There has been a clear deterioration in the safety of journalists, the problem of impunity and of freedom of expression online. These were the main findings of the report submitted to the 120^th session of UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva by Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF), in collaboration with IFEX, the global network defending and promoting the right to freedom of expression and information, and RIDH, the International Network of Human Rights.

The recommendations in the PPF-IFEX-RIDH report include that the government should appoint special prosecutors for attacks on journalists, start monitoring the judicial process, and ensure the implementation of the minimum laws that it has for the harassment of women in the workplace. There is a need to revisit the extent of powers that are enjoyed by the regulatory authorities, especially by PEMRA: before taking action against the media they should get judicial approval, or there should be a fair process. The Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) also needs to be revisited. We need to look again at the defamation laws and bring them in line with the minimum requirements which are there. These are the very minimum things that the government should do if it claims to be promoting freedom of expression.

Pakistan was reviewed for the first time by the UN Human Rights Committee on 11 and 12 July. The Committee, which consists of 18 independent experts, is mandated to oversee the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Pakistan ratified the ICCPR in 2010, and as such is bound to respect it.

The UNHRC met to analyze the situation in Pakistan and will make recommendations aimed at promoting and protecting human rights in the country.

The Committee had highlighted in its List of Issues (shared with Pakistan prior to the meeting) its concerns about increasing control of telecommunications by the state and several Pakistani agencies, such as the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA), as well as the censorship of television programs and websites.

During the examination of Pakistan, the UN Human Rights Committee tackled issues regarding freedom of expression, including blasphemy legislation and anti-terror laws, impunity for crimes committed against journalists, and an overly restrictive environment for the electronic media and film industry. Despite these concerns, the government delegation insisted that there is an “unprecedented level of freedom of the media available in Pakistan” and further claimed that all cases of terrorist violence against the media are addressed by the government and the judiciary, despite the evidence of high impunity presented by civil society organizations.

The experts on the Committee noted concerns regarding impunity for crimes committed against journalists and cited PPF’s figures, stating that 73 journalists had been killed since 2002 with only five convictions for these crimes thus far.

The Committee requested detailed information and statistics regarding crimes against journalists and subsequent investigations, prosecutions and convictions, as well as the same information regarding other crimes.

In response, the delegation of Pakistan stated that the allegations of a culture of impunity were inaccurate and alleged that crimes against journalists were a result of terrorists attempting to silence the media. Pakistan government delegation stressed that it investigates all cases of attacks on journalists as well as allegations of crimes committed by state agencies. However, the government failed to provide statistics on the investigations, prosecutions and convictions of these crimes as requested on numerous occasions by Committee members, confirming doubts about their commitment to fight impunity.

The Committee also reminded the government that criminal sanctions for defamation, often used to target dissident voices in the media, are not in line with the CCPR, and questioned whether the government had any plans or had taken any action to decriminalize defamation.

The Committee also raised serious concerns regarding challenges to freedom of expression online and the increasingly antagonistic regulatory environment for the electronic media and film industry.

Members of the Committee also raised concerns regarding the Code of Conduct issued by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. The Committee noted that there had been more than 20 suspensions of media channels in the past four years, and wondered what safeguards and oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure the authority did not violate freedom of expression. The delegation did not respond to these concerns.

One expert raised numerous concerns about the broad powers of the PTA expanded through the 2016 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). This law enables the state body to restrict access to information and issue guidelines to information service providers on the internet without judicial oversight. Despite the government’s claim that the powers granted to the PTA are aligned with international standards, one expert requested detailed information on how this is possible without independent judicial oversight.

In response to these concerns, the delegation of Pakistan explained that open consultations in the drafting of PECA had been held, however, it noted that submissions received from civil society were vague; and, the delegation added, the final version of the act was a reasonable compromise between opposing opinions. They also ensured that there is a system of checks and balances within the PECA and that the powers of the PTA must be in line with the Constitution ensuring sufficient limitations on power.

