Pemra protects the sacred cows by Irfan Hussain

Irfan Husain

ACCORDING to a news report in the Guardian covering the recently concluded annual Conservative Party conference in Manchester, Prime Minister David Cameron bumped into the newspaper’s political cartoonist, Steve Bell. At this chance encounter, the British PM asked: “Steve, when are you taking the condom off my head?”

This seemingly bizarre query was in reference to Bell’s re-invention of the Tory leader as an inflated condom in his hilariously rude cartoon strip. Taken aback, Bell is reported to have spluttered: “It’s too late!” Day in and day out, Guardian readers are regaled by the sight of the shiny, pink prime minister with a nipple above his head, and often in the company of the Chancellor, George Osborne (depicted as a pig), discussing the issues of the day.

Despite the grossly offensive nature of the cartoons, Ofcom, the British media regulator, has never issued a notice to the Guardian, demanding that its cartoonist should be reined in. This tolerance of political satire is a sign of the maturity of the democratic tradition here.

In contrast, Pemra, Pakistan’s electronic media regulator, has recently “taken serious notice of satirical programmes”.

According to Pemra, they indulged in “character assassination, humiliation and defamation of dignitaries”. A Pemra spokesman announced that ads would soon be issued “to direct the channels to stop airing funny portrayals of dignitaries”.

Actually, most of our so-called dignitaries need to be deflated at regular intervals. In a recent BBC programme hosted by David Frost, the veteran broadcaster spoke about “pricking the pomposity of politicians”. This is a much-needed exercise that demands the talent and constant attention of our satirists. Our prominent figures, ranging from politicians to generals to bureaucrats, take themselves much too seriously, and deserve a regular toasting under bright studio lights.

The Pemra spokesman warned that if action is mot taken by TV channels, such satirical shows may “invite public wrath against the regulator”. Actually, what should invite public wrath is Pemra’s total failure in preventing the rubbish our TV chat show hosts regularly inflict on viewers. They and their guests toss around the most libellous accusations against politicians without let or hindrance. I have heard guests mention figures of bribes allegedly taken by one leader or another as though they were witnesses to the transactions. Facts are twisted, threats are hurled, poison is spewed, but Pemra is unmoved. In the regulator’s view, laughter is not allowed, but lies and distortions are.

In one of the most flagrant displays of dereliction of regulatory duty, a prominent anchor with a permanent smirk encouraged a guest to declare that Ahmadis were ‘wajib-ul qatal’, or deserving of death. Within days, two Ahmadis were murdered. Pemra was silent on the matter, as was the management of the large TV network.

Political satire has a long and honourable tradition in literature. From Jonathan Swift to Manto, writers have aimed wickedly effective attacks on authority and hypocritical social norms. With the advent of radio and TV (and more recently, the Internet), satirists have taken their sharp wit to larger audiences. So when the Pakistan government tried to introduce legislation aimed at protecting the political leadership from jokes posted on the Internet or sent by SMS, there were gales of laughter around the world.

The point Pemra should remember is that laughter is a healthy reaction to the stupidity of the ruling classes. Censorship has never been able to prevent us from circulating jokes about the pompous figures who strut about on the national stage. Even in Zia’s dark days, when censorship was absolute and the electronic media was tightly controlled, savage satire about the dictator did the rounds by word of mouth, or between the lines in the press. Indeed, dictatorships across the world are targeted, and often, humorous stories skip across borders, with only the names of the despots being changed.

Who can forget Tina Fey’s depiction of Sarah Palin on a TV show in which she caught the vacuous charm of the Alaskan candidate for vice-presidency? In a few short minutes of well-aimed satire, Fay has probably made Palin unelectable. In fact, after that TV programme, Palin no longer gives interviews for fear of being exposed in all her glorious ignorance.

Often, satire is intended as deadly serious comment and criticism, but sugar-coated in humour to make it palatable. The best satirists tend to portray their subjects accurately enough to recognise, while exaggerating some key feature. Thus, Steve Bell caricatures the Labour leader, Ed Milliband, as a panda-eyed, slightly demented man. Although George Bush was always depicted as a chimpanzee by Bell, the US president was instantly recognisable.

In Britain, nobody from the Queen downwards is immune from lampooning. In the US, stand-up comics regularly skewer the holy cows of the day. Private Eye, Britian’s iconic satirical magazine, has been sued numerous times for slander. It combines witty writing with investigative reporting that has embarrassed politicians and governments. France’s Le Canard Enchaine (The Chained Duck) has uncovered many scams and scandals in high places, and is required reading for the political class.

And while western politicians, like everybody else, don’t like being laughed at, they know they must put up with the barbs tossed their way by the media. In our part of the world, however, macho leaders can’t tolerate much criticism, especially when it comes wrapped in waspish humour.

I can understand Pemra’s predicament: every time some stuffed shirt in government is pilloried on TV, he gets humiliated and picks up the phone. The more senior the person in the spotlight, the greater the heat Pemra gets. In the good old days when PTV was the only show in town, keeping producers and writers in check was not a problem: anybody stepping out of line would soon be out of work.

But as TV channels have proliferated and competition for viewers and advertising has become fiercer, more controversial programming has become the norm. Sadly, much of this consists of hysterical chat shows. But every once in a while, satirical programmes like the one built around the marvellous Begum Nawazish light up our TV screens. These should be relished as long as they last.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/10/pemra-protects-the-sacred-cows.html

Terrorized Silence

by Baber Sattar

If you are an “aashiq-e-Rasool” (devotee of the Prophet), should you be able to get away with murder? Can we, as a society, justify the cold-blooded murder of Salmaan Taseer by Mumtaz Qadri, merely because this killer believed he was discharging a divine duty? Can a citizen be allowed to execute another summarily in pursuit of a self-defined higher ideal of ‘justice’ not recognised by law, and can such logic be inducted as a valid justification for murder? Isn’t that the story of all psychopaths who pose a threat to society? Must we become apologists for vigilantism and crimes perpetrated in the name of religion, honour and tradition?

Notwithstanding what construct of justice and mode of reasoning one employs, the demand of the mullah brigade (and the anarchist band of lawyers who pelted flowers at a murderer and later ransacked the court that awarded him the death sentence) that Qadri must go scott-free is neither just nor reasonable. The argument against punishing Qadri is that in violating the law, he was actually meting out justice. Or in other words, meting out justice in the name of religion should be treated as justification (like self-defence) for an action that is otherwise a crime (i.e. killing a fellow citizen).

Law, most people agree, doesn’t have the moral authority it claims. But for any legal system to be credible and effective, the pursuit of morality in breach of law must attract penal consequences. What the law does is publicly declare certain rules that everyone is required to abide by. These rules might seem unjust at times, but they are binding. If you break a signal because you’re rushing to the airport to catch a flight, you are doing so with the knowledge that the challan or ticket that you might get as a consequence is an acceptable cost. But you cannot show up in court and justify your defiance of the law because a personal need or calling overrides traffic rules.

Those opposed to the law considered bad or unjust can either try and get it changed, or defy it. But when such defiance is with complete knowledge of the penal consequences that will follow, the punishment that results is not unfair.

Can we placate the frothing mullahs by adding an all-encompassing provision within Pakistan Penal Code holding that anyone whose religious beliefs are incensed by actions of another could legitimately inflict violence on such person? If the mullahs wish to make Qadri their hero for defying the law and killing a fellow human in pursuit of his belief-system, and hang his garlanded photo in their drawing rooms for their kids to emulate, there can be no accounting for such personal choice other than social censure.

But when they come out on the street and use violence to force our legal system and the society to accommodate violent crime and bigotry within the fold of rule of law, such coercive attempt to adulterate the legal system must be resisted forcefully.

There are many in Pakistan who believe that our blasphemy law is unjust, not because they support blasphemy, but because the law in its existing form is liable to abuse and has been abused continually.

The mullah brigade is not interested in a rational debate over the merits of the blasphemy law, as it exists and is applied in Pakistan. But its approach to scuttling debate has been considered and cunning. At step one is the argument that retaining the existing malfunctioning legal provisions related to blasphemy is essential to preempt impassioned ‘aashiq-e-Rasool’ from taking law into their own hands. In other words if law doesn’t allow persecution of those accused, the resulting vigilantism will be justified.

Step two is to condemn all critics of our blasphemy law as blasphemers themselves, who then become legitimate targets for the bigoted brigades. So if Salmaan Taseer is standing up for someone accused of blasphemy, he automatically transforms into a blasphemer and is liable to be killed.

And at step three is the assertion that when the killing of one human being by another is motivated by a higher ideal, such as executing the divinely ordained task of defending the honour of the Prophet, the law should make allowance for such self-assumed duty. As Mumtaz Qadri killed Salmaan Taseer in genuine pursuit of his religious ideals, the criminal justice system ought to treat intent behind such murder as benevolent.

The mullah brigade wishes that crimes of bigotry and hatred in the name of religion be declared as no crimes at all because the underlying intent cannot be deemed guilty. The reasoning being employed here, if accepted, would justify the genocide of non-Muslims and religious minorities in Pakistan. It would legitimise the targeted killing of Hazaras by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi in Balochistan and Shias across Pakistan, and it would condone the slaughter of innocent citizens by the Taliban. The logical outcome of such train of thought is thus ghastly. It would wipe out the possibility of discussion, debate or divergence within the realm of religion.

Such a move for homogeneity in the belief-system of Pakistanis while incapable of succeeding will certainly foster further anarchy and violence. If every Pakistani believes that he/she has a license from God to enforce his/her religious convictions on others, such mindset excludes the possibility of ours being a pluralistic society. If you legitimise violence inflicted on others in the name of religion or declare that the intent to harm others when driven by religious fervour is absolved of guilt, you are merely corrupting your system of justice from within by leaving no objective criteria to determine criminality.

And once you endorse that (i) any individual can assume agency and act as judge, jury and executioner in relation to another citizen if so commanded by his personal religious belief, and (ii) some actions/opinions against established religious dogma, or cultural/tribal values or entrenched concepts of honour are so wrong that any person associated with them doesn’t even deserve the protection of due process of law, you are sounding the death-knell of rule of law and constitutionalism.

But the mullahs are not interested in debating any of this within the sphere of religious thought or on the temporal plain as exhibited by the fact that they killed both Mufti Sarfraz Naeemi and Salmaan Taseer.

The nature of radicalism and intolerance being advocated, practiced and defended by the mullah, if left unchallenged, will gravitate toward more violent extremism. As the mullah’s instrument of persuasion is violence, it works seamlessly when the state chooses to step aside as an indifferent bystander. The ordinary citizen is incapable of confronting the bigotry and coercion of the mullah because no level playing field exists. If you dare to confront the mullah you do so at the peril of being declared an apostate, infidel or heretic, and such a label instantly denudes you of your most fundamental entitlement: the right to life and liberty.

The violent mullah and his reign of terror are not natural products of evolution. They are byproducts of our state policies and priorities. Religious militias cannot sustain themselves unless condoned by the state and treated as part of the national security paraphernalia. Armed religious groups cannot operate freely across Pakistan intimidating people, perpetrating violence and radicalising the society, unless the state conceives such harm as acceptable loss in pursuit of strategic objectives. And religious extremists cannot continue to brainwash our youth, if the state regulates the curriculum of madrassahs and provides free education to all children as our constitution mandates.

Unless the state changes its policy and our civil, military and thought leaders exhibit the courage to stand up to self-proclaimed agents of God, the coercive consensus on issues related to religion will develop into a conformist consensus, leaving little hope for progressive change.

Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu

Source: http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=71401&Cat=9&dt=10%2F7%2F2011