ISLAMABAD: The Censorship Committee on Defence Planning (CCDP) has been revived by the government after 18 years to protect the “national interest” being threatened, particularly by the unregulated and unchecked electronic media of the country.

Sources said that the CCDP, which met on Dec 16, 2015, after a long gap of 18 years, decided to regulate the selling of airtime by local TV and radio channels to foreign media. This was the CCDP’s first meeting after 1997.

“Many TV channels and radio stations are airing foreign programmes/ content, which could be detrimental to the national interest,” an official document relating to the last CCDP meeting says.

During emergencies and war situations, the committee decided to have an effective monitoring mechanism of these private channels. For this purpose, a media monitoring cell was set up that would monitor private TV and radio channels during emergencies and war.

The Dec 16 meeting — which was chaired by secretary information and attended by officials of civil, military and intelligence officials — observed that the during the last 18 years, technological advancement in the media and communication sectors had changed the media and communication landscape of the country.

In view of the present ground realities, the committee decided to bring its own role in line with the modern challenges, particularly from electronic and social media. The committee decided to revise its own formation to ensure the inclusion of officials from all relevant civil, military and security agencies.

The meeting also decided that there should be uniformity in the CCDP at federal and provincial levels to evolve a mechanism to review the censorship regulations and procedures having a bearing on “National Interest/ Defence Planning”.

The provincial CCDPs will be approached by the federal committee through respective chief secretaries so that the same procedures and parameters are followed at the federal and provincial levels.

The committee also discussed the issues concerning telecommunication sector and private courier services and decided to replace sub-committee of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Censorship Committee with the Telecommunication Systems Censorship sub-committee.

Regarding the private courier services, it was decided that these services should be regulated through a regulatory authority formed for this very purpose. The committee also reviewed the proposed changes suggested by the Central Board of Films Censors in the existing censorship code after the 18th Amendment.

According to sources, the electronic media’s madness for rating over the past several years have badly compromised the national interest, dented social and religious values of the society besides defaming all and sundry even judges. Mostly, the media houses have no mechanism to check what is being aired in violation of the law and the Constitution and even against religious teachings and the national interest.

Only recently, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) for the first time started showing its muscles to regulate the TV channels. It is believed that the revival of the CCDP will help the electronic media to operate within the limits set by law and the Constitution.

The News

ISLAMABAD: Pakistani journalists and media houses during the year 2015 saw dramatic increase in censorship and silent, but potent crackdown on dissent and freedom of expression during the incumbent democratic setup which was never seen in previous civilian set ups.

Freedom Network, an independent Pakistani media and civil liberties watchdog pinpointed this fact in its annual report saying that although 2014 was the deadliest year for journalists with 14 casualties, yet increased censorship and crackdown on freedom of expression in 2015 was ever seen during civilian government.

“From gag orders issued by the media sector regulator against TV channels to ban clamped under court orders on coverage of politicians on media to repeated government warnings to media for commenting on foreign relations, the year 2015 proved to be the year of censorship for media in Pakistan,” said Freedom Network in its annual state of the media report released here on Tuesday.

The report titled, “Growing Sounds of Silence – The Year of Censorship,” expresses concern at what it termed is a growing trend to browbeat the media into relative silence on issues that require rising of controversial questions for their resolution.

The report said that there may have been statistically fewer murders of journalists, media assistants and activists in 2015 in Pakistan – seven – than in 2014, the climate in which they operated grew ominous with growing ease by state and non-state actors on how media did its traditional job of being the guardians of public interest.

The report listed four journalists killed in Pakistan in 2015 for their work, including reporter Zafarullah Jatak of Intekhab newspaper (Jafarabad, Balochistan), tribal journalist Zaman Mehsud (Tank, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), journalist Hafizur Rehman of Neo TV (Kohat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and journalist Aftab Alam (Karachi, Sindh).

