Article 66; Freedom of Speech and Immunity

[Null/Void]

There is nothing wrong with Erdogan. He was needed to consolidate Turkey as a fully functioning Western nation. After all western countries are suefiet with religious nomenclatured parties like Christian Democrats in Europe or the Republic bible bashers. This is religion western style. Catholic school girls gallivanting outside showing their pert buttocks after having taken part in mass. You will see this increasingly in Turkey even with the Imam Hatip schools which will parallel the catholic schools we have in UK. Beyond the Eid or Christmas prayers it will be chasing the desires of flesh. Turkey will become a post religious state like most of West is.

And Edogan will go. That is when the fully matured Turkey will take it's place in the comity of the civilized West.

Perhaps but he is making geopolitical blunders that may cost Turkey in the long term I wish Turkey the best

 

[Saiyan0321]

In Pakistan's case the military must and does a play role in fact if not determined to it by law. I liken Pakistan to a soft version of the Prussian state or the Turkish Kemalist state.

My only grouch is Pakistan Army needs to be more brutal with it's unofficial role.

You compare Pakistan and Pakistani army to those states and their armies but you dont take into account a very important fact. Pakistan army is absolutely not interested in ruling, repairing or bringing any reforms to the country at all. They have no vision of it nor desire for it. The army is based on economic interest and it looks to secure its own economic independence and future. They are not driven by any reforms nor promises that the turkish army was driven with. Infact they have only sought absolute independence in their economic activity and economic growth and for this they have looked to create puppets. The army has never been interested in empowering the citizenship of the country nor making them more aware. Infact they have acted in the exact opposite of that manner. They have constantly strengthened the Sardars, waderas, jagirdars and chaudharies to make sure that the votebank king makers remain kingmakers. Strengthening these guys, strengthened every single societal wrong found in Pakistan and the people were exploited even more so. This is not in line with an army that is trying to create a mature nation but of an army that is trying to strengthen the strings with which it can ensure its own independence. Have you noticed how dictators, who looked like titans become friendless a few years after their rule? The army only wants its own economic control. Pinning hopes on them is just like pinning hopes on PPP to solve the country's economy. It

Infact the army would find empowering these kingmakers rather than the civilians, to be far more beneficial for their interest since through them they can control the nation and weaken any political party they may so desire and by doing so, secure their interest. The military is an institution that looks out for their own interest and is not working to reduce poverty or create a more mature and enlightened Pakistan. Infact the exact opposite is what suits their interests which is why despite a devastating war, the military is making sure the moulvis remain an element. A weak element but an element nevertheless. Would Turkey's general still allow madrassahs to exist after the most devastating war in the history of the country? they would not and there you go. Your grouch is opposite to their own interests. They never wanted to rule and they never wanted to enlighten the country. Like every other institution, they are only in it for themselves just like every single Pakistani which is why i often say that they are a product of Pakistan and are slave to all the wrongs that we have.

Let me also highlight. The first nightmare for the army is having a single political party dominate the political spectrum. in 1976 PPP was the only party that dominated the political spectrum and Bhutto had made sure that even those regional parties would not be a threat to him and for this they raised PMLN and later on PMLQ. Imran dominating alone will never happen because that is opposite to their interest.

We need another solution. Imran is built on these fickle kingmakers. Snap of a finger and most will leave. They are like the fickle macedonian phalanx divisions in the diadochi and phyrus campaigns.

 

[Saiyan0321]

People like Ayaz Sadiq in Turkey woul;d have been erased from existence.

No doubt but this is Pakistan and he will claim immunity and since we are Pakistan we will have only two extremes. It will be either remove immunity or make it blanket. nothing less expected from an extremist nation ( a country of extremes). Neither is the solution and our courts were actually wise enough to state as such

Bye bye you illigitimate harami [Nawaz Sharif] of Gen Zia .....

and may he never return. I hate him, maryam, fazlu, siraj, bilawal, zardari and all the politicians and well as for Imran. He is disappointing me alot so lets see come 2023 however they will all remain relevant. Also let me highlight some of the most greatest so called 'Democratic' movements in Pakistanhad the support of the army even when they were against dictators.

 

[Kaptaan]

The army is based on economic interest and it looks to secure its own economic independence and future.

Every army, every institution will have group interest and that will revolve around and include economics. You hardly think other armies are Mother Theresas. If you look at the US military it has vast tentacles which fuse with the private capital in what is known as the military-industrial complex. Your mistakenly assuming on Pakistani generals are interested in dollars. The Turkish Army was for decades also guarding it's class and it's economic interests who were predominantly the secular elite of the Turkish western provinces centred on Istanbul. The rise of the AKP was the rise of the poor, rural Anatolian villagers. Ultimately most if not all human behaviour is driven by economic interests. More later.

 

[Nilgiri]

Problem with the logic here (Army must bare fangs and get job done) is:

a) Pakistan is not founded on secularism like Turkish republic

b) No mass literacy (and other progressive nationalist development) like done by Ataturk...that too on secular principles

c) Thus the army is not staunchly secular one like Turkey...quite the opposite lot of times actually....Jalandhar general being a particularly big lump of legacy on it...though Delhi general has also done his part too. All very much because when you put finger to the wind you get a stiff prevailing wind of phenomenon (a) at all times....further set in by the paranoia of big baddie pagan neighbour that got his way in last all out war.

i.e just the recent times precedence and legacy of what army-stronky era did to fabric of whatever was left of Pakistan liberal and secular threads in institutions.

Your most brilliant (not surprisingly, secular, nationalist and liberal) intellectual mind had his grave defaced for god's sake under Jalandhar general time....the very guy that also did the school book "country history starts with Islam in Pakistan" that continues to this day....and all the wonderful karachi thug party legacies.

I am not going to go into pre-ZAB era legacy stuff....same underlying problem of whatever the nature of the uniformed chaps....the non-secular foundation and ethos lead to all kind of brutal travesty on innocent people and existence of Pakistan itself compared to what it started as.

If you need heavy handed intervention for some argument of greater good, it at least must be done in nationalist secular way with no bias or as little of it as possible...and should not involve dabbling in favourites for political parties (esp religious ones) and musical chairs to ensure they carry on the same crap after you are gone.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Can they go against the objectives resolution or the preamble and declare Pakistan should not be a federation or even a parliamentary system? No

This is dubious. Does Pakistan have a legislative provision for the right to free speech/expression? If so, then this is expressly to be permitted. If not, not.

 

[Saiyan0321]

This is dubious. Does Pakistan have a legislative provision for the right to free speech/expression? If so, then this is expressly to be permitted. If not, not.

Constitutional yes however like all free speech, it is home to limitations as we see in Article 19

19. Freedom of speech, etc.-Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the 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, 1[commission of] or incitement to an offence.

And the courts of Pakistan spoke of greater restriction to government officers and this was held in 2004 SCMR 164 where the court held that freedom of expression is an essential part of a democracy and through persual of Article 19, the courts held that despite so such freedom is not absolute and is home to restrictions of reasonable nature and reasonable classification can always be allowed and is permitted in law. The court then held that for government servants, it is even more essential for such restrictions to be placed since if such an absolute right is allotted to them, then they have the power to create anarchy in the society

In PLD 2002 Sc 514 the court held that freedom of expression in the press is extremely important however highlighted that the press is not empowered to defame a person and is restricted in its publication of defamation. The court compared the two Articles pre and post amendment which i shall reproduce.

Article 19 original

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

Article 19 amended.

“Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law n 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.”

Note; This was in 2002 and it was amended again later on which is the definition you see at the start.

The court stated that while defamation has been removed however the article does not licentiate the press to publish such material which may harm or cause damage to the reputation, honor and prestige of a person.

Now moving on, in the article above, it has been proven that Article 19 for parliament is Vast in nature due to constitutional addition of Article 66 which is not available to others. So a parliamentarian in the parliament can say things that a normal person would be restricted in saying, Defamation being a major part of it for example If Ayaz Sadiq was to say that Ali Zafar was a misogynistic pig and is a symbol of sexual exploitation in the film industry then there would be no case however if the same was said by a person or a pamphlet then there would be defamation. You see the difference.

However the parliamentarians are also home to limits and the courts decided that these limits are found in the nature of the constitution. You see if the parliament was supreme, empowered so to amend and remove constitutions and general say of supremacy then it could be argued that they enjoyed absolute freedom however the parliament is based on trichotomy of power in Pakistan and as such is not just not supreme but is a product of the constitution, holder of power as vicegerent while its true owner is supreme and is in balance with two other institutions. In such a case the parliament cannot go against the very frames of the constitution i.e Islam, Federalism, parliamentary system, Trichotomy of power (The legislative limitations basically). The parliament cannot go against them and then this is also held in the parliamentary rules of business where a member is given vast powers of Freedom of Expression but is curtailed through the limits mentioned in section 31 of the National Assembly Rules.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Constitutional yes however like all free speech, it is home to limitations as we see in Article 19

19. Freedom of speech, etc.-Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the 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, 1[commission of] or incitement to an offence.

And the courts of Pakistan spoke of greater restriction to government officers and this was held in 2004 SCMR 164 where the court held that freedom of expression is an essential part of a democracy and through persual of Article 19, the courts held that despite so such freedom is not absolute and is home to restrictions of reasonable nature and reasonable classification can always be allowed and is permitted in law. The court then held that for government servants, it is even more essential for such restrictions to be placed since if such an absolute right is allotted to them, then they have the power to create anarchy in the society

In PLD 2002 Sc 514 the court held that freedom of expression in the press is extremely important however highlighted that the press is not empowered to defame a person and is restricted in its publication of defamation. The court compared the two Articles pre and post amendment which i shall reproduce.

Article 19 original

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

Article 19 amended.

“Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law n 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.”

Note; This was in 2002 and it was amended again later on which is the definition you see at the start.

The court stated that while defamation has been removed however the article does not licentiate the press to publish such material which may harm or cause damage to the reputation, honor and prestige of a person.

Now moving on, in the article above, it has been proven that Article 19 for parliament is Vast in nature due to constitutional addition of Article 66 which is not available to others. So a parliamentarian in the parliament can say things that a normal person would be restricted in saying, Defamation being a major part of it for example If Ayaz Sadiq was to say that Ali Zafar was a misogynistic pig and is a symbol of sexual exploitation in the film industry then there would be no case however if the same was said by a person or a pamphlet then there would be defamation. You see the difference.

if the parliament was supreme, empowered so to amend and remove constitutions and general say of supremacy then it could be argued that they enjoyed absolute freedom however the parliament is based on trichotomy of power in Pakistan and as such is not just not supreme but is a product of the constitution, holder of power as vicegerent while its true owner is supreme and is in balance with two other institutions. In such a case the parliament cannot go against the very frames of the constitution i.e Islam, Federalism, parliamentary system, Trichotomy of power (The legislative limitations basically). The parliament cannot go against them

I am not at all sure that this holds true for India, and need to read up on it before reacting.

However the parliamentarians are also home subject to limits and the courts decided that these limits are found in the nature of the constitution. You see if the parliament was supreme, empowered so to amend and remove constitutions and general say of supremacy then it could be argued that they enjoyed absolute freedom however the parliament is based on trichotomy of power in Pakistan and as such is not just not supreme but is a product of the constitution, holder of power as vicegerent while its true owner is supreme and is in balance with two other institutions. In such a case the parliament cannot go against the very frames of the constitution i.e Islam, Federalism, parliamentary system, Trichotomy of power (The legislative limitations basically). The parliament cannot go against them and then this is also held in the parliamentary rules of business where a member is given vast powers of Freedom of Expression but is curtailed through the limits mentioned in section 31 of the National Assembly Rules.

will respond after reading it thoroughly.

Many thanks.

 

[VCheng]

Bye bye you illigitimate harami [Nawaz Sharif] of Gen Zia .....

And welcome to the newly spawned replacement from the same source? Rinse. Repeat.

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan army is absolutely not interested in ruling, repairing or bringing any reforms to the country at all. They have no vision of it nor desire for it. The army is based on economic interest and it looks to secure its own economic independence and future. They are not driven by any reforms nor promises that the turkish army was driven with. Infact they have only sought absolute independence in their economic activity and economic growth and for this they have looked to create puppets. The army has never been interested in empowering the citizenship of the country nor making them more aware. Infact they have acted in the exact opposite of that manner. They have constantly strengthened the Sardars, waderas, jagirdars and chaudharies to make sure that the votebank king makers remain kingmakers. Strengthening these guys, strengthened every single societal wrong found in Pakistan and the people were exploited even more so. This is not in line with an army that is trying to create a mature nation but of an army that is trying to strengthen the strings with which it can ensure its own independence.

Blunt. And accurate.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And welcome to the newly spawned replacement from the same source? Rinse. Repeat.

Who said anything about 'Rinse'?

 

[VCheng]

Who said anything about 'Rinse'?

Who said anything about clean water?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Who said anything about clean water?

Ah, now it's clear. Let it keep sitting in the mess.

Logical.

 

[Kaptaan]

And welcome to the newly spawned replacement from the same source? Rinse. Repeat.

That kind of reminds me of Trump. Rinse. Repeat. Democrat. Republican. Somebody please tell e differance between two shades of grey. I am sure there is but ...... !

 

[VCheng]

That kind of reminds me of Trump. Rinse. Repeat. Democrat. Republican. Somebody please tell e differance between two shades of grey. I am sure there is but ...... !

Reminds me of whattabootery.

What has peaceful transfer of civilian power by regular elections have to do with the price of boot polish?