Now that the Human Rights Committee has completed its initial examination of Pakistan, it will take note of the current human rights situation in the country and will publish its Concluding Observations on July 28, 2017. This document, which will include a list of recommendations, will provide the government with concrete steps it should take to amend its human rights record; it will also equip civil society with the tools they need to efficiently pressure the Government to make the necessary changes.

Responding to Pakistan’s UN review, Owais Aslam Ali, Secretary General of PPF, stressed two main sources of limitations on freedom of expression – threats to the physical safety of journalists and the policy framework in Pakistan. He said restrictions implemented by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) as reminiscent of the days of dictatorship.

Ali hoped that the government wouldbe more forthcoming in its written responses and take the safety of journalists seriously. He welcomed the government’s decision to set up an endowment fund for journalists who are injured or killed, but added that it does not address the issue of bringing to justicethose who inflict violence on journalists. Unless you tackle the impunity, simply paying the victims is not going to end attacks on journalists, Ali said.

Matthew Redding, Campaigns and Advocacy Coordinator of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX),noted that these limitations on freedom of expression have resulted in a citizenry that is deprived of important information.  He said government delegation seemed in many cases reluctant to even acknowledge there was a problem. Even when presented with very credible information from the experts, particularly with regards to threats against journalists and the violence that they faced, they seemed to pin this almost entirely on terrorists rather than accepting any sort of government responsibility for these attacks.

Links:

Freedom of Expression report submitted to UNHRC by PPF, IFEX & RIDH

“There is a need for all media within Pakistan to unite”: Pakistan Press Foundation

Responding to Pakistan’s UN review: In conversation with Owais Aslam Ali and Matthew Redding

Pakistan dismisses civil society concerns regarding freedom of expression before UN Committee

UN prepares to examine civil and political rights in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is not resorting to cellular interference in Held Jammu and Kashmir, but in fact it is trying to resolve the issue.According to a Pakistan Telecommunication Authority top official, the issue of spill over signal is across the border and both the countries are facing interference.

“We have several emails to TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) about interference from Indian operators in Pakistan” said PTA official. Official said that Pakistani Telecom authority took up the issue at World Radio Communication Congress also.

We tried to arrange bilateral meetings on the sideline of WRC, this month but Indian delegation did not showed any interest, official said.
Indian media flashed the issue recently, after Anil Gupta, Regional Business Head of Aircel-Northern Zone alleged that Pakistan is resorting to cellular interference in Jammu and Kashmir by increasing frequency of the bandwidth allotted to the telecom companies, which is affecting the local services in the border areas of Jammu region.

He said that the interference is highest in border villages and urban areas of Samba and Rajouri districts and subscribers of these areas were regularly complaining about poor mobile and internet services. “The problem is not alone with the Aircel but with all the cellular companies operating in Jammu and Kashmir and through a joint representation, a complaint has been filed in this context with the DoT, Government of India”, Gupta said. In an apparent bias against Pakistan, Gupta further alleged Pakistan was trying to increase its influence by sending strong signals in border area.

“Pakistan, in an attempt to increase its area of influence in Jammu and Kashmir has been trying to clash its bandwidth with Indian Cellular companies on the borders of Jammu region”, Gupta said according to Indian media.But Pakistani officials claim that the delay is from Indian side. “We have been communicating with Indian authorities to solve the issue. During the recent meetings including conference in Geneva, we initiated the issue with Indian delegation, but we are still waiting for any reply from Indian side, top PTA official said.

The Nation

ISLAMABAD – PTA on Sunday said that all the Black Berry services, including Enterprise Services (BES) would continue in Pakistan, if the cellular companies provide law enforcing agencies access to its BES services.

It is a wrong perception that PTA is going to ban Blackberry services in the country, instead we have been asking the company to provide us access to its secure Enterprise Services (BES) from last many years, and now finally, we have issued them notice that if they don’t provide us access to BES data, in next 90 days, we would block BES services, in the country, a top official told The Nation.
He said, even if the BES services are blocked, the Canadian handset manufacturer’s customers in the country would continue using Internet and other services on their phones.
There are between 4000-5000 Blackberry users in the country.

The official explained that under BES any enterprise could create a secure internal mailing system, and that might be used for any terrorist or anti-state activity.

It is a legal demand, as the company has been providing access to its BES all over the world, including neighbouring country India, he said.

Last week, Ministry of Interior reportedly decided to block the service in Pakistan, issuing directives to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to implement the decision from December 1, 2015.

According to sources PTA has sent a letter to the cellular operators to either provide security agencies access to BES or block the services by November 30, 2015.
However, the sources confirmed that if companies comply with government demand, its BES services would be allowed to continue.

The Nation

Access to parts of the internet in Pakistan is already blocked, and the ban on the popular YouTube website still persists despite attempts to get it lifted. The Islamabad High Court is currently hearing a case in response to a petition filed by an NGO that seeks to protect the rights of internet users. The case hinges around the shadowy way in which the government operates regulation of the internet. Currently and according to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), it blocks 50,000 pornographic websites and another 10,000 considered blasphemous — but the process by which it does so, and under what legislation, is at issue. The Inter-ministerial Committee for the Evaluation of Websites is completely opaque in its workings. It has yet to cite a law under which any ban may be made. The judiciary appears to be uneasy about this as well, and Justice Athar Minallah questioned the head of the PTA as to this matter — and got no definitive answer. The bans on any website in Pakistan are so widely flouted as to be rendered almost irrelevant in many instances, and it is curious that there has been no attempt to prosecute those who circumvent the ban — presumably because they have not broken any law by so doing. Yes, there are websites that may need to be banned, but a lot more clarity is required as to exactly why and greater transparency about the process is needed, particularly as there are suspicions that some bans are politically motivated.

Express Tribune

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

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

But Pakistanis can only dream about such freedom on the internet. YouTube has already been blocked in the country. Meanwhile, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority writes to the Twitter management to get various kinds of content blocked. A censorship watchdog site reports that in May, Twitter used its Country Withheld Content tool in Pakistan for the first time, blocking certain accounts and tweets.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Skype have electrified journalism’s social engine across the globe. They have become a vital source for gathering information. I can understand Pakistan’s concerns about cyber warfare, sectarian violence and militancy. But these measures are curbing democratic values.

Indiana University’s latest survey suggested that around 80 per cent of Americans use social media for getting news in the US. But Pakistan seeks to put bars on the use of this medium as it seems unable to control the flow of controversial information. Indeed, some anti-state elements were floating blasphemous content which has sparked violence in the country. But why can’t Pakistan make laws to deal with controversial material flowing on social sites rather than just curbing press freedom?

Whatever the dilemma of our digital age is, social media has helped me file stories on the issues relating to Pakistan while sitting in Missouri. For instance, one could access live updates on Twitter and Facebook about the attack on the Karachi airport. I was updated through the social media about recent honour killings in Pakistan which helped me file stories for The Star. I was able to find many viewpoints, ranging from top Pakistani politician Imran Khan, to eyewitnesses to these incidents.

Every news media is obsessed with the latest information. Yes, there is no second choice for survival in this digital age except to grab on to social media as new reporting tools. Our job, however, is to verify the information we grab. Long live social media!

Express Tribune

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

In Pakistan, where freedom of expression is largely perceived as a Western notion, the Snowden revelations have had a damaging effect. The deeply polarized narrative has become starker as the corridors of power push back on attempts to curb government surveillance. “If the citizens of the United States of America cannot have these rights, how can you? ..” is an argument that rights advocate hear way too often. The Snowden revelations quickly became a moment of recognition for those otherwise labeled as conspiracy theorists who believed that all digital transmissions become a tool that can be used by the U.S. government. Unlike, for example, Brazil, which has fought back, the government of Pakistan is working on ways it could replicate a NSA-like model in this country.

Just months after the revelations, some of which reported that Pakistan was one of the leading countries (second only to Iran) being surveilled by the U.S. National Security Agency, a draft of a Cybercrime Law surfaced. The draft, reportedly commissioned by the government, contained provisions for the constitution of an NSA-like cyber authority and Pakistan’s very own 5 Eyes program (a signals intelligence-sharing alliance). The draft bill was quickly shot down after pushback from civil society, but attempts at tabling new legislation have not stopped.

Recently, a report commissioned by the Supreme Court and produced by a retired judge and a renowned media personality suggested that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) be merged, and effectively categorized social media as broadcast media, recommending that it be monitored in a similar manner. Given the ad hoc manner in which authorities in Pakistan crack down on Internet content, treating media on the Internet as broadcast media could have severe repercussions for freedom of expression. Take, for example, the case of YouTube, which the government says it blocks because of certain content deemed blasphemous. This stems from a misconception that all Internet content is broadcast rather than accessed voluntarily. The presence of specific content on a large platform should not legitimize the denial of access to the whole thing.

Furthermore, any merger of PTA and PEMRA would entail scrapping current laws related to the two regulators and the enacting of new legislation. Given the absence of laws protecting free speech and given that Article 19 under the 1973 Constitution is subject to vague restrictions such as the “glory of Islam,” new legislation would likely be problematic. In the past three years, more than three parties including a university professor, a Christian couple, and a student have been accused or charged with blasphemy on the basis of a Facebook post and text messages. Furthermore, The Protection of Pakistan Ordinance, which was recently passed despite severe opposition, makes “Internet offenses” a prosecutable offense without specifying what constitutes such a crime.

Meanwhile, as the YouTube ban persists, there is also a push for data localization as an attempt to make companies subject to Pakistani law. These attempts increased significantly in light of the Snowden revelations as people became paranoid about the treatment of their data. More recently PTCL, the country’s largest Internet provider, which is often accused of having a monopoly in the market, partnered with Daily Motion to bring a “localized video sharing platform.”

From the policy landscape to the public narrative regarding free speech and privacy, the Snowden revelations have strengthened the state’s argument for surveillance. With the recent shutdown of Geo TV and rival media channels seemingly busy with public infighting, freedom of expression has taken a big hit. Journalists, reporters, and rights advocates now live with the fear that it is not only their own Government monitoring their movements but foreign governments and agencies too. As anyone who follows Pakistani media knows, journalists often face the dilemma of self-censorship at certain boundaries. Now the walls have closed in even more.

Sana Saleem is a director of Bolo Bhi, an Internet rights group based in Pakistan, and an advisory board member for the Courage foundation, Snowden’s legal defense fund.

Committee to Protect Journalists

A resolution, which was passed unanimously, said the ban be overturned as no such provision was in place in any other Muslim country.

Committee chairman Afrasiab Khattak of the Awami National Party, while reading the resolution, pointed out: “There is no ban on YouTube in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.”

Members of the human rights committee expressed concern over the long-running ban and maintained that YouTube could still be accessed through proxies and other means.

“The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority chairman has already told (us) that there is no advantage of the ban,” Khattak said. Committee members noted that Internet users could still access restricted videos, making the ban irrelevant. They also resolved to raise the issue on the floor of the Senate.

YouTube has been blocked since September 2012, when it refused to take down a film that was offensive to Muslims and had sparked protests around the world.

The committee was also told by the Sindh home secretary that the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance had been implemented in Sindh, angering some senators.

The MQM’s Nasreen Jalil said that more than 45 workers of her party had gone missing in recent days, while 20 had been killed ‘extra-judicially.’

Her statement was seconded by the PPP’s Farhatullah Babar, who said that following the implementation of the PPO, there had been increasing reports of extrajudicial killings in Karachi.

Committee members also condemned the attack on journalist Hamid Mir, calling it ‘an attack on freedom of expression’. The senators called on the government to take stringent action against those responsible. “The government should act to stem the rising tide of violence against journalists in the country,” PPP Senator Sehar Kamran said, adding that “media houses should also avoid levelling allegations against security agencies before an inquiry is conducted”.

The committee reacted sharply to reports of cannibalism in Bhakkar. “The government should either amend existing laws or introduce legislation against cannibalism,” the committee chairman said. The committee unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Punjab government to act swiftly against the two brothers accused of eating human flesh.

DAWN