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

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

An FIR was lodged on the complaint of a lawyer in May against the management of Geo TV, Shaista Lodhi, the host of Utho Jago Pakistan programme, and some others on charges that they aired objectionable content in the morning show.

Abdul Maroof, special public prosecutor of ATC-III, wrote a letter to the SHO of Mithadar police station on Saturday, stating that, in his view, basic elements of criminal liability were missing in the case due to absence of “mens rea”. He argued that the offence caused to viewers was unintended.

(“Mens rea” is a legal term which literally means “guilty mind”. This forms the basis for a notion that those without sufficient mental capability cannot be judged guilty of a crime. In courts, “mens rea” must be established to prove that a crime has been committed.)

Maroof maintained that since lodging a case in respect of broadcasting offences was barred under Section 34 of the Pemra Ordinance 2002, the case had become illegal, adding that the contents alleged in the FIR fell within the ambit of broadcasting offences case was lodged at 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 Pakistan Penal Code, read with Section 7 of Anti-terrorism Act 1997.

DAWN