Saba Imtiaz writes about those who called for the assassination of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province, after he spoke out against the a law that punishes blasphemy with death and in support of Aasia Bibi, the Christian woman who was sentenced to die for allegedly violating it:
But none of these men were charged with any crime. It is only after Taseer’s assassination that a man who had publicly announced a Rs. 20 million (over $200,000) prize for the governor’s murder was arrested. This is the bitter reality of life in Pakistan. Those charged with blasphemy — often on the basis of little to no evidence — have been lynched in public and chased out of their homes, while those who encourage killing blasphemers go scot-free. The law is gray on how one can charge those who wrongly accused Taseer of blasphemy. In the wake of his assassination, it may be time to revisit the constitution and define these crimes and their punishments in black and white.
That Taseer’s murder was condoned by religious groups is a shame in itself, but that they are free to make these statements is even worse. Azam Tariq, spokesman for the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, called reporters and expressed “happiness” at Taseer’s death and said other “religious parties should also be happy.” Tariq said, “Qadri was no scholar but he committed this act after listening to the fatwas of senior scholars.”
JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman said his party would not allow Taseer to carry on his ‘agenda’ and involvement in the debate on the blasphemy law. The Sunni Ittehad Council campaigned against a possible pardon for Aasia Bibi, saying it would lead to “anarchy” in the country. Right-wing religious political parties were joined in their campaign against Taseer by a barrage of talk show hosts, who dominated their programming with thinly veiled condemnations of Taseer for his support of Aasia Bibi.
One hopes that, at the very least, barbaric acts like this one galvanize those who would oppose such laws. But often when an important voice for freedom is lost all that happens is that hardliners fill the void. That’s why people commit political violence after all, because it works–and it only ceases to work when it people stop viewing it as a legitimate political tool and there’s a real political cost for invoking it. Given the social dynamics Imtiaz describes I’m not sure a law would do the trick. Some of the statement’s she’s citing here though, would certainly seem to qualify as illegal under the Brandenburg test.
