Christian activists slam Pakistan's justice system over ridiculous blasphemy laws

Athens, Aug 15 (IANS) Pakistan Senate's recent decision to abolish the death penalty for only two crimes has sparked significant debate in the country, with Christian activists and human rights advocates demanding broader reforms, especially regarding the issue of blasphemy laws, a report mentioned on Friday.

Some quarters have called the legislative decision as a step towards modernising Pakistan's penal system, Greece-based NewsBomb said in a report. Critics, it said, remain sceptical, viewing it as a strategic, calculated effort aimed more at preserving economic advantages than at championing genuine human rights progress.

On July 18, the upper house of Pakistan gave its nod for the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, which replaces capital punishment with life imprisonment and monetary fines for two offences: public spoliation of a woman and aiding the hijacking of an airplane or public vehicle. However, the bill remains incomplete without Presidential approval, leaving its final status uncertain. Despite this, the bill has sparked criticism, with many questioning the government's motives behind the legislation and its sincerity in implementing comprehensive human rights reforms.

Human rights activists have expressed skepticism over the government's decision to remove the death penalty for only two crimes while leaving other punishments intact. The selection nature of the reform seems inconsistent with a genuine commitment to remove capital punishment or resolving broader issues within Pakistan's justice system.

Critics have stressed that, by only focusing on two crimes, the Pakistan government aims to indicate progress to international observers, particularly European trade partners, without confronting the more contentious and deeply rooted issues in the country’s legal framework.

"The timing of the bill’s passage aligns conspicuously with Pakistan’s ongoing efforts to maintain lucrative trade privileges with European countries. The European Union (EU) has, in recent years, increasingly linked trade benefits to adherence to human rights standards. Observers note that this legislative move may be more about preserving economic advantages than instituting meaningful change on the ground," the report stated.

Blasphemy laws of Pakistan have been criticised internationally. Under these laws, anyone gets the death penalty and other severe punishments for perceived insults against religion. Christian activists, minority groups, and human rights defenders have called on the lawmakers to take a more comprehensive approach as the blasphemy-related offences have not been included in the recent bill, the NewsBomb report detailed. Blasphemy laws have faced criticism over their misuse and fostering a climate of intolerance, where accusations can cause mob violence, extrajudicial killings, and deep social divisions.

The lack of progress in addressing these laws demonstrates Pakistan's struggle with balancing religious sensitivities, political pressures, and international human rights expectations. Christian activists and minority rights groups have reacted to the Senate's decision with a mix of frustration and cautious optimism, the report emphasised. Human rights organisations have condemned the Pakistani government's decision for what they perceive as superficial reforms that are unable to deal with the root causes of injustice. The persistent existence of capital punishment for numerous offences, along with weak legal protections for minorities reflects a grim picture for the state of human rights in Pakistan.

International human rights groups and foreign governments have closely monitored recent legislative decisions taken by Pakistan, according to the report. Some have welcomed the partial abolition of the death penalty as the step in the right direction, however, others have expressed scepticism about the depth and durability of these reforms. The slow pace in making legal reform, along with continuous abuses and discrimination, has fostered cynicism about the government’s readiness to protect human rights effectively.