Asma Jahangir: setting the record straight re: SCBA ‘resolution’

asma-lawAsma Jahangi has denied reports published in several papers today that the SCBA passed a ‘resolution’ condemning any efforts to discuss, debate or change the ‘blasphemy law’ (Lawyers to lawmakers: Supreme Court Bar wants no changes to blasphemy laws)

This is to deny that the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in its second executive committee meeting held on 18 December 2010 unanimously passed any resolution regarding either section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code itself or any case related to it. The facts are that a resolution to that effect was presented by a member of the executive committee but only apportion of it was passed unanimously, which paid reverence and commitment to honour and respect the name of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), while the rest of the resolution regarding 295 C, the case of Aasia Bibi and its consequences was deferred with consensus. The Supreme Court Bar Association regrets the attempt made by one of its executive members to mislead the press and the public. The SCBA is a responsible body and its resolutions will be fully debated before being passed especially unanimously.

From Asma Jahangir
Dated 19 December 2010




7 Responses

  1. More Like Journey’s to a Senate Seat. Bibi’s dead. Will Zardari give you a ticket?


  2. A welcome news indeed. But intriguing, why the mainstream media did not carry this contradiction of the news which had disappointed many about the legal fraternity’s support for a patently unjust law.


  3. Anyone who knows what Ms. Asma Jahangir stands for would have smelt a rat straight away. We are grateful for the clarification. One thing though; Ms. Asma writes that “but only apportion of it was passed unanimously”. It should read “only a portion’.
    Mainstream media has an agenda to follow and only news ‘cleared’ by vested quarters is published. Sometimes as readers we are made aware of news only when it is contradicted. Long live Free Speech!


  4. “One thing though; Ms. Asma says that “but only a portion of it was passed unanimously.”

    Does it not mean that the rest was also passed but not ‘unanimously’? It all looks rather fishy!

    ‘Chalo ham hi qatl ho aaein’ was said by ST, quoting his uncle Faiz. Every body is prevaricating these days, what to speak of a lawyer . It is understandable indeed.


    • Bokhari Sb, given the kind of pressure that Asma Jahangir is under, she is taking a strong stand. It is not her fault that only a portion of it was moved unanimously. Look at what she’s up against, look at the Pindi Bar lawyers, who offered to defend the murderer for free.


  5. Very disappointing indeed. Now look at that Joker of an Interior Minister, Malik Rehman, making an abject surrender of Quaid’s Pakistan to the mullah like Gen. Niazi surrendering East Pakistan to Gen. Arora. Where has gone the Pakistan of the Quaid? I see no body shedding a tear on its demise.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: