Ahmadi Muslim VideoTube English Programm,Youtube Pakistan in Perspective | Minorities, Constitution and Human Rights (Season 1, Episode 2)

Pakistan in Perspective | Minorities, Constitution and Human Rights (Season 1, Episode 2)

Pakistan in Perspective | Minorities, Constitution and Human Rights (Season 1, Episode 2)

uploaded on May 9, 2020

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi barakatuh who and welcome to Pakistan in perspective a special series examining the state of minority and human rights in Pakistan from a historical legal and philosophical perspective in a last program we discussed Pakistan’s foundational approach to minority rights and specifically Mr Muhammad Ali jinnah’s vision for Pakistan today’s program explores the question of religion in more detail and specifically whether a state can define who is or is not a Muslim for purposes of the wall will be also discussing the particular discrimination against the atmosphere Muslim community and how this discrimination is unique and distinct from other groups within Pakistan and join me in the studio again to discuss these matters or two very distinguished lawyers from Pakistan we have Mr Abid Hussain Minto who is a senior lawyer and advocate before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a constitutional law expert Islamic instrumental and we have Mr Majeika rathmines who is also a senior lawyer and advocate before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a scholar of Islamic Sharia law and related subjects both of our guest have also had many decades of experience litigating cases on behalf of minorities in Pakistan courts on this question of state and religion is it the States business to define religion first point is is it for the state to deal with the question of religion at all in my View estate is determined by the constitutional structure that it provides for itself and as I understand the history of development of society I I cannot conceive in a modern society Estate which as a constitution with devil’s with religion so therefore there is no question of the state defining religion or prescribing the various kinds of religion and separating from the other determining what kind of religion 12 answer for this is not business of estate and this is what they founding father set that is the vision the reality in the Constitution of Pakistan is in article to the the state is defined as an Islamic state so is that contradictory with the foundational inception of Pakistan division of Pakistan immediately state that I’m not a Conformist foundational my prescription was like that I I will reject it in the modern times and I will not accept that at all but fortunately enough the prescription itself was consistent with the modern times when she said that religion will have nothing to do with the methods of estate so therefore this is quite contradictory whatever the present constitution provides as the Foundation of the situation and the Direction which it gives to the constitution and the and the state itself is contradictory to the notion of the foundation can see by Mr dinner number one and second it is contradictory to the concept of democracy democracy democracy democracy all people and democracy we know citizens as people and we do not determine them from their faith prospective maybe that even though there is democratic impulses based on the foundation in Pakistan that in reality it indeed is a religious state that he know there are 187 million Muslims and why shouldn’t Pakistan be able to decide religious matters the question from the philosophical or academic angleliniment between the citizen and the state and it defines the limitations of various organs of the state how they’re going to work so they come the foundational basis of a state of the constitution and when you go to the notion of the state itself go to the earlier period of locks and Hobbes and Rousseau the idea of social contract the the social contract in the social contract between the state and the citizen the citizen deserve some write for himself and does not surrendered alright so stayed and modern day world we have in fact not a notional social contract but the social contract and before of the constitution constitution the social contract and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution are in fact the rights reserved by the citizen for himself and then they said there’s no surrender his relation with us creator to the state relationship with the state is different and relationship it creates different you remember one of your American founding fathers day medicine Rob how he talk about it when you join a club or an Association you always join the club or association with the reservation to the general of Iran he says when you join the state you do so by the reservations towards your obligations while your creator the governor of the world so that is how he looked at it so I think the state has nothing to do with religion whatever form of the status if you took of the defect that Pakistan was envisioned as a state equidistant from all the legends about the word for the country and that the state had to be equidistant from Ordnance it had nothing to do with religion but I doesn’t the list that is that individual to say it has nothing to do with that but bye bye the structure which we have now Pakistan state is heavily loaded towards being religious stayed in fact I might say it has become a ledger state so that is how it is today how did that happen how did religion get injected into statecraft in Pakistan 1949 resolution objective resolution prior to that but we knew about Pakistan was what I had said and that’s all that we were imagining that Pakistan will be but then set 1949 resolution with the objective resolution change the course of history in Pakistan and everybody forgot about what the the president of the constituent assembly had made has a policy statement and difference between the simile and the opening of that assembly so therefore two pigeons started coming up from that point of time those who we are supporters of the objective resolution and an Islamic state and those who thought that this is not a democratic state and you can see by this objective resolution so that is the founding stone I’m