Cartooning the Constitution: Look before you leak

By Farzana Versey

When I say that you cannot be proud of something you are born in or with unless you contribute to it, including religion and the nation, I am asked, “So you don’t get goosebumps during the national anthem?” This is not the response of only the rightwing, but also centrists, and libertarians. My goosebumps for anything are a personal matter. Flashing fidelity is an insecure reaction, in personal relationships and in patriotism. 

When a political cartoonist from the anti-corruption movement shows the Indian Parliament as a toilet bowl, should not the response be the same? If he depicts the symbols of the Indian Constitution in a manner that insults the symbols rather than pulling up those who abuse it, then why is he held up as an example of freedom of expression? 

Aseem Trivedi is arrested. He refuses a lawyer. He has nothing to say in his defence.Reportedly, “he prefers to be jailed than live in a farcical freedom where activists are targeted and freedom of speech is denied”.

The farcical freedom he talks about has occupied grounds and done little else. IAC cannot take credit for any expose of scams. His stance is no different from the cries of “jail bharo”. This will help the movement come back into the limelight. 

We do know that sedition charges don’t stick. But those who are charged with it get sympathy and a free ticket to ‘victim’ heaven. Has anything happened to Arundhati Roy? Isn’t Dr. Binayak Sen happily sitting in the Planning Commission, appointed by the very government that had sentenced him? 

The logical result of Blasphemy Law

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

(Published in Daily Times Sept 10, 2012)

The events of the last week may have surprised you. Seeing mullahs falling over one another to declare that Rimsha Masih, the 14-year-old Pakistani Christian girl, was innocent of the charge of blasphemy was quite a spectacle in a country no stranger to spectacles. It is not out of a sudden love for justice or humanity that the mullahs have adopted this stance. Khalid Jadoon Chishti’s attempt to drive out the Christians from their locality is just one case where the real motivations have been exposed entirely due to one conscientious muezzin who had the courage and humanity to speak out against this outrage.

A year and a half after the tragic assassination of Salmaan Taseer, it has become obvious to good Muslims of this country that in its present form clause 295-C militates not just against fundamental human rights but also against Islam. They now realise that the worst kind of blasphemy is misusing the name of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) to persecute a minority community when all Muslims agree that he (PBUH) spoke of religious freedom long before it came to be universally accepted as a key principle of liberty.

New York Times v. Sullivan

Facts of the Case 

Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.

My Arguments before His Lordship Umar Ata Bandial in PTA-Blackberry Case 28.11.11

          In the Honourable Lahore High Court at Lahore

                             Yasser Latif Hamdani v. PTA and one other

______________________________________________________________________

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

______________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

1. Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, reads :

Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of 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, commission of or incitement to an offence.

Submission:

1. Possible restrictions on freedom of speech, constitutional or unconstitutional, may be divided into two categories : 

a.       Restraints on freedom of speech and expression prior to an exercise of the same.

b.      Restraints on freedom of speech and expression after the exercise of the same.

The narrowest view of freedom of speech and expression is that of William Blackstone. In his commentaries on freedom of expression, Sir William Blackstone took the view that the terms freedom of speech, expression and press were aimed at liberating the individual from fetters of the first kind. In chapter XI of his famed Commentaries on laws of England, Sir William lays down his view: