Question of rights
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Though this right is violated in autocratic governments and dictatorships, all functioning democracies have a mechanism to defend this right without which no civilized society commands respect of the global community in the 21st century. The UN recognizes this right as enshrined in its declaration of human rights. However, a new legislation is on the cards in the country – ostensibly in the name of respect for the armed forces of the country. The bill –approved by a National Assembly standing committee – seeks to amend the PPC to send anyone to jail for two years or fine them for Rs500, 000 or both, if that person tries to defame the army. The opposition parties, the Pakistan Bar Council, and some other civil society activists and organizations have demanded withdrawal of the bill.
There are already existing defamation laws that offer plenty of coverage to any individual or organization if it feels defamed or disrespected. In fact, the NA standing committee should have known that Section 500 of the PPC is clear about providing punishment for the defamation of anyone – be it an individual or an organization. Now the new bill proposes the addition of Section 500-A, the sole aim of which appears to be gagging freedom of expression which is already under threat from various quarters in the country. The constitution guarantees this freedom which should not be curtailed in the name of national security.
The armed forces have, through the history of Pakistan, done a great deal to defend the country against both internal and external threats. By acting in this fashion, they have won respect from the people and praise from many quarters. Which is why such laws are also against the integrity of a much-respected institution. The purpose of all legislation is essentially to protect and respect the rights of citizens and all institutions are legally bound to do so. It is not a good idea to protect impunity under various disguises. The constitutional domains of all institutions are clearly defined and, given the long history of anti-political interference and interventions in the country, the right to criticize and pinpoint transgressions and violations of the constitution must remain intact
-
King Charles Lands In The Line Of Fire Because Of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor -
Denise Richards Doubles Down On Abuse Claims Against Ex Husband Aaron Phypers Amid Show Return -
Russia Set To Block Overseas Crypto Exchanges In Sweeping Crackdown -
Gwyneth Paltrow Reveals Deep Personal Connection With Kate Hudson -
Prince Harry, Meghan Markle’s Game Plan For Beatrice, Eugenie: ‘Extra Popcorn For This Disaster’ -
OpenAI To Rollout AI Powered Smart Speakers By 2027 -
Is Dakota Johnsons Dating Younger Pop Star After Breakup With Coldplay Frontman Chris Martin? -
Hilary Duff Tears Up Talking About Estranged Sister Haylie Duff -
US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs As 'unlawful' -
Kelly Clarkson Explains Decision To Quit 'The Kelly Clarkson Show' -
Inside Hilary Duff's Supportive Marriage With Husband Matthew Koma Amid New Album Release -
Daniel Radcliffe Admits To Being Self Conscious While Filming 'Harry Potter' In Late Teens -
Director Beth De Araujo Alludes To Andrew's Arrest During Child Trauma Talk -
'Harry Potter' Alum Daniel Radcliffe Gushes About Unique Work Ethic Of Late Co Star Michael Gambon -
Video Of Andrew 'consoling' Eugenie Resurfaces After Release From Police Custody -
Japan: PM Takaichi Flags China ‘Coercion,’ Pledges Defence Security Overhaul