in the 1949 resolution and that was taken up as a preamble in the first constitution and the first constitution said that it will be in Islamic but unfortunately did not say that state will have any religion but did create institutions of the state dealing with the matters of religion and love making it said so therefore the foundations of a 1949 resolution were taken in by 1956 constitution and from there  Onwards they were taken on by the 1973 constitution with additional provisions in the 1973 constitution that as the one which said state will have a religion and state religion is Islam and then this it was also decided what kind of Islam will prevail in this society and each one of the sect will have its own interpretation and they sort kind of complex important the constitution then you ask several leading scholars on Pakistan to share their impressions on this very important question of state and religion in Pakistan that’s take a quick lessonthe religion of the State automatically secondary citizens with an articulation reset the service define by himself nobody no please no more I can tell you or me what my face is and if your reference to the constitution amendment the state has no business to define with them they are limits to the 10th or the whole parliament can do the Old parliament and I cannot go beyond the basic formulation of Pakistan if the Pakistan cannot say it is not refurbished the whole Parliament cannot say it is not cannot say that is Muslim and why is not different but from 19th of the 7th August 11 Pakistan main in nation of equal citizens regardless of race Creed colour chosen position sweetheart about constitutional amendments in Pakistan the Second Amendment which defines who is there is not a Muslim for purposes of the law and that has been the subject of considerable debate instrumental would you shed light on this amendment and what it means I think it’s only that I can choose to the object for which state was created the state was created for the purpose of becoming a modern democracy Society and this amendment is entering into an issue which is and controversial issue monthly the Muslims themselves so therefore it is bringing the controversy between the Muslims into the constitution that sell leaving aside the controversy between the Muslims and sells how will the other minorities the Hindu for example of the Christians think about this constitution where the Muslims cannot settle their own methods of Life evidently constitutional framework itself so therefore it’s all in the course of history in our country and we are now and seeing activity what the contradiction at has taken the stripes to what level now the present-day Society in Pakistan is full of these contradictions and there are fundamentalists who are holding and and and and they’re asking to implement their kind of believe in the society itself these people did not have the gun as such with them but the majority is sitting in the parliament into their hands the authority to determine who is the Muslim and who’s not a Muslim and introduce this kind of controversy in the constitution itself and it is is a sad day it was a sad day in the history of Pakistan we are delivering sitting in the Parliament ever in majority and they calculated and there is associated with the Orthodox and the Conservatives and the conventional Muslims who were bent upon taking the law into their and my introducing this kind of an amendment to the passage of this man and why was it passed in 1974 now by now it is well known it is thoroughly documented Now by political analysts and by other people it was a political political manoeuvretwo of them agreed on the definition of a Muslim is and the definition of an Islamic state with the game money was very in size 7 is and Alice’s key broke them what is an Islamic state what will be status of normal saline Islamic state what will be the correct Rahman Islamic state and they could not spell out what an Islamic state is going to be so the idea that is going to win Islamic state nobody was very clear about it and they could not give a definition all the Alma put together in 1974 again they did not give a definition of a Muslim it was a stain method of defining a Muslim by defining who is not not a Muslim what is the benefit of our audience what is that definition that they did give well they targeted community anybody who does not believe in absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu salam and believe the nanny Reformer the prophet after them is not a Muslim for the purposes of light constitution I did not want to go into the definition which brings the intended only against a community but the question is is I I know it for certain that appointed question was raised before the national assembly if you want to define a Muslim is there a definition of a Muslim in the basic canonical sources of Islam is there a definition of Muslim in Quran and Sunnah and if you can find no definition of a Muslim in Quran and Sunnah then you are nobody to give a definition and if there is a definition of a Muslim Quran and Sunnah you cannot deviate from that definition so in this case their definitions but that is the latest controversy but I’m saying is state had nobody and no business and in fact the issue is so confused as my friend said you cannot throw any light all darkness comes out of it then the issue actually always remained a controversial issue there for that issue should never have been gone into by any state organization or by any organisation had a social level it is an individual’s better you may consider one party the other may consider each other Muslim Muslim or good Muslim bad Muslim that has been going on but to provide a definition in the constitution is an absurdity it is an indication of the constitution  Arrangement it is an occasion of fundamental rights it is an occasion of all recognised standard of human rights and human freedom and that the idea of defining a Muslim in Pakistan constitution is an abstract point that it’s a provision in the constitution and really doesn’t have any real real-world implications you have been an advocate for minority rights in having are you kisses before Pakistan supreme court order a real-world implications of this definition of