Analysis #1: Blasphemous Speech in Afghanistan

Communication Justice is something that requires us to understand each term separately as well as what they mean once combined. I would define Communication as the act of expression, whether that be written, oral, or visual. I believe Justice to mean upholding what is right and fair in society through the application of law. Based on my own interpretation, Communication Justice is the right for all persons to express themselves and their opinions (written, orally, or visually) without fear of persecution in order to promote equality (and in doing so, justice) in society. I believe this to be true on a global scale as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) regardless of “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” (UDHR Article 2).

In regards to the case of Perwiz Kambakhsh, he was denied his right to freedom of expression. He was unjustly accused, unjustly tried, and unjustly convicted of “propagating blasphemous literature”. Upon investigation, it is clear that Kambakhsh is well within his granted Universal Human Rights (Articles 2, 3 and 19) when he chose to repeat the insults against Islam and the conditions of the women there whilst incorporating his own commentary on the issues at hand and sharing all of this information with the global internet community.

Afghanistan has ratified the UDHR and has thereby expressed a commitment to freedom of expression of Afghanis and all other rights detailed in the Declaration. Kambakhsh was arrested and detained after releasing an article that supported women’s rights not given by the Qur’an. In the case of Burstyn v Wilson, the Supreme Court ruled that “from the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, a state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them” Kambakhsh’s decision to openly criticize treatment of women in the Qur’an would clearly be considered distasteful by devout Muslims. However, Afghanistan as the state in question would have “no legitimate interests in protecting (Muslims)” from Kambakhsh’s “distasteful” speech. Burstyn v Wilson is also important here because of the ruling, “It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.” His speech appeared in an online publication, but even if he was campaigning in the streets, I believe that he has the right to say what he wants regarding the unfair treatment of others. I find it sad that he was targeted so negatively in his attempt to point out the discrimination that happens against Islamic women. His rights to express his opinion were denied. Although current news sources only hint at what his article and commentary was on, even if his speech was blasphemous or sacrilegious both the UDHR and the US Supreme Court (via their ruling of Burstyn v Wilson) would uphold his right to speech. It sounds as though he addressed the inequality that exists under the Qur’an concerning the rights of men and women in an attempt to bring awareness to this inequality.

I feel he was well within his rights to criticize the unfair treatment of others evidently justified in the Qur’an. A religious text is not government sanctioned law in Afghanistan. Even if it were, the adherence to the UDHR would have equal importance in determining the charges and punishment for a case like this. He is within his rights as defined in Article 19 “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” It is also noteworthy that in the US case of Burstyn v Wilson it was ruled that, “a state may not place a prior restraint on the showing of a motion picture film on the basis of a censor's conclusion that it is "sacrilegious”, which violates the First and the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this case concerns motion pictures, it is safe to believe that his article should enjoy the same protections. His desire for social justice and his ability to think critically should be encouraged; he is a student not unlike those of us taking this course at a Jesuit institution. Issues concerning inequality need to be discussed and evaluated if any change or progress is to be made. The social rights movement here in the US did not occur overnight, and many like Kambakhsh (Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela) were wrongfully imprisoned and treated in a similar manner. Anthony campaigned for equal rights regardless of sex (much like Kambakhsh) and was imprisoned for voting in a government election like men were permitted to do. Parks was imprisoned for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger due to her belief that whites and blacks were equal. Like Kambakhsh, they were convinced that all citizens were equal regardless of sex or race and were willing to stand up for such convictions. Their determination to speak freely encouraged others that agreed with them to speak up. Change is a process, and the spark lit by Kambakhsh will hopefully spur others to take a risk in speaking out. The global community must also actively participate to ensure that rights are upheld in all cases. From reading the articles, I don’t believe the fight is over and he still needs to be given a fair trial. Pressure must come from those who currently enjoy their freedom of expression in order to get him a fair trial. We are lucky to live somewhere that offers us many protections, even though flaws exist in our system. These protections allow us to enjoy our rights without facing criminal charges. Even with criminal charges, we know we will be tried, the evidence weighed, and that our defense may be strong enough to acquit us. Cases like this, particularly in the 21st century, should not go unnoticed. Communication Justice does not currently exist in Afghanistan as demonstrated in this case, and that needs to change.