The ban had been imposed on September 17, 2012 by then prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf following national outrage over a sacrilegious video clip. The video had sparked outrage across the Muslim world and prompted temporary bans on the website in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sudan. Threat of bans in Saudi Arabia prompted YouTube to selectively curb access in that country and it took a court order to censor it in Brazil.

But even after a US court ordered YouTube to take down versions of the video following a suit filed by one of the actors appearing in the clip, the site remains inaccessible in Pakistan. The refrain, that the clip hurts religious sentiments of the people, is obscene or hurts national security has acted as an effective screen for a process which is less than transparent and has gone on to impact services and content beyond just pornography and blasphemous videos.

“We should understand that our government has realised the power of online media and is afraid of political dissent which finds space on the Internet,” says Nighat Dad of the Digital Rights Foundation.

“We have witnessed in the past that Ministry of Information Technology (MoIT) has been trying to curb political dissent and we have examples like taking down Asif Zaradari shut up video and Laal musical band’s Facebook page.”

The extent of blocking by the government through the Inter-Ministerial Committee has gone on to affect satirical videos, news articles and news websites by elements the state has a less than favourable view of.

The non-governmental organisation Bytes For All had taken the government to court over the blocking of YouTube. After 20 court hearings and a document of consensus reached by several different stakeholders including petitioner (Bytes for All), the MoIT, the PTA and technical experts from the IT and Telecom industries, it was concluded that filtering the Internet was futile owing to technological reasons.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah of the Lahore High Court observed that banning YouTube because of one undesirable video is like shutting down of an entire library because of an offensive book on its shelves. The LHC refrained from issuing an order, though. Instead it directed the litigants to approach the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the September 17, 2012 order which instituted the blanket ban on YouTube.

However, the hurdles that the NGO members had to face during the litigation process offer a glimpse on how closely does the state wish to keep its ‘weapon’ of censorship hidden away from the prying eyes of the very people it impacts.

An emailed response from Bytes For All detailed how baseless accusations were levelled against them and a defamation campaign was run against them by the government and pro-censorship lawyers.

“There were articles written in some pro-government publications in which Bytes for All was accused of being the agents of west and working against the national interest. We were labelled as ‘Followers of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ during one of the hearing, which was amusing and sad at the same time.”

Dad questioned the legality of the Inter-Ministerial Committee. “This committee should be renamed as the ‘Mysterious committee’ which decides for 184.4 million of what to see on internet and what not. “

She further complained how politicians, who championed the cause of freedom prior to being elected, performed near volte-face once acquiring office.

“[Minister for IT] Anusha Rehman was once a champion for online freedom before coming into the government. She had promised in her election campaign that unblocking YouTube will be the first thing she does once she assumes office. Two years on there are no developments.”

It is odd how in their annual list of achievements, Rehman lists the auction of 3/4G licenses. Yet, sites and services continue to be blocked without a coherent reason or as much as a public announcement.

“Nothing should be blocked on internet. Let people decide what they want to see and what not. Government shouldn’t decide on our behalf,” says Dad.

Express Tribune

The answer was assumedly the responsibility of the then PPP government, which opted instead to let the issue slide and become the incoming PML-N’s headache. To its credit, the PML-N brought in the right person for the job — Information Technology Minister Anusha Rehman was among the most vocal and progressive voices in the previous government’s National Assembly Standing Committee on Information Technology. She was absolutely in favour of unblocking YouTube — so what went wrong? Plenty.

Since assuming power, the government has refused to tackle the issue seriously, opting instead to issue intermittent vague promises of an end to the ban, while near simultaneously insisting the ban would remain in place. This strategy may have worked indefinitely if it wasn’t for a petition filed in the Lahore High Court that resulted in a court ordered meeting in May between petitioners Bytes For All, members of the Ministry of Information Technology, including Anusha Rehman, and the heads of multiple government and corporate organisations, including the chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority.

The outcome of the meeting was positive and a joint submission by all stakeholders to the court is in the pipeline. This week, the National Assembly also unanimously adopted a resolution to lift the ban on YouTube, but stakeholders close to the issue are divided on whether these developments signal real progress.

“The National Assembly resolution is a big drama. A representative from YouTube has visited Pakistan three times in the last year but the minister refused to meet him,” a source close to the issue said, adding that Google submitted a solution in writing to the Senate months ago: interstitial warnings — a warning page before a video plays — that appears on every copy of Innocence of Muslims hosted on YouTube, not just in Pakistan, but globally.

Additionally, the source said Google also agreed to blocking any copies of the video in future if notified by Pakistan; however, a first list submitted by the government included numerous video block requests that were not copies of Innocence of Muslims. Given such tactics and massive delays on the part of the government, Google went ahead with this solution anyway.