implications are all protocol because otherwise you’ll see what they’re saying is a person who believes in this and does not believe in that is not a Muslim or is obviously this is the determination of the Fate of a person what is this to do with the constitution and in the constitution you say for the purposes of constitution and law these people that non-muslims only for the constitution and the law although you are determining the Fate of the people people and you’re separating 1 feet from the other and calling won the majority and minority and yet you are saying it is for the purpose of the constitution and the law because the constitution says who shall be president who shall be elected to the National assembly who shall be the prime minister who shall run the affairs of the state so they put the purposes of the law and constitution to have to determine who is a Muslim for your purposes and who shall be Society setpeople were converted into the social behaviour was criminalized the social etiquette beginning of a criminal offence the stage for future minority legislation it was open the Floodgates of creating systems breaking the society and radicalizing Society and now you will recall only for the purpose of completing the Sceptre itself you will recall that the original definition as given in the 1973 constitution was again supplemented by the dictatorship through another introduction in the constitution and saying bye name indicating who are the people who have to be hit by this amendment and understanding specifically now the the situation of the Muslim community in Pakistan to you Mr Edmond is do ever the Muslims identify themselves as minorities as I said I’m with the Muslims perceive themselves to be Muslims they have been labelled as not Muslims or whatever by by the way I call it by fiction of law and this fiction of law is not accepted and it is not a reality if if you call if you call a buffalo a horse and it doesn’t change its basic character particular species so I’m with this continue to be whatever they are what difficulty is since they cannot identify themselves as Muslims under the floor and they would not identify themselves as normal slim on account of their conscience so they’re being a conflict between their conscience and the law they have to forgo many rights for example they cannot and roll themselves as voters because either you take a picture of a passport you apply for a passport you declare your face there is such as you in Americans it’s a Catch-22 did you say I am a Muslim you commit an offence if you say on the ID card and then if you say I’m a muslim which is according to my conscience then you sign a declaration and that declaration to say everything is your face if you don’t send a declaration you can call yourself so I’m kind of situation where the keys have been placed and the life of Emily’s and Pakistan iso-7 it requires a lot of strength of conviction to live and that kind of persecute instrumental please the passage of this amendment in within the history of Pakistani was 1974 and the events there after was was this amendment a precursor for a new direction for for the country will this amendment was then followed up in fact after the amendment introduced by the gym then followed it up with the other laws that they made and criminal law was changed and also specific date for and against the MoT has themselves so therefore it has changed the course of history although time effort has been made during the last received the last dictatorship itself the dictatorship and then we present the gym to retrieve it to some extent but it has not been been fully retrieving what is position where we wanted to replace as a democratic Society it continues to impress the constitution and the same personis Andy colleges in the academic institutions cater for all this kind of material and that is how the people are thought so therefore a mindset is created which mindset is quite obvious now in our Society going back to the situation and fight of the Muslims in Pakistan light on this notion of self-identification we we know from international wall the notion of freedom of conscience there to have the absolute freedom to think freely and believe how is that right impacted by a state defining who you are rather than allowing yourself to define who you are and having seen and read some of the judgement of the various jurisdiction about the human rights and the rights of the Parliament to take away or a bridge the human lives there are numerous statements and other neighbouring country and the United States and other countries where they say that the Parliament cannot a bridge the rate of a fundamental right but now hear it definition has been provided article 20 has not been touched with the supposed to be guarantee of religious freedom that only definition has been provided but when by definition you provide an identity to the person you are by force of Law taking away is very right to profess right to professors the first right first step of the Freedom of faith if you cannot profess to be a Muslim the question of practice comes later and to be clear the right to profess is explicitly mentioned in article on still do you have the right to profiles that that is by international standards that is unconstitutional that is illegal step their visit Pakistan server come straight or the Parliament has taken that buy in an ideal situation that needs to be stripped down and that impacts on the very professional outfit and when the profession of faith is effective than the practice naturally and that is how the day-to-day practices of Amazon become a crime that’s all the time we had for today’s programme at like to thank our panelists again for joining us our special series Pakistan in prospective continues join us for next week’s program in which we will take a closer look at the case of the Athenaeum Muslim community and specifically the laws that have been promulgated to target and criminalize their activities so stay tuned for that program thank you very muchassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi barakatuh who and welcome to Pakistan in perspective especially series examining the state of minority and human rights in Pakistan from a historical legal and philosophical