The case involving Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali, is fundamentally a matter of Pakistan’s domestic legal process. It was adjudicated through the country’s courts, under existing laws, with clear avenues for appeal available. Framing the conviction as an act of political repression imposed from outside the legal system misrepresents the nature of the case.
Like any sovereign state, Pakistan applies its laws through judicial mechanisms. No legal system treats court verdicts as final without review, and Pakistan is no exception. Appeals, higher courts, and constitutional remedies remain part of the process. Reducing a judicial outcome to a narrative of state suppression overlooks this institutional reality.
Freedom of Expression Has Legal Boundaries
Freedom of expression is a protected right, but it is not absolute in any democracy. Courts across the world draw lines where speech is deemed to incite disorder, glorify violence, undermine public order, or erode national cohesion. The conviction in this case centered on repeated digital content that Pakistani courts assessed as crossing those legal thresholds.
This principle is not unique to Pakistan. European states themselves regulate speech related to extremism, terrorism, and public disorder. To suggest that one jurisdiction’s enforcement of these limits is inherently illegitimate, while others’ are accepted, introduces an inconsistency that weakens principled human rights advocacy.
Selective Advocacy and the BLA Question
A central concern for the Pakistani state relates to the nature of Imaan Mazari’s advocacy. She has consistently framed members and affiliates of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as “missing persons” or victims of state repression, even in cases where the group has publicly claimed responsibility for attacks, including suicide bombings.
The BLA is a designated terrorist organization under Pakistan’s law and is also listed by the United States and the United Kingdom. Its record includes attacks on civilians, teachers, labourers, infrastructure, and security personnel. Pakistan has repeatedly raised concerns that the group recruits students and women for suicide missions, particularly in Balochistan.
Against this backdrop, advocacy that focuses exclusively on individuals linked to such groups, while remaining silent on civilian victims, raises questions about balance and intent. Sympathy appears directed toward militants and their sympathisers rather than toward the Baloch civilians who bear the brunt of terrorist violence.
European Responses and the Need for Consistency
Statements of support from European institutions and states have largely overlooked this context. By framing the issue solely through a civil liberties lens, they risk disregarding the suffering of innocent citizens in Balochistan and the security challenges the province continues to face.
Respect for human rights must be comprehensive. It should include the rights of civilians killed in attacks, families displaced by violence, and communities living under constant threat. Advocacy that highlights only those accused or associated with militant networks, while ignoring victims of terrorism, creates an imbalanced narrative.
European countries have their own stringent laws against advocacy linked to designated terrorist organizations. Applying different standards abroad undermines credibility and complicates constructive engagement.
Toward a More Balanced Engagement
Pakistan continues to face persistent terrorist threats in Balochistan. Any serious discussion of rights, freedoms, and justice must account for this reality. Advocacy that amplifies narratives aligned with militant groups, even indirectly, risks legitimising violence rather than advancing peace.
Constructive international engagement should support due process, acknowledge security concerns, and remain sensitive to the rights of all affected populations. A balanced approach strengthens human rights norms. A selective one weakens them.
Ultimately, the Imaan Mazari case sits at the intersection of law, advocacy, and security. Recognising that complexity is essential for meaningful dialogue rather than simplified, and potentially misleading, narratives.
Rule of Law, Advocacy, and External Narratives: The Imaan Mazari Case
The case involving Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali, is fundamentally a matter of Pakistan’s domestic legal process. It was adjudicated through the country’s courts, under existing laws, with clear avenues for appeal available. Framing the conviction as an act of political repression imposed from outside the legal system misrepresents the nature of the case.
Like any sovereign state, Pakistan applies its laws through judicial mechanisms. No legal system treats court verdicts as final without review, and Pakistan is no exception. Appeals, higher courts, and constitutional remedies remain part of the process. Reducing a judicial outcome to a narrative of state suppression overlooks this institutional reality.
Freedom of Expression Has Legal Boundaries
Freedom of expression is a protected right, but it is not absolute in any democracy. Courts across the world draw lines where speech is deemed to incite disorder, glorify violence, undermine public order, or erode national cohesion. The conviction in this case centered on repeated digital content that Pakistani courts assessed as crossing those legal thresholds.
This principle is not unique to Pakistan. European states themselves regulate speech related to extremism, terrorism, and public disorder. To suggest that one jurisdiction’s enforcement of these limits is inherently illegitimate, while others’ are accepted, introduces an inconsistency that weakens principled human rights advocacy.
Selective Advocacy and the BLA Question
A central concern for the Pakistani state relates to the nature of Imaan Mazari’s advocacy. She has consistently framed members and affiliates of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as “missing persons” or victims of state repression, even in cases where the group has publicly claimed responsibility for attacks, including suicide bombings.
The BLA is a designated terrorist organization under Pakistan’s law and is also listed by the United States and the United Kingdom. Its record includes attacks on civilians, teachers, labourers, infrastructure, and security personnel. Pakistan has repeatedly raised concerns that the group recruits students and women for suicide missions, particularly in Balochistan.
Against this backdrop, advocacy that focuses exclusively on individuals linked to such groups, while remaining silent on civilian victims, raises questions about balance and intent. Sympathy appears directed toward militants and their sympathisers rather than toward the Baloch civilians who bear the brunt of terrorist violence.
European Responses and the Need for Consistency
Statements of support from European institutions and states have largely overlooked this context. By framing the issue solely through a civil liberties lens, they risk disregarding the suffering of innocent citizens in Balochistan and the security challenges the province continues to face.
Respect for human rights must be comprehensive. It should include the rights of civilians killed in attacks, families displaced by violence, and communities living under constant threat. Advocacy that highlights only those accused or associated with militant networks, while ignoring victims of terrorism, creates an imbalanced narrative.
European countries have their own stringent laws against advocacy linked to designated terrorist organizations. Applying different standards abroad undermines credibility and complicates constructive engagement.
Toward a More Balanced Engagement
Pakistan continues to face persistent terrorist threats in Balochistan. Any serious discussion of rights, freedoms, and justice must account for this reality. Advocacy that amplifies narratives aligned with militant groups, even indirectly, risks legitimising violence rather than advancing peace.
Constructive international engagement should support due process, acknowledge security concerns, and remain sensitive to the rights of all affected populations. A balanced approach strengthens human rights norms. A selective one weakens them.
Ultimately, the Imaan Mazari case sits at the intersection of law, advocacy, and security. Recognising that complexity is essential for meaningful dialogue rather than simplified, and potentially misleading, narratives.
Get free tips and resources right in your inbox, along with 10,000+ others
Categories
Latest Post