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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with your assertion that social change needs to happen and that if cases of civil liberties, such as Perwiz Kambakhsh, gains attention and other nations where these freedoms currently exist help to make that change, change is possible. However, I think that this is difficult as Afghanistan seems to want to make an example out of him and even those who disagree with the decision aren’t willing to step up. The article states that instead, they seem to take a much more passive stance, stating that “we know it is a bit extreme to put the hangman’s noose around your neck...for this – distributing stuff that you did not write and may not even fully endorse, or even understand. You did not even publish it, and it is not proven that you held secret group meetings to proselytize and discuss it. And we are not particularly opposed to Will Durant -whose book is a key incriminating evidence in your case- either. But times are tough and we are in a war. Your death is a small price to be paid for what this will teach others…[It would be] a slippery slope we cannot allow this nation to go down, wouldn’t it? So we hope you will try to understand. And if you don’t, well, too bad.” However, Afghanistan has been a member of the UN since December 14, 1955. Thus, I would agree with your stance, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, under Article 18, “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscious and religion,” Article 19 states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” and that under Article 30, nothing in the UDHR can be interpreted “as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” Therefore, Kambakhsh absolutely should be let go as he did nothing against the UDHR and was entirely within his freedom of expression and speech rights. Also, under Aricle 7, all people are “equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law” and that under Article 10 “everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charges against him” as well as Article 11 in which a person charged with a penal offense is innocent until proven guilty and that he has all of the guarantees necessary for his defense. Thus, Afghanistan is in severe violation of these articles and Kambakhsh should be let free, but if not, perhaps will become one of the many martyrs of civil rights and the freedom of expression and speech and that he will be one of the many steps necessary to make change in such an oppressive country.
ReplyDeleteSent by Jamie Wallace via e-mail - 11:29 am on 1/20/2010:
ReplyDeletePerwiz Kambakhsh’s trial epitomizes the unjust actions of a government that has ratified the UDHR. The details of the case (the closed courtroom, lack of evidence, and severe sentence), betray a commitment not to fulfilling rights set forth by the UDHR but instead to creating an example out of an individual who is not in accord with majority opinion. In the context of global rights, Kambakhsh is clearly a victim of a system Its disturbing that each court seems more concerned with how its judgments are perceived than whether or not they are just and correct http://safrang.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/the-case-of-perwiz-kambakhsh-and-afghanistans-ongoing-culture-wars/ . The fidelity to moral code to such a degree that it is likely to cost a man his life without a fair trial is not only a direct repudiation of UDHR code 19 concerning freedom of opinion and expression and UDHR code 11 concerning fair trial, but an example of what can happen when individual expression is squelched in order to protect a dogmatic status quo. In cases like this where free speech and citizen rights come to a crossroads we’re able to gauge if a government can be faithful to justice despite cultural concerns. You’re correct to point to leaders in human rights as people who have challenged the dominant culture in their fight for justice and increased awareness and accountability of violations. In Kambakhsh’s case, the UDHR violations are obvious. The courts have a judicial responsibility to justice, not morality as the standard for trying Kambakhsh. This responsibility demands that they give Kambakhsh a fair trial that adheres to the judicial standards and protections of expression set forth by international law.
I agree with you that the case of Perwiz Kambakhsh illustrates Afghan’s very unfair and unjust system; also, Kambakhsh is a victim of it in many ways. The court’s decision on the case completely ignored the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Kambakhsh’s freedom of expression is suppressed by unjust reasons. Also, I believe this is a clear case that the government suppresses the minority group instead of protecing their right to express opinions. Although Kamabakshs’s idea may not be the majority in Islamic society, his freedom to hold and express ideas should be protected by article 19 (Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression) and 18(Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion). In addition, I don’t see any tendency of harm in his action; therefore, I agree with you that the government really does not have the right to accuse him for what he has done. Also, I agree that Afghan court system was also against UDH. As the article claims, it seems he really is a victim of on going cultural war. I agree that it is time for them to change their system. Many countries including the U.S. used to punish blasphemous severely; however, as a member of UN, Afghanistan has to realize that they have to meet the global standard of human rights. As you said, I also think global attention is needed on the case like this.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job of defining Communication Justice as 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. Some people might think that communication justice may only apply to the spoken word, but as you've mentioned, not only does it apply to what we say orally, but also written and visually. In the case of Perwiz Kambakhsh, the way he was treated by the Afghanistan's government was completely unfair and unwarranted. Not only did he not write the article that was in question, he was simply commenting on it--providing his own views on what someone else had already said. I agree with your idea that the Afghan government treated this case so harshly because they were afraid of how Perwiz Kambakhsh's words would affect the society, perhaps provide them with a view of women that they have not previously heard. In an effort to protect themselves, the Afghan government almost makes an example of Kambakhsh as a warning. Perwiz should most definitely be freed considering he did not violate any rules, but was simply asserting his own opinion and expressing his freedom of speech.
ReplyDelete