202010-06-06T13:52:43.536-07:002010-06-06T13:52:43.536-07:00anoop: "Just because Murder is punishable off...anoop: "Just because Murder is punishable offense doesn't mean that Murders are stopped."<br /><br />It's ridiculous to compare non-secular constitution with criminal law. <br /><br />Besides, you can not pass a constitution or make laws that do not have the support of the majority in a democracy. <br /><br />anoop: "No society is perfect. Even the society of the most richest country in the world."<br /><br />Wealth does not make you perfect. In fact, the richest are often the most corrupt and least perfect, as demonstrated time and again by the rich and powerful in America.<br /><br />The most recent example is the 2008 financial meltdown in the US, which the rich got bailed out by the taxpayer funds, while the middle class and poor lot their homes and their jobs.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-65253525922787897342010-06-06T11:14:39.171-07:002010-06-06T11:14:39.171-07:00Secularization of law is the 1st step in building ...Secularization of law is the 1st step in building a secular society. Just because Murder is punishable offense doesn't mean that Murders are stopped. But, that doesn't mean it should be ignored. As in this case, the constitution shouldn't enter areas(like Religion) that it cant define. As in it shouldn't say who is a Muslim, who is not. Or, what the Religious Texts say.<br /><br />No society is perfect. Even the society of the most richest country in the world. But, the point is we should aim for a better society. Our laws should reflect that. What on earth is the constitution defining something that no 2 people can agree about, like Religion,God,etc? There is absolutely no excuse for that.<br /><br />Jinnah was a smart man. But,History always judges people based on the result rather than the action. Nehru is blamed for turning India towards socialism and pursuing outdated economic policies. He was responsible, thus, for stagnation of India's growth. But, Nehru's intention was for the good. Similarly, History will judge Jinnah for the result of his actions, rather than the intention.anoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03953390714660751518noreply@blogger.com