Insulting armed forces should be legally banned in Pakistan

[Crusher]

..................
Since soldiers don't do all that industrial actions and strikes , and army is the best performing institution of Pakistan.
They should be preferentially treated.

This doesn't sound a good idea, they should be treated respectfully but not "preferentially". Also Pakistani society is unique in one aspect, Pakistanis usually cannot live without insulting others from time to time when they get mad and hysterical.

 

[Gentelman]

First make armed dorces non insultable and without corruption charges...
With coupe attempts, dictatorship and major kickback cases that ain't gonna happen. Earn respect and let the work speak for you, making rules is what weaklings do!

 

[Jungibaaz]

Democracy of Pakistan can be shoved where the sun doesn't shine as it does no good.

Also support your sweeping statements with proof.

Which general committed reason or committing treason? Or you are making assumptions?
The so called Democratically elected leader whom Zia removed , broke the country into two and caused millions of deaths due to his list for power.
It was good riddance that Zia hanged him and came to power.
I rather have illegitimate like Zia than legitimate like Zulfiqar Bhutto.

You need a better reading on the history of Pakistan, the sheer volume of misconceptions you've posted in this thread thus far is too much to be addressed with any reasonable effort by myself or another member. Bhutto was the final straw in the breakaway of East Pakistan, that eventuality was being built by poor policy decisions since the 1950s. One unit Pakistan, too much centralization of power, inadequate representation. I mentioned the 1965 election earlier that Ayub rigged, do you know who also supported Fatima Jinnah in that election? A lot of East Pakistan, and even Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, he was still for working within the framework of Pakistan at that time. And as for Bhutto, his political career reached its heights under Ayub Khan, he was ayub's foreign minister. Whatever the man's faults or virtues, nothing justifies his murder on false charges pending sentencing by a kangaroo court.

As for the list of generals who've committed treason. Boy that's a long list! The obvious ones are Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia, Musharraf. But you can also add those that plotted and conspired to remove elected governments (which is of course against the constitution), you need to then add the likes of Gen Aslam Beg. Then if you add co-conspirator generals such as Gen Assad Durrani who helped Gen Beg, and then do the same for each dictator you don't get a HUGE list of traitor generals. Their treachery is clear, and it falls under Article 6 of the constitution. The same constitution they swore to uphold as member of the armed forces, the very first line of their oaths is dedicated to this purpose.

 

[Safriz]

You need a better reading on the history of Pakistan, the sheer volume of misconceptions you've posted in this thread thus far is too much to be addressed with any reasonable effort by myself or another member. Bhutto was the final straw in the breakaway of East Pakistan, that eventuality was being built by poor policy decisions since the 1950s. One unit Pakistan, too much centralization of power, inadequate representation. I mentioned the 1965 election earlier that Ayub rigged, do you know who also supported Fatima Jinnah in that election? A lot of East Pakistan, and even Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, he was still for working within the framework of Pakistan at that time. And as for Bhutto, his political career reached its heights under Ayub Khan, he was ayub's foreign minister. Whatever the man's faults or virtues, nothing justifies his murder on false charges pending sentencing by a kangaroo court.

As for the list of generals who've committed treason. Boy that's a long list! The obvious ones are Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia, Musharraf. But you can also add those that plotted and conspired to remove elected governments (which is of course against the constitution), you need to then add the likes of Gen Aslam Beg. Then if you add co-conspirator generals such as Gen Assad Durrani who helped Gen Beg, and then do the same for each dictator you don't get a HUGE list of traitor generals. Their treachery is clear, and it falls under Article 6 of the constitution. The same constitution they swore to uphold as member of the armed forces, the very first line of their oaths is dedicated to this purpose.

First thing is removing a ruler who is harming the country is not treason, but exact opposite of it.
So your definition of treason is deeply flawed.
Secondly it's perfectly fine to hand someone who shouted "idher humm udher tum" and alienated the Bengalis.
While Pakistan was at war with India, Bhutto was sacking most experienced generals and house arresting them.
When general Yehya took him to Dhaka to talk to Mujeeb in March of 1971 , Bhutto didn't even negotiate with Mujeeb , instead asked him to come to west Pakistan with him and they can talk there.
Mujeeb agreed and came, only to be stressed by Bhutto and imprisoned in Mianwali jail.
The list of Bhutto's treachery goes on.
And later he destroyed the economy by nationalising all industries.
So yes his death sentence was justified.
@AgNoStiC MuSliM
Read his comments and see how he is portraying Bhutto as innocent while putting all the blame on generals . And I am not pointing him out. It's just an example how a bises anti military mind works.
It's this type of bias I am against.

First make armed dorces non insultable and without corruption charges...
With coupe attempts, dictatorship and major kickback cases that ain't gonna happen. Earn respect and let the work speak for you, making rules is what weaklings do!

There was never a dictatorship in Pakistan, only martial law , which people liked and lived under martial law without problems.
Doctor kills people on the Streets.
No military ruler of Pakistan ever did so.

 

[Pandora]

If there is such a law for contempt of court so why cant there be a similar law for Military. If someone has grievances then he/she should take it to the court rather than barking 24/7 on media/social media against Military. Same law should be adopted for the office of PM bcz no matter the person in office He/She represents entire country. It is just so pathetic that yesterday Ethiopian Leader yesterday tweeted about his call with PM IK and Patwaris and PPP Jahils were all over that comment section barking like Mad Dogs.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Read his comments and see how he is portraying Bhutto as innocent while putting all the blame on generals .
It's this type of bias I am against.

Jungibaaz can correct me, but I don't believe he's excusing Bhutto, rather pointing out that Bhutto alone wasn't at fault.

Bhutto absolutely had his own demons, an autocratic streak (he rode the coattails of dictators to get into power after all), abysmal policies and was certainly not the bastion of democracy & progressive thought that he is made out to be, but I agree that the process that led to his death was unfair and at the hands of a Kangaroo court.

We can be critical of both Bhutto/Civilian politicians and the Military leadership.

If there is such a law for contempt of court so why cant there be a similar law for Military. If someone has grievances then he/she should take it to the court rather than barking 24/7 on media/social media against Military. Same law should be adopted for the office of PM bcz no matter the person in office He/She represents entire country. It is just so pathetic that yesterday Ethiopian Leader yesterday tweeted about his call with PM IK and Patwaris and PPP Jahils were all over that comment section barking like Mad Dogs.

Let Imran Khan and the PTI finish their term in office and, if the PTI does even half a decent job, get reelected again.

Democracy is the best revenge, as the PPP loves to say.

If you can insult politicians then you can insult the Armed Forces as an institution.



The state didn't fire her. The school elected to do so. That's their choice.

Actually, I strongly disagree - insulting politicians is analogous to insulting the military leadership, and not the entire institution of the military. The leadership of political parties makes decisions on behalf of the party, much like the leadership of the Army/Navy/Air Force makes decisions on behalf of the institution. It is therefore the leadership that should be criticized, especially in the case of the military, where chain of command and obeying orders is drilled into the rank and file.

The average soldier or officer does not go out campaigning on behalf of the military leadership - they follow orders (and yes, there is a separate debate to be had about the whole issue of whether a soldier should follow orders if he disagrees with them).

On the political side, would we consider voting for the PMLN or PPP if the parties came out from under the yoke of the Sharif's and Zardari's? I think we would, so the issue here isn't the institution, but the leadership that makes decisions on behalf of the institution.

 

[SQ8]

There is no way to quash criticism of an institution’s behavior or individuals within that institution - nor should it be enforced to where we end up like North Korea as a total terrifying joke of a country.

The only pertinent point out of the thread opener’s argument(whose goal posts he himself seems to change around to try and save the title) is the requirement of enforcement of civility in critique and the ability to be liable for serious criticism.

Which basically means that if today I accuse @AgNoStiC MuSliM of being a corrupt individual as a fact and not my opinion, he can either ignore it or request that some proof of corruption be provided or legible arguments be made instead of just going with “corrupt” even though it is a definition and not an abusive insult.

This right of mine and his should be preserved and not quashed; with the state having little or no say in this matter other than the legal arm deciding whether my arguments are valid or not. Additionally, if I am accusing falsely then the accused should have the right to sue me for defamation and any damages claimed.

We already have framework for this process on an individual basis but I am not aware of instances where this is used institutionally.

Where the issue may require state intervention is when I claim that he is a son of a so and so piece of that who abuses and steals from orphans which I saw with my own eyes , and that good muslims should kill him in the way of Allah or to preserve Pakistan.. then the state should intervene through a law and tackle the matter.

 

[flameboard]

Firing someone for their behaviour is different than the law going after them

 

[Pandora]

Jungibaaz can correct me, but I don't believe he's excusing Bhutto, rather pointing out that Bhutto alone wasn't at fault.

Bhutto absolutely had his own demons, an autocratic streak (he rode the coattails of dictators to get into power after all), abysmal policies and was certainly not the bastion of democracy & progressive thought that he is made out to be, but I agree that the process that led to his death was unfair and at the hands of a Kangaroo court.

We can be critical of both Bhutto/Civilian politicians and the Military leadership.



Let Imran Khan and the PTI finish their term in office and, if the PTI does even half a decent job, get reelected again.

Democracy is the best revenge, as the PPP loves to say.

I say even if IK manages to deliver on 20% of his commitments PMLN and PPP will have no chance in Elections. PMLN right now is rudderless even weaker than it was in previous election all thanks to NAB cases and absconding leaders. Shahbaz shareif from the looks of it was lured in on false promises of PMship and will get on the first flight back as soon as possible. Even Hamza shehbaz he is also under the sword of NAB in Ramzan sugar mills case. That leaves the Bhuddi Princess of PMLN who will wreck whats left of PMLN if left on its helm and many PMLN leaders dont even like her. I see sindh as the next battle ground and if PTI in alliance with GDA manages to defeat PPP even on half the seats then it is game over for PPP. In next election PTI will finally put Bhutoism to rest Inshallah.

 

[Robbie]

Everything was cheap because the economy was stable, the economy was stable because dictators are better compared to an immature democracy suffering the added interference of traitor generals. Zia was illegitimate, a traitor and a murderer. He brought about some stability compared to the compromised nascent democracies because of the weak nature of them by design. His economy was also propped up by US aid. He also oversaw massive increases in drug trade, gun culture, deterioration of law and order, and subsequent battle we’ve have had with extremism was largely his doing.

You can’t call the 1990s democracy, not when Zia legacy presidents were removing elected PM, not while the army was busy undermining government and trying to overthrow it, only for it to openly declare dictatorship after Kargil. That’s not democracy, that’s traitor generals run amok.

And india was being kept at bay.
Then came democracy.

India is still at bay even in Democracy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no way to quash criticism of an institution’s behavior or individuals within that institution - nor should it be enforced to where we end up like North Korea as a total terrifying joke of a country.

The only pertinent point out of the thread opener’s argument(whose goal posts he himself seems to change around to try and save the title) is the requirement of enforcement of civility in critique and the ability to be liable for serious criticism.

Which basically means that if today I accuse @AgNoStiC MuSliM of being a corrupt individual as a fact and not my opinion, he can either ignore it or request that some proof of corruption be provided or legible arguments be made instead of just going with “corrupt” even though it is a definition and not an abusive insult.

This right of mine and his should be preserved and not quashed; with the state having little or no say in this matter other than the legal arm deciding whether my arguments are valid or not. Additionally, if I am accusing falsely then the accused should have the right to sue me for defamation and any damages claimed.

We already have framework for this process on an individual basis but I am not aware of instances where this is used institutionally.

Where the issue may require state intervention is when I claim that he is a son of a so and so piece of that who abuses and steals from orphans which I saw with my own eyes , and that good muslims should kill him in the way of Allah or to preserve Pakistan.. then the state should intervene through a law and tackle the matter.

Couldn't agree more.

Explicit incitement to violence can be relatively straightforward to cover with legislation, but hate-speech, racism? In some situations such speech might be used as an implicit incitement to violence, though it might not be possible to address until after the fact.

If we take the example of the US, racist/hate speech itself is not illegal, but there are protections offered via legislation that prohibit discrimination in the private and public sector on the basis of race, religion, gender etc. I'm not sure evolving societies like Pakistan can handle the same level of 'freedom' when it comes to racist/hate speech, but given the leeway extended to the PTM to make racist and derogatory comments about other ethnic groups and the Army, perhaps we are trying to give it a go.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Jungibaaz can correct me, but I don't believe he's excusing Bhutto, rather pointing out that Bhutto alone wasn't at fault.

Bhutto absolutely had his own demons, an autocratic streak (he rode the coattails of dictators to get into power after all), abysmal policies and was certainly not the bastion of democracy & progressive thought that he is made out to be, but I agree that the process that led to his death was unfair and at the hands of a Kangaroo court.

We can be critical of both Bhutto/Civilian politicians and the Military leadership.

Exactly. Bhutto's stubbornness and political ambition was a major part of the breakaway of east pakistan. But to blame him alone is completely wrong. We were slowly building the day for secessionists in the East since 1954.

