The astonishingly brave Saif-ul-malook is again representing alleged blasphemers in the Pakistan Supreme Court. They have been on death row since 2014.
One of the appellants was held, still may be, in the same cell that was used for Assia Bibi before her blasphemy conviction was quashed.
The crime for which the appellants may be hanged was allegedly to send blasphemous text messages, in English. The appellants are said to be illiterate and unable to speak English.
Shafqat Masih, one of the 2 appellants, is said to be disabled and unable to walk.
They have been convicted under Paragraph 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code. It is even more severe than it appears. Under a 1990 ruling, a conviction for blasphemy under this provision carries a mandatory death sentence.
Although no-one has yet been judicially executed for blasphemy, many people have spent years in prison. Accusations of blasphemy are devastating and have been used in personal vendettas, especially against religious minorities.
According to Human Rights Watch, since 1990 at least 65 people have been killed after allegations of blasphemy. hrw.org/news/2019/10/0…
Politicians opposing blasphemy laws have been murdered. Lawyers defending alleged blasphemers have been threatened and in at least one case murdered.
That is why @Saifulm32731039 is one of the bravest lawyers practising anywhere in the world, defending penniless and unpopular defendants at huge personal risk.
My apologies & a correction: the appeal is in fact to be heard in the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court is the next level of appeal.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Suella Baverman tells @CommonsJustice she supports "extending the court day."
"Speaking of my experience as a barrister ... I would have jumped at the chance of any work, especially in my early days, regardless of the time of day at which it was being held."
Does she support increased legal aid work?
"The legal aid agency has produced a range of measures and there are lots of options in the pipeline. ... I'm not able to comment [if there will be an increase in legal aid rates]."
I disagree with @barristersecret here. Johnson does appear to intend much tougher sentences, and not just for child murderers. The current whole-life tariff for child murderers is reserved for those with an abduction or a sexual or sadistic motivation.
@BarristerSecret For some reason the plan is for killing of 4 year olds to become automatically more serious than the killing of 5 year olds.
@BarristerSecret Non-sexual murders of young children are very uncommon anyway. Some are "baby-shaking" cases where an inadequate parent may snap in a moment of anger. There is good reason why such cases should be regarded as less serious than the sexual murder of children.