Freedom of speech — I
Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed February 10, 2015
Daily Times
Freedom of speech is a core liberal human right, one that western democracies put on the highest pedestal. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The chief theorist of freedom of speech was the 19th century British liberal thinker John Stuart Mill. Mill argued that the only way society can progress is by letting human beings express their views and opinions freely. If everyone enjoys such a right then the listeners or readers will be able to figure out which standpoint is rational and cogent and which is flawed and unconvincing.
Mill put a very high premium on human intelligence and rationality. He recognised individuals as intelligent, autonomous agents capable of making correct choices if they are given several alternatives. Consequently, Mill asserted, it does not matter if bad or wrong ideas are expressed because only when such ideas exist can human beings make out what is right and what is wrong. He argued that the west transformed into the leading civilisation of the world because freedom of speech underpinned the freedom of enquiry, which made possible scientific research and the inventions and discoveries such research produced.
Did Mill then support unrestricted right to free speech and expression? The answer is no. He made a distinction between the written word, which he believed required some level of serious reflection and unbridled verbal speech, which could result in the abuse of freedom of speech and cause social unrest and upheaval. An example he identified was working class agitators who could rouse vile passions among the workers through demagogy and thus instigate them to violent action against factory owners. Such rash use of freedom of speech he wanted to restrict and prohibit.
Additionally, he introduced the harm principle to regulate liberty. Action and speech that resulted in harm to others constituted an offence that should be punished, he asserted. It is not clear if he meant physical harm only or harm in the larger sense of the word, which could include psychological torment as well. Therefore, one can say that Mill’s defence of freedom of speech and expression was not without qualifications and reservations, and some amount of vagueness. One can also argue that he privileged freedom of speech that appealed to the educated middle classes but not that of workers; he seemed to be against the freedom of the working class to challenge the bad conditions they labored under in 19th century England.
In any case, nowhere in the west is freedom of speech without regulations. Slander (verbal character assassination) and libel (character assassination in written form) are offences against which people can move the court for redress. However, slander and libel cases can be admitted by courts only if living human beings are adversely affected: their reputation is tarnished and their economic interests thus suffer. However, individuals dead and gone, including religious icons and founders, are not protected by slander and libel laws.
The US has probably the most liberal laws on freedom of speech and even infamous, extreme right wing organisations such as the unabashedly racist Ku Klux Klan are free to publish their point of view as long as they do not incite violence against non-whites, Jews and other minorities. On the whole, in western societies, preaching hatred against ethnic and religious minorities is a criminal offence. So, preaching hatred of Muslims would be treated as a criminal offence in western democracies and the culprits put on trial and punished if found guilty.
Having said this, it is important to note that, in the west, religious freedom is guaranteed. It is upon such a basis that mosques have been constructed in western cities and localities where sizable Muslim immigrant populations are found. No doubt, considerable resistance was given by native populations who perceived the growing Muslim presence threatening but permission was granted and mosques are being built in the west.
However, not only is freedom of religion guaranteed in the west but also freedom from religion. Nobody is obliged to believe in a religion and therefore sceptics, agnostics and atheists are free to follow their own moral codes. As long as people obey the law and pay taxes they can lead their lives as freely as they want. There are people who write against religions and satirical magazines also exist in many western democracies. Their publications do offend, in some cases deeply, the feelings and sentiments of believers. Their standpoint is that religions divide humanity, uphold gender inequality, oppose gay rights and historically have been responsible for wars, minority persecutions, including ethnic cleansing and genocide, and other excesses. The general understanding is that only when philosophers and scientists were liberated from the tyranny of theology and orthodoxy could knowledge unfettered by dogma grow by leaps and bounds and the west liberalise, democratise and pluralise.
Such an interpretation is a compelling one but one cannot deny that, under the garb of freedom of speech, some troublemakers deliberately abuse such freedoms to conceal their prejudices against Muslims and other groups. The same people would be very wary hurting Jewish sensibilities because the Jews are no longer perceived as a dangerous race. There is no denying that some forms of Muslim behaviour in the west are primitive and aggressive, and that such behaviour plays into the hands of anti-Muslim parties and movements, frightening ordinary people.
However, many westerners do retain faith in Christianity or at least value their Christian identity. I have lived in perhaps the most secularised of western societies, Sweden, for more than 40 years and even there some people are pious believers. I remember once, during the Christmas holidays, an old Swedish lady protested in a letter to the editor of a leading newspaper that a television channel had shown some programme casting Jesus in a bad light: as gay. So, it is not surprising that when the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) depict him in ways and forms many Muslims find scandalous, they are deeply offended.
(To be continued)

Loyalty and selfless, endless, self-denying, incorruptible love and loyalty to the Holy Prophet (abundant peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the basic requirement of Islam, the need for a believer, thus his honor and worthiness is the inherent part of our Imaan, without the protection of which, we cannot practice Islam as are desired and willed by the mother of all laws in Pakistan, the constitution, how can there even be a talk about altering the blasphemy law, leave alone, repealing it. Yes, for sure, the way the law is handled owing to the inefficiency of the state, not of the the individuals, can, at all times, be discussed; there is no objection to that.

The freedom of expression that the West and its puppets noise about and take cover in, doesn't come without limits. Blasphemy, defamation, incitement to hatred, discrimination against a person et cetera, are not permitted free play alongside the freedom of expression, even in the most reputed societies.

I quote the pertinent article from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

2: The exercise of these freedoms [freedom of expression], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

"For the protection of morals", "for the protection of the reputation of others", how, in such a transparent manner with nothing left ambiguous, addresses this article of International Law the whole matter, sums all of it up literally.

Keeping the aforementioned in consideration, the Pakistani state "regulated" the freedom of speech, as it ought to have, always, been:

19 Freedom of speech, etc.
Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law "in the interest of the glory of Islam" or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, 30[commission of] 30 or incitement to an offence.



Following laws/sections were made part of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), in line with the requirement of Article 19 of the Constitution:


295. Injuring or defiling place of worship, with Intent to insult the religion of any class:
Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction damage or defilement as an insult to their religion. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting Its religion or religious beliefs:
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the 'religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.

295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.



The glory of Islam is uncompromisable, the constitution authorizes the state to defend the glory of Islam, the deen of the True Sovereign (as submissively accepted by the Constitution), yes, the King Allah! I am thankful to Him alone for having been born in this land of pure, the beautiful, faithful Pakistan.