Journalists in the town of Badin in Pakistan’s southern Sindh province have been protesting against the police for falsely involving ten journalists in criminal complaints.

Three of the journalists have been charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).

The journalists said that they are being victimized for covering the activities of Dr. Zulfiqar Mirza, a dissident politician and former member of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the ruling party in Sindh province.

Tanveer Arain, President of the Badin Press Club, said that journalists were preforming their duties during a police siege of Mirza’s farmhouse.

Murtaza Memon, a journalist facing charges under ATA, said police falsely claimed he had stormed a Badin police station along with supporters of Mirza. He also said that police had raided journalists’ houses but he fled Karachi.

According to Khurshid Abbasi, Secretary General of PFUJ, the administration claimed these journalists were supporting Mirza, even though they were only covering his visits to the district.

Abbasi said two local PPP leaders had conveyed to journalists the message that their names could be removed from these cases if they submitted a written apology for the coverage they had given to Mirza and promised they would not report on his events in the future.

Dr Ashothama Luhano of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said raiding homes, beating people and hampering professional duties of the media all appeared associated to the ongoing political conflict in the province.

Those who have been named in criminal cases include Mumtaz Memon and Niaz Memon of the Daily Sindh; Yousuf Jani and Dir Murad Mari of the Daily Koshish; Shankar Kumar and Meharrudin Mari of the Daily Hilal e Pakistan; Shafqat Pinyaro of the Daily Sindh Express News, Aachar Azeem of the Daily Tameer e Sindh; Murtaza Memon, a reporter at Neo TV, and Haji Khan Lashari, a member of the Talhar Press Club.

Cases have been registered under the ATA against Murtaza Memon, Meharrudin Mari and Haji Khan Lashari.

Journalists have been holding protest meetings in major cities of the province including Karachi, Hyderabad Sukkur and Badin, and have demanded the government form a judicial commission to investigate the police action and allegations.

Pakistan Press Foundation

The post Pakistani journalists face criminal complaints for covering dissident political leader appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

The management of the TV channel, the host of the programme and some others were booked on charges of airing the objectionable contents in a morning show in May.

On the directive of a prosecutor, police submitted a report under Section 173 of the CrPC in C (cancel) class asking the court to quash the case. ATC-III Judge Saleem Raza Baloch cancelled the case after allowing the report.

Police asked to consider cancelling case against Geo TV

Earlier, Abdul Maroof, special public prosecutor of the ATC, had written a letter to the Mithadar police station SHO, stating that in his view basic elements of criminal liability were missing in the case because of the absence of mens rea [guilty mind].

He argued that the offence caused to viewers was unintentional and since the lodging of a case in respect of broadcasting offences was barred under Section 34 of the Pemra Ordinance 2002, the case had become illegal.

The case was lodged at the Mithadar police station under Sections 295-A [deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 298-A [use of derogatory remarks, etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)] and 34 [common intention] of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 on the complaint of a lawyer following a court order.

DAWN

The case was registered on behalf of sub-inspector Shahadat Khan under section 15 of Anti-Terrorism Act and 324/34 and 427 of PPO at the Airport Police Station.

According to the FIR, the attack on Hamid Mir was carried out under the Jinnah overhead bridge.

The FIR said the case has been lodged on the behalf of police as the injured journalist was not in a condition to lodge a case.

The News

The cabinet-less Balochistan government, as effective as a blindfolded man walking down a busy highway, decided this week to lodge a First Information Report against a private TV channel for airing a video of how the self-styled Balochistan Liberation Army goons destroyed the Quaid’s Residency in Ziarat.

But this isn’t all. The police officer who registered the FIR indicated in the document that he is doing this on instructions from the Information Department of the Balochistan government. The government spokesman tried to wash his hands off of this by saying that they were instructed by the Supreme Court (SC), which apparently took suo motu notice of the airing of the video. The SC demanded on August 26 that the Court be told why the Balochistan government would ascribe its own actions to the highest Court in the land.

Corollary: The SC never ordered the Balochistan government to initiate proceedings against the channel. Not only that, but to register an FIR which contains three sections from the Anti-terrorism Act. Going by this sequence of events, the Balochistan government, clearly, is not only inept but also a liar.

Who is lying? One thing should be clear: the police officer didn’t initiate the FIR or he wouldn’t have quoted from the Information Department letter in that document. Good for him because in doing so, he has saved his backside when this matter is further investigated. In all this, of course, it is the backside of the Balochistan government that now not only lies exposed but is squarely positioned towards the sun. And there is only one thing that normally happens with any backside in that position. It gets kicked well and proper.

There is a bigger question here, though. Should that particular channel or any channel for that matter, have shown the ugliness and hatred evident in the video that is freely available on the internet?

There can be three approaches to answering this question, two being extreme. I’d call one the utilitarian approach — i.e., the media’s job is to show whatever is out there, regardless of the consequences. The other extreme is the position that the media mustn’t show anything that goes against the norms, values and the interests of a society and state. The problem with this argument is that it begins to crumble when the trotter is quizzed about defining those norms, values and interests, and to prove their universality.

The third approach is the middle way. It begins with the assertion that the media must show how things are but, because actions have consequences, the decision about what to show and what to withhold cannot be taken cavalierly. The implication is that each case will have to be weighed separately and debated within a context. Another issue is about the timing of the decision. Oft we might choose to withhold something which we can air later because the circumstances that forced the decision to withhold the airing (or writing) of something are no more relevant. A good example can be an ongoing operation or any information that can compromise the integrity of an activity and cause grave damage.

The point is that while the media cannot be barred from airing content, each case must be treated as sui generis and a decision taken on that basis.

In today’s world, however, this middle way has come under tremendous pressure. The mainstream media does not have a monopoly on information. Anyone can not only acquire information but also disseminate it with the push of a button. In this case, even if the TV channel had chosen to ignore this video, it’s out there for millions of people to see across the globe. Of course, one can choose yet to not show it on the basis of one’s own decision, based on an assessment that it mustn’t be shown. But that is not the same thing as in the old days when I could have sat on some information and kept it secure because I might be the only one to have it.

Today, it’s more like arguing that while I know this information is out there, I feel that I should not disseminate it. The problem, however, remains and is yet unresolved. How much of the information must be regulated — or regulated at all.

This is also becoming a problem for states as they get into a long, simmering conflict with non-state actors, insurgents and terrorists, maybe even hi-tech loonies. Groups and individuals opposed to states, irrespective of their ideologies, have the same access to information and the tools for dissemination as the states. The internet is an equal opportunity domain.

Some people might shrug this problem off but it is a real problem for states and will steadily become worse. The measures states are likely to take will be drastic and in this regard, democracies are likely to be bigger offenders than dictatorships. What makes the situation more complicated is the fact that the idea of a state is a very problematic idea even as it is the only organising principle — thus far.

The situation not only demands new thinking but also new laws. Crude attempts to muzzle the media, as the Balochistan government has tried to do, will not work. In fact, the Balochistan government would be better advised to direct its ‘efficiency’ towards those elements that snuck up to the Residency, stayed there for almost 20 minutes, went from room to room, guns slung over their shoulders, vandalised the place and hoisted the flag of ‘Azad’ Balochistan with the state nowhere in sight.

In the media, we have to position our arguments and stories. I used one minute of the Pakistan Taliban’s 18-minute clip of the Bannu jailbreak for my TV programme. I stand by that decision because that was the only way to show viewers how inefficient the state and its functionaries are and how we can take corrective measures against this threat.

We are going to see more of this tension, which is why the media and the government have to become sophisticated in their approaches both in relation to their own actions as well as in their dealings with each other.

(According to a news report, on August 27, Chief Minister Balochistan Dr Abdul Malik Baloch, speaking in the provincial assembly, said that the FIR had been withdrawn, adding that the Balochistan government had not ordered that it be registered. He termed the entire matter a ‘misunderstanding’.)

Express Tribune