The number of media assistants killed in Pakistan in 2015 were two, including Bol TV Human Resources Manager Nauman Ali and Geo News DSNG technician Arshad Ali – both in Karachi, Sindh. Media activist killed in 2015 included prominent human rights defender Sabeen Mahmud, also in Karachi.

The number of journalists and media assistants attacked and injured was ten, which included one women journalist. There was also a marked increase in journalists picked up from homes and offices recorded in 2015 – nine. Among these picked up journalists most were tribal journalists.

The year 2015 was significant in terms of fighting impunity of crimes against media and its practitioners. Sindh Rangers announced arrest of Faisal ‘Mota’ – convicted in murder case of Geo News reporter Wali Khan Babar. The Sindh government also made public the arrest of mastermind of murder of media activist and human rights defender Sabeen Mahmud. Balochistan government also recorded some progress to fight back the impunity under former chief minister Dr Abdul Malik leadership releasing findings of judicial commission into killing of journalists and also arresting alleged killers of journalists Irshad Mastoi and Abdur Rasool and media assistant Muhammad Younas.

Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh provinces witnessed attacks on journalists, media assistants and media activist in 2015. All the four provinces had witnessed similar situation journalists faced while North and South Waziristan continue to be ‘no-go’ areas for journalists unless embedded with the military or militants.

Pakistan returned to the notorious practice of ‘press advise’ in 2015 with regulatory authorities for both print and electronic – Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and Press Council of Pakistan (PCP) – regularly ‘advising’ the free press to avoid criticism of Saudi Arabia for its war with Yemen or Haj stampede.

Dera Bugti-based journalist Manzoor Ahmed Bugti continues his ordeal since he went missing on November 7, 2014 from Quetta, provincial capital of Balochistan province. His family avoids taking up the missing journalist case as it was ‘told’ he would ‘soon return home.’ It didn’t happen in 2015. May be 2016 will be different in this case.

The News

KARACHI: As the National Assembly gears up to debate the controversial Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill (PEC 2015), a UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has urged legislators to ensure that the bill contains clear language and does not encroach on free speech.

“My real concern is if this legislation were to become law, its enforcement could lead to situations which would be inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” Special Rapporteur David Kaye told The Express Tribune as he expressed the hope of hosting a dialogue with the government on the bill.

Kaye had on Monday shared with the Pakistan government his concerns over different sections of the draft cybercrime bill within the context of the ICCPR which Pakistan had ratified in 2010. One of the key areas of concerns for him was the broad language used in the bill.

“When the law is vague or open ended, you open up the possibility to problems (in enforcement),” he said, adding that rigorous enforcement by the government of such a law could interfere with freedom of expression and lead to censorship, self or otherwise.

As an example, he pointed to sections three, four and 10 of the bill which criminalise unauthorised intentional copying and transmission of ‘any data’.

“Wording of sections three, four and 10, in particular, is very broad and, potentially, would effectively criminalise accessing, copying and transmitting of any information system or data,” he said in his statement.

“The core problem is that it is not clearly defined (in the law) what is being regulated.”

Another area of concern for Kaye was the disproportionate punishments listed for various offences, with some of them “quite harsh.”

“If you are going to penalise people, they should not be disproportionate with the crime committed,” he said, adding that the bill also needs to ensure there are processes for those incriminated are tried under a fair and transparent process with adequate defence.

Express Tribune

While the ban on YouTube is as effective as Mamnoon Hussain is as the president of Pakistan, you may blow your cool if you go through the events which have unfolded since the authorities in Pakistan slapped a ban on it. The prohibition was challenged in the courts and the government is seen going back and forth in its defence. The later, in fact, has been issuing sporadic half-promises of lifting the ban, while insisting that the ban will remain in place. Given such absurd tactics and delays on the part of the government it goes without saying that it has handled the issue in a manner that has only made a mockery of Pakistan. An estimated 15 to 20 million netizens in Pakistan have been deprived of direct access to YouTube. Accessing the site from Pakistan is no big deal thanks to the countless proxy servers helping its netizens view prohibited material on the web but the very fact that hundreds and thousands of netizens from Pakistan, most of them practicing Muslims, are increasingly turning to unlawful means to access YouTube, speaks volumes about the adequacy of the ban. This silent evasion of the ban by many Pakistanis shows that people consider it to be unjustified. However, accessing YouTube via proxy servers slows down the buffering speed and thus affects those users who have low bandwidth (mostly students) more than the users surfing the web with a faster connection. Our artistes, who used YouTube as an inexpensive and censor-free platform to launch their work e.g., Aaloo Anday, Waderay ka beta, are among the people who have really suffered at the hands of this ban.

