The fate of the Freedom?

A great crisis is about to engulf freedom of expression.  If the society does not understand the seriousness of the issue, freedom of opinion will soon be found only in books .

 We are often told that the constitution has given us the right to freedom of opinion, but most of us are oblivious to the fact that in the article of the constitution in which the right to freedom of opinion is given, some restrictions have also been imposed .  More interested is the fact that they are ambiguous   in nature.If the government ever actually enforces this ambiguity, freedom of opinion will be suffocated.

  Until now people and social media activists have took advantage of this ambiguity, but now the nature of the matter is changing.  The text and style of talk shows have bored the serious and intelligent class.  Journalism has not been able to maintain its moral standard and many questions have grappled its credibility.

Social media is operating in complete disregards of the legal retrictions. This is very sad state of affairs.

 Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of opinion and freedom of the press.  But in the same article, freedom of opinion and freedom of press has been made subject to few things.  The complicated situation is that these conditions have been written down but  have not been explained what it would actually mean.  Let’s take a look at these terms.

 The first condition is the glory of Islam.  The government has been given the right to restrict freedom of expression when it comes to the glossy of islam.  But the question is, what is meant by the glory of Islam?  The nature of the law is that it leaves no ambiguity.  Pakistan Penal Code has defined and interpreted up to man, woman, day, month.  But it is not written somewhere in the constitution or in any sub-law  what the glory of Islam will mean.  Which discussion in the chapter of religion will be a concept contrary to this glory?

 For many people, talking about secularism may be against the glory of Islam, and for many, some of those jurisprudential differences may also be considered against the glory of Islam, which are purely related to the system of punishment and law.  The question is: who will explain this ambiguity?

The second condition is related to matters of foreign affairs.  The constitution says that under the guise of freedom of expression, nothing can be said which affects Pakistan’s friendly relations with any country and the government can impose reasonable restrictions in this regard.  The question is, what are the limits  of these friendly relations?  Can a law be made to stop the debate on the foreign policy of any country?  Can discussion of internal contradictions of any country be banned?

 In the constitution, ‘decency’ and ‘morality’ have also been included in the list of restrictions imposed on freedom of expression, but it has not been explained anywhere what the meaning of decency and morality will be.  In the case of showing Abdul Qadir Patel’s land Murad Saeed’s empty and painful rhetoric  in the National Assembly, will freedom of opinion be violated

 This is exactly the case as in Article 62, in terms of qualifications for a Member of Parliament, he is required to be honest, trustworthy etc, but it is not stated what these heavy terms will mean

Three things should be done.  First: The culture of hatred has to be civilized.  This behavior will not be tolerated much longer.

 Second:  Advocates of the “Freedom of opinion” should read and understand the laws of the country so that they can understand the constitutional limits of freedom of opinion.

Third: If there is any ambiguity or error in these laws, instead of turning a blind eye, it should be brought to the parliament, discussed and the ambiguity and defects removed.