What we have seen so far are theories of rigging based on anecdotes, innuendos and deductive reasoning.
Who should those speaking out against violence fear more? The state or non-state actors?
The cybercrime bill seeks to control information and ideas under the garb of Article 19.
Our reaction to angry statements being issued by nervous Arab rulers should not be equally inane.
Conducting inquiries falls within the domain of the executive and not of the judiciary.
The Nekokara case is only the latest example of the gap between the law and its implementation.
Using adjudicators as investigators is counterintuitive, if not plain wrong.
Social and economic inequalities load our criminal justice system against the poor.
And what did the bench hold? That Qadri’s act could neither be termed Islamic nor moral.
The law is merely a tool. We can quarrel with it, but that won’t make us good workmen.
Our Constitution ought to have excluded from the secret ballot all elections involving MPs.
Terror is being preached, justified or tolerated in the name of faith and we are doing little about it.
Karachi functions under a smog of fear. Isn’t this fear reinforced by the MQM itself?
Who will build resolve, consensus and a narrative against non-TTP terror in Pakistan?
There can exist no rule of law if a society allows individual morality to override the law.
Exposure to any component of our criminal justice system shows the entire structure is rotting.
There are few who can claim that the courts are doing a decent job.
Will military courts obliterate the terror infrastructure or just keep us distracted?
Our proclivity for deluding ourselves and relying on ad hocism is gathering strength.
The test of our resolve to quit being a terror sanctuary will be tested on at least five fronts.