perspective program we discuss the question of religion and whether a state can define who is or is not a Muslim for purposes of the law and we also discuss the particular discrimination against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and how this discrimination is unique and distinct from other minority groups today’s program explores more closely the special case of the after the Muslim community in Pakistan what is the specific evidence of discrimination and persecution against atherleys and how have anti minority laws anti-acne the laws been used to stifle and indeed criminalise the activities of the ahmadi community and join me in the studio to discuss these matters are two special guests from the United Kingdom on my right is Lord Eric Avery who is a member of the House of Lords since 1971 and also vice-chair of the UK parliamentary human rights group it’s an honour and privilege to have your hair like every and on my left here is Mr Lionel Blackman who is the solicitor advocate and current chairman of the solicitors international human rights group it’s an honour and privilege to have you heard from Blackman the international community has taken note of the recent assassinations of two very prominent Pakistani governmental officials and vocal proponents of minority rights and that is Punjab governor salmaan this year and minority affairs minister shahbaz Bhatti both of whom were courageous advocates for minority rights and both of home tragically and sadly or assassinated and those assassinations have had sent ripples in the international community particularly here in the west and raised questions and concerns about the future of minorities and minority rights in Pakistan in light of those political events I wanted to turn first to you Lord Avery and just your reactions and impressions about the state of Pakistan today seems to be suggesting that the criminal who murdered last year should be exonerated and I find that so in comprehensible that people should actually believe there’s a murder murderer who commits this horrible crime and open public should nevertheless be exonerated and if that turns out to be a larger hillview I just Pakistan I really do think though that moderates and the people who believe in the rule of law I’m being steadily eroded and that the extreme opinions which this represents are gaining ground to an extent which is absolutely horrifying and alarming to the general peaceful population of Pakistan and its the causes that these gentlemen stood for which in many ways like their assassination from their advocacy work for minorities for their human rights work and specifically champion in the rights of those who have been called out by law in Pakistan and their activities have been regulated and indeed criminalise so in light of what they stood for and given recent events what are your impressions about what what these events mean for the future of Pakistan in terms of their current and time I’ve already lost well I think there is some calls ingrowing a improvement in the Liberal mind and for example of the prime minister communicating to the United Nations just as recently as the 22nd of September the withdrawal of reservations that had been applied by Pakistan when it ratified in April 2010 the international covenant on civil and political rights that maybe perhaps just symbolic there’s more work to be done on the ground to realise the significance of that withdrawal of the reservation stickley article 18 relating to Religious freedom and freedom of conscience and belief but it’s an important step in the right direction and as more liberal minded people stand up against the if we could call them the absolutists the sort of people that would justify an and Garland the assassination of the former governor of Punjab there is open it needs to be supported by the international community in every way and there is an opportunity to do so in the following critical 6-months when submissions are required for Pakistan’s next universal periodic review towards the end of 2012 the iccpr and specifically how Pakistanis currently as perhaps or in violation of those international legal Commitments a bit later in the program Lord every I wanted to ask email you’ve been a vocal advocate and supporter of human rights in the House of Lords and spoken outspoken about human rights abuses abroad what prompted your interest in the issue of minority in human rights generally first founder and chair of the parliamentary human rights group from 1976 until 1997 and that led me to consider in the rights and a great many different countries and not just in Pakistan and I do believe it is one of the fundamental challenges that face all human rights campaigners is that when you look across the world you’ll find that minorities are universally discriminated against it’s Curious function of human behaviour that somehow people fear and dislike the Norwich is and are prepared to do horrible things to them either in the name of religion or political reason of course have any validity in human rights terms but which cm from some aberration in the human mind and and and I think you know it is one of the fundamental tasks of Human Rights campaign is to expose the treatment of minorities leverage impact on the lives of human beings and try and get people to conform with universal value is as regards the improvement of human rights and speaking of Pakistan and obviously has special expertise in head leadership on this issue of Human Rights abuses in Pakistan and training to the after the Muslim community when did you first learn or come to learn of the persecution of ahmadis in particular back a long time I had the opportunity of visiting Benazir Bhutto and asking her to repeal the blasphemy laws and being told you see it’s all very difficult and then she didn’t say that she didn’t wish to it repeal the blasting goes but that she was up against forces in the in the community which made it difficult for her to enact the legislation necessary for those repeals again when when I met President Musharraf he was trying to water down the blast and say that they should only be brought into operation by a senior official of the police but as soon as he said that as a large public meeting that I attended there was a huge outcry and you supposed to BackTrack on it so and as long as I can remember and it goes back to the days of there’s always been a substantial section of opinion in Pakistan which saw that the blasphemy laws were evil and should be repealed but they were up against these forces of popular opinion which they didn’t doliving in effect for over 25 years and the last me like self-perception 295c applied broadly to not just minority groups which include the ahmadis and which include Christians or Muslims but also Muslims and that the majority of arrests under these laws are actually of must know that that the impact of the laws or felt a lot more broadly and then just simply to minority groups in a question I have for you with respect to the ahmadi community because we know that the blasphemy law does exist but that is just one particular lol but there are specific provisions in Pakistan penal code that target the actual activities of the ahmadi community and mention those activities by name what what are your impressions of those laws when did you first learn of the conditions particular conditions of the activities there shortly before my invitation to join the delegation but I Began my research and that perhaps reflects that there is more to be done to raise the awareness of the British Public as to the plight of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan that someone in my position wasn’t particularly well aware of the situation and I went on the delegation in early 2010 and to my mind I would describe there being Innocence three levels at which and there is discrimination at with or without the discriminatory laws there will be a problem with the sermons of the absolutists that incite hatred and insight ultimately at murder that takes place and there is the if you like the Hetty discrimination where the fact that the Aberdare community are ostracized is there a very convenient basis for a Jealous neighbour to make a false accusation and then 30 of course there is the state actors themselves that either at through a sense of discrimination that they possess in their own hearts or because of fear of consequences for failing to act on the basis of accusations may full sleeve or just out of pettiness and they behave and discriminatory way and certainly the last two forms are ultimately underpinned by the existence of the law that discriminates against Amadeus and that should and can be dealt with and all to be dealt with is the representative the high commissioner to the United Nations of Pakistan at the last universal periodic review said that those laws would be reviewed and so that’s a statement on which Pakistan needs to be held to account at the next review next yearalso instrumental in to fact-finding missions that were conducted by the group and I wanted to get into the tales about those because they’re very illuminating the first was a mission that was specifically geared towards understanding the situation of activities in their headquarters in Pakistan at town that they referred to as rubber but that has been renamed effectively as chenab Nagar and the second investigation and that was in 2006 and the report subsequently the year later and in 2010 this 9 or 10 day mission to broadly focused on religious extremism to which Mr black panel also participated what I wanted you to commission each of these missions by the fact that in Ireland Asylum system the UK Borders Agency the body is responsible for enforcement of the law on Asylum was saying that our model could relocate within Pakistan to the city of Rab why was you mentioned because that was controlled by the artist and they were perfectly safe from persecution there so the first mission went to rabois it comprehensively refuted the idea that this was a safe place for that they were in some way if you’d from the persecution that their brothers Saturday the rest of Pakistan and so that had been removed as a an argument with UKBA could induce in the asylum tribunals to show that our model could be returned to Pakistan because there was always somewhere  Are safe for them to go with in with the the city of rapper from from a lawyers perspective as an advocate myself and many of my colleagues have used the findings of that report in court in the United States in arguing Asylum cases and has had tremendous impact and the notion that there that internal relocation will somehow lessen the severity of the persecution is quite the Light by a finding that the prosecution is especially pernicious and severe in the largest concentrated city of for Aldi’s in in pakistan so so we are very much command those findings on the individuals and the lawyers I understand there are several who went to rub wine Pakistan what what specifically if you recall some examples what specifically did they deserve that that they report ordered that would contradict the notion that that rubber would be safer than other locations the restrictions on the activities of people in Roblox very tight the operations that they can conduct within the city at closely controlled and they can’t have businesses and universities in all the things that you would expect in a normal city are very tightly restricted and prevented so the idea that Rob why was a normal city where people could bring that their own business was completely wrong and had to be rebutted from the point of view of the immigration tribunals and then the second can I come onto the second yes I wanted to I was just asking you about the secondready to be killed in cycling the murder I don’t know what is the effect of causing extremists to say we must do this in the name of our religion we must kill people because that is the way that we go to Paradise as they’re told by the people who inciting these crimes so and I do think that additional feature of the discrimination which is after the evil and needs to be confronted although it’s tell them it is is the total impunity of the people who commit these offensive and Mr Blackman so one of the observations of those who would defend the current regime last me Raheem in Pakistan is that the kinds of activities that every has just illuminated and discuss the kind of the kind of religious extremism the kind of rhetoric the kind of sectarian strife incitement