KARACHI: At ‘Unsilence Pakistan: A Tribute to Sabeen Mahmud’, the murdered activist was remembered first under the fading light and then the starless night sky at Arts Council’s open-air auditorium. It was an event of tear-filled eyes, of choked throats, of reminiscent nods and of fond memories left behind. An event where Sabeen’s legacy was carried on.

It was fitting then that the opening speaker was mentor Zaheer Kidvai – the man who saw Sabeen become the woman she became.

“Never have I seen a woman more capable of doing whatever she set herself to do,” said Kidvai. “She wanted to change the country, she wanted to help.”

Two speakers later came writer Muhammad Hanif, bringing with him all of the wit he is renowned for. “We journalists are told to add the word ‘alleged’ before any fact we are not sure of or when we want to protect someone’s reputation,” he started off. “So when the journalists in the audience publish this tomorrow, please add the word ‘alleged’ wherever you see fit in order to save me.”

But that light humour and sharp wit was only building up what he was going to say next; a rhetorical question – half to himself, half to the audience – that lingered uncomfortably in the thoughts of all who heard it. “Sabeen’s last show was ‘Unsilence Balochistan’ and this one is ‘Unsilence Pakistan’. I don’t know whether this is a step forward and we are now trying to cover the entire country or whether it is a step backwards and we are afraid of highlighting Balochistan,” he said, before perhaps answering his own question. “I guess some part of us is scared.”

Like most of Hanif’s monologues, this too included topics and individuals unpublishable – discussing the greed, corruption and fear mongering of media moguls, the army and religious leaders – but too often he struck close to home. “Balochistan is a topic that we must avoid in order to survive in this country,” he said. “And those who raise it outside the country are branded traitors.”

The wit of Hanif gave way to the passion of bonded labour activist Veeru Kohli and Baloch rights activist Mir Muhammad Ali Talpur. The latter was part of the talk at T2F after which Sabeen was gunned down on April 24. “That day we were the ones who talked about Balochistan, and she was the one who paid the ultimate price,” he said, a voice filled with emotion and perhaps misdirected guilt. “But it is something that needs to be talked about. As they say, ‘What you allow is what will continue’. “Wo shaks hi kia jo der jaye halaat ki khuni gardish se. Us daur me jeena lazim hai jis daur mei jina mushkil ho.”

Talpur did, however, have a parting warning for ‘those who are destroying Balochistan’. “Though the mills of God grind slowly. Yet they grind exceeding small.”

Professor Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy took the stage shortly after. “I was introduced to Sabeen some 15 years ago,” he said. “But I stand not alone in being hurt at her murder. I wanted to criticise certain organisations but they told me to instead focus on the National Action Plan.”

Hoodbhoy’s words, direct and upfront as they were, may have earned him the ire of some. “Interior minister Chaudhry Nisar said that 10% of all seminaries are promoting and instigating terrorism in the country. That is an alarming large number but it highlights the government’s weakness that they backed down on their decision to take action against such institutes on Fazlur Rehman’s demands.”

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan director IA Rehman was the last speaker on the night. “I am happy to say that Sabeen’s work continues,” said the 85-year-old. “They took her life but they cannot take away her work and her ideas.”

However, Rehman bemoaned the streak of violence present in Pakistani society. “Once we used to hide our murderers, now we flaunt them with pride,” he said, before taking a gander at the reason for this increase in bloodshed. “Non-state violence is nothing more than the reflection of the state’s violence.”

As the clock ticked towards the event’s end and the last of the speaker had left the stage, it was clear that the echoes of Sabeen rang as loud, clear and proud as they ever had; but after hearing the speakers highlight the plethora of problems facing Pakistan, the echo seemed but hollow in this festival of chaos.

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