“It’s really simple. Interstitials were offered to Pakistan just like they were offered to Bangladesh, which accepted the solution last year and ended the ban,” says Director of BoloBhi Farieha Aziz. “YouTube has already applied this, Pakistan doesn’t even have to request it — it’s been done. All that remains is for the PML-N government to make the decision to unban YouTube and move forward.”

For Google, this system was easy to implement as a stopgap solution until Pakistan introduces an intermediary liability protection (ILP) law, which the company has been demanding in order to establish a localised version of YouTube. The localised version of the site would give both Pakistan and Google greater flexibility in responding to such a crisis in future, but this option remains in limbo as ILP is part and parcel of the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Ordinance which has remained in draft form for the last five years and was, ironically, the legislation Anusha Rehman worked on at length.

Those in the industry say Google is also not interested in ‘going down the Facebook path’ — a reference to the social network’s agreement with the government to restrict access to pages and groups as submitted by the PTA.

The agreement has been roundly criticised by human rights organisations due to its clandestine nature, and in light of the fact that Facebook pages such as that of Roshni.pk — an independent group lobbying for secularism in Pakistan — were restricted for local users by Facebook, while pages run by banned organisations and militant groups continue to operate with relative impunity.

According to those working on the issue, the interstitial warnings solution seems the only acceptable way forward in the short term.

“I can say with absolute authority there is no technical solution to blocking content on YouTube … even the government has realised that,” says Country Director of Bytes For All Pakistan Shahzad Ahmad, in reference to the recent joint meeting ordered by the LHC.

“Intermediary liability protection laws will also not be enough … mechanisms would have to be developed as simply imposing a law with no real systems in place will cause more harm than good,” he adds.

Given that interstitial warnings are already in place for Innocence of Muslims on YouTube and can be applied to any future videos that result in a crisis-like situation, ending the ban on YouTube appears to only be a question of political will — end the ban, flip the switch.

But what if interstitials are ‘not enough’ for the extremist elements that led the violent riots resulting in the ban on YouTube?

As Ahmad recalls, “This point has been brought up many times in the courtroom, and it has been used as a threat as well, with groups walking into sessions warning of dire consequences…but stopping danga fasaad is the state’s job, isn’t it? If mobs come out on the streets and break the law, should we fold over, or stay the course and do the right thing?”

Dawn

On August 22, State Minister for Information Technology Anusha Rehman revealed during a briefing that Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) had helped to provide filters through which over 4,000 URLs containing blasphemous content were blocked.

The test run of filters did yield results and the ministry was hopeful to convene the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) meeting within a week so that the matter regarding opening of YouTube be taken up for an approval. However, the test run is still in process and the IMC has not been convened.

“The IMC meeting has not been convened yet,” said the ministry spokesperson Kamran Ali Khan while talking to The Express Tribune. Responding to a question, he said “the test run [of the filters] is going on and the IMC meeting would be convened once there are desirable results.”

Claining that the meeting would take place in the near future, spokesperson did not give any dates.

The former information technology secretary was transferred and Akhlaq Ahmed Tarar was given this position last week. So Since it is the IT secretary who chairs the IMC meeting, it will take some time for the new secretary to get acquainted with the issue. This can further postpone the meeting.

Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) had earlier estimated that it would cost $10 million to place filters to block blasphemous content on the internet. It was claimed that there were eight million URLs that contained the blasphemous material.

After having found the mechanism [filters], the PTA was supposed to put it in place and establish a call centre with toll free numbers and email address so that people could report if blasphemous content was uploaded to any URL. The PTCL had provided the filters needed to block the sacrilegious material free of cost.

YouTube was blocked on September 2012, by the IT ministry on the direction of IMC following release of a blasphemous movie that reputed violent protests across the country.

The IMC, constituted by the prime minister in 2006, has the mandate to evaluate and restrict offensive online content in Pakistan. The committee is headed by the IT secretary and has representation from different ministries, including religious affairs and interior, including other agencies.

The IMC had made the decision last September after evaluating the circumstances, and concluded that PTA should block YouTube till further orders. Subsequently, the IT ministry ordered PTA to block the websites. A policy directive was also issued by the ministry in May 2012 to PTA to deploy a state of art solution to block blasphemous and pornographic websites.

State Minister Anusha Rehman had said in a briefing that PTA had failed to implement the ministry’s directive. The reason she gave was that the PTA fell under the Cabinet Division and not the administrative control of the IT ministry.

Express Tribune

A year on, there have been mixed reaction to the ban. Most Pakistanis initially agreed with the ban as the blasphemous content was offensive and insensitive. However, as the ban persisted, some groups have voiced concern over continued ban. With the change in government this June, petitions were made to the new Prime Minister to lift ban. Student bodies and some members of the academia have lobbied that countries like Pakistan who straddle in lower echelons of education empowerment of its citizens have everything to gain from massive free online education. They have pleaded that present moribund state of education can be partly alleviated if online education is utilized effectively and intelligently. Their logic is that at present, Pakistan cannot do so because of a state sponsored ban on sites like You Tube, which are at the helm of distributing this material online. The reasoning is sound but government has to see the broader picture.

Last week, the State Minister for Information Technology, Anusha Rehman, announced that the ban on YouTube would be removed in the coming few days after the sitting of Inter-Ministerial Committee. She disclosed that Pakistan is testing URL filters, which will enable it to selectively block controversial content instead of banning the entire service. The technology is reportedly provided by Pakistan Telecommunication Company, which will offer the services to the government for a year and will charge for the service after this duration. The URL filters are also said to have been tested, blocking a list of 4,000 objectionable URLs. Clarifying that the decision could not be made by her Ministry alone, she declared that the final decision to lift the ban would be made by the Inter-Ministerial Committee, which will also be responsible for preparing the list of blocked URLs, which will be handed over to Pakistan Telecommunication Authority.

The new government, which is still less than ninety days old and under normal circumstances, would have been enjoying the honeymoon period, where the opposition and media give them a fair chance before criticizing them harshly. Unfortunately, from day one, there has been an onslaught of terror attacks and numerous other developments, which have left the new incumbents in the corridors of power shell shocked. Running helter-skelter to find solutions, the government of Mian Nawaz Sharif has been forced to make judgmental errors by acting in haste. The crucial decision of lifting the ban on You Tube must also be thought through, lest a hurriedly taken pronouncement may cause more damage and regret.

The decision of blocking YouTube was also in line with the Honorable Supreme Court directives/observations, orders of the Prime Minister and in the larger national interest. This scribe recommends that if at all the ban is to be lifted, Google must first apologize to the Muslims for causing them mental anguish. It should remove all clippings of the movie “Innocence of Muslims” and “The Innocent Prophet” from YouTube and promise to respect the emotions of the Muslim Ummah. Essentially, Google, and YouTube should get registered with PTA for being available in Pakistan and it should pay taxes. It has been observed that social media websites are earning tremendous revenue from Pakistan thus Federal Board of Revenue should take action against those search engines/ social media websites who are earning from Pakistan but evading local taxes.

It is also important that Google should respect the legal clauses of Pakistan and before being permitted to operate in Pakistan, it should enter into formal agreements with the relevant Ministry for legalizing its services. Respecting the need of research scholars, the academia and student body, favorable agreements may be signed with Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other Social Media Networking Sites but these must include Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and automatic filtering software. In order to safeguard the mental health of Pakistan by discouraging pornography and block anti state content, especially those that incite separatism, hatred against specific sects/minorities or the armed forces of Pakistan, the Government should implement physical/electronic filtering of internet data like that adopted by a number of other countries, which the State Minister for I/T was alluding to. Simultaneously, OIC should take up a case with UN for drafting a resolution not allowing any person to misuse the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) name and make movies / caricatures on him, Umhat-ul-Momineen RA, Khulfa-e-Rashideen RA and Sahaba. Necessary legislation as was carried out by Jews on laws related to denial of Holocaust should be adopted. The OIC should setup central or regional hubs of filtering units. OIC and Pakistan should ensure that evil attacks on Islam do not occur both internally and externally.

It would also be prudent to develop Pakistan based equivalent of YouTube to benefit the public. Own versions of Search engines, Video sharing platforms and Networking sites be designed like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc. In light of the above suggestions, perhaps further anguish to the faithful can be avoided by the machination of Islam bashers and those suffering from Islamophobia while enemies of the state can be kept at bay from misusing the social media for their nefarious designs.

Pakistan Observer

I had been considering writing on this topic for a while, but I foolishly believed it to be ‘trivial’ or ‘unimportant’, or even ‘so incredibly stupid that my brain hurt to dwell on it for more than a moment’. But our elected leadership and our guardians of justice have managed to open my stubborn eyes. If they apparently believe it to be the most important stand they will ever take, how can I ignore it?

I commend the powers that be, from all branches of the government. Our detractors may insist that our government has all the efficacy of a wet paper bag at a pillow fight but we have proved them wrong. We have proved that when it matters, when we come down to it, when our future is on the line we do not infight, we do not waver. We are coming up to a year since we have patriotically held firm and held together in that most important of issues: YouTube.

This was a necessary step, of course, in showing western powers that we will not be bullied from without, that we will fight tooth and nail for our people. Yes, we kidnapped and detained people within our borders without due process at the behest of other governments. Yes, we allow drones to bombard civilian areas. Yes, we are constantly being dictated terms due to our coffers being so perennially depleted that we envy countries with a cash flow problem (because it implies that they, in fact, have a cash flow).

But one video among millions (available on many other websites) that can only offend someone if they search for it, view it and keep watching till the end? Now they have pushed us too far.

Showing our defiance, showing we are not ones to shy away from an international tussle, our newly appointed Minister for Information Anusha Rehman said we would unblock YouTube once every website, as in the entire internet, was free from objectionable content and presumably once the Sahara Desert was free from grains of sand. Neither criticism, nor mockery, nor our own staggering ignorance about the way the internet works has stopped our relentless defence.

Such is commitment, in the face of critics like Mina Muhibullah Kakakhel, who insist that students are suffering from missing the literally millions of educational and research oriented videos available on YouTube. If she truly cared about students, she would have realised long ago that no education is worth the risk that some evildoer will come into our schools, hold the children hostage, and force them to search for, open and watch the offending video.

We are a proud nation. We may negotiate with and harbour terrorists, we may have reduced our largest city to a nightmarish perpetual gangland through inaction, we may react to our annual floods with the foresight and reflexes of a man in a coma but by all that is holier than thou, we will not give in on this.

The Ostrich Defence is a time-honoured technique that we have perfected over time. Our ban of YouTube has not removed the videos because if we had the power to impose censorship worldwide I shudder (with delight of course!) to imagine what we’d do. But, like the magnificent ostrich (the most elegant and intelligent of all birds) we drive our heads into the sand with the comfortable knowledge that if we can’t see it, it can’t exist.

We occasionally couple this with our elegant Entitled Auntie Haggling Over Fish defence. Now, we claim with a straight face that would make the most consummate poker player blush, YouTube will suffer the loss of our custom. No more shall the completely free service profit from pious Pakistanis who never buy anything in their targeted ads. Like a shopkeeper who forgets his place, Google (YouTube’s parent company and almost certainly the 2030 owners of the world) will come back to the offended Auntie and grovel until she magnanimously restores them to her good graces.

And they certainly must. Without Pakistan, people will soon ask “Google who?” but will of course be unable to find the answer because no one remembers how to find things out without Google.

There is also a perfectly plausible security-based reason for this ban that can be understood via sufficient wringing of the brain (if it doesn’t hurt, you’re not wringing hard enough). By appeasing those who would have turned violent had YouTube not been banned – by definition, criminals and terrorists – we are embarking on a bold new strategy of pre-emptively surrendering, like a lifelong urban veteran wearily taking out his wallet at every traffic light whether anyone has asked him for it or not.

A more naïve leadership may have considered defending liberties and freedom to information, while punishing violent criminals. But so sagacious have we become that we have skipped over the formalities of attempting to control the situation, pretending the writ of the state can overrule rabble rousers, fighting, losing and negotiating. Indeed, we have skipped all that unnecessary hassle and moved straight to wringing our hands and asking whether aforementioned violent criminals would like some tea while they think of the next ridiculous demand, and the one after that, forever.

A point that has been brought up by weak-willed and unpatriotic Pakistanis is that we should be more thick-skinned, and ignore pathetic attempts at crude mockery by small and hateful people. The very idea! If our eyes offend us, we will cast them out. YouTube is a good start – but only a start.

We will ban every other video service that hosts a video uploaded by anyone, anywhere, that offends any Pakistani. We will ban search engines that return blasphemous insults if you search ‘blasphemous insults’. We will ban pens if a pen anywhere has been used to write offensive things because what other choice do we have? To not seek out, acquire and consume these rage-inducing pieces of media that literally anyone anywhere can create at any time? Ridiculous.

We must show we are ready to go back to the Stone Age, and even that only if those cave paintings are pre-approved. If not, back to living in trees, all the better to have a moral high ground while we become a frightening but fascinating spectacle for National Geographic.

We must show we are prepared to riot and murder a score of our own people (that’ll show those filthy westerners) every time an acne-riddled teenager anywhere decides he wants attention. Surely, allowing under-20 trolls the world over a chance to shut down our entire society every time they feel like it cannot possibly backfire.

So next time you feel depressed at the sheer scope of our unaddressed problems, next time you wonder what our government and judiciary – elected and supported by the mandate of the people in a heady rush of democracy – plan to do about extremism, power shortages, natural disasters and education, take heart: at least we’ve banned YouTube.

Zaair Hussain…The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: zaairhussain@gmail.com

The News