The question is: what purpose has this two-year-old prohibition served apart from exposing the amount of inertia and lack of thinking that runs from top to bottom in the government-run institutions. What message has this ban delivered to cybercitizens in our country apart from teaching them how to use illegal means to access a website which is essentially a useful resource for hundreds and thousands of students, professionals and researchers? What has Pakistan gained in the two years since the ongoing ban on YouTube? While the world is moving ahead in terms of using the internet, we are only being plunged into a recess of the dark ages from where there is no way forward. The ban on YouTube is purely a naked power play by the authorities and is all about controlling the behaviour of millions of netizens in Pakistan and denying them censor free access to the internet.

A recent United Nations Human Rights Council report has examined the important question of whether internet access is a basic human right which enables individuals to “exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression”. The report was released after the 17th United Nations session on Human Rights. In it, the United Nations emphasised the importance of broadband and internet access throughout the special rapporteur’s conclusions in the report. The report has also underlined that restricting internet access completely will always be a breach of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to freedom of expression.

Access to information is a right that cannot be denied. The Government of Pakistan has been wanting to place ‘filtration mechanisms’ to disallow the viewing of blasphemous videos on the video-sharing website in Pakistan and thus moving in a direction which has no end. The amount of efforts and money invested in devising such a programme is bound to head in only one direction: straight down. As an IT professional, I strongly believe that there is no technical solution that can be used to implement such a filter or block certain content on YouTube despite the ridiculous claims made by the information minister that such a software has been developed.

In the short-term, interstitial warnings — a warning page before a video plays — seems the only acceptable solution if the government is serious about lifting the ban. Google has offered interstitials to Pakistan just like they were offered to Bangladesh, which accepted the solution last year and ended the ban. As a matter of fact, the Government of Pakistan doesn’t even have to request Google for interstitials as YouTube has already applied this on every copy of the video hosted on YouTube and this can be extended to any future videos that result in a crisis of this sort. All the incumbent government needs to do is to restore access to the video-sharing website that has many advantages including being useful for educational, artistic and informative purposes. But for some unfathomable reason, YouTube still remains banned in the country whilst innumerable jihadist websites are easily accessible on the web.

Freedom of expression and information is already curtailed in a country like ours, where democracy is still at a rather nascent stage, and thus we need to resist any attempt to thwart it further. It is imperative to fight against internet censorship in general and the ban imposed on YouTube in particular. Such bans must be seen as a threat to clamp down on civil liberties. We need to strongly resist such tactics aiming to plunge us in a dark era where a centralised authority is able to control our behaviours and all access to information. Instead of concentrating energies on vain attempts, such as deciding what content is permissible for us to watch on YouTube, the government needs to respond to the will of the people and lift the ban from the website.

The writer is a freelance columnist and a political activist who keeps a keen eye on Pakistan’s socio-political issues and global affairs. He tweets at @alisalmanalvi

Express Tribune

Against this backdrop, a group of experts on Pakistan and its media came together, under the auspices of the Commonwealth Journalists Association and the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London to discuss the threats facing the country’s journalists. In a discussion chaired by BBC presenter Owen Bennett Jones, former High Commissioner of Pakistan Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Kiran Hassan of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, BBC Urdu Service Editor Aamer Ahmed Khan, New York Times Pakistan Bureau Chief Declan Walsh and renowned journalist and author Babar Ayaz tried to answer the question, How safe is it to be a journalist in Pakistan?

Censorship in Pakistan used to be straightforward, explained Khan. Certain topics were simply off limits. Today, the situation is more complicated and more confusing. Threats to journalists and press freedom take many different shapes, and come from many different sources, including the government, extremists like the Taliban, the intelligence service ISI and powerful media owners.

There are currently 84 different cases against Geo TV, of which 53 are over blasphemy. You cannot defend yourself against that, said Khan. Ayaz raised a similar point when arguing that extremists are the biggest threat to the media. The government might put a person in jail, but these extremist groups will kill for their beliefs, Ayaz said.

While Geo TV and ISI have long been fighting behind closed doors, the case of Hamid Mir created an “open battlefield”, explained Walsh, who was expelled from Pakistan in May 2013. The station aired reports linking the security services to the attack.

Walsh also brought up the ownership issue within the Pakistani television landscape, which he says has gone from “zero to 100″ in the past few years. The country today boasts some 90 TV stations. Editorial control remains with media owners, according to Hassan.

But even journalists themselves did not escape criticism. Sections of the media are responsible for the current situation through irresponsible reporting, said Hasan. Quite a few were “playing with fire” by earlier glorifying the Taliban as peacemakers, he explained. Khan also highlighted corruption within the media as a “novel form of censorship”. However, as Khan pointed out, it is difficult for the Pakistani media to be responsible, without enabling them to be responsible. Most of the information that effects people’s lives is under strict control by authorities, he said.

Hassan, however, argued that there has been some progress. Journalists, and by extension the threats they face, are more visible and garner more attention today. She also pointed out that despite part closures, all Pakistan’s TV stations are still running. There was some talk of the role of media regulation in improving the situation, and Hassan said she had hopes for Pemra, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regularity Authority.

Yet, the overall conclusion was that Pakistan is not a safe place to be a journalist – illustrated well by Walsh explaining how, for the first time since he’s covered Pakistan, The New York Times recently had to use a pseudonym to protect their reporter on the ground.

Hasan summed it up: “The establishment doesn’t want the media to be as free as it can be.”

This article was originally posted on 24 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org

IFEX

Saadullah Khan and others petitioners submitted that the PTA had banned over 1,000 websites including YouTube since September 2012 because of blasphemous contents.

They submitted that the censorship of video-sharing platforms like YouTube had a disastrous impact on Pakistani students, teachers, entrepreneurs and other professionals who used the website for educational, religious, commercial or entertainment purposes.

They stated that the PTA, like many other countries, could ban specific objectionable and blasphemous URLs instead of placing a blanket ban on YouTube.

Many countries with a Muslim majority banned the URLs with the objectionable film, but only Pakistan persisted with a blanket ban on YouTube depriving the citizens of their fundamental rights.

They requested the court to direct the PTA to lift the ban and end the censorship that deprived citizens of their rights.

The petitioners also filed an application submitting that the government was likely to ban more websites and added they would be studying through online courses during summer vacations, the blockade would adversely affect their educational activities.

They prayed to the court to restrain the authorities concerned from blocking more websites.

The court was also requested to restrain the federal authorities from blocking IP addresses and declare the censorship and the arbitrary blanket ban on websites including YouTube a blatant violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan.

The court issued notices to the information ministry, the PTA and others seeking their comments by August 12.

The News

We are therefore pleased to see that Twitter has reversed course on its approach to Pakistan. As the New York Times reported, Twitter explained its decision in a statement issued to Chilling Effects. The statement reads:

We always strive to make the best, most informed decisions we can when we’re compelled to reactively withhold identified content in specific jurisdictions around the world. On May 18, 2014, we made an initial decision to withhold content in Pakistan based on information provided to us by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. Consistent with our longstanding policies we provided notice to all of the affected account holders and published the actioned takedown requests on Chilling Effects to maximize transparency regarding our decision. We have reexamined the requests and, in the absence of additional clarifying information from Pakistani authorities, have determined that restoration of the previously withheld content is warranted. The content is now available again in Pakistan.

The initial decision to remove content was criticized by a wide swath of civil society, from advocacy group Bolo Bhi\ in Pakistan to porn actress Belle Knox, whose photos were among the blocked content.

In response to critics who call the blocking of content censorship, Twitter points out that it is one of the few Internet companies that make public the takedown requests they receive. Being transparent about censorship is a vital first step in the struggle for free expression, but Twitter can and should do more. If Twitter wants to be a defender of free expression, it can and should refuse government censorship requests in countries where it is not subject to that country’s censorious laws.

In Russia, Twitter has no offices and no employees. Despite being an entity outside Russian jurisdiction, Twitter removed the account belonging to “Right Sector” (Pravy Sektor)—the Ukrainian nationalist political party characterized by the Russian government as Neo-Nazi fascists—remains censored. Twitter also continues to honor Russian telecom regulator Rozkomnadzor’s requests to take down accounts related to drug use and suicide. We expect to see many more requests from Russia for the censorship of overtly political content when an Orwellian set of laws restricting the Internet and bloggers goes into effect this August.

If Twitter wants to be a leader in honoring freedom of expression and a champion for users, it needs to think seriously about revising its censorship policies. Right now, policy dictates that Twitter will respond to requests from “authorized parties,” including private individuals or organizations, if the content they submit (by mail or fax) is deemed to be illegal. In one instance, Twitter responded not to an official legal order, but to a letter from a French student organization.

This policy creates more opportunities for censorship than those afforded by similar companies, most of which do not offer such a channel. Free speech would better be served by Twitter only responding when legally necessary.

While we commend Twitter on making the right choice in Pakistan, we’ll be keeping a close eye on how the company responds to legal requests in the future.

IFEX

He said the PFUJ had decided to uphold the freedom of press and would not hesitate in rendering any sacrifice in this regard. He said that they would launch struggle for this cause urging the journalists to prepare themselves for the purpose.

Addressing the staff members of Geo News at its local office here to express solidarity with them, Butt said if ban on Geo News continued after 15 days, they would not tolerate the situation and launch a protest movement.The president and secretary of the Gujranwala Union of Journalists, members of Federal Executive Council and a number of newsmen were present on the occasion.

The News

The Pemra sent a formal letter on Friday June 6, 2014 ordering the Geo News to immediately shut down its transmission as well as to pay Rs10 million fine.A Jang Group/Geo spokesperson said on Friday night: “The decision taken is a grave injustice to the oldest, the biggest and the most popular media group of Pakistan. It appears the government finally gave in to the pressure of the powerful unseen forces and rushed through the decision to suspend the transmission of the leading independent and the most popular news channel in the country.”

The irony, he said, is that never in Pakistan any channel had ever been suspended, either by Pemra or even by any court. Even the channels that were owned by large business houses and gave biased and twisted news coverage to protect their business interests had never faced such a penalty. Channels that ran sustained campaigns to defame the Chief Justice of Pakistan and defamed the honourable judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and even those caught red handed planting interviews to malign the Chief Justice of Pakistan had never been cautioned or penalised.

Not only this, channels and TV hosts who had openly raised doubts and suspicions about the Pakistan Army chiefs and prime ministers of being murderers, traitors or foreign agents had not been touched. Incitement to violence and proven defamation by these channels was never considered a big crime for them to be suspended or even fined.

The most vociferous TV anchor of a rival channel before retirement of the COAS had called him a CIA agent. He said this on live TV and then encouraged tweets to support his allegation. But neither he nor his channel faced any consequences.

According to the spokesperson, the Pemra action will damage the country as the first-ever TV channel to be suspended is a channel that had become the icon and spearhead of an independent media with a free editorial approach. It is the only channel that had transparently published its editorial policy on its website in the form of Geo Asool and which maintained the record of the most accurate and timely news coverage.

While the ISI’s complaint against Geo was only about a few hours of transmission on just one of its channels, all of Geo Network channels were virtually put off air by unknown forces — not very unknown though.

Geo had been condemned Supreme Court, through a 3-member bench, ordered it to be opened but nothing happened. Even Geo Kahani, Geo Entertainment, Geo Tez and Geo Super were shut, displaced or distorted. Dozens of Jang Group newspaper vans have been burnt, hawkers, reporters and editors beaten up and harassed.

No one has given us justice. Already Rs2 billion loss has been inflicted in an effort to coerce and force the Jang Group to fall in line. It is expected the losses will reach Rs2.7 billion (approximately US $27 million). This is the real penalty Geo has been forced to pay, which is unprecedented even by international standards.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had publicly stated that he was against any curbs on the independent media and against shutdown of any TV channel. Parvaiz Rashid, the Information Minister had also categorically stated on record that the government would not shut down any channel. He had assured that the government had avoided shutting down any channel in the past even though there was pressure from courts.

The 15 day official closure added to the 45 days of an illegal shutdown equals 60 days of closure. It should be noted that during the 2007 emergency of General Pervez Musharraf all channels of Geo Network were shut for approximately 90 days.

The Jang Group and GEO TV Network have faced such adversity from governments, civilian and military alike. Successive governments have tried to shut it down, stop its advertising and distort its transmissions and distribution through cable operators in the past.

Losses of over Rs8 billion had been inflicted on the Group (Approximately $80 million). The constitutional and intrinsic right of the viewers and readers to information and free and independent debates and analysis has been unconstitutionally hampered. Without these freedoms Pakistan cannot progress and be counted among the civilized countries of the world.

The Group editors, reporters and hosts believe that the truth, no matter how bitter, is always in the best interest of Pakistan than a lie, no matter how sweet.

The April 19 transmission, immediately after the attack on Hamid Mir, included content that was excessive, distressful and emotional for which Geo has apologized to all concerned. Regardless of this apology attacks still continue against the group, including physical attacks and harassment of reporters and editors as well as burning of newspaper vans.

The spokesperson said the only fault of the Jang/Geo group was that it was unwilling to allow its editorial policy to be dictated.

For hurt caused as well as for the sake of the lives of its tens of thousands of journalists and employees who are receiving daily threats, Jang/Geo TV network even went to the extent of offering an apology but it failed to calm the nerves of the powerful.

The spokesperson said it seemed that the government had finally surrendered in the face of tremendous pressure from unseen forces. It was only yesterday that Geo had served a lega notice to claim around US $50 million from the federal government, Pemra and ISI in terms of reputational damage as well as the actual damage caused to the group as their formal complaint included blaming Geo to “historically pursue an anti Pakistan agenda”.

The spokesman said it seemed that it was the legal notice to the Defense Ministry, Pemra and ISI that compelled the government to rush to deliver the final blow to Geo News. The head of Pemra was appointed only hours before Friday’s decision to suspend Geo News. The pressure, it seems was so great that Pemra went through with the decision even without giving the right of hearing to Geo News.

Clarifying the so-called contradiction between Geo News apology and its legal notice, the spokesman said that its apology and even Pemra’s yesterday’s decision was about Geo news transmission of 19 April. The group still stood by its apology. The basis of the legal notice was the unsubstantiated allegation that the Group has a history of pursuing Anti-Pakistan agenda. This was the worst kind of defamation. This allegation has caused huge actual and reputational loss to the Group and it exposed thousands of Group employees to life threats.

A section of the media has been instigating not only violence against Geo and its employees but also lobbying powerful forces not to accept Geo’s apology. They are doing this for financial gain as Geo Network has the largest advertising share because of its huge viewership and competitors thought they would stand to gain millions if Geo was shutdown. The Group has the largest circulated newspapers, news channels and entertainment channels as well as Pakistan’s only sports channel. In fact Geo News following is bigger than the next three channels combined.

On June 6, 2014, around 10 pm, Geo News shut down its transmission across Pakistan, asking its viewers to pray for justice.The channel will, however, consider all legal options with its editors and legal advisers.

The News