There is no way to quash criticism of an institution’s behavior or individuals within that institution - nor should it be enforced to where we end up like North Korea as a total terrifying joke of a country.

The only pertinent point out of the thread opener’s argument(whose goal posts he himself seems to change around to try and save the title) is the requirement of enforcement of civility in critique and the ability to be liable for serious criticism.

Which basically means that if today I accuse @AgNoStiC MuSliM of being a corrupt individual as a fact and not my opinion, he can either ignore it or request that some proof of corruption be provided or legible arguments be made instead of just going with “corrupt” even though it is a definition and not an abusive insult.

This right of mine and his should be preserved and not quashed; with the state having little or no say in this matter other than the legal arm deciding whether my arguments are valid or not. Additionally, if I am accusing falsely then the accused should have the right to sue me for defamation and any damages claimed.

We already have framework for this process on an individual basis but I am not aware of instances where this is used institutionally.

Where the issue may require state intervention is when I claim that he is a son of a so and so piece of that who abuses and steals from orphans which I saw with my own eyes , and that good muslims should kill him in the way of Allah or to preserve Pakistan.. then the state should intervene through a law and tackle the matter.

Fully agree.

 

[ChennaiDude]

Democracy isn't easy, @Safriz. You have to work at it; you have to work on it ALL THE TIME. Even after 70 years, you can cock up. Look at the loony tunes played by my other Indian 'friends' here. And on StratFor, for that matter. They talk democracy, and then they insist that their toxic cocktail of racism, Islamophobia and Pakistan-hating is the only nationalism allowed, and anybody who doesn't agree is anti-national.

There is more than one fool taking that line. Look at Sambit Patra in action; he's doing the exact same thing.

https://www.outlookindia.com/websit...campaign=campaign_name&utm_content=&utm_term=

The point? The connection with the subject of this thread?

1. You can't define nationalism. Your subjective opinion cannot be law.
2. If you can't define nationalism, you can't define anti-nationalism.
3. If you can't define anti-nationalism, you can't recognise an attack on an institution as an anti-national act.
4. If you can't recognise an attack on an institution as an anti-national act, you can't take into account any statement or news item or action as an insult to an institution.

Respect!- Very well put and articulated. (They talk democracy, and then they insist that their toxic cocktail of racism, Islamophobia and Pakistan-hating is the only nationalism allowed, and anybody who doesn't agree is anti-national.)-Hear Hear!

 

[Jungibaaz]

Couldn't agree more.

Explicit incitement to violence can be relatively straightforward to cover with legislation, but hate-speech, racism? In some situations such speech might be used as an implicit incitement to violence, though it might not be possible to address until after the fact.

If we take the example of the US, racist/hate speech itself is not illegal, but there are protections offered via legislation that prohibit discrimination in the private and public sector on the basis of race, religion, gender etc. I'm not sure evolving societies like Pakistan can handle the same level of 'freedom' when it comes to racist/hate speech, but given the leeway extended to the PTM to make racist and derogatory comments about other ethnic groups, perhaps we are trying to give it a go.

I see your point and I agree. We don't have to be as open as the US when it comes to free speech, over there one can even pass off the most extreme insults of religion as valid commentary or satire/comedy. Such speech would be positively riot inducing and inflammatory if allowed in Pakistan. Some leeway on cultural sensitivity is fine, but it's a slippery slope that should be minded.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Respect!- Very well put and articulated. (They talk democracy, and then they insist that their toxic cocktail of racism, Islamophobia and Pakistan-hating is the only nationalism allowed, and anybody who doesn't agree is anti-national.)-Hear Hear!

Many thanks.

If there is such a law for contempt of court so why cant there be a similar law for Military. If someone has grievances then he/she should take it to the court rather than barking 24/7 on media/social media against Military. Same law should be adopted for the office of PM bcz no matter the person in office He/She represents entire country. It is just so pathetic that yesterday Ethiopian Leader yesterday tweeted about his call with PM IK and Patwaris and PPP Jahils were all over that comment section barking like Mad Dogs.

Perhaps we need (I am specifically thinking about our own condition in India) to review our legislation, to allow for the most current forms of expression, and of denigration. Social media is a blight in India, and has been consciously used as a political tool, wielded by an expert group of professional dedicated operators. You are still not so badly off in Pakistan, nowhere so badly off, in fact.