to hatred is just that it is sectarian it is private it is not state sponsored is not institutionalised you spent several days in Pakistan particularly Karachi and net worth after these is that true and I think those to make those kind of statement overlooking the importance of the institutional mechanisms that effectively and doors acts of discrimination well we know the law to begin with his discriminatory but then the application of that law where they otherwise would be a discretion in a truly liberal democracy and is lacking accusations are taken on face value people are arrested they are detained for months sometimes years on just an allegation before ultimately at the High Court Bayern may be granted and so it is an institutional issue and must be addressed that level not just in terms of the wider debate between the absolutists and and the liberals in society whether religious or otherwise is pernicious and problematic and in Pakistan case we do have actual laws that specifically target and minority group it is rather unique Islamic state but even stayed in Action that is the failure to act in the face of the face of evidence of persecuting that idea of Acting with impunity the idea of failing to protect those were most susceptible or most vulnerable that is problematic from a legal perspective is it is recognised by Pakistan that is problematic and I was reading the observations made by number of states that they 2008 universal periodic review and it was Denmark that took up that very point that an in many mosques and mainstream Muslim mosques throughout the land they making inflammatory speeches is effectively constitutes inside hatred and which is against another law and the penal code why isn’t it being enforced and the response of Pakistan is it is a huge problem and very difficult for state to tackle in the society at large and diffuse as as Pakistan and that again something to hold Pakistan to account at the next to you I’m sorry I keep going on about it but there is this opportunity and it’s in the next 6-months at submission should be finalized for it’s actually review next year and again the officials of Pakistan said that that would be something that would be working on that question is what have they done right document that is used to initiate a criminal case under the blasphemy law is what is the f i r wanted to to get your thoughts on that because really that in many ways is the source of a lot of the problem at some of the the recent attempts to reform even as enduring presenteven even that minor amendment to the law was not acceptable to the vast majority of the fundamentalists they were the ones that called the tune mean it is always astonishing to me that although the extremist have very little voting strength and when it comes to elections in Pakistan they real Dan influence that out of all proportion to their numbers and part of that is I think intimidation and that people are frightened of the extreme is still up there to confront them and you’ll see that in terms of the response to the atrocities that committed by a difficult to change affect weight change when even the slightest changes met with such resistance in the assassinations of these two officials were done only because they spoke about against these laws not really even instituting reforms problem that we face in Pakistan this phenomenal impunity and that is that in the mosque is an address as a certain brand of Islam is be increased which depends on the ideology modoodi and who explained that the world was divided into Hobbs dar Al harb and dar Al Islam and these were fundamentally in conflict with one another and the struggle would lead in the end to the supremacy of Islam which will spread over the whole globe which is so contrary to the vision of Muhammad Ali Jinnah where all religions would coexist and live in peaceful harmony with each other that you can’t believe that Pakistan has changed from that Ideal at the present system where the salafists the extremist wielding such an enormous ideological influence steady deterioration from where Pakistan was when it was founded upon to what it is today is one of the very troubling aspects of the situation of these is that a really comes down to the shop self-identification does it not that after these day can’t identify themselves as Muslim by virtue of the Second Amendment to the constitution and really that makes their situation different and tragic to denial of the armadas right to vote I think is a very serious matter one which will be raised in the universal periodic review because and that the way in which this is done by saying that the Ahmad is have got something  In order to get onto the electoral roll is again violation of Article 18 and which have to come under review and and I think you know one of the problems that we we faces that the international community doesn’t sufficiently press Pakistan to remedy these violations of human rights that exist in their law we are told by our ministers that they raise the matters with their Pakistani counterpart but there’s no sanctions against Pakistan when they refuse to listen to the voices of the international community and I think that’s a very serious issue that we need to consider when dealing with our own ministers and same in United States that you will find that yes the state department who raise these things with the Pakistan is that what do they do when the Pakistan is say that they’re not going to lift a finger to correct a defect in their law which prevent the armadas from voting for example very interesting questions the question of the day in a remains to be seen whether real electoral Reform and real reform of the blasphemy laws can take place in the current climate in Pakistan what’s a very it was just a pleasure and delight to have both of you here on the program that’s all the time we have unfortunately went very fast I’d like to thank you again for joining us and share your thoughts our special series on Pakistan in prospective continues I join us for next week’s program in which we take a comprehensive and thorough look into Pakistan’s and time minority and blasphemy laws from a legal perspective thank you very muchthose that term


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: