FIRs in #MasjidENabvi Outrage DON'T allege blasphemy. ESSENTIAL to understand. Context: Chapter XV of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) contains offences against religion. It has pre-Zia colonial era sections & post-Zia blasphemy sections. Colonial era sections stem from Indian 1/8 
Penal Code, 1860. Meant to protect freedom of exercise of religion & prevent one person from insulting religion of another. Thus curbing of hate speech & resulting law & order disruption & dissolution of society. Importantly, they are meant for all religions & to protect each 2/8
creed from attack on its beliefs & practices as well as protection of minority faiths. They all specifically require intent. They all have definitional specificity. In short they provide various protections & are hard to abuse. These include ss 295, 295-A, 296, 297 & 298. 3/8
Zia era additions are Islam specific. They lack nexus with prerequisite of a causation of any breach of peace - in that sense strict liability offences. Many lack specific intent requirement. Their ambit also very broad. In short flawed & much easier to abuse as we now know. 4/8
These are ss 295-B (defiling, etc, of Holy Quran); 295-C (derogatory remarks in respect of Holy Prophet); 298-A (derogatory remarks in respect of holy personages); 298-B (misuse of epithets, descriptions & titles reserved for certain holy personages or places); 298-C (Person 5/8
of Quadiani group calling himself Muslim, preaching or propagating his faith). Quantum of punishment also invariably much higher for these than for colonial era hate speech provisions.
FIR clearly employs colonial era hate speech provisions 295, 295 A & 296. These are not the 6/8
FIR clearly employs colonial era hate speech provisions 295, 295 A & 296. These are not the 6/8
blasphemy provisions as we refer to them & some of which have been source of misuse/controversy over the years.
Sections invoked in FIR are apt given what is being alleged. It will boil down to whether a conspiracy & hence pre-meditation can be shown because that can lead to 7/8
Sections invoked in FIR are apt given what is being alleged. It will boil down to whether a conspiracy & hence pre-meditation can be shown because that can lead to 7/8
contention that accused were well aware that they would be wounding & outraging the religious feelings of many through their act of abusing certain political figures within the Holy premises. For anyone interested in detailed analysis of this law see scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjil/25/ 8/8
“@threadreaderapp unroll”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
